2021 Calgary Flames NHL Draft

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I think what I was saying was that I want to avoid picking up a bottom pairing D ceiling player.

Having them on the 3rd pairing in the appropriate number of years is not the issue.

 

I find it hard to judge what other teams will take.

I doubt Wallstedt makes it to 12.

The best available D will go before then too.

Is that 2, 4, or 6?

Opinions vary.

 

I guess what makes this even more interesting is that there is maybe one player that could play next year.

As such, I think you see a lot less GM's looking for a quick fix.

 

 

Yes I think the consensus is 4 D should be gone by then, in my mind there are 6-7 that should be.

 

My own opinions aside, those big 4, I think one will drop.   And they all have numbers way beyond anything resembling a low ceiling.

 

We're talking about me saying Ceulemans should be included in the group because he's not that far off form Cale Makar, and these 4 guys being better than him.  Like THAT good.

 

You make a good point about none of these players being quick fixes.  Actually I do think teams will try and play them but that will be a disaster.   

 

At the end of the day though, you are building a pretty strong context for drafting a forward, even using ceilings to justify it and we know this year's forwards mostly have lower ceilings.      The stronger you argue for drafting a forward the more it demonstrates what Many of the teams ahead of us will do, make justifications for drafting a forward such as "oh there's only 2 good D in the top 10" even though 95% of scouts agree there is 4 (and I think that's an under-estimation).  Any of those top 4 have ceilings somewhere between franchise player and Norris winner.

 

So that is why I think one of them will be available.   Also, despite how badly many teams need goaltending, that's never stopped us for never investing in them and I don't think it will stop these teams either.  Goalies almost Always drop rank in the first round and I'd be really surprised if Wallstedt doesn't.

 

Simply put, there is an ubundance of great long term decisions to choose from and a shortage of quick fixes.   So I think teams will scramble to grab those quick fixes like toilet paper in March 2020 because unfortunately humans make these decisions.

 

 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

At the end of the day though, you are building a pretty strong context for drafting a forward, even using ceilings to justify it and we know this year's forwards mostly have lower ceilings.      The stronger you argue for drafting a forward the more it demonstrates what Many of the teams ahead of us will do, make justifications for drafting a forward such as "oh there's only 2 good D in the top 10" even though 95% of scouts agree there is 4 (and I think that's an under-estimation).  Any of those top 4 have ceilings somewhere between franchise player and Norris winner.

 

No, I'm not recommending dradting a F.

I'm simply saying that the best D will be gone and you have "risky" picks on D.

Not that they are not going to be good player, just risky.

 

[The_People1]

Cole Sillinger.  We've got a real shot at taking him.  Scouting report sorta hints at a one dimensional offensive shoot-first guy.  Might have the best shot in the whole draft.  Lacks skating and defense.  Doesn't drive play.

 

https://www.allaboutthejersey.com/2021/6/20/22542416/cole-sillinger-2021-nhl-draft-prospect-profile-one-of-top-offensive-talents-in-the-draft-whl-ushl

 

 

We've got a shot at Mason McTavish as well.  He sounds like a Bo Horvat more and more.  Has all the tools but will be limited by his skating.  Not a bad pick in the 12th spot to be honest.  

 

https://www.allaboutthejersey.com/2021/6/19/22534891/mason-mctavish-2021-nhl-draft-prospect-profile-a-goal-scoring-power-forward

 

 

[travel_dude]

6 hours ago, The_People1 said:

Cole Sillinger.  We've got a real shot at taking him.  Scouting report sorta hints at a one dimensional offensive shoot-first guy.  Might have the best shot in the whole draft.  Lacks skating and defense.  Doesn't drive play.

 

https://www.allaboutthejersey.com/2021/6/20/22542416/cole-sillinger-2021-nhl-draft-prospect-profile-one-of-top-offensive-talents-in-the-draft-whl-ushl

 

 

We've got a shot at Mason McTavish as well.  He sounds like a Bo Horvat more and more.  Has all the tools but will be limited by his skating.  Not a bad pick in the 12th spot to be honest.  

 

https://www.allaboutthejersey.com/2021/6/19/22534891/mason-mctavish-2021-nhl-draft-prospect-profile-a-goal-scoring-power-forward

 

 

 

I have a concern about drafting players with skating issues.

We complain about Monahan and Tkachuk, so are we looking to build a slow team that can shoot?

[redfire11]

I wonder how cheap Laine would go for after his horrible last season. Maybe Sutter could turn him around???

[MP5029]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

I have a concern about drafting players with skating issues.

We complain about Monahan and Tkachuk, so are we looking to build a slow team that can shoot?

Intend to agree with this…oh and the lack of driving the play is another issue for Cgy  we need play drivers.

[robrob74]

8 hours ago, The_People1 said:

Cole Sillinger.  We've got a real shot at taking him.  Scouting report sorta hints at a one dimensional offensive shoot-first guy.  Might have the best shot in the whole draft.  Lacks skating and defense.  Doesn't drive play.

 

https://www.allaboutthejersey.com/2021/6/20/22542416/cole-sillinger-2021-nhl-draft-prospect-profile-one-of-top-offensive-talents-in-the-draft-whl-ushl

 

 

We've got a shot at Mason McTavish as well.  He sounds like a Bo Horvat more and more.  Has all the tools but will be limited by his skating.  Not a bad pick in the 12th spot to be honest.  

 

https://www.allaboutthejersey.com/2021/6/19/22534891/mason-mctavish-2021-nhl-draft-prospect-profile-a-goal-scoring-power-forward

 

 

god! Move away from guys who can’t skate. How much can you actually improve skating after being drafted? I get the puck moves faster, but we hear a lot about it being a skaters league now.
 

Monahan has had injuries so he hasn’t been able to work on foot speed. Tkachuk isn’t fast, isn’t slow, but once he goes downhill or isn’t scoring, and taking away his antics, he doesn’t do much else. 
 

we need guys that can skate and close gaps quickly. 
 

if these guys get drafted, they’re only injuries away from not being able to work on their speed. Not only that, they end up having to concentrate on improving their skating when, if they were better skaters, they could work on other aspects of their games.

[robrob74]

19 minutes ago, redfire11 said:

I wonder how cheap Laine would go for after his horrible last season. Maybe Sutter could turn him around???

i think the bigger problem is what his salary ask will be. I don’t think he’s worth what he’s going to ask for. 
 

This is probably my view only. A player asking for that kind of salary can’t be so one-dimensional. That kind of salary needs to go to someone that can do it all.
 

I get that goals impact a game, but will we be saying, “if he’s not scoring, what does he do?”

 

Would Backlund insulate him? What about Lindholm? Are they good enough to make up for laine’s shortcomings? I think that’s the biggest issue. 
 

would Sutter like him? Is Laine coach-able? Can he be coached into playing a near 200ft game? 
 

If the answers to this questions are that we could do all of that. It could be a chance well taken.

[travel_dude]

41 minutes ago, redfire11 said:

I wonder how cheap Laine would go for after his horrible last season. Maybe Sutter could turn him around???

 

He had two good coaches that he didn't seem to want to follow.

You can't just be one dimensional and expect teams to accept that.

I would not trade Tkachuk for him, but if we wanted a PP specialist and sniper and didn't worry about defense, it would be fine. 

[travel_dude]

19 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

i think the bigger problem is what his salary ask will be. I don’t think he’s worth what he’s going to ask for. 
 

This is probably my view only. A player asking for that kind of salary can’t be so one-dimensional. That kind of salary needs to go to someone that can do it all.
 

I get that goals impact a game, but will we be saying, “if he’s not scoring, what does he do?”

 

Would Backlund insulate him? What about Lindholm? Are they good enough to make up for laine’s shortcomings? I think that’s the biggest issue. 
 

would Sutter like him? Is Laine coach-able? Can he be coached into playing a near 200ft game? 
 

If the answers to this questions are that we could do all of that. It could be a chance well taken.

 

Considering they paid with a top C capable player, it doubtful they would trade to us at a cost that takes the risk into account.

With that risk, is he even worth a Monahan?

Would we really want to deploy a potential $7m+ player on the 3rd line?

I could see him fitting with Gaudreau and Lindholm, but I would question what our depth looks like after the trade.

[cross16]

 

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

god! Move away from guys who can’t skate. How much can you actually improve skating after being drafted? I get the puck moves faster, but we hear a lot about it being a skaters league now.
 

Monahan has had injuries so he hasn’t been able to work on foot speed. Tkachuk isn’t fast, isn’t slow, but once he goes downhill or isn’t scoring, and taking away his antics, he doesn’t do much else. 
 

we need guys that can skate and close gaps quickly. 
 

if these guys get drafted, they’re only injuries away from not being able to work on their speed. Not only that, they end up having to concentrate on improving their skating when, if they were better skaters, they could work on other aspects of their games.

 

Honestly at this point I think you will be harder to find a scouting report where "could improve his skating" is not mentioned than finding a report where they call him a great skater. It's become such generic scout speak that I honestly would put so little stock into it. 5-10 years ago the speak was "get bigger and stronger" and now it's "he needs to improve his skating". Need to take it with a big grain of salt because depending on what the skating issue is then yes you can 100% improve your skating after you are drafted. Why I hate how it's mostly just a generic "not a good skater" or "needs to improve" and nothing of actual substance there. 

 

Sillinger can absolutely skate there is no question about that and I would not put him in the same category of Monahan or Tkachuk. Sillinger uses his edges really well and is very agile, especially once he is in the offensive zone. He gets to open areas and onto loose pucks in the offensive zone as good as anyone in this draft IMO.  

 

The 2 issues I have with Sillinger are effort/consistency with his two way game and lack of an explosive stride. I think his skating is fine, he gets up and down the ice fine but what is lacking is those first few strides to get him up to top speed quicker. However, I'm not as convinced that is lacking so much as his attention to detail in his d zone game. He can get lazy there at times and what I've found when I watch him is that generally he's back in time but then you seem him gliding into the zone and softer on pucks until the play goes the other way and then he is back on it.  That is totally coachable as long as the player wants to be coached. 

 

I think he is a heck of a pick at 12 and likely would be going higher if he didn't go play in the US. After his WHL rookie year, he was looking like he would challenge Dylan Guenther for top WHL forward drafted. 

[jjgallow]

3 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

I have a concern about drafting players with skating issues.

We complain about Monahan and Tkachuk, so are we looking to build a slow team that can shoot?

 

I also have an issue with drafting players with skating issues.   Although I don't think Monahan and Tkachuk are That bad ( I don't regret those picks ).

 

So it's a question of severity.   In the first round, they should be pretty good skaters.    I think Monahan and Tkachuk passed that test, at that level.   In later rounds, yes you can take some gambles but even then I'd prefer taking a gamble on a good skater that lacks size, for instance.

 

But again I also have issues taking a forward in the first round because we know this draft's forwards are not the same caliber you would normally get with a 12th.    As much as Coronato is interesting I think he's only interesting for how low he's rated, and if we took advantage of that we'd acquire a lower pick.

 

I think we'll get one of the big 4 or a G.   My only worry is that we will pass on them Literally for another LHS forward, we seem to be drawn to them.

 

But if you truly think the big 4 and G will be gone,  IMHO the next thing to advocate for is an upgrade of our pick.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

I also have an issue with drafting players with skating issues.   Although I don't think Monahan and Tkachuk are That bad ( I don't regret those picks ).

 

So it's a question of severity.   In the first round, they should be pretty good skaters.    I think Monahan and Tkachuk passed that test, at that level.   In later rounds, yes you can take some gambles but even then I'd prefer taking a gamble on a good skater that lacks size, for instance.

 

But again I also have issues taking a forward in the first round because we know this draft's forwards are not the same caliber you would normally get with a 12th.    As much as Coronato is interesting I think he's only interesting for how low he's rated, and if we took advantage of that we'd acquire a lower pick.

 

I think we'll get one of the big 4 or a G.   My only worry is that we will pass on them Literally for another LHS forward, we seem to be drawn to them.

 

But if you truly think the big 4 and G will be gone,  IMHO the next thing to advocate for is an upgrade of our pick.

 

Not really saying Monahan or Tkachuk is a big problem, just that bringing in more that struggle should be a concern.

TBH, it's been some time since Monahan had healthy hips, so I don't know how much of it is overblown.

There is no reason why Tkachuk couldn't become a better skater.

Not 50 kmh fast, but faster.

 

Considering the lack of a normal draft year, I don't think you can really compare forwards to other years that easily.

Maybe no McDavid's or MacKinnon's, but perhaps a Panaren lurking in the weeds.

Compare Gaudreau and Coronato in the USHL.

Can you really be that certain he isn't a 40 goal scorer in the NHL?

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Not really saying Monahan or Tkachuk is a big problem, just that bringing in more that struggle should be a concern.

TBH, it's been some time since Monahan had healthy hips, so I don't know how much of it is overblown.

There is no reason why Tkachuk couldn't become a better skater.

Not 50 kmh fast, but faster.

 

Considering the lack of a normal draft year, I don't think you can really compare forwards to other years that easily.

Maybe no McDavid's or MacKinnon's, but perhaps a Panaren lurking in the weeds.

Compare Gaudreau and Coronato in the USHL.

Can you really be that certain he isn't a 40 goal scorer in the NHL?

 

I think Coronato compares favorably to Gaudreau, althoughClick the following link to join the meeting:
https://beta.safe.chat/TeamMeeting we can assume Coronato's numbers are a touch more inflated.   But RHS and more size.

 

I also think Ceuleman's numbers are within range of Cale Makar's.    

 

I am equally high on Cossa.

 

Honestly the only problem I have with Coronato is that there is a literal lineup of under-rated players and I think that is more pronounced and more important at D and G.

 

If it were up to me we wouldn't be having this debate we'd draft all 3 and not even with our 12th lol.

 

That's all I'm really saying is this is an under rated draft and we should acquire as many picks as we can.

 

You just don't need a 12th to get Coronato but I have no problems getting picks or multiple  picks to do that or similar.

[travel_dude]

4 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I think Coronato favors favorably to Gaudreau, although we can assume Coronato's numbers are a touch more inflated.   But RHS and more size.

 

I also think Ceuleman's numbers are within range of Cale Makar's.    For what he lacks he makes up for by being a RHS.

 

I am equally high on Cossa.

 

Honestly the only problem I have with Coronato is that there is a literal lineup of under-rated players and I think that is more pronounced and more important at D and G.

 

If it were up to me we wouldn't be having this debate we'd draft all 3 and not even with our 12th lol.

 

That's all I'm really saying is this is an under rated draft and we should acquire as many picks as we can.

 

You just don't need a 12th to get Coronato but I have no problems getting picks or multiple  picks to do that or similar.

 

Here's the problem and it goes back years.

We sign players to deals that are probably (at the time) reasonable.

We get down to the time when you can move said player for a first.

Except we don't have said player because they sucked in the first place.

Or we extend the year of final season, and never have a chance to move said player.

Or we don't sign those players in the first place.

 

I've got no problem with moving role players for high picks (or is it low?) like 1st or 2nd round.

I have a slight problem doing that for a top player.

Certainly not a 20-32 picks.

 

This was a year to trade for picks.

Except we didn't have anyone other than Gio, Bennett and Ryan that would even get you anything.

Maybe Nordstrom or Stone or Ritchie or Leivo wouldn't get more than a 5th, but we moved none of them.

I'm relatively happy we got a 2nd for Bennett, considering we would lose him for nothing.

 

What I am alluding to is that regardless of what we do this year, we sign guys to one year deals.

Players that actually have value.

It doesn't help this year, but at least we try again next year.

We get a gem, we re-sign during the season.

We get a valuable player, we trade if we are just barely on the cusp of playoffs.

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Not really saying Monahan or Tkachuk is a big problem, just that bringing in more that struggle should be a concern.

TBH, it's been some time since Monahan had healthy hips, so I don't know how much of it is overblown.

There is no reason why Tkachuk couldn't become a better skater.

Not 50 kmh fast, but faster.

 

Considering the lack of a normal draft year, I don't think you can really compare forwards to other years that easily.

Maybe no McDavid's or MacKinnon's, but perhaps a Panaren lurking in the weeds.

Compare Gaudreau and Coronato in the USHL.

Can you really be that certain he isn't a 40 goal scorer in the NHL?

or a Pastranak or Petterson, or even any very good 2nd liners.

[travel_dude]

17 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

or a Pastranak or Petterson, or even any very good 2nd liners.

 

I think we have more needs than the next 2 drafts will solve.

But I don't know how you can rate any D in this draft to be can't miss.

Maybe a couple are at this level...maybe.

 

Juolevi, Valimaki had pretty darn good numbers, yet have not yet lived up to the hype.

Not every player is a Hughes or Makar.

A lot of Sandin and Liljegrin.

 

I don't mind calculated risks, but it has to be a faller to get me interested.  

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Here's the problem and it goes back years.

We sign players to deals that are probably (at the time) reasonable.

We get down to the time when you can move said player for a first.

Except we don't have said player because they sucked in the first place.

Or we extend the year of final season, and never have a chance to move said player.

Or we don't sign those players in the first place.

 

I've got no problem with moving role players for high picks (or is it low?) like 1st or 2nd round.

I have a slight problem doing that for a top player.

Certainly not a 20-32 picks.

 

This was a year to trade for picks.

Except we didn't have anyone other than Gio, Bennett and Ryan that would even get you anything.

Maybe Nordstrom or Stone or Ritchie or Leivo wouldn't get more than a 5th, but we moved none of them.

I'm relatively happy we got a 2nd for Bennett, considering we would lose him for nothing.

 

What I am alluding to is that regardless of what we do this year, we sign guys to one year deals.

Players that actually have value.

It doesn't help this year, but at least we try again next year.

We get a gem, we re-sign during the season.

We get a valuable player, we trade if we are just barely on the cusp of playoffs.

 

I was a little dissapointed Bennett didn't get a first, even as bad as things were.    I would have preferred a package deal where we gave up a bit more and got that first rounder.

 

Guys like Gaudreau, sure you're talking about the first, second overall this year and I'd have no issues with a deal with Buffalo etc.

 

I also would have traded them a lot sooner but that wouldn't stop me from trading them now.

 

There's that Mangiapane thread lol....     Mangiapane for Coronato?  I'd do it.

 

So that's two potential first round pick plays and I haven't discussed Gio or Ryan or Monahan or Lindholm etc.

 

You can do it but you have to pay the price.  I would pay it.

[zima]

16 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I was a little dissapointed Bennett didn't get a first, even as bad as things were.    I would have preferred a package deal where we gave up a bit more and got that first rounder.

 

Guys like Gaudreau, sure you're talking about the first, second overall this year and I'd have no issues with a deal with Buffalo etc.

 

I also would have traded them a lot sooner but that wouldn't stop me from trading them now.

 

There's that Mangiapane thread lol....     Mangiapane for Coronato?  I'd do it.

 

So that's two potential first round pick plays and I haven't discussed Gio or Ryan or Monahan or Lindholm etc.

 

You can do it but you have to pay the price.  I would pay it.

That sure sounds like blowing it up if it were you?

[The_People1]

5 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Honestly at this point I think you will be harder to find a scouting report where "could improve his skating" is not mentioned than finding a report where they call him a great skater. It's become such generic scout speak that I honestly would put so little stock into it. 

 

Trues.  And it's vague like, some kids need to improve edgework. Others need top end speed.  Others need to improve acceleration.  Although the link I posted did get more specific.  They say Sillinger has top end speed and agility in the offensively zone but acceleration needs work.  So maybe that comes with adding bulk and general NHL conditioning.

 

That said, I would be concerned about bad skating when the player is small.  Having a lower center of gravity, you want smaller player to display elite edgework and cut backs.  You want that to naturally shine in skating and if not, then that's a problem.

 

Same goes to bigger players who need to get stronger.  If you are 6'-4" in Juniors and you aren't bowling over guys and establishing strength dominance, then that's a concern.

[jjgallow]

45 minutes ago, zima said:

That sure sounds like blowing it up if it were you?

 

Perhaps, or, simply speeding it up.   I don't see us winning a cup with this core so the sooner we transition to a core that can win a cup, the sooner it will return here imho.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

I was a little dissapointed Bennett didn't get a first, even as bad as things were.    I would have preferred a package deal where we gave up a bit more and got that first rounder.

 

Guys like Gaudreau, sure you're talking about the first, second overall this year and I'd have no issues with a deal with Buffalo etc.

 

I also would have traded them a lot sooner but that wouldn't stop me from trading them now.

 

There's that Mangiapane thread lol....     Mangiapane for Coronato?  I'd do it.

 

So that's two potential first round pick plays and I haven't discussed Gio or Ryan or Monahan or Lindholm etc.

 

You can do it but you have to pay the price.  I would pay it.

 

That's wither high praise for Coronato or low value for a player entering his prime.

Yes, I said it.  Entering his prime.

Argue the point based on overall league metrics but he just started hitting his stride.

That for a player that may be a Gaudreau or a Baertschi.

Some times it makes sense to take that risk.

 

The bottom line here is that you suggesting trades that don't exist.

Mangiapane for a 20th overall?

Why does CGY do that?

Gaudreau for 1st overall?

Why does Buffalo do that unless it's to get Eichel back in the fold.

If that's the case why does CGY settle for just a 1st?

The power is with us and the star power.

 

Gio may get you a 1st next year, at TDL.

Teams loading up, when cap space is cheaper to add to.

A 25th from WAS?

Maybe.

 

What could we have added to Bennett to get a better return?

A better player and end up with a marginally better return?

Maybe.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

That's wither high praise for Coronato or low value for a player entering his prime.

Yes, I said it.  Entering his prime.

Argue the point based on overall league metrics but he just started hitting his stride.

That for a player that may be a Gaudreau or a Baertschi.

Some times it makes sense to take that risk.

 

The bottom line here is that you suggesting trades that don't exist.

Mangiapane for a 20th overall?

Why does CGY do that?

Gaudreau for 1st overall?

Why does Buffalo do that unless it's to get Eichel back in the fold.

If that's the case why does CGY settle for just a 1st?

The power is with us and the star power.

 

Gio may get you a 1st next year, at TDL.

Teams loading up, when cap space is cheaper to add to.

A 25th from WAS?

Maybe.

 

What could we have added to Bennett to get a better return?

A better player and end up with a marginally better return?

Maybe.

 

I have never seen a trade proposed on here that did exist, so that's a bit rhetorical.

 

The real bottom line is that everything we are doing on here is therepeutic for ourselves, not a single word in this forum will ever be actuallized.   Unless Peeps buys the Flames with his meme coins. 

 

If we traded Mangiapane or Gaudreau we would get a good return and we can argue about what that return is but it would help transition us to a new core without any doubt.    Would we get more?   Great I'm all for it

 

But I don't agree that we're in a position of power.   That has came and went.

[tmac70]

12 hours ago, robrob74 said:

god! Move away from guys who can’t skate. How much can you actually improve skating after being drafted? I get the puck moves faster, but we hear a lot about it being a skaters league now.
 

Monahan has had injuries so he hasn’t been able to work on foot speed. Tkachuk isn’t fast, isn’t slow, but once he goes downhill or isn’t scoring, and taking away his antics, he doesn’t do much else. 
 

we need guys that can skate and close gaps quickly. 
 

if these guys get drafted, they’re only injuries away from not being able to work on their speed. Not only that, they end up having to concentrate on improving their skating when, if they were better skaters, they could work on other aspects of their games.

Everyone thinks skating could be a huge issue and hard to corect . Look no further than Point in Tampa, size snd skating were his issues. Filled out and can fly.... Huge miss by this organization that pisses me off to no end 

[travel_dude]

5 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I have never seen a trade proposed on here that did exist, so that's a bit rhetorical.

 

The real bottom line is that everything we are doing on here is therepeutic for ourselves, not a single word in this forum will ever be actuallized.   Unless Peeps buys the Flames with his meme coins. 

 

If we traded Mangiapane or Gaudreau we would get a good return and we can argue about what that return is but it would help transition us to a new core without any doubt.    Would we get more?   Great I'm all for it

 

But I don't agree that we're in a position of power.   That has came and went.

 

Probably should have said it differently.

The trades you suggest don't work for one of the teams involved.

 

The power is not with Buffalo.

They lose Eichel if they can;t make him happy.

They can't just ask BT to hand over Gaudreau for a pick.

If they want him, they have to pay since we don't need to trade with them.

 

Let me sum it up.

Buffalo needs star power to keep Eichel.

If they lose him, no good going after Gaudreau.

If they keep him by going after Gaudreau, they have to outbid about 15 teams with something other tha Eichel.