2023 Calgary Flames NHL Draft

[jjgallow]

On 4/25/2023 at 8:32 AM, conundrumed said:

For Honzek, does that give him the Pavel Zacha comparison based on size and circumstance? Zacha didn't even want to go to the OHL, felt he was ready for the NHL.lol

Honzek's late birthday makes me categorize him as his D+1 year as I choose to ignore NHL rules. So in that regard, he should be ripping the CHL if he's regarded as a 1st rder. Like you, I have him in the 20's. Likely a stretch for me to take him at 16 or it's a trade down situation. I'm not against trading down if it meets their target.

Positionally, I'm neither here nor there, I think we need every position. As too many years of too few picks dictates.

Realistically, 16th is a mid-roster neck-of-the-woods pick. A 2nd liner is ideal, top 4 dman. 

I'm going to try to make a D-only ranking I'll post, there are so many of them in the middle. It'll give everyone something to fight about.

 

This is just me, but personally I prefer to go off more than just numbers.

 

So on birthdays, if you look at most of our successful draft picks, they are normal or over-agers, including guys picked in their 2nd draft year.   With regards to players doing what they should be doing....Is that bad?

 

Do you take a younger player who's not yet doing that, and hope they will?   Because for every 10 younger players you take projecting them to do that,  maybe 5 of them actually will.  The rest will plateau, decline, or utter racial slurs.

 

Where I'm going on this isn't actually to nock you, 10 steps ahead my point here is that the NHL shouldn't even be drafting 18 years olds without exceptional circumstances.  All they ever had to do was make an exception for Gretzky and we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

You draft those young kids you take additional, and substantial risks.  There is this illusion that their potential is higher.  It isn't.  there is no way to know that.    What matters is steady improvement over time.   That's easier to spot in a player who's had more time to show it.    And Most players do not continue to follow NHL development curves.

 

I'm not saying avoid the younger players but there are risks to be weighed with giving them higher rankings for it.   Personally I just like to see that steady improvement which is actually relatively rare.    Players mature at different rates.  Some players literally  improve into their 30's.  Most, and I really mean most, plateau before they're even drafted.

[The_People1]

Should/could we trade Huberdeau + 16th overall for Montreal's 5th overall?

[zima]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

Should/could we trade Huberdeau + 16th overall for Montreal's 5th overall?

Wow give hubs a chance first yr was a bomb but lets see what he does next yr plus do you think that # 5 pick will be a better player than Hubs? Do we not have a chance at first over all in the draft?

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, zima said:

Wow give hubs a chance first yr was a bomb but lets see what he does next yr plus do you think that # 5 pick will be a better player than Hubs? Do we not have a chance at first over all in the draft?

 

Take a $10.5-milx8-year gamble?  No thanks.  I'll take the 5th and take my chances at that pick instead.  I just hope the 16th and Huberdeau's past entices MTL enough to make the trade.

[jjgallow]

20 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Take a $10.5-milx8-year gamble?  No thanks.  I'll take the 5th and take my chances at that pick instead.  I just hope the 16th and Huberdeau's past entices MTL enough to make the trade.

 

Yeah I don't think the question is whether we should do it, it's if MTL or anyone else would do that deal

[robrob74]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

Should/could we trade Huberdeau + 16th overall for Montreal's 5th overall?

 

21 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

Yeah I don't think the question is whether we should do it, it's if MTL or anyone else would do that deal

 

I love the idea, and it could be a realistic trade. I don't think the Flames ownership allow it. They want playoffs and believe that the stretch proved we could win enough next year, plus they believe Markstrom will bounce back to his vezina nomination form. 
 

I don't think I gamble Lindholm is re-signing. 

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Take a $10.5-milx8-year gamble?  No thanks.  I'll take the 5th and take my chances at that pick instead.  I just hope the 16th and Huberdeau's past entices MTL enough to make the trade.

 

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Yeah I don't think the question is whether we should do it, it's if MTL or anyone else would do that deal

 

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

I love the idea, and it could be a realistic trade. I don't think the Flames ownership allow it. They want playoffs and believe that the stretch proved we could win enough next year, plus they believe Markstrom will bounce back to his vezina nomination form. 
 

I don't think I gamble Lindholm is re-signing. 

 

I think the better question is why we are putting up with a coach that is driving the team backwards?

Potential loss of Backlund, Lindholm and others.

Can we trade Sutter for Future Considerations?

Just kidding.

 

FLA dropped 50 goals after Huberdeau left and that was bringing in Tkachuk.

We dropped by 33.  

Without an elite passer, Toffoli still managed more than 30 goals.

Lindholm not so much.

 

If we are keeping Sutter, then we might as well trade Lindholm and Backlund.

Backlund would possibly help get us younger.

Lindholm would be a 1st rounder hayul, but I don't know you get any from this year's draft.

And from there, start clearing out the top pending UFA's; Tanev and Hanifin.

The only way to deal with Sutter is forcing the players on him.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Yeah I don't think the question is whether we should do it, it's if MTL or anyone else would do that deal

 

Problem with MTL is they've got their sight set on PLD... They may want to save their 5th to do a deal with WPG.

 

Or would WPG trade PLD to MTL for the 16th overall?  This means MTL can land both PLD and Huberdeau together.  But MTL needs to clear cap so somehow the Flames have to take cap and get back their original 1st round pick from the Monahan trade.

 

To CGY,

5th overall

Anderson/Gallagher (cap dump but partly retained by MTL)

Original 1st in the Monahan trade

 

To MTL,

Huberdeau

PLD

 

To WPG,

16th overall

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

I love the idea, and it could be a realistic trade. I don't think the Flames ownership allow it. They want playoffs and believe that the stretch proved we could win enough next year, plus they believe Markstrom will bounce back to his vezina nomination form. 
 

I don't think I gamble Lindholm is re-signing. 

 

Markstrom bouncing back is only 50/50 because of his age.  The bad season may have been a result of simply slowing down a tad bit.  It's not like he's 28 and had a down year.

 

But we have Wolf so he will get us into the playoffs.

 

Huberdeau is for sure going to do better next season.  Yet, most are thinking the 70-point range... Still not worth anywhere close to $10.5-mil x 8.

 

I want to say Huberdeau has no influence on whether we make the playoffs next season or miss it.  Next season depends largely on goaltending.

[Thebrewcrew]

MTL shouldn’t be shopping their 1st. They’re a bad team with lots of holes.

 

Huberdeau is coming off a 50pt year and his salary is about to double. It’s almost all signing bonus and buyout proof. He’s untradeable right now. The hope from the Flames has to be a resurgence. Skinner and Karlsson have done it in recent years 

[The_People1]

15 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

 

 

I think the better question is why we are putting up with a coach that is driving the team backwards?

Potential loss of Backlund, Lindholm and others.

Can we trade Sutter for Future Considerations?

Just kidding.

 

FLA dropped 50 goals after Huberdeau left and that was bringing in Tkachuk.

We dropped by 33.  

Without an elite passer, Toffoli still managed more than 30 goals.

Lindholm not so much.

 

If we are keeping Sutter, then we might as well trade Lindholm and Backlund.

Backlund would possibly help get us younger.

Lindholm would be a 1st rounder hayul, but I don't know you get any from this year's draft.

And from there, start clearing out the top pending UFA's; Tanev and Hanifin.

The only way to deal with Sutter is forcing the players on him.

 

Huberdeau + Sutter didn't work

Huberdeau + Kadri didn't work

Huberdeau + Lindholm was merely average

Huberdeau + Backlund had some promise

 

Yet, the two guys staying almost for sure is Sutter and Kadri.  Meanwhile, Lindholm might need to be traded, in which case, Backlund won't extend long term and we should trade him too.

 

So, all roads lead to Huberdeau stuck in a bad situation.

[The_People1]

8 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

MTL shouldn’t be shopping their 1st. They’re a bad team with lots of holes.

 

Huberdeau is coming off a 50pt year and his salary is about to double. It’s almost all signing bonus and buyout proof. He’s untradeable right now. The hope from the Flames has to be a resurgence. Skinner and Karlsson have done it in recent years 

 

MTL is impatient just like every Canadian franchise.  Tempt them with a French Canadian Huberdeau... they might do it.  Especially if they can also land PLD.

 

Top six could look like:

PLD, Huberdeau, Suzuki, Caufield, Slafkovsky, and Dach.  

 

Looks like rebuild over if they start that lineup.  Why draft 5th overall and wait 4 years?

[travel_dude]

4 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Huberdeau + Sutter didn't work

Huberdeau + Kadri didn't work

Huberdeau + Lindholm was merely average

Huberdeau + Backlund had some promise

 

Yet, the two guys staying almost for sure is Sutter and Kadri.  Meanwhile, Lindholm might need to be traded, in which case, Backlund won't extend long term and we should trade him too.

 

So, all roads lead to Huberdeau stuck in a bad situation.

 

If you check the games where they played together, I think you find it was the first 6-10 games.

More appropriately, Huberdeau + RW didn't work.

The only reason Hubey with Backlund showed promise was he was back on LW.

And at that point Backlund was playing his best.

 

The thing about trading Hubereau at the start of a 8 year contract is that it's a buyer's market.  The teams know he wants out.  MTL would be one of the few bidders.  Maybe FLA would offer Bennett.

[travel_dude]

4 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

MTL is impatient just like every Canadian franchise.  Tempt them with a French Canadian Huberdeau... they might do it.  Especially if they can also land PLD.

 

Top six could look like:

PLD, Huberdeau, Suzuki, Caufield, Slafkovsky, and Dach.  

 

Looks like rebuild over if they start that lineup.  Why draft 5th overall and wait 4 years?

 

PLD is going to be a huge ask from WPG.  Top 6 C.  

Perhaps we should think about tempting MTL with Pelletier.

He is one bad camp away from the AHL next season.

Whatever his number is.

[robrob74]

30 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

 

 

I think the better question is why we are putting up with a coach that is driving the team backwards?

Potential loss of Backlund, Lindholm and others.

Can we trade Sutter for Future Considerations?

Just kidding.

 

FLA dropped 50 goals after Huberdeau left and that was bringing in Tkachuk.

We dropped by 33.  

Without an elite passer, Toffoli still managed more than 30 goals.

Lindholm not so much.

 

If we are keeping Sutter, then we might as well trade Lindholm and Backlund.

Backlund would possibly help get us younger.

Lindholm would be a 1st rounder hayul, but I don't know you get any from this year's draft.

And from there, start clearing out the top pending UFA's; Tanev and Hanifin.

The only way to deal with Sutter is forcing the players on him.

thing is, Lindholm had to change from the main shooter on the line and getting pucks to Toffoli. Cause and effect. Maybe they need Pelletier on their line?

 

Pelletier, Lindholm, Toffoli

 

[The_People1]

3 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

PLD is going to be a huge ask from WPG.  Top 6 C.  

Perhaps we should think about tempting MTL with Pelletier.

He is one bad camp away from the AHL next season.

Whatever his number is.

 

PLD will take a 1-year and go UFA.  Which means WPG will have to settle for a Horvat-deal next TDL.  WPG should consider taking the 16th overall this year and be done with it.

[robrob74]

17 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Huberdeau + Sutter didn't work

Huberdeau + Kadri didn't work

Huberdeau + Lindholm was merely average

Huberdeau + Backlund had some promise

 

Yet, the two guys staying almost for sure is Sutter and Kadri.  Meanwhile, Lindholm might need to be traded, in which case, Backlund won't extend long term and we should trade him too.

 

So, all roads lead to Huberdeau stuck in a bad situation.

i dunno if it's a thing, probably not. But BT sold huberdeau in Calgary and their future. Is the future still as bleak as mid to  the end of the season? 
 

BT sold him they want to win or are a good team, and probably on the type of hockey they'd play. It didn't and may still not look as good as it was sold. 
 

existential crisis. Want feeling wanted after being traded and went to bed with the next one (Calgary) he sees. Someone that "wanted" him.

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, robrob74 said:

i dunno if it's a thing, probably not. But BT sold huberdeau in Calgary and their future. Is the future still as bleak as mid to  the end of the season? 
 

BT sold him they want to win or are a good team, and probably on the type of hockey they'd play. It didn't and may still not look as good as it was sold. 
 

existential crisis. Want feeling wanted after being traded and went to bed with the next one (Calgary) he sees. Someone that "wanted" him.

 

I understand from the personal side of things, it would be ultimate betrayal for BT to trade Huberdeau after convincing him to sign long term... but now that BT's gone, all bets are off right?  It doesn't matter if it's the NHL or a restaurant or an engineering firm, the new boss is not going to care what the old boss promised you.  Everybody knows that.  Huberdeau is not any safer than the next player.

[conundrumed]

14 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

This is just me, but personally I prefer to go off more than just numbers.

 

So on birthdays, if you look at most of our successful draft picks, they are normal or over-agers, including guys picked in their 2nd draft year.   With regards to players doing what they should be doing....Is that bad?

 

Do you take a younger player who's not yet doing that, and hope they will?   Because for every 10 younger players you take projecting them to do that,  maybe 5 of them actually will.  The rest will plateau, decline, or utter racial slurs.

 

Where I'm going on this isn't actually to nock you, 10 steps ahead my point here is that the NHL shouldn't even be drafting 18 years olds without exceptional circumstances.  All they ever had to do was make an exception for Gretzky and we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

You draft those young kids you take additional, and substantial risks.  There is this illusion that their potential is higher.  It isn't.  there is no way to know that.    What matters is steady improvement over time.   That's easier to spot in a player who's had more time to show it.    And Most players do not continue to follow NHL development curves.

 

I'm not saying avoid the younger players but there are risks to be weighed with giving them higher rankings for it.   Personally I just like to see that steady improvement which is actually relatively rare.    Players mature at different rates.  Some players literally  improve into their 30's.  Most, and I really mean most, plateau before they're even drafted.

As I said, I don't admonish them, I just bare it in mind that they are a year behind their career draft class in real terms.

The solution is get rid of Sept. 15th and make it Dec 31. If that means push the draft to 19yo, so be it.

It's not as though I wouldn't have taken Matthews 1st oa. There are even 2nd draft players that I like.

[conundrumed]

10 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Take a $10.5-milx8-year gamble?  No thanks.  I'll take the 5th and take my chances at that pick instead.  I just hope the 16th and Huberdeau's past entices MTL enough to make the trade.

I'm all for keeping him. The roster needs to adjust though. We need speed and skill. That means I would trade anyone outside of Huberdeau, Lindholm and Weegar. Everyone else can be replaced, including Andersson.

The only actual dmen we have are Tanev and Weegar. They are good defenders. Everyone else, notsomuch, unless O-stats are important. For me, they're not.

Get actual defencemen. More speed and skill up front. We have to stop idolizing our players. They are all replaceable. Particularly, this team has mirrored Backlund's career, so let's move on to someone else.

[travel_dude]

8 hours ago, robrob74 said:

thing is, Lindholm had to change from the main shooter on the line and getting pucks to Toffoli. Cause and effect. Maybe they need Pelletier on their line?

 

Pelletier, Lindholm, Toffoli

 

 

Tried that.  That sort of reminds me of DUbe on the top line before Sutter got here.

It wasn't the best thing we had to offer and was really putting a young guy in a top role.

Who perhaps deserves it more?  The guy forced to play RW who was an assist machine?

I think you need to build lines that have potential to work.

It could be as deadly as when we had JG and MT.

 

[travel_dude]

28 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

I'm all for keeping him. The roster needs to adjust though. We need speed and skill. That means I would trade anyone outside of Huberdeau, Lindholm and Weegar. Everyone else can be replaced, including Andersson.

The only actual dmen we have are Tanev and Weegar. They are good defenders. Everyone else, notsomuch, unless O-stats are important. For me, they're not.

Get actual defencemen. More speed and skill up front. We have to stop idolizing our players. They are all replaceable. Particularly, this team has mirrored Backlund's career, so let's move on to someone else.

 

I have no issue with Tanev's game.  There are player like him on other teams that are younger and have less injury risk.  Thise are really the two issues of keeping Tanev.  Well, the expiring contract is a big concern too.  

[jjgallow]

9 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

MTL shouldn’t be shopping their 1st. They’re a bad team with lots of holes.

 

Huberdeau is coming off a 50pt year and his salary is about to double. It’s almost all signing bonus and buyout proof. He’s untradeable right now. The hope from the Flames has to be a resurgence. Skinner and Karlsson have done it in recent years 

 

Lots of good points made above, but it's basically this in all probability  We are stuck with Huberdeau for the rest of his career.   And his main purpose will probably be mentoring the rebuild that we're not having.   He's not going to have a resurgence because he was never that good and he won't have anyone to pass to here (again because of his salary).   But he is a character guy, and we can at least use that if we ignore the salary.

 

There is a chance I'm wrong.  People do crazy things every day.  If we find a GM to take the other side of this trade, it would probably be at a trade deadline and we Do the trade 100%.  That GM would then either win the cup or be fired.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

As I said, I don't admonish them, I just bare it in mind that they are a year behind their career draft class in real terms.

The solution is get rid of Sept. 15th and make it Dec 31. If that means push the draft to 19yo, so be it.

It's not as though I wouldn't have taken Matthews 1st oa. There are even 2nd draft players that I like.

 

I think you're admonishing lol.   But I could be wrong.

 

IMHO in the first round, if there's not a lot of consensus at a position, there's some gamble happening.   I get that feelling where we are.   There will be players available to us as good as the top 10 players.   But finding them will require some great scouting and some great luck.   I know I say this most every year but we would be wise to draft higher if we can.

 

I think this is the last year I'll say that though.

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Lots of good points made above, but it's basically this in all probability  We are stuck with Huberdeau for the rest of his career.   And his main purpose will probably be mentoring the rebuild that we're not having.   He's not going to have a resurgence because he was never that good and he won't have anyone to pass to here (again because of his salary).   But he is a character guy, and we can at least use that if we ignore the salary.

 

There is a chance I'm wrong.  People do crazy things every day.  If we find a GM to take the other side of this trade, it would probably be at a trade deadline and we Do the trade 100%.  That GM would then either win the cup or be fired.

Where do you come up with this stuff?lol