2023 Calgary Flames NHL Draft

[robrob74]

5 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

I know it's not going to happen but I can't help but wonder how to get a top 7 or so pick in this draft.

Firstly, anything like this requires an Extremely unpopular trade.  but that goes with almost all my suggestions lol.

 

There's been a lot of discussion about how difficult this is, and what team needs are.

 

But what about Incompetency?   Those "we finished our rebuild" GMs?

 

Who this year has a high pick and is also somewhat likely to make a dumb move?

 

There is a 1% chance Bedard doesn't sign with Chicago.  I don't have a big enough tin foil hat for this though.

 

I can see Montreal making a move to ease fan pressures.   

I can see the Flyers totally screwing up.

I can see the Capitals doing something dumb to help out Ovechkin.

I can see Vancouver dropping the ball.

 

In all cases, these teams are...imho,, not that bright.  Please do correct me if I'm wrong on one of em.

  I mean the capitals won the cup not that long ago so they can't be That bad.

 

In all cases I suspect these teams aren't smart enough to want a defenceman.   They want what all poorly managed teams want:   Forwards.  

 

So basically any dealings with any of them would involve Toffoli or Lindholm.

 

 

I know it won't happen.

 

I know.

 

But every year I hope anyway.   I'm of the mindset that we are on year 0 of a 5-7 year rebuild.   Most think that's pessimistic.  It's actually extremely optimistic and a number of things have to go right for it to work.  I'm of the realization that even if we succeed and become a competitor with most likely Chicago in Bedard's Heyday.

 

Realistically the D now could be the best arsenal against that.   Whoever drafts the best D now could have the best chance at shutting down Bedard in his prime.  Either that or Michkov, who does actually have a similar, if not lower percentage, ceiling.    Also I'm not saying we want to build a Sutter team by drafting D.  Just saying we have a bit more time to put forwards together, but the D are a legit bottleneck.   So is goaltending, as the Oilers just demonstrated.

we don't want to trade our best asset, but is there a team in that mix able to take on the Lindholm contract? 
 

I would only trade Lindholm for a top 5 pick. Probably pick 3, 4 or 5. 
 

only way I'm trading for anything higher than 5 is if the other team adds prospects. 
 

im also not giving up our pick in that deal. 
 

if they want our pick, they need to add a high ranked prospect in that situation. 
 

Lindholm, with the right players, is Bergeron. Very very good. Not generational, but is a #1C in the NHL. 
 

Would Columbus want to reunite Lindholm with Johnny?

Is Anaheim close enough with their young players to transition up the standings? 
 

I could go on about the Sharks and the Canadiens. Maybe they'd want to speed their builds?

[conundrumed]

7 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Of that list, Perron and Lardis stand out for me.

 

I don't expect either one to be available.  But if they are, you take em.

Lardis likely will be. He is extremely boom or bust so there is no safety net there. I should have added Theo Lindstein as a Dman. Should be a top 4 I think. Overshadowed by Sandin-Pellikka's O, but he's a solid D-first dman.

[The_People1]

4 hours ago, robrob74 said:

we don't want to trade our best asset, but is there a team in that mix able to take on the Lindholm contract? 
 

I would only trade Lindholm for a top 5 pick. Probably pick 3, 4 or 5. 
 

only way I'm trading for anything higher than 5 is if the other team adds prospects. 
 

im also not giving up our pick in that deal. 
 

if they want our pick, they need to add a high ranked prospect in that situation. 
 

Lindholm, with the right players, is Bergeron. Very very good. Not generational, but is a #1C in the NHL. 
 

Would Columbus want to reunite Lindholm with Johnny?

Is Anaheim close enough with their young players to transition up the standings? 
 

I could go on about the Sharks and the Canadiens. Maybe they'd want to speed their builds?

 

No team in the top 5 is ready to forfeit a top 5 pick for one year of Lindholm.  Not going to happen.  It has to be a Lindholm caliber player who is younger (RFA protected).

 

Lindholm also cannot be extended until after July 1st so there's no guarantee he will sign with the new team.

[jjgallow]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Lardis likely will be. He is extremely boom or bust so there is no safety net there. I should have added Theo Lindstein as a Dman. Should be a top 4 I think. Overshadowed by Sandin-Pellikka's O, but he's a solid D-first dman.

 

go big or go home!

[robrob74]

5 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

No team in the top 5 is ready to forfeit a top 5 pick for one year of Lindholm.  Not going to happen.  It has to be a Lindholm caliber player who is younger (RFA protected).

 

Lindholm also cannot be extended until after July 1st so there's no guarantee he will sign with the new team.

these rules are kind of stupid. The dates are all wrong. The date to sign your own should be able to coincide before or with the draft, to give some ability to maneuver. 

[Thebrewcrew]

The Flames have to take a D with one of their first two picks.

 

The Flames have 6 D prospects right now. Three of them are playing for the Wranglers. Two of them will no longer be part of the organization in two weeks. The other won't be getting a contract when he finishes college.

 

Poirier is obviously the most exciting D prospect. But there could be a lot of variance in his game as an NHLer. Might top out as a PP specialist. Kuznetsov and Solovyov are likely 3rd pairing options. Not exactly a position of strength in the organization. Especially when you're a year away from losing half of your top 4 to UFA.

 

Right now the Flames have 5 picks in this draft.  But for now, they probably need to spend three picks on the blueline in this draft. I normally hate pigeon holing yourself into having to take a single position, but there's really not much choice. They're two weeks away from their youngest D prospect being 21yrs old. The only way to build up the D depth is to allocate picks to it.

[The_People1]

30 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

The Flames have to take a D with one of their first two picks.

 

The Flames have 6 D prospects right now. Three of them are playing for the Wranglers. Two of them will no longer be part of the organization in two weeks. The other won't be getting a contract when he finishes college.

 

Poirier is obviously the most exciting D prospect. But there could be a lot of variance in his game as an NHLer. Might top out as a PP specialist. Kuznetsov and Solovyov are likely 3rd pairing options. Not exactly a position of strength in the organization. Especially when you're a year away from losing half of your top 4 to UFA.

 

Right now the Flames have 5 picks in this draft.  But for now, they probably need to spend three picks on the blueline in this draft. I normally hate pigeon holing yourself into having to take a single position, but there's really not much choice. They're two weeks away from their youngest D prospect being 21yrs old. The only way to build up the D depth is to allocate picks to it.

 

If Reinbacher or Sandin-pellikka is there at 16 then I think it's a no brainer.

 

Simashev?  Dragicevic?  Wallinder?

 

What if the Flames trade their 16th to STL for the 25th and 29th overall?  Maybe we can land two of the three D there.

[conundrumed]

7 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

If Reinbacher or Sandin-pellikka is there at 16 then I think it's a no brainer.

 

Simashev?  Dragicevic?  Wallinder?

 

What if the Flames trade their 16th to STL for the 25th and 29th overall?  Maybe we can land two of the three D there.

I'd say just Simashev at 16. Wallinder potentially a trade down situation. Not Dragicevic, I'd take Gulyayev if my aim was boom or bust offensive D. Strbak at 48 is possible and ideal. Price would be good but he'll be top of the 2nd rd.

Wayda land at 16th Flames, they screwed themselves every possible way this year outside of selling all of their picks. 12 to 16 isn't a huge deal, but 44 to 48 might hurt a lot. Cam Allen might be the most realistic in rd 2 that I'd be all for. Most of his qualities make him a solid top 4 prospect imo. They pushed the Sting to 6 games on tilted ice and he was very noticeable playing D vs a way better team. I'd say he's the best D prospect in the O this year by a margin.

[Thebrewcrew]

 

[Heartbreaker]

11 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

 

 

Ooh! I love when they go off the board! 🙄

 

Love.

[conundrumed]

That is definitely lol. “his defensive game needs work”? Like…a beginning?

 

[jjgallow]

23 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

If Reinbacher or Sandin-pellikka is there at 16 then I think it's a no brainer.

 

Simashev?  Dragicevic?  Wallinder?

 

What if the Flames trade their 16th to STL for the 25th and 29th overall?  Maybe we can land two of the three D there.

 

 

I'm a hard no lol, on the trade-down.

 

but trade a vet to pick up one of those D?  I'm a hard maybe.

[redfire11]

A new GM is going to make the safe pick.

[travel_dude]

49 minutes ago, redfire11 said:

A new GM is going to make the safe pick.

 

When has the safe pick worked for us?

Coronato and Zary were safe.

Both could have high ceilings but they appear to be middle 6 tops.

[robrob74]

18 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

When has the safe pick worked for us?

Coronato and Zary were safe.

Both could have high ceilings but they appear to be middle 6 tops.

flames MO! 
 

they go safe, then they go specific skilled players deep in the draft, usually below 6.' Although we did get a Ruzicka, who kind of plays a bit small for his size. Reminds me of Janks and Monahan. 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, redfire11 said:

A new GM is going to make the safe pick.

 

I hope we don't go off the board at 16.  One or two top 10 talents could fall to 16 in this draft.

[conundrumed]

7 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

 

I'm a hard no lol, on the trade-down.

 

but trade a vet to pick up one of those D?  I'm a hard maybe.

25 & 29 for 16th you'd be dumb not to. Which is also why St. Louis wouldn't make that trade. If drafting were a perfect world, I'd agree with you, but it is very far from that. Hence re-drafts are often hilarious. The pick number in no way defines the pick. Would you love Nolan Patrick when we tank and get 2oa? It happens a lot throughout the first 60-odd picks.

Nobody but nobody thought Philly made a bad pick at the time. But everyone is a hindsight draft specialist. Everyone loved the Bennett at 4 pick. They would have laughed at us if we took Larkin. Consensus/stats picks are a joke. One of the best all-around players in this draft is Calum Ritchie. He doesn't have 1 thing that he's spectacular at so he falls. Yet at the pro level, that one thing that you're spectacular at will be mitigated.

Leaving the top 4 out of this draft, there's about 35 players that could pop.

My hard money is on Honzek, Musty, Simashev, Barlow and Dvorsky. Translatable games.

Definite NHLers Reinbacher, Danielson, Willander, Smith, Stenberg, Strbak and Ritchie. Good at most or everything they'll need to be good at.

The USNTDP trio scare me a bit. A few years together as a line makes me leery that they are driving one another's value up. There is no way the US team shouldn't be winning U18 tourneys. They are the only consistent roster there.

Massive advantage.

But the long and short of it is if I have a choice between Danielson, Cristall, Yager, Simashev, Stone, Perrault at 16, or 2 of Honzek, Musty, Stenberg, Willander, Ritchie at 25 & 29, I'm doing the latter all day, everyday. The ceilings are similar but the floor is higher. There is still going to be pretty good D prospect at 48 no matter how it shakes out.

For the record if it isn't obvious, I prefer dmen that play defence. O stats are waaay overrated and stay-at-home effectively are waaay underrated. Stats just can't account for defenceman that prevent goals is the problem imo.

Yet the Toronto and Edmonton teams of the world are mired with that problem. It really negates what you have up front and is massively undervalued. There will never be enough Hedman's. So it turns into one or the other.

Dmen aren't supposed to be your O drivers. If they are, you have D issues. Every time.

[jjgallow]

48 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

25 & 29 for 16th you'd be dumb not to. Which is also why St. Louis wouldn't make that trade. If drafting were a perfect world, I'd agree with you, but it is very far from that. Hence re-drafts are often hilarious. The pick number in no way defines the pick. Would you love Nolan Patrick when we tank and get 2oa? It happens a lot throughout the first 60-odd picks.

Nobody but nobody thought Philly made a bad pick at the time. But everyone is a hindsight draft specialist. Everyone loved the Bennett at 4 pick. They would have laughed at us if we took Larkin. Consensus/stats picks are a joke. One of the best all-around players in this draft is Calum Ritchie. He doesn't have 1 thing that he's spectacular at so he falls. Yet at the pro level, that one thing that you're spectacular at will be mitigated.

Leaving the top 4 out of this draft, there's about 35 players that could pop.

My hard money is on Honzek, Musty, Simashev, Barlow and Dvorsky. Translatable games.

Definite NHLers Reinbacher, Danielson, Willander, Smith, Stenberg, Strbak and Ritchie. Good at most or everything they'll need to be good at.

The USNTDP trio scare me a bit. A few years together as a line makes me leery that they are driving one another's value up. There is no way the US team shouldn't be winning U18 tourneys. They are the only consistent roster there.

Massive advantage.

But the long and short of it is if I have a choice between Danielson, Cristall, Yager, Simashev, Stone, Perrault at 16, or 2 of Honzek, Musty, Stenberg, Willander, Ritchie at 25 & 29, I'm doing the latter all day, everyday. The ceilings are similar but the floor is higher. There is still going to be pretty good D prospect at 48 no matter how it shakes out.

For the record if it isn't obvious, I prefer dmen that play defence. O stats are waaay overrated and stay-at-home effectively are waaay underrated. Stats just can't account for defenceman that prevent goals is the problem imo.

Yet the Toronto and Edmonton teams of the world are mired with that problem. It really negates what you have up front and is massively undervalued. There will never be enough Hedman's. So it turns into one or the other.

Dmen aren't supposed to be your O drivers. If they are, you have D issues. Every time.

 

for a scouting guy you sure don't trust scouts lol

 

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2016e.html

 

I did a quick scan through last few years.   Found a lotta years like this.

 

Keep the 16. or upgrade it.

[travel_dude]

8 hours ago, robrob74 said:

flames MO! 
 

they go safe, then they go specific skilled players deep in the draft, usually below 6.' Although we did get a Ruzicka, who kind of plays a bit small for his size. Reminds me of Janks and Monahan. 

 

I don't dispute the logic of a safe pick, but we have little in the way of high risk high reward players.  I liked Raty.in the 2nd, but it's hard to tell yet if he will be better or worse than Stromgren.  Wyatt Johnson was high risk because of the lack of games played.  Coronato could still be better than him, but the early returns look good.

 

One thing that has gone against us is the tendency to over-ripen prospects.  It's not always the right thing to do.  2019 and 2020 pick and they would both start as Calder eligible rookies this season.  We barely have any picks playing at the NHL level from 2017 onward.  In fact we have but 2.

[cross16]

9 hours ago, robrob74 said:

flames MO! 
 

they go safe, then they go specific skilled players deep in the draft, usually below 6.' Although we did get a Ruzicka, who kind of plays a bit small for his size. Reminds me of Janks and Monahan. 

 

When they went safe who should they have taken and who was riskier at the time?

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, conundrumed said:

25 & 29 for 16th you'd be dumb not to. Which is also why St. Louis wouldn't make that trade. 

 

Depends how pick #10 goes for STL.  Maybe at pick 10, their scouts at the table are killing each other over, for example, Leonard or Sale.  They take Leonard.  Then with Sale still available at 16, the Flames approach STL to trade the 16 for the 25 & 29... Then there's a chance.

[robrob74]

4 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

When they went safe who should they have taken and who was riskier at the time?

we'd never know! It's like you say. I think it is just that we see other guys go big so it's all 20/20 hindsight. I get that. 
 

I get Johnny was an anomaly, but an example of going after high end skill yet lacking in other facets of the game. 
 

or take a chance on Kucherov when they thought they could wait another round but lost out? But then, that's a belief that the players they did choose had higher ceilings? Is that a failure of scouting or is that the player stunting in development? 

[robrob74]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Depends how pick #10 goes for STL.  Maybe at pick 10, their scouts at the table are killing each other over, for example, Leonard or Sale.  They take Leonard.  Then with Sale still available at 16, the Flames approach STL to trade the 16 for the 25 & 29... Then there's a chance.

isn't there a drop after a certain place, the first cliff is where? Then the next there, and the next? 
 

I get the idea of getting more picks, but what happens if 16 is a star and 25&29 bust? Was it worth it to get those? I get 16 is far from a guarantee, but I want to play it safer, yet go for the best possible high end player. Can 28&29 be top 6 for the Flames?

[cross16]

6 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

we'd never know! It's like you say. I think it is just that we see other guys go big so it's all 20/20 hindsight. I get that. 
 

I get Johnny was an anomaly, but an example of going after high end skill yet lacking in other facets of the game. 
 

or take a chance on Kucherov when they thought they could wait another round but lost out? But then, that's a belief that the players they did choose had higher ceilings? Is that a failure of scouting or is that the player stunting in development? 

 

Kucherov had do to with the KHL and being under contract there. The debate there was at one point are you comfortable taking a player that you may never see in your organization. They thought the 2nd round was too high, was not a circumstance of they thought the players they took were better they just had a hard time slotting Kucherov. 

What is funny in the Kuchervo thing is he wasn't even the fist player Tampa chose. Of course in hindsight it's obvious you'd never let him fall but Tampa did. 

 

I just don't agree with the narrative the Flames go with the safe pick. Under Sutter sure, but not for a quite a while would I make that argument. Could they be riskier? sure but you could say that about basically all teams. 

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

Kucherov had do to with the KHL and being under contract there. The debate there was at one point are you comfortable taking a player that you may never see in your organization. They thought the 2nd round was too high, was not a circumstance of they thought the players they took were better they just had a hard time slotting Kucherov. 

What is funny in the Kuchervo thing is he wasn't even the fist player Tampa chose. Of course in hindsight it's obvious you'd never let him fall but Tampa did. 

 

I just don't agree with the narrative the Flames go with the safe pick. Under Sutter sure, but not for a quite a while would I make that argument. Could they be riskier? sure but you could say that about basically all teams. 

bit there in lies the need to take a chance that they weren't willing to take.