2024 NHL draft - A New Hope

[sak22]

25 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

And how many elites come from picks 25-27 where the Canucks are going to draft?  I'm guessing even worse than 12-15.

 

I don't put Andersson in the elite category myself.  Not sure if you do.  We're not trading Giordano in his prime or anything.

 

It really comes down to trading for known pieces which are medium quality for a swing at a possible elite player.  The Flames need to swing for the fences.  Flames already have good bottom 6 guys.  Pelletier, Pospisil, etc.  But those elite talents are lacking.

Yes worse odds for sure, and no I don't put Andersson in the elite category if I did I wouldn't debate that he'd get a high pick on his own, but I don't and feel the league has trended away from past results for players at UFA age.  

 

Elite doesn't grow on trees, if it did the word elite would have a different meaning there is only one spot in the draft where elite should be expected.  We are not moving up to the high teens and getting a high chance at elite.  I would rather use Andersson to gain more darts to throw.  2020-2022 were bad drafts for the team, 2023 the top 2 picks numbers regressed, don't think the team should be gambling with assets as opposed to accumulating more.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

I agree but this helps the quantity argument more. Trying to move up and limiting your ammo is a more quick turn around move. 

 

I don't quite agree here.  Don't you agree the higher you draft, the higher chance to get an impact player?

 

Quality is the first step in a rebuild.  Get the new core first.  

 

After that, get quantity and hope quantities turn into some young Mangiapane and Pospisil types.  Chances that quantity turns into another Gaudreau is lightning striking twice for us.  Not a sound plan.

[The_People1]

45 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Yes worse odds for sure, and no I don't put Andersson in the elite category if I did I wouldn't debate that he'd get a high pick on his own, but I don't and feel the league has trended away from past results for players at UFA age.  

 

Elite doesn't grow on trees, if it did the word elite would have a different meaning there is only one spot in the draft where elite should be expected.  We are not moving up to the high teens and getting a high chance at elite.  I would rather use Andersson to gain more darts to throw.  2020-2022 were bad drafts for the team, 2023 the top 2 picks numbers regressed, don't think the team should be gambling with assets as opposed to accumulating more.

 

You are playing too safe.

 

In my opinion, the Flames have no where to go but down in the next 3 years.  Might as well try to draft as high as possible.  Quality > Quantity for a team that needs to rebuild a young core.

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, sak22 said:

2014: Perlini, Vrana, Honka, Larkin (A Larkin type would be worth excitement, but not elite)

Bite your tongue! lol

Honka is a perfect example of a "can't miss" D prospect, according to the heads at the time. Oh, but he can. And they never have to address their past commentaries. Nice gig. Blow smoke out your Hash Rate, zero recollection.

Get paid for it. Player's fault, not mine.

Sounds like a dream job.

[robrob74]

5 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

If there is a specific player available earlier that we know won't reach us, I can see offering a 3rd or later to move up, but we aren't talking about moving to the top 15.

 

What would we be able to trade to get an additional 1st?  Markstrom holds the greatest value that we are willing to part with.  Other than that, I don't see it.

 

I think the only way we receive a 1st this year is if the Flames trade their first for next year, IF Montreal doesn't take that one. And we'd have to have it free from lottery stipulations on it.

[sak22]

3 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

You are playing too safe.

 

In my opinion, the Flames have no where to go but down in the next 3 years.  Might as well try to draft as high as possible.  Quality > Quantity for a team that needs to rebuild a young core.

Safe is the right approach when history shows that 12-15 provides a low % of elite.  My example of 10 drafts and 4 players each draft I identified 2 as elite and I'd asterisk both of them, Karlsson had great years but sharp decline and injuries and Miller was a late bloomer.  2 out of 40 = a 5% chance of elite, for fun and the fact its a slow day, I'll do 25-28 in the same years.

2005: Cogliano, Pelech, Finley, Niskanen (No elites, but on average better than 12-15 that year)

2006: Berglund, Irving, Vishnevsky, N. Foligno (Nothing elite)

2007: White, Perron, Brendan Smith, Petreki (Nothing elite, Perron has some great older years)

2008: Nemicz, Ennis, Carlson, Tikhonov (Bad trend for the Flames picking that range for sure, Carlson is borderline)

2009: Caron, Palmeiri, Paradis, Olsen (Yuck)

2010: Howden, Kuzntsov, Visentin, Coyle (Couple good picks but nothing elite)

2011: Percy, Danault, Namestnikov, Phillips (2 solid and 2 duds)

2012: Schmaltz, Gaunce, Samuelsson, Skjei (Nothing good, but 12-15 was also awful and I'd say Skjei is the best)

2013: McCarron, Theodore, Dano, Klimchuk (More Flames grossness, but Theodore is up there)

2014: Pastrnak, Scherbak, Goldobin, Ho-Sang (No doubt 1 is elite)

2015: Roslovic, Juulsen, Larsson, Beauvillier (Nothing elite).

 

Yes not great, but the best player from those ranges is Pasta, by average you do get better players in the 12-15 range, but still important to say low probabilities for elite there.  What did we do wrong the last time?  Beaten to death theories, but Gaudreau shouldn't be viewed as elite (his production swung way too much over the years), Monahan wasn't elite, Bennett wasn't elite, and Tkachuk was on the verge of becoming just as he was on the verge of leaving.  But the answer to solving previous problems is more picks in the non-elite range.  

[robrob74]

32 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I don't quite agree here.  Don't you agree the higher you draft, the higher chance to get an impact player?

 

Quality is the first step in a rebuild.  Get the new core first.  

 

After that, get quantity and hope quantities turn into some young Mangiapane and Pospisil types.  Chances that quantity turns into another Gaudreau is lightning striking twice for us.  Not a sound plan.

 

People tend to quote the percentages and then when the percentages don't matter for the arguments, they say it's better to have quantity in having picks to hit on, like in a lottery system (Not the same as the draft lottery). 

 

Speaking of the lottery. they should just give teams a certain amount of balls and everyone has a chance. 

 

32nd - 16

31st - 15

30th - 14

29th - 13

28th - 12

27th - 11

26th - 10

25th - 9

24th - 8

23rd - 7

22nd - 6

21st - 5

20th - 4

19th - 3

18th - 2

17th - 1

 

Keep pulling until the draft order is finalized... IF they pull a team a 2nd time, just try again.

[robrob74]

13 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Safe is the right approach when history shows that 12-15 provides a low % of elite.  My example of 10 drafts and 4 players each draft I identified 2 as elite and I'd asterisk both of them, Karlsson had great years but sharp decline and injuries and Miller was a late bloomer.  2 out of 40 = a 5% chance of elite, for fun and the fact its a slow day, I'll do 25-28 in the same years.

2005: Cogliano, Pelech, Finley, Niskanen (No elites, but on average better than 12-15 that year)

2006: Berglund, Irving, Vishnevsky, N. Foligno (Nothing elite)

2007: White, Perron, Brendan Smith, Petreki (Nothing elite, Perron has some great older years)

2008: Nemicz, Ennis, Carlson, Tikhonov (Bad trend for the Flames picking that range for sure, Carlson is borderline)

2009: Caron, Palmeiri, Paradis, Olsen (Yuck)

2010: Howden, Kuzntsov, Visentin, Coyle (Couple good picks but nothing elite)

2011: Percy, Danault, Namestnikov, Phillips (2 solid and 2 duds)

2012: Schmaltz, Gaunce, Samuelsson, Skjei (Nothing good, but 12-15 was also awful and I'd say Skjei is the best)

2013: McCarron, Theodore, Dano, Klimchuk (More Flames grossness, but Theodore is up there)

2014: Pastrnak, Scherbak, Goldobin, Ho-Sang (No doubt 1 is elite)

2015: Roslovic, Juulsen, Larsson, Beauvillier (Nothing elite).

 

Yes not great, but the best player from those ranges is Pasta, by average you do get better players in the 12-15 range, but still important to say low probabilities for elite there.  What did we do wrong the last time?  Beaten to death theories, but Gaudreau shouldn't be viewed as elite (his production swung way too much over the years), Monahan wasn't elite, Bennett wasn't elite, and Tkachuk was on the verge of becoming just as he was on the verge of leaving.  But the answer to solving previous problems is more picks in the non-elite range.  

 

That might even prove drafting in the top 5 is imperative. There are some good players past that point for sure, but it gets rarer and rarer, and the problem with Gaudreau was some years he was elite and other years he wasn't, like you said, up and down, and maybe where our discussion the other day about whether Calgary has been a good team or not over the past years... It's in the inconsistencies of Johnny.

 

 

[cross16]

3 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I don't quite agree here.  Don't you agree the higher you draft, the higher chance to get an impact player?

 

Quality is the first step in a rebuild.  Get the new core first.  

 

After that, get quantity and hope quantities turn into some young Mangiapane and Pospisil types.  Chances that quantity turns into another Gaudreau is lightning striking twice for us.  Not a sound plan.

I think only if you can get into the top 8 and then it still varies greatly by draft. Yes the odds get better but not by enough to warrant giving up 3-4 assets to do it. 
 

if your target i ls quality in a rebuild then fine but then be prepared to it to take 5 plus years. Your likely gonna miss on someone and even if you don’t the depth won’t be there

 

in a rebuild I want to accumulate assets because the strong rebuilds are the ones that become asset rich. 

[Thebrewcrew]

6 hours ago, sak22 said:

I asked for examples not your theories.  

I would say Ristolainen is the only One in recent memory.

[jjgallow]

5 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I don't quite agree here.  Don't you agree the higher you draft, the higher chance to get an impact player?

 

Quality is the first step in a rebuild.  Get the new core first.  

 

After that, get quantity and hope quantities turn into some young Mangiapane and Pospisil types.  Chances that quantity turns into another Gaudreau is lightning striking twice for us.  Not a sound plan.

 

Yup.  with you on this.   I mean, it's not black and white, there's some grey.  but basically, it's this.

 

You go for your top talent.  Some of it flops, okay.  Some of it doesn't live up to expecations but fufills other key rolls.   I would say Backlund is a good example of going for elite talent, not quite translating it, but still ending up with great value.

 

The flip side of the arguement:   You can't build a cup winner off of top 10 picks alone.
      It's true.     You need the rest of it too.
          Just,  get more creative in how you acquire those other picks, players.

           Just acquiring them by pawning off franchise picks, is equally a cop-out.

 

            Rehab some players. Take on some projects.   Show up to the TDL with some value, get some picks.
              

             Draft well.  Develop well.  lol.

 

             It's All important.   there would be nothing wrong with having the best scouting and development staff in the NHL.   We talk a lot about trading picks on here, but, it's these other things that really do it.

[The_People1]

5 hours ago, cross16 said:

I think only if you can get into the top 8 and then it still varies greatly by draft. Yes the odds get better but not by enough to warrant giving up 3-4 assets to do it. 
 

if your target i ls quality in a rebuild then fine but then be prepared to it to take 5 plus years. Your likely gonna miss on someone and even if you don’t the depth won’t be there

 

in a rebuild I want to accumulate assets because the strong rebuilds are the ones that become asset rich. 

 

By far, the worst thing that could happen is the depth is there first before you have your core pieces in place.  Good depth is going to raise the team into mediocrity and drafting 10-15 the rest of the rebuild.  

 

Get the core pieces first.  The top 5 picks, etc.  Work on the depth afterwards.  Depth is not easy to get but it's "easier" than the core pieces.  Yes, it's likely going to take 5 years because there will be misses but it's the better approach.

 

Back to Andersson though, he's worth about as much as Hanifin did.  I mean, Miromanov + VGK 1st (unsure which pick yet but it's unprotected).  Might turn out to be a homerun trade if VGK tanks in 2026, which is probable.  But it might also mean another 20th pick or so.  Is that better than trading up to 12-15?  

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

 

Yup.  with you on this.   I mean, it's not black and white, there's some grey.  but basically, it's this.

 

You go for your top talent.  Some of it flops, okay.  Some of it doesn't live up to expecations but fufills other key rolls.   I would say Backlund is a good example of going for elite talent, not quite translating it, but still ending up with great value.

 

The flip side of the arguement:   You can't build a cup winner off of top 10 picks alone.
      It's true.     You need the rest of it too.
          Just,  get more creative in how you acquire those other picks, players.

           Just acquiring them by pawning off franchise picks, is equally a cop-out.

 

            Rehab some players. Take on some projects.   Show up to the TDL with some value, get some picks.
              

             Draft well.  Develop well.  lol.

 

             It's All important.   there would be nothing wrong with having the best scouting and development staff in the NHL.   We talk a lot about trading picks on here, but, it's these other things that really do it.

 

I think ANA and CHI are doing it right.  Get the Bedards and Carlssons first.  Build around them after.

 

There's a time to go for quality and there's a time to go for quantity.  The Flames need those superstar game breakers because we have none at the moment.  So go for quality.  Once we have the new cores pieces in place, then go for quantity.

[cross16]

43 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I think ANA and CHI are doing it right.  Get the Bedards and Carlssons first.  Build around them after.

 

There's a time to go for quality and there's a time to go for quantity.  The Flames need those superstar game breakers because we have none at the moment.  So go for quality.  Once we have the new cores pieces in place, then go for quantity.

Ducks have drafted in the top 10 for the last 5 drafts and twice in the top 3. This isn’t starting with Carlson, nor is it close to being finished. 
the next example is using one of the top 5 prospects we’ve ever seen. We’re going to give Chicago credit for that timing? Same team who 2 years earlier gave up a top 10 pick for Seth Jones?

Your timelines and perspectives/examples are all over the place to it’s not an argument worth continuing. End of the day 10 picks in the first round is not worth the assets to me unless it’s an Unusually strong draft and this year isn’t that. Top 10 pick then I'm listening. 

[conundrumed]

11 hours ago, cross16 said:

in a rebuild I want to accumulate assets because the strong rebuilds are the ones that become asset rich. 

I wish that I could form such concise sentences. lol

I generally ramble on.

But if I could, it would be this sentence!

The Flames are heading to where the Wings are trying to leave. Assets and cap space are your best friend. We aren't used to this. We spent the last...too long... in cap crunch and bleeding draft picks away.

To the point that we had to move a 1st rd pick to gain cap space to sign a player. I am NOT going to miss the way that we were doing things. Hopefully we're closing the book on that.

And everyone, don't get too excited about the chances of winning a lottery. Guess who else wants to win a lottery? Everyone on earth. lol

The odds are almost zero to get excited about, so don't get on pins and needles when it's time.

I have zero problem being quoted on that in the future. It ain't happening.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

I wish that I could form such concise sentences. lol

I generally ramble on.

But if I could, it would be this sentence!

The Flames are heading to where the Wings are trying to leave. Assets and cap space are your best friend. We aren't used to this. We spent the last...too long... in cap crunch and bleeding draft picks away.

To the point that we had to move a 1st rd pick to gain cap space to sign a player. I am NOT going to miss the way that we were doing things. Hopefully we're closing the book on that.

And everyone, don't get too excited about the chances of winning a lottery. Guess who else wants to win a lottery? Everyone on earth. lol

The odds are almost zero to get excited about, so don't get on pins and needles when it's time.

I have zero problem being quoted on that in the future. It ain't happening.

 

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

I wish that I could form such concise sentences. lol

I generally ramble on.

But if I could, it would be this sentence!

The Flames are heading to where the Wings are trying to leave. Assets and cap space are your best friend. We aren't used to this. We spent the last...too long... in cap crunch and bleeding draft picks away.

To the point that we had to move a 1st rd pick to gain cap space to sign a player. I am NOT going to miss the way that we were doing things. Hopefully we're closing the book on that.

And everyone, don't get too excited about the chances of winning a lottery. Guess who else wants to win a lottery? Everyone on earth. lol

The odds are almost zero to get excited about, so don't get on pins and needles when it's time.

I have zero problem being quoted on that in the future. It ain't happening.

 

The team that has struggled to gain traction in a rebuild the most, seems to be ARI.  They somehow didn't win the lotto when they weren't 5th last.  Teams that had no business winning the lotto were winning it.  The league had to come up with the EDM rule of lotto wins.  EDM had the following placement in drafts and only now seems to have taken any kind of step:

2007 - 6th, 2008 - 22nd, 2009 - 10th, 2010-2012 - 1st/1st/1st, 2013 - 7th, 2014 - 3rd, 2015 - 1st, 2016 - 4th, 2017 - 22nd, 2018 - 10th, 2019 - 8th, 2020 - 14th, 2021 - 22nd

 

So, more of an example of ineptitude in using the riches to any meaningful way. 

 

I have no real belief that we would win the lotto.  If the system is fixed, then a team opening anew arena in the coming years will win it.  I don't know how you rig a lotto, but if you could, the results back that up.  I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory but would laugh if we somehow won it this year.  

[The_People1]

9 hours ago, cross16 said:

Ducks have drafted in the top 10 for the last 5 drafts and twice in the top 3. This isn’t starting with Carlson, nor is it close to being finished. 
the next example is using one of the top 5 prospects we’ve ever seen. We’re going to give Chicago credit for that timing? Same team who 2 years earlier gave up a top 10 pick for Seth Jones?

Your timelines and perspectives/examples are all over the place to it’s not an argument worth continuing. End of the day 10 picks in the first round is not worth the assets to me unless it’s an Unusually strong draft and this year isn’t that. Top 10 pick then I'm listening. 

 

I didn't mean the Ducks are starting with Carlsson.  I mean they are doing it right by drafting in the top 10 for the last 5 drafts. And yes CHI is doing it right timing or no timing.  They are bottoming out hard for the next core.  

 

Point was, don't build depth until you've got your new core drafted.

 

And yes, it takes years.  You know that.  I know that.  Again, there's a time to go after quantity.  Right now, the Flames need quality.

[sak22]

10 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I think ANA and CHI are doing it right.  Get the Bedards and Carlssons first.  Build around them after.

 

There's a time to go for quality and there's a time to go for quantity.  The Flames need those superstar game breakers because we have none at the moment.  So go for quality.  Once we have the new cores pieces in place, then go for quantity.

I would use Chicago's previous one as a better example.  The year before they added Kane and Toews to the lineup they already had Keith and Seabrook play 2 seasons, they also had a winning AHL team with the likes of Brouwer, Byfuglien, Bolland, Versteeg, Fraser, Bickel, Burrish and Crawford.  For a 3 year span from 2003-2005 they had 37 draft picks, they also picked #3 in 2004, and #7 in 2005, where they made underwhelming picks of Cam Barker and Jack Skille (not core guys despite draft position go figure), but what off set those disappointing picks is getting Bolland, Bickel and Brouwer in 2004 and Hjalmarson in 2005.  How would you feel starting off a rebuild with a Cam Barker and Jack Skille?  Because your scenario is trading a good trade chip to move into a less guaranteed zone of the draft.  Gambling on finding 2 core pieces between 6-15 is foolish.

 

Anaheim is in year 6 of no playoffs and will show minimal growth if any from last year, the AHL team is also horrible for the second year in a row.  Chicago and Anaheim aren't models I'm instantly envious of but I guess if you only watch them vs the Flames maybe it sways your opinion, but they are still very bad teams who on the surface I don't feel very strong about in 2025.

[cross16]

29 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I didn't mean the Ducks are starting with Carlsson.  I mean they are doing it right by drafting in the top 10 for the last 5 drafts. And yes CHI is doing it right timing or no timing.  They are bottoming out hard for the next core.  

 

Point was, don't build depth until you've got your new core drafted.

 

And yes, it takes years.  You know that.  I know that.  Again, there's a time to go after quantity.  Right now, the Flames need quality.

im not sure why you are framing this as one vs the other because you need both. Trying to prioritize one over the other makes no sense to me and is just foolish. No team has nor will they, build a team like that 
 

All I have said and all I will contend is giving up 2-3 assets to move up 10ish spots in the draft, and not into a range where you are likely to draft an elite player, is not smart and I wouldn’t do it. I’d use that asset to address other needs because I think the odds are just as good and maybe better if adding to the core. 

I don’t have an issue with the idea of scorched earth or a rebuild but it sure be nice if it was based on more realism than what’s argued here. If you want the ducks model fine but just acknowledge it’s been 6 years. Are they close? Not imo. Same thing for Detroit are they close? Does Detroit look like a team on the verge of being special? 
Despite what some want to believe there is no blueprint on how to do this because too many variables are outside of your control 

[cberg]

2 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

I didn't mean the Ducks are starting with Carlsson.  I mean they are doing it right by drafting in the top 10 for the last 5 drafts. And yes CHI is doing it right timing or no timing.  They are bottoming out hard for the next core.  

 

Point was, don't build depth until you've got your new core drafted.

 

And yes, it takes years.  You know that.  I know that.  Again, there's a time to go after quantity.  Right now, the Flames need quality.

Yes the Flames desperately need quality, the question is how to get it.  The normal is draft high and hope to get a key core piece every year, if possible.  This takes several years, let’s say 5-10.  Another, fairly rare method is to obtain multiple key core pieces over 1-2 years.  Some examples of that might be early Oiler drafts (Gretzky/Messier/etc), Penguin drafts(Crosby/Malkin/etc), recent Dallas draft (Heiskenen/Robertson/Oettinger), Chicago drafts(Toews/Kane/etc)…. The best, powerhouse teams do it faster. Maybe it’s just luck of the draw, maybe it’s just special players.  We have the opportunity to do the same, try to obtain multiple core pieces but need the guts and the wisdom/luck to flip pieces for 3-4 core players.

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, sak22 said:

I would use Chicago's previous one as a better example.  The year before they added Kane and Toews to the lineup they already had Keith and Seabrook play 2 seasons, they also had a winning AHL team with the likes of Brouwer, Byfuglien, Bolland, Versteeg, Fraser, Bickel, Burrish and Crawford.  For a 3 year span from 2003-2005 they had 37 draft picks, they also picked #3 in 2004, and #7 in 2005, where they made underwhelming picks of Cam Barker and Jack Skille (not core guys despite draft position go figure), but what off set those disappointing picks is getting Bolland, Bickel and Brouwer in 2004 and Hjalmarson in 2005.  How would you feel starting off a rebuild with a Cam Barker and Jack Skille?  Because your scenario is trading a good trade chip to move into a less guaranteed zone of the draft.  Gambling on finding 2 core pieces between 6-15 is foolish.

 

Anaheim is in year 6 of no playoffs and will show minimal growth if any from last year, the AHL team is also horrible for the second year in a row.  Chicago and Anaheim aren't models I'm instantly envious of but I guess if you only watch them vs the Flames maybe it sways your opinion, but they are still very bad teams who on the surface I don't feel very strong about in 2025.

 

I wouldn't say "envious" but I mean, it's just a strategy to win Cups.  More like, "just get it over with" type thing where we know it's a chore but it needs to be done.

 

It's no fun tanking but the NHL has made it this way.  Wish it was unweighted lottery every year for the draft.

[The_People1]

2 hours ago, cross16 said:

im not sure why you are framing this as one vs the other because you need both. Trying to prioritize one over the other makes no sense to me and is just foolish. No team has nor will they, build a team like that 
 

All I have said and all I will contend is giving up 2-3 assets to move up 10ish spots in the draft, and not into a range where you are likely to draft an elite player, is not smart and I wouldn’t do it. I’d use that asset to address other needs because I think the odds are just as good and maybe better if adding to the core. 

I don’t have an issue with the idea of scorched earth or a rebuild but it sure be nice if it was based on more realism than what’s argued here. If you want the ducks model fine but just acknowledge it’s been 6 years. Are they close? Not imo. Same thing for Detroit are they close? Does Detroit look like a team on the verge of being special? 
Despite what some want to believe there is no blueprint on how to do this because too many variables are outside of your control 

 

I'm framing it one vs the other because the elite picks generally come from higher picks.  "Generally" right?  Just playing the odds.

 

Of course we eventually need depth.  I'm just arguing early stage rebuilds need to prioritize high picks.  It's a game within the game so to speak.  You don't want depth to rise too fast that you leave the basement too early and rob the team of franchise altering high picks at critical times.  

 

It doesn't always work so perfectly, I understand.  I'm talking more philosophy than suggesting fool proof methods of rebuilding.  The Flames, even now, have depth galore but no elite game breakers.  No need to keep getting depth.  Time to trade that in to improve whatever little chance 12-15th pick has over 2-3 mid-tier assets.

[cberg]

40 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

I'm framing it one vs the other because the elite picks generally come from higher picks.  "Generally" right?  Just playing the odds.

 

Of course we eventually need depth.  I'm just arguing early stage rebuilds need to prioritize high picks.  It's a game within the game so to speak.  You don't want depth to rise too fast that you leave the basement too early and rob the team of franchise altering high picks at critical times.  

 

It doesn't always work so perfectly, I understand.  I'm talking more philosophy than suggesting fool proof methods of rebuilding.  The Flames, even now, have depth galore but no elite game breakers.  No need to keep getting depth.  Time to trade that in to improve whatever little chance 12-15th pick has over 2-3 mid-tier assets.

Well said, need elite talents, and as many shots at that as possible. Conroy has already made some moves bringing in possible elite (top5-10, core) prospects, e.g. Grushnikov, Brzuchenivhic(sp?) but we also need to use the draft and signings…

[sak22]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

I'm framing it one vs the other because the elite picks generally come from higher picks.  "Generally" right?  Just playing the odds.

 

Of course we eventually need depth.  I'm just arguing early stage rebuilds need to prioritize high picks.  It's a game within the game so to speak.  You don't want depth to rise too fast that you leave the basement too early and rob the team of franchise altering high picks at critical times.  

 

It doesn't always work so perfectly, I understand.  I'm talking more philosophy than suggesting fool proof methods of rebuilding.  The Flames, even now, have depth galore but no elite game breakers.  No need to keep getting depth.  Time to trade that in to improve whatever little chance 12-15th pick has over 2-3 mid-tier assets.

You also don't want good but not elite pieces rising too fast making the team better (ex. Monahan and Gaudreau), but not good enough to go all the way.  The thing as I mentioned with Chicago earlier is all the solid depth guys were in the minors winning while the big team sucked allowing for a chance at Toews and Kane.