2024 NHL draft - A New Hope

[The_People1]

38 minutes ago, Sarasti said:

 

Yeah I think we will be pleased with one of the guys left on the board when #9 rolls around.

Like many have stated rankings are all over the place after Celebrini.

How nice it would be for a change to grab a guy at 9 that looks like he should've been a top 3-5 pick 10 years down the road.

In my time watching the Flames I think we've only hit that "should've been top 3" once picking outside the top 5. That was Tkachuk in 2016.

 

Ya I think there are only 4 that is not going to slide to us.  Celebrini, Demidov, Levshunov, and Lindstrom.  After that, there are 5 solid prospects who deserve to be a 5th overall pick.  One has to slide to us at 9.  It's a good spot to be.

 

Let's just hope the Flames stick to the consensus rankings and don't reach too far off the board.. 

[The_People1]

3 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

 

 

 

Interesting, he mentioned Conroy brought in some D via trades... Almost to hint at the idea the Flames will draft Tij.

[robrob74]

1 hour ago, Sarasti said:

 

Yeah I think we will be pleased with one of the guys left on the board when #9 rolls around.

Like many have stated rankings are all over the place after Celebrini.

How nice it would be for a change to grab a guy at 9 that looks like he should've been a top 3-5 pick 10 years down the road.

In my time watching the Flames I think we've only hit that "should've been top 3" once picking outside the top 5. That was Tkachuk in 2016.

Johnny would have been a top 5 pick too. 

[Thebrewcrew]

36 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

Interesting, he mentioned Conroy brought in some D via trades... Almost to hint at the idea the Flames will draft Tij.

I didn’t like that at all.

 

If they take a forward fine. But to think Grushnikov, Miromanov, Jurmo are reasons to not take a D. That’s concerning .

 

Brzustewicz is a legit prospect. But the others they brought in aren’t top 4 NHLers. Miromanov is the same age as Hanifin…

[The_People1]

25 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

I didn’t like that at all.

 

If they take a forward fine. But to think Grushnikov, Miromanov, Jurmo are reasons to not take a D. That’s concerning .

 

Brzustewicz is a legit prospect. But the others they brought in aren’t top 4 NHLers. Miromanov is the same age as Hanifin…

 

Yups agreed.  They were "defensemen focused at the start of the year but that changed after Conny brought in some D via trades".  I really hope he's talking about the later picks.  The Flames need to draft a high end D with the 9th overall.  

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Interesting, he mentioned Conroy brought in some D via trades... Almost to hint at the idea the Flames will draft Tij.

What?

When?

Where?

[cberg]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

Yups agreed.  They were "defensemen focused at the start of the year but that changed after Conny brought in some D via trades".  I really hope he's talking about the later picks.  The Flames need to draft a high end D with the 9th overall.  

No, don’t agree.  We don’t know exactly what we have yet.  Secondly, we need everything…

[jjgallow]

1 minute ago, cberg said:

No, don’t agree.  We don’t know exactly what we have yet.  Secondly, we need everything…

 

I agree with everyone but that's just my personality...

 

 

We need everyone 

We need Defencemen more

Conroy likes C

I dunno 

 

I don't care as much about the position as the outcome.    But if I thought everyone was going to turn out the same....then yeah.   Defence.

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

What?

When?

Where?

 

1:55 of the video Brew posted

[robrob74]

4 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

Yups agreed.  They were "defensemen focused at the start of the year but that changed after Conny brought in some D via trades".  I really hope he's talking about the later picks.  The Flames need to draft a high end D with the 9th overall.  

teams go wrong when they prioritize certain positions and the flames haven't seemed to go after the big one at D, last one was Phaneuf. Anderson was the next one after.... goes to show the team's priorities, and their expertise at the position. Andersson, Kylington, and that is it for nhl talent, unless you count kulak... doesn't look pretty for this organization. 
 

Maybe I'm missing someone?

 

 They need to focus on every position and D is one of the major needs out of the 3-4 major needs. 

[The_People1]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

teams go wrong when they prioritize certain positions and the flames haven't seemed to go after the big one at D, last one was Phaneuf. Anderson was the next one after.... goes to show the team's priorities, and their expertise at the position. Andersson, Kylington, and that is it for nhl talent, unless you count kulak... doesn't look pretty for this organization. 
 

Maybe I'm missing someone?

 

 They need to focus on every position and D is one of the major needs out of the 3-4 major needs. 

 

There was Valimaki.  We also traded for Hamilton->Hanifin.  We also enjoyed Giordano's Norris years.  Plus, win-now mentality usually means draft a Forward.  D take 3-6 years to develop.  Forwards can make an impact 1-3 years after their draft.

[jjgallow]

31 minutes ago, The_People1 said:

 

There was Valimaki.  We also traded for Hamilton->Hanifin.  We also enjoyed Giordano's Norris years.  Plus, win-now mentality usually means draft a Forward.  D take 3-6 years to develop.  Forwards can make an impact 1-3 years after their draft.

 

A lot of it is definitions, I think, and the inflammatory words which comes with them.

 

Defencemen tend to drop below their ranking in the draft because GMs can't wait around for them.

 

So, if you look at it that way, really if you go BPA (there's that ugly namedrop), you're really more likely to draft a D imho, simply because the lag is undesireable.   Or a Russian atm.  Or... a Russian D  😅

 

So...

 

in my mind,  "BPA" actually means an increased chance of drafting defencemen.   

 

But the paradox is when you say "we should draft a D".  I'll say "no we should go BPA"

 

as if they have different outcomes.  they very likely do not.

 

---------------

imho, a team who truly goes bpa is statistically likely to wind up with a Lot of defencemen....maybe even more than they need, after a significant lag time.   Once they get there though, solution is pretty simple because such players have very high trade value.

[conundrumed]

6 hours ago, jjgallow said:

Once they get there though, solution is pretty simple because such players have very high trade value.

Yeah, I think that's where Detroit is at now. They have a pile of D prospects that should proress to favourable trade value.

Seriously time for them to stop signing FA dmen.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

Yeah, I think that's where Detroit is at now. They have a pile of D prospects that should proress to favourable trade value.

Seriously time for them to stop signing FA dmen.

 

People think their rebuild failed because they are lopsided on defence.   They can solve that in a single trade.

 

The "successful, shorter rebuilds" feature a lopsided supply of wingers.   And they are almost good enough, yet not quite.  They can solve that by going into another rebuild.

[cross16]

15 hours ago, Thebrewcrew said:

I didn’t like that at all.

 

If they take a forward fine. But to think Grushnikov, Miromanov, Jurmo are reasons to not take a D. That’s concerning .

 

Brzustewicz is a legit prospect. But the others they brought in aren’t top 4 NHLers. Miromanov is the same age as Hanifin…

I interpreted that comment differently. I don’t think it was in reference to their top pick but the draft overall. They had almost no D depth before those trades and now they have some so when it comes to building the list I think that becomes a factor. 
 

Prior to those moves a D might have been moved up in a tie because they need it move, perhaps now it won’t. That’s what I think he meant 

 

Button has mentioned the top D in several interviews now. I get the impression they like a lot of the D prospects at the top of the draft. 

[conundrumed]

ESPN taking a stab, and putting Dickinson at our pick.

https://www.espn.com/nhl/insider/story/_/id/40152697/nhl-draft-2024-rankings-prospects-order-list-celebrini-levshunov-demidov-lindstrom

[robrob74]

9 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

There was Valimaki.  We also traded for Hamilton->Hanifin.  We also enjoyed Giordano's Norris years.  Plus, win-now mentality usually means draft a Forward.  D take 3-6 years to develop.  Forwards can make an impact 1-3 years after their draft.

talking draft, not the trades for... you pay more to trade for then than to draft for them.

[robrob74]

52 minutes ago, cross16 said:

I interpreted that comment differently. I don’t think it was in reference to their top pick but the draft overall. They had almost no D depth before those trades and now they have some so when it comes to building the list I think that becomes a factor. 
 

Prior to those moves a D might have been moved up in a tie because they need it move, perhaps now it won’t. That’s what I think he meant 

 

Button has mentioned the top D in several interviews now. I get the impression they like a lot of the D prospects at the top of the draft. 

 

see that almost sounds a bit eerie too. Shouldn't they just scout every position equally and the better player be placed ahead of the other instead of a tie, or placing a guy ahead of the other due to a tie? 
 

It scares me that they might have prioritized certain position and then didn't really look at the others...

 

I get they probably did do their due diligence on all positions, but still.... I guess they need assignments.  Have a long term plan.  Stick to a long term Plan please.

[Thebrewcrew]

1 hour ago, cross16 said:

I interpreted that comment differently. I don’t think it was in reference to their top pick but the draft overall. They had almost no D depth before those trades and now they have some so when it comes to building the list I think that becomes a factor. 
 

Prior to those moves a D might have been moved up in a tie because they need it move, perhaps now it won’t. That’s what I think he meant 

 

Button has mentioned the top D in several interviews now. I get the impression they like a lot of the D prospects at the top of the draft. 

I hope so, although I'd suggest they still need to invest a few picks in the blueline, regardless.

 

There's a lot of guys that project as bottom pair/career AHLers. Not many high end defenceman in the system. Keep taking swings.

[cross16]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

see that almost sounds a bit eerie too. Shouldn't they just scout every position equally and the better player be placed ahead of the other instead of a tie, or placing a guy ahead of the other due to a tie? 
 

It scares me that they might have prioritized certain position and then didn't really look at the others...

 

I get they probably did do their due diligence on all positions, but still.... I guess they need assignments.  Have a long term plan.  Stick to a long term Plan please.

I think the process is getting mixed up here. There is finding players/scouting players/and ranking or scoring players and then there is putting together your list. Not all the same. 
the needs/strength of your organization would not impact who you scout but it would, and imo should, impact how you put your list together 

[robrob74]

Just now, cross16 said:

I think the process is getting mixed up here. There is finding players/scouting players/and ranking or scoring players and then there is putting together your list. Not all the same. 
the needs/strength of your organization would impact who you scout but it would, and imo should, impact how you put your list together 

 

 

 But that's weird because it goes against the BPA arguments. It isn't truly BPA anymore then. If you're putting a guy ahead of another guy because of need then possibility of skipping a better talent at another position arises. We draft NHLers, "good at drafting" but I think there's still desire to draft better, better players and it could be because they skip over due to org needs.

[cross16]

8 minutes ago, robrob74 said:

 

 

 But that's weird because it goes against the BPA arguments. It isn't truly BPA anymore then. If you're putting a guy ahead of another guy because of need then possibility of skipping a better talent at another position arises. We draft NHLers, "good at drafting" but I think there's still desire to draft better, better players and it could be because they skip over due to org needs.

no one is saying to do this. If you have players rated the same then take the player at a higher need. 
 

At the end of the day you only get so many picks and you only have so many opportunities you can offer players. You have to prioritize some how I think the strength of your org is one of those factors and I think that’s all Button was saying. 

 

way too much being read into this

[JTech780]

Conroy did a great job adding a lot of defense prospects to a cupboard that was almost completely bare. Now IMO they really lack high end prospects at pretty much every position. So I think early in the draft you still have to take the best player regardless, later in the draft you can certainly look at position needs and fill holes lower on your depth chart.

 

If the best player available at 9 is a defenseman then you take the defenseman, because you are almost certainly getting a top 4 guy. There are a few guys with top 4 upside in the prospect pool, but none that are “locks”.

[JTech780]

So if Vancouver loses to Edmonton tomorrow we get the 28th pick. If Vancouver wins that pick will be 29th, 31st or 32nd depending on how they do the rest of the way. The 4th from the Lindholm trade would also become a 3rd.

 

So Vancouver beating Edmonton and then losing to Dallas would be the best outcome for Calgary.

[conundrumed]

3 minutes ago, JTech780 said:

Conroy did a great job adding a lot of defense prospects to a cupboard that was almost completely bare. Now IMO they really lack high end prospects at pretty much every position. So I think early in the draft you still have to take the best player regardless, later in the draft you can certainly look at position needs and fill holes lower on your depth chart.

 

If the best player available at 9 is a defenseman then you take the defenseman, because you are almost certainly getting a top 4 guy. There are a few guys with top 4 upside in the prospect pool, but none that are “locks”.

Yup. The 3 picks at 9 through 41 will follow the bpa list. Getting to the Dallas pick and 73 they're still on their list, more than likely. Some of that might change, a bit, based on player availability with your next pick. From there, it changes into positional need, BUT you're stll thinking about particular players that can override that. There could be a specific scout that really likes a player in the back half, so that can be a driver too. That's relatively rare, though.