Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Cecka

2013 Draft: Who, When, And Why ?

794 posts in this topic

MacKinnon and Jones may be taken 1 and 2 but we may have the first or second pick. 

 

If we have the first, no question, I think we take Jones. Been described as Chris Pronger with discipline. You can't pass up on that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree that Jones is a incredible Dman at his young age. However... at this point can we pass up on a true first line center ? If I'm picking number 1 its a hard pick!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is...if we do end up at 3rd or 4th overall would you package that pick with Pittsburgh or St. Louis' pick to move up to 1st or 2nd to make sure you get one of MacKinnon or Jones?

 

I would. IMO you build around centers, defensemen and goaltenders. Drouin is a very talented winger but IMO he isn't a player you build around. I don't want Calgary making the same mistakes Edmonton has made with their rebuild. You are not going to win with a team built around small wingers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I would be willing to trade up with the pits pick. I don't trade stl to move up. I would like to have a Drouin - Zadorov rather than a single Mackinnon or Jones. Maybe that is just me, but I really see something in both those guys and think we can grab them both in those spots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is...if we do end up at 3rd or 4th overall would you package that pick with Pittsburgh or St. Louis' pick to move up to 1st or 2nd to make sure you get one of MacKinnon or Jones?

 

I would. IMO you build around centers, defensemen and goaltenders. Drouin is a very talented winger but IMO he isn't a player you build around. I don't want Calgary making the same mistakes Edmonton has made with their rebuild. You are not going to win with a team built around small wingers.

At most that I would throw in to move up is a third, giving up another first to move up one or 2 spots isn't worth it I do think quality is more important than quantity, but I think we would get better overall quality players with 3 picks in the top 60 than 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on where our 1st goes, I'd like MacKinnon as a running mate. He has chemistry with Drouin who's a darn good playmaker, so I'd go for it on the notion that Baertschi can provide a similar level of talent and chemistry. That would immediately turn us around as a team, as long as they still have some support around them. Nathan may not have the offensive wizardry of Drouin, but he's got a more projectable game; it's not hard to imagine a Hall/Seguin type from him, whereas with Drouin it's a little less certain.

 

Number 2 choice for me would be Lindholm, I like Swedes (they seem to project their skills better to the NHL for the most part than say Finland) and Lindholm is IMO the best Swedish forward available in the draft since the Sedins. Backstrom, his draft year, was pretty impressive as well, but I also believe that his development curve went through the roof after he landed with Ovechkin, the 60-goal version. I don't know if Lindholm could hit 100 points in the current style of game, but I can definitely see a perennial PPG player.

 

Although, if anyone's gone to the Draft Thread, you guys already know that I'm high on these two guys.

 

Depending on how things shake down, I'd like to see another skill forward and a defender be drafted. Go for a Ristolainen, Morrissey or Theodore with our 2nd pick if it isn't traded. Burakovsky, Lehkonen, Klimchuk would be guys I'd target late-first. The only problem is they're smallish, and that would leave us with quite a few small skill players as our core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Calgary should have three picks in the first round depending on what happens with St. Louis, right?  I'm wondering if Feaster uses these picks to trade up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is always the chance that he picks up another first rounder from trading cammy/tangs/glenX if Feaster decides to go this route...

 

Anyways, I'd also like to point out that with the cap coming down, the weak crop of FA's this summer, and Calgarys large amount of cap space, is it possible that we take on a bad contract/contracts we buy out for other teams in order to move up in the draft?

 

For example,

 

To CGY:

Top 10 Pick

Bad/Crappy Contract

 

To ________ Team:

St. Louis Pick (~#16) 

 

Could anyone see something like this happening given all the open cap space we now have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As one of the first to suggest Baertschi in 2011, my call for this year's must have is Rasmus Ristolainen. He might go as high as 4th, but hey, maybe we can trade up our St. L pick or something to get two in the top 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As one of the first to suggest Baertschi in 2011, my call for this year's must have is Rasmus Ristolainen. He might go as high as 4th, but hey, maybe we can trade up our St. L pick or something to get two in the top 5.

 

I personally don't like this pick in the top 5.

Jones

Drouin

Mac

Barkov

Lindholm

 

All better prospects to have in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lindholm is too small for this team. We have enough undersized players. If he added ALOT for that size, then maybe, but he doesn't. I'd rather go with a similarly skilled guy with more beef.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flames will win enough game just not to make the playoffs and screw the draft up... Or we pick some of the best highschool kids we can find in the first round. I am actually afraid who they are going to pick at the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First let’s look at the flames needs (in order of importance); 1st Line C, Top 4/2 RHD, Top 9 RW depth, Top 4 D depth and Goaltending.  What they have lots of depth in; LW depth, 3/4 Line C, 3rd Pair D, Goaltending.  With our pick(top 5) I will pick a Top 6RHC, Top 4 RHD, Top 6 LHC then I pick the BPA.  For me our pick should be as follows; MacKinnon, Jones, Lindholm, Ristolainen, Barkov, Monahan, Drouin then Shinkaruk.  StLouis' pick for me would be the same but since we have little idea where it ends up I will leave it for later discussion, I really like the idea of packaging this up and moving up to take what we didn’t get with our pick in the top 5.  Pittsburgh's pick which looks to be bottom 4 would look the same (using McKenzie's ranking) and falls like; Pulock (15th), Lazar (25th), Zykov, Hartman(my pick), Compher, Bowey(my pick unless we trade up), Bailey, Duclair or Santini.

 

Those are just my thoughts until we get closer to the draft and know exactly what we have.

 

Lindholm is too small for this team. We have enough undersized players. If he added ALOT for that size, then maybe, but he doesn't. I'd rather go with a similarly skilled guy with more beef.

 

At 6'1" & 191lbs unlike MacKinnon who is 5'11" & 177lbs or Barkov at 6'2" & 191lbs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have Lindholm at 5'11", 181lbs and McKinnon at 6 even, 182lbs. Not a big difference, but I also wouldn't be interested in MacKinnon if he didn't have superb skills. Lindholm isn't on that level.

 

On another note, late in the first, I'm picking Robert Hagg for sure. Huge intangibles, good leader, great skater for a big guy. Big dman that can play tough minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trade Cammalleri for a 1st, trade Kipper for a 2nd, and trade Tanguay for a package of picks. Those picks, combined with St. Louis' and Pittsburgh's should allow us to trade up, and pick 1st and 2nd in the draft (ours and somebody elses).

 

Then take Jones at number 1, Mackinnon at number 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flames will win enough game just not to make the playoffs and screw the draft up... Or we pick some of the best highschool kids we can find in the first round. I am actually afraid who they are going to pick at the draft.

 

I seriously doubt this. I don't see us drafting out of the top 5 the way we have been playing. Now with our best players being shipped out, I only see us dropping lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lindholm is too small for this team. We have enough undersized players. If he added ALOT for that size, then maybe, but he doesn't. I'd rather go with a similarly skilled guy with more beef.

 

 

I have Lindholm at 5'11", 181lbs and McKinnon at 6 even, 182lbs. Not a big difference, but I also wouldn't be interested in MacKinnon if he didn't have superb skills. Lindholm isn't on that level.

 

On another note, late in the first, I'm picking Robert Hagg for sure. Huge intangibles, good leader, great skater for a big guy. Big dman that can play tough minutes.

 

 

Lindholm is listed on the Elitserien website as 6'0.5" and 192 pounds. Not undersized. MacKinnon has been listed as 5'11" and around 180 pounds, and that's pretty much right from what I see on the ice.

 

Lindholm doesn't play feisty like Mac does, and he doesn't overpower guys, but he uses his body and size the best of any prospect I've seen this year, including Seth Jones. Gets body positioning, shields the puck well, has nifty hands and has a trickster streak in him that allows him to just dangle the puck at will against grown men a la Crosby vs. Spezza. He has no weaknesses beyond putting on a little more muscle, and with another year of seasoning in Brynas he's going to be an immediate contributor in the NHL just like Backstrom was.

 

I like Hagg, I just think he's a little overrated. Looked overmatched against international competition. Still think he's easily a top-40 prospect, but his skating and defence are questions. He's like a less-capable version of Oscar Klefbom. I do agree that he's a guy you target late in the first if he's still on the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering our ridiculous amount of success sans jbouw and Iginla thus far I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that we are likely picking top two.

If we are picking top 2 I would like to see us package both our lower first rounders and try and move up to number three while keeping one of our top 2 .

If we could get both MacKinnon and Drouin that would be quite the coupe I think. Like having our future Kane and Toews.

If we can't and we can only get one top 3 pick I take jones if I can get him.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering our ridiculous amount of success sans jbouw and Iginla thus far I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that we are likely picking top two.

If we are picking top 2 I would like to see us package both our lower first rounders and try and move up to number three while keeping one of our top 2 .

If we could get both MacKinnon and Drouin that would be quite the coupe I think. Like having our future Kane and Toews.

If we can't and we can only get one top 3 pick I take jones if I can get him.

 

This was exactly what I have been saying! Although i equated them more to the sedin twins :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was exactly what I have been saying! Although i equated them more to the sedin twins :P

 

Ewww the sisters! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This draft has to bring us a player we can build around and that means either a top pairing damn that can take control of games or a #1c anything less and were just wasting our pick IMO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This draft has to bring us a player we can build around and that means either a top pairing damn that can take control of games or a #1c anything less and were just wasting our pick IMO!

 

I know it is easier to justify a build around a Dman or Center. You can however still build around a Winger... Ala New Jersey, and Edmonton of most recently. NJ with Kovy and Parise - Edmonton with Eberle and Hall

 

I still pick Best Player Available.

 

Jones/Drouin/Mack No matter what for me. If we get Drouin we can most definitely build around him, because we are going to lose from here on out. I see us getting another top pick next year. Pick up a Center at that time. No point taking a lesser player, just because he is a C or D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it is easier to justify a build around a Dman or Center. You can however still build around a Winger... Ala New Jersey, and Edmonton of most recently. NJ with Kovy and Parise - Edmonton with Eberle and Hall

 

I still pick Best Player Available.

 

Jones/Drouin/Mack No matter what for me. If we get Drouin we can most definitely build around him, because we are going to lose from here on out. I see us getting another top pick next year. Pick up a Center at that time. No point taking a lesser player, just because he is a C or D.

BPA hasn't exactly worked out the last decade or so, I'd like to see us finally fill that #1c role and maybe grab another solid #2c, wingers are a dime a dozen....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.