Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
rickross

Calgary Flames Drafting and Development: Your Analysis

Recommended Posts

http://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hockey-s-top-50-nhl-affiliated-prospects-1.436669

Button just put out his list of top 50 NHL affiliated prospects, and we don't have a single player on the list. Most of that is because our top young talent us already playing in the NHL, but I think it also speaks to the lack of top end talent in our system.

 

Ha.   I came to this board to post this exact comment.

The list is disappointing but true and all future high end talent will go to the big club immediately leaving the farm team without high end talent for quite some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We drafted Sven Baertschi whose talent is "offense-first hockey" and then we don't let him be that.  Baertschi was an unstoppable offensive weapon in the WHL achieving 2-points-per-game in his final season.  Instead of encouraging him to continue developing his talents so that he can make some noise at the NHL level, we muted him.  Your example that Baertschi's defensive game is his strength with the Canucks is exactly an example of squandering talent because he's not scoring anywhere near his original potential.  Baertschi is now a good two-way player but lost his high end offensive talents.  Congrats?

 

Thus, just draft a two-way player and then provide all the support for him to be the best two-way player he can be.

 

Sure, this means Baertschi would've been a 40-goal scorer or a bust.  That's fine though.  That should be understood the very moment we decided to draft him, or any player we decide to draft like him in the future.

You seem to be under the illusion that Baertschi would be able to translate his 2 ppg Junior game to the NHL at the same level.  That was never going to happen.  Look at Gaudreau, he is not translating his 2 ppg play in a better league to the NHL either.  We never stifled SB at all, but tried to get him to be consistent and effective in all aspects of the game.  Even if you cheat on the ice and pile up the points, but are outscored because you're crap in your own end, that is not helping.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sven Baertschi could have scored 40 goals like Kessell does then yes you allow for certain latitudes. As I said above if you are talking about true first line talents you allow for certain concessions. I think Baertschi looked like a 20-25 goal scorer who had the attitude of a 40 goal scorer and that's not going to fly for any young player trying to make it in the NHL. But if you saw 40 goal potential in Baertschi then we are haivng a different conversation but I never did and I don't think the Flames did either. 

 

Agreed in philosophy.  So that's great.  That's really what I was trying to say.  You allow certain latitudes for players who are special.

 

in specific to Baertschi, yes, I think he could've been a 40-goal scorer but was not allowed to develop into that.  I can see why we disagree so much on the topic of Baertschi.  He could've/would've been but we will never know now.

Had a good laugh, that you seem to think responsible 2-way play doesn't matter.  Wow....

 

I said draft two-way players if you want a two-way player.  How does that translate into two-way player doesn't matter?

 

If you want a stay-at-home wife, then marry a stay-at-home wife.  Why marry a party girl and then force her to change into a stay-at-home wife?  By saying that, does that mean I am suggesting there's no place for a party girl?  No man.  Totally not.  Point is, know what you are getting yourself into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hockey-s-top-50-nhl-affiliated-prospects-1.436669

Button just put out his list of top 50 NHL affiliated prospects, and we don't have a single player on the list. Most of that is because our top young talent us already playing in the NHL, but I think it also speaks to the lack of top end talent in our system.

I wouldnt agree with that. Top end talent is generally playing NHL or they arent. Let me expand on this I think you could say high end offensive talent is something we lack, but on that note generally the players on that list are not strong enough, not defensivelly sound enough, etc to be a NHL level pro. I wouldnt argue that every player off that list is a high end talent not even close. 

 

Did I mention craig button is not great at ranking players?

Agreed in philosophy.  So that's great.  That's really what I was trying to say.  You allow certain latitudes for players who are special.

 

in specific to Baertschi, yes, I think he could've been a 40-goal scorer but was not allowed to develop into that.  I can see why we disagree so much on the topic of Baertschi.  He could've/would've been but we will never know now.

 

I can see what youre saying but if a player isent going to at least put some effort in on defence hes not making the NHL. Simply having offensive upside and scoring goals is not enough anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in specific to Baertschi, yes, I think he could've been a 40-goal scorer but was not allowed to develop into that. I can see why we disagree so much on the topic of Baertschi. He could've/would've been but we will never know now.

This is where this whole thread runs into trouble, I don't think any of us will ever agree on what a certain prospects potential is. I never seen Baerstchi as a 30 goal guy let alone a 40 goal player.

Same with Poirier, at best I saw him as a 2ND liner, but I always thought he was going to be more of a 3rd liner.

I will forgive a lack of defense for the top end elite scorers in the league, but even then I don't think you will ever win with guys one dimensional guys like Kessel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see what youre saying but if a player isent going to at least put some effort in on defence hes not making the NHL. Simply having offensive upside and scoring goals is not enough anymore. 

 

Thus, don't draft them in the first place.  That's all I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt agree with that. Top end talent is generally playing NHL or they arent. Let me expand on this I think you could say high end offensive talent is something we lack, but on that note generally the players on that list are not strong enough, not defensivelly sound enough, etc to be a NHL level pro. I wouldnt argue that every player off that list is a high end talent not even close.

Did I mention craig button is not great at ranking players?

Thing here is that we don't have a prospect better than anyone on this list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I am not a big fan of Huska or our current AHL program.......

 

...

But I don't agree with just about anything else you are saying.

 

This has to be one of the most classic ever lol...

 

So basically, you disagree with almost everything I said, except the Entire Point to what I said, which you agree with lol.

 

We do this on almost every thread....come across things from completely different angles, disagree on the angles, and ignore that we've arrived at the same conclusion.

 

I would argue, but we've done that...and we just keep arriving at the same conclusion from different perspectives.

 

Yes, I have issues with their AHL program (and its results) as well.  And that...is the whole point.

Thus, don't draft them in the first place.  That's all I'm saying.

 

Which was the beauty of the Hamilton trade.   Loved it.   If they don't have a solid drafting plan, that's okay.  As long as they Know it.

 None of the bodled make any sense for you to say they are regressing .....

 

 

I stopped at the first player on your list, Baertschi.

 

If you can't see that Baertschi regressed in his time here, and then resumed development with Vancouver,

 

Then there's no point in even going any further.  Be it point totals, or advanced stats, or just watching him play, or even your previous comments on him compared to his performance now, should all be absolutely crystal clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has to be one of the most classic ever lol...

So basically, you disagree with almost everything I said, except the Entire Point to what I said, which you agree with lol.

We do this on almost every thread....come across things from completely different angles, disagree on the angles, and ignore that we've arrived at the same conclusion.

I would argue, but we've done that...and we just keep arriving at the same conclusion from different perspectives.

I saw a three legged pig yesterday and right after is saw a pigeon poop on an old guy. Which means the Flames are going to miss the playoffs.

Agree or disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a three legged pig yesterday and right after is saw a pigeon poop on an old guy. Which means the Flames are going to miss the playoffs.

Agree or disagree.

 

The pigeon was probably concussed, so I have to rule that out as I highly doubt the pigeon meant to.  I hope Flyerfan52 is ok, that's unfortunate.

 

I've always believed in BPA (Best Pig Available), and that's extremely discouraging.

 

Statistically speaking, based strictly on the pig, I would have to agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing here is that we don't have a prospect better than anyone on this list.

I disagree with that, guess it depends whether you look at potential, raw talent, etc though. For example I would say jon gillies is better, and has more potential then a couple goalies on that list. I dont see how kylington for example doesnt make it onto his list, hes an 18 year old d man playing in the ahl, and doing pretty good, not great but good. Just two examples and its not about being biased or a homer, I can agree with alot of players on that list being there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pigeon was probably concussed, so I have to rule that out as I highly doubt the pigeon meant to. I hope Flyerfan52 is ok, that's unfortunate.

I've always believed in BPA (Best Pig Available), and that's extremely discouraging.

Statistically speaking, based strictly on the pig, I would have to agree.

Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with that, guess it depends whether you look at potential, raw talent, etc though. For example I would say jon gillies is better, and has more potential then a couple goalies on that list. I dont see how kylington for example doesnt make it onto his list, hes an 18 year old d man playing in the ahl, and doing pretty good, not great but good. Just two examples and its not about being biased or a homer, I can agree with alot of players on that list being there.

I don't think we have any prospects that deserve to be top 50. I think we have some good guys, but there are a lot of very high caliber prospects out there.

Nothing to be ashamed of. Monahan and Bennett have graduated. We turned last seasons first into Hamilton. But a lack of high picks in the system for the last few seasons will limit your presence in the top 50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we have any prospects that deserve to be top 50. I think we have some good guys, but there are a lot of very high caliber prospects out there.

Nothing to be ashamed of. Monahan and Bennett have graduated. We turned last seasons first into Hamilton. But a lack of high picks in the system for the last few seasons will limit your presence in the top 50.

I'm not sure how anyone evaluates prospects in hockey. If you are 18 or 19 and just plain good they can't keep you out of the NHL you get a spot. Others it appears get put in the AHL (holding tank) until your game either matures further or an opening happens for you. Many will not get a sniff at the NHL, others as their mind, body and game develops into an acceptable level get an opportunity to prove they are NHL material, for some they stick, for others its a cup of coffee, thx for coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hockey-s-top-50-nhl-affiliated-prospects-1.436669

Button just put out his list of top 50 NHL affiliated prospects, and we don't have a single player on the list. Most of that is because our top young talent us already playing in the NHL, but I think it also speaks to the lack of top end talent in our system.

 

It hurts because we could've drafted Thatcher Demko but let him slip to the Canucks.

 

It's also a bit disappointing to not see Poirier and Klimchuk on that list because they are 1st round picks after all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It hurts because we could've drafted Thatcher Demko but let him slip to the Canucks.

 

It's also a bit disappointing to not see Poirier and Klimchuk on that list because they are 1st round picks after all. 

 

That one is definetly going to be a race to watch. Still very possible that McDonald become the better prospect, and IMO he has more upside, but I had Demko ahead of him too. In fact that 2nd round might come back to haunt the Flames. They took Hunter Smith and passed on Christian Dvorak (who Button has top 5) as well. It's way too early to tell but I wsan't thrilled with their 2nd round that year and so far its not winning me back.

 

But, real important to remember they got Bennett at 4, Hickey in the 3rd round and Ollas-Mateson (who I think is a legit prospect) in that draft too. Even with a so/so 2nd round the draft has the potetnial to turn out great for the Flames. 

 

While I agree it is a bit disspointing I think its also worth pointing out that you've had 2 drafts since then and both those guys were picked in the 20s. When you are putting together a top 50 prospect list for the entire NHL its pretty likely that 2 guys taken in the 20s 3 drafts ago wouldn't be on it just with the new talent. New talent tends to get higher rankings in propsect pool lists done by 3rd parties IMO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we have any prospects that deserve to be top 50. I think we have some good guys, but there are a lot of very high caliber prospects out there.

Nothing to be ashamed of. Monahan and Bennett have graduated. We turned last seasons first into Hamilton. But a lack of high picks in the system for the last few seasons will limit your presence in the top 50.

Disagree, I think we have several guys that are Top50, whether Button agrees or not.  Examples given by others: Gillies, Kylington, Anderson and etc...  You will also notice that the list includes NHL players like Duclair and Domi, but not our NHL young players, like Bennett.  

 

I'm kind of not surprised, as draft pedigree seems to be big here, but that's not unexpected. The thing is, what are the criteria and what has each shown SINCE draft day to warrant their placement?  In that regard the list is a bit useless.  Give it a couple years and we'll see what we have.

It hurts because we could've drafted Thatcher Demko but let him slip to the Canucks.

 

It's also a bit disappointing to not see Poirier and Klimchuk on that list because they are 1st round picks after all. 

We have McDonald, and Gillies, both arguably already better than Demko.  You believe this list makes it different?  Same with the others...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hockey-s-top-50-nhl-affiliated-prospects-1.436669

Button just put out his list of top 50 NHL affiliated prospects, and we don't have a single player on the list. Most of that is because our top young talent us already playing in the NHL, but I think it also speaks to the lack of top end talent in our system.

So I guess this begs the question of this topic. Do the Flames have a strong draft/development system in place. None of our prospects made Buttons list. Not saying Button is the primary consensus when it comes to ranking but should a rebuilding Flames team be concerned with their current prospect outlook?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It hurts because we could've drafted Thatcher Demko but let him slip to the Canucks.

It's also a bit disappointing to not see Poirier and Klimchuk on that list because they are 1st round picks after all.

At the time a lot of scouts had Demko over Macdonald. I guess we can take solace in knowing Brad Pascall had a good pulse on Macdonald's potential. From my understanding, Demko is more of a raw almost Tim Thomas like in his technique whereas Macdonald is technically sound.

IMO I don't think a pick like Hunter Smith is of NHL quality. Think Flames just fell in love with his size and he fits Burke's philosophy. Overall I don't take Buttons opionion as gospel and these lists change all the time but it isn't comforting knowing not even 1 of our prospects made that list

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess this begs the question of this topic. Do the Flames have a strong draft/development system in place. None of our prospects made Buttons list. Not saying Button is the primary consensus when it comes to ranking but should a rebuilding Flames team be concerned with their current prospect outlook?

 

 

Not IMO. Keep in mind that the Flames top pick in both 2013 and 2014 are already in the NHL (thus excluded form Button's list) and they didnt have a first round pick last year.

 

Did some quick math on this but here are some rough numbers.

Out of the 50 on Buttons list 30 the Flames either had no shot at drafting or they would have had to pass on either Monahan, Bennett or the Hamilton trade in order to take. 

Mike Reilly signed as a UFA and i blieve the Flames were in on that. 

3 players on the list (Theodore, Dickinson,Hartman) were taken after Porier/Klimchuck.

 

Long story short, its pretty reasonable as to why the Flames don't have a prospect on the list. Its mostly full of guys they coudln't draft and only about 10 I would say that they legitimately could have picked but passed on in favor of someone who may not be as good. So when you combine that and then recomember this is a subjective list for 1 person, I don't see it as a big deal. 

 

As this list develops and you don't see guys like Hickey, Andersson, Klyington and whoever they take this year on it then get concerend.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not IMO. Keep in mind that the Flames top pick in both 2013 and 2014 are already in the NHL (thus excluded form Button's list) and they didnt have a first round pick last year.

Did some quick math on this but here are some rough numbers.

Out of the 50 on Buttons list 30 the Flames either had no shot at drafting or they would have had to pass on either Monahan, Bennett or the Hamilton trade in order to take.

Mike Reilly signed as a UFA and i blieve the Flames were in on that.

3 players on the list (Theodore, Dickinson,Hartman) were taken after Porier/Klimchuck.

Long story short, its pretty reasonable as to why the Flames don't have a prospect on the list. Its mostly full of guys they coudln't draft and only about 10 I would say that they legitimately could have picked but passed on in favor of someone who may not be as good. So when you combine that and then recomember this is a subjective list for 1 person, I don't see it as a big deal.

As this list develops and you don't see guys like Hickey, Andersson, Klyington and whoever they take this year on it then get concerend.

Good points, I personally think the Flames deserve a bit more credit regarding their approach to the rebuild. They have come along way in the last 3-4 years. I'd still think of all the Canadian teams that Winnipeg has the most rounded crop of upcoming prospects. I'd place the Flames in the top 3 with our current pool of prospect. Where that places us overall in the NHL is a whole other discussions but things are trending in the right direction for the Flames.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the Flames will focus more on speed and skill moving forward and step away from the Burke mandated truculent focus. With this new NHL it seems like the "stay at home" defenseman is dead! Puck moving, rush joining D men are all the rave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the Flames will focus more on speed and skill moving forward and step away from the Burke mandated truculent focus. With this new NHL it seems like the "stay at home" defenseman is dead! Puck moving, rush joining D men are all the rave.

 

I thought this was their direction last year since it was Brad Trelivings first year have full reign, I thought their size guys they picked all have a good combination of Speed and Skill;

  • Andersson is "bigger" but has some really stellar potential skills and is a talented Dman although I think he's working on his footspeed,
  • Kylington isn't "Big" but he has incredible potential and the most talented skater.
  • Karnaukhov is really raw but could turn out to be a good bet as a strong power forward (although I thought he was a winger not centerman).
  • Mangiapane is of the Low Risk super skilled player that you need to take chances on late in the draft.
  • Bruce... Well we'll see, it seems he's made some strides this year compared to the past years, Big Defenceman but not sure what else he has as I've never seen him play, but a 7th round so why not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the Flames will focus more on speed and skill moving forward and step away from the Burke mandated truculent focus. With this new NHL it seems like the "stay at home" defenseman is dead! Puck moving, rush joining D men are all the rave.

I think that adjustment has already been made. Neither Kylington or Andersson are truculent, neither are hickey or Mangiapanne. In fact outside of Hunter Smith they rally haven't taken size or truculence over skill in a while.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that adjustment has already been made. Neither Kylington or Andersson are truculent, neither are hickey or Mangiapanne. In fact outside of Hunter Smith they rally haven't taken size or truculence over skill in a while.

Hunter Smith..I'm hoping he can adjust well to the pros, if he can find his game he'd add a much needed dynamic. I agree, think once Treliving took the helm he put more focus on balancing size, skill and speed. All of our young D are mobile , puck movers with offensive abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...