Speculation: Calgary Flames 2014 Draft Discussion Part III

[theIceWookie]

And although they have plenty of defenseman coming up, if they have Ekblad waiting there then they would have to take it, simply because he's the "better player" than Draisaitl, according to every draft rankings I could find.

You missed the entire point I was making. Which was simply BPA isn't BPA simply because "lists" say said player is BPA.

My examples illustrated very recent examples of players listed as top 5 likely picks who dropped unexpectedly though many fans such as yourself continued to jump on the "they're BPA, they won't fall!!!"

Again, in case you someone missed the point again, public draft rankings do not translate to being be all lists. And in a draft that has had a WIDE variety of disparity (THN had Draisaitl at 1 in January, Bennett is 1 on a few lists, Reinhart on some others, and Eklbad on a bunch is number 1), it's not at all outside the logical scope to say that Ekblad could be passed on by the Oilers for Draisaitl.

Just because draft rankings have a player ranked somewhere, doesn't mean teams do

 

[TheClassicK*]

You missed the entire point I was making. Which was simply BPA isn't BPA simply because "lists" say said player is BPA.

My examples illustrated very recent examples of players listed as top 5 likely picks who dropped unexpectedly though many fans such as yourself continued to jump on the "they're BPA, they won't fall!!!"

Again, in case you someone missed the point again, public draft rankings do not translate to being be all lists. And in a draft that has had a WIDE variety of disparity (THN had Draisaitl at 1 in January, Bennett is 1 on a few lists, Reinhart on some others, and Eklbad on a bunch is number 1), it's not at all outside the logical scope to say that Ekblad could be passed on by the Oilers for Draisaitl.

Just because draft rankings have a player ranked somewhere, doesn't mean teams do

I'm fully aware of that. But I also made the point that Ekblad is simply the "better player" than Draisaitl, and that's still the case (according to all other publications/rankings/analysis) even though public lists might not exactly correlate with the actual draft. You also relied on a "maybe" that Edm might not have Ekblad over Draisaitl in their BPA rankings, but we don't know that. As outsiders you have to assume that there is a greater chance Edm will have Ekblad over Draisaitl, than the other way around. That's according to all other publications/rankings/analysis/etc.

I think the argument got a bit widened when it's just a simple matter of Edmonton's case, if they have Ekblad fall to #3 then would they still choose Draisaitl over Ekblad.

AH went to say that since Edm has a greater need in the center position, they'd surely choose Draisaitl. But he failed to apply the BPA logic simply because he didn't want to, while he would be more than enthusiastic to use that logic when it comes to arguing with me, or anyone that opposes what he thinks.

 

[CraigsList]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all that ForeverFlamesFan is trying to say (and I agree), is that the Flames are in an excellent position and cannot lose no matter what the outcome is. The Oilers are our provincial rivals, and while their main concern needs to be drafting for the betterment of their team; ForeverFlamesFan is just stating that in an ideal world, they would not want their pick to benefit us in the process. Because of our draft position, that is unavoidable for the Oilers and the Flames are in a win/win situation.

We are going to get better no matter who they pick and we will be a very hard matchup for them in the process. At the same time I fully agree that they will obviously be getting better as well. They really should pick Draisaitl IMO.

On CP, I said the same thing that they should pick Draisaitl to at least address the size issue. Nothing against Draisaitl, I think him and Bennett are both 50/50, you get something different from both. This one is all up to the Oilers. I am just happy that we are drafting a center regardless.

 

[Anglesmith]

I'm fully aware of that. But I also made the point that Ekblad is simply the "better player" than Draisaitl, and that's still the case (according to all other publications/rankings/analysis) even though public lists might not exactly correlate with the actual draft. You also relied on a "maybe" that Edm might not have Ekblad over Draisaitl in their BPA rankings, but we don't know that. As outsiders you have to assume that there is a greater chance Edm will have Ekblad over Draisaitl, than the other way around. That's according to all other publications/rankings/analysis/etc.

Context matters here, though. The discussion really is speculation on how the draft is going to go, right? If that's true, then what we're talking about here is how Edmonton will draft, not how people/experts are saying they should draft, on average.

These lists that you talk about- publications/rankings -usually come from a number of individual scouts who have their own individual rankings, and through some magical formula those rankings are combined by the publication to yield the average, overall ranking. That means that even if NHL central scouting lists Ekblad as the number 1 pick, there is a very high chance that at least a handful of the scouts who contributed to that result had Draisaitl above Ekblad.

Now, we can probably that survey of experts to the experts who make up Edmonton's scouting and management team. Even if 99% of the experts agree that Ekblad is better than Draisaitl, if that other 1% comprises most of the Oilers' organization, then they're going to draft Draisaitl 100% of the time.

I think the argument got a bit widened when it's just a simple matter of Edmonton's case, if they have Ekblad fall to #3 then would they still choose Draisaitl over Ekblad.

AH went to say that since Edm has a greater need in the center position, they'd surely choose Draisaitl. But he failed to apply the BPA logic simply because he didn't want to, while he would be more than enthusiastic to use that logic when it comes to arguing with me, or anyone that opposes what he thinks.

AH was conjecturing that Edmonton wouldn't follow BPA logic necessarily, because they haven't always done so in the past. I don't see what the problem is.

 

[TheClassicK*]

Context matters here, though. The discussion really is speculation on how the draft is going to go, right? If that's true, then what we're talking about here is how Edmonton will draft, not how people/experts are saying they should draft, on average.

These lists that you talk about- publications/rankings -usually come from a number of individual scouts who have their own individual rankings, and through some magical formula those rankings are combined by the publication to yield the average, overall ranking. That means that even if NHL central scouting lists Ekblad as the number 1 pick, there is a very high chance that at least a handful of the scouts who contributed to that result had Draisaitl above Ekblad.

Now, we can probably that survey of experts to the experts who make up Edmonton's scouting and management team. Even if 99% of the experts agree that Ekblad is better than Draisaitl, if that other 1% comprises most of the Oilers' organization, then they're going to draft Draisaitl 100% of the time.

I think that's fair - as outsiders, we have to predict what Edmonton would do, and that Edmonton would act regardless of what public rankings and reports might say.

However, I'm still not sure how to make my point clearer because I feel like I'm repeating the same stuff over and over - that the BPA rule still applies to a case involving Draisaitl and Ekblad. It's just that I genuinely doubt there is a greater chance Edmonton would rank Draisaitl higher than Ekblad, than the other way around.

AH was conjecturing that Edmonton wouldn't follow BPA logic necessarily, because they haven't always done so in the past. I don't see what the problem is.

They have, though. Nurse was picked because all of the top forwards were picked with the exception of Nichushkin, who not many were prepared to risk taking, and Nurse was arguably ranked as the 2nd best defenseman in the draft. Yakupov was still the clear #1 although they did need a defenseman like Murray. The picks before - RNH, Hall, Pajaarvi-Svensson - followed the BPA logic somehow. If they didn't follow that logic, they probably would've selected Murray instead of Yakupov, or Larsson instead of RNH, and etc.

The issue I had was that AH believed the logic wouldn't apply for situations of his favour, while for other cases that involved my argument - ex) breakout timing for Baertschi compared to that of Larsson - he wasn't afraid to apply specific logic to every team and every player. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[TheClassicK*]

I also feel like I'm arguing for something absolutely outrageous. I mean, it's not Dal Colle vs. Draisaitl, but Ekblad vs. Draisaitl, come on.

I can't create polls, but someone should post one about who you'd take if you were the Oilers, considering they have a need at the second-line center position which Draisaitl would fit nicely, but if you have Ekblad available at number 3 who would universally be considered as the BPA at that point, and your defensemen-needs aren't as big, who would you still take.

 

[CraigsList]

No question the Oilers take Ekblad over Bennett/Draisaitl if he's still available.

 

[Lunatik]

Context matters here, though. The discussion really is speculation on how the draft is going to go, right? If that's true, then what we're talking about here is how Edmonton will draft, not how people/experts are saying they should draft, on average.

These lists that you talk about- publications/rankings -usually come from a number of individual scouts who have their own individual rankings, and through some magical formula those rankings are combined by the publication to yield the average, overall ranking. That means that even if NHL central scouting lists Ekblad as the number 1 pick, there is a very high chance that at least a handful of the scouts who contributed to that result had Draisaitl above Ekblad.

Now, we can probably that survey of experts to the experts who make up Edmonton's scouting and management team. Even if 99% of the experts agree that Ekblad is better than Draisaitl, if that other 1% comprises most of the Oilers' organization, then they're going to draft Draisaitl 100% of the time.



AH was conjecturing that Edmonton wouldn't follow BPA logic necessarily, because they haven't always done so in the past. I don't see what the problem is.

A good example is last year. In fact this year is set up almost exactly the same going into the draft.

There appears to be a clear cut top 2, centreman and a big RH defenseman. The "consensus #3" appears to be a winger that should be playing centre next year when the star of his team is no longer in juniors. Then there is a couple centremen to round out the top group that is clearly 1 step above the rest (this year its 2, last year it was 3).

Now how did that play out?

#1 was no shock.
#2 was one of the 3 centremen most had 4th-6th).
#3 was the consensus #3, but shocked because a consensus top 2 was still on the board.
#4 was the big RH defenseman that was a consensus top 2 pick
#5 was no shock
#6 was no shock

There have been alot of rumblings that both Edmonton and Buffalo really like Draisaitl alot, I do not see how it would be a shock to anyone if he went that high.

Some people just can't seem to accept that just because they think something, or even the majority thinks something that not everyone will think the same way. There will always be someone that sees something different, people need to learn to accept that when it comes to drafting sometimes you can expect the unexpected.

 

[Mr Lebowski]

I believe it will go
#1: Ekblad
#2: Reinhart/Bennett
#3: Draisaitl
#4: Reinhart/Bennett

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Guys this is getting to personal, your opinions of one another is irrelevant, debate the topic at hand please.

One comment I am going to make is to reference the ideology of "group think" on this board. It is crazy to me how influential I see it at times and how many conform to popular opinion in their posts for general approval. I always try my best to post my own thoughts, some are agreed with and some I get blasted for, I could careless because "good" debate is fun on here.

My point is, if you look at the top prospects in this draft and the consensus mock drafts out there, the so-called experts agree on who is expected to go to Team A, B, or C. Now to play Devils Advocate (these are not my thoughts), let's say Florida, Buffalo and Edmonton's scouts strongly believe Ekblad is a man child and does not have as much room to grow as other players drafted around him, therefore lowering his ceiling in how good he can become. Or perhaps a scout learns personal info about a top ranked prospect and they decide because of that they like player B better because he's a safer pick. Don't kid yourselves, teams will go to any length to find ALL the info out about every player to have all the knowledge they can about everyone in this era of technology and information.

I have no idea about any personal info regarding any of the guys in the top 5, but I'm making a point to illustrate the reasons why players fall each year and surprise all so-called draft experts. So while we can all play this game and hypothesize as to who is going where and why, expect to be surprised on draft day as every year and see multiple guys fall. That's a huge part of fun on draft day.

 

[Mr Lebowski]

What do people think about trading our first this season? Before you crap all over the idea here are a few points:

• With a few exceptions, teams win with impact players 23 and older (usually older)
• Therefore, you usually have to wait a minimum of 5 years for a drafted player to become an impact player
• The Flames drafted three times in the first last draft and have plenty of prospects 21 and under (Baertschi, Poirier, Klimchuk, Reinhart, Gaudreau, Granlund, Monahan, Jankowski, Wotherspoon, etc)
• The Flames lack impact players in the prime demographic of 23 to 27 (Bouma, Brodie, Backlund, Colborne, Byron, Knight, Galiardi, and Russell are all good players. But are they impact guys to build around??)
• The 2014 draft isn't expected to produce high end stars
• Every season there are players like Scheider, Niederreiter, Seguin, Hodgeson, Stewart, Del Zotto, Markstrom, Bernier, Turris, Brassard, Bobrovsky, Carter, Richards, Johnson, etc available via trade.
• What if the Flames could get the Schenn brothers, Johnson, Kadri, J Staal, or another impact player in that age demographic. Is it worth giving up our 2014 pick or a similar future asset?
• Wouldn't a player (or players) in that demographic benefit our rebuild more than adding yet another teenager?
• Wouldn't we rather make the "bold moves" now rather than force our young prospects into situations they aren't ready for while crossing our fingers and hoping we have a team in 5 years when they develop?

Just food for thought. I am an advocate of building through the draft because that is usually the only way to get the top players you need to win a cup. But the Flames are heavy in 21 and younger prospects and it might be time to leverage some of that to acquire some slightly older players to give our system more balance. Especially after picking three times a year ago.

Posted on CP, I agree

 

[GetThePuckOut]

Hell no we shouldn't trade our first. Just for someone who's older? He probably won't be as good as who we get with our first. Maybe not even next year; when you look at MacKinnon and Monahan's immediate impact.

And the fact that we have a ton of prospects is irrelevant. Quality is WAY more of an important factor than quantity. You keep the best and get rid of the rest.

It's also a myth that the top 4 isn't expected to be high-end stars. They could all easily end up as All Stars. It's not like it's Sam Gagner in the draft. And they won't take 5 years either.

The Schenn brothers... psshhh. Hell ****ing no to that. If I was on CP I'd roast that guy.

 

[herashak]

Teams dont usually trade legit cornerstones in their early 20s for picks even if they are top 5 ones unless they are stocked with talent like Boston. you could get the schenns possibly but is that better than takin bennett and having him develop? Not worth it imo, this rebuild is gonna take a while monahan could be 23 before he sees playoff action.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Guys this is getting to personal, your opinions of one another is irrelevant, debate the topic at hand please.

But I love you ...

 

[TheHudlinator]

Posted on CP, I agree

Good god why? I would build a defense with Brodie over Johnson, I would prefer to build around Rienhart/Bennett/etc than Kadri or J Staal. Luke Schenn is a nice bottom pairing defenseman but build around? We aren't an impact player away from contending, we should be stocking up on prospects. We are year 1 into a rebuild now is simply not the time to move our first as we are essentially giving away all the cost controlled years which are vital to all top teams. In 2 years this kind of move would make sense but first we need to actually have something for an impact player to work with.

 

[Mr Lebowski]

But I love you ...

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

But I love you ...

If you happen to be Katy Perry, Scarlett Johansson, or Anna Kendrick, then please PM me. Otherwise you are not likely to be my type. But I suppose I'm still flattered

 

[Lunatik]

As for the horrible CP idea, god no. You don't just trade away top 5 picks when you are at the beginning of a rebuild. That's a horrible horrible way to rebuild.

 

[TheHudlinator]

As for the horrible CP idea, god no. You don't just trade away top 5 picks when you are at the beginning of a rebuild. That's a horrible horrible way to rebuild.

It worked for TO

 

[Lunatik]

It worked for TO

While that trade sucked for them, no one thought they would be giving up a top 5 and top 10 pick at the time of the deal. It's like Ottawa and the Bobby Ryan deal, they never thought for a second they would be giving up the #10 pick in the draft. Same with the Vanek deal, the Isles thought he would help them push for the playoffs.

I think in each case if they knew how high the picks would be, they wouldn't have made the deals.

 

[TheHudlinator]

While that trade sucked for them, no one thought they would be giving up a top 5 and top 10 pick at the time of the deal. It's like Ottawa and the Bobby Ryan deal, they never thought for a second they would be giving up the #10 pick in the draft. Same with the Vanek deal, the Isles thought he would help them push for the playoffs.

I think in each case if they knew how high the picks would be, they wouldn't have made the deals.

Yea I agree, I was making fun of the idea of trading a top pick in a rebuild.

 

[Lunatik]

Yea I agree, I was making fun of the idea of trading a top pick in a rebuild.

it's always hard to tell when it comes to that deal

 

[BrodieGoat]

does anyone else feel that Reinhart or Ekblad fall to us, but we end up picking someone else?

 

[Lunatik]

does anyone else feel that Reinhart or Ekblad fall to us, but we end up picking someone else?

I think Ekblad will, but apparently I am crazy for thinking so.

 

[InfinityIggy]

I think Ekblad will, but apparently I am crazy for thinking so.

I don't think its impossible. Jones, Larsson ect.

This year kinda lacks that sure-fire group of forwards that other years have though, so i'm not so sure.