Calgary Flames 2014 Draft Thread Part 1

[MarkGio]

My point was there is no point in arguing between Reinhart and Ekblad as we most likely won't have the choice.

I dunno. Ekblad might fall similar to Seth Jones. It seems the forwards are a favorite in the top 5. Its rarely 5 straight defenseman taken in the first 5 picks. But who knows right?

It just sounded like you were suggesting that somehow Feaster can defy the law of averages.

 

[TheHudlinator]

I dunno. Ekblad might fall similar to Seth Jones. It seems the forwards are a favorite in the top 5. Its rarely 5 straight defenseman taken in the first 5 picks. But who knows right?

It just sounded like you were suggesting that somehow Feaster can defy the law of averages.

No what I was trying to say is that I'm optimistic that we don't need a top 5 pick to get a good player as I think we have been drafting very well.

Also anyone drafting for need is foolish but that is unrelated.

 

[MC Ride]

How can Calgary fix the draft? As soon as Buffalo or Edmonton win the first overall (Reinhart), then what? Live with 2 out 3 brothers?

I meant if we draft Reinhart

 

[MarkGio]

No what I was trying to say is that I'm optimistic that we don't need a top 5 pick to get a good player as I think we have been drafting very well.

Also anyone drafting for need is foolish but that is unrelated.

Yeah but at what point is Feaster victim to these averages?

Not that I think a GM is completely helpless when it comes to the draft. And the selection is only one.part, its the development and opportunity that comes into place. I think we've seen success with Brodie, Backlund, Bouma, Baertschi, and Monahan mostly due to opportunity. Under Sutter, we'd have guys like Kotalik and Higgins in our bottom 6 over Baertschi and Monahan. Those kids would be "incubating" in the system for years on end. Last year we saw Reinhart and Horak play the last few weeks in the season, while Street already had some time to attempt to crack the line-up.

I think parting with some vets forces the Flames into having a successful draft

 

[TheHudlinator]

Yeah but at what point is Feaster victim to these averages?

Not that I think a GM is completely helpless when it comes to the draft. And the selection is only one.part, its the development and opportunity that comes into place. I think we've seen success with Brodie, Backlund, Bouma, Baertschi, and Monahan mostly due to opportunity. Under Sutter, we'd have guys like Kotalik and Higgins in our bottom 6 over Baertschi and Monahan. Those kids would be "incubating" in the system for years on end. Last year we saw Reinhart and Horak play the last few weeks in the season, while Street already had some time to attempt to crack the line-up.

I think parting with some vets forces the Flames into having a successful draft

I don't think GM's have to be "victims of averages", I mean sure you won't get a Hertl or Karlsson every year but there is nothing saying that you can't get good players with your picks. Obviously it isn't as easy as just saying pick a good player but people picking in the top 10 have made just as many mistakes as those that pick well. I think draft position is extremely overrated.

 

[MonahanTheMan]

Autograph's string of posts earlier were really good and sum up my viewpoint on need vs. BPA. Given that, my top five for this draft are

1. Ekblad
2. Reinhart
3. Draisaitl
4. Ritchie
5. Karlsson

 

[MarkGio]

I don't think GM's have to be "victims of averages", I mean sure you won't get a Hertl or Karlsson every year but there is nothing saying that you can't get good players with your picks. Obviously it isn't as easy as just saying pick a good player but people picking in the top 10 have made just as many mistakes as those that pick well. I think draft position is extremely overrated.

The numbers suggest otherwise. In fact, a pure mathematical paradigm has shown the draft position to be an extremely good indicator of player success. This is why trading up into the top 3 never happens.

 

[TheHudlinator]

The numbers suggest otherwise. In fact, a pure mathematical paradigm has shown the draft position to be an extremely good indicator of player success. This is why trading up into the top 3 never happens.

I'm not saying your not more likely to get a good player higher because you are but it seems like you and others are acting like it isn't possible to get good high end players outside of the top 5 -top 10.

Especially if we are taking about defenseman in the top 10 from 2004 - 2008

Busts:
Cam Barker (3rd 2004)
Boris Valabik (10th 2004)
Brian Lee (9th 2005)

To high:
Ladislav Smid (9th 2004)
Erik Johnson (1st 2006)
Thomas Hickey (3rd 2007, on edge of bust)
Karl Alzner (5th 2007)
Keaton Ellerby (10th 2007, on edge of bust)
Luke Schenn(6th 2008)

Worth it:
Jack Johnson (3rd 2005, maybe a little to high?)
Zach Bogosian (3rd 2008)

Star:
Drew Doughty (2nd 2008)
Alex Pietrangelo (4th 2008)


Obviously this was just a simple example but outside of the 2008 draft it almost never pass off to take a defenseman in the top 10 most top defenseman come from the later first picks or later.

 

[MC Ride]

The numbers suggest otherwise. In fact, a pure mathematical paradigm has shown the draft position to be an extremely good indicator of player success. This is why trading up into the top 3 never happens.

Yup. You can't deny that way more stars have been taken in the top 10 than in the 10-20 position

 

[MC Ride]

Obviously this was just a simple example but outside of the 2008 draft it almost never pass off to take a defenseman in the top 10 most top defenseman come from the later first picks or later.

Although most defensemen do come outside the first 10 picks but they are distributed throughout the other 200 picks. Although you're not guaranteed to get a star if you draft top 10, the likelyhood of getting an elite player increase drastically. For every all star taken in the second round, I'm sure at least 3 or 4 were taken in the top 10.

 

[TheHudlinator]

You put up some good points. Although most defensemen do come outside the first 10 picks but they are distributed throughout the other 200 picks. Although you're not guaranteed to get a star if you draft top 10, the likelyhood of getting an elite player increase drastically.

Yes they do but if we are still in the playoff race at the deadline would you want to sell all UFA's and tank for a top 10 pick?

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

If the Flames draft high this year, I think they draft a bit lower next year (top 10-ish instead of top 3 or 5).

 

[MC Ride]

Yes they do but if we are still in the playoff race at the deadline would you want to sell all UFA's and tank for a top 10 pick?

To be completely honest with you, I don't even know.

We probably won't have to deal with such a hard decision though considering we have a fairly weak roster and we're barely clinging onto the playoff race. Not only that, we're working our assess off every night while other teams are just starting to push since it's still the start of the season yet we're still in the bottom half of the standings.

That said, even if we somehow magically do make the playoffs, we have a pretty bad roster and we won't be able to sustain that success for very long so I'd rather not miss out on the chance of getting a top tier player like Ekblad/ Reinhart.

But at the same time, I don't want to condone losing and create a ****** team environment.

So I can't really answer that.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

To be completely honest with you, I don't even know.

We probably won't have to deal with such a hard decision though considering we have a fairly weak roster and we're barely clinging onto the playoff race. Not only that, we're working our assess off every night while other teams are just starting to push since it's still the start of the season yet we're still in the bottom half of the standings.

That said, even if we somehow magically do make the playoffs, we have a pretty bad roster and we won't be able to sustain that success for very long so I'd rather not miss out on the chance of getting a top tier player like Ekblad/ Reinhart.

But at the same time, I don't want to condone losing and create a ****** team environment.

So I can't really answer that.

If the Flames are lower than 8th by then, trade for picks. If they're in the playoff hunt, trade for young guys who can contribute. Building for the future either way.

 

[MC Ride]

If the Flames are lower than 8th by then, trade for picks. If they're in the playoff hunt, trade for young guys who can contribute. Building for the future either way.

Trading our vets to contenders for picks is easy.

How do you trade our vets for young guys who contribute?
Contenders need them for there playoff push while rebuilding teams would want to hold onto any young player.

I don't think there is a middle ground. Either we don't trade anyone and push or we deal for picks.

 

[MarkGio]

If the Flames are lower than 8th by then, trade for picks. If they're in the playoff hunt, trade for young guys who can contribute. Building for the future either way.

Even if you exclude the draft position and where the Flames actually finish this year, there is the principle of asset management. The Flames have pending UFAs, and if they cannot be resigned, then the Flames risk losing them to the open market, resulting in the risk of being unable to replace those assets.

Like Feaster said, by Christmas they need to look at who should be here and who shouldn't, after which they need to establish a contract or look for a buyer.

So would I be upset if Cammy, Stajan, and Stempniak get traded? No because it likely means that they didn't want to be here or the organization didn't think they fit the long term plans. By trading these guys, it will likely result in a lower seed finish, begging the question: how low should the Flames go?

 

[MarkGio]

Trading our vets to contenders for picks is easy.

How do you trade our vets for young guys who contribute?
Contenders need them for there playoff push while rebuilding teams would want to hold onto any young player.

I don't think there is a middle ground. Either we don't trade anyone and push or we deal for picks.

Not necessarily. Colbourne was a young guy with positive upside and was acquired with a relatively insignificant asset.

Our veteran trade pieces can be better than a young valuable asset that has yet to fully bloom. Take Chiasson for example. He'll eventually be better than Cammy since Cammy will get slower while Chiasson gets better, but currently Cammy is the better player on the ice. It would be an upgrade for a team possibly chasing right now.

 

[MarkGio]

I'm not saying your not more likely to get a good player higher because you are but it seems like you and others are acting like it isn't possible to get good high end players outside of the top 5 -top 10.

Especially if we are taking about defenseman in the top 10 from 2004 - 2008

Busts:
Cam Barker (3rd 2004)
Boris Valabik (10th 2004)
Brian Lee (9th 2005)

To high:
Ladislav Smid (9th 2004)
Erik Johnson (1st 2006)
Thomas Hickey (3rd 2007, on edge of bust)
Karl Alzner (5th 2007)
Keaton Ellerby (10th 2007, on edge of bust)
Luke Schenn(6th 2008)

Worth it:
Jack Johnson (3rd 2005, maybe a little to high?)
Zach Bogosian (3rd 2008)

Star:
Drew Doughty (2nd 2008)
Alex Pietrangelo (4th 2008)


Obviously this was just a simple example but outside of the 2008 draft it almost never pass off to take a defenseman in the top 10 most top defenseman come from the later first picks or later.

Yeah but that's just further cherry picking, not following the law of averages.

 

[WhereIsIt]

It seems pretty clear to me that the average forward taken in the top-5 ends up more valuable than the average dman taken in top-5. Not to say you can't get a great or even elite dman in the top-5, but you are playing with fire for sure. It's just harder to accurately chart how a promising young dman will adapt to the NHL. I'd rather draft rawer d prospects with later picks and hope they develop, which isn't too rare of an occurance.

 

[TheHudlinator]

Yeah but that's just further cherry picking, not following the law of averages.

Show me a study that says top 10 defenseman are better than the rest. You keep saying law of averages but you will first have to prove that it actually works out that way. I think defenseman that are top 10 picks end up being disappointments when they mature because most are bigger than the forwards and get away with a lot when they are younger and when they make the NHL the larger forwards tend to show the weaknesses in the defenseman.

When we are talking about Ekblad vs Reinhart there isn't much discussion for me as Reinhart is extremely smart and imo is going to be a star, I don't think there is much debate.

I think there is a misunderstand of what I am saying here. What I have been trying to say is that good drafting teams don't just draft for talent but for players that can make the NHL and I believe that is what we have been doing. We may not get an elite talent but I think we will get a good player where ever we draft and I think that is all we should try to do.

We should be trying to win games without trading away any of our futures and move vets if and only if they don't want to come back and we have replacements for them (such as Stempniak can be replaced by Horak). I think we should worry about winning now first and worry about the draft in the offseason we just can't give away picks.

 

[MC Ride]

It seems pretty clear to me that the average forward taken in the top-5 ends up more valuable than the average dman taken in top-5. Not to say you can't get a great or even elite dman in the top-5, but you are playing with fire for sure. It's just harder to accurately chart how a promising young dman will adapt to the NHL. I'd rather draft rawer d prospects with later picks and hope they develop, which isn't too rare of an occurance.

I've noticed this too. Top 10 forward prospects turn into really good player A LOT more often than top 10 d prospects.

 

[MarkGio]

Show me a study that says top 10 defenseman are better than the rest. You keep saying law of averages but you will first have to prove that it actually works out that way. I think defenseman that are top 10 picks end up being disappointments when they mature because most are bigger than the forwards and get away with a lot when they are younger and when they make the NHL the larger forwards tend to show the weaknesses in the defenseman.

When we are talking about Ekblad vs Reinhart there isn't much discussion for me as Reinhart is extremely smart and imo is going to be a star, I don't think there is much debate.

I think there is a misunderstand of what I am saying here. What I have been trying to say is that good drafting teams don't just draft for talent but for players that can make the NHL and I believe that is what we have been doing. We may not get an elite talent but I think we will get a good player where ever we draft and I think that is all we should try to do.

We should be trying to win games without trading away any of our futures and move vets if and only if they don't want to come back and we have replacements for them (such as Stempniak can be replaced by Horak). I think we should worry about winning now first and worry about the draft in the offseason we just can't give away picks.

I can't find anything so I'll collect the data myself and present it to By The Numbers for review. Just looking at the defenseman picks from the years you selected alone, I don't think I'll have any issue proving the notion that the later you draft, the less likely you'll draft an NHL defenseman. For now we'll have to agree to disagree.

BTW, no GM doesn't plan for a pending UFA. They can't just worry about the draft in the offseason. That would be shortsighted and flat-out poor asset management.

 

[TheHudlinator]

I can't find anything so I'll collect the data myself and present it to By The Numbers for review. Just looking at the defenseman picks from the years you selected alone, I don't think I'll have any issue proving the notion that the later you draft, the less likely you'll draft an NHL defenseman. For now we'll have to agree to disagree.

BTW, no GM doesn't plan for a pending UFA. They can't just worry about the draft in the offseason. That would be shortsighted and flat-out poor asset management.

I meant we should try to win now and only move the UFA's that are replaceable from within. Such as I don't think we can move Stajan until the deadline to see if Monahan and Colborne are both top 9 centers, where as I think we can move Stempniak as we have several suitable replacements.

I think simply trading all the UFAs at the deadline would be foolish if we are still in it.

Also I'm not saying you are more likely to get a better player later but especially defenseman the drop off in historical probability isn't that much through out the top 15 - 20 and we shouldn't be worrying where we draft so much as the personality and style of the player.

 

[MarkGio]

I meant we should try to win now and only move the UFA's that are replaceable from within. Such as I don't think we can move Stajan until the deadline to see if Monahan and Colborne are both top 9 centers, where as I think we can move Stempniak as we have several suitable replacements.

I think simply trading all the UFAs at the deadline would be foolish if we are still in it.

Also I'm not saying you are more likely to get a better player later but especially defenseman the drop off in historical probability isn't that much through out the top 15 - 20 and we shouldn't be worrying where we draft so much as the personality and style of the player.

Yeah its going to be a project I'll work on over time.

The problem I'll have in collecting the data is quality of defensemen. For example, Mark Streit (9th rounder) is clearly a more renown defensemen than, say, Cam Barker (top 10 pick). But Cam Barker still played 310 NHL games. Looking at the data for 2004, Cam is considered a successful defensemen since he's among the defensemen who actually played a single NHL game (34 of the drafted 84 defensemen). Even if playing 50 games is considered successful, he's only among 23 defensemen in that class. And obviously with defensemen, quality cannot equal points because there's really defensive defensemen that are successful.

But I can assure you that throughout the history of the draft (I'll stick to 20 years probably), the picks in the top 10 will likely have a better success rate than those outside, by which I mean those picks out of all picks. Or those picks out of all within the category.

He's where I can see a flaw in the data: Top 10 draftees will be mostly forward players. The actual top 10 defenseman selected might occupy the first 60 picks (spanning 2 rounds) whereas the top 10 forwards of a draft will easily occupy the first round.

But we'll see. I hope you've bought yourself some crow... in case you get hungry

 

[TheHudlinator]

Yeah its going to be a project I'll work on over time.

The problem I'll have in collecting the data is quality of defensemen. For example, Mark Streit (9th rounder) is clearly a more renown defensemen than, say, Cam Barker (top 10 pick). But Cam Barker still played 310 NHL games. Looking at the data for 2004, Cam is considered a successful defensemen since he's among the defensemen who actually played a single NHL game (34 of the drafted 84 defensemen). Even if playing 50 games is considered successful, he's only among 23 defensemen in that class. And obviously with defensemen, quality cannot equal points because there's really defensive defensemen that are successful.

But I can assure you that throughout the history of the draft (I'll stick to 20 years probably), the picks in the top 10 will likely have a better success rate than those outside, by which I mean those picks out of all picks. Or those picks out of all within the category.

He's where I can see a flaw in the data: Top 10 draftees will be mostly forward players. The actual top 10 defenseman selected might occupy the first 60 picks (spanning 2 rounds) whereas the top 10 forwards of a draft will easily occupy the first round.

But we'll see. I hope you've bought yourself some crow... in case you get hungry

good luck

I think the real problem is that sure Cam Baker played 310 games but how many were from the team hoping he finds his game? I mean if Cam Baker had been a 7th round pick but the same skill level would teams have kept trying to play him? It is an unanswerable question but I think most high picks will have their games played increased based solely on draft position and you can't account for it.