Prospect Info: Flames prospect rankings: #10 RUN-OFF POLL

[Flames Fanatic]

Again though FF you are kinda contradicting yourself.

you are upset that people prefer one player over another because of their own biased opinion (ie Tuulo over Dube) in Oppositon to a quantifiable difference imposed by our management (draft position)

Yet, then you proceed to provide your own bias opinion (Klimchuk over Kulak) in the face of quantifiable differences (depth chart- ones a top line guy/the other played 4th line) between those players that was decided by our management.

So you are basically saying trust our management at the draft, but after that, they have no idea what they are talking about so listen to my opinion...

FFS. You are being willfully ignorant here, or completely misunderstanding me.

I downright said people are allowed to have their own opinion. I'm just saying there are times where peoples opinions are so completely out of whack with what we just witnessed in the NHL. Like saying Wideman can get RNH sort of thing.

I'm saying in this particular instance, it is wildly out there when we just witnessed a guy literally go 100 picks later in the draft that they are equal prospects or in some cases, saying that Eetu is better. Are people allowed to say it? Of course! But I'm also going to debate it as I think it's out to lunch, due to evidence that NHL organizations, including our own, disagree with that opinion as well!

In the case of Kulak and Klimchuk, I'm saying that draft position no longers matters. I've been saying that for several threads now. I've also been saying that our AHL coach is not someone I trust.

We simply don't KNOW for a fact that our organization values Kulak over Klimchuk. Could it be argued by how ice times is given down in the AHL? Yes, absolutely. But an equal counter argument could be given that we had too many veteran AHL forwards and a coach focused more on winning than development.

Just because Kulak may be the better player NOW does not always mean he will be the better player/more valuable player in the future, which is what I think MAY happen! Just because Hathaway may be closer to NHL ready doesn't mean he's ahead of Tkachuk. Or Wotherspoon being more valuable than Kylington.

I downright said it was close, but I think there may be a day that Klimchuk is more valuable than Kulak. I also said it was very very close. To me it boils down to at the very best, Kulak will be a #4 on our team, unless he manages to surpass our top 3 guys, which isn't an easy task. He also has to compete with all our other defensive prospects, two of which Burke has publicly praised as having NHL futures.

Klimchuk on the other hand I think fills a need in our organization and has less competition in the NEAR future for those roles. I've been very vocal about how our forward depth, particularly in our bottom six, was a large factor in our failure as a team last season. I think there could be a day where Klimchuk can be a staple in our bottom six, better than some of the players we've had in there recently.

However, it is still STUPIDLY CLOSE, which is why I went with my own personal opinion on this one to make that decision.

TL;DR, it was close, went with personal opinion to make the final decision. As for Tuoola vs. Dube, in the case where 30 NHL teams showed that Tuoola isn't highly rated as of a couple weeks ago, I'm going to debate with people who claim they are on the same tier, or that Eetu is the better player period. People are welcome to debate my opinion on Klimchuk versus Kulak as well.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Now you are comparing 25 year old guy (Hathaway) that played bottom 6 in the AHL to a 21/22 year old top pairing D in the AHL (Kulak).

Then you compared Klimchuk to Tkachuk to prove your point about potential... That's a really tough argument to do anything with other then laugh and say try again.

Potential is important but what has Klimchuk ever shown to indicate he's got this great potential? I'm still waiting to hear. All I've heard is he's solid defensively.

Yeah, Michael Ferland is solid defensively and had twice as many points than Klimchuk at the NHL level yet most people say he has no chance to be a top 6 forward and many believe he shouldn't be on the team. It all seems very contradictory to me.

Overall, why does Klimchuk have potential yet Kulak doesn't, when it's pretty clear Kulak has been the better player at each point in their development over the past 2 or 3 years?

 

[Lunatik]

TL;DR, it was close, went with personal opinion to make the final decision. As for Tuoola vs. Dube, in the case where 30 NHL teams showed that Tuoola isn't highly rated as of a couple weeks ago, I'm going to debate with people who claim they are on the same tier, or that Eetu is the better player period. People are welcome to debate my opinion on Klimchuk versus Kulak as well.

almost 4 weeks ago, 4 isn't a couple

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Now you are comparing 25 year old guy (Hathaway) that played bottom 6 in the AHL to a 21/22 year old top pairing D in the AHL (Kulak).

Then you compared Klimchuk to Tkachuk to prove your point about potential... That's a really tough argument to do anything with other then laugh and say try again.

Potential is important but what has Klimchuk ever shown to indicate he's got this great potential? I'm still waiting to hear. I'll I've heard is he's solid defensively.

Yeah, Michael Ferland is solid defensively and had twice as many points than Klimchuk at the NHL level yet most people say he has no chance to be a top 6 forward and many believe he shouldn't be on the team. It all seems very contradictory to me.

It's called Hyperbole...because I felt your comparison of AHL ice time with a dysfunctional AHL organization was extreme as well.

Bringing Ferland into the argument is your problem, not mine. I've not mentioned him directly. You want to fight people about him, be my guest. We all know you can get pretty zealous in that regard.

I can see that this is a waste of my time to continue to argue. We don't see eye to eye, that's fine. But I'm not going to waste more time trying to explain it when I feel like I'm just repeating myself. You think "it's clear" that Kulak has more potential, and I've already explained (and you've ignored) why I disagree, if only slightly enough to make difference between the two.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

It's called Hyperbole...because I felt your comparison of AHL ice time with a dysfunctional AHL organization was extreme as well.

Bringing Ferland into the argument is your problem, not mine. I've not mentioned him directly. You want to fight people about him, be my guest. We all know you can get pretty zealous in that regard.

I can see that this is a waste of my time to continue to argue. We don't see eye to eye, that's fine. But I'm not going to waste more time trying to explain it when I feel like I'm just repeating myself.

Ok just answer this question as it's the basis of your argument.

Why is Klimchuk's potential so high and Kulak's is not?

 

[Bounces R Way]

Kulak. Very smart defender from what I've seen of him. Would say his upside is probably similar to whatever Kris Russell is now.

My problem with Klimchuk is the same as it was with Granlund. Does a lot of things well, doesn't do any of them with high enough speed or pace to be an effective NHL producer. I'll still root for him, always root for the local kids.

 

[Lunatik]

Kulak. Very smart defender from what I've seen of him. Would say his upside is probably similar to whatever Kris Russell is now.

My problem with Klimchuk is the same as it was with Granlund. Does a lot of things well, doesn't do any of them with high enough speed or pace to be an effective NHL producer. I'll still root for him, always root for the local kids.

I disagree with that 2nd part vehemently. Klimchuk has the smarts and hockey IQ to be an effective NHLer, at worst his defense will make him an NHL regular IMO, he is most likely destined to be a 3rd liner putting up 25-35 points and getting top PK minutes. He may not be "elite" at anything, but he is above average in almost every regard and unlike Granlund, Klimchuk has alot of fiest in him and he doesn't shy away from physical play.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Ok just answer this question as it's the basis of your argument.

Why is Klimchuk's potential so high and Kulak's is not?

Because I think Kulak is a great skater with a solid pass, but average otherwise all around. Not a bad player to have by any stretch of the imagination, but with an organization that already has it's top guys, and a couple of supposedly higher potential prospects like Kylington coming, I don't see Kulak doing a whole lot more than playing a role like a Diaz level player. Would I be thrilled to be proven wrong? **** yeah! Just like with Brodie, who I wasn't super sold on when he first burst onto the scene. I saw second pairing potential at best, and he's far surpassed that.

Whereas with Klimchuk, I think even if he is just solid defensively, is a bigger asset to the team long term, especially if his offense he had from junior can translate to say even 20-30 points in the NHL. Our PK needs help and he could be that someday.

It seems we differ on Kulak's potential for one, and secondly that I'm also voting based on who I think could be more useful for the franchise longer term.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

It just confuses me Snipes, when I'm pretty sure (could be remembering wrong) that you were one of the ones beating the drum that the Flames weren't giving prospects a chance at the NHL level and then comparing ice time in the AHL when we have a coach that gave all the ice time to AHL veterans up front instead of the young guys.

 

[Lunatik]

Because I think Kulak is a great skater with a solid pass, but average otherwise all around. Not a bad player to have by any stretch of the imagination, but with an organization that already has it's top guys, and a couple of supposedly higher potential prospects like Kylington coming, I don't see Kulak doing a whole lot more than playing a role like a Diaz level player. Would I be thrilled to be proven wrong? **** yeah! Just like with Brodie, who I wasn't super sold on when he first burst onto the scene. I saw second pairing potential at best, and he's far surpassed that.

Whereas with Klimchuk, I think even if he is just solid defensively, is a bigger asset to the team long term, especially if his offense he had from junior can translate to say even 20-30 points in the NHL. Our PK needs help and he could be that someday.

It seems we differ on Kulak's potential for one, and secondly that I'm also voting based on who I think could be more useful for the franchise longer term.

But FF why is he have "so much more potential"?

Seriously, you've been arguing they are extremely close and he comes back with that question. It is pretty clear he is just trying to get you riled up.

 

[Lunatik]

It just confuses me Snipes, when I'm pretty sure (could be remembering wrong) that you were one of the ones beating the drum that the Flames weren't giving prospects a chance at the NHL level and then comparing ice time in the AHL when we have a coach that gave all the ice time to AHL veterans up front instead of the young guys.

It's not confusing at all. He hates Klimchuk and will continue to lie, misdirect and fabricate things. Klimchuk is slow. Klimchuk is lesser than Kulak because Kulak is the #1 defenseman in Stockton. I wonder what is next, does Klimchuk kick puppies and punch babies?

 

[FLAMES666]

I think Pollock is getting underrated in this. Probably due to the fact he is a new face in the prospect pool but I think I would have him over a guy like Mangiapane

 

[Lunatik]

I think Pollock is getting underrated in this. Probably due to the fact he is a new face in the prospect pool but I think I would have him over a guy like Mangiapane

I think Mangiapane went far too early. I think Pollock should be in the mix with Fox, McDonald, Parsons, Kulak, Wothersoon and maybe Pribyl and Mangiapane should have gone after them.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Because I think Kulak is a great skater with a solid pass, but average otherwise all around. Not a bad player to have by any stretch of the imagination, but with an organization that already has it's top guys, and a couple of supposedly higher potential prospects like Kylington coming, I don't see Kulak doing a whole lot more than playing a role like a Diaz level player. Would I be thrilled to be proven wrong? **** yeah! Just like with Brodie, who I wasn't super sold on when he first burst onto the scene. I saw second pairing potential at best, and he's far surpassed that.

Whereas with Klimchuk, I think even if he is just solid defensively, is a bigger asset to the team long term, especially if his offense he had from junior can translate to say even 20-30 points in the NHL. Our PK needs help and he could be that someday.

It seems we differ on Kulak's potential for one, and secondly that I'm also voting based on who I think could be more useful for the franchise longer term.

Which is fair and thank you for this legit response.

And I don't disagree that Kulak isn't going to surpass any of the top 3 guys at all. But I do think he's going to be a heck of a lot better than Kris Russell. I think he will be a valuable piece for this organization 5 on 5. To me he's a top-4 defencemen once he puts on 10-15 pounds and those have large value IMO (look at Russell).

I also agree he's not outstanding at anything (other than skating) but other than his slapper and not being overly physical, he has no real weaknesses. I think the game is moving away from physicality into a skating game and that's why I think Kulak fits the modern era.

I think a lot of people forget. It's not all that common for a second year pro to play top pairing minutes in the AHL. To me, that says he's ahead of the curve.

I guess my problem with these polls is that most of the fan base is always trying to see this potential in players that 95% of the time just means, he's skilled but has serious flaws that prevent him from bring an NHLer... It's whether a player can figure those question marks out to get to an NHL level (which is much easier said then done). It's why I prefer guys that are clearly NHL ready (ie Kulak, Ferland) over guys with perceived potential that may not even exist. I feel like our fan base treats some players like they were on NHL 16 and they have an A or B potential. They don't just improve 10 points over time.

It doesn't work like that. These guys developments are not linear. And realistically, the draft position is just a snapshot of where they were at a given time. Then we see guys like Kulak, Backlund and Ferland in the NHL. And they struggle a bit because it's a tough league and 90% of players struggle early in their careers. Then people see those struggles and say 'his potential isn't that high'. When in reality, if our lesser prospects were to come up they would look even more out of place.

The NHL is an extremely tough league. Any defencemen that can play in it at 21 or 22 has top pairing potential. Look at most of the best players in the league on D, many didn't start till they were older than Kulak.look at Gio, Brodie. They just were great skaters that just kept getting better every year. Who's to say Kulak can't do that?

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

It just confuses me Snipes, when I'm pretty sure (could be remembering wrong) that you were one of the ones beating the drum that the Flames weren't giving prospects a chance at the NHL level and then comparing ice time in the AHL when we have a coach that gave all the ice time to AHL veterans up front instead of the young guys.

No I think players should earn their minutes in the AHL. If they don't look too good for the fourth line then they shouldn't be moved up to the third line. Unless it's a guy like Kylington who has visible superstar potential.

That's pro hockey you don't get handed minutes in pro hockey. Unhappy with your role? Go down to the ECHL and play top line minutes like Kulak did.

My problem is with Hartley who plays **** veterans over young guys on the team that deserve to play (ie Hiller over Ortio; Bollig over anyone; Smid over anyone; Raymond over Byron) I'm not sure if that's coaching, management or just sheer incompetence but it's concerning and I hope it stops. The whole 'never given always earned' was a complete hypocrisy and I hated hearing it ever time Hartley spoit it out. Truly the one thing about him that really pissed me off.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

No I think players should earn their minutes in the AHL. If they don't look too good for the fourth line then they shouldn't be moved up to the third line. Unless it's a guy like Kylington who has visible superstar potential.

That's pro hockey you don't get handed minutes in pro hockey. Unhappy with your role? Go down to the ECHL and play top line minutes like Kulak did.

My problem is with Hartley who plays **** veterans over young guys on the team that deserve to play (ie Hiller over Ortio; Bollig over anyone; Smid over anyone; Raymond over Byron) I'm not sure if that's coaching, management or just sheer incompetence but it's concerning and I hope it stops. The whole 'never given always earned' was a complete hypocrisy and I hated hearing it ever time Hartley spoit it out. Truly the one thing about him that really pissed me off.

See now to me that is really contradictory

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

See now to me that is really contradictory

How so?

I think you can use The ECHL to develop players that aren't ready for top line minutes in the AHL.

It doesn't matter what excuses you guys use. 9 points in a season is face puncher production...for a guy that doesn't hit and isn't a face puncher. 9 points doesn't get you promoted to the top six, it more realistically gets you a ticket to Europe.

Can you imagine if Tim Jackman was given first line minutes in the NHL. Because that is the equivalent to giving Klimchuk big minutes. I don't believe handing prospects minutes in the AHL. If you aren't good enough to play in the top 6 in the AHL then go home. Simple as that. It's a development league and if you are putting up 9 points in a development league on the 4th line, because you aren't good enough to play higher in the line-up. Go down to a lesser league. And play. Why is Klimchuk too good for that? Hilarious.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

How so?

I think you can use The ECHL to develop players that aren't ready for top line minutes in the AHL.

It doesn't matter what excuses you guys use. 9 points in a season is face puncher production...for a guy that doesn't hit and isn't a face puncher. 9 points doesn't get you promoted to the top six, it more realistically gets you a ticket to Europe.

Can you imagine if Tim Jackman was given first line minutes in the NHL. Because that is the equivalent to giving Klimchuk big minutes. I don't believe handing prospects minutes in the AHL. If you aren't good enough to play in the top 6 in the AHL then go home. Simple as that. It's a development league and if you are putting up 9 points in a development league on the 4th line, because you aren't good enough to play higher in the line-up. Go down to a lesser league. And play. Why is Klimchuk too good for that? Hilarious.

Because by multiple accounts, Klimchuk started to hit his stride on a second line role. Then Raymond got demoted to the AHL and pushed Klimchuk back down the depth chart.

We had a coach who played favorites and spoonfed minutes to veterans, the EXACT thing you are complaining that Hartley did. The fact that you are blaming the player in the same situation your are blaming the coach in another is hilarious.

Your dislike of Klimchuk is showing through. Exactly how many games did you watch in the AHL this year?

Personally I can't claim I did many, but at least around 10-12.

As for the bolded, thats a complete contradiction to what you just said in a previous post about Kylington. For someone who was quick to jump all over me for contradicting myself, you seem to be doing it a lot too.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Also to go further on that, to get 9 points while playing with the guys he did, Klimchuk did well. Our AHL team was such a mess offensively.

For his first season playing Pro hockey, on a dysfunctional team where the only guy I wouldn't call an AHL vet was Poirier and even he only got 29 points.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Because by multiple accounts, Klimchuk started to hit his stride on a second line role. Then Raymond got demoted to the AHL and pushed Klimchuk back down the depth chart.

We had a coach who played favorites and spoonfed minutes to veterans, the EXACT thing you are complaining that Hartley did.

Oh my god man not what I said at all. Try again.

I prefer a meritocracy. Bollig, Stajan, Smid, Raymond. Those guys are not better players then young guys we had. We were actually a worse team with those guys in the lineup IMO.

The exact opposite is true with Klimchuk. He did NOTHING to prove he was better then the AHL vets. He didn't make the team better

You are basically saying "feed young players in the AHL minutes even if they haven't done anything to deserve it".

Again, 9 points is a low amount of production for any fourth liner, no matter the role.

The AHL is still about building a winning environment and making guys earn their position on the team. Handing guys with 9 points minutes because they were a first round pick is the exact opposite of a meritocracy.

Edit: as for Kylington, he's an odd case. Burned his bridges in Sweden where he should have played. Handed minutes because he wanted to be a pro. I even said he should play in Brandon but he looks to have benefitted from the whole process. And he's two years younger than Klinchuk. And clearly has high end skill that Klimchuk clearly does not have. So in this odd case I'm okay with handing one of our top prospects rather than potentially hurting his growth by sitting him down. Oliver took his minutes and ran with it. He's got more talent in his pinky then Klinchuk does in his whole body.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Eetu might very well pass Dube, I will concede that. But let's be honest, this kid played in Finland, no one knows a thing about him other than he has good size, is physical and has a big shot. He goes and gets 4 goals in a game, then we have people saying he's better than our 2nd round pick this season and someone that was listed in the 1st round of some mock drafts.

I have watched Dube play, he's a very good player and I think he's right there with Klimchuk and Poirier, honestly. Now if Eetu goes off and scores more points than Dube next season (I have my doubts), then I wouldn't say anything to anyone about it especially because Eetu has the size. But saying Tuulola is a better than Dube is based off of a meaningless scrimmage, no one else will convince of otherwise. Because again, if he got 1 assist in that game, there wouldn't be a single poster claiming they prefer Eetu over Dube.

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Oh my god man not what I said at all. Try again.

I prefer a meritocracy. Bollig, Stajan, Smid, Raymond. Those guys are not better players then young guys we had. We were actually a worse team with those guys in the lineup IMO.

The exact opposite is true with Klimchuk. He did NOTHING to prove he was better then the AHL vets. He didn't make the team better

You are basically saying "feed young players in the AHL minutes even if they haven't done anything to deserve it".

Again, 9 points is a low amount of production for any fourth liner, no matter the role.

The AHL is still about building a winning environment and making guys earn their position on the team. Handing guys with 9 points minutes because they were a first round pick is the exact opposite of a meritocracy.

As to the bolded, that's actually what you said about Kylington.

As for the underlined, what proof do you have to offer that. Once again, by several accounts he showed strides through the year, despite getting zero PP time, and 3rd line minutes at best. Seems like just your opinion on that one no? Was it because he didn't earn it or because Huska was playing his vets and not giving younger guys chances? Did you watch enough games to form an opinion on if Klimchuk earned it?

And funny, as for your bit on the AHL being about winning, change your statement to NHL instead of AHL and it's also true.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Lose my mind may be an overstatement but yes.

I'm tired of how this board falls in love with prospect A and will never, ever ever hear anything bad about them. Prospect A is a guaranteed top six forward/top four defenseman! Prospect A kisses puppies every morning!

Even though we see that the Flames definitely preferred Prospect B quite recently over prospect A.

AKA Dustin Boyd syndrome. I get it.

I like Eetu because he says interesting and philosophical things. Doesn't mean he'll get my vote anytime soon. He probably doesn't belong in the top 20.

 

[Calculon]

Even though we see that the Flames definitely preferred Prospect B quite recently over prospect A.

You're right; this whole fan ranking thing is a waste of time and should just be scrapped and the mods can create a proper list based on where the Flames drafted each player.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

As to the bolded, that's actually what you said about Kylington.

As for the underlined, what proof do you have to offer that. Once again, by several accounts he showed strides through the year, despite getting zero PP time, and 3rd line minutes at best. Seems like just your opinion on that one no? Was it because he didn't earn it or because Huska was playing his vets and not giving younger guys chances? Did you watch enough games to form an opinion on if Klimchuk earned it?

And funny, as for your bit on the AHL being about winning, change your statement to NHL instead of AHL and it's also true.

Again, I have no problem with them gifting Kylington minutes. And it's a weird case. Yes it goes against my meritocracy philosophy, but he proved he is a special talent and that's why he was fed minutes... BECAUSE HE IS A SPECIAL TALENT. And by all indications it was a smart move to feed him minutes. Klimchuk is not. Like I said before if Klimmer wanted more minutes he should have gone to the ECHL.

But sure... It's Huska's fault Klimchuk only put up nine points. None of that had to do with skill. Gotcha. Huska is just like me and we both want Him to fail... It has nothing to do with skill level.