I don't get 2 LW in the first round, unless Feaster drafted by their list of 'best available' which it sounds like, to their list, they did.
My main concern is why they drafted TWO LW's in the first rd??????
Cammalleri (trade bait)
Hudler (trade bait?)
Glencross (trade bait?)
Baertschi
Gaudreau
Hanowski
Poirier
Klimchuk
Bouma

The RW is mighty weak. At 6, position or no, I take Nich at RW. Oh well, Monoham is good for a #2 C for a long time and potential future C. His ceiling seems to be Marleau, not a bad thing by any means. I still see Backs or Jankowski being the future #1 though.

The D and G were not focused on much. So be it. This team will at least be entertaining to watch for once. Cundari and Ramo, time to step up.
- FLflames34

Unless it's a high draft pick you should draft by BPA not by position of need. I we have an abundance of 2nd line LW in the future they can be traded for other assets.

Unless it's a high draft pick you should draft by BPA not by position of need. I we have an abundance of 2nd line LW in the future they can be traded for other assets.
- flamminghead

Yeah, but really, we needed 4 in the last 3 months?
No.
And the only one of the 8 projecting Emile in the 1st was...dun dun dun Craig Button. He continues to haunt us, through Todd. No wonder he gave Flames an A.
Shinkaruk

http://www.mynhldraft.com...l-draft-prospect-rankings

Yeah, but really, we needed 4 in the last 3 months?
No.
And the only one of the 8 projecting Emile in the 1st was...dun dun dun Craig Button. He continues to haunt us, through Todd. No wonder he gave Flames an A.
Shinkaruk

http://www.mynhldraft.com...l-draft-prospect-rankings
- FLflames34

Well I just saw an interview with Poirier he said he plays both wings and actually plays RW more than LW.

Well I just saw an interview with Poirier he said he plays both wings and actually plays RW more than LW.
- flamminghead

Well, he and Hanowski better get used to it.

I don't get 2 LW in the first round, unless Feaster drafted by their list of 'best available' which it sounds like, to their list, they did.
My main concern is why they drafted TWO LW's in the first rd??????
Cammalleri (trade bait)
Hudler (trade bait?)
Glencross (trade bait?)
Baertschi
Gaudreau
Hanowski
Poirier
Klimchuk
Bouma

The RW is mighty weak. At 6, position or no, I take Nich at RW. Oh well, Monoham is good for a #2 C for a long time and potential future C. His ceiling seems to be Marleau, not a bad thing by any means. I still see Backs or Jankowski being the future #1 though.

The D and G were not focused on much. So be it. This team will at least be entertaining to watch for once. Cundari and Ramo, time to step up.
- FLflames34

They're drafting for the future not next year. Poirier and Klimchuk likely wont be playing for the Flames for at least a year.

You know what? Forget I said anything. Feaster is the best. Those off the board moves will likely unearth hidden superstars.
- TheTaoOfSemenko

You're all about the extremes eh?

They're drafting for the future not next year. Poirier and Klimchuk likely wont be playing for the Flames for at least a year.
- Hunkulese

Why not? Trade Hudler and Cammi, and make the kids play. Move em over I guess.

I am mostly bitter abt Nich.

Flames got a gimme with Monahan but messed it up with their next 2 picks. Especially the 2nd 1st pick. Feaster said he had all 3 in their top 13, something is clearly wrong with how they assess prospects. Much like last year's reach in the 1st round. How do you pass up on Shinkaruk and pick a guy ranked 46th by Mackenzie, and projected 2nd rounder in almost any mock draft? That roster looks attrocious, I bet big boy Feaster will overpay for another 3rd liner in free agency like last year with Hudler. Sad team. Feel bad for their fans.

Flames got a gimme with Monahan but messed it up with their next 2 picks. Especially the 2nd 1st pick. Feaster said he had all 3 in their top 13, something is clearly wrong with how they assess prospects. Much like last year's reach in the 1st round. How do you pass up on Shinkaruk and pick a guy ranked 46th by Mackenzie, and projected 2nd rounder in almost any mock draft? That roster looks attrocious, I bet big boy Feaster will overpay for another 3rd liner in free agency like last year with Hudler. Sad team. Feel bad for their fans.
- Smurfs-A-Joke

Todd Button.
Todd Button.
Todd Button.

Make no mistake, if Emile does not show to be worth it in 3 yrs, Feaster will be cooked for his future NHL career prospects. His entire future revolves around Emile. Anyone could have picked Monohan, and Klimchuk was the BPA at 28. Though his, and the Flames, future revolves around how Emile pans out.
I don't much care about the rest of the picks. They either work or they don't/.

They're drafting for the future not next year. Poirier and Klimchuk likely wont be playing for the Flames for at least a year.
- Hunkulese

My guess is that both of these 2 play next year in the CHL followed by at least one full season in the AHL. There is no need to rush them as our rebuild will be ongoing for a least 2 more seasons.

Fair enough. But the issue isn't that they didn't draft according to Bob MacKenzie. The issue is that they drafted a guy that wasn't even close to that, for the 2nd year in a row, that they KNEW they could have had a half a round later, and then told the press that he was top 10 on your board.

It's unconventional for sure, and if drafting is the process of getting the players you want, that's fine. But I think drafting is the process of getting the players you want at the best pick value. It's pretty clear that Feaster didn't really do that with the 22nd.

If you care to dig, look at Oilers fans reactions to Moroz being drafted in the early 2nd last year. That's a player they knew very well, and even liked, just not at that position.
- Morris

Poirier was projected as a late first early second round pick so I don't see how that wasn't close. The Flames were high on him and didn't want to take the chance the Canadians would draft him so they took him at 22nd. After the 15th pick or so it's pretty much a crapshoot anyway since you drafting based on how you think the player will progress in the next 2-3 years. There's little difference between the players ranked 15-30 and those ranked 30-45.

Jankowski was more of a risk but also offers a potential bigger reward. Scouts had him ranked all over the place and more than one believed he could potentially be the best player to come out of the draft even though he was far from ready. Feaster did trade down and picked up a second round pick that he didn't have. There was no one at 14 with as much possible upside as Jankowski and so Feaster got the second round pick and picked Jankowski where he could. It was very unlikely that he would still be there at 42. I'm happy with the combo of Jankowski and Sieloff over anyone they could have taken at 14, but it's still far to early to say if it was a brilliant, decent or terrible pick.

Why not? Trade Hudler and Cammi, and make the kids play. Move em over I guess.

I am mostly bitter abt Nich.
- FLflames34

Players don't develop at the NHL level.

Poirier was projected as a late first early second round pick so I don't see how that wasn't close. The Flames were high on him and didn't want to take the chance the Canadians would draft him so they took him at 22nd. After the 15th pick or so it's pretty much a crapshoot anyway since you drafting based on how you think the player will progress in the next 2-3 years. There's little difference between the players ranked 15-30 and those ranked 30-45.

Jankowski was more of a risk but also offers a potential bigger reward. Scouts had him ranked all over the place and more than one believed he could potentially be the best player to come out of the draft even though he was far from ready. Feaster did trade down and picked up a second round pick that he didn't have. There was no one at 14 with as much possible upside as Jankowski and so Feaster got the second round pick and picked Jankowski where he could. It was very unlikely that he would still be there at 42. I'm happy with the combo of Jankowski and Sieloff over anyone they could have taken at 14, but it's still far to early to say if it was a brilliant, decent or terrible pick.
- Hunkulese

Agreed, too early to tell. But as Feaster's rankings of prospects seemingly so incredibly out of whack with most other GMs and analysts, he seems to either be in brilliant or BAD range, with little middle ground.

But what do I know? Craig Button said that Feaster's objective was to win the first round and that he did. I'm not going to act like the Oilers didn't want Monahan, and I already said I liked the Klimchuk pick, so kudos.

To play devil's advocate though, since you've scorned against people criticizing prospects without knowing anything about them, what makes Jankowski and Sieloff so good and/or Giregensons (who was drafted 14th) so bad for Calgary? Could you honestly say you knew a lot about any/all three of them before they were drafted? What about Ceci, Hertl, Tevrainen, Vasilevski and Laughton. It was wholly apparent that none of those guys were worth sticking at 14th?

Poirier was projected as a late first early second round pick so I don't see how that wasn't close. The Flames were high on him and didn't want to take the chance the Canadians would draft him so they took him at 22nd. After the 15th pick or so it's pretty much a crapshoot anyway since you drafting based on how you think the player will progress in the next 2-3 years. There's little difference between the players ranked 15-30 and those ranked 30-45.

Jankowski was more of a risk but also offers a potential bigger reward. Scouts had him ranked all over the place and more than one believed he could potentially be the best player to come out of the draft even though he was far from ready. Feaster did trade down and picked up a second round pick that he didn't have. There was no one at 14 with as much possible upside as Jankowski and so Feaster got the second round pick and picked Jankowski where he could. It was very unlikely that he would still be there at 42. I'm happy with the combo of Jankowski and Sieloff over anyone they could have taken at 14, but it's still far to early to say if it was a brilliant, decent or terrible pick.
- Hunkulese

Nice response. I think Jankowski, not Monahan, projects as the future 1C. And Monahan being the 2C and possible Captain. With Backlund, there is now insurance at the spine if Jank doesn't pan out.

As for not developing at the NHL level, depends on the player. Monahan will be playing next yr with Calgary, and I think Klimchuk should too...and both will develop well there, with a opportunity to play a lot of minutes.

One thing I do like- Feaster did draft for size. Maybe why Shinkaruk was skipped over...

I for one am actually happy with picking Emile Poirier at #22. There is no guarantee that he would be there at #28 and he brings one element that the Flames are in desperate need of ... speed. Outside of Baertschi the Flames didn't have any prospects with great speed.

Again, I'm not badmouthing any of these guys, but merely musing on whether Feaster could have traded down and gotten a little more blood from the stone. Then again, I love trading down. If I were a GM, I would try to do it all the time. I advocated the Oilers strongly consider trading down for each of their 1st overalls.

Agreed, too early to tell. But as Feaster's rankings of prospects seemingly so incredibly out of whack with most other GMs and analysts, he seems to either be in brilliant or BAD range, with little middle ground.

But what do I know? Craig Button said that Feaster's objective was to win the first round and that he did. I'm not going to act like the Oilers didn't want Monahan, and I already said I liked the Klimchuk pick, so kudos.

To play devil's advocate though, since you've scorned against people criticizing prospects without knowing anything about them, what makes Jankowski and Sieloff so good and/or Giregensons (who was drafted 14th) so bad for Calgary? Could you honestly say you knew a lot about any/all three of them before they were drafted? What about Ceci, Hertl, Tevrainen, Vasilevski and Laughton. It was wholly apparent that none of those guys were worth sticking at 14th?
- Morris

I'm not saying any of those players would have been bad picks or will turn out to be better players. All I'm saying is that with my limited knowledge of them I have no problems with who the Flames drafted.

I also don't agree that the Flames scouting staff is completely out of wack with their assessments. The aggregated lists that always come out ranks the safest picks but players ranked in the middle of the first to the middle of the second tend to have similar potential. Look back at some of the previous draft rankings and you'll find after the can't miss picks the success of late first early second round picks is all over the place. Jankowski was still ranked as a consensus early second round pick.

The Flames are clearly trying to get bigger and faster and Poirier is bigger and faster than Shinkaruk.

I for one am actually happy with picking Emile Poirier at #22. There is no guarantee that he would be there at #28 and he brings one element that the Flames are in desperate need of ... speed. Outside of Baertschi the Flames didn't have any prospects with great speed.
- LenW3

Was I the only one who heard rumors that Canucks wanted Poirier? I heard they were pissed the Flames took him at 22. Hunter was not the guy they were after.

Again, I'm not badmouthing any of these guys, but merely musing on whether Feaster could have traded down and gotten a little more blood from the stone. Then again, I love trading down. If I were a GM, I would try to do it all the time. I advocated the Oilers strongly consider trading down for each of their 1st overalls.
- Morris

I like it, but not this yr. The only one I would have been ok with is if they traded 6 for 8 and 16.

I do admit the trade last yr of 14 for 22 and 42 was pretty awesome. Even if both draftees are unproven

Was I the only one who heard rumors that Canucks wanted Poirier? I heard they were pissed the Flames took him at 22. Hunter was not the guy they were after.
- j.henderson

Heard that as well

Was I the only one who heard rumors that Canucks wanted Poirier? I heard they were pissed the Flames took him at 22. Hunter was not the guy they were after.
- j.henderson

I never, but I heard the rumors that there was a strong chance Montreal was going to take him at 25

I never, but I heard the rumors that there was a strong chance Montreal was going to take him at 25
- Bootsey

Well if Vancouver wanted him at 24, and Montreal at 25, makes me happy Calgary nabbed him at 22.

Just something interesting to note. Sam Cosentino of Sportsnet correctly pick all three players for the Flames in his mock draft even though he had Klimchuk at 22.

Why not? Trade Hudler and Cammi, and make the kids play. Move em over I guess.

I am mostly bitter abt Nich.
- FLflames34

Monahan was the right pick.

No need to rush the kids, sending them in too early just gets them injured

I don't get 2 LW in the first round, unless Feaster drafted by their list of 'best available' which it sounds like, to their list, they did.
My main concern is why they drafted TWO LW's in the first rd??????
Cammalleri (trade bait)
Hudler (trade bait?)
Glencross (trade bait?)
Baertschi
Gaudreau
Hanowski
Poirier
Klimchuk
Bouma

The RW is mighty weak. At 6, position or no, I take Nich at RW. Oh well, Monoham is good for a #2 C for a long time and potential future C. His ceiling seems to be Marleau, not a bad thing by any means. I still see Backs or Jankowski being the future #1 though.

The D and G were not focused on much. So be it. This team will at least be entertaining to watch for once. Cundari and Ramo, time to step up.
- FLflames34

I don't see cammy and hudler being here after next offseason, and poirier stated he mostly plays RW