HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Montreal Canadiens (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Habs looking at Claude Giroux? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=257456)

Pat 06-05-2006 07:14 AM

Habs looking at Claude Giroux?
 
take it for what it's worth, but I read on another board that the Habs were looking at Claude Giroux of the Gatineau Olympics.
I dunno, maybe the Habs see him as the next Martin St-Louis or something. but I hope Timmins and the Habs are targeting a big D.
please,no more small forwards...Habs have their share of those.

Blind Gardien 06-05-2006 08:00 AM

I wouldn't mind looking at him in the 2nd or 3rd round, assuming he's still available. Nothing wrong with that.

Pat 06-05-2006 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blind Gardien
I wouldn't mind looking at him in the 2nd or 3rd round, assuming he's still available. Nothing wrong with that.

IF he's still available by then,and he's the BPA, ok...why not. but as a first rounder I say Habs aim for a D with size

Whitesnake 06-05-2006 08:15 AM

Well It might come to is there a really big difference between a d-men available at 16th and the next d-man available at 50 compared to the forward position. Is there a bigger gap between Wishart and Strait, Shutron, Miteara, Sneep, Fischer, Weber, Corrente, Carle or even Dudas then Giroux and Burki, Fiala,Clutterbuck, White, Calla, Lewis and others.

Fozz 06-05-2006 08:24 AM

D-man with size?
What's the obsession with d-men with size? We already have Komisarek and O'Byrne that have size and will be with the team for years. Why draft a d-man with size? Look at Buffalo and Carolina, they don't have that much size on the blue line at all. If anything, we need a mobile d-man that can QB the PP. Mobility and smarts will get you much nore than size in this new NHL.

Estimated_Prophet 06-05-2006 08:36 AM

I don't know why people on this forum feel we have to draft a d-man at #16. The d-men that will be available are all projects and probably won't be significantly contributing at the NHL level for atleast 5 years. The team only dresses 6 d-men for a game and I believe our current blueline is atleast as good as Buffalo's or Carolina's. We can easily improve our defence through free agency especially when you consider that any d-man available at #16 is very unlikely to develop into a top pairing defenceman.......why work so hard at developing an asset that is so easily attainable in today's NHL? Why invest 5 years into a player to only have him for 4 years so he can leave as a UFA?

All things being equal I think a forward will be our best bet at #16 because they may only take 2 or 3 years to develop and there are a glut of forwards with enough upside to play on the top two lines. Drafting players is simply about asset management and in this years draft it is my opinion that the most valuable asset at #16 will be a forward.

The most ridiculous arguement for drafting a d-man is that we have a shortage of defence prospects........does it really matter where hockeyfuture rates our prospects or does winning NHL games take precedent....I'd like to believe that the latter is far more important!

Mike8 06-05-2006 08:47 AM

Estimated_Prophet, great to read you again!

Estimated_Prophet 06-05-2006 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike8
Estimated_Prophet, great to read you again!


Thanx!
I still read the boards every day, just can't be bothered to post much anymore!

Dutch 06-05-2006 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Estimated_Prophet
I don't know why people on this forum feel we have to draft a d-man at #16. The d-men that will be available are all projects and probably won't be significantly contributing at the NHL level for atleast 5 years. The team only dresses 6 d-men for a game and I believe our current blueline is atleast as good as Buffalo's or Carolina's. We can easily improve our defence through free agency especially when you consider that any d-man available at #16 is very unlikely to develop into a top pairing defenceman.......why work so hard at developing an asset that is so easily attainable in today's NHL? Why invest 5 years into a player to only have him for 4 years so he can leave as a UFA?

All things being equal I think a forward will be our best bet at #16 because they may only take 2 or 3 years to develop and there are a glut of forwards with enough upside to play on the top two lines. Drafting players is simply about asset management and in this years draft it is my opinion that the most valuable asset at #16 will be a forward.

The most ridiculous arguement for drafting a d-man is that we have a shortage of defence prospects........does it really matter where hockeyfuture rates our prospects or does winning NHL games take precedent....I'd like to believe that the latter is far more important!

Can't agree more on that one.

Blades 0f Steel 06-05-2006 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fozz
D-man with size?...We already have Komisarek and O'Byrne that have size and will be with the team for years...

Well there's the fault in your logic right there. You've already pencil-ed in a guy that's never seen an NHL game.

Not that I'm pro-hulking D-men, but the objective is to take the BPA and stockpile them. If there's a decent goaltender available to Montreal in the 2nd round, they can't just pass him up because they've drafted Price the prior year.

Fozz 06-05-2006 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill pickles
Well there's the fault in your logic right there. You've already pencil-ed in a guy that's never seen an NHL game.

Not that I'm pro-hulking D-men, but the objective is to take the BPA and stockpile them. If there's a decent goaltender available to Montreal in the 2nd round, they can't just pass him up because they've drafted Price the prior year.

I'm not penciling-in anyone. O'Byrne is a Habs prospect and has come along great. He is closer to the NHL than any big d-man the Habs would draft this year, even in the first round.

Bryzga lol* 06-05-2006 09:44 AM

Is there a summary on Claude Giroux talent analysis anywhere? There's none on HF and I'm not very familiar with this player.

Marc the Habs Fan 06-05-2006 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riel
Is there a summary on Claude Giroux talent analysis anywhere? There's none on HF and I'm not very familiar with this player.

X-SHARKIE's draft preview:

''This kid has a great story. Made Gatineau Olympique this season as a walk on, then preceded to lead his team in scoring during the regular season and the playoffs. Knocked for being a small player, Giroux makes up for his lack of size with shifty skating and outstanding play making ability. Giroux is small but doesnít play scared, he is not afraid to take a hit, he goes into traffic. Girouxís lack of strength is evident at times as he does lose physical battles and can struggle along the boards, can be pushed off the puck fairly easily, but he doesnít go down easy. Not an end to end threat, but heís fast once the offensive zone is established. Shifty in tight spaces, can be slippery, has soft hands with creative moves, hard to get a body on. Great agility and his first step makes him a quick player. Never has to slow down and can make plays at full speed. His bread and butter is his vision of the ice and his play making ability. Claude is a deft play maker, he has superb vision, he can thread the needle with a pass and is deadly at creating plays. Instinctive player with the puck on his stick and makes quick decisions. Simply put, an assist machine! Defensively he can be dangerous to turn the puck the other way for scoring chance. He is savvy at anticipating the play and creating a turn over, but isnít a pillar of strength in his own end. He came on the scene fast this year and heís small so there are concerns about him. You canít teach his vision of the ice and his ability to create scoring opportunities and that should get him drafted in the first round or at least in the second. Reminds me of another small, play making, water bug from the QMJHL, Piere-Marc Bouchard. ''

If he was our ''man'' I would hope we trade down a bit to get him, but Colorado at 17 or 18 strikes me as a team that could love Giroux, as they love the high upside CHL guys.

Whitesnake 06-05-2006 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat
take it for what it's worth, but I read on another board that the Habs were looking at Claude Giroux of the Gatineau Olympics.
I dunno, maybe the Habs see him as the next Martin St-Louis or something. but I hope Timmins and the Habs are targeting a big D.
please,no more small forwards...Habs have their share of those.

If they're looking at him, it's evident that it's for their 1st rounder, I'm pretty sure he won't there at 50 so....And I agree with Marc, that I wouldn't be surprised that Colorado would gladly picked him if we don't or trade down. So if they're looking, and it's their man, don't be surprised when you hear his name....

turnbuckle* 06-05-2006 10:32 AM

Anyone else notice the similarity with the "making the Olympiques as a walkon" scenario? Michael Ryder anyone? Giroux went from being ranked 94th overal by McKeens in January to being ranked 22nd overall today. Just goes to show what happens when you get to see Giroux on more than a couple of occasions - he grows on you. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Habs snag Giroux at 16th if he's the player that's next on their list. Detroit had five forwards under 6-feet tall this season, and they aren't a bad team.

I'm starting to get a strange feeling that Sanguinetti is going to drop, and if he's available at 16th, he might be really tough to pass on. There just aren't a lot of high point producing defencemen coming up these days, and as one scout said to me, "how can you pass up a power play QB (after the top 10 picks) with the way penalties are being called?" I wasn't sold on Sanguinetti earlier in the season, but his defensive game improved as the season progressed, and ther's no denying his skating skills, scoring skills, and ability to headman the puck.

As was earlier stated somewhat...we have Rivet, Komo, Souray, O'Byrne...are we really starving for a big stay-at-home defenceman? Emelin isn't huge but he's a big hitter that's sound in his own end; Korpikari is a good-sized stay-at-home defender. What this team could really use is a Leetch-type defenceman in the organization IMO, especially with the way the NHL is going. That and a top-line center of course.

deandebean 06-05-2006 11:18 AM

Giroux was left "undrafted" by the local 67's the season before. He grew last season by a couple of inches. Picked up by the Piques.

Claude Giroux is going to be a stellar hockey player. If the Habs pick him, kudos. He's got GREAT work ethic. And he gets into traffic. Sure, he's not big, but he's a late bloomer and I expect him to be much stronger next camp.

The Piques have a knack for getting these no-names. They've just signed another Ontarian, a defenceman I've heard, to be presented at the Q draft next week.

Taupy 06-05-2006 12:15 PM

I would love to see the Habs draft Giroux in the 2nd round, but not in the first, unless they trade down.

I would like us to draft a D-man from the American program in the first round.

LeGars Du Cable 06-05-2006 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat
IF he's still available by then,and he's the BPA, ok...why not. but as a first rounder I say Habs aim for a D with size

we say that every year, and the staff never pick D ... Except Komi

Teufelsdreck 06-05-2006 01:04 PM

The Habs can use bolstering at forward as well as defense. They need replacements for Bulis, Zednik, Sundstrom, and Downey, and Bonk's contract will run out next year.

Weis 06-05-2006 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck
The Habs can use bolstering at forward as well as defense. They need replacements for Bulis, Zednik, Sundstrom, and Downey, and Bonk's contract will run out next year.

We dont need to draft a F prospect to replace those player. He wont be ready next year. I agree that we could get a F, not to replace current player but if at #16 the bpa is a forward we should pick him. Who know what we gonna need in 3-4 years?

eddy 06-05-2006 01:41 PM

Unless a really good forward like Brassard who was expected to be a sure-fire top 10 slips to us I think we have to take a defencemen. I know Habs management kind of has this take the best player available at the time no matter position but our defence prospect pool is weak.

habitue* 06-05-2006 01:47 PM

My feeling is that the Habs are gonna try very hard to improve their position in the draft and get Brassard. Giroux is a smaller version of him.

Blind Gardien 06-05-2006 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fozz
D-man with size?
What's the obsession with d-men with size? We already have Komisarek and O'Byrne that have size and will be with the team for years. Why draft a d-man with size? Look at Buffalo and Carolina, they don't have that much size on the blue line at all. If anything, we need a mobile d-man that can QB the PP. Mobility and smarts will get you much nore than size in this new NHL.

I don't personally care if the d-man we take has size or not. But I do want a d-man, preferably, if all else was equal. (i.e. if no higher-rated forward has dropped through to us, although I fully expect a higher-rated forward will drop).

However, if you can get a d-man with size and mobility and smarts, then that's better than just mobility and smarts. On the optimistically reported side, Wishart has size and mobility. If you can move around well and have a bigger wingspan and ability to block forwards, so much the better. Wishart and Williams are wildcards in that sense. Size+mobility, if it's there as much as some indications suggest for them, then it ought to be interesting to us. But catch-22, if it is, then probably they're gone before we pick anyway.

Between F/D it may not be a deciding factor in the 1st round, there ought to be pretty decent visibility on the "BPA" for us there. So if the good forward drops, take him, no problem. But at some point in this draft (or by other means) we do need to address the organizational weakness at D. At some point in this draft, there will be essentially no way whatsoever of distinguishing which players are best. So I'll be quite disappointed if we don't come out of this draft with at least 3 defense prospects, whichever round they end up being taken in.

Goalies are a breed apart for this discussion, though. Don't take a goalie. Essentially period. Our organizational spots at that position are full up. Huet/Aebischer/Danis. Price/Halak/Lindberg. And now Lacasse too? That logjam isn't clearing up anytime soon, and it would be pointless to take a player who has to be released or re-enters the draft. And there is no validity whatsoever to the idea that you can take excess players at this particular position and then trade them later for some asset you need more. Goalies have deflated trade value. Taking one in the draft, in our situation, would be stupid. It would be pure asset mismanagement. (And don't say "what... not even if Bernier is available in the 7th round?"... I mean in any realistic scenario. Of course you still take Bernier in the 7th round.)

Renholder 06-05-2006 02:17 PM

I don't want them to pick a defenseman unless it's Johnson or a pp Qb...seriously, our problem this year wasn't our defence. WE simply couldn't score enough goals.

Blind Gardien 06-05-2006 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renholder
I don't want them to pick a defenseman unless it's Johnson or a pp Qb...seriously, our problem this year wasn't our defence. WE simply couldn't score enough goals.

But again, you don't draft a player based on the problems you had this year. Put a 5-year window on the player you draft, he isn't going to help before that time's up. If our problem was scoring, we have to hope somebody else solves that problem... either a signed UFA, increased production from veterans (Kovalev, Koivu), or increased production from young players already in the system (Perezhogin, Kostitsyn).

We have lots of young forwards on the team and in the pipeline. We have lots of goalies in the pipeline. We have a few defensemen. Lots, lots, few. All else being equal, I'd prefer to balance that supply for the future out to "lots, lots, lots".


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:51 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.