Thread: Draft By Need ?
View Single Post
06-12-2011, 02:31 AM
Habs of steel
Whitesnake's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,065
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by SherbrookeW View Post
It is absurd to imagine that, except in the rarest cases, anyone could "draft by need" since with an eighteen year old draft only the true once-in-a-lifetime player is ready before three years at a minimum -- and in a cap league, the problems a team will face in three years will be profoundly different from its problems and needs now. (And, no , not even the best organization can predict these things -- they depend on every other organization in the league as well; who they keep, who they need to give up.) Drafting the best available player is the only way to go -- except in obvious cases such as the Habs right now,where you have the spot covered for the forseeable future; we are unlikely to take a goalie.
As to the kind of player we ought to take some point you dream that experience and facts will win out over cliches and amnesia, and that someone will remember that for the past thirty years all the Habs have been doing in the first round is drafting for size and grit. Look at the list; beginning with Doug Wickenheiser and right up to Tinordi, the Habs have over and over again looked past skilled players (and local skilled players) to get big tough north-south players. It has been a disaster; if they had taken the best skill player available only in Quebec, the results would have been better. The whole point of the early rounds of the draft is that it is the only occasion on which highly-skilled players are available for free. Since success in hockey depends on the presence of such players, any other strategy in drafting is a disaster--as we have seen. Please, please, please, before you comment on who we ought to draft take a look at who we have drafted and ask yourself why it hasn't worked.
Depends the "need" you are looking for. Even more since the creating of this new "hooking free" league, this league has been a league of speed and transition game. So chances are your team in need of speedier players, will prevail in 1, 3, 5 or 7 years from now. Your team's needs of a PP quaterback, or great in transition will apply no matter where you'll at in 1 to 7 years. 'Cause even if you end up in 7 years with 4 great transition puck movers and you don't want a 5th 'cause you want your D a little tough...well chances are that you'll want to move some "vets" for a tough guy, and play the rookie who in a cap era will be more friendly. So you keep your ratio of puckmoving d-man, you are getting what you want in a trade 'cause having one more makes you have some tradeable assets etc...

Strangely, no matter how you look at it, Habs related, we have asked for a big offensive centerman for how many years now? Will it still apply right now if we would have one ready to jump in or if we would have one already in the books? If this would have been addressed as asked, chances are you keep McDo and there's no need for Gomez. And getting a centerman was not in hindsight, it was asked by everybody since a lot of years. And it still applies nowadays. We love Eller (who by the way, is a big centerman..) but we have no idea of his offensive development. We then have Pleks, Gomez and Desharnais. A Gomez we have no idea which way he's doing, and while I'm a Desharnais fan, we probably wouldn't care if we would have a better option.

I think that going with more "skills" is also pretty tricky. If you solely go with skills, you'd have Puempel as top 10 pick. But for one example that might not work, there's one that works in Skinner. But it's not always black and white. You have to take into account much more than pure skills. Overall quality of the player, possible ceiling, determination, hard work and commitment, pure skills but most importantly hockey IQ. This is mostly the difference between NHL'ers and the rest. You can have as many dimpsy-doodling moves but if the only reason why you dominated your league is because you were much bigger than the rest or because your moves alone were enough, chances are you won't make it. So everything has to be considered and not just pure skills.

Not that I particularly like the Tinordi pick, well way more what we needed to do to obtain it than Tinordi himself, but you have to differentiate the picks of the 90's and the Tinordi one. First, let just say that Habs were not alone in thiking that the guys they picked were 1st round material. It's not like the Habs picked guys that were going to go in the 12th round each and every year. Yet, the obvious think why they were chosen that high were mostly becuase of one particular trait. They were big. You don't really believe that the hockey IQ was really taken seriously at that point. Nor was the speed of those guys taken into consideration, mind you not the same league but there's a freakin limit. What it's tough to verify is was it solely draft or the development had something to do with that. Surely a little bit of both....for me, there's just NO WAY that a guy like Terry Ryan wasn't able to make it even if it's just like a 3rd liner. But there's a whole lot of things to be said on that file that went wrong by both sides that it wasn't possible. But it's not entirely a bad draft pick...until you then compare it to who left after...Iginla...and it becomes a sadder pick.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote