View Single Post
Old
07-22-2013, 10:07 AM
  #399
Grant McCagg
@grantmccagg
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathletic View Post
Seriously, I get that you're passionate about the Habs and have infinite respect for Trevor Timmmis. I do to (maybe not infinite but a lot). Probably one of the best if not the best in the business. But this is a bit much at times.

First of all, I don't think I said any more about Jessiman than you said about McCarron. Simply using the same words you used. Good hands and good skater for a player his size. All I said. It's one thing to say that Jessiman hasn't developed over the years but back in 2003, people were saying almost the same thing about Jessiman.

As for your source, good for him. Easy to wash your hands afterwards. It's like the thing that came out a few years ago saying only TT wanted Kostitsyn while Savard wanted Carter.

Also, all scouts miss. TT drafted David Fisher of all people. Rangers had their share of good picks as well. It's not like they're the only ones who pointed out that Jessiman had good skating and good hands for a big man. There are other sources pointing out the same elements of his game.

Of course all prospects are different. For each and everyone of them you can build an argument saying that this prospect is unlike any other before who has come before him and you'd be right. That said, for me McCarron enters the category of big men at forward, though not unskilled (i.e. a pure goon) but still has a lot of development to do until he plays an important role in the NHL. But most of all, have to find their "chair" to sit in. That is a defined role in which they are successful. I like big men at forward who are solid defensively. That's how they can best use their size. Personally, I prefer prospects like Brouwer who had great defense but still had to develop offensively. That way, worst case scenario, if they conitnue to improve like everyone else, they'll still be solid in one area of the game and have their place on the team. Not sure where McCarron fits thus far. That's why I preferd Hayden as far as big men came in this draft. Of course, though not McCarron big, Hayden wasn't small by any means. However, Hayden is already a very good defensive player and plays tough defensive minutes.

I noted that there is a bust factor with McCarron. There is with any player in this draft. MacKinnon could bust, so could Drouin or Jones. Some are riskier than others. Several prospects similar to McCarron had troubles adjusting to the AHL (let alone the NHL). Even succesful ones, like Bickell, took quite a bit of time developing in the AHL.

I'll argue in the favor of the Canadiens saying that having so many good prospects like Galcheyuk, Hudon, Collberg, Bozon, Gallagher and list goes on that they can use one of their picks for a special kind of player like McCarron. Despite the risk/reward he represents, the risk can be considered lower since the Habs have good prospects. But similar players to McCarron have busted in the past. It's not true that big men have it easier than others adjusting to the NHL. Canadiens had their share in the 90's.

If you want to compare McCarron to Hurley, then in order to compare apples to apples and not apples and oranges, I'd rather compare Hurley's first 10 games to McCarron's first 10 games in the USHL. Their experience would be much closer. Most will agree that until midway through this season (his second USHL season), McCarron was considered a mid-round pick. It's not until the various tournaments and the U18 that McCaron rose in the rankings. Of course, could be that he was on Habs' radar for longer than that but still. Not a big fan of players who rise to fame during short tournaments and playoffs. I think it leads to what we discussed in a different thread, people pay (in the case of playoffs performers) for statistical anomalies more than anything else.



I see it pretty much the way you do. Hope he proves me wrong.

Can you not respect that I'm involved in NHL scouting? I really don't need the lengthy diatribes that are nothing more than wild assumptions. I worked for the Habs last year on a consulting basis, I was employed by the Hockey News and McKeen's...I saw many games and talked to many scouts. Bob McKenzie and I consult on a regular basis on the draft - I am one of the scouts whose opinions he trusts for his draft rankings. Does this not mean anything to you? I guess not, because it goes against your opinion.

I'm not just expressing my opinion only (unlike yourself), nor the opinions of just one other scout. I gave you assessments from three different sources on Jessiman..one is an NHL head scout, one is now an assistant GM, the other is a senior scout. They all thought Jessiman was a terrible pick for the reasons I stated. I tried to appease you by saying that perhaps I understated Jessiman's skill level a bit..you took this as an opportunity to become even more adamant in your incorrect assumptions.

Write all the words you want - but the fact remains McCarron is not even close to being a bust right now as Jessiman was in 2003 - there were a lot more signs with Jessiman...and that's an important factor.

I never said Jessiman was a good skater....or that he had good hands. Yet you have based on what you think you recall being said by Bob McKenzie during the draft. Neither is the case or he'd have made his way into the NHL despite his softness. Average skater, average hands, and soft as butter. Mac doesn't compare to Jessiman at all. Can you get that through your head..possibly? Being an "okay skater for his size" is irrelevant if the player doesn't use that size. Not only is Mac a better skater than Jessiman was..but he uses his size WAY more effectively. Again - that is important!

When you say things like "most agree" McCarron was a mid round pick halfway through..where do you come up with this? "Most what"? Trevor Timmins was telling me in November that he thought McCarron was a first round pick, and I felt the same way. Other scouts that didn't like McCarron as much early on still thought he was a second round pick at worst. I don't know where you come up with this stuff...I understand trying to support your argument, but when it's with complete BS...hard to take you seriously.

Yes Timmins drafted Fischer SEVEN years ago - every team has had a bust prospect over the past decade. Doesn't make the odds of McCarron being a bust any higher than any other prospect. Fischer was thought to be a reach by many other NHL scouts at the time..I did not like the pick. That is not the case with McCarron. Now you're throwing Hayden's name in the mix....fill your boots. You didn't see Hayden or McCarron play live last season..but you sure think you have them figured out.

Again - I will relate to you that I talk to several scouting sources quite often in addition to the exhaustive scouting that I do myself. No one outside of the Habs' organization that I've talked to feels the same way about McCarron as they did about Fischer, who was horrible in his draft interviews, was much too skinny, had a terrible shot, was soft, and little offensive upside. There were several warning signs with Fischer - they do not exist with McCarron. Again - a really poor and irrelevant comparison by you. "Well..Trevor busted with a pick 7 years ago..so he must be due with this one too because I liked some other prospect more." Pretty silly logic, and again...grasping at straws.

No discernible weaknesses is a very important point that for whatever reasons you choose to ignore because it doesn't fit your agenda on this. You leave the distinct impression that you are one of the "I told you so" posters on here. You weren't happy with the McCarron pick, so you are going to trash it and predict he is a high risk pick in the hopes of being proven right in a few years.

The many times you mentioned that there is a bust factor with Mac... you failed to add that there is also a bust factor with the top three picks until your last email..perhaps you could have mentioned that before your last email? Of course McCarron may bust if you put it in that perspective..nothing is 100 per cent guaranteed. If that's what you want to hear..there you go.

I didn't want to compare Hurley and Mac..someone else did. Why compare a prospect's play at the start of the season to another one's play at the end? Seriously? That's a pretty silly method...you are grasping at straws with that argument as well.

NHL scouts I talked to that watched Hurley and McCarron play at the end of the season for the most part saw no comparison between the two prospects - McCarron was the much better player. Having to adapt to a new league is one thing..but they don't hide the fact that a player's hands are poor and that he lacks the offensive upside that some scouts thought Hurley had BEFORE he joined the USHL. It became much more noticeable when he played against better competition. McCarron not only outplayed him in the USHL, but he was outstanding at the U-18's.

Hurley didn't improve as the season went on - just the opposite happened..he was exposed. Mac did improve as the season went on, and has improved the past few seasons. That is another encouraging sign, and something the pros look at. Evidently it's not something you find relevant. I can assure you that the fellows that do this for a living do find that extremely important.

Grant McCagg is offline