HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Draft By Need ?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-11-2011, 01:36 PM
  #26
habitue*
 
habitue*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Svoboda View Post
My knowledge is limited, but it seems to me that it's wide open after pick no 15. Maybe a bit before that. There is a chance Nathan beaulieu might be available at 17 and I think we should draft him if it's the case. But otherwise, i would prefer a forward with skills. On the organisation needs, i think we have a hole at LW.

habs possible pick, from what i read could be:

Mark Scheifele
Matt Puempel
Jonathan Miller
Niclas Jensen
Tomas Jurco

I don't know much about Puempel and Jensen. Do you think they can become impact players for the habs? How would you describe their skillset? Thanks
I like these two... But the Habs won't draft an OHL player in the first round. They prefer some guys from a US School/College.


Last edited by habitue*: 06-11-2011 at 01:59 PM.
habitue* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2011, 03:53 PM
  #27
Zaide
I'm a renegade
 
Zaide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Quebec City
Country: uriname
Posts: 64,772
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
The need is a big RH center.
Yeah sorry about my mistake. He's RH, I just had "lefthanded" in my head all day long for some reasons.
I'd like Scheifele too if he's avalaible at 17.

Zaide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2011, 08:11 PM
  #28
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre Jr View Post
There you go. Everybody just read this entry, it makes the most sense. Nobody just blindly takes the BPA--it isn't like you have a monkey with a list picking players (insert joke here).

But seriously, i agree with every single thing in this post. Very well thought out and written!
Cheers. But as much sense as it makes to you and me, some obviously still don't get it. Judging by some of the posts in this thread, some are advocating picking 3, 4, or 5 RWers (for example) in a row if the "BPA" on some list just happened to be a RWer each time they stepped up to the podium... which is ridiculous, of course, and doesn't reflect reality at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
BPA. Always.

This is not the NFL. Rookies do not have an immediate impact. If you Draft by Need then you need the prescience to identify your needs 4-5 years down the line when the draftee is ready to make an impact.
Funny, I thought I heard somewhere that every NHL team has a group assigned to that exact task. What do they call it again... something like the scouting and talent development something or other? If you have heard of it, it's possible that you've underestimated the scope and responsibility of their assigned task(s).


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 06-11-2011 at 08:16 PM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2011, 10:49 PM
  #29
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,371
vCash: 500
The problem with this is that even the BPA notion is not as clear cut as some think it is. We had Theo in net, yet we took Price. So some would say this is EXACTLY what BPA represents....but what if they had already determine that Theo was not going to make us a better team? That going for an extremely talented and BIG goalie was not NEEDED? 'Cause now, you have that big time goalie...How many goalies have we picked since then? 2. And needless to say both goalies were extremely RAW and totally out of left field picks, total gamble. But you can't tell me that in earlier rounds, that a goalie was never the BPA over the players we picked. So why didn't we? Maybe 'cause they feel we didn't NEED them? Also....openly Habs have said that in 06-07 they went mostly for d-men to replenish their prospect pool....isn't that more evident that they went with needs there? And in 2009, they went with a lot of centermen...same pattern but different position? All NEEDS? Or is it....is NEEDS a portion of what makes a player a BPA? But then in order to ****ed up my own argument, if we take the Fischer pick in 2006, what's the point in going for a need for defenceman by picking him when openly this guy was a true boom or bust prospect as raw as you can get. What good is it to go for needs when if the guy doesn't make it, he won't help you very much in the "need" department?

Sorry but that need vs BPA is not as evident. I understand people not liking a grey response compared to a black and white one but that's how I see it. How can some people call the draft a total crapshoot (which to some degree I don't believe it is, look at the worst teams in drafting, and they're extremely bad for a number of years...) but then believe in a BPA notion? If it's a totaly guess, than a BPA is just a guess as well.

So my point is that you can call it BPA or needs if you want. I will call it BPAN. "Best player available needed". You go with who you like. Who fits the mold you're trying to build. While you never know if the GM and coach will be around for so much, at the time of the draft, they are still working with you. So you might have some guidelines to follow but in the end, they put all the trust in Timmins. And if Timmins believes in fast feet, agility and 2-way game, they'll go with who he thinks will bring it to the next level. Yes, there are some exception, there are instances when the true notion of BPA seems entirely at work. I'd say Chipchura, White, and Latendresse. Neither fits the mold of having the agility and fast feet Timmins loves in a player. But based on the tons of reports out there, everyone of those players, especially Lats and White, went WAY further than they should have been picked. They automatically became BPA at that spot. But it's not the majority of time. I believe that the "strategy" is to go with who you love. But you can adapt it as you go along. And there's nothing wrong with that. You can probably bet that goalies are now slowly but surely becoming somewhat important? Why? 'Cause they'll now SUDDENLY become BPA? Or maybe because they want to replenish their prospect pool of goalies instead of trying to find some miracles in the College circuit? Or maybe because they want to be covered if they can't come to an long-term agreement with Price....


Last edited by Whitesnake: 06-11-2011 at 11:01 PM.
Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2011, 10:50 PM
  #30
The Kremelin Wall*
the krEMELIN wall
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,769
vCash: 500
I agree draft by need. What we need is BPA.

The Kremelin Wall* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2011, 11:46 PM
  #31
SherbrookeW
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
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 ....at 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.

SherbrookeW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2011, 11:58 PM
  #32
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,181
vCash: 500
The Habs have many needs but only one first round pick, and a middling one at that. I wouldn't pin my hopes on any single player who's stll available after 16 others have been selected.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 12:09 AM
  #33
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyhabsfan View Post
I have never bought into the philosophy to draft the best player available. Yes, I've heard that you take that asset and then move him for another need, but seriously how many top end prospects do you see traded for each other.

The Habs need grit and scoring depth as their main need. So I hope on June 24th we go after a Tyler Biggs who is a natural RW a north south player and gets the majority of his goals in the tough areas around the net, somewhere that we currently don't do well .

Here's the lowdown of Biggs:

Draft Information:
Big three zone, mean wing who will probably have to continue to upgrade his quickness to be a force at the next level. He is a tough, on-ice leader/protector and will lay heavy checks within the rules in almost every game he plays. He has nice balance, a wide skating base and a solid quick stride. Yet Biggs is basically a North-South guy who has an accurate shot, soft hands, and a pro-style build. Thus his goals will come in the crease area where he will cause major disruptions when he anchors down in front and on passes he unearthed along the wall. His father (Don) was a longtime minor pro player. There really is little to not like about him if he is given a slower track to continue his improvement.
Would you flagellate yourself if the Habs select Biggs and he turns out to be just another third liner?

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 01:09 AM
  #34
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,457
vCash: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
How do you know Tinordi won't be the best pick out of who was available. Let the kid play and develop...he'd 6'7", smart, tough and moves very well for his size. If he becomes the 07-08 version of Komisarek(at 6'7") nobody will be complaining.
I guarantee there will be a better player that was drafted after Tinordi. Its practically a given.

macavoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 01:31 AM
  #35
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
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 ....at 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
Old
06-12-2011, 01:32 AM
  #36
Em Ancien
Sexy 2nd Rounder
 
Em Ancien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mount Real Life
Posts: 8,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
I guarantee there will be a better player that was drafted after Tinordi. Its practically a given.
Anyone who thinks a defenseman with marginal offensive upside in the late first round is the BPA at that spot is kidding himself.

I'm already willing to bet anything that Merrill's gonna make the Tinordi pick look stupid. Hell, I would've done it the moment Tinordi was drafted.

Em Ancien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 01:40 AM
  #37
Zeroknowledge*
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Facing a PC
Posts: 1,644
vCash: 500
I had Merrill and Faulk as my picks for us last year for our first pick

:-(

Zeroknowledge* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 02:00 AM
  #38
Jedrik
Registered User
 
Jedrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,819
vCash: 500
I used to be 'All BPA All the Time!!1' but I've softened a tad. I don't mind the idea of moving a spot or two off of our draft list if it favours a need.

One potential problem of insisting on the BPA approach is winding up with a draftee whose position is already strong in the org, and then behind all of that depth both his value and development suffer.

Jedrik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 08:07 AM
  #39
nyhabsfan
Waiting for #25.....
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Connecticut
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Would you flagellate yourself if the Habs select Biggs and he turns out to be just another third liner?
Dude the whole thing is an informed crapshoot.... After the top tier of players is drafted...and that varies year over year, it really becomes a educated guess. So if your picking 17th, there are probably 5-6 guys you would look at who have similar upside, why wouldn't you pick the player who fit your orginizational need.

nyhabsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 08:21 AM
  #40
WeThreeKings
Registered User
 
WeThreeKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,644
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WeThreeKings
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyhabsfan View Post
Dude the whole thing is an informed crapshoot.... After the top tier of players is drafted...and that varies year over year, it really becomes a educated guess. So if your picking 17th, there are probably 5-6 guys you would look at who have similar upside, why wouldn't you pick the player who fit your orginizational need.
Because you don't pick guys with 0 hockey sense in the first round, despite their size or the fact they can hit. You'll get a dumber Colton Gillies. Yay?

WeThreeKings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 08:57 AM
  #41
vokiel
#NoTradesWithEDM
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Montréal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 6,433
vCash: 500
I agree.

Depending on where you draft I see "best player available" as the exception, not the rule. If you have the first pick for instance it would be dumb to draft someone who's projected for much later just based on need. Later in the draft it almost becomes a religious war as to who is bpa anyway.

vokiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 09:26 AM
  #42
durojean
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 944
vCash: 500
I'm a firm believer that development is a lot more the cause of our poor drafting than the draft in himself.

There's a reason why the Detroit prospect always seem to be good. Yes they have talent, but they are also given there chance.

If you draft a first line player, but never put him there, you won't ever know if he is able the be a difference maker.

One of the good example i have is Jeff Skinner. If the habs had drafted him, he wouldn't be in the nhl right now and we would be still wondering what he could become.

durojean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 09:41 AM
  #43
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by durojean View Post
I'm a firm believer that development is a lot more the cause of our poor drafting than the draft in himself.

There's a reason why the Detroit prospect always seem to be good. Yes they have talent, but they are also given there chance.

If you draft a first line player, but never put him there, you won't ever know if he is able the be a difference maker.

One of the good example i have is Jeff Skinner. If the habs had drafted him, he wouldn't be in the nhl right now and we would be still wondering what he could become.
How has our darfting been poor? If you look at all 30 teamns I'm sure the habs are easily top 10...and that was without the benefit for 4-5 top 5 picks like Pittsburgh Chicago Phoenix Florida LA NY Islanders St.Louis and Tampa Bay have had during the last 10 years.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 09:48 AM
  #44
durojean
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 944
vCash: 500
You're in the last 6 year our drafting is a lot better. All I wanted to say is that developement has a lot to do in how well an organisation perform at drafting.

I think that at some point there's a lot of player that could have been great in the nhl, not just for the habs, but by bad development or bad circumstances, weren't even look at.

durojean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 09:54 AM
  #45
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
How has our darfting been poor? If you look at all 30 teamns I'm sure the habs are easily top 10...and that was without the benefit for 4-5 top 5 picks like Pittsburgh Chicago Phoenix Florida LA NY Islanders St.Louis and Tampa Bay have had during the last 10 years.
Well, to be "fair", everyone would agree on some level that the later rounds are more of a craps shoot, and the earlier rounds (1 and 2) are supposed to be more of a sure thing. Looking at our record in the first rounds vs the later rounds, I can see how people would feel that "screwing up" in the earlier rounds (Price aside, lol) suggests that it's possible we just got lucky with a bunch of the craps shoot picks, making our "overall" record look better than it really should. You still have to know your stuff in the late rounds to have an educated idea on who might surprise you down the road, but still... I can see how people could reach such a conclusion.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 10:10 AM
  #46
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Well, to be "fair", everyone would agree on some level that the later rounds are more of a craps shoot, and the earlier rounds (1 and 2) are supposed to be more of a sure thing. Looking at our record in the first rounds vs the later rounds, I can see how people would feel that "screwing up" in the earlier rounds (Price aside, lol) suggests that it's possible we just got lucky with a bunch of the craps shoot picks, making our "overall" record look better than it really should. You still have to know your stuff in the late rounds to have an educated idea on who might surprise you down the road, but still... I can see how people could reach such a conclusion.
Our two most skilled sub 25 players were both drafted in the first 2 rounds...Subban and Price.

People love to complain about Fischer but we got a 2nd back by not signing him, so we didn't lose much.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 10:26 AM
  #47
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Our two most skilled sub 25 players were both drafted in the first 2 rounds...Subban and Price.

People love to complain about Fischer but we got a 2nd back by not signing him, so we didn't lose much.
Yeah, but it's not just Fischer. Looking at other players teams ended up with I can understand dissatisfaction with other picks like Maxwell, Carle, Chipchura, Urquhart, even Higgins, Hossa, Perezhogin, Milroy (taken ahead of Plekanec, lol), Linhart, Komisarek, Buturlin, Carkner, Chouinard, etc, etc. Now, of course those extend back beyond Timmins, but if we're talking about the impressions left on any long term Habs fan, you have to appreciate those picks for what they were as well.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 10:34 AM
  #48
Em Ancien
Sexy 2nd Rounder
 
Em Ancien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mount Real Life
Posts: 8,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Yeah, but it's not just Fischer. Looking at other players teams ended up with I can understand dissatisfaction with other picks like Maxwell, Carle, Chipchura, Urquhart, even Higgins, Hossa, Perezhogin, Milroy (taken ahead of Plekanec, lol), Linhart, Komisarek, Buturlin, Carkner, Chouinard, etc, etc. Now, of course those extend back beyond Timmins, but if we're talking about the impressions left on any long term Habs fan, you have to appreciate those picks for what they were as well.
Ward over Hossa. Good times.

Em Ancien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 11:31 AM
  #49
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Our two most skilled sub 25 players were both drafted in the first 2 rounds...Subban and Price.

People love to complain about Fischer but we got a 2nd back by not signing him, so we didn't lose much.
Well we lost Bergluand and Giroux by not picking them. And now we're about to lose this 2nd round pick since the guy that we traded our 2nd for, will not have played 1 full year though he helped us this year but still didn't permit us to reach the 2nd round. So for what he gaves us, it's a good trade.....but for the future it isn't, especially since you look at Timmins draft record in the 2nd round and it's almost as good as his 1st round. Subban was a 2nd rounder.

That's mostly a response to all the wise guys with their "Oh and that 2nd round pick would not have scored there"....Fine. You have that laugh. But does those statements gave me the right to say for the next 10 years if a guy does well and that was picked 50th or a little later "Well that guy would look great in a Habs uniform while Wiz is helping Detroit a whole lot right now?".....

People should just accept that whenever a draft pick is made, that pick is analysed, at the very least 4 or 5 different ways for a number of years. There is all those mock drafts prior to the draft. Then, there's the declared winner immediately after the draft. Then, there are those re-do drafts when you have a better picture of where that player is headed....But then it almost goes as far as when a player is traded, what you receive in return is also considered. For some, the Fischer pick was great when it happened. Tall d-man, effortless skater, should have a high ceiling and all....And then turned really really bad because of tons of circumstances....Didn't sign him yet, greatly enough, we are able to get a 2nd round pick for a guy like him, a pick who will eventually get us a pretty good youngster, thanks to that draft and Timmins...who then turns out to be Wiz. Who helps us this year make the playoffs......but fail to move us past the 1st round....who then leaves for absolutely nothing. But then if he shocks the world and signs...THEN that who will care about that 2nd round pick....We'll see if what goes around comes around. Until then, with draft day coming, I'd like to have that 2nd round pick back.

In an era where draft picks are crucial, I just hope we'd be more careful with them. At the very least, if you send them away, be sure that if the guy does the job.....keep the freakin guy. See Dominic Moore and Jamez the Wiz.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 11:33 AM
  #50
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
I disagree with this mentality, you take the best player available barring the guy who fits your need being a hairline of a difference. Then you do trade that player even in a package for something that's a fit and possibly even more developed.

Takes assets to acquire the ones you need and if you're constantly going after David Fischer's instead of top end homerun all but guaranteed guys, you end up with an empty talent pool a bunch of busts and a bunch of overpaid UFA's. Please habs org draft NOT FOR NEED, draft the best person available at any position. (Other than goalies because they just don't have a lot of trade value unless they're pretty much a top 5)

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:14 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.