HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Draft By Need ?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-12-2011, 12:50 PM
  #51
habitue*
 
habitue*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,858
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.
Emerson Etem, someone ?...

habitue* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 12:57 PM
  #52
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
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)
Dude, that's EXACTLY what drafting "by need" is. You, and others, seem to be arguing against some view of "by need" that doesn't fit anyone else's definition. Sacrifice a bit of ceiling or talent for a guy that's almost as good and/or has certain important attributes according to your scouting department and likely has a spot open for him in the organization (or should have the best chance of competing for a spot against everyone else in the organization), so that he's more likely to develop quicker, and therefore have more worth on the trade block if it doesn't quite work out for him eventually in terms of cracking the NHL line up. That's how "by need" works in the real world, and in fact... it's how every team drafts in all cases except the rare cases when a highly ranked wildcard slips way down the draft order unexpectedly. Otherwise teams would just submit lists to the league, and the league would go through them in draft order assigning the top remaining player on the list to the appropriate team one-by-one.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 01:02 PM
  #53
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Dude, that's EXACTLY what drafting "by need" is. You, and others, seem to be arguing against some view of "by need" that doesn't fit anyone else's definition. Sacrifice a bit of ceiling or talent for a guy that's almost as good and/or has certain important attributes according to your scouting department and likely has a spot open for him in the organization (or should have the best chance of competing for a spot against everyone else in the organization), so that he's more likely to develop quicker, and therefore have more worth on the trade block if it doesn't quite work out for him eventually in terms of cracking the NHL line up. That's how "by need" works in the real world, and in fact... it's how every team drafts in all cases except the rare cases when a highly ranked wildcard slips way down the draft order unexpectedly. Otherwise teams would just submit lists to the league, and the league would go through them in draft order assigning the top remaining player on the list to the appropriate team one-by-one.
I disagree. Hairline is a big difference from what Fischer was compared to other players available when we drafted him.

They went for need there rather than the best player available. Giroux certainly wasn't a hairline difference from Fischer, not now and not even then. The habs went for need rather than the best available player for the pick. I don't even think that part is debatable and it proves my point.

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 01:20 PM
  #54
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
I disagree. Hairline is a big difference from what Fischer was compared to other players available when we drafted him.

They went for need there rather than the best player available. Giroux certainly wasn't a hairline difference from Fischer, not now and not even then. The habs went for need rather than the best available player for the pick. I don't even think that part is debatable and it proves my point.
Based on what though, exactly? Giroux was "ranked" 5 spots behind Fischer in the final rankings as of June 24, 2006 by McKeens (for example), and almost 50 spots behind Fischer according to CSS at one point, AND he was also the smallest player within 50 rankings of his spot. A bunch of you might follow the Q more than any other league, and that obviously biases any notion of "who's better", but let's not pretend like Giroux was a consensus BPA at that point, let alone the "obviously better" player.

Other comparisons of where they were ranked:
Inside college hockey/ISS/Red Line, June 9th, 2006

In fact, the highest I can remember seeing Giroux ranked was #22 (where he WAS drafted in the end), by Bob MacKenzie, and remember that the Habs picked 20th.


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 06-12-2011 at 01:27 PM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 03:00 PM
  #55
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
In fact, the highest I can remember seeing Giroux ranked was #22 (where he WAS drafted in the end), by Bob MacKenzie, and remember that the Habs picked 20th.
But that's EXACTLY what is the problem. Every McKeen's, Future is a team of scouts by themselves. With no real attachment to anything. While Bobby Mac's rankings are a consensus amongst the actual 30 TEAMS of the league. I also don't understand your "Well Giroux was 22 and we were 20..". As far as I'm concerned, based on that list, we picked the guy who didn't make that list. He made the "Honourable mentions". But that's not top 30.

So Bobby Max is EXACTLY what a consensus is all about.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 03:06 PM
  #56
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
But that's EXACTLY what is the problem. Every McKeen's, Future is a team of scouts by themselves. With no real attachment to anything. While Bobby Mac's rankings are a consensus amongst the actual 30 TEAMS of the league. I also don't understand your "Well Giroux was 22 and we were 20..". As far as I'm concerned, based on that list, we picked the guy who didn't make that list. He made the "Honourable mentions". But that's not top 30.

So Bobby Max is EXACTLY what a consensus is all about.
Well you'll have to remind me, because I don't seem to remember, how Bob MacKenzie placing him that high is "consensus", when his ranking of Giroux seems to be higher than any of the individual lists I can find. If you're saying it's from the lists of the 30 teams, can you provide links to those teams' BPA ranking lists so I can take another look? Cheers.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 03:23 PM
  #57
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Well you'll have to remind me, because I don't seem to remember, how Bob MacKenzie placing him that high is "consensus", when his ranking of Giroux seems to be higher than any of the individual lists I can find. If you're saying it's from the lists of the 30 teams, can you provide links to those teams' BPA ranking lists so I can take another look? Cheers.
Bob McKenzie is the most connected guy in the league. Sometimes, his mid-season reports comes from a consensus amongst 10 NHL scouts. Usually his end of season rankings comes from a consensus of most if not all the teams are represented throughout the league. I read that somehow, then I read that he don't always talk to every single team. End result, he gets it right, way better than every other list. In the end, don't take my word for it. Just look at every rankings you can find and their results and it's well known that Bobby Mac's rankings ALWAYS gets the better results as far as number of players amongst his top 30 that ends up top 30. Why is that? MacKenzie keeps saying how he doesn't see every player play a whole lot. So how can he come up with numbers like that? He surely doesn't speak only to 1 or 2 guys. And on another note, it's pretty clear and evident, sometimes with reasons sometimes not so much that the Q has been underscouted and underappreciated. You would expect that THE ONLY TEAM who takes the time to have THEIR OWN COMBINE, would have the upper hand on guys from here.

Also, and again don't take my word though in that case you'll either have to trust me or not, I spoke to Timmins that year. Those were the years when there were not a lot of people around and years that they didn't have a new complex when they can hide from people. Was talking to him a lot and I have asked him about Giroux. Possible that he didn't say everything to me? Surely. Though he said a whole lot, we didn't speed 45 minutse talking about the sun. Anyway, he said that the decisive factor, as far as Giroux was concerned, is that he didn't think he had his feet fast enough to compensate for his lack of size. And that he didn't believe in his ceiling. For Berglund, he said that he absolutely hated the fact that one year, Berglund decided to stay with his local team instead of going with another one that could have challenged him a little bit more. He saw that has a sign of not being commited to improve. Other teams saw it as a sign of loyalty.

CSS rankings. Good, fun, but you take it and leave it. Why? 'Cause they don't take into consideration crunch time. What scouts like to see in players in their draft year is improvement thoughout the year but most importantly....playoff time. Where's CSS in the playoffs? What are they doing during Memorial Cup? Yes, they are preparing for next year. Bobby Mac just announced TODAY that he is putting the final touch to the list. Other lists? Okay. Not a consensus for them, though I wouldn't use a mid-term rankings...this has nothing to do with how it ends usually.

Re-Cheers.


Last edited by Whitesnake: 06-12-2011 at 03:29 PM.
Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 04:51 PM
  #58
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Bob McKenzie is the most connected guy in the league. Sometimes, his mid-season reports comes from a consensus amongst 10 NHL scouts. Usually his end of season rankings comes from a consensus of most if not all the teams are represented throughout the league. I read that somehow, then I read that he don't always talk to every single team. End result, he gets it right, way better than every other list. In the end, don't take my word for it. Just look at every rankings you can find and their results and it's well known that Bobby Mac's rankings ALWAYS gets the better results as far as number of players amongst his top 30 that ends up top 30. Why is that? MacKenzie keeps saying how he doesn't see every player play a whole lot. So how can he come up with numbers like that? He surely doesn't speak only to 1 or 2 guys. And on another note, it's pretty clear and evident, sometimes with reasons sometimes not so much that the Q has been underscouted and underappreciated. You would expect that THE ONLY TEAM who takes the time to have THEIR OWN COMBINE, would have the upper hand on guys from here.

Also, and again don't take my word though in that case you'll either have to trust me or not, I spoke to Timmins that year. Those were the years when there were not a lot of people around and years that they didn't have a new complex when they can hide from people. Was talking to him a lot and I have asked him about Giroux. Possible that he didn't say everything to me? Surely. Though he said a whole lot, we didn't speed 45 minutse talking about the sun. Anyway, he said that the decisive factor, as far as Giroux was concerned, is that he didn't think he had his feet fast enough to compensate for his lack of size. And that he didn't believe in his ceiling. For Berglund, he said that he absolutely hated the fact that one year, Berglund decided to stay with his local team instead of going with another one that could have challenged him a little bit more. He saw that has a sign of not being commited to improve. Other teams saw it as a sign of loyalty.

CSS rankings. Good, fun, but you take it and leave it. Why? 'Cause they don't take into consideration crunch time. What scouts like to see in players in their draft year is improvement thoughout the year but most importantly....playoff time. Where's CSS in the playoffs? What are they doing during Memorial Cup? Yes, they are preparing for next year. Bobby Mac just announced TODAY that he is putting the final touch to the list. Other lists? Okay. Not a consensus for them, though I wouldn't use a mid-term rankings...this has nothing to do with how it ends usually.

Re-Cheers.
That's all fair enough, but basically what you're saying here is that Bobby Mac's "method" of determining draft "rank" may be better than many/most individual teams' head scout or any individual scouting service, and that Fischer WAS taken by Timmins over Giroux because of "BPA" reasons (concerns over Giroux's foot speed and ceiling that you report) more so than "need" reasons. That's basically all I was trying to suggest in the first place.


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 06-12-2011 at 05:00 PM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 05:28 PM
  #59
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
That's all fair enough, but basically what you're saying here is that Bobby Mac's "method" of determining draft "rank" may be better than many/most individual teams' head scout or any individual scouting service, and that Fischer WAS taken by Timmins over Giroux because of "BPA" reasons (concerns over Giroux's foot speed and ceiling that you report) more so than "need" reasons. That's basically all I was trying to suggest in the first place.
Unfortunately and especially as far as 2006 and 2007 are concerned, Timmins openly admitted he went with needs by stockpiling some much needed d-men. I'll try to find a link to this.

Here's the link.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article..._draft_review/

Quote:
“We added good depth to areas of the organization that may have lacked a little,”
That's NEEDS as far as I'm concerned.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 05:55 PM
  #60
CTHabsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 408
vCash: 500
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.
Even in the NFL, take the best available. Anyone remember the Redskins passing on DeMarcus Ware for Carlos Rogers?

CTHabsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 05:58 PM
  #61
Maxor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 48
vCash: 500
Big American Defencemen are what the Habs need forever and always.

Maxor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 05:58 PM
  #62
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Unfortunately and especially as far as 2006 and 2007 are concerned, Timmins openly admitted he went with needs by stockpiling some much needed d-men. I'll try to find a link to this.

Here's the link.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article..._draft_review/

That's NEEDS as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, but, from the same article:

Quote:
“We would have happily taken [Fischer] at 16,” Timmins explained
"It was that familiarity and the perceived upside of this player that made the selection a no-brainer. "
Doesn't sound like it was "need" at the expense of "BPA" at all. Sounds like it was a calculated combination of both, as I have asserted that EVERY pick is by every team, and why you never see a team take 3 or 4 RWers in a row even if a RWer is "technically" that team's BPA every time they step up to the podium. All I'm saying is that "BPA all the way" is a ridiculous way to draft, and examination of this particular example doesn't disprove that in the least.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 08:22 PM
  #63
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Yeah, but, from the same article:



Doesn't sound like it was "need" at the expense of "BPA" at all. Sounds like it was a calculated combination of both, as I have asserted that EVERY pick is by every team, and why you never see a team take 3 or 4 RWers in a row even if a RWer is "technically" that team's BPA every time they step up to the podium. All I'm saying is that "BPA all the way" is a ridiculous way to draft, and examination of this particular example doesn't disprove that in the least.
Well we somewhat agree then. I also think solely BPA or solely needs are totally ridiculous. Reason why I called my picks BPAN (Best player available needed). Fix whatever combination we'd like to make instead of just goign with black or white. I know it's funnier for some, but it's more complicated than that.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2011, 08:24 PM
  #64
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,778
vCash: 500
Anyway, it's not draft by need or draft by BPA....it's draft by NATION. And frankly, this year more than another, if Grimaldi or Miller are available, it makes sense.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 12:14 AM
  #65
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
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).
I was aware of their existence. I wasn't aware they were equipped with crystal balls.

MathMan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 12:20 AM
  #66
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,050
vCash: 500
Two things about Timmins:

- The Habs have been one of the best drafting teams in the league under his tenure.

- He's going to claim his draft pick is the best thing since sliced bread, as all scouts do. He's not going to spill his draft strategy to the media, and he's certainly not going to say "I drafted for need but I really think this other guy is going to be better".

MathMan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 12:32 AM
  #67
Talks to Goalposts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,637
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Unfortunately and especially as far as 2006 and 2007 are concerned, Timmins openly admitted he went with needs by stockpiling some much needed d-men. I'll try to find a link to this.

Here's the link.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article..._draft_review/

That's NEEDS as far as I'm concerned.
2006 was terrible for the Habs but 2007 looks to be their best draft in a long time. So if needs really were taken into account both years then it doesn't seem to have been the worst strategy.

My big question is whether they are finally going to pick someone not from an american league in the first round. They haven't done that since Price.

Talks to Goalposts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 12:46 AM
  #68
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I was aware of their existence. I wasn't aware they were equipped with crystal balls.
Pretty sure they aren't, but what are you saying? That picking teenagers that will have the most impact in the NHL with all your picks, or hoping to select players that history will prove to be "BPA" (or better) at that spot, doesn't take a crystal ball, but assessing your organizational depth and the progress of your prospects does? That doesn't sound quite right.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 01:04 AM
  #69
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 17,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Pretty sure they aren't, but what are you saying? That picking teenagers that will have the most impact in the NHL with all your picks, or hoping to select players that history will prove to be "BPA" (or better) at that spot, doesn't take a crystal ball, but assessing your organizational depth and the progress of your prospects does? That doesn't sound quite right.
You can assess your organizational depth and the progress of your youth. Projecting that 4-5 into the future is already very random, and then you have no idea what trades, UFA signings, busts, surprises, injuries, et caetera might change those needs over the next 4-5 years. Assessing needs 4-5 years in the future enough to justify not taking the BPA requires foresight that borders on the psychic.

So you draft the BPA. And then, when you have a need and a surplus, you trade your surplus for the need. Like trading Halak for Eller; the Habs had a surplus of goaltending and filled in a need at C. All because they drafted Price, whom they believed to be BPA, despite having Theodore and Halak already in the system.

(I'll not get into the risk of drafting goalies early; besides Montreal is one of the very few teams who are successful enough at drafting goalies to get away with it.)

MathMan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 01:06 AM
  #70
Markowicz
Simple Jacques
 
Markowicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Anyway, it's not draft by need or draft by BPA....it's draft by NATION. And frankly, this year more than another, if Grimaldi or Miller are available, it makes sense.
How is Grimaldi the best bet if he's available? Think about it for a second. If he's as good as everyone says he's going to be, than he's not going to take that long to get the NHL, I'd say 1-2 years max. Gionta and Cammy are going nowhere for 3 years. Name me 1 team in the league that has 2 or more key scorers under 5'9 besides the Canadiens. There is none (and when i say key, i mean their best). And it's never a good idea to draft a guy with the thought that you might trade him eventually, especially a guy who's 5'6 163. It makes no sense. How do you think the Timberwolves feel right now after they drafter Flynn and Rubio, the BPA's in that draft. It's not always a good idea. BPA is usually a safe smart idea, but jesus you can't just pick with a blindfold on. And then there's the obvious other issue: nobody is considering that Grimaldi might actually not be the second coming of Martin St. Louis. taking a guy that small, so early in a draft is pretty much unprecedented. If the team that already had size issues in its top 6 took him, it would almost seem like a practical joke. And I know, i know, the team is going to look different in 4-5 years, and maybe then Grimaldi will be perfect fit. But then again, maybe guys like Gionta and Cammy will still be perfect fits too. Maybe this time around our GM will not just let everybody walk. Who knows, right? All i know for sure is that Grimaldi, though extremely talented, is tiny. And if he were to make the team out of camp this year, we'd have a really hard time figuring out how to fit him in the team. I'd avoid the headache.

Markowicz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 01:20 AM
  #71
Jedrik
Registered User
 
Jedrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,819
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
So you draft the BPA. And then, when you have a need and a surplus, you trade your surplus for the need. Like trading Halak for Eller; the Habs had a surplus of goaltending and filled in a need at C. All because they drafted Price, whom they believed to be BPA, despite having Theodore and Halak already in the system.

(I'll not get into the risk of drafting goalies early; besides Montreal is one of the very few teams who are successful enough at drafting goalies to get away with it.)
The surplus isn't necessarily worth what it should be in a trade if he's been growing stale behind a depth logjam.

As a result you could wind up losing value in a trade because you're dealing guys that just aren't developing/happy/etc, and potentially more that you'd have lost by just having drafted that need in the first place (within a reasonable range of spots).

Jedrik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 08:42 AM
  #72
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,760
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.
FWIW, the names on that list that I really thought were "bad picks" were Fischer, Urquhart, Linhart, and Chouinard. Fischer because of all the stories about him on combine/draft day. That made him seem like a reach. Urquhart and Chouinard because I saw them play and thought they were too soft to ever make it. And Linhart was a major "who?" factor pick, who subsequently became a major facepalm when I saw him in the OHL afterwards.

I think the rest of the picks were probably decent, par for the course. There were some good players taken, some who had injury/development struggles, some who failed to make it... it's a pretty typical mix. I wish there was a way to wipe out the truly "bad picks" at the top end, though. I dare to think that the attention to detail of modern scouting should continue to minimize those looking forward.

On the issue of "BPA" I will just maintain that there's no such thing, it has become a comfortable acronym to throw around by fans, but by the time you flesh out the details of the draft process, it becomes clear that no team could ever truly use "pick the best player" as a draft philosophy. As many others have already noted in this thread.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 08:53 AM
  #73
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre Jr View Post
How is Grimaldi the best bet if he's available? Think about it for a second. If he's as good as everyone says he's going to be, than he's not going to take that long to get the NHL, I'd say 1-2 years max. Gionta and Cammy are going nowhere for 3 years. Name me 1 team in the league that has 2 or more key scorers under 5'9 besides the Canadiens. There is none (and when i say key, i mean their best). And it's never a good idea to draft a guy with the thought that you might trade him eventually, especially a guy who's 5'6 163. It makes no sense. How do you think the Timberwolves feel right now after they drafter Flynn and Rubio, the BPA's in that draft. It's not always a good idea. BPA is usually a safe smart idea, but jesus you can't just pick with a blindfold on. And then there's the obvious other issue: nobody is considering that Grimaldi might actually not be the second coming of Martin St. Louis. taking a guy that small, so early in a draft is pretty much unprecedented. If the team that already had size issues in its top 6 took him, it would almost seem like a practical joke. And I know, i know, the team is going to look different in 4-5 years, and maybe then Grimaldi will be perfect fit. But then again, maybe guys like Gionta and Cammy will still be perfect fits too. Maybe this time around our GM will not just let everybody walk. Who knows, right? All i know for sure is that Grimaldi, though extremely talented, is tiny. And if he were to make the team out of camp this year, we'd have a really hard time figuring out how to fit him in the team. I'd avoid the headache.
As good he can be, there's still some strength to gain. Nobody talked about how fast he can reach the league, but the price we will have in the end with a player of that caliber. You do remember this is the Habs right? Aside from a few games we desperately need (see Size in Price, Lats and MaxPac), we will take our time with the others. And I beleive Grimaldi would follow the path of taking our time.

But you cannot dismiss him solely for the reason that our smaller guys are UFA in 3 years. You never know what can happen, they can be traded in the last year of their contract.

And then there are things WE want and things this org. want. I, for one, want bigger players. I do but again not at the expense of talent. If you give me a choice between Biggs and Grimaldi, first, I laugh, then I say "Seriously", and I then not even sure I answer you...One will play in the NHL. The bigger one might be a star....in the ECHL. (Okay I'm exagerating...). But Saad and Biggs for me are ND. Could be wrong. Sure hope I'll be if we go that route. But if there's a team who keeps showing they don,t care about size up front...it's them. So you might think we'd be a joke...they sure as hell don't look as if they care. And on the Grimaldi front, I'd agree. Geez, I'd even be tempted by Ty Rattie, who's bigger but also seems thicker on his lower body. But he's still small but I know...not Grimaldi small. Can you imagine though...if by any chance he grows up by 3 inches or even 4? Still small but not tiny tiny....what are we going to say then?

There is a limit to how tiny you can go, totally agree. But there's a limit to the talent you can ignore.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 09:15 AM
  #74
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Based on what though, exactly? Giroux was "ranked" 5 spots behind Fischer in the final rankings as of June 24, 2006 by McKeens (for example), and almost 50 spots behind Fischer according to CSS at one point, AND he was also the smallest player within 50 rankings of his spot. A bunch of you might follow the Q more than any other league, and that obviously biases any notion of "who's better", but let's not pretend like Giroux was a consensus BPA at that point, let alone the "obviously better" player.

Other comparisons of where they were ranked:
Inside college hockey/ISS/Red Line, June 9th, 2006

In fact, the highest I can remember seeing Giroux ranked was #22 (where he WAS drafted in the end), by Bob MacKenzie, and remember that the Habs picked 20th.
Let's also not pretend how underwhelming a pick the Fischer pick was and how 90% of the hockey world despite pre-lim rankings said it was a **** pick. I think that speaks more than a couple lists ranking the guy higher. Clearly a lot of general managers felt that the scouting on that guy wasn't very good in the first place.

We're talking immediately after the pick was selected people weren't happy with it and people even outside the habs world thought it was a stupid move and couldn't see why we'd pick him where he was.

It was a situation of a player being ranked high but who had dropped and could have been had later. Sure preliminary lists had him where he was but there's a reason he was such an underwhelming pick. I remember it the day it happened, nobody was thrilled we had selected Fischer not even in the slightest. It had bad pick marked all over it since day one.

Plus if Giroux was really ranked 50 slots lower why do you think he was selected where he was then? Obviously Philly felt he was a #22 pick and not a #70. The point is players improve their rank leading right up to the draft and even some destroy their rank. It was a classic case of Giroux improving on peoples lists and Fischer declining on everyone's lists, the habs just decided to take the risk. Even at the time it was a high risk high reward pick, it wasn't a safe pick. Giroux was small but I honestly don't buy the whole "oh he's small so he loses 100 ranks" argument. At the end of the day skill is skill, talent is talent, size isn't something that will get in the way of that if the player has that drive.

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 09:26 AM
  #75
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Yeah, but, from the same article:



Doesn't sound like it was "need" at the expense of "BPA" at all. Sounds like it was a calculated combination of both, as I have asserted that EVERY pick is by every team, and why you never see a team take 3 or 4 RWers in a row even if a RWer is "technically" that team's BPA every time they step up to the podium. All I'm saying is that "BPA all the way" is a ridiculous way to draft, and examination of this particular example doesn't disprove that in the least.
Problem is you won't ever find a pick that isn't to some degree a combination of both, but at the end of the day players with more overall skill level than Fischer (even some that didn't make the NHL no less but still) didn't get selected and he did. Obviously hind-sight is 20/20 and I'm not saying that Giroux had to have been the pick. I'm just saying at the time more talented players were available that appeared to be future NHLers rather than "what if's" like Fischer. Now obviously in hindsight some of those other choices never made the NHL either, but Giroux is just the example of one choice who did, Berglund is another. I'm sure they had their reasons but ultimately it wasn't a hairline difference not then and not now. Fischer was always a high risk high reward pick and ultimately he wasn't known for his tremendous amount of talent, we drafted him because we needed big D.

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 11:10 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.