HFBoards

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

Draft By Need ?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-13-2011, 08:59 AM
  #76
WeThreeKings
Registered User
 
WeThreeKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,313
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WeThreeKings
Quote:
Originally Posted by habitue View Post
Emerson Etem, someone ?...
Evgeni Kuznetsov.

And as for the 2006 draft. Whitesnake and I were eyeing Patrik Berglund. Giroux was the want of most of the board around that pick, if I recall correctly.

WeThreeKings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 09:08 AM
  #77
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,501
vCash: 500
Neo, for all the typing you just did, you really didn't add much, and did very little to address what was in the posts you quoted. Instead of replying to them individually, here's a "Cole's Notes" on what lacks in your rebuttal(s):

You say that "despite" prelim. rankings "90% of the hockey world" thought it was a **** pick, but who exactly are you taking on authority here, and who made up the bulk of the 90%? Were they criticizing the pick because they thought there was a better fit for the Habs, or a better future NHLer? Without submitting support such as quotes, or whatever, I submit that you don't know for sure. Were those vocal critics simply partial and biased to other particular players, maybe a favourite from their own league (or area), or did they all really have the Habs' best interests in mind when criticizing the pick? If your impression is based on what you read/heard in the Montreal media, I can make my own guesses on that one.

Next, you can't be high risk AND high reward without talent, so to claim that Fischer was only taken because he was a big defenseman who fit a need is completely contradictory to direct quotes from Timmins himself who said his "upside" (explain to me how you can have "upside" without talent) made the pick a no brainer. Yes, high risk. Yes, possible high reward. No, not taken purely based on need. And no, this example doesn't discredit the importance of factoring need into every pick. And for what it's worth, I seem to remember plenty of people, even if it was a minority and not a majority, acknowledging the merit of taking the risk on Fischer at the time, and it was based on everything including his skill set. Maybe it was actually hockey sense that no one got the proper read on.

Also, on the flip side of the coin, you can't be blinded by skill, because everyone has seen guys with boatloads of talent (Locke) struggle to crack the NHL. If you draft based on skill without factoring the physical realities of the NHL in at all, you're taking a way bigger risk than you would by being overly focused on "need". A guy who fits a need will have an easier time at least getting a chance to prove himself than a guy who starts off behind multiple players in the minor league depth chart and might not actually be physically equipped for the NHL, no matter how talented. GMs/scouts can't worry about that too much, but they can't be completely ignorant of it either.

Moving on, no one is suggesting Giroux was ranked 50 spots lower because he was smaller than most ranked higher, but it WAS a factor. Looking back, who wouldn't take him well above his #22 draft spot? Point is, given Philly's make-up at forward, and their prospects in the system at the time, adding a smaller guy with lots of skill wasn't as much of a risk as it might have been for the team at #21. Or #20. Or #19. Or #18. Or maybe even #23, 24, or 25. And so on. If Philly didn't pick him, who knows if he might have dropped all the way to #30? Without knowing the drafting strategy of all the teams, and the players they were targetting, you can't say for sure, and I'm certainly not pretending to try, either.

And finally, Berglund's slight slip in the rankings has already been discussed earlier in the thread, and I think the consensus is that his loyalty to his team resulting in reluctance to move immediately into a "better" league closer to the parent club may have factored in there a bit; obviously not enough to drop him out of the 1st round or anything. Similar things happen with 18 year old Russians who have a contract over there, and teams have to gauge whether or not they'll be able to get that player over to North America, how soon, and how much is it worth picking that guy instead of someone ranked right beside him and available immediately for grooming in the system.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 09:15 AM
  #78
Dan K
HFBoards Partner
 
Dan K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,176
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dan K
I really think Gauthier will be active at or just before the draft to try to grab a 2nd round pick. It may be a trade down of our first, or something like Spacek, Pouliot, and a 4th for a 2nd and 7th.

And with those picks, I think it'll be BPA, BUT for the most part, it isn't completely clear who the BPA is, so when a decision between a few names has to be made, the "tiebreaker" will be who fits our needs the most.

And "our needs", as has been discussed in the thread, isn't so much who we need in 2011-2012, but rather looking at Gauthier's longer term plans, where he wants an asset to be developing.

Dan K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 10:16 AM
  #79
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,322
vCash: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talks to Goalposts View Post
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.
What's wrong with Pacioretty and McDonagh? If we had McDonagh still, it would make our d considerablly stronger imo. He plays 18 mins a night in NY and is pretty solid. He's pretty much ready to assume a top 4 role.

Imagine this as our d

Markov - Gorges
Subban - McDonaugh
Gill - Yemelin
Spacek

Weber press box

That would be a pretty impressive d corps. Actually, I'd probably resign Wiz and have him on the 3rd pairing with Gill.

macavoy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 10:28 AM
  #80
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
Imagine this as our d

Markov - Gorges
Subban - McDonaugh
Gill - Yemelin
Spacek

Weber press box

That would be a pretty impressive d corps. Actually, I'd probably resign Wiz and have him on the 3rd pairing with Gill.
I personally like to imagine this route (you have Subban and McD on the wrong sides technically, btw, but whatever... I'm about to pull the same thing):

Markov - Wiz
Gorges - Subban (I know Gorges is "supposed" to be on the right... so what, he shoots left so I'll put him there)
McDonagh - Emelin/Weber
Gill

Balance of defense and offense on every line, while also maintaining a bona fide top pairing that would rival any in the league, and a big tough vet in the press box who can step in any time. I think that would only about 20-25% of the cap, too, which ain't bad for a defense like that. Guess we have to have Spacek in there instead of McD in reality (and Wiz isn't signed), but whatevs.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 02:57 PM
  #81
Markowicz
Simple Jacques
 
Markowicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
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.
I agree that if we end up in a situation where its Grimaldi versus someone like Biggs, who is probably an even bigger gamble, than i take Grimaldi. When you're drafting in the first round i prefer avoiding big long term projects, unless its a late first rounder. At 17, i think we can get a guy who can be NHL ready in 2-3 years. I don't want to draft another Tinordi this year for instance. So yeah, there are a few guys I'd take Grimaldi ahead of, such as that big D Oleksiak, Biggs, and Saad. But there's a much longer list of players i'd take ahead of him in that area 10-25 area, such as Armia, McNeill, Schiefele, Miller, Rattie, Puempel. It's tough, i know. I think this is going to be the draft of "they passed on Grimaldi, what were they thinking". i sincerely hope that there is an easy decision when it comes to us, like a McNeill, Miller or Schiefele still available. Either way, i can't wait!

Markowicz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 03:29 PM
  #82
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Neo, for all the typing you just did, you really didn't add much, and did very little to address what was in the posts you quoted. Instead of replying to them individually, here's a "Cole's Notes" on what lacks in your rebuttal(s):

You say that "despite" prelim. rankings "90% of the hockey world" thought it was a **** pick, but who exactly are you taking on authority here, and who made up the bulk of the 90%? Were they criticizing the pick because they thought there was a better fit for the Habs, or a better future NHLer? Without submitting support such as quotes, or whatever, I submit that you don't know for sure. Were those vocal critics simply partial and biased to other particular players, maybe a favourite from their own league (or area), or did they all really have the Habs' best interests in mind when criticizing the pick? If your impression is based on what you read/heard in the Montreal media, I can make my own guesses on that one.

Next, you can't be high risk AND high reward without talent, so to claim that Fischer was only taken because he was a big defenseman who fit a need is completely contradictory to direct quotes from Timmins himself who said his "upside" (explain to me how you can have "upside" without talent) made the pick a no brainer. Yes, high risk. Yes, possible high reward. No, not taken purely based on need. And no, this example doesn't discredit the importance of factoring need into every pick. And for what it's worth, I seem to remember plenty of people, even if it was a minority and not a majority, acknowledging the merit of taking the risk on Fischer at the time, and it was based on everything including his skill set. Maybe it was actually hockey sense that no one got the proper read on.

Also, on the flip side of the coin, you can't be blinded by skill, because everyone has seen guys with boatloads of talent (Locke) struggle to crack the NHL. If you draft based on skill without factoring the physical realities of the NHL in at all, you're taking a way bigger risk than you would by being overly focused on "need". A guy who fits a need will have an easier time at least getting a chance to prove himself than a guy who starts off behind multiple players in the minor league depth chart and might not actually be physically equipped for the NHL, no matter how talented. GMs/scouts can't worry about that too much, but they can't be completely ignorant of it either.

Moving on, no one is suggesting Giroux was ranked 50 spots lower because he was smaller than most ranked higher, but it WAS a factor. Looking back, who wouldn't take him well above his #22 draft spot? Point is, given Philly's make-up at forward, and their prospects in the system at the time, adding a smaller guy with lots of skill wasn't as much of a risk as it might have been for the team at #21. Or #20. Or #19. Or #18. Or maybe even #23, 24, or 25. And so on. If Philly didn't pick him, who knows if he might have dropped all the way to #30? Without knowing the drafting strategy of all the teams, and the players they were targetting, you can't say for sure, and I'm certainly not pretending to try, either.

And finally, Berglund's slight slip in the rankings has already been discussed earlier in the thread, and I think the consensus is that his loyalty to his team resulting in reluctance to move immediately into a "better" league closer to the parent club may have factored in there a bit; obviously not enough to drop him out of the 1st round or anything. Similar things happen with 18 year old Russians who have a contract over there, and teams have to gauge whether or not they'll be able to get that player over to North America, how soon, and how much is it worth picking that guy instead of someone ranked right beside him and available immediately for grooming in the system.
Fair enough on the 90%, what I mean is at least all the people I saw speak about it in general, whether it was in the media, people on HF from our fan base or even others, thought it was a very early spot to be picking Fischer and that he was a very high risk pick when compared to others available.

It could potentially be as a result of bias, I can't tell you and I'm sorry but I'm not going to dig up a bunch of threads and a bunch of the stuff I heard was from people and of course the radio. All I know is around that time people in general did not seem the least bit happy about the pick. When I say 90% I don't mean an exact percentage so I shouldn't have probably said 90%, but I just mean an overwhelming majority of people at least that I heard speak about it or read speaking about it thought the pick was a bad pick and that much better picks were available. Who knows though maybe they were bias but were they wrong? Maybe they had good reason to be bias because they felt Fischer was not a top 30 pick at draft day. Who knows what reasoning people had I just remember it as "that pick". Meaning a large amount of people felt it was a stupid pick that day and not just posters on HF, people in the hockey analysts world too.

I never said he was a high risk high reward without talent, I'm saying he was a high risk reward and that far more naturally talented people were available. (You go for the natural high end talent not a D who has a lot of area to improve) He was a "size pick" who was chosen to address the lack of D and size we had at the time. He wasn't known for being some offensive power house with a ton of talent offensively, he was a mostly one-dimensional stay at home D. (That isn't to say he can't produce offensively, but he wasn't noted as an offensive star and still had huge improvement for other areas at D) This is what I was saying. There were better all around players available who weren't D and were far more than a hair line difference from Fischer. Yes Berglund is a fine example. Giroux lacked the size Fischer had but made up for it in overall talent as well. Plus if you look at how most of the picks out of only 6 were D, I think it's fairly obvious they were addressing the need at D.

Also the comments about Timmins are sort of irrelevant. Any scout is going to tout their own pick and that whole portion of your comment is based on the assumption that I said Fischer has no talent. Did he get drafted? Well then obviously he has talent. All I'm saying is at the time it was apparent to a ton of people that better picks were available and it wasn't just me and a few other HFers, there were a **** ton of people in the media and around anywhere it was being discussed that didn't like the pick.

Regarding the point about being blinded by skill (bold) I can't say I disagree when it's a hairline, but when we're talking a guy who appears to be 90% guaranteed to make the NHL (projections) versus a guy who has a lot of places to improve (Fischer did), who is a lot harder to read, and in my opinion big D are a lot harder to read than forwards (purely opinion mind you) I'm just saying go for the guy who is the sure thing unless you really think the high end talent is too much to pass up. With Fischer it wasn't like that at all, guys with high end talent like Giroux who were equally risky but more talented were available, but because we were drafting for need rather than best available player we got Fischer. I'm not blaming Timmins by the way, he's the pro not me. I just think in this particular instance he went after need rather than the best possible player and in my opinion that player wasn't just a hairline better than Fischer, I remember at the time of the pick people were in shock by how bad a pick it was. (If it weren't for Giroux's size he would've gone much higher than 22nd, but given that he went 22nd I guess it's more fair to say he had a 40% chance of making the NHL. I doubt Fischer would've broke the top 30 had we not drafted him.)

Fair enough on your final paragraph but the point is Giroux was picked 22nd overall, he wasn't picked 70th. So it isn't really relevant where some teams projected him, obviously at least one team (Philly) didn't want to risk him getting gobbled up and they went after him #22. Due to the fact that Fischer is the bust and Giroux isn't I have to say that Philly at this point was far more merited in their selection than we were. Obviously hindsight is 20/20 but the end result is they picked the NHL caliber player and we didn't, and when you're talking 20th-30th there's still plenty of chance to get an NHL caliber player. We failed to do so because we went for a need and chose a riskier guy. That isn't to say I'm mad at the fact that we did because sometimes those things work out (Avtsyn could pan out) and other times they don't, but I'm not going to dismiss the fact that the move was clearly a need > best available player type move as a result. Anyways I've already pretty much stated this and you say I didn't even respond which I pretty well did. I'm not going to go dig up old threads and reports about Fischer's ranks the bottom line is the guy who went 2 rankings after him was a much better player and at the end of the day he had a ton of talent but lacked size and that's about the only true question mark they had about the guy. What question marks did Fischer have? Skating? Effort? There were all sorts, I mean if you want to dig up some threads be my guest. You don't have to believe it if you don't want you're entitled to your own opinion, I wasn't trying to say 29 other NHL gm's called me and told me Gainey/Timmins were scrubs just going based on memory.

Also note that on Bobby Mac's list Fischer isn't even there, and another poster mentioned the list is comprised of several GM's top lists or something to that affect? Obviously it wasn't just a few teams that had Giroux high and Fischer lower.


Last edited by neofury*: 06-13-2011 at 03:42 PM.
neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 04:10 PM
  #83
WeThreeKings
Registered User
 
WeThreeKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,313
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WeThreeKings
Not only that but Columbus had him as a ND. Teams were asking if they had interviewed the R-tard. David Fischer was not liked amongst most GMs. It is well documented.

WeThreeKings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 04:23 PM
  #84
Em Ancien
Sexy 2nd Rounder
 
Em Ancien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mount Real Life
Posts: 8,864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
Not only that but Columbus had him as a ND. Teams were asking if they had interviewed the R-tard. David Fischer was not liked amongst most GMs. It is well documented.
They had Maxwell in the top 20. And Brassard was compared to Sakic. Hardly a reference.

Their scouting team was obviously full of scrubs.

Em Ancien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 04:50 PM
  #85
Goldthorpe
Meditating Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,180
vCash: 500
You know, I doubt even a guy like Timmins could actually describe his decision process with regards to BPA/need. It probably depends a lot of the draft position, how soon the player could be ready for the NHL, and how good he is compared to the remaining selections available.

Also, although I don't believe players should picked based on the current NHL team needs (except in rare circumstances), I think the overall prospect pipeline depth is probably taken into account. If all you have are scoring forwards but no defense in the farm, then it makes sense to try to shore up a bit on D. But again, I really believe it's nothing more than a case by case basis, with a lot of gutsy decisions on the drafting floor.

Goldthorpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 05:31 PM
  #86
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,501
vCash: 500
Neo, I'm not going to quote your whole post, because it's all "fair enough" as we say. But...

My point wasn't about whether it was 90% or 80% or 95%. It was about who they were. Hindsight obviously provides us with the rationale, but who were the main critics of the Fischer pick that you are referring to? I seem to remember that the only people who really started piping up about it immediately, after seeing Giroux go 22nd, were people around here with Location: ____, Quebec, and those in the French media who saw a guy with a French name, who played on a "local" team in a French league get picked two spots after the Habs' pick. Wait, some other team thought a guy with a French name that we've been watching all year must be good. We must have missed out!

Now, granted, Giroux's late rise in the rankings can be easily explained. His production by the end of the year exceeded expectation for a rookie, and he was voted onto the all-rookie team after almost cracking the top 10 in points. If we tried to translate QMJHL points into NHL suitability every year, though, we'd end up with just as many busts as "pleasant surprises" like Giroux. After all, if you look at Giroux's draft year, 11 players finished with more points than him in the Q, most of them are bigger, and 10 of them aren't even in the NHL, let alone full-time NHLers, right now (most playing in Europe or the ECHL). Brassard, the 6th overall pick that year, has just recently cemented himself full time on the Blue Jackets. Granted, Giroux was younger than most of them at the time, but it's hardly like Giroux had proven himself to be a "sure-fire NHLer" with anything he had done that year in the Q, and in fact, he ended up plateauing (a fairly high plateau, mind you) after this first year, and that's a concern for any NHL scout. Obviously he had more "skill" than someone like Fischer, but it was far from obvious at the time that he was guaranteed to make an impact at the NHL level.

If Giroux hadn't been picked until some time later in the 2nd round (a modest rise from his mid-season rankings of 50-70), he wouldn't have become quite the lightning rod for criticism of the Fischer pick. Certainly not until much, much later after hindsight provided us clear evidence that Giroux had what it takes to make it in the NHL, while Fischer quite clearly wasn't progressing as well as hoped (and there certainly was still hope for Fischer, even well into his second year at U. of Minn.). And that's my point on that one.

In the end, I just hope everyone has learned their lesson that HS hockey provides little insight on NHL-level offensive potential, and clearly masks issues with hockey sense. We should also realize, though, that Fischer WAS picked for what seemed to be skill, and his size wasn't impressive enough that he would have been picked on that attribute alone. He certainly qualifies as a BNPA pick (sorry Whitesnake, but that's what it should be... compliment d'objet direct) rather than a mainly/purely "need" pick, imo. Just turns out Timmins was mistaken about what high school offensive production tells us, and whether or not he had the hockey sense required to take his development to the next level, and we ended up losing a gamble.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 05:46 PM
  #87
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
Fair enough on the 90%, what I mean is at least all the people I saw speak about it in general, whether it was in the media, people on HF from our fan base or even others, thought it was a very early spot to be picking Fischer and that he was a very high risk pick when compared to others available.

It could potentially be as a result of bias, I can't tell you and I'm sorry but I'm not going to dig up a bunch of threads and a bunch of the stuff I heard was from people and of course the radio. All I know is around that time people in general did not seem the least bit happy about the pick. When I say 90% I don't mean an exact percentage so I shouldn't have probably said 90%, but I just mean an overwhelming majority of people at least that I heard speak about it or read speaking about it thought the pick was a bad pick and that much better picks were available. Who knows though maybe they were bias but were they wrong? Maybe they had good reason to be bias because they felt Fischer was not a top 30 pick at draft day. Who knows what reasoning people had I just remember it as "that pick". Meaning a large amount of people felt it was a stupid pick that day and not just posters on HF, people in the hockey analysts world too.

I never said he was a high risk high reward without talent, I'm saying he was a high risk reward and that far more naturally talented people were available. (You go for the natural high end talent not a D who has a lot of area to improve) He was a "size pick" who was chosen to address the lack of D and size we had at the time. He wasn't known for being some offensive power house with a ton of talent offensively, he was a mostly one-dimensional stay at home D. (That isn't to say he can't produce offensively, but he wasn't noted as an offensive star and still had huge improvement for other areas at D) This is what I was saying. There were better all around players available who weren't D and were far more than a hair line difference from Fischer. Yes Berglund is a fine example. Giroux lacked the size Fischer had but made up for it in overall talent as well. Plus if you look at how most of the picks out of only 6 were D, I think it's fairly obvious they were addressing the need at D.

Also the comments about Timmins are sort of irrelevant. Any scout is going to tout their own pick and that whole portion of your comment is based on the assumption that I said Fischer has no talent. Did he get drafted? Well then obviously he has talent. All I'm saying is at the time it was apparent to a ton of people that better picks were available and it wasn't just me and a few other HFers, there were a **** ton of people in the media and around anywhere it was being discussed that didn't like the pick.

Regarding the point about being blinded by skill (bold) I can't say I disagree when it's a hairline, but when we're talking a guy who appears to be 90% guaranteed to make the NHL (projections) versus a guy who has a lot of places to improve (Fischer did), who is a lot harder to read, and in my opinion big D are a lot harder to read than forwards (purely opinion mind you) I'm just saying go for the guy who is the sure thing unless you really think the high end talent is too much to pass up. With Fischer it wasn't like that at all, guys with high end talent like Giroux who were equally risky but more talented were available, but because we were drafting for need rather than best available player we got Fischer. I'm not blaming Timmins by the way, he's the pro not me. I just think in this particular instance he went after need rather than the best possible player and in my opinion that player wasn't just a hairline better than Fischer, I remember at the time of the pick people were in shock by how bad a pick it was. (If it weren't for Giroux's size he would've gone much higher than 22nd, but given that he went 22nd I guess it's more fair to say he had a 40% chance of making the NHL. I doubt Fischer would've broke the top 30 had we not drafted him.)

Fair enough on your final paragraph but the point is Giroux was picked 22nd overall, he wasn't picked 70th. So it isn't really relevant where some teams projected him, obviously at least one team (Philly) didn't want to risk him getting gobbled up and they went after him #22. Due to the fact that Fischer is the bust and Giroux isn't I have to say that Philly at this point was far more merited in their selection than we were. Obviously hindsight is 20/20 but the end result is they picked the NHL caliber player and we didn't, and when you're talking 20th-30th there's still plenty of chance to get an NHL caliber player. We failed to do so because we went for a need and chose a riskier guy. That isn't to say I'm mad at the fact that we did because sometimes those things work out (Avtsyn could pan out) and other times they don't, but I'm not going to dismiss the fact that the move was clearly a need > best available player type move as a result. Anyways I've already pretty much stated this and you say I didn't even respond which I pretty well did. I'm not going to go dig up old threads and reports about Fischer's ranks the bottom line is the guy who went 2 rankings after him was a much better player and at the end of the day he had a ton of talent but lacked size and that's about the only true question mark they had about the guy. What question marks did Fischer have? Skating? Effort? There were all sorts, I mean if you want to dig up some threads be my guest. You don't have to believe it if you don't want you're entitled to your own opinion, I wasn't trying to say 29 other NHL gm's called me and told me Gainey/Timmins were scrubs just going based on memory.

Also note that on Bobby Mac's list Fischer isn't even there, and another poster mentioned the list is comprised of several GM's top lists or something to that affect? Obviously it wasn't just a few teams that had Giroux high and Fischer lower.
Fischer was drafted as an offensively talented defenseman, he was a guy who rushed the puck a lot in high school and was known for his character and leadership skills.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 07:55 PM
  #88
macavoy
Registered User
 
macavoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,322
vCash: 243
I see Giroux's name mentioned and it reminded me of something. Philly seems to be taking the Detroit model of letting their prospects develop slowly in the AHL. How old was JVR last year when he had his break out year? How old is Giroux this year, having his break out year?

They've brought them up through the A, started them off small with no expectations and boom they eventually exceed them. We seen the way Patches excelled after spending time in the A. I really wish, in the past 5 years, we'd taken it slower with our prospects.

Yea Sergei was talented enough to play in the NHL 3 years ago but if we never gave him a taste of the NHL and let him work his way up through Hamilton, he would have understood the value of teamwork. But like Gui and others, we seen talent and gave them the inflated paychecks and it went to their head.

We need to ground our prospects and make them hungry for that dollar by keeping them down in the AHL and making them want it badly. Build up that desire, that hunger.

Whatever, whats done is done.

macavoy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 08:09 PM
  #89
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by macavoy View Post
I see Giroux's name mentioned and it reminded me of something. Philly seems to be taking the Detroit model of letting their prospects develop slowly in the AHL. How old was JVR last year when he had his break out year? How old is Giroux this year, having his break out year?

They've brought them up through the A, started them off small with no expectations and boom they eventually exceed them. We seen the way Patches excelled after spending time in the A. I really wish, in the past 5 years, we'd taken it slower with our prospects.

Yea Sergei was talented enough to play in the NHL 3 years ago but if we never gave him a taste of the NHL and let him work his way up through Hamilton, he would have understood the value of teamwork. But like Gui and others, we seen talent and gave them the inflated paychecks and it went to their head.

We need to ground our prospects and make them hungry for that dollar by keeping them down in the AHL and making them want it badly. Build up that desire, that hunger.

Whatever, whats done is done.
Not sure where you get the Detroit-Phillie comparison...Giroux was in the NHL after 33 AHL games...even played 2 games as a 19 year old.

JVR had 7 AHL games and was in the NHL full time at 20. He's been polishing his game on the bottom 6 instead of the AHL.

They couldn't be more opposite.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2011, 08:47 PM
  #90
Talent Analyst
Registered User
 
Talent Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 100th years
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Smurf View Post
Always BPA. Drafting by need gets you Tinordi. Drafting by BPA gets you Price. 'nuff said.
Best example could be Giroux and Fischer. I totally agree that we need to draft the BPA. But sometimes, draft by needs could be the best options. See Perron and Pacioretty. Perron was set to be the best player out of the two, but Pacioretty bring what we needed the most.

Talent Analyst 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 12:28 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.