HFBoards

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

Elite talent in the draft

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-14-2012, 01:35 AM
  #51
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveForDrawingBlood View Post
Blue Jackets, Florida, Islanders among others been drafting high for a decade haven't done them too much good
None of these teams have been spending to the cap. They have also been terribly mismanaged. If the Islanders hadn't dealt/given/squandered all the talent they drafted they would have had a contender for years.

They gave up Spezza AND Chara for Alexei ****** Yashin

FlyingKostitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 01:47 AM
  #52
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingKostitsyn View Post
None of these teams have been spending to the cap. They have also been terribly mismanaged. If the Islanders hadn't dealt/given/squandered all the talent they drafted they would have had a contender for years.

They gave up Spezza AND Chara for Alexei ****** Yashin
They've also been drafting poorly. Bailey and Okposo look like busts, Niederreiter looks as far from an NHLer right now as you can get. I don't want to call him a bust yet as he shouldn't be in the league to begin with, but he's barely shown signs. Really they better hope Strome is the real deal because Tavares is the only guy right now with any real value on that team.

Et le But is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 03:12 AM
  #53
Sumoki Dachiba
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Personally I think it was a mistake to bring back Markov as early as we did but it is what it is. Nothing we can do about it now and it won't surprise me at all if the Isles, Leafs, Minny and Carolina pass us.
I had to laugh when I read this...
Imagine if you had a time machine and showed this quote to someone in September 2011 and told them it was from March 2012?

I bet 99% of us would predict it was about Markov getting injured again and how that resulted in the Habs getting close to missing the playoffs (unless a bunch of people were thrown off by the mention of Minny).

Sumoki Dachiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 06:14 AM
  #54
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,405
vCash: 500
Despite what all the tankers are falsely claiming in this thread, the truth is that over the last 10-15 years only one team that tanked regularly has won the Cup and that's Chicago.

If you include the Pens then you're mistaken. Crosby on top of being a generational player was also a roll of the dice. If Pittsburgh hadn't won the walk out crap shoot they would never have won the SC. Look at the Pens today, are they a SC contender without Crosby?

The Caps, the Oilers, the Islanders, Panthers, Columbus, they've had many terrible losing seasons and they still haven't won anything.

So I don't buy this nonsense that you need to tank for 2-3-4 years and you'll win the Cup.

Also, the problem with the Habs the past 10 years isn't that we haven't had players that could bring us to the finals. It's that we had 2 brain dead GMs who squandered away the riches provided to them by TT and his scouting team.

During the last 10 years if we had a GM with half a brain he would have traded the excess talent for talent that we lacked. Players that have been shipped out of Montreal for nothing in return.

Ryder
Lats
Beauchemin
McDonagh
Ribeiro
Higgins
Lapierre
D'Agostini
Sergei K
Theodore
Valentenko
Vokoun
Streit
Grabovsky
Perezhogin
Hainsay

That's 16 players who had some value and we got nothing in return (except for McDonagh & Higgins we got negative value back). Then you add all the draft picks that were pi$$ed away for one year patches. I understand SOME of those players had to go but not all of them and not for zip in return.

With TT in place all we needed was a GM who was capable of seeing what he had and what he needed. Not the two imbeciles we have had in placed who devalued their players and then unloaded them or released for nothing.

Or let me put it another way. If we will tank the next 5 years and get the #1 pick each year and Gauthier and Gainey (or someone like them) are still around, we ain't gonna win didley squat. They'll devalue those picks or other prospects and get rid of them after a few years.

We don't need to tank. We need a GM with some foresight and some intelligence.


Last edited by onice: 03-14-2012 at 06:22 AM.
onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 08:15 AM
  #55
The Goalie Mask
Registered User
 
The Goalie Mask's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 257
vCash: 500
To pan out for a minute about this discussion about top 5 draft picks being the critical factor in having a winning team or not...lots of example can support both arguments.

Lots of factors come into play in creating a winning team(manage vision,management asset management,drafting,player development,coaching,core players,team chemistry etc..)

In terms of our team, we have had a lot of issues that has not allowed us to have a top tier team.

But to stay in line with this topic of drafting, we have a few core players that we can build a winning team around- Price, Patches,PK but we are missing a few other core players. The top core player needs are elite center and elite shut down defensemen.

We have not had success in trading for these core needs or signing the right UFA.

Being able to draft in the top 10 is the only way we can really get our elite center & shut down defensemen.

We haven't had a top 10 pick in ages because we keep finishing the season in the middle of the pack.

This years draft along with the following drafts should be managements focus to get top 10 picks to round out our core players. Once that's done, we surround our cores with the right complimenting leaders and players to fine tune our team.

So getting top 10 draft picks is a no brainer not a debate. The 2 keys success factors are positioning our selves for top 10 picks(through tanking this year and trading the following years) for the next few years until we round out our core elite players.The second, is picking the right player with our picks ( Timmins should be able to do this).

Obviously, a side form drafting top 10 picks we need a new management group as well. Without the proper competent management group, we can't address all factors that are important to create a winning team and culture. Hopefully this will be addressed in the off seasons.

The Goalie Mask is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 09:14 AM
  #56
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Despite what all the tankers are falsely claiming in this thread, the truth is that over the last 10-15 years only one team that tanked regularly has won the Cup and that's Chicago.
Last 15 years? With all due respect you don't know what you're talking about.

Detroit, NJ, Colorado all tanked regularly and then won multiple cups. Dallas had Modano, Tampa had Lecavalier, Carolina had Staal, Chicago had Toews and Kane... all top picks.

It goes on and on man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
If you include the Pens then you're mistaken. Crosby on top of being a generational player was also a roll of the dice. If Pittsburgh hadn't won the walk out crap shoot they would never have won the SC. Look at the Pens today, are they a SC contender without Crosby?
Actually you are mistaken. First, even without Crosby they still had Fleury, Staal and Malkin leading the way for them. Malkin is going to win the Hart this year and won the Conn Smythe that season. Secondly, the year before that draft the Pens came in last place. It was not an equal lottery with every team having an equal shot. It was a weighted lottery with the worst teams having the best odds. It's not surprising that the worst team from the previously played season won the lottery.

In fact, if they hadn't gotten Crosby it would've been seen as extremely unlucky. Just like the Caps were extremely unlucky in how they wound up 15th that year and we got 5th.

The only team that was REALLY lucky that year was us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
The Caps, the Oilers, the Islanders, Panthers, Columbus, they've had many terrible losing seasons and they still haven't won anything.
The Isles (as you seem to be deliberately ignoring) are the poster child for rebuilding. They dealt away what would've been a Stanley cup contending team. They strengthen the rebuilding argument so I'm not sure why you want to use them as an example.

The Oilers actually traded away picks and prospects and didn't have a sustained period of high picks until now. It's silly to cite them because their players are 18 and 19 years old.

Columbus actually hasn't drafted high and they've ruined propects (see Steve Mason earlier in this thread)

The Panthers had three top five picks earlier this decade and it yielded them three good players but no stars.

Plus what do these clubs have in common? Very, very bad management. Dealing away Roberto Luongo for a bag of rice (which happened with both the Isles and Florida) is not the way to win cups. It doesn't matter how many great prospects you have. If you have bad management you won't win. Period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
So I don't buy this nonsense that you need to tank for 2-3-4 years and you'll win the Cup.
Nobody including me has said that if you tank for 4 years you'll win a cup. All you are doing here is deliberately misunderstanding and distorting a position of rebuilding. You aren't gaining any crediblity with anyone by doing this.

What rebuilders have said is that superstars are an essential ingredient to winning cups. If you don't have at least one, it's going to be very hard to win without one. Superstars are found with top picks. The more you have, the better your chances at a superstar. Without a superstar, you probably won't win.

Sometimes you get your superstar with one pick. Sometimes it takes forever to find him. But if you draft high long enough, you're likely to find a superstar.

But a superstar alone is not going to win you a cup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Also, the problem with the Habs the past 10 years isn't that we haven't had players that could bring us to the finals. It's that we had 2 brain dead GMs who squandered away the riches provided to them by TT and his scouting team.
It's both.

Even if you assembled the best players we've had over the last decade on this team we're still not going to win a cup. We might advance through the playoffs but over the long haul, it's not going to be good enough to win a cup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
During the last 10 years if we had a GM with half a brain he would have traded the excess talent for talent that we lacked. Players that have been shipped out of Montreal for nothing in return.

Ryder
Lats
Beauchemin
McDonagh
Ribeiro
Higgins
Lapierre
D'Agostini
Sergei K
Theodore
Valentenko
Vokoun
Streit
Grabovsky
Perezhogin
Hainsay

That's 16 players who had some value and we got nothing in return (except for McDonagh & Higgins we got negative value back). Then you add all the draft picks that were pi$$ed away for one year patches. I understand SOME of those players had to go but not all of them and not for zip in return.
Who's going to give you a superstar for Chris Higgins? Who's going to give you a superstar for Mike Ribeiro?

Look, I agree we've done a terrible job of managing assets but we ALSO haven't drafted high and that's what's really killed us. There's not a single superstar in that list. The only one who may become one is McD who we traded away as a prospect.

So... have we done a horrible job managing assets? Yes. But we haven't had a superstar to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
With TT in place all we needed was a GM who was capable of seeing what he had and what he needed. Not the two imbeciles we have had in placed who devalued their players and then unloaded them or released for nothing.

Or let me put it another way. If we will tank the next 5 years and get the #1 pick each year and Gauthier and Gainey (or someone like them) are still around, we ain't gonna win didley squat. They'll devalue those picks or other prospects and get rid of them after a few years.
That's right. Doesn't matter how many great prospects you have. If you have an idiot GM (ie Milbury) you aren't going anywhere.

And the sad thing is, even if you do everything right you still might not win. Look at Ottawa. They had a great team, did everything right, traded for prospects and top picks. They were packed with stars but never won (although the strike happened at the worst possible time for them) so you can do everything right and still not go anywhere. Hell, look at Washington. Great team that has suddenly forgotten how to play hockey.

That doesn't negate the fact that top picks generate superstars though. And it doesn't negate superstars winning cups. Not every rebuild team is going to win a cup and even doing everything right might not win you anything... but at least you're giving yourself the best possible chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
We don't need to tank. We need a GM with some foresight and some intelligence.
A GM with foresight and intelligence would have recognized the need for top picks years ago. Esp considering our constant 8th place finishes with no superstars on the roster.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 03-14-2012 at 09:20 AM.
Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 09:41 AM
  #57
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
They've also been drafting poorly. Bailey and Okposo look like busts, Niederreiter looks as far from an NHLer right now as you can get. I don't want to call him a bust yet as he shouldn't be in the league to begin with, but he's barely shown signs. Really they better hope Strome is the real deal because Tavares is the only guy right now with any real value on that team.
Imagine if they won the lottery and got Yakupov to play with him.

Tavares is amazing. He's a one man show over there. Reminds me of Yzerman on the Wings back in the 80s. The fact that Yzerman managed 155 points on that crap of a team is unthinkable.

Tavares and Yakupov would be sick.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 09:57 AM
  #58
Top Corner2
Registered User
 
Top Corner2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,546
vCash: 500
While I am not arguing the main point, it is also important to remember that drafting AND the NHL have changed immensely since the 90's (and before). It will be interesting to see what the stats tell us about "the new NHL"....my guess is that it will be similar....but perhaps the top 5 might be stretched a bit into a top 8 or 10....as the development of players has gotten so strong in so many countries. Also it seems that "impact" players will not have the same shelf life that they used to with so many great young players coming in and with the injuries and coaching strategies. The game has changed a lot.

Top Corner2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 10:05 AM
  #59
Em Ancien
Sexy 2nd Rounder
 
Em Ancien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mount Real Life
Posts: 8,869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
They've also been drafting poorly. Bailey and Okposo look like busts, Niederreiter looks as far from an NHLer right now as you can get. I don't want to call him a bust yet as he shouldn't be in the league to begin with, but he's barely shown signs. Really they better hope Strome is the real deal because Tavares is the only guy right now with any real value on that team.
It's bit premature of an evaluation isn't it?

Bailey is 22 and Okposo is at least going to be a serviceable top 6 forward. Niederreiter is 19, has yet to fill out his frame and isn't getting much ice-time.

Not every single player that's picked in the first round is insta-star material. Bailey and Niederreiter have been terribly handled though, and that's on the Islanders ability to develop and surround their players, not the scouts.

Em Ancien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 10:16 AM
  #60
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Top Corner2 View Post
While I am not arguing the main point, it is also important to remember that drafting AND the NHL have changed immensely since the 90's (and before). It will be interesting to see what the stats tell us about "the new NHL"....my guess is that it will be similar....but perhaps the top 5 might be stretched a bit into a top 8 or 10....as the development of players has gotten so strong in so many countries. Also it seems that "impact" players will not have the same shelf life that they used to with so many great young players coming in and with the injuries and coaching strategies. The game has changed a lot.
Personally I think the biggest wildcard is the emergence of concussions in the game. We've already seen Eric Lindros (the best player in the world at the time) have his career cut short due to this. Lindros in all likelyhood would've won some cups along the way. Crosby, Toews, Pronger, Savard... all guys with concussion problems now.

Many have tried to argue that the salary cap will ensure that dynasties no longer exist. That clearly hasn't been the case. Pittsburgh has been able to keep that core together no problem and I'd expect it to be the same for teams like Washington as well as others. Teams may lose some key players along the way but money can be finessed. Injuries are another story.

Once you get a concussion it becomes easier with each successive hit to get another one. There's a very good chance that Crosby ends his career prematurely and we have another 'lost superstar' to lament. More than anything I think that head injuries are the biggest single factor that will make dynasties harder to assemble.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 10:27 AM
  #61
CrazyShea
Registered User
 
CrazyShea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Rock
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeMAD View Post
Between the picks #2 and #10 this year, there's not much difference at this point. So obviously "tanking" would be pointless, and finishing the season with strong performances would be a lot better for the future of the team than getting a better pick.
Why do people actually think this is a fact? You act like Columbus is guaranteed to win the draft. Quickly looking at the history of the lottery I see in the past 12 years, 6 times a team that didn't finish 30th won the first overall. Lower we finish the greater the chance we have at first. If we finish in the top 5 we have a chance at Yakupov. Lower we finish the greater odd's we have of winning him. **** finishing strong the rest of the year. This team shouldn't be where they are in the standings and it's their own fault. They didn't play hockey all year so they better not start playing now since it's meaningless.

CrazyShea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 11:37 AM
  #62
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Last 15 years? With all due respect you don't know what you're talking about.

Detroit, NJ, Colorado all tanked regularly and then won multiple cups. Dallas had Modano, Tampa had Lecavalier, Carolina had Staal, Chicago had Toews and Kane... all top picks.
More revisionist BS.

Colorado aka Quebec parlayed Lindros into a goldmine of draft picks, prospects and players. They didn't tank 4-5 years in a row.

NJ...really go take a look. Tell me how many top 3 picks they had.

Yeah right Detroit won their cups because they tanked. Go take a look at how many top 3 picks they had.

As for those other teams. Really? One player is the difference between a SC and a tank? If that was the case how come we haven't won anything. We got Price - a franchise goalie? We got Subban. We got two not one, yet we've won nothing.

Jeeze man you usually post good comments but this one is just plain silly. It's a comment I would expect from a Gainey or a Gauthier.

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 11:49 AM
  #63
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
More revisionist BS.

Colorado aka Quebec parlayed Lindros into a goldmine of draft picks, prospects and players. They didn't tank 4-5 years in a row.
?

They drafted top five FIVE years in a row. They drafted number ONE three years in a row. Yes, they dealt their top pick for other top picks... so what? It's still finishing last to win and they traded for... more top picks including Forsberg!
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
NJ...really go take a look. Tell me how many top 3 picks they had.

Yeah right Detroit won their cups because they tanked. Go take a look at how many top 3 picks they had.

Jeeze man you usually post good comments but this one is just plain silly. It's a comment I would expect from a Gainey or a Gauthier.
New Jersey and Detroit bottomfed for years and won the cup that way. So did Quebec and so did Pittsburgh.

A look at the past few mutli cup winners:

Montreal (1970s) 3 top 4 picks in four years. Including two number ones.
Key picks: Lafleur number one. Shutt number four.

Islanders (1980s) 3 straight years with top four picks including two number ones.
Key picks: Potvin number one.

Oilers (1980s) Difficult to assess because they were a WHL team. They had Gretzky (would've been no. 1) and a team before the draft. Afterwards:
Key picks: Coffey 6th. Fuhr 8th.

Pittsburgh (1990s) 3 straight years with top 5 picks. 6 top five picks in 7 years.
Key picks: Lemieux number one. Jagr number five.

New Jersey (1990s) 7 out of 10 years with top ten picks. Including 4 straight years with top 6 picks. In that span they had 5 top five picks.
Key picks: Niedermeyer, Muller, Maclean, Guerin, Shanahan... all top five. Shanahan lost in the Stevens fiasco.

Quebec/Colorado 5 straight years with a top 5 pick including 3 straight number ones. Included in that span: 7 straight years of top ten picks.
Key picks: Sundin, Nolan, Lindros... number one. Many of these picks were dealt off for other prospects including Forsberg (6th). And later, Roy.

Detroit 5 top ten picks in seven years including 3 top five picks and a number one. They also had two 11th overall picks in that span.
Key picks: Yzerman number four. Primeau number 3. Primeau dealt for Shanahan.

The only other multi cup winning team was Montreal. They won with Roy and did not build via top picks. They had Petr Svoboda, but he wasn't the player the team was built around.

Yes, Detroit won a cup a couple of years ago without top picks. That doesn't negate all the cups they won with Yzerman or the fact that they tanked and rebuilt their team. You don't think that Niedermayer helped NJ win cups? For Pete's sake man he went to Anaheim with Pronger (another top five) and they win cups there with him winning a Conn Smythe.

So WTF are you talking about?

It's absolutely hilarious that you cite multi cup winners and forget how they got there in the first place. When you get Steve Yzerman, your odds of winning a cup go way up. Ditto with Niedermayer or Forsberg. No matter how you slice it Brian Leetch is going to help you win. Jaromir Jagr is going to help you win. For Pete's sake three of those guys won Conn Smythe trophies!

All of these guys went on to HOF careers and many are among the very best players of all-time.

Nobody had more top picks back in the 80s than Detroit except maybe New Jersey and Pittsburgh. It's not a suprise AT ALL that they all won multiple cups in the 90s. And in the 90s nobody had more number ones than Quebec... So please don't sit there and say these teams never tanked.

You don't think we'd have a better team if we had a Steve Yzerman or Jaromir Jagr? You don't think that Evgeni Malkin is going to help you win cups? You don't think our odds of winning would go way up with any of those guys?

Don't come here and try to pretend that those clubs didn't tank. They were the biggest tankers in the league.

Edit: Looks like you edited your post or it didn't come out in mine... either way I'll respond to the rest here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
As for those other teams. Really? One player is the difference between a SC and a tank? If that was the case how come we haven't won anything. We got Price - a franchise goalie? We got Subban. We got two not one, yet we've won nothing.
One player is NOT the difference between a SC and a tank. Never said it was. Obviously you're going to need a good team to begin with, no player is going to win a cup on his own. One player can easily be the difference between winning a cup and not winning one though. Seems fairly straightforward to me. If you have Mario Lemieux you have a shot at building a cup around him. Ditto with Yzerman or Malkin or Toews. Look at us with Roy... do we win without him? Absolutely not.

How come we haven't won anything? C'mon...

Having a superstar won't guarantee a cup. Not having one though almost guarantees that you won't. It's too soon to judge clubs that have won post 2000 but every team that won a cup up until that date has HOF players on their roster. Most if not all have multiple HOF players on their roster.

Dude, we don't have superstars and haven't for a long time. Subban is not a HOF player and neither is Price, maybe someday but we don't know how good these guys will be. Hopefully they become the superstars we've been looking for and if they do then maybe we'll have a shot at something. Thing is though, adding a top five pick this year just increases those odds. And if that top five pick actually becomes a superstar himself then we're in very good shape for the future and might actually have a chance at a cup. Price, Subban, Pacman... all good players to build around. We've got some decent prospects too. Add in an offensive superstar to that group to devlop along with them? We'd be in great shape. If we don't get that player though... it's going to be a lot harder to win.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 03-14-2012 at 01:09 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 09:50 PM
  #64
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Imagine if they won the lottery and got Yakupov to play with him.

Tavares is amazing. He's a one man show over there. Reminds me of Yzerman on the Wings back in the 80s. The fact that Yzerman managed 155 points on that crap of a team is unthinkable.

Tavares and Yakupov would be sick.
Matt Moulson is ok. I don't think he gets enough credit. Reminds me of Marc Savard not getting credit for being on a line with Kovalchuk.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 09:52 PM
  #65
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Matt Moulson is ok. I don't think he gets enough credit. Reminds me of Marc Savard not getting credit for being on a line with Kovalchuk.
Moulson is a great scorer but he's one dimensional. He's a great role player and has good chemistry with Tavares but you don't want him as your second best forward.

Et le But is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 09:53 PM
  #66
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Who's going to give you a superstar for Chris Higgins? Who's going to give you a superstar for Mike Ribeiro?
You can trade 4 or 5 bars of silver for 1 bar of gold.

The trades for Chris Pronger are a good example, I think the most recent one was Lupul, two 1st rounders and Luca Sbisa. Pronger then lifted Philadelphia to game 7 of the SC finals. Previously the exact same chain of events happened to Edmonton in 2006, and then Anaheim in 2007 (though they actually won). The Habs cannot put together that kind of package for anybody in the NHL right now. However, we could do so if we had been accumulating assets rather than squandering assets.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 09:54 PM
  #67
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
Moulson is a great scorer but he's one dimensional.
If you're going to be one-dimensional, it might as well be goal-scoring.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 11:17 PM
  #68
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
If you're going to be one-dimensional, it might as well be goal-scoring.
The thing is most so called one dimensional snipers aren't quite as limited as he is. They usually have speed and range. Though as limited as Moulson is, I sure wouldn't mind him on this team.

Et le But is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 11:23 PM
  #69
Em Ancien
Sexy 2nd Rounder
 
Em Ancien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Mount Real Life
Posts: 8,869
vCash: 500
Kind of sucks that we were so close at having an elite offensive forward prospect at the draft, something we haven't seen since Andrei Kostitsyn and Marcel Hossa before that (boy could we pick 'em), and now we're seeing it slowly slip away.

Em Ancien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-14-2012, 11:32 PM
  #70
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
You can trade 4 or 5 bars of silver for 1 bar of gold.

The trades for Chris Pronger are a good example, I think the most recent one was Lupul, two 1st rounders and Luca Sbisa. Pronger then lifted Philadelphia to game 7 of the SC finals. Previously the exact same chain of events happened to Edmonton in 2006, and then Anaheim in 2007 (though they actually won). The Habs cannot put together that kind of package for anybody in the NHL right now. However, we could do so if we had been accumulating assets rather than squandering assets.
Yup, we've done a great job of throwing players away.

Lafleurs Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 12:11 AM
  #71
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyShea View Post
Why do people actually think this is a fact? You act like Columbus is guaranteed to win the draft. Quickly looking at the history of the lottery I see in the past 12 years, 6 times a team that didn't finish 30th won the first overall. Lower we finish the greater the chance we have at first. If we finish in the top 5 we have a chance at Yakupov. Lower we finish the greater odd's we have of winning him. **** finishing strong the rest of the year. This team shouldn't be where they are in the standings and it's their own fault. They didn't play hockey all year so they better not start playing now since it's meaningless.
50/50 for the bottom team is about right because that is about the odds of winning it. From the 2010 draft:

Odds of Winning the First Overall Pick - as of end of regular season
48.2% - Edmonton Oilers
18.8% - Boston Bruins (from Toronto)
14.2% - Florida Panthers
10.7% - Columbus Blue Jackets
8.1% - New York Islanders

The 2010 NHL Draft Lottery Odds are listed below - as of end of regular season

25.0% - Edmonton Oilers
18.8% - Boston Bruins (from Toronto)
14.2% - Florida Panthers
10.7% - Columbus Blue Jackets
8.1% - New York Islanders
6.2% - Tampa Bay Lightning
4.7% - Carolina Hurricanes
3.6% - Atlanta Thrashers
2.7% - Minnesota Wild
2.1% - New York Rangers
1.5% - Dallas Stars
1.1% - Anaheim Ducks
0.8% - Phoenix Coyotes (from Calgary)
0.5% - St. Louis Blues

Frozenice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 05:35 AM
  #72
Jafar
C'est la vie
 
Jafar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,027
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
You are absolutely right. There is way more “certainty” in the scouting than ever before. It doesn’t appear that it even happened that gradually, it was pretty much like a switch was flipped around 2003.



Thank you for digging that up. It was a great post. Thanks for bringing my first real research project some exposure. Since getting involved in the ATD in October 2007, I have not even touched this. Ranking and debating the best players in history is just far too fulfilling.

I stand by this research though. The only thing I would do now, is update it to 2004, since there are four more drafts worth of players we can properly judge, and most importantly, revamp those player ratings. Having been in about 30 ATD/MLD/AAA/AA drafts at various boards I have a much better idea how these 70s and 80s players rank and could probably improve these ratings a bit more.

However, this would not change what is perfectly clear – the higher you draft, the greater your chances of finding an NHL player, a star player, or a superstar player. The connection is undeniable. Unless you’re Carmissimo.



Chara was dumb luck. No one thought he would be a Norris winner. You take a guy at 135, it’s because you think he “might” be an NHL player at all. Any player that good, taken that low, was just luck. Know how I know? Because NHL scouts and GMs aren’t idiots. You don’t sit there smugly and let Niklas Lidstrom fall to round 3 while you take Mike Sillinger, if you know Lidstrom is the type of player who will win 7 norris trophies… or even one, for that matter! In fact, if you’re the wings, you do everything you can to trade up from #19, package in Gerard Gallant and/or whoever else to absolutely guarantee you get that player.

Credit to them for seeing something in Nik, but a Norris winner they did not see.



That study was far from scientific, and suffered from a really small sample size.

But yes, the connection was there with top-5 picks developed by the organization (not drafted – I remember making an exception for a higher pick who was traded before ever playing. I forget who that was, though)
seventieslord?!? Lost yourself?

but seriously it was good work.

Jafar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 07:47 AM
  #73
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
?



Dude, we don't have superstars and haven't for a long time. Subban is not a HOF player and neither is Price,
You really like to twist the facts around.

Update your info. You go back to the 70s, 80s, & 90s. I hope you realize that the hockey talent pool has changed. Since the 90s, the USA has more than doubled the number of players it sends to the NHL. Add to that the fact the Europeans started coming over in droves only in the 90s and your talent pool gets even larger and then add to that the fact within the last 20 years Swiss, more Eastern Europeans, Germans and the growth of hockey development in the Maritimes and the hockey pool is a 1000 times deeper than in the 70s, 80s or even the 90s.

What does that mean?

It means that every draft year or every second or third draft year the top pick will be an elite player as in the decades you mentioned. But in the 70s, 80s & 90s, the drop off from the top 2-3 picks to the rest of the pack was steep and drastic.

That's no longer the case. The hockey pool is deeper today. Was a time that if you picked out of the top 2-3 places the chances were you didn't draft a sure fire NHLer. Nowadays, of the 30 picks in the first round 25 turn out to be decent NHLers.

That's why I said the last 10-15 years. Hockey has changed it has truly become an international game. For crying out loud it's no longer a surprise to have top prospects come from Southern California, Texas, Georgia.

So it's no longer relevant to tank. You can win a Cup without tanking 4-5-6 years in a row.

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 08:44 AM
  #74
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
You really like to twist the facts around.

Update your info. You go back to the 70s, 80s, & 90s. I hope you realize that the hockey talent pool has changed. Since the 90s, the USA has more than doubled the number of players it sends to the NHL. Add to that the fact the Europeans started coming over in droves only in the 90s and your talent pool gets even larger and then add to that the fact within the last 20 years Swiss, more Eastern Europeans, Germans and the growth of hockey development in the Maritimes and the hockey pool is a 1000 times deeper than in the 70s, 80s or even the 90s.

What does that mean?

It means that every draft year or every second or third draft year the top pick will be an elite player as in the decades you mentioned. But in the 70s, 80s & 90s, the drop off from the top 2-3 picks to the rest of the pack was steep and drastic.

That's no longer the case. The hockey pool is deeper today. Was a time that if you picked out of the top 2-3 places the chances were you didn't draft a sure fire NHLer. Nowadays, of the 30 picks in the first round 25 turn out to be decent NHLers.

That's why I said the last 10-15 years. Hockey has changed it has truly become an international game. For crying out loud it's no longer a surprise to have top prospects come from Southern California, Texas, Georgia.

So it's no longer relevant to tank. You can win a Cup without tanking 4-5-6 years in a row.
Really, stop digging. You're failing in this argument badly. The facts are simple. Top picks = Top talent. The influx of Euros has not changed that fact at all. Stop throwing up straw men. LG never suggested you need to lose for 6 years in a row to win a cup. He's pointing out that we have lacked both elite talent and elite draft position. The only person who fails to see a connection there seems to be you.

Bullsmith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2012, 09:28 AM
  #75
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullsmith View Post
Really, stop digging. You're failing in this argument badly. The facts are simple. Top picks = Top talent. The influx of Euros has not changed that fact at all. Stop throwing up straw men. LG never suggested you need to lose for 6 years in a row to win a cup. He's pointing out that we have lacked both elite talent and elite draft position. The only person who fails to see a connection there seems to be you.
No, the one who has an understanding problem is you!

Top picks don't necessarily lead to SC winners. If that was the case then the Caps, the Islanders, the Blue Jackets, the Oilers, Atlanta, LA, Phoenix would all be the top contenders. And they would have dominated the SC winners ofthe last 10 years. they have won didley squat.

You and Lafleur's Guy are trying to justify an loser philosophy of intentionally tanking to get better.

I'm saying you don't need to tank to get better. Detroit won two Cups in the last 10 years. They didn't tank the decade before they won. The same with the Devils. 2 Cups. No tank. The Bruins won last year. How many times did they tank in the last decade? That's 5 SC winners in the last 10 that didn't tank.

Take the Habs case. TT drafted 18 NHLers between 03 and 07. In that time his best placings were a 10th and a 5th. Nothing extraordinary. If we had a GM who knew what he was doing, he could have traded the excess talent we had to fill the holes in our lineup - just like the Red Wings did, like the DEvils and the BRuins. Those 3 teams represent 5 of the last 10 cups.

Lafleur's isn't advocating tanking for two three years? Where the %^&* have you been the last year? That's all he has been advocating.

So go share your loser philosophy with losers. I want no part of it


Last edited by onice: 03-15-2012 at 09:39 AM.
onice 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 10:54 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.