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

The Hockey News: Habs Draft 2012 = A+

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-25-2012, 08:47 PM
  #51
impudent_lowlife
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Japan
Posts: 785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
You and a few others are missing the entire point.

I know that it ruffles feathers when Timmins' name is spoken in a less than glowing manner. But this is not exclusive to Timmins. Every team has drafted a player(s) that did not live up to hype or expectations.
Drafting any player is a crapshoot. But sometimes the odds are stacked in one's favour more than other times. One study shows that odds as follows:

Quote:
Question: How Many NHL Draft Picks Make it to the NHL?
Over 200 players are selected at every NHL draft. How many of them go on to have NHL careers? What are the prospects for a player selected in the first round of the NHL Draft compared to later rounds?

Answer: To properly evaluate a draft, you need a few year's distance from it. So let's look at the 1990s. To define whether a player "makes it," let's set the threshold at 200 NHL games. We'll call them "career players."

Between 1990 and 1999, there were 2,600 names called at the NHL Entry Draft.

As of 2007, 494 of those players have appeared in at least 200 NHL games. That's a success rate of 19 percent. But of course, not all draft picks are created equal. The guys picked in the first round are a cut above the rest:

Success rate of first-round draft picks

•Of the 494 career players drafted in the 1990s, 160 were selected in the first round.
•Of those 160 career players, over half have played more than 500 NHL games.
•Among the older players (those drafted from 1990 to 1994), six first-round picks have made it to 1,000 games. Another couple of dozen are still active and within reach of 1,000.
•Based on the 1990s sample, a first-round draft pick has a 63 percent chance of being a career player.

Beyond the first round.

This is where the NHL dream begins to fade in a hurry:

•From 1990 to 1999, about one-quarter of the players selected in the second round turned into NHL career players. Those drafted in the third round and beyond are really up against it.
•From over 2,000 players selected in the third round and beyond during 1990s, just 261 made it as NHL career players. That's about 12 percent.

impudent_lowlife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2012, 09:28 PM
  #52
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,379
vCash: 500
By the way....there's one guy you shouldn't say that the draft is a crapshoot and it's Timmins himself based on the interview he gave. His business is "projecting". Yes, it's probably tougher than everything else. But it is still what his job is all about. And his business is also realizing that he can't always be right. Yet, as much as we try to take away the pressure by trying to seel that it is a crapshoot, there's something that is very clear. EVERYBODY knows that it's a small minority that end up being NHL'ers. That, the more you you go towards the end of the draft, the less the chances to just even acquire a NHL'er, even less a useful NHL'er. So some will say it's a crapshoot. I don't agree. It's a pretty tough job to say the least. But a crapshoot, for me, would be that at one point, everybody is equal, that one year Timmins will be god, the next he'll be crap, and that in the end, everybody has their ups and downs.....Well we all know it's totally wrong. We all know that some teams sucked. While other teams are much better. Not my definition of crapshoot. But rather a definition of a job that is quite difficult that you need special talents to do a good job at it.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2012, 09:37 PM
  #53
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
And wanting to dump veterans (To Tank ) in the hope of getting a top draft pick is what kind of strategy?
The draft is linear. The higher you pick the better your odds. If you have three top five picks, you'd be pretty unlucky not to get at least one superstar and you're probably going to get at least two decent players to go along with it. Moreover, we have the best scouting in the league so those odds would go up for us...

No top five picks in a quarter century... not a surprise we're always screaming for superstars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeeBey View Post
See if any of these names get you to realize something else...

Sidney Crosby
Jonathan Toews
Alexander Ovechkin
Evgeni Malkin
Vincent Lecavalier
Dany Heatley
Daniel Sedin
Henrik Sedin
Joe Thornton
Patrick Marleau
John Tavares
Eric Staal
Tyler Seguin
Drew Doughty
Bobby Ryan
Chris Pronger
Paul Kariya
Taylor Hall
Matt Duchene
Viktor Hedman
Jason Spezza
Ilya Kovalchuk
Marian Gaborik
etc. etc.

It's a fact that if you draft higher, you're significantly more likely to get a quality player. Especially now, as scouting becomes more sophisticated, your chances of drafting a bust that early are significantly lower than they were 10 years ago. Look at every draft from 2000-2010. How many top 5 picks can you find that ended up not being impact players for their teams?
Odds of getting a superstar is about 1 in 4 in the top five. It drops off a cliff after that. Odds of getting at least a good player in the top five is significantly better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Edmonton regards.
That's what they used to say about Colorado. It's what they used to say about Pittsburgh...

You're writing off a team of 18-23 year olds. Stop being so shortsighted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
What the **** has happened to the fan base of Montreal?
We watched the teams limp along for 20 years of mediocrity. Watching expansion teams leapfrog us. Watching terrible teams leapfrog us. Watching teams get high picks and watching them turn into superstars while we've had to settle with guys like Saku Koivu as our best players.

The fan base of Montreal watched as success became defined as making the playoffs instead of building towards cups. Short term moves at the expense of long term success became the order of the day and the fans (at least some of us) realize that it's a waste of time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
It seems vogue to want to continue to lose in the hopes of maybe landing a good pick that might help the Habs in 3 or 4 years.
Intentionally lose? No. Go for more short term moves to get into 8th though? Hell no!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
So lets keep playing to lose. Makes a hell of a lot of sense.
Nobody is suggesting we play to lose. We just need to be a lot smarter about how we try to build our team. And what the hell are you suggesting we do anyway? Go out and try to build with the crappy leftover Free Agents that we always try to build with? It hasn't worked. So wtf do you want us to continue doing it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
**** Molson, **** Bergevin, **** every single hire this season. Oh, and **** all of the Habs on this team right now. **** em all. Lets keep playing for the top draft pick each season.
Let's play the kids and see how it goes. Maybe we will suck. If we do... fine. But don't make stupid moves to squeak into 8th. Take a longterm approach. We NEVER do this and that's why we never win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
If it works for you, then be all for it.

Lose Habs Lose, right?
This has been going for for close to two decades anyway...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Go look in the mirror and smell what you're shovelling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uwey View Post
110% agree with this post.

Potential is never guaranteed success at the next levels.
Nothing is guaranteed success man. If you want guarantees go be a taxman.

Are you honestly trying to argue that getting players with the best potential is a bad way to build your team? That's just about the stupidest argument you can possibly make. And yet, people continue to make these same sorry arguments over and over...

Not a guarantee so freaking what? You could have Crosby, Luongo, Stamkos, Malkin and still not be guaranteed to win.

Potential is still a good way to build your team right? Sam Polloch understood this. He traded for it all the time. But here you sit with these silly arguments like potential is not a guarantee... Well if you want a guarantee, we can keep doing things the way we have since our last cup. We're pretty much guaranteed not to win anything if we aren't drafting high or trading for young players with potential. That's what we've avoided for 20 years and it's why we've sucked. So if you're all about guarantees, I guess that's why you want things to stay the way they've been.

More bubble teams and 8th or 9th place finishes... no thanks.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2012, 09:46 PM
  #54
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uwey View Post
LA finished 8th in their conference, just sayin'!!!
Right... so the exception is the rule?

BTW, they had Koptiar and Doughty leading the way... We haven't had a top 2 pick in over 30 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsrule View Post
No way would I want this team to do a rebuild. If you look at our roster we have a lot going for us.

Bourque-Plekanec-Gionta
Paccioretty-Desharnais-Cole
Eller-Gomez-Armstrong
Moen-Nokolainen-Prust
x-White, Blunden, Palushaj

Markov-Emelin
Subban-Gorges
Kaberle-Boullion
x-Weber, Diaz, St.Denis

Price
Budaj
What's so great about that roster? What makes you think that roster can win anything other than 8th place? Last year we were among the very worst teams in the league. We might be good enough to make the playoffs if things go right, but we're far from a contender now.

Max, Subban, Price, Galchenyuk... the other youngsters, they have a shot to maybe help us win someday. Plekanecs, Gionta, Cole, Markov? We'll never win anything with them. Not going to happen. We'd be better off dealing some of those guys away and we should've done this long ago (actually we never should've picked up Gionta to begin with) and rebuilt.

What is it that you want to see from the team? If it's a cup, a lot of those guys should be dealt. We're not winning one this year or next... might as well be smart and start realizing that the future is not now, it's down the road and we should be building towards that now to accelerate the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsrule View Post
That team has some skill and has added size and toughness.
Tons of other teams have more skill and toughness. We're not all that skilled or tough. Better than we were? Highly debatable. But even if we are, it's not saying much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsrule View Post
Then look at our prospect list with NHL potential. Not saying that they will all be NHLers at all but they have potential.

Forwards:
Bozon, Geoffrion, MacMillan, Hudon, Galchenyuk, Leblanc, Bournival, Holland, Vail, Dumont, Collberg, Gallagher, Kristo, Quailer, Avtsin, Schultz, Pribyl

Defence:
Beaulieu, Tinordi, Ellis, Thrower, Bennett, Dietz, Nash

Goalies:
none

With that list of prospects including and upcoming first and three second rounders I feel as if we are pretty set. In five years if even half of those guys are good enough to play in the NHL we will not have enough room for them.
We have a good group of youngsters. Is it a great group? Maybe. But we should be adding to it to make sure...

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2012, 10:04 PM
  #55
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
And wanting to dump veterans (To Tank ) in the hope of getting a top draft pick is what kind of strategy?
A good one.

When you aren't winning it's a great idea. That's what Quebec did with their vets and it landed them a bunch of picks, one of which turned into Joe Sakic. NJ did it and got the pick for Niedermayer, Washington did it and landed Mike Green. We used to do it, Calgary did it for Iginla... why not do this? Esp when we have the scouting we do. It makes perfect sense and if we'd been doing this long ago we'd be a lot better off now. But we've kept putting it off. No surprise that we finished near the bottom last year...
We watched guys like Souray and Koivu go for nothing and reloaded with players of similar ability via free agency. The losing has been entirely predictable.

Yet you seem to want us to continue to do this.

Before this season ended I suggested we try to get the extra pick from Washington. Maybe give up some vets (Pleks, Cole or Markov) for a first. Don't know if they would've done it. But folks here thought that it was a crazy idea... why? What do we have to lose?

And we could've taken Forsberg or Grigorenko to go along with Galchenyuk at 11th overall. These kinds of trades make sense man. We should be looking at doing this but we don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Drafting any player is a crapshoot. But sometimes the odds are stacked in one's favour more than other times. One study shows that odds as follows:
If that were true, then the draft wouldn't be linear. It is linear. On average, the 1st overall will perform the best, the 2nd overall will perform 2nd best and so on... That's the way it is.

Does it mean there aren't Alex Daigle's in the past or that there won't be any in the future? Of course not. But it's hardly a crapshoot man.

Compare the five seasons of top five picks vs. 31 to the end of the draft over the years. Even with the disadvantage of only having 5 picks vs. hundreds to choose from, the best players are STILL going to come from the top five on average. Yes, there will be more NHLers in the 2nd group, but it's from a huge pool of hundreds of players per year.

It becomes a crapshoot to find a superstar beyond the first round. It's certainly not a crapshoot in the top five though.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 07-25-2012 at 10:16 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2012, 10:16 PM
  #56
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Drafting any player is a crapshoot. But sometimes the odds are stacked in one's favour more than other times. One study shows that odds as follows:
The percentages vary from year to year because each draft class is different from every other. Not only that, but evaluators are imperfect. They all overrate or underrate some players.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2012, 10:36 PM
  #57
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by impudent_lowlife View Post
Drafting any player is a crapshoot. But sometimes the odds are stacked in one's favour more than other times. One study shows that odds as follows:
I agree that drafting is an important component of success in the NHL.

But it is only one component.

More important than drafting is having smart management that is able to be effective in managing the assets we have, developing the assets we have and making effective and sound trades.

Montreal has been woefully lacking in that aspect. So much so that a lot of fans are turning to what they see as our only hope.......the draft.

The other very important component is coaching. Montreal has talent. Not the best in the League but talent none the less. The Martin regime was woeful in that he tried to force a square peg into a round hole with the players that we had. Carbo before that was terrible but for his own reasons. Therrien? Too early to criticize before we actually see his approach and strategy in his second go round in Montreal.

I default back to Edmonton. Based upon their drafting position over the last few years, they should be a powerhouse by now. But they arent. And there is a very good reason for that. Its what I mentioned earlier. Drafting is only a small component to success in the NHL or any other sport. Management and coaching trumps drafting significantly.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2012, 10:44 PM
  #58
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
The draft is linear. The higher you pick the better your odds. If you have three top five picks, you'd be pretty unlucky not to get at least one superstar and you're probably going to get at least two decent players to go along with it. Moreover, we have the best scouting in the league so those odds would go up for us...

No top five picks in a quarter century... not a surprise we're always screaming for superstars.

<deleted a lot>
We can play this game all you like. I can show you late rounders who developed into talented NHL players.

Gaustad, Lundqvist, Bieksa, Seidenberg, Clowe, Laich, Wisniewski, Talbot and many more.

What is the difference between the late rounders I mentioned and the late rounders that we drafted? Development. Management over the last decade and a half. Coaching over the last decade and a half.

Stop thinking from the mindset of Gauthier/Gainey leading this team and making a lot of horrible signings and trades.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2012, 11:06 PM
  #59
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
We can play this game all you like. I can show you late rounders who developed into talented NHL players.

Gaustad, Lundqvist, Bieksa, Seidenberg, Clowe, Laich, Wisniewski, Talbot and many more.

What is the difference between the late rounders I mentioned and the late rounders that we drafted? Development. Management over the last decade and a half. Coaching over the last decade and a half.

Stop thinking from the mindset of Gauthier/Gainey leading this team and making a lot of horrible signings and trades.
That they did, but both made some decent moves. About half the regulars weren't drafted by the Habs.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2012, 11:17 PM
  #60
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
That they did, but both made some decent moves. About half the regulars weren't drafted by the Habs.
I dont disagree with you. And that is what our seasons have reflected. Decent seasons because of their decent moves and their decent decisions regarding the coaching for the Habs.

Decent does not win a Stanley Cup.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2012, 11:41 PM
  #61
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
I dont disagree with you. And that is what our seasons have reflected. Decent seasons because of their decent moves and their decent decisions regarding the coaching for the Habs.

Decent does not win a Stanley Cup.
Every year, 29 teams, including some who make favorable trades and FA signings, don't win the Stanley Cup.

Seriously, when was the last tume the Habs had a team that was capable of winning a championship?

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2012, 11:57 PM
  #62
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Every year, 29 teams, including some who make favorable trades and FA signings, don't win the Stanley Cup.

Seriously, when was the last tume the Habs had a team that was capable of winning a championship?
2010.

Martin should have never press boxed O'Byrne against the Flyers. And if we would have had a more physical D, the Habs could have won it all.

This team does not need to tank to have a complete rebuild, ala Edmonton. No, just a few tweaks and better coaching.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2012, 05:09 AM
  #63
Gabe84
Bring back Bonk!
 
Gabe84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
We can play this game all you like. I can show you late rounders who developed into talented NHL players.

Gaustad, Lundqvist, Bieksa, Seidenberg, Clowe, Laich, Wisniewski, Talbot and many more.

What is the difference between the late rounders I mentioned and the late rounders that we drafted? Development. Management over the last decade and a half. Coaching over the last decade and a half.

Stop thinking from the mindset of Gauthier/Gainey leading this team and making a lot of horrible signings and trades.
Are you saying the Habs have done bad with late rounders under Gainey/Gauthier?

Halak, Kostitsyn and Streit all have been drafted in the last round of their respective draft and they have been developed by this team. They may not be with the team anymore but they've all performed rather well with this team before signing elsewhere/being traded.

I don't have the data, but over the last ten year, three players from the last round, two of them being arguably star players, is probably the best result in the league.

And seriously, O'Byrne would have made the difference against the Flyers? Did you even watch that series? The problem was our offense getting shut down by the Flyers' defense. The Canadiens were shutout three times over five games.

Gabe84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2012, 09:26 AM
  #64
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe84 View Post
Are you saying the Habs have done bad with late rounders under Gainey/Gauthier?

Halak, Kostitsyn and Streit all have been drafted in the last round of their respective draft and they have been developed by this team. They may not be with the team anymore but they've all performed rather well with this team before signing elsewhere/being traded.

I don't have the data, but over the last ten year, three players from the last round, two of them being arguably star players, is probably the best result in the league.

And seriously, O'Byrne would have made the difference against the Flyers? Did you even watch that series? The problem was our offense getting shut down by the Flyers' defense. The Canadiens were shutout three times over five games.
Yes, I watched that series. We spent most of the time playing back on our heels in our zone because our D was executing the Martin system to perfection as they were out-muscled.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2012, 10:10 AM
  #65
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
I agree that drafting is an important component of success in the NHL.

But it is only one component.

More important than drafting is having smart management that is able to be effective in managing the assets we have, developing the assets we have and making effective and sound trades.

Montreal has been woefully lacking in that aspect. So much so that a lot of fans are turning to what they see as our only hope.......the draft.

The other very important component is coaching. Montreal has talent. Not the best in the League but talent none the less. The Martin regime was woeful in that he tried to force a square peg into a round hole with the players that we had. Carbo before that was terrible but for his own reasons. Therrien? Too early to criticize before we actually see his approach and strategy in his second go round in Montreal.

I default back to Edmonton. Based upon their drafting position over the last few years, they should be a powerhouse by now. But they arent. And there is a very good reason for that. Its what I mentioned earlier. Drafting is only a small component to success in the NHL or any other sport. Management and coaching trumps drafting significantly.
No they shouldn't. Your argument is idiotic to say the least. It takes more than 2 years to grow up a fresh new core. Also, you won't hit all home runs over the course of the rebuild. Plus, Edmonton is very much a team with less UFA attraction power than others, making any rebuild longer and harder.

Edmonton is not an example for what you are talking about. They got hit by Stanley cup final blues and then they couldn't make it stick again(that's where the bad moves happened), decided it was time to clean house. They did, this takes 5 years just to refill and then 2-3 more years of growing up. I'm from Quebec city, I know what I'm talking about. The rebuilt started in 87 and the cup was won in 95, in 92-93 the young team surprised everyone. I feel Edmonton is getting close to that point now.

(From Wikipedia)
Quote:
During the 1992–93 NHL season, these new players, along with Sakic — now a bona fide NHL All-Star — and the rapidly developing Sundin and Nolan, led Quebec to the biggest single-season turnaround in NHL history. They leaped from 52 points in the previous season to 104—in the process, going from the second-worst record in the league to the fourth-best, as well as notching the franchise's first 100-point season as an NHL team.
Edmonton with their age:

Hall(20)- RNH(19) - Eberle(22)
Yakupov(19) - Gagner(22) - Hemsky(28)
Honorable mention: Magnus Paajarvi (21)

They should be a powerhouse? You have to learn a few things when everybody on the team is 20-22 years old.
Also, last year they had to deal with RNH and Hall missing good parts of the season, without having much to replace them at all.

Columbus is a mess, Edmonton never was. Edmonton HAD to take the long road.


Last edited by SOLR: 07-26-2012 at 10:25 AM.
SOLR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2012, 10:28 AM
  #66
The Right Price
Registered User
 
The Right Price's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,080
vCash: 500
Lets start the season with what we have at the moment and see where we stand on January 1. Then if we look to be out of playoff contention we can ship off Gio's etc.

The Right Price is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2012, 11:04 AM
  #67
NHLFutureGuy3
Registered User
 
NHLFutureGuy3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
A good one.

When you aren't winning it's a great idea. That's what Quebec did with their vets and it landed them a bunch of picks, one of which turned into Joe Sakic. NJ did it and got the pick for Niedermayer, Washington did it and landed Mike Green. We used to do it, Calgary did it for Iginla... why not do this? Esp when we have the scouting we do. It makes perfect sense and if we'd been doing this long ago we'd be a lot better off now. But we've kept putting it off. No surprise that we finished near the bottom last year...
We watched guys like Souray and Koivu go for nothing and reloaded with players of similar ability via free agency. The losing has been entirely predictable.

Yet you seem to want us to continue to do this.

Before this season ended I suggested we try to get the extra pick from Washington. Maybe give up some vets (Pleks, Cole or Markov) for a first. Don't know if they would've done it. But folks here thought that it was a crazy idea... why? What do we have to lose?

And we could've taken Forsberg or Grigorenko to go along with Galchenyuk at 11th overall. These kinds of trades make sense man. We should be looking at doing this but we don't.

If that were true, then the draft wouldn't be linear. It is linear. On average, the 1st overall will perform the best, the 2nd overall will perform 2nd best and so on... That's the way it is.

Does it mean there aren't Alex Daigle's in the past or that there won't be any in the future? Of course not. But it's hardly a crapshoot man.

Compare the five seasons of top five picks vs. 31 to the end of the draft over the years. Even with the disadvantage of only having 5 picks vs. hundreds to choose from, the best players are STILL going to come from the top five on average. Yes, there will be more NHLers in the 2nd group, but it's from a huge pool of hundreds of players per year.

It becomes a crapshoot to find a superstar beyond the first round. It's certainly not a crapshoot in the top five though.
Lafleurs Guy rocks. This is exactly what I've been saying. Enough with mediocrity. Somethings gotta change!

NHLFutureGuy3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2012, 06:19 PM
  #68
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLR View Post
No they shouldn't. Your argument is idiotic to say the least. It takes more than 2 years to grow up a fresh new core. Also, you won't hit all home runs over the course of the rebuild. Plus, Edmonton is very much a team with less UFA attraction power than others, making any rebuild longer and harder.

Edmonton is not an example for what you are talking about. They got hit by Stanley cup final blues and then they couldn't make it stick again(that's where the bad moves happened), decided it was time to clean house. They did, this takes 5 years just to refill and then 2-3 more years of growing up. I'm from Quebec city, I know what I'm talking about. The rebuilt started in 87 and the cup was won in 95, in 92-93 the young team surprised everyone. I feel Edmonton is getting close to that point now.

(From Wikipedia)


Edmonton with their age:

Hall(20)- RNH(19) - Eberle(22)
Yakupov(19) - Gagner(22) - Hemsky(28)
Honorable mention: Magnus Paajarvi (21)

They should be a powerhouse? You have to learn a few things when everybody on the team is 20-22 years old.
Also, last year they had to deal with RNH and Hall missing good parts of the season, without having much to replace them at all.

Columbus is a mess, Edmonton never was. Edmonton HAD to take the long road.
So being from Quebec City makes you an expert who is 100% correct in everything?

And thank you very much for continuing to make my point with what I highlighted at the end of your post.

Injuries to their "superstar" draft picks.

Fans need to lose the obsession with losing in order to get a top pick. All it takes is one injury to lose the value of that pick.

The focus in Montreal is where it should be right now. New Management and a new approach in coaching styles.

As someone posted earlier, the season hasnt started. Kick back and watch how this year progresses with all of the changes. Who knows, you may get your wish.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2012, 12:50 PM
  #69
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
We can play this game all you like.
And you'll lose. The draft is linear.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
I can show you late rounders who developed into talented NHL players.
So what? It doesn't matter man. Of course late rounders are going to turn into NHL players... they HAVE to. There are hundreds of players drafted after the top five. Of course the majority of NHL players are going to be after the top five.

What is it that you think you're proving here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Gaustad, Lundqvist, Bieksa, Seidenberg, Clowe, Laich, Wisniewski, Talbot and many more.
The only star in that list is Lundqvist. And the goaltending position is the only one where the correlation between superstar and top pick isn't as prominent. And that's mostly because goalies don't usually get picked top 5 to begin. Those that do though, have mostly gone onto good if not great careers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
What is the difference between the late rounders I mentioned and the late rounders that we drafted? Development. Management over the last decade and a half. Coaching over the last decade and a half.
It's not development. If it was development then you'd see an even distribution of results from pick to pick and that's not the case...

Does it surprise you that players who do well in Junior tend to go on to do well in the NHL? I mean seriously man...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Stop thinking from the mindset of Gauthier/Gainey leading this team and making a lot of horrible signings and trades.
Are you daft? Gauthier Gainey did things your way... don't rebuild, try for 8th. Gomez for McD is NOT rebuilding. We've done the opposite of rebuilding for 20 years.

If somebody had smartened up along the way and traded vets AWAY instead of signing guys like Gionta and pretending we could win cups, then we might've actually built something.

Instead, we drafted mid-round mediocre players and tried to win. When you build with mediocre prospects you get mediocre players and mediocre teams. That's what we've had. Our best players right now are Price (drafted top 5 in a one time lottery) MaxPac (traded for as a draft pick) and Subban. Two of the three are done in the way I suggest... top picks and trading for prospects. But you seem to want us to go out and try to 'win' something this year. Not going to happen unless your idea of 'winning' is 8th place.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2012, 01:03 PM
  #70
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,463
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Does it surprise you that players who do well in Junior tend to go on to do well in the NHL? I mean seriously man...

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2012, 05:08 PM
  #71
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
...................Gauthier Gainey did things your way...................
No, they did not. Both were poor managers and suffered with poor asset management skills.

What I said earlier still holds true. Canadiens' fans have seen piss poor management for so long that the concept of asset management is lost on a lot of fans.......so much so that some think the only way to improve is to lose and lose and lose.

Sad and embarrassing.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2012, 07:04 PM
  #72
BLASPHEMOUS
**** THE KING
 
BLASPHEMOUS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sherbrooke
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,473
vCash: 447
I don't want the team to go the way of Edmonton: they've been an embarrassment for too long, and aren't doing anything besides tanking. If they don't make the playoffs within the next few years, or at least become a playoff bubble team, the losing culture could overtake any young promise the team has. That being said, I don't want to be Calgary either, which is essentially what Montreal became under Gainey/Gauthier. They try to compete every year, but in the current NHL you can't do it the way they're going about it.

Getting a MacKinnon or even a Monahan would be absolutely perfect for Montreal. Seriously, getting either of these two would put Montreal in a prime position to compete for cups for several years. While I do not advocate tanking at the beginning of the year, I can understand the draw of it, particularly in this upcoming draft.

BLASPHEMOUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2012, 07:59 PM
  #73
Vasculio
Booya !
 
Vasculio's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: La Tuque
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,281
vCash: 500
Lafleurs Guy, seriously, your last replies are just perfect, exactly the way I think. You trampled the opposition, too, which is real funny

Vasculio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2012, 08:10 PM
  #74
SOLR
Registered User
 
SOLR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Toronto / North York
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
So being from Quebec City makes you an expert who is 100% correct in everything?

And thank you very much for continuing to make my point with what I highlighted at the end of your post.

Injuries to their "superstar" draft picks.

Fans need to lose the obsession with losing in order to get a top pick. All it takes is one injury to lose the value of that pick.

The focus in Montreal is where it should be right now. New Management and a new approach in coaching styles.

As someone posted earlier, the season hasnt started. Kick back and watch how this year progresses with all of the changes. Who knows, you may get your wish.
One argument doesn't work, let's argue about something else right?

Depth and top end talent both makes you win, you build both at the draft and by recycling your assets. See Pittsburgh 2011-2012. They lost the best player in the world and still made the playoffs easily. Queue the "but they lost in the first round" arguments. I don't care. A team that always finish top 4-5 in the conference would never be a concern for me, some years they will make a push in the playoffs, some years they won't.

It is not my wish to lose, stop putting labels on people opinion. I think we should try again with this group, until the trade deadline, then at some point you need to move aggressively if it's not working vs losing assets to UFA for nothing.

SOLR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2012, 08:16 PM
  #75
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
No, they did not.
They most certainly did. You want us to 'go for it' every year. Well, so did they. That's why we saw silly moves like Samsonov, Gionta, Gomez, Kovalev, Bourque... These were all short term moves designed for us to go to 8th place.

We did not trade for picks and prospects. We did not move up in drafts. We signed 2nd tier FAs and picked in the mid rounds and this resulted in us bulding with mediocre players and building mediocre teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Both were poor managers and suffered with poor asset management skills.
No kidding. And a big part of that was the fact that they didn't understand (or care) that we weren't good enough to win anything significant. 8th place was okay by them and that's where we stayed.

They decided we werent' good enough with Koivu and Tanguay etc... well then TRADE them for younger players. Don't go get the same caliber of players to replace them and pay more for it. If they'd done a rebuild three years ago we'd be much farther ahead... but no, guys like you sit there and argue forever about how rebuilding doesn't make sense. It sure as hell does. How it is that even after all the crap you've seen you STILL don't get it is beyond me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
What I said earlier still holds true. Canadiens' fans have seen piss poor management for so long that the concept of asset management is lost on a lot of fans.......
Include yourself in that group. Some of us knew better a long time ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
so much so that some think the only way to improve is to lose and lose and lose.
It's not about losing. It's about recognizing that you aren't good enough to win and doing something about it.

It's about knowing that the best you can do is an 8th place finish and taking a long term approach to try to win. Trading for picks and prospects is what Poloch used to do even when we were the best team in the league. Yes, it's not as easy to do what he did back then now but we sure as hell could be making trades for picks and prospects.

We don't do this though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Sad and embarrassing.
You sit there and tell us that we should want to 'win'. Well what the hell is your plan dude? How the f would you get us there because it sure as hell isn't going to happen via free agency. That leaves the draft or trading. Trading for vets now makes absolutely no sense so why go that route? We've already shown that we can't get top tier free agents either (and most of the time the best FAs aren't worth the money anyway) so why go that route?

Deal vets for prospects and picks. It's a longterm plan that is repeatable and has been shown to work in the past. You want us to be like NJ or Detroit or Colorado... then do what they did. Draft high, trade for picks and be patient. If you get a late round pick who turns into a star (Lidstrom or hopefully Subban) .... great! But you stick to the plan to build a winner. You stop making dumb moves designed for 8th place.

For some stupid reason though you want us to continue doing things the way we always have... it makes no sense.

Lafleurs Guy 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 07:27 PM.

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.