You are right , we usually sign gritty players cause we never draft them... Timmins seems to have man crush about players the same height as him. If we could manage to draft Elias Lindholm would really help every weakness we have. Gritty, high end talent and 1-2 punch down the middle with Galchenyuk. Looking forward to watching him at WJC with collberg
Lindholm isn't huge but he definitely has a nasty streak to go with his smart play...if you count defenders there's a few high end tough players like Ristolainen and to an extent Jones.
I fully agree with Timmins philosophy of drafting for skill first, I'm not jealous of first round "toughness" picks like Biggs and Wilson since they are nice pieces but I'm not expecting anything but bottom 6ers there and the Habs are far from having a surplus of top 6 "locks", if anything our prospects pool is filled with third line two way players.
Last year we took the skill first philosophy to the most extreme in the draft, it was the right move but I expect them to balance it out this year with big projects instead of the Nystroms and Hudons of the later rounds. Of course a lot depends on where we draft...if we miss out on the talent rush there's some power forward projects here.
There's also the possibility to gamble on Nichushkin, he has some clear flaws but he's also a tank.
Either way we just signed Prust and Moen to big deals so unless the next great power forward falls into our hands the "big, gritty" types I assume Timmins are looking for will be projects.
The Habs have to draft some scrappy, physical, gritty players with size this draft. If you take a look at our prospect pool almost every player fits the description of a finesse player with good hockey sense and skating ability. Thats well and good, but one of major problems over the past 10 years has been the organizations attempt to use skilled players in bottom six roles. The Bruins and Flyers draft a plethora of differing types of players, as do other good, balanced teams. It is precisely for this need for the combo of grit, toughness and skill that I like Erne as our first round selection. Its looking like we wont be close to the top 10 anyways.
Some of you may disagree with me, but if you observe each teams list of prospects, ours is easily one of the softest in the league. Bruins got Camara and Payne in the later rounds and they are going to be solid third-fourth line players down the road. I like the Vail pick as he is a gritty, rangy center, but we need some Troy Brouwer type players to put on his wing.
Thoughts?
Agree 100%.
It doesn't have to be in the earlier rounds. Powerforwards take a long time to develop, so it's hard to predict where they will land in the draft.
Last year our number one need was skill and I think we filled it. Now it's time to add toughness and this is a great draft to do it. Not just enforcer types though, guys that have untapped potential. From the OHL alone there's guys like Zach Nastasiuk, Nick Moutrey, Jordan Maletta, Dan Vanderwiel and a few others too that all have legitimate upside. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to adding even more skill, but I would be a little disappointed if that didn't come with toughness.
It doesn't have to be in the earlier rounds. Powerforwards take a long time to develop, so it's hard to predict where they will land in the draft.
Last year our number one need was skill and I think we filled it. Now it's time to add toughness and this is a great draft to do it. Not just enforcer types though, guys that have untapped potential. From the OHL alone there's guys like Zach Nastasiuk, Nick Moutrey, Jordan Maletta, Dan Vanderwiel and a few others too that all have legitimate upside. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to adding even more skill, but I would be a little disappointed if that didn't come with toughness.
This has been my thinking for a few months now, especially after seeing the hot start by some of our more skilled prospects. I would, however, prefer if we drafted a d-man with size in either the 1st or early 2nd because I think it's a bigger need than a power-forward type unless of course we can get real offensive talent with those picks.
Like That said, they dont have to be early rounds, they can be later like Camara, Payne, Ritchie, etc. All you want are players with big bodies, tenacity and hockey sense. If they can skate well, all the better.
This has been my thinking for a few months now, especially after seeing the hot start by some of our more skilled prospects. I would, however, prefer if we drafted a d-man with size in either the 1st or early 2nd because I think it's a bigger need than a power-forward type unless of course we can get real offensive talent with those picks.
1 more as a top 4 d-man and a power forward that can play in the top 6 to round it out. He doesn't have to be as tall as Tinordi, I'd be happy with a stocky 6'3" or 6'4".
1 more as a top 4 d-man and a power forward that can play in the top 6 to round it out. He doesn't have to be as tall as Tinordi, I'd be happy with a stocky 6'3" or 6'4".
Don't think we need another Tinordi, but a good / great, 2 - way D with size would help any team. I'm thinking of Ristolainen. That being said, if I had the choice, based on need and equal talent available I would pick another forward. (ie, if presented with the opportunity between Risto and say Shinkaruk, I'm taking Shinkaruk.) I don't think Galchenyuk will be sufficient as a core player up front, we need a least another top 6 stud if not 2 of them. The assets of Gionta and Cole could be turned for another one and Maxpac will be one for the foreseeable future. I'm hoping Kristo or Gallagher could get there, if both, we are in great shape. (+ Maybe Colberg, Hudon, Bozon later)
I don't think we need to pick size at all if we are drafting another D later in the first round. Zadorov looks ok but our strategic position changed quite a bit in the last few years. We have a lot of good size coming(5 years outlook) with Tinordi, Beaulieu, Ellis, Emelin. Plus Subban while smaller, I would say play with size.
I just hope Bergevin is better(or more inclined) at recycling assets than our previous GMs.
It doesn't have to be in the earlier rounds. Powerforwards take a long time to develop, so it's hard to predict where they will land in the draft.
Last year our number one need was skill and I think we filled it. Now it's time to add toughness and this is a great draft to do it. Not just enforcer types though, guys that have untapped potential. From the OHL alone there's guys like Zach Nastasiuk, Nick Moutrey, Jordan Maletta, Dan Vanderwiel and a few others too that all have legitimate upside. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to adding even more skill, but I would be a little disappointed if that didn't come with toughness.
Maletta is a definite yes for me. The rest is meh.
Maletta is a definite yes for me. The rest is meh.
We're going to have to disagree on this. There's no chance that at this point in time I'd take Maletta over Nastasiuk and Moutrey. Vanderwiel is understandable as has been a complete non-factor in nearly every Plymouth game I've seen.
Maletta has had like four or five good games all year that I've seen. I will concede that he had a great start to the year, and has a few solid performances this year, but he's way too inconsistent. When he's on I simply don't see that good of a player any ways. With Nastasiuk you get a consistent physical effort even if the offense isn't there yet. Nastasiuk also has stand out tools in his offensive game that hopefully he will be able to use with more consistency. Moutrey isn't the most consistent in terms of physicality, but he usually shows up offensively and goes to the net hard. He has a great shot, good hands, creativity and is just starting to gain more confidence. He's starting to bring his physical game with more consistency as of late. I see both their upsides as top six forwards. For Maletta, I see a third liner if he puts it's all together.
I'm sorry, but I'd prefer a lot of big, physical wingers in the OHL over Maletta right now. Nastasiuk, Moutrey, Baptiste, and Silk are all guys I think are better players, now and have a higher potential that Maletta. Then you have Pederson, Vanderwiel, and Paul all players who struggle with the same issues as Maletta.
Maletta is a decent prospect, but he's certainly more meh to me than Moutrey or Nastasiuk.
It's time to look around at the other teams with big dmen like the Bruins with Chara & Dougie Hamilton.This is a trend that the Habs are surely aware of considering how many defensive prospects they have.When a team has 4 picks out of the first 60 it's time to fill needs on their depth charts.Usually big PMD are very hard to come by,Boston has two and the Habs are positioned so that they can draft by need if necessary.As many posters have pointed out Zadorov,Pulock,Nurse,Ristolainen are a few not to mention Seth Jones.There will be options and in the Habs unknown draft position BPA is good. They have three more picks after the 1st round in a deep draft to fill by need.
It's time to look around at the other teams with big dmen like the Bruins with Chara & Dougie Hamilton.This is a trend that the Habs are surely aware of considering how many defensive prospects they have.When a team has 4 picks out of the first 60 it's time to fill needs on their depth charts.Usually big PMD are very hard to come by,Boston has two and the Habs are positioned so that they can draft by need if necessary.As many posters have pointed out Zadorov,Pulock,Nurse,Ristolainen are a few not to mention Seth Jones.There will be options and in the Habs unknown draft position BPA is good. They have three more picks after the 1st round in a deep draft to fill by need.
There are many good defenseman that can be had in the second round, even your "big burly boys" because for some reason we have to be like the bruins.
The first round should be for our offense which is still sorely lacking.
There are many good defenseman that can be had in the second round, even your "big burly boys" because for some reason we have to be like the bruins.
The first round should be for our offense which is still sorely lacking.
Yup. This is how I'd look at it.
1st round pick to select another premiere offensive threat.
2nd round pick A) Premiere offensive threat.
2nd round pick B) Top goaltending prospect.
2nd round pick C) Two-way D prospect with size.
1st round pick to select another premiere offensive threat.
2nd round pick A) Premiere offensive threat.
2nd round pick B) Top goaltending prospect.
2nd round pick C) Two-way D prospect with size.
I think we need atleast 2 forwards. If there isn't a standout goalie prospect there then don't bother. I don't like to say what position will be drafted at which pick pick because what if someone like Pulock drops to our first 2nd round pick? You take him and get a foward later.
There are many good defenseman that can be had in the second round, even your "big burly boys" because for some reason we have to be like the bruins.
The first round should be for our offense which is still sorely lacking.
On the other hand, this draft has a few puck moving defensemen who have the potential to be impact players on both ends who are also "big burly boys"...as much as I'd love another potentially elite forward having someone like Ristolainen in the system would be very nice.
I think our offense is getting to the point where it's good but needs prime players. We have numbers at all offensive positions, just not that much sure fire quality. That's why I'm not against moving assets to either move up or add another 1st rounder to possibly get another prime player.
Simply put, I like these players for a Stanley Cup Push in 3 years:
Maxpac - Gal - (Need high impact with some size)
(Kristo) - Desharnais - Leblanc
Prust - Plekanec- X(Colberg-Gallagher)
X - X - X
Short term assets: Cole, Gionta, Bourque, Moen, Army
Likely Graduate: Kristo(at that point possibly 2nd line LW), Gallagher (3rd line RW?)
Hudon or Bournival might be on the 4th line. Colberg might be ready.
All of this to say, I think the missing piece upfront is a high-end surefire RW, at the draft or in trades. Maybe make a play for Burakovsky if we are in reach for the cost of a 2nd rounder? If we can get a choice in the top 8 you can't go wrong, but outside of that, Burakovsky seems interesting. Then if you are late(r) first round, Nichushkin is there. There are quite a few guys that are very high-end talent this year that could go past 20th.
I agree...we have a lot of 2nd liners in the system, but not a lot with 1st line potential. Collberg is a maybe, but it'll be a while and it's hard to project he will be THAT good. I could be wrong about Kristo but I think he's going to be a depth scorer. Gallagher AND Bozon project as depth scorers; Leblanc and possibly Holland third liners who can play on the second; Bournival, Vail, Nattinen, all guys whose ceiling is on the third line.
I think our offense is getting to the point where it's good but needs prime players. We have numbers at all offensive positions, just not that much sure fire quality. That's why I'm not against moving assets to either move up or add another 1st rounder to possibly get another prime player.
Simply put, I like these players for a Stanley Cup Push in 3 years:
Maxpac - Gal - (Need high impact with some size)
(Kristo) - Desharnais - Leblanc
Prust - Plekanec- X(Colberg-Gallagher)
X - X - X
Short term assets: Cole, Gionta, Bourque, Moen, Army
Likely Graduate: Kristo(at that point possibly 2nd line LW), Gallagher (3rd line RW?)
Hudon or Bournival might be on the 4th line. Colberg might be ready.
All of this to say, I think the missing piece upfront is a high-end surefire RW, at the draft or in trades. Maybe make a play for Burakovsky if we are in reach for the cost of a 2nd rounder? If we can get a choice in the top 8 you can't go wrong, but outside of that, Burakovsky seems interesting. Then if you are late(r) first round, Nichushkin is there. There are quite a few guys that are very high-end talent this year that could go past 20th.
If Hudon becomes an NHL'er, I think he will become a 2nd or third liner, he hockey too much of a hockey sense and vision to a certain extent to be a fourth liner.
If Hudon becomes an NHL'er, I think he will become a 2nd or third liner, he hockey too much of a hockey sense and vision to a certain extent to be a fourth liner.
I said in 3 years or within 3 years, given the current depth we have, he could really well be on a well used 4th line at 21-22 years old + cup of coffees on the top 3 lines when injuries. Our depth situation will improve quite a bit. He will have to beat one of Prust - Kristo, Maxpac, Bournival. He won't beat Maxpac, that's a given, the rest is possible but unlikely at that age. Plus I'm assuming Bourque is gone without UFA or trade replacement...
We will talk a lot about that fight in the next(few) years. Kristo vs Hudon vs Bournival vs Bozon. Good luck, may the best ones win.
There are many good defenseman that can be had in the second round, even your "big burly boys" because for some reason we have to be like the bruins.
The first round should be for our offense which is still sorely lacking.
Any sentence that has Bruins and like in it just about makes me hurl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings
Yup. This is how I'd look at it.
1st round pick to select another premiere offensive threat.
2nd round pick A) Premiere offensive threat.
2nd round pick B) Top goaltending prospect.
2nd round pick C) Two-way D prospect with size.
This is sound when nobody knows the draft position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble
I think we need atleast 2 forwards. If there isn't a standout goalie prospect there then don't bother. I don't like to say what position will be drafted at which pick pick because what if someone like Pulock drops to our first 2nd round pick? You take him and get a foward later.
This is what everybody is doing and there are so many good picks some players will slip into the 2nd round and always a player from the 2nd to the first round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But
On the other hand, this draft has a few puck moving defensemen who have the potential to be impact players on both ends who are also "big burly boys"...as much as I'd love another potentially elite forward having someone like Ristolainen in the system would be very nice.
Ristolainen could be that premier PMD or Robert Hagg in the 2nd round moving up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOLR
I think our offense is getting to the point where it's good but needs prime players. We have numbers at all offensive positions, just not that much sure fire quality. That's why I'm not against moving assets to either move up or add another 1st rounder to possibly get another prime player.
Simply put, I like these players for a Stanley Cup Push in 3 years:
Maxpac - Gal - (Need high impact with some size)
(Kristo) - Desharnais - Leblanc
Prust - Plekanec- X(Colberg-Gallagher)
X - X - X
Short term assets: Cole, Gionta, Bourque, Moen, Army
Likely Graduate: Kristo(at that point possibly 2nd line LW), Gallagher (3rd line RW?)
Hudon or Bournival might be on the 4th line. Colberg might be ready.
All of this to say, I think the missing piece upfront is a high-end surefire RW, at the draft or in trades. Maybe make a play for Burakovsky if we are in reach for the cost of a 2nd rounder? If we can get a choice in the top 8 you can't go wrong, but outside of that, Burakovsky seems interesting. Then if you are late(r) first round, Nichushkin is there. There are quite a few guys that are very high-end talent this year that could go past 20th.
If the player is deemed BPA then go for that player,MB can always make trades later,when he starts performing,for a higher return.
If the player is deemed BPA then go for that player,MB can always make trades later,when he starts performing,for a higher return.
I keep reading this on this board. Yet, trades are now so hard to accomplish that it shouldn't be your modus operandi anymore at all. Not past 2005. Of course there are some situation where the BPA is evident, but most of the time from draft rank 9-10 to 25th players are usually very close together and development plays a larger role in their success, so BPA becomes NEED imo after the world was re-invented by the last CBA. Pick whatever you need and invest in the development massively.
There's also the myth of the higher return once trading the BPA. Even if you pick a better player and he becomes a much better NHLer, you can still mess up the return. A trade is a risky business in itself! We have plenty of example of that in our own court lately. It's another fallacy often repeated in that debate of need vs BPA.
The BPA, post 2005, is a player you need and want to keep.
Let me demonstrate with a weird situation what could happen this year...
1) Let's say the Habs get the 3rd overall draft choice again.(Luck!)
2) The Habs pick Drouin
3) What happens to the value of Kristo, Bozon, Hudon and Bournival, at the second the habs draft Drouin?
4) It goes way down, because just one of these guys will now be able to develop in the NHL and become a valid trading asset.(Maybe 2, if they are patient for Prust departure...)
5) What if you draft Barkov instead? Well now you have Veterans that already have established value to move, so you haven't loss value at draft time because you needed that player more for the future.(!)
6) So if Barkov is 1% behind Drouin in the absolute BPA evaluation, the fact that you need him more makes him a lot more valuable. Just does. He's the BPA for YOU. A big crowd of prospect at one position is never a good thing. A good crowd can be a good thing...it's all about balance.
What I am explaining was overly demonstrated in the last draft when Ds after Ds were selected ahead of guys like Forsberg.
On the other hand, this draft has a few puck moving defensemen who have the potential to be impact players on both ends who are also "big burly boys"...as much as I'd love another potentially elite forward having someone like Ristolainen in the system would be very nice.
We should be thinking about Galchenyuk and who will play with him. Pacioretty is nice but another winger/centre is what we are most desperate for.
Also can someone tell me what happens to the draft if the players decertify?
We should be thinking about Galchenyuk and who will play with him. Pacioretty is nice but another winger/centre is what we are most desperate for.
Agreed but if you miss out on Mackinnon, Drouin, Lindholm and Barkov, there's a few defenders you got to consider. I don't want a Tinordi or Beaulieu clone but if the choice was between Ristolainen and say Shinkaruk, it's a tough choice IMO. We can always make a trade later on.
Agreed but if you miss out on Mackinnon, Drouin, Lindholm and Barkov, there's a few defenders you got to consider. I don't want a Tinordi or Beaulieu clone but if the choice was between Ristolainen and say Shinkaruk, it's a tough choice IMO. We can always make a trade later on.
I agree with you there, I would take a big powerful dman over a perimetre forward but you have to remember guys like Erne and Gauthier will also be available. I think unless the dman is heads and tails above in talent you have to get another forward.
The purpose of decertifying would be to eliminate Bettman's negotiating partner. Without a functioning PA, it’s the players’ hope that an owners’ lockout would be deemed illegal and instantly lifted. Dissolving the unions also dissolves the salary cap, linkage, escrow, salary arbitration, rookie cap, you name it. The owners could argue decertifying jeopardizes existing contracts. But some owners, such as the Pittsburgh Penguins’ Mario Lemieux or Los Angeles Kings’ Philip Anschutz, might not like the idea of losing Sidney Crosby to the Rangers or Jonathan Quick to the Leafs when hockey finally returns, and the players would obviously argue they have valid contracts that should be honoured.
You can forget the NHL draft as well. Projected top picks Nathan McKinnon and Seth Jones would simply go to the highest bidder. With the exception of unrestricted free agency, everything else would be deemed illegal in the eyes of the courts. When sports deals are negotiated in good faith, it’s called a CBA. When they aren't, it’s called price fixing. Price fixing leads to accusations of antitrust, and antitrust is a word that doesn't make any billionaire sports-club owner feel warm and fuzzy.
. If we could manage to draft Elias Lindholm would really help every weakness we have. Gritty, high end talent and 1-2 punch down the middle with Galchenyuk. Looking forward to watching him at WJC with collberg
