Place your bets on the Hab's draft. Last minutes.

[Cranky]

All right, since all of you think that you know a thing or two about hockey, here is your chance to prove it.

Who do you think the Hab's will take in their top 5 picks?

1st pick (10th):

2nd pick (40th):

3rd pick (56th):

4ht pick (70th):

5th pick (98th):

The guy who has the most correct "analysis" (okay, guesses) will have the honorary title of Mr. Scout.

[Chopper]

OK, here's my picks.

1st Zach Parise
2nd Brian Boyle
3rd MA Bernier
4th Ivan Baranka
5th Aaron Dawson

[MPLABBE]

10th overall: Zach Parise

Just picking the BPA. There is no doubt in my mind Parise has way more upside than say a Carter or a Getzlaf or a Pouliot. 3 big centers who should all be available at number 10. Parise is extremely talented, is a superb playmaker and he has the determination many small players have.

40th overall: Shawn Belle

Very good skater with superb acceleration, took up hockey later than most(family from Barbados) and is still trying to catch up because of it. The d-man is a good risk with the 40th pick. It's tough to say just what exactly is his upside, but I can see him becoming a solid 3th-4th d-man down the road.

61st overall: Peter Vrana

In a shocking development, the smallish but skilled Vrana from the Halifax Mooseheads falls all the way down to 61st. The speedy playmaking center with tons of talent works hard and competes hard. He also has good speed and solid hockey sense. Sounds like a certain number 11 on the Habs right now eh? well, one concern is how brave he is. A no-no with small players as they try to compete against those big NHL slugs. So he ain't all that close to Koivu after-all. Still, picking such a talent at 61st overall, is well worth it and Savard & co gamble on this talent.

70th overall: Ivan Khomutov

Falling faster than a rock, Savard and co grab him with the 70th pick. Has a great wrist shot, a long reach and shows creativity. Takes games off though.

98th overall: Goalie Chris Holt

Rated as the 5th best North America goalie. Savard and co grab him at 98, pretty happy about it.

[Yeti]

I will shock the Habsrus community by winning the title using a pseudo-randomized method:

1) Michalek (YES he will still be there, almost forgotten)

2) Valcak

3) Stehlik

4) Foddyna

5) Dupuis

[Bandit]

IMO we will be getting another first round pick, without sacrificing our first. I think something will be done before or on draft day. But as it stands these are my picks

10th - Phaneuf

40th - Boyle

56th - Vrana

70th - Tunik

98th - Corey Crawford

Hard to say if this is what I think will happen or what I want to happen. With those first 5 picks I think the team would have addressed needs and added (what looks to be) depth.

[FormerLurker]

Bandit said:

With those first 5 picks I think the team would have addressed needs and added (what looks to be) depth.

The entry draft is not a time to address needs.

[Bandit]

FormerLurker said:

The entry draft is not a time to address needs.

I respect your opinion, but I would have to say that you do definitely address your needs. Like it or not if your defense is getting old you aren't going to go out and draft all centers and wingers and maybe pick up a d or 2 in the late rounds.
I agree with you that in the first couple of rounds you take the BPA. You don't put your needs ahead of the BPA. But if you can you adress your needs you do it.

For instance in the picks I made, you are getting the BPA at your first pick (I'm thinking either Parise or Phaneuf will be there). But in the 3rd round who do you take. Obviously if a guy is miles better than anyone else you take him. But if you have 3 guys who you like equally I would say you look at your roster and prospects and address a need. You may beg to differ. That's my opinion...

[Viper]

Can i bet the first pick is not tenth overall but in the 4 to 6 range ??

[NWTHabsFan]

The northern midnight sun was whispering to me and this is what I heard:

1st - Dion Phaneuf
2nd - Brian Boyle
3rd - Yevgeni Tunik
4th - Cory Urquhart
5th - John Doherty

Interesting note: someone else picked Tunik, but one pick later. Must be an omen. ;D Also, who on earth has heard of Doherty...I just have a funny feeling about this one (that may just be the caribou burgers that I had for dinner). I like his numbers and his size, even though only still in HS.

[HABLORD]

#1- Steve Bernier
#2- Jamie Tardif
#3- Joshua Hennessy
#4- Cory Locke
#5- Nathan Sanders

I got this list from Bob over lunch today.

[habruti]

I will go with the following:

10th: Dustin Brown
40th: Ryan Stone I think the might have to move up to draft him
56th: M. Barinka
70th: Piispanen


If Montreal manage to pick both Brown and Stone I will be one happy camper! I would like Parise but 1st I think he will be gone and second I think that Brown will end up as one of the best player in the draft.......

Has for Ryan Stone he is just what montreal needs a big skilled tough center that would fill a huge void has a third line center....Koivu, Higgins, Stone would look pretty dam good to me down center.

[Montrealer]

1st pick (10th): Zach Parise

2nd pick (40th): Petr Vrana

3rd pick (56th): Corey Locke

4th pick (70th): Josef Hrabal

5th pick (98th): Bruno Gervais

[hyperhab]

I'd guess that we trade up and pick Zherdev, just my opinion.

[montreal]

Here's my top 5

1st (10th)-Parise
2nd (40th)-Tunik
3rd (60th)-Barinka
4th (75th)-Hennessy
5th (102nd)-Shinin

[BillPickles]

HO Jeez...

alright, I say the Habs select...Jessiman.

We then select Fehr, M.A Bernier, Weber, Locke, Dawes and Brodziak.

Edit: I also see us taking Linus Videll(who has 2 of my favourite cartoon characters in his name) and if Kastsytsin falls far we'll take him in the 3rd.

[Thomas]

BillPickles said:

Edit: I also see us taking Linus Videll(who has 2 of my favourite cartoon characters in his name) and if Kastsytsin falls far we'll take him in the 3rd.

I really doubt Kastystin drops into the third round, and if he was still available at the 40th overall, AS would jump all over him. His epilepsy isn't a very big concern, and hes a great forward who should be a solid prospect. I could see AS trading for another pick to draft him even, but you never know.

[BadCompany]

First five picks, eh? Sheesh. I’d be amazed if anybody gets more than two…

Having said that…<br>
10th: Jeff Carter (C). My heart says Kastitsyin, my head says Carter. Despite his reputation for drafting elite skill guys, Savard has actually drafted pretty good two-way forwards. Higgins, of course. But Perezhoughin is a regular penalty killer now, Milroy was always seen as a two-way guy, and Plekanec was deemed “responsible in his own end.” I don’t know about Carter’s upside, but he seems like a safe pick, and with Gainey strongly hinting that he wants character guys, I think Carter will be our choice. Him and Higgins should battle it out for 2nd/3rd line center position.

40th: Marc-Andre Bernier (C). I think Savard will be thrilled if he is still around at 40, and will snap him up in a heartbeat. Might even trade up a few spots to get him.

61st: Matt Smaby (D). Hasn’t quite worked out with Tomas Linhart yet, so they try again. A defensive defenseman, with good character, though not much offense. I think Montreal would prefer Bruno Gervais, but I don’t think he will last this long.

79th:Ivan Khomutov (C): Wild card Russian, Savard takes a flier on a guy whose stock has plummeted this year.

109th: David Tremblay (G): I think our goaltending prospect depth is a little weak, and it will be nice to stock up on some guys for when Theodore/Garon leave/fade in 5-7 years. Right now, all we have is Michaud and Puurula. Puurla had a good year, but Michaud had a disappointing one, is kind of small, and there may have been a reason why he was never drafted in the first place. I wouldn’t be wasting a pick on a goalie in the first couple of rounds, but considering this is a strong year for skaters, and a weak year for goaltenders, some of the “better” guys might still be available in the 4th or 5th round. So I’d grab one, just for fun.

[MPLABBE]

BadCompany said:

I don’t know about Carter’s upside, but he seems like a safe pick, and with Gainey strongly hinting that he wants character guys, I think Carter will be our choice.

THN says Carter has ''tremendous upside'' and many see alot of Joe Thornton in him. ''He's not a quitter, has sound hockey sense and good hands and is willing to play in traffic'' according to THN once again.

The one concern seems to be how he will mature physically. Some are concerned that adding weight will slow him down or hinder his agility. He is 6'3'..but only 182 pounds.

and finally a GM without a name says ''He'll make a great no 2 center''

but no word about his skating

I would probably pick Carter before Getzlaf

[Cranky]

BadCompany said:

First five picks, eh? Sheesh. I’d be amazed if anybody gets more than two…

I was going to go with 8 picks but it's already a guessing game for the 1st one.

My only GUESS is that Savard is going to move up in the draft. It's a funny feeling I have about Savard needing more center depth to field a decent team.

Say goodby to Garon.....or more........plus our 1st.

Say hello Horton.

[blaise]

I like the idea of moving up to get Horton, although it would mean surrendering more than just #10 and one player. Even adding Ribeiro and Hossa or Hainsey to the #10 might not be enough. I would set the limit at two of those three players plus the Habs #10 and the #61 (acquired from the Flyers for Chouinard). The suggestion of including Garon in the mix disturbs me because it would leave the Habs in a pickle if Theodore were injured.

If the move for Horton doesn't work I'd try moving up a couple of places to get Vanek. He could eventually bolster the first line, which lacks a left wing with scoring potential. Finally, if the Habs have to use their #10 I'd go for Phaneuf because they also need a physical defenseman with skill.

With the first second round pick (#40) I'd go for Brian Boyle, although he's an unknown quantity because his experience has been against schoolboys. But his size and skill can't be ignored.

It's almost impossible to make further predictions after that because there are so many quality players and 30 teams picking.

[PTH]

Blaise said:

If the move for Horton doesn't work I'd try moving up a couple of places to get Vanek. He could eventually bolster the first line, which lacks a left wing with scoring potential. Finally, if the Habs have to use their #10 I'd go for Phaneuf because they also need a physical defenseman with skill.

Welcome aboard.

While I'm sure the guys you have in mind are good prospects, I think it's a major mistake to draft by need - especially immediate need. If Komisarek and Archer work out, then we really don't have a critical need for size on the blueline. And While I agree Koivu and Zed need someone to play with, fact is the guy we draft will be 10 years younger than Koivu; having players 10 years apart can work, but it never works for long (ie - the older guy retires).

If we're going to draft by need, I think we have to look at the organisation as a whole and not the current lineup.

[blaise]

It's not a major mistake to draft by need when the player happens to be one of the very best players in the entire draft, as Horton no doubt is. Gainey and Savard wouldn't have to make excuses to the Habs fans on June 21 if they selected him. Pretty much the same could be said about Vanek and Phaneuf.

[BillPickles]

Taking Phaneuf would be so uninteresting though...

[PTH]

Blaise said:

It's not a major mistake to draft by need when the player happens to be one of the very best players in the entire draft, as Horton no doubt is. Gainey and Savard wouldn't have to make excuses to the Habs fans on June 21 if they selected him. Pretty much the same could be said about Vanek and Phaneuf.

But if they pick the guy who doesn't work out rather than the guy who does work out, saying atferwards "well, we thought he'd fill a need" doesn't get you out of the crappile.

[Habsolution]

PTH said:

But if they pick the guy who doesn't work out rather than the guy who does work out, saying atferwards "well, we thought he'd fill a need" doesn't get you out of the crappile.

Wether or not the player you didn't pick pans out as a star and the one you picked busts is irrevelant because at the time of the selection you considered both on an equal point of view as two youngs prospects who would make it and be succesful.

Former NHL scout and now publisher of red line report Kyle Woodlief :

Having said that, we do have Horton and Zherdev rated ahead of Staal, but with so little to choose from among this year's top tier of eight guys, it's really more about what style of player you're looking for within your team's system.

Can't we just discuss about the 03 draft without someone bringing up the amazing BPA theory which is not ALWAYS true(see turnbuckle thread about layers). That's a WHOLE lot more realistic than the simplistic BPA point of view. You can't always tell between 2-3 players which one is the best one. At this point why wouldn't you draft by need ? Horton, Staal, Zherdev a lot of people see them on par and most drafts lists reflect the fact that there's no clear cut number 1 this year. So I think it's pretty safe to assume that team's needs will play a major role in a lot of decisions in this 03 draft.

[BadCompany]

Habsolution said:

Wether or not the player you didn't pick pans out as a star and the one you picked busts is irrevelant because at the time of the selection you considered both on an equal point of view as two youngs prospects who would make it and be succesful.

Can't we just discuss about the 03 draft without someone bringing up the amazing BPA theory which is not ALWAYS true(see turnbuckle thread about layers). That's a WHOLE lot more realistic than the simplistic BPA point of view. You can't always tell between 2-3 players which one is the best one. At this point why wouldn't you draft by need ? Horton, Staal, Zherdev a lot of people see them on par and most drafts lists reflect the fact that there's no clear cut number 1 this year. So I think it's pretty safe to assume that team's needs will play a major role in a lot of decisions in this 03 draft.

I think what Woodlief is saying in that quote there, isn't so much that teams, if they regard two players as being equal, will draft by need, but that they will instead use draft philosophy, or team philosophy instead.

For example, if Andre Savard holds the pick, one would surmise, with his reputation for loving skilled Euros, and the hard-core pitch he made for Kovalchouk, that he would lean towards Zherdev. Savard (or so the assumption goes) drafts skilled, offensive, flashy kinds of players (Hossa, Alfreddson, Havlat, Vermette, etc).

On the other hand, Bob Gainey has a reputation for liking grinding, hardworking, tough to play against players, who aren't necessarily the most skilled, but who will pound you down and wear you into the ice with size, strength, grit and intensity, players who are just difficult to play against (Ott, Morrow, Vagner, Jackman etc.).

So in this case, even though Montreal has needs for both a highly skilled superstar winger, and a big, top 2 center down the middle, and even though they think both Zherdev and Horton are "equal" on their draft charts, we would have to know who is in charge of the draft, and more importantly, what kinds of players he has been told to draft. If its Savard's show, then Zherdev gets the call. But if its Gainey's show, or he told Savard "get me such and such type of player" then I would have to think he would lean towards Horton.

Its not really a question of "need", for as PTH points out, who knows what the teams need will be in 3-5 years, but more a question of general philosophy. What kind of team do you want to build?

[Habsolution]

BadCompany said:

...

GM's preferences (skilled offensive flashy player or gritty hardworkers) are also by definition team's needs. If you like one type of player and that you want more in your organization then it's a need. If you already have enough of those type of players like the sens with Hossa, Havlat, Alfredsson, etc then you start adding via UFA or drafting sure shot gritty 3rd-4th liners like Dallas did with Ott, Kapanen, Detroit with Avery, etc.

The habs have needs at all position but the most apparent one is currently the most sought after jumbo sized top 6 forwards. Those guys (Horton, Nash, Jessiman) don't grow on trees. In 3-4-5 years from now if we haven't drafted one we won't have one. It's not about not knowing what the future will be made of. Teams hold onto PF and big guys who can score goals. We currently lack grit and we'll most probably keep lacking big skilled gritty guys in 5 years from now if we don't draft any. Small talented offensive wizards like Samsonov are easier to trade for or sign via UFA than top 6 big guys like Bertuzzi, Doan, Morrow, etc. If we had the choice between Staal and Horton ... if the habs considered them both to have about the same upside and character I hope the habs would go for size.

[BillPickles]

BadCompany said:

I think what Woodlief is saying in that quote there, isn't so much that teams, if they regard two players as being equal, will draft by need, but that they will instead use draft philosophy, or team philosophy instead.

For example, if Andre Savard holds the pick, one would surmise, with his reputation for loving skilled Euros, and the hard-core pitch he made for Kovalchouk, that he would lean towards Zherdev. Savard (or so the assumption goes) drafts skilled, offensive, flashy kinds of players (Hossa, Alfreddson, Havlat, Vermette, etc).

On the other hand, Bob Gainey has a reputation for liking grinding, hardworking, tough to play against players, who aren't necessarily the most skilled, but who will pound you down and wear you into the ice with size, strength, grit and intensity, players who are just difficult to play against (Ott, Morrow, Vagner, Jackman etc.).

So in this case, even though Montreal has needs for both a highly skilled superstar winger, and a big, top 2 center down the middle, and even though they think both Zherdev and Horton are "equal" on their draft charts, we would have to know who is in charge of the draft, and more importantly, what kinds of players he has been told to draft. If its Savard's show, then Zherdev gets the call. But if its Gainey's show, or he told Savard "get me such and such type of player" then I would have to think he would lean towards Horton.

Its not really a question of "need", for as PTH points out, who knows what the teams need will be in 3-5 years, but more a question of general philosophy. What kind of team do you want to build?

What about the past 2 years, BC? Higgins and Komi are both tough, character players. Just because Savard traded for Czerkawski, Audette etc. doesn't neccessarily mean he should be pigeon-holed as a guy who goes for skill above all else. The same can be said for Gainey, who signed Turgeon and Audette because he saw the skill they could bring.

I don't think these two are opposite ends of the spectrum like most people think, and for the first round selection they're probably on the same page.

[BadCompany]

BadCompany said:

Savard (or so the assumption goes) drafts skilled...

I wasn't really trying to turn it into a Savard vs Gainey thing, I was just trying to point out that teams probably draft more on general philosophies, than on percieved need...

[spider_ice]

first you can compare trade with draft picks
so audette, czerkawski and others were plan B because we didn't have any good young players who could play in the nhl when Savard took the team over

In Montreal La Presse of today(june 19th) Savard and Timmins are saying that there draft philosophy is base on 3 points. Skating, hockey sense and caracter.
So komi and higgins are exactly in that philosophy

Don't except them to change a winning proven formula who was test in Ottawa.
They will choose a player who will be playing in the nhl in a maximum of 2 years.