|
|
Post by Cranky on May 27, 2004 9:45:26 GMT -5
Your reputation hangs on the balance! Errors will not be forgiven! The pressure is on! You must succeed! To err is death! To misjudge is jeopardy! The fate of the free world is on your shoulders! I hope I am not putting too much pressure on you.  |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 27, 2004 12:31:01 GMT -5
I'll let you know June 28th...
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 27, 2004 12:48:52 GMT -5
Can we find another Russian Epileptic who plays six games a year for each of five teams and makes an immediate impact?
Just kidding.
I do like a 6'6" defensemen with a bad attitude, even if I've never seen him play. He has to skate better than Matt Carkner however.
|
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on May 27, 2004 14:44:17 GMT -5
Best player available....even if that means a smallish center with talent.
Okay.
You may now crucify me....
|
|
|
|
Post by Patty Roy on May 27, 2004 18:55:29 GMT -5
Best player available....even if that means a smallish center with talent. Okay. You may now crucify me.... Hey if the BPA at #18 is a smallish center, then that pretty much means that Robbie Schremp has slipped...i'd be OK with that! What if the BPA is a goaltender? Do we go that route with Theo/Garon on the big club and Danis being talked up as a potential NHLer? Do you pick a Devan Dubnyk over a Kyle Chipchura or a Boris Valabik? Personally i don't think so. However if Montoya or Schwarz were to slip (which they won't) that might be a different story... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 27, 2004 22:01:34 GMT -5
The BPA must have some limits. With Two younginsh goalies and two cooking in the monors, how many goalies can we have?
On the other hand.....
We need a high quality, big centerman more then anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by FormerLurker on May 28, 2004 2:05:42 GMT -5
I really like the sound of Mike Green. RD with a bit of a nasty edge, one of the best skaters in the draft, mobile and good with the puck. Not huge, he'll play in the NHL at about the same size or slightly bigger than Markov. He should go somewhere around 14-20 in the draft. Future top four pairings:
Markov-Komo
Souray-Green
I like.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 28, 2004 3:29:52 GMT -5
TheBPA must have some limits. With Two younginsh goalies and two cooking in the monors, how many goalies can we have? *If* we trade Théodore we'll have one less (and an empty baggage car), plus likely something we need more.  |
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on May 28, 2004 8:14:47 GMT -5
BPA period.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 28, 2004 8:38:45 GMT -5
Best player available is such a subjective cliché, it borders on being useless. I mean, how do you define "Best Player Available?" Is it the big center who can play a two-way game, physical, defensively reliable, but is only good for 65 points? Or, is the flashy, super-skilled game breaker, who is a threat everytime he is on the ice, can score 90 points, but disappears in physical games, has weak playoff numbers, and wouldn't know his goaltender if he hit him with his car? How do you compare that to a defenseman? 90 point softie versus #2 shut-down defenseman? Just try to mix a goaltender into that...
Its easy to say “best player available” but that means so many things, to so many different people. So simply listing players in order of perceived talent is too simplistic in my mind. Take for example, the Mighty Ducks; they rarely, if ever, draft players from Quebec. So having the Ducks take Alexandre Picard is not likely, in my opinion, because it doesn’t take into account their draft history. Their scouting philosophy, the way they think teams should be built, says that softish, skilled, offensive dynamos are not the way to go. On the other hand, somebody else might say "take your boeuf du Ouest I'll take talent any day of the way, no matter what the size of the package.
Which is right? Who knows?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on May 28, 2004 9:29:06 GMT -5
you have a valid point BC, but, if I understood you right, it doesn't counter the argument of taking the best player available, it only questions the ratings of players. IMHO, taking the BPA in the Habs' case would be, for example, selecting Marek Schwarz over Valabik even though we could use a d prospect a more than a goalie (this is of course true only if Savard rates Schwarz ahead of Valabik). some teams, like the Kings, are in a dire need of a goalie talent and they might draft one even if they have a skater (who they initially rated higher) available when their turn comes. I believe that every GM draws a list of prospects ranking them by their potential as percieved by him and his scouting staff. so taking the higest ranked of the remaining prospects would be going the BPA route. of course, things aren't always that simple. the players are probably ranked in groups so a GM can pick a player within a group that suits best his organizational needs. that being said, I wouldn't mind if the BPA for the Habs turns out to be a dman.  R. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 28, 2004 9:34:06 GMT -5
The definition of BPA that we use here at Central Planning HQ is simple. We look for the the following qualities, in order of desirability: - hockey sense - a not so common intuitive anticipation of the on-ice flow and development of the game; "knowing where to be"
- skating speed - God blesses some
- hands - encompasses both shooting and stickhandling
- toughness - mental and physical, the ability to function optimally under intense pressure and not be intimidated
- work ethic - not only in-game, but more importantly the commitment to personal improvement in practice
- character - meaning overall emotional and mental maturity, with on-ice and off-ice leadership qualities being desirable
- coachability - hot-heads and know-it-alls need not apply
- defensive awareness - if exceptional a player's stock can rise dramatically, if average or below must be willing to work at it (see coachability and work ethic)
Our off-ice interviews with coaches, family and friends are just as important as our scouts' in-game reports when it comes to choosing among those kids that we've ear-marked as a good fit for our organization. Forgot one last thing. The willingness to work for peanuts is always looked upon very favourably. |
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on May 28, 2004 9:51:12 GMT -5
Of course BPA is subjective.
One team may rank player X above player Y, and another team the opposite.
My point is, you don't pass up a (perceived) better player to draft a (perceived) lesser player because he plays a position where your organization is lacking.
Would you rather have too much talent at a given position, or lesser talent more evenly distributed?
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 28, 2004 9:55:30 GMT -5
Would you rather have too much talent at a given position, or lesser talent more evenly distributed? Maximizing one's assets would come before the creation of a symmetrical lesser constellation, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by FormerLurker on May 28, 2004 11:15:51 GMT -5
Best player available is such a subjective cliché, it borders on being useless. all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say! To trumpet BPA is to assume that everyone agrees on who BPA is. This year, after the first two picks, there will be more disagreement than agreement. Same applies to 2001. In 2002 and 2003, there was disagreement on BPA before the first pick. BPA is so useless as a metric, it's not even a metric. In fact, it should be one of this site's censored words, like ExtraLOVE. Whenever someone says BPA, it should be replaced by Mike Green. |
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on May 28, 2004 11:53:54 GMT -5
To trumpet BPA is to assume that everyone agrees on who BPA is. Ummm...no. YOUR team's scouting staff evaluates where THEY rank a given player in terms of potential NHL value. Each team will have differing opinions and formulas as to who the BPA is. The point is, if your organization needs an Adam Foote, and is loaded at center with Peter Forsberg's, do you pass over Joe Sakic? An exaggerrated example perhaps, but that is the gist of my argument. If you would choose Foote, good for you. I would choose Sakic, because IMO, he is better player, and organizationally, a better asset. |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on May 28, 2004 19:58:20 GMT -5
I agree with the fact that TT and AS favour BPA's, but here are three very feasible and very different looks of players that are likely to be around at spot #18 and that would all look good in the Habs jersey up on the podium. Comments are taken from the THN Draft Preview Guide:
Kyle Chipchura C Prince Albert WHL - wins faceoffs, checks well, kills penalties and has good hockey sense. He isn't expected to be a big finisher at the next level, though. He was one of Canada's best at the U-18. Skating isn't a problem and scouts like his hockey sense and the fact he goes hard.
Lauri Korpikoski LW Turku Jrs Finland - he ended up tied for the scoring lead at the U-18 this April. He is fast, he can skate and he has all the skills needed to be really, really good. He has great acceleration and he can play tough and he can play the skill game.
Mike Green D Saskatoon WHL - if he was on a good team you'd be talking about him in the top 10. He's a tenacious battler who can quarterback a PP. He is considered small for a defenceman, but he likes to throw his weight around. He showed a lot of character on a team that lacked leadership (Sask only won 7 games this season...yuck!!).
Of course, if 17 GM's like other players and let one of Valabik, Picard or Shremp drop, they would all qualify in the BPA criteria that the Habs use. Just playing the numbers game and mocking the draft, one of these guys could very well be available when we pick. I wouldn't hesitate to scoop on of that trio up either. Not sure who I am favouring out of this list yet, but I will make my pick closer to D-day in Hurricane Alley.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on May 28, 2004 20:20:00 GMT -5
A thread from a year ago which contains articles on the Habs approach to the draft table. Link |
|
|
|
Post by rhabdo on May 28, 2004 22:25:49 GMT -5
I haven't the foggiest notion of whom the Habs will draft because this year's crop is not as deep as last year's. Arguing for or against drafting certain players at this stage is subject to many vagaries. The most obvious issue clouding any prediction of whom Gainey will select is the absence of reasonably solid rumors about what other teams are looking for. Who'll be available at #18? Maybe all the players mentioned earlier in this thread will be gone and the next three BPAs will all be goaltenders. I sincerely doubt any of them would be wearing the CH.
Another potentially confusing factor is that the final ranking of players hasn't crystallized. Although the order was fairly predictable last June, even then considerable late movement occurred. For example, Hugh Jessiman moved up from the second round to be taken at #12 overall in the last few days, while Zach Parise was passed over by 17 teams. A number of HabsRus posters pushed for Steve Bernier at #10, but I'm thankful it didn't happen. The Habs ignored available centers such as Getzlaf (presumably their biggest deficiency at the time) to select Kastsitsyn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Ghost on May 31, 2004 23:48:36 GMT -5
Mike Green would be a good choice but, if he's still available, I would much rather choose A.J. Thelen.
According to THN:
Thelen can quarterback the PP... has an adeptness for leading the rush and gaining the offensive zone... has a heavy point shot and is a sound skater... his hockey sense is intact and he doesn't hesitate to play the body... he can dish out as much punishment as he absorbs and he does not have a short fuse.
He's bigger than Green and is ranked #15 by THN, so there's a possibility that he might be available at the 18th spot.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 1, 2004 9:20:19 GMT -5
The other option is to trade the pick. I was reading a Toronto board (slumming), and they are desperate to get something in the first round (their fans are, anyways). The Leafs, with a cupboard that is already bare, don’t have a pick until the 3rd round. They talk about giving up Kaberle or Antropov in some sort of a package for a Top 10 pick, but I think that’s a little dreamy. I would however, offer them a package kind of deal, centering around their first round pick next year. Something like our first this year (18th overall) and our 2nd next year, for Antropov and their 1st next year (if they have one). I’d even sweeten it a little bit, if they were really desperate, throw in a 3rd either next year or the year after. Mind you, that would mean we wouldn’t pick until the 3rd round, but we would get a big, youngish center with a nasty streak (enigmatic, for sure, but so are a lot of Russians), and we would have two picks in the first round next year, which is supposed to be a deeper draft. Or, perhaps there will be a lockout, which will wipe out 40 or so games. Leaf players, expecting the season to be wiped out entirely, show up to a shortened training camp fat, old, and out of shape. Half of them are hurt by week 2. Unable to get anything going, and with no time in the shortened season to recover, the Leafs tank and end up with the 3rd worst record in the league. They win the lottery, but because we have their pick…<br>Antropov and Crosby for say Mike Green and some unknown schmoe in the 2nd round? I’d do that… Or, maybe we can try to pull a Lacroix, and get 3 or 4 first round picks in a deeper draft year. Swap 1sts wit the Leafs, Garon to Chicago, Hossa and/or Hainsey to the Rangers. We could end up with 3 of the top 5 picks! Even if we didn’t get Crosby, we’d still get 3 impact players! DY-NA-STY!!! The opinions and fantasies expressed here within do not in any way represent the opinions of the HabsRus community, or its owners. Or reality, for that matter. HabsRus does not in any way condone the silly school-girl fantasies often posted by BadCompany, and disavow any connection to, or with the aforementioned dreamer. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jun 1, 2004 14:06:11 GMT -5
The other option is to trade the pick. I was reading a Toronto board (slumming), and they are desperate to get something in the first round (their fans are, anyways). The Leafs, with a cupboard that is already bare, don’t have a pick until the 3rd round. I wouldn't mind doing something like our 1st round pick this year for their 1st round next year and 4th round and 5th round picks this year. It would really depend on what happens on draft day. If the Habs really like someone and he is available, then keep your pick. On the other hand, if they view the remaining picks as marginal for first round talent and the Leafs are desperate, then do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 1, 2004 14:15:07 GMT -5
I haven't read all the posts so if I'm repeating something that's already been mentioned, I apologize to the original author, but what about Valabik and Fugere.
We haven't had a nasty streak on the blueline since Ulanov and Chelios.
I don't mind a defenseman who will introduce himself to Lecavalier and Thornton. We need to explain that the front of the net is patrolled and although Komisarek is big and strong, he doesn't emphasize the risk of opposition forwards skating where they are not wanted.
It's easier to clear the puck out of our zone when the opposing center is sitting on his ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Jun 1, 2004 14:37:34 GMT -5
I'm against drafting for your immediate needs.
Picks usually take several years to graduate, if they graduate at all.
BPA in the draft, and fill your immediate needs throught trades & FAs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 1, 2004 18:05:35 GMT -5
The other option is to trade the pick. I was reading a Toronto board (slumming), and they are desperate to get something in the first round (their fans are, anyways). The Leafs, with a cupboard that is already bare, don’t have a pick until the 3rd round. They talk about giving up Kaberle or Antropov in some sort of a package for a Top 10 pick, but I think that’s a little dreamy. I would however, offer them a package kind of deal, centering around their first round pick next year. Something like our first this year (18th overall) and our 2nd next year, for Antropov and their 1st next year (if they have one). I’d even sweeten it a little bit, if they were really desperate, throw in a 3rd either next year or the year after. I mentioned something similar on another post. But if we are going to deal with Toronto, I would suggest strongly that we stay away from Antropov. People criticize Kovalev for his enigmatic play ..... well brother look that word up in the dictionary and you will find Nikolai's picture. The player I would want from Toronto is Ponikarovsky. His plays as best as he can night in and night out. Putting Antropov on his line last year killed him. I have seen games in the AHL where Poni had 2 men draped over him and still skated in and got a great scoring chance, there were times down here he dominated games. Antropov has never done that. So if we are going to trade I would trade --- our first round 2004, Hainsey, and (?) for their first in 2005, Kaberle, and Ponikarovsky. |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jun 1, 2004 19:34:41 GMT -5
I'm against drafting for your immediate needs. Picks usually take several years to graduate, if they graduate at all. BPA in the draft, and fill your immediate needs throught trades & FAs. Habba, I agree and apparently so do TT and AS from all the current writeups. That being said, there are likely a handful of players that are all pretty darn close to the same "value" as a BPA when we get our first pick at spot #18. That may give management a bit of a luxury of picking the BPA that also addresses a need. I saw one recent mock draft that has us picking a goalie at spot #18 because they thought that player was the BPA. I am not sure the Habs would pick a goalie with our #1 pick given our goalie depth and the fact that our next pick is not until the 3rd round. Could we see them stray from the pure BPA route this draft? I don't have the answers, just like speculating!! |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 1, 2004 20:35:26 GMT -5
I mentioned something similar on another post. But if we are going to deal with Toronto, I would suggest strongly that we stay away from Antropov. People criticize Kovalev for his enigmatic play ..... well brother look that word up in the dictionary and you will find Nikolai's picture. The player I would want from Toronto is Ponikarovsky. His plays as best as he can night in and night out. Putting Antropov on his line last year killed him. I have seen games in the AHL where Poni had 2 men draped over him and still skated in and got a great scoring chance, there were times down here he dominated games. Antropov has never done that. So if we are going to trade I would trade --- our first round 2004, Hainsey, and (?) for their first in 2005, Kaberle, and Ponikarovsky. Antropov is still very, very young though. He's actually only 1 month older than Michael Ryder, our "rookie" of the year. Antropov is freakishly strong. Sure, he doesn't always show up, but it has taken him some time to grow into his body. I think when he was drafted he was something like 6'6, but only 200lbs. He's up to about 220 now, and just filling in. I saw him toss Sheldon Souray away once, like he was a rag doll. He has a lot more natural skill than Ponikorovsky, who while also being very big, doesn't, in my opinion, have the top end potential that Antropov does. I think Poni has hit his max, more or less, while Antropov is just beginning his upswing. I think Antropov will be like Freddie Modin in a couple of years, once he puts it all together. Idle speculation of course, it will never happen... |
|
|
|
Post by rhabdo on Jun 1, 2004 20:43:32 GMT -5
It would be refreshing to have a giant second line centre instead of a rag doll.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jun 1, 2004 20:55:31 GMT -5
I saw one recent mock draft that has us picking a goalie at spot #18 because they thought that player was the BPA. I am not sure the Habs would pick a goalie with our #1 pick given our goalie depth and the fact that our next pick is not until the 3rd round. Could we see them stray from the pure BPA route this draft? I don't have the answers, just like speculating!! Well, we drafted Theo 10 years after drafting Roy, so going for a goalie now isn't all that crazy, given that we got Theo 10 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by TheCaper on Jun 1, 2004 21:42:09 GMT -5
It would be refreshing to have a giant second line centre instead of a rag doll. 31 point giant vs 65 point rag doll. Refreshing? Am I missing something? |
|
