|
|
Post by montreal on Jul 31, 2005 14:02:23 GMT -5
Price will be 18....He goes to Junior for 1 year, 19. Signs a 3 year Contract with the Habs, he's now 22. Depending on his Development he's in Hamilton. Resign him for 3 years, cracks the starting lineup he's 25. 2 Years later he's elligible for Free Agency. So we picked a Goalie at #5 that we don't even know if he'll be in the league until 2010 instead of a Forward that could potentially be in our lineup in 2006? Even if we would have taken a Fwd or Dman and they ended up as a bust NO ONE would have said We should have taken that goalie with the 5th pick. That is why I don't like the Price pick. Love the rest of the draft picks. As for the Garon thing. I'd rather have Garon/a Fwd than Bonk/Price. Atleast when Theo leaves next year we would have been able to insert Garon as the starter for much less Well lets correct some things, Price will be 18 but he can't go to junior for one year, he has to go there for 2 years or play in the NHL which seems highly unlikely. Next he won't sign for 3 years cause that was just changed in the new cba so when he does sign at age 20 it will be for four years. He'll be 24 when that contract is up and can sign for say 2 years then we could ink him for a long term deal at age 26 before he becomes a UFA the next year. But this is all depending on what the new CBA will be cause the current one will expire when Price turns 23. |
|
|
|
Post by Douper on Jul 31, 2005 15:27:48 GMT -5
Didn't have time to read the cba...  And thousand appologies for being 1 year off in my exemple. |
|
|
|
Post by montreal on Jul 31, 2005 17:57:44 GMT -5
Didn't have time to read the cba... And thousand appologies for being 1 year off in my exemple. Me neither, just going off what I heard that rookie contracts will be 4 years now. 1 year in terms of prospects is very big. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jul 31, 2005 19:07:57 GMT -5
After vomoting for about 3hours I've come up with this Instead of having Garon and Brule or Kopitar we have Bonk and PriceCan someone explain how we are better off? I'll try... Whether you like it or not, Theodore is (and has been for some years), in the eyes of management our #1 guy. While he has his detractors (most of them actually post here) Theo is considered a top rated goalie anywhere you look. Yes he's overpaid but that's that. On the other hand Gainey had on his hands a nice goalie prospect in Garon but he was stalled behind Theo and didn't carry very high value (Garon even cleared waiver in 2002, so let's not think he was gonna land us the moon in any trade talks). We've been needing a big two-way centermen for ages so when Bonk became avaible, Gainey was clever enough to use an asset that was becoming a hot potatoe in order to land a big time solution (Bonk was, afterall, the #1 center of a cup contender in Ottawa...) to an obvious need. Once you accept the fact that Theo was the organization's #1 men and not Garon than this trade becomes a very good asset management move. Price over Brule remains a bit of a mystery but the HABS had obviously some VERY strong reservation on Brule while their own evaluation of Price was very favorable (heck, we were all wondering why was Gainey even mentioned his name a week before the draft). Before puting the donkey hat on an organization that is seen as VERY competent for evaluating talent, I'm thinking we should wait and see how things play out. As a side note, personally I was waaaay more peeved the year we picked Kotsysin (sp?), over Carter. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 31, 2005 19:37:22 GMT -5
Whether you like it or not, Theodore is (and has been for some years), in the eyes of management our #1 guy. I don't mind, I just think he's been grossly overpaid. Let's see what sort of bang-per-buck arrangement Gainey and Meehan work out. We keep good company here. Less likely to be the case in the "cost certainty" NHL. Not bad for a goalie who didn't have much value to be able land Ottawa's #1 centre for the Habs, and be the consensus #1 netminder for the Kings. No mystery around Price for me, or for Gainey and Timmins and others who see the kid as a franchise goalie. Higgins, Perezhogin, Plekanec, Kostitsyn. Brulé just didn't fill the need or provide the insurance that Price does. Besides, Brulé's style of play makes him a prime candidate for Koivuitis—he had shoulder problems this past season. I think the Habs had a very good draft, but yes, time will tell. |
|
|
|
Post by Habit on Jul 31, 2005 20:28:54 GMT -5
I snuk a peek at Timmins list just before they walked up to select at #5
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jul 31, 2005 20:49:42 GMT -5
Not bad for a goalie who didn't have much value to be able land Ottawa's #1 centre for the Habs Yes indeed, very good move by Bob. That was my point. , and be the consensus #1 netminder for the Kings. With a grand total of 43 games played in the NHL in 4 years, I think consensus #1 is a big term to use, even for the president of his fan club. Let's just say (and hope) that he might have an easier time establising himself with Cechmanek than he did with Theo. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Jul 31, 2005 20:53:50 GMT -5
Not bad for a goalie who didn't have much value to be able land Ottawa's #1 centre for the Habs And an excellent indication of Garon's true value. , and be the consensus #1 netminder for the Kings. Cechmanek has been long gone from the Kings. Garon was acquired specifically to fill the vacancy. Dave Taylor thanked me for my support, but said it really wasn't necessary.  |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Aug 2, 2005 9:53:41 GMT -5
Personally, this is a good draft. If Price ends up being a legitimate #1 NHL goalie, then it is a very, very good draft. The only thing missing for me is a bona fide Dman prospect, as it still is a little weak on the prospect depth chart (at least in terms of good puck movers). I really expect Gainey to be looking for some young unsigned guys to fill this void over time.
While I watched the whole event unfold with our first pick, this was a true "WTF" moment. When I heard "from the WHL...", I was relatively okay to welcome Brule to the fold. And then, a goalie. But in hindsight, I see the top goalie in the draft (Pittsburg drafted Fleury #1 two years ago to build their franchise around), I also see a big goalie, one thing our depth chart does not have, and I see another valuable cog in building a contending franchise down the road...a possible stud goalie in the system (to join a few other good goaltending prospects, but how bad is that when all good teams start from the pipes out). Gainey was pretty quick to point out that he was the most likely to succeed as a pro, so he really went with the BPA theory that sent some of the commentators off the chart as they wondered why Gainey hadn't picked a defenseman as it was our team's biggest need. Heck, if they really feel he is the next good goalie out there, then I am okay with it.
The Latendresse move was great, as is there a 17 year old power forward out there that does not have some knock on his skating? I really liked his play at the U-18 and he has a physical edge that some of the elite big men in this draft (eg, Bobby Ryan) don't seem to show. A true power forward prospect, just great in my books.
Mikus was really flying up the ISS charts and he was their big "sleeper pick" going into the draft. I always watch young Slovakian snipers going into each draft as that country has a knack of producing NHL skilled snipers like no other European country. He was their top scorer at the U-18 and also played a bunch of games in their Extralige as a 17 year old an accumulated points. I am excited to watch this kid and see if there is a real steal here for Bob and co.
D'Agostini and Aubin I rank as late rounders, with a touch of promise and a huge dash of wait and see. I like Timmins' early assessments of their potential, but he is notoriously high on praise right after draft day. Edit: I did later find out that Aubin was originally invited to the CHL Top Prospects game but missed due to injury. Since that is a select invitee list prepared by NHL scouts, that is some endorsement to him being a decent pickup at this spot.
Younger Kosty was passed over by many teams, despite good rankings by the scouts, so likely because of his sub-six-foot frame. I really like his intensity and his skating in the one U-18 game I saw (against the US), and even with a smaller body he wasn't scared of playing in traffic. At least with a brother in the system and Grabovski not too far behind (I don't believe in drafting by last name, but by talent), you know he will likely be an easy sell to stay in North America and not be lost two years from now like the fate that some young European draftees might face.
Paquet was the defensemen I was really hoping for, but just not the stud or two I was hoping we could draft. I had read that scouting report before the draft from his US high school coach who felt he would be a steal for an NHL team that drafted him, as he sees that he has an NHL future in him. HF had ranked him as one of the top picks from the US high school East, so he was on some radar screens. For 229th overall, I think this was a great pickup, and could rival the Mikus and Latendresse moves as steal of the year for Timmins and Gainey, but this is based on some words of a likely biased coach and I have never seen the kid play...I just like the one early report I read prior to the draft. A Quebec kid, playing high school in the US and then going to the NCAA...a sufficiently non-traditional CHL route that may have let him pass under some scaled back scouting regimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Aug 2, 2005 10:06:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Aug 2, 2005 12:25:11 GMT -5
How many of them will be on the NHL first all-star team in four years. Price is a longshot. Longshots are better than nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Aug 2, 2005 12:52:29 GMT -5
How many of them will be on the NHL first all-star team in four years. Price is a longshot. Longshots are better than nothing. To expect many of the 2005 draft class to be NHL first team all-stars in just four years is a stretch by any imagination. It is a rare 21/22 year old that sets this league on fire these days, especially on defense and in net. If we get three NHL starters out of this crop, and a potential #1 goalie in that batch, then it will be a great success to me. I would have to think that Price, Latendresse and Mikus have the best shot of the this draft class of making a living in the NHL. |
|
|
|
Post by HabbaDasher on Aug 2, 2005 20:50:43 GMT -5
I find it hard to argue with the ever reasonable NWT...
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Aug 11, 2005 11:44:06 GMT -5
Draft review, from the Sports Forecaster: tsf.waymoresports.thestar.com/thestar/hockey/extras.cgi?2005-draft-team-grades(the also rated us as one of the "losers" in the draft, mainly because of the Price pick, though they did call Latendresse "a sleeper" - tsf.waymoresports.thestar.com/thestar/hockey/extras.cgi?2005-draft-review ) MONTREAL Canadiens The Good After trading up in the second round, the Habs landed a necessary piece to their puzzle with the selection of potential power forward Guillaume Latendresse (45th overall). With time, he should become a very popular member of the organization. The Bad Despite his obvious talent as the highest goaltender selected this year, Carey Price will eventually have huge shoes to fill in Montreal. As the No. 5 pick, he'll forever be compared to players taken after him such as Gilbert Brule, Anze Kopitar, Marc Staal and Luc Bourdon. However, it may be a while before he supplants Jose Theodore in Montreal. The Unique The Canadiens like 2003 first rounder Andrei Kostitsyn so much that they also grabbed brother Sergei Kostitsyn in the seventh round (200th) this year. Kostitsyn, along with Latendresse and fourth rounder (121st overall) Juraj Mikus, display offensive upside. The Grade: C+ |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Aug 11, 2005 12:18:45 GMT -5
Firstly, only Karnak really knows who did well and who didn't in this year's draft. Secondly, assuming a normal population, the ratings are skewed, since there are only about 3 ratings below C. Is a B now average? Thirdly, it appears the more picks you had and the higher the pick the better you're rated. My, that's insightful! Also, everyone's pick in every round was someone who should have been picked higher. Which suggests there are a lot of stupid teams around, since they keep missing these obviously better picks.
That's my rant for today (unless I get annoyed again later), over the silliness of rating a draft 2 weeks after it's held. What publishers will do to sell a paper.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Aug 11, 2005 12:27:44 GMT -5
Firstly, only Karnak really knows who did well and who didn't in this year's draft. Secondly, assuming a normal population, the ratings are skewed, since there are only about 3 ratings below C. Is a B now average? Thirdly, it appears the more picks you had and the higher the pick the better you're rated. My, that's insightful! Also, everyone's pick in every round was someone who should have been picked higher. Which suggests there are a lot of stupid teams around, since they keep missing these obviously better picks. That's my rant for today (unless I get annoyed again later), over the silliness of rating a draft 2 weeks after it's held. What publishers will do to sell a paper. Isn't the title of this thread "EARLY" reflections on the draft? Plus, I think they have about 12 of the 30 teams at C or worse (don't shoot the messenger! don't shoot the messenger!) |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 11, 2005 13:06:42 GMT -5
Draft review, from the Sports Forecaster: tsf.waymoresports.thestar.com/thestar/hockey/extras.cgi?2005-draft-team-grades(the also rated us as one of the "losers" in the draft, mainly because of the Price pick, though they did call Latendresse "a sleeper" - tsf.waymoresports.thestar.com/thestar/hockey/extras.cgi?2005-draft-review ) MONTREAL Canadiens The Good After trading up in the second round, the Habs landed a necessary piece to their puzzle with the selection of potential power forward Guillaume Latendresse (45th overall). With time, he should become a very popular member of the organization. The Bad Despite his obvious talent as the highest goaltender selected this year, Carey Price will eventually have huge shoes to fill in Montreal. As the No. 5 pick, he'll forever be compared to players taken after him such as Gilbert Brule, Anze Kopitar, Marc Staal and Luc Bourdon. However, it may be a while before he supplants Jose Theodore in Montreal. The Unique The Canadiens like 2003 first rounder Andrei Kostitsyn so much that they also grabbed brother Sergei Kostitsyn in the seventh round (200th) this year. Kostitsyn, along with Latendresse and fourth rounder (121st overall) Juraj Mikus, display offensive upside. The Grade: C+ It is odd how the forecaster thought Montreal made a bad choice with Price and the Leafs made a good choice with Rask. Given that junior goaltenders take 3 or 4 years to develop into solid pros, I think the timing for drafting Price is very good. Theodore's expiration date may arrive even sooner than that. Both teams received a C+ for their efforts but who on this board would trade Montreal's choices for those made by the Leafs this year? |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Aug 11, 2005 15:18:49 GMT -5
Isn't the title of this thread "EARLY" reflections on the draft? Plus, I think they have about 12 of the 30 teams at C or worse (don't shoot the messenger! don't shoot the messenger!) Like I said, I'm a pacifist. I don't shoot people. Get them drunk, yes, and then get them to admit to the error of their ways. Early reflections is correct....Jurrasic reflections perhaps, (that came before Cretaceous, right?) I guess it's fair to present opinions, much harder to rate a draft, this soon. I'd like to see the early reflections for the 1999 draft. Today, most teams would earn a D, not because they had terrible scouts, but because that was a horrendous year. |
|
