|
Draft '20
Sept 17, 2020 8:37:40 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by GNick99 on Sept 17, 2020 8:37:40 GMT -5
The best way to judge, perhaps, is with some facts. I hope this turns out ok as it involves tables. Well, I'd take Dauphin or Erne over McCarron (I know since we traded for Dauphin it works out to the same, but if we're to be the team who looks hard at the Q, it helps to get the enthusiasm and positive PR of a local guy, even if he doesn't work out. Dauphin would also have been a better pick than Fucale... we need to pick the right guys from the Q as well. Through multiple picks we missed on Duclair who was clearly a anatural talent. The guy has attitude issues, but a team scouting the Q heavily needs to see through that. Danault would've been a better pick than Beaulieu. Aubé-Kubel would've been a better choice than Sherkak, though probably too much of a reach at that point in the draft. Beauvilier would have been a solid pick, probably better than Juulsen, and I guess my point is that we shouldn't be treating getting local kids as a bonus, it should be the Habs very identity to get local guys as much as possible, so that when our scouts pass on Esposito, we know it's not because they didn't look at him enough, it's not because they just tend to like US High school kids, it's because they deliberately chose someone else with higher potential. When interviewed, Timmins clearly thought his job was to get the BPA, and didn't care if it means overpaying in a trade later on to get local talent because he missed out on it. We aren't the Mighty Ducks, we're the Montreal Canadiens, an icon of French Canada that needs to have local talent on its radar at any and all times. Heck, I'd have favored getting Fleury as a backup over Allen, just for that reason (if Fleury was available. But since management doesn't care about local content until someone whines, we can't know if they even called). Wonder if Beauviller be available?
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 17, 2020 11:38:04 GMT -5
Just FYI, Mackinnon is actually a QMJHL product despite not being Quebecois. I'd suggest though that non-francophones from the Q are also good picks for the Habs - showing attention to "local" junior hockey and junior hockey fans, as well as getting Europeans who might well be more willing to live in Quebec than some American kid who doesn't know squat about Canada. The best example is Radulov - played in the Q and was thrilled to come to Montreal a decade later. We disagree here. Tampa Bay doesn’t scout local Florida boys to build a team. Dallas didn’t build their team with Texans. You search for and select the best player available. Quebec is not the hockey hotbed of talent it was 60 years ago. Great players are found in Ontario, the prairies, Sweden, Finland, Russia and all around the world. Most don’t speak French. You have to scout everywhere. And still miss some gems. Players like Lafreniere don’t come around every year, but he wont be around when we pick 16th no matter who our GM is. We are in a deep hole and our GM put us there. The owner refuses to rectify the situation.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Sept 17, 2020 13:43:55 GMT -5
BriseBois (and Yzerman before him) finds good value in prospects from the Q. Boston certainly has as well over the years.
Bergevin's poor record of drafting and developing has nothing to do favouring local kids. In the Bergevin/Timmins era, the only Quebecois kid they picked earlier than the fifth round was Fucale.
If Bergevin was actually wary of the nationalities of draft picks that have not panned out, he would be staying away from Americans and Swedes. But of course he should not do that. The organization needs to dig deeper on more players from everywhere. This is one part collating more data with the help of statistical software. And this is also one part investing more in scouting. For being among the top three clubs in revenue, Montreal does not make a commensurate commitment to maximizing scouting resources. It would be smart to so so since those are competitive advantages not controlled by the salary cap.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 17, 2020 13:44:23 GMT -5
I'd suggest though that non-francophones from the Q are also good picks for the Habs - showing attention to "local" junior hockey and junior hockey fans, as well as getting Europeans who might well be more willing to live in Quebec than some American kid who doesn't know squat about Canada. The best example is Radulov - played in the Q and was thrilled to come to Montreal a decade later. We disagree here. Tampa Bay doesn’t scout local Florida boys to build a team. Dallas didn’t build their team with Texans. You search for and select the best player available. Quebec is not the hockey hotbed of talent it was 60 years ago. Great players are found in Ontario, the prairies, Sweden, Finland, Russia and all around the world. Most don’t speak French. You have to scout everywhere. And still miss some gems. Players like Lafreniere don’t come around every year, but he wont be around when we pick 16th no matter who our GM is. We are in a deep hole and our GM put us there. The owner refuses to rectify the situation. And some anglo fans keep on denying the reality of the Montreal Canadiens, and then complain when fans get annoyed at seeing other teams draft the local kids our team snubbed. Canada has plenty of teams that can ignore local content, Montreal isn't one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 17, 2020 22:36:32 GMT -5
We disagree here. Tampa Bay doesn’t scout local Florida boys to build a team. Dallas didn’t build their team with Texans. You search for and select the best player available. Quebec is not the hockey hotbed of talent it was 60 years ago. Great players are found in Ontario, the prairies, Sweden, Finland, Russia and all around the world. Most don’t speak French. You have to scout everywhere. And still miss some gems. Players like Lafreniere don’t come around every year, but he wont be around when we pick 16th no matter who our GM is. We are in a deep hole and our GM put us there. The owner refuses to rectify the situation. And some anglo fans keep on denying the reality of the Montreal Canadiens, and then complain when fans get annoyed at seeing other teams draft the local kids our team snubbed. Canada has plenty of teams that can ignore local content, Montreal isn't one of them. When the rules change so that 1.5 points are awarded for a goal scored by a local boy i will agree with you. Until then i prefer to draft McDavid over Lafreniere.
|
|
|
Draft '20
Sept 18, 2020 6:47:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by GNick99 on Sept 18, 2020 6:47:38 GMT -5
And some anglo fans keep on denying the reality of the Montreal Canadiens, and then complain when fans get annoyed at seeing other teams draft the local kids our team snubbed. Canada has plenty of teams that can ignore local content, Montreal isn't one of them. When the rules change so that 1.5 points are awarded for a goal scored by a local boy i will agree with you. Until then i prefer to draft McDavid over Lafreniere. I am hoping for Bourque this draft. Mercer be good fit also. LaPierre I am not high on. He was not a goal scorer even when he was healthy. Then a ton of injuries. Not in first round anyway. If he slides maybe trade up get him early 2nd. But first round, we need goals.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Sept 18, 2020 10:16:59 GMT -5
Yeah, I want to take some swings at kids with high offensive ceilings.
I tend to think Quinn, Jarvis, and Mercer will be taken before Montreal makes its selection. Among the guys who I think will be on the board at #16, the cluster I am focused on primarily: (i) Lapierre, (ii) Reichel, (iii) Amirov, (iv) Mysak, (v) Perreault, (vi) Holloway, (vii) Bourque and (viii) Zary.
Jeje, there is still 2+ weeks to go, so I am not sure if that is my final ordering of them assuming they are all available.
|
|
|
Post by Anardil1 on Sept 18, 2020 14:45:53 GMT -5
When the rules change so that 1.5 points are awarded for a goal scored by a local boy i will agree with you. Until then i prefer to draft McDavid over Lafreniere. I am hoping for Bourque this draft. Mercer be good fit also. LaPierre I am not high on. He was not a goal scorer even when he was healthy. Then a ton of injuries. Not in first round anyway. If he slides maybe trade up get him early 2nd. But first round, we need goals. I am presuming that we are talking about 'local' talent? The only local thing about Mercer, is that he plays in the 'Q'. Mercer is a Newfie.
|
|
|
Post by frozone on Sept 18, 2020 15:36:37 GMT -5
Yeah, I want to take some swings at kids with high offensive ceilings. I tend to think Quinn, Jarvis, and Mercer will be taken before Montreal makes its selection. Among the guys who I think will be on the board at #16, the cluster I am focused on primarily: (i) Lapierre, (ii) Reichel, (iii) Amirov, (iv) Mysak, (v) Perreault, (vi) Holloway, (vii) Bourque and (viii) Zary. Jeje, there is still 2+ weeks to go, so I am not sure if that is my final ordering of them assuming they are all available. Imo, this draft is quite overrated after Lafreniere. Even Byfield will have to make fundamental changes to his game if he is to reach his potential as a beast NHLer. However, outside of the top 3, I think the first round is pretty flat. I would argue that the proverbial top 10 does not project to the NHL very well at all. In no particular order: Laffy - Slam dunk Holtz - 1 dimensional shooter Byfield - big man who doesn't play big and hasn't really shown up in big games/tournaments Rossi - extremely short for a center Perfetti - small & weak, poor skater, likes to slow the game down Raymond - talented, small, disappears, struggled against men Drysdale - lacks PP QB upside Askarov - sliding in rankings, probably from the poor WJC Quinn - projects well, but came out of nowhere this year - how much did he benefit from playing on a powerhouse? Stutzle - generally projects well, but whats the upside? Patrick Kane or Nico Hischier? If the next tier includes guys like Sanderson, Jarvis, Lundell, Mercer, Gunler, Holloway, Reichel etc, I'm not worried about picking 16th because there's a few guys in that range that project quite well. I won't be surprised to see a few of them sneak into the proverbial top 10. Heck, you can argue that Sanderson already has at this point. And if we want to go all in on a boom-or-bust offensive selection, there will be plenty to choose from (Bourque, Perreault, Gunler, Lapierre, Grans on D...). If anything, things may start getting a little thin around 25 or so. At 16, the options should be fine.
|
|
|
Draft '20
Sept 18, 2020 17:48:20 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by GNick99 on Sept 18, 2020 17:48:20 GMT -5
Yeah, I want to take some swings at kids with high offensive ceilings. I tend to think Quinn, Jarvis, and Mercer will be taken before Montreal makes its selection. Among the guys who I think will be on the board at #16, the cluster I am focused on primarily: (i) Lapierre, (ii) Reichel, (iii) Amirov, (iv) Mysak, (v) Perreault, (vi) Holloway, (vii) Bourque and (viii) Zary. Jeje, there is still 2+ weeks to go, so I am not sure if that is my final ordering of them assuming they are all available. Mercer has a chance to be there at 16. Slim though. Amirov I like also. Bourque my first pick though. LaPierre I am not high on. Said reasons before. Holloway, no I just don't see the hands. Perrault good skater but lacks quickness. Not my pick at 16.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Sept 18, 2020 21:53:21 GMT -5
Lapierre's health issues, even if it was neck rather than concussion, worry me. But I really like his vision and creativity moving the puck. He is a great passer and simply has hockey smarts. Yeah, his shot is basically a muffin. But so is Danault's and that has not stopped Danault.
I see Holloway, Zary and Bourque as relatively safe picks but the upside seems relatively limited.
Kids like Amirov, Reichel, Mysak, and Perreault seem like less of a sure thing thing to play in the league for 8-10 years. But there are characteristics of each that is suggestive of something special.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 19, 2020 0:10:33 GMT -5
Lapierre's health issues, even if it was neck rather than concussion, worry me. But I really like his vision and creativity moving the puck. He is a great passer and simply has hockey smarts. Yeah, his shot is basically a muffin. But so is Danault's and that has not stopped Danault. I see Holloway, Zary and Bourque as relatively safe picks but the upside seems relatively limited. Kids like Amirov, Reichel, Mysak, and Perreault seem like less of a sure thing thing to play in the league for 8-10 years. But there are characteristics of each that is suggestive of something special. we are picking 16th i dont expect to find a sure thing that 14 other GM's missed Perrault has a high upside with warts. great shot, hard to find at 16 and a team need, fast skater with speed that can't be taught. he needs to leard defense which can be taught and quickness which can't be taught but night improve with experience. there will be safer options at 16 but no higher possible upsides. our leadership wants to build through the draft picking 16th (hasn't worked and likely will produce mediocre results for another 8 years).
|
|
|
Post by frozone on Sept 19, 2020 9:34:09 GMT -5
Yeah, I want to take some swings at kids with high offensive ceilings. I tend to think Quinn, Jarvis, and Mercer will be taken before Montreal makes its selection. Among the guys who I think will be on the board at #16, the cluster I am focused on primarily: (i) Lapierre, (ii) Reichel, (iii) Amirov, (iv) Mysak, (v) Perreault, (vi) Holloway, (vii) Bourque and (viii) Zary. Jeje, there is still 2+ weeks to go, so I am not sure if that is my final ordering of them assuming they are all available. Mercer has a chance to be there at 16. Slim though. Amirov I like also. Bourque my first pick though. LaPierre I am not high on. Said reasons before. Holloway, no I just don't see the hands. Perrault good skater but lacks quickness. Not my pick at 16. Interesting, I wouldn't have said that Perreault lacks quickness. His skating looks very explosive to me. Although he tends not to turn on the jets very often.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Sept 19, 2020 22:05:58 GMT -5
Perreault is a strong skater. I have not watched full periods of any of his games let alone entire games, but I would suspect that what makes him look like he lacks quickness at times relates to the fact that he does not keep his motor running hard on all shifts or even during the entire 45 seconds of a particular shift.
However, this is not necessarily a red flag or something cannot be corrected.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 24, 2020 9:36:07 GMT -5
We disagree here. Tampa Bay doesn’t scout local Florida boys to build a team. Dallas didn’t build their team with Texans. You search for and select the best player available. Quebec is not the hockey hotbed of talent it was 60 years ago. Great players are found in Ontario, the prairies, Sweden, Finland, Russia and all around the world. Most don’t speak French. You have to scout everywhere. And still miss some gems. Players like Lafreniere don’t come around every year, but he wont be around when we pick 16th no matter who our GM is. We are in a deep hole and our GM put us there. The owner refuses to rectify the situation. And some anglo fans keep on denying the reality of the Montreal Canadiens, and then complain when fans get annoyed at seeing other teams draft the local kids our team snubbed. Canada has plenty of teams that can ignore local content, Montreal isn't one of them. I'd be interested to know who you think Montreal snubbed? I'm all for drafting local talent, if it is indeed talent. If a local kid is ranked 20th, and we are selecting 16th. Sure, he should get a nice hard long look. I'd also go so far to say, that if he is not selected, Bergevin should have to explain why. And Montreal fans, Quebecois ones too, should not feel that it is automatic for the local to be selected. Rational reasons are possible for not doing it. However, I am against selecting a local boy if he is ranked 60th, and we are selecting in the forties. That's just for the sake of quota, and not because of his skill level EDIT: I'll attempt to go through some drafts. but it will take time. 2019 - Cole Caufield (Samuel Poulin selected 6 picks later was the first local kid selected. Do we pass over Caufield? 2019 - Jayden Struble (Samuel Bolduc next local kid was selected 11 pick later. I see these as having similar potentials, and possibly MTL could have selected Bolduc. NWT would know more about each than me. 2019 - Mattias Norlinder (Nathan Legare selected 10 picks later) 2018 - Jesperi Kotkaniemi (first local kid drafted was 24 picks later - Nicolas Beaudin) 2018 - Alexander Romanov (Benoit-Olivier Groulx was selected 16 picks later) 2018 - MTL selected 2 picks after the Groulx selection - did we try to move up to grab the local kid? Should we have? 2018 - Jacob Olofsson (3 picks later Gabriel Fortier is selected. Bergevin would need to explain this pass in my opinion. Is Olofsson remarkably more talented, or a better skill set than Fortier? 2018 - 6 picks after Fortier is seleted, we select Cam Hillis - no local kid was selected in the third round and another not selected until 44 picks after Hillis is selected. An argument could be made that we should have used our 2 selections to move up 2017 - Ryan Poehling (20 picks later Alexandre Texier is selected, from France. He may be considered local. Maxime Comtois was first local kid selected 25 picks after Poehling was selected at 25) 2017 - Josh Brook (4 picks later Antoine Morand was selected. Is Brook that much better than Morand? The only stat that would suggest so, is Brook is taller and heavier) 2017 - Cale Fleury (no local kids selected in the third or fourth rounds in 2017)
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 24, 2020 10:14:18 GMT -5
And some anglo fans keep on denying the reality of the Montreal Canadiens, and then complain when fans get annoyed at seeing other teams draft the local kids our team snubbed. Canada has plenty of teams that can ignore local content, Montreal isn't one of them. I'd be interested to know who you think Montreal snubbed? I'm all for drafting local talent, if it is indeed talent. If a local kid is ranked 20th, and we are selecting 16th. Sure, he should get a nice hard long look. I'd also go so far to say, that if he is not selected, Bergevin should have to explain why. And Montreal fans, Quebecois ones too, should not feel that it is automatic for the local to be selected. Rational reasons are possible for not doing it. However, I am against selecting a local boy if he is ranked 60th, and we are selecting in the forties. That's just for the sake of quota, and not because of his skill level I went through a few drafts a while back and came up with a boatload of names. Danault was one - we made up for it by trading for him, but we would have been better off drafting him from the start. Much of the Drouin trade was politics/financial. Not full, they thought they were getting a good player. Which he has not turned into. But if his last name been Smith...trade would not have occurred. Very true. In the same way, if we'd drafted some of Anthony Duclair, William Carrier, Nicolas Aube-Kubel, Anthony Beauvillier, David Savard, Cedric Paquette, Phillip Danault, Louis Domingue, Michael Bournival or Louis Domingue when they were available to us, maybe we wouldn't have found ourselves making deals for local guys from a disadvantage. And I'm not even talking about trading up in 2013 to get one of 3 local late first-rounders rather than in 2010 to get yet another big, slow western kid. Which is why I want Timmins fired, and the whole scouting approach rethought.
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on Sept 24, 2020 11:15:12 GMT -5
Drafting has and always will be part crap shoot. You can pick the most skilled and talented player in the world but if he isn't trained, supported and have that inner desire to improve, then he has just as much chance to become a bust as someone that is picked 10-15 spots later. The same goes in reverse, if a player is missing certain aspects in his game and is not ranked that high, but trains, develops and has that burning desire to prove everyone wrong that passed him over then he makes a lot of people look bad after the fact. The 2012 draft is the perfect example. Everyone had Nail Yakuov number #1 and yet when going through the draft board Reilley, Forsberg Hertl, Teravainen, Dumba, Trouba and many others have had a more promising career. The blame can't always be placed on the team, the scout, and the GM. The player has a big say on if he makes it or not.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Sept 24, 2020 11:16:02 GMT -5
Well, this year should be a different sort of test case. I believe there will be fifteen kids from the Q taken in rounds 1-4 (six of them Quebecois, five Europeans, and four Anglos). Plus, there are also kids with fathers from Quebec (Perreault, Brisson, Bordeleau).
For me it would be strange if there is no local flavour in the eight selections Montreal is due to make the first four rounds of this draft.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 24, 2020 11:50:15 GMT -5
Drafting has and always will be part crap shoot. You can pick the most skilled and talented player in the world but if he isn't trained, supported and have that inner desire to improve, then he has just as much chance to become a bust as someone that is picked 10-15 spots later. The same goes in reverse, if a player is missing certain aspects in his game and is not ranked that high, but trains, develops and has that burning desire to prove everyone wrong that passed him over then he makes a lot of people look bad after the fact. The 2012 draft is the perfect example. Everyone had Nail Yakuov number #1 and yet when going through the draft board Reilley, Forsberg Hertl, Teravainen, Dumba, Trouba and many others have had a more promising career. The blame can't always be placed on the team, the scout, and the GM. The player has a big say on if he makes it or not. For sure. Which is why you'll miss more than you hit, over any significant time frame. That being said, all teams have inherent biases and preferences. In our case, we need a scouting department that cares way too much about the Q, rather than see it as a complete backwater that you take a random guy in the 7th round just for appearances.
|
|
|
Draft '20
Sept 26, 2020 5:43:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by GNick99 on Sept 26, 2020 5:43:35 GMT -5
Mercer has a chance to be there at 16. Slim though. Amirov I like also. Bourque my first pick though. LaPierre I am not high on. Said reasons before. Holloway, no I just don't see the hands. Perrault good skater but lacks quickness. Not my pick at 16. Interesting, I wouldn't have said that Perreault lacks quickness. His skating looks very explosive to me. Although he tends not to turn on the jets very often. Perrault go on to good player. Just not one my first choice at 16. His quick decision making with puck is not top notch to me. If we take him I am not disappointed though. I think Bourque steal of draft. He was red hot for 2 months before wrist injury. If not for injury and Covid, likely be rated much higher. He really matured late in season. I watched Moosehead game just before his wrist injury, Bourque had 7 points that game. He was night and day best player on ice. See him as cross between a Danault and Giroux. But he is small.
|
|
|
Draft '20
Sept 27, 2020 19:56:29 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Willie Dog on Sept 27, 2020 19:56:29 GMT -5
Been reading good things about Connor Zary, although he's a centre, he would be intriguing as a winger
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Sept 27, 2020 20:59:23 GMT -5
Zary is almost certainly getting picked in the 15-25 range. He is a smart, effective centre in all three zones. This kid will definitely play in the NHL.
I have no problem with Montreal picking a centre at #16 if that is the best player on the board. My issue with Zary relates to the fact that his upside could be somewhat limited (not a great skater, not a super quick release or particularly heavy shot, not crazy slick with the puck). Zary plays a very polished all around game because he is skilled and really smart and disciplined. It may also to some factor be a factor of being almost the oldest player in this draft.
|
|
|
Draft '20
Sept 28, 2020 7:47:46 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by GNick99 on Sept 28, 2020 7:47:46 GMT -5
Been reading good things about Connor Zary, although he's a centre, he would be intriguing as a winger I liked Zary. But been 9 or 10 months since seen him play. I must have forgot some about him. Should keep notes I guess. Not as informed on him as I should be
|
|
|
Draft '20
Sept 28, 2020 19:00:27 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Willie Dog on Sept 28, 2020 19:00:27 GMT -5
Been reading good things about Connor Zary, although he's a centre, he would be intriguing as a winger I liked Zary. But been 9 or 10 months since seen him play. I must have forgot some about him. Should keep notes I guess. Not as informed on him as I should be He could be the faceoff guy we need...
|
|
|
Draft '20
Sept 29, 2020 8:06:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by GNick99 on Sept 29, 2020 8:06:09 GMT -5
I liked Zary. But been 9 or 10 months since seen him play. I must have forgot some about him. Should keep notes I guess. Not as informed on him as I should be He could be the faceoff guy we need... He's older and never tore it up last year. Sounds like red flag to me. But Zary is likely a solid 2nd line center.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Sept 29, 2020 8:51:46 GMT -5
He could be the faceoff guy we need... He's older and never tore it up last year. Sounds like red flag to me. But Zary is likely a solid 2nd line center. If we move Danault, he could slot in at #3
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Sept 29, 2020 9:26:00 GMT -5
Zary could be a Danault type centre. However, the timing would be the problem. Zary is not going to play in the NHL next season and in reality would be fortunate if his rookie season is 2022-23.
At 16th overall the Habs are adding another good prospect to their strong prospect pool. Montreal is not adding a roster piece. I just do not see a kid being available who checks all the boxes for skill, physical maturity, and mental maturity to step in and play.
If Bergevin trades Danault, then Domi needs to stay.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Sept 29, 2020 13:16:20 GMT -5
Realistically, Zary has a 50/50 chance making it in the NHL...and about 25% being as good as Danault. So I wouldn't count on him as a hatched egg.....
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Sept 29, 2020 17:55:43 GMT -5
For sure, though it depends on how one defines 'making it' in the NHL. I forget if it was Travis Yost or Andrew Berkshire or someone else, but I remember a study where the definition of making it was kind of relaxed (something like at least 100 NHL games) and mid first round picks meet that threshold approximately 70 percent of the time.
But honestly an organization needs top notch amateur scouting because it is tough to get a guy who is genuinely a keeper when one tightens up the criteria of what actually constitutes a good NHL career.
I think a guy like Zary will be almost a lock (in my opinion way way above 70 percent) to play in the league (100+ games), but to be honest the odds are likely well below 25 percent that he manages to put together a career on the level of Danault.
Fighting for the playoffs in the muddy middle is tough and trying to find diamonds in the muddy middle of the draft is not easy either.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 2, 2020 12:06:27 GMT -5
Does anyone have a solid (free) draft primer to recommend ? I don't need all the viewpoints, just something so I have a clue who's who on draft day....
|
|