|
Post by PTH on May 14, 2020 12:31:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 14, 2020 13:10:45 GMT -5
Thanks, PTH ... I'm interested in stuff like this and that was a pretty good read ... translation by Google Chrome ... André Savard: the demotion that changed everythingPHOTO ALAIN ROBERGE, ARCHIVES LA PRESSE André Savard when he was general manager of Le Canadien, in 2003The Canadien's fate would no doubt have been very different if the team's management, owner George Gillett and president Pierre Boivin, had not decided to demote general manager André Savard to Bob Gainey in June 2003. Posted on May 14, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. MATHIAS BRUNET LA PRESSEThe team could have bet on the big center player so much desired, Jeff Carter, and probably also on Claude Giroux. The famous 2003 draft took place 18 days after Gainey's arrival. This one had to catch up. He didn't know the Canadiens' players and hadn't been an employee of an NHL club for 18 months. "I said it publicly, I would have taken [Jeff] Carter," André Savard told La Presse in recent days. I knew him well. I had been to see him play in the Toronto area, in Guelph, Kitchener. I had toured the Ontario Junior League. We were small in the center and he was a strong center. I liked his hands, but his skate remained to develop. " As we had just pulled the rug under his feet, two years after being hired, André Savard did not dare contradict Trevor Timmins at the Canadiens table during the draft. “Trevor loved Kostitsyn. I loved him too, but between the two was the other. But Bob Gainey had become the boss. If I had been DG again, I would have vetoed Carter, that's for sure. " Carter was drafted by the Philadelphia Flyers in 11th place, just after Kostitsyn. It had a promising start, but consumption problems spoiled the rest of his career. Carter is in his 15th season. He totaled 732 points, including 382 goals, in 1040 games. He has had eight seasons of 25 or more goals, including four of 30 or more goals and one of 46 goals. He won the Stanley Cup twice with the Los Angeles Kings. More/Suite.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on May 14, 2020 13:19:22 GMT -5
Like falling in love with a has been supermodel, I thought that Gainey was a cut above Savard. I was wrong. Lots of crow pie recipes followed.
Savard came across as a "meat and potatoes" kind of guy that knew all his basics (without the arrogance). I wouldn't have a problem giving him a chance AGAIN over Bbinz.
Can he be better then Bbinz? Probably. At least he had/has a better grasp of drafting and that's where we need to build from. It probably also means that Timmins is gone.
Given all the sudden interest.....this is a floater by Mol$on for dumping Bbinz.
|
|
|
Post by Scotty D on May 14, 2020 13:21:38 GMT -5
Cerkawski for Asham and a 5th was the day i lost faith in Andre. We had Bulis, Petrov, Ribiero, Hossa, already playing the left side and when i saw the news i remember saying to myself how he would simply be part of a 2nd line left wing revolving door. sure enough between him Petrov and Ribs they alternated press box duty depending on who's hand was hottest, It didn't help with Therrien and Julien as coaches mind you but after that day i realized Saavard was good at talent for talent deals but had minimal concept of how the talent would be required in a team environment. Sometimes deals involving talent for talent on a simple comparison look great on paper. Until you realize ah crap i have 2 or 3 of the exact same guy in the lineup already.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 14, 2020 15:37:41 GMT -5
Suuuurrreee you would have Andre , but why didn’t you ... Gainey wasn’t GM at that draft From RDS Wednesday June 18 2003 - (RDS) - The NHL draft will take place Saturday in Nashville. The Canadiens will have a lot at stake at the draft. In spite of Bob Gainey's arrival, it is André Savard's crew who will have responsibility for the 2003 entry draft. Gainey will officially take over as GM of the Canadiens after the draft. At the beginning of the season, André Savard entrusted Trevor Timmins with the supervision of this year's draft. Timmins worked for 10 years in the Senators' organization. "I think that we have the personnel to build an organization a little like that of the Senators, by drafting well and by graduating the players into the lineup", Timmins mentioned. There really is no margin of error for the Canadiens. In Nashville, Montreal has an excellent opportunity to stock up. The majority of scouts proclaim the depth of this draft. "We have a total of 10 choices. One first round, and two second round. This draft is significant for our future", said Timmins. In Montreal, though the presidents, the GMs and the coaches follow one after the other in vain, the Francophone reality remains. It's necessary to keep that in mind when choosing. "If there is a Francophone player with equal talent, we must pay attention to him", specified Timmins.. That being said, the general philosophy of the Canadiens is to draft the best player available. "We worked countless hours to prepare our draft list. We must respect it, but we pay special attention to the QMJHL", mentioned Timmins.. Since the arrival of Andre Savard, the Canadiens have drafted three players in the first round, of which the giant Mike Komisarek suited up for the Habs last season. In 2001, the Canadiens had also selected the Russian Alexander Perejougin in the first round, while in 2002, Christopher Higgins was Montreal's very first selection. True to the spirit of the Canadiens hockey men, the development of several of these players will occur on the farm team. "The coach of the farm team must do a good job in teaching the young players, and showing them how to reach the NHL", said Timmins. Six or seven players in the minors have the potential to one day play in the NHL. Mike Komisarek, Marcel Hossa and Ron Hainsey will probably not have to shuttle themselves between Hamilton and Montreal next season. It's precisely to see these youngsters make it to the Canadiens that André Savard decided to remain as assistant to Bob Gainey. - www.rds.ca/canadien/chroniques/HOCKEYLNHCAN3EF0CD0F.html
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 14, 2020 15:44:53 GMT -5
I love the “what if” game ...
What if Andre Savard drafted Dan Hamhuis instead of Mike Komisarek What if Andre Savard drafted Derek Roy instead of Alexander Perezhogin What if Andre Savard drafted Alexander Steen instead of Chris Higgins
Somehow, this hindsight drafting comes off as self serving
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 14, 2020 15:55:57 GMT -5
Now I’m just reminiscing
Mathias Brunet
NASHVILLE, Tennessee - The Canadiens haven't given up in their attempt to obtain the top choice at the draft.
"I will speak to Rick Dudley soon, confided André Savard yesterday afternoon. Dudley's requirements are high, but you never know... "
All the same Bob Gainey would be satisfied with tenth choice in any event. "We try to improve our position, but there are good players available in the tenth spot. We know our needs, we want to put our hands on a rising star."
Who will the Canadiens choose? "Good question. We don't know yet ourselves, answers head scout Trevor Timmins. "We have three or four names at the top of the list, but will they still be available when our turn comes?
The Tricolore want speed, but also a large forward. Dustin Brown, Ryan Getzlaf, Thomas Vanek, Marc-Antoine Pouliot, Hugh Jessiman and Andrei Kastsitsyn answer these criteria.
The case of Kastsitsyn is particularly interesting. Frame like a brick sh!t-house, blessed with God-given talent, he frightens certain scouts because of his epilepsy. But the Tricolore did their homework. "Our doctor, David Mulder, examined him in Toronto, we even subjected him to in-depth brain tests, mentioned Timmins yesterday. "All is correct. In my opinion, he has the tools to play in the NHL as of next season. But he probably will not be available when our turn comes."
Kastsitsyn is however not classified among the first ten choices, according to the experts. "But that's not the NHL ranking...", answers Timmins.
And if the Canadiens get the first choice? "Eric Staal and Nathan Horton are sure things," affirms Timmins. "The first is a brilliant play-maker. The second has the assets to become an excellent power forward. He's a warrior. There isn't a great difference in talent between the two."
And if the Canadiens have put us on a false track with the intention of drafting one of the defensemen - Suter, Coburn or Phaneuf? It wouldn't be the first time that we are told white lies to avoid revealing real intentions...
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 14, 2020 16:11:23 GMT -5
Somehow, this hindsight drafting comes off as self serving If hindsight drafting is self-serving then so is every person who uses historical fact (in hindsight), to formulate an argument ... I could not disagree more with your opinion ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on May 14, 2020 17:03:10 GMT -5
...but after that day i realized Saavard was good at talent for talent deals but had minimal concept of how the talent would be required in a team environment. Sometimes deals involving talent for talent on a simple comparison look great on paper. Until you realize ah crap i have 2 or 3 of the exact same guy in the lineup already.... Very well said. I joined this board in that era and my wish was that we stop acquiring smallish scoring wingers... Went back to find it: Name: PTH Changes you like to see right NOW: No more 5'10-6' soft defensively weak 40 point scorers, not locking the team into all these long-term deals for big money that kill all flexibility and condemn all kids to the minors even before camp starts
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 14, 2020 18:40:13 GMT -5
Somehow, this hindsight drafting comes off as self serving If hindsight drafting is self-serving then so is every person who uses historical fact (in hindsight), to formulate an argument ... I could not disagree more with your opinion ... Cheers. huh? People disagree with hindsight drafting on here all the time, stating there are too many variables to do so. There are many article to show Andre Savard had his fingerprints on the 2003 draft and didn't select Jeff Carter. But 17 years later he says he would have if not for Timmins. I'm no Timmins apologist, but that's kinda throwing the subordinate under the bus ...which is self serving . Just my two cents. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by jkr on May 14, 2020 19:10:54 GMT -5
Even with the hindsight he's still wrong. If he wanted to fix the centre ice problem Ryan Getzlaf was the guy to pick. Just saying. I agree with Skilly. It's easy to rewrite history 17 years later.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on May 14, 2020 20:00:34 GMT -5
Andre Savard had a good eye for talent, but he was not running the show in an era where the GM in Montreal enjoyed a long leash. Regarding that draft, I guess taking the post-facto account of things at face value, one could say that Savard despite the fact he was still nominally the GM opted to defer to Timmins.
Yeah, PTH, funny how some roster construction issues linger for 20 years. Imagine that, too many smallish soft guys holding down roster spots. God, basically since Serge Savard departed that is part of this club’s profile. It boggles the mind that in the Senator’s first five years as GM of the Habs he drafted more big, mobile, and skilled wingers than Montreal found in the 25 years since he was fired.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 14, 2020 23:53:34 GMT -5
Timmins joined the club in 2003 I believe and was Director of Player Development after a 10 year career in Ottawa. I'm not sure exactly how much weight he would have carried in any decisions on drafted players, especially first round picks, just being hired by the team, where he wasn't even a direct member of the scouting group, though he had years of experience in Ottawa behind him in that area.
I doubt he had much say in who the first pick was.
AS an aside Ottawa's scouting was ok during Timmins' time there, dropped off after he left, and then picked up again really well from 2008 onward. I wonder what happened in 2008? BTW, Bryan Murray was hired in 2007. Coincidence?
It always starts at the top.
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on May 15, 2020 6:11:44 GMT -5
Timmins has made some questionable draft picks. Kostitsyn I remember he said he bumped him from 30th to 10th in his rankings after U18 tourny. That's too small of a sample size to bump 20 positions. The U18 could have been an outliner. Which, it turned out it was. Kostitsyn played his career best hockey that week. It was an elementary mistake for Timmins to make which costs the team a star player. Ranked around 25-30 would be approiate for where Kostitsyn skill set should been drafted. Where he originally had him.
I heard a former GM say he was profound he would not make a mistake with a high pick. He had the 5th overall in draft and his scouts had adviced him who to take. A few weeks before the draft he obtained tapes of every game his junior club played that season. He said he watched every shift the draftee played. Often stopping it and writing down comments. But he said he did not want to blow that pick. It worked out for him. He got what turned out to be one of best players in draft and a top defensemen in league for years. Now, that is too much for me. I would have watched maybe 5 or 10 of his team's games. Cross referenced it with the anayltics and what my scouts say. Too me would be deep enough.
I was torn between Parise and Seabrooke that year. I remember the WJC was in Halifax that year and Parise went toe to toe against Ovechkin. You could tell Ovechkin was going to be a star, but Parise was outstanding himself. Seabrooke I thought had a great TPG.
Andre Savard, I thought he was a decent GM. But agreed with Gainey coming on board. A team legend just a few years removed from a Cup in Dallas. It started good. Gainey made some good moves. Kovalev, Huet, etc.... I thought we had a chance at a cup in '06 Playoffs. Late in the season Gainey went behind the bench and the team turned around. We were up 2-1 in games with Carolina. Ahead in Game 4 until Koivu took a stick to the eye. After we lost him we dropped down a notch. All it took, Canes shot ahead. They went on to win a Cup. Gainey had a good team, his farm system was in good shape, Carey Price, the Kostitsyns, Halak, Streit, etc....
Later that fall he lost his daughter, didn't seem like he was the same. Started making questionable moves, gave more power to Pierre Gauthier. The free fall had started.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 15, 2020 10:29:59 GMT -5
Timmins joined the club in 2003 I believe and was Director of Player Development after a 10 year career in Ottawa. I'm not sure exactly how much weight he would have carried in any decisions on drafted players, especially first round picks, just being hired by the team, where he wasn't even a direct member of the scouting group, though he had years of experience in Ottawa behind him in that area. I doubt he had much say in who the first pick was. AS an aside Ottawa's scouting was ok during Timmins' time there, dropped off after he left, and then picked up again really well from 2008 onward. I wonder what happened in 2008? BTW, Bryan Murray was hired in 2007. Coincidence? It always starts at the top. Yep. How many times has the 2003 draft been used against Timmins? (I myself may have used it a time or two) The counter arguments always were that Timmins wasn't there long enough or it was a Gainey pick. What if neither were true? … * * In the team's defense, there were articles stating that Kostitsyn was every bit as good as Getzlaf and Horton if the epilepsy issue was truly figured out. The Habs released a news article the day before the draft stating that their doctors had cleared Kostitsyn. The article I posted above, acyually came from a Habsrus thread titled "Timmins to look after the draft" … kinda strange when he was almost as new as Gainey. But, given alllll of that … Andre Savard was the GM, was the most senior guy, was a guy with a reputation for eyeing talent (just not while in Montreal) and still allowed his subordinates to convince him to select Kostitsyn (with a red flag on him from the start) over Carter, Brown, Parise, Getzlaf, Burns, Perry and Kesler. But that's hindsight. And there were many articles and interviews with Canadiens management stating they were looking at drafting a "big forward who can skate". They actually contacted Dudley to see if they could get the #1 pick. They wanted one of Eric Stall or Nathan Horton. (now that's a hindsight, what if debate .. what if we did get Staal??) So we all knew what they wanted to draft with the #1 pick. Gainey after failing to move up said "There is still a nice forward to get at #10" … so we were looking at Kostitsyn, Carter, Getzlaf, and Brown in all likihood at #10. It is hindsight to say they blew it, they out right blew the **** out of that pick. But it also is certainly hindsight to turn around now and say "I would have selected …" . The correct word is "should" … Andre Savard should just say "I was in charge, I should have selected Jeff Carter like my gut told me" … I would have respected that statement
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 15, 2020 14:09:10 GMT -5
One interesting observation is that those teams which have a reputation for drafting well, often have done well with some later picks. Tamps is an example. Let's look at their first round picks compared to the rest of the drafts. They took STamkos and Hedman in 08 and 09 when there were 2 obvious choices at 1 and 2. No brainers. Since then....Brett Connolly. Namestnikov, Kokkoek, Vasilevsky, Drouin, Deangelo, Howden, Cal Foote and Nolan Foote. Do you think we'd be asking for people's heads if our scouting staff picked those guys? (BTW, a few of them were in that 20-30 red zone where they rarely turn out). How about second rounders and later?
Kucherov, Ondrej Palat, Brayden Point, Anthony Cirelli. Those were since 08/09. Two of them are stars and the other two are above average players.
Over that same time frame, the Senators have drafted outside of the first round, Silfverberg, Lehner, Mark Stone, Pageau, Dzingel, They had a drought, but then have picked Dratherson, Formenton and Lajoie, who haven't proven themselves yet, but look like they're on the way.
Just an observation. Seems like those 'good' drafting teams, hit on more of their gambles than others.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on May 15, 2020 14:47:19 GMT -5
I'm always puzzled by "just before the draft" risers. It happened with Kostitsin and also Kk.
The real deals show their abilities through the season of seasons. Why the sudden rise? I'm troubled with that because I have also seen it in business dealings. People become invested in their own brilliance (aka mirror licking) and start to hype what is on the surface....questionable.
I rather have a kid that has shown consistency over a season then a one game star. Period.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 15, 2020 17:00:07 GMT -5
The reasoning is likely that those 'risers' will continue to improve faster and better than the guys who aren't improving as much throughout the season. I don't know if anyone has done any research or studies to determine how often that works out (and if they have, they're selling it, not giving it away). Consistency is to be preferred, and I gather that these 'risers' have consistently gotten better as the season goes along. We all know that the game gets faster and tighter from Sept to April, so if these kids are actually improving as the game is getting more difficult, it adds to that reasoning.
To your points, KK was always considered a good prospect but there was concern over his knee injury suffered the year before his draft year. He got better as the draft year went along, quite logically because he became more confident in his knee and the rest of his game picked up accordingly. In the U18's he was dominant and it wasn't just one game. (Unlike Dalton Thrower). Everyone compares him to Brady Tkachuk and 'what could have been". My opinion, for what it's worth, is that KK will be a better player than Tkachuk in time. Tkachuk grew up in an NHL family, was familiar with all the routines and environment of the NHL through his whole life and is nearly a full year older than KK. Give KK another year for his body to mature more and I think we'll start seeing some exceptional plays from him.
Kostitsyn was a case of swinging for the fences. His ceiling was considered higher than Carter's because of the potential strength and size. Unfortunately it remained mostly potential. His hockey sense just wasn't up to the standard of an above average player, and he could have been a step faster. Sigh. I wouldn't compare him to KK, though. KK's hockey IQ is far superior.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on May 16, 2020 11:55:27 GMT -5
The reasoning is likely that those 'risers' will continue to improve faster and better than the guys who aren't improving as much throughout the season. I don't know if anyone has done any research or studies to determine how often that works out (and if they have, they're selling it, not giving it away). Consistency is to be preferred, and I gather that these 'risers' have consistently gotten better as the season goes along. We all know that the game gets faster and tighter from Sept to April, so if these kids are actually improving as the game is getting more difficult, it adds to that reasoning. To your points, KK was always considered a good prospect but there was concern over his knee injury suffered the year before his draft year. He got better as the draft year went along, quite logically because he became more confident in his knee and the rest of his game picked up accordingly. In the U18's he was dominant and it wasn't just one game. (Unlike Dalton Thrower). Everyone compares him to Brady Tkachuk and 'what could have been". My opinion, for what it's worth, is that KK will be a better player than Tkachuk in time. Tkachuk grew up in an NHL family, was familiar with all the routines and environment of the NHL through his whole life and is nearly a full year older than KK. Give KK another year for his body to mature more and I think we'll start seeing some exceptional plays from him. Kostitsyn was a case of swinging for the fences. His ceiling was considered higher than Carter's because of the potential strength and size. Unfortunately it remained mostly potential. His hockey sense just wasn't up to the standard of an above average player, and he could have been a step faster. Sigh. I wouldn't compare him to KK, though. KK's hockey IQ is far superior. I understand the idea of taking a chance on a "riser". and why teams do so. After all, the draft is about predicting who is going to continue to develop or improve. When a player shows a spurt, some teams think this may be the first of many spurts and if the improvement is considerable they start salivating over how good the kid will be when the spurts slow down in a few years. But ultimately it is a gamble (as is the entire draft) and more often than not it is just a spurt and nothing more. The safer bet is the kid who has shown constant progression and always been good and improving at each age level. As for research or studies, I'd be astonished if teams don't have that data whether developed in house or paid for - it would probably be much more valuable than "analytics". You could get numerous helpful studies for at most a few hundred thousand bucks which is chump change for most teams. There would obviously be exceptions to any findings of the data but any info to provide insight into probabilities would go a long way. Like with any gambling venture, probabilities are critical - such as likelihood in Black Jack of getting a 4 or lower when you're at 17 and the dealer is showing 17.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 16, 2020 12:58:46 GMT -5
...but after that day i realized Saavard was good at talent for talent deals but had minimal concept of how the talent would be required in a team environment. Sometimes deals involving talent for talent on a simple comparison look great on paper. Until you realize ah crap i have 2 or 3 of the exact same guy in the lineup already.... Very well said. I joined this board in that era and my wish was that we stop acquiring smallish scoring wingers... Went back to find it: Name: PTH Changes you like to see right NOW: No more 5'10-6' soft defensively weak 40 point scorers, not locking the team into all these long-term deals for big money that kill all flexibility and condemn all kids to the minors even before camp starts You were very astute about smallish forwards that were defensively responsible. I think part of the problem was we valued skating over scoring. We always appear to out speed and out skate the opposition only to make the opposition goalies look like vezina winners. We hit the goalie in the crest or shoot over the net. We need scorers that may not be the fastest skaters but find the opening in the slot and shoot through the opening in the net. Quick release vs quick Turn to the boards or circle back. Today speed is more important than it was but 1993 was a long time in the desert. We have seen many slow skaters put up 40 or 50 goals a year.
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on May 17, 2020 6:01:39 GMT -5
The reasoning is likely that those 'risers' will continue to improve faster and better than the guys who aren't improving as much throughout the season. I don't know if anyone has done any research or studies to determine how often that works out (and if they have, they're selling it, not giving it away). Consistency is to be preferred, and I gather that these 'risers' have consistently gotten better as the season goes along. We all know that the game gets faster and tighter from Sept to April, so if these kids are actually improving as the game is getting more difficult, it adds to that reasoning. To your points, KK was always considered a good prospect but there was concern over his knee injury suffered the year before his draft year. He got better as the draft year went along, quite logically because he became more confident in his knee and the rest of his game picked up accordingly. In the U18's he was dominant and it wasn't just one game. (Unlike Dalton Thrower). Everyone compares him to Brady Tkachuk and 'what could have been". My opinion, for what it's worth, is that KK will be a better player than Tkachuk in time. Tkachuk grew up in an NHL family, was familiar with all the routines and environment of the NHL through his whole life and is nearly a full year older than KK. Give KK another year for his body to mature more and I think we'll start seeing some exceptional plays from him. Kostitsyn was a case of swinging for the fences. His ceiling was considered higher than Carter's because of the potential strength and size. Unfortunately it remained mostly potential. His hockey sense just wasn't up to the standard of an above average player, and he could have been a step faster. Sigh. I wouldn't compare him to KK, though. KK's hockey IQ is far superior. I understand the idea of taking a chance on a "riser". and why teams do so. After all, the draft is about predicting who is going to continue to develop or improve. When a player shows a spurt, some teams think this may be the first of many spurts and if the improvement is considerable they start salivating over how good the kid will be when the spurts slow down in a few years. But ultimately it is a gamble (as is the entire draft) and more often than not it is just a spurt and nothing more. The safer bet is the kid who has shown constant progression and always been good and improving at each age level. As for research or studies, I'd be astonished if teams don't have that data whether developed in house or paid for - it would probably be much more valuable than "analytics". You could get numerous helpful studies for at most a few hundred thousand bucks which is chump change for most teams. There would obviously be exceptions to any findings of the data but any info to provide insight into probabilities would go a long way. Like with any gambling venture, probabilities are critical - such as likelihood in Black Jack of getting a 4 or lower when you're at 17 and the dealer is showing 17. I would hire somebody to study all the late picks who made it. Slavin, Gallagher, Point, etc... NWT be good fit for the job? See each situation and why. Injuries, bad coaching, low minutes. Find the common themes and apply it to late picks in future drafts.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 18, 2020 2:08:11 GMT -5
I think after you boil it down to the it's core, the single most important characteristic of these great late picks is Luck.
Why couldn't the Red Wings duplicate Lidstrom, Zetterberg and Datsyuk? You can bet they tried....for years. Chance, my friends. That's the secret sauce.
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on May 18, 2020 11:33:27 GMT -5
I think after you boil it down to the it's core, the single most important characteristic of these great late picks is Luck. Why couldn't the Red Wings duplicate Lidstrom, Zetterberg and Datsyuk? You can bet they tried....for years. Chance, my friends. That's the secret sauce. And let's face it, if the Wings had even an inkling these guys would become the stars they did, is it smart to let them hang around to the late rounds? Wings picked many duds in earlier rounds which is downright dumb if they actually truly believed these studs were that good. For example in 1998 Wings picked Datsyuk in 6th round and in rounds 2 thru 5 Wings picked 5 players who never played one game in the NHL, not one game: Voltenan, McCracken, Hobday, Carl Steen, Deleeuw. Same story with Zetterberg in 1999: having given away their picks for the first 3 rounds Wings picked Tolsa, Maximenko (gotta love the name), and McDonnell before Zetterberg, with only McDonell playing in the NHL for32 games. So what gm ,or anyone with any degree of intelligence, would say "You know Pavel and Henrik are for real, but let's blow some early picks on some duds and risk another team picking Pavel and Henrik just because....." Nothing but luck!
|
|
|
Post by jkr on May 18, 2020 11:54:07 GMT -5
Teams get lucky in the later rounds, not just Detroit. Do you think Montreal expected Gallagher to turn into a 30 goal scorer after picking him at 147?
Good management and strong coaches had a lot to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on May 18, 2020 13:48:44 GMT -5
Habs management and coaching wasn't exactly Grade A material during Gallagher's rise. His juniour coach was Don Hay, I believe, who is a well regarded coach. His coach for 35 games in Hamilton was (cough) Lefebvre and then he graduated to the Habs where the coachmeister, Therrien was in charge.
More than anything, this confirms that low probability picks who make it do so because of some internal drive or unexpected physical improvement which cannot be predicted. Some guys just will themselves to be NHL players, or champions. How does one measure that 'spirit'? You practically have to live with the guy to know that. Teams don't have the resources for that, though occasionally (and well after the fact) you read stories about some scout who spent a lot of time around the guy, his family and friends and worked out that the player was truly driven. Even then we don't hear about the times scouts did that and the player never achieved their goals anyway.
Stock up on those horseshoes, guys....open side up.
|
|
|
Post by The Habitual Fan on May 18, 2020 18:19:58 GMT -5
I think after you boil it down to the it's core, the single most important characteristic of these great late picks is Luck. Why couldn't the Red Wings duplicate Lidstrom, Zetterberg and Datsyuk? You can bet they tried....for years. Chance, my friends. That's the secret sauce. And let's face it, if the Wings had even an inkling these guys would become the stars they did, is it smart to let them hang around to the late rounds? Wings picked many duds in earlier rounds which is downright dumb if they actually truly believed these studs were that good. For example in 1998 Wings picked Datsyuk in 6th round and in rounds 2 thru 5 Wings picked 5 players who never played one game in the NHL, not one game: Voltenan, McCracken, Hobday, Carl Steen, Deleeuw. Same story with Zetterberg in 1999: having given away their picks for the first 3 rounds Wings picked Tolsa, Maximenko (gotta love the name), and McDonnell before Zetterberg, with only McDonell playing in the NHL for32 games. So what gm ,or anyone with any degree of intelligence, would say "You know Pavel and Henrik are for real, but let's blow some early picks on some duds and risk another team picking Pavel and Henrik just because....." Nothing but luck! There is a documentary on about the Red Wings and the Russian connection was explained. Everyone knew how good they were so it wasn't a shock they turned into stars. At the time the league was very down on Russian players and it was unlikely any would be able to come to the NHL. Detroit management decided to "waste" some late round picks just in case it ever happened. They didn't get lucky with amazing scouting but did get lucky by getting these guys to defect while still young. There was a time Montreal drafted Tretaik with a late pic and he wanted to come over but he wouldn't defect and Russia would not release him.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 18, 2020 19:38:59 GMT -5
Maybe Larionov and Fetisov
But Lidstrom and Zetterberg are Swedish
As for Datsyuk, from what I recall he was undrafted in 1996 and 1997 and Detroit was the only team to scout him in 1998 , when they selected him.
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on May 29, 2020 20:32:52 GMT -5
Did you fellows read Savard's comments on gohabsgo site? Regarding he wanted Giroux over Fisher but Gainey over ruled him?
|
|
|
Post by folatre on May 29, 2020 22:19:06 GMT -5
Oh the pain...the 2006 draft ranks right there among a long list of bad ones over the last 25 years.
Montreal should be taking advantage of a non-cap controlled competitive advantage like Scouting. Toronto has far more full time scouts than Montreal. Montreal's ownership is thriftier than Toronto's.
|
|
|
Post by Tankdriver on May 30, 2020 0:59:55 GMT -5
No kidding....I think I heard that the leafs have 62 million in contract bonus due July 1st.
|
|