|
Post by Scotty D on Aug 7, 2020 22:19:02 GMT -5
Can't share the "euphoria". I got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. We've won nothing and we've likely lost a whole lot. This week may haunt us for 2 decades. Not only missing out on Alex but if TO (or Edm or Pitt) lands him I will be sick. So now we face the top seed and probably go out in 5 or 6. Fact is Pens have a very weak D. And Malkin isn't close to the payer he was. So we beat a marginal team. Am I impressed how we played? YES! But I've never felt so 'off' after a Habs win. The league has made a colossal error in this draft formula. They should have let the 7 non-play-in teams go for the top 7 picks in the first lottery and then the 8 play-in losers participate in a second lottery for 8-15 picks. In no normal universe should TO, Pitt, Edm and Preds be getting #1 overall. And if TO loses tonight or tomorrow, there will be a 50% chance of that happening. I am so pissed that we are in this situation. It may effect the league for decades. Only hope is Lafreniere is Alexandre Daigle revisited. part of me agrees part of me thinks this formula carried forward exactly as it is could be an interesting "tank" deterrent. Shorten the season 10 games or maybe 15 have this buy in round every single year where the buy in losing teams get a shot a shot at first overall and say maybe 6th as well if 2 balls are drawn. The traditionalist part of me hates this idea because it circumvents in a sense the build through the draft while the other side of me hates the idea of tanking, if you suck flat out have a garbage team in-spite of the efforts you deserve a better pick. If you sucked on purpose not so much. it would be interesting to me to see how differently some teams approaches would be in the last 15 or 20 games knowing they needed to make the buy in round to have a shot at first overall. ...
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Aug 7, 2020 22:25:25 GMT -5
They've made a mockery of the draft & I still can't figure out what the hell they are doing. As habsorbed said, give the top picks to the bottom teams. How else can they get better? That's how Pittsburgh, EDM, Toronto are in the position they are now.
Just stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Aug 7, 2020 23:04:22 GMT -5
The only thing that matters now is the Stanley Cup ... Cheers. That's it. Amything else is a complete loss. I wholeheartedly agree, mon ami ... If they get past Pittsburgh then the only thing that would salvage the season is the Cup ... imagine losing in the Cup final only to see Alexis Lafreniere in Pittsburgh ...
|
|
|
Post by habsorbed on Aug 8, 2020 1:57:08 GMT -5
Can't share the "euphoria". I got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. We've won nothing and we've likely lost a whole lot. This week may haunt us for 2 decades. Not only missing out on Alex but if TO (or Edm or Pitt) lands him I will be sick. So now we face the top seed and probably go out in 5 or 6. Fact is Pens have a very weak D. And Malkin isn't close to the payer he was. So we beat a marginal team. Am I impressed how we played? YES! But I've never felt so 'off' after a Habs win. The league has made a colossal error in this draft formula. They should have let the 7 non-play-in teams go for the top 7 picks in the first lottery and then the 8 play-in losers participate in a second lottery for 8-15 picks. In no normal universe should TO, Pitt, Edm and Preds be getting #1 overall. And if TO loses tonight or tomorrow, there will be a 50% chance of that happening. I am so pissed that we are in this situation. It may effect the league for decades. Only hope is Lafreniere is Alexandre Daigle revisited. Having said all that, I do want to say I feel good for the Boys. They worked hard for this and are a good group of guys. Special shout out to Lechy who had a monster series, as did Chiarot - both unsung heroes. And with KK and Suze as our future #1 and 1A (if not present) , I've got some hope for the future.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Aug 8, 2020 8:07:58 GMT -5
87.5% chance we don't get him... 87.5% chance we don't get him... 87.5% chance we don't get him...
Let's be honest, the real sting in all of this is because we lost a shot at Lafreniere, and worse still, he could go to a team we all hate. But if you believe the conspiracy theories that say that the first lottery was rigged (and it's sure playing out in the best possible way for the NHL), then we probably weren't going to get Lafreniere anyways. No benefit to the league if he comes here, tickets will sell anyways, Molson is a patsy, etcetera. The league has no interest in buffing up Montreal, because it doesn't need to. So the 87.5% chance we don't get him is probably closer to 100%, again, if you believe in conspiracy theories.
As an aside, does anybody know if tin foil comes in different colors? I need a hat that brings out my eyes.
Would you rather make the playoffs and pick 16th, or miss the playoffs and pick 9th? Because if we ignore Lafreniere, that's what it ultimately comes down to. I'm not a draft expert by any stretch, didn't he even get a call back when I auditioned for one in a TV show, but nonetheless I'm not as peeved at dropping seven spots as others. Especially not this year, when the early shut down to the season, the lack of playoffs, the cancelling of the combine, and all those other things that move prospects up or down, just didn't happen. So while there are "tiers" to this draft, and we appear to be outside the good one, I also think it's going to be a lot crazier than other drafts. Players will fall, or players picked in the mid-range will be better in the long run, and so on. There are already a couple of players in that 15-20 range that I like better than some of the guys who may have been available at 9.
That's what I'm telling myself, anyways.
I've never thought that we were as bad as we looked from November on. The injuries derailed us, as did the poor goaltending from both Price and Kinkaid. Both, of course, are part of the game, so you can't ignore them, but the first step to fixing a problem is to identify the problem. The lack of depth, especially talented, almost-ready-for-the-NHL depth, wasn't there last season (this season?). But it's slowly being addressed. Guys like Evans, Poehling, Romanov, Leskinen, and Primeau are ready to step in. In the meantime, the emergence of Suzuki, Kotkaniemi, and Kulak should eat into the minutes that were going to guys who shouldn't have been getting those minutes. Hopefully Julien's trust in them trickles over into next year, because that too will help address the lack of depth. I expect - hope actually - that Bergevin makes a bunch of one-year signings that add even further depth, though the danger there of course is that Julien forgets the lessons of these playoffs and falls in love with those guys instead. But one step at a time. As for the goaltending, we now see that a rested and motivated Price is still capable of carrying the mail, so it's clear (not that it wasn't before) that a 30-40 game backup is desperately needed. Whether that's addressed by the Russian goalie they signed, or whether Bergevin makes a play for somebody like Jake Allen remains to be seen. All this is to say that I don't think this is a setback. It doesn't accelerate the rebuild in a way that we hoped that it would, but again, 87.5% chance we don't get him. In the meantime, it's been real fun watching Suzuki and Kotkaniemi grow right before our eyes, Chiarot and Kulak eat up the 3rd and 4th spots in the depth chart, the dominance of Petry, the return to form of Weber and Price, etcetera. Those are all good signs for the future.
Right now, the best thing for the team (aside from winning the Cup, which isn't going to happen), is to lose a hard-fought, 6 or 7 game series with whoever we face in the playoffs, Tampa or Philly. That keeps us at 16, without undoing all the good that came from beating Pittsburgh.
I wanted Lafreniere. Badly. He addresses so many needs this team had. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy watching the Habs dismantle the Penguins in the way that they did. They won "the right way", with youth, speed, puck possession, their money player being their money player, and yes, coaching. That's a positive in my opinion. Both for now and in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Aug 8, 2020 9:13:58 GMT -5
Some of the things that amazed me were the stats... we were just as good as them on the face offs.. shockingly and we hit them waay more than they hit us.
To have any hope of a long series we need tatar and bGal to start burying goals, we need Drouin to wake up and I would like CJ to leave the lines as they are, except bring in Poehling in place of Weise and put Fluery on D with Mete...
|
|
|
Post by Douper on Aug 8, 2020 9:14:26 GMT -5
It's the cup now or a complete failure. Losing out on a chance on Lafreniere could be devastating for years to come. Hopefully Price can be THAT price for 4 rounds and we get scoring from all over.
I won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 8, 2020 9:34:21 GMT -5
I’ll never wrap my head around why people think it’s a good idea to have a backup play 35 games.
Neglect the fact that CP is getting $10.5 million, and how it looks to have him only play 47 games. I understand he is 33, and probably can’t play 70 games anymore. But if he plays 47, I don’t see how we are “contenders” unless we all of a sudden think we can win as the #7 or #8 seed. Because with CP playing 47 games, that’s the best we can do. And the one thing I’m hearing from posters on here is that as long as we are squeaking into the playoffs, it’s best to lose and not make them
So, onto the math
Carey Price’s best single season points percentage is 0.700. His career points percentage is 0.570. I think it’s fair to say, that no matter what, we need Price to play above his career number. But if the argument is Price is old and needs rest, then he is old and isn’t going to play at 0.700 either. So let’s say he plays in the middle at 0.630.
Playing 47 games, that’s 59 points
The back-up plays 35 games. The theory I’ve been hearing in here is we only need the back up to play 0.500. Well that only gets us 94 points and just missing the playoffs most seasons, and in squeaking into the playoffs a scatter year. If we want to get 100 points. Well the past two seasons that’s a #7 and a #6 seed (based on ROW wins) , but to get 100 points the back-up has to play 0.600. So we basically need a Carey Price as a back up to get a low seeding
The only way we get a top seeding, is by getting WAY better offensively and Both our goalies play at a 0.650 + pace. But if that’s the case, do we really need Price then? It sure would be hard to shelter a back up for 35 games, he’d have to play against more than the weak teams.
Maybe if Price needs that much rest, and that good a back up, it might be time to trade him. I hear EDM has a 12.5% ball ...
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Aug 8, 2020 10:59:28 GMT -5
So, onto the math Carey Price’s best single season points percentage is 0.700. His career points percentage is 0.570. I think it’s fair to say, that no matter what, we need Price to play above his career number. But if the argument is Price is old and needs rest, then he is old and isn’t going to play at 0.700 either. So let’s say he plays in the middle at 0.630. Playing 47 games, that’s 59 points The back-up plays 35 games. The theory I’ve been hearing in here is we only need the back up to play 0.500. Well that only gets us 94 points... Are you counting loser points? Because it doesn't look like you are. 47 games at 0.630 does indeed get us 59, which if my math is correct would mean that Price wins about 29-30 and loses 17-18. But what if three of those 17 losses are in OT or the shoot-out? That's 62 points. Similarly, if our backup adds another 3 loser points in the 17 games you have him losing, then suddenly we've added 6 more points to your 94 point prediction, making us a 100 point team and solidly in the playoffs. And that's with just 6 loser points. We had 9 last year with 11 games left in the season. The lowest number of loser points was 5 (several teams) while the highest was 15 (Columbus). Again, with 10 or more games left in the season. 6 loser points is not unrealistic and may in fact be low.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Aug 8, 2020 11:25:08 GMT -5
Good post, BC. The series against Pittsburgh does provide legitimate grounds for optimism as far as Suzuki and Kotkaniemi are concerned, and the reality is the career trajectory of those two kids over the next 2-3 seasons will determine whether Montreal can climb out of that murky middle of the NHL.
The performances of Price and Weber are nice to see but I take a less bullish view on what that means in the big picture because I think they are not capable of maintaining a near elite level over the course of 7-8 months.
And some of the other vets have not really clarified in this restart of the season (maybe with the exception of Petry), anything about how far management should go (if at all) to retain their services beyond next spring.
You make a necessary point about the value (and danger) of adding veterans to hold down the ‘role player’ roster spots. Mainly because of Julien, I am firmly against bringing back Thompson, Cousins, Folin or guys of that calibre. Maybe I could live with Kovalchuk on a one-year deal if it meant seeing his right-handed stick on the power play rather than Weal’s. But please no Thompson or Cousins, Julien is still Julien and he cannot help himself.
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Aug 8, 2020 12:29:17 GMT -5
We're missing players were i would say forget Laffy, win what you can and enjoy the ride.
Juulsen, Poehling, Romanov and Primeau
Ouillette and Mete is too weak to contend with and Belize/Weiss/Weal has a ton of heart but we needed our third future center to emerge as Danault V2. As well as ringing-my-head Evans.
Suzuki is now legitime top 6, Kk is getting there. Kulak is showing that he is the second best LHD we have until Romanov blows by him. (Remember that Kulak is 26. While that is not old, IF there is an emergence of a young core, he'll be striding into his 30s.
There is no upside to winning a series then get blown away the next one along as giving up the possibility of getting a franchise player....unless there is a army of youngsters stepping into the NHL.
Suzuki and Kk as top 6...Poehling and Evans as legitimate bottom 6. Romanov, Juulsen and Kulak as top 6 defenseman. THAT is an outstanding graduation class for 2020. But alas, we got 3..so far.
So unless we win at least a round or two, unless we see Poehling, Evans and Juulsen emerge, we got nothing more then a pat on the head.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 8, 2020 12:53:41 GMT -5
So, onto the math Carey Price’s best single season points percentage is 0.700. His career points percentage is 0.570. I think it’s fair to say, that no matter what, we need Price to play above his career number. But if the argument is Price is old and needs rest, then he is old and isn’t going to play at 0.700 either. So let’s say he plays in the middle at 0.630. Playing 47 games, that’s 59 points The back-up plays 35 games. The theory I’ve been hearing in here is we only need the back up to play 0.500. Well that only gets us 94 points... Are you counting loser points? Because it doesn't look like you are. 47 games at 0.630 does indeed get us 59, which if my math is correct would mean that Price wins about 29-30 and loses 17-18. But what if three of those 17 losses are in OT or the shoot-out? That's 62 points. Similarly, if our backup adds another 3 loser points in the 17 games you have him losing, then suddenly we've added 6 more points to your 94 point prediction, making us a 100 point team and solidly in the playoffs. And that's with just 6 loser points. We had 9 last year with 11 games left in the season. The lowest number of loser points was 5 (several teams) while the highest was 15 (Columbus). Again, with 10 or more games left in the season. 6 loser points is not unrealistic and may in fact be low. My math DOES include loser points ... I said POINTS percentage not winning ... Ie. 47 x 2 = 94 x 0.630 POINTS percentage 62 points in 47 games is 0.660 points percentage
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Aug 8, 2020 13:00:27 GMT -5
There are some points to consider give the outlooks above. This year is a highly unusual situation and hopefully it will be a long time before it is duplicated. Some of the effects have come into play during the Pens/Habs series
1) the hiatus hurt the Pens. They were cruising, playing really well and suddenly Mother Nature calls a time-out. The Habs were reeling, playing badly and needed a time-out badly and got it. 2) While the Pens were missing Guentzel, the Habs would have been missing Kotkaniemi and what does that do to the centre situation compared to how it played out? 3) Weber was playing like crap when the hiatus came. That's actually normal for him. As the season progresses, he gets worse. The shots he blocked the ice time he's put in, it all wears on that body and he isn't the same player late in the season as he is earlier on. What could possibly help him? How about 3 months off? 4) Price is a guy who very much is either into the game mentally or pretty well out of it. Given a fresh opportunity with healthy teammates, he was very focused. In a normal season where players are injured and he thinks the outlook isn't as good, how will he play? 5) The psychology of it all really helped Monteal. They could play the underdog card to the hilt. The Pens, meanwhile, believed everyone's predictions and thought they could cruise through the series. They just didn't compete. As an aside, the criticism levied at Rutherford for taking on a guy like Jack Johnson was finally fulfilled. He's a lousy defenseman and proved it quite thoroughly in this series.
The bottom line is that if every playoff was like this playin, every marginal team has a much better shot at winning than they do after an 82 game season where are the warts come out. Shots of Compound W helped the Habs out a lot, but we'll have to see in the next series. One really key factor is that the Pens defense in general is not fast or adept at transition. Philly and Tampa may pose a different problem. Another important part of the Habs win was effort. They wanted it more than the Pens and outworked them. Can that hold up against teams that have the same desire? Tampa blew it last year, like the Pens. I don't think they'll let themselves be outworked 2 years in a row.
In any case, there are still some holes in Montreal's line-up that need fixing. If Norlinder can be the stud offensive defenseman, things look better 2 years from now. But losing 7 or 8 spots in the draft in each round is going to hurt. Especially in the first where there is a clear drop in probabilities from that #9 tier to that #16 tier.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Aug 8, 2020 13:18:51 GMT -5
We're missing players were i would say forget Laffy, win what you can and enjoy the ride. Juulsen, Poehling, Romanov and Primeau Ouillette and Mete is too weak to contend with and Belize/Weiss/Weal has a ton of heart but we needed our third future center to emerge as Danault V2. As well as ringing-my-head Evans. Suzuki is now legitime top 6, Kk is getting there. Kulak is showing that he is the second best LHD we have until Romanov blows by him. (Remember that Kulak is 26. While that is not old, IF there is an emergence of a young core, he'll be striding into his 30s. There is no upside to winning a series then get blown away the next one along as giving up the possibility of getting a franchise player....unless there is a army of youngsters stepping into the NHL. Suzuki and Kk as top 6...Poehling and Evans as legitimate bottom 6. Romanov, Juulsen and Kulak as top 6 defenseman. THAT is an outstanding graduation class for 2020. But alas, we got 3..so far. So unless we win at least a round or two, unless we see Poehling, Evans and Juulsen emerge, we got nothing more then a pat on the head. Pretty much agree. There looks to be some concern about Poehling. His hat size may be too big or the Habs judgment and development is screwing things up. I'm not sure which, but he's not getting the opportunities, either because he doesn't deserve them or because management is messing up again. I'm not as high on Poehling as I was, but he's still young. There are some things in Nature you can't avoid, like taxes (ugh) and death (double ugh). They are that SC champs have to have strength up the middle and a defenseman or two who is elite. Also required is a scorer. Unavoidable. Last year we were missing all those guys. Today, there is the possibility that Suzuki or JK becomes that centre. I think Kotka has every possibility of doing that and Suzuki will be a Krejci to KK's Bergeron. I think Primeau will be just fine, if not a great goalie. I also think Caufield will be our scorer. That leaves defense. I exclude Weber and Petry because they are older, will regress and aren't elite defensemen today anyway. Will Romanov be that guy? I doubt it. He'll be good and possibly very good, but I don't think he's got the offensive hops to be that elite guy. Juulsen, Fleury, Brook, Kulak. Of those guys that make it, they'll be solid, decent support guys, but not elite. The only guy who really stands out that way is Norlinder. If he doesn't make it, Montreal will have to acquire that guy through trade and we know how many GM's are giving up those types of players. If you had enough really good forwards you might be able to swing a trade, but beating Pittsburgh has reduced those probabilities. Unless we get lucky at the draft, we will look back at this win vs the Pens as a thrilling one night stand that cost us our beautiful, rich fiance.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 8, 2020 13:34:15 GMT -5
The only way to approach the next ten years of crying is to do this:
Everyone post the player they would select at #9
If he is off the board at #9, then you should feel good. You didn’t lose anything
Of all the players that were available at #9, we track (with posters name next to him) and compare to who we select. Everyone assumes that we’d automatically get Lafreniere, but alas, that’s not how it works ... the odds were quite high we’d be drafting ninth
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Aug 8, 2020 13:36:14 GMT -5
I still think the best outcome for the franchise was to lose. The probability of getting Lafreniere, while low, was still worth losing for.
You get a 12.5% chance of getting Lafreniere and a 100% chance of picking no worse than 9th.
Of course I expect the team to play hard and I’m not shocked that we won. We seem to match up well against Pittsburgh and the long layoff and neural format is just a huge wildcard.
I’m just not even sure what you can take from these games.
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Aug 8, 2020 14:05:14 GMT -5
The player preference at #9 can only logically involve players who are actually available at #9.
If, for instance, I say Sanderson and he gets picked seventh by New Jersey then whoever I prefer among those available at #9 is a legitimate future point of comparison with whoever the Habs pick at #16. So if Holtz and Quinn are there at #9 and I say Holtz is my choice, then he becomes the logical point of comparison to whoever Timmins/Bergevin select at #16.
It does not make a tonne of sense to say well if Sanderson is gone then there is no reason to compare the 9th pick with the 16th pick.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Aug 8, 2020 14:14:54 GMT -5
The only way to approach the next ten years of crying is to do this: Everyone post the player they would select at #9 If he is off the board at #9, then you should feel good. You didn’t lose anything Of all the players that were available at #9, we track (with posters name next to him) and compare to who we select. Everyone assumes that we’d automatically get Lafreniere, but alas, that’s not how it works ... the odds were quite high we’d be drafting ninth Lafreniere is a unique opportunity. Even a small chance of obtaining him for a lengthy career is worthwile. There is a big dropoff after pick 9 but it is still as crapshoot. My biggest concern is Bergevin and Molson. I can't stomach them winning and pretending to have been successful. They have given us lies and excuses, terrible management all resulting in a losing team on the ice and a winning franchise economically, Condos, attitude, transparency and sushi. A team with huge profits way under the cap that hinders teams with much lesser revenue streams. I like the hard working talentless team, young guys winning with effort but dislike the management and leadership. My #9 was Marco Rossi, number one was Lafreniere and #16 is Mavrik Bourque. A trade for Byfield would be worth a big package of our prospects that have less upside than he does.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Aug 8, 2020 14:35:39 GMT -5
Are you counting loser points? Because it doesn't look like you are. 47 games at 0.630 does indeed get us 59, which if my math is correct would mean that Price wins about 29-30 and loses 17-18. But what if three of those 17 losses are in OT or the shoot-out? That's 62 points. Similarly, if our backup adds another 3 loser points in the 17 games you have him losing, then suddenly we've added 6 more points to your 94 point prediction, making us a 100 point team and solidly in the playoffs. And that's with just 6 loser points. We had 9 last year with 11 games left in the season. The lowest number of loser points was 5 (several teams) while the highest was 15 (Columbus). Again, with 10 or more games left in the season. 6 loser points is not unrealistic and may in fact be low. My math DOES include loser points ... I said POINTS percentage not winning ... Ie. 47 x 2 = 94 x 0.630 POINTS percentage 62 points in 47 games is 0.660 points percentage Ah, gotcha. Where did you find those? Did you work them out yourself? Even using those numbers though, is it that big a difference? The difference between 94 and close to 100 points is 0.03 difference in points percentage. Isn't that what you are saying? At any rate, the point was that the more rested Price is, the better he seems to play. The more likely he is to be at 0.660 as opposed to 0.630. Having a better team in front of him would also help. Both would be a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Aug 8, 2020 15:54:32 GMT -5
The only way to approach the next ten years of crying is to do this: Everyone post the player they would select at #9 If he is off the board at #9, then you should feel good. You didn’t lose anything Of all the players that were available at #9, we track (with posters name next to him) and compare to who we select. Everyone assumes that we’d automatically get Lafreniere, but alas, that’s not how it works ... the odds were quite high we’d be drafting ninth I think it's absolutely fair (and fun) to submit names we would pick at 9 and then names we would pick at 16. Unfortunately you'd have to do it after the #8 picks and #15 picks have been made by their respective teams so you'd know who was available. The real fun will be comparing an aggregate of the guys picked at 9 and those picked at 16 (or wherever we end up) and seeing how they have turned out. That way we can have a more objective idea of how much this win vs Pittsburgh cost us. There will still be room for lots of debate, of course (I would have picked THAT guy, now that guy), but if there are 5 or 6 successful players around the #9 pick and one or two around the #16 pick, (or vice versa) that can tell us something. It's certainly possible. I recall a few of our guys posting who we should choose when our turn came up in the past. Let's go for it. Special Thread!
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 8, 2020 17:13:16 GMT -5
The player preference at #9 can only logically involve players who are actually available at #9. If, for instance, I say Sanderson and he gets picked seventh by New Jersey then whoever I prefer among those available at #9 is a legitimate future point of comparison with whoever the Habs pick at #16. So if Holtz and Quinn are there at #9 and I say Holtz is my choice, then he becomes the logical point of comparison to whoever Timmins/Bergevin select at #16. It does not make a tonne of sense to say well if Sanderson is gone then there is no reason to compare the 9th pick with the 16th pick. Maybe I wasn’t clear. What I meant was if you pick Sanderson and he is gone, then yes go ahead say someone else (before the 9th pick). I’m not saying who is selected , I’m saying who everyone on here thinks we missed out on But don’t go saying we hurt ourselves by beating Pittsburgh because we missed out on players that weren’t available at 9th like Lafreniere
|
|
|
Post by UberCranky on Aug 8, 2020 18:26:00 GMT -5
In the last little while, the non top draft pick players that i thought would be absolite gold were Dubois and Forsberg. Dubois was picked 3rd overall and Forsberg was 11th. Right now, how good would Forsebeg be in our lineup instead of Galceniek?
The ONLY hope we have now is a string of NHLers. Romanov, Juulsen, Evans, Poehling, Caulfield, Norlinder make it. Hopefully at least one each of those in the top 4 and top 6, we are going to be decent.
There isn't much of a window. Maybe a few years before Price/weber/Petry/Tatar/Danault/ghally are running downhill.
When you look at the big picture, we need a minimum of 3-4 rookies to graduate every year.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 8, 2020 18:36:01 GMT -5
The only way to approach the next ten years of crying is to do this: Everyone post the player they would select at #9 If he is off the board at #9, then you should feel good. You didn’t lose anything Of all the players that were available at #9, we track (with posters name next to him) and compare to who we select. Everyone assumes that we’d automatically get Lafreniere, but alas, that’s not how it works ... the odds were quite high we’d be drafting ninth I think it's absolutely fair (and fun) to submit names we would pick at 9 and then names we would pick at 16. Unfortunately you'd have to do it after the #8 picks and #15 picks have been made by their respective teams so you'd know who was available. The real fun will be comparing an aggregate of the guys picked at 9 and those picked at 16 (or wherever we end up) and seeing how they have turned out. That way we can have a more objective idea of how much this win vs Pittsburgh cost us. There will still be room for lots of debate, of course (I would have picked THAT guy, now that guy), but if there are 5 or 6 successful players around the #9 pick and one or two around the #16 pick, (or vice versa) that can tell us something. It's certainly possible. I recall a few of our guys posting who we should choose when our turn came up in the past. Let's go for it. Special Thread! And of course, you’ll assume that Timmins would have taken the best player at #9, 6 -10 years from now? No, that’s why I say pick on draft day who everyone thinks is this egregious missed opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Aug 8, 2020 22:07:41 GMT -5
In the last little while, the non top draft pick players that i thought would be absolite gold were Dubois and Forsberg. Dubois was picked 3rd overall and Forsberg was 11th. Right now, how good would Forsebeg be in our lineup instead of Galceniek? The ONLY hope we have mow is a string of NHLers. Romanov, Juulsen, Evans, Poehling, Caulfield, Norlinder make it. Hopefully at least one each of those in the top 4 and top 6, we are going to be decent. There isn't much of a window. Maybe a few years before Price/weber/Petry/Tatar/Danault/ghally are running downhill. When you look at the big picture, we need a minimum of 3-4 rookies to graduate every year. And how well would Forsberg have developed under the worst coach ever (Lefebvre) and the 2nd worst coach ever (Therrien)
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Aug 8, 2020 22:53:37 GMT -5
The player preference at #9 can only logically involve players who are actually available at #9. If, for instance, I say Sanderson and he gets picked seventh by New Jersey then whoever I prefer among those available at #9 is a legitimate future point of comparison with whoever the Habs pick at #16. So if Holtz and Quinn are there at #9 and I say Holtz is my choice, then he becomes the logical point of comparison to whoever Timmins/Bergevin select at #16. It does not make a tonne of sense to say well if Sanderson is gone then there is no reason to compare the 9th pick with the 16th pick. Maybe I wasn’t clear. What I meant was if you pick Sanderson and he is gone, then yes go ahead say someone else (before the 9th pick). I’m not saying who is selected , I’m saying who everyone on here thinks we missed out on But don’t go saying we hurt ourselves by beating Pittsburgh because we missed out on players that weren’t available at 9th like Lafreniere For sure, Lafreniere was a long shot (12.5 percent). But that does not change the fact that 12.5 percent to claim the first overall would have been the best odds Montreal ever held in the lottery era. Montreal would have to finish 30th or 31st to have better odds than 12.5 percent. I may be wrong about the impact of dropping from 9th to 16th, but my suspicion today is that if I can have Holtz or Quinn rather than, say, Holloway then long-term Montreal is in a better position. Of course, I may be wrong and time will say. Also, I am making the assumption that Montreal is not presently a contender and therefore the future matters at least somewhat more than the present. There is going to be some kid picked in the teens this year who turns out to be an absolute stud in the NHL, no question. The problem is how will Timmins manage to identify that unicorn? I prefer #9 because it allows a guy that is kind of average at his job to increase his chances of picking an difference maker in this particular draft.
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Aug 9, 2020 0:23:55 GMT -5
We get the Flyers. A former, now current Habs' coach vs. a former Habs' coach, assisted by a twice-former Habs' coach.
=========================
Tampa may have lost Hedman....not sure. Twisted his ankle--looked as if he caught a rut as he was transitioning. Left the ice and slammed his stick several times on the tunnel wall. Not usually a good sign.
Toronto or Columbus won't mind at all.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Aug 9, 2020 1:19:30 GMT -5
I think it's absolutely fair (and fun) to submit names we would pick at 9 and then names we would pick at 16. Unfortunately you'd have to do it after the #8 picks and #15 picks have been made by their respective teams so you'd know who was available. The real fun will be comparing an aggregate of the guys picked at 9 and those picked at 16 (or wherever we end up) and seeing how they have turned out. That way we can have a more objective idea of how much this win vs Pittsburgh cost us. There will still be room for lots of debate, of course (I would have picked THAT guy, now that guy), but if there are 5 or 6 successful players around the #9 pick and one or two around the #16 pick, (or vice versa) that can tell us something. It's certainly possible. I recall a few of our guys posting who we should choose when our turn came up in the past. Let's go for it. Special Thread! And of course, you’ll assume that Timmins would have taken the best player at #9, 6 -10 years from now? No, that’s why I say pick on draft day who everyone thinks is this egregious missed opportunity. No, that's why I suggested a group of of successful players. If there are 4 very good ones and 2 flops at #9, odds are we would have picked a good one. If the reverse is true, chances are we'd have picked a flop. You can't cherry pick after the fact, but we also don't know who was up on Timmins' list and never will know.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Aug 9, 2020 1:22:24 GMT -5
We get the Flyers. A former, now current Habs' coach vs. a former Habs' coach, assisted by a twice-forner Habs' coach. ========================= Tampa may have lost Hedman....not sure. Twisted his ankle--looked as if he caught a rut as he was transitioning. Left the ice and slammed his stick several times on the tunnel wall. Not usually a good sign. Toronto or Columbus won't mind at all. Lots of story lines for that matchup. How long has it been since we played the Flyers in the playoffs? 1976? On top of the two ex coaches, two of Philly's best players came out of Montreal's back yard- Couturier and Giroux. Ouch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2020 3:33:46 GMT -5
We get the Flyers. A former, now current Habs' coach vs. a former Habs' coach, assisted by a twice-forner Habs' coach. ========================= Tampa may have lost Hedman....not sure. Twisted his ankle--looked as if he caught a rut as he was transitioning. Left the ice and slammed his stick several times on the tunnel wall. Not usually a good sign. Toronto or Columbus won't mind at all. Lots of story lines for that matchup. How long has it been since we played the Flyers in the playoffs? 1976? On top of the two ex coaches, two of Philly's best players came out of Montreal's back yard- Couturier and Giroux. Ouch. 2010 and 2008--Flyers won both in 5 games.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 9, 2020 7:49:58 GMT -5
We get the Flyers. A former, now current Habs' coach vs. a former Habs' coach, assisted by a twice-forner Habs' coach. ========================= Tampa may have lost Hedman....not sure. Twisted his ankle--looked as if he caught a rut as he was transitioning. Left the ice and slammed his stick several times on the tunnel wall. Not usually a good sign. Toronto or Columbus won't mind at all. I said to a friend it may be the only time in playoff history that a playoff series has three former coaches of the same team in the series
|
|