All Activity

For me we took pretty big risks choosing Caufield and Mailloux. Both risks look to have paid off. I think its a mistake to take those wins and exchange them for another risk (picking 3rd). Of course the third pick overall is a safer risk but its still a risk. When we pick Demidov and he turns out, will we be trading him and Newhook for the 2026 second overall? Take the win or eventually we end up holding a bust.

Frank Mahovlich was tagged with that label as well ... sometimes it is a matter of style, sometimes it is a matter of laziness ... Frank was style.

He definitely made the initial hit on their Dmen when hunting pucks. Dubois just didn’t seem to compete beyond that. Like no drive to battle the boards or drive play. He seems lazy but maybe it’s just his style leaving that impression 🤷‍♂️

*** IF *** this is true, it explains his absence ... but why not just announce it? ... trying to avoid the "official" concussion protocol? ... conspiracy theorists want to know. The possibility of it being concussion-related raises the question of when that occurred ... he played all 82 games this season ... was there an incident in the final game vs TBL? ... since then?

Im looking at the trade this way. (And yes i realize its all one trade, but this is just how i evaluate it). 1) 3rd overall for caufield. 2) mailloux and a pick in the 20s for Zegras. Part 1 i absolutely would not do.. give me the guy who has already shown signs of being a stud and is signed long term at fair value. Part 2) i would do but im hesitant as Zegras had an awful season, and there is a real chance hes just a flashy guy who gets 60 points and cant play without the puck. Id do but its not a slam dunk. I consider this somewher in between what we gave up to get dach and newhook. I think dach is much better than zegras. Zegras is better than Newhook but its not that big when you consider 2 way play. To me the loss in part 1 is bigger than the gain in part 2.

I’m just going by the tugboats for battleship comment. What reason is there to trade Caufield for Zegras, other than size? Only reason Caufield was draft as low as he was his is his size. St. Louis never really got a chance in Calgary because of his size. I’m pretty sure they regretted that when Tampa beat them in the finals! We need to add more scoring. You don’t do that by trading away the guy who will probably be leading your team in goals for the next 5 years.

How is the St. Louis trade or all those other names relevant to this? There is always some uncertainty/risk when trading a player who hasn't fully developed yet. There is no reward without some risk. I just think the trade put forth by GHT was the most interesting trade proposal I have seen yet. Most of the ones I have seen usually involve Montreal getting far more than they are giving up. This was a major trade proposal that could actually work for both teams involved.

Sure if you know you are actually giving up a tugboat, and are actually getting a battleship. how would have a Martin St Louis for Montreal’s #7 overall pick have worked out at the 2001, before St Louis had his big breakout? Small tugboat St Louis to Montreal, so Tamp could draft the potential battleship Komisarik (or players drafted after him like Rutto, Sjost9rm, Hanif’s, or Hemsky)? I’m sure Tampa’s happy they didn’t trade their tugboat for a potential battleship!

Right. You wouldn't pick Aatos Koivu because you expect him to be a clone of Saku. He is his own player, and he'll be picked on his own merits. The only significant thing you get from that relationship is that you might have a better idea of the player's attitude or mental processes, based on how well you know his family members. But that's just another data point, not anything more.

There are a lot of unknowns with this trade. How far will Mailloux develop, how much further will Zegras develop, what will the #3 pick turn into? This is also another factor regarding this trade. I think in the back of Hughe's mind there is the thought that Mailloux will have an easier time away from the spotlight of the hockey mad Canadian cities. California would be perfect for that. I just think there is a deal possible between Anaheim and Montreal because there is a fit of complimentary pieces.

You aren't drafting players cause they are nepo-babies. They'd be taking Atsu in the 3rd or 4th round cause he's BPA. At some point in the draft, he is the best player on the board.

I wanted the Habs to pick David Spacek last year. I still do not believe HughGort cares much for nepo-babies.

The guy did have 8 hits in last nights game, so not coasting the whole game and has 1g 4 shots in the 2 games.

Right. Nearly all. So, a quick look at the top five picks for the 2010 decade: 2011: five long-term players: 100% 2012: four long-term players, plus Griffin Reinhart (37 games): 80% 2013: five long-term players: 100% 2014: four long-term players, plus Michael Dal Colle (112 games): 80% 2015: five long-term players: 100% 2016: four long-term players, plus Olli Juolevi (41 games): 80% 2017: five long-term players: 100% 2018: five long-term players: 100% 2019: four long-term players, plus Alex Turcotte (32 games): 80% That's 92% long-term NHL players. But definitely not 92% impact players. For example, from the top five in the 2012 draft, only Morgan Rielly is still in the league. (Nail Yakupov, Ryan Murray, Alex Galchenyuk, Griffin Reinhart were the others.)

Thanks for bringing this up. It prompted me to look into it. While it's hard to find a lot of studies that actually did the math, and nearly 100% of top-5 picks played 100+ games, then dramatically drops off after that. Two different studies (from 1988-1997 and another from 2000-2009) Both had 100% of top 5 picks playing 100+ game. Hence why I said nearly 100%, as I haven't found any study doing something like the last 40 years combined. So both picks 3 and 5 should theoretically both provide long-term NHLers, the quality is the questionable part. https://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf https://dobberprospects.com/2020/05/16/nhl-draft-pick-probabilities/ Also found this that is from 1963-2023, showing the top 5 picks on average play over 600 games per pick position. https://morehockeystats.com/drafts/pickstats

Caufields contract makes him almost untouchable. Signed longterm to a very nice amount

3-ish and 5-ish ... that's maybe 80% probability that the drafted player will play at least 100 games. Or 65% that both of them will play 100 games. Probability of two impact players is considerably lower. Mailloux-plus for 80% probability of 100+ NHL games? I would generally always take the prospect that has played at least a year since the draft, as the ceiling and floor are much more clear than for an 18yo.

I think this trade comes down to what Mailloux turns into. If he becomes a first pairing stud then Habs lose, if he is a bottom pairing guy then Habs win. Presuming the Habs draft two high end forwards at pick 3 and 5. Definitely an interesting proposal

I don't think Hughes wants to trade CC, I really like CC but it's actually the best proposal I have seen recently to improve the Habs in my opinion. Is there a better trade proposal out there that's not one sided in the Habs favour?

With Guhle eligible to sign an extension come July 1st, the Habs should be so lucky ... NOTE: For some reason the bottom of the Twitter post is cut-off ... 6 yrs @ $4.6M AAV

Nobody believes Caufield is even possibly being traded. It was a very interesting proposal In terms of value and would it be worth it.

Conspiracy theory but I’ve had a sneaking suspicion for a while that PLD will be in the player assistance program at some point.

There is no evidence to suggest this management would or wouldn't like Koivu in 3rd or 4th.

Lots of examples but 80-90% 3rd rd+ do not make NHL But like; Datsyuk 6th round 171st pick or Markov 6th round 162nd pick, can find gold late, just highly unlikely thats all.

You think Hughes would consider moving Caufield this year? I dont. I could see Guhle or Xhekaj as more likely dealt before Caufield and that seems is slim chance also.