Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Zowpeb

  1. Managed to be at the game.  Stuff that jumped out to me:


    Chiarot and Petry looked very shaky in their own end through the first two periods.  The Habs D is really questionable overall.


    The Habs spent a lot of time fumbling around loose pucks and just struggled to make crisp passes out of their own end and into the neutral zone.  The D also kept getting trapped by forechecks and they ended up cycling the puck poorly.


    Domi can be a real force and this team needs to get him another quality, scoring, line mate to feed.


    It was an exciting game but, frankly, they didn’t win it...the Leafs lost it because they played a back-up, have questionable D of their own, they came off a back to back and Kapanen is a moron.  Glad they were able to capitalize and super glad to see them beat the Leafs.  But lots of work ahead for the team.  

  2. 1 hour ago, alfredoh2009 said:


    Now, how can the CH improve to become a cup-contender in the near future?


    First off, define "near future" - to me, based on the current club, that means 3 years from now.

    1) Recognize that there is nothing wrong with a couple years of losing to rebuild - there is nothing wrong with a full reset if the plan and culture is there to build off it.

    2)  Create a first class player development system  

    3) Improve on the scouting and drafting

    4) Hire the management and coaching staff that have the tools to accomplish the above - the current team is not who we should trust to accomplish this - anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring the results - be rational not emotional.

    5) Trade current assets to facilitate the youth movement - trade high-cap stars for picks/prospects, then trade for guys who have 2-3 year cap "weights" in return for more picks/prospects, then use cap room to acquire assets that could become trade deadline candidates to contenders within 1-2 years - to this to get more picks/prospects.  Build the pipeline as rapidly as possible and align prospect arrivals with a lot of available cap room.  Use all the picks to trade up to improve on the ceiling of the picks/prospects being acquired - stop trading down to acquire more noodles to throw at the wall hoping they pan out - this isn't baseball.  With luck the team gets a couple top 5 picks of their own as they rebuild AND they can use excess picks to trade up and get, ideally, a couple more top 5 picks within 2-3 years...

    6) At the end of those 2-3 years, as prospects start to make the club and perform, go harder back into the FA market to acquire the 2-3 stars needed to put you over the top.  Don't play for mediocrity and "making the playoffs".  Winning consistently in sports is about managing diminishing returns - both managing the diminishing returns of aging stars (don't be caught sentimentally attached to high payroll players) and understanding that winning consistently means spending time/money on all facets of the organization and being rigorous on measuring/improving always and that, to be at the top of the game, it costs a lot more dollars to get only incremental improvements.

    7) In 5-6 years you start "re-tooling" by trading aging stars for more picks/prospects and continue to keep the prospect pipeline full.  Use that cap room to re-sign in-house "stars" and/or FA's to compliment them depending on the cap at the time.

    8) You gotta be lucky along the way.  But your luck improves if you do the right things, at the right times and for the right reasons.



  3. 10 hours ago, huzer said:

    The ONLY way it MAY have worked is if the Habs signed him to McDavid money. McDavid money for buying no years of UFA? Ridiculous. The same people complaining about the current lowball offer would be complaining about overpayment...or if even the offer made worked, would be complaining that the Habs didn't buy any UFA years. There honestly would have been no outcome from this that wouldn't have received criticism.


    I get people are unhappy about the lack of improvement to the team so far this offseason. However, the offer sheet was a valid attempt, but an unlikely resolution.


    The comment on not buying UFA years is irrelevant.  Signing an RFA to an offer sheet is effectively offering a younger player a UFA level of contract...you just also have to pay out some picks as a “penalty”.  Frankly, if you expect to be drafting in the 20-30 range I don’t see why folks get their panties in a twist...how many 1st round picks of the Habs (or most teams) in that 20-30 range ever turn into the equivalent of an 80-90 point forward.  I think it’s shocking that more teams don’t use offer sheets more often.  Given the Habs inability to develop players effectively, and that they can afford it, they could use this quite well.  

  4. Some may recall, but Carbonneau was considered a great defensive prospect but was also a high scoring junior prospect when he was drafted - 182 points in 72 games for the Sagueneens in 1980 and had 94 points in 77 games his last year in the AHL.  Sure, the QMJHL had some pretty absurd offense numbers those days but that's still good for 23rd best all time there (Lemieux holds the record at 282 points in a single QMJHL season - lol).  The Habs developed him mainly as a checking line C and never really gave him a chance to develop his offense.  He's the best of his era in that role.  He was also a leader on the team and, despite the role, did contribute on offense despite rarely having line-mates that could score much.  He also set the club record for short handed goals in a season twice.  3 cup rings (captain for one of them), 3 Selke trophies (and he unquestionably deserved more - 83, 84, 85, 86 and 90 are the years he should've won the Selke, or at least 2-3 of those years, beyond the 3 he did win in 88, 89 and 92).  Worth noting for those that don't remember, he also won the Jack Adams in 2008 as coach of the year for the Habs...wasn't right that he was fired the following season. 


    I don't see this as marginal at all...the Habs of the late 80's through early 90's were generally strong well rounded teams that really had no "superstar" offensive players - they were well balanced teams.  We're talking about an era that pumped out 100 point a year players all over the league and I think the only one they had in the 80's was Naslund in '86.  Carbonneau was the lynch pin of the defensive style they played...well, beyond Roy in net...lol.

    • Upvote 2
  5. On ‎6‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 7:12 PM, DON said:

    A $9m RH d-man simply isnt a need for this team.


    I don't agree for a couple reasons:

    The Habs had plenty of cap room, he represents a strong upgrade even if RD isn't a significant need, there are no FA's worth signing and no trade targets that provide equivalent return without giving up a lot.  The question is whether this would have represented the best use of current resources and assets to improve the club.  Frankly, they could have done this and looked to move Weber out in the not too distant future (as he continues to age and his contract becomes an albatross)...and probably looked to move Subban in a couple years as he enters the final year or two of his contract.  We just gained a bunch of value dealing Shaw - that was a good trade...this kind of deal would have been a very similar thing.  We didn't do it so the offer sheets are intriguing tactic.  I give Bergevin props on the Shaw deal, I give him credit for making a run at Aho (even if he wasn't aggressive enough - though they probably match either way).  I think he should make a big offer to Marner - $12.7M a year range...using up cap room on band aids is becoming tiresome.




    • Upvote 2
  6. Haven't posted in a long time...saw this trade and had to ask...I'm curious what the team looks like if Subban comes back. 


    Only 3 years left on the contract and it doesn't look like the Habs would have much difficultly in managing it under the cap (which is sadly a testament to the lack of high end talent on the club, as well as a lack of high end young talent driving up their contracts, IMHO).   Santini and Davies would've been the Habs giving up a fringe d-man and a fringe prospect...and with their additional picks next year they could probably have matched the Devils on picks. 


    Sure, I know lots of folks love or hate Subban but my main question is, over the next 3 seasons, would having Subban make the Habs a better club without taking much away from their ability to mange the cap?  I'm actually surprised that scenario really hasn't been discussed already...

    • Upvote 1
  7. Given the Karlsson trade I'd say the deal looks alright.  So hey, we have a better GM then Ottawa...even if it is a pretty low benchmark.


    For the record, as a fan,  I'm appalled that Bergevin wasn't fired at the end of last season.  Why they want this guy, who has turned in a terrible performance as GM (the Pacioretty deal aside), to lead a rebuild is just beyond me.  They had a clear opportunity for a fresh start.  It makes it clear that Molson should be turning the reigns over to someone else.

  8. I'd trade Price.  His value is still high, it won't be in 4 years after the Habs allow him to be peppered night in/out.  He might get hurt along the way.  He might, and I'd say likely will, become vocally disenfranchised if the rebuild takes as long as I'd expect...if he demands a deal, he hurts their ability to trade him for anything of value.  Get the value now to speed up the rebuild.  Draft some goalies next year, and/or trade for one if needed when they're getting competitive.  You don't need a superstar goalie to win the cup.  Keeping him to compete years down the road is crazy...


    Weber won't be traded till he shows he's healthy and productive.  When he is then I'd trade him too.  


    These two mean the Habs are likely not picking top 4 in the next 1-2 drafts.  They want to rebuild then get more picks and ensure 1-2 top picks to grab a true future star.  They'll also then have cap room to fill spots around the young talent...and extend them.  


    Of course it also means they need to get to get their player development systems into full gear.

  9. I think there is a chance he could be a solid 3rd line Center on a good team.  I also think some of you are equating the numbers he puts up playing on the top line as equal to what he'd put up on the 3rd line.  That obviously wouldn't happen.  If you moved him to the 3rd line (meaning possibly a few less minutes and more checking roles), combined with our current wingers, he probably stuggles to put up 30 points in my opinion.  Not the stuff of a 3rd line C on a contender...but I'll admit, he still has a little more upside to his game even if the ceiling isn't high. 


    He takes face-offs well which I think the club needs badly and is critical for a 3rd line C.  Frankly, I think having him play this year on the top line MIGHT help him develop his offense a little more which might help turn him into a much better 3rd line C (maybe that development, down the road, allows him to become a guy who can put up 40 points and still be a strong defensive 3rd line C???)...his defensive ability/awareness is already solid and he takes face-offs well.  If, when that time comes, he's only a 30 point 3rd line C who is strong defensively and takes face-offs well then it'll be a sign the Habs still aren't where they should be...

  10. This team isn't rebuilding until it does a whole bunch of things differently (some of this we are doing, some of it we aren't - which is why I think they're just re-tooling to continue be a playoff contender instead of a Cup contender...same old, same old):

    - Change leadership at the top; why does anyone expect the same group to provide different results? 

    - Improve our development system significantly - that means not only skills development, trainers and personnel but relationships with minor league teams where we need them to help us support our prospects development goals.  If this doesn't happen then everything else is wasted time/effort.

    - Use the salary cap room to effectively "buy" a few prospects, or preferably, draft picks for the next 1-2 years...make sure this doesn't spill into your window of contention years.

    - Trades higher value guys NOW for high picks or high ceiling prospects; if we aren't possibly contending for the next 3 years then sitting on guys like Pacioretty, Price, Weber, Gallagher is pointless - trade them to try and coincide our future value with our window to contend.

    - Take the next 1-2 years where they acquire/sign players on short deals and flip them for prospects/picks at deadline time.  Guys like Radulov when we signed him (if they weren't going to re-sign him he should have been traded to get real value on his play);  sign guys that can play up a line and drive up his value a little more (exactly what Danault and Desharnais have been for us - guys playing up a line or two - trade them and rinse and repeat that concept for a couple years). 

    - stop trading elite young players, should be obvious but apparently wasn't MB.

    - Use the acquired picks to draft more guys with high ceilings - which can mean some more boom/bust types as opposed to the "character" types. 

    - ONLY draft BPA in first 3 rounds every year.  Fill/augment for need in rounds 4 and beyond.

    - Package picks to move UP in drafts instead of down.  Put more value on higher ceiling players that can go higher in drafts instead of pick volume.

    - As your top propsects become legit top 6 forwards and top 4 defenders it should coincide with a lot of salary cap room.  ONLY then should they use that cap room to grab a top tier free agent forward, goalie and D-man to compliment these young players...prefer this be FA's and not via trades of other prospects because then you can trade your excess for more picks to extend your window of contention when your youth becomes expensive.


    I can live with 3 years of being a crap club if it meant coming out of that with 5-6 stellar young prospects (and probably 2-3 more that are depth pieces) all hitting their NHL stride and $35M+ in cap room to play with. 


    I think I just described the Maple Leafs over-haul.  It was obvious to folks that Toronto needed to do that for a long, long, time...same as it's been obvious about the Habs since the late 90's.  It's the culture of ownership and leadership that prevents them from making the hard choices.

  11. 3 hours ago, huzer said:


    I think everyone can agree our development at the AHL level sucked and is a significant reason the team is in its current situation as a bottom feeder. Maybe, just maybe, part of what could help with a turnaround is proper development of our plethora of prospects and a few of them actually turn out to be quality NHLers. We've had a black hole at that level for years, and people seem genuinely pleased with our new AHL staff. That's what I'm putting my faith in at the moment. That doesn't make the current NHL team any better, but it gives a glimmer of hope for the future.


    We'll see...any glimmer of hope about this is still 2 years away from even beginning to being realized.  And it only happens if the NHL level also buys into developing our youth...even at the expense of a guys like Danault to use a recent example.


    To me, McCarron is more evidence of the Habs failure to develop players.  McCarron's BEST AHL year, at least statistically (and by a decent margin), was his rookie season as a pro.  How do they not get his skating addressed over the past 3 years?  If his skating is that poor they should have him in skating clinics and speed skating (those are the obvious ones) but even telling him to get into figure skating and martial arts in the off-seasons to work on balance and footwork...yeah, it sounds funny but this stuff helps.  He should be doing explosiveness drills to improve his first step.  He should be watching video with trainers to break down his game and find the bottlenecks in his development. 


    He also scored 68 points (28 goals 40 assists) in 56 games in his final year of junior.   Followed that up with a solid rookie AHL year too.

    He's had very little PP time in the minors.  While he may not be a big scorer I'm surprised they didn't use him in front of the net more in the AHL.

    I'm not sure the "he couldn't score in junior" comment is really the issue.  As a prospect he was progressing well until the Habs "development program" kicked in...


    I don't think anyone expected him to be a first line C or high scoring power forward...2nd line was a maybe (if everything went right) and a strong 3rd line guy should've been probable given his size, strength, reach, face-offs, high-energy motor, etc.


    He can still put it together but his ceiling is obviously looking limited now.  I expect will ultimately become an NHL regular but without a leap forward he's looking more like a fringe guy. 

    He's not a bust yet but he needs to earn his way up, get his minutes in at Laval and hopefully get some things sorted out with a hopefully improved development plan.


    This development issue has played out with a number of our prospects over the years.  Either Timmins can't identify talent and draft (I doubt that's the case given his picks were often well regarded at the draft times) or the Habs can't develop (this seems much more likely and this issue goes back a LONG time). 

  13. 15 hours ago, illWill said:


    Like I previously said, everyone is a genius after the fact. 


    Drafted Galchenyuk at #3 and it's management's fault of course that he never succeeded. 


    We traded McDonaugh, who from a position of strength, for what was at the time a pretty good center in Gomez. Tried to fill the need but it failed. Wish Gainey was psychic and seen that coming. Traded Subban for Weber, great player for player, no need to get into that sore spot for some. Traded unknown Sergachev for established Drouin and tried him at center. Maybe wrong to thrust him into that position but still not a bad trade regardless of how much you hate him.




    Holy balls.  You have some serious selective memory if you thought Gomez was pretty good at the time that trade was made for him.  I don't recall too many people thinking that was a good deal from the moment it was announced.  There were A LOT of people scratching their heads about the Sergachev deal too.  I agree, we'll leave the Subban deal alone because it's been beaten to death (because again, so many disagreed with it).  Let's just say your optimism is impressive given the perspectives at the time and the actual hindsight of those deals.  I have some Blackberry stock if you want to buy it at $16 a share...it's a good deal, they're turning it around.

  14. 2 hours ago, DON said:

    Sure you are. Every review ranks Habs as having done super, except Habs fans, who just gotta find something to constantly bitch about. 

    Crazy...or more sad but true!:flaming:



    Hey, I'm not your typical pessimistic Habs fan...I may rarely post in recent years but I've been around the board longer then probably 99% of members...since the first days of the boards creation.  Those who remember me will know I'm not the "complain about everything" fan.  I'm also not a "praise everything" fan.  If recent comments are more negative it's largely because there has been little positive out of Bergevins time here.  It's a red herring to blame fan reaction.  IMHO this team is being run by folks that struggle with asset evaluation and risk/reward.  The draft was just more evidence of that.

  15. 2 hours ago, Commandant said:

    Look even these grades... which are based on what you want them to be based off, how someone uses their picks; The Flames got an A-,  and didnt' pick til the fourth round. The Oilers a B even though they got more talent.  This guy says the Habs had an A draft. 






    Even under the ranking system that he uses... the one you prefer, the Habs get an A


    Pronman has the Habs at an A


    Every single draft ranking I've seen have the habs having an excellent draft.  From the same people making the lists where you keep saying the Habs went off the board on. 


    I really don't understand your complaint other than it is... the Habs didn't perfectly follow consensus draft boards and Mckenzie's list.  newsflash... no one did with all of their picks. Not one team took the highest ranked player available on concensus lists.  There probably is a reason for that. 


    Again, my issue is that they didn't optimize the value of each pick.  You want guys that you could have got lower...fine...trade down.  Wasting pick value like that is the problem.  The consensus, to define BPA at the time of each pick, is just an easy way to compare that value pick to pick.

  16. 4 hours ago, Commandant said:

    Olofsson, McShane. Fonstad. Ylonen, and Hillis were all taken after their consensus rankings



    In Ylonen's case there were a number of players ranked higher still on the board.  I've been consistent in saying that, at each pick, you need to evaluate who is still available to properly consider if they made a smart selection...perhaps they had Ylonen ranked ahead of the 6-8 other guys that were sliding but that would seem strange, particularly since they were doing this on sooo many picks.  I find it unlikely that their "list" was so far off the consensus rankings from so many orgs that they continually ranked all these guys higher.  I think it more likely that they had their mind set on taking a group of guys they liked, slotted them in where they thought they could get them all and put the blinders on with regards to who was still available at those times.  I wonder if it's also because they fell into the trap of "falling in love with a prospect" in the same way that fans do...


    4 hours ago, DON said:

    Yes of course, habs might as well fire all scouting staff and simply go by internet consensus ranking. Never heard a smarter proposal.


    I'm not suggesting that they do this...wouldn't agree with that approach either.


    Having said that, the reality is that, as fans, we really don't get to see all these kids play (or have all the video to review).  So looking at multiple rankings by orgs like the ISS, Hockey News, Sporting News, TSN, etc we get a view of how the broader hockey world views them.  Sure, teams will deviate from those lists, have guys they like ahead of others, etc.  None of us should take it on blind faith that the Habs scouting is so ahead of the curve they can identify 20-100 spots ahead of these organizations.  The Habs past decade of drafting and development certainly doesn't support that idea.  In this draft the Habs seemed to deviate (in some cases dramatically) on the majority of their picks - again, also considering who was still available at the time of each pick.  They also didn't seem willing to adjust their approach as other guys slid (possibly indicating that they didn't have the level of insight they perhaps needed on some of those kids that were dropping - which would be damning of either the staff or Bergevin/Timmins if true - though I think it more likely they just fell in love with the idea of some of the picks).  There are enough question marks that they should do a post mortem on their approach and a review of what they could have done better/differently.  I don't think they will because it's too easy to say "we made 11 picks and got all this talent".

    • Upvote 1
  17. 11 hours ago, DON said:



    This is doing what Commandant is saying...evaluating what they got instead of how well they used the picks available.


    Eg. in the real world we don't have clueless owners like Molson allowing Bergevin to run amok and use those picks on flyers as a mulligan.  If I have a deadline and I'm scrambling to meet it and being forced to cut corners to get it done on time when suddenly I get an extension...how would my boss react if I just decided to take that extra time and go to Starbucks, chat on Habsworld (lol), etc?   I'd lose my standing internally, possibly get fired or warned, for not refining the proposal with the extended time I was given.  We also don't SOLELY evaluate companies or people based on the total volume they bring in...we evaluate them on their growth.  You can be the biggest company in your industry and if you don't grow for 3 quarters in a row your share price gets destroyed and CEO is likely fired.  If your the Habs and Bergevin/Timmins you get pass after pass...this year its because they had more picks even if each pick was only at 80% value on average.


    We had extra picks and decided to put on the blinders at draft time, ignore higher ranked guys and take sleeper picks ahead of higher ranked guys earlier then needed.  Sure, rankings by 3rd parties aren't the clubs BUT when 5-6 serious hockey publications are ranking prospects and you're going between 12-100 slots ahead of them on 7 of your 11 picks then something is wrong. 


    Did the Habs grab a bunch of talent...obviously they did, they had 11 damn picks.  They ended up with more talent and prospects then most other clubs just on sheer volume.

    That doesn't mean they got exceptional value out of each pick based on what was available each time. 


  18. That line of thinking ignores that each pick is in actual fact an organizational asset.  The goal is to maximize those assets.  I don't think there are two correct but different angles to evaluate from...it should only be measured against whether you maximized the value of your picks (each viewed in the context of your pick at that moment in time - otherwise everyone could just submit their "list" and they wouldn't actually hold a draft).  


    And yes, Calgary should be evaluated on what they picked with what they had...and that includes the value of the players they traded picks to get (though, admittedly that opens up a whole series of added questions).



  19. 7 hours ago, Commandant said:

    You couldnt trade down and still get kotkaniemi as seen when the coyotes took hayton at 5.


    Also mathematically trading up for late first rounders is a bad move.  Better chance to get a stud with 2 seconds than 1 first


    In kotkaniemi, ylonen, and olofsson they got 3 first round talents off my board.


    I think that's a big maybe on the Coyotes...that was a big enough reach by them that they may have been taking him either way.  Hayton was arguably the 3rd or 4th best C in the draft IMO.


    As for Ylonen, there were multiple "late first talents" available then too...many ranked ahead of him by quite a few publications and their final rankings.  Olofsson was good value at his pick.


    My main issue is expected value at each pick.  They really didn't get full value on the majority of their picks.

  20. 14 hours ago, dlbalr said:

    As promised, here is my grade/overall evaluation of the draft.  This wound up being a whole lot longer than I originally anticipated... http://www.habsworld.net/2018/06/grading-the-2018-draft-class/


    Nice work Dlbalr and all who've contributed similarly. 


    It's not that I dislike the kids drafted so much as I have serious concerns about how they "valued" each pick.  It seemed like they completely ignored pick value and BPA in the first 2 rounds before starting to trade down...so maybe the trades weren't there for them earlier.  I can give them that out.  I just don't agree that they should have been locked in on the players that filled a "need" at the places they did then pick. 


    For that reason, I'd grade Kotkaniemi as a B+ pick...they should have draft Zadina to get full value.  Drafting for need at the top of the draft is just bad, bad, bad strategy. 

    I probably give the Romanov pick a D. 

    No concerns on the Ylonen and Olofsson rankings you gave - Ylonen could have been 5-6 other guys that were sliding out of the first round.  Olofsson was a solid pick and value.

    I think Harris was a reach and probably would have graded that a C or C-...particularly when they were reaching on other picks already.  They fell in love with some prospects and just ignored the rest.  To me that indicates a bias in their approach that became evident by this pick.

    Gorniak was another reach but it was at a stage in the draft when those kinds of reaches start to make some sense...a kid with tools that was dominating (even at that level).    I agree with your ranking for him and Fonstad.  Last two picks didn't do much for me so I can't disagree with your rankings there either.


    Overall, I'd give their draft a B-.  They had so many picks, failed to really "hit" on their first 3 picks and reached on 7 out of 11 picks overall, only 1 or 2 picks were guys sliding.  Didn't try to trade up, only down.  Just a wasted opportunity given the volume of picks.  Only time will tell, and I really hope I'm wrong, but given the Habs inability to develop young talent in both the minors and at the NHL level I wouldn't bet on so many projects turning out.  I'd really rather be the optimistic Hab fan but recent history doesn't support that stance.


    Some things I wish they could have done:

    1) trade down from #3 - I'll assume they couldn't get any takers.  Should have taken Zadina and then watched where Kotkaniemi fell to...then offered that team Zadina for Kotkaniemi plus whatever else you could get out of that team (or package up 2-3 2nd rounders if they didn't want Zadina).

    2) trade up to get Veleno when he fell that far...probably could have dealt the pick they used on Ylonen and a 4th rounder.  AND they likely could have still drafted Ylonen when the Romanov pick came up.  Which to me, again, further indicates they were locked in on all their "sleeper" picks - the point of getting these kind of sleeper picks is to get them at the right value.  Veleno should have gone between 10th and 15th overall.  For a team that was so stuck on drafting C's throughout the draft this was a major miss on their part.

    3) Don't draft US high school projects before the 4th round...

    4) traded some of the pick volume to move up and get more 1st round picks in general...I think they could have had 3 1st round picks. 


    This club needs more upside in its prospect pool.  They went for the volume and then reached on so many that it seems like a wasted opportunity.




  21. 27 minutes ago, DON said:

    So many reaches? Really?


    Yes, there were a number...particularly when you compare each pick at the time and what was still available.  With so many picks the odd one would have been okay but most were stretches against most ranking systems (again, even more so when compared against what was still available at those times.

  22. 1 hour ago, dlbalr said:


    My head is buried in trying to find the scouting reports for all of the picks but I don't think there were that many reaches.  I had Ylonen at 38 so I don't think that was a reach.  Mironov was and I'd say that Gorniak and Houde were as well but as later-round picks, I don't mind when they go off the board in general (though I don't like the Houde pick).  The rest were either fallers or picked somewhere close to their rankings range.


    Disagree...when they took their first two 2nd round picks they had a whole bunch of guys sliding from the first round too.  So, if you had him at 38 and 5-8 guys were sliding out of the first then there were over 10 guys ranked ahead of him (that's a lot for an early 2nd round pick).  He might be great BUT it's a reach and bad value for the pick.  The Romanov pick is just brutal as a reach.  


    Then, trading down repeatedly was a mistake...they should have been packaging their 2nds to move up into the first round.  I also simply have no faith in the org to develop players so the added late round picks are likely a waste.

  23. 4 minutes ago, Trizzak said:

    I know they don't really exist this late in the draft. but can we please draft someone who shoots at some point? 


    All the picks now are either projects or kids with only a couple notable tools.  You can get shooters still but they may not be great skaters, could be poor defenders, or could just be very raw but have the physical tools (that last one isn't good for the Habs considering their development program is so poor).

  • Create New...