Zowpeb
-
Posts
1108 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Zowpeb
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
Sportsnet basically ignoring Habs during picks...lol
-
Habs could've got Romanov at 133 lol
-
4 minutes ago, dlbalr said:
Jacob Olofsson - I like this pick.
Probably the first pick they've made that wasn't reaching...they've exhausted their "list" and now picking off the NHL.com list. </sarcasm>
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Dalhabs said:
Wasting early 2 nd round pics on 3rd round players.
4th rounders in Romanov's case...
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Chris said:
Habs brass = smarter than everyone else
They probably believe that...they are proving they need a total overhaul at the top. Bergevin, Timmins, all of them. Total gutting.
-
1
-
-
This is a terrible draft...Habs management have zero concept of value. They stretched for the 3rd overall pick but it was probably not terrible if there were no deals to drop a few picks. Reaching this much in the second round is just brutal. There are plenty of players ranked well ahead of the guys selected and Romanov probably has over 100 prospects ranked ahead of him. There is no need to fall in love and overdraft with this many picks. It would be hard to screw up this draft with the 3rd overall and 8 more picks between rounds 2-4. They are well on their way to a failing grade.
-
I think seeing any ranking of Kotkaniemi that high is only a way to justify the Habs considering him at that spot...A LOT of scouting reports have him lower on their final rankings (some out of the top 10). If the Habs weren't looking at him he's probably not getting picked until anywhere from 8-12. A bunch of lists have Veleno above Kotkaniemi. Some even have Hayton ahead of him. Not saying I don't like Kotkaniemi...I just don't like the idea of reaching at #3 when they could trade down, still get him and get a lot more value out of the pick.
I wonder if the Isles would see enough value moving into the top 3 and could be lured into something like their 11+12+41 for our 3rd and 62nd pick...including the 2nds might be wishful thinking on my part, lol.
If so, I'd love to see some wheeling and dealing for picks.
eg. Then try to send a team picking around 6th - 8th our 12th, 38th, 56th to move back up a few spots. It's a much smaller jump from 12th to that 6-8 spot so, in theory, I don't think it would take nearly as much as we'd ask of the Isles.
If that worked out, I'd even see if I can trade all 3 of our 4th round picks along with the newly acquired 41st pick to move up to around pick 23...give or take.
Then I'd try to package that with our #35 overall to see if I could get another one in the top 15.
The Habs need some top end prospects badly IMHO...they can accelerate that in this draft since they have so many 2nd and 4th round picks. I'd much rather have 3 good, already more talented and developed, kids then depend on the Habs farm to develop 4 2nd and 3 4th round picks that all will need more development time or have a few less "tools" talent wise. JMHO.
I'm also sure we could move a player, or future pick, for another mid-round pick if we really saw a mid-round guy we wanted who was sliding at draft time...
-
Just a thought and this is digging into the cob-webs of my aging memory from when Streit first came to Montreal a number of years ago. There was a time when Mark Streit was toyed with as someone who could play some LW - as a depth wing option on a defensive line. I'm wondering if that might not be possible still...it's a way to carry an extra d-man through the season without really hampering productivity and line-up flexibility (quite the opposite if he can fill the role adequately). Would open the door a little wider to bringing in Butcher if he'd sign...and I really like the idea of a d-man named The Butcher. Even if he's not a physical kill first meathead. LOL
-
1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:
I'm Chicoutimi Cucumber and I endorse this message
(In all seriousness, even if it were a good idea to move Weber around like that - which it's not - the Habs are much too stodgy an organization for that sort of radical thinking. Weber will be on the first unit PP until he is no more good at it, and even then, he'll probably stay there until long past the point where he shouldn't, both because of coaching conservatism/linear thinking, and because the Habs have no one else capable of doing it, anywhere in their system).
My main thinking is solely related to also having Weber on a PK unit and managing the minutes of an expensive, and aging, defenseman. The regular season and playoffs are a long haul...
-
Fun with lines time...I actually think Hemsky needs to play on the top 2 lines when he's not on the IR. I think he can still put up decent points over 82 with the right line-mates.
ES Lines:
Pacioretty-Danault-Hemsky
Lehkonen-Galchenyuk-Drouin
Byron-Plekanec-Gallagher
Holland-McCarron-Shaw
Alzner-Weber
Schlemko-Petry
Streit-Benn
I hate having to put Danault in the top 6 but it is what it is. I think the 2nd line below becomes the top line at some point in the season as they gel together. Hopefully they can find a better C to replace Danault at the deadline or next off-season (I REALLY want Tavares in a Habs uniform). I think Plekanec still might have another decent season or two in him and could play himself back onto the top line if he's in shape and healthy.
Gallagher jumps to top line when Hemsky is inevitably out and then Shaw moves to 3rd line and Hudon gets the call.
Hudon is the first call-up from the AHL and Mitchell rides the pine. McCarron may need to step into a 3rd line C job by next year so he needs to play in the NHL full time...IMHO.
Yes, I put Alzner with Weber so that Weber can focus on puck moving and offense more...I think he also might help to keep Weber "fresher" over the year by taking the more physical roles.
PP
Pacioretty-Galchenyuk-Drouin
Streit-Weber
Could also see Weber dropping to the 2nd line PP if they want to play a forward in that spot, balance the point shot on the 2nd PP unit, or just to keep Weber ready for some PK duty too (maybe getting Hemsky on the PP).
-
34 minutes ago, Commandant said:
Our wingers are (not line combos, just showing how many we have).
Max - one of Drouin/Chuck
Lehkonen - Gallagher
Byron - Shaw
Hudon - Hemsky
Thats four lines of offensive wingers
The C, and LHD have huge holes.
Unless Drouin and Galchenyuk both move to C...
-
47 minutes ago, JGC21 said:
I think its hard to say with RNH. I mean, MTL played Danault as their #1 C last year. Clearly, RNH is better than Danault? What other options are there for MB, Duchesne is being held captive by Sakic. Unless, MB is content going into next year with a depth chart of:
Danault
Plekanec
De La Rose
McCarron
and then wait until the moment is right and make a blockbuster trade to acquire a true #1 center mid-season. One things for sure, I'd like to see DLR and McCarron get ice time over Torrey Mitchell. Its time to play the kids IMO.
Yes, RNH is clearly better then Danault. I'd be okay with him being acquired if the deal doesn't cost much from our NHL roster...beyond that I think they'd just shuffle the deck chairs.
I agree with those who said they'd rather see us make a move for a higher tier 1st line C...to me, that means planning a way to get Tavares when he hits UFA next year.
I like Danualt and he can be a good player for this team but it's a travesty that he's being foisted into a first line role.
It's time to give Galchenyuk and Drouin BOTH the chance to be playing Center this year...see which one is the better C by year end.
Trade Plekanec and move Danault to 3rd line C to make that happen. If you can't trade Plekanec now then do so at the deadline...
Either way, Pleks is coming off the books and clears up enough salary (assuming they don't do anything stupid in our remaining off-season) to make a run at Tavares next off-season. This is why I don't mind 1 year of Hemsky or trying to do a 1 year deal for a guy like Jagr. Sure, they become a place holder this season but I can live with that if it meant:
Pacioretty - Tavares - Gallagher
Galchenyuk - Drouin - Shaw?? (flip Galy and Drouin depending on who is the better C)
Lehkonen - Danault - Byron
Hudon - McCarron -
They'd basically have around $10-11M a year to offer Tavares with Pleks gone and that's assuming they are needing to add a D-man for around $5M plus a couple minor RFA raises.
Possibly that's not quite enough but it gets them in the mix...if they need to make some added room they could look to move Shaw's contract (would be REALLY nice if Scherbak forced his way into the mix as a RW ready replacement). Really, that's a very deep set of forwards with only RW being a minor weakness...and I don't see how it's not a real possibility given that it's only going after one UFA and they could have enough cap room.
-
3 hours ago, TheDriveFor25 said:
With Rad gone, Chucky has to be a top 6 player.
Still think something needs to happen to add a top 6 centre.
Right now I'd guess..
Pacs - Drouin - Chuck
Lehk - Danault - Gallagher
I think Hemsky is in the top 6 when healthy...I think Jagr would be a nice fit at this point. Sure it's cobbling together some older talent on short term deals but I think he'd be a nice asset this year. I'd like to see:
Pacs-Drouin-Jagr
Lehkonen-Chuck-Hemsky
Byron-Danault-Gallagher
trade Pleks for a little more cap relief and sign Markov. Next year use Jagr's and Hemsky's money from this year, and the Pleks savings, and make a big run at Tavares.
-
2 hours ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:
If Montreal traded Radulov for Drouin, I'd be fine with it. Drouin is a lot younger, likely get more years out of him. I think he's extremely talented and will be great for the top six.
But we didn't. We traded Sergachev for Drouin. And then let Radulov go. And immediately signed Ales Hemsky when it was clear he wasn't coming back.
So it's not a Drouin for Radulov 1 to 1. If anything, it's Radulov/Sergachev for Drouin/Hemsky. Heck, Hemsky *was* on Dallas last year. And sure, it's not a trade. But I don't feel very comfortable with that exchange.
I know in other places people try to make the argument that Sergachev is a prospect so him being gone doesn't change the team, but it certainly cuts down the Habs options. And we wouldn't be so sour on the left defence if Sergachev was pushing for a roster spot.
You can't pick and choose to ignore the cap savings in your Rad/Sergachev for Drouin/Hemsky scenario.
I'd take Drouin over Radulov in the line-up and for the future. I'd take Alzner over Emelin in the line-up and for the future. Those are both immediate and long term upgrades albeit incremental ones. Sure, we lost a very good prospect but we also saved $6M/year against our cap and have only used $1M of it (this year only) on Hemsky. That cap savings IS worth something. The FA pool may not be deep this year but this team is, effectively, about as good as last year with a bunch more cap room for the deadline OR to make a run at a big name FA next year (damn, I really wish we'd sign Tavares but I know that's wishful thinking).
In general: The whining and crying is so over done by all the cry babies on here that's it's ridiculous. I was not a fan of Bergevin from the beginning but I don't see this off-season being all that bad. These are the same guys that would be crying about re-signing Radulov during his first slump and screaming to fire Bergevin. I don't hate the Leafs but I sure hate their fans...a bunch of people around here are starting to sound eerily like Leaf fans.
-
3
-
-
I'm surprised at the lack of talk about Duchene and any possibility for the Habs.
-
21 minutes ago, Lovett's Magnatones said:
So Bergevin gets a Boston reject in the Morrow signing. Then a Toronto reject with Peter Holland. Logically...the next signing is Chris Neil?
You'd rather they don't sign any depth players for the minors? Every team does this every year. Calling fringe players "rejects" is pointless.
-
If I'm Radulov a 6 year deal isn't great...he's 36 at the end and would likely get a poor 2-3 year offer at that time unless he's "ageless" in his performance. A 4 year deal makes sense because he could get another 4 year deal after that with more dollars per year then after a 6 year deal.
-
Gives depth for when Pleks is moved.
Danault to 3rd line C behind Drouin and Galchenyuk.
Sign Yakupov on the cheap and play him with Galchenyuk on 2nd line with Radulov. If Yakupov can't be reclaimed then Byron/Lehkonen is decent depth...and of course one of Galchenyuk or Drouin can also move back to LW.
Pacioretty Drouin Gallagher
Yakupov Galchenyuk Radulov
Lehkonen/Byron Danault Shaw
-
Great signing that will also help to keep Price motivated to stick around. Even the contract structure looks good...at the end of year three he's also a trade commodity if they need to go down that path.
I love Markov but wouldn't want to see him making over $5m a year and max a 3 year deal given his age and injury history. If that's too little for him then go another route.
Also, Radulov's term request is ridiculous, can't believe people are wanting him signed for 6 years. ?
-
1
-
-
Have to believe there was a deal that didn't get done...why else stock up on so many extra players and clear up a bit of cap room? They aren't likely to say much about it but, to me, it seems pretty obvious they had a more impactful deal either fall through or not materialize. Perhaps it was Duchene but possibly someone else we weren't hearing rumors about...either way, they simply remained too far apart or another GM upped his asking trying to rape us at the 11th hour after MB made those moves. Just my guess.
2018 NHL Entry Draft Thread
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted
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.