Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Commandant

A Plan for the Remainder of the Season, including the Deadline

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, mineral said:

I don't know how you guys feel, but i would do a Pacioretty / McDonough straight up. Maybe throw in a 4th or 5th just to sweeten it. The back-end needs such a retooling, and i see nothing of a top 2 on the left-side in our cupboard. Free agent pool looks like crap too.

 

 

 

It's actually not a terrible proposal. I'd prefer a younger player, but McD - who is, I believe, a LD? - would massively stabilize our blueline, and it is easier to find an impact winger than an impact D. But the politics of that trade would be fraught (it would look like we're trying to correct Gainey's mistake) and  I sure would not throw in anything to sweeten the pot. It's a good 1-for-1 proposal, it seems to me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make trades to get what you need. 


Oilers made trades... their GM is dumb and made a bad trade and gave up too much for the defenceman.  Doesn't make the strategy bad, just the GM.
 

Tampa needed defence... we needed forward.... Drouin for Sergachev. 


Dallas accumulated assets, traded a bunch for Seguin when he became available. 

 

There are countless others.  Teams make trades to get what they need.   

You draft for talent.  You get talent that other teams want. 

 

In 2009 Pittsburgh had Gonchar, Letang, Whitney, Goligoski, sydor, orpik, scuderi. 

 

They needed a winger... boom Whitney for Kunitz. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Commandant said:

.

 

Tampa needed defence... we needed forward.... Drouin for Sergachev. 

 

 

 

Trouble is, we ALSO needed defence. In a big way.

 

But I agree completely with your wider point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Trouble is, we ALSO needed defence. In a big way.

 

But I agree completely with your wider point

 

Yes, we needed both, which is the problem with Bergevin. 

 

Stevie Y though, has Namestnikov, Brayden Point, and Yanni Gourde all NHL ready. He also had Brett Howden, Taylor Raddysh, Boris Katchouk, Mitchell Stephens, Antony Cirelli, Mathieu Joseph on the way

 

Great drafting led to a surplus of fowards ready to make their mark so when he needed a defenceman, he flipped a forward for him. 

 

thats what you do.  Draft the best players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

It's actually not a terrible proposal. I'd prefer a younger player, but McD - who is, I believe, a LD? - would massively stabilize our blueline, and it is easier to find an impact winger than an impact D. But the politics of that trade would be fraught (it would look like we're trying to correct Gainey's mistake) and  I sure would not throw in anything to sweeten the pot. It's a good 1-for-1 proposal, it seems to me.

 

The media appears to have NYR also in sellers mode, but they are in the WC race, so i don't really put much into speculation. McD is 28 going on 29 this summer and is a lefty.  While i agree there is some politics there, i think Bergy has made it clear he doesn't give a 2 F's about unpopular moves if it helps the team. NYR probably don't have a replacement in the pipeline for him, and their bottom 4 isn't really amazing either. I can't see their motivation for this unless they were stacking up for a run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think once you fill holes  first then you can add depth  by drafting best available player without worries about team needs. Other wise you put yourself into the situation Bergevin finds himself in.

 

Once you have the depth in your system its makes making trades for top 6 players on the big club that much easier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you draft for position, you reach on picks, and don't get the best players.   Talent trumps all. 

 

You don't fill the holes you want to fill cause the players you draft, aren't that good. 

 

Then it becomes endlessly chasing your own tail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mineral said:

 

The media appears to have NYR also in sellers mode, but they are in the WC race, so i don't really put much into speculation. McD is 28 going on 29 this summer and is a lefty.  While i agree there is some politics there, i think Bergy has made it clear he doesn't give a 2 F's about unpopular moves if it helps the team. NYR probably don't have a replacement in the pipeline for him, and their bottom 4 isn't really amazing either. I can't see their motivation for this unless they were stacking up for a run.

 

Even stacking up for a run, you wouldn't trade a top-pairing defenceman unless you had an obvious replacement.

 

If NYR become sellers, it will probably be to load up on young talent, not Max Pacioretty. Still, the trade is intriguing enough to put out feelers, IMHO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rounds 1-2 you pick from need since there are good players in those rounds. Rounds 3-7 you pick best available player since the draft starts to get thin.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Metallica said:

Rounds 1-2 you pick from need since there are good players in those rounds. Rounds 3-7 you pick best available player since the draft starts to get thin.

 

 

 

100% disagree. 

 

Picking for need gets you "good players" like Gilbert Brule instead of Carey Price, or Angelo Esposito instead of Ryan McDonagh and Max Pacioretty, or numerous other busts. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Commandant said:

I think if you draft for position, you reach on picks, and don't get the best players.   Talent trumps all. 

 

You don't fill the holes you want to fill cause the players you draft, aren't that good. 

 

Then it becomes endlessly chasing your own tail. 

What do you make of Ryan Merkley? Looks like one of the most talented in the draft class. Could he be our 2018 first rounder? Then again, at this rate dahlin/svechnikov is not out of the question. 

 

I just think Merkley could be the type of d man we need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, we could package a couple of our seconds and take him in the 25 range if he slips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Meller93 said:

What do you make of Ryan Merkley? Looks like one of the most talented in the draft class. Could he be our 2018 first rounder? Then again, at this rate dahlin/svechnikov is not out of the question. 

 

I just think Merkley could be the type of d man we need.

 

He's falling to a late first/early 2nd at this point. 

 

His defensive game is not where it needs to be.  While guys like Noah Dobson and Evan Bouchard are shooting up the board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amazes me how a kid can rocket up or down the rankings with only a few months to go...considering that we are making long-term prognostications when drafting, this just goes to show what a crapshoot it is, as though a kid's having a dodgy few months will forever dominate his destiny (to paraphrase Yoda).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

It amazes me how a kid can rocket up or down the rankings with only a few months to go...considering that we are making long-term prognostications when drafting, this just goes to show what a crapshoot it is, as though a kid's having a dodgy few months will forever dominate his destiny (to paraphrase Yoda).

 

Its all about progression

 

16 year olds, rookies in the OHL, WHL, QMJHL... scouts want to see flashes of talent... and if they are making some mistakes, you can write those off as being a rookie in a new league and hopefully he learns, and next year we'll see where he's at, but he's got the raw tools. 

 

When the kid is 17 and those raw tools are not improving, and the mistakes in his own end are not disappearing, a guy falls.   Another guy takes a step forward and shows tools you didn't see at 16, and becomes a better prospect than you thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

100% disagree. 

 

Picking for need gets you "good players" like Gilbert Brule instead of Carey Price, or Angelo Esposito instead of Ryan McDonagh and Max Pacioretty, or numerous other busts. 

 

Or it gets you a player you desperately need who ends up being better than the consensus "BPA" because drafting isn't an exact science. Don't bring up Brule and Esposito as if THEIR teams were definitely picking for need. Horrible picks happen with BPA just as much as BPN. 

 

How often in a draft are GMs presented with the decision, "Well we have a guaranteed top pairing defenseman available, or a risky  #1 centreman"? Once your 99.9% sure-thing picks are gone in the top 2, it's a rapid slide of percentage on who is better than who.

 

If the Habs win the lottery and get the #1 pick, nobody is going to suggest picking a centreman over Dahlin. But if the Habs are picking, say... 6th and Bergevin asks Timmins, "How far down our list is the best centreman?" and Timmins responds, "Three spots down" then that is worth considering. If Timmins says, "18 spots", well, might want to wait til round 2 or 3 before going after that particular need. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Trizzak said:

 

Or it gets you a player you desperately need who ends up being better than the consensus "BPA" because drafting isn't an exact science. Don't bring up Brule and Esposito as if THEIR teams were definitely picking for need. Horrible picks happen with BPA just as much as BPN. 

 

How often in a draft are GMs presented with the decision, "Well we have a guaranteed top pairing defenseman available, or a risky  #1 centreman"? Once your 99.9% sure-thing picks are gone in the top 2, it's a rapid slide of percentage on who is better than who.

 

If the Habs win the lottery and get the #1 pick, nobody is going to suggest picking a centreman over Dahlin. But if the Habs are picking, say... 6th and Bergevin asks Timmins, "How far down our list is the best centreman?" and Timmins responds, "Three spots down" then that is worth considering. If Timmins says, "18 spots", well, might want to wait til round 2 or 3 before going after that particular need. 

 

If we picked for.need in those scenarios thats what we would have gotten.

 

Im strongly against picking for need especially early when you the crapshoot is a little easier.  Tge gaps in talent in the first round are bigger than the 6th and 7th.  So the idea of pick for need in the first two rounds... everyone is good   that was said here is very flawed imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

If we picked for.need in those scenarios thats what we would have gotten.

 

Im strongly against picking for need especially early when you the crapshoot is a little easier.  Tge gaps in talent in the first round are bigger than the 6th and 7th.  So the idea of pick for need in the first two rounds... everyone is good   that was said here is very flawed imo.

 

Picking for need would have potentially gotten us Giroux or Berglund over Fischer, Hayes or Kuznetsov or Coyle or Nelson over Tinordi...

 

As for the 2nd point, I'd argue that talent don't really present linearly. More like that similar talent level is present in various pockets of players (that get larger as the draft goes on), and then there are risers and fallers among those pockets. If you're picking 1st, you might have two people you're hemming and hawing over. Picking 3rd? Maybe four guys to choose from that are of similar talent. Picking 7th? Another four or five. The pockets of talent might not get obscenely large until the 3rd round, but there is still room to play in those early pockets and pick for need. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also if we address team needs in the draft we wouldn't be paying Plekenec 6.5mil. That money could of gone to a top 6 guy. We also wouldn't have been hurting this much on the back end with the loss of Markov.

 

Just saying at some point you need to address your team hole's and if you can't do it through trades or free agency, then it should be done through the draft. Something this organization doesn't do. Or just fails at doing.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Trizzak said:

 

Picking for need would have potentially gotten us Giroux or Berglund over Fischer

 

2006 they did pick for need. They went into the draft thinking they didn't need a centre with Koivu, Ribeiro, and Plekanec. In 2005 they were either going to take Price or Marc Staal. So in 2006 after losing Beauchemin and Hainsey with Souray and Rivet needing new deals they drafted for need and took a guy who had dropped in the charts for everyone else. Montreal thought he was the best defenceman available at that time and took him (they actually traded down when realizing he was falling in the draft). Instead of taking the BPA and drafting Giroux or someone else they went with what the organization thought was their need.

 

BPA every time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

2006 they did pick for need. They went into the draft thinking they didn't need a centre with Koivu, Ribeiro, and Plekanec. In 2005 they were either going to take Price or Marc Staal. So in 2006 after losing Beauchemin and Hainsey with Souray and Rivet needing new deals they drafted for need and took a guy who had dropped in the charts for everyone else. Montreal thought he was the best defenceman available at that time and took him (they actually traded down when realizing he was falling in the draft). Instead of taking the BPA and drafting Giroux or someone else they went with what the organization thought was their need.

 

BPA every time.

 

I only brought up those specific names in response to Commandant's "Brule over Price" and "Esposito over Pacioretty" comparisons of need-picking in their respective draft years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Metallica said:

 

 

Just saying at some point you need to address your team hole's and if you can't do it through trades or free agency, then it should be done through the draft. Something this organization doesn't do. Or just fails at doing.

 

#1 centers don't get traded very often. Seguin is the only fleece job I can think of but Boston had Bergeron and Krejci up the middle so they could afford to try and strengthen their roster elsewhere. Jeff Carter and Ryan Johanson might be considered top line centers but aren't exactly elite. Brayden Schenn is having success as a center after being traded but wasn't really considered as such at the time. Ryan O'Reilly is also a great player but not elite either. Regardless, these are the few examples of trades in the last few years. They don't happen frequently and they certainly don't involve superstars.

 

#1 centers don't often go to UFA. Stamkos was a free agent for a minute and twenty-four seconds. Eric Staal signed on with Minnesota after everyone thought he was washed up. Paul Stastny signed a huge deal at the time for a guy that wasn't elite. Again, superstars don't go to free agency.

 

I think that the most logical way for Montreal to have a true #1 is to draft him. They don't necessarily need a top 5 pick (Getzlaf, Kopitar, Giroux, Kuznetsov, Pavelski for example), they just need some luck and to develop properly. They cannot do such a thing by simply drafting the best player available.

 

Drafting BPA means you have the "potential" best player, but it is not guaranteed. And it also doesn't mean that your team as a whole is better because of it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Metallica said:

Rounds 1-2 you pick from need since there are good players in those rounds. Rounds 3-7 you pick best available player since the draft starts to get thin.

 

 

No, I think the opposite as well.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

It amazes me how a kid can rocket up or down the rankings with only a few months to go...considering that we are making long-term prognostications when drafting, this just goes to show what a crapshoot it is, as though a kid's having a dodgy few months will forever dominate his destiny (to paraphrase Yoda).

Is one reason I would like to see draft age upped to 18+yr old kids, another reason would be to allow them all to play one more year in amateur or Euro Pro. And give teams an extra year to evaluate them 'better' at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, illWill said:

 

#1 centers don't get traded very often. Seguin is the only fleece job I can think of but Boston had Bergeron and Krejci up the middle so they could afford to try and strengthen their roster elsewhere. Jeff Carter and Ryan Johanson might be considered top line centers but aren't exactly elite. Brayden Schenn is having success as a center after being traded but wasn't really considered as such at the time. Ryan O'Reilly is also a great player but not elite either. Regardless, these are the few examples of trades in the last few years. They don't happen frequently and they certainly don't involve superstars.

 

#1 centers don't often go to UFA. Stamkos was a free agent for a minute and twenty-four seconds. Eric Staal signed on with Minnesota after everyone thought he was washed up. Paul Stastny signed a huge deal at the time for a guy that wasn't elite. Again, superstars don't go to free agency.

 

I think that the most logical way for Montreal to have a true #1 is to draft him. They don't necessarily need a top 5 pick (Getzlaf, Kopitar, Giroux, Kuznetsov, Pavelski for example), they just need some luck and to develop properly. They cannot do such a thing by simply drafting the best player available.

 

Drafting BPA means you have the "potential" best player, but it is not guaranteed. And it also doesn't mean that your team as a whole is better because of it.

 

 

Thats the point I am trying to get across is that we have passed on team needs in the draft and missed out on filling big hole's. I get drafting best available player but at some point you need to address team needs if you can through trade OT free agency. Thats the problem here, this organization through trade and/or free agency can't address team needs. So for some reason they don't do it through the draft.  We have pasted on our team needs in the draft and its hurt us the last 10 years. Does that fall on the GM or your head scout?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×