Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dlbalr

2018 NHL Entry Draft Thread

Recommended Posts

It's safe to say that the Habs targeted specific positional needs this draft. As a result, that personally leads me to believe that there's a question mark as to whether or not they picked the overall best player available with certain picks. 

 

Say you have multiple lists...

 

All positions: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20

Left Wing: 3,7,9,18,19

Center, 5,8,11,12,13,20

Right Wing: 2,6,14

Defense: 1,4,10,15,16

Goalie:27

 

If one strictly follows the all positions lost, you'll get the overall best player available according to your master list. If you need a center at pick 7 and 5 and 8 are already picked, and you're' still stuck on that center, you'll draft the 11th overall even tho some higher ranked players of different positions will be available.

 

To me, this is how they drafted, especially when it comes to Kotkaniemi and Romanov. They clearly wanted a center and left shooting defense, and have said so themselves and it is my personal belief that while they greatly addressed needs in a way we would be complaining about had they not drafted especially Kotkaniemi, they skipped over some players with even more skill.

 

It was a great draft. I'm happy we weren't a team like Calgary who had to wait until the 4th round. But I do think that it was a very difficult draft to get graded below an A when compared to other teams based on our competitive advantage and so frankly rating the draft that well doesn't really say much.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Zowpeb said:

 

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...

 

 

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".

 

Those players were ranked higher on concensus boards, but obviously if they were slipping, other NHL teams also didn't rate them that high. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/ca/nhl/news/nhl-draft-2018-grades-picks-results-31-teams-red-wings-rangers-sabres-islanders-penguins/iqwyr4h6yk021kknmd5n9szew

 

 

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Zowpeb said:

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

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:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes 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:

 

The Habs did do super but it’s being overlooked that they were guaranteed to do super based on their position in the draft and volume of picks.

 

I think fans are allowed to question some choices. What those fans are overlooking is that they’re far from being right in their assessment as well when they say some players should have been picked. 

 

I (once again) think that Zadina has more skill and offensive potential than Kotkaniemi based on their statistical output thus far as well as from what I’ve seen of them and their motivation moving forward, but I could be completely wrong 5 years down the line. I also acknowledge that judging a center versus a winger in that respect isn’t as straightforward as it looks. 

 

Solid draft. Hope it really is an A- and not B-.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/ca/nhl/news/nhl-draft-2018-grades-picks-results-31-teams-red-wings-rangers-sabres-islanders-penguins/iqwyr4h6yk021kknmd5n9szew

 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Experts put together a list of top prospects

 

Montreal drafts players

 

Experts applaud Montreal picks

 

Hab fans complain about picks 

 

 

Is this life?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

Solid draft. Hope it really is an A- and not B-.

A-, B- is still darn good, or 'solid'. Is likely most will never play in Montreal but hope 3 or 4 will and 2 or 3 will become regular NHLers. Only time will tell.

 

20 minutes ago, Zowpeb said:

 

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.

I just don't get the negativity on the draft, especially when no one really will know for 3 or 4 years how plays out and on its face it was a good haul of prospects. Maybe your expectations were just way too lofty?

Your history is all good, and it is the 'typical pessimistic' fans that make up too large a proportion of fanbase and local media, that drive me nuts. But, cant disagree with numerous mistakes and some head scratchers over past few years, but par for course for majority of teams. 

Share this post


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

IMHO this team is being run by folks that struggle with asset evaluation and risk/reward.  The draft was just more evidence of that.

 

This is quite true.

 

To be honest I don't think this was a bad draft for Montreal. Wouldn't be surprised if we land three NHLers out of it. But I think with the picks we had, we always had a good shot at three NHLers with 6 picks in the Top 70. I just question if we maximized by selecting the best players.

 

I've been open to the idea of being wrong on this draft. Kotkaniemi might end up better than Hughes and Zadina. We saw with Puj and Dubois that so far Columbus looks like the smarter team. But I can only go by what I know of these players, and I watched Kotka early when he was recovering from injury and later when he was dazzling scouts, and whomever thought he could be Anze Kopitar I think needs some eye drops. But again, I'm no expert. I can only go by what I feel, and I feel like Montreal got 80% of what they could have got in this draft.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nhl.com/canadiens/video/behind-the-scenes-2018-nhl-draft/t-277437414/c-60776003

 

Not a whole lot of specifics in this behind the scenes look at the Habs draft, but scout Ken Morin says of Cole Fonstad, "If you're looking for that home run potential, Fonstad could be that guy."

 

Also, the Habs were going to select Cam Hillis with Washington's 2nd round pick, but traded it to Edmonton for picks #71 and #133. With their next pick at 66 they took... Cam Hillis. It was a 4 pick risk, but they got their guy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Trizzak said:

 

Not a whole lot of specifics in this behind the scenes look at the Habs draft, 

Part of the new 'transparency' bit Molson spoke to.:spamafote:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They arent allowed to mention any names that other teams drafted.  It would be tampering.

Share this post


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

They arent allowed to mention any names that other teams drafted.  It would be tampering.

 

Plus no scout wants any footage released of them projecting a player's path incorrectly. 

 

That being said... others have extrapolated from the footage that it looks like Zadina wasn't taken by the Habs because of poor combine results, and it looks like the Habs were one of the teams that had Ryan Merkley on their "Do Not Draft" list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those seem to be good guesses

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  

×