Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dlbalr

2018 NHL Entry Draft Thread

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

Scenario 1

 

Don't have a 2015 7th..... don't trade for one, use your own picks in 2016, 2017, and 2018  (you made 3 picks in 4 years)

 

Scenario 2

 

Don't have a 2015 7th.... trade a 2016 for a 2015.... trad a 2017 for a 2016..... trade a 2018 for a 2017.... trade a 2019 for a 2018..... (you now made 4 picks in 4 years and you just keep trading and push the missing pick back a year, you can keep doing this forever.....

 

 

Scenario 2 you end up with an extra pick. .... and in the 7th round, it really doesn't matter if its 188th, or 210th. 

 

 

 

This is exactly where I was going with my question.  As long as it is successful, you got an edge on the other teams. The year it misses will bring you back tied with everyone starting next season while you're the "loser" for the current season. And then the next draft, you can start over again.

It's basically trading "nothing later" for "something now" every year. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

This is the most riveting discussion about seventh round picks of all time.

Slow news week  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

This is the most riveting discussion about seventh round picks of all time.

Well it deflects away from how MB has ruined (galchenyuk) or traded away (Sergechev), or just messed up (Mccaron) our #1 pick selections.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some stuff from Twitter:

 

Di-Q84sVAAAFwpq.jpg

 

Di-RG7DU8AAYv5D.jpg

 

The account also has graphics for a couple of other Habs' prospects from the OHL:

 

Di-dbUmV4AALlxs.jpg

 

Di-drpjVsAAQZVU.jpg

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Well it deflects away from how MB has ruined (galchenyuk) or traded away (Sergechev), or just messed up (Mccaron) our #1 pick selections.

MB ruined galchenyuk? 

Share this post


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

MB ruined galchenyuk? 

 

Level of ruin depends on how good you think Galchenyuk can be, but he did publicly decide to say that Galchenyuk will not play centre, directly interfering with Julien as a coach, and Julien proceeded to avoid playing Chuck at centre at all costs. We'll see how he looks in Arizona. If he's average at centre then who knows. If Galchenyuk prospers, it means Bergevin directly held back the most vital role the club needed filled for his own reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

Level of ruin depends on how good you think Galchenyuk can be, but he did publicly decide to say that Galchenyuk will not play centre, directly interfering with Julien as a coach, and Julien proceeded to avoid playing Chuck at centre at all costs. We'll see how he looks in Arizona. If he's average at centre then who knows. If Galchenyuk prospers, it means Bergevin directly held back the most vital role the club needed filled for his own reasons.

 

If Galy flourishes at C - say, becoming a 60-70 point guy - MB should absolutely be fired. It will be proof of inexcusable and unforgiveable negligence.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiple coaches,  assustant coaches including muller and gallant. Player development personal should all be held accountable before a GM when it comes to player development. Gainey didn't screw up latendresse or kotsitsyn and I don't believe MB screwed up Chucky.  I am willing to blame him for a lot. Just not this. Other than not liking the trade. He screwed up the trade, but I don't believe he screwed him up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BCHabnut said:

MB ruined galchenyuk? 

At least Therrien, Muller, Julien and Gallant did their best with the kid and MB is the one at fault.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm less worried that the Habs 'screwed him up' as a player, than that they refused to allow him to develop where he wanted to play (at C) despite having a crashing organizational need for C. This was truly bizarre. And if, as I say above, he goes to Arizona and plays well at C, this will be an almost ludicrous indicator of truly jaw-dropping stupidity and/or perversity -  in both the way the Habs handled him and in the decision to trade him right at the point when he was ready to take the next step. It will be proof of still more folly from a management group whose main priority has been its own ego rather than winning hockey games.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm less worried that the Habs 'screwed him up' as a player, than that they refused to allow him to develop where he wanted to play (at C) despite having a crashing organizational need for C. This was truly bizarre. And if, as I say above, he goes to Arizona and plays well at C, this will be an almost ludicrous indicator of truly jaw-dropping stupidity and/or perversity -  in both the way the Habs handled him and in the decision to trade him right at the point when he was ready to take the next step. It will be proof of still more folly from a management group whose main priority has been its own ego rather than winning hockey games.

 

2013-14. Desharnais should have been moved to the wing. Galchenyuk at centre. 82 games in the role (unless hurt) in 13-14, 14-15, and 15-16. If he isn't a top six centre after that? Then we look into moving him at the wing. Instead, the team didn't commit to him down the middle *until* 15-16 for the second half of a failed season, played him 1C the first half of 16-17, he got hurt, came back playing hurt, and aside from the final game of the Rangers series, never was assigned to play centre again for the team. Why? Because Bergevin publicly said he was no longer a centre. 

 

Last year we saw Drouin fail for the most part at centre (gaining 10lbs hurt his speed which is why he looked better later in the season after likely dropping some of the weight), Danault be hurt, Plekanec be unable to play top six again, and see Paul Byron of all people play centre before Julien played him there. That's pure ego. Bergevin decided he would no longer play centre and was ready to play anyone over him in the role, including scrubs like De la Rose. 

 

Arizona was 30th in goals. You know who they scored one less goal than? Montreal. And Arizona was able to get a guy who scored 10 more goals for the guy they gave up. And Arizona immediately talked about playing Galchenyuk at centre. But hey, just a bunch of idiots in the desert who have never won anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I'm less worried that the Habs 'screwed him up' as a player, than that they refused to allow him to develop where he wanted to play (at C) despite having a crashing organizational need for C. This was truly bizarre. And if, as I say above, he goes to Arizona and plays well at C, this will be an almost ludicrous indicator of truly jaw-dropping stupidity and/or perversity -  in both the way the Habs handled him and in the decision to trade him right at the point when he was ready to take the next step. It will be proof of still more folly from a management group whose main priority has been its own ego rather than winning hockey games.

And if he is the exact same good but not great player as ever? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, DON said:

And if he is the exact same good but not great player as ever? 

 

If he is a middling winger, then the merits of the trade depend on how Domi performs.

 

If he is a legitimate top-6 C, then the trade is just another dumb-ass Bergevin debacle.

 

1 hour ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

2013-14. Desharnais should have been moved to the wing. Galchenyuk at centre. 82 games in the role (unless hurt) in 13-14, 14-15, and 15-16. If he isn't a top six centre after that? Then we look into moving him at the wing. Instead, the team didn't commit to him down the middle *until* 15-16 for the second half of a failed season, played him 1C the first half of 16-17, he got hurt, came back playing hurt, and aside from the final game of the Rangers series, never was assigned to play centre again for the team. Why? Because Bergevin publicly said he was no longer a centre. 

 

Last year we saw Drouin fail for the most part at centre (gaining 10lbs hurt his speed which is why he looked better later in the season after likely dropping some of the weight), Danault be hurt, Plekanec be unable to play top six again, and see Paul Byron of all people play centre before Julien played him there. That's pure ego. Bergevin decided he would no longer play centre and was ready to play anyone over him in the role, including scrubs like De la Rose. 

 

Arizona was 30th in goals. You know who they scored one less goal than? Montreal. And Arizona was able to get a guy who scored 10 more goals for the guy they gave up. And Arizona immediately talked about playing Galchenyuk at centre. But hey, just a bunch of idiots in the desert who have never won anything.

 

Exactly. This management group manages by personal ego. It's insane.

 

The situation at C was that, first, we needed and upgrade on Desharnais, and second, we needed an eventual replacement for Plekanec, whose decline as a top-C C was eminently predictable. It didn't take a whole lot of psychic vision to see the value in deploying Galchenyuk as a C. Even if he had defensive limitations, which he definitely did, well - the Habs would hardly be the first organization to bring along a young player with holes in his game.

 

The handling of the entire Galchenyuk file makes no sense.

Share this post


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

If he is a legitimate top-6 C, then the trade is just another dumb-ass Bergevin debacle.

 

This club always finds great goalies. Vezina is named after a Hab, go down the list from Plante to Gump to Dryden to Roy to drafting Theodore and Vokoun to drafting Price. Rare we go long without a great goalie, and have found hot goalies like Penney and Halak as well. Huet ended up better than the guy we moved him for in Garon. We always find them. So losing one like Vokoun doesn't hurt as much as it could.

 

We usually find great defencemen too. I won't go through all the names but after losing Schneider/Desjardins we soon had Souray, then we had Markov. After Markov we had Subban and drafted McDonaugh. It hurt to lose McDonaugh in a bad trade but it's not like we didn't still have Subban. It doesn't hurt as much as it could.

 

The Habs have had an eternal struggle when it comes to centres, only temporarily solved in 2004 and 2010, but usually this team doesn't have two top six legitimate centres and only three #1 centres in the last 25 years (Koivu, Damphousse, Turgeon) so having one, they should do everything possible to keep them and give them the best chance to succeed. If Galchenyuk ends up a first line centre elsewhere, or even just a top six centre, it's honestly worse than the Subban trade or Sergachev because we find defencemen. We struggle for centres. To blow it with a third overall pick? That just hurts more. So people better hope he Beaulieu's it in Arizona.

Share this post


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

 

If Galy flourishes at C - say, becoming a 60-70 point guy - MB should absolutely be fired. It will be proof of inexcusable and unforgiveable negligence.

And if he doesn't, then Bergevin shouldn't absolutely not be fired?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

If he is a middling winger, then the merits of the trade depend on how Domi performs.

Glad you have a cynical back up theory.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DON said:

And if he doesn't, then Bergevin shouldn't absolutely not be fired?

 

Don't be silly. The case for firing Bergevin is already very strong. Add yet another major foolish decision to the pile and it becomes almost ridiculously overdue.

Share this post


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

Glad you have a cynical back up theory.

 

Nothing cynical about it. If Domi and Galy are comparable W, then the trade is a wash, neither good nor bad.

Share this post


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

 

Nothing cynical about it. If Domi and Galy are comparable W, then the trade is a wash, neither good nor bad.

 

I can't be the only one sick of "challenge" trades as they call it in MLB.

Share this post


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

https://twitter.com/JBarb87/status/1010312686758977538?s=20

 

Wonder if she’s feeling silly yet ?

 

There is actually a story here. 

 

She was the billet parent for Zadina in Halifax, and a big Habs fan.  Not just some random. 

 

Knowing that she knew Zadina pretty well, and was obviously biased from her personal relationship with him, the reaction makes more sense. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

There is actually a story here. 

 

She was the billet parent for Zadina in Halifax, and a big Habs fan.  Not just some random. 

 

Knowing that she knew Zadina pretty well, and was obviously biased from her personal relationship with him, the reaction makes more sense. 

Oh wow, that’s actually a crazy backstory for that situation. Makes you realize how easy it is to take things out of context!

 

Poor lady was routing for Zadina for personal reasons, makes total sense why she was so upset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

There is actually a story here. 

 

She was the billet parent for Zadina in Halifax, and a big Habs fan.  Not just some random. 

 

Knowing that she knew Zadina pretty well, and was obviously biased from her personal relationship with him, the reaction makes more sense. 

 

I thought that story was debunked?

Share this post


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

 

I thought that story was debunked?

 

I didn't see the debunking. I heard it from friedman on a podcast.

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  

×