tomh009

Right. You wouldn't pick Aatos Koivu because you expect him to be a clone of Saku. He is his own player, and he'll be picked on his own merits. The only significant thing you get from that relationship is that you might have a better idea of the player's attitude or mental processes, based on how well you know his family members. But that's just another data point, not anything more.

Right. Nearly all. So, a quick look at the top five picks for the 2010 decade: 2011: five long-term players: 100% 2012: four long-term players, plus Griffin Reinhart (37 games): 80% 2013: five long-term players: 100% 2014: four long-term players, plus Michael Dal Colle (112 games): 80% 2015: five long-term players: 100% 2016: four long-term players, plus Olli Juolevi (41 games): 80% 2017: five long-term players: 100% 2018: five long-term players: 100% 2019: four long-term players, plus Alex Turcotte (32 games): 80% That's 92% long-term NHL players. But definitely not 92% impact players. For example, from the top five in the 2012 draft, only Morgan Rielly is still in the league. (Nail Yakupov, Ryan Murray, Alex Galchenyuk, Griffin Reinhart were the others.)

3-ish and 5-ish ... that's maybe 80% probability that the drafted player will play at least 100 games. Or 65% that both of them will play 100 games. Probability of two impact players is considerably lower. Mailloux-plus for 80% probability of 100+ NHL games? I would generally always take the prospect that has played at least a year since the draft, as the ceiling and floor are much more clear than for an 18yo.

The league really should crack down on this. You see guys let go of the stick, hands in the air, while the opponent is still holding the stick under his arm. And which one gets sent to the box?

Could. Or not. And Zegras may be a consistent 60-70 point player, or not. I have higher confidence that Caufield will still improve as he matures, and can score 30-40 goals and 80+ points. It's an interesting proposal, but I'm really not keen on giving up Caufield (with better growth prospects and better attitude) for Zegras. Of course, Hughes is unlikely to be calling me for trade advice! 🤪

I expect this would be the primary focus as most 18yo D-men are still multiple eyars away from the NHL.

I'm not rooting for Roy. While he was a superb player for the Habs, ultimately he put himself ahead of the team and left. It wasn't all him, but the decision was his. Had he stayed, we might have won another Cup. I understand the situation, so I'm not holding a grudge, but neither am I going to root for him.

Both Kovacevic and Barron are affordable RD choices. And neither one is old, especially for D--Kovacevic is still only 26. I think either one could be a fit for the Habs' D corps, but probably not both. The decision between the two will depend not only on their skills but also on which style (offensive or defensive) is a better fit--and which of the two will have better trade value. But, yes, I agree that both can be credible NHL D-men, although probably not both of them in Montreal.

Sounds like Prosvetov may need to start game 2 ...

Price is on LTIR so trading him would not actually provide additional cap space, just flexibility in cap management.

I was off by one point, and the correct number of points for Suzuki! 😮 But not quite close enough!

I suspect Kovacevic will be worth more to the Habs than in a trade.

Also, Hughes's definition of "crown jewel" may be different than out definition; he has access to much more data and assessments (and plans!) than we do, so he may determine that "crown jewel 1" is critical while "crown jewel 2" can be traded because there is someone else that will be able to fill that role.

I think Hughes will be looking for the advantage, for another GM that values one of our D higher than he does. And maybe has a F that he is giving up on. I'm 90% sure the actual F/D trade, if it happens, will be for a forward we never predicted. Like Dach. Like Newhook.

The reality is that an AHL team is never in full control of its roster, the parent club manages it to (1) develop prospects and (2) provide depth in case of injuries. Further, as much as the Rocket had some good prospects in its lineup this year, the most successful AHL teams tend to be stronger on veteran players and lighter in promising teenagers. So, I doubt that the Habs’ management team had any expectations of a long Rocket playoff run this year.

Maybe the Rocket would have made it into the playoffs?

I think PMK's point is that he was underappreciated when he played for the Habs. Sixth in TOI with Ducharme.

I also like Hughes' drafting logic: not drafting the best player today, but the one that will be the best in five years' time. So far, this looks to be working out with Slafkovsky.

Another statistical tidbit: only five Habs regulars with a positive +/- rating: Savard/Evans were next at -1. Matheson and Gallagher ended the year tied at -24.

Also there is Engstrom on the left. And Harris can play left or right--maybe Guhle in the future as well. That flexibility is very helpful when the inevitable injuries hit.

Technically he would be able to return for one more season, but I do expect that this is rather unlikely.

I'm thinking that Beck might be a better fit for an Armia-type role, although he might ende up playing centre. I expect we'll know much more for both Beck and Tuch a year from now.

I think you have it right. Flyers have a 5.1% chance of winning (and drafting second); if that happens, Habs have an 8.6% chance of winning the second draw, and that would result in a roughly 0.3% probability of drafting third, behind the Flyers.

A-game Anderson has value, but his game is effectively a solo effort, so the linemates need to play accordingly. I give you the Armia-Newhook-Gallagher line (with two of the most maligne forwards we have) as the counterexample: the three players play with each other, look for each other and work together to create scoring chances.

$250K.