tomh009
-
Posts
7678 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
92
Posts posted by tomh009
-
-
I've barely seen the Canucks this year ... but I have to take my hat off for their PK work.
-
26 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:
It's that kinda series. The Canucks are an elite defensive team and Nashville is blocking shots and collapsing in front of the G like crazy.
2-0 after two periods, on seven shots. .500 shooting on PP--and only three shots five-on-five. That is crazy!
-
I think that's the first projection I've seen of him being a top-line forward. Apart from the Commandant, that is.
-
2 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:
Sportsnet is showing 1993 Stanley cup finals game 5. Montreal against the Kings.
Where did you find that? I can't find it on my app.
-
1 hour ago, JoeLassister said:
If Kotkaniemi teached us something, it's not to take too much from the results at this U18 tournament.
Guessing the scouts go there to evaluate some specific skills and character aspect of players' game more than how they actually perform.It's just another data point. You should never make a decision based on a single tournament, but it can still supplement the information you have gathered otherwise.
-
1 hour ago, Commandant said:
You aren't drafting players cause they are nepo-babies. They'd be taking Atsu in the 3rd or 4th round cause he's BPA. At some point in the draft, he is the best player on the board.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.)
-
15 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:
Presuming the Habs draft two high end forwards at pick 3 and 5.
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.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, TurdBurglar said:
The Tavares penalty should of been 2 each, but stick holding is almost never called. You see players tuck the stick under their arm and squeeze because it'll be called a hook 50 times before it's called holding the stick.
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?
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:
I don't think it's a massive overpayment. The #3 pick could turn out to be an absolute stud.
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! 🤪
-
4 hours ago, GHT120 said:
Believe it was also referring to trade targets.
I expect this would be the primary focus as most 18yo D-men are still multiple eyars away from the NHL.
-
4 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:
I’m rooting for the two most u likely teams, and also for Roy. Otherwise, don’t care for either of those franchises.
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.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, alfredoh2009 said:
If you take their age difference as an indicator of the potential for the younger one to improve. Kovacevic (26) has had 4 more years than Barron (22) to develop.
At 22, Kovacevic was in the AHL: 29Games 2g 12a 14pts
Barron's combined AHL;NHL: 80Games 9g 15a 24pts
So, IMHO, there is hope for Barron.
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.
-
1
-
-
I was off by one point, and the correct number of points for Suzuki! 😮 But not quite close enough!
-
13 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:
I agree that Kovacevic is not worth a lot
I suspect Kovacevic will be worth more to the Habs than in a trade.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, GHT120 said:
That doesn't necessarily mean there is no chance of his trading a "crown jewel" ... just means his price point would be higher.
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.
-
59 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:
Perhaps the likeliest outcome is that one of our crown jewels on D is actually what gets moved in order to bring back an impact young FW. And we then trust that our blueline depth will allow us to absorb the blow to our D.
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.
-
53 minutes ago, DON said:
I wonder how Wright would be doing in habland, if had of chosen him?
Maybe the Rocket would have made it into the playoffs?
-
1 hour ago, GHT120 said:
Kulak was the 6th in TOI for Oilers amongst their D regulars ... admittedly on a better GAA team than Montréal ... not certain that "terribly" is the right description.
I think PMK's point is that he was underappreciated when he played for the Habs. Sixth in TOI with Ducharme.
-
3 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:
My hope is that Demidov or Lindstrom fall to 5 (assuming the Habs draft there). If not, I wouldn't be surprised if the Habs take Iginla or Catton or maybe Helenius. The top 10 is really tough to predict, mock drafts are all over the place after Celebrini.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
2023/2024 season Playoff discussion
in Habs & Hockey Talk
Posted
A bit of a rope-a-dope finish but a win is a win. 🙂