Lets have a little fun: Montreal drafting, what could have been: Questioning of drafting soo many US kids!

[kaos]

Did you ever think that between Gainey, Timmins and all their scouts and advisers, that they may know a thing or two about drafting? Not saying we should follow blindly, but it seems like no one will give these guys the benefit of the doubt despite the fact that I bet every single person involved in the decision making process have more insider knowledge than ever member of this forum combined.

Hey they make mistakes and we are here to talk about that. Like ya said, no free passes.

Why was Boston able to draft Bergeron, Lucic and Wideman? Why did we get Latendresse, urquahart, and Fischer?

Was was Boston able to sign Chara, Savard, Ryder, ok we know why there! And we got Samsonov, Lang and Hamrlik?

Not saying that all our draft picks and signings were bad. But theres were better. Their plan seemed to be better

We buy the tickets, sweaters, memorabilia, and we have to right to question the moves that are made. And this is one of the forums to do so. So no I dont think they should get the benefit of the doubt

[ForumGhost]

Well, they've had better draft positions for the most part. Also, I think it's unfair to compare Fischer since we haven't even seen him yet... Last I remember he was still a highly-anticipated prospect.

As for free agent signings, it's not like every team can get who they want. If that was the case, we would have had a completely different looking team, and we can't blame the organization for that. And when did Lang become not a good signing? He was a fantastic signing! Not even Bob can predict when players will be injured in freak accidents...

[BTH]

Thanks for the Kudos guys

Look at the list... guy don't fall that far through the cracks, they get traded and suceed elsewhere ie.. Streit, Hainsey, Beauchemin etc etc.

How many guys do you really recognize in those names?

With Kronwall, Franzen, Ericsson, Filppula, Hudler, Kopecky & Howard on that list, I'm not exactly sure what your point is. The Red Wings have done a great job drafting throughout those years even though they've never had their hands on a high pick.

I'm not saying we haven't been drafting well too, but the Habs have had a 5th overall pick (Price) in a loaded draft and a 10th overall pick (Kostitsyn) in a loaded draft, as well as a 12th overall pick (McDonagh) not to mention a second 1st rounder in that year. We've picked higher than Detroit in every single draft except last year when we traded our pick for Tanguay. Comparing our prospect pool to Detroit's is as unfair as comparing ours to Chicago's or Washington's. And yet, Detroit has done at least as well as us. That shows how strong they are in that department.

The Wings have also done a noticeably better job at developing and maintaining their prospects. We lost Hainsey and Beauchemin before they could play for us, lost Ribeiro before he could break out, lost Streit and Ryder (and probably Komisarek) to free agency, "lost" Valentenko and Perezhogin to Russia, are having trouble bringing Emelin over, seem to be losing Chipchura, are close to losing one of their two young goalies, had a decent D prospect in Mathieu Carle demand a trade, etc... Both teams have done well drafting but everyone who goes to Detroit fits in there and excels there. Players who come to Montreal seem to have a tough time fitting in. And when they do excel, they leave town when they hit free agency.

Edited May 4, 2009 by BTH

[Fanpuck33]

Why was Boston able to draft Bergeron, Lucic and Wideman? Why did we get Latendresse, urquahart, and Fischer?

Was was Boston able to sign Chara, Savard, Ryder, ok we know why there! And we got Samsonov, Lang and Hamrlik?

Bergeron and Lucic were both passed on at least once by all 30 teams, just like Latendresse and Urquhart. How are you going to bash Fischer before he even turns pro? The Bruins didn't draft Wideman, they traded Brad Boyes for him. Yes, the Brad Boyes that has scored 76 goals over the course of the last two seasons.

We didn't sign Lang, we traded for him. I also have no idea why you would bash bringing him in, he was one of out best players this year. Hamrlik had a bad season, but just a year ago we were praising his signing because of the stability he brought to our defense. Like Komisarek, when he's playing right, he's worth the money. Samsonov ended up being a mistake, but what reason was there to think he would fit in so poorly in Montreal?

[Habitforming]

With Kronwall, Franzen, Ericsson, Filppula, Hudler, Kopecky & Howard on that list, I'm not exactly sure what your point is. The Red Wings have done a great job drafting throughout those years even though they've never had their hands on a high pick.

I'm not saying we haven't been drafting well too, but the Habs have had a 5th overall pick (Price) in a loaded draft and a 10th overall pick (Kostitsyn) in a loaded draft, as well as a 12th overall pick (McDonagh) not to mention a second 1st rounder in that year. We've picked higher than Detroit in every single draft except last year when we traded our pick for Tanguay. Comparing our prospect pool to Detroit's is as unfair as comparing ours to Chicago's or Washington's. And yet, Detroit has done at least as well as us. That shows how strong they are in that department.

The Wings have also done a noticeably better job at developing and maintaining their prospects. We lost Hainsey and Beauchemin before they could play for us, lost Ribeiro before he could break out, lost Streit and Ryder (and probably Komisarek) to free agency, "lost" Valentenko and Perezhogin to Russia, are having trouble bringing Emelin over, seem to be losing Chipchura, are close to losing one of their two young goalies, had a decent D prospect in Mathieu Carle demand a trade, etc... Both teams have done well drafting but everyone who goes to Detroit fits in there and excels there. Players who come to Montreal seem to have a tough time fitting in. And when they do excel, they leave town when they hit free agency.

13 out of 64 drafted made the NHL is the basis of your arguement?

Detroit wasn't docked draft picks by being so good, they traded them away. My points is if they are so good at finding "impact guys late in drafts" then why don't you recognize 51 of the names they drafted, and none that are late picks?

The fact Montreal wasn't winning cups dictated why they didn't trade thier picks, but if you look at the players listed Montreal has more then held thier own when drafting late with guys like Plex, Halak, Streit (a bit different but hey) among others and may actually be better then the often inflated scouting team in Detroit.

[Peter Puck]

I realise that but they way the Habs seem to draft is useless.

ex if Habs draft at 16th spot, and ranked 16th is a Dmen, 5-10, 188 lbs, 17th spot is a C, 6-4 220+ lbs

Which player do the Habs draft? Shock everybody and trade up 2 spots to sign the 5-7 168lbs C because he's higher ranked so therefore he must be better. Either way the last thing they apparently would do is draft the 6-4 220+ C. :puke:

Why dont they just selectively target the players that are ranked within 6-8 spots off of their draft position (2 up & 6 below) and scout the hell out those 8 and select the best 1 who plays a position they need right now.

Your example seems to suggest that we should draft the 6-4 220+ lbs centre. (Is this Turner Stevenson? It can't be Linday Vallis because we took him 13th overall not 16th. Possibly it is Matt Higgins, we took him 18th)

The 5-10 defenceman must have a lot of potential since he is ranked higher than the centre. Why take a lower ranked guy when you can get a higher one? What is the point of ranking?

Edited May 5, 2009 by Peter Puck

[BTH]

13 out of 64 drafted made the NHL is the basis of your arguement?

Detroit wasn't docked draft picks by being so good, they traded them away. My points is if they are so good at finding "impact guys late in drafts" then why don't you recognize 51 of the names they drafted, and none that are late picks?

The fact Montreal wasn't winning cups dictated why they didn't trade thier picks, but if you look at the players listed Montreal has more then held thier own when drafting late with guys like Plex, Halak, Streit (a bit different but hey) among others and may actually be better then the often inflated scouting team in Detroit.

You're saying that Montreal has done well drafting in late rounds? ... that was already obvious. But Detroit has been at least as good. I don't recognize 64 out of 64 names because no team is able to draft nothing but NHLers.

Most of our top young players came from very high draft picks (Komisarek, Price, Kostitsyn). Our mid and later picks got us Streit, Halak, Ryder, S Kostitsyn, D'Agostini, Plekanec and Subban. These are mostly complementary players. Can they compare with Kronwall (a #2 or 3 d-man), Franzen (35-40 goal scorer), Hudler (a solid offensive #2 C), etc...? Even omitting the late pick-ups of Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Holmstrom because they came so long ago, Detroit has been better at finding core players in the later rounds. It might only be a hanful of players out of dozens, but that is still high. Can you find other teams that have managed to find so many core players in the late rounds?

[ForumGhost]

A lot of our crop is still maturing. D'Agostini is a very optimistic example. He's shown he can light the lamp and it's way too early to worry about the inconsistency he showed. Pacioretty looks good too, like he can turn out to be at least as good as Latendresse. Speaking of whom, only now, in his 3rd season, has he matured into the player we hoped when he first came in. You gotta remember all of our guys are still kids. Even Andrei K. has probably not reached his peak. Sergei may have shown more growing pains than anyone, but he definitely has the skill to merit being worked with. Pleks also falls into this category. He may be older, but he's still a young'n by NHL standards.

I wouldn't worry about Komi. He revealed that he was worried about his shoulder after his injury which explains his reluctance to throw his weight around. After he regains his confidence in it after a nice long summer, he'll be back to his old self. Having been injured myself, I can relate to what must have been going through his mind.

And don't forget about McDonagh, Subban (who is beginning to look like a steal at 43rd overall), Fischer, Weber and possibly Emelin waiting to make an impact, all of whom are supposed to be very good. If each one pans out the way we hope they will, along with Markov and Komi, we may end of having the best defense in the league.

Edited May 5, 2009 by ForumGhost

[tokyohabs]

Assuming Komisarek re-ups with us.

My gut feeling says no.

[Habitforming]

You're saying that Montreal has done well drafting in late rounds? ... that was already obvious. But Detroit has been at least as good. I don't recognize 64 out of 64 names because no team is able to draft nothing but NHLers.

Most of our top young players came from very high draft picks (Komisarek, Price, Kostitsyn). Our mid and later picks got us Streit, Halak, Ryder, S Kostitsyn, D'Agostini, Plekanec and Subban. These are mostly complementary players. Can they compare with Kronwall (a #2 or 3 d-man), Franzen (35-40 goal scorer), Hudler (a solid offensive #2 C), etc...? Even omitting the late pick-ups of Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Holmstrom because they came so long ago, Detroit has been better at finding core players in the later rounds. It might only be a hanful of players out of dozens, but that is still high. Can you find other teams that have managed to find so many core players in the late rounds?

You must be an amazing scout shooting down so many players that have played limited or no games in the NHL yet.

Others you left out are Lapierre, Latendresse, Weber, Maxwell, Grabovski.

You seem to be the only one that thinks some of the habs players you list aren't core guys.

Plex, Lapierre, Latendresse, Grabovski, Ryder and Streit are all core guys (a few just not our core guys now).

The others you can't judge when they haven't played a game in the NHL yet.

[Habsfan]

Assuming Komisarek re-ups with us.

My gut feeling says no.

Agreed! the Habs ######ed up by not signing him earlier!! It saddens me to say so, but My guess is that Komi is gone!

Way to go Bob!

[Habsfan]

Montreal and Timmons has done a good job of drafting, but think of how much better even if one or two of the additional players below..And the importance of the entry draft and finding young players to come in right away under the cap, allows and gives more flexibility...

SO IS IT THE RIGHT CALL TO ALWAYS DRAFT US HIGH SCHOOL KIDS?EURO ( RUSSIA) AND WAIT UPTO 4 years for them?

......

2003

KOSTITSYN : PARISE / Carter / Richards

You forgot Ryan Getzlaf and Corey Perry. All of these guys are better than AK46. I know we have to be patient, but AK is 24 years old...if he doesn't bust out next season...i will definitely be disappointed. How could we miss SOOOO many BIG FORWARDS WITH TALENT like Perry, Getzlaf, Carter, Parise??? I can understand missing one, maybe 2 of them, but all 4?

By the way, I was listening to the Team 990 this morning, and François Gagnon was on with the boys in the morning. He said that now that the season was over, many players on the Habs felt more comfortable to talk and they told him that the Kostitsyn brothers acted like primadonna's and didn't care about the team. They couldn't care less what happens to the team and they were cancers in the dressing room.

I know many of you don't like the french media and all but if there is one guy in the french media that is trustworthy, it is François Gagnon.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Habsfan

[BTH]

You must be an amazing scout shooting down so many players that have played limited or no games in the NHL yet.

Others you left out are Lapierre, Latendresse, Weber, Maxwell, Grabovski.

You seem to be the only one that thinks some of the habs players you list aren't core guys.

Plex, Lapierre, Latendresse, Grabovski, Ryder and Streit are all core guys (a few just not our core guys now).

The others you can't judge when they haven't played a game in the NHL yet.

lol

Because they still haven't made the NHL, that works in their favour?

Of your list, Latendresse was a relatively high pick but whatever, he and Lapierre are still only on the outside layer of our core - complementary players. Weber and Maxwell? Let's wait until they make the NHL before dubbing them as part of our core. Like you said, they haven't made the NHL yet so there is still very little to be proud of. Grabovski? Our old #5 centre?

Our core means Kovalev, Koivu, Markov, Komisarek, Tanguay, Price, once included (and should include) guys like Plekanec, Higgins and Andrei Kostitsyn, and will probably include Pacioretty and McDonagh and maybe Subban in the future. Players like D'Agostini, Ryder, Streit, Grabovski and Lapierre plug holes in the line up. You don't build around them. If you consider 3rd liners as part of the core, then 75% of every team is the core. It should be more like 25%.

Detroit has brought in key parts of their organization like Kronwall (at least as good as Komisarek IMO), Franzen (far better than Ryder), Filppula (a Plekanec type) and Hudler (would probably be our #1 C) past the first round. That's a job very well done. We've done well finding NHL players in the late rounds but we haven't been able to reach the Detroit level of finding core players in the late rounds - aside for Markov, who was drafted so long ago.

And, as I've said, we haven't been nearly as good at maintaining and developing our prospects. Ribeiro, Hainsey, Beauchemin, Ryder, Streit and Grabovski are all elsewhere now having success for other teams. Meanwhile, we lost Perezhogin, Korneev, Valentenko and possibly Emelin to Russia while Mathieu Carle wants to be traded. Halak will also likely want to be gone soon and he'll probably be pretty successful wherever he goes.

Detroit is still the model that every team should follow, and this is especially true when it comes to the draft where they don't get the chance to pick until at least the 25th choice. We're doing a very good job too at finding complementary players and depth players in the later rounds. But we still haven't found gold anywhere the way Detroit seems to routinely do. (Even our first round picks have failed so far to meet their expectations). Maybe Trunev will be that guy for us.

[Habitforming]

lol

Because they still haven't made the NHL, that works in their favour?

Of your list, Latendresse was a relatively high pick but whatever, he and Lapierre are still only on the outside layer of our core - complementary players. Weber and Maxwell? Let's wait until they make the NHL before dubbing them as part of our core. Like you said, they haven't made the NHL yet so there is still very little to be proud of. Grabovski? Our old #5 centre?

Our core means Kovalev, Koivu, Markov, Komisarek, Tanguay, Price, once included (and should include) guys like Plekanec, Higgins and Andrei Kostitsyn, and will probably include Pacioretty and McDonagh and maybe Subban in the future. Players like D'Agostini, Ryder, Streit, Grabovski and Lapierre plug holes in the line up. You don't build around them. If you consider 3rd liners as part of the core, then 75% of every team is the core. It should be more like 25%.

Detroit has brought in key parts of their organization like Kronwall (at least as good as Komisarek IMO), Franzen (far better than Ryder), Filppula (a Plekanec type) and Hudler (would probably be our #1 C) past the first round. That's a job very well done. We've done well finding NHL players in the late rounds but we haven't been able to reach the Detroit level of finding core players in the late rounds - aside for Markov, who was drafted so long ago.

And, as I've said, we haven't been nearly as good at maintaining and developing our prospects. Ribeiro, Hainsey, Beauchemin, Ryder, Streit and Grabovski are all elsewhere now having success for other teams. Meanwhile, we lost Perezhogin, Korneev, Valentenko and possibly Emelin to Russia while Mathieu Carle wants to be traded. Halak will also likely want to be gone soon and he'll probably be pretty successful wherever he goes.

Detroit is still the model that every team should follow, and this is especially true when it comes to the draft where they don't get the chance to pick until at least the 25th choice. We're doing a very good job too at finding complementary players and depth players in the later rounds. But we still haven't found gold anywhere the way Detroit seems to routinely do. (Even our first round picks have failed so far to meet their expectations). Maybe Trunev will be that guy for us.

I never listed Weber or Maxwell as core players... I thought it was clearly marked

Kronwall was a first round pick not after the first like you suggest.... You continue to talk in circles here.

Tell Toronto Grabovski isn't one of their core players, or the Ilses with Streit; Ryder in Beantown or maybe Gainey when he talked about "our core players being mentioned in trades" when he talked about Plex and Higgins in the Lecavalier talks.

Maybe you have this idea of "core players" built up to be something special but it isn't the case.... core guys are people you can replace by a call up or minor trades.

What gold has Detroit "routinely" found in the last 7 that everyone should model themselves after?

Edited May 6, 2009 by Habitforming

[BTH]

I never listed Weber or Maxwell as core players... I thought it was clearly marked

Kronwall was a first round pick not after the first like you suggest.... You continue to talk in circles here.

Tell Toronto Grabovski isn't one of their core players, or the Ilses with Streit; Ryder in Beantown or maybe Gainey when he talked about "our core players being mentioned in trades" when he talked about Plex and Higgins in the Lecavlier talks.

Maybe you have this idea of "core players" built up to be something special but it isn't the case.... core guys are people you can replace by a call up or minor trades.

What gold has Detroit "routinely" found in the last 7 that everyone should model themselves after?

The fact that those guys are no longer in Montreal is HUGE. Bragging about guys that you never managed to maintain or develop is a little bit sad. Not only can Detroit brag about Franzen, Filppula, Hudler, Darren Helm and Ericsson but they still have core late picks in Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Holmstrom that have exceeded expectations, found spots on the team and become the most important forwards on the team years later. We have to brag about guys who no longer play for us.

But what is your point anyway? I was just saying that your stats seemed to be useless because it seemed to be saying that either Detroit had been drafting badly or that we've been drafting way better than them recently. Neither of which is true.

[Peter Puck]

The fact that those guys are no longer in Montreal is HUGE. Bragging about guys that you never managed to maintain or develop is a little bit sad. Not only can Detroit brag about Franzen, Filppula, Hudler, Darren Helm and Ericsson but they still have core late picks in Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Holmstrom that have exceeded expectations, found spots on the team and become the most important forwards on the team years later. We have to brag about guys who no longer play for us.

But what is your point anyway? I was just saying that your stats seemed to be useless because it seemed to be saying that either Detroit had been drafting badly or that we've been drafting way better than them recently. Neither of which is true.

This is a wonderful point of view. Any statistic which contradicts your opinion is useless since it lends support to something that must be false.

[BTH]

This is a wonderful point of view. Any statistic which contradicts your opinion is useless since it lends support to something that must be false.

Why be a douche? It's a message board. Do you come here to observe discussions from the outside, chipping in with snide remarks? If you have something hockey-related to say, say it.

@the actual meaning of your post:

It is a misleading stat that leads to a skewed conclusion.

[Peter Puck]

Why be a douche? It's a message board. Do you come here to observe discussions from the outside, chipping in with snide remarks? If you have something hockey-related to say, say it.

@the actual meaning of your post:

It is a misleading stat that leads to a skewed conclusion.

Now who is being a douche? and what do you mean "from the outside"? Are you part of an elite few who allowed to post in this thread? For that matter I have already posted earlier in this thread.

HabitForming made a great post providing a convincing statistic showing that contrary to the common wisdom Detroit's recent drafting has not been head and shoulders better than the Habs recent drafting. You don't agree - fine. Then you try to attack his stat by saying that it is "useless" solely because it contradicts your position. They you start name calling when someone points this out.

[Sir_Boagalott]

Your example seems to suggest that we should draft the 6-4 220+ lbs centre. (Is this Turner Stevenson? It can't be Linday Vallis because we took him 13th overall not 16th. Possibly it is Matt Higgins, we took him 18th)

The 5-10 defenceman must have a lot of potential since he is ranked higher than the centre. Why take a lower ranked guy when you can get a higher one? What is the point of ranking?

So if all the Habs Dmen are small and weak then draft the smallest dmen in the draft because he is ranked higher.

Whats the point when its inevidable that you need to trade a small dmen for a large one? Why not just draft the large dman you need?

Where is Ribs right now? Do you realize why Ribs is there? Oh, there was a massive log jam of prospects who all play the same positions because every year they draft BPA on positions of guys who were BPA last year, and the year before.

Sorry but I fail to comprehend why most people think that its so much better to draft BPA, create massive log jam in prospects who are all basically the same so you can not develop them all at the same timie and then end up giving them away for nothing than it would be to draft players you actually need?

Seriously BPAYAN (Best player available you actually need)

Heres a conundrum for the Price lovers out there: If several high Habs picks this year turn out having BPA are golaies, how many should they draft? 2 or 3? Log jam Goalie position, have 4-6 G prospects, I'm sure they will be able to split the ice time in Hamilton so they all develop to their full potential.

[ForumGhost]

Here's a question for the Price nay-sayers out there. If we don't have Price, who is our goalie? Should we sign Gerber?

Also, why is it inevitable to trade small d-men for large ones? Would you trade Brian Rafalski for Alex Henry? You seem to have an obsession with size, but the notion of skill seems to fly right over your head.

Plus, the BPA route is the smartest route to go. You may have drafted 2 centermen in previous years, but tehre is no way of telling if either of them will even make it to the NHL. So if you have a choice between number 5 overall centre but what you really need is a left wing but the next one is ranked at 15, you take the centre. At the very worst, you can trade either the pick or the prospect for a left wing that is of equal quality.

[Peter Puck]

No team is built entirely from draft picks. If trades and free agent signings were forbidden then the way to draft would be to draft according to need. But in the NHL, teams draft the best players they can and then make trades or sign free agents to fill in the holes.

Sure right now we need a big centre and a power winger would help. But trying to draft players to fill these needs is very difficult. We will have 6 or 7 draft picks in June. The guy we pick in the first round will have about a 50% chance of making the NHL. Each of the rest has a much smaller chance of making it. If we pick 6 bruising forwards we won't know for 3 or 4 years which if any will make the team.

Now we can't really afford to wait that long. We need to acquire some big forwards now. This means we will make a trade and/or sign someone or a couple of guys to fill this role. Or maybe Pacioretti will develop into a star. In 3 or 4 years we may be desperately seeking a goalie or maybe a speedy sniper. It is almost impossible to know now what we will need in 2012.

The fact is, any pick not in the top 15 or so, is a gamble. The vast majority never make the NHL. For this reason you pick the guy you think is the best player available and hope you can develop him into an asset. Then you trade your assets to fill in the holes on your team.

[Sir_Boagalott]

The fact is, any pick not in the top 15 or so, is a gamble. The vast majority never make the NHL. For this reason you pick the guy you think is the best player available and hope you can develop him into an asset. Then you trade your assets to fill in the holes on your team.

Thats been the Habs motto for over 15 bloody years now. It is truely effective.

The majority of people seem to be over reacting about drafting a player your teams needs that is ranked a few spots below your draft position. Most seem to be acting like I'm suggesting drafting a large 3rd round guy in the 1st round just for the sake of size.

Aboot Rafalski, yes I would pass on him if I already had Campbell, MA Bergeron, Ferrence, Robbidas. I would go for the Chara variety and get a Dman with size that could have the possibility of making your team tough to play against.

Also, why is it inevitable to trade small d-men for large ones? Would you trade Brian Rafalski for Alex Henry? You seem to have an obsession with size, but the notion of skill seems to fly right over your head.

w/e. Seriously please stop acting like skill is the end all be all factor. Its not. What use is having the smallest most skilled guys when the other teams wont ever get an interference call on them because all they have to do is blow on them and they will fall over. Last time I checked hockey was a physical sport, and until all body contact is removed from the game having size does matter. Apparently the notion of hockey being a highly physical sport and need for toughness flies right over your head.

You wont ever see the MVP QB from the football league for Midgets be drafted into the NFL no matter how great his arm might be and how much potential he may have because they are smart enough to know that its only a matter of time before he gets absolutely crushed, and most likely on his very 1st play and will never live up to that possible potential.

[ForumGhost]

You're right, what's the point of having skill on your team if you can have size? Tell you what, I'll take St. Louis, Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Parise. You can have Godard, Artyukhin, Orr and Commodore. Since me team is small and soft in the corners, yours should beat mine easily, right?

Aboot Rafalski, yes I would pass on him if I already had Campbell, MA Bergeron, Ferrence, Robbidas. I would go for the Chara variety and get a Dman with size that could have the possibility of making your team tough to play against.

Whoa whoa, hold on a sec. All of those d-men you have listed are small, so inevitably wouldn't you have to trade them for guys with size?

Whats the point when its inevidable that you need to trade a small dmen for a large one? Why not just draft the large dman you need?

Well according to this post you made earlier, you wouldn't even have these guys drafted and if you did, it's inevitable you would have to trade them for bigger guys.

You wont ever see the MVP QB from the football league for Midgets be drafted into the NFL no matter how great his arm might be and how much potential he may have because they are smart enough to know that its only a matter of time before he gets absolutely crushed, and most likely on his very 1st play and will never live up to that possible potential.

This is relevant to nothing.

Edited May 9, 2009 by ForumGhost

[Fanpuck33]

You're right, what's the point of having skill on your team if you can have size? Tell you what, I'll take St. Louis, Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Parise. You can have Godard, Artyukhin, Orr and Commodore. Since me team is small and soft in the corners, yours should beat mine easily, right?

Come on, you're gonna list Commodore with those bums?

[Sir_Boagalott]

You're right, what's the point of having skill on your team if you can have size? Tell you what, I'll take St. Louis, Zetterberg, Datsyuk and Parise. You can have Godard, Artyukhin, Orr and Commodore. Since me team is small and soft in the corners, yours should beat mine easily, right?

You truely are clueless. I never said or implied drafting nothing but a team of Andre the Giants because they are the biggest guys and are sure to win lots of Cups. Give me a break. Read my posts, think and then use some common sense.

When you have a team of small fast skilled guys at some point you need to compliment them with large players.

Look at other Cup winning teams and figure it out.

Gretz won lots of Cup, but who was there to compliment his skills every time? Messier He's so small eh, clearly no need for big guys.

Marty St Louis is small, fast, highly skilled. When TB won though was it St Loius who carried the team? No, it was Vinny He's so small too.

Who the Habs large player that complements and sticks up for the small highly skilled Habs players? MIA

Beleive me the Habs have enough under 6' 200 lbs Euro style players. What the Habs desperately need is some large North American players with size and toughness to compliment the smaller more skilled guys.

Oh but the Wings did it. BS. The Wings didnt win the Cup by simply collecting a bunch of Euro players, everybody suggesting so please stop being daft. The Wings managed to be the 1st team to win without the majority of the team being Canadian because they have the creme de la creme of Euro players. Huge freakin difference. The Habs may have close to the same number of Euros the Wings have, so what? The difference most members here seem to fail to understand is that the Wings have the best Euros from the top Euro hockey countries that all generally win medals every tourney. No other team has assembled such a talented pool of Euros and its not likely to happen again for a long time so stop suggesting amassing large quantities of Euros as the new recipe for winning.