Dalhabs Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 Caufields contract makes him almost untouchable. Signed longterm to a very nice amount Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdBurglar Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 14 minutes ago, tomh009 said: 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. Thanks for bringing this up. It prompted me to look into it. While it's hard to find a lot of studies that actually did the math, and nearly 100% of top-5 picks played 100+ games, then dramatically drops off after that. Two different studies (from 1988-1997 and another from 2000-2009) Both had 100% of top 5 picks playing 100+ game. Hence why I said nearly 100%, as I haven't found any study doing something like the last 40 years combined. So both picks 3 and 5 should theoretically both provide long-term NHLers, the quality is the questionable part. https://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf https://dobberprospects.com/2020/05/16/nhl-draft-pick-probabilities/ Also found this that is from 1963-2023, showing the top 5 picks on average play over 600 games per pick position. https://morehockeystats.com/drafts/pickstats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomh009 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 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.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 2 hours ago, Prime Minister Koivu said: I think this trade comes down to what Mailloux turns into. If he becomes a first pairing stud then Habs lose, if he is a bottom pairing guy then Habs win. Presuming the Habs draft two high end forwards at pick 3 and 5. Definitely an interesting proposal There are a lot of unknowns with this trade. How far will Mailloux develop, how much further will Zegras develop, what will the #3 pick turn into? This is also another factor regarding this trade. I think in the back of Hughe's mind there is the thought that Mailloux will have an easier time away from the spotlight of the hockey mad Canadian cities. California would be perfect for that. I just think there is a deal possible between Anaheim and Montreal because there is a fit of complimentary pieces. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 8 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: It's a lot more than Caufield for Zegras. If you break this trade down into 2 components. a) Caulfield for Zegras b) Mailloux and Winnipeg's pick for the #3 pick I think you would do part b) all day long. But you would probably not do part a) Overall I think it's a fair deal. I know everyone on this board would like to give up a couple tugboats for a battleship but that's not how it works. Sure if you know you are actually giving up a tugboat, and are actually getting a battleship. how would have a Martin St Louis for Montreal’s #7 overall pick have worked out at the 2001, before St Louis had his big breakout? Small tugboat St Louis to Montreal, so Tamp could draft the potential battleship Komisarik (or players drafted after him like Rutto, Sjost9rm, Hanif’s, or Hemsky)? I’m sure Tampa’s happy they didn’t trade their tugboat for a potential battleship! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habs Fan in Edmonton Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 4 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said: Sure if you know you are actually giving up a tugboat, and are actually getting a battleship. how would have a Martin St Louis for Montreal’s #7 overall pick have worked out at the 2001, before St Louis had his big breakout? Small tugboat St Louis to Montreal, so Tamp could draft the potential battleship Komisarik (or players drafted after him like Rutto, Sjost9rm, Hanif’s, or Hemsky)? I’m sure Tampa’s happy they didn’t trade their tugboat for a potential battleship! How is the St. Louis trade or all those other names relevant to this? There is always some uncertainty/risk when trading a player who hasn't fully developed yet. There is no reward without some risk. I just think the trade put forth by GHT was the most interesting trade proposal I have seen yet. Most of the ones I have seen usually involve Montreal getting far more than they are giving up. This was a major trade proposal that could actually work for both teams involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hab29RETIRED Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 7 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said: How is the St. Louis trade or all those other names relevant to this? There is always some uncertainty/risk when trading a player who hasn't fully developed yet. There is no reward without some risk. I just think the trade put forth by GHT was the most interesting trade proposal I have seen yet. Most of the ones I have seen usually involve Montreal getting far more than they are giving up. This was a major trade proposal that could actually work for both teams involved. I’m just going by the tugboats for battleship comment. What reason is there to trade Caufield for Zegras, other than size? Only reason Caufield was draft as low as he was his is his size. St. Louis never really got a chance in Calgary because of his size. I’m pretty sure they regretted that when Tampa beat them in the finals! We need to add more scoring. You don’t do that by trading away the guy who will probably be leading your team in goals for the next 5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 Im looking at the trade this way. (And yes i realize its all one trade, but this is just how i evaluate it). 1) 3rd overall for caufield. 2) mailloux and a pick in the 20s for Zegras. Part 1 i absolutely would not do.. give me the guy who has already shown signs of being a stud and is signed long term at fair value. Part 2) i would do but im hesitant as Zegras had an awful season, and there is a real chance hes just a flashy guy who gets 60 points and cant play without the puck. Id do but its not a slam dunk. I consider this somewher in between what we gave up to get dach and newhook. I think dach is much better than zegras. Zegras is better than Newhook but its not that big when you consider 2 way play. To me the loss in part 1 is bigger than the gain in part 2. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Puck Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 For me we took pretty big risks choosing Caufield and Mailloux. Both risks look to have paid off. I think its a mistake to take those wins and exchange them for another risk (picking 3rd). Of course the third pick overall is a safer risk but its still a risk. When we pick Demidov and he turns out, will we be trading him and Newhook for the 2026 second overall? Take the win or eventually we end up holding a bust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.