Permanent Rumour Thread

[Dalhabs]

Caufields contract makes him almost untouchable. Signed longterm to a very nice amount

[TurdBurglar]

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

 

[tomh009]

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.)

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

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. 

 

 

[hab29RETIRED]

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!

 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

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. 

[hab29RETIRED]

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.

[Commandant]

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.

 

 

[Peter Puck]

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.

 

 

[GHT120]

Had to share this purely for the amusement factor ... ClickBait30 citing Norman Flynn claiming that the Montreal Canadiens were willing to trade their 5th overall pick for Anaheim Ducks superstar Mason McTavish ... LOL ... I bet they would be ... 3rd overall in 2021 ... 21-yrs-old ... 2 full seasons pro ... 25g/82gm pace last season ... don't see Anaheim considering this unless they are "in love" with one of the young defencemen (although they have depth in their prospect pool) and they manage to snag Demidov at #3.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

On 4/25/2024 at 5:50 PM, Peter Puck said:

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.

 

 

 

I heard it from a lifelong friend of Timmins that Timmins was in disbelief that CC was available at #15. So no risk there - he was the BPA, in the Habs’ judgement.

 

Mailloux was also BPA by some distance, since his value had been deflated due to issues not related to his on-ice work. I don’t think MB, as old-school a dinosaur as any brontosaurus, had much idea of the sh*storm that pick would generate. He probably thought other GMs would be mad at him but probably did not anticipate that it would become a #MeToo-style media scandal and PR nightmare for the organization.

[Peter Puck]

I do believe that Caufield was the player they wanted.  That does not mean it was a no risk pick.  KK was also the player they wanted.  Many times the player they wanted fails to develop.  

 

 Sure they were happy to pick Cole, but like any player it was a risk.  Now it has paid off, there is no need to trade him away to bet on another prospect.  Continually upping your bet will lead to a bust in the end.

[hab29RETIRED]

4 hours ago, Peter Puck said:

I do believe that Caufield was the player they wanted.  That does not mean it was a no risk pick.  KK was also the player they wanted.  Many times the player they wanted fails to develop.  

 

 Sure they were happy to pick Cole, but like any player it was a risk.  Now it has paid off, there is no need to trade him away to bet on another prospect.  Continually upping your bet will lead to a bust in the end.

There is a difference between taking a risk on a player at 16 and 3. If you are picking at 3, you need to get the pick right.

[Commandant]

52 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

There is a difference between taking a risk on a player at 16 and 3. If you are picking at 3, you need to get the pick right.

 

Depends on the draft.  Kk was the wrong pick cause after him we have Hughes, Tkachuk, Dobson, Boucher, etc.

 

Galchenyuk... you only have Rielly who is any good.  The draft kinda sucked.

[hab29RETIRED]

2 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

Depends on the draft.  Kk was the wrong pick cause after him we have Hughes, Tkachuk, Dobson, Boucher, etc.

 

Galchenyuk... you only have Rielly who is any good.  The draft kinda sucked.

I have no issue with that Galchenyuk pick. I do have issue with him being rushed in during the lockout year given how much time he missed due to injuries in junior. It’s too bad Forsberg is gone as considered a top 5 pick at the beginning of that year fell back so far during that year, as I think he’s probably the best player from that draft.

 

but the KK pick was a pick by need. I wanted Tkachuk, a d if not him, Hughes. Eithernof those two guys had much higher floors and ceilings than KK. Even after they messed up the pick, they compounded their mistake by rushing him. It was also stupid to bring in a 17 year old to fill a hole that MB couldn’t address in his first 5 years on the job. 

[DON]

What painful pieces would it cost the Habs to get Necas, given would be multiple teams bidding it seems.

 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

No question about it. If we want to make a trade to acquire an impact FW, it's gonna hurt. 

[hab29RETIRED]

4 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

No question about it. If we want to make a trade to acquire an impact FW, it's gonna hurt. 

The question is have is what is going to cost less - and be easier to obtain:

1) A young 23-25 year old impact forward

2) another top ten pick in this years draft

 

if another top twelve pick costs less, I think I'd rather go that route. If we luck and have  Demidov

fall to us, and get another forward like Iginla, Helenius, Lindstrom, Eiserman, 

Catton, Sennecke, or Connelly,

or even 2 of the the other seven forwards, would we be better off in the long run?
 

I think 2025-26 is the year when our young D should be ready to take the next step, and when we can realistically look to be a playoff team.

If all works out development wise,

2026-27, is when I think we can look to be a solid contender.

From that timeline perspective, I think next year is when we should be looking to either trade for another impact forward in the same 23-25 age range, or sign a UFA next summer. That way those players would be being paid for when we actually have a realistic window to win. It would also allow us evaluate if Dach truly is a legit 1A centre (which I believe he is), AND stay healthy. With A healthy Dach, that would give a 2nd line of Newhook-Dach-Roy, which should be a solid scoring line. I may be higher on Roy than others, but if he isn't ready, we could see if another young player can fill that need. Next year maybe we can limit ourselves to making a move like trying to resign Lias Anderssom and give him a legit look at the NHL level.

 

 

 

[dlbalr]

14 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Next year maybe we can limit ourselves to making a move like trying to resign Lias Andersson and give him a legit look at the NHL level.

 

It looks like he's on the verge of leaving the organization - sounds like he's heading overseas, likely Switzerland.  If it's finalized in the next few weeks, Montreal could still tender a QO to hold his rights a little longer.  The fact he wasn't brought up even once tells me management wasn't all that impressed with him this season although he did play well in Laval.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

26 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

The question is have is what is going to cost less - and be easier to obtain:

1) A young 23-25 year old impact forward

2) another top ten pick in this years draft

 

if another top twelve pick costs less, I think I'd rather go that route. If we luck and have  Demidov

fall to us, and get another forward like Iginla, Helenius, Lindstrom, Eiserman, 

Catton, Sennecke, or Connelly,

or even 2 of the the other seven forwards, would we be better off in the long run?
 

I think 2025-26 is the year when our young D should be ready to take the next step, and when we can realistically look to be a playoff team.

If all works out development wise,

2026-27, is when I think we can look to be a solid contender.

From that timeline perspective, I think next year is when we should be looking to either trade for another impact forward in the same 23-25 age range, or sign a UFA next summer. That way those players would be being paid for when we actually have a realistic window to win. It would also allow us evaluate if Dach truly is a legit 1A centre (which I believe he is), AND stay healthy. With A healthy Dach, that would give a 2nd line of Newhook-Dach-Roy, which should be a solid scoring line. I may be higher on Roy than others, but if he isn't ready, we could see if another young player can fill that need. Next year maybe we can limit ourselves to making a move like trying to resign Lias Anderssom and give him a legit look at the NHL level.

 

 

 

 

I agree with your points. I think getting a guy like Necas will be very expensive as he will have interest from many teams. Getting another top 12 pick won't be cheap either as teams drafting in the top 12 will be very hesitant to trade that pick although I am sure Hughes will try. 

 

I agree with your timelines, not as sold as you are on Roy being a top 6 forward but hope I am wrong. A healthy Dach is certainly a key, please let him have a healthy year next year so we know what we have. 

[tomh009]

2 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

The question is have is what is going to cost less - and be easier to obtain:

1) A young 23-25 year old impact forward

2) another top ten pick in this years draft

A draft pick will be higher risk of being able to translate his game to the NHL. A 23-25yo player has at least some track record so Hughes can better assess what he can do for the Habs.

 

But for impact forwards, there is the question of trading for a high-performing young player (such as Necas) or one that maybe hasn't reached his potential (such as Kakko--or Dach and Newhook). The second option would clearly be less expensive, though that, too, would have some risk.

[hab29RETIRED]

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

A draft pick will be higher risk of being able to translate his game to the NHL. A 23-25yo player has at least some track record so Hughes can better assess what he can do for the Habs.

 

But for impact forwards, there is the question of trading for a high-performing young player (such as Necas) or one that maybe hasn't reached his potential (such as Kakko--or Dach and Newhook). The second option would clearly be less expensive, though that, too, would have some risk.

I'd rather get a top 12 pick this year than a Newhook type forward, the guys we can get with a pick this year have a higher ceiling. We played it safe last year in a draft that had better forwards than dmen by picking  Reinbacher. If we had taken Leonard last year, we , probably have picked 5 dmen this year that project to be better then Reinbacher. 
 

I think Dach has a very high ceiling - if he can stay healthy. I don't see Newhook having as a high a ceiling. He looks to have a ceiling of a 2nd line 20-25 goal scorer. I'd rather get another pick in the top 12, than trade for an other Nwehook type player. I also don't think we should be giving up the three to four pieces of top prospects and picks it would probably take to land Zegras and Necas - both of whom are far from being guaranteed to be worth the price it will cost to get them. They could easily end up being Drouin type flops that not only we will regret the acquisition cost, but also regret the longer term cap hit.

 

Id be willing to take a flyer on a guy like Laine IF he was traded with $1.5-2m salary retention and was cheap. But I doubt if Columbus is that desperate to make that kind of deal YET.

[TurdBurglar]

11 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

If we had taken Leonard last year, we , probably have picked 5 dmen this year that project to be better then Reinbacher.

 

I think you're undervaluing Reinbacher.  There's a reason he went 5th, and I keep pointing out, there's a reason Nashville was willing to give up Askarov for that pick.  Askarov is one of, if not the best, goalie prospects not in the NHL.  There's also a reason Hughes said no and picked Reinbacher, especially when the goalie pool isn't that promising in Montreal. 

[Commandant]

I don't think its a given that the defencemen available at 5 project as better than Reinbacher.  More offensive, maybe... but in terms of an all around defenceman.... I think the only Levshunov and Silayev would be ahead of Reinbacher and there is a good chance they aren't there at 5.  I'm kinda hoping both of them go, and Demidov falls to us. 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

3 minutes ago, Commandant said:

I don't think its a given that the defencemen available at 5 project as better than Reinbacher.  More offensive, maybe... but in terms of an all around defenceman.... I think the only Levshunov and Silayev would be ahead of Reinbacher and there is a good chance they aren't there at 5.  I'm kinda hoping both of them go, and Demidov falls to us. 

 

I agree, it's pretty much guaranteed San Jose will take Celebrini. We need two of the next three teams (Chicago, Anaheim, Columbus) to take a defensemen.  Hard to say what they will do, I can see Anaheim taking a RD (Levshunov) but Chicago and Columbus could go either way. Teams are very tight lipped about where their priorities are which is totally understandable.