The State of the Habs

[Neech]

The other pick that WILL always haunt is not taking Getzlaf. He was projected to be a top 10 pick. We had the tenth pick and passed. I wanted Geztzlaf and my brother wanted Parise. The habs went if the board and blew it in the best draft in history.

We could have taken any of 10-15 guys still on the board at that point and hit a homerun, instead we selected Andrei 'missing a chromosome' Kostitsyn.

As for CC's point about Price, I agree that it's a leg up we have on teams like Chicago. But teams like Nashville and the Rangers have had top tier goaltending for a while, with not too much to show for it. You need the horses up front to get past a certain hurdle.

Perhaps Chicago, with all its lottery choices, isn't the best parallel for us to be making; maybe St. Louis, with their depth and cohesive team structure, is a better standard to set ourselves to. Sure, we don't have the size, but the crop of players we have on the roster and in our system could form that sort of balanced two-way team. I don't know if we have the coaching to match Hitchcock, however, or if there's even a worthy candidate out there in our little pool.

[JoeLassister]

Agreed we haven't had the 3 or 4 years of having a top 5 pick like the Hawks have.

But why is it the way keep targeting small skilled players for the top 6 if they aren't elite high end players? Why can't we seem to draft skill with SOME size and character? We do a great job of finding skilled smurfs but only drafted 2 players with elite skill and size in the last 10 years (Galchenyuk and maxpac) that are legitimate top 6 forwards and are still with us. Why is that??

Why do we have such a hard time finding skilled, players with size AND character AND help them develop??

I love Gallegher. He is probably among my top 5 favorite habs and someone I'd want going forward as part of our core. But unless we have Gallegahar, Patrick Kane and St. Louis, I don't want 3 guys that small on our top 6, or even top 9. DD and Gionta need to go.

Just want to point out that a good 90% of the posters on this board always claimed that we should pick the BPA instead of team's need.

Seems like the wind is blowing in the other way from what I read these days.

[dlbalr]

But why is it the way keep targeting small skilled players for the top 6 if they aren't elite high end players? Why can't we seem to draft skill with SOME size and character? We do a great job of finding skilled smurfs but only drafted 2 players with elite skill and size in the last 10 years (Galchenyuk and maxpac) that are legitimate top 6 forwards and are still with us. Why is that??

Guys with skill, size, and character aren't in high abundance and have a tendency to go early in the draft, most of the time much earlier than when Montreal picks. For most of the draft, teams are picking guys that fit two of those criteria. This past draft, the Habs went with more of the size/character guys than usual, players like McCarron and Crisp - and to a lesser degree, De la Rose whose overall upside has some question marks - are a sign that they may target size more than usual now.

There's also a guessing game sometimes when it comes to size, not everyone is fully grown at 18. The Habs in the past have selected players that they anticipated may have a growth spurt later on. I think they were hoping for this with Leblanc and they definitely were projecting size-wise on Mark MacMillan. There are some other examples that escape me at the moment but suffice it to say, they haven't guessed right often.

I was reading something the other day that had a breakdown of the Habs' selections in the first two rounds over the last decade. Among first round picks, no player was under 6'0; for second round picks, the smallest was 5'11. They're not necessarily targeting 'true shrimps' in the early rounds but are picking them in the later ones when their skill set is too good to pass up at that juncture (see Locke, Gallagher, Reway, etc). It just so happens that a higher percentage of those types are playing well enough to get an NHL look or are prominent players at the AHL level.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

You never know how picking Getzlaf or Carter would turn out. Maybe Carter would have been packaged with Price to get Lecavalier when Gainey wanted him. Then that happens, and there's no need for the Gainey rebuild and we still have McDonagh, Higgins, Halak and Koivu with cap space and no Gionta or Cammalleri. It could have been a completely different team and the 2003 pick might not still be here. Few players are with the same franchise after 10 years.

[brobin]

Perhaps a better model is the Bruins. They rebuilt themselves without a string of low picks.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

Perhaps a better model is the Bruins. They rebuilt themselves without a string of low picks.

...which is a bit of a deceptive statement.

Since 2003, Boston has had a few top 10 picks in Phil Kessel, Zach Hamill, Tyler Seguin and Dougie Hamilton. They can thank Toronto for the last two but why did they get those picks? They traded their fifth overall pick for them. Where Boston gets high marks is in their second round selections of Patrice Bergeron, David Krejci and Milan Lucic.

The best model is to stop trying to replicate the models of past teams and forge your own model that lesser organizations will want to model themselves after. Instead of being the team chasing teams to model themselves after.

[BlueKross]

Guys with skill, size, and character aren't in high abundance and have a tendency to go early in the draft, most of the time much earlier than when Montreal picks. For most of the draft, teams are picking guys that fit two of those criteria. This past draft, the Habs went with more of the size/character guys than usual, players like McCarron and Crisp - and to a lesser degree, De la Rose whose overall upside has some question marks - are a sign that they may target size more than usual now.

There's also a guessing game sometimes when it comes to size, not everyone is fully grown at 18. The Habs in the past have selected players that they anticipated may have a growth spurt later on. I think they were hoping for this with Leblanc and they definitely were projecting size-wise on Mark MacMillan. There are some other examples that escape me at the moment but suffice it to say, they haven't guessed right often.

I was reading something the other day that had a breakdown of the Habs' selections in the first two rounds over the last decade. Among first round picks, no player was under 6'0; for second round picks, the smallest was 5'11. They're not necessarily targeting 'true shrimps' in the early rounds but are picking them in the later ones when their skill set is too good to pass up at that juncture (see Locke, Gallagher, Reway, etc). It just so happens that a higher percentage of those types are playing well enough to get an NHL look or are prominent players at the AHL level.

I agree. Although the Canadiens were not huge at the time the smurfiness perception got a big boast when Gainey brought in Cammy, Gionta and Gomez as top line guys and as well signed them long term. I also believe that St. Louis success in Tampa timed up with the calling of the clutching ang grabbing give rise to the perception that you could run any number of small guys out there.

[JCPetit]

Interesting article by EOTP. Besides the stats argument, a few points stand out and raise questions.

First of all, did Bergevin improve the team in the summer time?

The answer to me is no. He signed Parros, Murray, Drewesky, Brière and Bouillon. The best guy in the lot is Bouillon, who is so old that he needs rest every now and then and can't help the team all the time. What about Brière? Well, he is an atrocity, a liability, not an asset. Tough situation to handle for Therrien game after game.

Second question? It's the first time I hear about a new system. Forgive me but I did not notice anything. I see that our players struggle. They don't shoot often, they lose their battles on the boards, they don't make accurate passes (very low percentage, I am sure), they clear the zone using the board way too often (à la Gorges)... Is it just our guys who play badly, a lack of talent, the old system that does not work anymore or a new one not applied properly?

I don't know. Help me guys, I don't see what the new system has to do with the way we have played lately. IMO our biggest problem is the lack of talent and size. In other words, too many small players, not enough good players.

The defense corp, particularly, needs some fresh legs. We can't dress guys like Murray, Bouillon, Gorges and Emelin (the way he has been playing this season) and hope to win regularly. I understand that they need some help by the forwards, but they are simply too slow to take a good decision under pressure. They are unable to move the puck fast and make a good pass on a constant basis.

To return Emelin to the left side is a good decision, but has been too slow in coming. Playing him with Diaz should help. Diaz lacks physicality, but he can move the puck. Gorges is at his place on the third pair, but why play him on the left side and the rookie, Beaulieu, on the right side? Doesn't seem fair to me, and in the mean time tells me a lot about Gorges' limitations...

Talking about the forwards, we have a consensus about Bourque. Apply pressure or get him out. I think that Leblanc is a good idea. Again, it's about time, but he is no Crosby and we need some spark. Who will provide it? I can't answer that. I don't see who else could be recalled, and nobody on the team looks like the sleeper who is about to raise to the occasion.

Centre is probably our weakest position when you think about it. I like Desharnais as a person, but having him on the first line is a problem. The best teams have guys like Crosby, Toews, Datsyuk, Getzlaf, Sedin, Bakes, Thornton... Desharnais can't be compared to them. Plekanec neither, although he sure has his utility. But he is not the playmaker we need. Eller? No, I like him a lot, but not sure he has that kind of potential. Galchenyuk? Yes. Management has been nursing him for too long. If we want him to develop as a centreman, let's start as soon as he comes back from injury.

I hope I am not too pessimistic, but I believe that the team is far from being in the top-tier, as far as potential goes. We still need rebuilding. We have some young stars, but they need help. Let's hope that they will get it before they get too old...

[DON]

Perhaps a better model is the Bruins. They rebuilt themselves without a string of low picks.

They only sucked (out of playoffs or 1st round losers) from 1993-2008, so were a bit overdue to actually be a good team.

But have made smart trades with their favourite friend, the Leafs and were able to sign Chara in bit of a mistake by Ottawa. So kudos to their GM.

[brobin]

Even the Seguin trade looks brilliant when compared to our Riberio trade. At least they got something back when they decided Seguin was a personality / professionalism issue for them. We got a one legged, soon to retire defensive liability. Those type of mistakes really hurt over time.

I am still waiting for a era defining move by Bergevin. I great trade. A great FA acquisition. An incredible steal at the draft. Something.

To date, he has avoided massive mistakes ( he did make small ones) and made some stabilizing moves, but that won't be enough to move him from decent to great GM.

[comfortfablyHABS]

Even the Seguin trade looks brilliant when compared to our Riberio trade. At least they got something back when they decided Seguin was a personality / professionalism issue for them. We got a one legged, soon to retire defensive liability. Those type of mistakes really hurt over time.

I am still waiting for a era defining move by Bergevin. I great trade. A great FA acquisition. An incredible steal at the draft. Something.

To date, he has avoided massive mistakes ( he did make small ones) and made some stabilizing moves, but that won't be enough to move him from decent to great GM.

You absolutely right about Bergevin. He's playing safe as of now. But being safe won't get you too far. There is something though, if he is a GM that likes to build a contender through drafting, we'll have to sit and wait for a while to rate him as a great GM or an average one.

[JCPetit]

Even the Seguin trade looks brilliant when compared to our Riberio trade. At least they got something back when they decided Seguin was a personality / professionalism issue for them. We got a one legged, soon to retire defensive liability. Those type of mistakes really hurt over time.

I am still waiting for a era defining move by Bergevin. I great trade. A great FA acquisition. An incredible steal at the draft. Something.

To date, he has avoided massive mistakes ( he did make small ones) and made some stabilizing moves, but that won't be enough to move him from decent to great GM.

Trading Ribeiro for Ninima was certainly a big mistake, but moving Seguin was certainly not brilliant, even if you compare with the Ribeiro trade. Seguin has the potential to become a much better all-around player than Ribeiro ever was or will be.

[JCPetit]

You absolutely right about Bergevin. He's playing safe as of now. But being safe won't get you too far. There is something though, if he is a GM that likes to build a contender through drafting, we'll have to sit and wait for a while to rate him as a great GM or an average one.

Bergevin is probably going to build through drafting, like you say. And, yes, it implies that we will have «to sit and wait for a while» -- not only to rate him, but to see a very good team in Montreal.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

You absolutely right about Bergevin. He's playing safe as of now. But being safe won't get you too far. There is something though, if he is a GM that likes to build a contender through drafting, we'll have to sit and wait for a while to rate him as a great GM or an average one.

The Habs have had serious issues with trades for like 30 years. Let's look at the players Pittsburgh got through trades versus the Habs.

Pitt:

Kunitz

Neal

Niskanen

Sutter

Adams

MTL:

Eller

Pacioretty

Bourque

Gorges

Parros

Drewiske (I guess)

One big difference, besides goals/assists/points, is that Eller, Pacioretty and Gorges were all prospects/picks, where all five players from Pittsburgh were roster players. Not to mention the unmitigated disasters that are Rene Bourque and George Parros. Being on the right side of trades is a major component to building a contender. Pittsburgh is always stated as being "built through the draft" when they get 70-80 goals out of Kunitz and Neal, and Brandon Sutter is a key component as well.

[hab29RETIRED]

The Habs have had serious issues with trades for like 30 years. Let's look at the players Pittsburgh got through trades versus the Habs.

Pitt:

Kunitz

Neal

Niskanen

Sutter

Adams

MTL:

Eller

Pacioretty

Bourque

Gorges

Parros

Drewiske (I guess)

One big difference, besides goals/assists/points, is that Eller, Pacioretty and Gorges were all prospects/picks, where all five players from Pittsburgh were roster players. Not to mention the unmitigated disasters that are Rene Bourque and George Parros. Being on the right side of trades is a major component to building a contender. Pittsburgh is always stated as being "built through the draft" when they get 70-80 goals out of Kunitz and Neal, and Brandon Sutter is a key component as well.

I wouldn't include MaxPac, because he was picked from an acquired draft pick that we actually hit a home run on. If you are going to include him, you need to include a LOT more players for the penguins as well.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

I wouldn't include MaxPac, because he was picked from an acquired draft pick that we actually hit a home run on. If you are going to include him, you need to include a LOT more players for the penguins as well.

It gets depressing. If you back to Mark Hunter, we've gotten our pockets picked on 9/10 trades we've made.

Even when we win trade, like the Ryder trade, we go out an sign a serious loser like Briere.

[hab29RETIRED]

The only clear wins I can name off hand were the trades to get damphousse, Kovolev and gorges+draft pick (which I believe turned out to be maxpac).

The trade of Rivet to me is why I think we should move Gorges, as I believe Gorges is headed for the same rapid decline.

I don't really consider Ryder to be a clear win. If we still had Cole, we probably wouldn't have Briere and I'll take Cole over Briere in a heartbeat.

It gets depressing. If you back to Mark Hunter, we've gotten our pockets picked on 9/10 trades we've made.

Even when we win trade, like the Ryder trade, we go out an sign a serious loser like Briere.

[JCPetit]

The only clear wins I can name off hand were the trades to get damphousse, Kovolev and gorges+draft pick (which I believe turned out to be maxpac).

The trade of Rivet to me is why I think we should move Gorges, as I believe Gorges is headed for the same rapid decline.

I don't really consider Ryder to be a clear win. If we still had Cole, we probably wouldn't have Briere and I'll take Cole over Briere in a heartbeat.

I agree with you. Gorges has to go.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

The only clear wins I can name off hand were the trades to get damphousse, Kovolev and gorges+draft pick (which I believe turned out to be maxpac).

If we're not counting when we got draft picks and drafted good players for them, since 85 you have Russ Courtnall for John Kordic, Muller/Schneider for Turgeon/Malakov, JJ Daigneault for Scott Sandelin, Malakhov for Souray/2nd, Bonk/Huet for Garon andBournival for O'Byrne.

Should definitely be more, and the returns for guys like Claude Lemieux, Guy Carbonneau, Pierre Turgeon and Mike Ribeiro were pathetic.