Jump to content

May 5, Canadiens @ Senators, 7PM EST


 Share

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Assuming no substantial leap in his performance is in the cards, then either the Habs blew the pick, or they mishandled his development by bringing him up to soon. Neither is a good look.

 

We did both.  I still believe KK can be a very good player - maybe a 20-25 goal Phil Danault - but not an elite talent that you target at #3.  He'll still need to make a major leap or two to get to that potential, and there are several if not many players from that draft class who both have a higher floor and ceiling. We made a bad selection worse by bringing him over at least two years too early, and not giving him time to physically and professionally mature in the ways you outlined.  It seems obvious that Bergevin made up his mind to draft for positional need instead of BPA, and subsequently sacrificed KK's proper development for the media narrative.

 

 

  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we assume that playing in Finland is better for development than playing 15 minutes a game against better competition in the NHL?  I don't see the evidence that supports that he would be better today if he had stayed in Finland for 2 years (or 1 year in Finland and 1 in the AHL, or even 2 in the AHL). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KK is miles ahead in his defensive game than other young peers. He thinks the game D first where Caufield thinks the game scoring first. 
 

I called KK a Danault clone and I think that is what he will turn into. 
 

It’s always possible that he finds his offensive game and transforms his style but I’m not betting on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Why do we assume that playing in Finland is better for development than playing 15 minutes a game against better competition in the NHL?  I don't see the evidence that supports that he would be better today if he had stayed in Finland for 2 years (or 1 year in Finland and 1 in the AHL, or even 2 in the AHL). 

 

I think it is safe to assume that he knows everything and is always right. Just look at the post history, it'll let you know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

Why do we assume that playing in Finland is better for development than playing 15 minutes a game against better competition in the NHL?  I don't see the evidence that supports that he would be better today if he had stayed in Finland for 2 years (or 1 year in Finland and 1 in the AHL, or even 2 in the AHL). 

 

Well years ago the IIHF did put out an article that proved that Euros were better off staying in Europe vs coming over to North America.  However, that article wasn't saying for 1-2 years, but 4+.  ex:  Emelin, Romanov.   Plus there are a ton of other Euros that were developed slowly in their home countries.  i.e. the majority of elite Euro players all stayed home and developed into those players vs them developing in AHL/NHL.

 

This article is from 2006 and I believe that there is even a newer study that essentially says the same but about playing Junior in North America:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/study-critical-of-nhl-drafting-europeans/article970492/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

Well years ago the IIHF did put out an article that proved that Euros were better off staying in Europe vs coming over to North America.  However, that article wasn't saying for 1-2 years, but 4+.  ex:  Emelin, Romanov.   Plus there are a ton of other Euros that were developed slowly in their home countries.  i.e. the majority of elite Euro players all stayed home and developed into those players vs them developing in AHL/NHL.

 

This article is from 2006 and I believe that there is even a newer study that essentially says the same but about playing Junior in North America:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/study-critical-of-nhl-drafting-europeans/article970492/

I think Pettersson probably benefited from an extra year in Sweden.

frankly. I’d like to see the draft age increased in general. There are very few 18, or even 19 year olds that can be impact players at those ages and I think an extra year or two would help teams assess players better as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

Well years ago the IIHF did put out an article that proved that Euros were better off staying in Europe vs coming over to North America.  However, that article wasn't saying for 1-2 years, but 4+.  ex:  Emelin, Romanov.   Plus there are a ton of other Euros that were developed slowly in their home countries.  i.e. the majority of elite Euro players all stayed home and developed into those players vs them developing in AHL/NHL.

 

This article is from 2006 and I believe that there is even a newer study that essentially says the same but about playing Junior in North America:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/study-critical-of-nhl-drafting-europeans/article970492/

 

Romanov was only 2 seasons post draft.

 

That said.  What is true of many players doesnt mean its true of every player.  Each individual is different and development is thus different 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

Well years ago the IIHF did put out an article that proved that Euros were better off staying in Europe vs coming over to North America.  However, that article wasn't saying for 1-2 years, but 4+.  ex:  Emelin, Romanov.   Plus there are a ton of other Euros that were developed slowly in their home countries.  i.e. the majority of elite Euro players all stayed home and developed into those players vs them developing in AHL/NHL.

 

This article is from 2006 and I believe that there is even a newer study that essentially says the same but about playing Junior in North America:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/study-critical-of-nhl-drafting-europeans/article970492/

 

To be fair, the first I in IIHF stands for International.  They represent countries whose federations would like to see their players stay home.  Of course they're going to promote players staying in their native country for extended periods of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I think Pettersson probably benefited from an extra year in Sweden.

frankly. I’d like to see the draft age increased in general. There are very few 18, or even 19 year olds that can be impact players at those ages and I think an extra year or two would help teams assess players better as well.

 

Probably a good idea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except

 

1) you have a very shitty draft year in the transition.

 

2) if im the top 18 year old in the world i sue the NHL for anti-trust and preventing me from working and making millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Except

 

1) you have a very shitty draft year in the transition.

 

2) if im the top 18 year old in the world i sue the NHL for anti-trust and preventing me from working and making millions.

The CHL has exceptional status for the Tavares type players. Why can’t the NHL do something similar. It’s one thing for generational talents like McDavid, Matthews, Crosby, Ovechkin type of prospects to be allowed to be drafted earlier, and another for the run of the mill high potential  Galchenyuk, Hanafin, KK, and if even say both of the Hughes brothers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

The CHL has exceptional status for the Tavares type players. Why can’t the NHL do something similar. It’s one thing for generational talents like McDavid, Matthews, Crosby, Ovechkin type of prospects to be allowed to be drafted earlier, and another for the run of the mill high potential  Galchenyuk, Hanafin, KK, and if even say both of the Hughes brothers.

Perhaps ... but, an exception rule in the NHL could/would be challenged every time exceptional status is denied because it denies employment to the player turned down ... playing in the CHL has no real immediate benefits, so not the same basis for a challenge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Perhaps ... but, an exception rule in the NHL could/would be challenged every time exceptional status is denied because it denies employment to the player turned down ... playing in the CHL has no real immediate benefits, so not the same basis for a challenge

 

Exactly


Plus you would have bias in that people will say that if a big market team has the first overall pick the NHL will give exceptional status but if the team that drafts first overall is a small market they won't.  Ie using this to control where top players go.  You don't want a lot of subjective rules here cause it invites that type of possible corruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Commandant said:

... Plus you would have bias in that people will say that if a big market team has the first overall pick the NHL will give exceptional status but if the team that drafts first overall is a small market they won't ...

I'm OK with that if it benefits the habs (LOL)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Commandant said:

Except

 

1) you have a very shitty draft year in the transition.

 

2) if im the top 18 year old in the world i sue the NHL for anti-trust and preventing me from working and making millions.

 

The NBA moved back the draft age successfully a decade or so ago (the one and done rule).  I'm sure they have some sort of antitrust exemption as well.  From a legal standpoint, are there any differences between the two situations?  I have the same second thought as you when I'm asked about it but I keep coming back to the fact that the NBA was able to do it when their rookie-scale deals are a lot richer than NHL entry-level contracts.  If they can do it without legal challenges, why can't the NHL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dlbalr said:

The NBA moved back the draft age successfully a decade or so ago (the one and done rule).  I'm sure they have some sort of antitrust exemption as well.  From a legal standpoint, are there any differences between the two situations?  I have the same second thought as you when I'm asked about it but I keep coming back to the fact that the NBA was able to do it when their rookie-scale deals are a lot richer than NHL entry-level contracts.  If they can do it without legal challenges, why can't the NHL?

A little more research shows sports and anti-trust have am interesting history in the courts ... other than the specific anti-trust exemption for MLB, and the general jurisprudence exemption for sports leagues to operate collectively and restrict entry, it seems that potentially litigious issues such as "one and done" have been allowed because they are collectively bargained ... I suspect they may not have been challenged because a draft-ineligible player would have to risk several years of a possible career in court before their case was finally resolved ... the situation may be further complicated by the NHL's duality of operating in Canada and the US, under two separate sets of laws, with the majority of teams being situated in one and the preponderance of players coming from the other.

 

Ultimately, the question would seem to be how much would the NHL be willing to give up to players in a CBA to get them to agree to an increase in draft age ... I would assume the NHLPA focus would be on an increase in their share of revenues and/or a serious decrease in escrow, both of which have long-term, financial impacts on NHL owners .

 

On one hand the NHLPA membership have seem to have no reason to oppose a change as it won't impact the members voting (except perhaps some with family members on the NHL track ... on the other hand there is no reason to agree unless the NHL makes its worth their while.

 

With the CBA running through 2025-26, and the need to defer any change in a new CBA long enough to not impact picks (or at least the vast majority) already dealt, it would likely be at least a couple of years b Eton any extension being agreed to before a draft age chnage could take effect.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GHT120 said:

A little more research shows sports and anti-trust have am interesting history in the courts ... other than the specific anti-trust exemption for MLB, and the general jurisprudence exemption for sports leagues to operate collectively and restrict entry, it seems that potentially litigious issues such as "one and done" have been allowed because they are collectively bargained ... I suspect they may not have been challenged because a draft-ineligible player would have to risk several years of a possible career in court before their case was finally resolved ... the situation may be further complicated by the NHL's duality of operating in Canada and the US, under two separate sets of laws, with the majority of teams being situated in one and the preponderance of players coming from the other.

 

Ultimately, the question would seem to be how much would the NHL be willing to give up to players in a CBA to get them to agree to an increase in draft age ... I would assume the NHLPA focus would be on an increase in their share of revenues and/or a serious decrease in escrow, both of which have long-term, financial impacts on NHL owners .

 

On one hand the NHLPA membership have seem to have no reason to oppose a change as it won't impact the members voting (except perhaps some with family members on the NHL track ... on the other hand there is no reason to agree unless the NHL makes its worth their while.

 

With the CBA running through 2025-26, and the need to defer any change in a new CBA long enough to not impact picks (or at least the vast majority) already dealt, it would likely be at least a couple of years b Eton any extension being agreed to before a draft age chnage could take effect.

I think if they changed the draft age, but kept the early free agency at 25 (only have to play minimum of 5 years) NHLPA would probably go along with it, since it’s not impacting current members and does not impact the age at which a player can become a UFA. Not sure if NHL would agree to hat though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I think if they changed the draft age, but kept the early free agency at 25 (only have to play minimum of 5 years) NHLPA would probably go along with it, since it’s not impacting current members and does not impact the age at which a player can become a UFA. Not sure if NHL would agree to hat though.

 

I can't see teams willingly agreeing to even less control on players than they already have now.  Losing a year of team control and shaving time off early UFA eligibility to raise the draft age by a year wouldn't be a wise move on their part.  The NHLPA would absolutely do that but not the owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

I can't see teams willingly agreeing to even less control on players than they already have now.  Losing a year of team control and shaving time off early UFA eligibility to raise the draft age by a year wouldn't be a wise move on their part.  The NHLPA would absolutely do that but not the owners.

It’s a trade off. More time to better evaluate your picks and reduce the number of misses, or keeping them longer. If you look at a guy like KK, came in the league at 18, will be a UFA in 7 years. Have we really benefited from the first three years of control?  On the flip side Marner, Matthews, Draisaitl, McDavid, Crosby and Ovechkin all signed big deals on their second contracts, and teams didn’t exercise their ability to limit their earning.

 

I get wanting to control a player better, but I’d rather make better picks and still retain control over the more productive years that they currently control.  Maybe you have a co promise, increase draft age by two years and reduce free agency by one year.  Right now I think it’s just too much of a crapshoot fir most teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...