Jump to content

What needs to change our development of players or our scouting of players especially 1st round picks??


Habsfan89
 Share

Recommended Posts

So under Bergevin our development of players especially 1st round picks has been really bad. We currently have only 2 1st round picks playing on the team in caufield and Romanov. 

 

(3rd  overall)Galchenyuk was traded 

(3rd overall) Kotkaniemi was let to walk

(9th overall)Sergachev was traded

(25th  overall)Poehling book is still open on him

(25th overall)McCarron bust

(26th)Scherbak bust

(26th  overall) Juulsen bust 

(16th overall  )Guhle looks good 

(31st overall)Mailloux mistake pick

 

So I added the spots were we picked

 

McCarron draft year Theodore was picked after 

 

Galchenyuk draft year most noticeable was

Rielly

 

Kotkaniemi draft year most noticeable tkachuk and Hughes 

 

Scherbak draft no one that noticeable  but if we traded up one spot we could of drafted Pastrnak 

 

Sergachev was a good pick

 

Juulsen draft year we could of pick Beauvillier 

 

Poehling I think was a good pick at 25

 

Guhle was a good pick

 

Hope that's a better break down then earlier 

 

Galchenyuk and Kotkaniemi should of both started in the AHL not on the big club right away. 

 

We done really bad on development of these players with the exception of Poehling and Guhle hopefully. What needs to change? Is it development or scouting? 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view, trading a drafted player is no bad thing, as long as it's a good trade (Galchenyuk trade was, Sergachev not, Kotkaniemi maybe or maybe not), it doesn't make our drafting or development inherently any better or worse.

 

You should include draft positions, too, as a #3 pick is a whole lot different than a #30.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No question their drafting in the 1st round has been sub par.  agree with above comment that where in the first round makes a big difference as with a late 1st round pick sometimes you have to swing for the fences.

 

Also Romanov was a 2nd round pick, too early to say on Mailloux, Galchenyuk turned into Josh Anderson which is not bad, bad luck with Juulsen as freak injuries really derailed his development. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced our first round drafting/development has been subpar. 

 

  It's easy to point to players we took who haven't performed well and to players who came after who have.  But is there evidence we are worse than average?  Everyone here seems to think so and maybe we are.  But I would like to see some analysis comparing the Habs to other teams before I accept this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Habsfan89 said:

Scherbak draft no one that noticeable  but if we traded up one spot we could of drafted Pastrnak

 

That's one of those things that is much easier said than done.  The supposed willingness for teams to trade down is way overblown; most teams don't like to do it now.  That's why the number of those types of trades has dropped sharply.  It's hard to be critical for teams who seemingly could have moved up - odds being odds, they tried and couldn't find someone willing to trade down.  I remember someone from the Kings two or three years ago saying they tried to move from the early second to late in the first and were told firm no's before they could even make an offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Habsfan89 said:

(3rd  overall) Galchenyuk -- 583 games, 333 points: a solid pick (even if he has gone downhill recently)

(3rd overall) Kotkaniemi -- 171 games, 62 points: looks like a good if not great pick but still TBD

(9th overall) Sergachev -- 284 games, 136 points: an excellent pick at 9th overall

(16th overall) Guhle -- looks very promising

(25th  overall) Poehling -- looks like a solid NHLer, mid-6 potential

(25th overall) McCarron -- late-round high-risk pick, and, yes, a bust

(26th overall) Scherbak -- a worse bust than McCarron

(26th  overall) Juulsen -- a solid pick derailed by injuries (that could not be anticipated)

(31st overall) Mailloux -- can't tell what's going to happen with this one yet

 

That's two clear busts late in the first (and possibly Mailloux but who knows). The three early picks are solid, even if they all got traded. So, in rough terms:

  • Three solid early picks (all traded)
  • One solid late pick (Juulsen)
  • Two or three bust late picks
  • Two promising mid/late picks (Guhle, Poehling)

Not atrocious, I think.

 

Young player development, though, could certainly be improved, whether for players we drafted or ones we gained in a trade (Kotkaniemi, Galchenyuk, Drouin, Suzuki etc). I don't think the answer is as simple as "keep them in the AHL" but I don't have the expertise to propose a strategy that definitely would work well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i originally only posted our 1st round picks. But then tomh said I should put the number were we picked them. I knew if I did that people would say  picking low is always hit or miss. So I put players names that are noticeable today to see the difference.

 

For me it's scouting and I think we need a change from Timmins and the rest of our scouting staff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Habsfan89 said:

Well i originally only posted our 1st round picks. But then tomh said I should put the number were we picked them. I knew if I did that people would say  picking low is always hit or miss. So I put players names that are noticeable today to see the difference.

 

For me it's scouting and I think we need a change from Timmins and the rest of our scouting staff. 

Personally, I see development as a bigger issue than amateur scouting. And pro scouting is solid as demonstrated by Bergevin's mostly-positive trade record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's hard to say what the exact problem is; and I dont think its all one or the other, its a combo of both.  i.e. rushing guys too quickly, or taking forever with them.  ex:  rushed kk and Chucky, and taking too long with Poehling.

 

It was interesting when Bouchard left Laval because he made a comment that he dint like how the Habs developed players.  I would love to hear him say more about that. 

 

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

Personally, I see development as a bigger issue than amateur scouting. And pro scouting is solid as demonstrated by Bergevin's mostly-positive trade record.

 

I'm actually impressed with whoever does the pro scouting; because they seem to have a knack at targeting players that do what the Habs need.  Plus they seem to be decent at determining who's the best a X skill and the most underrated and cheapest to acquire. 

 

It's funny because I dont think the Habs are very good at drafting, but MG seems to excel at pick collecting; and being really good at using those pics in other trades.

 

14 minutes ago, Peter Puck said:

Why isn't Caufield on this list? 

 

Who?    Totally kidding, but ya who could possibly forget to mention Caufield. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 drafted Habs on current roster...seems pretty thin and poor result.:(

 

Tampa has 11, just for 1 comparison...and has been doing bit better for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DON said:

6 drafted Habs on current roster...seems pretty thin and poor result.:(

 

Tampa has 11, just for 1 comparison...and has been doing bit better for sure.

Looking through the teams, it seems most have 7 or 8 of their own drafted players on their current roster.  Both Carolina and Colorado are tied with the Habs having 6 drafted players.  If Poehling and/or Norlinder make the team we'll be at 7 or even 8. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wonder about all the people claiming it is obvious we ruined KK by bringing him up early.  What I don't understand is, if we ruined him why is an upper tier team poaching him at the cost of 6.1 million and a 1st and a 3rd.  It sure seems like Carolina doesn't think he has been ruined.  In fact, they seem to think he will grow into a first line player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DON said:

6 drafted Habs on current roster...seems pretty thin and poor result.:(

 

Tampa has 11, just for 1 comparison...and has been doing bit better for sure.

We only had three high picks. All were traded. But why is trading a drafted player worse than keeping that player? It's not the 1950s any more where a player might play his entire career with the Habs. The GM's job is to maximize the team's player assets, and if he can get a better player by doing a trade, he should do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

We only had three high picks. All were traded. But why is trading a drafted player worse than keeping that player? It's not the 1950s any more where a player might play his entire career with the Habs. The GM's job is to maximize the team's player assets, and if he can get a better player by doing a trade, he should do it.

I view it like Soccer where you build-up players until you can "sell" them to other teams at a higher value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, dlbalr said:

That's one of those things that is much easier said than done.  The supposed willingness for teams to trade down is way overblown; most teams don't like to do it now.  That's why the number of those types of trades has dropped sharply ...

Very true ... but it also depends on the year ... some years it will be easier/cheaper (i.e., the "other team(s)" see the prospects available between their pick and the Habs as more homogenous) and in others harder/more expensive (i.e., the "other team(s)" see the prospects available between their pick and the Habs as a significant drop) 

 

In the Pastrnak instance it might have meant moving up two or spots as the BBs seem unlikely to swap picks with the Habs ... in retrospect Colorado certainly wishes they had dealt with he Habs ... the passed on Pastrnak and took Conner Bleackley ... he never/never-was signed, re-entered the draft and was selected by the Blues in the 2016 5th round, and never made it to the NHL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

It's hard to say what the exact problem is; and I dont think its all one or the other, its a combo of both.  i.e. rushing guys too quickly, or taking forever with them.  ex:  rushed kk and Chucky, and taking too long with Poehling ...

I agree ... I think any issue is a mixture of both ... AND ... the GM overriding the scouts may also factor in.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

We only had three high picks. All were traded. But why is trading a drafted player worse than keeping that player? It's not the 1950s any more where a player might play his entire career with the Habs. The GM's job is to maximize the team's player assets, and if he can get a better player by doing a trade, he should do it.

Sure if you improve, and get more than we gave up. We clearly lost the Sergechev trade. Galchenyuk for Domi was a big short term win, but slight long term win, since we still didn’t get anything close to what we drafted galchenyuk to be in Anderson.

 

we essentially traded a a 2nd, KK, and potentially move down in the first round of my hr draft next year (unless it’s a lottery pick), for Dvorak snd a 3rd. 
 

I won’t even bother mentioning the guys list on waivers, or we he ones that didn’t pan out, and were wasted picks, or that this years pick is probably a lost pick.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, alfredoh2009 said:

I view it like Soccer where you build-up players until you can "sell" them to other teams at a higher value.

Well we haven’t done that, we be lost a lot for nothing, or mostly worse players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Well we haven’t done that, we be lost a lot for nothing, or mostly worse players.

Whom did we lose for nothing?

 

(I disagree on your "worse" assessment for the Galchenyuk trade, and we can't tell yet for Kotkaniemi.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

Whom did we lose for nothing?

 

(I disagree on your "worse" assessment for the Galchenyuk trade, and we can't tell yet for Kotkaniemi.)

 

Scherbak and Juulsen were claimed off waivers and therefore lost for nothing but the waiver claim cost.

 

Tinordi (not listed in the first post but was in the organization under Bergevin's tenure) and McCarron were traded for next to nothing (John Scott and Victor Bartley for Tinordi, Dauphin for McCarron and while Dauphin is serviceable in Laval, he's not an NHL-calibre player).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

Scherbak and Juulsen were claimed off waivers and therefore lost for nothing but the waiver claim cost.

 

Tinordi (not listed in the first post but was in the organization under Bergevin's tenure) and McCarron were traded for next to nothing (John Scott and Victor Bartley for Tinordi, Dauphin for McCarron and while Dauphin is serviceable in Laval, he's not an NHL-calibre player).

This is correct. But Tinordi, McCarron and Scherbak did not have any real value at that point, either.

 

Juulsen, as previously discussed, had been a good pick but had been struggling with injuries. Should we have hung onto him in the hope that he will still pick up the pieces? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

But no early picks have been lost for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tomh009 said:

This is correct. But Tinordi, McCarron and Scherbak did not have any real value at that point, either.

 

Juulsen, as previously discussed, had been a good pick but had been struggling with injuries. Should we have hung onto him in the hope that he will still pick up the pieces? Maybe. Maybe not.

 

But no early picks have been lost for nothing.

 

Whether they had any value at that point or not - you're right in saying they didn't - doesn't matter.  The fact is they were first round picks that were effectively lost for nothing, providing next to no value.

 

Some of that is simply poor performance and bad luck.  I don't think they could have done much differently with Scherbak and I think Florida was the only team to claim Juulsen; that one nearly worked and the reality is even had they kept him up in Montreal, he'd have hardly played.  That one is bad luck more than anything.

 

Some of the problem though has been poor management.  The asking price for Tinordi was two second round picks at the beginning of the season where he was traded for Scott.  They sat him for basically half the year, realized no one was going to trade anything for him, then used the positive PED test to justify taking a useless goon in return.  Smarter asset management would have been to lower the asking price at the beginning of the year realizing that a perpetual healthy scratch's value only goes down as teams will inevitably just wait for the player to eventually go on waivers.  In McCarron's case, they moved him up and down so many times playing him in a bunch of roles that he could never establish a rhythm which is a killer from a development standpoint (they've done that with non first-rounders to their detriment as well).  At this point, it's fair to say that it was also a talent issue with McCarron - not just a management/player development one - but they again held on a little too long, ultimately having to take a minor leaguer in return.  Recognizing that earlier could have potentially yielded a better, albeit still underwhelming, return.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, those four (late) first-round picks were given away for more or less nothing. Three were picks that simply didn't pan out, and Juulsen, as I said, was mostly a matter of bad luck.

 

Nevertheless, my original point was that Bergevin's (well, Bergevin+Timmins) draft record is reasonable, though not outstanding. Four good picks (including Juulsen) and two bad ones, three still TBD.

 

To me, player development is where improvement, much more so than drafting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they clearly struggle with development - players we draft later, who spend more time in the minors, tend to do okay because they come in more ready for their role, the length of season, have physically matured, etc - they are also not often expected to play top 6 roles. 

 

One of Montreal's problems is the same that a lot of large market teams have - they don't have a plan for the high end talent when they are in the NHL.  Those are typically younger skill guys and we never seem to have a coaching staff that will give them some leeway to learn at the NHL level.  You also can't stick those kids in the AHL for 3-4 years and hope they develop skills against mediocre competition.  The organization can't abide having a bad season so we get mired with barely make the playoff level rosters - filled with 2nd and 3rd liners who can grind out just enough wins.  The Leafs over the past 30 years are a good example (until recently with their youth movement).  I'd rather a team suck for 2 years, miss the playoffs and retool into a contender rather then be the 11th to 16th team into the playoffs for a decade...Habs ownership wants the playoff revenue and fans are blinded into thinking "anything can happen with "Price (or insert current Habs goalie name here - because legends)".   

 

Let's turn young talented player A into a checking line forward seems to have been the Hab's mantra since the 1980's...

 

Who was the last Habs coach that actually did a good job with young talent and developed them?  I'm going to say Pat Burns but that's a long way back and I may be foggy about it.

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...