2023 NHL Entry Draft

[Commandant]

3 hours ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

That's true. He does have an additional category of risk. I kind of hope that someone takes him before the Habs pick so that they don't have to make that choice. It seems pretty obvious he won't go 1 and likely not 2.  He is supposed to attend the draft which is a positive sign. If I was really confident I would get him in 3 years then he would be very tough to pass up.  He would still only be 21, be much more mature physically and mentally and still have 3 years left on his entry level deal. A lot to think about and not an easy decision for teams to make. Like a lot of decisions in life it's all about risk/reward. 

At 21 hed get a 2 year ELC.

[Commandant]

3 hours ago, tomh009 said:

Yes. Every player has a different set of risks (ceiling, floor, availability, injuries, size etc). None of them are 100% sure thing. So, a big part of the selection process is evaluating each prospect's risks and comparing those to the organization's risk tolerance profile.

 

The difference with Michkov is that he has an additional category of risk, not that the other prospects are risk-free. He's ranked high, but I'll be much more surprised to see him go at #2 than at #6 or later.

 

I think the additional risks are overrated and that his superior talent more than makes up for it.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

42 minutes ago, Commandant said:

At 21 hed get a 2 year ELC.

 

I didn't know that. Thanks 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

42 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

I think the additional risks are overrated and that his superior talent more than makes up for it.

 

And that is exactly the determination that teams will have to make. Does the extra talent make up for the additional risk? I am sure it will be discussed ad nauseam until the draft happens. 

[GHT120]

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

At 21 hed get a 2 year ELC.

I thought 3 years was for 18-21 and 2 years was at 22&23 ... 24 being 1-yr ELC and no ELC at 25.

[DON]

Bit risky pick but...

"By almost any metric, Michkov is among the most talented offensive players in the draft. He creates scoring whenever he is on the ice"
https://www.habseyesontheprize.com/matvei-michkov-2023-nhl-draft-prospect-profile-scouting-report-draft-rankings-stats-highlights/

 

Dont think Dvorsky is an option at 5 anyways; but.

https://theathletic.com/4392428/2023/05/16/nhl-draft-lessons/

 

"...Tkachuk had special physicality/compete and elite international performance even though his college numbers were just fine. Hughes had special skating and puck game and was very good with his club and internationally. I see the arguments for Kotkaniemi and Hayton over them at the time, but comparing the profiles is interesting.

One player that comes to mind the most in the 2023 draft when thinking about Kotkaniemi and Hayton is Dalibor Dvorsky. He’s a center with average skating, is very skilled and has had very good stretches, both at the club and international level, but his production in Allsvenskan this season wasn’t amazing. Dvorsky could become an excellent NHL player, but the risk profiles in a top-10 pick look quite similar to me..."

 

 

[Neech]

At this point I'm hoping one of the teams above us picks Smith and either Michkov or Carlsson fall to us. (If we pass on Michkov in this scenario I'll be very disappointed, even if it appears likely that we would)

 

If we do end up with Will Smith, I of course will duly get jiggy with it.

[DON]

11 hours ago, Neech said:

If we do end up with Will Smith, I of course will duly get jiggy with it.

Honestly dont think Hughes can screw it up, are several skilled forward options no matter which 4 are already 'off the board'.

To me, just the big Austrian d-man seems bit of a reach if taken at 5.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

3 minutes ago, DON said:

Honestly dont think Hughes can screw it up, are several skilled forward options no matter which 4 are already 'off the board'.

To me, just the big Austrian d-man seems bit of a reach if taken at 5.

 

Well, there are degrees of screwing up. We heard similar arguments about the 2018 draft (not that it was a super-charged year, but that there was a clutch of players in the top 10 all of whom were interchangeable: “you can’t go wrong” with any of those guys, was the logic).

 

Except a few of them have had indifferent careers thus far, and possibly the best of them went at #8. If you picked Zadina over Quinn Hughes, you screwed it up. Heck, if you picked KK over Quinn Hughes, you made a decision that, in retrospect, you’d do differently. 

 

So I think Hughes can indeed screw it up. I’m pretty confident we’ll get a good NHL player, but Hughes can’t afford to whiff and get merely a “good” player if great players get drafted a few slots later. 

[DON]

Zadina was a reasonable choice "at the time". Many Habs fans wanted him i remember.

Small d-man was not high on most fans list (Commandant was correct though).

In hindsight, can be pretty easy to criticize. 

 

 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

16 minutes ago, DON said:

Zadina was a reasonable choice "at the time". Many Habs fans wanted him i remember.

Small d-man was not high on most fans list (Commandant was correct though).

In hindsight, can be pretty easy to criticize. 

 

 

 

Indeed. But my point is that there is ample room for the Habs to “screw up” the #5 overall pick, just as we’ve screwed up so many high picks in the past.

 

With occasional exceptions, teams usually make “reasonable” picks. Ultimately, though, they are judged by the results. As they must be. 

[hab29RETIRED]

7 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Indeed. But my point is that there is ample room for the Habs to “screw up” the #5 overall pick, just as we’ve screwed up so many high picks in the past.

 

With occasional exceptions, teams usually make “reasonable” picks. Ultimately, though, they are judged by the results. As they must be. 

That’s why I wish we finished in the bottom 3. We could have achieved that by trading away a few more players and not rushing as many kids in - our young kids on D probably did better than cheap UFA depth dmen would have. The only one who looked ready skill wise, physically and mentally and we would have been penalizing by keeping down was Harris. Guhle played really well, but was could have benefited spending the year in the minors and avoided the injuries. Wifi should have been shuttled back and forth. Caufield should have been shit down a lot earlier. Lastly and the one I did not understand at all, was that Slafkovsky should not have played past the 9 game maximaum.

 

it made zero sense to keep playing young guys that were hurt, or could have still used more development time in the minors, on a nothing year. We could have finished lower, and even if we didn’t get Bedard, 2nd this year is better than the 1st last year, and 3-4 this year May also be better than #1 or two last year.

as it is, I’m thinking I’d rather have us roll the dice on Michkov. I’d hate to pass on a guy that may be an elite talent and turn out to be better than our #1 pick last year. I don’t have an issue with him not coming over for a couple of years - if anything, it saves us from the bad habit of rushing kids. That’s the part that I don’t thing has changed with the new management team. I also think the rationale that they have of the kids will develop better (even if they aren’t ready 🙄), under Marty than in Laval. Sounds like an indictment of the staff on Laval and HughGorts confidence in the staff in  Laval. If they don’t have faith in the guys they’re to trust them with thr develoment if the kids - hire a new friggin coaching staff!!! I hope we hear soon about changes to the trainers and medical staff though. The number of injuries, and injuries to young players in particular was inexcusable. Sounds like a mix of first rushing players that aren’t ready, as well as having an incompetent medical staff.

[DON]

Top ten discussion

 

Michkov compilation.

 

Will Smith talk, some questions. 

 

[DON]

Michkov bit.

https://www.habsworld.net/2023/05/2023-draft-profile-matvei-michkov/

Seems all think he is top 5 best player available.

Rankings
Elite Prospects: 4
Future Considerations: 3
Daily Faceoff: 3
The Hockey News: 4
TSN (Bob McKenzie): 4
TSN (Craig Button): 4
NHL Central Scouting (European): 2
Sportsnet: 5
Recruit Scouting: 3
Dobber Prospects: 3
Draft Prospects Hockey: 2
Smaht Scouting: 4

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

16 hours ago, hab29RETIRED said:

That’s why I wish we finished in the bottom 3. We could have achieved that by trading away a few more players and not rushing as many kids in - our young kids on D probably did better than cheap UFA depth dmen would have. The only one who looked ready skill wise, physically and mentally and we would have been penalizing by keeping down was Harris. Guhle played really well, but was could have benefited spending the year in the minors and avoided the injuries. Wifi should have been shuttled back and forth. Caufield should have been shit down a lot earlier. Lastly and the one I did not understand at all, was that Slafkovsky should not have played past the 9 game maximaum.

 

it made zero sense to keep playing young guys that were hurt, or could have still used more development time in the minors, on a nothing year. We could have finished lower, and even if we didn’t get Bedard, 2nd this year is better than the 1st last year, and 3-4 this year May also be better than #1 or two last year.

as it is, I’m thinking I’d rather have us roll the dice on Michkov. I’d hate to pass on a guy that may be an elite talent and turn out to be better than our #1 pick last year. I don’t have an issue with him not coming over for a couple of years - if anything, it saves us from the bad habit of rushing kids. That’s the part that I don’t thing has changed with the new management team. I also think the rationale that they have of the kids will develop better (even if they aren’t ready 🙄), under Marty than in Laval. Sounds like an indictment of the staff on Laval and HughGorts confidence in the staff in  Laval. If they don’t have faith in the guys they’re to trust them with thr develoment if the kids - hire a new friggin coaching staff!!! I hope we hear soon about changes to the trainers and medical staff though. The number of injuries, and injuries to young players in particular was inexcusable. Sounds like a mix of first rushing players that aren’t ready, as well as having an incompetent medical staff.

 

I agree with you regarding the rushing of the kids, but for reasons of development rather than the idea that we can somehow engineer a particular outcome in the draft ranking. (Even if we slid to third last rather than fifth last overall, we’d still be subject to lottery whims; and anyhow, the Habs have semi-fumbled two #3 picks in the past decade, so there is no substitute for skill at the draft board).

 

I don’t think our kids were damaged as hockey players by being thrown into the fire too soon, which is what I initially feared; most of them seemed to benefit from MSL’s tutelage. But I do suspect that the injuries, especially Slaf’s injury, may have been a result of players who were being asked to play over their heads night after night. You and I have been adamant that Slaf had no business being in the NHL when he didn’t even understand NHL ice surfaces. He got clobbered several times before finally going down. Keeping him here was simply bad management.

 

But I’d add that all those injuries led to huge stretches of the season in which a lot of those kids weren’t playing anyway. The roster we iced was indeed as putrid as it would have been if we were deliberately tanking. Your proposition that we would have done better to NOT dress the kids, because this would have led to more losses, applies only to the October/November period of relative success. Thereafter our roster was thoroughly execrable. 

 

You can ice a bad team, but you cannot scientifically achieve a preferred draft spot. Look at Chicago - they were the only team that clearly and deliberately tanked, and they only finished third last. It was sheer luck that they got Bedard. Meanwhile, the truly appalling CBJ get the shaft courtesy of the lottery balls. The Habs were terrible, we finished 5th last in a 32 team league, that’s how it goes.

[GHT120]

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

... but you cannot scientifically achieve a preferred draft spot ...

 

And nobody with an active EEG expects it would.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

41 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

And nobody with an active EEG expects it would.

 

Actually, fans who criticize the Habs for “not tanking” this season do seem to think this way. 

[GHT120]

8 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

Actually, fans who criticize the Habs for “not tanking” this season do seem to think this way. 

I think that anti-tankers like to interpret such posts that way ... but I don't think anyone supporting a "tank" ever thought it would yield more than the "best chance" at Bedard, and at worst 3rd overall if you are the worst team ... they just prefer that chance than hoping other teams leave a superstar for the Habs to pick in the teens.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

50 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

I think that anti-tankers like to interpret such posts that way ... but I don't think anyone supporting a "tank" ever thought it would yield more than the "best chance" at Bedard, and at worst 3rd overall if you are the worst team ... they just prefer that chance than hoping other teams leave a superstar for the Habs to pick in the teens.

 

We iced a team rife with rookies, many of whom turned out to be surprisingly decent, then replaced them with spare parts as injuries ravaged the lineup. The difference between that and 'tanking' is negligible. The result happened to be a 5th last finish. Complaining that we failed to engineer a higher pick is silly IMHO, and reflects an undue confidence in teams' ability to engineer precise outcomes.

[GHT120]

36 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

We iced a team rife with rookies, many of whom turned out to be surprisingly decent, then replaced them with spare parts as injuries ravaged the lineup. The difference between that and 'tanking' is negligible. The result happened to be a 5th last finish. Complaining that we failed to engineer a higher pick is silly IMHO, and reflects an undue confidence in teams' ability to engineer precise outcomes.

We still, and will always, disagree about anyone's belief that draft lottery success can be engineered/guaranteed. 

I think that the "pure tankers", I'm not quite in that group, would perhaps not even have kept Guhle but rather claimed a few defencemen, with zero history of NHL success/potential, on waivers in order to have as little talent on defence as possible (the Habs has too many forwards to do anything similar up front) ... a porous defence increasing the ODDS of losing games, which increases the chances of lottery success ... HoGo did not, IMO, "tank" ... they just didn't try to win any more games than necessary.

[Neech]

We had a crap roster that overachieved because of Marty. On paper we should have been bottom 3.

[hab29RETIRED]

2 hours ago, GHT120 said:

I think that anti-tankers like to interpret such posts that way ... but I don't think anyone supporting a "tank" ever thought it would yield more than the "best chance" at Bedard, and at worst 3rd overall if you are the worst team ... they just prefer that chance than hoping other teams leave a superstar for the Habs to pick in the teens.

Yeah. It’s a matter of improving your odds, in a year you have a generational player, and a couple of guys that would probably have gone #1 overall last year. This is quite similar to the McDavid draft, where you had a generational player AND a guy who would be taken 1st overall most years. If there was ever a time to tank this was it.
 

And it’s not like we would would have been moving 21 year old former first round picks for draft picks like Chicago did, or move a 24-25 year old dman on a great contract like Phoenix did.

 

Anaheim was preparing for this draft since last years trade deadline as well.

[hab29RETIRED]

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

We iced a team rife with rookies, many of whom turned out to be surprisingly decent, then replaced them with spare parts as injuries ravaged the lineup. The difference between that and 'tanking' is negligible. The result happened to be a 5th last finish. Complaining that we failed to engineer a higher pick is silly IMHO, and reflects an undue confidence in teams' ability to engineer precise outcomes.

Again, it’s not about engineering precise outcomes. It’s about improving the odds. Harris and Guhle were both played while  injured, and Guhle’s injuries got worse. Should have just played the veteran pylon Wideman. I think WiFi also came back to early before being shutdown.

 

why was Caufield playing so long with a bad shoulder?? Should have tried given more time to MB’s brilliant pickup Hoffman. Try getting him to score with Suzuki and if you have to eat 50% of his salary to get someone to bite at the deadline. There’s a difference to let players play a bit banged up when it matters, and risking further injuries to guys that are your future, in order to a few extra meaningless points that actually hurt your chances to draft Bedard, Fantilli, or Carlsson. Columbus fell, but they finally get a chance to draft an elite centre.

 

[hab29RETIRED]

14 minutes ago, Neech said:

We had a crap roster that overachieved because of Marty. On paper we should have been bottom 3.

Sort Of agree. I think on paper we should have been bottom 4. but having said that, I think probably should have been better than Phoenix, but their players played hard as well - even though management was clearly tanking.

[DON]

20 hours ago, Neech said:

We had a crap roster that overachieved because of Marty. On paper we should have been bottom 3.

I guessed 28th place in October and they finished 28th place in April, so i see no surprise or overachievement.

Exactly as expected.

Really sucked the way they dumbly played injured players (Guhle-Monahan-Caufield), but i heard they have bonuses to meet and they also really 'wanted' to play. So what is a Mgmt supposed to do.