2023 Draft, Pick 101: Florian Xhekaj

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

We did "truly tank" this year. The team iced about a billion raw rookies and spent the second half of the season with an AHL roster. 

 

It is delusional to think that you can just automatically engineer exactly where you finish in the standings, let alone where you finish in the draft lottery. We were in the mix for one of the league's worst teams, that's all a "tanquiste" can ask.

[alfredoh2009]

6 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

We did "truly tank" this year. The team iced about a billion raw rookies and spent the second half of the season with an AHL roster. 

 

It is delusional to think that you can just automatically engineer where you finish in the standings, let alone where you finish in the draft lottery. We were in the mix for one of the league's worst teams, that's all a "tanquiste" can ask.

I agree, Has did a good job in finishing as low as they did.

 

I was upset when it was reported that they may give assets to move up in the draft, I am glad they didn't.

 

I expect them to finish in the bottom 10 next season, with a chance to squeak into the playoffs if the goalies are healthy all season and there is a catastrophic down-year from one of the other teams contending

[revvvrob]

56 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I have zero issue with the Florian pick. Rounds 3 onwards is a crap shoot. What I do have an issue with not going with BPA in the first two rounds. Round 1 in particular and within the top 10 picks all the time! You should always be taking BPA without any exceptions.

I’m thinking they DID select who they considered to be BPA. People who are not hired to make selections are hired to make these lists that us fans then take as ‘truth’. Hughes didn’t go off the board with his 1st round pick. He selected HIS OPINION of BPA. Time will tell if he was right or wrong. In the meantime - I’m hoping that DR fulfills the potential Hughes et al see in him. 

[DON]

2 hours ago, tomh009 said:

What would have been the alternative? Trading picks for veteran D-men? Picking up more D-men on waivers? (And probably hitting the contract limit in the process.)

Yes, seems a minor issue. Or sending them to AHL and or recall AHLers, same as Slafkovski. As they did with Barron, with 25 games in Laval.

Also, anything would of been better than running Guhle out there 20+minutes on 1 good knee, no?

[Commandant]

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

It really is too soon to tell IMHO.

 

MSL was a clear home run. Whether he proves to be an enduringly successful coach is another matter, but he very obviously was exactly what the team needed at this juncture.

 

The rest is less certain.

 

Dach looked great. In the longer run, it will depend on the extent to which he can build on his excellent half-season last year, and on how well the combination of Romy and Frank Nazar does. 

 

Newhook, well, if he tops out as a useful 3rd-liner, the merit of the trade will depend on what we might have gotten with those two picks. This one doesn’t worry me too much, since a player like Newhook represents an objectively good outcome for two 30-something draft picks.

 

Slaf - time will tell. If any of Nemec, Cooley, or Wright turn into significantly more impactful players, either his draft or bungled development will have proved to be a mistake. The same is true of Reinbacher. If he becomes a stud #1 guy, then I for one will never complain. If he becomes a #2, though, while players drafted after him become all-stars, then they made a historic error with a critical, franchise-defining pick.

 

WiFi II is a similar case with lower stakes. 

 

They’re thinking for themselves, avoiding the safe, controversy-free paths,  and deviating significantly from mainline NHL thinking as a result. In 2-3 years, we’ll have a better sense of the degree to which they were wise to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd just point out that there was never an option of having both Romanov and Nazar.  

 

Romanov was traded to the Isles to get a package that included the pick used on Nazar. 

 

A second trade was then made with the Nazar pick packaged with another to get Dach. 

 

So you could never have had both. 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

1 hour ago, revvvrob said:

I’m thinking they DID select who they considered to be BPA. People who are not hired to make selections are hired to make these lists that us fans then take as ‘truth’. Hughes didn’t go off the board with his 1st round pick. He selected HIS OPINION of BPA. Time will tell if he was right or wrong. In the meantime - I’m hoping that DR fulfills the potential Hughes et al see in him. 

 

I agree. Whether Reinbacher was BPA is still to be determined. Hughes said before the draft that if it was really close between 2 guys then organizational need would be a factor which makes sense to me. 

[hab29RETIRED]

3 hours ago, DON said:

WELL...i wouldnt go that far...Slafkovski not in AHL or world juniors, forcing rookie d-men to play too much, not shutting down Monahan/Caufield/Guhle...no ones perfect.

100% agree on not being okay with all of those decisions 

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

56 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

I'd just point out that there was never an option of having both Romanov and Nazar.  

 

Romanov was traded to the Isles to get a package that included the pick used on Nazar. 

 

A second trade was then made with the Nazar pick packaged with another to get Dach. 

 

So you could never have had both. 

 

Thanks, another one of those misapprehensions that creeps into my brain. Appreciate being sorted out.

[hab29RETIRED]

2 hours ago, BCHabnut said:

Yep. They had their 2 tank years. Time to build. Start winning. I want to see more won puck battles this year. I watched almost every game last year, and I just had no confidence that they would come out with the puck after a battle. I'd like to see improvement there and improvement on defensive positioning. I don't expect to make the playoffs, but let's make it interesting at least.

I couldn’t watch an entire game the last couple of years, or even the regular season during the cup run year. They just have not been worth watching. At least their is hope - how long that lasts will depend on the growth and development and helping their young padawans reach their potential.

[hab29RETIRED]

45 minutes ago, Habs Fan in Edmonton said:

 

I agree. Whether Reinbacher was BPA is still to be determined. Hughes said before the draft that if it was really close between 2 guys then organizational need would be a factor which makes sense to me. 

I don’t know how close they were when you consider that this by all consensus the most forward heavy draft in around 15 years, and the top 6 or 7 guys this year are supposed to be better than the top 3 last year.

This was a positional pick based on current need based on who is in the lineup and in the prospect pipeline - which IMO is a huge mistake when picking top 5.

 

only other team that seemed dumb was Phoenix, and that’s probably because they have so many draft picks and prospects, they wanted to push out when they have to sign them. That’s why they went way off the board on their picks and picked Russians. They reportedly didn’t take Michkov since he made it clear that he wasn’t interested in playing there.

 

some of the crap that people are saying about Reinbacher is bullshit and over the line. But there is nothing wrong with being critical with Mgmt with taking him as a top 5. He progressed from being unrated last September to top 5. That’s a huge ruse and huge amount of progression for him as a player. You can’t expect the same exponential rate of progression to continue. 

 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

26 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

I don’t know how close they were when you consider that this by all consensus the most forward heavy draft in around 15 years, and the top 6 or 7 guys this year are supposed to be better than the top 3 last year.

This was a positional pick based on current need based on who is in the lineup and in the prospect pipeline - which IMO is a huge mistake when picking top 5.

 

only other team that seemed dumb was Phoenix, and that’s probably because they have so many draft picks and prospects, they wanted to push out when they have to sign them. That’s why they went way off the board on their picks and picked Russians. They reportedly didn’t take Michkov since he made it clear that he wasn’t interested in playing there.

 

some of the crap that people are saying about Reinbacher is bullshit and over the line. But there is nothing wrong with being critical with Mgmt with taking him as a top 5. He progressed from being unrated last September to top 5. That’s a huge ruse and huge amount of progression for him as a player. You can’t expect the same exponential rate of progression to continue. 

 

 

There is nothing wrong with being critical of management, these boards would be awfully boring if we didn't have differences of opinion. I am just saying that it's difficult for me to be critical of the #5 pick because the people making the pick have way better information than I do. There are some things in life I consider myself an expert in but a talent evaluator is not one of them and I take what I read (consensus picks etc.) with a grain of salt. I am not sure what scouts Mckenzie polls but if I was a scout for an organization and my team wanted to take a certain player then it wouldn't make sense for me to give Mckenzie a glowing recommendation as I would want that player to fall. Again, time will whether this a good pick or not. I am sure they gave it very careful consideration because they can't afford to mess this one up. 

[Peter Puck]

6 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Newhook, well, if he tops out as a useful 3rd-liner, the merit of the trade will depend on what we might have gotten with those two picks. This one doesn’t worry me too much, since a player like Newhook represents an objectively good outcome for two 30-something draft picks.

 

Slaf - time will tell. If any of Nemec, Cooley, or Wright turn into significantly more impactful players, either his draft or bungled development will have proved to be a mistake. The same is true of Reinbacher. If he becomes a stud #1 guy, then I for one will never complain. If he becomes a #2, though, while players drafted after him become all-stars, then they made a historic error with a critical, franchise-defining pick.

 

I find this view point very strange and ultimately unfair to Hughes.   If Marco Kasper (LW taken 8th in 2022 by Detroit) blossoms into a star and the best player drafted last year does that mean Hughes made a historic error? 

 

  Suppose you knew that Michkov has a 20% chance to be the best player picked this year, a 40% chance to bust and a 40% chance to be the 4th-10th best player.  Further suppose Reinbacher has a 90% chance to be the 6th best player.   If  you pick Michkov is that a historic error if he doesn't become the best player?  If he does become the best player was it a historic error to choose Reinbacher?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

6 hours ago, Peter Puck said:

I find this view point very strange and ultimately unfair to Hughes.   If Marco Kasper (LW taken 8th in 2022 by Detroit) blossoms into a star and the best player drafted last year does that mean Hughes made a historic error? 

 

  Suppose you knew that Michkov has a 20% chance to be the best player picked this year, a 40% chance to bust and a 40% chance to be the 4th-10th best player.  Further suppose Reinbacher has a 90% chance to be the 6th best player.   If  you pick Michkov is that a historic error if he doesn't become the best player?  If he does become the best player was it a historic error to choose Reinbacher?

 

If Reinbacher becomes merely a good player while guys Hughes passed on become franchise-defining players, then yeah, he blew one of the most important picks of this era. He defied conventional wisdom to make that pick. If DR doesn’t become an impact guy and the alternatives do, that’s on HuGo. Maybe that’s not fair, but it’s called accountability. 

[Prime Minister Koivu]

10 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

 

If Reinbacher becomes merely a good player while guys Hughes passed on become franchise-defining players, then yeah, he blew one of the most important picks of this era. He defied conventional wisdom to make that pick. If DR doesn’t become an impact guy and the alternatives do, that’s on HuGo. Maybe that’s not fair, but it’s called accountability. 

At the same time, if Reinbacher becomes a franchise Dman that wins multiple Norris trophies then HuGo are geniuses. 
 

We know nothing about this player and his future but folks seem to believe that HuGo messed the pick up. 
 

 

[DON]

10 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Maybe that’s not fair, but it’s called accountability. 

So if had gone with conventional wisdom with Michkov and he was a bust, it would be better to take?

Is there a GM who hasnt picked wrong...often? 

At the draft, it is a crapshoot at best projecting high-school kids.

But, for sure more GM accountability for wheeling and dealing success, being smart with prospects and what contracts dole out; moreso than draft day success.

[GHT120]

11 minutes ago, DON said:

... At the draft, it is a crapshoot at best projecting high-school kids ...

 

But first round picks, especially top 5 / top 10, are where teams are expected to have invested sufficient due diligence to make more winning selections than wasted picks ... largely where draft accountability rests.

[tomh009]

4 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

But first round picks, especially top 5 / top 10, are where teams are expected to have invested sufficient due diligence to make more winning selections than wasted picks ... largely where draft accountability rests.

One might hope so. But recent history of top-5 picks finds gems such as Nail Yakupov (1st), Griffin Reinhart (3rd), Michael Dal Colle (5th), Olli Juolevi (5th) or Barrett Hayton (5th). As DON said, there is significant risk and randomness in spite of all the scouting that is done.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

45 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

At the same time, if Reinbacher becomes a franchise Dman that wins multiple Norris trophies then HuGo are geniuses. 
 

We know nothing about this player and his future but folks seem to believe that HuGo messed the pick up. 
 

 

 

I am not a critic of the pick - I never claim any expertise about prospects. And yes, if DR becomes a stud #1 D-man and franchise cornerstone, then it was a brilliant pick, and HuGo will deserve full credit for it.

 

23 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

But first round picks, especially top 5 / top 10, are where teams are expected to have invested sufficient due diligence to make more winning selections than wasted picks ... largely where draft accountability rests.

 

There is always an element of chance. At the end of the day, though, the call is made by the GM. If he makes the wrong call, he has to wear it.

 

37 minutes ago, DON said:

So if had gone with conventional wisdom with Michkov and he was a bust, it would be better to take?

Is there a GM who hasnt picked wrong...often? 

At the draft, it is a crapshoot at best projecting high-school kids.

But, for sure more GM accountability for wheeling and dealing success, being smart with prospects and what contracts dole out; moreso than draft day success.

 

If he went with Michkov and Michkov busts, then he could at least say “well, he was the most talented player at that position, with a real chance to become a superstar, so we swung for the fences.” It would still be a mistake, obviously. But when you “go off the board” like they did, you are really putting your neck out there. 

 

If Michkov becomes a 130-point superstar and DR becomes a capable #2 defender, think about it. Your team had a chance to acquire a superstar. For free. And declined. In favour of a Filip Hronek.

 

The GM HAS to own a decision like that. On such decisions are rebuilds made or broken.

 

Now no GM bats 1000. HuGo will make mistakes. Maybe they already have. The point is that they need to be right with most or all key, franchise-defining decisions. Slaf has to work out. DR has to work out. If only one of them does, that could be the difference between winning and losing a Cup, or between becoming a serious contender versus becoming a playoff team that hopes “anything can happen.”

 

 

 

[GHT120]

Just now, tomh009 said:

One might hope so. But recent history of top-5 picks finds gems such as Nail Yakupov (1st), Griffin Reinhart (3rd), Michael Dal Colle (5th), Olli Juolevi (5th) or Barrett Hayton (5th). As DON said, there is significant risk and randomness in spite of all the scouting that is done.

Was just saying that those are the picks that are often how GMs/scouts drafting skills/results are judged.

[GHT120]

Unfortunately, other than "we didn't see him live" we will never know what the "negatives" they saw in Michkov were, ***if*** any.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

27 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Unfortunately, other than "we didn't see him live" we will never know what the "negatives" they saw in Michkov were, ***if*** any.

 

IMHO draft day generates waaaaay too much commentary that is grossly over-confident. Probably about 99% of the stuff spouted on the internet comes from people who have never seen the prospects in question play, or at least never scouted them in anything resembling a serious fashion. This also applies to most of the professional media commentary as well. Humility behooves everyone when it comes to the draft. That’s why the hysterically negative response to this pick was completely out of order. Very few of the negative nellies actually know what they’re talking about.

 

I don’t think this gives GMs a get-out-of-jail free card, however. To invert a phrase, he who calls the tune pays the piper. You blow the call, you wear it.

 

 

[tomh009]

2 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

If Michkov becomes a 130-point superstar and DR becomes a capable #2 defender, think about it. Your team had a chance to acquire a superstar. For free. And declined. In favour of a Filip Hronek.

My neighbour swung for the fences 10 years ago, spent $10K on Lotto 6-49 and won $100K. I bought a $10K ETF instead and it's now worth $50K. Which one was the right decision?

 

Not that I'm saying the Michkov odds are the same as Lotto 6-49, but clearly it's a riskier move, otherwise he would not have fallen as far as he did.

[Peter Puck]

  There was lots of hype about Michkov.   I am not at all sure that he was the conventional 5th best choice.  The media painted that picture and indeed the picture that he was the 2nd best player.  But the actual evidence we have is  that 6 teams thought he wasn't the second best choice.  One team thought he was the best player left after 7 picks were made.    We really don't know what the other teams thought of him.

 

  I definitely don't want a management team that just follows conventional wisdom.    Montreal has the money to spend on extensive scouts and should be using that advantage to excel against the other teams with less resources.

 

[Sir_Boagalott]

2 hours ago, Peter Puck said:

I definitely don't want a management team that just follows conventional wisdom.    Montreal has the money to spend on extensive scouts and should be using that advantage to excel against the other teams with less resources.

 

 

I've been saying that for over a decade.  When the NHL allows unlimited money spent on drafting there are 3 teams that should be way better at that than the other teams.  Those teams are the Rangers, Leafs, and Habs.  Why?  They are the 3 richest teams in the league.  They should be spending so much money on scouting that the NHL is forced to put a cap on it.  They really have no excuses to be poor at drafting.

 

 

 

 

[DON]

9 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

I don’t think this gives GMs a get-out-of-jail free card, however. To invert a phrase, he who calls the tune pays the piper. You blow the call, you wear it.

Fair i guess, in that they would be highly praised if hit on numerous players over a few years. Yzerman comes to mind at moment, he "seems" a pretty smart dude and the Wings should be pretty good in near future.