GDT Game 17 - Golden Knights vs Canadiens - November 16, 2023 - 7 pm

[GHT120]

2 hours ago, tomh009 said:

... Top-ten draft picks are really not much of a guarantee of success.

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Folks sometimes talk about tanking so we can get a superstar, then retreat to the argument that “well OF COURSE tanking does not mean you’ll get a superstar, it just improves the odds a bit.” The message is “no one ever denied this” even as people simultaneously act and talk as though tanking = superstar. 

 

"M. Vézina", I-M-O you "hear" it that way because you disagree with them and want to "hear" it that way ... it is true that some "tank advocates" don't put qualifiers on their statements, but that doesn't mean they believe anything is guaranteed.

But it is incontrovertible that the higher a team picks the BETTER their CHANCES of drafting a star/impact player ... of course, they still have to make the correct selection ... Habs hit a made a great selection in Gallagher in 2010 ... but they picked essentially wasted picks on Tinordi (#22), Mark MacMillan (#113) and Morgan Ellis (#117) before being lucky that nobody else had drafted BG when their turn next came up at #147; imagine if Boston had picked the "right" Vancouver Giant at #97 (they took Craig Cunningham) ... drafting later/lower only means that more players, in each and every round, are unavailable for them to even consider.

 

I-M-O, until a team is a legit playoff contender it is best to draft as high as possible.

 

59 minutes ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Drafting high without good management is what causes failure. If you don’t have good management like the oilers - if doesn’t matter how many #1 overall picks you get, or the fact that you have generational players.

 

good management and high picks at least gets you a solid contending team. If you look at the teams that have won multiple times, and are always among the contenders - they had numerous top 5 picks and a number of #1 overall picks - Pittsburgh, Chicago, Colorado, Tampa. These team had a stable, QUALITY management group. On the other hand teams like Buffalo, Edmonton, Ottawa,Phoenix, Toronto have had a constant soap opera and were riderless teams with bad managemt with constant change.

 

Well said ... although I have added one key word (emphasized above).

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

23 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

 

"M. Vézina", I-M-O you "hear" it that way because you disagree with them and want to "hear" it that way ... it is true that some "tank advocates" don't put qualifiers on their statements, but that doesn't mean they believe anything is guaranteed.

But it is incontrovertible that the higher a team picks the BETTER their CHANCES of drafting a star/impact player ... of course, they still have to make the correct selection ... Habs hit a made a great selection in Gallagher in 2010 ... but they picked essentially wasted picks on Tinordi (#22), Mark MacMillan (#113) and Morgan Ellis (#117) before being lucky that nobody else had drafted BG when their turn next came up at #147; imagine if Boston had picked the "right" Vancouver Giant at #97 (they took Craig Cunningham) ... drafting later/lower only means that more players, in each and every round, are unavailable for them to even consider.

 

I-M-O, until a team is a legit playoff contender it is best to draft as high as possible.

 

 

Well said ... although I have added one key word (emphasized above).

 

How will a team ever become a "legitimate Cup contender" if it is tanking every year? No team goes from tank to contender in a single season. The logic is faulty. 

 

Now I won't deny that tanking results in "better" odds. I just don't think those odds are nearly as high as tankistes seem to think. And I am unwilling to see the Habs deliberately blow chunks year after year after year until that magical year when they get the #1 pick and that pick turns out to be McDavid.

 

I had no problem with us tanking in 2021. Last year's results were equivalent to a tank job too. So that's two years of tanking. We're going to get a high pick this year too. No need to kneecap the roster such that we're looking at another couple of years of being terrible, all for the sake of going from #9 to #4 on the draft board (or whatever).

 

As for the argument that you need to combine excellent management with tanking, well, maybe so - but excellent management will regularly find impact players outside the top 3 of the draft. This is why firebombing your roster annually makes no sense. Rather than do that, we need to have scouting and development of sufficient excellence that we can uncover gems without annually nuking our roster. Drafting and developing gems outside the top-3 is something that Boston and TB have consistently done.

 

 

 

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

1 hour ago, hab29RETIRED said:

Drafting high without good management is what causes failure. If you don’t have good management like the oilers - if doesn’t matter how many #1 overall picks you get, or the fact that you have generational players.

 

 

 

True, good management is essential to have success. I do get tired of this "tanking" debate probably because I think many here don't really understand the true meaning of tanking. Tanking is a deliberate act of management to try and make their team as bad as possible to get the highest possible pick. The Habs have not tanked the last couple years and I wouldn't want them to as it sends a bad message to players who should develop within some sort of winning positive culture. The Habs were just bad the last couple years. There is a difference between tanking and rebuilding, perhaps it may seem to be a subtle difference at times but there is a difference.  I want the Habs to rebuild, not tank. 

 

And yes drafting high does not guarantee you will get a budding superstar, it just improves your odds of getting one. I think that is pretty logical. 

 

 

[GHT120]

18 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

How will a team ever become a "legitimate Cup contender" if it is tanking every year? No team goes from tank to contender in a single season. The logic is faulty ...

 

Crafty substitution of "Cup contender" for my statement of "playoff contender".

 

This is entirely a matter of opinion and neither of us will convert the other.

[hab29RETIRED]

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

A deep playoff run doesn't necessarily mean that the team is a legitimate contender, though. As a counter-example, I remember a few years ago there was an NHL team from La Belle Provence that made it to the final, and yet I would have been hard-pressed to identify them as a contender as the playoffs got under way. And a long-term contender is, I believe, what the Habs' management team is driving for.

 

The Oilers should be a real contender, but I don't think they have been that at any time in the past few decades.

There’s a difference in gong deep once in what 5-6 years and that with a Covid weak Canadian division and going deep in yep successive seasons. Even the deep runs, I’ve already said they are not a well built teams and have major holes. They went deep on the back of their two high picks.

 

oilers will never be. True contender until they address their D and get at least an average goalie (top 10-15 range).

[Peter Puck]

1 hour ago, tomh009 said:

A deep playoff run doesn't necessarily mean that the team is a legitimate contender, though. As a counter-example, I remember a few years ago there was an NHL team from La Belle Provence that made it to the final, and yet I would have been hard-pressed to identify them as a contender as the playoffs got under way. And a long-term contender is, I believe, what the Habs' management team is driving for.

 

The Oilers should be a real contender, but I don't think they have been that at any time in the past few decades.

That same team has actually won several cups in years where you would claim they were not legitimate contenders.  You may be correct but for me I don't mind if we win the cup without being a legitimate contender.

 

 

[Sir_Boagalott]

Well, there is a big difference between tanking and being ok with not making the playoffs.   A strong argument exists for having a particular year where a team decides that they are alright with not making the playoffs.   

 

ex:  TB did that where they had Stamkos and Hedman but then sucked and got Drouin at 3rd overall.  It's the same with the Avs where they had Ladeskog and McKinnon and then sucked but got Makar and Byram.  Neither of those teams when they had bad season(s) panicked and thought to "tank" and blow up everything and start over.  

 

People seem to forget that it is possible to win the Draft Lottery and not get the 1st over all pick.  ex:  being 15th last place team can win the 5th over all pick. (thats how the Habs got Price). 

 

The actual real problem seems to be that people freak out when the Habs fail to make the playoffs.

 

 

[Neech]

5 hours ago, tomh009 said:

Most contenders may have some high draft picks, but high draft picks don't necessarily make you a contender.

 

Most top-10 picks, 2016-2021:

1. Buffalo (6)

2. Detroit (5)

3. Vancouver,  NY Rangers, New Jersey (4)

 

 

All of these teams are in better position to contend than we are over the next 5-10 years, and have more actual elite players than we do. So yes, another swing would be the right move for us.

 

4 hours ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

Folks sometimes talk about tanking so we can get a superstar, then retreat to the argument that “well OF COURSE tanking does not mean you’ll get a superstar, it just improves the odds a bit.” The message is “no one ever denied this” even as people simultaneously act and talk as though tanking = superstar. 

 

Indeed, tanking does not guarantee a last-place finish, and a last-place finish does not guarantee drafting #1, and drafting #1 does not guarantee a superstar. The certitude and passion with which people advocate a tank is way out of whack with the probabilities involved.

 

Heck, we’ve already had the equivalent of a tank job for two straight seasons! The result was Slaf and Reinbacher. Nobody thinks they are superstars in the making. (Previous tank-equivalents got us Galy and KK, hardly compelling arguments for tanking). So I guess we should keep at it until we finally hit a “generational” player? If we draft #5 next year, well, let’s keep gunning for last place…over and over and over until Lafleur appears and our draft position lets us choose him.

 

Meanwhile, if we did a true tank and got rid of all our vets, we would have gaping holes in the lineup that would take another couple of years to fill. And our kids would be getting shellacked night after night and have no role models to guide them along other than the coaches.

 

All to attain a modest increase in the likelihood of drafting a superstar, and to avoid the supposedly franchise-shattering consequences of drafting, say, 9th or 10th overall. 🙄

 

 

 

More strawmanning from you. I'm simply in favour of playing the odds, and getting the most bang for our buck for our seasons of being a bad team. We got a bit unlucky the last two drafts, but hopefully we came away with some core pieces at least. I think next year we'll be in better position to not suck, but while we do, it'd be better if we draft top 3 than top 12. This guarantees nothing, it simply helps our odds. We need more elite forward talent in our core.

 

And just to assume the position of hardcore tanquiste who you're apparently arguing with, if we did do a full on firesale last year and dump all our vets and try to lose more than we did, and end up drafting top three last season and got Fantili or Carlsson, maybe we'd be in better position to contend five years down the line? Hard to say, but it sure would be nice to have a bonafide #1C like those two guys project to be.

 

[dlbalr]

16 hours ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

People seem to forget that it is possible to win the Draft Lottery and not get the 1st over all pick.  ex:  being 15th last place team can win the 5th over all pick. (thats how the Habs got Price).

 

That was the weird lottery where every team had a chance at #1.  The lottery was for the entire first round that year.

[Prime Minister Koivu]

It’s possible that we win the draft lottery with Calgary’s pick in 2025 I believe. Unless the 2024 Calgary pick somehow ends up in the 20s which seems really unlikely. 
 

Maybe Calgary can tank for us? 

[dlbalr]

1 hour ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

It’s possible that we win the draft lottery with Calgary’s pick in 2025 I believe. Unless the 2024 Calgary pick somehow ends up in the 20s which seems really unlikely. 
 

Maybe Calgary can tank for us? 

 

If Calgary winds up with the top pick in 2025, that triggers one of the crazy sets of conditions from the Monahan trade.  If it's 1 OA, the Habs don't get it.  And there's also the matter of if Calgary gets Florida's first-rounder that year as that could be the one that comes to Montreal in the end.  That one is lottery-protected so as long as the Panthers make the playoffs in 2025, there's a good chance that's the one they get.

[Prime Minister Koivu]

1 hour ago, dlbalr said:

 

If Calgary winds up with the top pick in 2025, that triggers one of the crazy sets of conditions from the Monahan trade.  If it's 1 OA, the Habs don't get it.  And there's also the matter of if Calgary gets Florida's first-rounder that year as that could be the one that comes to Montreal in the end.  That one is lottery-protected so as long as the Panthers make the playoffs in 2025, there's a good chance that's the one they get.

Wow I didn’t know about that clause or the Florida clause either lol

 

 

[DON]

3 minutes ago, Prime Minister Koivu said:

Wow I didn’t know about that clause or the Florida clause either lol

 

 

Dont read the details of deal, seems pretty convoluted.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

2 hours ago, dlbalr said:

 

If Calgary winds up with the top pick in 2025, that triggers one of the crazy sets of conditions from the Monahan trade.  If it's 1 OA, the Habs don't get it.  And there's also the matter of if Calgary gets Florida's first-rounder that year as that could be the one that comes to Montreal in the end.  That one is lottery-protected so as long as the Panthers make the playoffs in 2025, there's a good chance that's the one they get.

 

It's likely Florida doesn't finish bottom 10 this year so Philly gets their #1 pick this year.  Then most likely as you said Florida is likely the pick they get in 2025 as Florida is likely to finish higher than Calgary next year.  But if they are both outside the top 10 then the Habs get the better of the pick. I spent a lot of time looking through the conditions of the trade so I think I understand it well now but it is complicated.