2018 NHL Entry Draft Thread (Less then 24 Hours Edition)

[Habs Halifax]

I'm not sure why it's so bold, just because it's unpopular. I mean, if you're right, you're right. Drafting a bust doesn't feel any better just because he was consensus ranked highly. Neither does passing on a guy who would solve the franchise defining issue of our team just because he's ranked a little lower.

I'm going to **** on several people's heads no matter what if Jesperi becomes a 1C lol.

You don't think it raises eyebrows if we take Kotkaniemi? I wouldn't have a problem with it but drafting a guy 3rd overall who is typically ranked 10-15 range on pretty much all rankings you will find is a bold move IMO.

And I respect your stance on taking the high ceiling center. It's the only way we are going to get one. No team is standing in our way as the Sabres and Canes are not taking Kotkaniemi.

 

[SOLR]

I don't mind getting Jesperi at 3rd, since well, he's 4th on my list. Haha.
But, my first option would be to be very aggressive around getting Svechnikov as he could transform Chucky in the center we want. Doing so, we would immediately shave many years of the rebuild with this combo.

 

[Runner77]

Reading this thread, I find it funny that Hughes is getting blasted for not having a good shot (it really isn't that bad) yet when a player is a bad skater, very often people claim that can be improved.

Honest question, do people truly believe it's easier to improve skating than a shot?

If so, you couldn't be more wrong.

Why create a false equivalency? You can improve anything, the word is meaningless as technically, a .00001% increment, is an improvement.

The more relevant question for our purposes is if someone with deficient skating or a sub-par shot can transform them to an elite level and save an exception, I'd say it can't be done. For the same reason that you don't become a goal scorer if you aren't one already when you're drafted. There are certain traits that define you as a player, that represent what you can do. For instance, I don't believe McCarron will ever be a better skater, not so much better than what he is now and his skating will always hold him back.

Luckily, Hughes excels at several other key facets of the game and the total package is what will ultimately be determining. Just my 2 cents, I don't care to be right or wrong.

 

[Runner77]

I still take Zadina at 3 and try to work out a deal with the Islanders for Pacioretty.

Aquiring Max would probably be a good incentive for Tavares to stick around, at least this is how I would sell it to the Islanders.

I'm aiming for both of their 1st round picks.......you may have to sweeten the pot a bit but with the 11th and 12th picks, one can do a major overhaul to the prospect pool.

So you pick Zadina with the 3rd overall

Trade Pacioretty and Ikonen for the 11th and 12th pick

Then trade the 11th pick and Chicago's 2nd to move up a few spots (Chicago).....and select Kotkamiemi (assuming he's there, if not, you still do it and select either Wahlstrom or Dobson)

With the 12th pick, You select Kravtsov

So far, you have yourself 3 solid prospects in Zadina, Kotkaniemi and Kravtsov.

You then trade your own second and the Leafs second to move back in the first and select a player you've been targeting.....Kaut/Alexeyev/McIsaac

Unlikely to happen but it's a plan of multiple plans I'd have in mind and try to execute.

Prospect haul...

Zadina
Kotkaniemi
Kravtsov
Kaut

Poelhing
Scherbak
Alain

That's a nice group of forward prospects to have.

Even if we can manage to get you to represent HF in the Habs war room and have you drop a few F-Bombs on our behalf, the GM we have here right now, is going to give you a blank stare as you rattle through all of these well-intentioned, forward-looking proposals.

 

[The Great Weal]

Just out of curiosity, if the Rangers offered all their 1sts for 3rd overall, who would say no? If you would accept it, if they offered 9+one of the 1sts, how many of you would say no?

 

[Mrb1p]

Just out of curiosity, if the Rangers offered all their 1sts for 3rd overall, who would say no? If you would accept it, if they offered 9+one of the 1sts, how many of you would say no?

Id do it, its more likely that the Habs pick Kotkaniemi this way.

 

[The Great Weal]

Id do it, its more likely that the Habs pick Kotkaniemi this way.

As would I. Getting Kotkaniemi+Alexeyev is much more worth it imo. If not Kotkaniemi, another great player will also be there.

 

[Favster]

Why create a false equivalency? You can improve anything, the word is meaningless as technically, a .00001% increment, is an improvement.

The more relevant question for our purposes is if someone with deficient skating or a sub-par shot can transform them to an elite level and save an exception, I'd say it can't be done. For the same reason that you don't become a goal scorer if you aren't one already when you're drafted. There are certain traits that define you as a player, that represent what you can do. For instance, I don't believe McCarron will ever be a better skater, not so much better than what he is now and his skating will always hold him back.

Luckily, Hughes excels at several other key facets of the game and the total package is what will ultimately be determining. Just my 2 cents, I don't care to be right or wrong.

Good post. I only brought that up because I've seen certain posters mention that "skating needs to be worked on" but they will say things such as "his shot is terrible" as if one could be improved on while the other can't.

I totally agree on the bolded. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts Hughes will not be a goal scoring defenceman, because he doesn't have a great shot. He's an elite puck moving defenceman who can quarterback a PP right now in the NHL.

 

[Mrb1p]

Good post. I only brought that up because I've seen certain posters mention that "skating needs to be worked on" but they will say things such as "his shot is terrible" as if one could be improved on while the other can't.

I totally agree on the bolded. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts Hughes will not be a goal scoring defenceman, because he doesn't have a great shot. He's an elite puck moving defenceman who can quarterback a PP right now in the NHL.

How many D can QB a PP without a shot?

 

[montreal]

Just out of curiosity, if the Rangers offered all their 1sts for 3rd overall, who would say no? If you would accept it, if they offered 9+one of the 1sts, how many of you would say no?

yes and yes easily as long as they know they can't trade up for 2.

How many D can QB a PP without a shot?

I look at a QB on the PP as someone that is setting up the plays, moving the puck, getting it on net. Doesn't have to be a hard shot but it has to be better then say Beaulieu who struggled to get it through players shin pads.

 

[Favster]

How many D can QB a PP without a shot?

A Powerplay QB is there to move the puck, not shoot. Obviously, if he happens to have a good shot it's a plus, but that is not the quarterback's primary role. Hughes skating is so good that he will create lanes in traffic. No, his shot won't be a canon but if he exploit his biggest strength, he will get lots of pucks on net from the point.

 

[Whitesnake]

I have no idea who the Habs will pick. Well almost....everybody knows Philippe Lapointe will be a Habs.

 

[sandviper]

Just out of curiosity, if the Rangers offered all their 1sts for 3rd overall, who would say no? If you would accept it, if they offered 9+one of the 1sts, how many of you would say no?

Well, not like it would happen, but I would say yes to that. We'll likely get Kotkaniemi and if not, we'd still get a good player at #9.

With #26 and #28, we can probably get AlexAlex and a pick of many good forwards around the 20s range: Dellandrea, Denisenko, Bokk, Kravtsov, Kupari or Lundestrom.

So, a possibility of 2 top-6 forwards (with first line upside) and a top-4 LHD. Add to it, our second round picks where we can probably add at least 3 more top-6 forwards, and at least one top-4 D. As we got 4 picks, we can gamble at this point and swing for a couple home runs.

Never happen though, but with the opportunity to add 5 top-6 forwards and 2 top-4 D, or whatever combination of 7 players, we'd probably have one of the best prospect pools by trading our #3.

 

[Mike Mike Caron]

The league is always changing, sometimes it's about players who play at both ends of ice, sometimes it's about size, now it's about speed and character, one constant between all the eras of the game is goal scoring. Take players who can make plays and score goals.

Zadina will be a Habs.

 

[ZUKI]

A Powerplay QB is there to move the puck, not shoot. Obviously, if he happens to have a good shot it's a plus, but that is not the quarterback's primary role. Hughes skating is so good that he will create lanes in traffic. No, his shot won't be a canon but if he exploit his biggest strength, he will get lots of pucks on net from the point.

i disagree ; when your QB just move the puck and that the opposite teams know that he's not going to shoot , there is less options of plays and it's more easy to adapt . That's why i prefer Boqvist

 

[Mrb1p]

A Powerplay QB is there to move the puck, not shoot. Obviously, if he happens to have a good shot it's a plus, but that is not the quarterback's primary role. Hughes skating is so good that he will create lanes in traffic. No, his shot won't be a canon but if he exploit his biggest strength, he will get lots of pucks on net from the point.

Answer my question, though.

 

[Spearmint Rhino]

I have no idea who the Habs will pick. Well almost....everybody knows Philippe Lapointe will be a Habs.

The Audette Special

 

[Favster]

Answer my question, though.

Duncan Keith, Ryan Suter. Markov didn't have a "canon", his shot was accurate. Tyson Barrie doesn't have a "canon". One of the greatest defencemen ever, Nick Lidstrom did not have a very hard shot. He used his high hockey IQ to locate shooting lanes and get the puck on net.

As I've mentioned on a few occasions now, I think his shot isn't as bad as people think and his skating ability should allow him to get pucks on the net.

 

[Favster]

i disagree ; when your QB just move the puck and that the opposite teams know that he's not going to shoot , there is less options of plays and it's more easy to adapt . That's why i prefer Boqvist

But his shot really isn't that bad and Hughes can hurt the opposition in different ways, if they leave him time and space.

 

[Legend123]

I'd prefer we rely on luck then drafting kotkaniemi 3OA just cuz hes a C.
Trade pacs for a top 15 pick. Try to trade up with our second rounders. And hope he falls to our second first rounder.
That's much better than letting up on what could be the best forward of this draft.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

I'd prefer we rely on luck then drafting kotkaniemi 3OA just cuz hes a C.
Trade pacs for a top 15 pick. Try to trade up with our second rounders. And hope he falls to our second first rounder.
That's much better than letting up on what could be the best forward of this draft.

I think that's the way to go. Zadina is a top 2 forward in this draft. I could see us passing on him for a D if we fall in love with one, but not for another forward. If we want Kotkaniemi you work a trade. We have the assets.

 

[WinterLion]

I'd prefer we rely on luck then drafting kotkaniemi 3OA just cuz hes a C.
Trade pacs for a top 15 pick. Try to trade up with our second rounders. And hope he falls to our second first rounder.
That's much better than letting up on what could be the best forward of this draft.

Obviously you only pick Kotkienemi at 3 if you think he is the best player. Otherwise just pick the guy who you think is best.

 

[Spearmint Rhino]

If we take Hughes then Mete has to go, Boston struggled with 2 midgets on the left side in the playoffs and are looking to change that up. Modern hockey or not you still need to be able to defend in your end on occasion and only so much sheltering you can do especially in your top 4

 

[WinterLion]

I think that's the way to go. Zadina is a top 2 forward in this draft. I could see us passing on him for a D if we fall in love with one, but not for another forward. If we want Kotkaniemi you work a trade. We have the assets.

It will be very interesting. I think you are probably right... but if the Habs don't have Zadina at 3... there are about 8 guys that are very different but all have extremely high upside... It's gonna be fun!

I'd love to grab a 2nd pick somehow and wiggle into that top 10 or so...

 

[yianik]

When you talk about something too much you can wrap yourself up pretty goid and not see the forest for the trees.

Before we got 3rd OA was Zadina not 3rd OA around here, and on a separate tier from 4thOA ?

Is there a reason he is no longer that in fact, or is it just us over complicating things ?