Toggle sidebar

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

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris Cutter said:
Exactly, Bergevin is just a reckless type of risk taker. Like some kid drunk as **** driving their car after a party. Sometimes it'll go well. Other times he'll **** up.
Click to expand...
I don’t think he’s necessarily reckless, just that he doesn’t take calculated risks. A lot of times, he’s aware he’s going to lose something crucial, but banks on what he’s by getting to be better or similar.

I’m one of the few “supporters” of Bergevin left, so I’m a bit more positive when it comes to him. I’ve been on record saying if there weren’t changes this off season that I’d revoke my Bergevin fan club card.

As of now, it’s going well but there are still many steps that need to happen.
 
Yoshidas Island said:
I don’t think he’s necessarily reckless, just that he doesn’t take calculated risks. A lot of times, he’s aware he’s going to lose something crucial, but banks on what he’s by getting to be better or similar.

I’m one of the few “supporters” of Bergevin left, so I’m a bit more positive when it comes to him. I’ve been on record saying if there weren’t changes this off season that I’d revoke my Bergevin fan club card.

As of now, it’s going well but there are still many steps that need to happen.
Click to expand...
Even the Radulov fail?
 
Chris Cutter said:
Even the Radulov fail?
Click to expand...
I can somewhat understand the Radulov mess, but it’s the Markov mess that first pissed me off. I don’t mind the fact that we didn’t sign him, but by the sounds of it Markov was disrespected, which pisses me off. That and the Alzner move are what started to tip me the other way. Every other move I’ve at least seen the rationale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Garnet76 and Chris Cutter
Runner77 said:
Ballsy move? With this GM, "ballsy" means coughing up picks for third line character guys.

I don't want ballsy on this draft. Ballsy needs to happen from a much more sophisticated GM otherwise it'll just be an exercise in throwing darts. Molson made the biggest mistake of MB's tenure by allowing him to be in charge of a draft where the Habs own a wealth of picks. I'm waiting to see what fail-safe measures will be implemented before the draft, in the form of someone else at the draft table, to save Bergevin from himself.
Click to expand...

There will be none. Molson is an idiot who happens to have money. He'll let Bergevin sink that boat pass salvation before doing anything. So let's hope we have some good scouting for this year and he just listens to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Per Sjoblom and Runner77
Yoshidas Island said:
I don’t really understand the mentality that Bergevin is a “safe” GM. You can complain about the moves he makes but I don’t think it’s debatable that he’s a safe GM.

I mean the Subban trade, Sergachev trade, the Radulov signing, the Alzner signing, the Petry and Vanek trades. They aren’t all obviously good deals, but he’s not sitting on his laurels doing absolutely nothing too.

McCarron, Pezzetta and Crisp are likely the only draft picks under Bergevin that would constitute as playing it safe, or playing for size. (The non-sexy pick)

Every year we pick someone who has a meaningful amount of upside.

I’m not saying Bergevin makes good moves just that he isn’t a “play it safe” Gm
Click to expand...

He's not a safe GM at all. However, there are risks and calculated risks. He doesn't know the difference.

The term "fail-safe" was used as a preferred threshold and not to impute in any manner that Bergevin is "safe".

I don't think the mentality that GM is "safe", exists frankly. I don't know where you've seen it.
 
CapSpace said:
There will be none. Molson is an idiot who happens to have money. He'll let Bergevin sink that boat pass salvation before doing anything. So let's hope we have some good scouting for this year and he just listens to them.
Click to expand...

You know what would be a real ballsy move? As soon as the last pick of the draft is in the books, tell several of the amateur scouting people at the table that there is no need for them to return to their offices, their jobs are done.
 
Runner77 said:
You know what would be a real ballsy move? As soon as the last pick of the draft is in the books, tell several of the amateur scouting people at the table that there is no need for them to return to their offices, their jobs are done.
Click to expand...
Dump them now and run live polls here on who to draft when we are on the clock
Basically 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire - Ask the Audience' style
If it's close WTK can be his Call a Friend option
 
  • Like
Reactions: CapSpace, WeThreeKings and Runner77
Spearmint Rhino said:
Dump them now and run live polls here on who to draft when we are on the clock
Basically 'Who Wants to be a Millionaire - Ask the Audience' style
If it's close WTK can be his Call a Friend option
Click to expand...

I'd pay just to hear WTK use the word "garbage" to refer to players he would never draft. Sign me up, lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stive Morgan and WeThreeKings
Mrb1p said:
I doubt they do it for a 3rd round pick alone, it'd have to be at least a 2nd rounder.
Click to expand...

Depends where both teams see a drop-off point in those first 6 picks.

If Detroit has a player they really want at no. 3OA, I would not offer more than that 3rd rounder.

Plus, it's a dangerous move -- we could use an elite sniper. Wahlstrom could well go before that 6th. It would mean we'd be making an attempt at Kotkaniemi and who knows how far up he'd be on teams' lists by then.

I'd much rather attempt to add an additonal first rounder in a deal involving Pacioretty. And even go for a second first rounder by using 2 of the second rounders to move up in the early 20 range, all depending on who has fallen.
 
Runner77 said:
Depends where both teams see a drop-off point in those first 6 picks.

If Detroit has a player they really want at no. 3OA, I would not offer more than that 3rd rounder.

Plus, it's a dangerous move -- we could use an elite sniper. Wahlstrom could well go before that 6th. It would mean we'd be making an attempt at Kotkaniemi and who knows how far up he'd be on teams' lists by then.

I'd much rather attempt to add an additonal first rounder in a deal involving Pacioretty. And even go for a second first rounder by using 2 of the second rounders to move up in the early 20 range, all depending on who has fallen.
Click to expand...
6th pick still assures us one of Zadina, Wahlstrom, Boqvist or Kotkaniemi. I'd do it even for a late 2nd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ProspectsSTC, NoQuinn and Mrb1p
Janne Niinimaa said:
6th pick still assures us one of Zadina, Wahlstrom, Boqvist or Kotkaniemi. I'd do it even for a late 2nd.
Click to expand...

That's with the info we have now. We don't know how high Kotakniemi will rank when Bobby Mac comes up with his final list.

I don't think Zadina would be there at 6, most pundits are ranking him 3rd. I can see Boqvist there but not Zadina.

So based on the limited number of slots between 3 and 6:

We'd have 3, 4 and 5 ahead of us. So let's say team 3 goes for Zadina, then team 4 could potentially choose between Wahlstrom and Kotkaniemi. And team 5 could potentially choose between whoever wasn't picked between Wahlstrom and Kotkaniemi. Leaving us with the possibility of going with Boqvist.

Basically, if we really want a forward sniper, 6th spot opens certain possibilities that we don't need to deal with at 3. I'd rather keep 3.
 
Runner77 said:
The logical decision for me is to go for position where the BPA is within the same talent tier. The earlier the round, the more rigor I would use in this regard.

Ultimately, you can't pass up on a player that provides the greatest talent and potential by a significant margin only because he's not playing the position you happen to need. This is where you stock up your organizational depth with layers upon layers of talented players who were BPAs and then move them at the appropriate time to fill needs, so that you're never forced into a position of compromise at the most critical and vulnerable time -- the time when you're drafting them.
Click to expand...
BPA has it's merits, but Edmonton had 4 first overalls and took BPA and it didn't work. I guess both systems can fail.
 
Long Sky said:
BPA has it's merits, but Edmonton had 4 first overalls and took BPA and it didn't work. I guess both systems can fail.
Click to expand...

Any system can fail. It's all about making calculated assessments and risks. However, some teams draft better than others. Why not poach from their staff and overpay to attract them here.
 
Runner77 said:
That's with the info we have now. We don't know how high Kotakniemi will rank when Bobby Mac comes up with his final list.

I don't think Zadina would be there at 6, most pundits are ranking him 3rd. I can see Boqvist there but not Zadina.

So based on the limited number of slots between 3 and 6:

We'd have 3, 4 and 5 ahead of us. So let's say team 3 goes for Zadina, then team 4 could potentially choose between Wahlstrom and Kotkaniemi. And team 5 could potentially choose between whoever wasn't picked between Wahlstrom and Kotkaniemi. Leaving us with the possibility of going with Boqvist.

Basically, if we really want a forward sniper, 6th spot opens certain possibilities that we don't need to deal with at 3. I'd rather keep 3.
Click to expand...
Id be doing cart wheels with the 6th pick, even the 7th with Dobson.
 
Runner77 said:
That's with the info we have now. We don't know how high Kotakniemi will rank when Bobby Mac comes up with his final list.

I don't think Zadina would be there at 6, most pundits are ranking him 3rd. I can see Boqvist there but not Zadina.

So based on the limited number of slots between 3 and 6:

We'd have 3, 4 and 5 ahead of us. So let's say team 3 goes for Zadina, then team 4 could potentially choose between Wahlstrom and Kotkaniemi. And team 5 could potentially choose between whoever wasn't picked between Wahlstrom and Kotkaniemi. Leaving us with the possibility of going with Boqvist.

Basically, if we really want a forward sniper, 6th spot opens certain possibilities that we don't need to deal with at 3. I'd rather keep 3.
Click to expand...
I'd be incredibly happy with Boqvist at #6 and then pick #25 would be a great player as well giving us many options for the end of the 1st and early 2nd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ProspectsSTC and Mrb1p
Janne Niinimaa said:
I'd be incredibly happy with Boqvist at #6 and then pick #25 would be a great player as well giving us many options for the end of the 1st and early 2nd.
Click to expand...
If the Habs "fan" on Zadina/Kot/Wahlstrom, a forward like Bokk, Kaut, Dellandrea, Kupari, Berggren, etc will be available for sure, so it's all good.
 
Mrb1p said:
Id be doing cart wheels with the 6th pick, even the 7th with Dobson.
Click to expand...

I certainly understand that several have determined that after the top 2 picks, there are several players in the same tier and us moving down assures of a player within that tier. However this team is scoring-challenged. Like McKenzie's take:

 
  • Like
Reactions: KawaYui and Spearmint Rhino
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom