Are We Headed in the Right Direction?

[JoelWarlord]

I think far too many definitive conclusions about draft philosophy/targetting size are being drawn from two individual picks. They took Bob's #1 at #1 and took the best defenceman in the draft in 2023 after ruling out Michkov for presumably the contract and overall situation. I do not particularly want to reopen that can of worms, I am not saying the decision necessarily was/is CORRECT, I am saying I do not believe that they just wrote him off because of size, it was one factor among many and can not be boiled down to just Reinbacher Big Michkov Small.

Overall I don't think we have anywhere near enough evidence to conclude they're writing off small players. It sounded like Will Smith was probably their guy if available (he's not exactly "small" but absolutely would not be a "size" pick), and the same FO also picked Lane Hutson while the ostensibly forward-thinking Sabres and Kraken passed on him with multiple chances to take him before us as well. Not that the Hutson pick is definitive proof they aren't targetting size either, but I don't really buy that these guys would pick Hutson, give Caufield a 60 million dollar extension, trade for Newhook, and draft Mesar if they're just size queens. Nor would we be having this discussion if Montembeault's heater happened in 21-22 instead of 22-23.

For all the concern about the Senators and their vaunted young core, much of the initial reaction to Ottawa picking Sanderson at 5 as Bob's #8 prospect over a handful of forwards (and Drysdale) who were deemed more skilled by public prospect writers sounds pretty similar to the discussions around Reinbacher too. Just something to consider, especially in the context of worrying about if we're going to end up picking too high in the draft to get talented forwards. There is always a smallish winger or two that all the prospect guys and HFboards has ranked in the top 5 that ends up dropping to the 7-15 range when teams start drafting toolsy defencemen and centers higher than their pre-draft rankings.

 

[26Mats]

Key is Suzuki
I'm not confident
Has he become too content
Too much soonias too soon

He's not going to he able to win a championship by himself.

Hughes seems like the type to want to flood every position with talent. I think we'll see more offensive weapons being added over the next couple of years.

When a player, let say like Benson, is such elusive, talented, strong on his skates, FOR ME, I absolutely do not see the size. At all. It's not a factor. When I see Kidney, Mesar it strongly should be. When I see Hutson or Farrell, at one point in a draft, those guys despite their shortcomings are automatically BPA.

So size shouldn't be looked simply as a question of height. I look at strength, balance and elusiveness to avoid being at the wrong way of hits.

Benson might be a real beauty. They type of talent and drive you win with.

I like Reinbacher a lot. But I hope we can add forwards with as much potential like Benson or Michkov sooner rather than later.

 

[larek]

He's not going to he able to win a championship by himself.

Hughes seems like the type to want to flood every position with talent. I think we'll see more offensive weapons being added over the next couple of years.



Benson might be a real beauty. They type of talent and drive you win with.

I like Reinbacher a lot. But I hope we can add forwards with as much potential like Benson or Michkov sooner rather than later.

I'm not much on Reinbacher
I wasn't taking about championship
Talking about his quality of play
Just adding Zack MacEwen on waivers
Like to see Habs pick him up
Take some of the load from Jackeye

 

[Sorinth]

The only reason people openly say we're headed in the right direction is because we moved on from a very bad one. And because as we always think before we live it, we believe we have a better pool of prospects. Until proven otherwise.

For me, until they proove to me that they pick the best player before they pick a need, I will not be convinced. Before we know that our key players are not injured every 2 games, there's no proofs it's the right direction.

Not to single you out on this but the complaint about drafting for needs instead of BPA is often just a poster not liking the pick and concluding it had to have been a needs over BPA pick. The concept that the team went with who they thought was the BPA and it's just the evaluation of who is/isn't the BPA will be different for everyone just doesn't seem to compute.

 

[Whitesnake]

Not to single you out on this but the complaint about drafting for needs instead of BPA is often just a poster not liking the pick and concluding it had to have been a needs over BPA pick. The concept that the team went with who they thought was the BPA and it's just the evaluation of who is/isn't the BPA will be different for everyone just doesn't seem to compute.

And it's not the case. Never was. Never is. Never wil be. People who respond the way you do just don't want to understand. When Timmins in 2006 and in 2007 said that they were going to concentrate on D's...it's A CLEAR signal that they don't go with BPA. Despite being able to get McDo and PK. They still ended up picking 10 D's out of 16 picks.

When Hughes said that if Reinbacher was a lefty D, it wouldn't have been as enticing...it means needs vs BPA. When we hear how it was time to pick a C because of the lack of it, reason why we went with Galchy and JK, it's a clear signal that they don't go with BPA.

It has NOTHING to do with me not liking and people having different BPA. For example, Alex Romanov. CLEARLY not a BPA based on any lists. BUT they have seen something great with this kid by inviting him personnally. And he became their BPA. Even if I didn't agree with the pick (who cares), THAT pick was not a need. He was THEIR BPA. And seeing how he evolved, I respect that.

Also, note that I'm also able within the same scouting group to think that sometimes, they did went BPA even though they didn't do that all the time. They did that with Hutson. They did that with Roy. They did that with Gallagher. Sometimes it doesn't work, they did that with Corey Locke. Or with Maxwell. Or with Milroy. Or with Balej. But I will always prefer being wrong with BPA than needs. BPA is draft. Needs is trade.

So OFTEN, a BPA, when you are a fan, is strongly (not entirely) suggested through the public lists we see. From Mckenzie to any other lists made by serious people who could be scouts for every single team in the NHL.

So my take is this...when that consensus is off the team pick and when it's confirmed by my own viewing, I will strongly think 9 out of 10 times that they didn't go BPA. There's not a list anywhere in the world that had Mesar ahead of Kulich. Somehow, I think it's related to how close both Slaf and Mesar are and to try to facilitate their journey.

Was Mesar a BAD pick in itself? No. Were there better players based on BPA? You bet.

It's all great to justify picks by saying that you don't pick a player from what he do now...but what he will be able to go in 4-5 years. It,s extremely understandable for a Slaf pick. Bigger players take a longer time to develop.

Somebody will have to tell me......what the heck did Mesar prove or has, that would have made him an easier bet in 4-5 years than Kulich.....

It's the lack of consistency that drives me nuts everytime. If Slaf doesn't have the tournaments he had in his draft year, the guy is not our pick. Yet, seems that Kulich tournaments were irrelevant to our eyes....

 

[Twisted Sinister]

And it's not the case. Never was. Never is. Never wil be. People who respond the way you do just don't want to understand. When Timmins in 2006 and in 2007 said that they were going to concentrate on D's...it's A CLEAR signal that they don't go with BPA. Despite being able to get McDo and PK. They still ended up picking 10 D's out of 16 picks.

When Hughes said that if Reinbacher was a lefty D, it wouldn't have been as enticing...it means needs vs BPA. When we hear how it was time to pick a C because of the lack of it, reason why we went with Galchy and JK, it's a clear signal that they don't go with BPA.

It has NOTHING to do with me not liking and people having different BPA. For example, Alex Romanov. CLEARLY not a BPA based on any lists. BUT they have seen something great with this kid by inviting him personnally. And he became their BPA. Even if I didn't agree with the pick (who cares), THAT pick was not a need. He was THEIR BPA. And seeing how he evolved, I respect that.

Also, note that I'm also able within the same scouting group to think that sometimes, they did went BPA even though they didn't do that all the time. They did that with Hutson. They did that with Roy. They did that with Gallagher. Sometimes it doesn't work, they did that with Corey Locke. Or with Maxwell. Or with Milroy. Or with Balej. But I will always prefer being wrong with BPA than needs. BPA is draft. Needs is trade.

So OFTEN, a BPA, when you are a fan, is strongly (not entirely) suggested through the public lists we see. From Mckenzie to any other lists made by serious people who could be scouts for every single team in the NHL.

So my take is this...when that consensus is off the team pick and when it's confirmed by my own viewing, I will strongly think 9 out of 10 times that they didn't go BPA. There's not a list anywhere in the world that had Mesar ahead of Kulich. Somehow, I think it's related to how close both Slaf and Mesar are and to try to facilitate their journey.

Was Mesar a BAD pick in itself? No. Were there better players based on BPA? You bet.

It's all great to justify picks by saying that you don't pick a player from what he do now...but what he will be able to go in 4-5 years. It,s extremely understandable for a Slaf pick. Bigger players take a longer time to develop.

Somebody will have to tell me......what the heck did Mesar prove or has, that would have made him an easier bet in 4-5 years than Kulich.....

It's the lack of consistency that drives me nuts everytime. If Slaf doesn't have the tournaments he had in his draft year, the guy is not our pick. Yet, seems that Kulich tournaments were irrelevant to our eyes....

I agree with most of this... Except one thing.

Mesar was a bad pick. You don't draft enigmatic, inconsistent players because you see tools and potential. It's always going to end up screwing you. These types of players drive GMS, fans and coaches up the wall.

Unfortunately, it's the type of player Bobrov leans towards to look like a genius, which is why I f***ing hate him as a scout.

 

[Whitesnake]

I agree with most of this... Except one thing.

Mesar was a bad pick. You don't draft enigmatic, inconsistent players because you see tools and potential. It's always going to end up screwing you. These types of players drive GMS, fans and coaches up the wall.

Unfortunately, it's the type of player Bobrov leans towards to look like a genius, which is why I f***ing hate him as a scout.

I said he was a bad pick mostly because of the fact that he was the vicinity of 25 to 30ish pick on almost every list. And that I've seen a few games of him myself and liked him. CLEARLY I overrated the Slovakian league. Never again. Having said that. I had 5-7 names way ahead of him when it was our turn to pick. Kulich being obviously right up there.

 

[Sorinth]

And it's not the case. Never was. Never is. Never wil be. People who respond the way you do just don't want to understand. When Timmins in 2006 and in 2007 said that they were going to concentrate on D's...it's A CLEAR signal that they don't go with BPA. Despite being able to get McDo and PK. They still ended up picking 10 D's out of 16 picks.

When Hughes said that if Reinbacher was a lefty D, it wouldn't have been as enticing...it means needs vs BPA. When we hear how it was time to pick a C because of the lack of it, reason why we went with Galchy and JK, it's a clear signal that they don't go with BPA.

These are two very separate things. Saying Reinbacher might not have been the pick if he was LD instead of RD isn't necessarily about needs. It's just how things are in the NHL, RD are more valuable then RD, just like a C is more valuable then a W. We can't conclude we skipped on BPA with the Reinbacher pick based on those comments from Hughes.

I can't remember any quotes during the Galchenyuk/Kotkaniemi drafts that said they went with a C because the team lacks Cs. In fact it doesn't even make a lot of sense since they thought they actually had decent C depth at the NHL level prior to those picks. Now Bergevin probably said something along the lines of Cs are hard to find and the only way to get them is to draft them, but that doesn't mean they felt someone else was better, all it means is that they factor position into what makes a BPA the BPA.

It's not wrong to say/think that things like size or position is a factor when ranking the BPAs

It has NOTHING to do with me not liking and people having different BPA. For example, Alex Romanov. CLEARLY not a BPA based on any lists. BUT they have seen something great with this kid by inviting him personnally. And he became their BPA. Even if I didn't agree with the pick (who cares), THAT pick was not a need. He was THEIR BPA. And seeing how he evolved, I respect that.

Also, note that I'm also able within the same scouting group to think that sometimes, they did went BPA even though they didn't do that all the time. They did that with Hutson. They did that with Roy. They did that with Gallagher. Sometimes it doesn't work, they did that with Corey Locke. Or with Maxwell. Or with Milroy. Or with Balej. But I will always prefer being wrong with BPA than needs. BPA is draft. Needs is trade.

So OFTEN, a BPA, when you are a fan, is strongly (not entirely) suggested through the public lists we see. From Mckenzie to any other lists made by serious people who could be scouts for every single team in the NHL.

So my take is this...when that consensus is off the team pick and when it's confirmed by my own viewing, I will strongly think 9 out of 10 times that they didn't go BPA. There's not a list anywhere in the world that had Mesar ahead of Kulich. Somehow, I think it's related to how close both Slaf and Mesar are and to try to facilitate their journey.

Was Mesar a BAD pick in itself? No. Were there better players based on BPA? You bet.

It's all great to justify picks by saying that you don't pick a player from what he do now...but what he will be able to go in 4-5 years. It,s extremely understandable for a Slaf pick. Bigger players take a longer time to develop.

Somebody will have to tell me......what the heck did Mesar prove or has, that would have made him an easier bet in 4-5 years than Kulich.....

It's the lack of consistency that drives me nuts everytime. If Slaf doesn't have the tournaments he had in his draft year, the guy is not our pick. Yet, seems that Kulich tournaments were irrelevant to our eyes....

So Romanov wasn't the consensus BPA, but you accept he was the BPA on the Habs list because he turned out good. But if it doesn't turn out well then you think they must have not gone with BPA. That doesn't seem dishonest to you?

And it's just so strange, like we all know scouts misevaluate players all the time. So why is Mesar over Kulich not chalked up to the Habs scouts overestimating Mesar and/or undersestimating Kulich? No they must have perfectly evaluated those 2 players and then went with the worse player because of a conspiracy.

 

[Whitesnake]

These are two very separate things. Saying Reinbacher might not have been the pick if he was LD instead of RD isn't necessarily about needs. It's just how things are in the NHL, RD are more valuable then RD, just like a C is more valuable then a W. We can't conclude we skipped on BPA with the Reinbacher pick based on those comments from Hughes.

I can't remember any quotes during the Galchenyuk/Kotkaniemi drafts that said they went with a C because the team lacks Cs. In fact it doesn't even make a lot of sense since they thought they actually had decent C depth at the NHL level prior to those picks. Now Bergevin probably said something along the lines of Cs are hard to find and the only way to get them is to draft them, but that doesn't mean they felt someone else was better, all it means is that they factor position into what makes a BPA the BPA.

It's not wrong to say/think that things like size or position is a factor when ranking the BPAs


So Romanov wasn't the consensus BPA, but you accept he was the BPA on the Habs list because he turned out good. But if it doesn't turn out well then you think they must have not gone with BPA. That doesn't seem dishonest to you?

And it's just so strange, like we all know scouts misevaluate players all the time. So why is Mesar over Kulich not chalked up to the Habs scouts overestimating Mesar and/or undersestimating Kulich? No they must have perfectly evaluated those 2 players and then went with the worse player because of a conspiracy.

First, makes no sense. If true, it means that every team would always be picking C's and RD's. If every year those are more valuable, why wouldn't you see those be picked higher than where they suppose to? Didn't we pick Slaf a winger or Nemec a Right D? Or Cooley or Wright the C's? Does that mean then that Slaf is WAY ahead of those guys because he's beaten the valuable positions? I have no doubt in my mind that Slaf was picked BPA. And for that, whether he was my pick or not, I have nothing against that.

You don't remember quotes? Come on man....again.....We didn't have C's. We couldn't pick them before, we HAD to pick them 'cause we were unable to draft for them. Plenty of C's that were available in the draft that we didn't see.

As far as Romanov again....you're missing the point. You are talking about dishonesty when in the very same post I talk about picks based on BPA that didn't end up being good? What was the need for Romanov? Righty? 6'0''? Great offensively? The only NEED trait you could see if his physicality. Yet, they clearly saw more than what was portrait. So not a lot of him screams needs. Especially not when your main argumentatoin is that C's and R'D's are the most favoured positions to pick from.

 

[JoelWarlord]

When Hughes said that if Reinbacher was a lefty D, it wouldn't have been as enticing...it means needs vs BPA.

I don't really read that quote as if they were specifically angling to pick an RD, it's about looking at reasonable alternatives when one of the choices available plays in your deepest position. They wouldn't have passed on Hedman, but they probably would have passed on a left shot Reinbacher, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. New Jersey picked Nemec with Cooley & Wright on the board because they didn't need another forward, was that pick for needs, or did they just weigh the options and pick the guy they viewed as the best fit with position included as a factor when choosing between a few players in a similar tier?

Position is also part of BPA, and every year public scouting circles harshly criticize a team for "reaching" on a dman in the top 10 ahead of forwards perceived to be more talented. Sometimes that's Griffin Reinhart and it's an obvious mistake, and sometimes "reaching" for Jake Sanderson over Holtz/Perfetti/Drysdale ends up not looking like a reach at all.

It has NOTHING to do with me not liking and people having different BPA. For example, Alex Romanov. CLEARLY not a BPA based on any lists. BUT they have seen something great with this kid by inviting him personnally. And he became their BPA. Even if I didn't agree with the pick (who cares), THAT pick was not a need. He was THEIR BPA. And seeing how he evolved, I respect that.

You said it has nothing to do with you not liking picks and people having different BPAs and then outlined a scenario where the Habs had a different BPA than you or the consensus in the Romanov situation. This is a distinction without a difference. You could just as reasonably describe the Reinbacher decision in the same way, they just valued him and the "BPA" situation differently vs. the public.

By the standards you are setting no team consistently goes BPA, because in this case BPA is essentially just defined as "a rough composite of public scouting lists and my own opinion", which apparently stops being applicable at some arbitrary point between picks 26 and 38 given your difference of opinion between the Mesar and Romanov picks. I would kinda get it if they picked Lamoureux or something but I don't really see any consistent reasoning to call Mesar a needs pick but also call Romanov their BPA.

It's the lack of consistency that drives me nuts everytime. If Slaf doesn't have the tournaments he had in his draft year, the guy is not our pick. Yet, seems that Kulich tournaments were irrelevant to our eyes....

They're completely different players with completely different profiles at completely different spots in the draft and we're talking about Olympics & Worlds vs WJC and U18s. Either way this is non-falsifiable if we just declare it to be true that they're drafting based on easily identifiable storylines and then working backwards from that premise, because you can find a unique cute storyline for any player in the draft.

How about they just liked Mesar's combination of speed and skill and weren't as high on Kulich? It doesn't seem like they made the right choice, but I don't see why it makes more sense to go searching for narratives to declare it a "needs" pick rather than just assuming they picked Mesar because they liked him better. I'd get it if they picked like Lamoureux or something but the dude is a 5'10, speedy skilled winger. They just thought he was the better prospect and got it wrong, it happens!

I presume that the Sabres' drafting brain trust also liked Topias Leinonen's projectability as a 6'4 goalie more than they liked Lane Hutson's skill when they took him at 41. Otherwise, we might have to conclude that they picked based on needs and not BPA since they have two big defencemen on the left side who were #1 picks!

 

[Sorinth]

First, makes no sense. If true, it means that every team would always be picking C's and RD's. If every year those are more valuable, why wouldn't you see those be picked higher than where they suppose to? Didn't we pick Slaf a winger or Nemec a Right D? Or Cooley or Wright the C's? Does that mean then that Slaf is WAY ahead of those guys because he's beaten the valuable positions? I have no doubt in my mind that Slaf was picked BPA. And for that, whether he was my pick or not, I have nothing against that.

Nice strawman. And are you saying you don't think teams pick centers at a higher rate then LW or RW? Because they very much do, rather then evenly distributed it leans heavily towards centers, especially the higher up you go.

You don't remember quotes? Come on man....again.....We didn't have C's. We couldn't pick them before, we HAD to pick them 'cause we were unable to draft for them. Plenty of C's that were available in the draft that we didn't see.

As far as Romanov again....you're missing the point. You are talking about dishonesty when in the very same post I talk about picks based on BPA that didn't end up being good? What was the need for Romanov? Righty? 6'0''? Great offensively? The only NEED trait you could see if his physicality. Yet, they clearly saw more than what was portrait. So not a lot of him screams needs. Especially not when your main argumentatoin is that C's and R'D's are the most favoured positions to pick from.

I don't dispute that they will pick BPA and end up with busts, in fact it's actually my point so how am I being dishonest. Sometimes they see things and are right, sometimes they see things and are wrong, what they don't do is see something in a player and then pick a player that they don't see anything in.

 

[Kobe Armstrong]

we got a second line winger (IMO) and a 2nd pairing D with the #1 and #5 picks, probably not what people had in mind when they were thinking of tanking, like come on, 2 years of absolute shit and we cant get a PPG forward out of it? Reeks of smartest man in the room syndrome that we will regret down the line

and both are injury prone

 

[Whitesnake]

I don't really read that quote as if they were specifically angling to pick an RD, it's about looking at reasonable alternatives when one of the choices available plays in your deepest position. They wouldn't have passed on Hedman, but they probably would have passed on a left shot Reinbacher, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. New Jersey picked Nemec with Cooley & Wright on the board because they didn't need another forward, was that pick for needs, or did they just weigh the options and pick the guy they viewed as the best fit with position included as a factor when choosing between a few players in a similar tier?

Position is also part of BPA, and every year public scouting circles harshly criticize a team for "reaching" on a dman in the top 10 ahead of forwards perceived to be more talented. Sometimes that's Griffin Reinhart and it's an obvious mistake, and sometimes "reaching" for Jake Sanderson over Holtz/Perfetti/Drysdale ends up not looking like a reach at all.

You said it has nothing to do with you not liking picks and people having different BPAs and then outlined a scenario where the Habs had a different BPA than you or the consensus in the Romanov situation. This is a distinction without a difference. You could just as reasonably describe the Reinbacher decision in the same way, they just valued him and the "BPA" situation differently vs. the public.

By the standards you are setting no team consistently goes BPA, because in this case BPA is essentially just defined as "a rough composite of public scouting lists and my own opinion", which apparently stops being applicable at some arbitrary point between picks 26 and 38 given your difference of opinion between the Mesar and Romanov picks. I would kinda get it if they picked Lamoureux or something but I don't really see any consistent reasoning to call Mesar a needs pick but also call Romanov their BPA.

They're completely different players with completely different profiles at completely different spots in the draft and we're talking about Olympics & Worlds vs WJC and U18s. Either way this is non-falsifiable if we just declare it to be true that they're drafting based on easily identifiable storylines and then working backwards from that premise, because you can find a unique cute storyline for any player in the draft.

How about they just liked Mesar's combination of speed and skill and weren't as high on Kulich? It doesn't seem like they made the right choice, but I don't see why it makes more sense to go searching for narratives to declare it a "needs" pick rather than just assuming they picked Mesar because they liked him better. I'd get it if they picked like Lamoureux or something but the dude is a 5'10, speedy skilled winger. They just thought he was the better prospect and got it wrong, it happens!

I presume that the Sabres' drafting brain trust also liked Topias Leinonen's projectability as a 6'4 goalie more than they liked Lane Hutson's skill when they took him at 41. Otherwise, we might have to conclude that they picked based on needs and not BPA since they have two big defencemen on the left side who were #1 picks!

Not sure where you read that I think the Habs are the only ones who are wrong by going needs. Quite a few does. A whole lot of teams suck at drafting. There's no greater revolving door than in scouting. But others doing it doesn't soften that we do it too.

Personnally, as far as Mesar is going.....it's even worse for me. Sure they liked him. I liked him too. But being a close friend to Slaf while maybe not being the No1 reason, played a role. I don't see how it didn't. Based on EVERYBODY not having him as high as Kulich was. Mesar has nowhere close a resume like Kulich did. You don't want me to compare Kulich to Slaf....great. Now do the exercice with Kulich and Mesar.

I do not know why the ''they picked him so they thought he was better'' a point to be made. Yeah, sure. Of course. Unless there's proof that they picked a guy while having a gun pointed at their head, OF COURSE they prefered a guy by taking him. Mind you....it doesn't mean it was unanimous. But again, that's not the point.

It's what makes a player better than is always the question. It's about thinking that RD and C should always count as a big plus. It's to think that character should have this kind of pull over a pick. It's too think that we should pick a right D because we are low on right D. And then whine later that we're missing top end talent.

Mostly, when people say that the position will always count to determine what a BPA is all about, this is where I completely disagree. This is directly from Bergevin playbook. YOU CAN'T TRADE FOR A C. Who are our 2 best C's? Suzuki and Dach. Is it preferable to pick them? Sure. At one point, a C will fell on your lap over the course of 5-7 years. And if not, if you hace too much talent on your hands, you should be able to trade for a C.

In the end, we ended up having to pick a C in the draft because of our inability to pick Bergeron, Krejci, Getzlaf, Carter, Pavelski, Brayden Point, Claude Giroux etc....all guys that were available for us at one point. Some we had a chance to pick with numerous picks.

At the draft, just tell me that you pick who you think will be the best player. If you miss, you miss. Thing is, eventually....no matter the strategies, if you keep missing, you'll lose your job.

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

And it's not the case. Never was. Never is. Never wil be. People who respond the way you do just don't want to understand. When Timmins in 2006 and in 2007 said that they were going to concentrate on D's...it's A CLEAR signal that they don't go with BPA. Despite being able to get McDo and PK. They still ended up picking 10 D's out of 16 picks.

When Hughes said that if Reinbacher was a lefty D, it wouldn't have been as enticing...it means needs vs BPA. When we hear how it was time to pick a C because of the lack of it, reason why we went with Galchy and JK, it's a clear signal that they don't go with BPA.

It has NOTHING to do with me not liking and people having different BPA. For example, Alex Romanov. CLEARLY not a BPA based on any lists. BUT they have seen something great with this kid by inviting him personnally. And he became their BPA. Even if I didn't agree with the pick (who cares), THAT pick was not a need. He was THEIR BPA. And seeing how he evolved, I respect that.

Also, note that I'm also able within the same scouting group to think that sometimes, they did went BPA even though they didn't do that all the time. They did that with Hutson. They did that with Roy. They did that with Gallagher. Sometimes it doesn't work, they did that with Corey Locke. Or with Maxwell. Or with Milroy. Or with Balej. But I will always prefer being wrong with BPA than needs. BPA is draft. Needs is trade.

So OFTEN, a BPA, when you are a fan, is strongly (not entirely) suggested through the public lists we see. From Mckenzie to any other lists made by serious people who could be scouts for every single team in the NHL.

So my take is this...when that consensus is off the team pick and when it's confirmed by my own viewing, I will strongly think 9 out of 10 times that they didn't go BPA. There's not a list anywhere in the world that had Mesar ahead of Kulich. Somehow, I think it's related to how close both Slaf and Mesar are and to try to facilitate their journey.

Was Mesar a BAD pick in itself? No. Were there better players based on BPA? You bet.

It's all great to justify picks by saying that you don't pick a player from what he do now...but what he will be able to go in 4-5 years. It,s extremely understandable for a Slaf pick. Bigger players take a longer time to develop.

Somebody will have to tell me......what the heck did Mesar prove or has, that would have made him an easier bet in 4-5 years than Kulich.....

It's the lack of consistency that drives me nuts everytime. If Slaf doesn't have the tournaments he had in his draft year, the guy is not our pick. Yet, seems that Kulich tournaments were irrelevant to our eyes....

I'm not sure to understand everything, I've read very fast. I'm not that crazy or confident about Mesar. I mean, I guess 31 nhl teams have 2 or 3 of this kind of prospect player. I would not bet my house Mesar will become a dominant player or a piece of a puzzle in the big sheme of a winning team. I would not bet my back cabana and not my welcome carpet.

For the picks, I thing it's secondary at this moment or the next 3 years. All the best picks or the meh picks or the worst picks have one thing in common : they will arrive some day in a bad team. A team without 3 good centers. I can count Suzuki as a good center but he's not generation talent, far from it. Monahan will get injured again and if he's not, he will be traded for a pick between 18 to 32. Dach is injured prone. Nobody saw that coming. Bad luck, just plain and frustrating.

Wingers will have to learn nhl having for center Mr Smile Dvo, or Evans or maybe Beck. The step will be so huge. Without a solid centerline, wingers and other forwards will be beaten 75% of the time. More injuries, more nervous plays, harder way of adapting to the nhl. We are done.

edit : Any new player from the draft or by trade lands in a bad context, a bad team with an huge hill to climb. All the other teams will kill us. Teams like Sens, Leafs, Islanders, etc. 75% of the teams will eat us alive. To place in context, those players will fit gradually in a bad context, aka a team with Gallagher, Armia, Dvorak, Savard, Evans. What can be done about that context right now? Nothing.

 

[Whitesnake]

I'm not sure to understand everything, I've read very fast. I'm not that crazy or confident about Mesar. I mean, I guess 31 nhl teams have 2 or 3 of this kind of prospect player. I would not bet my house Mesar will become a dominant player or a piece of a puzzle in the big sheme of a winning team. I would not bet my back cabana and not my welcome carpet.

For the picks, I thing it's secondary at this moment or the next 3 years. All the best picks or the meh picks or the worst picks have one thing in common : they will arrive some day in a bad team. A team without 3 good centers. I can count Suzuki as a good center but he's not generation talent, far from it. Monahan will get injured again and if he's not, he will be traded for a pick between 18 to 32. Dach is injured prone. Nobody saw that coming. Bad luck, just plain and frustrating.

Wingers will have to learn nhl having for center Mr Smile Dvo, or Evans or maybe Beck. The step will be so huge. Without a solid centerline, wingers and other forwards will be beaten 75% of the time. More injuries, more nervous plays, harder way of adapting to the nhl. We are done.

This team needs WAY more tanking years. Top-end talent is not there. And the tanks need to also happen in GOOD tanking years. Next year is pretty good. Not insane though. But Celebrini or Eiserman would help immensely.

I'm not as confidence in our prospect pool as some are. Not only because I think that in itself it's bad. But because I think that the teams that we will have to surpass, quite a few of them have better prospects in quality. Or their young players already in the NHL are better than what we have.

 

[calder candidate]

I hard to be worst then when MB left the team…The issues for me is that the draft have and off-season were a bit underwhelming and I don’t see lot happening at the TDL but that might turn thing around, The injuries aren’t helping us either Dach and Ghule needed to take a step hopefully this will help us get a better pick…

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

This team needs WAY more tanking years. Top-end talent is not there. And the tanks need to also happen in GOOD tanking years. Next year is pretty good. Not insane though. But Celebrini or Eiserman would help immensely.

I'm not as confidence in our prospect pool as some are. Not only because I think that in itself it's bad. But because I think that the teams that we will have to surpass, quite a few of them have better prospects in quality. Or their young players already in the NHL are better than what we have.

Exactly but recently it becomes true because or Dach injury. With a strong center like Dach, I was optimistic. So the thing to expect with optimism is drafting a good early pick next summer as you say.

 

[ML16]

He's not going to he able to win a championship by himself.

Hughes seems like the type to want to flood every position with talent. I think we'll see more offensive weapons being added over the next couple of years.



Benson might be a real beauty. They type of talent and drive you win with.

I like Reinbacher a lot. But I hope we can add forwards with as much potential like Benson or Michkov sooner rather than later.

Hopefully one forward fitting that criteria will be drafted next summer with the Habs (likely top-5) 1st round pick; odds of drafting such player despite lottery bad luck (outside of the top-5) would still remain plausible considering the 2024 draft top-10 early projections are unusually D-heavy top-10 and the Habs could thus see a forward trickle to their position.

Besides this 2024 pick, a trade window for another impactful, core material, forward seems wide open - scheduled even - in summer of 2025 ; choices will have to be made by then regarding which RFA and ELC defensemen to keep and which to sell - and it further coincides with substantial draft capital. (Selling Monahan, Pearson, Dvorak and Savard by then will also have provided even more assets.)

 

[SnapVirus]

I think far too many definitive conclusions about draft philosophy/targetting size are being drawn from two individual picks. They took Bob's #1 at #1 and took the best defenceman in the draft in 2023 after ruling out Michkov for presumably the contract and overall situation. I do not particularly want to reopen that can of worms, I am not saying the decision necessarily was/is CORRECT, I am saying I do not believe that they just wrote him off because of size, it was one factor among many and can not be boiled down to just Reinbacher Big Michkov Small.

Overall I don't think we have anywhere near enough evidence to conclude they're writing off small players. It sounded like Will Smith was probably their guy if available (he's not exactly "small" but absolutely would not be a "size" pick), and the same FO also picked Lane Hutson while the ostensibly forward-thinking Sabres and Kraken passed on him with multiple chances to take him before us as well. Not that the Hutson pick is definitive proof they aren't targetting size either, but I don't really buy that these guys would pick Hutson, give Caufield a 60 million dollar extension, trade for Newhook, and draft Mesar if they're just size queens. Nor would we be having this discussion if Montembeault's heater happened in 21-22 instead of 22-23.

For all the concern about the Senators and their vaunted young core, much of the initial reaction to Ottawa picking Sanderson at 5 as Bob's #8 prospect over a handful of forwards (and Drysdale) who were deemed more skilled by public prospect writers sounds pretty similar to the discussions around Reinbacher too. Just something to consider, especially in the context of worrying about if we're going to end up picking too high in the draft to get talented forwards. There is always a smallish winger or two that all the prospect guys and HFboards has ranked in the top 5 that ends up dropping to the 7-15 range when teams start drafting toolsy defencemen and centers higher than their pre-draft rankings.

Bob dont make his list, by ranking the best players. Bon makes his list to where he believe players Will be picked by teams, after talking to sources.

If he says Slaf is 1st, it absolutely not means that he thinks or that his sources scouts thinks Slaf is the best. Its just means that everyone think, Mtl will draft him first.

 

[HabsWhiteKnightLOL]

I still think having Bobrov and Lapointe as head scout , is not going into the right direction. The only thing that went at the good direction was for trades. Minus that , eh

 

[HabzSauce]

when's the last time this team had a game plan? lol

this team has always relied on goaltending (roy, theodore, halak, price..)

maybe a really good goalie is what we need. i mean just look at the oilers.. habs could have all the skills but it's nothing without a decent/consistent goaltending.

we had a system with price, good or bad however you see it. Me personally it was beautiful to watch, I just wish we could have gotten more firepower.

 

[RationalExpectations]

I think what I am worried about is that people still think of the Habs as a team in year 2 of their rebuild, which is completely false.
Suzuki is in his D+7, Newhook Dach Caufield D+5, Monahan is an established vet, so is Anderson they have bottom 6 vets (pearson, evans, gallagher), Matheson Savard are supposedly top 4 Dmen, Guhle is in his D+4, same as Barron, Harris is D+7, Xhekaj too.

This team is actually quite close to their prime and should be competitive. The lack of coherent play is worrisome. I say that as a guy who liked the idea of Dach Newhook trades

 

[BaseballCoach]

we got a second line winger (IMO) and a 2nd pairing D with the #1 and #5 picks, probably not what people had in mind when they were thinking of tanking, like come on, 2 years of absolute shit and we cant get a PPG forward out of it? Reeks of smartest man in the room syndrome that we will regret down the line

What it reeks of is the overselling of the benefits of tanking.

 

[BaseballCoach]

I think what I am worried about is that people still think of the Habs as a team in year 2 of their rebuild, which is completely false.
Suzuki is in his D+7, Newhook Dach Caufield D+5, Monahan is an established vet, so is Anderson they have bottom 6 vets (pearson, evans, gallagher), Matheson Savard are supposedly top 4 Dmen, Guhle is in his D+4, same as Barron, Harris is D+7, Xhekaj too.

This team is actually quite close to their prime and should be competitive. The lack of coherent play is worrisome. I say that as a guy who liked the idea of Dach Newhook trades

I get your point, but Harris is D+6 actually. Xhekaj was undrafted and signed with us just over 2 years ago, but the maximum he could have been is D+5. Suzuki who just turned 24 is the only guy starting his D+7, the first two years of which were in junior.

So we have ten 24-and-under regulars:

Suzuki​

Ylonen​

RHP​

Harris​

Caufield​

Dach​

Newhook​

Xhekaj​

Guhle​

Slafkovsky​

and two roster spares:

Barron​

Primeau​

​

Our oldest important players are three 29 year olds.

There are just two guys over 31 and their contracts both expire next year. Only one long-term bad contract.

Yes, this is month 21 of the Hughes rebuild, but I agree that it is time to start ramping up the roster with the spots opening up and the cap space and trade capital we have. We should not expect to wait another 4 years to be competitive for example. By 2025-26 I would hope we are aiming to win 1 or 2 playoff rounds.

 

[Big Lurk]

Jury's still out.
Destination looks good on Google Maps.
Lets hope one of these right turns doesnt lead us to a swamp