Confirmed with Link: Canadiens Will Pick 5th (Hughes Presser in OP) NO POLITICS

[The Real Timo]

Gotta say HuGo must be elated that all media including local Habs coverage is completely focused on Make Beliefs saga at the most opportune moment - they can operate in stealth mode.

Hopefully Leafs soap opera runs for another 4- weeks to draft day at a minimum

Habs will get Willie... I'd be ok with that. Just need to find a helmet that fits.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Fantilli dominated the NCAA as a rookie 17-18 years old and IMO has a higher potential, more high-end skills.

Watched a bit of Hutson, Fantili and Farrell this year.

Also, I really like his personality. Think he will be a good room player wherever he goes.

I think he’s going to be special. If we could get into that 2 spot that would be outstanding. No way he doesn’t go top 3 and he’s almost a shoe-in to go 2nd.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Most of the time it's pretty easy to know who teams are picking and not picking prior to the draft when it comes to high picks.

We should know wether the habs are considering picking Michkov well before the draft, but the rumblings haven't been positive so far, and generally it's a sign...yes even if they're just rumblings. It's unlikely that it changes from "There are too many risks involved" to "The habs are actually fully considering picking Michkov".

But stranger things have happened.

Maybe they are playing possum and hoping others will pass and then at 5 they take him without thinking twice. No one knows at this point. I think the two options I want the most are most likely to bust. Michkov and smith, but we need to be swinging at talent with this pick.

If we can get to two and take Fantilli.

 

[Runner77]

I think he’s going to be special. If we could get into that 2 spot that would be outstanding. No way he doesn’t go top 3 and he’s almost a shoe-in to go 2nd.

He’d also be a shoo-in.

Funny how many times I see it spelled as “shoe in” on the forum. It turns out it’s an old expression derived from corrupt horse racing practices whose meaning morphed over time:

This noun phrase first appeared in the 1930s in the context of horse racing. When there was a predetermined winner in a horse race, jockeys would hold their horses and shoo the winner in. Shoo means to drive something away while you yell, "Shoo!" — like the way you might shoo flies.

But, I digress.

Agreed with your point on Fantilli. Imagine what it would take to land that pick in a trade. Not going to happen, as it almost never does with such early picks.

 

[BLONG7]

Maybe they are playing possum and hoping others will pass and then at 5 they take him without thinking twice. No one knows at this point. I think the two options I want the most are most likely to bust. Michkov and smith, but we need to be swinging at talent with this pick.

If we can get to two and take Fantilli.

What would the Ducks want to trade down to 5 ?

 

[BehindTheTimes]

He’d also be a shoo-in.

Funny how many times I see it spelled as “shoe in” on the forum. It turns out it’s an old expression derived from corrupt horse racing practices whose meaning morphed over time:

This noun phrase first appeared in the 1930s in the context of horse racing. When there was a predetermined winner in a horse race, jockeys would hold their horses and shoo the winner in. Shoo means to drive something away while you yell, "Shoo!" — like the way you might shoo flies.

But, I digress.

Agreed with your point on Fantilli. Imagine what it would take to land that pick in a trade. Not going to happen, as it almost never does with such early picks.

He’d also be a shoo-in.

Funny how many times I see it spelled as “shoe in” on the forum. It turns out it’s an old expression derived from corrupt horse racing practices whose meaning morphed over time:

This noun phrase first appeared in the 1930s in the context of horse racing. When there was a predetermined winner in a horse race, jockeys would hold their horses and shoo the winner in. Shoo means to drive something away while you yell, "Shoo!" — like the way you might shoo flies.

But, I digress.

Agreed with your point on Fantilli. Imagine what it would take to land that pick in a trade. Not going to happen, as it almost never does with such early picks.

Thanks for the correction. At some point I knew all this already and then my brain decided to forget it.

I don’t think Anaheim trades the pick. I’m not sure we have anything to offer that makes sense for either one of us tbh. It’s just nice to dream. I’d love Fantilli.

I would like Fantilli, Michkov, Smith in that order. The rumblings of Leonard and Reinbacher scare me. Both great prospects, I just think we can do better at 5.

 

[26Mats]

This is exactly what I'm referring to, BPA at the moment of the pick. There are a number of players you can take at the moment of your pick, so BPA isn't a specific name. Habs are picking 5th this year. There are like 3-4 guys they can take there. My question is who is the BPA among them? Some will have their preference and the player they think they should select. Someone else will prefer another player. Another person would want someone else.

So when someone says "they should take the BPA," they're just using a term that doesn't have any real specific meaning.

You brought up KK in 2018. Before that draft, there were people who wanted KK because he was their BPA at 3rd. Others wanted Tkachuk. Others wanted Zadina. Others wanted Hughes. Before the 2018 draft, people were saying "take the BPA, take the BPA", but there were like 3-4 guys everyone was naming. It's 5 years later, and we can see that Tkachuk and Hughes would have been BPA at 3rd OA. But at the moment of the pick, there was no clear BPA.



Teams do have their draft lists, obviously.

But I again go back to my initial point, simply saying "they should pick BPA" when there could be 3-4 guys you can take at your selection isn't exactly BPA. Habs can have any combination of Carlsson, Smith, Michkov, Leonard, Moore, Benson & Reinbacher available to them at 5th depending on who is taken in the Top 4.

A lot of people will say Michkov is BPA out of all of them if he's on the board. But there will be others who would prefer Carlsson if he's there at 5th. Others Smith and so on and so forth.

So it's not a question of BPA because whoever they pick will be a cornerstone for the team and franchise. They're going to take one and will leave another handful of players on the table. There will be fans who will be happy with whoever they took, while others disappointed, and others upset. So BPA really is a pointless term.



I want Will Smith to slap whoever he feeds for goals or whoever feeds him as part of his celebration.

I agree with you on that part. I just think some teams take a lesser player in their eyes because they have a team need to fill. So, although the player they select may have a lesser projection, i.e. not be the BPA in their eyes, they think the lesser player they select will be better for the team because that player fills a need that 8s bringing the team down, that they can't win without filling.

The problem with that is team needs change.

And also, I still think the main reason a scouting department ends up having a poor record when it comes to drafting is because too often their perceived BPA on draft day turns out to be far inferior to players they passed on. So maybe they have a bunch of players in the same talent category and choose for position from that category. But really the problem is that they have all those players in the same category and can't better rank them, not that they're choosing for need from that group.

 

[Runner77]

What would the Ducks want to trade down to 5 ?

Player, picks, prospects. Gonna hurt.

The Habs would have to be sold that he has a first line centre potential tag for the next 10-15 years. We can assume they do.

Start with trading Anderson to a third party team for a first rounder. Then, add it to the Habs’ 5th, plus one of the Habs’ top 6 players, plus an Engstrom or similar high upside prospect, to start the conversation.

Or something similarly substantive to get their attention. We can throw out packages all day long but what does Anaheim want/ need?

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Player, picks, prospects. Gonna hurt.

The Habs would have to be sold that he has a first line centre potential tag for the next 10-15 years. We can assume they do.

Start with trading Anderson to a third party team for a first rounder. Then, add it to the Habs’ 5th, plus one of the Habs’ top 6 players, plus an Engstrom or similar high upside prospect, to start the conversation.

Or something similarly substantive to get their attention. We can throw out packages all day long but what does Anaheim want/ need?

Realistically I think it would be a combination of picks/prospects etc that just doesn’t make sense from either side. There’s a good chance to get an elite player at 5. One that even ends up better than Fantilli.

Strong group, but I bounce around every day on who I would prefer. Tomorrow I’ll be on the Leonard/Reinbacher train probably haha.

 

[Runner77]

Thanks for the correction. At some point I knew all this already and then my brain decided to forget it.

I don’t think Anaheim trades the pick. I’m not sure we have anything to offer that makes sense for either one of us tbh. It’s just nice to dream. I’d love Fantilli.

I would like Fantilli, Michkov, Smith in that order. The rumblings of Leonard and Reinbacher scare me. Both great prospects, I just think we can do better at 5.

Didn’t mean to correct anyone, it was merely a suggestion. I make plenty of mistakes myself so I am in no position to correct anyone.

Agreed on those other names clouding the issue if we stay in the 5th slot.

Reinbacher makes no sense in a draft that is replete with high end offensive talent, esp. at center and also given how next year’s draft offers many more D options if we want to go there. Don’t know enough about Leonard but he had not been a top 5 candidate until several posters brought him up recently.

 

[JianYang]

Early in the season, I'd compare slafkovsky's game to Gallagher. He was a bull in a China shop. There was just alot of chaos going on when he established himself in the offensive zone.

As the season progressed, he was alot less visible. Maybe still trying to carve out his identity and learning on the go, which is completely normal at his age.

Any sort of "hot take" on this guy at this stage of his career is meaningless to me, but he definitely needs to keep his head up, or else we may never have a chance to even see his progression in the nhl.

 

[salbutera]

What would the Ducks want to trade down to 5 ?

A playoff spot

 

[26Mats]

Early in the season, I'd compare slafkovsky's game to Gallagher. He was a bull in a China shop. There was just alot of chaos going on when he established himself in the offensive zone.

As the season progressed, he was alot less visible. Maybe still trying to carve out his identity and learning on the go, which is completely normal at his age.

Any sort of "hot take" on this guy at this stage of his career is meaningless to me, but he definitely needs to keep his head up, or else we may never have a chance to even see his progression in the nhl.

When Monhan went down with an injury, Suzuki and Caufield saw their production decline, because they didn't have a second line centered by Monahan to back them up.

Wonder if Monahan's injury affected Slaf at all? Glad Dach has now emerged at center to lead a good 2nd line.

 

[JianYang]

When Monhan went down with an injury, Suzuki and Caufield saw their production decline, because they didn't have a second line centered by Monahan to back them up.

Wonder if Monahan's injury affected Slaf at all? Glad Dach has now emerged at center to lead a good 2nd line.

It's all possible. I felt like monhan was kind of the glue guy that provided some semblance of depth to the forward lineup.

I think it's also possible that slaf was told to tone it down. I'm not sure it was a sustainable brand that he was playing early on. He just seems like a guy trying to find his niche for starters.

 

[Whitesnake]

But I again go back to my initial point, simply saying "they should pick BPA" when there could be 3-4 guys you can take at your selection isn't exactly BPA. Habs can have any combination of Carlsson, Smith, Michkov, Leonard, Moore, Benson & Reinbacher available to them at 5th depending on who is taken in the Top 4.

A lot of people will say Michkov is BPA out of all of them if he's on the board. But there will be others who would prefer Carlsson if he's there at 5th. Others Smith and so on and so forth.

So it's not a question of BPA because whoever they pick will be a cornerstone for the team and franchise. They're going to take one and will leave another handful of players on the table. There will be fans who will be happy with whoever they took, while others disappointed, and others upset. So BPA really is a pointless term.

I don't agree BPA is a pointless term. Yes, every people have their own evaluatoin who can be. But NOBODY can say that we are going BPA IF management says that on that draft, or on that pick, we wanted to ADD a righty d-men because of how poorly our prospect pool is.

That,s what happened in 2006 and 2007. Now, sure....we can safely say that going needs in 2007 was finaly a great move. To which I saw that the only reason McDo fell to us was because of the already known stupid Hickey pick. McDonagh was seen as BPA in quite some lists already.

So I would say that what is pointless is to point out that everybody has their own BPA based on that. Yes, BPA as far as FANS are concerned are best on 3 things: Our own pick, the pick that is consensus amongst lists we can see, and NOT hearing or reading that our scouting group went for THAT pick because they wanted to fill a need.

It's clear that the BPA at 5 if not picked is Michkov. Does it mean he will succeed. No. But we are not in the future. And that's how it's been seen now. Then, if not Michkov...Benson, Leonard, Dvorsky or Reinbacher. Personnally, I see both Benson and Leonard RACKING the points at every level they play and I believe their play is pro material. To me, that makes them possible BPA too. So me saying pick BPA, you will NOT hear me badmouth a Benson or a Leonard pick even if I would prefer one or the other by claiming we went for needs....what needs? Smallish players? C's? I guess some could say that Leonard's grit makes him a need...but it's not like he wasn't able to follow Smith either.

So in essence, picking BPA isn't about picking THAT or THIS player. It's about NOT going for NEEDS.

 

[Sterling Archer]

I agree with you on that part. I just think some teams take a lesser player in their eyes because they have a team need to fill. So, although the player they select may have a lesser projection, i.e. not be the BPA in their eyes, they think the lesser player they select will be better for the team because that player fills a need that 8s bringing the team down, that they can't win without filling.

The problem with that is team needs change.

And also, I still think the main reason a scouting department ends up having a poor record when it comes to drafting is because too often their perceived BPA on draft day turns out to be far inferior to players they passed on. So maybe they have a bunch of players in the same talent category and choose for position from that category. But really the problem is that they have all those players in the same category and can't better rank them, not that they're choosing for need from that group.

Also, just to add in my 2 cents, different teams have different draft orders and as you go deeper and deeper into the draft, all 32 teams lists will vary greatly from one another as to whom they think the BPA are.

Even in the top 10 picks, you’ll have variation of those rankings between all 32 teams which is where you can sometimes get some surprise or “off the reservation” picks.

Just because the player selected isn’t the consensus or your BPA, doesn’t mean they aren’t that teams perceived BPA. People need to keep in mind that talent is subjective and each team may value different qualities in each of the prospects in question. Not to mention that drafting is more of an art than a science.

 

[JeffreyLFC]

Interesting. Who would you take with Michkov gone? If you really have Wood in the same tier as Smith it would be very hard not to take him I would think...

Yeah I'm definitely getting the feeling Michkov is gone by #5 .....

If Michkov is gone I will have a hard time making up my mind between Benson, Wood, Leonard and Smith.

I am leaning with Smith right now but I have a feeling I will regret passing on Leonard.

Benson is not my type of as far as player but he is a legit star forward and he will play in the NHL. Too much talent and his workrate is top.

As for Wood, he is IMO the guy with the most upside in this draft. He is already the best player on his NCAA team and his "flaws" will be corrected over time. I would not be shocked if he becomes a superstar forward in 4 or 5 years from now.

 

[Redux91]

IF Michkov is available at our pick, and assuming HuGo are ok waiting, they should have no worries about picking him. This is Montreal, big market, lot of history. I’m like 100% certain he’d come here if drafted.

If it were Columbus (before us) or Arizona (after us), if I were them, I would be a little more nervous as he may be more noncommittal though I do think he still would come given it’s the NHL.

Basically, the worries of him extending his KHL contract I think is a non-issue if he’s picked by a big market club.

Honestly?
I couldn't agree more
We're not just any city when it comes to this
There's this feeling that's popped up the passed few years that "MTL doesn't like Russians" which really isn't the case at ALL
T'was Marc Bergevin that didn't like Russians.

 

[Deleted member 257557]

Googling sandin-Pellika

The farther away you get from the early picks of the first round, the higher the risk of busting or of drafting an average player who may not even have a significant playing career.

We’ve seen studies of past drafts showing great market efficiency with earlier picks in particular, where the majority of teams don’t tend to draft for need and where they’ll gravitate toward those players that BobbyMac’s scouts have expressed consensus about — clearly, there is a BPA approach at work but as you suggest, there is a point in the continuum when team priorities and other subjective factors create selections that are mostly not predictable.

This somehow prompted me to google Mario’s draft (to your point I thought “who would remember who got drafter after Lemieux lol”)

Turns out it was Captain Kirk Muller himself!

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

T'was Marc Bergevin that didn't like Russians.

Real winners don't play cards after a loss

 

[sampollock]

Habs will get Willie... I'd be ok with that. Just need to find a helmet that fits.

no way... he is not defensibly responsible Kent does not want that

 

[Runner77]

Real winners don't play cards after a loss

And they also don’t do leg days.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

And they also don’t do leg days.

The agony of defeet

 

[BehindTheTimes]

When Monhan went down with an injury, Suzuki and Caufield saw their production decline, because they didn't have a second line centered by Monahan to back them up.

Wonder if Monahan's injury affected Slaf at all? Glad Dach has now emerged at center to lead a good 2nd line.

I don’t remember CC’s production being impacted by Monahan’s absence tbh.

 

[Sterling Archer]

And they also don’t do leg days.

Marty would not approve.