Prospect Info: David Reinbacher - Laval Rocket edition

[Hins77]

Well, here's the thing.

Nashville tried to trade for the 5th overall pick to take... Reinbacher.
Arizona wanted to take Reinbacher and was hoping he would be there at 6.
Philadelphia tried to trade Gauthier to Montreal to take... Reinbacher.
The Montreal Canadiens at 5 took... Reinbacher.

The discourse coming from the combine into draft week was that Montreal's phone would ring off the hook for the 5th overall pick and it's not for teams trying to trade up for Michkov, it would be to get their hands on David Reinbacher.

Whether he was your BPA or not. Reinbacher was going 5th overall in many different scenarios or order of teams selecting. The notion that Reinbacher was a reach at the time of the draft is just taking too many 'lists' into account and ignoring the actual things that were transpiring with the actual NHL teams and scouting staffs.

So I think we can get off the BPA shit with Reinbacher. This is not a reach, this is a guy going exactly in the range of prospects he was in, and his size, positional value and other qualities was making him the BPA of that range which quite clearly included Leonard and Michkov.

I am still taking Reinbacher above Leonard. I always thought Leonard a little bit over estimate. I am not that sure about his offensive contribution. He is certainly not a futur first line player. In that case, I prefer to grab the top 4 dman. Every team would like. Ryan Pulock on his team. Reinbacher will maybe won't never get 40-50 points. But im going to be finie with his 25/30 points, playing 25 minutes aNd keeping a solid ratio +/-

 

[Whitesnake]

They do the same thing for EVERY pick. They probably felt that Leonard and Reinbacher were the choices at 5th. RD is far more valuable than a winger all other things being equal. LD is easier to acquire so they might have gone Leonard if they felt he filled more of the boxes.

The famous all other things being equal. How do you exactly have both RD and a winger equal? There's nothing equal. I don't believe it. What I DO believe is going in a draft with ''Let's go RD Unless somebody is insanely way too good to pass on''. Which I still do not agree with. And again, it's not about trying to know what's in their head. I'm just doing with what Hughes said about RD vs LD. That's all. I don't agree with that approach. But they have made quite of other great picks too surely going with BPA.

 

[Sorinth]

The famous all other things being equal. How do you exactly have both RD and a winger equal? There's nothing equal. I don't believe it. What I DO believe is going in a draft with ''Let's go RD Unless somebody is insanely way too good to pass on''. Which I still do not agree with. And again, it's not about trying to know what's in their head. I'm just doing with what Hughes said about RD vs LD. That's all. I don't agree with that approach. But they have made quite of other great picks too surely going with BPA.

Even in a world where you ignore team needs with the plan of just making a trade if you have too many players/prospects at a certain position for one you lack then RD provides more value then LD because they get more in trades.

As for how can a RD and a winger ever be equal that feels a little insincere because if you can't rank players of different positions against each other then you can't ever come up with a draft list. And given that projections of prospects are so subjective and imprecise it's very easy to imagine a situation where it's difficult to decide between two players and so you just lump them together as "equal".

 

[Andrei79]

The famous all other things being equal. How do you exactly have both RD and a winger equal? There's nothing equal. I don't believe it. What I DO believe is going in a draft with ''Let's go RD Unless somebody is insanely way too good to pass on''. Which I still do not agree with. And again, it's not about trying to know what's in their head. I'm just doing with what Hughes said about RD vs LD. That's all. I don't agree with that approach. But they have made quite of other great picks too surely going with BPA.

You put so much emphasis on the LD part of Hughes' sentence.

Do you remember what Hughes said just before, in the same sentence ? "David Reinbacher c'était un joueur qui était très très haut sur notre liste indépendamment qu'il soit un défenseur".

Then when asked about what made them choose Reinbacher over other players (Leonard and Michkov were named).

"C'est un diamant brut, il a beaucoup de potentiel encore".

When asked why they went with a defenseman:

"Parce que pour nous c'était le joueur qu'on croyait qui pourrait aider notre équipe le plus"

After that, there is literally a question about if this was a BPA or needs pick. The reporter said that Hughes has mentioned before that team building and the draft are two different things then asks if this was a team building pick (i.e. a needs based pick). His answer:

"No. As I said, on our list, he was right there. In terms of, we rate players based on their potential [...] (this is a the part where he says RH is the tiebreaker between a LHD vs RHD if everything is equal) but if we felt there was a better pick, we would have taken it"

Reporter says it sounds like he's saying he picked for need. Answer:

"No. No. If we had two players that we deemed equal their potential to be as an NHL prospect, one was a left shot D, the other was a right shot D, then need would be the tie-breaker, but it wouldn't be the deciding factor in the decision".

But for some reason, you've based most of your posts off the " c'est sure que si c'était un défenseur gaucher, peut-être que ça nous aurait refroidi un peu, mais côté droit, je pense qu'on a moins de profondeur" part. The other parts are entirely ignored and you even surmise things about their thought process that contradict them.

 

[DAChampion]

You put so much emphasis on the LD part of Hughes' sentence.

Do you remember what Hughes said just before, in the same sentence ? "David Reinbacher c'était un joueur qui était très très haut sur notre liste indépendamment qu'il soit un défenseur".

Then when asked about what made them choose Reinbacher over other players (Leonard and Michkov were named).

"C'est un diamant brut, il a beaucoup de potentiel encore".

When asked why they went with a defenseman:

"Parce que pour nous c'était le joueur qu'on croyait qui pourrait aider notre équipe le plus"

After that, there is literally a question about if this was a BPA or needs pick. The reporter said that Hughes has mentioned before that team building and the draft are two different things then asks if this was a team building pick (i.e. a needs based pick). His answer:

"No. As I said, on our list, he was right there. In terms of, we rate players based on their potential [...] (this is a the part where he says RH is the tiebreaker between a LHD vs RHD if everything is equal) but if we felt there was a better pick, we would have taken it"

Reporter says it sounds like he's saying he picked for need. Answer:

"No. No. If we had two players that we deemed equal their potential to be as an NHL prospect, one was a left shot D, the other was a right shot D, then need would be the tie-breaker, but it wouldn't be the deciding factor in the decision".

But for some reason, you've based most of your posts off the " c'est sure que si c'était un défenseur gaucher, peut-être que ça nous aurait refroidi un peu, mais côté droit, je pense qu'on a moins de profondeur" part. The other parts are entirely ignored and you even surmise things about their thought process that contradict them.

If I could only give one like a week, I would like your post. You've added a lot of context and understanding, thank you for taking the effort to adequately quote.

It is clear that Hughes intended to communicate that they viewed Reinbacher as the available player with the highest potential, but they also liked that he was an RHD, and thus if an equal (but not greater) player was available, they still would have drafted Reinbacher.

 

[Andrei79]

I saw him live tonight and again, it’s hard to imagine that he is a 5th overall pick. I don’t really care if he didn’t play much this year, a player selected that high should be way better than that. It’s concerning because he shows no confidence.

Sorry about this, but I'm going to quote you (however, note that what you said at the time had value and could be argued, this isn't the point of the quotes - to say you were wrong, we all are at various points)

And yours on Reinbacher after his rookie tournament:

The point here is that this place keeps analyzing game by game, rather than taking a broad view of what's going on.

Reinbacher was excellent in Laval last year after a difficult year in Kloten, notably coming off an injury at the start of the season.

He came back early from his rehab and looked fantastic at times, rougher at others, but all in all he takes consistently good shifts with the odd rough game. This is a player who's missed the whole year and has had to come in at the toughest time. We're seeing the same kind of weird prognostication regarding Fowler. From him being the future in his first two games, to doubting his size can work after a tough one. A lot of this is just premature. Next year will give us a good idea of where Reinbacher stands.

 

[Whitesnake]

Do you remember what Hughes said just before, in the same sentence ? "David Reinbacher c'était un joueur qui était très très haut sur notre liste indépendamment qu'il soit un défenseur".

Then when asked about what made them choose Reinbacher over other players (Leonard and Michkov were named).

"C'est un diamant brut, il a beaucoup de potentiel encore".

When asked why they went with a defenseman:

"Parce que pour nous c'était le joueur qu'on croyait qui pourrait aider notre équipe le plus"

After that, there is literally a question about if this was a BPA or needs pick. The reporter said that Hughes has mentioned before that team building and the draft are two different things then asks if this was a team building pick (i.e. a needs based pick). His answer:

"No. As I said, on our list, he was right there. In terms of, we rate players based on their potential [...] (this is a the part where he says RH is the tiebreaker between a LHD vs RHD if everything is equal) but if we felt there was a better pick, we would have taken it"

Reporter says it sounds like he's saying he picked for need. Answer:

"No. No. If we had two players that we deemed equal their potential to be as an NHL prospect, one was a left shot D, the other was a right shot D, the need would be the tie-breaker, but it wouldn't be the deciding factor in the decision".

But for some reason, you've based most of your posts off the " c'est sure que si c'était un défenseur gaucher, peut-être que ça nous aurait refroidi un peu, mais côté droit, je pense qu'on a moins de profondeur" part. The other parts are entirely ignored and you even surmise things about their thought process that contradict them.

How can a position be the tie-braeker without being the deciding factor? Lol. And I'M contradicting myself?

But yes, I do base my post on being REFROIDI if he was a left d-man. It's the whole point. It's what makes it a Need vs BPA point. It cannot be more clearer. Whether he liked him a lot is irrelevant. I liked David too. I had him at 8. He was my 8th BPA REGARDLESS of what position he played. Cause I believe the draft, you pick value. Whether for you. Or in a trade. UNLESS you are 1 star away from being a contender the year after and you need a specific position which then brings the questoin...who picks top 5 when they are just 1 player away...lol.

And the whole refroidi thing....well let say last year, I have a chance to draft Zeev Buium. And I have too many lefties on my team....I STILL pick him. I would never be refroidi by a position a player plays if I love him. They weren't refroidi when they picked Mesar. Weren't refroidi when they picked Demidov. Because they, I hope, chose to think, right or wrong. that they were the best players at that spot.

I'm consequent here. When Timmins came up in 2006 and 2007 with the whole ''We need to stockpile D's''....I was insanely against it. It still gave us McDo and PK. Though McDo was penciled to go about that spot. thank god Kings went Hickey. But going with needs in a draft the way they did in 2006 and 2007 was insane.....and don't get me wrong WAY MORE INSANE than the Reinbacher pick. And again, it's rarely against a player...mostly against the strategy. And I will repeat that I got that lesson in 2005....being against the Price pick so much because we had theodore. We didn't go needs!!!! Yeah....well...one of my worst takes. you learn from that.

 

[Andrei79]

How can a position be the tie-braeker without being the deciding factor? Lol. And I'M contradicting myself?

But yes, I do base my post on being REFROIDI if he was a left d-man. It's the whole point. It's what makes it a Need vs BPA point. It cannot be more clearer. Whether he liked him a lot is irrelevant. I liked David too. I had him at 8. He was my 8th BPA REGARDLESS of what position he played. Cause I believe the draft, you pick value. Whether for you. Or in a trade. UNLESS you are 1 star away from being a contender the year after and you need a specific position which then brings the questoin...who picks top 5 when they are just 1 player away...lol.

And the whole refroidi thing....well let say last year, I have a chance to draft Zeev Buium. And I have too many lefties on my team....I STILL pick him. I would never be refroidi by a position a player plays if I love him. They weren't refroidi when they picked Mesar. Weren't refroidi when they picked Demidov. Because they, I hope, chose to think, right or wrong. that they were the best players at that spot.

I'm consequent here. When Timmins came up in 2006 and 2007 with the whole ''We need to stockpile D's''....I was insanely against it. It still gave us McDo and PK. Though McDo was penciled to go about that spot. thank god Kings went Hickey. But going with needs in a draft the way they did in 2006 and 2007 was insane.....and don't get me wrong WAY MORE INSANE than the Reinbacher pick. And again, it's rarely against a player...mostly against the strategy. And I will repeat that I got that lesson in 2005....being against the Price pick so much because we had theodore. We didn't go needs!!!! Yeah....well...one of my worst takes. you learn from that.

I find it puzzling to listen to the interview and read the quotes and put so much emphasis on that part of a broader perspective they describe. At the very least, you're completely ignoring and dismissing the rest of the comments. Yet there were a few things that were communicated and not communicated that are clear: 1. they've mentioned, word for word, that they liked him more independent of his position 2. there were no "equal" LDs. The first non-russian LD picked was picked 24th. The players in that "bucket" of potential 5th picks were in all likelyhood Michkov, Smith, Leonard, Dvorsky and maybe Danielson. All of them represented needs, so what is the issue here ? Why do you keep repeating this when the comments weren't that RD > all positions, but rather LD "peut être refroidi" vs all positions. But even then, if Schaefer or Power is available, that's who they probably pick. If they said they valued RHD over every position I would agree with you on the needs pick, but this isn't what was said at all.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Yes sir,

I'm sorry,

I'm trying to be more inclusive and to embrace the culture of pumping the tires on our prospects.

<3

Fine to be pessimistic.

But if he succeeds, I look forward to your “I was with this guy all along” posts.

 

[Andrei79]

I have a small addendum regarding my posts on Reinbacher.

I understand why posters would be wary of his potential, as his skills certainly don't flash at first glance. However, compare his coming back from that knee injury vs players we've seen in the past, including Dach. He came back way early and looked in game shape straight from game 1. He's clearly improved his puck handling, which was an issue in his draft year. Its been mentioned that he valued work during the interview process. He also studied during his time at Kloten while also having a personal defense coach on top of his regular practices. This is a player that at the very least works carefully on his craft. I don't have the same worries that he'll be ready and improved next camp as, say, Dach who's come poorly prepared twice now after significant injuries.

 

[HabsAddict]

I've seen rein fall a few times taking a turn. Probably wearing a knee brace that doesn't have enough range to allow his natural ability to turn.

Watch him when he falls on the ice untouched...it's in a turn.

 

[Whitesnake]

I find it puzzling to listen to the interview and read the quotes and put so much emphasis on that part of a broader perspective they describe. At the very least, you're completely ignoring and dismissing the rest of the comments. Yet there were a few things that were communicated and not communicated that are clear: 1. they've mentioned, word for word, that they liked him more independent of his position 2. there were no "equal" LDs. The first non-russian LD picked was picked 24th. The players in that "bucket" of potential 5th picks were in all likelyhood Michkov, Smith, Leonard, Dvorsky and maybe Danielson. All of them represented needs, so what is the issue here ? Why do you keep repeating this when the comments weren't that RD > all positions, but rather LD "peut être refroidi" vs all positions. But even then, if Schaefer or Power is available, that's who they probably pick. If they said they valued RHD over every position I would agree with you on the needs pick, but this isn't what was said at all.

I'm dismissing what exactly? The praise? That they like him? I will tell you that at draft day, they LOVE all their players. And think they made the right pick for every single draft pick. Loving picks isn't indicative that they picked needs or BPA. You think I'M suggesting that they actually aren't too keen of him but in the end, they picked him solely 'cause he's a LD? That's obviously not what I'M saying at all. They like him. But when the tiebreaker is not only the position they play...but on the right side....

As far as LD vs other posiitons...well again....they identified that RD as their most important posiiton to fill. They clearly didn't want Michkov or Michkov didn't want them, so ti comes down to him vs Leonard vs Dvorsky...but the idea here, again, is that they way he talks, if Reinbacher is a LD, being refroidi on him means that we have might saw a Leonard with a Habs jersey. They didn't think Leonard was a Demidov (of course he was not) so nobody in that draft was great enough to BEAT righty Reinbacher. Just saying that it's not my way if I'd be a head scout. But it's all good. I'm not.

Again, of all the clear needs picks, maybe David is the best of them. He's not Tyler boucher. He's not Jesperi Kotkaniemi. The fun part though is watching people dissing the Yakemchuck pick last year.....where's the value for RD now? And I'm telling you the laugh wasn't because they decided to pass on Parekh....it was because of Yakemchuck that early compared to Dickinson and Buium. And frankly, I agreed. In value, I prefered Buium and Dickinson over Yakemchuck? I sure hope that people though who keep saying that it's normal to prefer RD's had no problem with the Sens going Yakemchuck...

 

[Andrei79]

I'm dismissing what exactly? The praise? That they like him? I will tell you that at draft day, they LOVE all their players. And think they made the right pick for every single draft pick. Loving picks isn't indicative that they picked needs or BPA. You think I'M suggesting that they actually aren't too keen of him but in the end, they picked him solely 'cause he's a LD? That's obviously not what I'M saying at all. They like him. But when the tiebreaker is not only the position they play...but on the right side....

As far as LD vs other posiitons...well again....they identified that RD as their most important posiiton to fill. They clearly didn't want Michkov or Michkov didn't want them, so ti comes down to him vs Leonard vs Dvorsky...but the idea here, again, is that they way he talks, if Reinbacher is a LD, being refroidi on him means that we have might saw a Leonard with a Habs jersey. They didn't think Leonard was a Demidov (of course he was not) so nobody in that draft was great enough to BEAT righty Reinbacher. Just saying that it's not my way if I'd be a head scout. But it's all good. I'm not.

Again, of all the clear needs picks, maybe David is the best of them. He's not Tyler boucher. He's not Jesperi Kotkaniemi. The fun part though is watching people dissing the Yakemchuck pick last year.....where's the value for RD now? And I'm telling you the laugh wasn't because they decided to pass on Parekh....it was because of Yakemchuck that early compared to Dickinson and Buium. And frankly, I agreed. In value, I prefered Buium and Dickinson over Yakemchuck? I sure hope that people though who keep saying that it's normal to prefer RD's had no problem with the Sens going Yakemchuck...

You say they identified RD as the most important position to fill. Where did you see that ? The only time I've seen them mention something of the sort is about the center line as well as needing a high end point producer. Regarding the the defense, the only thing they said was that they had depth on the left side. Here's an example of what you're dismissing: every pick available, were it Leonard, Michkov, Reinbacher or Dvosky would have filled a need.

 

[Miller Time]

Yes sir,

I'm sorry,

I'm trying to be more inclusive and to embrace the culture of pumping the tires on our prospects.

<3

Deflating tires is no more realistic than pumping them.

Either way, are these silly martyrdom quips really necessary? Seems like a waste of time.

Nothing wrong with being a pessimist and having negative opinions of DRs potential. Easy enough to leave it at that.

 

[Whitesnake]

You say they identified RD as the most important position to fill. Where did you see that ? The only time I've seen them mention something of the sort is about the center line as well as needing a high end point producer. Regarding the the defense, the only thing they said was that they had depth on the left side. Here's an example of what you're dismissing: every pick available, were it Leonard, Michkov, Reinbacher or Dvosky would have filled a need.

Yes. And if Reinbacher would have been a LD, we would have probably go with the other needs. I mean this team, for me, is far from being ready. We have a lot of needs. Everywhere. But we have only 1 pick. My point, whether it's true or not, that's just what I believe, it's that as far as RD was concerned, there were not a better RD available in the past drafts that deserved being picked at the rank we picked. ON anybody's list, Reinbacher was top 10. No doubt teams liked him. Of all the names you mention, seems that D's will always have the front line to wingers. As far as C's...well possible that they thought that they felt we had more C depth.

Anyway, I'll stop talking about that for David. And solely concentrate on his own development. I did beat that subject to death, revived it, and kill it again. I'll agree with @WeThreeKings and move on. Done talking about the concept. My view will not change on that. But if I may...I will dress a lit of my own prospects that I,ve seen enough to rank....and if I prefer players over other that we pick, I will voice it....if anybody is ok with that....lollll. Don't worry, I will also praise the picks I deem good. See the Hage pick. Fowler pick. Demidov, Beck and Hutson. I was fine with Slaf too though Cooley was my pick. I could have favorites and not automatically disliking picks that we make. It's 2 different things. Preferring picks. And hating picks we make. Like...preferring Cooley, liking Slaf.

Same with David. Preferring Michkov and Leonard, not hating David. Tough to hate a player I had 8th overall.

 

[Miller Time]

How can a position be the tie-braeker without being the deciding factor? Lol. And I'M contradicting myself?

You honestly can't understand that?

For example....

Deciding factor could be "highest potential". (However the decision maker defines & asses potential).

2 players rate as having equal potential...

You pick the one that plays a position of greater org. need. (Or the position that's harder to fill via trade/UFA)

Position is the tie breaker, not the deciding factor.

Simple, no?

 

[HabsAddict]

I am still taking Reinbacher above Leonard. I always thought Leonard a little bit over estimate. I am not that sure about his offensive contribution. He is certainly not a futur first line player. In that case, I prefer to grab the top 4 dman. Every team would like. Ryan Pulock on his team. Reinbacher will maybe won't never get 40-50 points. But im going to be finie with his 25/30 points, playing 25 minutes aNd keeping a solid ratio +/-

I was watching Leonard to see what we missed by not drafting him...and I can't find anything.

He seems to be a rugged type right winger, but nothing special in shooting/skating or puck handling. Of course there are not conclusions to be drawn but if I was to choose between Rein and Leonard right now...it would be Rein.

Now if we are talking Michkov....that is an entirely different discussion. I would of drafted him even if the intent was to trade him afterwards. Asset Management 101.

 

[Andrei79]

Yes. And if Reinbacher would have been a LD, we would have probably go with the other needs. I mean this team, for me, is far from being ready. We have a lot of needs. Everywhere. But we have only 1 pick. My point, whether it's true or not, that's just what I believe, it's that as far as RD was concerned, there were not a better RD available in the past drafts that deserved being picked at the rank we picked. ON anybody's list, Reinbacher was top 10. No doubt teams liked him. Of all the names you mention, seems that D's will always have the front line to wingers. As far as C's...well possible that they thought that they felt we had more C depth.

Anyway, I'll stop talking about that for David. And solely concentrate on his own development. I did beat that subject to death, revived it, and kill it again. I'll agree with @WeThreeKings and move on. Done talking about the concept. My view will not change on that. But if I may...I will dress a lit of my own prospects that I,ve seen enough to rank....and if I prefer players over other that we pick, I will voice it....if anybody is ok with that....lollll. Don't worry, I will also praise the picks I deem good. See the Hage pick. Fowler pick. Demidov, Beck and Hutson. I was fine with Slaf too though Cooley was my pick. I could have favorites and not automatically disliking picks that we make. It's 2 different things. Preferring picks. And hating picks we make. Like...preferring Cooley, liking Slaf.

Same with David. Preferring Michkov and Leonard, not hating David. Tough to hate a player I had 8th overall.

FWIW, I don't think you've ever come on as hating Reinbacher, but disliking a needs based approach, which I think we all agree with is, usually, a wrong approach. You had Reinbacher 8th, which by definition of being a top 10 pick means you liked him. We're just debating whether that was the case here or not. Personally, if they weren't going to go with Michkov, I find it was easy to argue anyone between Leonard, Dvorsky and Reinbacher.

 

[Whitesnake]

You honestly can't understand that?

For example....

Deciding factor could be "highest potential". (However the decision maker defines & asses potential).

2 players rate as having equal potential...

You pick the one that plays a position of greater org. need. (Or the position that's harder to fill via trade/UFA)

Position is the tie breaker, not the deciding factor.

Simple, no?

All top 10 picks at the very least have high potential. Again, I never said that they went with a bad player but since he played RD, they took him anyway. I'M not that stupid. To me, but I guess that's just me, a deciding factor is the thing that is more important in a decision. So they think both Leonard and David have the same potential in different ways...the deciding factor is the position. So it can't be that simple if for me, I think that deciding factor AND tiebreaker means the same. You decide they don't....your way of seeings things. I don't share it.

 

[Whitesnake]

FWIW, I don't think you've ever come on as hating Reinbacher, but disliking a needs based approach, which I think we all agree with is, usually, a wrong approach. You had Reinbacher 8th, which by definition of being a top 10 pick means you liked him. We're just debating whether that was the case here or not. Personally, if they weren't going to go with Michkov, I find it was easy to argue anyone between Leonard, Dvorsky and Reinbacher.

Maybe. But FOR ME, (still wondering why we're discussing how I saw things as it's my opinion...lol), if Hughes doesn't say the part about RD vs LD, there's no way for me to know if it was a need or not. I wouldn't cool off over a player I desperately want no matter the position. Timmins didn't cool off on Price because of Theodore and Garon. He was right. Anyway, if @Miller Time will let me...I'm moving on....(but I suspect he won't.....lol)

 

[Whitesnake]

I was watching Leonard to see what we missed by not drafting him...and I can't find anything.

He seems to be a rugged type right winger, but nothing special in shooting/skating or puck handling. Of course there are not conclusions to be drawn but if I was to choose between Rein and Leonard right now...it would be Rein.

Now if we are talking Michkov....that is an entirely different discussion. I would of drafted him even if the intent was to trade him afterwards. Asset Management 101.

He was quieter than I expected....but you can't deny how rugged he is, the speed and the goal scoring he demostrated so far in his career. Though, as far as how rugged he is..he will need to pick his spot. There's one smaller player who thought he could immediately bring his junior game to the NHL and try to be rugged and that was Gilbert Brule...he got Brule quite fast. But I believe in Leonard. And if we need to be patient with our own prospects, we need to do the same for others.

 

[Miller Time]

All top 10 picks at the very least have high potential. Again, I never said that they went with a bad player but since he played RD, they took him anyway. I'M not that stupid. To me, but I guess that's just me, a deciding factor is the thing that is more important in a decision. So they think both Leonard and David have the same potential in different ways...the deciding factor is the position. So it can't be that simple if for me, I think that deciding factor AND tiebreaker means the same. You decide they don't....your way of seeings things. I don't share it.

That is a very odd perspective, not sure I understand what you are trying to say.

In your example, what do you call the step that identifies RB & Leonard as having the same potential?

With so many other prospects to consider, the factor that elevates the two of them above the reat is clearly not their position... And would be a pretty significant, even decisive, factor, no?

 

[Miller Time]

Maybe. But FOR ME, (still wondering why we're discussing how I saw things as it's my opinion...lol), if Hughes doesn't say the part about RD vs LD, there's no way for me to know if it was a need or not. I wouldn't cool off over a player I desperately want no matter the position. Timmins didn't cool off on Price because of Theodore and Garon. He was right. Anyway, if @Miller Time will let me...I'm moving on....(but I suspect he won't.....lol)

Odd to reference me when I've replied to just 1 post of yours in this discussion.

Fyi, I ain't paying rent, so don't ask...

 

[Rapala]

I didn't find Reinbacher very fluid in game 4 against Rochester. Hopefully it's not soreness or swelling and just an off game.

 

[Erika]

Which is something still not confirmed. And again, it's not about THE BPA. Like everybody mentions, we all have our own BPA. And it's never my point. It's not the BPA based on McKenzie list or anybody's list. It's the BPA that OUR team has. What I want my team to say at the end of the draft, every draft, is that we picked the best player regardless of position. That's all I'm asking. If they thought Reinbacher was the BPA...so be it. Thing is....to be a BPA you cannot say if he was a lefty, we might have cooled down on him....they picked Lane Hutson at 62. Clearly BPA at that rank. I just wish we would do that for every pick.

But players position is part of the BPA equation. You can't just ignore it. Teams certainly doesn't.

Maybe you don't put the same weight in that aspect, but probably most Teams does. It's just another thing to consider like skating, shooting, health, russian factor, size, etc.

Some Teams will put more importance in the player positions than others, but it's something they can't ignore.

At equal talent, C > RD > LD > W > G, or something similar to that.