Prospect Info: David Reinbacher

[417]

I'm consequent...anytime you go with needs....9 out of 10, you'll miss. Since the draft is a crapshoot...I have no idea how you make it harder for yourself by crapshooting the crapshoot...

The Ducks, Blue Jackets and Sharks also went with "need". They needed projected #1Cs.

Every team has an element of "need" in every single pick they make. This "Best Player Available" practice that everyone seems to preach has produced a bunch of misses too.

Because, by definition..."best player available" means the best player available at the time of the draft, and of course, we all know that the best player available at the draft, rarely becomes the best player down the line and contrary to popular belief, NHL teams aren't trying to draft the best players at the time of the draft, they're trying to draft the players who project to be down the line.

Anyone can identify BPA, I get weary whenever I hear any of the teams I support start to talk about BPA, not sure if it's an actual strategy or just lip service since everyone seems to love that term/concept.

 

[Redux91]

Yeah sending David + Guhliath at the end of a game will probably be a no-brainer for every Habs D coach in the next years, if everything pans out.

The real competition will be wich D plays on 3-on-3 OT, or rather which forwards will be better then the D

No disrespect to my baby boy Guhle,
But there's only 1 D Im gonna want playing 3 on 3 OT in about 1 years time lol
And I want him on for all 5 mins lol.

 

[Rapala]

Very true that stone is a pro rated PPG player but dude still has never cleared 65 pts in a given season. It speaks more to his health than his abilities tho. Also I truely believe in my heart of hearts than Suzuki would've been a PPG player this year if Caufield didn't get hurt half way through the season

It also goes to show that a stingy 65 point player is more valuable than a 100 point swiss cheese player when mistakes are suddenly magnified two fold in critical games.

 

[The Great Weal]

Not that stretch of a pick. But it was clear before Hughes comment. Clearer once he commented. We still went needs. Because RD is the new Centerman....tough to get. Not saying he was a bad pick, he was in my top 10.

I will say that people didn't quote the entire Hughes quote where he said the talent level is comparable between the guys available (well except for Michkov obviously) so with everything being equal, they went by need. For the rest of the draft however, they threw the BPA strategy out of the window and went purely by need.

 

[Mrb1p]

It also goes to show that a stingy 65 point player is more valuable than a 100 point swiss cheese player when mistakes are suddenly magnified two fold in critical games.

Eichel is literally a 95 points swiss cheese player tho.
So was Kucherov.

 

[angusyoung]

Ever think about taking up gardening?

 

[Rapala]

Eichel is literally a 95 points swiss cheese player tho.
So was Kucherov.

I'm actually talking about Stone. Not to mention Eichel was defensive beast in this past post season I guess you didn't notice.

 

[angusyoung]

Is it a possible he plays in the big league this year already?

By all account, the kid had a great season in a league on par or better then the AHL. The next step for him seems to be NHL? Or AHL stint with a strong call up possibility?

I guess playing first pairing in Swiss league is a good option too. Just wondering.

I'd rather see him in the AHL then SHL

 

[Mrb1p]

I'm actually talking about Stone.

Eichel was their best player. He took over games completely.

 

[Rapala]

Eichel was their best player. He took over games completely.

at BOTH ends of the rink.

 

[HuGo Burner Acc]

Its easier to find a D that will do the important work than to find a forward that will be as valuable as the Ds.

Your assesment of Vegas's forwards is asinine. Eichels best season was a 95 pts pace in a lower scoring environment (both league and team), Stones best PPG season was Marchessaults best season was PPG, Mark Stone is a career 75 points player.

In fact, they had five players with better career years than Suzuki.

To merely label a talent such as Eichel as a player "whos best season was ppg" is quite the tale when hes been .94 over his 500 games career and has exceeded the PPG mark twice despite very unfavorable conditions.

Okay I'll go over these 1 pt at a time

1. Besides 2 pts, Eichel has literally only been a PPG player in his last 5 years. 269 pts in 267 games.

2. Like I said stone's career best 65 pt season is more due to injuries than anything. Dude just can't stay healthy unfortunately.

3. Besides 1 fluke season in the Vegas inaugural season which wasn't even PPG, Marchessault has been below a 65 pt player in the last 5 seasons.

4. The most important position imo is a D that can log 25-30 min a game in a all situation and especially a shutdown role. If you wanna say Kane was just as important as a Keith, maybe but it's arguable. Also, playoff hockey isn't about creating, it's about capitalizing on mistakes. That's why someone like JM was able to win the conn symthe. And I'm sorry but I'd take Suzuki and Caufield ANYDAY over him

 

[Mrb1p]

at BOTH ends of the rink.

Yes. Eichel.

 

[Rapala]

Yes. Eichel.

Yes Eichel his opponents and responsibilities were rarely out of check.

 

[cphabs]

Get this kid to the AHL

 

[Habs Halifax]

Eichel is literally a 95 points swiss cheese player tho.
So was Kucherov.

Kucherov is actually solid in the puck battle areas of the game. He comes out of scrums with the puck more than others that are skilled like him. Not sure about Eichel... I think he had a solid playoffs all around.

 

[Tyson]

Why is there a Eichel conversation on a Reinbacher Thread?

 

[Whitesnake]

The Ducks, Blue Jackets and Sharks also went with "need". They needed projected #1Cs.

Every team has an element of "need" in every single pick they make. This "Best Player Available" practice that everyone seems to preach has produced a bunch of misses too.

Because, by definition..."best player available" means the best player available at the time of the draft, and of course, we all know that the best player available at the draft, rarely becomes the best player down the line and contrary to popular belief, NHL teams aren't trying to draft the best players at the time of the draft, they're trying to draft the players who project to be down the line.

Anyone can identify BPA, I get weary whenever I hear any of the teams I support start to talk about BPA, not sure if it's an actual strategy or just lip service since everyone seems to love that term/concept.

Before picks were attributed to teams, Carlsson and Fantilli were already going top 5. From most lists. Including the McKenzie one filled with scouts. Smith, at mid-rank, was No6. Behind Benson and Michkov. The more Smith was working his magic with that 1st line, the more he was pushing down Benson...and the whole Michkov drama is why he fell.

Also, yes, the BPA approach is not a guarantee. I never claim it was. I always said though that I prefer being wrong with that approach. I prefer being wrong by going with who I think could be top 6 and maybe end up on a 3rd or 4th line....than a guy I already pencilled at best being on my 3rd....to never making it. Though yes, I udnerstand also that it's not because a guy has a ceiling of top 6 that he automatically can only fell down on a bottom 2 lines....Thing is my strategy with my girls at school is always to aim at 100% so that in the end, they might drop to 80%, rather than aiming at 80 to drop at 60....

By definition....well I guess it's to each their own...it's not my definition of BPA. It makes no sense that in the world of projection, that BPA is who a player is now. If it would have been the case, Corey Locke would have been picked top 5. Same with every single top scorers of the Q in the past years. And they rarely were. And didn't deserve to be. My BPA is ALWAYS a mix of now and projection.

As far as BPA being a tough concept 'cause everybody can identify who is....well for me, at least, it was NEVER about Let's pick THE BPA. That does NOT exist. Every list as their BPA (aside from exceptionnals like Bedard, McDavid etc.). Every scout as their BPA etc.

My point was ALWAYS about yes a comparison of who I think is...but MOST IMPORTANTLY, if my organization tells me that Reinbacher is THEIR BPA, I say....fine. When my team tells me that if he would have been a lefty, it would not have been the same, it then scream NEEDS and that doesn't make him BPA. In essence, the way I see BPA is ''everything that doesn't scream needs'' When my team tells me that this year we concentrate on 1 particular position...that is not BPA. When my team tells me that this year, or for that particular pick, we address our TOUGHNESS, that is not BPA.

I have NO PROBLEM being wrong on a Scherbak pick. I have A LOT OF PROBLEMS being wrong on a McCarron pick.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Eichel was their best player. He took over games completely.

I think that is a reach to prove your point. He was solid in many areas but took over games completely? I think that is exaggeration. His takeaways are very good but his giveaways are just as bad. Call it a wash. Someone like Stone had 4.47 takeaways/60 and 1 giveaway/60. Eichel was 2.72 vs 2.87.

Eichel on that roster that is big and fast fits his game. He is able to focus on the things he does well and in the other areas, he just has to get his job done.

 

[Mrb1p]

I think that is a reach to prove your point. He was solid in many areas but took over games completely? I think that is exaggeration. His takeaways are very good but his giveaways are just as bad. Call it a wash. Someone like Stone had 4.47 takeaways/60 and 1 giveaway/60. Eichel was 2.72 vs 2.87.

Eichel on that roster that is big and fast fits his game. He is able to focus on the things he does well and in the other areas, he just has to get his job done.

He was taking over games. Eichel took about 30 more shots than Stone, and are gva and tka the new measure of taking over games? What happened with receiving passes? Gaining zone?

 

[Habs Halifax]

He was taking over games. Eichel took about 30 more shots than Stone, and are gva and tka the new measure of taking over games? What happened with receiving passes? Gaining zone?

I'd agree in some areas of the game yeah. But not completely in all areas. That's what it sounds like you are saying anyways.

I personally think that cup was won by the team. Each individual knew their role and performed.

Anyways, back to Reinbacher. Looks like Danault's brother to me. lol.

 

[le_sean]

Why is there a Eichel conversation on a Reinbacher Thread?

Because it’s obvious that we should have drafted Eichel at 5 and not this bust from a random country.

 

[Rapala]

This.

All day.

Nothing against Reinbacher the person or player. IMO the habs just took the wrong approach, even if we end up satisfied with what Reinbacher gives us.

I disagree. I find their approach is consistent methodical and very much in line with everything they've done up to date. Leave Michkov out of the discussion because despite having a direct channel in to SKA they passed on him. So given what was left on the board and I think they had either Leonard or Reinbacher as the next best option they decided to go with the RD believing the forward will be the easier player to find down the road. The problem is people don't want to leave Michkov out of the discussion when we never saw him as a fit for what we are building.

 

[HabbyGuy]

I disagree. I find their approach is consistent methodical and very much in line with everything they've done up to date. Leave Michkov out of the discussion because despite having a direct channel in to SKA they passed on him. So given what was left on the board and I think they had either Leonard or Reinbacher as the next best option they decided to go with the RD believing the forward will be the easier player to find down the road. The problem is people don't want to leave Michkov out of the discussion when we never saw him as a fit for what we are building.

Hey I'm willing to trust the management on this, and plan on doing just that. I like Hughes alot, I like the direction we're heading. That doesn't mean however that I have to believe they did the right thing in regards to this draft or our pick at 5.

Because I don't.

I'm all for them having a plan, and sticking to it. It's way better than the alternative of Bergevin's course of action.

I'm also not too arrogant to know that's there more than one way to skin a cat. It's just not the approach I would have taken.

 

[Andrei79]

Before picks were attributed to teams, Carlsson and Fantilli were already going top 5. From most lists. Including the McKenzie one filled with scouts. Smith, at mid-rank, was No6. Behind Benson and Michkov. The more Smith was working his magic with that 1st line, the more he was pushing down Benson...and the whole Michkov drama is why he fell.

Also, yes, the BPA approach is not a guarantee. I never claim it was. I always said though that I prefer being wrong with that approach. I prefer being wrong by going with who I think could be top 6 and maybe end up on a 3rd or 4th line....than a guy I already pencilled at best being on my 3rd....to never making it. Though yes, I udnerstand also that it's not because a guy has a ceiling of top 6 that he automatically can only fell down on a bottom 2 lines....Thing is my strategy with my girls at school is always to aim at 100% so that in the end, they might drop to 80%, rather than aiming at 80 to drop at 60....

By definition....well I guess it's to each their own...it's not my definition of BPA. It makes no sense that in the world of projection, that BPA is who a player is now. If it would have been the case, Corey Locke would have been picked top 5. Same with every single top scorers of the Q in the past years. And they rarely were. And didn't deserve to be. My BPA is ALWAYS a mix of now and projection.

As far as BPA being a tough concept 'cause everybody can identify who is....well for me, at least, it was NEVER about Let's pick THE BPA. That does NOT exist. Every list as their BPA (aside from exceptionnals like Bedard, McDavid etc.). Every scout as their BPA etc.

My point was ALWAYS about yes a comparison of who I think is...but MOST IMPORTANTLY, if my organization tells me that Reinbacher is THEIR BPA, I say....fine. When my team tells me that if he would have been a lefty, it would not have been the same, it then scream NEEDS and that doesn't make him BPA. In essence, the way I see BPA is ''everything that doesn't scream needs'' When my team tells me that this year we concentrate on 1 particular position...that is not BPA. When my team tells me that this year, or for that particular pick, we address our TOUGHNESS, that is not BPA.

I have NO PROBLEM being wrong on a Scherbak pick. I have A LOT OF PROBLEMS being wrong on a McCarron pick.

Regarding the last two sentences, I don't see much of a difference. In both cases, the scouting was completely wrong. In fact, McCarron at least is flirting with the NHL while Scherbak can't even cut it in the KHL, playing in one of the weakest pro leagues in Europe.

I think you might be nitpicking the left D comment a bit too much as well. There's more value in a RD and the team has a number of LDs. Yes, pro teams will take that into consideration. But, calling it a needs pick ? So the Canadiens don't need a high end center or a high scoring winger or a PF ? There were needs everywhere. Any player from 5-13 would have filled a need aside from Simashev.

 

[417]

Before picks were attributed to teams, Carlsson and Fantilli were already going top 5. From most lists. Including the McKenzie one filled with scouts. Smith, at mid-rank, was No6. Behind Benson and Michkov. The more Smith was working his magic with that 1st line, the more he was pushing down Benson...and the whole Michkov drama is why he fell.

Also, yes, the BPA approach is not a guarantee. I never claim it was. I always said though that I prefer being wrong with that approach. I prefer being wrong by going with who I think could be top 6 and maybe end up on a 3rd or 4th line....than a guy I already pencilled at best being on my 3rd....to never making it. Though yes, I udnerstand also that it's not because a guy has a ceiling of top 6 that he automatically can only fell down on a bottom 2 lines....Thing is my strategy with my girls at school is always to aim at 100% so that in the end, they might drop to 80%, rather than aiming at 80 to drop at 60....

By definition....well I guess it's to each their own...it's not my definition of BPA. It makes no sense that in the world of projection, that BPA is who a player is now. If it would have been the case, Corey Locke would have been picked top 5. Same with every single top scorers of the Q in the past years. And they rarely were. And didn't deserve to be. My BPA is ALWAYS a mix of now and projection.

As far as BPA being a tough concept 'cause everybody can identify who is....well for me, at least, it was NEVER about Let's pick THE BPA. That does NOT exist. Every list as their BPA (aside from exceptionnals like Bedard, McDavid etc.). Every scout as their BPA etc.

My point was ALWAYS about yes a comparison of who I think is...but MOST IMPORTANTLY, if my organization tells me that Reinbacher is THEIR BPA, I say....fine. When my team tells me that if he would have been a lefty, it would not have been the same, it then scream NEEDS and that doesn't make him BPA. In essence, the way I see BPA is ''everything that doesn't scream needs'' When my team tells me that this year we concentrate on 1 particular position...that is not BPA. When my team tells me that this year, or for that particular pick, we address our TOUGHNESS, that is not BPA.

I have NO PROBLEM being wrong on a Scherbak pick. I have A LOT OF PROBLEMS being wrong on a McCarron pick.

What if it's because they had Reinbacher & Leonard, neck and neck and they just hold more positional value in the RD vs the RW?

Does the "need" become more plausible/acceptable at that point?