Prospect Info: David Reinbacher

[Deebs]

Farrell was second nationwide in NCAA scoring.

Joshua Roy was a key member of the TC WJC team, over 1 ppg.

Engstrom played solidly well in the SEL in his D+1!

And of course Slafkovsky is still only 19.

If our pool is bad and it is widely rated above average, then most pools are bad. Then what?

Our group of prospects are widely considered top 5 in the league by most in the game

 

[Scriptor]

Our group of prospects are widely considered top 5 in the league by most in the game

What I don't like about the considerations behind those ratings is that it is based on how many prospects have a legitimate shot at one day making the NHL, not necessarily about the overall quality of the prospects.

Montreal is considered top-5 because 30 prospects currently in the system are considered to have a chance to one day play in the NHL.

If the vast majority do so as mid-six, bottom-six, journeyman or fringe players, so what?

If another team has 8 players that are considered able to one day make the NHL, but six are bluechip top-6 forward prospects or bluechip top-4 D prospects, shouldn't that team be considered to have a better prospect pool? Talent is harder to trade for than bottom-6 role players or 3rd pairing and depth Ds.

There should be a grading of quality to go with quantity when determining the quality of the prospect pool.

 

[Belial]

What I don't like about the considerations behind those ratings is that it is based on how many prospects have a legitimate shot at one day making the NHL, not necessarily about the overall quality of the prospects.

Montreal is considered top-5 because 30 prospects currently in the system are considered to have a chance to one day play in the NHL.

If the vast majority do so as mid-six, bottom-six, journeyman or fringe players, so what?

If another team has 8 players that are considered able to one day make the NHL, but six are bluechip top-6 forward prospects or bluechip top-4 D prospects, shouldn't that team be considered to have a better prospect pool? Talent is harder to trade for than bottom-6 role players or 3rd pairing and depth Ds.

There should be a grading of quality to go with quantity when determining the quality of the prospect pool.

Those rankings do take notice of the level projected.

 

[Scriptor]

Those rankings do take notice of the level projected.

However, whenever they talk about Montreal's ranking, all you here is the amount of prospects projected to one day make the NHL.

Is it because sheer quantity makes up for lower quality?

 

[Deebs]

What I don't like about the considerations behind those ratings is that it is based on how many prospects have a legitimate shot at one day making the NHL, not necessarily about the overall quality of the prospects.

Montreal is considered top-5 because 30 prospects currently in the system are considered to have a chance to one day play in the NHL.

If the vast majority do so as mid-six, bottom-six, journeyman or fringe players, so what?

If another team has 8 players that are considered able to one day make the NHL, but six are bluechip top-6 forward prospects or bluechip top-4 D prospects, shouldn't that team be considered to have a better prospect pool? Talent is harder to trade for than bottom-6 role players or 3rd pairing and depth Ds.

There should be a grading of quality to go with quantity when determining the quality of the prospect pool.

I hear ya and that'd be something one would have to address with those who compile those rankings. I'm sure there's a couple of them that use this sort of ranking system you speak of.

 

[Belial]

However, whenever they talk about Montreal's ranking, all you here is the amount of prospects projected to one day make the NHL.

Is it because sheer quantity makes up for lower quality?

Yeah, we are loaded with prospects that are projected to become NHLers.

I think we're 7th or 8th when it comes to elite players projection but due to the number of projectable NHLers, we're second in the league.

 

[Revansky]

Hab Prospect Videos

Hab prospect fan, former writer for Hockey's Future.com as well as other blogs that cover the Montreal Canadians prospects.

www.youtube.com

if you check out my channel I have a few Reinbacher games, where I go through and just focus on his shifts. I would have several more by now but the audio on so many of the games (I think I have every game he played in the NL) is brutal so I an not sure how I am going to proceed yet.

Next vid is likely going to be Fowler vs one of the top picks for '24 but I should have more Reinbacher games coming up this weekend once I have time to go through more of them.




That's just a stupid thing to say, Hughe has had 1 f***ING year. How do you suck forever in just 1 year?

Thanks a lot ! Will watch a few games in the next couple of days.

 

[SlafySZN]

I agree it wouldn't be a surprise because the nature of the sport is only one team wins the cup. He didn't started in the position Bergevin did, so it's always going to be an uphill battle for Hughes in a way it should have never been for Bergevin. That said, the goal is still to win the cup. If Hughes doesn't win won he fails regardless of how logical I find his decisions.

RE: Newhook.... because he values the player and their ability to help him find his path. I really like Newhook as a player but I don't think he is going to take a jump so significant in his first year in Montreal that he genuinely costs us draft capital, and I think late firsts and early seconds are more valuable to draft junkies than actual NHL teams. So I'd say it was a fine gamble to the extent I even view it as such.

Exactly, those acquisitions (Dach, Newhook) were for what they can become once they’re in their peak & they judged it’ll take at least 2-3 years to get there, with Caufield developing too. Not for the present.

 

[David Suzuki]

Exactly, those acquisitions (Dach, Newhook) were for what they can become once they’re in their peak & they judged it’ll take at least 2-3 years to get there, with Caufield developing too. Not for the present.

Exactly. They're betting on talented early 20's players who have not met expectations right now and their coaching staff. Pretty smart investment if you trust the people you've hired to develop talent.

In a sense, it's almost the inverse of what we did when we traded Leclair and Desjardins away before they hit their primes. Of course I am not saying it will work out like that, but it works to understand the logic.

 

[BaseballCoach]

What I don't like about the considerations behind those ratings is that it is based on how many prospects have a legitimate shot at one day making the NHL, not necessarily about the overall quality of the prospects.

Montreal is considered top-5 because 30 prospects currently in the system are considered to have a chance to one day play in the NHL.

If the vast majority do so as mid-six, bottom-six, journeyman or fringe players, so what?

If another team has 8 players that are considered able to one day make the NHL, but six are bluechip top-6 forward prospects or bluechip top-4 D prospects, shouldn't that team be considered to have a better prospect pool? Talent is harder to trade for than bottom-6 role players or 3rd pairing and depth Ds.

There should be a grading of quality to go with quantity when determining the quality of the prospect pool.

Agreed 1000% but other teams are just like ours. Many prospects will not hit their potential, and no one has 6-8 blue-chip players.

Having 30 guys with NHL potential virtually guarantees we will have more quality than most teams in the end, hence the consensus top-5 ranking.

I hear ya and that'd be something one would have to address with those who compile those rankings. I'm sure there's a couple of them that use this sort of ranking system you speak of.

They all do that sort of thing. The result is that high quantity of prospects has the very good chance of producing high quality overall.

 

[Twisted Sinister]

People in general though aren't very bright though.

Plus I think you should have said owner not management, as I feel Molson was a big problem at least during the MB years so who's to say he's still not too involved though firing MB was a great first step, only time will tell in he made the right choice.

Not to go off topic but as a huge Phillies fan when they were rebuilding it was down to 2 guys for GM, one came from Tampa Bay, the best run organization in all of MLB and the other was fresh out of grad school from Princeton or one of the Ivy's. I so badly wanted the guy from TB who is now with Boston, when the Ivy league kid was hired fans were hyping him up only to see him turn into a total disaster that set their rebuild back years so I know full well what's at stake.

Hughes at least talks the talk well, but we'll see.

I will definitely give you that Hughes is well-spoken. However, to what degree does he have control of the team? How much of it is Gorton? How much decision-making power does Bobrov have on the draft picks (because it seems very well near 100% from interviews).

How much sway does Molson still have over things? Did he veto Michkov, for example? Wouldn't shock me.

The reason this organization is run like a soulless corporation instead of a hockey team a lot of the time falls on his shoulders, and there is definitely an argument to be made that running the team in such a way is one of the chief contributors to our failure.

 

[Belial]

I will definitely give you that Hughes is well-spoken. However, to what degree does he have control of the team? How much of it is Gorton? How much decision-making power does Bobrov have on the draft picks (because it seems very well near 100% from interviews).

How much sway does Molson still have over things? Did he veto Michkov, for example? Wouldn't shock me.

The reason this organization is run like a soulless corporation instead of a hockey team a lot of the time falls on his shoulders, and there is definitely an argument to be made that running the team in such a way is one of the chief contributors to our failure.

Do you have any proof that Molson is pulling the strings when it comes to hockey decisions? This is laughable...

 

[BaseballCoach]

The reason this organization is run like a soulless corporation instead of a hockey team a lot of the time falls on his (Molson's) shoulders, and there is definitely an argument to be made that running the team in such a way is one of the chief contributors to our failure.

I feel like under the new management, the club operates with more soul than most of the league's clubs.

Enough players are saying it that I believe it.

 

[Rapala]

Ya buddy the Habs have been chronically bad, maybe that's the root of the problem.

Literally the joke of the league and the only reason we got success is because they got lucky to draft one of the GOAT goaltenders to completely waste his prime.

Theres a reason for the doom and gloom and its not on the fans.

So take your act there this isn't the place for it.

 

[Rapala]

Hab Prospect Videos

Hab prospect fan, former writer for Hockey's Future.com as well as other blogs that cover the Montreal Canadians prospects.

www.youtube.com

if you check out my channel I have a few Reinbacher games, where I go through and just focus on his shifts. I would have several more by now but the audio on so many of the games (I think I have every game he played in the NL) is brutal so I an not sure how I am going to proceed yet.

Next vid is likely going to be Fowler vs one of the top picks for '24 but I should have more Reinbacher games coming up this weekend once I have time to go through more of them.




That's just a stupid thing to say, Hughe has had 1 f***ING year. How do you suck forever in just 1 year?

Can you simply remove the audio altogether? I had to watch a number of games on mute this season because I couldn't stomach the coverage.
It didn't change the way I perceived the game one bit.

 

[Twisted Sinister]

Do you have any proof that Molson is pulling the strings when it comes to hockey decisions? This is laughable...

Do you have any proof he isn't? We can only speculate based on the organization's actions under his reign as shitty owner.

I feel like under the new management, the club operates with more soul than most of the league's clubs.

Enough players are saying it that I believe it.

That component is great if that's the case. But it's bad if it's still affecting roster and personnel decisions.

 

[Belial]

Do you have any proof he isn't? We can only speculate based on the organization's actions under his reign as shitty owner.

It's not me who keeps pushing these complotist theories...

What are you even basing this idea on?

The fact that he allowed Bergevin and Company to draft Mailloux is enough for me to believe that he's not involved whatsoever when it comes to hockey decisions!

 

[le_sean]

What I don't like about the considerations behind those ratings is that it is based on how many prospects have a legitimate shot at one day making the NHL, not necessarily about the overall quality of the prospects.

Montreal is considered top-5 because 30 prospects currently in the system are considered to have a chance to one day play in the NHL.

If the vast majority do so as mid-six, bottom-six, journeyman or fringe players, so what?

If another team has 8 players that are considered able to one day make the NHL, but six are bluechip top-6 forward prospects or bluechip top-4 D prospects, shouldn't that team be considered to have a better prospect pool? Talent is harder to trade for than bottom-6 role players or 3rd pairing and depth Ds.

There should be a grading of quality to go with quantity when determining the quality of the prospect pool.

Honestly, with Hughes at the helm, I’d rather have the deeper pool than the high quality one. I trust he’d make the right move(s) to get a more established high quality asset with this abundance. With MB, it would be the opposite. He’d have traded these decent prospects for guys like Dwight King and Steve Ott.

 

[Twisted Sinister]

It's not me who keeps pushing these complotist theories...

What are you even basing this idea on?

The fact that he allowed Bergevin and Company to draft Mailloux is enough for me to believe that he's not involved whatsoever when it comes to hockey decisions!

Let's see here. We can start by years and years of refusal to rebuild. Add in some stifling organizational conservatism. A focus on everything OTHER than hockey (ie: condos).

Then there's the fact that he enabled Gauthier and Bergevin in the first place... Do you think that the hiring of horrendously incompetent hockey management is not a hockey decision?

How about Subban? Do you think he didn't have his tentacles in that decision?

Finally, every private company in the world goes in the direction that ownership intends. Ownership is ultimately responsible for our failure. The buck stops with him.

 

[Belial]

Let's see here. We can start by years and years of refusal to rebuild. Add in some stifling organizational conservatism. A focus on everything OTHER than hockey (ie: condos).

That's a valid critique I guess... I don't think Bergevin ever got the green light to completely rebuild.

His condos though are irrelevant as it's not like he ever declined a signing or something because he was too cheap.

He hired people to deal with Hockey and he's doing his stuff, that's actually what i was trying to tell you.

Then there's the fact that he enabled Gauthier and Bergevin in the first place... Do you think that the hiring of horrendously incompetent hockey management is not a hockey decision?

Even if he hired bad managers that doesn't mean he was involved in the hockey decisions.

He even asked Savard to help him pick the right guy for the job...

How about Subban? Do you think he didn't have his tentacles in that decision?

What about Subban? We heard reports that he stepped in and ordered Bergevin to sign him no matter the price but that doesn't make a lot of sense as he then allowed Bergevin to trade him...

Finally, every private company in the world goes in the direction that ownership intends. Ownership is ultimately responsible for our failure. The buck stops with him.

Sure, I just don't believe he's pulling any strings when it comes to hockey decisions!

That would make him a horrible owner.

He's paying Gorton and Hughes to make those decisions and I'm pretty sure he just signs checks.

 

[Twisted Sinister]

That's a valid critique I guess... I don't think Bergevin ever got the green light to completely rebuild.

His condos though are irrelevant as it's not like he ever declined a signing or something because he was too cheap.

He hired people to deal with Hockey and he's doing his stuff, that's actually what i was trying to tell you.

Even if he hired bad managers that doesn't mean he was involved in the hockey decisions.

He even asked Savard to help him pick the right guy for the job...

What about Subban? We heard reports that he stepped in and ordered Bergevin to sign him no matter the price but that doesn't make a lot of sense as he then allowed Bergevin to trade him...

Sure, I just don't believe he's pulling any strings when it comes to hockey decisions!

That would make him a horrible owner.

He's paying Gorton and Hughes to make those decisions and I'm pretty sure he just signs checks.

My point with the condos is that it just doesn't seem that winning at all costs is an organizational priority.

Hiring hockey managers is a hockey decision, and before Gorton, he acted as the president of the organization, which would include hockey ops.

I think he is a horrible owner.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Did Detroit make a big deal about their development staff and philosophy of wanting to have control of their prospects? So much so it impacted their draft selections on who they'd pick? If not I don't see why you're bringing it up. In isolation, it doesn't matter if Reinbacher goes to Europe of comes to the AHL. For the Habs, it does because of what they've put out there.

There's a couple points you aren't really grasping here.

1. Control over development was one piece of the pie. They didn't say that was the only reason they passed on Michkov. The same thing with not seeing him live.

2. 1 year is vastly different than 3. Counting isn't hard.

3. Do you think the relationship between leagues are all the same? The way the Habs can cooperate on the development of Reinbacher with a NLA team is the same as the cooperation with a KHL team?

4. They couldn't get into Russia to see Michkov live. Therefore it's unlikely they can get to Russia during his development. Whereas they can make multiple trips to Switzerland and talk to and see Reinbacher in person and do their regular development protocol.

 

[salbutera]

Let's see here. We can start by years and years of refusal to rebuild. Add in some stifling organizational conservatism. A focus on everything OTHER than hockey (ie: condos).

Then there's the fact that he enabled Gauthier and Bergevin in the first place... Do you think that the hiring of horrendously incompetent hockey management is not a hockey decision?

How about Subban? Do you think he didn't have his tentacles in that decision?

Finally, every private company in the world goes in the direction that ownership intends. Ownership is ultimately responsible for our failure. The buck stops with him.

How is it a failure? It’s a business not a circle jerk for hockey fanatics, the goal is to maximize profit margins on a monthly & yearly basis, which is only achievable by growing non hockey related ventures while using hockey as a revenue stream for access to capital.

It’s a resounding business success, not a failure by any means

BTW - Frank Selke Sr was poached from Leafs in 1947.. why? The Habs had just won back-to-back Cups, so everything should’ve been dandy? The business was losing $ hands over fist, Selke was brought in to manage the Forum, only when he saw how bad the hockey books were was he asked to also add GM responsibilities to financially straighten out the hockey ops. One of his first hires? Sam Pollock who was fiscally managing a semi pro baseball team

 

[Habs Halifax]

However, whenever they talk about Montreal's ranking, all you here is the amount of prospects projected to one day make the NHL.

Is it because sheer quantity makes up for lower quality?

Habs have both quality and quantity IMO. Teams just don't have 5+ grade A's. That is a myth. How many do we have? Not sure but guys like Reinbacher, Slaf, Roy, Beck are grade A's or B+ types developing very well to me. I'd even add Guhle to that list. Not a fan of the "graduation" factor. Rather look at age 21-23 and under, because that is more important than drawing a line in graduation where some guys are rushed to the NHL and some start at age 20/21.

There is no doubt about it, we have one of the better age 23/24 and under cores. Even if you factor in the graduation, we still have one of the better prospect pools.

Reinbacher will have boring development IMO. He's the type that plays D and chips in on offense and you only really see the value when he's 22/23 in the NHL. When did Josi get labeled a top pairing D? Even Hedman took a lot of time.

 

[BLONG7]

My point with the condos is that it just doesn't seem that winning at all costs is an organizational priority.

Hiring hockey managers is a hockey decision, and before Gorton, he acted as the president of the organization, which would include hockey ops.

I think he is a horrible owner.

He has been, an awful owner....

As for now, he seems to have taken a step back, and now is letting hockey people make the decisions outside of huge $$$ contracts needing approval.
Better days ahead....