Do any of the draft dmen have a higher ceiling than Guhle or Reinbacher?

[themilosh]

Personally, I wouldn’t be so quick to pull the trigger on a trade like that, even if we took Buium, unless we were getting a really, really good young forward in return.

I think the smarter plan would be to take the year to see more of what we have in Hutson, while Buium plays another year in college. There’s no reason to rush things.

After that, we could decide what to do on the trade front with the LD logjam. It would also give us more time to see if Xhekaj and Guhle take another step forward or not.

If we draft Dickinson, then Xhekaj becomes the trade chip. Levshunov, then Mailloux.. either of those three would be an upgrade on the traded player, but the forward in return would have to be at least on par with the current options: Iginla, Eiserman, Sennecke.

I'd draft Buium and trade Hutson for Zegras straight up.

 

[tnq]

Surprised Dickinson got more votes than Buium. Must be size advantage. Dickinson is text book Stanley Cup defenseman. Size, mobile, shot, can log ton of minutes. Take away passing lanes, give goalie protection, makes it tough in finesse opponents down low.

Dickingson is he Ghule's style

 

[HabsWhiteKnightLOL]

Reading this feel like all defs available arev upcoming are top tier nhl upcoming.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Pronman has also said Montreal isn't strong enough at any position to fixate on taking a forward at this draft and that Guhle and Reinbacher don't look like stars. That they should take a D if they think they can be a 1D.

I think a lot of fans are making assumptions on managements preference in drafting a forward with all things being equal. The Habs will take a D if they think that D is the best pick there, because while Montreal may have the most young NHLer/prospect depth in the league, they don't have as much elite talent as other rebuilding teams (like the Jackets, Ducks, Blackhawks, Sabres, etc.)

Hughes literally SAID that they would prefer a forward and all things being equal that they would take a forward. The Habs might take a D if they think that's the best course of action - but that D would have to significantly project better than what they have in system and I don't think you're saying that convincingly for any of the defenseman in the draft not named Levshunov.

If Demidov and Lindstrom are gone by 5OA, I'd go Buuim or Iginla. No way way would I take Sennecke at 5.

Well, Sennecke is in the conversation for 5 - if Lindstrom and Demidov are gone. Iginla isn't being looked at in that range by anyone. Sennecke however, NHL teams are consistently telling Pronman, Peters etc. that Sennecke will be gone by 8. Teams outside of the top 10 have basically scratched him off their list knowing he isn't going to be there for them.

They might prefer Buium over Sennecke, but if there's a convincing top 8 buzz on a forward like Sennecke, considering Montreal's pool, needs and what they value in a prospect. Sennecke could very well be the pick at 5 if the top of the draft goes in a direction we don't want it to.

If we draft Buium, it's bc Hugo has made a trade for a forward using Lane Hutson.

If we draft Buium it's because they aren't convinced Hutson will be able to play that role in the NHL. Meaning none of the NHL GMs are convinced enough to give you a top forward for him.

If we draft Dickinson, then Xhekaj becomes the trade chip. Levshunov, then Mailloux.. either of those three would be an upgrade on the traded player, but the forward in return would have to be at least on par with the current options: Iginla, Eiserman, Sennecke.

I'd draft Buium and trade Hutson for Zegras straight up.

Doesn't look like Dickinson has the helium to go top 5. I'd be very surprised if we drafted Dickinson. The scenario in which we are looking in that direction means Silayev is there and I'd be willing to bet a lot that the team would prefer Silayev and his potential/upside over Dickinson.

 

[Skip Bayless]

Personally, I wouldn’t be so quick to pull the trigger on a trade like that, even if we took Buium, unless we were getting a really, really good young forward in return.

I think the smarter plan would be to take the year to see more of what we have in Hutson, while Buium plays another year in college. There’s no reason to rush things.

After that, we could decide what to do on the trade front with the LD logjam. It would also give us more time to see if Xhekaj and Guhle take another step forward or not.

That would the wise thing to do, in theory. But GMs would use the logjam as leverage to give less in a trade. Kent needs to move like a smooth criminal. I wouldn’t hesitate in packaging Hutson for a young top 6 fwd at the draft, if possible.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Hughes literally SAID that they would prefer a forward and all things being equal that they would take a forward. The Habs might take a D if they think that's the best course of action - but that D would have to significantly project better than what they have in system and I don't think you're saying that convincingly for any of the defenseman in the draft not named Levshunov.

The bolded is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Preferring a forward all things being equal or taking a D if they think its the best course of action in no way means that the D would have to significantly project better than what they have in the system, it means they'd take a D if they grade a D higher than any forward in that spot or the going D is a better course of action (say going with a high upside D over a high upside undersized winger).

And grading prospects is subjective, but I'm not sure I've seen Hutson/Reinbacher/etc. rated higher than Levshunov, Silayev or Buium, and generally see Dickinson and Parekh ahead too.

 

[WeThreeKings]

The bolded is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Preferring a forward all things being equal or taking a D if they think its the best course of action in no way means that the D would have to significantly project better than what they have in the system, it means they'd take a D if they grade a D higher than any forward in that spot or the going D is a better course of action (say going with a high upside D over a high upside undersized winger).

And grading prospects is subjective, but I'm not sure I've seen Hutson/Reinbacher/etc. rated higher than Levshunov, Silayev or Buium, and generally see Dickinson and Parekh ahead too.

But it would have to be - if you believe in the guys you have in house (that belief has to be internal, it doesn't have to be Scott Wheeler who is allergic to any defenseman who dares play defense) are on the same level as those guys, why would you invest, what could potentially be, and is intended to be, your last top 5 pick on someone who doesn't move the needle that much more for you?

The first line forward represents a massive improvement for the future of the franchise than if Dickinson is marginally better than Guhle or if Buium is marginally better than Hutson. That might make them top pairing defenseman in name, but that still means Guhle or Hutson are close enough to being top pairing defenseman, too.

If you are trying to build a racecar, getting 3 more MPH out of your max speed isn't going to materially change your fortunes if your brakes are bad and you refuse to get a substantially better set of brakes, even if having more speed than you have now is an improvement.

 

[Darz]

I definitely think a few of this years Dmen have a higher ceiling (at this time) then Guhle and Reinbacher, but I think Reinbacher and especially Guhle floors are much higher. In Guhle's case, he has shown good things at the highest level....I mean how can anyone say, for example, Leshunov has a higher floor considering he has some warts in his game, and hasnt played above the college level yet.

I would imagine any GM in the league at this point in time, would trade a 2024 drafted dman for Guhle. Reinbacher on the other hand, I think a few GM's would do the same deal, but I assume there are some whom rather keep a 2024 drafted dman over him. Just my opinion.

 

[Captain Mountain]

But it would have to be - if you believe in the guys you have in house (that belief has to be internal, it doesn't have to be Scott Wheeler who is allergic to any defenseman who dares play defense) are on the same level as those guys, why would you invest, what could potentially be, and is intended to be, your last top 5 pick on someone who doesn't move the needle that much more for you?

The first line forward represents a massive improvement for the future of the franchise than if Dickinson is marginally better than Guhle or if Buium is marginally better than Hutson. That might make them top pairing defenseman in name, but that still means Guhle or Hutson are close enough to being top pairing defenseman, too.

If you are trying to build a racecar, getting 3 more MPH out of your max speed isn't going to materially change your fortunes if your brakes are bad and you refuse to get a substantially better set of brakes, even if having more speed than you have now is an improvement.

I'm unfamiliar with the rule that says if you draft a player you have to keep them forever or that you can't make trades to address needs.

You take the player you think is best. If you thinks it really close, try to address a need. Otherwise, take the player you think will be best and go from there.

This doesn't happen in a vacuum. Nor does the fact that Montreal is internally high on certain D prospects mean they wouldn't be even higher on D draft prospects.

 

[WeThreeKings]

I'm unfamiliar with the rule that says if you draft a player you have to keep them forever or that you can't make trades to address needs.

You take the player you think is best. If you thinks it really close, try to address a need. Otherwise, take the player you think will be best and go from there.

This doesn't happen in a vacuum. Nor does the fact that Montreal is internally high on certain D prospects mean they wouldn't be even higher on D draft prospects.

You're trying to build a team - people take for granted that you can just take a player and then trade another player and come out a winner.

If you are picking 5 and you are taking a player at a position that is your strongest and deepest, you have to be DAMN sure that he's going to be a lot better than what you have in house. If that guy misses and the guy you passed on becomes what you are missing, you could be fired for that egregious error.

I don't think you can come to a strong enough conclusion with who Montreal will have on the board at 5. That calculus changes if somehow Levshunov is there. It doesn't change for Dickinson who is looked at as a back end of top 10 defenseman. It shouldn't change for Buium who has the same questions that Hutson has.

 

[Captain Mountain]

You're trying to build a team - people take for granted that you can just take a player and then trade another player and come out a winner.

If you are picking 5 and you are taking a player at a position that is your strongest and deepest, you have to be DAMN sure that he's going to be a lot better than what you have in house. If that guy misses and the guy you passed on becomes what you are missing, you could be fired for that egregious error.

I don't think you can come to a strong enough conclusion with who Montreal will have on the board at 5. That calculus changes if somehow Levshunov is there. It doesn't change for Dickinson who is looked at as a back end of top 10 defenseman. It shouldn't change for Buium who has the same questions that Hutson has.

As opposed to, what, taking a Kotkaniemi because you need a C when the next winger taken is B. Tkachuk or next D taken is Q. Hughes?

There's no reason to take an extreme draft for need position here. You have a criteria of prospects and you try to project who you think will be best. I err on taking who you think will be best regardless of position, but it makes sense going with need if its close. But we've seen how drafting for need can **** a team up (especially since what you need now and what you need in 1-4 years could be radically different).

And, again, grading prospects is subjective, but Buium's 6-foot, 186 pounds and he did what Hutson did in college in his draft year. The question marks he has are not even close to the same as Hutson's.