Prospect Info: Draft 2025 Habs you're on the clock

[BenchBrawl]

Chicago would be absolutely stupid not to take Desnoyers at 3. Also I would only use the 17th pick on Carbonneau if Habs keep the 16th pick. There are definitely other players in that range if they were to fall a bit I'm more high on.

You may be right, but then plenty of MTL fans don't think Desnoyers is 3rd overall material, else they wouldn't have been outraged at trading Hage + picks for him.

Chicago sees a future Toews in Desnoyers. The Memorial cup will be interesting to watch.

 

[MasterMatt25]

I don't think Desnoyers is the 3rd best player in the draft. But with Hagens/Martone having question marks, Bear's achilles hurt, and Frondell's motor all playing into consideration, he seems to be the 3rd safest bet and with a solid 2C projection, what team wouldn't love that

 

[HuGo Burner Acc]

You may be right, but then plenty of MTL fans don't think Desnoyers is 3rd overall material, else they wouldn't have been outraged at trading Hage + picks for him.

Chicago sees a future Toews in Desnoyers. The Memorial cup will be interesting to watch.

I like Hage. I think he has what it takes to be a top 6 F in the NHL and a productive one at that. But Desnoyers is literally the prototype of 2C that every team needs to be competitive consistently. Having a Suzuki-Desnoyers as your top 6 C for probably the next decade would be absolutely fantastic

 

[BenchBrawl]

I like Hage. I think he has what it takes to be a top 6 F in the NHL and a productive one at that. But Desnoyers is literally the prototype of 2C that every team needs to be competitive consistently. Having a Suzuki-Desnoyers as your top 6 C for probably the next decade would be absolutely fantastic

Well good to see some people agreeing with me.

 

[Kennerback]

I don't think Desnoyers is the 3rd best player in the draft. But with Hagens/Martone having question marks, Bear's achilles hurt, and Frondell's motor all playing into consideration, he seems to be the 3rd safest bet and with a solid 2C projection, what team wouldn't love that

I’ve seen mock drafts having him go to Chicago at 3OA.

 

[Hansman]

Almost every team did this in the 1990s.

Speaks to the influence of Eric Lindros in the public imagination.

Back then the philosophy was you had to have a big center to compete against the heavy hitters. Explains the Bobby Holik contract.

Just last week i was telling a friend about that 3rd line center ,9.5 million x 5years in 2002.

 

[MasterMatt25]

I’ve seen mock drafts having him go to Chicago at 3OA.

I know. And I think it's quite likely considering the Athletic podcast said they're looking at him, Frondell or Misa.

But that's still my stance on him

 

[HuGo Burner Acc]

Well good to see some people agreeing with me.

I don't really blame people. This draft is awful even at the top. Imo, you have Schaffer who will probably be a no.1 but isn't as good as Dahlin was at 17-18 for example. Just a solid no.1 D. Misa will probably be a top line F. After that each player (besides Desnoyers) for me is a question mark. A few forwards (Hagens, Frondel, etc) have the potential to be better offensively than Desnoyers but have a lower chance of hitting that potential. With that high of a pick, I don't wanna gamble that much. I'd rather take the guy built to be a great 2C than players that become 2nd liners/fringe 1st liners because they couldn't live up to their potential.

 

[Kennerback]

I know. And I think it's quite likely considering the Athletic podcast said they're looking at him, Frondell or Misa.

But that's still my stance on him

This is from just yesterday a Chicago columnist having him go to the Hawks at 3:

Desnoyers has the size and skating ability to be an impact center at the NHL level. He plays a responsible, 200-foot game that will likely lead to him getting compared to Jonathan Toews if the Blackhawks take him here. There’s increasing buzz around the potential of a Blackhawks-Desnoyers fit since I first mocked him here. I’m also strongly considering Porter Martone and Anton Frondell here, but the potential top-line center is still my pick in this mock draft.

2025 NHL Mock Draft: Conference Final Full Two-Round Projections - Bleacher Nation

The draft order has changed since our last mock draft because of the playoff results. So let's update our mock draft before the conference finals begin!

www.bleachernation.com

 

[dcyhabs]

Almost every team did this in the 1990s.

Speaks to the influence of Eric Lindros in the public imagination.

Back then the philosophy was you had to have a big center to compete against the heavy hitters. Explains the Bobby Holik contract.

No issues trying to get a big guy, lots of issues with the guys the habs took and where they took them. Shots in the dark can go in later rounds.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't really blame people. This draft is awful even at the top. Imo, you have Schaffer who will probably be a no.1 but isn't as good as Dahlin was at 17-18 for example. Just a solid no.1 D. Misa will probably be a top line F. After that each player (besides Desnoyers) for me is a question mark. A few forwards (Hagens, Frondel, etc) have the potential to be better offensively than Desnoyers but have a lower chance of hitting that potential. With that high of a pick, I don't wanna gamble that much. I'd rather take the guy built to be a great 2C than players that become 2nd liners/fringe 1st liners because they couldn't live up to their potential.

My philosophy is you win more with Toews-like centers than you do with offensive players, assuming a minimum threshold of offense is met. And unless you're speaking about McDavid/MacKinnon level offense, which breaks my philosophy.

Plus, we are lucky that our best offensive player will likely be a playmaking winger in Ivan Demidov. That means you can have a gritty, heart-and-soul center on his line. Would complemtn each others well, while you keep the Slaf-Suzuki-CC line intact for several years.

People say Jonathan Toews is super overrated, but I think he's underrated by a long shot. He was the most important player on those Chicago teams, more than Kane and Keith, and probably the 2nd most valuable center in the league after Sidney Crosby, for that stretch between 2009-2015. Although I also really liked Getzlaf in that window. By that I mean that those guys could face any line, any center, in any situation, and give you a good bang for your buck.

 

[BenchBrawl]

No issues trying to get a big guy, lots of issues with the guys the habs took and where they took them. Shots in the dark can go in later rounds.

Yeah, I agree, but it was the mindset back then, so I wouldn't criticize Montreal specifically. In those years we didn't have enough money to compete anyway, IIRC. It's hard to comprehend for younger fans just how hopeless it felt to be a MTL fan in the late-1990s. Light at the end of the tunnel emerged during the Gainey/Kovalev years, but that's a good 10 years in the Sahara in-between.

 

[Sorinth]

Good teams do that. For a decade or three the habs took some random big guy way too early and said “imagine what he’ll be if he learns to play hockey.”

Do what exactly?

Good teams generally are better at figuring out who the BPA is, sometimes that means drafting the smaller skilled guy and sometimes it's skipping that player and going for someone with more size. As an example Boston drafted a forward with 19 points in 62 CHL games in the second round because of his size and he was a major part of their team for almost a decade.

 

[Kennerback]

Yeah, Hawks have obviously had tribulations with Bedard at center and some think they might get more from him at wing. Their logic for Desnoyers is getting something like Toews and Kane going.

 

[dcyhabs]

Do what exactly?

Good teams generally are better at figuring out who the BPA is, sometimes that means drafting the smaller skilled guy and sometimes it's skipping that player and going for someone with more size. As an example Boston drafted a forward with 19 points in 62 CHL games in the second round because of his size and he was a major part of their team for almost a decade.

Second round or later is the time for that, though. No issues with going way off the board, even in the first round, if you see something, or just a shot in the dark, later, but first round you have to try to get it right.

 

[Sorinth]

Second round or later is the time for that, though. No issues with going way off the board, even in the first round, if you see something, or just a shot in the dark, later, but first round you have to try to get it right.

I have no doubt if I tried I can find plenty of 1st round picks who were taken for their size where it was the right call, and very easily find plenty of instances of a small skilled players getting passed over for their size and it turning out to be the right call.

You make educated guesses about how kids will develop and will be wrong more often then you are right. Size is a factor, sometimes it's overvalued, sometimes it's undervalued, the same goes for every attribute, sometimes skating is overvalued, sometimes it's undervalued, etc...

 

[dcyhabs]

I have no doubt if I tried I can find plenty of 1st round picks who were taken for their size where it was the right call, and very easily find plenty of instances of a small skilled players getting passed over for their size and it turning out to be the right call.

You make educated guesses about how kids will develop and will be wrong more often then you are right. Size is a factor, sometimes it's overvalued, sometimes it's undervalued, the same goes for every attribute, sometimes skating is overvalued, sometimes it's undervalued, etc...

Size is overrated but it is still very important. Few small players succeed, but the ones who do are often bargains. Few big players succeed, but when they do it can be a big plus. I’m not arguing to disregard size, I’m saying that in the first round, where players are highly scouted, going for a guy like McCarron is not a good move. The habs did way worse a lot of years.

 

[sampollock]

carbo would be cool, but he better be a good player. not just the name

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

I don't think Desnoyers is the 3rd best player in the draft. But with Hagens/Martone having question marks, Bear's achilles hurt, and Frondell's motor all playing into consideration, he seems to be the 3rd safest bet and with a solid 2C projection, what team wouldn't love that

His downside is a 3C and his upside is very much a question mark.

Every single player in this draft has a significant question mark beside their name and people here who are scoffing at Desnoyers falling past #5 OA are delusional. I really like him but there is a very real chance that he falls closer to ten as there are just too many players with higher perceived offensive upside for anyone to be locking him in as a top 5 pick. I will be no more surprised of he goes 3rd or 9th and arbitrarily stating a firm landing spot has nothing to do with knowledge and is entirely a roll of the dice that masquerading as informed opinion.

I see all sorts of silly proclamations popping up as posters shout their choices from the pulpit with an air of certainty that just is not warranted in a draft as wide open as this one.

I feel confident that Schaefer and Misa will likely occupy the first two slots, and it will ikely, but far from certainly be in this order. After that it is wide open and while different opinions are welcome and are generally with merit the hot takes and the air of authority that some are resorting to are nonsensical.

This is not to say that people are silly to make lists as that is the fun part of being a fan at this time of the season. Just that people digging in on takes and dealing in absolutes is embarrassing and makes the thread unreadable at times.

 

[1909]

Even if I would had liked the Habs to draft a guy like Brady Martin or Carter Bear, I think they won’t be available.

Any combo of Carbonneau, Nesbitt, Aitcheson, Smith, Spencer or Cootes would be fine with me. But they still could trade one OR the two of them to draft earlier or get some player(s)

 

[HuGo Burner Acc]

My philosophy is you win more with Toews-like centers than you do with offensive players, assuming a minimum threshold of offense is met. And unless you're speaking about McDavid/MacKinnon level offense, which breaks my philosophy.

Plus, we are lucky that our best offensive player will likely be a playmaking winger in Ivan Demidov. That means you can have a gritty, heart-and-soul center on his line. Would complemtn each others well, while you keep the Slaf-Suzuki-CC line intact for several years.

People say Jonathan Toews is super overrated, but I think he's underrated by a long shot. He was the most important player on those Chicago teams, more than Kane and Keith, and probably the 2nd most valuable center in the league after Sidney Crosby, for that stretch between 2009-2015. Although I also really liked Getzlaf in that window. By that I mean that those guys could face any line, any center, in any situation, and give you a good bang for your buck.

All that I'll say to that is Toews was instrumental in a dynasty where he was the only top 6 C on any of the cup winning teams. That's super impressive. Forget about the stats or his overall game. He probably had the least amount of support at his position that any of the other elite two ways C's had during that era

 

[Sorinth]

Size is overrated but it is still very important. Few small players succeed, but the ones who do are often bargains. Few big players succeed, but when they do it can be a big plus. I’m not arguing to disregard size, I’m saying that in the first round, where players are highly scouted, going for a guy like McCarron is not a good move. The habs did way worse a lot of years.

Drafted right before McCarron was 5'10 Shinkaruk who was highly skilled and was an even bigger bust. And out of the 29 guys picked after McCarron before our next pick there are what 3 maybe 4 guys with better careers? The reality is you are going to be wrong with who you think is the BPA more often then not, if you think it's some huge mistake whenever it happens you just aren't being realistic.

I also have a hard time blaming scouting with the McCarron pick simply because we did such a shit job with him once he turned pro. Callups just to sit in the press box or play 5min, an AHL coach in Lefebvre who seemed to actively try to sabotage the prospects, etc... McCarron struggled in his D+1 season, but turned it around with a great D+2 year, and then went ppg as an AHL rookie before we started jerking him around. He never got back on track but I'll always wonder what would have been had we actually left him in the AHL for the whole season and/or had competent coaches instead of Lefebvre and Therrien.

And ironically we could actually use a 6'6 center whose about 54% on the dot and can put up 20 points.

 

[WinterLion]

Drafted right before McCarron was 5'10 Shinkaruk who was highly skilled and was an even bigger bust. And out of the 29 guys picked after McCarron before our next pick there are what 3 maybe 4 guys with better careers? The reality is you are going to be wrong with who you think is the BPA more often then not, if you think it's some huge mistake whenever it happens you just aren't being realistic.

I also have a hard time blaming scouting with the McCarron pick simply because we did such a shit job with him once he turned pro. Callups just to sit in the press box or play 5min, an AHL coach in Lefebvre who seemed to actively try to sabotage the prospects, etc... McCarron struggled in his D+1 season, but turned it around with a great D+2 year, and then went ppg as an AHL rookie before we started jerking him around. He never got back on track but I'll always wonder what would have been had we actually left him in the AHL for the whole season and/or had competent coaches instead of Lefebvre and Therrien.

And ironically we could actually use a 6'6 center whose about 54% on the dot and can put up 20 points.

So so true... thank you for saying this again.

 

[Erika]

So I guess there are no BPA ever as Yakupov was drafted ahead of Forsberg?

BPA is a projection of who they might become, who has the best chances at reaching their full potential, that’s all. They are prospects, not a finished product.

I assure you that at picks 16-17; there will be a group of 4-5 players that would fall in that ranking depending on who’s ranking.

No, I don't think you understood my point;
Like @Sorinth stated, there is no way to tell who is really the BPA at positions like 16th and 17th, unless for example James Hagens or Porter Martone falls that far into the 16th rank territory which is like pretty unlikely.

Each teams has their own rankings list and the BPA for team X isn't necessarly the BPA for team Y and Z.

So if the draft goes normally without many surprises, there's like 20 players that can go anywhere from 15 to 35th. So how do you come up with a consensus BPA ?! It all comes down to teams preferences.

Don't get me wrong, there is probably a consensus, which usually are for the best like 6 to 8 players, but even that is debatable and it depends on draft years.

That's why going for positionnal needs makes way more sense that far into the draft (again meaning rank 15th and beyond) and that's probably what most teams does anyways, but the average fans who doesn't know anything just likes to make funny assumptions that teams goes for BPA... which is true, but based on their own list only, not Bob McKenzie's, not Eliteprospects nor McKeens, etc. It is just how it is, because it's not an exact science, there's no secret math formula that provides the BPA answer.

Since there's no way to have a consensus list, the BPA by default becomes normally the positionnal needs that the team will pick at that rank.

 

[Erika]

I'm pretty sure what @Erika is saying with the whole there's no such thing as BPA at 16/17 is simply that every team will have a different BPA by that point. And so yeah if everyone has a different BPA then there is no such thing as BPA. Especially when fans are talking about BPA because there's no way of knowing whether the team simply saw the prospects differently then you.

Exactly !!!,

Like !