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

[DemidovSZN]

The most likely is them trying to trade up to get Bear.

 

[Walksss]

I'm starting to buy the kool-aid. I want Ryabkin with one of the top 3/4 picks. Let's take a homerun swing here.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

The most likely is them trying to trade up to get Bear.

I'm starting to buy the kool-aid. I want Ryabkin with one of the top 3/4 picks. Let's take a homerun swing here.

I think Martin is a more likely target. Bear's injury is just too serious to take this kind of risk and Martin is exactly what we need.

 

[le_sean]

I think Martin is a more likely target. Bear's injury is just too serious to take this kind of risk and Martin is exactly what we need.

It’s not that serious. It’s a partial tear and he’s already skating. They said be will possibly play the summer showcase in July.

 

[DemidovSZN]

I'm starting to buy the kool-aid. I want Ryabkin with one of the top 3/4 picks. Let's take a homerun swing here.

He’s skilled but at the same time he’s annoying to watch because he glides on the ice instead of giving the 2nd effort sometimes.

 

[Walksss]

He’s skilled but at the same time he’s annoying to watch because he glides on the ice instead of giving the 2nd effort sometimes.

Yeah I've seen a bunch of his games lately. I get the inconsistent effort but I've really been impressed by his physical play and grit. When he gets mad he's a beast, the best pest in this draft for sure.

If he floated around some shifts in the regular season but played like that in the playoffs like a Sam Bennett type we'd all love him here. And on top of that he has much higher offensive upside than a Sam Bennett.

I feel like we can afford to take a swing, we have a bunch of picks and we don't need anymore middle 6 forwards unless they have legitimate top 6 upside or bring the grit that this guy does.

 

[Erika]

It’s not that serious. It’s a partial tear and he’s already skating. They said be will possibly play the summer showcase in July.

Partial or full tear/rupture achilles tendon are career threatening injuries. It never truly heals 100%.
It affects greatly the skating and feet strenght on the long term.
It particularly affects soccer, backetball and hockey players.

If Bear was an average skater before his injury, after his rehab, there are significant chances that he'll be a below average skater from now on. And for a forward, it doesn't bode well for his upside.

 

[DemidovSZN]

Yeah I've seen a bunch of his games lately. I get the inconsistent effort but I've really been impressed by his physical play and grit. When he gets mad he's a beast, the best pest in this draft for sure.

If he floated around some shifts in the regular season but played like that in the playoffs like a Sam Bennett type we'd all love him here. And on top of that he has much higher offensive upside than a Sam Bennett.

I feel like we can afford to take a swing, we have a bunch of picks and we don't need anymore middle 6 forwards unless they have legitimate top 6 upside or bring the grit that this guy does.

I agree.

I like him too and if he pans out he’s what the habs need. I’ll be happy if they pick him.

 

[Scotianhab]

I maybe would take a chance on Ryabkin if he is there with our first 2nd rd pick. A big hell no no for 16/17

 

[VirginiaMtlExpat]

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.

I've had similar posts in the past. Drafting is the sports equivalent of mathematical optimization, where there are several input parameters, including hockey IQ, pace, size, and so on, in addition to team need. Teams all assign different weights to these parameters, but rarely are they all zero. Team need is nonzero because the marketplace is less than perfect. If a team corners the market for top LDs, to the detriment of other positions, any other team, especially a perfectly balanced one, will not trade you an equivalent player for the excess LD you are trying to trade away. That GM can smell your desperation to barter an LD for a position of dire need, and meanwhile this desperation is not felt by the GM of the well balanced team. End result is that top LD will garner a less than stellar RD or C, due to the imperfection of the market. Hence, the need parameter should never be weighted at zero, in the objective function under optimization.

 

[Junohockeyfan]

I've had similar posts in the past. Drafting is the sports equivalent of mathematical optimization, where there are several input parameters, including hockey IQ, pace, size, and so on, in addition to team need. Teams all assign different weights to these parameters, but rarely are they all zero. Team need is nonzero because the marketplace is less than perfect. If a team corners the market for top LDs, to the detriment of other positions, any other team, especially a perfectly balanced one, will not trade you an equivalent player for the excess LD you are trying to trade away. That GM can smell your desperation to barter an LD for a position of dire need, and meanwhile this desperation is not felt by the GM of the well balanced team. End result is that top LD will garner a less than stellar RD or C, due to the imperfection of the market. Hence, the need parameter should never be weighted at zero, in the objective function under optimization.

Teams should be draft heavy on Cs and RHDs. Purely from a value optimization. Then trade or sign for the missing parts. Eventually teams will adopt this.

 

[VirginiaMtlExpat]

Teams should be draft heavy on Cs and RHDs. Purely from a value optimization. Then trade or sign for the missing parts. Eventually teams will adopt this.

If it were my objective function, there would also be a rarity parameter that is weighted nonzero, which would entail a tiebreaker biased towards Cs and RDs, everything else being equal. This is an illustration of why the optimization metaphor is such a rich one.

 

[Paradoxe]

I think Martin is a more likely target. Bear's injury is just too serious to take this kind of risk and Martin is exactly what we need.

Martin, O'Brien, Mtrka, Carbonneau... I'm not yet close to knowing what I wish for this year!!

 

[JadedRandom]

If we keep the picks, it is imperative that we select Carbonneau with one of them.

He fits the range, he fits our needs and he's one of us.

I've watched some more full games of Carbonneau's recently, and soured on him quite a bit as a result.

I have in fact come to the conclusion that Carbonneau doesn't really fit our needs as he currently is.

Long story short, I was quite ambivalent about Carbonneau's hockey sense before, and struggled because I couldn't differentiate if Carbonneau took bad decisions with the puck because of processing issues (baked-in, unfixable problems), or if those decisions that he took were bad ones because of attitude issues and a massive puck-hog mentality (which again isn't good, but fixable with proper coaching and maturing).

The more full games I watched, the more frustrated I became (and more aware of how acute Carbonneau's mistrust of his teammates skills / over-estimation of his own abilities was) but I kept going.

I watched one game after the other on InStat, for hours on end.

And then it struck me, and not in a good way for my ego. The answer was so dang simple, and I'd been an absolute fool wasting that much time not finding it and trying to deliberate one way or another for nothing.

Basically, I'd been overthinking it by FAR.

Ultimately, who cares if the bad decisions come because of hockey sense issues or attitude issues? They're different but still issues no matter which way you slice it.

Either Carbonneau has mediocre hockey sense, and it limits his potential as an NHLer, or he has attitude/entitlement problems, which inhibit his introspective ability and thus similarly limit Carbonneau's overall ceiling as a hockey player (how can you improve if you "drink your own coolaid" and don't even have the maturity to evaluate yourself objectively?).

And so I stopped trying to evaluate Carbonneau's play selections on a pure hockey IQ perspective and instead just took them all at face-value, without over-thinking it.

And as a result Carbonneau fell off a cliff on my list. I now have him in the mid 20s on my list where he was #16 in early May, before I watched a bajillion games of his back-to-back.

The 25th rank or thereabout is the point of the draft where I feel that Carbonneau's very high-end blend of skill, skating, physical potential, grit, and shooting ability start to offset any attitude/hockey sense problem.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I've watched some more full games of Carbonneau's recently, and soured on him quite a bit as a result.

I have in fact come to the conclusion that Carbonneau doesn't really fit our needs as he currently is.

Long story short, I was quite ambivalent about Carbonneau's hockey sense before, and struggled because I couldn't differentiate if Carbonneau took bad decisions with the puck because of processing issues (baked-in, unfixable problems), or if those decisions that he took were bad ones because of attitude issues and a massive puck-hog mentality (which again isn't good, but fixable with proper coaching and maturing).

The more full games I watched, the more frustrated I became (and more aware of how acute Carbonneau's mistrust of his teammates skills / over-estimation of his own abilities was) but I kept going.

I watched one game after the other on InStat, for hours on end.

And then it struck me, and not in a good way for my ego. The answer was so dang simple, and I'd been an absolute fool wasting that much time not finding it and trying to deliberate one way or another for nothing.

Basically, I'd been overthinking it by FAR.

Ultimately, who cares if the bad decisions come because of hockey sense issues or attitude issues? They're different but still issues no matter which way you slice it.

Either Carbonneau has mediocre hockey sense, and it limits his potential as an NHLer, or he has attitude/entitlement problems, which inhibit his introspective ability and thus similarly limit Carbonneau's overall ceiling as a hockey player (how can you improve if you "drink your own coolaid" and don't even have the maturity to evaluate yourself objectively?).

And so I stopped trying to evaluate Carbonneau's play selections on a pure hockey IQ perspective and instead just took them all at face-value, without over-thinking it.

And as a result Carbonneau fell off a cliff on my list. I now have him in the mid 20s on my list where he was #16 in early May, before I watched a bajillion games of his back-to-back.

The 25th rank or thereabout is the point of the draft where I feel that Carbonneau's very high-end blend of skill, skating, physical potential, grit, and shooting ability start to offset any attitude/hockey sense problem.

Thanks for the insights.

 

[KevSkillz4]

Logan Hensler and Malcolm Spence should the picks if they don't trade.

They fit perfectly on what we needs.

 

[Quatre Vingt Treize]

I've watched some more full games of Carbonneau's recently, and soured on him quite a bit as a result.

I have in fact come to the conclusion that Carbonneau doesn't really fit our needs as he currently is.

Long story short, I was quite ambivalent about Carbonneau's hockey sense before, and struggled because I couldn't differentiate if Carbonneau took bad decisions with the puck because of processing issues (baked-in, unfixable problems), or if those decisions that he took were bad ones because of attitude issues and a massive puck-hog mentality (which again isn't good, but fixable with proper coaching and maturing).

The more full games I watched, the more frustrated I became (and more aware of how acute Carbonneau's mistrust of his teammates skills / over-estimation of his own abilities was) but I kept going.

I watched one game after the other on InStat, for hours on end.

And then it struck me, and not in a good way for my ego. The answer was so dang simple, and I'd been an absolute fool wasting that much time not finding it and trying to deliberate one way or another for nothing.

Basically, I'd been overthinking it by FAR.

Ultimately, who cares if the bad decisions come because of hockey sense issues or attitude issues? They're different but still issues no matter which way you slice it.

Either Carbonneau has mediocre hockey sense, and it limits his potential as an NHLer, or he has attitude/entitlement problems, which inhibit his introspective ability and thus similarly limit Carbonneau's overall ceiling as a hockey player (how can you improve if you "drink your own coolaid" and don't even have the maturity to evaluate yourself objectively?).

And so I stopped trying to evaluate Carbonneau's play selections on a pure hockey IQ perspective and instead just took them all at face-value, without over-thinking it.

And as a result Carbonneau fell off a cliff on my list. I now have him in the mid 20s on my list where he was #16 in early May, before I watched a bajillion games of his back-to-back.

The 25th rank or thereabout is the point of the draft where I feel that Carbonneau's very high-end blend of skill, skating, physical potential, grit, and shooting ability start to offset any attitude/hockey sense problem.

Carbonneau going to be bottom 6 winger. A third year junior he has to be ahead in his development. Around 1.4ppg in the Q is weak for a first rounder. The Q can fool ya, look at Lafreniere who was 2.2ppg in his second season of major junior. He's only 47 point average. Same as Dubois he should never been 3rd overall pick.

Carbonneau will play in NHL but no sense drafting him. Those players are available in tier II moves. Either trade the pick for help now at center or right D. Or combined both firsts to move up.

 

[Cubebrick]

I've watched some more full games of Carbonneau's recently, and soured on him quite a bit as a result.

I have in fact come to the conclusion that Carbonneau doesn't really fit our needs as he currently is.

Long story short, I was quite ambivalent about Carbonneau's hockey sense before, and struggled because I couldn't differentiate if Carbonneau took bad decisions with the puck because of processing issues (baked-in, unfixable problems), or if those decisions that he took were bad ones because of attitude issues and a massive puck-hog mentality (which again isn't good, but fixable with proper coaching and maturing).

The more full games I watched, the more frustrated I became (and more aware of how acute Carbonneau's mistrust of his teammates skills / over-estimation of his own abilities was) but I kept going.

I watched one game after the other on InStat, for hours on end.

And then it struck me, and not in a good way for my ego. The answer was so dang simple, and I'd been an absolute fool wasting that much time not finding it and trying to deliberate one way or another for nothing.

Basically, I'd been overthinking it by FAR.

Ultimately, who cares if the bad decisions come because of hockey sense issues or attitude issues? They're different but still issues no matter which way you slice it.

Either Carbonneau has mediocre hockey sense, and it limits his potential as an NHLer, or he has attitude/entitlement problems, which inhibit his introspective ability and thus similarly limit Carbonneau's overall ceiling as a hockey player (how can you improve if you "drink your own coolaid" and don't even have the maturity to evaluate yourself objectively?).

And so I stopped trying to evaluate Carbonneau's play selections on a pure hockey IQ perspective and instead just took them all at face-value, without over-thinking it.

And as a result Carbonneau fell off a cliff on my list. I now have him in the mid 20s on my list where he was #16 in early May, before I watched a bajillion games of his back-to-back.

The 25th rank or thereabout is the point of the draft where I feel that Carbonneau's very high-end blend of skill, skating, physical potential, grit, and shooting ability start to offset any attitude/hockey sense problem.

I went through the same path and came to the same conclusion.

Carbonneau on the surface looks great due to his various elements in his toolkit that makes him look interesting. While not technically perfect, his strides are strong, He's got soft hands and can maneuver in tight spaces. His shot is heavy and the release is quick. The passes are crisps and he cycles the puck well. He's physical and can be a bit mean at times. Now, all this put together sounds amazing. But he's got a bunch of warts that are hard to ignore in isolated viewings.

As of right now, I question his ability to adapt to a system. While he's praised for creativity and finding openings on the ice, to me that comes with a net negative. Simply put, he's a rover and moves freely wherever he feels like which often not only puts him in trouble due to being off position, but his line mates have to constantly rotate and apply support when they normally shouldn't have to. A lot of his attempts at fabricating plays whether in possession of the puck or not (as in reading plays and finding openings) have a rather low success rate. His puck management and poise are erratic and his commitment to supporting his teammates on defense is weak.

That sounds quite severe but obviously, he's not hopeless and perhaps a good dose of discipline can be injected into his game and do wonders for him. If the Habs pick him, then I'd trust they believe they can fix some of his issues. I do like the toolkit quite a bit but he's coming with some negatives that doesn't make him a "can't miss prospect" at 16 & 17 to me, and I prefer a few others over him at this rank.

 

[Deus ex machina]

I went through the same path and came through the same conclusion.

Carbonneau on the surface looks great due to his various elements in his toolkit that makes him look interesting. While not technically perfect, his strides are strong, He's got soft hands and can maneuver in tight spaces. His shot is heavy and the release is quick. The passes are crisps and he cycles the puck well. He's physical and can be a bit mean at times. Now, all this put together sounds amazing. But he's got a bunch of warts that are hard to ignore in isolated viewings.

As of right now, I question his ability to adapt to a system. While he's praised for creativity and finding openings on the ice, to me that comes with a net negative. Simply put, he's a rover and moves freely wherever he feels like which often not only puts him in trouble due to being off position, but his line mates have to constantly rotate and apply support when they normally shouldn't have to. A lot of his attempts at fabricating plays whether in possession of the puck or not (as in reading plays and finding openings) have a rather low success rate. His puck management and poise are erratic and his commitment to supporting his teammates on defense is weak.

That sounds quite severe but obviously, he's not hopeless and perhaps a good dose of discipline can be injected into his game and do wonders for him. If the Habs pick him, then I'd trust they believe they can fix some of his issues. I do like the toolkit quite a bit but he's coming with some negatives that doesn't make him a "can't miss prospect" at 16 & 17 to me, and I prefer a few others over him at this rank.

I've only watched a video scouting report on him but i've come pretty much to the same conclusion as you guys.
He doesn't seem very bright and i have a hard time believing that he's a Hugues type of player.
Maybe it's just a matter of maturing for him but i wouldn't take that bet with a mid 1st.