Prospect Info: Gianni Fairbrother a.k.a. Giovanni Fairbrudder

[JoelWarlord]

Not even close. They traded a much better player in Kadri for two massive defensive liabilities. Kerfoot is a worse version of Desharnais and Colorado's been trying to offload Barrie for years. They're selling high now after he padded his stats with Mack and Rantanen. And Toronto still doesn't have a single RD that can actually play D and match up against top lines, Marchand - Bergeron - Pastrnak will eat them alive once again.

Haven't seen a ton of Kerfoot but he looked good in the limited time I've seen him play and he's excellent by xG and CA. He's not a player I know a ton about but from what I've heard he seems like a solid 3C with defensive value. As for Barrie I'm not over the moon about him either but I don't think Muzzin-Barrie is going to be a pairing that struggles defensively either, but IMO they replaced their 3C with a guy who will be similarly useful in the same role (Kadri > Kerfoot obviously but with a limited role behind Tavares/Matthews Kadri can only do so much) and an RD who at worst is better than anyone they had last season.

Theodore absolutely would've been a need at LD unless you were dead set on both Tinordi and Beaulieu as top 4 LD. And why is picking McCarron or Tinordi a mistake of drafting by need and not just poor talent evaluation? Beaulieu and Scherbak were highly skilled players that were considered BPA at their picks. Why don't I get to claim that drafting BPA was a mistake instead in these cases?

For McCarron and Tinordi it was clearly about drafting by perceived need. The perceived need was wrong, but the logic was the Habs needed size/physicality. The McCarron pick came right after the Habs lost a line brawl in the playoffs and in the same offseason where Bergevin went out and got Murray and Parros.

I admit I'm being a bit unfair because you're talking about positional needs and the McCarron/Tinordi thing was about pure size/grit and not position, but I only bring them up as an example where drafting for a perceived need led to taking those guys with Kuznetsov (or Coyle) and Theodore on the board picked shortly after and how quickly team needs can change, and how perfectly those guys would fit the current team's needs years later.

Almost every other move you've mentioned is a prospects/picks for players move. Nothing to do with the draft at all so not sure where BPA comes into play. Vegas for example could've picked Thomas, Poehling, Liljegren, Jokiharju, Frost etc. and Ottawa may have still made the trade. It's not like they only had an LD need to fill with Chabot already there.

I bring up those other trades as examples of teams filling needs in other ways that aren't trading away a BPA for a positional need. I don't think drafting a BPA at a position where you're deep means you'll be losing value on them later when hockey careers can be so short/volatile and team needs can change rapidly.

 

[Hfbsux]

Makes even less sense to do that. With a top pick, if you think you are 1 D away from becoming a contender and you hesitate between Byram and Turcotte...go Byram. But after 2nd round and up? How the heck are those guys needs when chances are they won't make it. On the contrary, you go as BPA as possible 'cause that's the only way you'd have a greater percentage in getting somebody interesting.

You should never draft by need. Not in the 1st round. Not ever. But it might make more sense with a top pick.

Drafting for needs in the sense of asking scouts to put more emphasis on projecting LD in 2nd/3rd or late 1st round. There is a lot of quality dman who were drafted in the 2nd round. As for Byram vs Turcotte, if someome project them as equal, well yeah, the team needs becomes the deal breaker.

 

[26Mats]

Drafting for needs in the sense of asking scouts to put more emphasis on projecting LD in 2nd/3rd or late 1st round. There is a lot of quality dman who were drafted in the 2nd round. As for Byram vs Turcotte, if someome project them as equal, well yeah, the team needs becomes the deal breaker.

Drafting for need works when it's for D and Timmins is the head scout. Timmins is great at finding dmen. It hasn't worked well for Centers, big men, or Quebecers. Thank goodness drafting for the need of centers seems to have worked recently (Poehling, Kotkaniemi). But I wouldn't recommend it as a strategy for Timmins, given his long and poor track record of drafting centers. Either take the BPA or take whoever Timmins thinks is the best dman.

 

[Hfbsux]

Drafting for need works when it's for D and Timmins is the head scout. Timmins is great at finding dmen. It hasn't worked well for Centers, big men, or Quebecers. Thank goodness drafting for the need of centers seems to have worked recently (Poehling, Kotkaniemi). But I wouldn't recommend it as a strategy for Timmins, given his long and poor track record of drafting centers. Either take the BPA or take whoever Timmins thinks is the best dman.

Why choosing between drafting for need or BPA while you can do both. It's exactly what we did the last 2 years:

2018: We drafted for need (center) but we also managed to sneak Ylonen and Romanov in, which were obviously BPA in the early 2nd and looking like quite the picks right now.
2019: We drafted for need (LD) but also managed to land the (or one of) best scorer in the draft.

Have no problem with these drafts whatsoever.

 

[Sam of Montreal]

Why choosing between drafting for need or BPA while you can do both. It's exactly what we did the last 2 years:

2018: We drafted for need (center) but we also managed to sneak Ylonen and Romanov in, which were obviously BPA in the early 2nd and looking like quite the picks right now.
2019: We drafted for need (LD) but also managed to land the (or one of) best scorer in the draft.

Have no problem with these drafts whatsoever.

People like to complain.

Even though there was clearly an inclination to stock up on certain positions, none of the prospects drafted seem to have limited potential.

Fairbrother's odds of reaching the NHL have to be lower than players picked before at this point in time, but he has some nice tools that could make him a good dman if he makes it.

After the top 10 picks, or lets say top 30 to be conservative, scouts feel that a lot of players have similar potential. Ranking one above the other is not useful and a crapshoot. I bet most of them have a tier ranking or letters rather than numbering each and every one of them.

So if you feel like a bunch of players have the same potential and odds of reaching it, then why not go for the position you feel you need the most?

If they didn't pick Dorofeyev, it might be because they saw something in him that A) didn't make them want to draft him or B) didn't make him stand out more than Fairbrother.

That might turn out to be right or wrong, but at that moment on the draft floor, it wasn't a mistake unless they really believe Dorofeyev is a better prospect but still went the other way.

I strongly doubt they thought that. Or else they would have picked him.

 

[Whitesnake]

Why choosing between drafting for need or BPA while you can do both. It's exactly what we did the last 2 years:

2018: We drafted for need (center) but we also managed to sneak Ylonen and Romanov in, which were obviously BPA in the early 2nd and looking like quite the picks right now.
2019: We drafted for need (LD) but also managed to land the (or one of) best scorer in the draft.

Have no problem with these drafts whatsoever.

Kotka was a need pick. For sure. But was rising in the BPA list really fast. So maybe a good mix of both. But yes, if the Habs have plenty of C's, I will always believe that in no way would Kotka be a Hab. Romanov was not BPA has no other agencies had him that high. Yet, in that case, it might very well pay off, but he was a need pick. Ylonen was BPA. In 2019, Caulfield was CLEARLY BPA.

But I will repeat this....needs picks often don't work. People chanting Timmins name because Romanov and the fact that he will work out because we went with needs that time around just don't remember all these other times we did and it didn't work out.

 

[admiralcadillac]

Kotka was a need pick. For sure. But was rising in the BPA list really fast. So maybe a good mix of both. But yes, if the Habs have plenty of C's, I will always believe that in no way would Kotka be a Hab. Romanov was not BPA has no other agencies had him that high. Yet, in that case, it might very well pay off, but he was a need pick. Ylonen was BPA. In 2019, Caulfield was CLEARLY BPA.

But I will repeat this....needs picks often don't work. People chanting Timmins name because Romanov and the fact that he will work out because we went with needs that time around just don't remember all these other times we did and it didn't work out.

Prospects rarely pan out? How prescient

 

[Sam of Montreal]

Prospects rarely pan out? How prescient

Exactly.

People are so cynical around here. Prospects don't pan out all the time.. BPA, needs, whatever.

Also BPA makes no sense when you start claiming Romanov was not the best player available because traditional scouting services didn't see him there. Consensus picks that fall usually fall for a reason. So if the consensus pick is the BPA approach, then it sucks. Remember Thrower, Collberg and such? What a great draft that turned out to be for us...

Romanov was picked there because they thought he was the best player available at that moment. It is very hard to contradict this right now. Also, they probably picked him there because they felt there was a risk that at least one other team had their eyes on him and could pick him before their next pick.

Whitesnake follows prospects more than most and has a solid reputation and eye for talent because of that, but he also noticably got more cynical in the last few years and I believe it impairs his judgement from time to time.

 

[Hfbsux]

People like to complain.

Even though there was clearly an inclination to stock up on certain positions, none of the prospects drafted seem to have limited potential.

Fairbrother's odds of reaching the NHL have to be lower than players picked before at this point in time, but he has some nice tools that could make him a good dman if he makes it.

After the top 10 picks, or lets say top 30 to be conservative, scouts feel that a lot of players have similar potential. Ranking one above the other is not useful and a crapshoot. I bet most of them have a tier ranking or letters rather than numbering each and every one of them.

So if you feel like a bunch of players have the same potential and odds of reaching it, then why not go for the position you feel you need the most?

If they didn't pick Dorofeyev, it might be because they saw something in him that A) didn't make them want to draft him or B) didn't make him stand out more than Fairbrother.

That might turn out to be right or wrong, but at that moment on the draft floor, it wasn't a mistake unless they really believe Dorofeyev is a better prospect but still went the other way.

I strongly doubt they thought that. Or else they would have picked him.

Agreed with you on everything.

 

[Habs]

Exactly.

People are so cynical around here. Prospects don't pan out all the time.. BPA, needs, whatever.

Also BPA makes no sense when you start claiming Romanov was not the best player available because traditional scouting services didn't see him there. Consensus picks that fall usually fall for a reason. So if the consensus pick is the BPA approach, then it sucks. Remember Thrower, Collberg and such? What a great draft that turned out to be for us...

Romanov was picked there because they thought he was the best player available at that moment. It is very hard to contradict this right now. Also, they probably picked him there because they felt there was a risk that at least one other team had their eyes on him and could pick him before their next pick.

Whitesnake follows prospects more than most and has a solid reputation and eye for talent because of that, but he also noticably got more cynical in the last few years and I believe it impairs his judgement from time to time.

Talk to me when Romanov and all the other hyped prospects, make a dent for this franchise. Every year we yammer on about the steals Timmins delivered with his 'off the chart' picks, and so many of them fail to make the big club.

 

[Whitesnake]

Prospects rarely pan out? How prescient

Exactly.

People are so cynical around here. Prospects don't pan out all the time.. BPA, needs, whatever.

Also BPA makes no sense when you start claiming Romanov was not the best player available because traditional scouting services didn't see him there. Consensus picks that fall usually fall for a reason. So if the consensus pick is the BPA approach, then it sucks. Remember Thrower, Collberg and such? What a great draft that turned out to be for us...

Romanov was picked there because they thought he was the best player available at that moment. It is very hard to contradict this right now. Also, they probably picked him there because they felt there was a risk that at least one other team had their eyes on him and could pick him before their next pick.

Whitesnake follows prospects more than most and has a solid reputation and eye for talent because of that, but he also noticably got more cynical in the last few years and I believe it impairs his judgement from time to time.

Admiral and his selective reading at its best, once again. Then, yeah, I didn't know that. That prospects don't pan out. Obviously, it's never about that. It's about using the best strategy to make sure you do the best job POSSIBLE.

And no, as far as OUR analysis as fans of what is BPA and what is NEEDS, as far as WE are concerned....you cannot say that Romanov was the BPA 'cause they picked him. Makes no sense. If so, you have to say that EVERYBODY they pick are the BPA 'cause....they picked them. Thing is, when you GM and your head scout tells the fans that in this draft, we are concentrating on D's....or C's......in no way shape or from could you come out here and say that they still used BPA.....that's not what the concept is all about. So yeah, the concept of BPA, based on fans who don't have access to internal listing, is to base yourself on every agencies out there and every website that knows their shit and then YOUR own appreciation of each prospect to determine whether YOU think they went with BPA or needs.

And this is ludicrous to say that Romanov was the BPA because he's doing so well......Was Puuljarvi not the BPA 'cause he's not doing so well? When we decide AT THE TIME that we went wiht needs or BPA, we don't have a crystal ball to know how well or poor they'Ll do in 3 years.....

BPA and needs is not based on end result. It's based on how you are approaching the draft and drafting accordingly. The day you say outloud that you are concentrating on D's is clearly a sign that you are mostly not going on BPA. And personnally, I think you should always go with BPA 'cause in the end what it means is that if later you do have a need, you could trade for that need à la Jones for Johansen. And your need is more likely going to really be filled 'cause when those trades happens, those guys are more proven. Contrary to going with a need in a 5th round that is not going to be filled 'cause they rarely pan out.

So going back to Admiral superb point about prospects not panning out, I prefer to see that happening over a BPA concept. I prefer to see Reway not panning out than a Crisp. You went with talent, he was the BPA, you take him. Doesn't pan out? Shit happens. But you go out of your way to pick a big guy 'cause you need more truculence....and it doesn't pan out? Your damn fault.

 

[Vachon23]

Talk to me when Romanov and all the other hyped prospects, make a dent for this franchise. Every year we yammer on about the steals Timmins delivered with his 'off the chart' picks, and so many of them fail to make the big club.

That’s a point. It’s to early to judge the 2018-2019 draft

 

[admiralcadillac]

Admiral and his selective reading at its best, once again. Then, yeah, I didn't know that. That prospects don't pan out. Obviously, it's never about that. It's about using the best strategy to make sure you do the best job POSSIBLE.

And no, as far as OUR analysis as fans of what is BPA and what is NEEDS, as far as WE are concerned....you cannot say that Romanov was the BPA 'cause they picked him. Makes no sense. If so, you have to say that EVERYBODY they pick are the BPA 'cause....they picked them. Thing is, when you GM and your head scout tells the fans that in this draft, we are concentrating on D's....or C's......in no way shape or from could you come out here and say that they still used BPA.....that's not what the concept is all about. So yeah, the concept of BPA, based on fans who don't have access to internal listing, is to base yourself on every agencies out there and every website that knows their **** and then YOUR own appreciation of each prospect to determine whether YOU think they went with BPA or needs.

And this is ludicrous to say that Romanov was the BPA because he's doing so well......Was Puuljarvi not the BPA 'cause he's not doing so well? When we decide AT THE TIME that we went wiht needs or BPA, we don't have a crystal ball to know how well or poor they'Ll do in 3 years.....

BPA and needs is not based on end result. It's based on how you are approaching the draft and drafting accordingly. The day you should outloud that you are concentrating on D's is clearly a sign that you are mostly not going on BPA. And personnally, I think you should always go with BPA 'cause in the end what it means is that if later you do have a need, you could trade for that need à la Jones for Johansen. And your need is more likely going to really be filled 'cause when those trades happens, those guys are more proven. Contrary to going with a need in a 5th round that is not going to be filled 'cause they rarely pan out.

So going back to Admiral superb point about prospects not panning out, I prefer to see that happening over a BPA concept. I prefer to see Reway not panning out than a Crisp. You went with talent, he was the BPA, you take him. Doesn't pan out? **** happens. But you go out of your way to pick a big guy 'cause you need more truculence....and it doesn't pan out? Your damn fault.

I personally don't care whether a prospect is a "BPA" or not if he doesn't pan out. I also don't pretend to know whether Romanov was the best player available, maybe he was. Maybe that's why the scouting staff made the pick. I also don't pretend to know whether going with a "BPA" route means more success in any way, but I bet it doesn't outside of top 10 picks.

 

[Whitesnake]

I personally don't care whether a prospect is a "BPA" or not if he doesn't pan out. I also don't pretend to know whether Romanov was the best player available, maybe he was. Maybe that's why the scouting staff made the pick. I also don't pretend to know whether going with a "BPA" route means more success in any way, but I bet it doesn't outside of top 10 picks.

It's not about pretending. It's about having opinions. You should try that instead of waiting for others to have some and blame them for having them.

 

[Sam of Montreal]

Of course we can't know that Romanov or any player not yet on the team will pan out. However it is not fair to judge negatively the last few years and deny any praise for the same time period. It's got to be one or the other. Either it's all up in the air or we can make judgement.

As for a few years ago, I don't think anyone disputes that some bad decisions were made. Especially the McCaron, Tinordi and Crisp picks are questionnable. However, in the last few years, the philosophy seems to have changed.

To me BPA is only a valid concept when you feel that one player is superior to another one.

In the first round, we can think there is enough players with more projectable skills to clearly establish difference between players, but once you get to the 3rd round and more, there are a lot of players with similar upside and similar odds of reaching it. At this point the BPA might be a group of players. Inside this group of players, you can pick whichever one you want. So if , for example, they had Fairbrother and Dorofeyev in the same group, I am comfortable with them picking the LD because of positional need.

Now, if they picked a LD from a lower "group" because of need, I would be against it. There is no way to know if that happened or not. I choose to believe they wouldn't be so dumb. Others think they are.

 

[admiralcadillac]

It's not about pretending. It's about having opinions. You should try that instead of waiting for others to have some and blame them for having them.

"But I will repeat this... needs picks often don't work" sounds an awful lot like more than an opinion, and it's what I replied to.

 

[Whitesnake]

"But I will repeat this... needs picks often don't work" sounds an awful lot like more than an opinion, and it's what I replied to.

Well it starts with the opinion that I have that what is a need pick and what is a BPA pick. But where it stops being an opinion is just when your own GM says openly that they picked forwards last year, it was time to pick defense this time. That is not an opinioin. That is a fact indeed. Yet, MY OPINION is that thikning that way, is dumb. Fine with me if people think that drafting by needs is fine. I totally disagree with this.....in my opinion.

 

[admiralcadillac]

Well it starts with the opinion that I have that what is a need pick and what is a BPA pick. But where it stops being an opinion is just when your own GM says openly that they picked forwards last year, it was time to pick defense this time. That is not an opinioin. That is a fact indeed. Yet, MY OPINION is that thikning that way, is dumb. Fine with me if people think that drafting by needs is fine. I totally disagree with this.....in my opinion.

That don't mean it don't be working though

 

[Whitesnake]

Of course we can't know that Romanov or any player not yet on the team will pan out. However it is not fair to judge negatively the last few years and deny any praise for the same time period. It's got to be one or the other. Either it's all up in the air or we can make judgement.

As for a few years ago, I don't think anyone disputes that some bad decisions were made. Especially the McCaron, Tinordi and Crisp picks are questionnable. However, in the last few years, the philosophy seems to have changed.

To me BPA is only a valid concept when you feel that one player is superior to another one.

In the first round, we can think there is enough players with more projectable skills to clearly establish difference between players, but once you get to the 3rd round and more, there are a lot of players with similar upside and similar odds of reaching it. At this point the BPA might be a group of players. Inside this group of players, you can pick whichever one you want. So if , for example, they had Fairbrother and Dorofeyev in the same group, I am comfortable with them picking the LD because of positional need.

Now, if they picked a LD from a lower "group" because of need, I would be against it. There is no way to know if that happened or not. I choose to believe they wouldn't be so dumb. Others think they are.

As I often say, I blame way more strategies than actual players being picked. Yes, in the end, end results only matters. I'm not judging negatively the last few years. I made a general comment and this is something I said since I joined this forum. So it won'T change today.

And again....whether it's McCarron or Tinordi.....if the idea is that Tinordi was picked because they felt he was the BPA, it's somewhat fine with me. But if they go in the draft saying that this team needs a towering d-man to fill a need, this is damn wrong. That's all. My point is that the draft is tough as it is, if your drafting theory is that you will take an exercice as tough as it already is, and make it tougher by putting aside some more talented players 'cause you prefer to go with needs....this is plain wrong.

As far as one or the other....well yeah. Just like people excusing Timmins for not having a lot of picks from 08 to 11....but probably will not say that the last 2 drafts went well becuase he had tons of picks. It works both ways.....For me, just bring results. As best as you can in such a tough exercice. We didn't have results for quite a long time. And maybe the last 2 drafts will help this team finally. But it didn't went well for this drafting group for quite some time now.

 

[Whitesnake]

That don't mean it don't be working though

Well, for me, it's making the draft exercice even tougher. Doesn't mean it won't work from time to time....but if people love to say how it's normal to not have guys making it when chosen after the 3rd round...I can't imagine how tough it is when you draft for needs in the 5th round when you openly pass on better players because you have a LD need right now....a player that if he makes it one day, will be playing a role on LD in 5 years from now.....

 

[Hfbsux]

Well, for me, it's making the draft exercice even tougher. Doesn't mean it won't work from time to time....but if people love to say how it's normal to not have guys making it when chosen after the 3rd round...I can't imagine how tough it is when you draft for needs in the 5th round when you openly pass on better players because you have a LD need right now....a player that if he makes it one day, will be playing a role on LD in 5 years from now.....

I think it's pretty rare in the 5th round that there is a distinct BPA. Most of the time it would be a group of player and the tie break would be "team needs" imo. I think in 2019, the scouts were obviously putting more emphasis on LD, scouted a bunch of them and really liked Struble, Norlinder (looks like great picks, even if we didn't need LD) and Fairbrother. They probably had more information on these guys than others prospects available with close to the same value.

I also see a trend when it comes to late round picks: Drafting overrager in the later rounds. Example: Nuutivaara with Columbus. They drafted him in 2015 as an overrager (20 yrs old). He played 3 full NHL season since. Thinking about Norlinder, Arsen and Stapley. Drafting for need in the latter round this way doesn't seem so crazy and tough, no?

 

[Whitesnake]

I think it's pretty rare in the 5th round that there is a distinct BPA. Most of the time it would be a group of player and the tie break would be "team needs" imo. I think in 2019, the scouts were obviously putting more emphasis on LD, scouted a bunch of them and really liked Struble, Norlinder (looks like great picks, even if we didn't need LD) and Fairbrother. They probably had more information on these guys than others prospects available with close to the same value.

I also see a trend when it comes to late round picks: Drafting overrager in the later rounds. Example: Nuutivaara with Columbus. They drafted him in 2015 as an overrager (20 yrs old). He played 3 full NHL season since. Thinking about Norlinder, Arsen and Stapley. Drafting for need in the latter round this way doesn't seem so crazy and tough, no?

Yes it would be crazy if you don't pick the best player because you have an immediate need. I have no idea how people could not find it crazy. But hey, to each their own. For example, 5th round last year, I may be wrong, but to me there's just NO WAY Leguerrier was the BPA when guys like Blaisdell, Aaltonen, Lindmark and Co were available. Or even Pitlick. No way. Leguerrier he's a LD.....I think that it will be incredibly rare that statswise, a guy like him will be picked in the 5th round. As far as the 5th round seems to me. And as much as stats aren't everything...yet...in the history of drafts, no matter what role every player ends up playing in the NHL, he needs stats at the junior level. And unfortunately for Leguerrier, while he was quite young in his 1st year in Juniors, he's 2 months from being drafted the year before, and yet only saw 5 points increase in his draft year. And same nothing in the playoffs. Yes, I know, it's not his role in the NHL. Yet again, quite a lot of defensive d-man in the NHL have been offensive good players in Juniors. So with Leguerrier what we did is take a guy with surely an incredibly low potential, and already attributed him a defensive role as a need on LD. Makes absolutely no sense for me. But we will see how wrong I will be. Wasn't wrong on Koberstein for having the same kind of opinion. Wasn't wrong on Walford for saying that 3rd round was WAY too early.

Fairbrother, well I think it's somewhat of the same story though he has shown some offensive signs. Yet...he's a September 2000 pick.....15 days before and this 36 points we just saw would be his D+1 season.....

I prefer we go on potential. And as much as stats watching is not everything.....people should just look at the history of drafts and tell me the percentage of guys, forwards or D's, whether they played an offensive or defensive role in the NHL that didn't shown offensive game at lower level. If you can reach 5%, you will be lucky.

So when I talk about BPA, it's a combination of my take and the take of every agency out there who puts their list available BUT ALSO the players offensive talent at lower level and their ability to upgrade their game as they move forward on their career in order to establish potential.

 

[Adam Michaels]

Everett won 5-3 against Spokane last night. Fairbrother had 2 assists and was +4.

He now has 4 assists in 2 preseason games.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

Promising start for Fairbrother!

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Everett won 5-3 against Spokane last night. Fairbrother had 2 assists and was +4.

He now has 4 assists in 2 preseason games.

how's his mobility? People were oddly comparing him to Mete and I know (or at least think) those comparisons were way off but is he at least a good skater? I get Dietz/Ellis vibes though I liked the little I saw from camp.