How would you grade the Habs drafting from 2017-2021 ?

[The Gr8 Dane]

I voted acceptable overall , but acceptable gets you nowhere

 

[Chili]

I add Xhekaj to that period. He wasn't drafted but in a re-draft he would go where? Probably no lower than the second round. Undrafted players make up about 14% of the league, a lot of teams find NHLers beyond the draft.

Overall, they would be around league average in my opinion, which is a huge improvement from the prior lean years.

 

[Andrei79]

2017 was just a brutal draft by Timmins. I recall the team was high on both Suzuki and Robert Thomas, but in typical Bergevin fashion did nothing to leverage his picks to trade up and grab one of them.

2018 could have been a great draft. Getting Harris and Romanov where they did was excellent. The KK pick really hurts though.

2019 was excellent. Caufield at 15 was a steal. Getting some depth with Struble was nice.

2020 with Guhle is a win already, getting a top pairing defenseman at that spot. Most teams would kill to have a player like that. It's too soon to say though for Dobes and Tuch.

2021 is still too early to say, but I'm not a fan of how Mailloux plays defense. Kapanen is an interesting pick.

 

[Sorinth]

What would you say about Evans, Lehkonen, and Guhle?

What about them?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

A little too soon to say.

Kotkaniemi was a miss. Caufield was a steal. There are potential steals there that we'll have to wait and see on.

One thing's for sure though, the players who got to develop under the new regime have done much better than those who were stuck under MB.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

One thing people should do when looking at this as well... how did the player do vs where he was drafted.

Poehling for example doesn't seem like a good pick. But he went 25th and is 30th in scoring for his draft class. So he went about where you'd have expected. That's not a bad pick. You can't expect great players when you're drafting 25th.

 

[Miller Time]

The draft classes from those years look far better thanks to competent hockey ops leadership that Gorton & KH have curated since 2022...

Had MB extended, odds are those years would've had a similar fate to the five previous ones.

Draft & development go hand in hand and can't easily be assessed independently in hindsight.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Romanov for Dach was a bad trade.

I don't agree. I'd rather have Dach than Romanov. Dach's had injuries that have messed things up a bit but going forward would you really rather have Romanov than Dach?

 

[Bacchus1]

Way better that the Rejean Houle era! So, overall, pretty crap. I think the Savard/Gainey/Gauthier eras were way better!

Hughes has done way better, not just in drafting, but in asset management.

Bergevin should have gotten himself a dog!

 

[calder candidate]

I think it is better than expected lot of guy close to making the NHL the issue is that we had some pretty big miss or weird gamble that really so it hard to be positive…

 

[BigDaddyLurch]

...I voted Very Bad simply because Marc Bergevin was involved and I never EVER EVER EVER want to hear his ****ing name again as long as I live...

 

[HuGo Burner Acc]

I'll give a year by year and then an overall. For my criteria, if the team even produces 3 NHL regulars, it automatically recieved a B at the very least:

2017 - C
2018 - B
2019 - B+
2020 - B+
2021 - B

Overall, I'd scale that era at a B. An Average drafting era. Better than the previous era of 2012-2016 which is a C/C- at best

 

[Habs Halifax]

What about them?

We were talking about development right?

 

[Sorinth]

We were talking about development right?

I still have no idea what point you are trying to make or what you are even asking.

A guy like Guhle benefitted from turning pro in the Hughes era. Evans and Lehkonen would have also benefitted had they not had to deal with Bergevin's ineptitude.

 

[Nicko999]

Below average because KK was a miss in the top 3. That is the most important pick which is why I lean towards below average rather than acceptable.

Caufield and Ghule are good picks but everything else is meh.

 

[Whitesnake]

I will speak as if it's definitive...OBVIOUSLY KNOWING THAT IT'S NOT. But this is my opinion right now.

Now, everytime a subject like comes....the same question remains...is this an evaluation in hindsight or not? I will say yes to this 'cause when you evaluate something, it has to be based on what we see now. 'Cause if the evaluation is based on what happened then...NOBODY should ever have a bad review as they ALL believe they did great.

So here it is...
2017: A bad draft that looks pretty fine when it happened. But there's at least 15ish players that we could have taken with our picks at any point in tihe draft that would have done something better than we did. Good news, if we can say is that it wasn't a game changing draft. The 2 game changing players that we could have drafted that year would have been Robertson instead of Poehling and Batherson instead of whoever....Would have obviously helped though.

2018: Another bad draft mostly driven by needs vs BPA. See JK. And see all the C's that were taken. In a world where we keep hearing...CHOOSE THE RD or the C ahead of everything else, the C's we picked were JK, Olofsson, McShane, HIllis, Houde and Stapley. Wow...thank god we did (sarcasm). Side note...kudos to the Euro scout for the Romanov find. He's not a top end player....but one of the few WTF picks by Timmins that paid out.

2019: Here's an example of a BPA working out...Caufield. Not a C. Not a RD. Not a big guy despite us needing it.....we picked the guy who scores. And he does. Rest is awful. 4 D's in a row 'cause we needed to replenish our D squad...thank god we did with all those guys that are doing great in our organization in Struble, Norlinder, Fairweather and Leguerrier...missing out on Protas and Macelli. So is picking Caufield makes the draft great? I will never answer yes to that. It makes the pick great. No idea how it excused hitting 0 for the rest of the picks. But, again, not a game changing draft in it's entirety either. How do I know that? Right now (it will change), the great Alex Newhook is the 10th best scorer of the entire draft...lol. Oh and...I do have to say for the last time the name....Ruscheinski. One of the most WTF pick of all time. And they have the nerve to honor a deceased scout by picking that guy.....

2020: A better draft. the Guhle pick is a great combination of need and BPA. I think Tuch was a great gamble at that spot. And you get your hands on Dobes at the end. See? That's where the difference is between 2019 and 2020. I think Caufield is OBVIOUSLY the much better player. But Guhle, Dobes with a possiblity of Tuch makes 2020 better. Right now. And in this draft, you have 2 examples of players at the opposite side of the spectre, a surebet in Mysak, a WTF pick in Smith. Both won't make it. Nothing is a surebet.

2021: When you force something, it's often not the best decision. I will always believe that we didn,t make the right decision. Not with Stankoven there. Not with a lot of 2nd rounders that when all is said and done should be better than him. I don't see aside from his shot, the exceptional qualities that made him a guy you had to take no matter what. To this day, still don't think it was a good decision. Needless to say the rest of the draft is worst. Though Kapanen and Roy are still uknown. Somehow, I have more faith in Kapanen....

So those are bad drafts, and it explains our state right now.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I will speak as if it's definitive...OBVIOUSLY KNOWING THAT IT'S NOT. But this is my opinion right now.

Now, everytime a subject like comes....the same question remains...is this an evaluation in hindsight or not? I will say yes to this 'cause when you evaluate something, it has to be based on what we see now. 'Cause if the evaluation is based on what happened then...NOBODY should ever have a bad review as they ALL believe they did great.

So here it is...
2017: A bad draft that looks pretty fine when it happened. But there's at least 15ish players that we could have taken with our picks at any point in tihe draft that would have done something better than we did. Good news, if we can say is that it wasn't a game changing draft. The 2 game changing players that we could have drafted that year would have been Robertson instead of Poehling and Batherson instead of whoever....Would have obviously helped though.

2018: Another bad draft mostly driven by needs vs BPA. See JK. And see all the C's that were taken. In a world where we keep hearing...CHOOSE THE RD or the C ahead of everything else, the C's we picked were JK, Olofsson, McShane, HIllis, Houde and Stapley. Wow...thank god we did (sarcasm). Side note...kudos to the Euro scout for the Romanov find. He's not a top end player....but one of the few WTF picks by Timmins that paid out.

2019: Here's an example of a BPA working out...Caufield. Not a C. Not a RD. Not a big guy despite us needing it.....we picked the guy who scores. And he does. Rest is awful. 4 D's in a row 'cause we needed to replenish our D squad...thank god we did with all those guys that are doing great in our organization in Struble, Norlinder, Fairweather and Leguerrier...missing out on Protas and Macelli. So is picking Caufield makes the draft great? I will never answer yes to that. It makes the pick great. No idea how it excused hitting 0 for the rest of the picks. But, again, not a game changing draft in it's entirety either. How do I know that? Right now (it will change), the great Alex Newhook is the 10th best scorer of the entire draft...lol. Oh and...I do have to say for the last time the name....Ruscheinski. One of the most WTF pick of all time. And they have the nerve to honor a deceased scout by picking that guy.....

2020: A better draft. the Guhle pick is a great combination of need and BPA. I think Tuch was a great gamble at that spot. And you get your hands on Dobes at the end. See? That's where the difference is between 2019 and 2020. I think Caufield is OBVIOUSLY the much better player. But Guhle, Dobes with a possiblity of Tuch makes 2020 better. Right now. And in this draft, you have 2 examples of players at the opposite side of the spectre, a surebet in Mysak, a WTF pick in Smith. Both won't make it. Nothing is a surebet.

2021: When you force something, it's often not the best decision. I will always believe that we didn,t make the right decision. Not with Stankoven there. Not with a lot of 2nd rounders that when all is said and done should be better than him. I don't see aside from his shot, the exceptional qualities that made him a guy you had to take no matter what. To this day, still don't think it was a good decision. Needless to say the rest of the draft is worst. Though Kapanen and Roy are still uknown. Somehow, I have more faith in Kapanen....

So those are bad drafts, and it explains our state right now.

You think Struble is an awful pick? I'm sorry but I disagree. I think he's going to be a really solid blueliner. He's not going to do it here because we don't have room for him but he's going to be a good player.

 

[LesCactus]

What made Bergevin fall in love with Kotkaniemi? I wasn’t following hockey at that time, but nothing really seems to stick out about him.

 

[WeThreeKings]

What made Bergevin fall in love with Kotkaniemi? I wasn’t following hockey at that time, but nothing really seems to stick out about him.

Kotkaniemi was producing very well against men and then went into the U18s and dominated his age group in that tournament. He showed great playmaking ability, had the size, and was shutting down the top opposition.

He rocketed up McKenzie's final list. He wasn't really a reach if you were following the draft at the time and his first year with us went very well until Julien decided to use veterans over him, stop playing him, lost his confidence and it all went down hill from there.

 

[LesCactus]

Kotkaniemi was producing very well against men and then went into the U18s and dominated his age group in that tournament. He showed great playmaking ability, had the size, and was shutting down the top opposition.

He rocketed up McKenzie's final list. He wasn't really a reach if you were following the draft at the time and his first year with us went very well until Julien decided to use veterans over him, stop playing him, lost his confidence and it all went down hill from there.

Ah I see, if he was drafted during this era of the Habs org I wonder how he would’ve developed.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Kotkaniemi was producing very well against men and then went into the U18s and dominated his age group in that tournament. He showed great playmaking ability, had the size, and was shutting down the top opposition.

He rocketed up McKenzie's final list. He wasn't really a reach if you were following the draft at the time and his first year with us went very well until Julien decided to use veterans over him, stop playing him, lost his confidence and it all went down hill from there.

I think we can all say that KK turned out to be a bad pick. He didn't succeed in Carolina despite a great supporting cast.

All that being said, I'd have loved to have seen him develop under MSL. I'm not sure if it would've changed the result but i always hated the way Julien just suddenly benched him after he'd been playing so well. He clearly ran afoul of something and he just never seemed to find his footing after that.

 

[MD thaivuN]

2017: F. Best things you could say about that draft was that we packaged Poehling as part of a deal for Matheson and that Primeau would be a very good Tank Commander (if we were tanking this year)
2018: B-. This was the ultimate essence of missed opportunities. Should have been an A+ draft. Great pick in Romanov. Harris got us Laine. However, the 3rd overall pick...
2019: A-. Huge win with Caufield. Struble and RHP are decent depth pieces. That 3rd round was missed opportunity for passing on a very free first-round talent like Dorofeyev twice
2020: A-. Guhle was a very good pick. Dobes seems like a big part of the future. Tuch can still be a decent depth piece. Not much blatant misses either.
2021. B. It's a weak draft, given the covid restrictions. I don't think this one is gonna yield much for us, but we're not particularly missing out on a lot either. Roy and Kapanen might have a future. Mailloux is a cope pick however.


B- for that 5-year segment. If you substituted 2017 for 2022, the segment would be an A because that year carries hard.

 

[Whitesnake]

You think Struble is an awful pick? I'm sorry but I disagree. I think he's going to be a really solid blueliner. He's not going to do it here because we don't have room for him but he's going to be a good player.

Well maybe not awful. But nothing that will change anything on any team. Serviceable No6. Fine for what it is I guess. Though, my player that I LOVED is not shining either....Helleson.

 

[26Mats]

2017:
* Poehling is a depth player
* Fleury and Primeau still battling to become NHL players

2018:
* Kotkaniemi is a middle 6C. Some say 3C, some say 2C
* Romanov is a top 4D
* Harris is a depth player. Some would say fringe top 4D.

2019:
* Caufield is a top line winger
* Struble is a depth player
* RHP is probably a depth player still trying to earn a full time NHL job

2020:
* Guhle is a top 4D
* Dobes looks like a NHL goalie with potential
* Too early with Tuch and Farrell but if they make it, depth NHL players

2021:
* Mailloux is probably a NHL depth defenseman but too early to know where he tops out at
* Kapanen showed some promise in the games he has played and is a pt/game player in the SHL. I think we have a middle 6F type
* Too early to know with Roy but he's probably a NHL player and we don't know where he tops out at (like Mailloux)

A lot of players that started out well tailed off. Hopefully that won't be the case for Dobes, Kapanen, and Roy...

 

[Whitesnake]

Kotkaniemi was producing very well against men and then went into the U18s and dominated his age group in that tournament. He showed great playmaking ability, had the size, and was shutting down the top opposition.

He rocketed up McKenzie's final list. He wasn't really a reach if you were following the draft at the time and his first year with us went very well until Julien decided to use veterans over him, stop playing him, lost his confidence and it all went down hill from there.

How many players in the history of McKenzie drafts went from 19th in their mid-season rankings and No. 10 on the draft lottery rankings finished at 5 ONLY because of a U-18 tournament? And that's not me saying this...it's this article....

And looking at that U-18 tournament...thank god for Jack Hughes, 'cause that top 10 in scoring is not scoring a lot in the NHL....Acteually look at the top 30...and the best scorers in the NHL of that list were mostly chosen in 2019....

Kotkaniemi surges into top five of TSN Draft Ranking - TSN.ca

Finn’s strong performance at the World Under-18 Championships in April has some scouts believing he’s a potential future No. 1 centre, Bob McKenzie writes. His late push could make the top 10 of the draft more unpredictable than originally anticipated.

www.tsn.ca

To me, it's more about people KNOWING Habs would jump on a Centre than an actual assessment of the player.

But I do need to be consequent as I often say....the only way that fans can determine if a player was a reach it is by watching public lists....and so....on that list..he does end up 5. Mind you, in the end, they were wrong. Not reaching does not always mean you are right to do so. As we keep hearing that every team might have a different list....

As far as development goes....sure. First, I'd say that he needed some AHL time but I know somebody who will disagree with me. Still....but the funny part though is that when we are exceptionnally fast to talk about development for JK, whenever somebody wants to mention that some of us loved Zadina...NOBODY mentions that his development could have been screwed up too. So which is? Is the developoment solely a Habs thing?