HF Habs: Montreal Canadiens Hockey Ops - Part 3

[Theodore450]

? Can't keep up with all your pivots, sorry.

He is. No middle ground to be found here.

Completely false.

An opinion. Your certainty is not very well grounded.

Nope, you misunderstood.


You brought up playing in the PLAYOFFS...

Not sure why you are struggling to follow your own points, as poor as they may be.

Being "behind the play" can be caused by many things. You've made zero case as to why you think it's reflective of "low IQ".

Bad assessment.

And yet Another example of a player that was less established and lower impact than Barron at the same age...

It’s time to move on man.

 

[Miller Time]

Panthers obviously have great pro scouting ....something Montreal has been terrible at for decades.

Indeed. And that pro scouting seemingly does a good job of looking past superficial assessments of the players they target, ignoring past stat lines and recognizing that many athletes take a few years at the pro level before being able to translate their skills and competencies into impact.

Reinhart, Montour, Bennett, Tkachuk, Forsling, Vaerheage... All players who made significant jumps in performance impact after 25... Meanwhile some around here act with certainty that guys 22-23-24 are done progressing and won't ever be more than what they are now

 

[Whitesnake]

Indeed. And that pro scouting seemingly does a good job of looking past superficial assessments of the players they target, ignoring past stat lines and recognizing that many athletes take a few years at the pro level before being able to translate their skills and competencies into impact.

Reinhart, Montour, Bennett, Tkachuk, Forsling, Vaerheage... All players who made significant jumps in performance impact after 25... Meanwhile some around here act with certainty that guys 22-23-24 are done progressing and won't ever be more than what they are now

What's the percentage of players that will stick around enough on their original team so that the same team can witness that progression? No matter if that's how it works, first there are more players that do not improve. And for the ones who do, the famous ''change of scenery'' is often the reason why. thing is...was it really a change of scenery or just a little more patience?

But the reality is that team won't wait for a guy they drafted or acquired around 20 to peak at 26. People seem to think that Tage Thompson is an example of it...well he might not have peaked at 20...but it's D+5. That means an entry contract + another one.

Maybe Barbashev...D+7 at St.Louis....yet...D+8 wasn't as good to say the least so they surely thought it was just that 1 year....and then he had to be moved to Vegas to be so far a PPG. At 28.

So players might not be done progressing.....but teams based on a whole lot of factors could be done waiting. And others should have the wisdom to take the right ones. But it's a wheel that turn...you might give up on somebody too early....but you should be able to take players that other teams are giving up too early too...

 

[Miller Time]

What's the percentage of players that will stick around enough on their original team so that the same team can witness that progression?

Interesting question... Would make for an interesting analysis.

I suspect we'd see it higher with teams that have either younger average roster age and/or lower win% (ie non playoff teams)... And probably some correlation between "successful" internal development (played whose peak output seasons occur with drafted team) and team performance over time, though that's a much harder one to isolate given how many variables are at play.

Panthers trading Huberdeau being a prime example... They drafted, developed, then traded him at get optimal point to maximize his value. The team success they enjoyed after trading him quite directly connected to seeing him through to his peak yet the team results improving after he was traded.

No matter if that's how it works, first there are more players that do not improve. And for the ones who do, the famous ''change of scenery'' is often the reason why. thing is...was it really a change of scenery or just a little more patience?

Impossible to know for sure I'd say... It's more art than science

But the reality is that team won't wait for a guy they drafted or acquired around 20 to peak at 26. People seem to think that Tage Thompson is an example of it...well he might not have peaked at 20...but it's D+5. That means an entry contract + another one.

Panthers and Huberdeau
D8 before he hit ppg level
D11 he hits 100+
Promptly traded for great return that helped push them over the hump to a cup.

Reinhart in Buffalo is an example of the opposite... Moved right before he hit ppg level, and since he's pushed into the absolute elite level.

Was it timing of individual progression/putting it together or the change of scenery... I doubt it's either/or but rather "both".

Beyond organizational asset management competency, team situation I think is a bigger driver as to wether or not a team will wait. Teams in a "rebuild" phase can & should be excersicing more patience whereas teams trying to push to the next level and need immediate/established impact, or cap space, have more reason to move the asset right away.

Maybe Barbashev...D+7 at St.Louis....yet...D+8 wasn't as good to say the least so they surely thought it was just that 1 year....and then he had to be moved to Vegas to be so far a PPG. At 28.

Danault is a close to home case...
Traded in D5 for short term help (that didn't stop the Hawks get out of first round), progressed quickly into a high quality top 6 player... I doubt there's much reason to believe he wouldn't have hit similar performance level had he stayed in Chicago, and they obviously would've been better off keeping him & the pick they gave up for Weise/Fleischmann

So players might not be done progressing.....but teams based on a whole lot of factors could be done waiting. And others should have the wisdom to take the right ones. But it's a wheel that turn...you might give up on somebody too early....but you should be able to take players that other teams are giving up too early too...

High quality internal development, culture, and player evaluation are crucial to minimize the glaring screw ups... But as it is more art than science, a healthy dose of humility in not letting "mistakes" bias future decisions, is key imo.

Oilers are an example of the opposite this past summer. The Holloway/Broberg decisions, especially on top of spending cap on Skinner/Henrique, are downright fireable offenses unless they hoist the cup next spring. Horrible internal and external scouting imo

 

[LaP]

Oilers are an example of the opposite this past summer. The Holloway/Broberg decisions, especially on top of spending cap on Skinner/Henrique, are downright fireable offenses unless they hoist the cup next spring. Horrible internal and external scouting imo

I was advocation for Oilers to match this summer and i'D say the majority of this board wwas like they should not, It's funny that Holloway is having a better season than both Skinner and Henrique. Skinner and Henrique is 6 millions on the cap while Broberg and Holloway is 6.8ish on the cap. I'm not sure what went into the head of their GM but watching the playoffs last year i thought Broberg was one of their best dman during the few games he played.

 

[salbutera]

Panthers obviously have great pro scouting ....something Montreal has been terrible at for decades.

Why because Tkachuk is would only agree to a deal to STL or Fla, or is it because Vergaeghe after TBay did not want to leave Fla?

Terrible for decades huh.. Danault + 2nd for Weise + Fleischmann. Weise for Diaz, Byron waiver pickup, Kulak for whatever their names were. The issue is in comparing pro scouting moves on an established team that’s vying for a playoff spot year in year out vs a rebuilding team