My greater theory about Kent Hughes & 'CULTURE'

[BenchBrawl]

DR projects as a top pair defender… he is literally just as important to winning cups as a potential 80 point winger if not more important. Are we drafting the top defensman next year? I doubt it, I also doubt we are drafting the top forward but it’s more likely we do draft a top forward next year over a defensman.

So DR project as a top pairing guy but Michkov only project as a "potential 80 pts winger"?

You're too dishonest to debate with, and it's time-consuming to unpack your false equivalencies, so I do not wish to continue this discussion with you.

Have a nice day.

 

[NotProkofievian]

So DR project as a top pairing guy but Michkov only project as a "potential 80 pts winger"?

You're too dishonest to debate with, and it's time-consuming to unpack your false equivalencies, so I do not wish to continue this discussion with you.

Have a nice day.

All prospects are darts unless they are drafted by the habs, at which point they become bonafide future superstars, unless they're traded in which case they never had the talent in the first place.

This is the hfboards habs way.

 

[ReHabs]

All prospects are darts unless they are drafted by the habs, at which point they become bonafide future superstars, unless they're traded in which case they never had the talent in the first place.

This is the hfboards habs way.

I've noticed this pattern but the twist is when it comes to trading to acquire premium or premiere players, suddenly those very same prospects are simultaneously worthless on the trade market and impossible to part with for risk of losing of future bona fide future superstar. Very strange. Once the trade target is acquired by another team, it will be confirmed that we could have never matched that offer no matter what. Hence why I think the Habs continue to be a poverty franchise -- at all times we don't have the pieces to acquire better players, we just gotta grind it out, year on year, like serfs on a field.

Every year the Habs prospect pool is fluffed up but this summer was the first when I felt like there was a sincere and substantial over-rating of our prospects and, in reality, we had only two worthwhile prospects before the draft and the rest were essentially dead-end and worthless. How is that a top10 prospect pool?

Remember Habs media pumping up Bergevin's "more darts for the dartboard" approach to drafting? I don't see it, personally.

 

[NotProkofievian]

I've noticed this pattern but the twist is when it comes to trading to acquire premium or premiere players, suddenly those very same prospects are simultaneously worthless on the trade market and impossible to part with for risk of losing of future bona fide future superstar. Very strange.

Every year the Habs prospect pool is fluffed up but this summer was the first when I felt like there was a sincere and substantial over-rating of our prospects and, in reality, we had only two worthwhile prospects before the draft and the rest were essentially dead-end and worthless. How is that a top10 prospect pool?

Remember Habs media pumping up Bergevin's "more darts for the dartboard" approach to drafting? I don't see it, personally.

It's a very unbalanced pool. Lots of good defence prospects, but the forwards are scratch tickets at this point.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Galaxy brain

Let's take Hamrlik instead of Kovalev because that way we'll score more goals.

I mean sure, if you're talking about DOUG HARVEY, then that's true.

Really? If Michkov is merely Kovalev, a career 0.78 ppg player, with 4 times 1.0+ in 18 seasons, then the kid is not the generational player his supporters believe him to be.

People forget that Hamrlik anchored our defence to wins over Pittsburgh and Washington in 2010, even while Markov missed many games. And that was at age 35-36, carrying a plug like Spacek on his wing. Hamrlik was not even a top, top player yet was as valuable to his teams at least as frequently as Kovalev.

Underestmting the value of good defencemen is the mistake both Toronto and Edmonton have made.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Really? If Michkov is merely Kovalev, a career 0.78 ppg player, with 4 times 1.0+ in 18 seasons, then the kid is not the generational player his supporters believe him to be.

People forget that Hamrlik anchored our defence to wins over Pittsburgh and Washington in 2010, even while Markov missed many games. And that was at age 35-36, carrying a plug like Spacek on his wing. Hamrlik was not even a top, top player yet was as valuable to his teams at least as frequently as Kovalev.

Underestmting the value of good defencemen is the mistake both Toronto and Edmonton have made.

I was talking about the short window when both were at their best with us. Disregard my comparison.

I'm not the type of guy to underestimate the value of defensemen. I love defensemen and I think they're more important than forwards.

I also believe we need an exciting offensive superstar after arguably 40 years without a consistent one, and that his was the time to get it. The odds of getting another Michkov are much lower than the odds of finding another Reinbacher.

 

[Twisted Sinister]

Really? If Michkov is merely Kovalev, a career 0.78 ppg player, with 4 times 1.0+ in 18 seasons, then the kid is not the generational player his supporters believe him to be.

People forget that Hamrlik anchored our defence to wins over Pittsburgh and Washington in 2010, even while Markov missed many games. And that was at age 35-36, carrying a plug like Spacek on his wing. Hamrlik was not even a top, top player yet was as valuable to his teams at least as frequently as Kovalev.

Underestmting the value of good defencemen is the mistake both Toronto and Edmonton have made.

Underestimating the value of good forwards is the mistake we've made.

 

[BaseballCoach]

I've noticed this pattern but the twist is when it comes to trading to acquire premium or premiere players, suddenly those very same prospects are simultaneously worthless on the trade market and impossible to part with for risk of losing of future bona fide future superstar. Very strange. Once the trade target is acquired by another team, it will be confirmed that we could have never matched that offer no matter what. Hence why I think the Habs continue to be a poverty franchise -- at all times we don't have the pieces to acquire better players, we just gotta grind it out, year on year, like serfs on a field.

Every year the Habs prospect pool is fluffed up but this summer was the first when I felt like there was a sincere and substantial over-rating of our prospects and, in reality, we had only two worthwhile prospects before the draft and the rest were essentially dead-end and worthless. How is that a top10 prospect pool?

Remember Habs media pumping up Bergevin's "more darts for the dartboard" approach to drafting? I don't see it, personally.

Can it be in between? They won't all hit their ceiling, but only two? I don't agree.

Between Guhle, Xhekaj, Struble - could one of them be a top-3 D?

Could Slaf become a top-6 forward?

Between Hutson, Dobes, Farrell - could at least one of them become an impactful NHLer?

Between RHP, Heineman, Roy, Beck, Mesar, Kidney - might two of them be middle six forwards?

Between Mailloux, Barron, Engstrom, - could one of them be a top-4 D?

I think the answer to every one of those questions is more yes than no.

And thus that is a stronger than average pool, relative to the league.

However, i do agree with you that some of those guys could be made available if it is to get an established younger strong player. The refusal to consider moving Poehling to get O'Reilly was not a good decision if the goal at the time was to compete.

 

[pickles555]

Choosing character and culture is why MB failed, looks like we now have an MB 2.0

This team will tread water till the next GM, hopefully they will not wait as long as they did with MB

The team is like a 24 person rowing team, with everyone paddling on the same side of the boat

 

[BaseballCoach]

I was talking about the short window when both were at their best with us. Disregard my comparison.

I'm not the type of guy to underestimate the value of defensemen. I love defensemen and I think they're more important than forwards.

I also believe we need an exciting offensive superstar after arguably 40 years without a consistent one, and that his was the time to get it. The odds of getting another Michkov are much lower than the odds of finding another Reinbacher.

'Exciting' is not a useable metric. Besides, do we not have excitement with Caufield and Xhekaj?

Toronto was super-excited to add Tavares to a team with offence already. How did neglecting their back end work out for them?

 

[NotProkofievian]

Guys can you believe what morons Chicago are for taking Bedard over Reinbacher? I mean, look at Toronto and see how well drafting Matthews has worked out for them.

 

[ReHabs]

Can it be in between? They won't all hit their ceiling, but only two? I don't agree.

Between Guhle, Xhekaj, Struble - could one of them be a top-3 D?

Could Slaf become a top-6 forward?

Between Hutson, Dobes, Farrell - could at least one of them become an impactful NHLer?

Between RHP, Heineman, Roy, Beck, Mesar, Kidney - might two of them be middle six forwards?

Between Mailloux, Barron, Engstrom, - could one of them be a top-4 D?

I think the answer to every one of those questions is more yes than no.

And thus that is a stronger than average pool, relative to the league.

However, i do agree with you that some of those guys could be made available if it is to get an established younger strong player. The refusal to consider moving Poehling to get O'Reilly was not a good decision if the goal at the time was to compete.

I don't count Guhle, Xhekaj, Harris, or Slafkovsky to be prospects. They're in the NHL, for better or worse. Counting them against our prospect pool only artificially inflates the reputation of the prospect pool. Similarly, Matty Berniers is not a Kraken prospect.

Of the prospects remaining I don't think any of them project to be impact players in the NHL barring Hutson and now of course Reinbacher. Roy, Farrell, Kidney, Roy, and Heineman all have flaws, mostly physical, which drag down their prospect profile. It's not impossible but it's unlikely to see Farrell thrive with the Habs given how small our top6 happens to be. Roy still seems to have a bad reputation in terms of speed and skating -- it's not impossible but unlikely he can make up for it and thrive at the NHL level. Mailloux has tons of criticism laid at his feet for his poor defensive play in the OHL, playing at higher levels doesn't make it easier for him to perform well. Mesar had, apparently, a brutal year in the OHL and while his career isn't over it is less likely he is on an NHL trajectory at this moment.

We can continue this exercise for every name on this list. The only player who is genuinely trending up is Hutson and he's tiny, hopefully not too small.

So when you bundle them and make off-the-cuff estimates you're actually making it seem better than they are -- our forwards in particular. It's very possible not one of these prospects becomes relevant in the NHL.

It's more of the Timmins era style of prospect with "high floors" and indeterminate but ultimately low ceilings. Lots of NHL GP in that cohort but mostly in filler roles and journeymen like Beaulieu and Jacob DLR.

But to finish this off on a positive note "worthless" on the trade market does not mean worthless in all cases. It could be no other GM really values a certain Habs prospect but still that prospect can make the NHL and develop into a worthwhile player. But in context of trade-values we have a bunch of worthless assets in the form of all these prospects. Nobody is giving up anything worthwhile for the likes of Mesar or Farrell, sorry to say. So it makes the desired 'quantity-for-quality' trades even more difficult to pull off because our quantity isn't good enough. That's why I was surprised to see Hughes have to pay draft picks for Newhook instead some of our many, many prospects.

 

[BaseballCoach]

IMO. That's a good quality. Kid wants to win.
Not the first and not the last player giving speeches to underperforming teammates.
He'd probably gave speeches every 2 out of 3 games in Habs locker room.lol
Let's not forget this: The guys who didn't want to draft Michkov cause of his 17 yrs old behaviour not compatible with our "culture", are the same guys who signed Mailloux to ELC. Double standards?

This narrative is annoying.

The Habs did NOT denigrate Michkov's attitude. They just believe Reinbacher will blend in more with what we need and that his progression has been remarkable.

There are legitimate concerns that Michkov will not produce as well in the NHL as the hype would suggest. Also, five teams besides us preferred a C or D to this promising winger. We are not outliers here.

 

[BenchBrawl]

'Exciting' is not a useable metric. Besides, do we not have excitement with Caufield and Xhekaj?

Toronto was super-excited to add Tavares to a team with offence already. How did neglecting their back end work out for them?

It it very useable. I can measure it easily by the number of games I watch every season.

CC and Xhekaj are very exciting yes, but we still need that elite guy dominating the play.

Tavares was never a spectacular or exciting player.

 

[yianik]

It would be as logical to say that we need to trade Guhle because we will have Matheson, Hutson and Xhekaj on the team in 2 years.


Based strictly on ceiling then, should the Habs have drafted Hutson 1OA last year?

You can't just use the words "ceiling" and "BPA" as trump cards to assume your take on who is the BPA or has the highest ceiling.

Truth is BPA can be very subjective. Who is BPA depends on the criteria you set up , along with their values. So skating is worth 15% to you, but 20% to someone else etc.

However, I think when drafting a guy teams have to assess their upside. And upside has to be very important. Whatever the criteria were for BPA we picked a guy like Poehling, who was described as a high character, warrior type who will play a 200 foot game, and top out as a solid 3C. A safe pick. Caufield was a scoring machine and he would either be that in the NHL or bust was the outlook.

Teams need guys like Poehling, but to contend you need the much harder to get Caufields. The guys with the high ceilings. And there are always exceptions to the rule, but I want us taking high
Upside players




.

 

[BaseballCoach]

I don't count Guhle, Xhekaj, Harris, or Slafkovsky to be prospects. They're in the NHL, for better or worse. Counting them against our prospect pool only artificially inflates the reputation of the prospect pool. Similarly, Matty Berniers is not a Kraken prospect.

Of the prospects remaining I don't think any of them project to be impact players in the NHL barring Hutson and now of course Reinbacher. Roy, Farrell, Kidney, Roy, and Heineman all have flaws, mostly physical, which drag down their prospect profile. It's not impossible but it's unlikely to see Farrell thrive with the Habs given how small our top6 happens to be. Roy still seems to have a bad reputation in terms of speed and skating -- it's not impossible but unlikely he can make up for it and thrive at the NHL level. We can continue this exercise for every name on this list.

So when you bundle them and make off-the-cuff estimates you're actually making it seem better than they are -- our forwards in particular. It's very possible not one of these prospects becomes relevant in the NHL.

OK, remove Harris. Slaf is definitely still a prospect, and the other guys I mentioned have about 40-50 NHL games.

But I LOL at hearing that Joshua Roy cannot continue being impactful wherever he plays using his smarts, due to not being a great skater and allegedly somewhat small (!!), when Michkov has average speed at best and is much smaller. I'm not comparing their upsides, just saying that Roy has a legit chance to be a noticeable NHLer just as he has been a noticeable Junior standout, including on TCJ.

Farrell was the second best scorer in the NCAA last year, playing against men, after only Fantilli. Sean is also responsible defensively and should be able to hjandle middle six minàutes.

Heineman is missing what physical attribute? What about Dobes?

 

[NotProkofievian]

Truth is BPA can be very subjective. Who is BPA depends on the criteria you set up , along with their values. So skating is worth 15% to you, but 20% to someone else etc.

However, I think when drafting a guy teams have to assess their upside. And upside has to be very important. Whatever the criteria were for BPA we picked a guy like Poehling, who was described as a high character, warrior type who will play a 200 foot game, and top out as a solid 3C. A safe pick. Caufield was a scoring machine and he would either be that in the NHL or bust was the outlook.

Teams need guys like Poehling, but to contend you need the much harder to get Caufields. The guys with the high ceilings. And there are always exceptions to the rule, but I want us taking high
Upside players




.

I think Reinbacher is a high upside player, but I agree with your point here.

Whatever criteria we were using to decide Poehling and Juulsen were BPA was wrong. Scouts know these guys don't have tremendous upside, so the reason they take these players is a perceived higher certainty of making the NHL. But I think they overestimate that certainty by a lot.

Ultimately I don't think you can really say who will make it and who will not. I think you can more accurately assess what potential they have if they make it. No one should be surprised that Cole is the goal scorer that he is. But no one knew for certain that he would become that player. That's how the Turcottes of the world end up getting selected ahead of the Caufields.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Truth is BPA can be very subjective. Who is BPA depends on the criteria you set up , along with their values. So skating is worth 15% to you, but 20% to someone else etc.

However, I think when drafting a guy teams have to assess their upside. And upside has to be very important. Whatever the criteria were for BPA we picked a guy like Poehling, who was described as a high character, warrior type who will play a 200 foot game, and top out as a solid 3C. A safe pick. Caufield was a scoring machine and he would either be that in the NHL or bust was the outlook.

Teams need guys like Poehling, but to contend you need the much harder to get Caufields. The guys with the high ceilings. And there are always exceptions to the rule, but I want us taking high Upside players

I do agree and cheered the Caufield pick live like crazy, but drafting at 15OA versus 25OA is easier.

Still, I don't think Hughes would have drafted Poehling at his spot. I openly called for Jason Robertson, 42 goals as a 17 year old.

 

[cave troll]

This narrative is annoying.

The Habs did NOT denigrate Michkov's attitude. They just believe Reinbacher will blend in more with what we need and that his progression has been remarkable.

There are legitimate concerns that Michkov will not produce as well in the NHL as the hype would suggest. Also, five teams besides us preferred a C or D to this promising winger. We are not outliers here.

I was talking about the first post on this topic with Bobrov saying Michkov is not comaptible with some kind of "culture" HuGo are building.
Nobody knows what kind of culture is that.

 

[Lshap]

This might be a stretch - and it could be the biggest cope I have ever typed in my entire life because we just passed on a potentially generational goal scorer to reach for a defenseman - BUT - hear me out.

With Bergevin, it was all about the CHaracter. With Hughes - it's CULTURE.

Inspired by wherein which Bobrov uses a specific word quite a few times - CULTURE.

Dach, Newhook, Slafkovsky, Beck and now seemingly Reinbacher (henceforth referred to as Dr/The Doctor) - all of these guys were acquired by Hughes - and they all have something in common. They're all charismatic, well spoken, mature players. They all seem like good kids - good teammates.

When you consider some of the other guys from Hughes past on our team - Farrell and Harris. It's the same thing. It's what Cole oozes in every interview. Guhle, despite being soft spoken - the same. It seems to be a recurring theme. I don't think Newhook was picked up at that price just because of his on-ice capabilities.

To really highlight where this comes from - after watching interviews with Reinbacher, there is a humbleness and eagerness to join the team. I think this pick is not just about addressing a serious need (RD) but about continuing to develop around a general philosophy; an almost Ted Lasso-ian focus on team building. I think Slaf fell into this same mold; just so much character and an eagerness to improve and be a good teammate.

Wright and Michkov will both be excellent players - hyper-competitive, skilled players who will excel in their own rights - but I think that the belief here might be that one well-oiled core is much more important than a single superstar cog.

Now - who knows if this will work out in the end - it will be interesting to see. Maybe this will all work in the end, and our doomsaying will be for nothing as we excitedly watch our team lift a cup.

Or, our team will be a perpetual bottom feeder and Michkov will become a perpetual threat to win the Rocket.

For what it's worth - agree with it or not - there is a plan here. Bergevin never really seemed to have a plan, so I will take a plan I disagree with over random over-corrections.

This is well-expressed and fair. Obviously, we all want you to be right and learn that Hughes was ahead of the curve all along. Maybe he is, just like George McPhee was ahead of the curve when he assembled Vegas into an instant contender from leftovers. I'm leaving the door open for that possibility.

Vegas and Seattle have proven there are new formulas for building a winner. That said, a winner still needs to score goals. Reinbacher might fill an important hole, but now Hughes is left filling another hole that's been neglected for a generation.

Great, another Kent Hughes thread. As if there haven't been enough...

Character and a healthy locker room culture are both great, but you know what else is great? A potential superstar like Michkov considering how starved this franchise is for scoring.

The fact is that no one knows if Michkov's "red flags" are overblown or not. The board went the safe route and drafted for need, as simple as that. Looks like the habs got a great prospect in Reinbacher, but if Michkov turns into a ppg+ player then it's inexcusable.

If Michkov ends up being great it'll be the biggest sore spot on a body already heavily bruised with drafting sore spots. Aside from Caufield, our scouts have been awful at finding offence... just plain awful. The last 20 years of management haven't done anything to earn our faith, so I get why so many of us are frustrated as hell.

On the other hand, Hughes has shown he has the balls to make bold moves. Hopefully there's an actual plan and the skill to implement it. Nuthin' else we can pin our hopes on...

 

[ReHabs]

OK, remove Harris. Slaf is definitely still a prospect, and the other guys I mentioned have about 40-50 NHL games.

But I LOL at hearing that Joshua Roy cannot continue being impactful wherever he plays using his smarts, due to not being a great skater and allegedly somewhat small (!!), when Michkov has average speed at best and is much smaller. I'm not comparing their upsides, just saying that Roy has a legit chance to be a noticeable NHLer just as he has been a noticeable Junior standout, including on TCJ.

Farrell was the second best scorer in the NCAA last year, playing against men, after only Fantilli. Sean is also responsible defensively and should be able to hjandle middle six minàutes.

Heineman is missing what physical attribute? What about Dobes?

Plenty of players produce in lower levels and do not produce in the NHL. Joshua Roy was picked in the 5th round for a reason. He is not comparable to Michkov (who is irrelevant to this conversation). I wish him well and hope he succeeds but it isn't as if every high-scoring player from the Q makes it in the NHL, in fact it is increasingly less likely that Q forwards amount to much in the NHL level. I haven't seen much of Roy beyond highlight packages every year but the magic he pulls off against Q defences is not easily translated to the NHL, let's put it that way.

Hopefully he makes me eat my words.

Farrell is too small for our top6 right now. He's going to have to show a lot more to earn a spot. Scoring as a borderline over-ager against young adults is not so impressive when he's undersized. He's 21, he's not 19. He's going to have to show a lot in a short amount of time if he's going to be on a NHL-impact-player trajectory. That's the downside of the NCAA route.

We'll see what we have with Heineman, I was hoping he takes Armia's spot as a bottom6 winger. Do you think he's a top6 player in the future? Dobes is irrelevant, sorry. Goaltenders are irrelevant to the strength of a prospect pool. They're erratic assets at best and next to never worth anything as trade pieces.

On the other hand, Hughes has shown he has the balls to make bold moves. Hopefully there's an actual plan and the skill to implement it. Nuthin' else we can pin our hopes on...

Reminds me of the last GM.

 

[Tripledeke333]

Building culture is great, however with these kids being so young, it is tough to assess their character. You should draft BPA and then mentor/coach the talent to your culture. Marty St. Louis described what he would like to be as a cross between “Bill Belichick and Ted Lasso”. I’m both cases “problem players with character issues” were brought in and developed to build better character (ie Randy Moss and Jamie Tart).

 

[BenchBrawl]

This is well-expressed and fair. Obviously, we all want you to be right and learn that Hughes was ahead of the curve all along. Maybe he is, just like George McPhee was ahead of the curve when he assembled Vegas into an instant contender from leftovers. I'm leaving the door open for that possibility.

Vegas and Seattle have proven there are new formulas for building a winner. That said, a winner still needs to score goals. Reinbacher might fill an important hole, but now Hughes is left filling another hole that's been neglected for a generation.


If Michkov ends up being great it'll be the biggest sore spot on a body already heavily bruised with drafting sore spots. Aside from Caufield, our scouts have been awful at finding offence... just plain awful. The last 20 years of management haven't done anything to earn our faith, so I get why so many of us are frustrated as hell.

On the other hand, Hughes has shown he has the balls to make bold moves. Hopefully there's an actual plan and the skill to implement it. Nuthin' else we can pin our hopes on...

My sentiment exactly. And it's been 30 years they've been awful at finding offense.

Since 1993 when they picked Koivu, we drafted the following forwards of note:

Ribeiro, Ryder, Plekanec, Pacioretty, Gallagher, Caufield, Latendresse, Kostitsyn, Galchenyuk, Higgins.

Even if you go back to 1988, you add Conroy (whom we didn't keep), Savage, V. Bure, Koivu and Tucker.

That's 35 years of drafting. That's really awful.

 

[MonkeyBusiness]

It it very useable. I can measure it easily by the number of games I watch every season.

CC and Xhekaj are very exciting yes, but we still need that elite guy dominating the play.

Tavares was never a spectacular or exciting player.

Sorry, but Xhekaj is far from exciting. He'll hit someone here and there, and I couldn't care less about his fights. He's a good young d-man, but he's not a reason to tune into games.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Sorry, but Xhekaj is far from exciting. He'll hit someone here and there, and I couldn't care less about his fights. He's a good young d-man, but he's not a reason to tune into games.

I love fights. Especially when we're on the winning end.

Each his own.