HF Habs: Out of Town Thread: 2024-2025 season

[Prairie Habs]

We were talking about Michkov/Bedard 2-3 years before the actual draft year lol since it alligned with our tank, Man was that a tough pill to swallow on draft night

Shane Wright was talked about for 3 years before the actual draft year as well. Not the reason you pick a guy.

 

[Team_Spirit]

Our boy white Will Smith is still looking for his 1st point. Tonight?

 

[salbutera]

Jeff Vinik knocked it out the park with Tampa and the Bolts. Legendary.

https://x.com/i/web/status/1849428870253920680

Vinik never attended one Stanley Cup finals game in 3-years… got in the way of Red Sox games a few times

 

[Miller Time]

But isn't that hindsight though? McCarron was picked to give size to your top 6. McCarron wasn't picked to be great D+11 when in reality NOBODY stays with the team that picks them that long afterwards.

It is absolutely hindsight. At the time he was drafted, there were Lucic (drafted 50th OA, despite eventually being a top 10 player from that class) comparisons, and his play in D1 as an impact player in juniors on a memorial cup winner, gave reason for optimism he might well become a top 6 physically imposing PF.

Incidentally, the best player on that memorial cup winner, Dal Colle, was drafted 5OA that spring... No one had McCarron being the better NHLer, yet here we are.

McCarron might be better than 6 guys chosen before him but he's worst than how many guys chosen after?

Yup.
So why don't you define what "bad pick" means for you?

If it's a pick that plays fewer NHL games (or has less points, or some other less quantitative impact qualifier), then let's put McCarron to that test...

McCarron is the dime a dozen types of players that you get for a 5th rounder at the deadline for a team who wants to compete. As far as the draft is concerned, I would have prefered being wrong going after a Zykov or a Petan than a McCarron...

Sure... As are most players drafted outside the top 10-15 in most drafts.

And in most drafts, there are a similar number of players picked outside the first round who end up clear cut top 30 of their draft class as far as NHL career... That's what hindsight shows us.

Your preference on how to navigate the unpredictability of the draft is all fine and good. But, as I pointed out earlier, the trend is to complain loudly about the cases where hindsight proves a preference right, and be mostly silent about all the ones that were wrong lol

Notice that when you brought up the "bad pick" McCarron, you didn't initially point out "but at least he was better than Petan or Zykov that I'd have picked".

 

[Tyson]

It is absolutely hindsight. At the time he was drafted, there were Lucic (drafted 50th OA, despite eventually being a top 10 player from that class) comparisons, and his play in D1 as an impact player in juniors on a memorial cup winner, gave reason for optimism he might well become a top 6 physically imposing PF.

Incidentally, the best player on that memorial cup winner, Dal Colle, was drafted 5OA that spring... No one had McCarron being the better NHLer, yet here we are.


Yup.
So why don't you define what "bad pick" means for you?

If it's a pick that plays fewer NHL games (or has less points, or some other less quantitative impact qualifier), then let's put McCarron to that test...


Sure... As are most players drafted outside the top 10-15 in most drafts.

And in most drafts, there are a similar number of players picked outside the first round who end up clear cut top 30 of their draft class as far as NHL career... That's what hindsight shows us.

Your preference on how to navigate the unpredictability of the draft is all fine and good. But, as I pointed out earlier, the trend is to complain loudly about the cases where hindsight proves a preference right, and be mostly silent about all the ones that were wrong lol

Notice that when you brought up the "bad pick" McCarron, you didn't initially point out "but at least he was better than Petan or Zykov that I'd have picked".

I would love to have Big Mac on the 4th line

 

[Whitesnake]

Yup.
So why don't you define what "bad pick" means for you?

Notice that when you brought up the "bad pick" McCarron, you didn't initially point out "but at least he was better than Petan or Zykov that I'd have picked".

3 things. First, I'm not paid to pick. I don't have that luxury to go and see all those players that often. I hope that I have more excuses than the big pro guys that are being paid to do the job? Yet this is a hockey future forum, where with all our deficiencies, we are still allowed to talk prospects.

Also, what a bad pick means for me will ALWAYS be picking for needs. Picking to get bigger. Picking for a RD. In 2006 and 2007, despite having McDo and PK, picking to replenish our D squad 'cause we were missing some D prospects. As if it was the only possible to get depth on D etc. That is what a bad pick is for me THE DAY OF THE DRAFT.

Then, a bad pick AFTER THE DRAFT is 5 years later...when it's time to do a re-draft. The power of hindsight where you look at who succeeded and who did not. Mind you...I always find it strange to see how scouts have so much leeway when in business it,s actually the same thing. When you build a portfolio, chances are you don't do it to look bad. And it's always going to be using hindsight that will determine whether you keep or lose your job. It's just life. And in hockey, well something tells me that pros that are the GM's DO fire hockey personnel ALSO based on hindisight. When they hired them, they thought they'd be great. when they fire them, it's because they realized they weren't. Or they are buying some time for themselves.

As far as Mc vs Petan or Zykov....I thought that mentioning them was self explanatory no? lol. Yet, my points are never about being right all the time. People love to think that this is what I'm all about when I repeatedly say it's not. It's about strategy. It's about going for BPA everytime. And it's not about going for MY BPA. Everybody has their own BPA. If Hughes comes in and tell me that he picked Reinbacher 'cause he believes he's a top 2 d-men with tons of untapped offensive potential and that he was his beset player no doubt at our pick......no matter if I still don't like it, he picked a BPA. When Hughes tells me that if he would have been a LD, it might not have gone in the same direction.....sorry....to me it's a bad pick.

And again....a bad pick does NOT always mean a bad prospect. Reinbacher will be serviceable. Or so I think. That's my evaluatoin. I had him around 8th. He was in my top 10. Do I think that my top 10 is filled with bad prospects? Geez, I hope not. But I had Michkov at 2. Do I think Carlsson is a bad prospect 'cause I had him at 3? Of course not. Same for Fantilli etc.

Tyler Boucher was a horrible pick for what was left and what he is. Why? Because they went TRUCULENCE! BIG! We love Tkachuk we will have Boucher too! Not that long ago they looked so dumb with Sillinger just behind. But Sillingner slowed down....but this year...looks better. We'll see.

It's not solely a Habs issue. It,s putting on pedestal pros that are suppose to know best but are just human beings with their flaws and them being paid still doesn't stop them from sometimes thinking too much....

 

[LaP]

I would not consider McCarron a bad pick. He was a end of 1st round pick and at this point of the draft getting a tweener is fine. There was better picks for sure but that doesn't mean he himself was a bad pick as there was also worse picks. I would easily say McCarron is a good example of bad development though.