HF Habs: The official 2023-2024 tank thread

[morhilane]

Hugues said on french radio that the Habs will consider wins more important than player development in 3-4 years. So that give a really good idea of how long the rebuilding phase should last.

It takes 5-7 years (22-25 years old) for most draftees to have an impact in the NHL, so the time frame shouldn't surprise anyone.

So, we can expect Anderson, Monahan, Savard all going at the deadline.............unless the development takes an upswing a season or two quicker than expected.

Not Anderson, too many years + too high of a cap hit for a deadline trade. But with the cap increase after the season, he's a lot more attractive past July 1st.

 

[First Line]

Hugues said on french radio that the Habs will consider wins more important than player development in 3-4 years. So that give a really good idea of how long the rebuilding phase should last.

Which radio is that? I couldnt find it

 

[ReHabs]

Hugues said on french radio that the Habs will consider wins more important than player development in 3-4 years. So that give a really good idea of how long the rebuilding phase should last.

(If true) Deeply disappointing statement from Kent Hughes.

If 3-4 years from now is when games will matter, then he shouldn't have traded away futures for Newhook and Dach, and he should've sold Anderson and Dvorak for whatever he could get even if he had to retain salary. He should've used buyouts on Armia, etc. He can be correctly criticized for half-assing it.

My take: He's managing the media and burning through good will while doing it. He thinks he can get away with lowering standards. He'll see.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Hugues said on french radio that the Habs will consider wins more important than player development in 3-4 years. So that give a really good idea of how long the rebuilding phase should last.

Mmmm music to my ears , I'll believe it when I see it though , until they do it for real its all talk to me

(If true) Deeply disappointing statement from Kent Hughes.

If 3-4 years from now is when games will matter, then he shouldn't have traded away futures for Newhook and Dach, and he should've sold Anderson and Dvorak for whatever he could get even if he had to retain salary. He should've used buyouts on Armia, etc. He can be correctly criticized for half-assing it.

My take: He's managing the media and burning through good will while doing it. He thinks he can get away with lowering standards. He'll see.

I totally agree we should have went scorched earth and go for multiple back to back to back to back to back first overalls/top 3 picks but some fans here are convinced we can win a stanley cup with suzuki and caufield as our two best players lol. Crossing my fingers we finish bottom 3 this year

 

[ReHabs]

I totally agree we should have went scorched earth and go for multiple back to back to back to back to back first overalls/top 3 picks but some fans here are convinced we can win a stanley cup with suzuki and caufield as our two best players lol. Crossing my fingers we finish bottom 3 this year

It makes zero sense to hold onto Anderson and Dvorak if games only matter in 3-4 years. Conor Bedard was available and this guy held onto Anderson, Dvorak, and Savard... gave an extension to Jake fkn Allen... What? Excuse me?

Are they just throw crap at a wall or do they really have a plan? One day he says playoffs the next he says this. He needs media training, this won't be pretty.

I hope we tank properly this year if tanking is in store.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

It makes zero sense to hold onto Anderson and Dvorak if games only matter in 3-4 years. Conor Bedard was available and this guy held onto Anderson, Dvorak, and Savard... gave an extension to Jake fkn Allen... What? Excuse me?

Are they just throw crap at a wall or do they really have a plan? One day he says playoffs the next he says this. He needs media training, this won't be pretty.

Fans seem happy with the one foot in one foot out approach , its like reverse Bergevin mentality ,


BargainBin : Compete while rebuilding
Hugo : Rebuild while being competitive

I like what Hughes has done but I've always wanted a good old real scorched earth rebuild. Its not all bad there are some nice pieces to work with but still no 1C or star forward who can be the best on a cup team not sure how we will acquire that outside of the top 5 in a draft but I guess we will see. Maybe they are banking on goaltending being so awful that we can be competitive offensively while losing alot of games

 

[ReHabs]

Fans seem happy with the one foot in one foot out approach , its like reverse Bergevin mentality ,


BargainBin : Compete while rebuilding
Hugo : Rebuild while being competitive

I like what Hughes has done but I've always wanted a good old real scorched earth rebuild. Its not all bad there are some nice pieces to work with but still no 1C or star forward who can be the best on a cup team not sure how we will acquire that outside of the top 5 in a draft but I guess we will see

I have a half-completed essay about this situation precisely, ironically enough I've shelved it and half-assed it.

I felt we should not get stuck in a rebuild cycle and was against the scorched earth approach but... it's hard to accept that we're on the right track to have an actually competitive team. It sure as heck doesn't seem like we'll have the right pieces for it.

 

[WinterLion]

It makes zero sense to hold onto Anderson and Dvorak if games only matter in 3-4 years. Conor Bedard was available and this guy held onto Anderson, Dvorak, and Savard... gave an extension to Jake fkn Allen... What? Excuse me?

Are they just throw crap at a wall or do they really have a plan? One day he says playoffs the next he says this. He needs media training, this won't be pretty.

I hope we tank properly this year if tanking is in store.

I think Anderson and Dvo will be traded. The flat cap days will be over soon, the returns may be better when that happens.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

I have a half-completed essay about this situation precisely, ironically enough I've shelved it and half-assed it.

I felt we should not get stuck in a rebuild cycle and was against the scorched earth approach but... it's hard to accept that we're on the right track to have an actually competitive team. It sure as heck doesn't seem like we'll have the right pieces for it.

I think we have the right pieces to have a competitive team , but there's 32 teams in the NHL being a competitive team is not some amazing feat after doing a rebuild . I just think we are missing dynamic talented pieces up front . I cannot see us ever being a favorite to winning a cup as a contender with Suzuki and Caufield as our two best forwards I just can't see it

 

[waitin425]

I think we have the right pieces to have a competitive team , but there's 32 teams in the NHL being a competitive team is not some amazing feat after doing a rebuild . I just think we are missing dynamic talented pieces up front . I cannot see us ever being a favorite to winning a cup as a contender with Suzuki and Caufield as our two best forwards I just can't see it

I see and get your point. It would be nice to have a top 10 forward in the league. I don't however think it is of vital importance to a cup run though, if we have extremely good depth.

Here is my thinking.

32 teams in the NHL and therefore there are ~96 players who would be considered first liners. ~192 players would be considered top 6ers.

So let's project our Habs players.

If Caufield can score 40+ on a consistent basis in the next 3-4 years, I would say he is a sure thing top 32 forwards in the league.

If Suzuki becomes a PPG player while playing defensibly reliable minutes....he too could be a top 32, but likely a 30-40 range player.

**so far that is two forwards in the top 40 of the league. No top 10's or even top 20's, but not bad**

Now Dach. What do we have here? Let's say he peaks at a 60 point two way centre. These don't necessarily grow on trees. Given his size and puck skills, I think he could get higher, but at 60 points with that package -- he slots in somewhere in the 60-70 forward range.

Slaf? The unicorn, we all love to debate on here. The skills and size are there to be an absolute monster power forward in this league. His range of possibilities is still quite large, but if he hits his peak potential, regardless of the odds of this happening, he could be a Rantanen. For the sake of this exercise, I will put him around the 80-90 best forwards in the NHL. (ie significantly less than a Rantanen like peak)

If we are keeping track we are now at 4 forwards in the top 96. (ie. first liners)

Who is next? Newhook, Roy? Their peaks are still unknown, but let's say they slot comfortably in the 100-120 range if they hit peaks.

I know, I know fantasy land, and all sorts of things need to happen for this to occur, but with a proposed lineup of 6 forwards all within the top 120 forwards, that would be a group that could compete.

Couple that with a very good and deep defence, and we are building something special.

We may never see that top 10 player in the league. The Superstar, or Generational Talent (a la Crosby, McDavid, Bedard) but what we may see is a team that is very deep from top to bottom. We have an immense depth of talent at all positions but goalie right now.

We need to draft the best forward possible in the next three drafts and hope for another top 32 talent. That would put us over the edge IMO.

 

[ReHabs]

If we are keeping track we are now at 4 forwards in the top 96. (ie. first liners)

That's a lot of ifs to get to this point. Not sure what top96 even signifies - half the league don't even have two first liners.

Go with what was found the other day: 0.8ppg+ as the threshold; how many 0.8ppg+ players will we have? We need at least three + good enough defense/goaltending. Deep playoff teams seem to have four 0.8ppg+ players AND good defense/goaltending.

 

[waitin425]

That's a lot of ifs to get to this point. Not sure what top96 even signifies - half the league don't even have two first liners.

Go with what was found the other day: 0.8ppg+ as the threshold; how many 0.8ppg+ players will we have? We need at least three + good enough defense/goaltending. Deep playoff teams seem to have four 0.8ppg+ players AND good defense/goaltending.

A first liner is by definition a person who plays on the first line. Obviously some teams have greater than 3 first line quality players (ie players that could be on another teams first line but get bumped to a 2nd line on a better team)

Sure, the lines get blurred the closer to the number 96 you get, meaning the difference between player 80 and 120 is minimal, but my point is simply how I view first liners, or first pairs for that matter.

top 96 forwards spread out evenly over 32 teams could play on a first line.

top 192 forwards spread out evenly could be top 6

top 64 d-men in the league could be considered top pair.

etc. etc.

It is a far more consistent way of labelling a first line or top pair IMO, then calling someone a first line player and coming up with an arbitrary points threshold. Last year 83 players achieved your metric of .8 PPG. Not bad, but it was a high scoring year. In 2012-23, 10 years prior, it was 43 players achieving that. Were there only 43 first liners that year, but 83 this year past year?

Anyways, it's all semantics anyways. Points doesn't capture everything in determining the worth of a player. Rankings that take into account more than just PPG are always subjective based on all sorts of things.

My point in my previous posts, was if we have 6 players that are all in the top 120ish forwards in the league, we will be in good shape. Even if we don't have one inside the top 20.

 

[The Real Timo]

Oooh... I haven't seen this thread before. Let's tank, baby!!!

Trade everyone! Can we get more defensemen for Caufield? Moar drop pass! Play Allen 82 games.

Allons-y!!!

 

[HuGo Burner Acc]

Hugues said on french radio that the Habs will consider wins more important than player development in 3-4 years. So that give a really good idea of how long the rebuilding phase should last.

The building part of the "rebuild" if we can even call it that (most of the players in Habs future core were MB picks/acquisitions), is pretty much over. Two player at most is all they're missing. An elite forward and a starting goalie. They have their future D. Their forward group is good enough if you count all the prospects who will make up most of not all of the bottom 6.

So I point this out to say, they're 100% in the development stage of the "rebuild". It's a waiting game now. Waiting to ship out veteran contracts to clear cap and space in the lineup. And waiting for the prospects/young NHL players to hit their stride. I'm all for the tank this year but it's kind of pointless after this season. This ain't the 2010s Oilers. Sometimes just accumulating top picks and sacrificing success isn't the best. I expect the Habs to be on the playoff wildcard bubble next year. Not make it, but actually be competitive

 

[WinterLion]

We definitely need to TANK this year. Getting a top pick is the only way to insure getting a top flight anthem singer.

 

[ReHabs]

A first liner is by definition a person who plays on the first line. Obviously some teams have greater than 3 first line quality players (ie players that could be on another teams first line but get bumped to a 2nd line on a better team)

Sure, the lines get blurred the closer to the number 96 you get, meaning the difference between player 80 and 120 is minimal, but my point is simply how I view first liners, or first pairs for that matter.

Essentialist definitions are nonsense in this context. Dale Weise was on the Habs' first line, that didn't make him a first liner. Nor Mathieu Darche. Nor Alex Belzile or RHP last year. "First line" is a universal quality not a universal condition. It is subjectively defined but usually a first line player "scores a lot and plays a lot". The Habs often lack players found in the top96, additionally the ones they do have are very low on that rank -- iirc Suzuki was in the 50s or 70s of top96 forwards last year.

top 96 forwards spread out evenly over 32 teams could play on a first line.

top 192 forwards spread out evenly could be top 6

top 64 d-men in the league could be considered top pair.

etc. etc.

But they're not ever spread evenly so this is irrelevant and unnecessary.

It is a far more consistent way of labelling a first line or top pair IMO, then calling someone a first line player and coming up with an arbitrary points threshold. Last year 83 players achieved your metric of .8 PPG. Not bad, but it was a high scoring year. In 2012-23, 10 years prior, it was 43 players achieving that. Were there only 43 first liners that year, but 83 this year past year?

The point of a game is to out-score an opponent. Finding a way to quantify the essential constituant parts of that is much more sensible. Think about it this way: every team needs to outscore an opponent in order to win, not every team needs to have an even distribution of players found in the top96 scoring charts in order to win.

Scoring has gone up big time in ten years, that's true. The 0.8ppg reflects last season, which is more relevant to this year and next year than a season from a decade ago when scoring was significantly lower. A decade ago and today we didn't have three 0.8ppg players.

Anyways, it's all semantics anyways. Points doesn't capture everything in determining the worth of a player. Rankings that take into account more than just PPG are always subjective based on all sorts of things.

Well, no -- if you apply some structure to your thinking and analysis some things will reveal themselves. I made a cursory search and found 0.8ppg is an easy to use threshold to then filter and evaluate different rosters. The summary of that analysis was "playoff teams had at least three 0.8ppg players", in fact "three 0.8ppg players" showed up a lot more, last season it was the mean, median, and mode distribution of 0.8ppg players across the whole league. It could be said it is the bare minimum to end up in the playoffs and average relative to the league.

You don't need to use 0.8ppg, that's fine. But to assess the Habs' trajectory it's worth keeping in mind what is actually needed and for what purpose. The point of a given game is to out-score an opponent.

My point in my previous posts, was if we have 6 players that are all in the top 120ish forwards in the league, we will be in good shape. Even if we don't have one inside the top 20.

No teams have 6 players in the top120 forwards in the league. This is a non-point. You might as well have said "if we have 6 players in the top10 forwards of the league".

 

[waitin425]

Essentialist definitions are nonsense in this context. Dale Weise was on the Habs' first line, that didn't make him a first liner. Nor Mathieu Darche. Nor Alex Belzile or RHP last year. "First line" is a universal quality not a universal condition. It is subjectively defined but usually a first line player "scores a lot and plays a lot". The Habs often lack players found in the top96, additionally the ones they do have are very low on that rank -- iirc Suzuki was in the 50s or 70s of top96 forwards last year.


But they're not ever spread evenly so this is irrelevant and unnecessary.

The point of a game is to out-score an opponent. Finding a way to quantify the essential constituant parts of that is much more sensible. Think about it this way: every team needs to outscore an opponent in order to win, not every team needs to have an even distribution of players found in the top96 scoring charts in order to win.

Scoring has gone up big time in ten years, that's true. The 0.8ppg reflects last season, which is more relevant to this year and next year than a season from a decade ago when scoring was significantly lower. A decade ago and today we didn't have three 0.8ppg players.

Well, no -- if you apply some structure to your thinking and analysis some things will reveal themselves. I made a cursory search and found 0.8ppg is an easy to use threshold to then filter and evaluate different rosters. The summary of that analysis was "playoff teams had at least three 0.8ppg players", in fact "three 0.8ppg players" showed up a lot more, last season it was the mean, median, and mode distribution of 0.8ppg players across the whole league. It could be said it is the bare minimum to end up in the playoffs and average relative to the league.

You don't need to use 0.8ppg, that's fine. But to assess the Habs' trajectory it's worth keeping in mind what is actually needed and for what purpose. The point of a given game is to out-score an opponent.

No teams have 6 players in the top120 forwards in the league. This is a non-point. You might as well have said "if we have 6 players in the top10 forwards of the league".

Way too much to unpack here.

My point was I would consider a first line player to be from among the top 96 forwards (with less certainty, the closer to 96 you get). I never said every teams top line constitutes the top 96 forwards.

How you define the top 96 forwards, or rank any player is your prerogative. For me, points do not tell the whole story, but only a piece of it.

As to the above highlighted paragraph. Yes, goal scoring is needed and obviously the point is to outscore an opponent. Why not use +/- as opposed to PPG for this analysis then?

Either way, I think we ultimately agree here (a rarity for you and I) that the Habs need the best possible forward in the next few drafts. Give me one of Celebrini, Eiserman, Catton, Misa, Hagens, Roobroeck, McKenna please!

I am not quite on the tank bandwagon yet. Took me about 20 games last year to jump on it, and I will probably make a decision by game 20 this year. For now I am having fun watching our young studs in action!

 

[ReHabs]

Why not use +/- as opposed to PPG for this analysis then?

It should be obvious why PPG is a better metric than +/-, are you seriously asking me to explain this?

 

[waitin425]

It should be obvious why PPG is a better metric than +/-, are you seriously asking me to explain this?

You were the one who set the .8 PPG threshold and then backed it up with "The point of a given game is to out-score an opponent."

.8 PPG doesn't bolster the outscoring of an opponent argument if you are on the ice for .9PPG. You don't need to explain anything. I realize it is a team game. I realize there are a million circumstances that lead to a negative +/-.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Way too much to unpack here.

My point was I would consider a first line player to be from among the top 96 forwards (with less certainty, the closer to 96 you get). I never said every teams top line constitutes the top 96 forwards.

How you define the top 96 forwards, or rank any player is your prerogative. For me, points do not tell the whole story, but only a piece of it.

As to the above highlighted paragraph. Yes, goal scoring is needed and obviously the point is to outscore an opponent. Why not use +/- as opposed to PPG for this analysis then?

Either way, I think we ultimately agree here (a rarity for you and I) that the Habs need the best possible forward in the next few drafts. Give me one of Celebrini, Eiserman, Catton, Misa, Hagens, Roobroeck, McKenna please!

I am not quite on the tank bandwagon yet. Took me about 20 games last year to jump on it, and I will probably make a decision by game 20 this year. For now I am having fun watching our young studs in action!

+/- is the worst ways to judge players. PPG is also an awful way to judge players, but it is better.

 

[ReHabs]

You were the one who set the .8 PPG threshold and then backed it up with "The point of a given game is to out-score an opponent."

.8 PPG doesn't bolster the outscoring of an opponent argument if you are on the ice for .9PPG. You don't need to explain anything. I realize it is a team game. I realize there are a million circumstances that lead to a negative +/-.

To measure an individual player's ability to out-score an opponent, it should be plainly clear why PPG is more useful than +/-. In aggregate even moreso.

 

[waitin425]

To measure an individual player's ability to out-score an opponent, it should be plainly clear why PPG is more useful than +/-. In aggregate even moreso.

Again....I agree with you....my point I am making is that PPG set at .8 does nothing for me. If the point of a given game is to out-score opponents" you are acknowledging that PPG is but a factor in determining effectiveness. That is all I am trying to say.

 

[Gustave]

Fire up this thread!

 

[Takeru]

No matter the metric you'd rather use (PPG, top XYZ, etc), there's a thing to be said about quality/quantity and degree of separation VS other teams.

Do we have one or two guys close to the top of the league? If not, where do our top 6 guys rank compared to other teams? If we're not going to have one guy in the top 10 and another in the top 20-30, we better have a whole bunch of guys in the top 60 or so. Otherwise we're stuck with everyone else in the peloton.

 

[habamillions]

I figured id see this thread bumped after the Dach news