Where would you rather the Montreal Canadiens finish this year?

[Habs Icing]

In fact it’s the anti-tankers who don’t have the plan. It’s very obvious what the pro-tank plan is: trade every non-core player above 26 years of age except Price. Youth comes into the league faster now so it’s better to get teams to overpay for older players for prospects that fit more in our core’s age group. I don’t see how you can be any more precise about a plan than that. This is aimed at you @Habs Icing

Again, no freaking plan just trade everyone above 26 years of age except for Price. Why hold onto Price? Get rid of Price and you'll be assured of finishing dead last for the next two years at least. You may even get Hughes and Lafrienere. And your young players may develop into garbage because you have no veterans around.

Funny how many of the pro-tankers whined about the lack of veteran presence on the AHL club to guide the younger players but on the big club you won't need any veterans. Why? Just because.

Your post was even more pointless and directionless than most posts from the pro-tanking crowd.

And the veteran point is just one of many reasons but I already went into those other reasons and don't feel like going over them again.

 

[BaseballCoach]

In fact it’s the anti-tankers who don’t have the plan. It’s very obvious what the pro-tank plan is: trade every non-core player above 26 years of age except Price. Youth comes into the league faster now so it’s better to get teams to overpay for older players for prospects that fit more in our core’s age group. I don’t see how you can be any more precise about a plan than that. This is aimed at you @Habs Icing

We can explore trading any player so long as what comes back is more likely to be an upgrade than a step back - with the relevant window 2-6 years from now.

That is not the same thing as tanking. Tanking is trying to lose on purpose and is very rarely done in professional sports. The question in this thread was whether we would RATHER have a good team or a bad team. It's shocking that anyone would vote for having a bad team. Drafting one year will rarely fix a bad team.

The only thing that is required is to make sure that the team makes the playoffs organically, due to strong play from youngsters, and not because of spending picks on rentals, sitting youngsters in favour of safe veteran players with less talent, or taking on terrible contracts for a short-term fix.

 

[Omar]

Again, no freaking plan just trade everyone above 26 years of age except for Price. Why hold onto Price? Get rid of Price and you'll be assured of finishing dead last for the next two years at least. You may even get Hughes and Lafrienere. And your young players may develop into garbage because you have no veterans around.

Funny how many of the pro-tankers whined and bytched about the lack of veteran presence on the AHL club to guide the younger players but on the big club you won't need any veterans. Why? Just because.

Your post was even more pointless and directionless than most posts from the pro-tanking crowd.

And the veteran point is just one of many reasons but I already went into those other reasons and don't feel like going over them again.

Huh? Trading everyone above 26 IS a plan. How is it not?? The fact it’s so simple should show you how easy it is to execute. You keep Price because, as I explained, young players come into the league faster now so the turnaround is quicker. You’ll take longer finding a Price replacement.

 

[Omar]

We can explore trading any player so long as what comes back is more likely to be an upgrade than a step back - with the relevant window 2-6 years from now.

That is not the same thing as tanking. Tanking is trying to lose on purpose and is very rarely done in professional sports. The question in this thread was whether we would RATHER have a good team or a bad team. It's shocking that anyone would vote for having a bad team. Drafting one year will rarely fix a bad team.

The only thing that is required is to make sure that the team makes the playoffs organically, due to strong play from youngsters, and not because of spending picks on rentals, sitting youngsters in favour of safe veteran players with less talent, or taking on terrible contracts for a short-term fix.

I vote for being bad in the short term so we’re good in the long term so we can ACTUALLY win a Cup because that’s what we’re all fans of our team for. Being good now puts us into a spiral of not being too bad to draft well and not being too good to actually compete for the Cup. How does anyone disagree with this after seeing this franchise tread water for 25 years?

 

[BaseballCoach]

I vote for being bad in the short term so we’re good in the long term so we can ACTUALLY win a Cup because that’s what we’re all fans of our team for. Being good now puts us into a spiral of not being too bad to draft well and not being too good to actually compete for the Cup. How does anyone disagree with this after seeing this franchise tread water for
25 years?

This pattern of thinking appears to be one of religious faith and no amount of logic demonstrating that the opposite is true sways its adherents.

I will try again. Every year there are teams who compete and finish by losing in the first round of the playoffs, making them one of the 9th to 16th best teams.

I have shown that over a ten-year period the team that finished 16th generally did better 4 years later than the team that finished 29th.

The very strong reason for this is that the odds of drafting for a better player as you move down the standings is lower than the average difference in calibre between the better teams than the worse teams. I showed that the difference in calibre of player when drafting 16th was not much worse, if any, than the calibre when drafting 5th, 7th or 8th. Obviously drafting 1 or 2 would improve the odds of getting a good player, but believe it or not, every single team that finished 29th since 2004 had a number 1 or number 2 pick on the team. It's what teams do with the REST of their roster that makes the bigger difference.

A high draft pick is the consolation prize for being a bad team. It's better than a kick in the cajones, but not better than having a good team that earns 95+ points to begin with.

Now, there are a couple of caveats that must be nebtioned. You want to be a 95 point team on the way up, not one on the way down. So this means that if you want to progress and continue to build, you must not fall into certain traps, such as spending picks on rentals, and over-playing and over-paying vets with limited talent.

But with those caveats in place, it is clearly better to be a playoff team than a bottom feeder, when evaluating the chances of being a contender is a few years.

 

[montreal]

I don't worry about the expansion draft. We protect our best players and make sure whoever is exposed does not have a small cap hit. Then we lose one and only one player but get cap space back to replace the player as soon as practical.

If there is some tactical move possible, we will deal with it at the time, and no need to fret now.

that's just a poor way of running a hockey team, you can't stick you head in the sand and pretend the expansion draft doesn't exist, you need a plan. You can't protect all 4 of Weber, Petry, Mete and Juulsen, no way is MB going to not protect Weber imo, so that means you need to figure out what to do now instead of reacting later.

With Kotka, Gallahger, Domi, Tatar, Drouin and Suzuki , we MIGHT have a top 6.

The problem is that forward group likely won't go very far in the playoffs and we do not have a good history with UFA's so that leaves trades which is a scary thought when MB is making them as you don't know if it's going to be a good one or him getting bent over like paying 2 2nd round picks for Shaw, Subban, etc..

Again, no freaking plan just trade everyone above 26 years of age except for Price. Why hold onto Price? Get rid of Price and you'll be assured of finishing dead last for the next two years at least. You may even get Hughes and Lafrienere. And your young players may develop into garbage because you have no veterans around.

You can't trade Price because he has a NMC thanks to MB. It would be hard enough to find a taker for a 10.5M contract but it's a moot point now unless Price says he wants out which would just lower his trade value even further.

My plan would be to trade players at peak value, but it doesn't have to be done in one season. I would focus on the next 2 drafts as I don't think we will be very good but not bad enough unless we pull a Canes and win the lotto.

But you have to have vets, you can overpay for guys like Pleks, Alzner's, Vanek's etc... then after you get your top 2 pick and make good draft picks over several years you trade for better players and as you hopefully improve you overpay a UFA or two. Most of it has to come from several drafts and I do think Timmins can find the talent if we have a development system in place where we stop rushing kids to the NHL, focus on improving their weaknesses like hiring a personal skating coach or skills coach, whatever they need but just don't rush them. Build up the farm, have these kids learn in the AHL under a good coach and then when they are ready you give them a shot in the NHL but put them in a good position, don't put a Scherbak with Waivers Shaw, you put him with your best sniper.

That is not the same thing as tanking. Tanking is trying to lose on purpose and is very rarely done in professional sports. The question in this thread was whether we would RATHER have a good team or a bad team. It's shocking that anyone would vote for having a bad team. Drafting one year will rarely fix a bad team.

I'm not for tanking, if I were I would say they should have re-signed Fucale and made him the starter this year. That would be tanking. But I think early on last year when it was clear we were f***ed with Price and Pac, then Pac, Petry, Gallagher, at least 2 of them should have been traded and they should have moved Galchenyuk to center and tried to up his trade value.

But now I just hope MB doesn't do anything stupid, I hope he trades Petry and others but I don't think he will.

As for drafting one year and it fixing a bad team, it depends on the team and the player you are getting. While the Oilers get a great player in McDavid, they have not drafted well at all despite tons of high picks, yet the Pens with Crosby/Malkin made smart moves. We'll see what happens in a few years with the Sabers/Canes, if they drafted well and make smart moves or not.

 

[Omar]

This pattern of thinking appears to be one of religious faith and no amount of logic demonstrating that the opposite is true sways its adherents.

I will try again. Every year there are teams who compete and finish by losing in the first round of the playoffs, making them one of the 9th to 16th best teams.

I have shown that over a ten-year period the team that finished 16th generally did better 4 years later than the team that finished 29th.

The very strong reason for this is that the odds of drafting for a better player as you move down the standings is lower than the average difference in calibre between the better teams than the worse teams. I showed that the difference in calibre of player when drafting 16th was not much worse, if any, than the calibre when drafting 5th, 7th or 8th. Obviously drafting 1 or 2 would improve the odds of getting a good player, but believe it or not, every single team that finished 29th since 2004 had a number 1 or number 2 pick on the team. It's what teams do with the REST of their roster that makes the bigger difference.

A high draft pick is the consolation prize for being a bad team. It's better than a kick in the cajones, but not better than having a good team that earns 95+ points to begin with.

Now, there are a couple of caveats that must be nebtioned. You want to be a 95 point team on the way up, not one on the way down. So this means that if you want to progress and continue to build, you must not fall into certain traps, such as spending picks on rentals, and over-playing and over-paying vets with limited talent.

But with those caveats in place, it is clearly better to be a playoff team than a bottom feeder, when evaluating the chances of being a contender is a few years.

You can get 100 points with a terrible center ice group as we’ve shown many times. You will NEVER win a Cup with that same group because playoff hockey is a different game. Honestly I couldn’t care less if we get 100 points because I want us to aim for a Cup not just to make the playoffs.

Every team that’s won in the Cup era has tanked multiple years first. Sure it’s not a guarantee, but not tanking gives you no chance. And if you disagree with that you’re just being dishonest.

 

[BaseballCoach]

You can get 100 points with a terrible center ice group as we’ve shown many times. You will NEVER win a Cup with that same group because playoff hockey is a different game. Honestly I couldn’t care less if we get 100 points because I want us to aim for a Cup not just to make the playoffs.

Every team that’s won in the Cup era has tanked multiple years first. Sure it’s not a guarantee, but not tanking gives you no chance. And if you disagree with that you’re just being dishonest.

If we get 100 points this year, which I highly doubt, it will be because our C group turns out to be quite good. We're not getting there if Domi stops scoring and Kotkaniemi stops progressing and Danault can't hit 40 ES points.

As for the catechism about multiple years of tanking, that's complete nonsense when it comes to Boston in 2011 and Washington in 2018. To say that Washington was out of the playoffs in 2004, 2006 and 2007 and that this is the reason why won in 2018 is ridiculous. Why not claim that the reason they won in 2018 was because in 2008, they lost in the first round of the playoffs, which is apparently the worst thing in the world?

Fourteen years is an eternity in hockey. ELCs only last 3 years, controlled salaries to a small degree another 4 years. The reason Washington won in 2018 is that while being a playoff team that usually lost in the first or second round year after year, they found ways to improve.

The very logical sequence was

• finish out of the playoffs a couple of times
• improve
• start making the playoffs but lose in 1st or second round
• improve some more
• eventually the stars align and a Cup is won

Montreal has been out of the playoffs two of the last three years. We got a #3 out of it, and another #3 via Sergachev who was drafted 9th. If we should be better than many think, and make the playoffs this year (without sacrificing the future), how is that much different than other teams who make the playoffs, lose fast, but work on their weaknesses until they win more or even win the Cup?

Let's put this another way. Washington fans could have been saying for 12 seasons post-lockout that having one of the best players on the planet means NOTHING. "We're just like Montreal with that Carey Price guy. All having a franchise player gets us is a first or second round playoff loss. We can't keep doing this, we need to finish low and draft high to get more talent." And that would have been the wrong way to go. Instead they won because they drafted John Carlson 27th and Evgeni Kuznetzov 26th and traded for Lars Eller and found better goaltending and also importantly let Karl Alzner (a 5th overall pick) go.

There is so much parity in the league, and the CBA, cap and draft rules create a big bias toward continued parity, so teams must always make many moves. In order to win, in a world full of 50-50 moves, you have to bat .750 for two to three years, and then you have a chance to win.

This is why despite our good start, I still want Bergevin out. I don't trust him to bat .750 for 2-3 years. He's fully EARNED our mistrust.

 

[Andrei79]

If we get 100 points this year, which I highly doubt, it will be because our C group turns out to be quite good. We're not getting there if Domi stops scoring and Kotkaniemi stops progressing and Danault can't hit 40 ES points.

As for the catechism about multiple years of tanking, that's complete nonsense when it comes to Boston in 2011 and Washington in 2018. To say that Washington was out of the playoffs in 2004, 2006 and 2007 and that this is the reason why won in 2018 is ridiculous. Why not claim that the reason they won in 2018 was because in 2008, they lost in the first round of the playoffs, which is apparently the worst thing in the world?

Fourteen years is an eternity in hockey. ELCs only last 3 years, controlled salaries to a small degree another 4 years. The reason Washington won in 2018 is that while being a playoff team that usually lost in the first or second round year after year, they found ways to improve.

The very logical sequence was

• finish out of the playoffs a couple of times
• improve
• start making the playoffs but lose in 1st or second round
• improve some more
• eventually the stars align and a Cup is won

Montreal has been out of the playoffs two of the last three years. We got a #3 out of it, and another #3 via Sergachev who was drafted 9th. If we should be better than many think, and make the playoffs this year (without sacrificing the future), how is that much different than other teams who make the playoffs, lose fast, but work on their weaknesses until they win more or even win the Cup?

Let's put this another way. Washington fans could have been saying for 12 seasons post-lockout that having one of the best players on the planet means NOTHING. "We're just like Montreal with that Carey Price guy. All having a franchise player gets us is a first or second round playoff loss. We can't keep doing this, we need to finish low and draft high to get more talent." And that would have been the wrong way to go. Instead they won because they drafted John Carlson 27th and Evgeni Kuznetzov 26th and traded for Lars Eller and found better goaltending and also importantly let Karl Alzner (a 5th overall pick) go.

There is so much parity in the league, and the CBA, cap and draft rules create a big bias toward continued parity, so teams must always make many moves. In order to win, in a world full of 50-50 moves, you have to bat .750 for two to three years, and then you have a chance to win.

This is why despite our good start, I still want Bergevin out. I don't trust him to bat .750 for 2-3 years. He's fully EARNED our mistrust.

Ovechkin and Backstrom are not the reason why Washington won ? What am I reading here. They are the cornerstones around which Washington has built their teams.

Have you paid any attention up to now ? This team has neither one of those pieces. If we had (and we were close a few years ago), posters who are asking to draft high would ask MB to make the same kind of moves (Forsberg aside) bringing the team into contention and the drafting/development Washington did during those years.

And these posters did. This is actually documented,you just have to read the numerous threads from 2013-2016 asking MB to fill the holes needed for the team to contend and fixing the farm club.

And that's whats led us here. We don't have Ovechkin/Backstrom to build around. We have a declining Price and a defenseman acquired through trade. Washington added a Price and a Weber from their drafting to their two elite forwards on top of their excellent trades and drafts.

We have none of those and the means presented around is to hope for mid-late firsts and 40 point veterans to somehow become these elite players while Weber and Price still play at a respectable level. Basically, an even lower luck occurance than drafting high.

So, I've yet to read a single sound proposition that doesn't involve even more hope. How do we get players of the quality we see 1st, 2nd overall or of which we saw in 2003 ? Hope that a generational draft happens once more and that Timmins doesnt f*** it up this time?

 

[BaseballCoach]

Ovechkin and Backstrom are not the reason why Washington won ? What am I reading here. They are the cornerstones around which Washington has built their teams.

Have you paid any attention up to now ? This team has neither one of those pieces. If we had (and we were close a few years ago), posters who are asking to draft high would ask MB to make the same kind of moves (Forsberg aside) bringing the team into contention and the drafting/development Washington did during those years.

And these posters did. This is actually documented,you just have to read the numerous threads from 2013-2016 asking MB to fill the holes needed for the team to contend and fixing the farm club.

And that's whats led us here. We don't have Ovechkin/Backstrom to build around. We have a declining Price and a defenseman acquired through trade. Washington added a Price and a Weber from their drafting to their two elite forwards on top of their excellent trades and drafts.

We have none of those and the means presented around is to hope for mid-late firsts and 40 point veterans to somehow become these elite players while Weber and Price still play at a respectable level. Basically, an even lower luck occurance than drafting high.

So, I've yet to read a single sound proposition that doesn't involve even more hope. How do we get players of the quality we see 1st, 2nd overall or of which we saw in 2003 ? Hope that a generational draft happens once more and that Timmins doesnt **** it up this time?

LOL, after 8 years averaging 33 points, John Carlson breaks out with 68 points and the Caps win a Cup. And yes, their late firsts Carlson and Kuznetzov were much more impactful than the guy they got 5th after tanking one year, Karl Alzner.

Meanwhile say what you will, while Washington had a franchise player in Ovechkin and a star in Backstrom, the Habs had a franchise player in Price and a star in Subban (and maybe Pacioretty). But the Washington management made better moves to get to the next level than the Habs did. That was the difference, not the initial pieces Ovechkin and Backstrom, because Montreal had equivalent.

Funny thing is, I am actually willing to trade vets for futures even AFTER two tanks in three years. Did any of the last ten Cup Winners do that? Who traded their #2 defenceman or a 20 goal scoring winger for a late first or more likely a second round pick? None. So my position is actually quite radical pro-rebuild by NHL standards. By no means am I just HOPING for a John Carlson story on our team. But when asked if I would RATHER the team that has started to rebuild be strong instead of very weak, the answer for any logical person is STRONG. It may not happen, it probably will not happen, but it should not be because team management actively WANTS it not to happen.

 

[Kriss E]

Yet, with hindsight, 2 NHL players in 7 years from the first four rounds of the draft is abominable.

Sure, but there is a difference between just adding more NHLers and top end talent, which is the biggest knock on Timmins. Great to add prospects that have a strong shot at making the NHL, but not so great at getting top end talent out of his first picks.

 

[Andrei79]

LOL, after 8 years averaging 33 points, John Carlson breaks out with 68 points and the Caps win a Cup. And yes, their late firsts Carlson and Kuznetzov were much more impactful than the guy they got 5th after tanking one year, Karl Alzner.

Meanwhile say what you will, while Washington had a franchise player in Ovechkin and a star in Backstrom, the Habs had a franchise player in Price and a star in Subban (and maybe Pacioretty). But the Washington management made better moves to get to the next level than the Habs did. That was the difference, not the initial pieces Ovechkin and Backstrom, because Montreal had equivalent.

Funny thing is, I am actually willing to trade vets for futures even AFTER two tanks in three years. Did any of the last ten Cup Winners do that? Who traded their #2 defenceman or a 20 goal scoring winger for a late first or more likely a second round pick? None. So my position is actually quite radical pro-rebuild by NHL standards. By no means am I just HOPING for a John Carlson story on our team. But when asked if I would RATHER the team that has started to rebuild be strong instead of very weak, the answer for any logical person is STRONG. It may not happen, it probably will not happen, but it should not be because team management actively WANTS it not to happen.

Yes, you're repeating what I'm saying. When Montreal did have their pieces in prime Subban/Price, many of the same posters now asking for high picks were asking management to surround them better so as to bring this team into contention.

This is the point, once you do have the pieces, you do not need to pick high for years afterwards until you pass the first round of the playoffs. You need to surround the players through proper moves. We lucked out in 2007, other teams lucked out in 2003, but these are luck occurences that happen even less than high picks panning out into franchise players. Which is the point here, we lack them now. Weber's not the top 3D Subban was and Price is now a reliable, but not elite, goaltender.

And, we're presented with no solution as to the problem of how we'll get these elite players, except "competing" for the wild card spot and having substantially lower odds of actually getting one. All in the name being an easy out.

And why are you laughing at Carlson ? Who the f*** cares when he broke out ? The point here is he played at the level of an elite no.1 for a full year including the playoffs. Washington's model still revolved around building around their tank picks: Ovechkin and Backstrom. If we luck out and get another Hart trophy and Norris (or Art Ross, whatever) Trophy quality player, then by all means, we shouldn't pick high, we should build around them. But we don't. We don't have a strong team or elite players to build around, we have a low skill squad with a good attitude.

 

[BaseballCoach]

And why are you laughing at Carlson ? Who the **** cares when he broke out ? The point here is he played at the level of an elite no.1 for a full year including the playoffs.

I'm not laughing at Carlson. It was you who said it was unrealistic to rely on 40 point players suddenly becoming stars. While talking about the Caps! Yet 28 year old John Carlson did just that.

And while we're at it, Kuznetsov averaged 17 goals and 58 points for three seasons, and suddenly at age 25-26 jumped to 27 goals and 83 points.

You take these guys for granted but probably think it's impossible for Tatar to hit 55-60 points or for Petry to hit the same. Now, I don't know if they do or not, but if Domi can produce 60 points, Petry and Tatar 55-60, Gallagher 35 goals and if Kotkaniemi progresses toward becoming the star we think he can become in 1-2 years, it would accelerate our success compared to the wheels falling off each of these guys and the team getting only 70 points.

 

[Andrei79]

I'm not laughing at Carlson. It was you who said it was unrealistic to rely on 40 point players suddenly becoming stars. While talking about the Caps!

Many 40 point defensemen, if not most, are 1st pairing players and some, number 1Ds, so what are you babbling on about here? Do you not see the difference between that kind of production for a forward and defenseman or are you wasting everyones time here ?

On top of this, do you know when the last time Carlsson paced for less than 40 points was ? 2013-2014. He had a 55 point season age 24 and a 39 in 56 games. Are we seriously comparing an already legit, high producing, no.1D taking the next step here ?

 

[Kriss E]

I'm not actually saying we are contenders this year. I highly doubt we will be that good, and I highly doubt we will finish bottom 5. If you ask me, we will probably pick around 10th. But would I RATHER that our players be much better than that? Yes.

Now, please consider what I am NOT saying. I'm NOT saying the goal should be to make the playoffs no matter what, and for example cut down the youngsters' ice time, go get rental vets in exchange for picks, sign someone for many years in order to get 1 or 2 good years (which ironically is exactly what Bergevin did NOT do in the Radulov case and most of us were against letting him go). Even if our kids are doing well, I would STILL look to trade expendable vets in exchange for futures that would likely be better in the relevant window 2-6 years from now.

That is pretty much what tanking is mate. Nobody here suggested we should scratch Domi and send Gallagher on an extended holiday. But, good or not, stick to the plan. DO NOT DEVIATE.
We should be looking to trade Petry and Tatar this year. Petry is peaking right now, we could probably flip him for an interesting return. If Tatar can keep up his play, and we move him for couple picks, the Patches trade is going to be one heck of a steal.

 

[BaseballCoach]

That is pretty much what tanking is mate. Nobody here suggested we should scratch Domi and send Gallagher on an extended holiday. But, good or not, stick to the plan. DO NOT DEVIATE.
We should be looking to trade Petry and Tatar this year. Petry is peaking right now, we could probably flip him for an interesting return. If Tatar can keep up his play, and we move him for couple picks, the Patches trade is going to be one heck of a steal.

I've never disagreed. Tell me the return and if it's likely to get us a better player in 2-6 years, I'm for it. Said this several times.

By the way, did any of the last ten Cup winners trade their #2 D or a late twenties 20-goal scorer for picks during their rebuild? I don't think so. So my viewpoint is actually pretty radically pro-rebuild, is it not? All I have said in this thread over and over again is that IF our young players are allowed to play a lot and make mistakes, and the GM does not deviate from building picks and not start spending them on rentals, and if we stay away from long, bad contracts to get one good year out of a guy, and the team gets 95-100 points and loses in the first or second round, then that is preferable (even if unlikely) to a 70 point finish.

The poll question is NOT "should we stockpile picks rather than spend them?" We would have had the same answer to that. The question is would you RATHER the team make the playoffs or suck again. And I say make the playoffs so long as it is organic and not achieved by sacrificing the future.

 

[Kriss E]

I've never disagreed. Tell me the return and if it's likely to get us a better player in 2-6 years, I'm for it. Said this several times.

By the way, did any of the last ten Cup winners trade their #2 D or a late twenties 20-goal scorer for picks during their rebuild? I don't think so. So my viewpoint is actually pretty radically pro-rebuild, is it not? All I have said in this thread over and over again is that IF our young players are allowed to play a lot and make mistakes, and the GM does not deviate from building picks and not start spending them on rentals, and if we stay away from long, bad contracts to get one good year out of a guy, and the team gets 95-100 points and loses in the first or second round, then that is preferable (even if unlikely) to a 70 point finish.

Preferable for what purpose? Better for your entertainment? Sure. Better for the team morale? Sure. Better for kids progress? Not necessarily, no. Better for the end goal of becoming a solid contender within a couple of years? No, not necessarily.

The main focus now should be to accumulate top end talent potential prospects. That's it. We have a few interesting pieces. Kotkaniemi, Suzuki, Domi, Gallagher, Drouin, that's a good start, but that's all it is, a start. It is nowhere near enough, especially if we look at the defensive end and see....no one. I mean, if Juulsen and Mete is what we have to cling onto as our best two prospects, that's not good.
So if it preferable for us to make the POs this year...so we can improve in coming years? No, it ain't.

The poll question is NOT "should we stockpile picks rather than spend them?" We would have had the same answer to that. The question is would you RATHER the team make the playoffs or suck again. And I say make the playoffs so long as it is organic and not achieved by sacrificing the future.

Yes, make the POs (...have be eliminated in the 1st or 2nd rd..get a low 1st rd pick, that will be about 4 years away from just making the NHL) and then sign some free agents that are decent-good but eventually will never put us over the top...or suck again (...and end up with a top 10 pick..that could possibly jump into the NHL within a 2 year period like Sergachev did just a year after his draft)...and add other prospects via selling one or two good vets to really solidify our young base for many more years.

Making the POs this year gives us close to no benefit.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Preferable for what purpose? Better for your entertainment? Sure. Better for the team morale? Sure. Better for kids progress? Not necessarily, no. Better for the end goal of becoming a solid contender within a couple of years? No, not necessarily.

The main focus now should be to accumulate top end talent potential prospects. That's it. We have a few interesting pieces. Kotkaniemi, Suzuki, Domi, Gallagher, Drouin, that's a good start, but that's all it is, a start. It is nowhere near enough, especially if we look at the defensive end and see....no one. I mean, if Juulsen and Mete is what we have to cling onto as our best two prospects, that's not good.
So if it preferable for us to make the POs this year...so we can improve in coming years? No, it ain't.



Yes, make the POs (...have be eliminated in the 1st or 2nd rd..get a low 1st rd pick, that will be about 4 years away from just making the NHL) and then sign some free agents that are decent-good but eventually will never put us over the top...or suck again (...and end up with a top 10 pick..that could possibly jump into the NHL within a 2 year period like Sergachev did just a year after his draft)...and add other prospects via selling one or two good vets to really solidify our young base for many more years.

Making the POs this year gives us close to no benefit.

Kriss, I don't get what you don't get. You suggested that even if we are good, do not deviate from the plan, and that is what I agreed with. The plan is to build every way we can. I'm not suggesting that we be satisfied with 16th best team, far from it.

The benefit from making the playoffs is not entertainment, morale or any of those things. It is the other way around. Going along the build route, you know you are succeeding if the picks you make, the trades you make, the signings you make result in lots more wins. It is true that wins in the regular season do not guarantee a Cup, but they are real world evidence that you are improving. It is preposterous tool believe that a 95 or 100 point team ON THE WAY UP is equally far from a Cup as a 70 point team.

How do you know if the #2 overall draft pick you just made Drew Doughty, is working out or not? By his impact on the games! If you are an LA fan in 2010, you are very happy that your team went from 70 points to 101 and losing in the first round. And losing in the first round again the next year with 98 points. These results are proof that the rebuild is working, whereas the results for Florida after getting #1 overall Ekblad were not nearly as good. The 2010 and 2011 Kings were closer to Cup contention than the 2016 and 2017 Panthers. OF COURSE, given that the Panthers were still out of the playoffs the plan would be to continue to build in any way they can, but so did the Kings while making the playoffs.

Because the Kings were closer to a Cup at 100 points, it took less additional pieces with more options to get them. The emergence of their 3rd round draftee in the nets, and two fortunate trades that got them a 2C and 3C and voila!

This team won 2 Cups and lost in a Conference Final yet only got 1 important player, Doughty, via high draft pick due to poor results. Kopitar was a pure lottery pick (2005 lockout year) and was the third best player in the draft picked at #11. Think about that, #11 is almost the middle of the pack, but they were smart enough to get Kopitar. All their other key pieces were acquired by trade or late picks.

And even Doughty, if we are being fair, is not the kind of player that is usually acquired by ultra high pick. Doughty's peers during this period (all the multiple Norris finalists 2009-2015) were acquired by their teams thusly:

• Erik Karlsson - 15th pick
• Mike Green - 29th pick
• PK Subban - 45th pick
• Shea Weber - 49th pick (three times finalist)
• Nicklas Lidstrom - 53rd pick
• Duncan Keith - 54th pick
• Zdeno Chara - UFA (four times finalist)

Now, here is a list of ALL 18 of the top-5 D picks from 2004 to 2015

• 2004 #3 - Cam Barker
• 2005 #3 - Jack Johnson
• 2006 #1 - Erik Johnson
• 2007 #4 - Thomas Hickey
• 2007 #5 - Karl Alzner
• 2008 #2 - Drew Doughty
• 2008 #3 - Zach Bogosian
• 2008 # 4 - Alex Pietrangelo
• 2008 #5 - Luke Schenn
• 2009 #2 - Victor Hedman
• 2010 #3 - Erik Gudbranson
• 2011 #4 - Adam Larsson
• 2012 #2 - Ryan Murray
• 2012 #4 - Griffin Reinhart
• 2012 #5 - M0rgan Rielly
• 2013 #4 - Seth Jones
• 2014 #1 - Aaron Ekblad
• 2015 #5 - Noah Hanifin

There has been an 11% chance that the D you get after drafting top-5 is a dominant, difference making player. The number of flops and low-end NHLers is incredibly high. This is completely understandable because Dmen take time to learn their position at the NHL level, and they're picking these guys too young.

I could do a similar exercise for goaltenders and again you would not be surprised if we found out that many of the most impactful goalies in the league were not acquired as top-5 picks. It's also the position where the variability in level of play from one year to another is greatest.

Please note that when I provide data, I try to provide complete data, so that one anecdote does not take on a larger than life status.

When someone suggests that a team like the Habs, who have a lack of dominant PMD, should draft high, that is not BAD per se, because it is better than drafting lower, but if we look at the average calibre of a top 5 D pick over 12 years, it is, let's say, Thomas Hickey.

So, when it comes to this need of the Habs, the poll question is this:

Would you RATHER that this year's team be a 95-100 point team that adds Nathan Beaulieu as a 17th pick, or a 70 point team that adds Thomas Hickey as a top-5 pick. That is your real world odds. Hickey is better than Beaulieu, no question, but he is not getting you to 95 points from 70 points on his own. This is a team game, and it is always better to start with a stronger team when building some more.

We could do a similar exercise with top 5 forwards picks, and I would guess that the average top-5 forward pick works out more often than a D pick, but I'm also betting the pro-tankers would be surprises how low the odds are of getting a guy who lifts your team by 25 points.

Stay tuned, I will do the forwards next.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Sure, but there is a difference between just adding more NHLers and top end talent, which is the biggest knock on Timmins. Great to add prospects that have a strong shot at making the NHL, but not so great at getting top end talent out of his first picks.

Actually, most GMs have a low batting average on first round picks. The Habs were especially bad from 2008-2014, but all teams have much lower success rates than the pro-tankers imagine. Because of this FACT, a team is better off in any given summer starting with 95 points and building the right way, than starting with 70 points. That gap is so big that only the rarest successful draft pick will bridge it.

 

[BaseballCoach]

List of all Top-5 Forward Draft Picks 2004 to 2015

2004: Ovechkin, Malkin, Ladd, Wheeler (Note: Wheeler counts as total FLOP, since he did not sign with the team that drafted him)
2005 (Lottery year): Crosby, Ryan, B Pouliot
2006: J. Staal, Toews, Backstrom, Kessel
2007: P.Kane, JVR, Turris
2008: Stamkos
2009: Tavares, Duchene, E. Kane, B. Schenn
2010: Hall, Seguin, R. Johansen, Niederreiter
2011: RNH, Landeskog, Huberdeau, R. Strome
2012: Yakupov, Galkchenyuk
2013: Mackinnon, Barkov, Drouin, Lindholm
2014: Reinhart, Draisatl, Bennett, Dal Colle
2015: McDavid, Eichel, D. Strome, Marner

In twelve years, 18% of the top-5 picks have been strong enough to MAYBE make a team better by 25 points per season, and I'm not that sure of Stamkos and Backstrom, they might be more in the 10-15 point level just ahead of Tavares, Eichel, Seguin. Truth is - maybe it's only 3 guys with a full 25 point personal impact on a team, and all three were 13-14 years ago (and one was pure lottery luck).

Once again, although the odds are better than with D, the actual odds of getting a forward who will make the difference between a team that totally sucks and a team that gets 95-100 points are very, very low. Believing it is the best way and even the only way to build looks more like stubborn, religious faith than astute logic.

I think the people choosing "Bottom-5" in this poll are engaging in sleight of hand. They want to believe that Kakko or Dach or even Hughes (which they know is extremely unlikely) will be the player that takes the Habs over the top. But for that to happen, they have to be a 95 point team WITHOUT this player. So hoping they aren't is not going to work. If the players we have right now make up a 70 point team, adding Kakko is only the tip of the iceberg, because we would probably need 7-8 strong players to get to Cup contention status.

If, on the other hand, this actually was a 95+ point team, then the number of missing pieces might be only 2-3. That is the real world choice implied by the poll question!

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

• 2004 #3 - Cam Barker
• 2005 #3 - Jack Johnson
• 2006 #1 - Erik Johnson
• 2007 #4 - Thomas Hickey
• 2007 #5 - Karl Alzner
• 2008 #2 - Drew Doughty
• 2008 #3 - Zach Bogosian
• 2008 # 4 - Alex Pietrangelo
• 2008 #5 - Luke Schenn
• 2009 #2 - Victor Hedman
• 2010 #3 - Erik Gudbranson
• 2011 #4 - Adam Larsson
• 2012 #2 - Ryan Murray
• 2012 #4 - Griffin Reinhart
• 2012 #5 - M0rgan Rielly
• 2013 #4 - Seth Jones
• 2014 #1 - Aaron Ekblad
• 2015 #5 - Noah Hanifin

Is there any particular reason you didn't also bold Pietrangelo, Morgan Rielly, Seth Jones, and Aaron Ekblad? The former three are established top-pairing d-men who have hit 50 points and Ekblad is a top-pairing guy on the cusp (and is only 22).

I agree with your overall notion but fudging the numbers doesn't help. Nobody would refuse to call Rielly, Jones, Ekblad, or Pietrangelo a core player. Not one person would think that they don't cut it as a top-end core d-man that a Cup team needs.

• 2004: Ovechkin, Malkin, Ladd, Wheeler (Note: Wheeler counts as total FLOP, since he did not sign with the team that drafted him)
• 2005 (Lottery year): Crosby, Ryan, B Pouliot
• 2006: J. Staal, Toews, Backstrom, Kessel
• 2007: P.Kane, JVR, Turris
• 2008: Stamkos
• 2009: Tavares, Duchene, E. Kane, B. Schenn
• 2010: Hall, Seguin, R. Johansen, Niederreiter
• 2011: RNH, Landeskog, Huberdeau, R. Strome
• 2012: Yakupov, Galkchenyuk
• 2013: Mackinnon, Barkov, Drouin, Lindholm
• 2014: Reinhart, Draisatl, Bennett, Dal Colle
• 2015: McDavid, Eichel, D. Strome, Marner

Wheeler isn't a flop, he was drafted well and turned out to be the stud that was projected.

And again, there are plenty of names there who are absolutely core players and would be happily accepted as core players to compete with. You have freaking Tavares, Mackinnon, and Seguin there not bolded for some ridiculous reason.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Sure, but there is a difference between just adding more NHLers and top end talent, which is the biggest knock on Timmins. Great to add prospects that have a strong shot at making the NHL, but not so great at getting top end talent out of his first picks.

I think where Timmins has gone wrong is in thinking that the odds favour getting a lot of players with a good chance of making the NHL.

But this is flawed due to the way the NHL is structured. Because of the salary cap and RFA/UFA rules, replacement level players, even 3rd liners and #5 defencemen, are available in so many other ways. You can trade for a guy, sign a free agent, or pick up a useful guy on waivers. You have to see the draft as the way to get hard-to-replace talent!! I'm not sure Timmins is looking at things right. Or at least he was not until the last couple of years.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Is there any particular reason you didn't also bold Pietrangelo, Morgan Rielly, Seth Jones, and Aaron Ekblad? The former three are established top-pairing d-men who have hit 50 points and Ekblad is a top-pairing guy on the cusp (and is only 22).

I agree with your overall notion but fudging the numbers doesn't help. Nobody would refuse to call Rielly, Jones, Ekblad, or Pietrangelo a core player. Not one person would think that they don't cut it as a top-end core d-man that a Cup team needs.

What I did very honestly is that I bolded the guys who have been Norris finalists, that was my standard. I am aware that below them are other good players, and below those guys are average players and then a whole bunch of crap, and that the average is around Thomas Hickey. If I bold Rielly or Ekblad, I am minimizing the true impact of Doughty and Hedman. None of Ekblad, Rielly, or even Jones and Pietrangelo makes their team 25 points better! Should we go with bold and super-bold?

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

I think where Timmins has gone wrong is in thinking that the odds favour getting a lot of players with a good chance of making the NHL.

But this is flawed due to the way the NHL is structured. Because of the salary cap and RFA/UFA rules, replacement level players, even 3rd liners and #5 defencemen, are available in so many other ways. You can trade for a guy, sign a free agent, or pick up a useful guy on waivers. You have to see the draft as the way to get hard-to-replace talent!! I'm not sure Timmins is looking at things right. Or at least he was not until the last couple of years.

Absolutely agree with this.

But how do you discern between hard-to-replace talent and NHL-capable talent?

How would you classify Nikita Sherbak?

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

What I did very honestly is that I bolded the guys who have been Norris finalists, that was my standard. I am aware that below them are other good players, and below those guys are average players and then a whole bunch of crap, and that the average is around Thomas Hickey. If I bold Rielly or Ekblad, I am minimizing the true impact of Doughty and Hedman. None of Ekblad, Rielly,or even Jones and Pietrangelo makes their team 25 points better! Should we go with bold and super-bold?

I don't know if you can quantify or qualify "25 points better" to be honest.

We have to use a mixture of stats and common sense. I think Hedman and Doughty are elite but they benefit from being on well run franchises as much as Eichel suffers from being on a weak one.