Where would you rather the Montreal Canadiens finish this year?

[BaseballCoach]

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

That's what I meant. Wheeler is an excellent player, but the Coyotes that drafted him got ZERO out of their pick, except for a late second rounder as compensation. We are evaluating the odds of your pick getting you a star. The Wheeler pick unfortunately counts as a failure, not success.

As for Tavares, Mackinnon and Seguin, these guys have not won a thing. Their teams continued to suck or at least not go far in the case of Seguin. If I bold them, what do I do with Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, superbold?

I hesitated with Stamkos, but I felt that a guy who scores 60 is special. He is no longer that guy today, but he was stratospheric at a point.

 

[ECWHSWI]

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.

lemme guess, you got stuck in a "I've decided that for some reason these players can get a team 25 + points and the others here cant" ?

 

[BaseballCoach]

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.

Yes, of course! That is the point. The bottom-fivers want the best of both worlds. They want to add one player to a team and get to contender status, but that is not possible if the team is bad.

I am being very generous in saying some of these guys have 25-point impact. Almost no one does on their own, and the case for PREFERRING to be at 95 points (the right way, of course) versus 70 points is even stronger than I have been trying politely to say.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

That's what I meant. Wheeler is an excellent player, but the Coyotes that drafted him got ZERO out of their pick, except for a late second rounder as compensation. We are evaluating the odds of your pick getting you a star. The Wheeler pick unfortunately counts as a failure, not success.

You have to separate different causal links. He was drafted because he was projected to help their franchise. He turned out as projected (albeit a bit slow) but for a different franchise. The mechanism that got him drafted worked as planned, that his franchise or another didn't work out is irrelevant to the discussion.

lemme guess, you got stuck in a "I've decided that for some reason these players can get a team 25 + points and the others here cant" ?

It's a tough one, yeah lol

Yes, of course! That is the point. The bottom-fivers want the best of both worlds. They want to add one player to a team and get to contender status, but that is not possible if the team is bad.

I am being very generous in saying some of these guys have 25-point impact. Almost no one does on their own, and the case for PREFERRING to be at 95 points (the right way, of course) versus 70 points is even stronger than I have been trying politely to say.

I agree but I think your methodology betrays your intentions here - it weakens your argument.

Any Tanker would support getting (say) Mackinnon, Ekblad, and Eichel (over 2013-2015). Hell, I'm anti-Tank and I'd probably give up the next three years if it meant getting those three.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Absolutely agree with this.

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

How would you classify Nikita Sherbak?

Scherbak was a good try at talent. Chipchura was not.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

The margin of error in the parity-fueled NHL is rather slim.

If a team is a ~90 point team, it isn't too tough to dismantle and tank it up by trading rentals and unnecessary vets for futures and over-playing youngsters. I support this in case a season is lost. I don't support "planned" tank years though. It's a ridiculous notion and the aforementioned slim margin of error means that you might waste a season of development and nominal success and have nothing worthwhile to show for it.

The draft system is hopelessly broken - the NHL has to sort it out.

 

[ECWHSWI]

You have to separate different causal links. He was drafted because he was projected to help their franchise. He turned out as projected (albeit a bit slow) but for a different franchise. The mechanism that got him drafted worked as planned, that his franchise or another didn't work out is irrelevant to the discussion.

It's a tough one, yeah lol


I agree but I think your methodology betrays your intentions here - it weakens your argument.

Any Tanker would support getting (say) Mackinnon, Ekblad, and Eichel (over 2013-2015). Hell, I'm anti-Tank and I'd probably give up the next three years if it meant getting those three.

he doesnt have any

he keeps picking numbers that make his "side" look good, he builds his case on very little (I mean, what's the obsession with #2 picks really), will talk about how wrong it is to tank...

while saying Habs should sell off vets (if that's not tanking, then tanking doesnt exist)

 

[BaseballCoach]

You have to separate different causal links. He was drafted because he was projected to help their franchise. He turned out as projected (albeit a bit slow) but for a different franchise. The mechanism that got him drafted worked as planned, that his franchise or another didn't work out is irrelevant to the discussion.

It's a tough one, yeah lol


I agree but I think your methodology betrays your intentions here - it weakens your argument.

Any Tanker would support getting (say) Mackinnon, Ekblad, and Eichel (over 2013-2015). Hell, I'm anti-Tank and I'd probably give up the next three years if it meant getting those three.

In a vacuum, of course you would want Ekblad, to take an example. But the poll question is not in such a vacuum. Even a logical tanker would probably not think that adding Ekblad to a 70 point team will generate a stronger team the following years, than adding Nate Beaulieu to a 95 point team that is young and full of talent.

My methodology is designed to answer the exact question asked, not a different question. My methodology measures the result of each draft decision (which is why the unlikely odds of someone not signing must be taken into account - it reduced the success rate by 2.3%).

Plus, to top it off, I stipulated to begin with that I don't endorse short-cut methods of getting to a playoff spot, such as benching kids who make a mistake to favour safe veterans, adding rentals at the expense of picks, or taking on toxic contracts for short-term gain.

I am being totally fair in my use of the scientific method.

 

[Omar]

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.

Washington got their elite players through tanking. As I said it’s not a guarantee and it took them a while, but they did it and not tanking gives you no chance. You can only win the Cup with a lot of skill and the high end skilled players are found early in the first round.

 

[BaseballCoach]

he doesnt have any

he keeps picking numbers that make his "side" look good, he builds his case on very little (I mean, what's the obsession with #2 picks really), will talk about how wrong it is to tank...

while saying Habs should sell off vets (if that's not tanking, then tanking doesnt exist)

The question is what it is! The poll question is NOT "should we trade vets we don't need for picks who will likely work out better?" To that, I say YES. So do you.

The ACTUAL question really come to: would you rather do smart things to the best of your ability on top of a 95 point team or a 70 point team? We agree on what is smart. But will drafting high in one more season add enough to make up for the fact that the guys we have suck badly? No. Almost zero chance of that. Therefore, I "rather" have a 95 point team with 2-3 holes to fill than a 70 point team with 7-8 holes to fill.

The people who disagree with me seem from their posts to believe that adding Kakko or Dach will be the key to contender status. But that is only true if the team is playoff level already. If the team is short 7-8 key players, getting Kakko is nice, but not likely to generate a contender on its own. And if you say that 5 more moves will get us there, isn't it better if those 5 more good players are already on the team??

 

[ECWHSWI]

Washington got their elite players through tanking. As I said it’s not a guarantee and it took them a while, but they did it and not tanking gives you no chance. You can only win the Cup with a lot of skill and the high end skilled players are found early in the first round.

It is that f***ing simple
no high end skills = no cup
the better the pick, the bigger the odds of getting high end talent

anyone suggesting Habs should try to make the PO fail to understand that GMs WILL trade picks or prospects to do so and will play the Plekanec of the world over the Scherbak, Hudon, McCaron, etc). GMs will want to save their job, GMs think they will by making the PO, it's that simple.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Washington got their elite players through tanking. As I said it’s not a guarantee and it took them a while, but they did it and not tanking gives you no chance. You can only win the Cup with a lot of skill and the high end skilled players are found early in the first round.

Kuznetsov is their best player right now, and he was drafted 26th. Of course Ovechkin and Crosby are this generation's Gretzky and Lemieux, but trying to come up with a formula to get that kind of first-ballot Hall of Famer by suggesting things that have a low percentage chance of achieving them is not helpful. You can point to Toews and say he is really good, and he is, but there are other really good players all over the league and they don't win a Cup on their own. Toews lifetime stats (0.85 ppg up to age 30 so far) aren't that much better than Saku Koivu's with the Habs (0.81 ppg until age 34), you know. The difference is the supporting cast.

For the 28 teams that did not get an Ovechkin or Lemieux from being the worst team, or who did not get Crosby in a pure-luck lottery or Gretzky in a league merger, the odds are much better to do many things well, than hope that everything you do is bad, you end up losing incessantly, but will turn it all around with one high pick or even two.

 

[BaseballCoach]

It is that ****ing simple
no high end skills = no cup
the better the pick, the bigger the odds of getting high end talent

anyone suggesting Habs should try to make the PO fail to understand that GMs WILL trade picks or prospects to do so and will play the Plekanec of the world over the Scherbak, Hudon, McCaron, etc). GMs will want to save their job, GMs think they will by making the PO, it's that simple.

Yes, and I stated that I oppose those methods. So despite your anger, sarcasm and condescension, how much do you actually disagree with the strategy I propose?

 

[DAChampion]

Kuznetsov is their best player right now, and he was drafted 26th. Of course Ovechkin and Crosby are this generation's Gretzky and Lemieux, but trying to come up with a formula to get that kind of first-ballot Hall of Famer by suggesting things that have a low percentage chance of achieving them is not helpful. You can point to Toews and say he is really good, and he is, but there are other really good players all over the league and they don't win a Cup on their own. Toews lifetime stats (0.85 ppg up to age 30 so far) aren't that much better than Saku Koivu's with the Habs (0.81 ppg until age 34), you know. The difference is the supporting cast.

For the 28 teams that did not get an Ovechkin or Lemieux from being the worst team, or who did not get Crosby in a pure-luck lottery or Gretzky in a league merger, the odds are much better to do many things well, than hope that everything you do is bad, you end up losing incessantly, but will turn it all around with one high pick or even two.

I believe that Kuznetsov was drafted 26th due to the fear that he would never leave Russia, not because he was a hidden GM.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I believe that Kuznetsov was drafted 26th due to the fear that he would never leave Russia, not because he was a hidden GM.

Agreed. I recall that being a time where teams were avoiding Russian players due to the end of the NHL player transfer agreement.

 

[Kriss E]

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.

Why don't you list the teams that have won the cups in the cap era without a top drafted high end forward. Then tell me again how much better off we are at building as a PO bubble team.

 

[Kriss E]

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.

Oh I understand this just fine, you're the one that seems to not be getting the point. Just because your team improved from 70 to 95pts, doesn't mean the rebuilding is just about done and all you need now is available via trade or free agency.
Just because the team is better doesn't mean they shouldn't still tank for another year, or even two..

The objective here is not to simply ''improve''. It's to build a serious contender.

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.

Of course if I'm a 2010 Kings fan I'm happy about them making the POs. Why? Because it's been 6 years of nothing. Not at all comparable to the Habs. The Habs were in the POs 2 years ago. The Habs were twice as much in the POs than not over the past 6 years.

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!

Winning the cup comes from important draft picks, including very high ones, trades and signings. There is no escaping this.

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.

That's just not true. Doughty was perhaps the only one left remaining, but others were traded for very important pieces in return. Without guys like Schenn (5th) or Johnsson (3rd), the Carter and Richards trades are not completed and they do not win the cups.
And yes, they were lucky Kopitar dropped to 11th, but who cares, point is he's on their team. Hoping we get lucky too with teams passing on such a great talent that then falls in our hands is not a winning strategy.

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.

So don't pick a Dman that early unless he's a Dahlin type. I have no problem overstocking talent up front, and then using some to get a D.

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.

I wouldn't be surprised because I already know this and never suggested we should draft a goalie with top 5 picks. Even for an exceptional like Price, I'd pass.

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 you don't draft one. You get yourself a strong forward and you can then make a trade.

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.

Ooooooooooor, you pick a top forward and then move him for a D if you see fit.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Why don't you list the teams that have won the cups in the cap era without a top drafted high end forward. Then tell me again how much better off we are at building as a PO bubble team.

If you want to say Toews is the Hawks 1C drafted at #3, then the Habs will need Kotkaniemi to be the same.

LA won without a high drafted high end forward. Kopitar was drafted at #11 in the lottery. Boston won without any high drafted impactful forward, or D, or goalie!

 

[BaseballCoach]

I believe that Kuznetsov was drafted 26th due to the fear that he would never leave Russia, not because he was a hidden GM.

Yeah, so? It is possible to swing for the fences at pick 26, and not go for the defensive Chipchuras or the "big, gritty" McCarrons and Tinordis.

 

[DAChampion]

Yeah, so? It is possible to swing for the fences at pick 26, and not go for the defensive Chipchuras or the "big, gritty" McCarrons and Tinordis.

An opportunity such as Kuznetsov is non-generic. You can't suggest a general philosophy based off of an exception.

 

[Omar]

Kuznetsov is their best player right now, and he was drafted 26th. Of course Ovechkin and Crosby are this generation's Gretzky and Lemieux, but trying to come up with a formula to get that kind of first-ballot Hall of Famer by suggesting things that have a low percentage chance of achieving them is not helpful. You can point to Toews and say he is really good, and he is, but there are other really good players all over the league and they don't win a Cup on their own. Toews lifetime stats (0.85 ppg up to age 30 so far) aren't that much better than Saku Koivu's with the Habs (0.81 ppg until age 34), you know. The difference is the supporting cast.

For the 28 teams that did not get an Ovechkin or Lemieux from being the worst team, or who did not get Crosby in a pure-luck lottery or Gretzky in a league merger, the odds are much better to do many things well, than hope that everything you do is bad, you end up losing incessantly, but will turn it all around with one high pick or even two.

No the odds are not much better. A team has never won in the Cup era without tanking. There are no positive odds for not tanking when it comes to Cup chances. Just like you said, Kuznetsov was drafted 26th overall but he’s getting help from Ovechkin and Backstrom, and his development was helped by those two guys getting the majority of the tough matchups. See Drouin. Do you think his development would be eased by having guys like Ovy and Backstrom in front of him?

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

An opportunity such as Kuznetsov is non-generic. You can't suggest a general philosophy based off of an exception.

Something about induction and deduction comes to mind.

 

[Lshap]

Just because your team improved from 70 to 95pts, doesn't mean the rebuilding is just about done and all you need now is available via trade or free agency.
Just because the team is better doesn't mean they shouldn't still tank for another year, or even two..

The objective here is not to simply ''improve''. It's to build a serious contender.

Good news/bad news is that the Habs can't go backwards and tank anymore. They've improved, and not because of the vets. Carey Price isn't carrying the team; Shea Weber isn't playing; Plekanec and Alzner are scratched. For the first time in his tenure, Bergevin didn't assemble a roster in a desperate attempt to win, yet they're winning anyways. It's an audition-roster of youth and rookies who are looking better than we expected.

The kids will probably cool down somewhat, but they probably won't go stone cold. Realistically, the Habs will be an 85-95 pt. team. That means unless the bottom falls out we're not a bottom-10 team.

So is there a way to improve and still get a top-1o pick? Only if we trade up. Trade our, say, 15th pick plus Byron for the 10th. Or throw everything we've got at it -- our 15th, Byron, Tatar, Shaw, plus our 2nd round pick for... however high we can get (#5 to 7?). Depends on the perceived gap between #5 and #15. Depends on the other team's needs. But that's the only realistic path I see to get that high pick we all want.

 

[BaseballCoach]

An opportunity such as Kuznetsov is non-generic. You can't suggest a general philosophy based off of an exception.

What about Carlson at 27? Barzal at 16? Kopitar at 11? P. Bergeron at #45? How many strong players do I have to find outside the top 10?

The point is that Kuznetsov might have been available for an unusual reason, but it is absolutely relevant. The Caps went for the best talent available, but the Habs TRADED UP (oh my lord) to get Tinordi four spots ahead of Kuznetsov.

So yes, I CAN suggest a general philosophy of going after the biggest talent, and not size and grit, in the first two rounds, or really almost any round.

 

[Video Coach]

As exciting as this season is, I still hope they finish out of the playoffs. I don't think it's bottom 5 or make the playoffs. I see lots of potential impact players in the 8-15 range that would be great targets if we end up finishing 10-12th in the conference.

That said, if we're still have this winning % in Jan maybe I'll change my mind.