Post-Game Talk: 2021 Draft Post mortem - Rating the crop

[VirginiaMtlExpat]

Brain is "average" (the lowest evaluation term) for Mailloux....

I wonder if this rating is due to his off-ice activity or is truly an indication of on-ice performance. If it's the former, I wouldn't put too much stock into it as an on-ice predictor. Fast-forward 2-3 years, we may have a steal if we are talking about a top-11 talent at 31. If it's the latter, he may still be serviceable as an NHLer.

 

[JoelWarlord]

Decent draft. B- to B probably which is a good result when your 1st rounder is at 31. We didn't get any premiere talent so I don't think you can really justify anything above B+ though. I like Kidney and Kostenko, and Kapanen/Trudeau/Roy are intriguing dice rolls too. RE: Mailloux from what I've read I get the impression we drafted Dion Phaneuf but with a #4-5 ceiling. I hate the pick but in purely hockey terms I get why you'd gamble on a toolsy RHD.

I do think our draft is getting overrated here because of Mailloux though. For some reason people seem to think we got this incredible draft steal but that's not really accurate. 35th on MacKenzie's list, 23rd NA skater, 50th on Button's list, etc. Those lists aren't gospel but he was projected to go in the late 1st to mid 2nd round and we got him in the late 1st round, that's not some incredible draft steal. You could replace him with any consensus 25-35 ranked talent and the overall draft grade doesn't really change.

 

[Bacchus1]

50% of our draft classes from 2008-2017 did not yield a single player who has played 100 games in the NHL. ”

I don't really get this. Are you expecting all draft picks to play 100 games? Or, do you expect at least half? I said 1-3/9 picks. That is like 13-30% success rate.

That WOULD be good.

2017 is too early to know as some of those players are just starting their careers.

But, I think we have had "pretty good" success with our firsts in the last 5 years. We haven't had the usual 5th round miracles of the past.

Anyway, If we get 1-3 players who play 100 games, it is an absolute success.

 

[dcyhabs]

I gave it a C not so much because I think they had a bad draft as that they were drafting low in most cases. No top 15 picks means the chance of getting someone really good is fairly low. I also see the Mailloux pick as a bit like the Kostitsyn pick, taking someone because of the big obvious downside for the upside, and also putting current need over sense. The upside was there for Kostitsyn, but there were many better players still available. Similarly taking Raty or one of the other fallers would provide at least as much upside.

RD may be a need now but by the time these guys develop it may not be. The habs look set at center so passing on Raty like everyone else makes sense for the moment, but we still have to see who replaces Danault, what happens with KK, and if anyone gets injured. When the picks from 2021 are ready we may have a different need.

 

[WinterLion]

It is way too early to rate this draft obviously.

Here is what I like about it though:

- They swung for the fences several times.
- They added more assets for next year
- They filled some holes in the depth chart
- They seemed to go for hockey IQ when many teams were going for size
- They added another goalie

 

[VirginiaMtlExpat]

But other than Mailloux , no player who can move the needle for this team. It was a clear case of quantity over quality. It was a lost opportunity to use the accumulated draft capital to move up in the draft and select a more impactful player.

Your posts at optimal at about this length, Chester. I agree with you.

The Mailloux and Caufield picks were exercises in buying low due to the player's stock being depressed because of factors with limited impact on on-ice performance: size and off-ice ignominy (as well as limited viewing). In an age of pervasive social networking, the latter choice in particular took a lot of guts. As a contrarian at heart, I can put aside the controversy and try to think ahead 2-3 years from now. It will look like a steal in a manner similar to Caufield is starting to look now.

As for your other point, this GM almost never trades up. He seems to see picks as indiscriminate lottery tickets, worth multiplying but never worth fusing into a better one.

 

[Canad13ns]

I don't really get this. Are you expecting all draft picks to play 100 games?

.

What I said was that 50% of our draft CLASSES from 2008-2017 have not yielded any player who has played 100 games. Meaning in 5 of 10 years, none of the picks became an NHL regular.

Players from the 2017 class may still make it which would alter the stat slightly. However, your hoping for 3 NHL regulars -- well that's happened once in the last 10 years so it's not impossible, but like I said, it's optimistic.

 

[Adam Michaels]

Interestingly enough, they drafted a lot of players out of the CHL this year. They usually mix it up drafting more kids out of Europe or NCAA/USHL/High School because they give them more years to evaluate their progress before they make a decision.

But this year, out of the 9 draftees, 6 of them were taken out of the CHL, which gives them until June 1, 2023 to decide on these kids. Only Kapanen, Kostenko, and Sobolev were not CHL'ers.

Although Sobolev will play in Windsor this coming season, I think he falls as a Euro since that's where he was when they drafted him. Unless someone can correct me that the fact he's going to Windsor right after being drafted, he counts as a CHL'er.

 

[26Mats]

Interestingly enough, they drafted a lot of players out of the CHL this year. They usually mix it up drafting more kids out of Europe or NCAA/USHL/High School because they give them more years to evaluate their progress before they make a decision.

But this year, out of the 9 draftees, 6 of them were taken out of the CHL, which gives them until June 1, 2023 to decide on these kids. Only Kapanen, Kostenko, and Sobolev were not CHL'ers.

Although Sobolev will play in Windsor this coming season, I think he falls as a Euro since that's where he was when they drafted him. Unless someone can correct me that the fact he's going to Windsor right after being drafted, he counts as a CHL'er.

a lot of good NHLers come out of the CHL, would be a huge mistake to overlook the CHL because of when they turn pro - and we might lose Harris anyways because of how the NCAA is structured with respect to turning pro.

 

[Adam Michaels]

a lot of good NHLers come out of the CHL, would be a huge mistake to overlook the CHL because of when they turn pro - and we might lose Harris anyways because of how the NCAA is structured with respect to turning pro.

I know. It's just not the usual Habs' draft strategy. They always draft CHL'ers. But when they have many picks, they vary. This time, they focused more on CHL'ers.

 

[26Mats]

I know. It's just not the usual Habs' draft strategy. They always draft CHL'ers. But when they have many picks, they vary. This time, they focused more on CHL'ers.

Yeah, I was lamenting their strategy, not your post...

Perhaps they've cooled on the u.s. with Harris the uncertainty around Harris signing? Perhaps they didn't get good viewing of american kids due to covid this year?

We'll see. Hopefully we got 1 good skilled forward that will make it, and one top 4 NHL dman from this draft. We'll see...

As 5 th and 6th round picks, I like the upside of Simoneau and Roy... but I also liked the upside of Simon Bourque when we drafted him in the 6th round.

 

[Adam Michaels]

Yeah, I was lamenting their strategy, not your post...

Perhaps they've cooled on the u.s. with Harris the uncertainty around Harris signing? Perhaps they didn't get good viewing of american kids due to covid this year?

We'll see. Hopefully we got 1 good skilled forward that will make it, and one top 4 NHL dman from this draft. We'll see...

Personally I think it's because they had more viewings of the CHL prospects. We know they took some kids from the OHL (Mailloux & Vrbatek), a league that had 0 games. But they took 4 from the Q, which was the league that played the most and that was more available to them.

My guess is this coming year, if seasons play out as usual and more importantly, if scouts can attend the games, they will go back to their usual strategy.

 

[ChesterNimitz]

Your posts at optimal at about this length, Chester. I agree with you.

The Mailloux and Caufield picks were exercises in buying low due to the player's stock being depressed because of factors with limited impact on on-ice performance: size and off-ice ignominy (as well as limited viewing). In an age of pervasive social networking, the latter choice in particular took a lot of guts. As a contrarian at heart, I can put aside the controversy and try to think ahead 2-3 years from now. It will look like a steal in a manner similar to Caufield is starting to look now.

As for your other point, this GM almost never trades up. He seems to see picks as indiscriminate lottery tickets, worth multiplying but never worth fusing into a better one.

That is why he remains an idiot savant, with at most times the former description overshadowing the latter one.

But I remain convinced that, as you suggest, the team’s fans will soon be celebrating the selection of Mailloux while other GM’s will be rueing their failure to select an impactful player. It’s a high stakes game that Bergevin has engaged in. And a game that provides the highest return at the lowest cost. A truly masterful move.

 

[ChesterNimitz]

Hmmm ok... I don't follow other sports so much, so I didn't know this story.

But that guy seems like a real piece of shit.

And there isn’t an NFL team today that wouldn’t sign Hill if given the chance. And the NBA has no hesitancy in doing business with Communist China despite that country’s appalling human rights transgressions. It’s all about money not a morality play.

 

[ChesterNimitz]

Brain is "average" (the lowest evaluation term) for Mailloux....

We’re drafting a defenceman, not a Nobel winning scientist.

 

[ChesterNimitz]

Decent draft. B- to B probably which is a good result when your 1st rounder is at 31. We didn't get any premiere talent so I don't think you can really justify anything above B+ though. I like Kidney and Kostenko, and Kapanen/Trudeau/Roy are intriguing dice rolls too. RE: Mailloux from what I've read I get the
impression we drafted Dion Phaneuf but with a #4-5 ceiling. I hate the pick but in purely hockey terms I get why you'd gamble on a toolsy RHD.

I do think our draft is getting overrated here because of Mailloux though. For some reason people seem to think we got this incredible draft steal but that's not really accurate. 35th on MacKenzie's list, 23rd NA skater, 50th on Button's list, etc. Those lists aren't gospel but he was projected to go in the late 1st to mid 2nd round and we got him in the late 1st round, that's not some incredible draft steal. You could replace him with any consensus 25-35 ranked talent and the overall draft grade doesn't really change.

I lost all confidence in Button’s acumen when he called Fucale the best goaltending prospect since Price.

 

[1909]

We’re drafting a defenceman, not a Nobel winning scientist.

That's not what I was referring to. It was about his off ice behaviour that leads to the big storm.

 

[buddahsmoka1]

As for your other point, this GM almost never trades up. He seems to see picks as indiscriminate lottery tickets, worth multiplying but never worth fusing into a better one.

And by the empirics, this is clearly a superior strategy. Every draft people whine about moving up to select some player that they personally value. Yet, it's pretty obvious that trading extra picks to move up is much more likely to negatively hurt you than help you.

 

[JoelWarlord]

I lost all confidence in Button’s acumen when he called Fucale the best goaltending prospect since Price.

I don't really value Button's opinion much either, but he's plugged in to that world. Regardless, my point is he was 35th on MacKenzie's list which is a consensus ranking from talking to NHL scouts, and in pretty much every consensus ranking he was in the 25-45 range. In purely hockey terms and ignoring everything else he's a perfectly fine and reasonable pick at #31, but I don't really get where the idea this is some masterclass draft steal is coming from. I get that a 6'3" 215 RHD with a big shot and average to good skating is intriguing, but there's warts too.

There's defensive zone + hockey sense issues, he was in Jr. A last year, and a junk league this year. Again, perfectly reasonable at 31 with the rare combo of physical tools, but there's nothing about his profile, track record, or scouting that suggests this was some can't miss top 15 talent that slipped to 31. Maybe he goes in the mid 20s without the scandal but there's always a dman with great physical tools that falls because he was in a weird league or struggles defending.

It just seems like wishful thinking to me.

 

[buddahsmoka1]

I don't really value Button's opinion much either, but he's plugged in to that world. Regardless, my point is he was 35th on MacKenzie's list which is a consensus ranking from talking to NHL scouts, and in pretty much every consensus ranking he was in the 25-45 range. In purely hockey terms and ignoring everything else he's a perfectly fine and reasonable pick at #31, but I don't really get where the idea this is some masterclass draft steal is coming from. I get that a 6'3" 215 RHD with a big shot and average to good skating is intriguing, but there's warts too.

There's defensive zone + hockey sense issues, he was in Jr. A last year, and a junk league this year. Again, perfectly reasonable at 31 with the rare combo of physical tools, but there's nothing about his profile, track record, or scouting that suggests this was some can't miss top 15 talent that slipped to 31. Maybe he goes in the mid 20s without the scandal but there's always a dman with great physical tools that falls because he was in a weird league or struggles defending.

It just seems like wishful thinking to me.

But why are you punishing the player for something he cannot control? He would have been playing on London last year if the OHL season wasn't cancelled. Just because he played in Swedish tier III because of something outside of his control doesn't make him an inherently inferior player.

Oh and also, there's also nothing wrong with dominating the GOJHL as a defenseman at 16.

 

[ChesterNimitz]

I don't really value Button's opinion much either, but he's plugged in to that world. Regardless, my point is he was 35th on MacKenzie's list which is a consensus ranking from talking to NHL scouts, and in pretty much every consensus ranking he was in the 25-45 range. In purely hockey terms and ignoring everything else he's a perfectly fine and reasonable pick at #31, but I don't really get where the idea this is some masterclass draft steal is coming from. I get that a 6'3" 215 RHD with a big shot and average to good skating is intriguing, but there's warts too.

There's defensive zone + hockey sense issues, he was in Jr. A last year, and a junk league this year. Again, perfectly reasonable at 31 with the rare combo of physical tools, but there's nothing about his profile, track record, or scouting that suggests this was some can't miss top 15 talent that slipped to 31. Maybe he goes in the mid 20s without the scandal but there's always a dman with great physical tools that falls because he was in a weird league or struggles defending.

It just seems like wishful thinking to me.

There was a lot of wishful thinking about Caufield. Unless you are drafting in the top 10, the draft is largely a guessing game where you hope your projections come to pass. The 'genius' in Bergevin's decision is that he identified the player that he perceived was the best value at 31 and did not allow outside clamor to deter or alter his decision. If Mailloux turns out to be impactful player, Bergevin will be rightfully praised. If not, I doubt he will be around to endure the scorn.

 

[JoelWarlord]

But why are you punishing the player for something he cannot control? He would have been playing on London last year if the OHL season wasn't cancelled. Just because he played in Swedish tier III because of something outside of his control doesn't make him an inherently inferior player.

Oh and also, there's also nothing wrong with dominating the GOJHL as a defenseman at 16.

I'm not punishing him for anything, I'm saying that a guy who was good in a weird league and was in Jr. A at 16 isn't a top 15 stud profile typically. I said he's a fine first round pick, but people are talking about this pick like he was some top 15 stud that only dropped because of the scandal which is just not accurate.

There was a lot of wishful thinking about Caufield. Unless you are drafting in the top 10, the draft is largely a guessing game where you hope your projections come to pass. The 'genius' in Bergevin's decision is that he identified the player that he perceived was the best value at 31 and did not allow outside clamor to deter or alter his decision. If Mailloux turns out to be impactful player, Bergevin will be rightfully praised. If not, I doubt he will be around to endure the scorn.

There was a lot of optimism about Caufield because many people had him ranked inside the top 10 and even the top 5 (MacKenzie had him 9th, Pronman 4th for example). He broke records set by some of the best goal scorers in the league at the NTDP level, etc. There's no comparison between the two in terms of draft pedigree. Of course Bergevin thought the player was the best value at 31 or he wouldn't have picked him, but that doesn't mean we need to pretend that this was some wild draft heist. Mailloux was never talked about as a top 20 pick all year, 31 is right in the range of where he's been projected to go all year.

What makes Mailloux a clearly better prospect than say, Justin Barron (25), Helge Grans (38), or Daniil Chayka (38)? Those guys aren't all exact stylistic comparables, but I would have a hard time pointint to anything about Mailloux's game that makes him clearly a head and shoulders prospect above those guys. That's my point, Mailloux is a projected late 1st/mid 2nd round prospect that went in the late 1st round after being talked about as a late 1st/mid 2nd rounder all year, he's not some wild draft steal just because it was controversial.

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

I liked the sound of some of the players they drafted and I liked that they added picks for next year. Hopefully they get some good players out of the 2021 crop.

 

[PavelBrendl]

That is why he remains an idiot savant, with at most times the former description overshadowing the latter one.

But I remain convinced that, as you suggest, the team’s fans will soon be celebrating the selection of Mailloux while other GM’s will be rueing their failure to select an impactful player. It’s a high stakes game that Bergevin has engaged in. And a game that provides the highest return at the lowest cost. A truly masterful move.

Yeah, not me. If the kid ends up being a decent player, it is what it is but I'm never going to celebrate this pick.

This organization has its head so far up its ass, it's absolutely dumbfounding. If an organization refuses to hire a unilingual English-speaking coach on principle, but has absolutely no problem selecting a player who's been convicted of sexual misconduct, even after the player himself stated that he should not be drafted, they need to take a long, hard look at themselves. I'm beyond disappointed. They had every opportunity to make any other choice, and decided to make the wrong one.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

My hunch without seeing him is that Mailloux has really high upside if they're going to risk what they risked. Since no one's seen much of him, it's pretty easy to infer that's the case.

From a pure hockey perspective, that's why I'm excited for the pick. They REALLY have to have believed in him. Even though they seem woefully under prepared for the backlash, they knew it was coming and it wasn't going to be pretty.

The rankings being all over the place were likely due to the obscurity of the league he was playing in.

A few other real nice swings. Kidney especially. What hands. Same with the first Russian D. Xavier's got some spunk in his game Kapanen seems like a safe-ish pick but can rip it. Roy seems like a high value pick where at that spot you should absolutely go for it.

If I were to guess, I think the first 3 picks will be NHLers and possibly Xavier. I've got a good feeling about him for some reason. Hopefully, he can keep getting faster. Maybe Truedeau too.

Don't have a good feeling about the first Russian kid and Roy but I haven't seen enough to say. But man if that first Russian kid can pan out, he'll be fun. Crazy hands. The goalie I won't even try.

The first two picks are really exciting. I think there's real upside there. Kidney just needs to work on the skating imo. He's really projectable imo.