Behind the scenes look at the Canadiens 2018 draft weekend

[NotProkofievian]

Maybe we take Houde over Fonstad if we don't get the extra pick though. Good trade.

It was a good trade, IMO, mostly because the value was there at 62. Even if they picked Hillis there were 4 or 5 other guys that I would've really liked to pick. My only beef was with Houde. More interesting players available.

edit: also, we drafted Fonstad ahead of Houde.

 

[Andrei79]

Yes, because you provided the exact response I expected...the situations aren't the same, it's quite the reach to draw them together IMO.


Of course it matters where you are in the draft because the draft, especially past the 1st round is a crapshoot and if you have the ability to add more picks, increasing your chances of landing players wherever you end up drafting, you do it.

And it's ESPECIALLY true if you're able to add picks AND draft players you targeted.


But how does him being nervous about Hillis still being there = he did not listen to me?

What, the only way Bergevin can listen to Timmins is if he does everything he says? Sorry...you've got the roles reversed.


The Habs have known they had multiple picks for weeks now, they knew they were going to do some wheeling and dealing at the draft...that's what I mean by planning.

As for MB calling 3 other GM's, I presented that as a logic hypothetical situation...you know, they have 90 seconds to make a pick, but they're allowed to talk to GM's in between and even during picks right???

Scouts, even those from different teams, also talk to each other...teams know which teams are high on which players. The scouting community rarely works in absolute silos.


Or you can trade down...acquire an additional pick and STILL end up with the player the man you put in charge wants badly.

See, this is the kind of post where I don't feel the other person's arguing in good faith.

Take the debate on trading down for example:
You first assume that I'm not a fan of trading down and subsequently ask my thoughts on if I was open to trade the 3 OA.
I respond with general guidelines and a thought process on why and how I'd be open to trading down throughout the draft.
You respond that it's not the same at the top of the draft and that its a reach to draw them together.

Obviously, if someone asks me draw two things together, I'll do it as I assume that person is interested in my thought process and not because he's baiting.

And throughout all of this, you're not taking any stance.

You start with the assumption that the draft is a crapshoot and the late 2nd rounds on are basically worthless errr *House money*. But at the same time, MB had 90 seconds to "plan" (since that's how you call it) during each pick between the Olofsson pick to the 62nd one to make sure a worthless asset like Hillis would be available at 66. That's your "logic scenario" (btw, yes, I know teams do discuss trades based on who could potentially be there). All of that, for a 5th rounder in a draft where talent dipped around the end of the 3rd.

And, you suggest all of this based on absolutely no evidence. None. Not only that, but you never actually take the stance that this is what you think MB did.

And then, you admit scouts know each other (which I actually brought up) and who they're high on. And guess who's at the top of the scouting pyramid, who would have most access to this info ? Hmmm...

So, here's actual evidence, cited straight from the horses mouth:

1. Timmins wanted Hillis badly.
2. Hillis was one of his favorite players.
3. He was nervous about trading down to 66. Didn't want to miss him by trading down.

So, let's actually try to further this debate, because we're stalling and I feel like none of the points I brought up are being addressed. You can obviously elaborate these questions, but without a definite yes/no answer to start them, I don't feel like we'll be able to go anywhere from here on (and I'll then have to bow out of our debate).

1. Does this sound like someone confident his player would be there?

2. Does this sound like someone who didn't mind dropping to the next guy on his list ?

2. Do you think Timmins recommended MB to go ahead with the trade or not ?

 

[NobleSix]

No one would know that Timmins was super high on Hillis if it wasn't for that clip the Habs twitter account posted.

This seems like someone watched this video....saw Bergevin's face and just found anything to complain about.

417, man. You aren't listening to what I'm saying.

I'm not arguing that the guy's post wasn't dumb. It was. There's no reason to get mad at Bergevin for doing what he did with those picks. It worked out, can't get mad at him because it was a good move. I completely agree with you on that. The guy probably was just looking to shit on Bergevin, you're right. Regardless, it was a pretty dumb opinion. We agree on that.

Now, what i'm saying is that stupid opinions, like that one, exist on every board on this website. Those kind of oddball opinions aren't exclusive to HFHabs.

 

[jaffy27]

I think if people have beef with the move there's a couple possibilities. First, you only trade back if you 1.) accept the reality that ''your guy'' may be taken in the meantime 2.) are certain that there will be someone available that is close enough in value to ''your guy'' to make the compensatory picks ''worth it'' in expected value. People who have beef with the move may disagree that either, or both of these apply to Hillis at 62.

Another possibility is that they just don't like Houde which, if I have a problem with the move, it's Houde.

Agree 100%......the move was good, but then the reward for taking that chance was Houde.....not that good.

At least we got our player....and who knows, you never know who will get you what....Simon Bourque just got us Armia....who would’ve guessed that.

 

[The Great Weal]

Im really glad it worked out, but it was definitely lucky and we shouldn't have risked it imo. Nevertheless, good on Bergevin.

 

[417]

See, this is the kind of post where I don't feel the other person's arguing in good faith.

Take the debate on trading down for example:
You first assume that I'm not a fan of trading down and subsequently ask my thoughts on if I was open to trade the 3 OA.
I respond with general guidelines and a thought process on why and how I'd be open to trading down throughout the draft.
You respond that it's not the same at the top of the draft and that its a reach to draw them together.

Obviously, if someone asks me draw two things together, I'll do it as I assume that person is interested in my thought process and not because he's baiting.

And throughout all of this, you're not taking any stance.

You start with the assumption that the draft is a crapshoot and the late 2nd rounds on are basically worthless errr *House money*. But at the same time, MB had 90 seconds to "plan" (since that's how you call it) during each pick between the Olofsson pick to the 62nd one to make sure a worthless asset like Hillis would be available at 66. That's your "logic scenario" (btw, yes, I know teams do discuss trades based on who could potentially be there). All of that, for a 5th rounder in a draft where talent dipped around the end of the 3rd.

And, you suggest all of this based on absolutely no evidence. None. Not only that, but you never actually take the stance that this is what you think MB did.

And then, you admit scouts know each other (which I actually brought up) and who they're high on. And guess who's at the top of the scouting pyramid, who would have most access to this info ? Hmmm...

So, here's actual evidence, cited straight from the horses mouth:

1. Timmins wanted Hillis badly.
2. Hillis was one of his favorite players.
3. He was nervous about trading down to 66. Didn't want to miss him by trading down.

So, let's actually try to further this debate, because we're stalling and I feel like none of the points I brought up are being addressed. You can obviously elaborate these questions, but without a definite yes/no answer to start them, I don't feel like we'll be able to go anywhere from here on (and I'll then have to bow out of our debate).

1. Does this sound like someone confident his player would be there?

2. Does this sound like someone who didn't mind dropping to the next guy on his list ?

2. Do you think Timmins recommended MB to go ahead with the trade or not ?

It's unfortunate you think I'm debating with you in bad faith...I feel I've done anything but.

But we're clearly at an impasse...I certainly respect you're opinion, but I still think you're going out of your way to find something negative in a situation that doesn't have room for it, at least IMO.

I'm really trying to see it from you're point of view, but I can't get past how there's anything negative in this situation.

We'll have to agree to disagree!

 

[417]

417, man. You aren't listening to what I'm saying.

I'm not arguing that the guy's post wasn't dumb. It was. There's no reason to get mad at Bergevin for doing what he did with those picks. It worked out, can't get mad at him because it was a good move. I completely agree with you on that. The guy probably was just looking to **** on Bergevin, you're right. Regardless, it was a pretty dumb opinion. We agree on that.

Now, what i'm saying is that stupid opinions, like that one, exist on every board on this website. Those kind of oddball opinions aren't exclusive to HFHabs.

I understood this...

It's not that opinion is stupid...I mean @Andrei79 laid out a pretty comprehensive account of why he thought it was a needless risk.

I don't agree with it whatsover, but it's far from a dumb opinion.

I just think you've got to be a real cynical Habs fan to find any wrong in this situation...might be time to just switch teams at that point.

The hate runs deep

 

[417]

1. Does this sound like someone confident his player would be there?

2. Does this sound like someone who didn't mind dropping to the next guy on his list ?

2. Do you think Timmins recommended MB to go ahead with the trade or not ?

Sorry I meant to respond to your questions in my previous post.

1. Well he doesn't control what other teams would do...of course he can't be confident about that.

2. Scouting is in Timmins blood, of course he didn't want to trade down. That's normal.

3. I'm not sure...can't tell from.that video, but I'm not sure it matters. He's not the GM.

 

[Adam Michaels]

It was a good trade, IMO, mostly because the value was there at 62. Even if they picked Hillis there were 4 or 5 other guys that I would've really liked to pick. My only beef was with Houde. More interesting players available.

edit: also, we drafted Fonstad ahead of Houde.

Only player drafted after Houde was Stapley.

 

[Sorinth]

Just because a move works out doesn't make it a smart move. If tomorrow we trade Pacioretty straight up for a 7th round pick, and that pick turns out to be the next Datsyuk it doesn't make it a good trade.

I don't want to read too much into an edited clip like this because we're going to miss a lot of what actually happened. But Bergevin hasn't exactly earned the benefit of the doubt. If Timmins was against the trade, or if Timmins wasn't even consulted on the trade then it was a dumb thing for Bergevin to do regardless of it working out.

 

[Miller Time]

I understood this...

It's not that opinion is stupid...I mean @Andrei79 laid out a pretty comprehensive account of why he thought it was a needless risk.

I don't agree with it whatsover, but it's far from a dumb opinion.

I just think you've got to be a real cynical Habs fan to find any wrong in this situation...might be time to just switch teams at that point.

The hate runs deep

Process vs outcome...

Pointing out flaws in MB's management approach when they get exposed like this is reasonable & relevant even when the outcome works out in our favour.

Bad decisions sometimes have favourable outcomes & vice versa. fans that are pinning for Montreal to have competent leadership won't, by definition, be content with poor decision-making.

I don't think that's a matter of hatred, if anything it's reflective of being consistent.

That MB continually acts in ways worthy of criticism is on him, not on those calling it out for what it is.

 

[417]

Process vs outcome...

Pointing out flaws in MB's management approach when they get exposed like this is reasonable & relevant even when the outcome works out in our favour.

Bad decisions sometimes have favourable outcomes & vice versa. fans that are pinning for Montreal to have competent leadership won't, by definition, be content with poor decision-making.

I don't think that's a matter of hatred, if anything it's reflective of being consistent.

That MB continually acts in ways worthy of criticism is on him, not on those calling it out for what it is.

Criticizing him because he traded down in the 3rd round, 4 spots down, to acquire an additional pick and still draft the player they wanted originally...

Is not a legitimate criticism, at least not IMO.

 

[Miller Time]

Criticizing him because he traded down in the 3rd round, 4 spots down, to acquire an additional pick and still draft the player they wanted originally...

Is not a legitimate criticism, at least not IMO.

It doesn't appear that you understood andrei79's repeated attempts to explain his critique...

He repeatedly stressed that trading down was not the issue.

It was clearly stated, why do you choose to ignore his point and argue something different?

 

[417]

It doesn't appear that you understood andrei79's repeated attempts to explain his critique...

He repeatedly stressed that trading down was not the issue.

It was clearly stated, why do you choose to ignore his point and argue something different?

I haven't ignored anything, I've acknowledged his point several times.

I just don't agree with it...and he or you can dress it up 100 different ways, at the end of it, it is still a critique on the decision to trade down.

 

[Andrei79]

It's unfortunate you think I'm debating with you in bad faith...I feel I've done anything but.

But we're clearly at an impasse...I certainly respect you're opinion, but I still think you're going out of your way to find something negative in a situation that doesn't have room for it, at least IMO.

I'm really trying to see it from you're point of view, but I can't get past how there's anything negative in this situation.

We'll have to agree to disagree!

It's an impasse for sure, but I don't think it's clear how much value I put into this.

As an isolated move: not much. But, it adds to my perception of how he manages on multiple levels.

I just have a hard time understanding the point of that move. If you trust your colleagues and your top guy has a player he absolutely wants, my view on this is its a gamble with very low upside.

And GMs make these awful moves all the time. Burke didn't want a 5'10" swedish defensemen at 12, so he traded down, took the gamble and was happy with Gardiner. His scouting staff wasnt happy though. Thats why you pay them the big bucks, so they target players and get quality over quantity.

 

[Maitz]

Timmins really wanted Hillis, when Bergy told him he traded down Timmins was so pissed. Honestly Hillis might be the steal of the draft, realllllyyyy like that pick.

 

[Miller Time]

I haven't ignored anything, I've acknowledged his point several times.

I just don't agree with it...and he or you can dress it up 100 different ways, at the end of it, it is still a critique on the decision to trade down.

no, it isn't. it's a critique on the decision-making process. You're not disagreeing with anyone but yourself.

As i understood his multiple posts and replies, he was speaking to process, you seem fully focused on outcome. two different arguments all together.

To argue that a good outcome is better than a bad outcome isn't much of an argument, nor something anyone would reasonably dispute.

I agree with Andrei79 in that several aspects of the interaction suggest poor leadership and decision-making on MB's part. That he nevertheless arrived at a positive outcome is fantastic for the team in the context of the asset move, but arguably has some negative potential to the extent that anything that prolongs his tenure is, overall, bad for the franchise.

 

[417]

no, it isn't. it's a critique on the decision-making process. You're not disagreeing with anyone but yourself.

As i understood his multiple posts and replies, he was speaking to process, you seem fully focused on outcome. two different arguments all together.

To argue that a good outcome is better than a bad outcome isn't much of an argument, nor something anyone would reasonably dispute.

I agree with Andrei79 in that several aspects of the interaction suggest poor leadership and decision-making on MB's part. That he nevertheless arrived at a positive outcome is fantastic for the team in the context of the asset move, but arguably has some negative potential to the extent that anything that prolongs his tenure is, overall, bad for the franchise.

I think you're drawing way too many conclusions based on a clip that 2yrs ago, you wouldn't even if been privy to see.

These types of decisions happen all the time at the draft, especially in later rounds.

You can talk about process and/or outcome all day long...at the end of the day, you're still critiquing a decision that doesn't warrant it, IMO.

You guys are over-analyzing this...just be happy it all worked out, not every aspect of the team needs to be broken down and compartmentalized.

A large segment of this fanbase lust for negativity as it relates to the Habs because they want Bergevin out...this is as lame of a talking point as i've seen.

But to each his own...I respect your stance and his.

 

[Miller Time]

I think you're drawing way too many conclusions based on a clip that 2yrs ago, you wouldn't even if been privy to see.

These types of decisions happen all the time at the draft, especially in later rounds.

You can talk about process and/or outcome all day long...at the end of the day, you're still critiquing a decision that doesn't warrant it, IMO.

You guys are over-analyzing this...just be happy it all worked out, not every aspect of the team needs to be broken down and compartmentalized.

A large segment of this fanbase lust for negativity as it relates to the Habs because they want Bergevin out...this is as lame of a talking point as i've seen.

But to each his own...I respect your stance and his.

Who said I wasn't happy it worked out?

If you are only interested in discussing outcomes, that fine, no need to make gross generalizations or assumptions to make your point.

MB got lucky, good for him & good for us... Nothing particularly interesting about discussing that.

 

[Kobe Armstrong]

It was a good trade, IMO, mostly because the value was there at 62. Even if they picked Hillis there were 4 or 5 other guys that I would've really liked to pick. My only beef was with Houde. More interesting players available.

edit: also, we drafted Fonstad ahead of Houde.

Good point I think we're in agreement, I just worry that we would have had to take a Francophone with the Fonstad pick if we didn't trade for the extra one. Fonstad would've been our last pick in the draft if we didn't trade for another 5th and 7th

Either way I'm happy to see this kind of video, I love inside looks like this

 

[danyhabsfan]

Houde was such a bad pick especially when you see who was drafted right after him.

 

[Kriss E]

Actually...it's the GM's call


well they got the extra pick AND Hillis.

What is the problem here?

The problem is it's a pointless risk. If you really want a player, don't risk trading down, especially if it's for 133rd pick. It ended up working for them this time, so good, but is this how they operate every time?
That is the concern Habs_icing and Andrei79 are talking about. You are looking at this one specific event, they are looking at it as a whole.
Why take these stupid risks? You can see a pattern with these dumb decisions. Why trade Subban for Weber? Why trade Eller but then go after Shaw? Why play this game with Radu and Markov? Why trade Galch for Domi (still early, but as of today, it seems pointless). I mean, it's happened quite a few times.
So this time, Bergevin goes again for a rather pointless move, especially considering you don't value 3rd round + picks all that much. Why we he move down if Timmis is really high on a player? Great that it worked out, this time, but it's failed many times before. They shouldn't do these pointless gambles.

 

[417]

The problem is it's a pointless risk. If you really want a player, don't risk trading down, especially if it's for 133rd pick. It ended up working for them this time, so good, but is this how they operate every time?
That is the concern Habs_icing and Andrei79 are talking about. You are looking at this one specific event, they are looking at it as a whole.
Why take these stupid risks? You can see a pattern with these dumb decisions. Why trade Subban for Weber? Why trade Eller but then go after Shaw? Why play this game with Radu and Markov? Why trade Galch for Domi (still early, but as of today, it seems pointless). I mean, it's happened quite a few times.
So this time, Bergevin goes again for a rather pointless move, especially considering you don't value 3rd round + picks all that much. Why we he move down if Timmis is really high on a player? Great that it worked out, this time, but it's failed many times before. They shouldn't do these pointless gambles.

So you're basically saying you don't ever want the team to trade down then?

Because I guarantee you, that at every pick the Habs have, they're targeting a guy.

Using this logic, they should never trade down because it's a stupid risk.

Why are you bringing up the Subban/Weber trade? The Shaw trade? Eller?

What do these have to do with moving down 4 spots in the middle of a draft?

I mean, I understand the point about the aggregate of all these decisions showing a certain pattern...

But this particular trade, doesn't apply.

 

[Kriss E]

So you're basically saying you don't ever want the team to trade down then?

Because I guarantee you, that at every pick the Habs have, they're targeting a guy.

Using this logic, they should never trade down because it's a stupid risk.

Why are you bringing up the Subban/Weber trade? The Shaw trade? Eller?

What do these have to do with moving down 4 spots in the middle of a draft?

I mean, I understand the point about the aggregate of all these decisions showing a certain pattern...

But this particular trade, doesn't apply.

I have no idea how you conclude that I'm saying we should never trade down.
There are plenty of instances when trading down is fine.
Let's say they have a kid in mind for 65th, that kid goes at 57. The next guy on their list is a meh pick they aren't particularly very high on and the next 5 guys they predict to be drafted are all pretty much in same category. Meanwhile they are offered two picks by another team to trade down to pick at 70th.
Then ya, trade down.
Or if Oilers offered us to swap their picks + trade Draisalt for Price or Weber, then ya, do it with a smile.

Many instances when it makes sense.

As for this particular move, I don't know enough about it, but if Timmins was really high on that prospect, and felt they would lose him, then ya, it applies as a rather pointless risk move.

 

[lamp9post]

Timmins really wanted Hillis, when Bergy told him he traded down Timmins was so pissed. Honestly Hillis might be the steal of the draft, realllllyyyy like that pick.

I don't know how you can infer that from the video. Hillis was the pick at 62, but I didn't see Timmins make any argument to keep the pick when Bergevin expressed his intent to trade it. And Bergevin asked the team on the phone who they wanted - I doubt they would have made the deal if the team moving up wanted Hillis. Sure, there is the risk of Hillis being taken from 63-65, but then Timmins simply moves on to the next guy on his list.