Confirmed with Link: Canadiens sign first round pick Nikita Scherbak to a three-year contract

[Ezpz]

Why?

The advantage of doing so sooner is the lower cap hit. What's the advantage of doing so later?

Not wasting a contract spot and potentially being rewarded with a second round pick because you blew it the first time.

 

[MrNasty]

So is this another thread that is centered around McCarron? Only because the argument didn't work for Scherbak?

 

[LyricalLyricist]

Not wasting a contract spot and potentially being rewarded with a second round pick because you blew it the first time.

If you don't offer a contract, you don't get a 2nd round pick.

If you offer a contract, they will sign it.

The 2nd round pick isn't a "oh, bad pick, here's another".

 

[Grant McCagg]

It would be the 55th pick. Project late first rounders are less likely to make the NHL than guys who fall in the second round due to things like size concerns or injury history. You can't teach talent.

From 2000-2009
25: Steve Ott, 55: Antoine Vermette
25: Alexander Perezhogin, 55: Jason Pominville
25: Cam Ward, 55: Denis Grot
25: Anthony Stewart, 55: Stefan Meyer
25: Rob Schremp, 55: Victor Oreskovich
25: Andrew Cogliano, 55: Adam McQuaid
25: Patrik Berglund, 55: Denis Bodrov
25: Patrick White, 55: TJ Galiardi
25: Greg Nemisz, 55: Marco Scandella
25: Jordan Caron, 55: Dmitri Orlov

Four full time NHLers vs six full time NHLers.

You lucked out on one specific number by coincidence...why not do the same thing with 24-54, 26-56, 27-57, etc. to get a closer representation to reality and not sheer luck? Believe me - there are a lot more future NHLers drafted in the 20-30 range than 50-60.

I can take a sample of 20 players and completely reverse your argument, and at least my method would make some sense..as it clearly demonstrates that you are a lot more likely to draft a future NHLer with a pick between 20-30 than you are with a pick between 50-60.

Let's look ten years back - where you can get a lot clearer result than looking at players drafted only five, six or seven or eight years ago such as you did. I will also add up the number of games played as opposed to arbitrarily judging who is or will be a solid NHLer and who isn't like you did...again - a lot more definitive method of showing whether one group has accomplished more than the other.

In the 2004 draft...the players picked between 20-30 have played 3020 NHL games and produced 1615 points. The picks between 50-60 have played 1617 games and produced 613 points. Only one goalie was drafted out of those 20 picks, and that was Schneider in the 20-30 range. The nine skaters drafted 20-30 have produced almost triple the production of the ten skaters drafted 50 to 60.

Just to make sure this isn't an aberration...I will also look at the 2005 draft...again...far enough away to properly judge..as opposed to looking at the 2006-09 drafts as you did. That will double the sample size of players to 45 over your 20 as I decided to include the last 15 picks in the second round (47 to 61) versus the last ten picks in the first round. This is where your theory really gets blown out of the water.

The last 15 players selected in the second round of the 2005 draft have played 829 games and scored 271 points. In other words, an average of 55 games played and 18 points for their career.

The last ten players picked in the first round have played 2312 games and scored 937 career points. An average of 232 games played and 93 points...more than five times the production.

To further emphasize this - lets compare the production of the players selected 20-30 in 2004 versus the last 15 picks in the second round of 2005...it ain't pretty. We are talking about an average of 161 career points versus an average of 18 career points. Almost ten times the production per player. A staggering difference that can allow us to draw a much clearer conclusion than you did.

So to say the Habs might be better off having not signed McCarron as they may well get a better pick in the 50-60 range next season is far fetched at best. I would be quite surprised if there will be a 6-6 kid with Mac's skillset available in any draft in the 50-60 range...and certainly not a player with Scherbak's size and skills combo...they don't last after the top 40 picks in any draft.

There's also the tendency of folks to overrate upcoming drafts. It's been going on for 50 years...next year's draft almost always looks better 12 months before it actually takes place. No bloody way would I consider letting McCarron go back in the draft so i can hope to draft someone better in the 50-60 range where history shows you have less than a 20 per cent chance of even drafting an NHL regular. McCarron is going to play in the NHl for a long time..I'd put the odds higher than 75 per cent that he's an NHL regular...versus less than 20 per cent if you draft 50-60 instead. A no brainer that they signed both Scherbak and McCarron IMO.

 

[Ezpz]

I didn't say he was guaranteed to bust or that it's a grave mistake Bergevin will look like a fool for years over. Just that waiting to sign an ELC is worth losing 50k cap space or whatever insignificant amount it is for having signing bonuses outside of slide years. Tim Bozon of last year pre-meningitis wouldn't have gotten an ELC but he was already signed for work in the previous season playing on a stacked team. McCarron of last year certainly wouldn't have gotten an ELC with any team in the league if he weren't a first rounder. Bergevin seems hurried to sign all our prospects for little logical reason.

 

[Tyson]

I didn't say he was guaranteed to bust or that it's a grave mistake Bergevin will look like a fool for years over. Just that waiting to sign an ELC is worth losing 50k cap space or whatever insignificant amount it is for having signing bonuses outside of slide years. Tim Bozon of last year pre-meningitis wouldn't have gotten an ELC but he was already signed for work in the previous season playing on a stacked team. McCarron of last year certainly wouldn't have gotten an ELC with any team in the league if he weren't a first rounder. Bergevin seems hurried to sign all our prospects for little logical reason.

I wonder if MB would have signed David Fischer this quickly....

 

[Knackys]

I do not know if this has already been mentioned in the thread because i am to lazy to read all the reply but this is the reason why MB sign alot of his prospect so early (i'll just copy/paste the text) :

They’ve been handing out contracts early all over the place: Hudon, Bozon, Collberg, etc. all got deals before they were eligible to play in the AHL, too.

There actually is a benefit, though: There’s some weird slide rule exemption on signing bonuses that actually cause these deals to be worth less in AAV when the contract does kick in.

Here’s McCarron’s page. His cap hit has already gone down nearly 31k: http://capgeek.com/player/2541

So in case you’re wondering why Bergevin signs prospects early, this is likely the main reason why. Future cap savings. Once they know a prospect will be worth giving a contract to, they try and sign him ASAP.

Link : http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2014/7/21/5923583/canadiens-sign-nikita-scherbak-entry-level-deal

(in the comments)

 

[WeThreeKings]

I wonder if MB would have signed David Fischer this quickly....

We got compensation for David Fischer.. so Gainey had offered him a contract at some point.

 

[Grant McCagg]

I didn't say he was guaranteed to bust or that it's a grave mistake Bergevin will look like a fool for years over. Just that waiting to sign an ELC is worth losing 50k cap space or whatever insignificant amount it is for having signing bonuses outside of slide years. Tim Bozon of last year pre-meningitis wouldn't have gotten an ELC but he was already signed for work in the previous season playing on a stacked team. McCarron of last year certainly wouldn't have gotten an ELC with any team in the league if he weren't a first rounder. Bergevin seems hurried to sign all our prospects for little logical reason.

You just keep piling up the cracks at McCarron. Why the personal agenda?

Many professional hockey men have a different opinion on McCarron than you do...to say no other team in the league would have signed him is baseless and unfounded. Buffalo's GM for one would sign McCarron is a split second if given the opportunity..but he'd be fighting off other teams as well. Philly would crawl over hot coals (Hextall and Holmy hand in hand) to get McCarron in their system, same with Boston, Toronto, Ottawa.....and most teams in the west. Hell - there's not a club in the league that wouldn't mind having McCarron in their farm system. Believe me...the regard for McCarron's long-term upside in the NHL ranks is infinitely higher than it is with the backseat scout.

Every scout I talked to about McCarron in the past couple of months commented on how good he looked by season's end...they all think he'll be a solid NHLer.

Would it be possible to get back on topic..and lay off the anti-McCarron agenda?

 

[montreal]

AFAIK, you don't get compensatory picks for CHL guys. You get one for 1st rounder NCAA guys to which you offered a contract but they didn't sign.

incorrect, you get a comp pick if you aren't able to sign your first round draft pick by the assigned deadline.

The compensation pick is only with college players so far we haven't gone that route with any of our 1st round picks under Bergevin. It will be interesting to see what happens when we do.

incorrect, see above.

Didn't they remove that "loophole" for NCAA players in the new CBA?

The NCAA loophole is something different and no they did not remove it. For example, Mark MacMillan could have opted out by June 1st to become a UFA on July 1st because of the NCAA loophole. Last year Mac Bennett could have done this as well, as both did not go directly to the NCAA after being drafted.

The only risk is giving a spot on the 50 contract limit for guys who might bust.

depends on the age of the prospect when drafted/signed but in most cases the contract will slid unless they crack the NHL roster so really they don't have an impact on the 50 contract limit. It would only count if said player was in the CHL and not junior aged. An example would be Thrower who turned 20 before Jan 1st so he could have played in the AHL thus if he had been signed then his contract would have counted against the 50 limit.

The Habs will now face this after next season since Scherbak is in the same boat as Thrower, both were late b days so Scherbak can go to the AHL after next season but if he doesn't then in 2015-2016 he would be in the WHL and counting against the 50 limit. Hope that clears it up.

We got compensation for David Fischer.. so Gainey had offered him a contract at some point.

I believe the Habs offered Fischer a contract after his Sophomore season but he turned them down to return to school, he went on to have his best season in the NCAA but then got injured and missed the rest of the season.

 

[MasterDecoy]

This happens to pretty much all first round picks... It's an incentive I would assume

this is correct

besides, it only takes a contract spot unless they make the nhl so who gives a damn when he signs them

 

[WeThreeKings]

You just keep piling up the cracks at McCarron. Why the personal agenda?

Many professional hockey men have a different opinion on McCarron than you do...to say no other team in the league would have signed him is baseless and unfounded. Buffalo's GM for one would sign McCarron is a split second if given the opportunity..but he'd be fighting off other teams as well. Philly would crawl over hot coals (Hextall and Holmy hand in hand) to get McCarron in their system, same with Boston, Toronto, Ottawa.....and most teams in the west. Hell - there's not a club in the league that wouldn't mind having McCarron in their farm system. Believe me...the regard for McCarron's long-term upside in the NHL ranks is infinitely higher than it is with the backseat scout.

Every scout I talked to about McCarron in the past couple of months commented on how good he looked by season's end...they all think he'll be a solid NHLer.

Would it be possible to get back on topic..and lay off the anti-McCarron agenda?

Habs fans have irrational hatred toward American players that the Habs have picked in the 1st round.

F Ron Hainsey, should have taken Frolov??
F Mike Komisarek, should have taken Pascal Leclaire
F Chris Higgins, should have taken Martin Vagner
F David Fischer, should have taken Giroux (okay they got this one right)
F McDonagh, should have taken Angelo Esposito
F Pacioretty, should have taken David Perron
F Tinordi, should have taken John McFarland
F McCarrron, should have taken Dauphin.

 

[Rise from the Ashes]

I like Bergevin's philosophy of getting top prospects signed right away. The contract does not kick in until the player turns pro. Depending on the person it gives the prospect confidence that the team believes in them. Scherbak is probably at least 2 years away. All reports I have read/heard say he is not: 1. defensively responsible/aware and 2. strong enough/fit enough for the NHL. That being said, I do see him as a Jakub Voracek styled player who likely wont be as fast as Voracek. That would be a perfect compliment to Galchenyuk - strong in the corners, good off the rush, good passer, and great vision - something Galchenyuk has in abundance. Put two players with great vision together and its difficult to stop.

Regarding McCarron: I think he will definitely be a fourth liner at the very worst and a third liner at the very best. Bryan Bickell saw an average of 10 minutes of icetime a game during the regular season in 2013-2014 but saw that number increase significantly in the playoffs because his size/strength/net front presence is invaluable in tight games where most of what a teams gameplan consists of is getting shots on net from the defence. Players like McCarron are necessary. If you can find one you think has a high ceiling and a low floor - go for it.

 

[Sterling Archer]

You lucked out on one specific number by coincidence...why not do the same thing with 24-54, 26-56, 27-57, etc. to get a closer representation to reality and not sheer luck? Believe me - there are a lot more future NHLers drafted in the 20-30 range than 50-60.

I can take a sample of 20 players and completely reverse your argument, and at least my method would make some sense..as it clearly demonstrates that you are a lot more likely to draft a future NHLer with a pick between 20-30 than you are with a pick between 50-60.

Let's look ten years back - where you can get a lot clearer result than looking at players drafted only five, six or seven or eight years ago such as you did. I will also add up the number of games played as opposed to arbitrarily judging who is or will be a solid NHLer and who isn't like you did...again - a lot more definitive method of showing whether one group has accomplished more than the other.

In the 2004 draft...the players picked between 20-30 have played 3020 NHL games and produced 1615 points. The picks between 50-60 have played 1617 games and produced 613 points. Only one goalie was drafted out of those 20 picks, and that was Schneider in the 20-30 range. The nine skaters drafted 20-30 have produced almost triple the production of the ten skaters drafted 50 to 60.

Just to make sure this isn't an aberration...I will also look at the 2005 draft...again...far enough away to properly judge..as opposed to looking at the 2006-09 drafts as you did. That will double the sample size of players to 45 over your 20 as I decided to include the last 15 picks in the second round (47 to 61) versus the last ten picks in the first round. This is where your theory really gets blown out of the water.

The last 15 players selected in the second round of the 2005 draft have played 829 games and scored 271 points. In other words, an average of 55 games played and 18 points for their career.

The last ten players picked in the first round have played 2312 games and scored 937 career points. An average of 232 games played and 93 points...more than five times the production.

To further emphasize this - lets compare the production of the players selected 20-30 in 2004 versus the last 15 picks in the second round of 2005...it ain't pretty. We are talking about an average of 161 career points versus an average of 18 career points. Almost ten times the production per player. A staggering difference that can allow us to draw a much clearer conclusion than you did.

So to say the Habs might be better off having not signed McCarron as they may well get a better pick in the 50-60 range next season is far fetched at best. I would be quite surprised if there will be a 6-6 kid with Mac's skillset available in any draft in the 50-60 range...and certainly not a player with Scherbak's size and skills combo...they don't last after the top 40 picks in any draft.

There's also the tendency of folks to overrate upcoming drafts. It's been going on for 50 years...next year's draft almost always looks better 12 months before it actually takes place. No bloody way would I consider letting McCarron go back in the draft so i can hope to draft someone better in the 50-60 range where history shows you have less than a 20 per cent chance of even drafting an NHL regular. McCarron is going to play in the NHl for a long time..I'd put the odds higher than 75 per cent that he's an NHL regular...versus less than 20 per cent if you draft 50-60 instead. A no brainer that they signed both Scherbak and McCarron IMO.

Thanks for saying so detailed and eloquently what must of us including myself were thinking but didn't have the data or the time to say.

Love and look forward to your posts. Keep em' coming!!

 

[montreal]

I like Bergevin's philosophy of getting top prospects signed right away. The contract does not kick in until the player turns pro.

That's incorrect as I stated a few posts up, it's not about the contract kicking in until the player turns pro. Contracts slid because said players are still junior aged (meaning they don't turn 20 before Jan 1st) so in the case of Scherbak, his contract will only slid one season, as next season he will still be junior aged so it will slid but then in 2015-2016 his contract will not slid as he turns 20 before Jan 1st.

 

[Grant McCagg]

Thanks for saying so detailed and eloquently what must of us including myself were thinking but didn't have the data or the time to say.

Love and look forward to your posts. Keep em' coming!!

Ha ha! Thanks. Ended up having a lazy day at home after spending the weekend helping a friend with a roofing job. Getting too old for that crap.

I don't mind looking up old draft trends/stats as it benefits my scouting in the long run as well..it never hurts to look at historical data...especially when you can shoot down yet another unfounded anti McCarron angle.

[/QUOTE] Habs fans have irrational hatred toward American players that the Habs have picked in the 1st round.

F Ron Hainsey, should have taken Frolov??
F Mike Komisarek, should have taken Pascal Leclaire
F Chris Higgins, should have taken Martin Vagner
F David Fischer, should have taken Giroux (okay they got this one right)
F McDonagh, should have taken Angelo Esposito
F Pacioretty, should have taken David Perron
F Tinordi, should have taken John McFarland
F McCarrron, should have taken Dauphin. [/QUOTE]

Thanks WTK..Impressed by your memory recall on those. Very glad the club didn't take Dauphin...I had McCarron ranked much higher, and even moreso now.

HF posters prefer the CHL guys to Americans they don't get to see much because of familiarity. They want the Habs to take players they saw play.

Out of those picks, the only ones I didn't like at the time were Fischer, and to a lesser extent Hainsey. Being that Hull is my "local" junior team I was well aware of Giroux, and disappointed when the club passed on him. In Hainsey's daft year I was disappointed that they passed on Orpik...ironically, also an American..but noted for his hits and toughness. I thought it was much needed in the team's prospect crop, and I didn't like the draft. I was disappointed that the team had two top 20 picks in such a crappy draft year..yet another one of Houle's short sighted mistakes.

Back then there was a bad leak in the scouting department. You knew every year who the club liked, especially out west. I knew the club liked Stevenson, Bilodeau, Vallis, Ward, Matt Higgins, Hainsey, Chouinard and Hossa before they were ever drafted.

 

[Kojo]

Habs fans have irrational hatred toward American players that the Habs have picked in the 1st round.

F Ron Hainsey, should have taken Frolov??
F Mike Komisarek, should have taken Pascal Leclaire
F Chris Higgins, should have taken Martin Vagner
F David Fischer, should have taken Giroux (okay they got this one right)
F McDonagh, should have taken Angelo Esposito
F Pacioretty, should have taken David Perron
F Tinordi, should have taken John McFarland
F McCarrron, should have taken Dauphin.

That's baseless accusation, "Habs fans have irrational hatred toward anything they don't know" would be more accurate.

 

[PricerStopDaPuck]

Nice. I lived the pick at the time and still love it and I'm looking forward to his development.

 

[Yep]

And love brownies too!

 

[habaholic]

The NCAA loophole is something different and no they did not remove it. For example, Mark MacMillan could have opted out by June 1st to become a UFA on July 1st because of the NCAA loophole. Last year Mac Bennett could have done this as well, as both did not go directly to the NCAA after being drafted

Thanks for clearing that up Montreal. I was certain it was removed for draftees 2013 and later.

 

[Brainiac]

I've also heard that the zamboni operator was extended for three more years. And the guy in charge of skate sharpening was going to test the market, so a good offer is on the table for him too. Should be done by the end of the week.

We still need to sign the guy in charge of cleaning the player's equipment (that job is not as easy as it looks) and Bergevin's administrative assistant.

Man, that's a busy summer. So many people to sign. Did I forget anyone? Nope, I think we're good.

 

[Haburger]

I've also heard that the zamboni operator was extended for three more years. And the guy in charge of skate sharpening was going to test the market, so a good offer is on the table for him too. Should be done by the end of the week.

We still need to sign the guy in charge of cleaning the player's equipment (that job is not as easy as it looks) and Bergevin's administrative assistant.

Man, that's a busy summer. So many people to sign. Did I forget anyone? Nope, I think we're good.

youpi is a ufa.

 

[Brainiac]

youpi is a ufa.

*****, completely forgot about him. But I swear it's not because of his strange color and exuberant personality.

Since he's getting up in age now, I'd give him the usual 3 years at market value.

 

[Corncob]

Not wasting a contract spot and potentially being rewarded with a second round pick because you blew it the first time.

(a) Doesn't waste a contract spot this year unless he makes the NHL. In which case, we'd need him under contract. How long were you planning on leaving it?

(b) So, you leave it a couple of years and the player turns out to be a bust and then you...offer them a contract? Why would they not sign it?

 

[Brainiac]

Not wasting a contract spot and potentially being rewarded with a second round pick because you blew it the first time.

Wasting a contract spot, man. That's worse than people not picking up after their dog.

We should really keep that contract spot... just in case Rutherford calls Bergy and offers Crosby for a 2nd round pick.