Evaluate the Sekac/DSP trade

[Lshap]

Sekac's optics were great. I was a fan and believed there was real potential.

The outcome taught me how easy it is to overlay our prejudices onto a player. We think we see something, then create a stubborn opinion around that assumption and refuse to budge.

The Jiri Sekac Affair, as it is now officially known, showed me the difference between thinking you know and actually knowing.

 

[Harpo]

Sekac's optics were great. I was a fan and believed there was real potential.

The outcome taught me how easy it is to overlay our prejudices onto a player. We think we see something, then create a stubborn opinion around that assumption and refuse to budge.

The Jiri Sekac Affair, as it is now officially known, showed me the difference between thinking you know and actually knowing.

I feel the same way about it.

And, regarding Sekac, I still have the tendancy to think "But what if?"

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I feel the same way about it.

And, regarding Sekac, I still have the tendancy to think "But what if?"

Same. Perezhogin is another one. I really wanted to believe.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Same. Perezhogin is another one. I really wanted to believe.

Neither guy really got much of a chance to learn and develop the kind of systems hockey that coaches ingrain over here. I think both guys would (have) make (made) better 3rd line winger options than guys like Paul Byron, for example, but none of them got the same opportunities Byron got to fail as a top 6 player and transition into a two-way 3rd line guy. They didn't meet the best case scenario expectations when acquired and were summarily dismissed as "unnecessary". Coaches are notorious these days for ignoring tools that separate players from the "average" and forcing them through the mold of simple, replaceable redundancy that emphasizes a lot of wasted energy while discouraging skill to a large degree. Such is the nuuu NHL.

 

[JusticeBeaver]

Neither guy really got much of a chance to learn and develop the kind of systems hockey that coaches ingrain over here. I think both guys would (have) make (made) better 3rd line winger options than guys like Paul Byron, for example, but none of them got the same opportunities Byron got to fail as a top 6 player and transition into a two-way 3rd line guy. They didn't meet the best case scenario expectations when acquired and were summarily dismissed as "unnecessary". Coaches are notorious these days for ignoring tools that separate players from the "average" and forcing them through the mold of simple, replaceable redundancy that emphasizes a lot of wasted energy while discouraging skill to a large degree. Such is the nuuu NHL.

I have to disagree with this. It seems to come up quite often on these boards about players not getting the opportunity other players have. Byron is an excellent defender. Not saying he is a top 6 but he is very reliable defensively and we were pretty thinned out on top 6 at that point.

If Sekac was truely as good as you thought he was, he would of earned his spot despite Therrien. In the end, between here, Anaheim, Chicago and Arizona, the guy was given third line minutes but barely produced at a 4th liners rate. I wanted him to succeed, but there's obviously more to something about his game that doesn't translate and I didn't follow him enough to pick out what he was doing right or wrong.

 

[417]

Neither guy really got much of a chance to learn and develop the kind of systems hockey that coaches ingrain over here. I think both guys would (have) make (made) better 3rd line winger options than guys like Paul Byron, for example, but none of them got the same opportunities Byron got to fail as a top 6 player and transition into a two-way 3rd line guy. They didn't meet the best case scenario expectations when acquired and were summarily dismissed as "unnecessary". Coaches are notorious these days for ignoring tools that separate players from the "average" and forcing them through the mold of simple, replaceable redundancy that emphasizes a lot of wasted energy while discouraging skill to a large degree. Such is the nuuu NHL.

I think in Sekac's case...his refusal or reluctance to play in a non-offensive role played against him.

Paul Byron, the example you used, was a scoring star in juniors...when he got to the NHL he understood that because of his limitations, he probably would never be used in the same role he had in juniors, so he's made himself useful in a different way.

 

[walsy37]

The Habs took a shot on an undrafted FA, it didn't pan out and most of them don't. At least they were able to get another asset back for him before he left for the KHL, which a few people at the time of the trade correctly said he would be back in the KHL in 2 years or so. I liked the trade at the time, defended DSP even when he looked terrible right after the trade and said to wait and see how he adjusts after the off-season. Was happy with how he played to start the year but grew more frustrated with him as the season went on. Did not want to see him traded, but now we have to see if Matteau can turn it around or not.

The Habs have had terrible luck with signing undrafted Euro FA's,



At least Diaz got us Weise which led to us getting a 2nd rounder and Danault. Sekac to DSP is a win, but DSP to Matteau is looking terrible so far.

Looks like Sekac is off to a decent start in the KHL along with Holloway and Engqvist.

How many Habs fans will jump off roofs if a line of those three turns into something special in the KHL?

 

[scrubadam]

Neither guy really got much of a chance to learn and develop the kind of systems hockey that coaches ingrain over here. I think both guys would (have) make (made) better 3rd line winger options than guys like Paul Byron, for example, but none of them got the same opportunities Byron got to fail as a top 6 player and transition into a two-way 3rd line guy. They didn't meet the best case scenario expectations when acquired and were summarily dismissed as "unnecessary". Coaches are notorious these days for ignoring tools that separate players from the "average" and forcing them through the mold of simple, replaceable redundancy that emphasizes a lot of wasted energy while discouraging skill to a large degree. Such is the nuuu NHL.

I didn't follow Calgary much but was Byron really used in the top 6 there multiple times? He was waived from Calgary so I cant imagine he was a top6 fixture. Here in Montreal he was mainly used in the bottom lines and he made himself useful to the team by being able to bring his speed to the PK. Byron is a really strange choice because he is a player who adapted to his teams needs and showed he had a very useful skill. Maybe those two guys should of done that instead of just relying on what they thought was their superior offensive skills.

 

[Kobe Armstrong]

Sekac's optics were great. I was a fan and believed there was real potential.

The outcome taught me how easy it is to overlay our prejudices onto a player. We think we see something, then create a stubborn opinion around that assumption and refuse to budge.

The Jiri Sekac Affair, as it is now officially known, showed me the difference between thinking you know and actually knowing.

We're all victims of confirmation bias everyday

 

[Whitesnake]

Sekac's optics were great. I was a fan and believed there was real potential.

The outcome taught me how easy it is to overlay our prejudices onto a player. We think we see something, then create a stubborn opinion around that assumption and refuse to budge.

The Jiri Sekac Affair, as it is now officially known, showed me the difference between thinking you know and actually knowing.

Absolutely true. Yet....one thing is really important to say....it happens to us, armchair people, and ALSO professionnals. They all draft players thinking they know something others don't. They all trade for players thinking they will have the advantage over the others or that they will be able to get this guy going, something the others weren't able to.

EVERYTIME somebody makes a move, it means that they have an opinion and will go to the limit to be sure that they were right to begin with. Amateurs and pros. I don't think we should be judged more harshly than the ones paid to take those décisions.

I think in Sekac's case...his refusal or reluctance to play in a non-offensive role played against him.

Paul Byron, the example you used, was a scoring star in juniors...when he got to the NHL he understood that because of his limitations, he probably would never be used in the same role he had in juniors, so he's made himself useful in a different way.

Good point. Just like what happened to Jan Bulis after he scored 4 goals in a game....didn't see himself as a bottom 6 anymore and then he was done.

 

[417]

Good point. Just like what happened to Jan Bulis after he scored 4 goals in a game....didn't see himself as a bottom 6 anymore and then he was done.

That's a blast from the past

Bulis-Juneau-Dackell checking line lol

 

[Whitesnake]

That's a blast from the past

Bulis-Juneau-Dackell checking line lol

Yeah not all memories are great to be remembered....

 

[LePoche69]

Absolutely true. Yet....one thing is really important to say....it happens to us, armchair people, and ALSO professionnals. They all draft players thinking they know something others don't. They all trade for players thinking they will have the advantage over the others or that they will be able to get this guy going, something the others weren't able to.

EVERYTIME somebody makes a move, it means that they have an opinion and will go to the limit to be sure that they were right to begin with. Amateurs and pros. I don't think we should be judged more harshly than the ones paid to take those décisions.

I don't think it's true. This is what WE think about pro scouts. But truth is, I never heard any scouts say "this prospect WILL SURELY become this or that", as I read quite often from amateurs like us. The pro scouts always say things like "we like this or this aspect", or "he reminds us this or this player", or "we think he may develop into..." I never heard any pro scouts say certainties.

 

[Whitesnake]

I don't think it's true. This is what WE think about pro scouts. But truth is, I never heard any scouts say "this prospect WILL SURELY become this or that", as I read quite often from amateurs like us. The pro scouts always say things like "we like this or this aspect", or "he reminds us this or this player", or "we think he may develop into..." I never heard any pro scouts say certainties.

What they say to us is different than what they say amongst them. How do you think they are able to sell their guys to the head scout, or GM? You have to be convincing. You certainly have to be more convincing that "he probably, maybe, should become a good player, maybe...". 'Cause if you do, somebody else will come up and say something more convincing and then THEIR player will be chosen. As crapshoot any décisions are, you need to be more certain that it will work that it wouldn't. The day you are not, is the day a move won't be made.

Just like the scout was for Fischer in 2006 and how he recommended him to Timmins. When Price was selected in 2005, you see a clip of Gainey asking Timmins "are you sure" prior to the selection. If Timmins respond "Nah, not really." do you think we still pick him? So amongst themselves, they are certainly more assertive. In front of us? Of course not...they have to manage our expectations. And yet, I've heard Timmins say stuff that looked pretty much like certainties....like diamond in the rough, or hidden gem.....for that to happen, it needs to happen. But as certain they can be, they will make mistake. And it's the name of the game. But if it is for them, it should be for us too.

But everyboyd in here knows that no matter the tone we use, NOBODY knows the future. When we say "This guy WILL become this or that", it means "I THINK that this guy will become this or that. I don't think we have to write "I think" all the time though. And even if we don't know the future, let say we base our analysis on a lot of different things....what if our certainty happen to not materialize? Were we wrong because our analysis sucked to begin with? Or did we happen to be wrong because OTHER things happen along the way that we couldn't know about when we had our initial analysis? And since this is a board and we still have to pronounce ourselves instead of just "waiting and seeing 'cause you know professionnals know best", shouldn't we still be excused as we don't possess all the infos needed to make a more accurate assessment? And does not having all the infos means that we should shut up about it? If so, what,s the point of a hockey forum?

 

[V13]

Yeah not all memories are great to be remembered....

They did well in shutting down Thornton/Rolston/Guerin/Murray etc in one of those series against Boston. Don't remember the exact year (Its 2002 or 2003 i htink) but they were prretty useful and one of the reason why the Habs didn't get lit up by the Bruins powerhouse and why they won the serie. I also recall Juneau scoring a very important goal but my memory could be fuzzy on this one

Aside from that not much to remember but they had their moments. And you could add Sundstrom to the mix as he played with Juneau and Dackell quite a lot as well.

 

[montreal]

How many Habs fans will jump off roofs if a line of those three turns into something special in the KHL?

I don't think it would matter much until he does it in the NHL. Some went way overboard (as usual) thinking that the Habs just made a terrible blunder by trading away Sekac while others said he would be in the KHL in 2 or so years. Now if he comes back to the NHL in time and lights it up, then management is going to look bad for giving up on him so soon (along with a few other NHL gm's).

 

[Lshap]

Absolutely true. Yet....one thing is really important to say....it happens to us, armchair people, and ALSO professionnals. They all draft players thinking they know something others don't. They all trade for players thinking they will have the advantage over the others or that they will be able to get this guy going, something the others weren't able to.

EVERYTIME somebody makes a move, it means that they have an opinion and will go to the limit to be sure that they were right to begin with. Amateurs and pros. I don't think we should be judged more harshly than the ones paid to take those décisions.

Of course there's uncertainty in every move. No matter how professional the scouting, you're still evaluating a human being.

But there's a wealth of information available to scouts and GMs that fans don't have. We're not in the locker room so we don't hear a player's interaction with the coach, or whether he's a team-player, or how he responds to pressure or criticism, or how ego-driven he is. Personality plays a big part in the success of any professional group, but it's the lower chunk of the iceberg you and I will never see. Yeah, scouts and GMs get trades wrong plenty of times, but they're much better informed than we are to make them.

 

[Dagistitsyn]

Atleast we got Matteau at the end of the day......

 

[Whitesnake]

Of course there's uncertainty in every move. No matter how professional the scouting, you're still evaluating a human being.

But there's a wealth of information available to scouts and GMs that fans don't have. We're not in the locker room so we don't hear a player's interaction with the coach, or whether he's a team-player, or how he responds to pressure or criticism, or how ego-driven he is. Personality plays a big part in the success of any professional group, but it's the lower chunk of the iceberg you and I will never see. Yeah, scouts and GMs get trades wrong plenty of times, but they're much better informed than we are to make them.

Sure they are. But it doesn't stop them for making idiots move. That's my point. So what should we do? Stop commenting? Stop giving our opinions because we might be wrong? Or can people just accept this forum for what it is...a hockey forum, when people will give opinions even if they don't have every information there is? Let's just accept this for what it is...a hockey forum made of fans that still want to comment even though they are not professionnals. And if sometimes if means going at it with some heated arguments and thinking that we actually might be right....so be it. Small price to pay. Let just hope though for the same fans that if people can openly voice their opinion, can also openly come back and admit when they are wrong.

 

[Lshap]

Sure they are. But it doesn't stop them for making idiots move. That's my point. So what should we do? Stop commenting? Stop giving our opinions because we might be wrong? Or can people just accept this forum for what it is...a hockey forum, when people will give opinions even if they don't have every information there is? Let's just accept this for what it is...a hockey forum made of fans that still want to comment even though they are not professionnals. And if sometimes if means going at it with some heated arguments and thinking that we actually might be right....so be it. Small price to pay. Let just hope though for the same fans that if people can openly voice their opinion, can also openly come back and admit when they are wrong.

I think we're all aware of the mandate of this hockey-forum. Opinions are the fuel for discussion. However, opinions that don't recognize their own limitations are the sand in the fuel tank.