Prospect Info: Josh Brook II

[wildD]

Since Fleury and Juulsen are ahead of Brook there no rush for Brook. So we should relax take and wait and see approach, watch him develop in the A for 2 years and see if he gets better.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Since Fleury and Juulsen are ahead of Brooks there no rush for Brooks. So we should relax take and wait and see approach, watch him develop in the A for 2 years and see if he gets better.

When you have options on the big club, it's a good thing and it allows us to be patient. Prospect competition for spots on the Habs is also a very good situation. Peer pressure makes people focus on trying to pass each other.

 

[jaffy27]

When you have options on the big club, it's a good thing and it allows us to be patient. Prospect competition for spots on the Habs is also a very good situation. Peer pressure makes people focus on trying to pass each other.

Completely agree...that prospect depth afford to be patient approach reminds me of the 2012 season......

 

[Habs Halifax]

Completely agree...that prospect depth afford to be patient approach reminds me of the 2012 season......

If I was the President, the vision statement I would implement is we want to never have a prospect pool worse than top 10 in the NHL. We have a hard time signing impact UFA's so a new strategy needs to be the focus and it can't just be for 3 or 4 years.

Never trade 1st or 2nd for short term gains. When you stock pile prospects, you let them grow, cherry pick who we want/need and trade the surplus for more futures. Keep the ball rolling.

If we are a legit cup contender and the right circumstance comes along for a impact player with short term left in his contract, maybe then we can consider using futures. More of the exception to the rule but the exception is not the rule.

 

[montreal]

I was far from being sold on his defensive play in my viewings in the last 2 years. To me it was flagrant; he sucked in his own zone under pressure, especially behind the net. Will see if he corrects this, that being said, I expected him to struggle defensively in the AHL. I'm surprised he's not producing more tho.

I certainly wouldn't say he sucks in his own end, but I have said in the past that he needs to work on his defensive game. In Laval so far it's not been bad, just that he's made some poor decisions at times but seems to be learning what he can or can't do. It's natural for an offensive D to make mistakes in his first month or two in the AHL at 20.

Kind of was expecting some sort of a step forward,but maybe will be a late bloomer. not comparing him to Petry,but even Petry was not that formidable early on.

it's too early, take a look at Fleury last year from the start of the season to the end and to where he's at now. Let's see where Brook is at in May and next year. If he hasn't progressed then we got problems.

 

[angusyoung]

it's too early, take a look at Fleury last year from the start of the season to the end and to where he's at now. Let's see where Brook is at in May and next year. If he hasn't progressed then we got problems.

You'd know better than I,did not follow Fleury as much as you clearly. I look at Juulsen as well in that area, and he was overall superior to Fleury in the NHL,imho. Fleury has looked fine,but not as sharp as Juuulsen did. Not sure what Habs will do coming up. Lots of RD in the system. Hopefully Brook will progress this season,but no need to hit the alarm yet,plenty of time to allow him to grow if needed.

 

[montreal]

You'd know better than I,did not follow Fleury as much as you clearly. I look at Juulsen as well in that area, and he was overall superior to Fleury in the NHL,imho. Fleury has looked fine,but not as sharp as Juuulsen did. Not sure what Habs will do coming up. Lots of RD in the system. Hopefully Brook will progress this season,but no need to hit the alarm yet,plenty of time to allow him to grow if needed.

Fleury last year in Laval was impressive with the physical game, scoring goals, moving the puck. But struggled with his defensive play especially when paired with Ouellet. So I am surprised that Fleury is even in the NHL although I started to wonder if he struggles were more due to Ouellet but on the other hand Ouellet hasn't looked that bad defensively so far this year but he's at RD instead of LD so I don't know what impact that has on his game.

Juulsen clearly has the better defensive game then Fleury or Brook, as it's his bread and butter but he doesn't have the skating/mobility/speed and puck moving abilities that Fleury or Brook have.

It will be very interesting to see what they do, the good news is there's no rush so they can bring Brook along slowly, let Juulsen find his game in Laval and hope that Fleury can progress at the NHL level. Then go from there as far as trying to figure out what to do with Petry/Weber at some point.

What they need is one of Brook, Fleury, Juulsen to turn into a top pairing D on a contender, which is a huge ask and unlikely to happen just based off where they were picked. I think Brook has the upside for it but I'm starting to have doubts that he will reach it. As I said it's early for all involved so we'll see how things look by the end of the season.

They also have 3 D in Norlinder, Romanov and Harris who can play LD or RD equally so while we have the need for LD's much more as long as Mete holds his own which should be the case, then in a few years you could have Struble coming up if he can progress but for now is more just something to dream on. But out of Mete, Norlinder, Romanov, Brook, Harris, Fleury, Juulsen, Fairbrother, they should at least have a very solid group in say 2-3 years with hopefully Struble not far behind.

Of course it's unlikely that will reach their ceilings and some may not progress, plus there may not be a top pairing D at LD or RD and that would then present a massive problem, in terms of on a contending team at least so then you would have to hope that someone can step up by the time we are a contender cause trading for one will be very difficult.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

At what point do we start to worry about Brook's lack of production? He's at 23 career AHL games with 2 goals and one measly assist. Young defencemen obviously take time but at this rate you have to figure he's in Laval for at least two years. I'm convinced we will want to re-sign Petry.

You mean Brook hasn't made Petry expendable already? I could have sworn I read that multiple times here.

 

[montreal]

You mean Brook hasn't made Petry expendable already? I could have sworn I read that multiple times here.

I would most certainly trade Petry but not because of Brook, depending on the return of course.

 

[Andrei79]

When do we get worried about Brook ? He's been off since training camp.

 

[montreal]

When do we get worried about Brook ? He's been off since training camp.

I moved it here since we were just talking about it today. Not his best game tonight that's for sure but he's been on the 3rd pairing and tonight he was moved up to the 2nd pairing. He's shown flashes and overall I'd say he hasn't been bad but I expected him to show a lot more then he has. I've dropped him down in my rankings a bit as him and Poehling have not impressed in Laval and their starts are troubling.

 

[angusyoung]

Fleury last year in Laval was impressive with the physical game, scoring goals, moving the puck. But struggled with his defensive play especially when paired with Ouellet. So I am surprised that Fleury is even in the NHL although I started to wonder if he struggles were more due to Ouellet but on the other hand Ouellet hasn't looked that bad defensively so far this year but he's at RD instead of LD so I don't know what impact that has on his game.

Juulsen clearly has the better defensive game then Fleury or Brook, as it's his bread and butter but he doesn't have the skating/mobility/speed and puck moving abilities that Fleury or Brook have.

It will be very interesting to see what they do, the good news is there's no rush so they can bring Brook along slowly, let Juulsen find his game in Laval and hope that Fleury can progress at the NHL level. Then go from there as far as trying to figure out what to do with Petry/Weber at some point.

What they need is one of Brook, Fleury, Juulsen to turn into a top pairing D on a contender, which is a huge ask and unlikely to happen just based off where they were picked. I think Brook has the upside for it but I'm starting to have doubts that he will reach it. As I said it's early for all involved so we'll see how things look by the end of the season.

They also have 3 D in Norlinder, Romanov and Harris who can play LD or RD equally so while we have the need for LD's much more as long as Mete holds his own which should be the case, then in a few years you could have Struble coming up if he can progress but for now is more just something to dream on. But out of Mete, Norlinder, Romanov, Brook, Harris, Fleury, Juulsen, Fairbrother, they should at least have a very solid group in say 2-3 years with hopefully Struble not far behind.

Of course it's unlikely that will reach their ceilings and some may not progress, plus there may not be a top pairing D at LD or RD and that would then present a massive problem, in terms of on a contending team at least so then you would have to hope that someone can step up by the time we are a contender cause trading for one will be very difficult.

As you say,early still. can see Fleury or Juulsen being a 5,6,maybe a notch more and Brook has more potential,if he can reach it. Liked Juulsen a lot before he got hurt,had a decent all round game and more dependable than Fleury on D from the get go.Some good options going down the road.

 

[26Mats]

As you say,early still. can see Fleury or Juulsen being a 5,6,maybe a notch more and Brook has more potential,if he can reach it. Liked Juulsen a lot before he got hurt,had a decent all round game and more dependable than Fleury on D from the get go.Some good options going down the road.

Let's say Juulsen returns to form in a month or so. What happens in MTL? Best case scenario: he can play the left side and be Fleury's partner.

With Fleury and Juulsen both seeming ready, and with Weber and Petry seemingly here next year, I'd be fine with Brook taking this year and next year to develop the finer points of his game in the AHL.

As a matter of fact, Fleury himself is still learning the pro game as he goes. It wouldn't be the end of the world for him to get more time in Laval, if Juulsen proves to be better right now.

 

[angusyoung]

Let's say Juulsen returns to form in a month or so. What happens in MTL? Best case scenario: he can play the left side and be Fleury's partner.

With Fleury and Juulsen both seeming ready, and with Weber and Petry seemingly here next year, I'd be fine with Brook taking this year and next year to develop the finer points of his game in the AHL.

As a matter of fact, Fleury himself is still learning the pro game as he goes. It wouldn't be the end of the world for him to get more time in Laval, if Juulsen proves to be better right now.

Why not,the Habs must know whom would fit better.Don't see a big deal about playing on the other side.

 

[26Mats]

Why not,the Habs must know whom would fit better.Don't see a big deal about playing on the other side.

Some (most?) dmen just don't do well playing their opposite side.

 

[angusyoung]

Some (most?) dmen just don't do well playing their opposite side.

You might be very right,just don't get it why. Played my share on opposites side and found no difference,better for offense on the other side though.

 

[26Mats]

You might be very right,just don't get it why. Played my share on opposites side and found no difference,better for offense on the other side though.

Yes, it will be very interesting to see how things play out when, hopefully, Juulsen is back to his old self. They'll probably try Juulsen and/or Fleury on the left at some point and see how it works.

 

[26Mats]

I would most certainly trade Petry but not because of Brook, depending on the return of course.

I don't think Petry will be traded until a dman emerges that can at least be a solid 2nd pair guy.

Trading Petry would be a huge step back in the short term, even if it makes sense in the long term, given Petry only has so many years left and we could probably get really good assets for him.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

We can afford to be patient with him, and he clearly needs time. Let him marinate until he dominates.

 

[montreal]

You might be very right,just don't get it why. Played my share on opposites side and found no difference,better for offense on the other side though.

was the same, didn't have any trouble playing either side as a RH but everyone is different and of course I only played at the USHS level back when it was much weaker. But I guess it's more about comfort and trust, I know some players have said they hated it, while I watch Romanov, Harris especially and they can play both sides in the same game and not miss a beat.

I don't think Petry will be traded until a dman emerges that can at least be a solid 2nd pair guy.

Trading Petry would be a huge step back in the short term, even if it makes sense in the long term, given Petry only has so many years left and we could probably get really good assets for him.

well I can't say I like what management is doing and haven't trusted their plan or vision to carry it out. I don't think they will trade Petry and I think it's a mistake since we could get something really good for him. But we'll see what happens.

 

[26Mats]

We can afford to be patient with him, and he clearly needs time. Let him marinate until he dominates.

With Weber, Petry, Fleury, and Juulsen, there's absolutely no reason to rush him. Will be interesting to see where he's at at 2021 camp. I think he'll have improved a lot.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

I would most certainly trade Petry but not because of Brook, depending on the return of course.

I don't think it's a good idea to.trade arguably your best dman when your d is already atrocious. I think its a good idea if you want to lose forever, but I don't.

The idea of trading him for futures and magic beans just doesn't really help us short term or long term, we'd be crossing our fingers hoping one of the picks/prospects ever even become close to Petry level, which tbh is completely unlikely.

I would trade Kulak who many said was a decent 4 after last year, he's barely a 6/7th. Rielly, if we could ever get a 5th rounder back then see ya, but no, trading Petry would be a pretty big mistake unless the return was undeniable, but that's seldom the case.

I respect your opinion, but I don't agree.

 

[26Mats]

I don't think it's a good idea to.trade arguably your best dman when your d is already atrocious. I think its a good idea if you want to lose forever, but I don't.

The idea of trading him for futures and magic beans just doesn't really help us short term or long term, we'd be crossing our fingers hoping one of the picks/prospects ever even become close to Petry level, which tbh is completely unlikely.

I would trade Kulak who many said was a decent 4 after last year, he's barely a 6/7th. Rielly, if we could ever get a 5th rounder back then see ya, but no, trading Petry would be a pretty big mistake unless the return was undeniable, but that's seldom the case.

I respect your opinion, but I don't agree.

It depends on how the league perceives Petry. We found one GM at least that highly valued Pacioretty and gave us a really good prospect + for Petry. I would have been happy just getting Suzuki for Pacioretty. So, if there's a GM out there willing to give us a Suzuki level prospect, preferably on D, for Petry, imo it's a good deal in the long run. We don't know how many good years Petry has left. Just like Pacioretty, there's also risk in keeping him. Petry will turn 34 in the first year of his next contract, which will be starting the season after next. If he's still good, he'll have earned at least a 4 year deal on the market, so we'll have to give him that to retain him. Do you want to give a 34 year old big money over 4 years? It's a risk.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Let's say Juulsen returns to form in a month or so. What happens in MTL? Best case scenario: he can play the left side and be Fleury's partner.

With Fleury and Juulsen both seeming ready, and with Weber and Petry seemingly here next year, I'd be fine with Brook taking this year and next year to develop the finer points of his game in the AHL.

As a matter of fact, Fleury himself is still learning the pro game as he goes. It wouldn't be the end of the world for him to get more time in Laval, if Juulsen proves to be better right now.

I didn't find Juulsen all that effective/ready when he was here before the eye injury. His offense was limited, transition meh and he seemed to get walked once or twice every game because of his poor gap control. He'd get burned to the outside and not have the footspeed to recover. I have never been a fan of his.

If he returns to form he wouldn't make the team. Fleury is better already, petry/weber, there is no.place for another struggling number 6/7 damn on the roster either. We already have Kulak/Really/Folin.

We can afford to wait for Brook because he doesn't look close to being ready. I'm a bit concerned, but I have always liked him as a prospect, so I think he'll turn the corner,but you never know.

 

[montreal]

I don't think it's a good idea to.trade arguably your best dman when your d is already atrocious. I think its a good idea if you want to lose forever, but I don't.

The idea of trading him for futures and magic beans just doesn't really help us short term or long term, we'd be crossing our fingers hoping one of the picks/prospects ever even become close to Petry level, which tbh is completely unlikely.

I would trade Kulak who many said was a decent 4 after last year, he's barely a 6/7th. Rielly, if we could ever get a 5th rounder back then see ya, but no, trading Petry would be a pretty big mistake unless the return was undeniable, but that's seldom the case.

I respect your opinion, but I don't agree.

and if they lose Petry to UFA while not winning anything doesn't help us either. It's not magic beans, it's having a plan and building for the future and trusting that you have one of the better scouts. This organization has done nothing but spin it's wheels for 25 years, to fix that imo we need some outside the box thinking, which I don't see us getting which means I don't see us trading Petry which I think is a mistake. Trying to get half pregnant doesn't work imo, either go for it for rip the band aid off and fix the shit from top to bottom. Not saying either will work but I'd rather go all in on one direction then half assing it.

Trading Reilly, I got to think he would clear waivers as his 1.5M cap hit next year while also sucking is not likely to attract any teams unless they are really desperate. Plus we have 12 picks including 6 in the 4th/5th round so adding another 5th is a waste of time. Kulak, the guy they just signed to a 3 year deal but can't crack an already atrocious as you say (I haven't seen a full game yet so I don't know how they look) will likely mean they don't get much of anything unless a team really believes in his future. Petry or Weber are our only trade assets on defense and imo you need to keep one of them to help transition all the younger D that are incoming.

I would 100% have traded Petry last year when I felt his value was at the highest, take the hit now and try to move up in the draft to get the best local talent we may see for many years. But as of today then it clearly won't happen since they are in a playoff spot, we'll see if that holds cause if the D is that atrocious I don't think the offense will be able to carry them all season and then what, back to picking 15th OA or so, we got lucky last time, what are the odds we get lucky in back to back drafts like that? Even if we do it sounds like poor planning to me as hope is not a strategy.