HF Habs: So who would you like Habs to draft @ 15?

So which would you draft at 15?


  • Total voters
    287
  • Poll closed .

DramaticGloveSave

Voice of Reason
Apr 17, 2017
14,643
13,357
And you realize there's no value in it, right ? Tkachuk wasn't the clear BPA at 3 on draft day, which is all that's relevant here and in the context of the upcoming 2019 draft. If we had their 2020 point totals, then we could use that "strickest" definition of BPA, but we don't. That's why in that context the very definition isn't even standard. If we're going by who's going to score more points: well there's no real way to predict this when players don't have much seperation between them. If we're going with what's been accomplished, then everyone will weigh performances in different leagues according to their own biases. If we go with translatable skills, then two different pair of eyes will value differently as well. Obviously, this doesn't apply when there's a very significant gap between players (ex: Kotkaniemi and Cam Hillis), but when we're looking at the players picked between 3 and 10 last year, that's a different matter.

If I had to give an example from a professional, I would refer to Gordie Clark, who had Kravtsov as the 2nd best forward and as an NHL ready body. Meaning, he likely had more than 3 NHL ready bodies last year. (I will also add, for form, that context matters: a rookie playing with Mark Stone on a team with multiple guys flirting 0.8ppg and over will likely produce more than another one on a team, in a lower scoring league, that 1. Doesn't score 2. doesn't get equal opportunity, despite producing the most offensive chances).

If I had to give an example closer to home, I would refer to you. You had Zadina as the clear no. 3 player. You had him scoring 20 goals this year. (wait... so this means you didn't have Svechnikov as an NHL ready draftee ? Only Dahlin, Tkachuk and Zadina ? Really ????). Putting yourself in your own shoes at the time of the draft, it wasn't so clear who was BPA now was it ? Now, imagine if you had scouted other players, notably Kravstov (and Kotkaniemi too actually). This might have been even less clear. This is why you get guys like Clark and Chainey who aren't willing to call Tkachuk the no.3 clear BPA.
Tkachuk was BPA at 3, and his season last year only proved it. I'm sure every GM in the league could have told you that, it was obvious. Sure, we didn't 100% know it, but why is that relevant? We don't 100% know anything, we don't 100% know that the reality we experience isn't a simulation... but this isn't the discussion. The discussion was who was the best player available at 3 last year, and the answer was and still is Tkachuk. We chose Kotkaniemi because of potential and projection (if he could add strength and improve his skating etc), and I had Zadina 3rd on my board for the same reason. Why is this so difficult for you to wrap your head around?
 

DramaticGloveSave

Voice of Reason
Apr 17, 2017
14,643
13,357
How ? How can you even say this when it's one year after the draft ? You can make the argument that he was further along in his development, and you'd be right, as everyone debated since day 1... But to call him the 3rd best player ? Wtf.
We are talking about who was the best player available at 3 at the time of the draft. Not the best prospect, but the best player in the present tense.
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
88,842
55,035
Citizen of the world
We are talking about who was the best player available at 3 at the time of the draft. Not the best prospect, but the best player in the present tense.
Well, sure, Tkachuk may have been the best player, but thats not exactly BPA, nobody drafts to get the best player, otherwise you'd see overagers go way earlier.
 

DramaticGloveSave

Voice of Reason
Apr 17, 2017
14,643
13,357
Well, sure, Tkachuk may have been the best player, but thats not exactly BPA, nobody drafts to get the best player, otherwise you'd see overagers go way earlier.
The phrase comes from the NFL draft. I agree it's not optimum when discussing the NHL draft, as these are 17/18 year olds not 22 year olds. But there is still value in being ready to go and requiring zero projection as the more projection required, the greater chance of failure. Teams care about it. This is why Nico Hischier and Nolan Patrick went ahead of Heiskenen/Makar/Petersson
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
88,842
55,035
Citizen of the world
The phrase comes from the NFL draft. I agree it's not optimum when discussing the NHL draft, as these are 17/18 year olds not 22 year olds. But there is still value in being ready to go and requiring zero projection as the more projection required, the greater chance of failure. Teams care about it. This is why Nico Hischier and Nolan Patrick went ahead of Heiskenen/Makar/Petersson
It's not why Hischier and Patrick went ahead of Heiskanen... These three develop in the following years, at the same age in their 2017 draft, Hischier and Patrick were not only further along, but they were also hanging in there with potential (And I believe they still are).

I'm pretty sure no one meant go for the more NHL ready player when they said "BPA" otherwise, they'd use... "Go for the more NHL ready".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mandala

DramaticGloveSave

Voice of Reason
Apr 17, 2017
14,643
13,357
It's not why Hischier and Patrick went ahead of Heiskanen... These three develop in the following years, at the same age in their 2017 draft, Hischier and Patrick were not only further along, but they were also hanging in there with potential (And I believe they still are).

I'm pretty sure no one meant go for the more NHL ready player when they said "BPA" otherwise, they'd use... "Go for the more NHL ready".
Well BPA does stand for Best Player Available. And that's what those words put together mean.
 

Andrei79

Registered User
Jan 25, 2013
15,256
27,218
Tkachuk was BPA at 3, and his season last year only proved it. I'm sure every GM in the league could have told you that, it was obvious. Sure, we didn't 100% know it, but why is that relevant? We don't 100% know anything, we don't 100% know that the reality we experience isn't a simulation... but this isn't the discussion. The discussion was who was the best player available at 3 last year, and the answer was and still is Tkachuk. We chose Kotkaniemi because of potential and projection (if he could add strength and improve his skating etc), and I had Zadina 3rd on my board for the same reason. Why is this so difficult for you to wrap your head around?

Oh, so now you're privy to what GMs thought ? What did Directors of scouting think ? Could you please inform me of that knowledge you hold?

And so... You had:
1. Zadina scoring 20+ goals this year.
2. Zadina being NHL ready (along with Dahlin, Svechnikov, Tkachuk and Hughes... lol. So 5, not 3... nice).
3. Zadina being more skilled than Tkachuk.
4. Zadina being a reason to trade Pacioretty.
5. Zadina being not that far at all from Svechnikov.
6. Choosing Tkachuk over him being choosing size for the sake of size.

Yet, the answer was Tkachuk even at the time of the draft.

Seems honest.

And we're back to square one: even by the "strict" definition (if that even holds any value), it wasn't clear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mandala

DramaticGloveSave

Voice of Reason
Apr 17, 2017
14,643
13,357
I think you assume people are using it the NFL way, and its wrong.
Then they are using it wrong. The idea of drafting a guy who requires time and projection to reach their potential goes against the very purpose of what the phrase means.
 

DramaticGloveSave

Voice of Reason
Apr 17, 2017
14,643
13,357
Oh, so now you're privy to what GMs thought ? What did Directors of scouting think ? Could you please inform me of that knowledge you hold?

And so... You had:
1. Zadina scoring 20+ goals this year.
2. Zadina being NHL ready (along with Dahlin, Svechnikov, Tkachuk and Hughes... lol. So 5, not 3... nice).
3. Zadina being more skilled than Tkachuk.
4. Zadina being a reason to trade Pacioretty.
5. Zadina being not that far at all from Svechnikov.
6. Choosing Tkachuk over him being choosing size for the sake of size.

Yet, the answer was Tkachuk even at the time of the draft.

Seems honest.

And we're back to square one: even by the "strict" definition (if that even holds any value), it wasn't clear.
lol you realize a huge part of the reason Ottawa took Tkachuk was because he was ready, right?
 

A55P2

Registered User
Jul 14, 2009
2,249
2,292
Québec, Québec
Apparently one of the best skaters available. I'd definitely go for him if the Bro is no longer on the board.

Anybody with good knowledge about Harley that could do a comparison with Broberg? They seem to have similar skills but Broberg usually ranks higher.
 

DramaticGloveSave

Voice of Reason
Apr 17, 2017
14,643
13,357
Anybody with good knowledge about Harley that could do a comparison with Broberg? They seem to have similar skills but Broberg usually ranks higher.
The big difference to me is that Broberg is already a good defensive player, while Harley is currently not good in his own zone.
 

Andrei79

Registered User
Jan 25, 2013
15,256
27,218
lol you realize a huge part of the reason Ottawa took Tkachuk was because he was ready, right?

Yes. Are we debating if Tkachuk was NHL ready player ? If we are, here's my answer, which is the same answer I would have given you last year: he was.

But we're not. We're debating whether he was clearly the best player available, from a "strict" sense (again, putting into question the value of this). I'm referring you to yourself only to help you understand that it wasn't the case.
 

DramaticGloveSave

Voice of Reason
Apr 17, 2017
14,643
13,357
Yes. Are we debating if Tkachuk was NHL ready player ? If we are, here's my answer, which is the same answer I would have given you last year: he was.

But we're not. We're debating whether he was clearly the best player available, from a "strict" sense (again, putting into question the value of this). I'm referring you to yourself only to help you understand that it wasn't the case.
I already addressed this. Not only was he the best player available in most minds, he proved it. I had Zadina ahead of him because I believe Zadina has more skill and upside.
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
88,842
55,035
Citizen of the world
Anybody with good knowledge about Harley that could do a comparison with Broberg? They seem to have similar skills but Broberg usually ranks higher.
I don't think they're top 15 picks worthy. There's better defenders available in the 1st (Heinola, Byram) and there's similar defenders available in the 2nd. (Korczak, Thomson, Knyazev, misyul, Warren, Johansson, Johnson, Bjornfoot, Kokkonen, Spence, Tuomisto, Lundmark.)
 

Sterling Archer

Registered User
Sep 26, 2006
22,976
13,449
How is anyone arguing if a given player was BPA? It’s completely subjective. Ottawa clearly though Tkachuk was the BPA, Montreal though KK was, Detroit thought Zadina was etc etc. No ones drafting a player they don’t think is the BPA. Ottawa took the pick even though they could’ve given to Colorado because they wanted Tkachuk so badly.

So arguing Tkachuk wasn’t the BPA is strange to say the least. He was for Ott but not for Montreal and it’s planned out that way in reality. As the saying goes, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HOPE

Andrei79

Registered User
Jan 25, 2013
15,256
27,218
I already addressed this. Not only was he the best player available in most minds, he proved it. I had Zadina ahead of him because I believe Zadina has more skill and upside.

Oh, so you had Zadina ahead only because of that ?

Not because you thought he: would score 20+ goals this year and make Pacioretty expendable ? So, I'm to understand you thought Tkachuk would do clearly better than this ?
 

Janne Niinimaa

"Character"
Sep 28, 2017
1,409
1,109
Montreal
How is anyone arguing if a given player was BPA? It’s completely subjective. Ottawa clearly though Tkachuk was the BPA, Montreal though KK was, Detroit thought Zadina was etc etc. No ones drafting a player they don’t think is the BPA. Ottawa took the pick even though they could’ve given to Colorado because they wanted Tkachuk so badly.

So arguing Tkachuk wasn’t the BPA is strange to say the least. He was for Ott but not for Montreal and it’s planned out that way in reality. As the saying goes, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
Were arguing that Tkachuk "Was clearly the BPA at #3". How can anybody claim that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andrei79

DramaticGloveSave

Voice of Reason
Apr 17, 2017
14,643
13,357
Oh, so you had Zadina ahead only because of that ?

Not because you thought he: would score 20+ goals this year and make Pacioretty expendable ? So, I'm to understand you thought Tkachuk would do clearly better than this ?
I thought with the success Hischier had coming from the Mooseheads that perhaps Zadina could surprise and make the NHL full time as an 18 year old... but as we all know the leap from the Q to the NHL is a major one.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

  • Inter Milan vs Torino
    Inter Milan vs Torino
    Wagers: 4
    Staked: $1,752.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Metz vs Lille
    Metz vs Lille
    Wagers: 2
    Staked: $220.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Cádiz vs Mallorca
    Cádiz vs Mallorca
    Wagers: 2
    Staked: $240.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Bologna vs Udinese
    Bologna vs Udinese
    Wagers: 3
    Staked: $265.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Clermont Foot vs Reims
    Clermont Foot vs Reims
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $15.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:

Ad

Ad