What playoff outcome for the Habs would be enough to make you happy?

[Miller Time]

When did I argue that it didn't?

Who said you argued it didn't?

 

[Sorinth]

I don't think Komisarek like players get drafted this early anymore. The league has changed and stay at home big physical Dmen don't really go in the top 10 anymore.
But a guy like Phaneuf, a big Dman who can throw his weight around with devastating hits, and pot in 40-50pts, even if it requires help from his partner, I'll gladly take it.
Imagine a guy like him playing next to Weber or Petry right now? Massive boost to our team in some many ways.

Well even Komisarek was considered to have some offensive skills prior to the draft

According to Umberger, Komisarek's offensive skills are undervalued because his defense and physical play are considered his biggest assets."That's the most surprising thing about him -- his hands are unbelievable for his size," Umberger said.

ESPN.com - NHL - Prospect profile: Mike Komisarek

Look I get what you are saying but at the end of the day getting a player that needs to be partnered with a #1 defenceman to look good is not what most people expect/want from a top-10 pick. They want a difference maker not a complementary player.

But then, if you go down that path, might as well trade all our prospects and draft picks to get already developed guys here instead.
I am always holding on to the hope Bergevin gets booted the F out relatively soon and that Bouchard/Ducharme have their say in the development.

With many picks you would wouldn't be able to get already developed guys that are of any use so you can never trade away all your picks. But there's no question in my mind that we would've have been better off trading every top pick we had under the Bergevin era for established players assuming those players stuck around for a decent amount of time.

Yes hopefully Bergevin is fired and we go from a team with poor drafting and development to a good one, but I have serious doubts that it's going to be any time soon no matter how we finish.

Right but those other years are a bit pointless because this is meant to be a deep draft. Sure, maybe it'll flop out but we're still in a rebuilding stage so I'll take that and if the 24th seed team ends up winning the cup during this tournament, the only thing this shows me is how ridiculous silly it was to pursue the season after a 4 1/2 month hiatus. It would be a farce. So give me a top 9 pick.

Pre-draft many of those years were considered to be deep drafts as well. And that argument was even why I started with looking at 03 the strongest/deepest draft possibly ever. Even in that super deep draft you aren't all that likely to get a top line player.

I don't see this happening at all. PO calibre level? Most teams will be eliminated a month into this thing. Some teams will have been knocked off before playing more games than they usually do in preseason.
October hockey is sloppy in general, takes about the 20 game mark to get it going and that's after a normal camp and summer training, on top of a lot of practicing.
So I don't see the level ever reaching the usual level of PO.

Disagree but we are both guessing we'll just have to wait and see.

Sure, any experience is good for the youngsters, from an individual standpoint. But they very likely will get this experience at some point anyways, I'm looking at what's best for our team moving forward and adding another talent like Sergachev or Phaneuf on D or up front would be much better for us imo.

Getting an impact player is higher this year then normal simply because there would still be that chance at the #1 pick, but the odds of a Sergachev/Phaneuf aren't actually great. It's more likely we would be adding another 40-50 point winger with lots of talent but never puts it all together.

And I disagree that the experience is irrelevant because they will get it at some point anyways. Learning what it takes to win at a young age is invaluable. For example Hal Gill mentioned how much the 2010 run had an impact on Price, and it's pretty obvious Subban benefited immensely too. Improving the odds that Suzuki becomes that #1 C is way more valuable to us long term then adding a #9 pick would be.

 

[Sorinth]

Who said you argued it didn't?

It was implied when you quoted my post. If it was a random comment directed at no one then why even quote my post?

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Phaneuf was a monster for his first 4 years in Calgary but the minute he lost his D partner Hamrlik he stopped looking like a top-pairing guy. He was a 2nd pairing guy for most of his time in Toronto, and his time in Ottawa and LA was pretty forgettable.

Now it's true that a mostly 2nd pairing guy who has a 4 year peak as a top pairing guy is solid value from that pick. But there are definite Komisarek vibes where you question how good he actually was during his peak vs how much his partner allowed him to play to his strengths and cover up his weaknesses.

Kostitsyn could have developed better, but what makes you think this future pick will have a good development with us? If anything we have a history of terrible development. Do you honestly think Sergachev would have developed the same way he did had we not traded him? You think Therrien and Julien would have worked with his defensive mistakes and let him play through them and develop or would he be scapegoated and benched by those dinosaurs?

The point isn't that you can't get a good player, having a top-10 pick is better then not having one but people tend to overrate what you get from those late top-10 picks. For example looking past 03, the next 5 years it's Smid, Lee, Sheppard, Couture, Bailey at 9th. The odds of getting a core player at 9th just aren't that great. So yeah we'll get a great prospect, it's just a great prospect isn't the same as a great player.



Just to clarify I wasn't talking about the fan ambiance but the player. Yes the games right now are a bit sloppy, and that's what I think is going quickly change. It will get back to the usual NHL playoff level calibre of play fairly soon. And development wise the fans simply don't matter, Suzuki going toe to toe against Crosby in a do or die situation is great for his development regardless of whether there are fans in the seats chanting "you suck" or not. It's still a case of going up against the best in the world in pressure packed games and proving to yourself that you have the stuff to be a winner.

From what I remember, Phaneuf played mostly with Regehr on the top pairing while Hamr anchored the second pairing.

 

[salbutera]

But then, if you go down that path, might as well trade all our prospects and draft picks to get already developed guys here instead.
I am always holding on to the hope Bergevin gets booted the F out relatively soon and that Bouchard/Ducharme have their say in the development.

I’ve always thought that should be the Habs approach, trade all their picks unless it’s a can’t miss 1st overall - this extends close to 50-years of poor drafting and development, whether it’s the market pressure, org philosophy..whatever I suspect MB would be more successful in building a team dealing his picks for young players.

 

[Kriss E]

I’ve always thought that should be the Habs approach, trade all their picks unless it’s a can’t miss 1st overall - this extends close to 50-years of poor drafting and development, whether it’s the market pressure, org philosophy..whatever I suspect MB would be more successful in building a team dealing his picks for young players.

Problem is you will have to package picks and prospects in order to get established vets, meaning you're going to run out of interesting assets and you will be stuck once the younger vets start to deteriorate.
You should do this when you have a good group to build around with, so we should have done that back in 2014-2015.

 

[salbutera]

Problem is you will have to package picks and prospects in order to get established vets, meaning you're going to run out of interesting assets and you will be stuck once the younger vets start to deteriorate.
You should do this when you have a good group to build around with, so we should have done that back in 2014-2015.

I would trade every Habs 1st rounder every year for an young talent. I have no issue trading the potential 9th overall + 2nd rounders (if need be) for Boeser or similar age / talent / contract status, without blinking. Give me proven asset vs a prospect (or should I say suspect).

This orgs strength is finding the low cost serviceable rejects from other teams via trade - Weise (circa 2014), Byron, Danault, Kulak, etc. That strength should be leveraged to offset other salaries to manage cap. Besides, MB is usually very good at negotiating cap favorable 2nd contracts: Pacioretty, Price etc.

 

[Kriss E]

I would trade every Habs 1st rounder every year for an young talent. I have no issue trading the potential 9th overall + 2nd rounders (if need be) for Boeser or similar age / talent / contract status, without blinking. Give me proven asset vs a prospect (or should I say suspect).

This orgs strength is finding the low cost serviceable rejects from other teams via trade - Weise (circa 2014), Byron, Danault, Kulak, etc. That strength should be leveraged to offset other salaries to manage cap. Besides, MB is usually very good at negotiating cap favorable 2nd contracts: Pacioretty, Price etc.

I'm sure you don't have a problem but teams aren't lining up to trade away their good young vets for draft picks. Why would Vancouver trade Boeser for a 9th+2nd rd pick? They want to rebuild? Well Boeser is a good rebuilding piece.
You either will have to go after a problem player like us trading for Drouin, which is risky and can be stupid, as it was for us.
Or you'll have to trade a vet like Patches to get a guy like Suzuki.

Like if we still had Sergachev, it would make no sense to trade him for a 9th overall pick + 2nd rds.

So you'll either have to include way more, or get very lucky.

 

[Sorinth]

From what I remember, Phaneuf played mostly with Regehr on the top pairing while Hamr anchored the second pairing.

It was a long time ago and I didn't follow Calgary that closely so you may have a point, certainly in his rookie year he played a lot with Hamrlik though. But itt's likely he had several partners over the years since it's fairly normal to play with multiple people.

In the end I'm not sure it really matters considering Regehr was no slouch himself. He was after all selected to the Canadian Olympic team in 06 so the point that Phaneuf was only good when playing with a top pairing guy would still be pertinent.

 

[salbutera]

I'm sure you don't have a problem but teams aren't lining up to trade away their good young vets for draft picks. Why would Vancouver trade Boeser for a 9th+2nd rd pick? They want to rebuild? Well Boeser is a good rebuilding piece.
You either will have to go after a problem player like us trading for Drouin, which is risky and can be stupid, as it was for us.
Or you'll have to trade a vet like Patches to get a guy like Suzuki.

Like if we still had Sergachev, it would make no sense to trade him for a 9th overall pick + 2nd rds.

So you'll either have to include way more, or get very lucky.

With the flat cap for a few years coming and very limited number of teams able to absorb any type of cap hit, there will be teams who are stuck unable to re-up their soon to be RFAs. No buyouts, no plethora of teams to take bad contracts to help out, the perfect storm may have arrived...

Perhaps by that reasoning an offer sheet may finally come to fruition.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

It was a long time ago and I didn't follow Calgary that closely so you may have a point, certainly in his rookie year he played a lot with Hamrlik though. But itt's likely he had several partners over the years since it's fairly normal to play with multiple people.

In the end I'm not sure it really matters considering Regehr was no slouch himself. He was after all selected to the Canadian Olympic team in 06 so the point that Phaneuf was only good when playing with a top pairing guy would still be pertinent.

Im talking 2004 when they were at their most dominant and lost the Cup to the lightning.

Top pairing was Phaneuf/RR

 

[Sorinth]

Im talking 2004 when they were at their most dominant and lost the Cup to the lightning.

Top pairing was Phaneuf/RR

You sure about that?

Because Phaneuf started his NHL career in 05.

 

[JianYang]

From what I remember, Phaneuf played mostly with Regehr on the top pairing while Hamr anchored the second pairing.

I think he spent time with both, but the notion of Phaneuf relying on hamrlik came from idea that the regehr/Phaneuf pairing just did not work as well as it looked on paper.

I think he generally went from hamrlik to Regehr, back to hamrlik.

 

[Kriss E]

With the flat cap for a few years coming and very limited number of teams able to absorb any type of cap hit, there will be teams who are stuck unable to re-up their soon to be RFAs. No buyouts, no plethora of teams to take bad contracts to help out, the perfect storm may have arrived...

Perhaps by that reasoning an offer sheet may finally come to fruition.

Teams Re likely to move older vets though as they have more control over RFAs...and offer sheets are only good if you overpay, otherwise teams will match.

 

[smirob]

Mine is exactly what seems to be happening. Lose in 4-5 and have a good showing from the kids (Suzuki/KK)

 

[Kriss E]

Well even Komisarek was considered to have some offensive skills prior to the draft

ESPN.com - NHL - Prospect profile: Mike Komisarek

Look I get what you are saying but at the end of the day getting a player that needs to be partnered with a #1 defenceman to look good is not what most people expect/want from a top-10 pick. They want a difference maker not a complementary player.

Well Phaneuf probably wouldn't need to be paired with a #1...depends how you use him. You use him on a 2nd pairing and he'd do fine.
Anyways, point is I rather take a chance grabbing a 9th overall talent than winning this lame ass tournament.

With many picks you would wouldn't be able to get already developed guys that are of any use so you can never trade away all your picks. But there's no question in my mind that we would've have been better off trading every top pick we had under the Bergevin era for established players assuming those players stuck around for a decent amount of time.

Yes hopefully Bergevin is fired and we go from a team with poor drafting and development to a good one, but I have serious doubts that it's going to be any time soon no matter how we finish.

Pretty sure we'd be better off with Sergachev here, even with questionable development. The book isn't out yet on KK either, right now I'm happier with him here than traded away.

Pre-draft many of those years were considered to be deep drafts as well. And that argument was even why I started with looking at 03 the strongest/deepest draft possibly ever. Even in that super deep draft you aren't all that likely to get a top line player.

You'll never be guaranteed, and drafting isn't an exact science, but I'll happily take this gamble.

Disagree but we are both guessing we'll just have to wait and see.

Indeed.

Getting an impact player is higher this year then normal simply because there would still be that chance at the #1 pick, but the odds of a Sergachev/Phaneuf aren't actually great. It's more likely we would be adding another 40-50 point winger with lots of talent but never puts it all together.

And I disagree that the experience is irrelevant because they will get it at some point anyways. Learning what it takes to win at a young age is invaluable. For example Hal Gill mentioned how much the 2010 run had an impact on Price, and it's pretty obvious Subban benefited immensely too. Improving the odds that Suzuki becomes that #1 C is way more valuable to us long term then adding a #9 pick would be.

Meh...are you suggesting Price and PK wouldn't have reached the same ceilings if they didn't go through 2010? I think it helps to face adversity in the POs but has little bearing in reaching one's potential.
And I much rather get a 12.5% chance of landing a talent like Laf or a top 6F at 9th this year.

 

[Scintillating10]

If we end up with Lafreniere or Holtz is how I like this playoff outcome. To go with Koktaniemi and Suzuki makes good core to build around.

 

[Miller Time]

It was implied when you quoted my post. If it was a random comment directed at no one then why even quote my post?

Go back and re-read it.

 

[Sorinth]

Meh...are you suggesting Price and PK wouldn't have reached the same ceilings if they didn't go through 2010? I think it helps to face adversity in the POs but has little bearing in reaching one's potential.
And I much rather get a 12.5% chance of landing a talent like Laf or a top 6F at 9th this year.

I cut the rest of your post out since this is the main point I feel is worth discussion.


Yes I think without that 2010 run PK and Price wouldn't have become the players they did. Development is hard to judge/evaluate but those early years of a player are crucial for their development. A good playoff run can work wonders for a players development. Going toe to toe with the best in the world and coming away with a sense of success is the best development possible.

Now just to clarify I don't consider a good playoff run to be us beating the Pens and then getting knocked out. So yeah getting the good pick is better then beating the Pens and then getting knocked out, but if we make to say the ECF, then I'd say that's probably better for us long term then getting something like the 9th overall pick.

And for the record I still think the most likely situation is that we lose to the Pens and don't win the lottery.

 

[Kriss E]

I cut the rest of your post out since this is the main point I feel is worth discussion.


Yes I think without that 2010 run PK and Price wouldn't have become the players they did. Development is hard to judge/evaluate but those early years of a player are crucial for their development. A good playoff run can work wonders for a players development. Going toe to toe with the best in the world and coming away with a sense of success is the best development possible.

Now just to clarify I don't consider a good playoff run to be us beating the Pens and then getting knocked out. So yeah getting the good pick is better then beating the Pens and then getting knocked out, but if we make to say the ECF, then I'd say that's probably better for us long term then getting something like the 9th overall pick.

And for the record I still think the most likely situation is that we lose to the Pens and don't win the lottery.

Meh...I disagree with your assessment of Price and PK. I think they become just as good without 2010. They're not completely foreign to raising their level of play during elimination rounds, it's something they've experienced at every level before. Sure, this is obviously different as it is the highest level but I don't think it's so crucial that it will cut a player's development short and not reached the peak.
We can look at Alfredsson as an example. He became a PPG player before ever playing a PO game and it wasn't until he turned 33 where he hit career highs 3 years running, after 8 years of PO time.
So I don't think a single PO is such a determining factor in a player's development.

Ya, it's good experience, like anything else they'll experiment for the first time in the NHL but one run isn't going to change so much imo.

And this tournament is very different as well. Games are sloppy, there's a lot of bad mistakes, intensity is nowhere near what PO level is, not even remotely close. Guys live in a complete bubble, I mean, McGuire said some guys are already fed up...I don't put much validity on this year's tournament.
It's just an extra set of games for the kids, which is good but not game changing imo.
So ya, I much rather get a better prospect than an ECF run.

 

[Stive Morgan]

Finals loss to an American team so at least the Finals drought is broken, and without the next Habs/Canada Stanley Cup having an asterisk.

 

[Spearmint Rhino]

Not sure why there’s so much Phaneuf talk in the Habs thread but I probably saw half his games at the Saddledome and he was a stud first few years then his head swelled up with all the accolades from guys like McGuire and he could no longer be coached. At one point I had a framed autographed rookie pic and thought it would be worth $1000s, I tossed it in the trash last time I moved houses.

 

[Hacketts]

I wouldn't touch this years Cup, wait for the real thing.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Meh...I disagree with your assessment of Price and PK. I think they become just as good without 2010. They're not completely foreign to raising their level of play during elimination rounds, it's something they've experienced at every level before. Sure, this is obviously different as it is the highest level but I don't think it's so crucial that it will cut a player's development short and not reached the peak.
We can look at Alfredsson as an example. He became a PPG player before ever playing a PO game and it wasn't until he turned 33 where he hit career highs 3 years running, after 8 years of PO time.
So I don't think a single PO is such a determining factor in a player's development.

Ya, it's good experience, like anything else they'll experiment for the first time in the NHL but one run isn't going to change so much imo.

And this tournament is very different as well. Games are sloppy, there's a lot of bad mistakes, intensity is nowhere near what PO level is, not even remotely close. Guys live in a complete bubble, I mean, McGuire said some guys are already fed up...I don't put much validity on this year's tournament.
It's just an extra set of games for the kids, which is good but not game changing imo.
So ya, I much rather get a better prospect than an ECF run.

Not only this, but something which is rarely mentioned: not only has the season play been reduced down to a 5 games series, these games don't really have a home game feel for any of them (only exceptions might be the hub city teams). Especially a playoff home game, the crowd can be electrifying. Yeah sure they've set the rules for home and away teams, but it's far from being the same factor it can be in normal times.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Not sure why there’s so much Phaneuf talk in the Habs thread but I probably saw half his games at the Saddledome and he was a stud first few years then his head swelled up with all the accolades from guys like McGuire and he could no longer be coached. At one point I had a framed autographed rookie pic and thought it would be worth $1000s, I tossed it in the trash last time I moved houses.

Because Sorinth is trying to make us swallow that these play-ins are more important than a 9th pick overall. Phaneuf was among the examples given of historic 9th picks, as if being 9th is entirely deterministic, completely disregarding that draft classes can wildly vary.

With that kind of logic he espouses, we drafted a potential Erik Karlsson-level player when we picked Caufield.

Completely whack