HF Habs: Your Thoughts on the 2022 Class

[ReHabs]

Did the Habs really have a choice? Nobody from that draft played in the NHL in their first season (a consistent role anyway). They were all "projects" to a certain degree.

The Habs had the 1OA they could’ve done anything they wanted! How much choice should the Habs have before you agree to call a spade a spade?

Note I am NOT re-litigating the choice to select Slafkovksy with the 1OA. There is no point to do so right now. But to say the Habs didn’t have a choice but to choose Slafkovsky is not remotely appropriate.

The Habs chose Slafkovksy and they chose to start him in the NHL and they chose to keep him last game9 and trigger his first year ELC and they chose to keep him even after he got rocked skating with his head down multiple times and they chose to keep him past game39 where it would count against his early UFA eligibility.

At every inflection point they had choices. And then he got a 40-game injury.

As for other options, my comment on the first page of this thread was written in July 2022. To summarize: I don’t know why they chose the W with question marks over the Cs and Ds with question marks. All things being equal we needed blue chip talent at C and D and both are harder to come by. If they had not picked Slafkovsky would anybody at that moment really have been surprised, shocked, disappointed, let down? I don’t think so, Slaf simply wasn’t a “must have” prospect in general or for the Habs. He was a very intriguing prospect but his warts were not hidden or few. And I don’t think the other options were as big projects as Slaf, tbh. If Wright is the Tinman then Slaf is the Scarecrow.

As for the C talk, some said Dach is the C we needed. I don’t agree. Dach isn’t a first line C right now. he might break 40pts this year and post a c.55 pt pace which is very good step up from last year. How much more can we expect him to improve? I don’t think it’s fair of Habs fans to expect Dach to add another 20pts to his PPG, that’s not really easy to come by.

 

[abo9]

The Habs had the 1OA they could’ve done anything they wanted! How much choice should the Habs have before you agree to call a spade a spade?

Note I am NOT re-litigating the choice to select Slafkovksy with the 1OA. There is no point to do so right now. But to say the Habs didn’t have a choice but to choose Slafkovsky is not remotely appropriate.

The Habs chose Slafkovksy and they chose to start him in the NHL and they chose to keep him last game9 and trigger his first year ELC and they chose to keep him even after he got rocked skating with his head down multiple times and they chose to keep him past game39 where it would count against his early UFA eligibility.

At every inflection point they had choices. And then he got a 40-game injury.

As for other options, my comment on the first page of this thread was written in July 2022. To summarize: I don’t know why they chose the W with question marks over the Cs and Ds with question marks. All things being equal we needed blue chip talent at C and D and both are harder to come by. If they had not picked Slafkovsky would anybody at that moment really have been surprised, shocked, disappointed, let down? I don’t think so, Slaf simply wasn’t a “must have” prospect in general or for the Habs. He was a very intriguing prospect but his warts were not hidden or few. And I don’t think the other options were as big projects as Slaf, tbh. If Wright is the Tinman then Slaf is the Scarecrow.

As for the C talk, some said Dach is the C we needed. I don’t agree. Dach isn’t a first line C right now. he might break 40pts this year and post a c.55 pt pace which is very good step up from last year. How much more can we expect him to improve? I don’t think it’s fair of Habs fans to expect Dach to add another 20pts to his PPG, that’s not really easy to come by.

idk about your 2022 comment, I responded to the one from the past 24 hrs

"1) You don’t draft projects with the 1OA because it’s very hard for them to succeed in nailing all their improvements and become a realized end product."


Yes, Montreal had a choice to draft any other prospect. But, none of them were NHL ready, none of them were clearly a superior player to the rest of the draft class.

Of course they could have traded the pick, but teams were probably not willing to depart of much for that specific 1OA.

So, how do you not draft a "project" when no player is NHL ready?

 

[River Meadow]

idk about your 2022 comment, I responded to the one from the past 24 hrs

"1) You don’t draft projects with the 1OA because it’s very hard for them to succeed in nailing all their improvements and become a realized end product."


Yes, Montreal had a choice to draft any other prospect. But, none of them were NHL ready, none of them were clearly a superior player to the rest of the draft class.

Of course they could have traded the pick, but teams were probably not willing to depart of much for that specific 1OA.

So, how do you not draft a "project" when no player is NHL ready?

What does NHL Ready have anything to do with it?

Logan Cooley is less of a project than Slafkovsky, for example.

 

[ML16]

Engstrom, and Hutson, if he can mature into a frame that is strong enough, could save this draft for HuGo. Beck will make it, just hard to know his future role at this point, more likely a bottom-6. Mesar? Another very small player. Hard to say at this point. Then there is the elephant in the room with Slaf. Impossible to count him out as a potential good player, but there is more doubts today than after he was drafted. He showed very little this year because he was clearly not ready for the NHL.

His place was in the OHL to hopefully dominate. This kid never dominated a league since the junior in Finland when he was 16. I watched Heineman and Struble with Laval, these guys are 21, so closer to maturity and close to be ready for the NHL. Both will be 22 next year when they will try to make the NHL team. The difference between 18 and 22 is enormous for non exceptionnal players. It was hubris on the part of Gorton and Hughes to keep him in Montréal this year. They wanted their shinny new toy close to them, such a mistake.

Good assessment. I wouldn’t have necessarily picked Slafkovsky 1OA - I would have rather picked (or maybe even traded down for) Nemec/Jiricek/Cooley - but if I had, no way Slafkovsky would have played more than 9 games in the NHL before being sent down this year; he clearly wasn’t ready and the Habs ending up burning a precious RFA year.

Really didn’t - and still don’t - like the Mesar pick; especially since Kulich still available.

Beck and Hutson was an awesome 2nd round, although in a ideal world I would have picked Kulich (or Beck) with the late 1st so I could have picked RHD Luneau with the Habs’ highest 2nd.

Engstrom’s looking like an absolute steal in the 3rd. As for the other 3rd, since I wouldn’t have picked Mesar, I would have taken a chance with Dumais instead of Rohrer.

 

[Habbietat]

Slaf is gonna be a monster, once he learns to put his head up naturally and avoid the unnecessary collisions, the abilities and size will be enough for a top line forward I believe. Along with 2 top 4 D, and a potential third line center, hard to say this draft wasnt a success with what was available

 

[Mrb1p]

Mesar should be dominating with his eyes close. Beck plays a pro game. Beck could have 0 points that you could EASILY see him as a future 3rd line C while Mesar if not scoring could easily not make it.

Cooley, Nemec and Jiricek were outplaying Slaf for one good reason...their respective teams made them follow the appropriate development course. If Slaf would have been playing in juniors, we'd be drooling right now. Yet, he'd be the same Slaf.

Yeah, there could be better picks. There often are. But at the very least you still want to get a guy who plays a significant role no matter how ''worst'' he is than the guys picked later. I believe Beck has the game to be significant. I believe Slaf could be too. Remains to be seen how Mesar will be....

You don't really know about Slaf though. He never showed he could play to the level Cooley, Nemec and Jiricek did, sadly. You have to assume so.

I agree on Mesar, I don't like the pick, said it a few times. It's a Slaf-adjacent pick, and that makes it even worse. (Even though, I admit, I loved every second of it at the draft, because what a bro-story.)

I do think Mesar and Beck play pro games on each side though. Beck is half an inch taller, it's not like he has anything on Mesar, really.

Remember how Mesar looked last year in pre-season ?

Here I am coming in here to hate the Mesar pick and I'm actually defending it.

 

[abo9]

What does NHL Ready have anything to do with it?

Logan Cooley is less of a project than Slafkovsky, for example.

The person I was replying to stated "You don't pick a project at 1OA"

My point is, there were no consensus BPA in that draft. At the end of the day, you pick the player who you think will end up the best AND has the best chances to do so.

It's not like Slaf didn't have the tools to come in the NHL quicker either - he had the physique of an NHLer. Most other draftees will come in next season or in a few years.

 

[26Mats]

Good assessment. I wouldn’t have necessarily picked Slafkovsky 1OA - I would have rather picked (or maybe even traded down for) Nemec/Jiricek/Cooley - but if I had, no way Slafkovsky would have played more than 9 games in the NHL before being sent down this year; he clearly wasn’t ready and the Habs ending up burning a precious RFA year.

Really didn’t - and still don’t - like the Mesar pick; especially since Kulich still available.

Beck and Hutson was an awesome 2nd round, although in a ideal world I would have picked Kulich (or Beck) with the late 1st so I could have picked RHD Luneau with the Habs’ highest 2nd.

Engstrom’s looking like an absolute steal in the 3rd. As for the other 3rd, since I wouldn’t have picked Mesar, I would have taken a chance with Dumais instead of Rohrer.

I would still draft for talent. If you think Dumais is the BPA, draft him, even if you've already drafted Mesar. No guarantee Mesar pans out. If they both pan out, all the better. That's a good problem.

 

[1909]

Good assessment. I wouldn’t have necessarily picked Slafkovsky 1OA - I would have rather picked (or maybe even traded down for) Nemec/Jiricek/Cooley - but if I had, no way Slafkovsky would have played more than 9 games in the NHL before being sent down this year; he clearly wasn’t ready and the Habs ending up burning a precious RFA year.

Really didn’t - and still don’t - like the Mesar pick; especially since Kulich still available.

Beck and Hutson was an awesome 2nd round, although in a ideal world I would have picked Kulich (or Beck) with the late 1st so I could have picked RHD Luneau with the Habs’ highest 2nd.

Engstrom’s looking like an absolute steal in the 3rd. As for the other 3rd, since I wouldn’t have picked Mesar, I would have taken a chance with Dumais instead of Rohrer.

Luneau was my choice too. Wild guess: he will reach NHL before Hutson.

 

[jfm133]

Lindros never learned to keep his head up. Not sure if it can really be learned anyways, but at 18 better to try to learn it in the OHL than in the NHL.

Slaf is gonna be a monster, once he learns to put his head up naturally and avoid the unnecessary collisions, the abilities and size will be enough for a top line forward I believe. Along with 2 top 4 D, and a potential third line center, hard to say this draft wasnt a success with what was available

 

[jfm133]

I read this article and I sensed some frustration from the two unidentified NHL scouts. They sounded like guys that knew they missed something. Personnaly, I liked the pick on draft day. Given that his talent was obvious, I saw it as a pure bet on the fact that Hutson physical growth was far from over. The big question mark was about his size. Will he grow to 5'10" or 5'11", or will he stay at 5'08"? That was the bet, and the Habs clearly won that bet. Hutson is now 5'10", with a chance to end up at 5'11" and 175-180 lbs at full maturity. Given his hockey IQ, it's enough.

So now the picture is totally different. Now, Hutson is a normal prospect. I mean by that that the question is no longer about his size, it's about his talent, and the possibilty he has to improve on his weaknesses. I agree that he will need to improve his skating, but I think, given he is still growing, that he is far from his physical maturity and full strenght. So the likelyhood that he will improve his skating significantly is high.

Now that he is 5'10", and given his offensive output this year as a growing teenager, I think the comparison should be with Adam Fox. Both were drafted at a similar spot, #62 for Hutson and #66 for Fox. Fox played three years at Harvard before making the jump to the NHL. Harvard is in a weaker division than BU. In his first season at Harvard, Fox got 40 points in 35 games, but was the 5th for points on his team, while Hutson got 48 points in 39 games in a stronger division and finished first for points on his team.

So already in his first year, Hutson showed a lot while not at full strenght physically. He dominated with his vision, hockey IQ and skills. If he can get stronger and faster in the next two years, he will be on par with a guy like Fox following a similar path to the NHL. At 5'08" that would have been impossible, but at 5'10" or 5'11", with proper training to gain strenght and speed, he is a high end prospect, no longer a bet. Nothing is sure, but given his actual height and size and potential to improve, if there would be a redraft, he would likely be a top-10 pick. My point is that 9 months after the draft, that pick now looks much better. It was a good bet 9 months ago, now it's just an awesome pick that gave the Habs a legit top prospect.

I think people are overhyping Hutson too much.

Read an article in Journal de Montreal on the opinions of 2 scouts about him and both basically said they have a hard time seeing him succeed in the NHL

His lack of size and skating are obstacles that in their opinion would be very difficult to overcome.

As much I thought the previous regime drafted poorly, the first draft under Hughes thus far appears to be just as underwhelming - which is bad news given how we are supposed to rebuild through the draft.

I hope im wrong, but I still don’t believe we have a good enough prospect pool.

 

[Habbietat]

Lindros never learned to keep his head up. Not sure if it can really be learned anyways, but at 18 better to try to learn it in the OHL than in the NHL.

Pretty much about pesimism vs optimism, I see no evidence that he cant improve his processing speed on the fly, adjust and adapt his skill to and get better timing which will translate into higher quality plays. He has all the tools. I would even say he has some dynamic abilities

 

[EXPOS123]

I read this article and I sensed some frustration from the two unidentified NHL scouts. They sounded like guys that knew they missed something. Personnaly, I liked the pick on draft day. Given that his talent was obvious, I saw it as a pure bet on the fact that Hutson physical growth was far from over. The big question mark was about his size. Will he grow to 5'10" or 5'11", or will he stay at 5'08"? That was the bet, and the Habs clearly won that bet. Hutson is now 5'10", with a chance to end up at 5'11" and 175-180 lbs at full maturity. Given his hockey IQ, it's enough.

So now the picture is totally different. Now, Hutson is a normal prospect. I mean by that that the question is no longer about his size, it's about his talent, and the possibilty he has to improve on his weaknesses. I agree that he will need to improve his skating, but I think, given he is still growing, that he is far from his physical maturity and full strenght. So the likelyhood that he will improve his skating significantly is high.

Now that he is 5'10", and given his offensive output this year as a growing teenager, I think the comparison should be with Adam Fox. Both were drafted at a similar spot, #62 for Hutson and #66 for Fox. Fox played three years at Harvard before making the jump to the NHL. Harvard is in a weaker division than BU. In his first season at Harvard, Fox got 40 points in 35 games, but was the 5th for points on his team, while Hutson got 48 points in 39 games in a stronger division and finished first for points on his team.

So already in his first year, Hutson showed a lot while not at full strenght physically. He dominated with his vision, hockey IQ and skills. If he can get stronger and faster in the next two years, he will be on par with a guy like Fox following a similar path to the NHL. At 5'08" that would have been impossible, but at 5'10" or 5'11", with proper training to gain strenght and speed, he is a high end prospect, no longer a bet. Nothing is sure, but given his actual height and size and potential to improve, if there would be a redraft, he would likely be a top-10 pick. My point is that 9 months after the draft, that pick now looks much better. It was a good bet 9 months ago, now it's just an awesome pick that gave the Habs a legit top prospect.

I keep reading on this board that he has grown taller - is this a pure fact?

 

[ReHabs]

idk about your 2022 comment, I responded to the one from the past 24 hrs

"1) You don’t draft projects with the 1OA because it’s very hard for them to succeed in nailing all their improvements and become a realized end product."


Yes, Montreal had a choice to draft any other prospect. But, none of them were NHL ready, none of them were clearly a superior player to the rest of the draft class.

Of course they could have traded the pick, but teams were probably not willing to depart of much for that specific 1OA.

So, how do you not draft a "project" when no player is NHL ready?

“NHL Readiness” is a different aspect than “Project-ness”

From what I understand, none of them were NHL Ready (and The Habs were in no rush or need to draft an NHL Ready player) but Slaf was the most daunting Project… ostensibly because he had the most upside.

Pretty much about pesimism vs optimism, I see no evidence that he cant improve his processing speed on the fly, adjust and adapt his skill to and get better timing which will translate into higher quality plays. He has all the tools. I would even say he has some dynamic abilities

How likely is it he will improve all his skills enough AND manage to avoid catastrophic injuries AND eventually become an impact player?

It’s probability and intuition at play here… I wouldn’t call it only a matter of perspective. It’s very hard to imagine a prospect with low hockey IQ and poor production would develop his game in the NHL and avoid injury. He failed to avoid injury already and it’s only been season 1.

His skating is terrific and his reach and size are beyond question. He has a nose for shooting and seems like an upbeat confident guy. It’s all the other stuff that needs a lot of improvement.

 

[jfm133]

Yes it is. Hutson himself said he was now 5'10", and just by looking at him on the ice it is obvious. Also, comparing him to his brother on a recent photo side by side it was clear. He is now just a little shorter than his brother that is 5'11".

I keep reading on this board that he has grown taller - is this a pure fact?

 

[EXPOS123]

Yes it is. Hutson himself said he was now 5'10", and just by looking at him on the ice it is obvious. Also, comparing him to his brother on a recent photo side by side it was clear. He is now just a little shorter than his brother that is 5'11".

Thanks - so maybe like you said those scouts are not really up to date

 

[jfm133]

There is the photo I was talking about from March 19.

 

[Miller Time]

He didn’t earn a spot out of camp and it wouldn’t be the first or last time the Habs organization fibbed to justify a decision that later proved to be a mistake.

You surely believed Bergevin when he said the Habs were better after signing Alzner, Hemsky, and Streit and releasing Markov and Radulov. Right?

I don’t believe I am or have “flip flopped”, I think all along I’ve sustained the same suspicion that Slaf was not ready to play in the NHL and his own erratic performances were evidence enough for most of us who haven’t made this a partisan “Protect the Habs organization at all costs” thing.

When Slaf had the mini hot streak, I wanted him to play more minutes. When he was ice cold I wanted him in the AHL so he could produce and learn how to reproduce against tougher opposition than he’s used to.

Ever since Slafkovksy’s massive injury outlay, the pressure is on the Habs organization in a bad way — if he doesn’t make the team out of camp next year, there is hardly any justification or good result of him making the team out of camp this year. So they’re likely going to give him a spot whether he earns or it not, we should hope he puts those doubts to rest because it won’t be just a few of us rolling our eyes at that point.

again, you seem to miss the point entirely.

In one post, you claim with complete certainty that PP ice time is "earned", ignoring the context by which a coach or gm will prioritize certain players for those opportunities for reasons outside of on-ice performance... and then in this case, you flip flop to the opposite and suggest that ice time/roster opportunity is solely due to organizational priority and not reflective of the player "earning" it.

flip-flopping like that for the sake of supporting an argument is... what it is.

As for Slaf and the organizational commentary about his development and their justification for him being rostered in the NHL, i think your take is way off base. The communication about the organizational decision to play him in the NHL, plus the way he was used before he got hurt, plus the noticeable developments in his game, were all quite consistent.

It's one thing to disagree with the approach, it's another to blindly dismiss it and allege "fibbing". I get being jaded after years of MB and his lack of transparency & competence... often he did outright "fib", or flip decisions erratically... but that is simply not what we have seen thus far from Hughes & MSL.

Perhaps you don't really understand athlete development... fair enough. But for those familiar with the principles of successful high-performance athlete development, the narrative and the visible on-ice progression and player commentary are all consistent with a thoughtful and intentional approach based on the individual athlete in question and his unique physical and mental attributes.

What the team will do next fall remains to be seen. I think it is quite clear that they are prioritizing Slaf's development... understandable... happens in every sport league that has a draft, top picks get a more focused opportunity than lesser prospects or veterans that aren't considered core pieces, especially on a roster that does not have immediate performance (i.e playoff) outcomes. You may disagree with that approach, but I'd say the habs would be foolish to focus narrowly on who is best on-ice in the pre-season/camp as the only factor determining who makes the opening night roster.

 

[Twisted Sinister]

Luneau was my choice too. Wild guess: he will reach NHL before Hutson.

I was actually kind of high on him as well. Good tools. They're playing in different leagues rn and I think Hutson would benefit from hanging around in the NCAA for a little while so you might be right.

I read this article and I sensed some frustration from the two unidentified NHL scouts. They sounded like guys that knew they missed something. Personnaly, I liked the pick on draft day. Given that his talent was obvious, I saw it as a pure bet on the fact that Hutson physical growth was far from over. The big question mark was about his size. Will he grow to 5'10" or 5'11", or will he stay at 5'08"? That was the bet, and the Habs clearly won that bet. Hutson is now 5'10", with a chance to end up at 5'11" and 175-180 lbs at full maturity. Given his hockey IQ, it's enough.

Obviously scouts didn't think much of him. That's why he slipped to us. NHL scouts often have a dinosaur mentality and can be wrong.

The Habs had the 1OA they could’ve done anything they wanted! How much choice should the Habs have before you agree to call a spade a spade?

Note I am NOT re-litigating the choice to select Slafkovksy with the 1OA. There is no point to do so right now. But to say the Habs didn’t have a choice but to choose Slafkovsky is not remotely appropriate.

The Habs chose Slafkovksy and they chose to start him in the NHL and they chose to keep him last game9 and trigger his first year ELC and they chose to keep him even after he got rocked skating with his head down multiple times and they chose to keep him past game39 where it would count against his early UFA eligibility.

At every inflection point they had choices. And then he got a 40-game injury.

As for other options, my comment on the first page of this thread was written in July 2022. To summarize: I don’t know why they chose the W with question marks over the Cs and Ds with question marks. All things being equal we needed blue chip talent at C and D and both are harder to come by. If they had not picked Slafkovsky would anybody at that moment really have been surprised, shocked, disappointed, let down? I don’t think so, Slaf simply wasn’t a “must have” prospect in general or for the Habs. He was a very intriguing prospect but his warts were not hidden or few. And I don’t think the other options were as big projects as Slaf, tbh. If Wright is the Tinman then Slaf is the Scarecrow.

As for the C talk, some said Dach is the C we needed. I don’t agree. Dach isn’t a first line C right now. he might break 40pts this year and post a c.55 pt pace which is very good step up from last year. How much more can we expect him to improve? I don’t think it’s fair of Habs fans to expect Dach to add another 20pts to his PPG, that’s not really easy to come by.

Yep, all of that.

I'll add to that the reason I didn't like Slaf, very succinctly, and why I think his choice made this a bad draft.

When I evaluate a player, I look at several factors that I consider to be of similar importance, though the first is the most important.

-Hockey IQ

-Skating

-Overall Toolkit other than skating (and whether or not any of those tools are elite)

-Size

-Production

So if I go by my own criteria, Slaf is an atrocious pick. His hockey IQ is terrible, his skating is respectable, his toolkit does not contain anything elite (decent shot, good passing when he makes a good decision for once, etc), and his production has been meh. The only thing he has is size. It really feels like we drafted this guy based on two tournaments and nothing else because I just don't see it.

So I'd say, based on Slaf and Mesar, this draft isn't as good as it could have been. We got some respectable picks in the back-end, but I think Bobrov screwed us in the first round.

 

[abo9]

“NHL Readiness” is a different aspect than “Project-ness”

From what I understand, none of them were NHL Ready (and The Habs were in no rush or need to draft an NHL Ready player) but Slaf was the most daunting Project… ostensibly because he had the most upside.

Gotcha. I think it was a tough call. Still so much time for the players to develop, I really hope that Slaf becomes a top line asset... I'm tired of the Habs getting top picks in the worst possible drafts to do so.

 

[ReHabs]

Gotcha. I think it was a tough call. Still so much time for the players to develop, I really hope that Slaf becomes a top line asset... I'm tired of the Habs getting top picks in the worst possible drafts to do so.

Me too, man. Some people here think my tedious argumentation is irritating, I suppose they’re much more comfortable with the knowledge that the Habs very likely blew it on a once in a generation 1OA and then doubled down by rushing him to the NHL and tripled down by keeping him up when he was so clearly in over his head.

Best upside I see from Slaf is a top6 player who produces like a second liner. Deluxe Anderson. Will influence games due to his size and reach and speed, not his playmaking though.

 

[ReHabs]

again, you seem to miss the point entirely.

In one post, you claim with complete certainty that PP ice time is "earned", ignoring the context by which a coach or gm will prioritize certain players for those opportunities for reasons outside of on-ice performance... and then in this case, you flip flop to the opposite and suggest that ice time/roster opportunity is solely due to organizational priority and not reflective of the player "earning" it.

flip-flopping like that for the sake of supporting an argument is... what it is.

As for Slaf and the organizational commentary about his development and their justification for him being rostered in the NHL, i think your take is way off base. The communication about the organizational decision to play him in the NHL, plus the way he was used before he got hurt, plus the noticeable developments in his game, were all quite consistent.

It's one thing to disagree with the approach, it's another to blindly dismiss it and allege "fibbing". I get being jaded after years of MB and his lack of transparency & competence... often he did outright "fib", or flip decisions erratically... but that is simply not what we have seen thus far from Hughes & MSL.

Perhaps you don't really understand athlete development... fair enough. But for those familiar with the principles of successful high-performance athlete development, the narrative and the visible on-ice progression and player commentary are all consistent with a thoughtful and intentional approach based on the individual athlete in question and his unique physical and mental attributes.

What the team will do next fall remains to be seen. I think it is quite clear that they are prioritizing Slaf's development... understandable... happens in every sport league that has a draft, top picks get a more focused opportunity than lesser prospects or veterans that aren't considered core pieces, especially on a roster that does not have immediate performance (i.e playoff) outcomes. You may disagree with that approach, but I'd say the habs would be foolish to focus narrowly on who is best on-ice in the pre-season/camp as the only factor determining who makes the opening night roster.

Well, about PP time it’s a different context than rostering a blue chip prospect. There is no incongruity there. Otherwise, you contradict yourself with the last paragraph and the opening ones about “earning” a spot on the roster. So let’s start over:

Do you think Slaf earned and kept a spot on the Habs roster this year from a sporting standpoint?

If you think yes and yes, then we have nothing more to discuss. We can agree to disagree — I didn’t see significant growth, just a hot streak and an extended ice cold streak you conveniently ignore.

But if you think you’d answer no to either the Earned a Spot or Kept a Spot question, then I dunno what to tell you man. A player who needs to improve his hockey IQ and/or playmaking needs to play a lot of minutes and get a lot of touches. I don’t see why putting up goose eggs and 12-14min a night on a garbage team at NHL speeds would improve that. Maybe you in your expertise as an athletic trainer can shed some light?

 

[1909]

I was actually kind of high on him as well. Good tools. They're playing in different leagues rn and I think Hutson would benefit from hanging around in the NCAA for a little while so you might be right.



Obviously scouts didn't think much of him. That's why he slipped to us. NHL scouts often have a dinosaur mentality and can be wrong.



Yep, all of that.

I'll add to that the reason I didn't like Slaf, very succinctly, and why I think his choice made this a bad draft.

When I evaluate a player, I look at several factors that I consider to be of similar importance, though the first is the most important.

-Hockey IQ

-Skating

-Overall Toolkit other than skating (and whether or not any of those tools are elite)

-Size

-Production

So if I go by my own criteria, Slaf is an atrocious pick. His hockey IQ is terrible, his skating is respectable, his toolkit does not contain anything elite (decent shot, good passing when he makes a good decision for once, etc), and his production has been meh. The only thing he has is size. It really feels like we drafted this guy based on two tournaments and nothing else because I just don't see it.

So I'd say, based on Slaf and Mesar, this draft isn't as good as it could have been. We got some respectable picks in the back-end, but I think Bobrov screwed us in the first round.

Is Bobrov our new Timmmins ?

 

[Miller Time]

Well, about PP time it’s a different context than rostering a blue chip prospect. There is no incongruity there. Otherwise, you contradict yourself with the last paragraph and the opening ones about “earning” a spot on the roster. So let’s start over:

Do you think Slaf earned and kept a spot on the Habs roster this year from a sporting standpoint?

If you think yes and yes, then we have nothing more to discuss. We can agree to disagree — I didn’t see significant growth, just a hot streak and an extended ice cold streak you conveniently ignore.

But if you think you’d answer no to either the Earned a Spot or Kept a Spot question, then I dunno what to tell you man. A player who needs to improve his hockey IQ and/or playmaking needs to play a lot of minutes and get a lot of touches. I don’t see why putting up goose eggs and 12-14min a night on a garbage team at NHL speeds would improve that. Maybe you in your expertise as an athletic trainer can shed some light?

There appears to be many things that you don't "see", that's what I was suggesting.

Hughes & MSL have already explained it about as clearly and simply as they could. Not much more I can add to their very succinct & clear explanation. Calling them liars because you don't understand the approach = bad take.

You brought up the "earning it" narrative. Flip flopping on what you mean by that word depending on the argument you try to make.

I'd offer that it's quite clear there is no objective "earning" of opportunity in pro sports.
It's an entertainment business for starters, and beyond that, the subjective approach of different coaches & organizations differ & therefore the context for each decision is different.

A player on team A may get lots of pp usage, then go to team B and get none, without any change to the performance variables in their control.

Same for prospects... What team they go to is as big, or bigger a factor in when they make the NHL roster as anything they can do to "earn" it.

Slaf & the team agreed to an approach, one that included the player being willing to make the kind of changes to his game that require patience & accepting worse immediate outcomes in favor of building long term gains.

If you aren't familiar with how that works, it's understandable that you'd be frustrated by the predictable dips & inconsistencies that go with it, and that you'd fail to grasp why staying in Montreal working directly with the coaching staff was prioritized.

Your perception of his hockey IQ issues seems clearly tied to stat watching. Evaluating performance and progression goes far deeper than that superficial lens

 

[dcyhabs]

Me too, man. Some people here think my tedious argumentation is irritating, I suppose they’re much more comfortable with the knowledge that the Habs very likely blew it on a once in a generation 1OA and then doubled down by rushing him to the NHL and tripled down by keeping him up when he was so clearly in over his head.

Best upside I see from Slaf is a top6 player who produces like a second liner. Deluxe Anderson. Will influence games due to his size and reach and speed, not his playmaking though.

The question is whether any of the other players will be more than that plus how they fit. I guessed that habs management looked at the various players and prospects coming up, saw a size problem, and figured that good smallish players wouldn’t help. Jiricek was the only other pick I can think of in the discussion for first with size and he was hurt.

I don’t really like the pick because the habs have made so many picks for size that have bombed. I see the point, though, and Dach was the other attempt to get bigger that looks better so far. Dach isn’t really physical, though, and the habs are really lacking that aspect. Most forwards on the way are average or smaller. I really don’t see them trading Anderson for the same reason.

It’s disappointing there weren’t better options at 1OA, but, if there had been, other teams would probably have shamelessly outtanked the habs. I don’t see the habs finishing bottom 3 with a generational player available. They are going to have to massively improve every aspect of the franchise because the easy fixes aren’t available.