Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who would you take as a D if you had to at #3? Would swapping picks be worth it?
#1
My choice is clear: DOBSON.

Size at 6'3". Fluid skater at both ends of the rink. Solid positioning in all three zones, poise with the puck.

IMO, he's more of a Hedman type than a Karlsson type of D, but a cornerstone to build your back end around, nonetheless. He's the biggest all around bluechip D after Dahlin, IMHO.

Moving down is difficult a proposition because I don't think that a team will give you any valuable return on the position swap before they fall too low to guarantee you that you will be picking a player your really were willing to settle for.

For example, OTT certainly won't give you the privilege of getting any of their top C prospects in exchange for 3rd overall because they could pick Wahlstrom (likely will, I'm betting) at 4th or Tkachuk, if they wanted a forward, which is what Svechnikov/Zadina would be at #3. Otherwise, why weaken themselves up front by giving away a C prospect when they can address potentially losing Karlsson with Dobson, Hughes, Boqvist or Bouchard at #4.

Arizona (5th) still has top choices, IMO, as does Detroit (6th) and Vancouver (7th). The player picked at 8th (by CHI) and beyond (  including the EDM 10th that is being passed off as a #1 pick by that fan base Wink  ) will be named after a lot more uh-m-ms and ah-h-hs from the teams picking them and buyer's remorse will be more at the back of their minds than it would have been earlier in the draft.

It would become a case of being willing to make a pick likelier to be the wrong one by swapping picks as part of a package trade with CHI (8th), the NYRs (9th), EDM (10th) or the Islanders (11th and/or 12th). I've looked at the teams' prospects and the likelihood of getting a decent prospect based on team depth is, maybe not surprisingly at all, better as the pick gets further away from our own. The improvement in picks and quality of players also raises the likelihood of a team doing so.

People say that St-Louis will never trade Robert Thomas for Pacioretty, for example, or that FLA won't trade Borgström for the much maligned captain either.

However, St-Louis doesn't have a 1st round pick of their own or a second round pick of their own this year, I believe. They will, however, from the Stasny trade, get the WIN pick in the first round, which, the way things are going, could be as low as the last pick in that round (31st) if the Pooh Bears win the Cup! 

Would our 3rd overall and a 2nd round pick make a dent in their resolve to hold onto Robert Thomas?

Are there other such C prospects on teams picking later and more stacked down the middle that might be willing to part with such a C for an elite winger and a 2nd round pick that they don't need to rush to the NHL, or that might help them overcome a Cap crunch in an attempt to keep a Cup window open? A C with even more upside for a team that needs him even less right away?

IMO, it's not necessarily impossible for Bergevin to finagle some quality bluechip prospect on the verge of playing in the NHL for some of his wealth of draft picks. I, personally, wouldn't be against it, because getting a young kid that is more quantifiable for picks, even a top-3 and a 2nd rounder, isn't like we'd be selling the farm for anything remotely old. At that point, both the 3rd rounder and the C you acquired for him will give you the same amount of years at the NHL level. Only, yours will get there sooner to help your team, or, even if the winger gets there at the same time, you'll have definitively helped your situation at C. The 2nd rounder is the premium for the move to C and the potentially quicker access to your player/solution.

At that point, you're still deep on wing (even though you wouldn't have Svechnikov/Zadina in your lineup, perhaps a winger that you would have been rushing without a C with which they could properly progress) and could still move Pacioretty for help on D, a likelier scenario in the first place, IMHO.

MON could still benefit from signing a veteran C like Stasny at the opening of the UFA market, for example, to bridge the gap until Poehling has fully matured. In the meantime, the young C acquired -- who we'll call Robert Thomas, strictly for illustration purposes, but it could be Borgström or some other promising C --would have already gained three to four years of experience as a 2nd line C and be better prepared to move up to 1st line duties in order to make room for Poehling. Or Poehling could get a 1st year in at 3rd line C while Stasny played his final year at 2nd line C and Thomas moved up to 1st line C.

I'd definitely buy a C-line situation like that going forward. Would you? It's easy to X-nay the idea and quickly claim that the 3rd overall and a 2nd pick wouldn't do it (it might though, if the team isn't desperately in need of a C), but maybe we toss in Lindgren because they are fearful about winning with their G and another 2nd if the C prospect is really worth it. It's not impossible, whatever naysayers maintain.

Galchenyuk - Stasny - Gallagher
Drouin - Thomas (illustration) - Lehkonen
Hudon - Danault - Scherbak
Byron - DeLaRose/Evans - Shaw

Pacioretty + provided D - Weber
Mete - Petry
Alzner - Juulsen

I know I moved on from the D discussion, but I am curious to see who you would pick and why.

I also see other possibilities than just olde Cs as an upgrade to our C-line...

...or a trade with those rat bastard Oilers Wink

Let's see if it is actually possible to construct something better steadfastly, even if your end statement would be that purple pants couldn't pull it off. Happy
Ancient Chinese Proverb: A mosquito landing on your testicle should help you realize that violence doesn't solve every problem
Reply
Thanks given by:
#2
How come if your choice is 'clear', in the other thread you offer this:

"Why even bother trading Gallagher for Juolevi when you can draft Bouchard instead" and then offer a list of the latter's merits.

Are you moving down in both cases, or is this 'if you had to' take a D at No. 3?

I'm apparently easily confused.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#3
(2018-05-16, 05:11 PM)RightNyder Wrote: How come if your choice is 'clear', in the other thread you offer this:

"Why even bother trading Gallagher for Juolevi when you can draft Bouchard instead" and then offer a list of the latter's merits.

Are you moving down in both cases, or is this 'if you had to' take a D at No. 3?

I'm apparently easily confused.
I'm just making a point with Bouchard because you suggested trading Gallagher for Juolevi and Bouchard blew Juolevi out of the water once he replaced him as the go-to guy in Juniors.

I'd still take Dobson over Bouchard because he's an all around package that you can count on in all zones. More bluechip than Bouchard and Juolevi, IMO.
Ancient Chinese Proverb: A mosquito landing on your testicle should help you realize that violence doesn't solve every problem
Reply
Thanks given by:
#4
Id have to say Bouchard however I would not draft a dman other the Dahlin until the 7th or 8th pick

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Reply
Thanks given by:
#5
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Reply
Thanks given by:
#6
(2018-05-16, 06:43 PM)DDO_Habs_Fan Wrote: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Either you had time on your hands or you were just lazy when replying and couldn't take your finger off the keypad Wink

I'm not saying to pick a D at 3rd, but who would be the first D you would pick and why. Obviously, we're not talking about Dahlin because he'd be gone when you were up at bat to pick.
Ancient Chinese Proverb: A mosquito landing on your testicle should help you realize that violence doesn't solve every problem
Reply
Thanks given by:
#7
(2018-05-16, 06:34 PM)labradorcongo Wrote: Id have to say Bouchard however I would not draft a dman other the Dahlin until the 7th or 8th pick

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Why Bouchard? Just because he had more points? Dobson is a better skate and has no real weakness in any zone. He's always calm and collected with the puck and has good vision.

Bouchard needs to vastly improve on D, but, as Dobson can also be, he's a surfer PP quarterback.
Ancient Chinese Proverb: A mosquito landing on your testicle should help you realize that violence doesn't solve every problem
Reply
Thanks given by:
#8
Yup pretty much based on offensive ability. A player can improve skating, defensive awareness, positioning etc.. Creativity and offensive instinct are not really things that can be taught. Dobson maybe a safer pick but I think Bouchard may have a higher ceiling.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Reply
Thanks given by:
#9
Solve the bigger problem at center if you're going to trade the #3 pick away.
If it's not going to be fixed, eff it and take the best offense-oriented forward available.
209 goals for tells you a lot of what you need to know about the Habs. They can't score because they suck and they suck because they can't score.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#10
(2018-05-16, 11:06 PM)Cal Wrote: Solve the bigger problem at center if you're going to trade the #3 pick away.
If it's not going to be fixed, eff it and take the best offense-oriented forward available.
209 goals for tells you a lot of what you need to know about the Habs. They can't score because they suck and they suck because they can't score.
Yeah, okay. So, which D would you pick, apart from Dahlin if you had to pick a D.
Ancient Chinese Proverb: A mosquito landing on your testicle should help you realize that violence doesn't solve every problem
Reply
Thanks given by:
#11
(2018-05-17, 01:16 AM)Scriptor Wrote:
(2018-05-16, 11:06 PM)Cal Wrote: Solve the bigger problem at center if you're going to trade the #3 pick away.
If it's not going to be fixed, eff it and take the best offense-oriented forward available.
209 goals for tells you a lot of what you need to know about the Habs. They can't score because they suck and they suck because they can't score.
Yeah, okay. So, which D would you pick, apart from Dahlin if you had to pick a D.

Frankly, I wouldn't pick a D. There's never a "have to" or a "simply must" situation.
Weber needs a partner and we don't know yet if Reilly can fit the bill. They may have excellent chemistry or it might not work at all.
The hole at center has existed since Damphousse was traded in 1999. 20 years later, it still has not been addressed.
This is inexcusable. It's simply poor management.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#12
Scriptor's question is: who is your 2nd rated D?
The MB Trifecta: Low Cost, Low Risk, No Return
Reply
Thanks given by:
#13
(2018-05-17, 08:16 AM)Captain aHab Wrote: Scriptor's question is: who is your 2nd rated D?

Thnx.
Ancient Chinese Proverb: A mosquito landing on your testicle should help you realize that violence doesn't solve every problem
Reply
Thanks given by:
#14
I don't know how they decide which 17 year old just turned 18 is better, especially when a few 18 year olds just about to turn 19 are involved.

By training Camp, yeah, you can see that Sergachev at 9 is NHL ready while Mike McLeod maybe isn't. After a few NHL games you can see Sergachev can play NHL but maybe he should play CHL. Still, an outstanding achievement for one so young and new to the continent.

Is there a Sergachev in this draft? I don't get to see the kids, I really don't know. In a strong top end draft (Matthews, Puljujarvi, Dubois, Laine, Chychrun) Sergachev is a logical choice at 9. But if you had the 3rd would you take Sergachev rather than Dubois or Puljujarvi? 

At 3 I'd just go with the logical choice, the BPA. I'd never diminish the 3rd, but I'd try and augment it with a 7-10th which are probably buyable. Most of the D high probability players fall into that area.

But trading down? Nah.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#15
(2018-05-17, 03:59 PM)New Wrote: I don't know how they decide which 17 year old just turned 18 is better, especially when a few 18 year olds just about to turn 19 are involved.

By training Camp, yeah, you can see that Sergachev at 9 is NHL ready while Mike McLeod maybe isn't. After a few NHL games you can see Sergachev can play NHL but maybe he should play CHL. Still, an outstanding achievement for one so young and new to the continent.

Is there a Sergachev in this draft? I don't get to see the kids, I really don't know. In a strong top end draft (Matthews, Puljujarvi, Dubois, Laine, Chychrun) Sergachev is a logical choice at 9. But if you had the 3rd would you take Sergachev rather than Dubois or Puljujarvi? 

At 3 I'd just go with the logical choice, the BPA. I'd never diminish the 3rd, but I'd try and augment it with a 7-10th which are probably buyable. Most of the D high probability players fall into that area.

But trading down? Nah.
Me too. If we really wanted to, we likely have the assets this year to get another high enough 1st rounder, but it would be costly, nonetheless, IMO.
Ancient Chinese Proverb: A mosquito landing on your testicle should help you realize that violence doesn't solve every problem
Reply
Thanks given by:
#16
(2018-05-17, 04:12 PM)Scriptor Wrote:
(2018-05-17, 03:59 PM)New Wrote: I don't know how they decide which 17 year old just turned 18 is better, especially when a few 18 year olds just about to turn 19 are involved.

By training Camp, yeah, you can see that Sergachev at 9 is NHL ready while Mike McLeod maybe isn't. After a few NHL games you can see Sergachev can play NHL but maybe he should play CHL. Still, an outstanding achievement for one so young and new to the continent.

Is there a Sergachev in this draft? I don't get to see the kids, I really don't know. In a strong top end draft (Matthews, Puljujarvi, Dubois, Laine, Chychrun) Sergachev is a logical choice at 9. But if you had the 3rd would you take Sergachev rather than Dubois or Puljujarvi? 

At 3 I'd just go with the logical choice, the BPA. I'd never diminish the 3rd, but I'd try and augment it with a 7-10th which are probably buyable. Most of the D high probability players fall into that area.

But trading down? Nah.
Me too. If we really wanted to, we likely have the assets this year to get another high enough 1st rounder, but it would be costly, nonetheless, IMO.
I'm not as down on the Habs players as many here. Maybe the time invested following them colors my viewpoint. I think the issues are with the suits.
I'm just going to slap down some Vegas picks, their top C, LW, RW, 2 scoring D. They read a lot like Habs players in most cases. Sportsforecaster for the overall quantification of what the guy is or isn't.

First line for each is what they had done by expansion draft time. (Bracketed what they did this season.)

Center - Solid two-way forward with a little upside. 50 points in 203 NHL games but only 24.
(Karlsson who added 43 goals, 35 assists for 78 points at 18:43 a game)
LW -Skilled, depth scoring forward. 70 points in 124 NHL games. Older, age 26 and smaller at 5'9".
(Marchessault who did 27 goals, 48 assists for 75 points at 17:30 a game)
RW - Big, quality sniper, average skater.  451 points in 632 NHL games, turning 30.
(Neal 25 goals, 19 assists for 44 points at 17:10 a game)
Solid offensive D with a little upside. 103 NHL games, 29 points, 24 years old.
(Miller 10 goals, 31 assists for 41 points at 19:20 a game)
Solid, mobile puck-moving defenseman with a little upside.43 points in 200 NHL games. 25 years old.
(Schmidt 5 goals, 31 assists for 36 points at 22:14 a game - most of Vegas D)

Yet here is Vegas, with stories like that all through the lineup. Malcolm Subban playing as well as Fleury when all the goalies were injured.
Now that, that is the right attitude. 
Players must have brought it with them when left unprotected by their pre-expansion teams.

Farther along in the playoffs than Montreal has been in 25 years. In a city that never sleeps. Where the odds are always on the side of the house yet everybody leaves a winner.

Montreal isn't as far away as people like to explain with a blame game. They're just off the rails and have been since Cory. Vegas plays folks to their capacity. Montreal plays guys the wrong minutes, the wrong position, the wrong everything. Too many ego's involved. A little sackcloth and ashes should do wonders for what aren't terrible players, just a terrible situation.
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)