Montreal Canadiens Prospects: The Wait and See Approach

Over the years, a few readers have asked me why I don’t write more about Montreal Canadiens’ prospects.

It’s a fair question. After all, if you write about the Canadiens, prospects are obviously part of the conversation, even more so during a rebuild. The draft, development camps, junior tournaments, the AHL and all those young players supposedly destined to become the next big thing can generate an endless supply of material.

But here’s the thing. Why don’t I follow prospects closely until they reach the NHL? Because, quite frankly, I think it is a poor use of my time.

That may sound harsh, particularly to those who spend countless hours watching junior, European and NCAA games online, studying prospect rankings, tracking development and arguing over whether an 18-year-old should be ranked 17th or 23rd. I genuinely admire the dedication. I really do. There are some exceptionally knowledgeable prospect writers out there who put an incredible amount of work into their craft. It just isn’t for me.

The Stats

Consider this. Over the past 20 years, approximately 4,300 players have been selected in the NHL Draft. Of those, only about 2,100 have played at least one NHL game, or roughly 49 per cent. More importantly, only around 800, or less than 19 per cent, have gone on to play at least five years in the league.

And, as you would expect, the odds get considerably worse the further down the draft you go.

Breakdown by draft position:

• 1st Round: Approximately 89 per cent play at least one NHL game; roughly 41 to 43 per cent go on to play five or more years.
• 2nd Round: Approximately 67 per cent play at least one NHL game; roughly 17 per cent reach five or more years.
• 3rd and 4th Rounds: Approximately 45 per cent play at least one NHL game; roughly 8 to 10 per cent reach five or more years.
• 5th to 7th Rounds: Approximately 28 to 33 per cent play at least one NHL game; only about 4 to 5 per cent reach five or more years.

So while I appreciate that some people love following prospects and the NHL Draft, it’s a lot of work and time dedicated mostly to kids who will never have a sip of coffee at the NHL level, let alone have a meaningful impact.

That brings me to another problem. Drafting an 18-year-old is not exactly a pure science. In fact, calling it a science might be giving it more credit than it deserves.

Amateur analysts are generally comparing 18-year-olds against other 18-year-olds, almost exclusively through video. The problem is that much of that video follows the puck. That means we see where the action is while missing a considerable amount of what the player is doing away from it. We may see a beautiful goal, but not the three shifts beforehand when the player made questionable reads. We see the big hit, but not the five times he was out of position.

https://x.com/thesickpodcasts/status/2089698831172817323

Professional scouting is an entirely different animal.

NHL scouts watch these players live, repeatedly, and often in different situations. They study them with and without the puck. They speak with coaches, teammates and people around the player. Scouts within an organization compare notes, challenge each other’s observations and eventually sit down with the Director of Amateur Scouting and General Manager to determine where these players fit on their internal lists.

Then there is the NHL Combine, interviews, medical evaluations, testing and, increasingly, psychological assessments. Teams are not simply asking, “Is this kid good?” They are trying to determine whether his game will translate to the NHL, how he will respond to adversity, how coachable he is, how he processes information and, perhaps most importantly, how much more development remains in him.

And then they have to predict when he might reach his ceiling. Good luck with that.

Predicting the future development of an 18-year-old is a little like trying to determine what kind of tree a sapling will become while standing in a forest during a hurricane. You can make an educated guess, but there are an awful lot of variables you cannot control.

So why would I dedicate hours upon hours watching prospects, gathering microscopic pieces of information and attempting to reach conclusions when professional organizations with full-time scouts, analytics departments, development coaches and considerably more access are doing precisely the same thing?

Nah. I’ll let them do it.

My interest in prospects really begins when the picture becomes clearer, preferably when a player reaches the NHL or is knocking seriously on the door. With the Canadiens, for example, I pay particular attention to players such as David Reinbacher and Jacob Fowler because they are approaching that stage where we can start getting a much better idea of what they may actually become at the NHL level. I also keep an eye on Owen Beck and Florian Xhekaj because I like the way their games appear to translate to the NHL and, importantly, to what Montreal needs.

That doesn’t mean I think prospect coverage is useless. Far from it. For those who enjoy it, follow it and have the expertise to do it properly, more power to them. Somebody has to keep track of all those kids.

I simply don’t believe I need to be one of them.

As a fan and an amateur writer, I would rather spend my time discussing what players are actually doing against NHL competition than trying to predict what an 18-year-old might do three or four years from now. There is enough uncertainty in hockey once the puck drops at the NHL level. I don’t need to manufacture more of it by trying to predict the future.

Besides, I’ve been wrong about enough NHL players already. I’m not looking to give myself another full-time job.