Skip to content
Nick Bobrov couldn’t make it to Russia this season (even though he’s Russian)

When I’m asked whether I’d like to see the Habs draft Matvei Michkov fifth overall in the next draft – if he’s available – or what decision I’d make if I were an executive, I often hesitate.

Why? Because I’m missing important data.

Of course, that’s always the case since I don’t work for the CH. That said, it’s even more obvious in the case of Matvei Michkov, given his importance and the situation in Russia.

And today, an article in The Athletic, by Arpon Basu, has just given me something I dread. And what’s that? It tells us that Nick Bobrov, a Russian man, has not been able to set foot in Russia this season.

Does this mean the Montreal Canadiens should avoid, for that reason alone, drafting a player who has the potential to single-handedly change the CH’s offense?

Not necessarily, no.

But what it should do is add itself to the “against” category when it comes time to draw up a table to determine the pros and cons of selecting Michkov in the next draft, which will take place at the end of the month.

Why? Because the Habs are aware that their development, both as players and as people, would take place far from Montreal standards.

After all, it’s one thing to know he’s away for three years. But it’s another thing entirely to know that his development, during that time, would be placed in the hands of a Russian club that knows it’s about to lose its crown jewel.

We know how important the development department has become since the change of administration


Are Kent Hughes and Jeff Gorton comfortable with the idea of leaving it in the hands of a club that seems difficult, in the short term, to set foot on for a member of the club who comes from the country in question?

After all, a player who plays in the NCAA or the CHL gets a visit from Francis Bouillon or another member of the development team. And if Michkov can’t get the same treatment, that’s a disadvantage.

In short-

Speak of the devil.

Attention all interested parties.

– Oh well


That’s a good one.


More Content