Behind the scenes look at the Canadiens 2018 draft weekend

[lamp9post]

Did you go to Trump University to learn your debating skills? Where in all the posts I put up on this subject did I even hint that the Habs should never trade down? And in case you're still not clear let me spell it out for you.

If MB wanted to trade one of those many picks I had no problems with that move. But He should have discussed it with Timmins in the war room before the draft. Not make a half-assed decision on the spur of the moment and leave your scouting team drifting in the wind. The way he handled that process shows me the man is not a methodical planner. He works off the seat of his pants and way more often than not he lands on his face.

How do you know that those discussions didn't take place?

 

[Andrei79]

How do you know that those discussions didn't take place?

Considering this has been talked about multiple times.

How about you tell us what makes you think it did.

Don't half ass it. Bring some actual evidence that goes against what we saw, heard and read.

 

[Habs Icing]

How do you know that those discussions didn't take place?

Because the clip before the phone call and after Molson comes over to show him something on his cell, MB flips his papers and says, "We have all these picks here, I want to move one of those." If they had discussed that move in the war room MB would have phrased it differently and Timmins and Churla's expression would have been different.

Timmins is surprised and his nod is not all that convincing but watch Churla. He's pretending to look at his papers but eavesdrops on the conversation and when he understands what is about to happen, watch the look of disgust on his face.

Everything about that scene tells me moving one of those picks was never brought up before the draft.

 

[THE HOFF]

I don't know, man, Houde looked decent at the development camp. He may surprise some of you guys.

in later rounds, it comes down to a simple question : do you see something in him that might completely offset his draft rank? (ie : a quality so strong it might carry him all the way despite being raw and less complete) Nothing is dumber at that point than to take guys in the order that they are ranked in by concesus. There won't be 100+ players from this draft playing in the next 2-3 years so I don't get the hate that pick got (got an idea why though) especially because he did good in the camp like you said. just let haters bark man, they haven't even seen him play.

 

[G0bias]

With some of the players still on the board, the trade isn't something that personally bothers me as much. But that has more to do with me also being high on these other players.

If Timmins and his staff don't share the same level of enthusiasm for those players however and believe Hillis is a clear step above the rest of his grouping(which it seems like based on the interview), then I have to agree, in retrospect Houde is a low payoff for such a risk.

Now if you tell me we got a high reward type like Zhuravlyov out of it instead of Houde, I can't complain.

 

[MasterDecoy]

This thread just screams: it's summer

 

[Ozmodiar]

The trade is fine. Part of MB's job is accumulate assets, and if he sees value in the trade, he should make it. There's always a risk in these types of trades ... for both teams. Less so in the later rounds.

Timmins' job is to make the pick when they're on the clock. I'm sure he always has a player in mind for the 'next pick', but I'm sure he's used to not getting too attached to a player until the selection is made.

Still, I see why folks are skeptical about the move. The GM is just awful, so his moves should be met with a certain degree of skepticism.

 

[PaulD]

But you do see what we’ve drafted in the last few years, the centre quality that’s coming up, the fact that we are aiming for another bottom 8 finish that’ll yield us another great draft......you do see the bigger picture do you??

Posters (not you specifically) clamour for a tank job and when they get one, they complain that we are losing....DUH.....it’s a ****in tank, I’ve yet to witness a tank that involves lots of winning.

Yes I recognize your points. All good ones.

But I personally dont have an iota of hope or optimism on a tank, rebuild, development plan that MB is the GM of. None . Zero.

I cant even drum up the interest I used to have in following the prospects. Until this clown is gone I follow the rest of the league much more closely.

Im a bigger fan of you guys and this board than I am of the modern day Montreal Canadiens.

Hell, I go to the gym when the Canadiens are playing now. I'm cut like a diamond thanks to the time feed up by not having to watch the shit show.

 

[lamp9post]

Considering this has been talked about multiple times.

How about you tell us what makes you think it did.

Don't half ass it. Bring some actual evidence that goes against what we saw, heard and read.

That's not how it works. Read about the burden of proof. The obligation is on the poster to defend his assertion, not to me to disprove it.

The poster said that those discussions didn't happen. I can't prove they did or didn't (I'm guessing the poster can't either), but if you're going to make that assertion, it should be backed up. All we have is this 10 minute edited video - it doesn't tell the whole picture.

 

[Andrei79]

That's not how it works. Read about the burden of proof. The obligation is on the poster to defend his assertion, not to me to disprove it.

The poster said that those discussions didn't happen. I can't prove they did or didn't (I'm guessing the poster can't either), but if you're going to make that assertion, it should be backed up. All we have is this 10 minute edited video - it doesn't tell the whole picture.

Actually no.

This isn't a trial. The burden of proof serves a purpose when there are consequences, some which can even determine if a person will live or die.

We're just giving opinions here. The burden of proof is on both parties to support those opinions. If all you can come up with is "how you know he didn'" even though multiple things that have been brought up imply that he didn't, then that's not really a balanced debate, is it ?

 

[lamp9post]

Because the clip before the phone call and after Molson comes over to show him something on his cell, MB flips his papers and says, "We have all these picks here, I want to move one of those." If they had discussed that move in the war room MB would have phrased it differently and Timmins and Churla's expression would have been different.

Timmins is surprised and his nod is not all that convincing but watch Churla. He's pretending to look at his papers but eavesdrops on the conversation and when he understands what is about to happen, watch the look of disgust on his face.

Everything about that scene tells me moving one of those picks was never brought up before the draft.

You could very well be right, but you're broadly generalizing based on a very limited amount of coverage. 10 minutes. The Habs had months to prepare for this draft and Bergevin/Timmins have done 7 of these together. And there have been trade-backs in those drafts that have preceded this one. Again, I didn't see Timmins protesting the decision to move back in any of the coverage I saw.

Furthermore, I object to the way "trading down" is seen to be an affront from the GM to the scouting staff in this thread. The intent of doing so was/is to add another pick for the scouting staff to make. If anything, trading down in this manner is a testimony to the GM's confidence in the scouts to find value in the later rounds.

Again, there could well be a massive communication problem between the GM and the scouting staff. It's possible given what we've seen from this GM, but I haven't heard any discontent from Timmins about the way drafts are handled and I don't think a few facial expressions in a 10 minute, edited video is conclusive evidence to assume otherwise.

 

[lamp9post]

Actually no.

This isn't a trial. The burden of proof serves a purpose when there are consequences, some which can even determine if a person will live or die.

We're just giving opinions here. The burden of proof is on both parties to support those opinions. If all you can come up with is "how you know he didn'" even though multiple things that have been brought up imply that he didn't, then that's not really a balanced debate, is it ?[/QUOTE]

I would say that there is actually no debate because you can't support your assertions.

 

[417]

How do you know that those discussions didn't take place?

See they weren't on the Habs video they posted about the draft.

So of course, it didn't happen.

The video we saw, were the only discussions they had pre-draft and during the draft.

 

[417]

You could very well be right, but you're broadly generalizing based on a very limited amount of coverage. 10 minutes. The Habs had months to prepare for this draft and Bergevin/Timmins have done 7 of these together. And there have been trade-backs in those drafts that have preceded this one. Again, I didn't see Timmins protesting the decision to move back in any of the coverage I saw.

Furthermore, I object to the way "trading down" is seen to be an affront from the GM to the scouting staff in this thread. The intent of doing so was/is to add another pick for the scouting staff to make. If anything, trading down in this manner is a testimony to the GM's confidence in the scouts to find value in the later rounds.

Again, there could well be a massive communication problem between the GM and the scouting staff. It's possible given what we've seen from this GM, but I haven't heard any discontent from Timmins about the way drafts are handled and I don't think a few facial expressions in a 10 minute, edited video is conclusive evidence to assume otherwise.

Preach!

 

[Whitesnake]

The whole debate about the trading of picks has nothing to do with who we picked...but rather what it SEEMS to be like Timmins wasn't consulted when in the end, he is the one who knows if the guys he wants will be there or not. You should not trade picks for the purpose of just getting another one...you should trade picks based on who you despereately want or not. So the "debate" is...did Timmins know? And frankly...it's just impossible to know. We can read faces or expressions all we want....it is just a wild good chase. You do hope that he talks to his scouting group before he moves picks. In that case, we don't know. And it worked out. Move on.

Responding to Schooner...yes....people judge GM's based on their overall body of work. You will have more a tendancy to think that a guy screws up when he regularly screws up then the opposite. STill, everybody knows that Danault was a good deal. That even his latest Armia deal if a good one. That Byron was a neat pickup. But he's past the reason of a doubt. A guy that was guilty in the past will not get the same treatment than the innocent one....Bergevin will need to be a freakin wizard to change perception. And that's not our fault.

 

[Andrei79]

I would say that there is actually no debate because you can't support your assertions.

Except we did multiple times, including with quotes from the head scout.

Continue to ignore all of this however.

That you tried to turn this deal into a vote of confidence to his scouting team is also puzzling to say the least.

He took the risk of losing out on one of his head scouts favorite players, that Timmins wanted badly, for pick 133. And with the pick, he drafted a player that he liked. A player that was a good bet at going undrafted.

And somehow, that's a vote of confidence to his scouting team.

 

[lamp9post]

Except we did multiple times, including with quotes from the head scout.

Continue to ignore all of this however.

That you tried to turn this deal into a vote of confidence to his scouting team is also puzzling to say the least.

He took the risk of losing out on one of his head scouts favorite players, that Timmins wanted badly, for pick 133. And with the pick, he drafted a player that he liked. A player that was a good bet at going undrafted.

And somehow, that's a vote of confidence to his scouting team.

Please send me a link to the quotes from the head scout that indicated that trade-down scenarios were not discussed in any of the pre-draft meetings. Perhaps I missed it.

Also, please send me a link to a quote from Timmins saying that Hillis is one of his favourite players.

If you have time, I'd also be interested to know why you think that Bergevin himself made the call to draft Houde.

 

[Andrei79]

Please send me a link to the quotes from the head scout that indicated that trade-down scenarios were not discussed in any of the pre-draft meetings. Perhaps I missed it.

Also, please send me a link to a quote from Timmins saying that Hillis is one of his favourite players.

If you have time, I'd also be interested to know why you think that Bergevin himself made the call to draft Houde.

I'll respond to your 3 points:

1. Before answering this part, we need to be clear on what we're arguing here. Do you think my position (and Habs Icings') was that NO trade scenarios were discussed or that the specific trade down scenario for the 62nd, and the specific scenario of having a targeted player including someone like Hillis being available, wasn't discussed ? This is an important nuance because they imply two vastly different things.

2. It's in McCaggs draft review: "I wanted Hillis badly" "Hillis was one of my favourite prospects."

3. I said he drafted a player he liked, which is a fact as he even mentioned having scouted him personally and that he liked him in his press conference. Houde also played for Donald Audettes midget team btw, so I don't think MB was the only driving force behind that selection.