Did Trevor Timmins learn from his mistakes?

[montreal]

There's no way. Wasn't PG and A GM with BG? Weren't they the ones that wanted AK instead. He was the Director of Professional Scouting then so idk if he has a say in amateur scouting.

When he took over as GM in 2010. Those picks (2010, 2011) were Tinordi, Beaulieu, I think Kristo as well and i'm missing some others. TT is the man. Anyone else who says otherwise is clearly delusional.

As for 2003-2010, BG probably had more of a push for CP31 in 2005, AK46 most likely in 2003 and in 2006 BG probably pushed for a defenseman who wasn't the BPA. 2007 was gold in McD, Patches, and Subban in the 2nd round which, IMO i think was all TT probably after telling Gainey "we did it your way before, let me have at it now, i'll get you some great talent." Lo behold, he has a top 4 defenseman, a top 6 power forward, and a top 5 NHL defenseman from those first 2 rounds.

TT FOR GM!

Gainey joined the Habs as GM in May of 2003 and had nothing to do with the draft from what I recall reading. Also everything I heard was that Gainey was very hands-off when it came to the NHL draft.

Kristo was an '08 pick. I'd suggest taking a look at this site,
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00006929.html

 

[ProspectsFanatic]

Once again, totally incomplete... if all of those guys were from the CHL as you suggest, they'd have to be signed by now. Remember, teams are allowed 50 contracts...

It is not because they are playing in the NCAA and not in the AHL, that we cannot evaluate them pretty accurately, I don't understand your point? I'm not comparing players that have been under contract, because obviously that would have been unfair. I'm comparing players that have or will play one day in the NHL. I'm sorry if this sound harsh, but if you really think that players pick on the NCAA side will become better than the player picked on the CHL side, you don't know much about hockey. Obviously we cannot be 100% sure, but still...
For example, someone ask to Timmins at the combine do you think that this draft would be one of the best draft ever. He responded "We can't tell now, but we will know in 2 or 3 years."
The players I have listed enter in that time frame, if not more.

Didier has a much, much better shot at the NHL then Walsh imo. It's still early for Didier but I would bet he sees time in the NHL. MacMillan as well.

I stick with my first evaluation, but you are not wrong to think otherwise. I might have been harsh on Didier just a little bit. I think that Walsh could surprise if is able to put his injuries behind him.

Seems crazy to me to think that 3rd-5th rounds should be CHL players. Timmins should be picking the best players, no matter what no matter where they are from imo. I just don't understand the logic to say so and so rounds need to be from this league and so and so rounds need to be from other leagues.

Obviously, yes you pick the best guy available whatever the league he is playing in. No doubt in my mind. But from what I have seen, I might be wrong and I don't have any statistic to prove it, I think that in the 3rd-5th rounds CHL players are a best bet, because there are still good prospects available at that stage and they are easy to compare, so there is less uncertainty. In the 6th-7th it is really a gamble.. go for what you want. But in that case I feel that CHL players become less of an option because of the same reasons, the good ones have already been pick and you have more certainty that those who are still available wont become anything great. Just my two cents.

 

[Teufelsdreck]

There's no way. Wasn't PG and A GM with BG? Weren't they the ones that wanted AK instead. He was the Director of Professional Scouting then so idk if he has a say in amateur scouting.

When he took over as GM in 2010. Those picks (2010, 2011) were Tinordi, Beaulieu, I think Kristo as well and i'm missing some others. TT is the man. Anyone else who says otherwise is clearly delusional.

As for 2003-2010, BG probably had more of a push for CP31 in 2005, AK46 most likely in 2003 and in 2006 BG probably pushed for a defenseman who wasn't the BPA. 2007 was gold in McD, Patches, and Subban in the 2nd round which, IMO i think was all TT probably after telling Gainey "we did it your way before, let me have at it now, i'll get you some great talent." Lo behold, he has a top 4 defenseman, a top 6 power forward, and a top 5 NHL defenseman from those first 2 rounds.

TT FOR GM!

AKost was drafted before Gainey was installed. Every NHL draft is riddled with mistakes, from the first round on.

 

[Habsrule]

HabsProspectExpert I have a job for you.

A very simple job actually.

Just list your top 210 players in the 2013 draft. Just order them one through two hundred and ten. That is how many players are picked per year.

After your list is posted I will personally cross off every player as they get drafted. When the Habs are up next I will select who is the top player available on your list. It would be as if you were the GM/head scout and got to make your very own selections.

I will pull this thread up in five years and we can see how you would have done with your picks.

You just seem to talk like you know all about the draft and this is a little challenge for you.

Do you accept?

 

[ProspectsFanatic]

HabsProspectExpert I have a job for you.

A very simple job actually.

Just list your top 210 players in the 2013 draft. Just order them one through two hundred and ten. That is how many players are picked per year.

After your list is posted I will personally cross off every player as they get drafted. When the Habs are up next I will select who is the top player available on your list. It would be as if you were the GM/head scout and got to make your very own selections.

I will pull this thread up in five years and we can see how you would have done with your picks.

You just seem to talk like you know all about the draft and this is a little challenge for you.

Do you accept?

Honestly, this is something I would love to do. Haha. But this would be very long to do and I don't have the time for it.
And I just want to point out that, I know that nobody is perfect, myself included. I am a very critical person, but I am aware that I am not always right and like anybody else, it is normal to make mistakes sometimes.
The only prediction I can give you for the moment is that the observations I have made so far are pretty accurate, I believe that Timmins have also been able to make the same observations. And in that sense, I believe that Timmins will draft less late rounds college leagues players in the future, like he did last year. I don't say he will stop completely to draft those types of player, but just a little bit less.
An other thing I could do is, if you accept, I could look at the entire draft once it is done and tell you who I would have picked if I had the Montreal picks. I am aware of the fact that this might give me little advantage, but it would be much faster to do. And I have no problem with you pulling this thread up in five years. But I just want to make it clear once again that I wont be surprise if I did lesser than Montreal, but maybe the opposite could happen.

 

[Habsterix*]

It is not because they are playing in the NCAA and not in the AHL, that we cannot evaluate them pretty accurately, I don't understand your point? I'm not comparing players they have been under contract, because obviously that would have been unfair. I'm comparing players that have or will play one day in the NHL. I'm sorry if this sound harsh, but if really think that players pick on the NCAA side will become better than the player picked on the CHL side, you don't know much about hockey. Obviously we cannot be 100% sure, but still...
For example, someone ask to Timmins at the combine do you think that this draft would be one of the best draft ever. He responded "We can't tell now, but we will know in 2 or 3 years."
The players I have listed enter in that time frame, if not more.

To be totally honest, that you'd think that I do or not know my hockey doesn't phase me one bit. Your analysis is flawed from the start and cannot (and will not) be complete until those players have reached their potential. You're basing it on your estimates, your own evaluation without having seen those players, without true knowledge of what the organization thinks.

 

[deandebean]

I knew Toews was, but for some reason was thinking Keith was CHL. Still, a backbone from the CHL. I'm sure Bergevin saw that.

Keith played in the CHL.

 

[ProspectsFanatic]

To be totally honest, that you'd think that I do or not know my hockey doesn't phase me one bit. Your analysis is flawed from the start and cannot (and will not) be complete until those players have reached their potential. You're basing it on your estimates, your own evaluation without having seen those players, without true knowledge of what the organization thinks.

Ok, alright... Whatever I say, my reflected opinion has 0 value. Even if I was Trevor Timmins without you knowing it, that wouldn't change anything. You are only waiting for the obvious to happen to have an opinion on that subject. You can't develop any opinion for yourself, so you cannot be wrong at any time. Alright, it's fine I hear you.

But, I really hope you come back in 3 years (or 20 years to be 100% sure) and tell me if I was right or wrong.

By the way, I am happy to know that my thinking of you not knowing your hockey doesn't phase you a bit, because it is impossible for me to hold that statement if you don't have any opinion on that matter. You are just telling me that I cannot be right or wrong, because predictions are only predictions even if the predictions are well supported. What you are saying is equivalent to a lesser degree to; say that the sun will rise tomorrow is irrelevant, because you can't know the future with 100% certainty. Effectively, I can't argue with that. But, life will be pretty miserable if we will only be having discussions based on that way of thinking. And this is exactly what you are actually doing and this is why I am done talking to you.

 

[MasterDecoy]

every year like clockwork:

regular season: **** this team! can't score goals!
playoff: **** this team, so soff!!!
pre-draft: **** this team, can't draft for ****!



as for op, college prospects notoriously take much, much longer to develop. result don't look all that good, but i think it's still a bit too early to judge

 

[dmanfish90]

Gainey joined the Habs as GM in May of 2003 and had nothing to do with the draft from what I recall reading. Also everything I heard was that Gainey was very hands-off when it came to the NHL draft.

Kristo was an '08 pick. I'd suggest taking a look at this site,
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00006929.html

My bad.

However, if Gainey is GM in May and draft is in June, then yes Gainey had everything to do with the draft.

Who is ultimately responsible for drafting? The Director of Amateur Scouting or the General Manager?

This is my point. According to rumour, everyone but TT on the scouting staff wanted AK and i'm assuming BG went with the majority. In hindsight, we could have had better players, but oh well; c'est la vie.

I think our development of our prospects and management of our assets were our biggest weaknesses since the Gainey era.

 

[montreal]

I stick with my first evaluation, but you are not wrong to think otherwise. I might have been harsh on Didier just a little bit. I think that Walsh could surprise if is able to put his injuries behind him.


Obviously, yes you pick the best guy available whatever the league he is playing in. No doubt in my mind. But from what I have seen, I might be wrong and I don't have any statistic to prove it, I think that in the 3rd-5th rounds CHL players are a best bet, because there are still good prospects available at that stage and they are easy to compare, so there is less uncertainty. In the 6th-7th it is really a gamble.. go for what you want. But in that case I feel that CHL players become less of an option because of the same reasons, the good ones have already been pick and you have more certainty that those who are still available wont become anything great. Just my two cents.

Walsh in addition to the injuries, his skating is slugish (which may be due to the hip injury since I never saw him before he was drafted) so he has a long road to the NHL imo. Didier on the other hand is something the Habs sorely need more of and he has impressive mobility/skating for such a big kid. I would suggest taking a closer look at Didier next year, he's not flashy at all but I really think the Habs could use him down the road.

As for going into a draft thinking that we should pick CHLers in the 3-5th rounds, just doesn't sound logical to me. The Habs should be looking at every league when it comes to every pick, but clearly Timmins has done a good job of picking kids that end up seeing time in the NHL.

My bad.

However, if Gainey is GM in May and draft is in June, then yes Gainey had everything to do with the draft.

Who is ultimately responsible for drafting? The Director of Amateur Scouting or the General Manager?

This is my point. According to rumour, everyone but TT on the scouting staff wanted AK and i'm assuming BG went with the majority. In hindsight, we could have had better players, but oh well; c'est la vie.

I think our development of our prospects and management of our assets were our biggest weaknesses since the Gainey era.

I do recall Gainey saying he wouldn't be involved in the draft because he just joined the team. It was Savard's and Timmins draft. If you recall, Savard was the one that pushed for Urquhart in the 2nd round.

As for who is ultimately responsible for drafting, that is going to vary from team to team since it's up to the management on how they want to handle who does what and how much say they have.

 

[puckeater]

Gainey joined the Habs as GM in May of 2003 and had nothing to do with the draft from what I recall reading. Also everything I heard was that Gainey was very hands-off when it came to the NHL draft.

Kristo was an '08 pick. I'd suggest taking a look at this site,
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00006929.html

There is no way in hell a GM lets his scouts pick the players at the draft with little or no input. You don't say to your staff, " go get me some good hockey players." There are staff meetings, even with ownership on some teams, to set a direction of the team going forward. The GM may not pick the players per se, although many do with the advice of staff, but they definitely instruct their staff as to what kind of players they want. I think Gainey wanted more intelligent players that would be able to adjust and survive in the hotbed of hockey that is MTL. Remember, he gave Sather the choice of prospect dmen in our system in the Gomez trade , indicating Gainey had no idea what he had. Although at the time, the reports from the minors was that McDonagh was not developing as planned.

 

[montreal]

There is no way in hell a GM lets his scouts pick the players at the draft with little or no input. You don't say to your staff, " go get me some good hockey players." There are staff meetings, even with ownership on some teams, to set a direction of the team going forward. The GM may not pick the players per se, although many do with the advice of staff, but they definitely instruct their staff as to what kind of players they want. I think Gainey wanted more intelligent players that would be able to adjust and survive in the hotbed of hockey that is MTL. Remember, he gave Sather the choice of prospect dmen in our system in the Gomez trade , indicating Gainey had no idea what he had. Although at the time, the reports from the minors was that McDonagh was not developing as planned.

I never said a GM let's his scouts pick the players at the draft with little or no input, I said that Gainey from what i've heard was not overly involved in the draft. I'm sure he had input but everything I heard was that he put the people he trusted in position to make the decisions.

I also don't rememeber Gainey giving Sather teh choice of prospect D men in the Gomez trade. I do remember that being the case in the Kovalev trade where he gave them the choice between Pleks, Balej and Hossa.

 

[hototogisu]

There is no way in hell a GM lets his scouts pick the players at the draft with little or no input. You don't say to your staff, " go get me some good hockey players." There are staff meetings, even with ownership on some teams, to set a direction of the team going forward. The GM may not pick the players per se, although many do with the advice of staff, but they definitely instruct their staff as to what kind of players they want. I think Gainey wanted more intelligent players that would be able to adjust and survive in the hotbed of hockey that is MTL. Remember, he gave Sather the choice of prospect dmen in our system in the Gomez trade , indicating Gainey had no idea what he had. Although at the time, the reports from the minors was that McDonagh was not developing as planned.

Where did you get that? First I've ever heard of it.

 

[Burke the Legend]

Looking at 3rd+ round picks is really stretching it when they have such a statistically low chance of making the NHL. Getting 5 of 11 into a NHL uniform is in itself quite exceptional and shouldn't be used as a measuring stick. Obviously the main mistake is Fischer but the man also drafted a Norris Dman out of the second round.

 

[bsl]

Roll out the excuses, at no point will Timmins ever be blamed for anything. I am sure if he ever screws up he will have had vertigo at some point so he will have that covered too.

We are alone in this. I torched TT in the other thread. Wish I had though of his idiotic obsession with college players too.

Who cares if you have 4 years rather than 2 to evaluate? Then evaluate better. And If a kid shows nothing by 20, then goodbye anyway.

The NHL is young now. No one is getting this.

 

[Monctonscout]

We are alone in this. I torched TT in the other thread. Wish I had though of his idiotic obsession with college players too.

Who cares if you have 4 years rather than 2 to evaluate? Then evaluate better. And If a kid shows nothing by 20, then goodbye anyway.

The NHL is young now. No one is getting this.

I think you're the one not getting it. Most times when NHL teams go for college players or guys headed to college it's later round picks where they benefit from 3-4 or even 5 years development before they have to commit a contract to that player. Similar to 15 years ago when the Wings would draft Euros in later rounds and let them develop 4-5 years at home before bringing them over.

 

[ProspectsFanatic]

As for going into a draft thinking that we should pick CHLers in the 3-5th rounds, just doesn't sound logical to me. The Habs should be looking at every league when it comes to every pick, but clearly Timmins has done a good job of picking kids that end up seeing time in the NHL.

Yes, I don't think you heard my right, once again, this is so obvious, I can't do anything else than agree. But, coincidentally the success that had Timmins in the later stages of the draft mainly come from CHLers. I was just explaining you my take on the logic behind it.

Looking at 3rd+ round picks is really stretching it when they have such a statistically low chance of making the NHL. Getting 5 of 11 into a NHL uniform is in itself quite exceptional and shouldn't be used as a measuring stick. Obviously the main mistake is Fischer but the man also drafted a Norris Dman out of the second round.

Yes, this is exactly my point, he had so much success on one side and so few on the other that this disparity cannot be considered has a coincidence anymore. Now being able to look back at what he has drafted so far, he will be able to learned from his small mistakes and also learned from his success. In that sense, I expect to see a Trevor Timmins better than ever drafts to come

every year like clockwork:

regular season: **** this team! can't score goals!
playoff: **** this team, so soff!!!
pre-draft: **** this team, can't draft for ****!

First sentence; "First and foremost, I want to make it clear that I am a big fan of Timmins and I believe he is one of the best chief scouts in the league."

 

[ProspectsFanatic]

I'm not 100% sure, but when drafting college player, you have there rights, and don't have to sign them for more time than drafting guys out of the CHL, so you have more time to see if they are worth given a contact to. And seeing how guys from later rounds are probaly guys that need to work on their game, drafting guys you have more time with could be a factor in their decision making.

Teams can only have 50 players at a time under contract. Teams must decide to sign a CHL player when within two years (if I'm not mistaken) of being drafted otherwise they have to go back in the draft. College players can wait much, much longer. This allows teams to better evaluate this prospect on the longer term, therefore minimizing the risk of signing busts to pro contracts. If a team drafted all CHL prospects, they'd run out of contracts...

Also as others have stated you can't sign 7 prospects a year realistically and stay under the 50 contract limit. That's why you go for longshots in the late rounds or NCAA guys who have four-five years to develop and only require a 2 year ELC.

I think you're the one not getting it. Most times when NHL teams go for college players or guys headed to college it's later round picks where they benefit from 3-4 or even 5 years development before they have to commit a contract to that player. Similar to 15 years ago when the Wings would draft Euros in later rounds and let them develop 4-5 years at home before bringing them over.

My take on the 50 contracts argument is; I agree that for the NCAA players the 2+ more years you have to evaluate them help you diminish the risk of wasting a contract on rookies that doesn't deserve it. But even then, the evaluation doesn't become perfect with those extra years, some players are still "borderliner", for example, we signed Joe Stejskal when it was unnecessary. Nevertheless at the end on the day, the goal is to select the best player and I don't think that this futile technicality really make any difference when drafting a prospect. And, if it has made a difference, I believe it was a mistake, particularly if you compare our list of CHLers and NCAA players we have drafted in the later rounds. Anyway, when you are drafting NCAA players your goal is to sign them one day or an other, so signing them in 2 years or in 4 years doesn't really make a difference in the end. And as an offset, if you are finally able to lend on a good player, those extra years become a risk because you might lose the player, as Anaheim did with Justin Schultz for example.

 

[Habsterix*]

My take on the 50 contracts argument is; I agree that for the NCAA players the 2+ more years you have to evaluate them help you diminish the risk of wasting a contract on rookies that doesn't deserve it. But even then, the evaluation doesn't become perfect with those extra years, some players are still "borderliner", for example, we signed Joe Stejskal when it was unnecessary. Nevertheless at the end on the day, the goal is to select the best player and I don't think that this futile technicality really make any difference when drafting a prospect. And, if it has made a difference, I believe it was a mistake, particularly if you compare our list of CHLers and NCAA players we have drafted in the later rounds. Anyway, when you are drafting NCAA players your goal is to sign them one day or an other, so signing them in 2 years or in 4 years doesn't really make a difference in the end. And as an offset, if you are finally able to lend on a good player, those extra years become a risk because you might lose the player, as Anaheim did with Justin Schultz for example.

What you don't seem to get since the beginning is that it's not as much diminishing the risk by giving more time to evaluate, as you draft them at the same age. It's the balance between CHL players and College players with that those 2+ years allow to account for the 50+ contract. In other words, the Habs hold the rights for those College players without having to sign them so soon to a contract, having to make difficult decisions too soon. It allows the team to have more prospects at a time that way.

Here's an easy way for you to better understand what we're trying to explain... If the Habs have 23 players under contract in the NHL, and another 27 with the Bulldogs and in the ECHL, some coming from the CHL... they can still hold the rights to not only the players they've drafted in the CHL, but those older ones still in College... for 2+ more years without counting against the 50 contracts!

 

[DAChampion]

Where did you get that? First I've ever heard of it.

The story is that Gainey gave Sather a choice of McDonagh or Fischer (which sounds like Gainey), and Sather went for McDonagh. It's kind of like how he gave Sather a choice of Plekanec or Balej back when the Kovalev trade happened.

Following this, Timmins begged Gainey not to trade McDonagh, but it was to no avail. The next day Gainey announced the trade and said that Montreal finally had a first line center. The day after, we signed Cammalleri and Gionta, and Gainey told us they only signed with Montreal because they wanted to play with Gomez.

 

[bsl]

It is a fact that Timmins is one of the best in the business.....the numbers strongly back this fact.

Anyone who thinks that he has done a poor job simply doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

Thanks. We are all wrong and you are right. Care to support your argument? Or just make pompous pronouncements? You sound like a minor mayor from a minor Chinese town.

 

[bsl]

When you take out the 7th rounders the NCAA and CHL rates aren't that different(since it's 100% bust rate for our 7th rounders). We've only had three 7th round picks become true NHLers going back to 1986. Kostitsyn, Robidas and Odelein. Also as others have stated you can't sign 7 prospects a year realistically and stay under the 50 contract limit. That's why you go for longshots in the late rounds or NCAA guys who have four-five years to develop and only require a 2 year ELC. The difference between us and other teams are other teams go for those longshot NCAA guys in the 4th/5th rounds and go for overage/limited ice time Europeans with their 6th/7th rounders. You have to look at a draft on the whole and not just nitpick 2-3 late rounds and say "why is our scout Pejorative Slured?".

Look at Nashville getting Lindback 7th round in 2008. They took two absolute "ncaa busts" in the 5th/6th rounds before taking a chance on a European overager. It's a tad silly in retrospect to say we should have taken everyone who became an NHLer. Omg why they take european Torp 6th round should have taken an NCAA guy Nick Bonino. Omg why they take Stejskal and Conboy should have traded up and taken Jamie Benn. etc etc

This has NOTHING to do with my or some others criticisms of Timmins.

My criticism of him is his completely blowing 2, now possibly 3 with LL, first round picks, when there were much better choices.

Who CARES if he drafts well for plugs in the 5th round? Gally aside.

His first round record is awful. That is the round that counts.

And, except for Gally, name one legit star TT has drafted beyond the second round.

He's **** in the first. And no hidden gems past round 2 except Gally in 11 years. WOW.

 

[hototogisu]

The story is that Gainey gave Sather a choice of McDonagh or Fischer (which sounds like Gainey), and Sather went for McDonagh. It's kind of like how he gave Sather a choice of Plekanec or Balej back when the Kovalev trade happened.

Following this, Timmins begged Gainey not to trade McDonagh, but it was to no avail. The next day Gainey announced the trade and said that Montreal finally had a first line center. The day after, we signed Cammalleri and Gionta, and Gainey told us they only signed with Montreal because they wanted to play with Gomez.

Frankly that sounds like a story concocted by Habs fans to create a potential scenario where we wouldn't have gotten bent over the table in that deal. Not saying it's impossible, but I'll remain skeptical until a reputable source comes out with it.

Whatever the case, I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in the Habs front office when that deal was hashed out. Hopefully someday we get the truth from either side because it's still a trade that made no rational sense, either back then or in hindsight.

 

[bsl]

No kidding....

I cannot stand this argument. It is for people who do not think, learn and grow. I use hindsight all the time in my profession to see where I made real mistakes, so that I do not make them again.

TT made real mistakes, and if he told Molson that "hindsight is a beautiful thing" his is ass would be out the ****ing door in 5 seconds.