Trevor Timmins Discussion (Part 10)

[Whitesnake]

I don't see the point of looking at the % of prospects when what's important is the success rate. If we had 2 prospects that played for Lefebvre, but those 2 turned into solid NHLers, that's great.

1st round picks in the AHL,

08-15 = 6
03-07 = 4

Yet the one with just 4 all turned into solid NHLers with at least 398 games and all over 100 pts or being a top goalie in the NHL.

The one that had 6 so far the best one out of the group is Beaulieu. Our first 4 years had one 4th liner in Chipchura, yet 5 of the 6 combined haven't even played as many games as him.

You could go beyond 1st round picks and just say all the prospects that were drafted pre Lefebvre and in the AHL and then during the MB/Lef era and see how many progressed/regressed as that's the #1 thing you would want from an AHL coach is to see progression. How do you think that will turn out, not the %, the actual number.

Strange that you don't see the point 'cause that's exactly what we judge Timmins on. I keep hearing how Timmins can't do miracles if he only has 4 picks to work with. Yet, Lefebvre was supposed to turn those 4 picks into something great. Double standards? Why does it work with scouting but doesn't work with coaching?

And personnally I don't see the point in games played for acknowledging the scout work. There is no way people will convince that AKost was a great pick while we missed so many others game changers. Frankly, based on quality of draft, AKost was probalby more a mistake than Galchenyuk was. If you look at quality of drafts.

You compared first rounders. Out of 03-07, there were 1 top 10, 1 top 5, and 2 first rounders from 10 to 25. From 08-15, there was 1 top 3. If your idea is to look SOLELY at success rate, well shouldn't you be taking that into consideration? Where the picks were PLUS quality of draft?

But then, I do use the % of players 'cause people start talking about Streit, Grabovski, D'Agostini and SKost as a proof of how much better it was before. Well those picks were because we had a lot of picks to work with. And because the more you have players that reach the AHL, the more you have chances to say that the AHL coaching staff had a chance to turn something into this.

I'm sorry, but you say, if we only have 2 players that played for Lefebvre, and he'd turn them into solid NHL'ers, that would be great, do you imagine if Timmins only had 2 prospects to choose during those year? How would have appreciated me coming on strong against Timmins saying that even if we only drafted 2 players in 8 years, he should have done better?

My method is just to proove that the AHL coaching staff THEN had more to work with than the coaching staff since 08. You can't blame Lefebvre if players never reach the AHL. You can't blame Lefebvre if some of those players only stayed 1 year with him. And you can't blame Lefebvre if some of those players went directly to the NHL. That's my point.

 

[montreal]

Strange that you don't see the point 'cause that's exactly what we judge Timmins on. I keep hearing how Timmins can't do miracles if he only has 4 picks to work with. Yet, Lefebvre was supposed to turn those 4 picks into something great. Double standards? Why does it work with scouting but doesn't work with coaching?

And personnally I don't see the point in games played for acknowledging the scout work. There is no way people will convince that AKost was a great pick while we missed so many others game changers. Frankly, based on quality of draft, AKost was probalby more a mistake than Galchenyuk was. If you look at quality of drafts.

You compared first rounders. Out of 03-07, there were 1 top 10, 1 top 5, and 2 first rounders from 10 to 25. From 08-15, there was 1 top 3. If your idea is to look SOLELY at success rate, well shouldn't you be taking that into consideration? Where the picks were PLUS quality of draft?

But then, I do use the % of players 'cause people start talking about Streit, Grabovski, D'Agostini and SKost as a proof of how much better it was before. Well those picks were because we had a lot of picks to work with. And because the more you have players that reach the AHL, the more you have chances to say that the AHL coaching staff had a chance to turn something into this.

I'm sorry, but you say, if we only have 2 players that played for Lefebvre, and he'd turn them into solid NHL'ers, that would be great, do you imagine if Timmins only had 2 prospects to choose during those year? How would have appreciated me coming on strong against Timmins saying that even if we only drafted 2 players in 8 years, he should have done better?

My method is just to proove that the AHL coaching staff THEN had more to work with than the coaching staff since 08. You can't blame Lefebvre if players never reach the AHL. You can't blame Lefebvre if some of those players only stayed 1 year with him. And you can't blame Lefebvre if some of those players went directly to the NHL. That's my point.

I don't see why you would hold a scout and a AHL head coach to the same standard. Scouts it's about the %, say they have 8 picks, you hope you hit on 2. It's kind of like baseball where a .300 average from a draft on an average year where you aren't loaded with top 50 picks or picking top 3 every round, pros would be very happy with that result. Everyone knows scouts aren't going to hit on every pick or even most of them.

An AHL head coach you want to see them improve every prospect, granted injuries, some kids just peak at 17, 18, 20, etc.. there are numerous reasons but when you look at Lef and you look at Bouchard, I think it speaks for itself there.

You always seem to add extremes that aren't there. Show me where people call Andrei Kostitsyn a great pick. For a 10th OA pick you want more then 100+ pts, he was an ok 2nd liner until the injury. In a normal draft year he's a solid pick, far from great and in that draft Timmins failed because it was such a great draft. That said it was his first draft, we had a GM change at the time, there are some factors that imo give him a little bit of a pass. 2003 really hurt though, if he does better in that draft it could have made a huge difference for us.

For an AHL coach I personally don't care where the player was drafted, I want to see improvement, progress no matter if you are KK, McCarron or Evans in the 7th round. Their job is to help the players get better, it's very very clear we had one coach who couldn't do that and another that can.

If we had 2 players in the AHL and they progressed and improved, it would be a success for the AHL coach. For Timmins it would need to be in context, what was the reason for just 2, did the others skip the AHL, etc..

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Not to mention that we apparently ruined Galchenyuk so badly that he HAD to stop being a good top 6 forward like he was with us, and was FORCED to become a much worse player on the other 4 teams before joining the Leafs and apparently finding his game again (we have heard this when he started with the Wild too). It just makes no sense to me why he had to stop becoming a top 6 forward with us. Sure, let's say we ruined him from being a 90+ point player, why are the Habs management to blame for a guy putting up 50ish points with them for several seasons falling off a cliff not long after being traded away. Also, if Galchenyuk does find his game again with the Leafs, are we still to blame for him underperforming previously? Are all the other teams to blame too or just us?

You don't understand how confidence and motivation works. Galchenyuk isn't some appliance or robot that was ruined.

Between January 26th 2016 and december 2nd 2016 Galchenyuk was on a tear:

57gp 29g-23a 52 pts +13

Then he gets injured on december 4th and never looks the same when he comes back. He's a month away from turning 23 years old when he comes back from his injury. Something happened right there and then. And it's probably a mix of things where Galchenyuk as a very young 22 years old holds some responsibility, but it's clear there was a breaking point where he lost his confidence and the socially braindead around him did not give him the preventive measures and the support needed to climb back.

You like to pretend he's always been shut so you can spout your venom on Timmins, but it's clear management didn't know how to handle young players. Whether it was Sly, Therrien, Julien or Bergevin, none of them have great track records with youth.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

People are bringing up the fact that Galchy started strong and could not have faded if he would have been better developed....so I guess that's what happened to Yakupov too? How come people are talking about Yakupov as a failure....when he had 17 goals and 31 points in 48 games? And then went downhill from there? Was it development too? How about Anthony Mantha? Already downhill at 26 years old? How about DeBrusk? I mean it's more frequent than people think....

In his rookie season and never got back. Galchenyuk built up momentum and learned where at a point at 22 years old was shy of PPG on 2/3 of a season like I said in the post above. 52 points in 57 games. That's a lot better than Yakupov and at a latter stage in his growth.

You have a way of finding the worst possible comparatives.

 

[Kojo]

This guy needs to go too.

 

[Whitesnake]

I don't see why you would hold a scout and a AHL head coach to the same standard. Scouts it's about the %, say they have 8 picks, you hope you hit on 2. It's kind of like baseball where a .300 average from a draft on an average year where you aren't loaded with top 50 picks or picking top 3 every round, pros would be very happy with that result. Everyone knows scouts aren't going to hit on every pick or even most of them.

An AHL head coach you want to see them improve every prospect, granted injuries, some kids just peak at 17, 18, 20, etc.. there are numerous reasons but when you look at Lef and you look at Bouchard, I think it speaks for itself there.

You always seem to add extremes that aren't there. Show me where people call Andrei Kostitsyn a great pick. For a 10th OA pick you want more then 100+ pts, he was an ok 2nd liner until the injury. In a normal draft year he's a solid pick, far from great and in that draft Timmins failed because it was such a great draft. That said it was his first draft, we had a GM change at the time, there are some factors that imo give him a little bit of a pass. 2003 really hurt though, if he does better in that draft it could have made a huge difference for us.

For an AHL coach I personally don't care where the player was drafted, I want to see improvement, progress no matter if you are KK, McCarron or Evans in the 7th round. Their job is to help the players get better, it's very very clear we had one coach who couldn't do that and another that can.

If we had 2 players in the AHL and they progressed and improved, it would be a success for the AHL coach. For Timmins it would need to be in context, what was the reason for just 2, did the others skip the AHL, etc..

And again, how is that so simple? If we have 8 picks, we hope he hit 2. That's it. So no matter if we have 4 1st rounders, or out of 8 picks, it starts with the 3rd round, you'd still hope he gets 2 out of 8? That's it? And what is hitting? Is D'Agostini a hit because a player played 300 games while being a 6th rounder? That's a hit? But since scouting is not a game in itself, how did that help the team? What do you want as hits? O'Byrne, Lapierre, Grabvoski, SKost and D'Agostini? Or Patrice Bergeron? For the team? Yep, Timmins wins the hit games played vs round chosen....but in no way shape or from is this better than Bergeron and Marchand.

So your hit is games played vs round chosen. My hit is production and importance in the team. Whether it's by him playing for us. Or him being good enough to be traded for something great to help the team.

An AHL coach has to improve every prospect? Do you know one who did that? Every prospect? Let say Bruce Cassidy. A great NHL coach, That's like a gazillion years ahead of Lefebvre. And yet, Khoklachev, Maxime Sauvé, Spooner, Knight, Caron, Camara, Fallstrom, Randall, Arnesson, Ferlin and tons of others didn't make it while we could attribute him with Krug, Vatrano and Pastrnak. Did we really see improvement enough to make them reach the NHL and be permanent fixtures there?

You know i love Bouchard. For quite a while now. And he's a damn fine coach. TO THIS DAY, but I will probably chance, there is NO players that he gave the Habs as permanent fixtures for this team. Jake Evans is still not the guy. Poehling last year was regressing. Under Bouchard. This year, it's looking better. We think Brook is improving but that remains to be seen if he'll reach the NHL. We have no idea about Fleury. For 2017, the guys that might make it are Poehling and Fleury. But we are not there yet. Nobody to this day know if they'll make it regularly. I tink Poehling will, but we don't know. Not naming Primeau as we will stay away from goalies. Though I appreciate Bouchard mostly trying to go all in with him instead of trying to play the others more.

In 2018, under Bouchard, is Ylonen. That's it. Hillis is being mishandled by Bouchard...or so I hear. 2019 it's RHP. And 2020 it's Mysak. But just saying that what Bouchard was able to do that Lefebvre was unable to do...is making THE TEAM look better in its own. That, for sure. By a 1000 miles. Reason why I wanted Lefebre out in freakin 2015 and replaced by Bouchard. But to which degree making players be able to reach another step to play regularly in the NHL....we don' t know. For now. It might change. It should change.

But when it's time to analyse an AHL coach, maybe realize that out of 23 players....chances are you will have just the same kind of ratio of players going from the AHL to the NHL than a head scout picking players that will reach the NHL....

 

[montreal]

And again, how is that so simple? If we have 8 picks, we hope he hit 2. That's it. So no matter if we have 4 1st rounders, or out of 8 picks, it starts with the 3rd round, you'd still hope he gets 2 out of 8? That's it? And what is hitting? Is D'Agostini a hit because a player played 300 games while being a 6th rounder? That's a hit? But since scouting is not a game in itself, how did that help the team? What do you want as hits? O'Byrne, Lapierre, Grabvoski, SKost and D'Agostini? Or Patrice Bergeron? For the team? Yep, Timmins wins the hit games played vs round chosen....but in no way shape or from is this better than Bergeron and Marchand.

So your hit is games played vs round chosen. My hit is production and importance in the team. Whether it's by him playing for us. Or him being good enough to be traded for something great to help the team.

An AHL coach has to improve every prospect? Do you know one who did that? Every prospect?

You need to read better. I clearly said,

say they have 8 picks, you hope you hit on 2. It's kind of like baseball where a .300 average from a draft on an average year where you aren't loaded with top 50 picks or picking top 3 every round,

I mean really how hard is that, of course if you had 4 1st round picks it would be different, but considering the last time we had more then 1st round pick was in '07 and before that was '01. You would have to go back to '81 for the last time we had 3 1st round picks. Come on. Why do you always seem to feel the need to go to these extremes?

As for An AHL coach has to improve every prospect?, again I said it's there job, not that it's expected to happen. Do you know anyone that gets every single thing about their job right 100% of the time. Of course not cause it's impossible. EVERYONE makes mistakes, EVERYONE. But when you look at the players that have improved under Lefebvre, vs Bouchard it says it all.

 

[Whitesnake]

In his rookie season and never got back. Galchenyuk built up momentum and learned where at a point at 22 years old was shy of PPG on 2/3 of a season like I said in the post above. 52 points in 57 games. That's a lot better than Yakupov and at a latter stage in his growth.

You have a way of finding the worst possible comparatives.

Strange you didn't respond about Mantha. Or DeBrusk? I guess your selective reading stopped you at Yakupov. No matter if it's a question of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 seasons, when a player shows you he's able to play, there will be people who could ask the question about development. Tell me this...was Gilbert Brule a bad pick? Or a bad development? Brule actually has no stats to show for. But are you really able to tell me that it's NOT development because he didn't have the first 4-5 years Galchenyuk had? Really?

Strange that there's whining about Galchenyuk poor development....but he was able somehow to build up momentum till he was 22 years old though. Who was the coach back then? That was helping Galchenyuk to build momentum? Ah yes...Michel Therrien. The guy while helping him gain momentum ALSO decided to kill it. lol

 

[Whitesnake]

You need to read better. I clearly said,

say they have 8 picks, you hope you hit on 2. It's kind of like baseball where a .300 average from a draft on an average year where you aren't loaded with top 50 picks or picking top 3 every round,

I mean really how hard is that, of course if you had 4 1st round picks it would be different, but considering the last time we had more then 1st round pick was in '07 and before that was '01. You would have to go back to '81 for the last time we had 3 1st round picks. Come on. Why do you always seem to feel the need to go to these extremes?

As for An AHL coach has to improve every prospect?, again I said it's there job, not that it's expected to happen. Do you know anyone that gets every single thing about their job right 100% of the time. Of course not cause it's impossible. EVERYONE makes mistakes, EVERYONE. But when you look at the players that have improved under Lefebvre, vs Bouchard it says it all.

Shouldn't you wait till they reach the NHL before you can say that the work done in the AHL paid its dues? What will it does to the NHL team if the only thing we could be satisfied of is to have a better AHL team while we still have to acquire Eric Staal of this world in the NHL?

How hard it is? Well as I said before, from 03-07, he had 1 top 10, 1 top 15 and 2 first rounders no later than 22nd overall. From 08-16, we had 1 top 3. In one of the worst draft ever.

So let's go at it again...based on those picks, how EASIER is it for the head scout to not mess up. And how easier it is for the AHL and NHL coach to not mess them up? Compared to years where they had only 1 top 3 pick?

In the end, Lefebvre had a chance to do something with 27% of prospects. Compared to 45% for the others based on the 03-07 picks. Yep, Lefebvre should have been able to do something more with Leblanc and maybe Tinordi and Beaulieu. Scherbak improved his numbers every year he was with Lefebvre.

 

[26Mats]

You need to read better. I clearly said,

say they have 8 picks, you hope you hit on 2. It's kind of like baseball where a .300 average from a draft on an average year where you aren't loaded with top 50 picks or picking top 3 every round,

I mean really how hard is that, of course if you had 4 1st round picks it would be different, but considering the last time we had more then 1st round pick was in '07 and before that was '01. You would have to go back to '81 for the last time we had 3 1st round picks. Come on. Why do you always seem to feel the need to go to these extremes?

As for An AHL coach has to improve every prospect?, again I said it's there job, not that it's expected to happen. Do you know anyone that gets every single thing about their job right 100% of the time. Of course not cause it's impossible. EVERYONE makes mistakes, EVERYONE. But when you look at the players that have improved under Lefebvre, vs Bouchard it says it all.

I would also add to this that quality is ultimately what matters. If you draft a Pasternak at 25th overall one year, but miss on 3 lottery picks back to back to back with Barzal and other good players, you still did a heck of a job.

Getting a franchise player is like getting a 1,000 lb Marlin when you go fishing - it trumps buckets and buckets full of minnows.

Timmins really needs to find a big fish to have any hope of salvaging his record when it comes to forwards. hopefully Caufield is a start.

 

[Whitesnake]

I would also add to this that quality is ultimately what matters. If you draft a Pasternak at 25th overall one year, but miss on 3 lottery picks back to back to back with Barzal and other good players, you still did a heck of a job.

Getting a franchise player is like getting a 1,000 lb Marlin when you go fishing - it trumps buckets and buckets full of minnows.

Timmins really needs to find a big fish to have any hope of salvaging his record when it comes to forwards. hopefully Caufield is a start.

No you did not do a good job. Each draft is done independantly. You did an insane job with Pastrnak. But you failed in 2015. Big time. Not only Barzal was there. But Connor. Boeser. Chabot. This is a HUGE fail. Geez if missing those guys is a heck of a job...what would you have called them getting 1, 2 or even 3 of those guys? If Pastrnak was enough to do a heck of a job, well Boston might as well traded those 3 picks and get NHL'ers or whatever instead.

The thing with Boston though is that they are still a great team without them. That's why they don't talk about it too much. Those scouts were saved with the quality of the team. That's it.

 

[Habs]

Survey Says .... GOOD RIDDANCE

 

[26Mats]

No you did not do a good job. Each draft is done independantly. You did an insane job with Pastrnak. But you failed in 2015. Big time. Not only Barzal was there. But Connor. Boeser. Chabot. This is a HUGE fail. Geez if missing those guys is a heck of a job...what would you have called them getting 1, 2 or even 3 of those guys? If Pastrnak was enough to do a heck of a job, well Boston might as well traded those 3 picks and get NHL'ers or whatever instead.

The thing with Boston though is that they are still a great team without them. That's why they don't talk about it too much. Those scouts were saved with the quality of the team. That's it.

Yeah we disagree.

The reason Boston is a great team is Pastrnak. So saying they are saved by having a good team is the same as saying they were saved by Pastrnak.

Sure hockey is a team sport. But he's their MVP, what takes them to another level. They have a lot of great players. But none as great as him. And their other great players like MacAvoy were also drafted by them.

Quality, and high end elite quality, over quantity any day of the week.

 

[Whitesnake]

Survey Says .... GOOD RIDDANCE

It's time. But....you still have to replace him with somebody better. So...who's in charge of that job? Bergevin? No f***ing way. Bergevin out. Name a new GM who then does a clean up in the scouting group. Timmins and Company.

• Get rid of the green plants that are Audette and Boisvert.
• Name people on the Q that has a bigger voice.
• Be sure every league is WELL represented. 2 per league. 1 for WHL and 1 for the OHL is insanely stupid.
• Great that they FINALLY added a Video scout. About time.
• Hire specialists: D-men, goalies (though they seem to have Riendeau to do that) and forwards. Most importantly CENTERMEN. Those guys will oversee the players per position no matter the league they play in. Each scout is responsible of their territory. But while it's being done right now mostly by Timmins, add a specialists section.
• Outside the amateur scouting, revamp the pro scouting group who are a joke especially with Nick Loser Carrière. Eric Crawford is not an answer.

 

[Whitesnake]

Yeah we disagree.

The reason Boston is a great team is Pastrnak. So saying they are saved by having a good team is the same as saying they were saved by Pastrnak.

Sure hockey is a team sport. But he's their MVP, what takes them to another level. They have a lot of great players. But none as great as him. And their other great players like MacAvoy were also drafted by them.

Quality, and high end elite quality, over quantity any day of the week.

Yes, quality. I always said that. Quality over quantity. My motto. But they had 3 chances to add quality in 2015. 3 And all the guys they missed were not long shots. They were around those picks. Do you imagine how great by adding Barzal and Chabot? They had no right to miss that. They did. But...they are saved by the already great team they have.

This is a Cap era. This is an early UFA era. You cannot surf a long time with 1 great pick every 5 years. Not saying that's what Boston did, 'cause aside from Pastrnak, they are still surfing on Bergeron, Krejci, Marchand picks. Also McAvoy and Carlo. But adding a great 2015 1st round would not have made Boston a contender. Would have made them a Cup winner.

 

[26Mats]

Yes, quality. I always said that. Quality over quantity. My motto. But they had 3 chances to add quality in 2015. 3 And all the guys they missed were not long shots. They were around those picks. Do you imagine how great by adding Barzal and Chabot? They had no right to miss that. They did. But...they are saved by the already great team they have.

MacAvoy and Pastrnak

vs.

Chabot and Barzal

...

We really need to add a forward and a D of the caliber of those two. It's been too long. I'll take one at this point.

 

[Whitesnake]

MacAvoy and Pastrnak

vs.

Chabot and Barzal

...

We really need to add a forward and a D of the caliber of those two. It's been too long. I'll take one at this point.

But why does it has to be one of the other? It really could have been both. Ask any scout....do you think they were fine of missing those guys? And yes...we most desperately need something like that. We will see what Guhle - Caufield will end up being.

 

[CHwest]

He is mediocre just like the rest of the foxhole bunch. They all need to go, preferably Molson as well.

 

[26Mats]

But why does it has to be one of the other? It really could have been both. Ask any scout....do you think they were fine of missing those guys? And yes...we most desperately need something like that. We will see what Guhle - Caufield will end up being.

Every scout, every year misses tons of good players. Every scouting department has horrible years. Just look at Tampa. We're talking about a scouting department that chose Jonthan Drouin 3rd OA over Seth Jones, Elias Lindholm, Bo Horvat and Shea Theadore- and Slater Koekkoek 10th OA ahead of Filip Forsberg, Tomas Hertl, and Terravainen, and Brett Connolly 6th OA ahead of Cam Fowler, Tarasenko, and Kuznetsov, but then proceeded to snag Kucherov and Braden Point.

No doubt that was a bad year for Boston. But they should be happy with the Pastrnak and MacAvoy years to make up for it.

 

[Habs]

Yeah we disagree.

The reason Boston is a great team is Pastrnak. So saying they are saved by having a good team is the same as saying they were saved by Pastrnak.

Sure hockey is a team sport. But he's their MVP, what takes them to another level. They have a lot of great players. But none as great as him. And their other great players like MacAvoy were also drafted by them.

Quality, and high end elite quality, over quantity any day of the week.

Still look at the studs they have drafted, and even let go. Seguin, Pastrnak, Bergeron, Wheeler, Thornton, Hamilton that's 6 pretty decent top tier talent (way what you want about Hamilton and Wheeler but I love Wheeler) .. what does Montreal have to show for the draft the last 10 or so years that is proven NHL talent? Gallagher , Sergachev and Price? Every year we hear about Timmins' amazing talent evaluation, where is it?

 

[Whitesnake]

Every scout, every year misses tons of good players. Every scouting department has horrible years. Just look at Tampa. We're talking about a scouting department that chose Jonthan Drouin 3rd OA over Seth Jones, Elias Lindholm, Bo Horvat and Shea Theadore- and Slater Koekkoek 10th OA ahead of Filip Forsberg, Tomas Hertl, and Terravainen, and Brett Connolly 6th OA ahead of Cam Fowler, Tarasenko, and Kuznetsov, but then proceeded to snag Kucherov and Braden Point.

No doubt that was a bad year for Boston. But they should be happy with the Pastrnak and MacAvoy years to make up for it.

Not saying people should be 100%. But I will believe it's false to think it's no biggie because they had Pastrnak before. That's all. 3 chances to get a top end player. Three.

 

[26Mats]

Still look at the studs they have drafted, and even let go. Seguin, Pastrnak, Bergeron, Wheeler, Thornton, Hamilton that's 6 pretty decent top tier talent (way what you want about Hamilton and Wheeler but I love Wheeler) .. what does Montreal have to show for the draft the last 10 or so years that is proven NHL talent? Gallagher , Sergachev and Price? Every year we hear about Timmins' amazing talent evaluation, where is it?

Gallagher's the only one from 2008 to probably Sergachev in 2016. Gotta hope for Caufield, Romanov, and then perhaps KK, Primeau, and Guhle. Thank the heavesn the drafting SEEMS to have picked up since 2016, or perhaps 2014. But that remains to be seen.

 

[26Mats]

Not saying people should be 100%. But I will believe it's false to think it's no biggie because they had Pastrnak before. That's all. 3 chances to get a top end player. Three.

If you were a scout and had a 12th, 13th, 14th, and 25th picks overall and came out with a generational player like Pastrnak, then Debrusk, and two busts, would you be happy?

At any rate I think a scouting department has to be evaluated on their overall picture, with recent work being emphasized, and not a handful of misses. Every scouting department has really bad misses.

 

[Habs]

Gallagher's the only one from 2008 to probably Sergachev in 2016. Gotta hope for Caufield, Romanov, and then perhaps KK, Primeau, and Guhle. Thank the heavesn the drafting SEEMS to have picked up since 2016, or perhaps 2014. But that remains to be seen.

Imagine having 2 picks turn out to be stable players, and somehow you still have a job. unfriggen believable the incomepetence this shithead owner puts up with.

 

[salbutera]

Still look at the studs they have drafted, and even let go. Seguin, Pastrnak, Bergeron, Wheeler, Thornton, Hamilton that's 6 pretty decent top tier talent (way what you want about Hamilton and Wheeler but I love Wheeler) .. what does Montreal have to show for the draft the last 10 or so years that is proven NHL talent? Gallagher , Sergachev and Price? Every year we hear about Timmins' amazing talent evaluation, where is it?

Bruins could’ve also cemented a dynasty with their 3 back-to-back mid 1st rounders in 2015 draft and blew it big time.

Imagine Bruins had drafted only one of Chabot, Barzal, Connor, Boesner, let alone 3-of them?

BTW - I’m on record as stating IMO Timmins doesn’t possess the finer instinct of properly identifying offensive forward talent...a huge weakness