Trevor Timmins Discussion (Part 10)

[Whitesnake]

Except he didn't, his exact words were "We addressed a need" which they did, he didn't say they drafted based on need. And like I said if you continue listening the very next question is about BPA vs Need and he clarifies and says they didn't just draft the guy because of need they drafted him because he's a good player.

Are you actually claiming that no one believed he had the potential to be a top-6 PWF even though I showed a draft profile that explicitly listed his potential as a top-6 PWF?

There is NO scouts that will say that their players have no skills. None. The last pick of the 7th round has skills. But here's another interview where Timmins AGAIN, starts with having to get BIGGER with our first 2 picks. And continue with the vid and note the number of times he talk about mean streak and big etc. Yes, he talks about growth potential. And hands and whatever. But that was NOT why he was chosen. If the guy is 5'11'' there is no way that his hands, his hockey sense and his growth potential would have been enough. No way. Reason why I said NEEDS was put ahead of BPA.

You just misread the meaning of needs. Yep, every player chosen for needs has talent. Connor Crisp had skills. Dylan McIllrath had talent. Every player chosen in the NHL especially in a 7th round system has talent and skills. But that was not why he was chosen that high. I have no recollection where Timmins mentions McCarron in a stateament where top 6 is included.

 

[Sorinth]

There is NO scouts that will say that their players have no skills. None. The last pick of the 7th round has skills.

That's because they don't pick the guys who they don't think have the skills.

But here's another interview where Timmins AGAIN, starts with having to get BIGGER with our first 2 picks. And continue with the vid and note the number of times he talk about mean streak and big etc. Yes, he talks about growth potential. And hands and whatever. But that was NOT why he was chosen. If the guy is 5'11'' there is no way that his hands, his hockey sense and his growth potential would have been enough. No way. Reason why I said NEEDS was put ahead of BPA.

So just to be clear you think size has no bearing on who is BPA?

 

[Whitesnake]

So just to be clear you think size has no bearing on who is BPA?

in today's hockey, I don't believe that size will be the first criteria into what makes a player a BPA. And frankly, in McCarron's example, we are mostly talking about Mean streak and toughness. So again, in today's hockey, mean streak and toughness will NOT be considered top end criterias for BPA. And don't take my word...take Timmins MOST RECENT words nowaydays, it's skating and hockey sense. In the top rounds, it should be about who you really think should be top 6, top 4, No1 Goalie. As good as you think a guy will be on your 3rd line, there is no way this guy will be the BPA.

 

[Sorinth]

in today's hockey, I don't believe that size will be the first criteria into what makes a player a BPA. And frankly, in McCarron's example, we are mostly talking about Mean streak and toughness. So again, in today's hockey, mean streak and toughness will NOT be considered top end criterias for BPA. And don't take my word...take Timmins MOST RECENT words nowaydays, it's skating and hockey sense. In the top rounds, it should be about who you really think should be top 6, top 4, No1 Goalie. As good as you think a guy will be on your 3rd line, there is no way this guy will be the BPA.

If you want to argue that back in 2013 when coming up with the list of who the BPA were they put too much stock in things like size, mean streak, toughness, etc... I would say you probably have a point. They likely did overvalue that stuff in determining which prspects would become the better players. But that's a much different argument then saying they didn't draft who they thought was the BPA just to get bigger.

As for that stuff not being as important anymore, I personally don't agree. It was never the first criteria, but it was important and still is. Just look at how Anderson has made such a big impact on our team, or the endless KK vs Tkachuk debates. It's also worth pointing out our most recent 1st round pick's size/toughness was a big part of why we picked him so I'm not sure this whole we've changed is true. To use your own example if Guhle was 5'11 would he have gotten picked where he did?

 

[Whitesnake]

If you want to argue that back in 2013 when coming up with the list of who the BPA were they put too much stock in things like size, mean streak, toughness, etc... I would say you probably have a point. They likely did overvalue that stuff in determining which prspects would become the better players. But that's a much different argument then saying they didn't draft who they thought was the BPA just to get bigger.

As for that stuff not being as important anymore, I personally don't agree. It was never the first criteria, but it was important and still is. Just look at how Anderson has made such a big impact on our team, or the endless KK vs Tkachuk debates. It's also worth pointing out our most recent 1st round pick's size/toughness was a big part of why we picked him so I'm not sure this whole we've changed is true. To use your own example if Guhle was 5'11 would he have gotten picked where he did?

Watch every draft interview by Timmins when he thinks he had drafted a BPA and he drafted McCArron and you will spot the difference.

Come on man, that team has an history of going with needs. They said that at the time of the 2006 and 2007 drafts that they HAD to add more D's. In 2009, they said that they wanted to add more C's. At the time of the draft. In 2010, they HAD to get bigger on D. They didn't think Tinordi was the BPA 'cause it was IMPOSSIBLE to make that determination especially since Tinordi played in the same team than Merrill, Johns and Faulk and thought that even though they NEEDED a D, that TInordi was the BPA amongst those guys. Impossible. BUt he was 6'7''. I could honestly say that since 2014, they went BPA in the 1st round. They did. They were wrong in some occasions. And they still should be analyzed based on how right or wrong they were, but at the least they weren't dumb as f*** going with needs. We might have gone with needs in 2018 but in that case ONLY, I will say it was fine to do so....but....the only reason why I say this is because how putrid they were since 2003 at finding 1 good C. Koktaniemi was probably the BEST Need pick we could have done. I won't have a problem ever with that pick. I have A LOT of problems about how they brought him in the NHL. But that's another topic.

So right now, we ''might'' have finally understand.....but we still need to make great picks even though we FINALLY found out what the strategy shouldu be.

As far as the big criteria, and yet Tinordi didn't make an impact. Fischer didn't make an impact. McCarron didn't make an impact. Connor Crisp didn't make an impact.

Yes, Anderson has an impact though...at one point, maybe we are overrating the impact I mean...wasn't that team super bad not that long ago? With Anderson in the lineup. And without GAllagher one of the smalleset player on the team?

Guhle? Well....that's a great point. I think that he's a great mix of need/BPA. Personnally, I would have gone Mercer but that's an opinion. No, I don't believe though that Guhle would have been picked at 5'11''. But having the chance to do so and let say at the same draft, you pick Makar or Guhle?

 

[Sorinth]

Watch every draft interview by Timmins when he thinks he had drafted a BPA and he drafted McCArron and you will spot the difference.

Come on man, that team has an history of going with needs. They said that at the time of the 2006 and 2007 drafts that they HAD to add more D's. In 2009, they said that they wanted to add more C's. At the time of the draft. In 2010, they HAD to get bigger on D. They didn't think Tinordi was the BPA 'cause it was IMPOSSIBLE to make that determination especially since Tinordi played in the same team than Merrill, Johns and Faulk and thought that even though they NEEDED a D, that TInordi was the BPA amongst those guys. Impossible. BUt he was 6'7''. I could honestly say that since 2014, they went BPA in the 1st round. They did. They were wrong in some occasions. And they still should be analyzed based on how right or wrong they were, but at the least they weren't dumb as f*** going with needs. We might have gone with needs in 2018 but in that case ONLY, I will say it was fine to do so....but....the only reason why I say this is because how putrid they were since 2003 at finding 1 good C. Koktaniemi was probably the BEST Need pick we could have done. I won't have a problem ever with that pick. I have A LOT of problems about how they brought him in the NHL. But that's another topic.

So right now, we ''might'' have finally understand.....but we still need to make great picks even though we FINALLY found out what the strategy shouldu be.

As far as the big criteria, and yet Tinordi didn't make an impact. Fischer didn't make an impact. McCarron didn't make an impact. Connor Crisp didn't make an impact.

Yes, Anderson has an impact though...at one point, maybe we are overrating the impact I mean...wasn't that team super bad not that long ago? With Anderson in the lineup. And without GAllagher one of the smalleset player on the team?

Guhle? Well....that's a great point. I think that he's a great mix of need/BPA. Personnally, I would have gone Mercer but that's an opinion. No, I don't believe though that Guhle would have been picked at 5'11''. But having the chance to do so and let say at the same draft, you pick Makar or Guhle?

So you believe that when it came our time to pick in 2010 the team said they need a D, and the scouts said well here's a bunch of guys that we think will be top-4 D and there's also this guy who we think will be a bottom pairing guy but he's big and they went with the bottom pairing guy?

 

[Whitesnake]

Nice work. Shows just how clueless the language obsessed are

Obviously. Yet...I could do another exerice closer to what we'd hope a scouting group would be able to find and see that it might not be as bad as that other exercice that was done and that was in no way what people suggest...Re-drafts. And ONLY based on points. Which in the end is limited as you could find fillers more useful, or goalies, or defensive d-man more valuable. And it's a really fast exercice I just did.

2003: Patrice Bergeron instead of Kostitsyn or Urquhart
2004: Shitty Q year.
2005: Letang instead of Latendresse?
2006: Giroux instead of Fischer
2007: Yeah, we'll keep our players....but Perron isn'T a bad pick. People are defending the KOstitsyn pick because he wasn't that bad of player...would they have defended a Perron pick if Pacioretty would be what he is today???
2008: Jason Demers (7th round)
2009: David Savard instead of Bennett or Naatinen
2010: Shitty Q year
2011: Pageau (Yep chosen 1 spot ahead of us...don't tell me that we would not have been able to move if we really wanted him)
2012: Paquette as a filler (yep not a big year...)
2013: Shitty Q year...Duclair instead of McCarron....
2014: Year of fillers Aubé-Kubel or Blais instead of....everybody not named Evans
2015: Beauvilier ou Joseph instead of everybody
2016: Sam Girard instead of trading for Shaw (yeah not Timmins fault, yet, management fault)
2017: Comtois instead of Poehling?
2018 to 2020: Too early to say.

So it's not that the Q doesn'T have talent. And at that point I went with the french speaking people. You also had others from the Q. And it's not about going EVERY year with that idea. But it's about to be f***ing open to this league and the playerse in it. Something we haven't been. And while some are advocating LET'S PICK THE BEST PLAYER AVAILBLE NO MATTER THE LANGUAGE THEY SPEAK, clearly we have missed THE BEST PLAYER possible because we don't care about this league.

We do not have the luxury to miss anything. And to diminuish any type of leagues. If we are able to find players in the USHS or far in Russia or in Midget AAA, we should be able to do a much better job in the Q. NOT TO FILL QUOTAS....to get better players. But somehow in here, better players doesn'T mean french speaking ones.

 

[Whitesnake]

So you believe that when it came our time to pick in 2010 the team said they need a D, and the scouts said well here's a bunch of guys that we think will be top-4 D and there's also this guy who we think will be a bottom pairing guy but he's big and they went with the bottom pairing guy?

Not sure what your point is. YES. They all think who they will pick will be a top end player for their team. Even the 7th rounder who they think if he develops could be. But how does it excuse them? If I think that my investment will make me rich, and I have to fill for bankruptcy, will my wife be fine with it 'cause I thought we'd be rich?

Who pays the price and who is accountable if the only thing you need are good intentions? How come coaches and GM are fired? Do you think it's becaues they don't care about their team?

 

[WinterLion]

Obviously. Yet...I could do another exerice closer to what we'd hope a scouting group would be able to find and see that it might not be as bad as that other exercice that was done and that was in no way what people suggest...Re-drafts. And ONLY based on points. Which in the end is limited as you could find fillers more useful, or goalies, or defensive d-man more valuable. And it's a really fast exercice I just did.

2003: Patrice Bergeron instead of Kostitsyn or Urquhart
2004: Shitty Q year.
2005: Letang instead of Latendresse?
2006: Giroux instead of Fischer
2007: Yeah, we'll keep our players....but Perron isn'T a bad pick. People are defending the KOstitsyn pick because he wasn't that bad of player...would they have defended a Perron pick if Pacioretty would be what he is today???
2008: Jason Demers (7th round)
2009: David Savard instead of Bennett or Naatinen
2010: Shitty Q year
2011: Pageau (Yep chosen 1 spot ahead of us...don't tell me that we would not have been able to move if we really wanted him)
2012: Paquette as a filler (yep not a big year...)
2013: Shitty Q year...Duclair instead of McCarron....
2014: Year of fillers Aubé-Kubel or Blais instead of....everybody not named Evans
2015: Beauvilier ou Joseph instead of everybody
2016: Sam Girard instead of trading for Shaw (yeah not Timmins fault, yet, management fault)
2017: Comtois instead of Poehling?
2018 to 2020: Too early to say.

So it's not that the Q doesn'T have talent. And at that point I went with the french speaking people. You also had others from the Q. And it's not about going EVERY year with that idea. But it's about to be f***ing open to this league and the playerse in it. Something we haven't been. And while some are advocating LET'S PICK THE BEST PLAYER AVAILBLE NO MATTER THE LANGUAGE THEY SPEAK, clearly we have missed THE BEST PLAYER possible because we don't care about this league.

We do not have the luxury to miss anything. And to diminuish any type of leagues. If we are able to find players in the USHS or far in Russia or in Midget AAA, we should be able to do a much better job in the Q. NOT TO FILL QUOTAS....to get better players. But somehow in here, better players doesn'T mean french speaking ones.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could go back in time.

 

[Sorinth]

Not sure what your point is. YES. They all think who they will pick will be a top end player for their team. Even the 7th rounder who they think if he develops could be.

This was exactly my point, they weren't drafting guys with size to be 3rd/4th liners they drafted them because they thought they could/would be top-6 PWFs.

But how does it excuse them? If I think that my investment will make me rich, and I have to fill for bankruptcy, will my wife be fine with it 'cause I thought we'd be rich?

Who pays the price and who is accountable if the only thing you need are good intentions? How come coaches and GM are fired? Do you think it's becaues they don't care about their team?

Did I ever claim that it excused them?

 

[yianik]

There is NO scouts that will say that their players have no skills. None. The last pick of the 7th round has skills. But here's another interview where Timmins AGAIN, starts with having to get BIGGER with our first 2 picks. And continue with the vid and note the number of times he talk about mean streak and big etc. Yes, he talks about growth potential. And hands and whatever. But that was NOT why he was chosen. If the guy is 5'11'' there is no way that his hands, his hockey sense and his growth potential would have been enough. No way. Reason why I said NEEDS was put ahead of BPA.

You just misread the meaning of needs. Yep, every player chosen for needs has talent. Connor Crisp had skills. Dylan McIllrath had talent. Every player chosen in the NHL especially in a 7th round system has talent and skills. But that was not why he was chosen that high. I have no recollection where Timmins mentions McCarron in a stateament where top 6 is included.

This is why BPA is a bit of a fallacy. You say size equalled need. Why ? Size , mean streak can be qualities amounting to BPA. That and the fact BPA apparently led us to hardly drafting any centres for 20 years makes me say to heck with BPA.

Stick to the qualities that top 6 forwards and top 3 D have in common, and prioritize those characteristics. So skating, hands, shot, IQ, vision, tenacity , work ethic , , that kind of stuff. Size also relevant, just not at the top of the list.

 

[Whitesnake]

This is why BPA is a bit of a fallacy. You say size equalled need. Why ? Size , mean streak can be qualities amounting to BPA. That and the fact BPA apparently led us to hardly drafting any centres for 20 years makes me say to heck with BPA.

Stick to the qualities that top 6 forwards and top 3 D have in common, and prioritize those characteristics. So skating, hands, shot, IQ, vision, tenacity , work ethic , , that kind of stuff. Size also relevant, just not at the top of the list.

I said size IN THAT CONTEXT did produce need. And I don't say it. Timmins does. They decided that going bigger was something we needed. Before knowing if that said big guy would ever make it which brings the question...how will the need be filled if he never makes it. Just like Tinordi. Tinordi was NOT the best d-man that year when we scouted him. Not at all. BUT he was big. And we were a small team. Hence picking him.

See....where the management picked BPA was for Subban. If they would have went NEED (centerman) and BIG, they would have picked Keven Veilleux. But THAT pick, they went BPA and won. Again, it's not a surefire win. BUt I will gladly lose that way instead of going Connor Crips type of picks.

If BPA is a fallacy, I wonder what needs is. If you don't pick top 3, chances are your prospect might take 1, 2, 3, or 4 years to make it. So while he might never make it...how in the world do you know what your needs will be in 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 years? I guess we could say both strategies are fallacies. But I'd take the one that makes more sense. Go with talent, speed and IQ. If it happens to be 20 5'7'' kids....trade a few of them for bigger prospects that you KNOW will serve a need 'cause at the time of the draft, they'll be more proven than at the time of the draft.

If Jones vs Johansen can happen, anything can.

This was exactly my point, they weren't drafting guys with size to be 3rd/4th liners they drafted them because they thought they could/would be top-6 PWFs.

Or they could think that the chances are slim BUT if they don't make it, they should be surefire bottom fillers. Again, not a recipe for what you should have in mind for a 1st rounder.

Did I ever claim that it excused them?

So what was the point of your take? That people in their work are doing the best they can? You do know that most people fired are ALSO doing the best they can? But they are still fired.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could go back in time.

How do you analyse somebody's work if you don't do that? How do you analyse a scout work ?

Okay so a guy has a draft.
- Can I criticize him?
- Of course not, it just happened, we will know in 5 years.
- Okay then.

5 years later
- Okay...so can I criticize him then?
- How easy it is for you to do so in hindisight....

Just a perfect job. When you can't be criticized before, during and after.

 

[yianik]

I said size IN THAT CONTEXT did produce need. And I don't say it. Timmins does. They decided that going bigger was something we needed. Before knowing if that said big guy would ever make it which brings the question...how will the need be filled if he never makes it. Just like Tinordi. Tinordi was NOT the best d-man that year when we scouted him. Not at all. BUT he was big. And we were a small team. Hence picking him.

See....where the management picked BPA was for Subban. If they would have went NEED (centerman) and BIG, they would have picked Keven Veilleux. But THAT pick, they went BPA and won. Again, it's not a surefire win. BUt I will gladly lose that way instead of going Connor Crips type of picks.

If BPA is a fallacy, I wonder what needs is. If you don't pick top 3, chances are your prospect might take 1, 2, 3, or 4 years to make it. So while he might never make it...how in the world do you know what your needs will be in 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 years? I guess we could say both strategies are fallacies. But I'd take the one that makes more sense. Go with talent, speed and IQ. If it happens to be 20 5'7'' kids....trade a few of them for bigger prospects that you KNOW will serve a need 'cause at the time of the draft, they'll be more proven than at the time of the draft.

If Jones vs Johansen can happen, anything can.

Yes. The team should just go with picking the most talented players , which encompasses skill, skating , IQ etc, which also should mean the highest ceilings.

You mention Tinordi. So if Tinordi hit his ceiling he would have been a huge, physical, mobile , shut down D with little offense. So his ceiling was a no.4 D. That's it. You don't use a 1st round pick to take a guy whose upside is a no.4 D. But thats exactly what we did. Terrible pick. Terrible drafting approach.

 

[montreal]

You mention Tinordi. So if Tinordi hit his ceiling he would have been a huge, physical, mobile , shut down D with little offense. So his ceiling was a no.4 D. That's it. You don't use a 1st round pick to take a guy whose upside is a no.4 D. But thats exactly what we did. Terrible pick. Terrible drafting approach.

in hindsight yes but clearly they thought they were getting an answer to Chara, which in it's own right shows poor thinking/approach as you shouldn't go for need. They also weren't able to see that the league was changing and that those big physical stay at home types were falling out of favor.

I've said that at worst this team should have been able to turn Tinordi into a 7th D, but if handled better he could have been a solid 5th or 6th, not want you want even for a late 1st but trading up for that is a no no. That said if he was able to turn into the next Chara you hit it out of the park at 22nd OA.

 

[Toene]

Pacioretty, Gallagher are the only first-liners drafted by Timmins in 17 drafts. 9 years went by between Gally and Caufield, who's too fresh to be counted yet. So, 1 elite forward every 8.5 years.

McDonagh, Subban and Sergachev are the only top-pairing defensemen drafted by Timmins. Two the same year, and 9 years between them and Sergachev.
1 elite D every 5.6 years.

Price was 15 drafts ago.
1 elite goaltender in 17 years

6 elite players drafted in 17 years. It takes Timmins on average almost 3 drafts to pick an elite player (2.8333)

IMO, it's not atrocious. But that's not the goal, is it? The goal is to be good. For me, once every 2 drafts would be satisfying. But even then, in reality, it's not spread this way. His 2007 draft greatly contributes to the average I pointed out by giving us half of the 6 players, and it was 13 years ago. The 2010s have been terrible and that's with 3 top-10 pick, two of which were 3rd overall.
1 elite player since Gallagher, a decade ago.
And the term elite is very generous here.

 

[yianik]

If you want to argue that back in 2013 when coming up with the list of who the BPA were they put too much stock in things like size, mean streak, toughness, etc... I would say you probably have a point. They likely did overvalue that stuff in determining which prspects would become the better players. But that's a much different argument then saying they didn't draft who they thought was the BPA just to get bigger.

As for that stuff not being as important anymore, I personally don't agree. It was never the first criteria, but it was important and still is. Just look at how Anderson has made such a big impact on our team, or the endless KK vs Tkachuk debates. It's also worth pointing out our most recent 1st round pick's size/toughness was a big part of why we picked him so I'm not sure this whole we've changed is true. To use your own example if Guhle was 5'11 would he have gotten picked where he did?

Focusing on talent means we pick Caufield, otherwise we pass on him. But yes , even in today's NHL you want to have size in the line up. I just wouldn't prioritize it over talent. If we have 3 Caulfields we can trade one for a big guy.

 

[Sorinth]

Focusing on talent means we pick Caufield, otherwise we pass on him. But yes , even in today's NHL you want to have size in the line up. I just wouldn't prioritize it over talent. If we have 3 Caulfields we can trade one for a big guy.

So were we right to take Ben Maxwell 1 spot ahead of Milan Lucic?

 

[habsfan92]

Gallagher is now elite?

 

[yianik]

So were we right to take Ben Maxwell 1 spot ahead of Milan Lucic?

Nah, should have taken Brad Marchand 1 spot ahead of Lucic.

 

[Chili]

in hindsight yes but clearly they thought they were getting an answer to Chara, which in it's own right shows poor thinking/approach as you shouldn't go for need. They also weren't able to see that the league was changing and that those big physical stay at home types were falling out of favor.

I've said that at worst this team should have been able to turn Tinordi into a 7th D, but if handled better he could have been a solid 5th or 6th, not want you want even for a late 1st but trading up for that is a no no. That said if he was able to turn into the next Chara you hit it out of the park at 22nd OA.

My guess here, but I think bloodlines were important.

Anyone who remembers Mark Tinordi, he was a nasty piece of business.

 

[Whitesnake]

in hindsight yes but clearly they thought they were getting an answer to Chara, which in it's own right shows poor thinking/approach as you shouldn't go for need. They also weren't able to see that the league was changing and that those big physical stay at home types were falling out of favor.

I've said that at worst this team should have been able to turn Tinordi into a 7th D, but if handled better he could have been a solid 5th or 6th, not want you want even for a late 1st but trading up for that is a no no. That said if he was able to turn into the next Chara you hit it out of the park at 22nd OA.

But that's the thing....who was able to get a Chara lite by going with size at a draft? There are no other Chara. And as we already discussed, the league was already changing. Based on what Ottawa had already done with Karlsson in 08. While an awful pick 'cause he didn't have the talent, LA still pick Hicky at 4 showing that the change was already in movement. Ryan Ellis and Leddy in 09. If they weren't able to see that, they weren't paying attention.

But history says that going after a guy who doesn't have stats, but has the size, the toughness and the defensive play to be a top 4 in the NHL....nobody came close to this. Or if so, 1 hand is way too much. Every d-man top 4 with size happened to bring some offense to their game at the junior level.

 

[MD thaivuN]

That's because they don't pick the guys who they don't think have the skills.



So just to be clear you think size has no bearing on who is BPA?

Athleticism matters (speed, power, acceleration, etc) but size alone is worth f*** all

 

[Sorinth]

Nah, should have taken Brad Marchand 1 spot ahead of Lucic.

I'm pretty sure Maxwell was considered the more skilled player then Marchand back then. Marchand didn't even make the U-18 his draft year whereas Maxwell did and was a PPG player in that tournament. And if you don't like that example take Collberg, Beaulieu, Andre Kostitsyn were all considered high skilled picks who dropped for various reasons much like Caufield did.

It's never about one attribute over another, everything has to be considered. Drafting based purely on skill will give you just as many busts/disappointments as drafting on size.

 

[Hannibal]

He’s the main reason we suck since 2003.

I cannot believe thus clown still has a job.

He is the poison.

 

[Whitesnake]

So were we right to take Ben Maxwell 1 spot ahead of Milan Lucic?

Yes? Or Marchand based on pure skills? MUCH better pick AT THE TIME than Lucic. Yet again....it would have been a pick based on talent. And we would have been wrong by choosing Maxwell in the end. AGain, I prefer being wrong with that strategy.

And if I go with your logic, going for Maxwell was surely with the thinking that he'd be a great player with skills with maybe a 2nd line upside.