Trevor Timmins Discussion (Part 7)

[Fozz]

Because the same things were being said after the 2011 drafts, the 2012, the 2013 and to a lesser extent to the 2009, the '04 and '03 drafts. Meanwhile, you look at the big team and the number of players drafted by TT that are impactful can be counted on two fingers.

Especially with forwards. Timmins promised us we would love De La Rose and it was pretty obvious from viewings that he was a 200-foot player with very limited offensive upside. Same can be said about a number of picks he's made since 2003.

 

[montreal]

Because the same things were being said after the 2011 drafts, the 2012, the 2013 and to a lesser extent to the 2009, the '04 and '03 drafts. Meanwhile, you look at the big team and the number of players drafted by TT that are impactful can be counted on two fingers.

just because they made mistakes and had shit development and management made shit decisions doesn't mean that all draft classes will suck forever. Before MB and his rush every prospect to the NHL, give them the yo-yo treatment and hire shit coaches with outdated methods or ZERO experience as a head coach, things were certainly going way better with drafting/development when we had Price, Pac, Subban, and even a few years ago it wasn't looking as bad when Galchenyuk was scoring 30 goals and Beaulieu putting up 28 pts.

No one knows what will come of this group, it's deeper then any group I have seen before but that doesn't mean it will work or that it won't. They are here now and we just have to see how they pan out cause nothing will change as MB, Molson, Julien, Timmins all don't appear to be going anywhere any time soon.

 

[Whitesnake]

Since I had some time...here's another research. As far as quantity is concerned. Even If I believe it's not the best way to analyse a draft, I prefer quality, well I tried to do a research based on quality and quantity from 03 to 16. And 08 to 16. Why divide it like that? For various reasons. 'Cause 17 to 19 is too early to judge. 'Cause I keep hearing how since 2003, Timmins has been amongst the best. 'Cause we keep saying how he sucks since 08. 'Cause we keep hearing how Timmins was great before Lefebvre, was bad mainly because of Lefebvre. 'Cause Lefebvre's first guys that he started to work with was from the 08 draft. And if he worked with some 07 guys, it was not during the 1st year of those prospects.

So..how about analysing the guys that NEVER ended up in the AHL on a regular basis? Which means really ordinairy players and/or impossible for Lefebvre and every other AHL coach to f*** them up? Or impossible to blame development or rushing kids at least at the AHL and NHL level?

Yes, in my ilst, you will find guys that were hurt. You will find Euros that might have had the talent to at least play the AHL but decided to stay home. But it will be made for EVERY TEAM. So every team has a story or 2 like that. Yes, I understand that there's a 50-contract limit. Yet, it changes nothing. Why? 'Cause again, every team has a 50-contract limit. And I,m not counting the prospects and their AHL-NHL career based on if they played for their original team. If they play AHL for another organization, the head scout THEN recognized at least a AHL-NHL player. And in my lists, some did play in the AHL...but if their main career was in the ECHL, they won't be counted as AHL players. They were not good enough. And their limited time in the AHL didn't make it possible for their AHL coach to f*** them up.

So first, here's a list of the 03-16 with the first number being the number of players that aren't AHL-NHL players, total number of players drafted and the percentage of non-AHL/NHL players. Then, it will be the 08-16 period. Yes, I know, some teams have had a better quality of picks. But at one point, you have to hope that even a 2nd or even a 3rd rounder should have a chance to at least be a AHL'er. By the way, I've automatically removed everybody who has at least 1 NHL game played for every team. 'Cause I took for granted that if they played 1 NHL game, they had to be at least good enough for the AHL.

From Best to Worst
03-16

	NON AHL/NHL	TOTAL PAR ÉQUIPE	% NON AHL/NHL
Boston	20	95	21%
Los Angeles	26	109	24%
New Jersey	26	94	28%
Toronto	28	100	28%
Anaheim	30	99	30%
Calgary	30	99	30%
Tampa Bay	34	110	31%
Nashville	36	116	31%
Columbus	35	111	32%
St. Louis	36	113	32%
NY Islanders	37	112	33%
Colorado	34	101	34%
Pittsburgh	33	95	35%
Washington	36	103	35%
Phoenix	37	102	36%
Ottawa	37	101	37%
Edmonton	41	111	37%
Montreal	37	99	37%
San Jose	39	104	38%
Philadelphie	40	106	38%
Dallas	38	100	38%
NY Rangers	38	100	38%
Floride	43	111	39%
Carolina	40	100	40%
Minnesota	39	97	40%
Buffalo	46	114	40%
Chicago	55	132	42%
Detroit	43	100	43%
Vancouver	44	91	48%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

From Best to Worst
08-16

	NON AHL/NHL	TOTAL PAR ÉQUIPE	% NON AHL/NHL
Boston	8	58	14%
Los Angeles	11	63	17%
Columbus	16	64	25%
Anaheim	16	63	25%
Tampa Bay	18	69	26%
NY Islanders	18	68	26%
Nashville	19	71	27%
New Jersey	16	59	27%
Colorado	19	69	28%
Toronto	19	68	28%
Carolina	18	63	29%
Ottawa	19	62	31%
Phoenix	20	64	31%
St. Louis	21	67	31%
Washington	18	57	32%
Calgary	19	59	32%
Pittsburgh	17	52	33%
NY Rangers	19	55	35%
Floride	24	69	35%
Minnesota	21	57	37%
Dallas	22	59	37%
Edmonton	27	70	39%
Philadelphie	24	61	39%
Detroit	25	63	40%
Buffalo	30	73	41%
Montreal	24	57	42%
Vancouver	25	57	44%
Chicago	34	77	44%
San Jose	27	61	44%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So when people mentions that they feel like the scouting regressed since 07....well seems to me that the +5 in percentage proves they were right. Only San Jose with +6 has a greater gap negatively then we did. While people feel that Carolina has had great drafts lately, well they go from a 40% from 03-16 to 29% from 08-16.

Actually out of 29 teams (didn't take Vegas and Jets for years comparison), there is only 7 teams that saw their numbers being worst from 08-16 compared to 03-16. Habs being the 2nd worst behind San Jose.

 

[Forsead]

Since I had some time...here's another research. As far as quantity is concerned. Even If I believe it's not the best way to analyse a draft, I prefer quality, well I tried to do a research based on quality and quantity from 03 to 16. And 08 to 16. Why divide it like that? For various reasons. 'Cause 17 to 19 is too early to judge. 'Cause I keep hearing how since 2003, Timmins has been amongst the best. 'Cause we keep saying how he sucks since 08. 'Cause we keep hearing how Timmins was great before Lefebvre, was bad mainly because of Lefebvre. 'Cause Lefebvre's first guys that he started to work with was from the 08 draft. And if he worked with some 07 guys, it was not during the 1st year of those prospects.

So..how about analysing the guys that NEVER ended up in the AHL on a regular basis? Which means really ordinairy players and/or impossible for Lefebvre and every other AHL coach to f*** them up? Or impossible to blame development or rushing kids at least at the AHL and NHL level?

Yes, in my ilst, you will find guys that were hurt. You will find Euros that might have had the talent to at least play the AHL but decided to stay home. But it will be made for EVERY TEAM. So every team has a story or 2 like that. Yes, I understand that there's a 50-contract limit. Yet, it changes nothing. Why? 'Cause again, every team has a 50-contract limit. And I,m not counting the prospects and their AHL-NHL career based on if they played for their original team. If they play AHL for another organization, the head scout THEN recognized at least a AHL-NHL player. And in my lists, some did play in the AHL...but if their main career was in the ECHL, they won't be counted as AHL players. They were not good enough. And their limited time in the AHL didn't make it possible for their AHL coach to f*** them up.

So first, here's a list of the 03-16 with the first number being the number of players that aren't AHL-NHL players, total number of players drafted and the percentage of non-AHL/NHL players. Then, it will be the 08-16 period. Yes, I know, some teams have had a better quality of picks. But at one point, you have to hope that even a 2nd or even a 3rd rounder should have a chance to at least be a AHL'er. By the way, I've automatically removed everybody who has at least 1 NHL game played for every team. 'Cause I took for granted that if they played 1 NHL game, they had to be at least good enough for the AHL.

From Best to Worst
03-16

	NON AHL/NHL	TOTAL PAR ÉQUIPE	% NON AHL/NHL
Boston	20	95	21%
Los Angeles	26	109	24%
New Jersey	26	94	28%
Toronto	28	100	28%
Anaheim	30	99	30%
Calgary	30	99	30%
Tampa Bay	34	110	31%
Nashville	36	116	31%
Columbus	35	111	32%
St. Louis	36	113	32%
NY Islanders	37	112	33%
Colorado	34	101	34%
Pittsburgh	33	95	35%
Washington	36	103	35%
Phoenix	37	102	36%
Ottawa	37	101	37%
Edmonton	41	111	37%
Montreal	37	99	37%
San Jose	39	104	38%
Philadelphie	40	106	38%
Dallas	38	100	38%
NY Rangers	38	100	38%
Floride	43	111	39%
Carolina	40	100	40%
Minnesota	39	97	40%
Buffalo	46	114	40%
Chicago	55	132	42%
Detroit	43	100	43%
Vancouver	44	91	48%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

From Best to Worst
08-16

	NON AHL/NHL	TOTAL PAR ÉQUIPE	% NON AHL/NHL
Boston	8	58	14%
Los Angeles	11	63	17%
Columbus	16	64	25%
Anaheim	16	63	25%
Tampa Bay	18	69	26%
NY Islanders	18	68	26%
Nashville	19	71	27%
New Jersey	16	59	27%
Colorado	19	69	28%
Toronto	19	68	28%
Carolina	18	63	29%
Ottawa	19	62	31%
Phoenix	20	64	31%
St. Louis	21	67	31%
Washington	18	57	32%
Calgary	19	59	32%
Pittsburgh	17	52	33%
NY Rangers	19	55	35%
Floride	24	69	35%
Minnesota	21	57	37%
Dallas	22	59	37%
Edmonton	27	70	39%
Philadelphie	24	61	39%
Detroit	25	63	40%
Buffalo	30	73	41%
Montreal	24	57	42%
Vancouver	25	57	44%
Chicago	34	77	44%
San Jose	27	61	44%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Great work! When you take into account how much competitive San Jose, Chicago and Detroit werein the 2008-2016 span, this is horrible results for Buffalo, Montreal and Vancouver.

Something is off after 2007, was it just a bad combination of poor drafts/picks positions and bad development from Lefebvre ? I doubt it at this point.

 

[Whitesnake]

Great work! When you take into account how much competitive San Jose, Chicago and Detroit werein the 2008-2016 span, this is horrible results for Buffalo, Montreal and Vancouver.

Something is off after 2007, was it just a bad combination of poor drafts/picks positions and bad development from Lefebvre ? I doubt it at this point.

I don't doubt that there was bad development. Yet, that little study has nothing to do with development. Or at least not at the AHL level.

 

[Forsead]

I don't doubt that there was bad development. Yet, that little study has nothing to do with development. Or at least not at the AHL level.

I agree, this is very telling. The quote from Bergevin that said that when prospects were going back to their junior/euro teams they were left by themselves is telling IMO.

Maybe also meddling from Gauthier/Bergevin was a problem in the drafts selections, who knows. At this point they should just admit that the results are not acceptables and there should be huge changes. Right now, we look like the couple that we all know that hate each others and cheat, but are staying together for way too long.

 

[Whitesnake]

Since I had some time...here's another research. As far as quantity is concerned. Even If I believe it's not the best way to analyse a draft, I prefer quality, well I tried to do a research based on quality and quantity from 03 to 16. And 08 to 16. Why divide it like that? For various reasons. 'Cause 17 to 19 is too early to judge. 'Cause I keep hearing how since 2003, Timmins has been amongst the best. 'Cause we keep saying how he sucks since 08. 'Cause we keep hearing how Timmins was great before Lefebvre, was bad mainly because of Lefebvre. 'Cause Lefebvre's first guys that he started to work with was from the 08 draft. And if he worked with some 07 guys, it was not during the 1st year of those prospects.

So..how about analysing the guys that NEVER ended up in the AHL on a regular basis? Which means really ordinairy players and/or impossible for Lefebvre and every other AHL coach to f*** them up? Or impossible to blame development or rushing kids at least at the AHL and NHL level?

Yes, in my ilst, you will find guys that were hurt. You will find Euros that might have had the talent to at least play the AHL but decided to stay home. But it will be made for EVERY TEAM. So every team has a story or 2 like that. Yes, I understand that there's a 50-contract limit. Yet, it changes nothing. Why? 'Cause again, every team has a 50-contract limit. And I,m not counting the prospects and their AHL-NHL career based on if they played for their original team. If they play AHL for another organization, the head scout THEN recognized at least a AHL-NHL player. And in my lists, some did play in the AHL...but if their main career was in the ECHL, they won't be counted as AHL players. They were not good enough. And their limited time in the AHL didn't make it possible for their AHL coach to f*** them up.

So first, here's a list of the 03-16 with the first number being the number of players that aren't AHL-NHL players, total number of players drafted and the percentage of non-AHL/NHL players. Then, it will be the 08-16 period. Yes, I know, some teams have had a better quality of picks. But at one point, you have to hope that even a 2nd or even a 3rd rounder should have a chance to at least be a AHL'er. By the way, I've automatically removed everybody who has at least 1 NHL game played for every team. 'Cause I took for granted that if they played 1 NHL game, they had to be at least good enough for the AHL.

From Best to Worst
03-16

	NON AHL/NHL	TOTAL PAR ÉQUIPE	% NON AHL/NHL
Boston	20	95	21%
Los Angeles	26	109	24%
New Jersey	26	94	28%
Toronto	28	100	28%
Anaheim	30	99	30%
Calgary	30	99	30%
Tampa Bay	34	110	31%
Nashville	36	116	31%
Columbus	35	111	32%
St. Louis	36	113	32%
NY Islanders	37	112	33%
Colorado	34	101	34%
Pittsburgh	33	95	35%
Washington	36	103	35%
Phoenix	37	102	36%
Ottawa	37	101	37%
Edmonton	41	111	37%
Montreal	37	99	37%
San Jose	39	104	38%
Philadelphie	40	106	38%
Dallas	38	100	38%
NY Rangers	38	100	38%
Floride	43	111	39%
Carolina	40	100	40%
Minnesota	39	97	40%
Buffalo	46	114	40%
Chicago	55	132	42%
Detroit	43	100	43%
Vancouver	44	91	48%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

From Best to Worst
08-16

	NON AHL/NHL	TOTAL PAR ÉQUIPE	% NON AHL/NHL
Boston	8	58	14%
Los Angeles	11	63	17%
Columbus	16	64	25%
Anaheim	16	63	25%
Tampa Bay	18	69	26%
NY Islanders	18	68	26%
Nashville	19	71	27%
New Jersey	16	59	27%
Colorado	19	69	28%
Toronto	19	68	28%
Carolina	18	63	29%
Ottawa	19	62	31%
Phoenix	20	64	31%
St. Louis	21	67	31%
Washington	18	57	32%
Calgary	19	59	32%
Pittsburgh	17	52	33%
NY Rangers	19	55	35%
Floride	24	69	35%
Minnesota	21	57	37%
Dallas	22	59	37%
Edmonton	27	70	39%
Philadelphie	24	61	39%
Detroit	25	63	40%
Buffalo	30	73	41%
Montreal	24	57	42%
Vancouver	25	57	44%
Chicago	34	77	44%
San Jose	27	61	44%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I think that demonstrated that this scouting group of ours had its own problems outside of the development issues we did have. Whether it's Timmins who was less good or his entire group, or some members of his group, I don't know. But the buck stops at Timmins. And this table shows that they regressed. But I think it also shows that they might not have been the great drafting geniuses that we once thought they were either.

We will see what 17-19 will say. Every agency places us top 5. Can,t wait to see that.

 

[Sorinth]

I don't doubt that there was bad development. Yet, that little study has nothing to do with development. Or at least not at the AHL level.

I'm not sure how relevant that is but it's an interesting thing to consider.

Some things to note, we are middle of the pack from 03-onwards yet at the bottom of the league for the recent drafts. Which means we were likely at the top of the league from 03-08, something clearly has changed since then.

Obviously how high you pick would have a big impact since higher picks are going to be more likely to reach the AHL. So it begs the question of whether all those late round picks that Bergevin has acquired, and all the trading down for extra late picks has hurt us in this type of ranking. It might be worth seeing the results broken down between say the first 3 rounds and the 4th+ rounds. I think it might make us look even worse since in those early years we hit a lot with late round picks and have quite a few higher picks that busted big time.

 

[WinterLion]

I'm not sure how relevant that is but it's an interesting thing to consider.

Some things to note, we are middle of the pack from 03-onwards yet at the bottom of the league for the recent drafts. Which means we were likely at the top of the league from 03-08, something clearly has changed since then.

Obviously how high you pick would have a big impact since higher picks are going to be more likely to reach the AHL. So it begs the question of whether all those late round picks that Bergevin has acquired, and all the trading down for extra late picks has hurt us in this type of ranking. It might be worth seeing the results broken down between say the first 3 rounds and the 4th+ rounds. I think it might make us look even worse since in those early years we hit a lot with late round picks and have quite a few higher picks that busted big time.

How high the picks are is one factor for sure, also where the players were playing. CHL players tend to play AHL hockey much more than Euro's for example and more College players never get signed because they don't have to be signed as early. Still it is interesting to see that list it would be fun to add in some more facts and see how much it changes things.

 

[Forsead]

I'm not sure how relevant that is but it's an interesting thing to consider.

Some things to note, we are middle of the pack from 03-onwards yet at the bottom of the league for the recent drafts. Which means we were likely at the top of the league from 03-08, something clearly has changed since then.

Obviously how high you pick would have a big impact since higher picks are going to be more likely to reach the AHL. So it begs the question of whether all those late round picks that Bergevin has acquired, and all the trading down for extra late picks has hurt us in this type of ranking. It might be worth seeing the results broken down between say the first 3 rounds and the 4th+ rounds. I think it might make us look even worse since in those early years we hit a lot with late round picks and have quite a few higher picks that busted big time.

Some controversial thoughts on this:

Could this be that Gauthier had more input in amateur drafting when he was an assistant GM (the guy was known as a control freak IIRC), he might have been very good at this since he was a former head scout.

The huge gap between 03-08 to 08-16 might be driven by luck : 2003 was one, if not, the deepest draft of all time and we had a better than average draft position. Then, we won a very nice place in the lottery in 2005 and we drafted incredibly well in 2007 (props Timmins for this). The real deal with this scouting team started to show on the long term.

 

[Whitesnake]

How high the picks are is one factor for sure, also where the players were playing. CHL players tend to play AHL hockey much more than Euro's for example and more College players never get signed because they don't have to be signed as early. Still it is interesting to see that list it would be fun to add in some more facts and see how much it changes things.

Yet, a Euro that is worth it will either most likely play AHL or NHL. If no effort is made to make them come in here....it either means that they are not worth or yes...some guys will just decide to never come. Yet, again, it might happen for every team out there.

Then, as far as College players....doesn't matter if they stay 1 or 4 years in College, if they are good enough, they will play in the AHL. And I didn't discrimate whether the guy plays for his original team or not. He plays in the AHL for a good period of time...it counts for the scouting group that drafted him.

 

[Sorinth]

Some controversial thoughts on this:

Could this be that Gauthier had more input in amateur drafting when he was an assistant GM (the guy was known as a control freak IIRC), he might have been very good at this since he was a former head scout.

The huge gap between 03-08 to 08-16 might be driven by luck : 2003 was one, if not, the deepest draft of all time and we had a better than average draft position. Then, we won a very nice place in the lottery in 2005 and we drafted incredibly well in 2007 (props Timmins for this). The real deal with this scouting team started to show on the long term.

Another possibly controversial thought, when Bergevin was hired he reduced Timmins' role, he went from being in charge of drafting and development to only drafting. Maybe Timmins' early success was due to him being very good on the development side of things and the scouting side he's average/worse.

 

[Forsead]

Another possibly controversial thought, when Bergevin was hired he reduced Timmins' role, he went from being in charge of drafting and development to only drafting. Maybe Timmins' early success was due to him being very good on the development side of things and the scouting side he's average/worse.

Maybe, but from Elite Prospects I'm not sure it's the case :

2002-03	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Dir. of Player Development
2003-04	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Dir. of Player Development
2005-06	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Dir. of Player Development
2007-08	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Dir. of Player Development
2008-09	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Dir. of Player Development
2009-10	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Dir. of Player Development
2010-11	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Dir. of Player Development
2011-12	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Dir. of Player Development
2012-13	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Dir. of Player Development
2013-14	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Dir. of Amateur Scouting
2014-15	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Dir. of Player Personnel	VP of Player Personnel
	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Dir. of Amateur Scouting
2015-16	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Dir. of Player Personnel	VP of Player Personnel
	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Dir. of Amateur Scouting
2016-17	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Dir. of Player Personnel	VP of Player Personnel
2017-18	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Asst. General Manager
2018-19	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Asst. General Manager
2019-20	Montréal Canadiens	NHL	Asst. General Manager

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Maybe he's a bad leader, while he was better with a reduced role.

 

[WinterLion]

Yet, a Euro that is worth it will either most likely play AHL or NHL. If no effort is made to make them come in here....it either means that they are not worth or yes...some guys will just decide to never come. Yet, again, it might happen for every team out there.

Then, as far as College players....doesn't matter if they stay 1 or 4 years in College, if they are good enough, they will play in the AHL. And I didn't discrimate whether the guy plays for his original team or not. He plays in the AHL for a good period of time...it counts for the scouting group that drafted him.

Yes it is the same provided the ratio of college and Euro's to CHL players is the same, but some teams draft more than others. Generally Euro's don't come over to play in the AHL, but a lot more players from the CHL sign as longshots because you have to sign them sooner and they generally make up the depth of an AHL team.

Of course if the ratios are the same for all teams that wouldn't matter, I'm not sure if they are.

 

[Habs Icing]

Obviously how high you pick would have a big impact since higher picks are going to be more likely to reach the AHL. So it begs the question of whether all those late round picks that Bergevin has acquired, and all the trading down for extra late picks has hurt us in this type of ranking. It might be worth seeing the results broken down between say the first 3 rounds and the 4th+ rounds. I think it might make us look even worse since in those early years we hit a lot with late round picks and have quite a few higher picks that busted big time.

Honest question. How many times has Bergevin traded down? I can only recall one time.

 

[Whitesnake]

So since I had more questions after my initial tables, here's an answer to one question....which is the 03-08 standings ...here it is:

From Best to Worst
03-08

	NON AHL/NHL	TOTAL PAR ÉQUIPE	% NON AHL/NHL
Los Angeles	16	55	29%
New Jersey	13	44	30%
Toronto	12	40	30%
Boston	13	43	30%
St. Louis	17	56	30%
San Jose	16	50	32%
Edmonton	15	46	33%
Philadelphie	17	50	34%
Montreal	16	47	34%
Colorado	17	48	35%
Columbus	20	56	36%
Pittsburgh	17	47	36%
Nashville	19	52	37%
NY Islanders	21	57	37%
Calgary	18	47	38%
Buffalo	19	49	39%
Tampa Bay	19	49	39%
Washington	21	54	39%
Anaheim	18	46	39%
Chicago	25	62	40%
NY Rangers	21	52	40%
Floride	19	47	40%
Dallas	19	46	41%
Ottawa	19	46	41%
Phoenix	19	46	41%
Carolina	19	42	45%
Minnesota	20	44	45%
Detroit	22	43	51%
Vancouver	22	39	56%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Whitesnake]

How high the picks are is one factor for sure, also where the players were playing. CHL players tend to play AHL hockey much more than Euro's for example and more College players never get signed because they don't have to be signed as early. Still it is interesting to see that list it would be fun to add in some more facts and see how much it changes things.

But if Euros don't come over...are not even worth coming over or if the goal to pick an Euro it's either he stays in Europe or plays in the NHL or nothing else...isn't that a bad scouting job? To not see that or know that before hand?

A Euro that is worthy will make the jump directly in the NHL. Or will join the AHL to familiarize himself with the North American style of hockey. If the idea was to pick an Euro in the 7th round just because it was rolling the dice with no indication as to his desire to come over or not, I put that in tihe bad pick category. I don't understand since the draft is so important nowadays that you'd just draft a guy for the pleasure of drafting him without any research on him. The NCAA UFA market is so huge nowadays, why wouldn't the 7th round of a draft not be?

 

[Vachon23]

If Judd Brackett become FA, you need to think about it ! He could be the FA signing we could do this summer

 

[Le Barron de HF]

Pronman surveyed a bunch of scouts on multiple issues. One of the question was:
Which organization is the worst at drafting and developing?

Receiving multiple votes: Detroit, Edmonton and Montreal.

There was also a question where they could give a SO to the scout they respect the most, none of Montreal's scouts were named.

 

[Vachon23]

Pronman surveyed a bunch of scouts on multiple issues. One of the question was:
Which organization is the worst at drafting and developing?

Receiving multiple votes: Detroit, Edmonton and Montreal.

There was also a question where they could give a SO to the scout they respect the most, none of Montreal's scouts were named.

who where top 3 for the best drafting team ?

 

[Le Barron de HF]

who where top 3 for the best drafting team ?

TB was the clear cut #1. Then receiving multiple votes: Boston, Colorado, Nashville and St. Louis

 

[Habs Icing]

TB was the clear cut #1. Then receiving multiple votes: Boston, Colorado, Nashville and St. Louis

Did we really need Pronman to conduct a survey to find out we have one of the worst drafting crew in the league and that those teams have some of the best?

 

[Vachon23]

Did we really need Pronman to conduct a survey to find out we have one of the worst drafting crew in the league and that those teams have some of the best?

I hope Bergevin or/and Molson saw this ! Especially with one of the best in the league that will become FA this summer.

 

[Habs Icing]

I hope Bergevin or/and Molson saw this ! Especially with one of the best in the league that will become FA this summer.

No hope for that to happen. MB and Molson make up two of the three wise monkeys that hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil.

 

[Adam Michaels]