Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 89,377
- 36,607
Of course you are. Your reality primes over THE reality. Would love for exceptions to always be the norm in life. THE reality suggests that's not what's happening.
Trevor Timmins Discussion (Part 8)
- Thread starter Le Barron de HF
- Start date
- Status
Of course you are. Your reality primes over THE reality. Would love for exceptions to always be the norm in life. THE reality suggests that's not what's happening.
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 89,377
- 36,607
At one point, and looking at every team in the league, people will need to explain to me how seeing the NHL is automatically a bad thing that you can't recuperate from if you are a good player. The league is younger and younger. Nick Robertson saw his first NHL experience in the playoffs. Can I put him automatically in the rushed section?
Those kids become rushed IN HINDSIGHT. That's what we use as an argument when we don't want to say that a head scout we love made mistakes.
Every name out there you mentioned, in no way shape or form were they seen as sure bet to be great NHL'ers before they were drafted. Poehling? So the only game he saw, last game of the year in 18-19 made him being rushed? That 3-goal game f***ed the rest of his progression?
In an era where you can become UFA at 27 years old...how old do you want prospects to start playing in the NHL? 22?
To me, being able to see the NHL is to be able to know what you need to work on when you go back in a lower league. And if you can't sustain the rhythm on a longer period, is not because you were rushed. But because you were never that good to begin with and you playing that soon was a bad evaluation from management or that you were better than what we already had which says a lot.
WeThreeKings
Habs cup - its in the BAG
They were not rushed in hindsight. These were bad call ups the moment they happened.
If the guy you call up is playing fourth line minutes and barely getting opportunities, at 20 or 21 years old. Keep them the f*** down in the AHL. Any stupid plug can give you those minutes. Confidence is a huge thing and interrupting a player every time they begin to find their game at a lower level is a fundamentally terrible thing to do.
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
100% Timmins is underappreciated. His drafting record from 08-15 was not so good but the context as to the reasons why are ignored. Regardless, he probably should have been fired in 2015 but he was not and the Habs gave him time to prove himself again. I think he has and it has a lot to do with draft power. Timmins has said this in his interview too... I've been saying that for several years now.
The other thing to note is how Bergevin was not trending so well a few years ago and how he started to trend better after Dudley left and Timmins was promoted. Coincidence?
.
Grate n Colorful Oz
Hutson Hawk
Also drafted Lekhonen in a very weak draft and now Arturi is considered top5-10 in that draft.
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
montreal
Go Habs Go
No it's not the case of not wanting to say the head scout made a mistake because if so then that means every prospect called up to the NHL that struggles is just a bad pick. Things aren't that black and white. there is a lot of hindsight involved because of the nature of rushing kids to the NHL, it can be a delayed reaction because everyone is different so each person will react their own way to failure.
It's not bad to put them in the NHL, it's risky as you can mess with their confidence which is some players might not be that strong, as not everyone will have say Suzuki's or Caufield's confidence. Then you have how they handle it, some people need a kick in the ass, some need to have their ass kissed, some will be able to pick themselves up while others will struggle to regain their confidence. Many of these kids dominated hockey in their area at a young age, they were often the best players in their league. By the time they get drafted many have been told how great they are or how easy it was for them to dominate in their local leagues at 12, 13, 14, etc... so that when they go to the NHL too soon and suck, for some they don't know how to handle it because they have never faced a situation like that before. It's like the movement where every kid gets an award, so they think they are special and aren't told they suck so when they hit the real world some of them don't know how to handle it when their boss gets on them for screwing up.
You have to look at each player and each situation. Would you take a 20 year old center that just got benched for costing his team a goal in the 3rd and where he's not playing well, then days later put him in the NHL? Does that sound like a good idea? What about a 20 year old goalie that just gave up 14 goals in 3 games, would you say to him well you are letting in a lot of goals vs AHLers so lets see how you do vs the best offense in the NHL (I believe they were at the time). You don't think that sounds like a terrible idea?
Even then it doesn't mean it's going to ruin them, cause them to fail, etc.., as you just never know how they are going to react to the situation. Some will come up and play great and never look back but that's more rare. If you are struggling in the AHL, chances are you will do the same in the NHL, granted it all depends on the player, the situation. A guy like Scherbak has to be with snipers or he's useless, whereas a guy like Subban you just know that likely nothing would have gotten him down as he seemed so upbeat.
To me rushing a player is risky, but you have to look at how they are playing in the AHL. If Scherbak can't play defense in the AHL, he's not going to all the sudden be able to do in the NHL. Just as Beaulieu making the same mistakes in his own end, if he's doing that all the time in the AHL, how is he going to not do that in the NHL when we are talking a rookie. Granted it could happen, but it's not exactly likely.
Ask yourself this, before MB got here, how many Hab prospects played in the NHL at 18, 19, or 20? over say the previous 10-15 years?
DAChampion
Registered User
- May 28, 2011
- 29,796
- 20,951
It's also irrelevant whether or not Timmins made good decisions in 2003. The current year is 2020. IMO, the clock should start not in 2003, 2007, or 2008, but probably in 2012.
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
From what I see, he has done well in recent drafts with higher draft power. With the research I have gathered, teams that do well have good draft power. Not many consider that there is a lot of luck involved and that applies to this next draft big time... no U18's or playoffs to evaluate and the movement in prospect rankings from March to May is usually substantial.
All I will say is those who want him fired today because of his 2015- years are a bit too late on that. Like it or not, the Habs management gave him more time and he recovered. Wanting him to be fired for the 2015- years and ignoring 16-19? Weird
Yes, that is what the director of scouting would say in his defence in an exit interview.
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
Nah. How do you explain this.. Bruins were a genius taking Pastrnak at 25 but the following year they missed on Barzal with picks 13, 14, 15. How can a good drafting team be so smart one year and dumb the next? Drafting evaluation is much deeper than cheering picking hits in hindsight. That's an elementary way to evaluate.
No disrespect but cheering picking hits in hindsight is a game for fools. Draft power vs Actual Results is where it's at. It just takes too much time for the casual fan to do that research and apply that to all teams equally
salbutera
Registered User
- Sep 10, 2019
- 13,539
- 14,295
Also missed Chabot, Kyle Connor & Brock Boeser
Last edited:
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
Yup. I honestly don't think some realize how much luck is involved with this. The amount of homework those scouts do is insane and still... your evaluating development years from 15-18 age range and they typically grow a lot more from 18-22. Or you got a good one at 18 and they stall to grow... like Leblanc.
The hunger to improve from age 18+ after being drafted is not on the scout. It's more on the player and development team. All scouts can do is a lot of homework so they make the best guess. It's kind of like an estimate
Player commitment to grow and be hungry at being an impact NHL player is very hard to predict. How would you know that with Suzuki in his age 17 and 18 years? Does his Friends and Family even know how hungry he was/is compared to others drafted at the same time? Knights traded him right after rookie camp I believe so they got a good look at him at 19 and still traded him for Patch.
Sure, but that being said you can look at what they did hit on like Carlo, McAvoy, Debrusk, along with Pastrnak and then give them more slack in missing some. Still pretty good in comparison to Timmins. Cherry picking in hindsight is not a game for fools. It has it's uses in evaluations. This is how scouting teams evolve their drafting strategy-why didn't they like those players, or why didn't they think those players should have been taken where they were? What made those players NHL's compared to the players they decided on instead? If they do not re-evaluate their choices how do they improve going forward. They should always look to improve their evaluations.
Of course I am....
the reality is most draft picks seldom pan out, the knee jerk screaming and name calling is beyond unnecessary.
As oppose to saying to oneself who is this kid we just drafted that I don’t know much of, most default to the cursing and sacking demands.
Sorry, but I dont support that level of immaturity and undesirable behaviour.....never will
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 89,377
- 36,607
I guess we should stop saying how Timmins is god for having the audacity to pick Price then?
BehindTheTimes
Registered User
- Jun 24, 2018
- 7,099
- 9,368
I think you might be mixing posters up and are attributing things others have said to me. We got lucky with the price pick maybe, because we likely take Brûlé instead, so in hindsight it worked, but it’s not a repeatable strategy and shouldn’t have happened then either.
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 89,377
- 36,607
But the Timmins aura is build on that. The drafts that made us who we are, which is not a lot, is 2005 and 2007. So if you have to remove 2005, it means solely 2007. And if so....why the heck is there so much protection for this guy?
Yes, it's risky to draft goalies high. 'Cause they haven't finished maturing. I know one thing, this upcoming draft, at 16, Askarov will probably be the BPA. And I would have no problem picking him. We will see what,s out there though.
BehindTheTimes
Registered User
- Jun 24, 2018
- 7,099
- 9,368
I used to hold Timmins as the best at his position, now I’m not even sure if he’s in charge of the draft anymore, if not, when did it end? What does our Churla do if Timmins is in charge. I find it all a bit confusing and already said that I wouldn’t be against moving on from Timmins now as I feel other scouts have caught up or even passed him. I don’t think it’s our biggest problem, but I’d be ok with a change.
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 89,377
- 36,607
Not sure Churla is the man either.....I think that we should go in another direction. I think it's time at other teams. Go and see what the Halifax guys in the Q are doing. And yes, I know, it might be more than wisdom in Halifax....(money), but they still look like they have a knack for finding prospects. Look at other places in the league. Guys with records. Guys with proven records. What was Churla's record before he joined in?
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 89,377
- 36,607
Everything is either great or not-so great draft in hindsight. You cannot compare 17-19 to 05-07 just yet. 'Cause 05-07 is hindsight. 12-13 is hindsight. And 17-19 is obviously not proven. We think that's how it's going to end up. But not yet. I know one thing...if you can safely say that 17-19 were deep, I will say that as of today, out of those last 3 drafts, you have JK, Romanov, Primeau and Norlinder that MIGHT be able to help a lot. And out of those 4, 3 are still unknown. While the rest of the picks are also big unknown as well. So we will see. But the problem is that if it doesn't turn out as good as we think....we will be able to revise that in 5 years. Which at one point, he will have probably time to have a good 2023 draft. Which we will have to wait another 5 years to assess....etc.
Seems to me that the guy has a job for life.
Habs Halifax
Loyal Habs Fan
Yes I can compare the 17-19 years to the 05-07 years. And I'm fully aware that things can shift
DAChampion
Registered User
- May 28, 2011
- 29,796
- 20,951
Obviously, every single Habs pick from the 2019 draft is an unknown.
Caulfield, Norlinder had great seasons. Struble, Leguerrier, and Fairbrother progressed.
One year later, that draft is trending nicely.
ETA: From the 2018 draft, I'd like to see how Ylonen, Olofsson, and Stapley look in a year.
From 2017, I don't think that the future is closed on Poehling, Brook, Fleury, Primeau, ... Ikonen I'm not sure.
Last edited:
Whitesnake
If you rebuild, they will come.
- Jan 5, 2003
- 89,377
- 36,607
Need vs BPA....what's the best thing for a team? You are racked of LW. You are thin at C. You take Lafrenière and maybe move another LW to get a C? Or you pick Byfield? Some would really pick Byfield (not saying Byfield won't be a good player)?
Now this is for 1st overall. But as a scouting group, why can't that logic applies for the 56th pick, or the 112th? Or the 226th pick? It's your turn to talk....you think that this player was totally undervalued and is the best of what's left....but you don't pick him 'cause that position is filled as of today? So you'll take a HUGE question mark tough guy to play on your 4th line because that's what you need today??? For prospects that you know might come in at best in 4 years?
How the hell do you analyse a need in a draft filled with prospects that you will see in 3 years in a world that changes every freakin minute especially since that new cap era and that new UFA age?
One of the ONLY reasons you do need in a draft is that you are a contending team for the FOLLOWING year that has no money and think that this guy will be ready to jump in right away and make a difference.
The other reason is, I guess, what we did with JK. Our lack of intelligence to find a C all these years have to suggest to make that kind of move. Timmins will be applauded for it if it translates well as it's going to be.
Now this is for 1st overall. But as a scouting group, why can't that logic applies for the 56th pick, or the 112th? Or the 226th pick? It's your turn to talk....you think that this player was totally undervalued and is the best of what's left....but you don't pick him 'cause that position is filled as of today? So you'll take a HUGE question mark tough guy to play on your 4th line because that's what you need today??? For prospects that you know might come in at best in 4 years?
How the hell do you analyse a need in a draft filled with prospects that you will see in 3 years in a world that changes every freakin minute especially since that new cap era and that new UFA age?
One of the ONLY reasons you do need in a draft is that you are a contending team for the FOLLOWING year that has no money and think that this guy will be ready to jump in right away and make a difference.
The other reason is, I guess, what we did with JK. Our lack of intelligence to find a C all these years have to suggest to make that kind of move. Timmins will be applauded for it if it translates well as it's going to be.
DAChampion
Registered User
- May 28, 2011
- 29,796
- 20,951
When you're picking 1st overall, every player available fills a position of need, as they are likely better than whatever you have at the position. There also tends to be huge differences in talent between 1st, 3rd, 7th, etc.
But at 57th overall, the players available tend to be much less impressive, and are very similar in talent to one another. You rarely have one who is better than all of the others.
- Status
