Trevor Timmins Discussion (Part 8)

[Whitesnake]

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.

It does. Still not sure how we still, today, can compare drafts we KNOW how they turned out vs drafts we have no idea. But it seems that when it's to portrait something positively, we can. If it's do it negatively, we are asked to wait.

 

[Habs Halifax]

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.

Need vs BPA comes down to where you pick and how the waive of talent looks. If Quinn slips to 16th (doubt it but lets say he does)... you take him cause he is likely the BPA. But nobody can tell me there is a absolute BPA with our 16th pick if it comes down to players like Holloway, Lapierre, Jarvis, etc.

If you want to talk about potential of who can be the best asset when we look back in 3-5 years? That might be Lapierre and not many want us to take a shot at him with the 16th pick. Someone in the 15-25 range will take him IMO. Lapierre don't really address our team need though

 

[Whitesnake]

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.

Yet again, making you choose one as to see that you have a preference for somebody? We keep often hearing how picks from 20 to 40 are interchangeable so I guess there's not a lot of difference between that and 57. But at one point, you end up choosing someboyd. Just saying that when you do choose somebody, and do it by organizational need, a player you might see in 3-4 years, it just makes no sense whatsoever. I'm obviously talking as a general trait of things here.

 

[DAChampion]

It does. Still not sure how we still, today, can compare drafts we KNOW how they turned out vs drafts we have no idea. But it seems that when it's to portrait something positively, we can. If it's do it negatively, we are asked to wait.

With Timmins at this point I only look at the 2012-2019 drafts, and I don't see a compelling argument to move on from him. I have little interest in bitching about 2003 or in singing the praises of 2007.

But if, a year from now, Kotkaniemi, Romanov, Brook, Poehling, etc are mostly tire fires, then I'll be compelled.

 

[Whitesnake]

Need vs BPA comes down to where you pick and how the waive of talent looks. If Quinn slips to 16th (doubt it but lets say he does)... you take him cause he is likely the BPA. But nobody can tell me there is a absolute BPA with our 16th pick if it comes down to players like Holloway, Lapierre, Jarvis, etc.

Well if you can't be convinced about BPA at that spot, I have no idea what will convince you about needs either. If you are not convinced that any of those players have an exceptional trait that makes him BPA on top of the others, it means that you are not even sure they are going to make it. And if so, how is going for needs going to be any help if they don't make it. And if they do, what will be your needs when they'll eventually make it.

 

[DAChampion]

Yet again, making you choose one as to see that you have a preference for somebody? We keep often hearing how picks from 20 to 40 are interchangeable so I guess there's not a lot of difference between that and 57. But at one point, you end up choosing someboyd. Just saying that when you do choose somebody, and do it by organizational need, a player you might see in 3-4 years, it just makes no sense whatsoever. I'm obviously talking as a general trait of things here.

A good reason to select a balance of centers, wingers, D, and goalies is so that as many players as possible can be given the ice time to develop properly and to be evaluated properly once they make it to Laval.

 

[Whitesnake]

With Timmins at this point I only look at the 2012-2019 drafts, and I don't see a compelling argument to move on from him. I have little interest in bitching about 2003 or in singing the praises of 2007.

But if, a year from now, Kotkaniemi, Romanov, Brook, Poehling, etc are mostly tire fires, then I'll be compelled.

Maybe so. But I will tell you that in a year from now, there will be this upcoming draft. And with the number of picks that we will have, chances are we will be excited for them too. And we will have to wait to see how they, added to the ones you just talked about, they will progress.

In the end, I'm now convince that the only way Timmins is out of Montreal if when he'll decide to move on from it. He is not going to be fired or replaced. The only guy in the league to be with a team for so long. And, TO THIS DAY (we will see in the near future), with not a lot to show for. But 17-19 should by the numbers of it, provide some needed depth. Time to know what kind of quality there will be.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Well if you can't be convinced about BPA at that spot, I have no idea what will convince you about needs either. If you are not convinced that any of those players have an exceptional trait that makes him BPA on top of the others, it means that you are not even sure they are going to make it. And if so, how is going for needs going to be any help if they don't make it. And if they do, what will be your needs when they'll eventually make it.

Not worth the debate IMO. I think you are trying to pin me down as targeting a need like size... McCarron type. That's not really what I am saying. We are probably closer that you think. It's a matter semantics in how you explain the strategy. Of course each team thinks they are drafting the best possible player to their team. You going to draft Askarov if he is there at 16? Doubt that but he probably is BPA at 16.

And you overlook the fact that there were no U18's and playoffs to evaluate in their draft year. Pretty sure you know the movement in rankings from March to June that happens every year. I don't believe there is clear cut BPA with that 16th pick if no one slips according to Bob's rankings. Especially this draft year!

 

[Whitesnake]

A good reason to select a balance of centers, wingers, D, and goalies is so that as many players as possible can be given the ice time to develop properly and to be evaluated properly once they make it to Laval.

You can do that. Or my take would be to select the best players available...and make trades to compensate for the lack of balance. Kids trades happen. 'Cause getting some balance does not mean that they'll be good enough to be in Laval.

 

[Whitesnake]

Not worth the debate IMO. I think you are trying to pin me down as targeting a need like size... McCarron type. That's not really what I am saying. We are probably closer that you think. It's a matter semantics in how you explain the strategy. Of course each team thinks they are drafting the best possible player to their team. You going to draft Askarov if he is there at 16? Doubt that but he probably is BPA at 16.

And you overlook the fact that there were no U18's and playoffs to evaluate in their draft year. Pretty sure you know the movement in rankings from March to June that happens every year.

I would MOST DEFINATELY draft Askarov at 16.

 

[Habs Halifax]

I would MOST DEFINATELY draft Askarov at 16.

OK... I would too. So like I said... we are closer than you think in strategy. I had to set you up to realize it

 

[DAChampion]

Maybe so. But I will tell you that in a year from now, there will be this upcoming draft. And with the number of picks that we will have, chances are we will be excited for them too. And we will have to wait to see how they, added to the ones you just talked about, they will progress.

In the end, I'm now convince that the only way Timmins is out of Montreal if when he'll decide to move on from it. He is not going to be fired or replaced. The only guy in the league to be with a team for so long. And, TO THIS DAY (we will see in the near future), with not a lot to show for. But 17-19 should by the numbers of it, provide some needed depth. Time to know what kind of quality there will be.

Why not just take people at their word instead of assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is irrational and will just shift the goalposts forever? Why not evaluate things fairly?

Here are some facts:

• Timmins' 2005 and 2007 drafts were great, and we're likely the reason that Bergevin kept him in 2012. They're not a good reasons to hold him in high regard in 2020. And similarly 2003 is not a good reason to shit on him in 2020.
• Lefebvre and Therrien undermined prospect development for years. That's not hindsight. That's something that half the forum or more was aware of by 2014.
• Bouchard and Julien are overwhelmingly better when it comes to youth. We still complain sometimes, but it's at the level of "could be better" not "complete catastrophe". Nobody is going to blame Bouchard if Poehling or Brook don't work out.
• The 2017-2019 (2016-2020?) drafts are exciting and the Habs organization is better managed now. The players have a legitimate chance to make it. And if they don't then yes that's a problem.

 

[Whitesnake]

OK... I would too. So like I said... we are closer than you think in strategy. I had to set you up to realize it

I never discuss how far or not far we are. Where we differentiate is that I believe you are able at almost each pick to determine who the BPA for you is. Where you say that at one point, it's all a big group together and you might want to go needs. Your point is that BPA when it's clear. My point is that it should most of the time be clear. When we took Gally in the 5th round in 2010, to me it was clear. When we took Corey Locke too it was. Not saying my BPA strategy is 100% proof. Just saying that, I think, you give yourself more chances in a game that do need chances.

 

[Whitesnake]

Why not just take people at their word instead of assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is irrational and will just shift the goalposts forever? Why not evaluate things fairly?

Here are some facts:

• Timmins' 2005 and 2007 drafts were great, and we're likely the reason that Bergevin kept him in 2012. They're not a good reasons to hold him in high regard in 2020. And similarly 2003 is not a good reason to shit on him in 2020.
• Lefebvre and Therrien undermined prospect development for years. That's not hindsight. That's something that half the forum or more was aware of by 2014.
• Bouchard and Julien are overwhelmingly better when it comes to youth. We still complain sometimes, but it's at the level of "could be better" not "complete catastrophe". Nobody is going to blame Bouchard if Poehling or Brook don't work out.
• The 2017-2019 (2016-2020?) drafts are exciting and the Habs organization is better managed now. The players have a legitimate chance to make it. And if they don't then yes that's a problem.

I said that? I said that you were irrational because you disagreed with me ?And you are giving me lessons at taking people words?

As far as not blaming anybody if Poehling, Brook and Co don't make it out...you don't see the comments about bringing Poehling too early? Fleury? Mete? You really don't see that?

Lefebvre was not the best coach for the farm. But you will never convinced me that he was able to transform great players into ECHL'ers. People say...well at least he should have been able to make Tinordi a 3rd d pairing d-man....okay..maybe. That's what you were looking for in the 1st round when we picked him? McCarron...was finally pencilled to be a 4th line player ?

AT one point i hear that it's not Timmins fault if 2012 and 2013 didn't pan out because they were weak drafts...but somehow Lefebvre should ahve been able to make something out of it ? Which is it?

 

[DAChampion]

I said that? I said that you were irrational because you disagreed with me ?And you are giving me lessons at taking people words?

As far as not blaming anybody if Poehling, Brook and Co don't make it out...you don't see the comments about bringing Poehling too early? Fleury? Mete? You really don't see that?

Lefebvre was not the best coach for the farm. But you will never convinced me that he was able to transform great players into ECHL'ers. People say...well at least he should have been able to make Tinordi a 3rd d pairing d-man....okay..maybe. That's what you were looking for in the 1st round when we picked him? McCarron...was finally pencilled to be a 4th line player ?

AT one point i hear that it's not Timmins fault if 2012 and 2013 didn't pan out because they were weak drafts...but somehow Lefebvre should ahve been able to make something out of it ? Which is it?

What do you think you're implying with:

But I will tell you that in a year from now, there will be this upcoming draft. And with the number of picks that we will have, chances are we will be excited for them too. And we will have to wait to see how they, added to the ones you just talked about, they will progress.

It comes off like you're expecting others to just shift the goalposts again.

 

[Hannibal]

Our fowards prospect pool is atrocious beside caufield.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Our fowards prospect pool is atrocious beside caufield.

Yeah, so I'm gonna be pretty miffed if they try to target a defenseman with 16.

 

[Hannibal]

Yeah, so I'm gonna be pretty miffed if they try to target a defenseman with 16.

Me too!

I’m depressed by our actuacl wingers and looking at our fowards prospect is even more depressing lol. f*** this organisation.

 

[Whitesnake]

There is never nothing good when the Habs pick late mid-first....never. Zajac, Green, Giroux, Kreider, Kuznetsov, Coyle, Nelson, Theodore, Kempe, Beauvilier, Aho,

Don't give me all of them. That's a list of 11 names. Give me 3 or 4. And this team would have changed. Significantly. 3 out of 11.

 

[DAChampion]

Yeah, so I'm gonna be pretty miffed if they try to target a defenseman with 16.

Why?

They should pick BPA. Whoever they draft at 16 is unlikely to help before the 2023 season.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Why?

They should pick BPA. Whoever they draft at 16 is unlikely to help before the 2023 season.

Chances are the BPA wont be a defenseman and our pool is thin at offense and stacked on defense. They should absolutely target high offense players with their picks.

 

[26Mats]

Chances are the BPA wont be a defenseman and our pool is thin at offense and stacked on defense. They should absolutely target high offense players with their picks.

I agree with the logic. I still trust Timmins' instincts more for Dmen. If he feels there's a sound dman and a forward that has high upside but he's unsure about, I'd rather him take the Dman. We don't need more Scherbak, McCarron, and Leblanc's. I'd prefer a Juulsen (or McDonagh).

But yes, this draft is apparently loaded with wingers, which is our biggest need. So hopefully he finds a Pacioretty or Caufield.

But, remember how long it took for Pacioretty to be the player he became. I still think it's a mistake to use the draft for need. The draft should be to build up assets. Trade should be to address need. UFA market is for both, especially filling out the bottom 6. Don't need to waste draft picks on that.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

Our fowards prospect pool is atrocious beside caufield.

Give it a rest....we just graduated two huge talents and drafted one last season. That is like buying up all of the best stuff in a store and immediately turning around and saying the store sucks because it doesn't have the stuff you just purchased.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

Why?

They should pick BPA. Whoever they draft at 16 is unlikely to help before the 2023 season.

A good RD prospect would not be the worst thing with none of Fleury, Juulsen or Brook being surefire replacements for Petry or Weber.

 

[Hannibal]

Give it a rest....we just graduated two huge talents and drafted one last season. That is like buying up all of the best stuff in a store and immediately turning around and saying the store sucks because it doesn't have the stuff you just purchased.

Dont give credit to timmins for Suzuki lol, comon