Trevor Timmins Discussion (Part 8)

[The Great Weal]

The Timmins bashers / Development deniers will take a hit if:

• Kotkaniemi keeps improving;
• Romanov has a solid rookie campaign;
• A few of Juulsen, Mete, Fleury, Brook, Norlinder, Struble, Harris, Poehling, Evans, Caulfield, Ylonen, and possibly even Vejdemo show solid progression this year. Let's say hypothetically that 2+ of them are deserving roster regulars by the end of the 2021 campaign.

We have drafted dick all from 2008-2017, it's going to take a lot to make up for nearly a decade of misery. You can't build a team by only making trades which is what Bergevin has been forced to do(although it is his fault for keeping Timmins).

Kotkaniemi better pan out when Hughes is already doing so well, he was also a need because Timmins and his crew draft by need.

Again, roster regulars don't mean much. Sergachev is a good player, but when he is the best we got in a decade and the only other noteworthy player is Gallagher, we have done a terrible job. We need a legit star, no more fillers. Yes Evans, Mete and Lehkonen were awesome picks for where they were drafted, but none of them are core pieces and they are all easily replaceable.

 

[DAChampion]

We have drafted dick all from 2008-2017, it's going to take a lot to make up for nearly a decade of misery. You can't build a team by only making trades which is what Bergevin has been forced to do(although it is his fault for keeping Timmins).

Kotkaniemi better pan out when Hughes is already doing so well, he was also a need because Timmins and his crew draft by need.

Again, roster regulars don't mean much. Sergachev is a good player, but when he is the best we got in a decade and the only other noteworthy player is Gallagher, we have done a terrible job. We need a legit star, no more fillers. Yes Evans, Mete and Lehkonen were awesome picks for where they were drafted, but none of them are core pieces and they are all easily replaceable.

That's why I wrote deserving roster regulars.

 

[Whitesnake]

We've been over this.
Daniel Pribyl is irrelevant.
It's the 1st and 2nd rounders that matter the most, and Lefebvre got to work with plenty of those.

1st and 2nd rounders during Lefebvre years:

• Tinordi: Yep, that guy should have been a 3rd pair d-man
• Leblanc: Yep, that guy should not have been bashed and ridicuzlied the way he seemed to have been
• Beaulieu: Well a very good 1st season in the AHL under Lefebvre. Then un and down before he seemed to have plateaued. Lefebvre fault?
• Galchenyuk: Never saw Lefebvre
• Collberg: Saw Lefebvre for 2 games. Lefebvre isn't that powerful
• Thrower: Saw Lefebvre for 9 games. See Collberg
• McCarron: Good first season with Lefebvre. Then up and down with the Habs. See Beaulieu.
• DeLa Rose: See McCarrron and Beaulieu. Yet, his 3rd season under Lefebvre was his best season offensively.
• Fucale: How much do we attribute that to Lefebvre. Yes....Lefebvre was dumb to play Robert Meyer that much. But would Fucale be more?
• Lehkonen: Never saw Lefebvre. The wise guys would say that it's the reason why he's so good....and....I'm not contradicting them...lol
• Scherbak: Improved his game every year offensively. Lefebvre didn't seem to have been able to round his game if that was possible.
• Juulsen: 31 games under Lefebvre.

So in the end, the players under Lefebvre were: Tinordi, Leblanc, Beaulieu, McCarron, DLR, Fucale and Scherbak. Beaulieu and DLR being regular NHL'ers....right now.

Remains to be seen how many is directly linked to a bad development. BUt most of them are past the top 20 picks. The only guys that are pre-top 20 are Leblanc and Beaulieu. 1 of which is a NHL'er. But yes, Lefebvre should have been able to make fillers out of some of them. Leblanc, Tinordi and DLR shoud have been able to be fillers under his watch. I will never believe in McCarron who could NEVER stand on his 2 feet. That is CLEARLY a guy who was unwilling to put the effort. I will not believe in Fucale either. A goalie who was the product of. Scherbak? Maybe Lefebvre could have done more to round up his game.

But there is NO WAY I will ever believe that because of Lefebvre, we missed a top player. Just no way.

Jake Evans also got to spend two years with Joel Bouchard, a coach who believed in him and placed him in a position to succeed. For example it was Evans who was promoted to being on Kotkaniemi's wing.

Then, in the playoffs, Evans was also helped by the anomalous situation of Thompson, Cousins, and Kovalchuk each being off the team.

And I think that Muller showed him more trust than Julien. Who gave him those 6 minutes?

Sure. Bouchard is great. Pretty sure I wanted him before anybody even thought of him. So Evans might surely be a player that Bouchard will be able to turn as a filler. Evans is not and will not be a top 6 player. And here lies the difference between Bouchard and Lefebvre. But in no way does it places us as a contender. You need your scouting team to find top end players.

That's 6 minutes in 13 games during the regular season. I don't think yuo can use that as a proof for anything.

 

[DAChampion]

1st and 2nd rounders during Lefebvre years:

• Tinordi: Yep, that guy should have been a 3rd pair d-man
• Leblanc: Yep, that guy should not have been bashed and ridicuzlied the way he seemed to have been
• Beaulieu: Well a very good 1st season in the AHL under Lefebvre. Then un and down before he seemed to have plateaued. Lefebvre fault?
• Galchenyuk: Never saw Lefebvre
• Collberg: Saw Lefebvre for 2 games. Lefebvre isn't that powerful
• Thrower: Saw Lefebvre for 9 games. See Collberg
• McCarron: Good first season with Lefebvre. Then up and down with the Habs. See Beaulieu.
• DeLa Rose: See McCarrron and Beaulieu. Yet, his 3rd season under Lefebvre was his best season offensively.
• Fucale: How much do we attribute that to Lefebvre. Yes....Lefebvre was dumb to play Robert Meyer that much. But would Fucale be more?
• Lehkonen: Never saw Lefebvre. The wise guys would say that it's the reason why he's so good....and....I'm not contradicting them...lol
• Scherbak: Improved his game every year offensively. Lefebvre didn't seem to have been able to round his game if that was possible.
• Juulsen: 31 games under Lefebvre.

So in the end, the players under Lefebvre were: Tinordi, Leblanc, Beaulieu, McCarron, DLR, Fucale and Scherbak. Beaulieu and DLR being regular NHL'ers....right now.

Remains to be seen how many is directly linked to a bad development. BUt most of them are past the top 20 picks. The only guys that are pre-top 20 are Leblanc and Beaulieu. 1 of which is a NHL'er. But yes, Lefebvre should have been able to make fillers out of some of them. Leblanc, Tinordi and DLR shoud have been able to be fillers under his watch. I will never believe in McCarron who could NEVER stand on his 2 feet. That is CLEARLY a guy who was unwilling to put the effort. I will not believe in Fucale either. A goalie who was the product of. Scherbak? Maybe Lefebvre could have done more to round up his game.

But there is NO WAY I will ever believe that because of Lefebvre, we missed a top player. Just no way.



Sure. Bouchard is great. Pretty sure I wanted him before anybody even thought of him. So Evans might surely be a player that Bouchard will be able to turn as a filler. Evans is not and will not be a top 6 player. And here lies the difference between Bouchard and Lefebvre. But in no way does it places us as a contender. You need your scouting team to find top end players.

That's 6 minutes in 13 games during the regular season. I don't think yuo can use that as a proof for anything.

So in the first part you mostly agree with my analysis that Lefebvre was a catastrophe. You have some critiques of Leblanc and McCarron that I reject but let's move on from that.

I also agree that we should ignore Evans' PP time.

Now as for Evans himself, he's a 4th liner with 3rd line potential. I think that these guys actually matter. It's very valuable to be able to produce these internally. A 4th lime plays 8-12 minutes a game, it might as well be competent. Bergevin also routinely squanders endless draft picks to acquire Ott, Martinson, Drewiske, King, etc and Gainey/Gauthier would often do the sane to acquire Smolinski, Moore, etc. Bergevin will be spending 7 million on Chiarot and Edmundson this year, let's hope that Seattle picks one of them as there's a glut of talented defensive prospects that should be able to replace them within a year.

Do you not remember the positive impact that Maxim Lapierre had on the Habs?

 

[The Great Weal]

That's why I wrote deserving roster regulars.

Theres a difference between a star and deserving regulars though. Lehkonen is a deserving regular, but we need a Brayden Point type steal.

 

[DAChampion]

Theres a difference between a star and deserving regulars though. Lehkonen is a deserving regular, but we need a Brayden Point type steal.

There won't be any this year, but given the strength of the Habs farm system on D there might be several in a few years.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

Over the last 2 drafts Timmins has selected absolute steals in Romanov, Harris and Norlinder. All 3 were almost entirely unknown to the local board "experts" and resulted in close to unanimous indictments of incompetence from the same "experts".

Only a primate of the lowest order would suggest through a series of loosely translated grunts that he be relieved of his duties based on recent performance.

 

[Habs Icing]

Over the last 2 drafts Timmins has selected absolute steals in Romanov, Harris and Norlinder. All 3 were almost entirely unknown to the local board "experts" and resulted in close to unanimous indictments of incompetence from the same "experts".

Only a primate of the lowest order would suggest through a series of loosely translated grunts that he be relieved of his duties based on recent performance.

Before we soil our panties over the greatness of TT, shouldn't we wait at least till those three players establish themselves in the NHL. I can remember the same platitudes being expressed when we had De la Rose, Collberg, and Sherbak.

 

[EXPOS123]

Over the last 2 drafts Timmins has selected absolute steals in Romanov, Harris and Norlinder. All 3 were almost entirely unknown to the local board "experts" and resulted in close to unanimous indictments of incompetence from the same "experts".

Only a primate of the lowest order would suggest through a series of loosely translated grunts that he be relieved of his duties based on recent performance.

How many NHL games have they played exactly? I seem to recall people saying the saying the same about Ikonen, Reway, Olofsson, Brooks, Ylonen, etc...How this overated buffoon is still our scouting director is beyond me.

 

[BLONG7]

Timmins has been around a long long time guys..................it really seems like it is time for a change, in philosophy from the organization. Leave him as a asst GM but let someone else run the draft...it is time to start making some changes with our drafting.
He has done some good, great, but he has also been awful. I know drafting is a tough one, especially when for years the Habs developing under monkey like Therrien and Lefebvre has been suspect at times.

 

[habsfan92]

I think he has tenure, or something really juicy on Molson. Everyone he picks is a steal-diamond in the rough. 15+ years? I was hopeful for so many selections, now I am just numb.
I do like Romanov, and tentatively excited about Norlinder.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

How many NHL games have they played exactly? I seem to recall people saying the saying the same about Ikonen, Reway, Olofsson, Brooks, Ylonen, etc...How this overated buffoon is still our scouting director is beyond me.

You call him a buffoon and in the same sentence write off Brooks and Ylonen........I needn't say more

...........ok fine I will say more. Comparing Reway, Olofsson and Ikonen to Romanov, Norlinder and Harris is asinine at best. All 3 of these D would be drafted significantly higher in a redraft whereas Ikonen and Olofsson have slipped considerably since their drafts, in Ikonen's case it is solely due to injuries. As for Reway, he was really only hyped by this board as he had enormous flaws of which I was never a fan of.

It is perfectly fine to refer to a pick as a steal when they have drastically improved their respective value even if they haven't played in the NHL yet. When a players value exceeds their expected value relative to draft position then they are a steal.........it is a purely objective view as opposed to intentionally conflating multiple scenarios in order to conform to One's confirmation bias. In this case the confirmation bias is clearly centered over blind hate for Timmins' work.....the reasons for this are open for analysis but I will stop right there.

 

[DAChampion]

Before we soil our panties over the greatness of TT, shouldn't we wait at least till those three players establish themselves in the NHL. I can remember the same platitudes being expressed when we had De la Rose, Collberg, and Sherbak.

Collberg showed null or negligible improvement in his post-draft year, De La Rose was badly developed and regardless was a steal in a weak draft, and Scherbak ... Didn't make it.

Romanov, Harris, and Norlinder are 3, 2, and 1 year post draft so we have a lot more information on them. So far, none of them has been rushed which is nice. The signing of Edmundson reduces the odds of Romanov being rushed, Harris will either be in the NCAA or in Laval, and Norlinder will be playing his D+2 in the SEL. They are legitimate prospects as long as they stay healthy.

 

[DAChampion]

I hope that a few more if you guys watch some AHL games this year. It's ~$35 for a TV package, and the roster will include several of Romanov, Fleury, Juulsen, Brook, Poehling, Ylonen, Hillis, etc. The Laval Rocket gameday threads are also the friendliest and most detail-oriented on the forum.

I watched like 15 games last year and I got to notice a lot of little things, so I'll probably watch 20-40 next year. Among them:
- That entire roster took off when they got rid of Peca, Barber, and Varone. The whole team played more efficiently afterwards and stopped giving up tons of goals in the last five minutes of every game. It's a good example of how things like character and locker room chemistry matter.
- Brook suddenly started playing better when he was bumped to the 1st pairing from the 3rd. Maybe he needs to be an alpha or something. Either way, 1st pairing Brook is a prospect that I can be excited about, 3rd pairing Brook, not so much. He and Gustafson were a great shutdown pair.
- Stats watchers were frustrated with Kotkaniemi not getting any goals. But I saw that he was shooting some excellent shots, he was just unlucky in not scoring. Sure enough he scored just fine in the playoffs.
- Dauphin was very aggressive and effective, I wonder if he has bottom six upside.

I hope that a few more of you watch the Rocket games.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

Collberg showed null or negligible improvement in his post-draft year, De La Rose was badly developed and regardless was a steal in a weak draft, and Scherbak ... Didn't make it.

Romanov, Harris, and Norlinder are 3, 2, and 1 year post draft so we have a lot more information on them. So far, none of them has been rushed which is nice. The signing of Edmundson reduces the odds of Romanov being rushed, Harris will either be in the NCAA or in Laval, and Norlinder will be playing his D+2 in the SEL. They are legitimate prospects as long as they stay healthy.

Not to nit pick but Romanov and Harris were both from the same draft 2 years ago.

KK, Romanov, Harris, Ylonen and Hillis is trending as an outstanding haul at this point

 

[Whitesnake]

So in the first part you mostly agree with my analysis that Lefebvre was a catastrophe. You have some critiques of Leblanc and McCarron that I reject but let's move on from that.

I also agree that we should ignore Evans' PP time.

Now as for Evans himself, he's a 4th liner with 3rd line potential. I think that these guys actually matter. It's very valuable to be able to produce these internally. A 4th lime plays 8-12 minutes a game, it might as well be competent. Bergevin also routinely squanders endless draft picks to acquire Ott, Martinson, Drewiske, King, etc and Gainey/Gauthier would often do the sane to acquire Smolinski, Moore, etc. Bergevin will be spending 7 million on Chiarot and Edmundson this year, let's hope that Seattle picks one of them as there's a glut of talented defensive prospects that should be able to replace them within a year.

Do you not remember the positive impact that Maxim Lapierre had on the Habs?

I don't remember Lapierre or any other filler changing something whatsoever to the quality of the team. Fun to watch. Loved seeing Bégin facing head first on the board for the team. But they are not the ones that will change a single thing. A Lapierre would be awesome on an already competing team. But with Lapierre we saw 1 Round 2 and 1 Round 3. And while fun to have, he wasn't that key to our ''success''.

Having said that, I'm not discrediting fillers. I would love to have ADam Lowry. IN the fighting era, I kept saying how I would have loved to get our hands on Jared Boll. I'd love to have a 4th line with Clutterbuck and Martin. But it will only be as good as the top players.

Yes, Lefebvre was not a good coach. I kept saying it while on this very own board, I was told to shut up 'cause pros know better. I kept saying to bring in Bouchard. I know we could have added more players as I stated. I always said that. It was never my point. My point was that it's STILL not good enough for a scouting team that 1st and 2nd rounders happens to be more fillers than top players. And the day I don't believe that Lefebvre should have been able to transform McCarron into Lucic, is the day I can't agree with the assessment that Lefebvre is more to blame than Timmins. That's all.

 

[ProMath]

You asked for players I named them. Kotka, Suzuki and Caufield are going to be top 6 guys. Norlinder and Romanov are looking amazing and should be top 4 guys. Primeau is a looking like he’ll be a stud goalie. Poehling and Ylönen should be in the top 9 eventually. Struble and Harris look great at Northeastern. What are you talking about bro?

Correct me if you disagree...

If you get one 1st line player and one top 2 def..out of all those prospect (Remove Suzuki)...it would be good.

There is far more odds that most of them don’t become established top 6 forward/top 4 D.

Our prospect is good because we have a lots of player that seem to trend well. But I think what @Habs Icing was implying..we lack of blue chips prospects.
They all look good...but we would be extremely lucky if KK, Caufield, Romanov/Norlinder, Primeau become established top talents.

If they become middle 6 forward or #3-4-5 D....we won’t be better...because what we lack right now on the NHL roster...is 1st line/Top 2 D.

 

[DAChampion]

I don't remember Lapierre or any other filler changing something whatsoever to the quality of the team. Fun to watch. Loved seeing Bégin facing head first on the board for the team. But they are not the ones that will change a single thing. A Lapierre would be awesome on an already competing team. But with Lapierre we saw 1 Round 2 and 1 Round 3. And while fun to have, he wasn't that key to our ''success''.

Having said that, I'm not discrediting fillers. I would love to have ADam Lowry. IN the fighting era, I kept saying how I would have loved to get our hands on Jared Boll. I'd love to have a 4th line with Clutterbuck and Martin. But it will only be as good as the top players.

Yes, Lefebvre was not a good coach. I kept saying it while on this very own board, I was told to shut up 'cause pros know better. I kept saying to bring in Bouchard. I know we could have added more players as I stated. I always said that. It was never my point. My point was that it's STILL not good enough for a scouting team that 1st and 2nd rounders happens to be more fillers than top players. And the day I don't believe that Lefebvre should have been able to transform McCarron into Lucic, is the day I can't agree with the assessment that Lefebvre is more to blame than Timmins. That's all.

I'm skeptical that any of the names in question could have been first line forwards or first pairing dman.

That extra depth might have helped though. For example, against the Rangers in 2014. Would Kreider have been as much of a dick had Tinordi been adequately developed? Would he have faced repercussions? And could the Habs have gotten past the he Rangers if Galchenyuk, Beaulieu, and Leblanc were contributing to their potential? I think so.

Regardless, that era is over. Now the question is if Timmins and Bouchard can build a core and depth around Kotkaniemi and Suzuki. I say yes.

 

[montreal]

STrangely, I'm told Julien sucks with kids. And yet some loved Mete. Loves Suzuki and JK improvement. If the argument concerning Timmins pre-and post Lefebvre holds any water why in the world would Julien's argument Boston and Montreal can't hold any? Why in the world would Julien be good enough for Kessel, Lucic, Krejci, Marchand, Reilly Smith, Krug, Pastrnak, DeBrusk, McAvoy and not be good enough for Scherbak, McCarron and Co?

No Julien sucks with young players he doesn't trust. Domi, Galchenyuk, Kotka, etc.. Who puts a kid that was coming off a 30 goal season and puts him on the 4th line or gives him DLR as a linemate. The guy drives me up a wall.

as for julien in boston, never followed him there don't care, f*** boston.

And if all this is true, the people defending Timmins should have been WAY ahead of myself asking for Bergevin's head. Who the f*** will applaud a GM for willingly f***ing his future by keeping an idept and idiot coach?

no clue what you are getting at, most of the board seems to hate MB more then anyone I have ever seen in my 20 years here.

But....I'm also told that from 08-11, Timmins couldn't do anything 'cause he didn't have enough picks. So, is Timmins exempt from criticism 'cause of the low and bad picks he had to work with...but Lefebvre is criticized to not have been able to transform those bad picks into great ones? There were players that turned out NHL'ers under Lefebvre.

What I'm also saying is that out of 100% of picks picked by Timmins during Lefebvre stint, Lefebvre might have had a chance to do something with 20% of them. So when you say ALL OF THEM, you mean ALL OF THEM that might have been good enough and actually transit for more than 1 year through Lefebvre. Not ALL OF TIMMINS PICKS.

NO ONE SAYS TIMMINS IS EXEMPT FROM CRITICISM.

where do you get this stuff? I have never seen someone say it but once again just like our talk about how no one can blame just Lefebvre, no can is allowed to say Timmins is exempt from criticism because everyone knows that's not that case.

Just like '08-'11 doesn't mean he couldn't do anything, all it means is putting it in context, no Habs head scout ever had to deal with less then 6 picks in a draft since the '70's and he had to do it 3 times. All that means is it makes his job much tougher especially when added to the fact that outside of '12/'13 he did not have many top 50 or even top 80ish picks.

IT DOESN"T MEAN HE"S OFF THE HOOK FROM BLAME!

It just puts things in more context, Timmins and his scouts failed, the 2 times they had a number of top 50 picks, they ran into some bad luck with it being suck weak drafts and yet he still found the 2nd highest scoring player and one of the best players in the 2nd round of '13. They messed up, Lefebvre didn't help matters, MB, MT, Julien didn't help matters.

How long do we have to repeat the same conversations every few weeks or so? What else is there to say, the Habs under MB and Molson have been a disaster, Timmins failed, development was shit, coaching has been outdated and poor choices were made.

We need a change. I really dont understand why Timmins is protected every organizational changes over the years. GM`s come and go, but this bloke is here to stay.

blame the 4 GM's that either hired or promoted him.

Timmins has been around a long long time guys..................it really seems like it is time for a change, in philosophy from the organization.

people want Molson, MB, Timmins gone but I don't see it happening any time soon.

I think he has tenure, or something really juicy on Molson. Everyone he picks is a steal-diamond in the rough. 15+ years?

He's been around with 4 GM's, 2 owners, it's there fault not his.

 

[Big Empty]

Suzuki had an excellent rookie year and proved himself in the playoffs. He'll be a 1C.

I see KK as having 1C potential. Absolutely a blue chipper.

Caufield has sky high potential. He's a bit more of question mark because of his size but he's a top 10 prospect in the NHL right now.

Romanov is regarded as one of the best defensive prospects around. He may not be considered a blue chipper because of his draft status but he's an elite prospect without a doubt.

Norlinder is looking dangerous... He has a really bright future on this team.

Those 5 right there are much better than people here give credit.

 

[Whitesnake]

No Julien sucks with young players he doesn't trust. Domi, Galchenyuk, Kotka, etc.. Who puts a kid that was coming off a 30 goal season and puts him on the 4th line or gives him DLR as a linemate. The guy drives me up a wall.

as for julien in boston, never followed him there don't care, f*** boston.

Convenient though that we don't look at what happened in Boston. Question is this....to show how great Timmins is pre compared to during Lefebvre era, I'm told ''Did Timmins forgot how to draft? How come he was so good before, and was bad after? Why can't we use that with Julien? How come Julien looked much better in Boston with kids compared to with Montreal? Did he forgot how to influx confidence and icetime?

Julien prefers guys that are 2-way. Suzuki developped under Julien. JK will develop under Julien. Evans might develop under Julien. Mete did develop (as much as he could) under Julien.

NO ONE SAYS TIMMINS IS EXEMPT FROM CRITICISM.

where do you get this stuff? I have never seen someone say it but once again just like our talk about how no one can blame just Lefebvre, no can is allowed to say Timmins is exempt from criticism because everyone knows that's not that case.

This very board. Like I said before, when people ask how come Timmins was so great before and bad with Lefebvre...that means, Timmins is exempt. When people give him excuses based on the picks he had to work with from 08-11, that's excusing him. When people say that despite the numberous picks in 12-13, those were bad years, they excuse him.

Just like '08-'11 doesn't mean he couldn't do anything, all it means is putting it in context, no Habs head scout ever had to deal with less then 6 picks in a draft since the '70's and he had to do it 3 times. All that means is it makes his job much tougher especially when added to the fact that outside of '12/'13 he did not have many top 50 or even top 80ish picks.

IT DOESN"T MEAN HE"S OFF THE HOOK FROM BLAME!

Great. Does that mean that Lefebvre's tenure as a head coach should also be put in context based on those drafts too? 'Cause if so I've NEVER read that anywhere. Funny thing is that Timmins needs context for those 08-11 drafts...but Lefebvre should be badly judged for mishandling Leblanc, Tinordi and Beaulieu? Besides, the whole context for Timmins is understandable. Yet, when I kept reading how he's the best in the world, I would hope that he doesn't need what the worst of head scout needs...which is TONS of picks, as high as possible.

How long do we have to repeat the same conversations every few weeks or so? What else is there to say, the Habs under MB and Molson have been a disaster, Timmins failed, development was shit, coaching has been outdated and poor choices were made.

Do you think I come in here having nothing else to do...and starts those conversations? You will see that everytime I come back....it's in response to somebody. So how long do we have to repeat? Unless you want a 1-way conversation, I will repeat as many times as people want to single out Lefebvre as bad as he was.

 

[ProMath]

Suzuki had an excellent rookie year and proved himself in the playoffs. He'll be a 1C.

I see KK as having 1C potential. Absolutely a blue chipper.

Caufield has sky high potential. He's a bit more of question mark because of his size but he's a top 10 prospect in the NHL right now.

Romanov is regarded as one of the best defensive prospects around. He may not be considered a blue chipper because of his draft status but he's an elite prospect without a doubt.

Norlinder is looking dangerous... He has a really bright future on this team.

Those 5 right there are much better than people here give credit.

I don’t see anyone saying they don’t have potential. Actually everyone is saying we have a lot of prospect with some potential.

But so far, it’s all potential.

What are the odds of each of them reaching their potential ?

Suziki 1C : 60-70% ?
KK 1C: 40-50% ?
Caufield 1st line: 20-30% ?
Romanov Top 2: 10-20% ?

I pretty sure you disagree with all the above...
Remember when Galchenyuk came off a 30 Goal season ? He may not play next years in the NHL.

It’s ok to be excited about prospect...but all I see his poster being realistic. You are basically implying all those prospect will have a tremendous impact on the team.

If you have 1-2 rookie making the team every years...it’s already very good. Let alone all of them be impact established player.

Yes, it could happen that KK and Suzi become 1C, Caufield Top RW, Romanov and Norlinder top 2 and 4. But it is far more likely that half of them don’t reach their full potential.

 

[montreal]

Convenient though that we don't look at what happened in Boston. Question is this....to show how great Timmins is pre compared to during Lefebvre era, I'm told ''Did Timmins forgot how to draft? How come he was so good before, and was bad after? Why can't we use that with Julien? How come Julien looked much better in Boston with kids compared to with Montreal? Did he forgot how to influx confidence and icetime?

Julien prefers guys that are 2-way. Suzuki developped under Julien. JK will develop under Julien. Evans might develop under Julien. Mete did develop (as much as he could) under Julien.

well we know what happened in boston, they got smart and canned his ass. So clearly things couldn't have been working out great if he gets fired mid season. I just don't spend time following other NHL teams, I only have so much time and it's spent on Hab prospects.

I don't see the point of comparing a head coach to what a scout does but if you want to go for it.

Suzuki still had to start on the 4th line to be a better person, wonder how the team does if he's in the top 6 from day 1 like a player with his skill, IQ, confidence and two way game should be imo.

It's funny how he gives Evans the exact situation some of us have called for with other prospects but it's the only time off the top of my head he had a prospect make his NHL debut with 2 top 6 players. So why do that with Evans but no one else, not even Suzuki?

Mete I still don't really know what to make of, he was rushed, now we'll see what the plan is for him.

This very board. Like I said before, when people ask how come Timmins was so great before and bad with Lefebvre...that means, Timmins is exempt. When people give him excuses based on the picks he had to work with from 08-11, that's excusing him. When people say that despite the numberous picks in 12-13, those were bad years, they excuse him.

I don't know how you figure that, no one has said Timmins is exempt from criticism, if they have I haven't seen it. There's a big difference between saying he made mistakes, he's at fault to some degree but let's look at it in the proper context. There is 100% nothing wrong with saying yes he failed but he also had the least amount of picks ANY Hab scout has had since pre 1970. I have always said EVERYONE involved share some blame, I continue to say Timmins has his share of the blame, but I can still point out the how and why's. It does not absolve him of blame, it's just shedding light on things.

So once again, it does NOT mean he's exempt, and I wouldn't call it an excuse since it's not letting him off the hook. He shares blame in this 100%, everyone should agree that he made mistakes. But pointing out that he had very few top 50 picks isn't done to say he's not to blame it's done to say he f***ed up but maybe it wouldn't have been as bad he he had more top 5o picks or when he did have them he was unlucky that '12/'13 were not strong drafts. But even with that said he's still to blame. He had picks, he made them, they most busted. Management, coaching, didn't help these kids which imo made it worse.

There is NO harm whatsoever in pointing out that 2012 draft class is weak. There's nothing wrong with looking at everything and pointing things out that are directly related to the topic. It's crazy to think otherwise.

Great. Does that mean that Lefebvre's tenure as a head coach should also be put in context based on those drafts too? 'Cause if so I've NEVER read that anywhere. Funny thing is that Timmins needs context for those 08-11 drafts...but Lefebvre should be badly judged for mishandling Leblanc, Tinordi and Beaulieu? Besides, the whole context for Timmins is understandable. Yet, when I kept reading how he's the best in the world, I would hope that he doesn't need what the worst of head scout needs...which is TONS of picks, as high as possible.

well if Lefebvre had any track record of success before joining Hamilton we could look at it and say how he had past success but under Timmins it went bad. But since the guy was never a head coach at ANY level before or after we have nothing else to go other then it's telling that one guy got promoted and the other never found another head coaching job.

I don't know where you get this stuff, show me someone that says Timmins is the best in the world.

Do you think I come in here having nothing else to do...and starts those conversations? You will see that everytime I come back....it's in response to somebody. So how long do we have to repeat? Unless you want a 1-way conversation, I will repeat as many times as people want to single out Lefebvre as bad as he was.

you don't get tired of repeating the same stuff over and over and over and over? What's the point of it all? Why do you care if people want to blame Lefebvre for sucking at his job, which we all know he did or else he would be a head coach somewhere. Like the time MB held the Hamilton job for him as he waited on NHL offers but of course none came likely because they saw the same crap I saw. Someone that was in over his head without any previous experience at that position and our GM took 6 years to figure out how bad this guy was and was so out of touch with reality and so bad at his job that he was clueless enough to actually believe this guy would have NHL jobs waiting for him.

There's shouldn't be any problem with saying Lefebvre sucked at this job, maybe he's a great assistant coach, and maybe he could be a good head coach some day but he was terrible in Hamilton and that directly impacted the job Timmins and Churla do. Just as MB rushing so many kids to the NHL when they aren't ready has an impact on the job they do.

I just don't see the point of talking for the millionth time that Leblanc or Scherbak or DLR or McCarron or whoever were handled poorly because he did this or that or whatever we have been talking about for the past 8-9 years now. Timmins is to blame he failed, Lebvre is to blame he failed, MB is to blame he failed. The coaching and development is to blame they failed, the players are to blame they failed. Timmins is NOT the best, no one person is to blame. What else is there?

 

[montreal]

I posted this in the draft thread but it's clearly another fail by Timmins and his Q scouts,

Here's our list of Q or local picks,

RHP - 201st OA
Houde - 133rd
Bourque - 177th
Audette - 147th
Fucale - 36th
Ghetto - 86th
Reway - 116th
Gregoire - 176th
Hudon - 122nd
Beaulieu - 17th
Archambault - 108th
Ellis - 117th
Leblanc - 18th
Dumont - 139th
Fortier - 65th
Carle - 53rd
Lats - 45th
Aubin - 130th
Paquet - 229th
Lacasse - 181st
ADL - 278th
Urquhart - 40th
Lappy - 61st
Stewart - 123rd
Bonneau - 241st

 

[Forsead]

Timmins was hired 18 years ago, which is an eternity for a hockey executive. I would argue that in that period of time, we only briefly had a prospect pool that gave superior to elite RESULTS. This was after the 2007 draft. Some will argue right now, as well, but I will held my judgement on this for later as I'm speaking of results.

He held the followings positions : Dir. of Player Development, Dir. of Amateur Scouting, Dir. of Player Personnel, VP of Player Personnel, Asst. General Manager. These are clear leadership positions that should be held accountable including when talking about development. Indeed, some blame should be given to an horrendous coach like Lefebvre, but this also imply IMO that Timmins lacks leadership and the personable to be at the differents positions he held. Why? Because he should have been able to make arguments that Lefebvre should be fired if he saw the damages, as a senior member of the leadership group and the most knowledgeable one on prospects, if he wasn't able to held his own against the other member of Management, he failed. Then, if he didn't saw the damages that posters here clearly called and saw, I will say that he also failed. This is one of many example that show that the amount of accountability he held for his positions, compared to the results, make me believe he should be highly blamed in many occasions.

After 18 years of the same man, I think there should be a change on account of results. At one point Habs management should stop beating a dead horse and fire him.