Trevor Timmins Discussion Part III

[Mrb1p]

This is definitely not an exception over the dark years since Bergevin took over and hired Lefebvre. The man himself proudly admitted that development was never part of his focus. Bergevin should be fired for this alone.

And we have people in other threads claim we should rush players like Mete, Kotkaniemi, Juulsena and cut players like Scherback... Its the never-ending cycle of the Habs.

 

[groovejuice]

And we have people in other threads claim we should rush players like Mete, Kotkaniemi, Juulsena and cut players like Scherback... Its the never-ending cycle of the Habs.

Big push to finish just out of the bottom 10. I have no idea what people are thinking.

 

[DAChampion]

Big push to finish just out of the bottom 10. I have no idea what people are thinking.

Hopefully they dontd get their wish.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

He benifited like all the other scouts and GM's because there was so much talent available. Even if he was drafting not at the top outside of 03 and 05.

Since 07 Timmins drafting hasn't been as good, because the talent influx wasn't as good either.

Timmins was bottom 3 for number of picks in the first 2 rounds between 08-11, while also picking mostly mid-round. Few picks and bad positioning, anybody with a modicum of objectivity wouldn't expect a high yeild from those.

And you know this. Are you even able to debate honestly or are you content in always using sophistry in lieu of argument?

The influx of talent was similar between 04-08 and 08-12. There's only 2003 that stands out.

Anyway, your pet theory about fishes in a barrel will die by the end of the week. This compilation is friggin exhaustive.

 

[WhiskeySeven*]

Wilson keeps an internal stat that shows how the Sharks have averaged the NHL’s worst drafting position since 2003. The organization challenges itself to find players despite that handicap, and he credits his scouting staff for putting him into position to make big moves.

This is a quote from the latest 31 Thoughts.

I think giving Timmins a pass for 3 years of relatively low drafting position isn't fair to Habs fans or the organization. If you want to compete in the NHL you need to draft well and bring in legitimate talents. Timmins has failed to do that more often than not. He can uncover NHLers (plugs and bottom-liners) but he hasn't been able to add much in the way of legitimate talent outside of Price, Subban, and a handful of others.

 

[NotProkofievian]

This is a quote from the latest 31 Thoughts.

I think giving Timmins a pass for 3 years of relatively low drafting position isn't fair to Habs fans or the organization. If you want to compete in the NHL you need to draft well and bring in legitimate talents. Timmins has failed to do that more often than not. He can uncover NHLers (plugs and bottom-liners) but he hasn't been able to add much in the way of legitimate talent outside of Price, Subban, and a handful of others.

Correct. Carolina has outdrafted us if you exclude their first round picks and allow us to keep ours. Maybe allow Sergachev and Hanifin to cancel out.

...that's bad.

 

[yianik]

This is definitely not an exception over the dark years since Bergevin took over and hired Lefebvre. The man himself proudly admitted that development was never part of his focus. Bergevin should be fired for this alone.

Lol. This is true.

When they shifted to Laval and were all sporting those bowling shirts Sly was asked a question about what his job was or something to that effect and he said he wanted to win. There was a pause, and he then babbled something about also developing players.

So the AHL coach didnt have development as his no. 1 priority and the NHL coach MT flatly said development wasnt his job.

Just in case people wondered about where our development program was before this summer, it was the " the players must figure it out " approach.

 

[Cobra Commander]

Very simple.

Fire Bergevin

Make Timmins GM

Fire Julien

Make Bouchard head coach in Montreal

Make Ducharme head coach in Laval

There, all problems are solved and we can move forward in this new NHL without grindosaurs.

 

[Habs Halifax]

He benifited like all the other scouts and GM's because there was so much talent available. Even if he was drafting not at the top outside of 03 and 05.

Since 07 Timmins drafting hasn't been as good, because the talent influx wasn't as good either.

I am not going to break it down by draft, from 03-08 I think we saw some of the best talent entering the league. I don' think thats really disputable. With so much great talent all the teams benefited from it.

Look at a team like the flyers, the got carter/richards/giroux from that period
Anaheim got Getz and Perry, LA got Qucik,Kopi, Doughty, Nash got Suter, Weber , RAdu, and Josi. Wash got Ovie, Green, Carlson, Holtby

There were a lot of great talents, the teams that drafted the best (and usually highest) ended up winning cups or building dominate teams.

2007: One of the best draft years by any team ever!
2008-2011: Lack of picks in the top 100 and two 1st round busts. We even traded down to get Tinordi. Brutal 4 year span affecting us for years.
2012-2013: Decent but just average. We had plenty of top 100 picks but didn't hit. Galchenyuk, Hudon, Lehkonen, and DLR. 2 NHL players per year. First round bust in McCarron.
2014: Scherbak, Lernout, Evans, Hawkey. Decent considering no 2nd and 4th round picks
2015: Juulsen, Vejdemo. Not sure about Addison yet. Again, no 2nd and 4th round picks
2016: Sergachev, Bitten, Mete. Very solid and again, no 2nd round pick
2017-2018: Great draft years IMO. Good picks and lots of top 100 picks. There will be surprises and dissapointments but we will get an above average amount of NHL players from these two years.

Habs have done well but not great. Were were terrible from 2008-2011, Average from 2012-2016, and I think the last two drafts are above average. Were trending in the right direction.

 

[WeThreeKings]

As we know:
De la rose
Mike McCarron
Louis LeBlanc
Jarred Tinordi

Have all been wild successes of players being brought up too early and taught to survive at the NHL level. They also had the misfortune of being coached by Lefebvre when they were down in the AHL.

 

[Habs Halifax]

As we know:
De la rose
Mike McCarron
Louis LeBlanc
Jarred Tinordi

Have all been wild successes of players being brought up too early and taught to survive at the NHL level. They also had the misfortune of being coached by Lefebvre when they were down in the AHL.

I find it funny to think that McCarron, Leblanc, Tinordi would of turned out better players if they were not coached by Sly. There are all simply bad picks. Lets criticize Timmins for drafting them and then lets criticize Sly for not coaching them right. What are they? Bad picks or poorly developed?

 

[Tighthead]

As we know:
De la rose
Mike McCarron
Louis LeBlanc
Jarred Tinordi

Have all been wild successes of players being brought up too early and taught to survive at the NHL level. They also had the misfortune of being coached by Lefebvre when they were down in the AHL.

With all of these it seemed like there was never a development plan. Get them up early, play them limited minutes in a short leash. Press box. Up and down from the A. All seat of your pants planning. Just terrible. I’m sure there are more.

I remember reading that Leblanc, who had looked decent for half a season, was playing third line in Hamilton. I remember Tinordi going to the A and getting knocked out by a minor league lifer.

There was never a plan. I’m not saying they would have been good NHLers with a more measured approach, but it couldn’t have hurt.

Of course, people on here have told me there’s is no such thing as development, it’s all on the player. Management is blameless, the players are weak, but you couldn’t have known it at the draft table.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

"Any player not reaching his subjective projected ceiling was either rushed, mismanaged or ruined by terrible coaching! " HFBoards!

I feel as though SL sucked but some picks sucked too.

I have no idea why people make it one or the other.

 

[WeThreeKings]

I feel as though SL sucked but some picks sucked too.

I have no idea why people make it one or the other.

The development failures are the guys that come into the AHL and look like they've got it going on and then end up regressing every year. Plateauing is one thing, but actually becoming a worse hockey player is another.

 

[Belial]

I feel as though SL sucked but some picks sucked too.

I have no idea why people make it one or the other.

I have no idea either, for me, the pick itself is a lot more important. I don't think coaches have the ability to completely ruin or make gold out of shit when they develop players.

 

[BLONG7]

With all of these it seemed like there was never a development plan. Get them up early, play them limited minutes in a short leash. Press box. Up and down from the A. All seat of your pants planning. Just terrible. I’m sure there are more.

I remember reading that Leblanc, who had looked decent for half a season, was playing third line in Hamilton. I remember Tinordi going to the A and getting knocked out by a minor league lifer.

There was never a plan. I’m not saying they would have been good NHLers with a more measured approach, but it couldn’t have hurt.

Of course, people on here have told me there’s is no such thing as development, it’s all on the player. Management is blameless, the players are weak, but you couldn’t have known it at the draft table.

Our developing of players, has had some serious holes in it.........but then again, look at the characters involved, Sly, Therrien and Bergevin...not the best of evaluators and motivators out there....the up and down, short leash method did not work for most, and that is on the organization. This crew of clowns still thought they were running the Habs of the 70's when we had the talent to manage like that....

The one major issue when Therrien was there, was a top 6 player in the AHL was promoted and then relagated to the bottom 6 with us, or worse, eating hot dogs...just because our moron coach was to send the message, that he runs the show, or so it seemed.

Our drafts have had some highs and lows, but alot of highs..............our player development mostly had lows...

 

[Lshap]

"Any player not reaching his subjective projected ceiling was either rushed, mismanaged or ruined by terrible coaching! " HFBoards!

We live in an era of team-building and process-improvement in the business world, in which owners recognize the negative impact of poor development on employees. You can stack your office with the best looking resumes, but let them rot in a poor office culture and you'll see many employees leave or stop producing. That's why more businesses have started investing money to address these invisible developmental issues. You won't see bad habits, bad communication, lack of motivation, or failure to reward on any chart, but you can see the end results in declining dollars and performance. Talent can veer off course and be compromised if we ignore the people behind the jobs. That applies to all of us, but especially to younger, newer employees.

Same thing in the hockey world. If a young player was progressing well relative to his peers but then stalled, it's clear that something slowed him down. Bad habits, bad communication, lack of motivation, or failure to reward -- take your pick. If that player looks worse than he did when he started, the coach or trainer is usually at fault for ignoring his unique needs. Trying to squeeze him into the same developmental template is poor development. He might've needed more time here, more attention there, more work in that area, some intervention to keep him from falling off course. Going that extra mile increases the odds of a better player; ignoring those unique factors increases the odds of a developmental stall. Sure, there are players with irredeemably bad attitudes who ignore all advice, or players who physically plateau and are unable to progress -- those are the built-in limits that go beyond what any team's development can do. But when a player has the right attitude and demonstrates the skills at a certain level, there's rarely a reason for him to regress beyond an absence of development.

This will never be an exact formula, obviously, but if we have to take an educated guess, a player who arrives at a level and can't keep up was probably scouted poorly. On the other hand, a player who was able to keep up at his level but then dropped back was probably poorly developed.

 

[417]

We live in an era of team-building and process-improvement in the business world, in which owners recognize the negative impact of poor development on employees. You can stack your office with the best looking resumes, but let them rot in a poor office culture and you'll see many employees leave or stop producing. That's why more businesses have started investing money to address these invisible developmental issues. You won't see bad habits, bad communication, lack of motivation, or failure to reward on any chart, but you can see the end results in declining dollars and performance. Talent can veer off course and be compromised if we ignore the people behind the jobs. That applies to all of us, but especially to younger, newer employees.

Same thing in the hockey world. If a young player was progressing well relative to his peers but then stalled, it's clear that something slowed him down. Bad habits, bad communication, lack of motivation, or failure to reward -- take your pick. If that player looks worse than he did when he started, the coach or trainer is usually at fault for ignoring his unique needs. Trying to squeeze him into the same developmental template is poor development. He might've needed more time here, more attention there, more work in that area, some intervention to keep him from falling off course. Going that extra mile will result in a better player; iSure, there are players with irredeemably bad attitudes who ignore all advice, or players who physically plateau and are unable to progress -- those are the built-in limits that go beyond what any team's development can do. But when a player has the right attitude and demonstrates the skills at a certain level, there's rarely a reason for him to regress beyond an absence of development.

This will never be an exact formula, obviously, but if we have to take an educated guess, a player who arrives at a level and can't keep up was probably scouted poorly. On the other hand, a player who was able to keep up at his level but then dropped back was probably poorly developed.

Good post...

But it's also possible that some players plateau. I'd argue that in sports, this happens more often than we realize.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

This is a quote from the latest 31 Thoughts.

I think giving Timmins a pass for 3 years of relatively low drafting position isn't fair to Habs fans or the organization. If you want to compete in the NHL you need to draft well and bring in legitimate talents. Timmins has failed to do that more often than not. He can uncover NHLers (plugs and bottom-liners) but he hasn't been able to add much in the way of legitimate talent outside of Price, Subban, and a handful of others.

Sharks didnt average the worst draft position. Somebody needs to do their homework.

Sharks draft average between 03-15 has been 17.0 and is 11th worst. They were middle pack for number of top 10 picks (4). They had 12 1st round picks in that period, which ranks them a bit under midpack.

Habs have a very similar situation, 9th worst drafting position. 3 top10 picks. 14 1st pick. 17.2 draft position average.

And you look at their best draftees in that period and it's pretty similar in yeild.

Pavelski, Couture, Vlasic, Hertl, Setoguchi, Michalek..


Price, Subban, Pacioretty, Streit, McDonagh, AKost, Galchenyuk...

Actually, if you look at overall yeild with an objective eye, you'll see the Habs drafted as much top end talent than SJ but actually did better for depth players than the latter.

San Jose also made some huge mistakes at the draft.

This SJ myth needs to stop.

They did well because Wilson did some terrific trades and they drafted well, but no better than the Habs, while having a similar draftimg position average.

 

[Tighthead]

Good post...

But it's also possible that some players plateau. I'd argue that in sports, this happens more often than we realize.

Good development won’t save everyone. Some are destined to be busts. Some players are nearly impossible to ruin, health and lifestyle issues aside.

Good development methods and planning will impact some significantly, and many moderately. It’s guesswork pick anyone player and say what might have been. I don’t think Tinordi, McCarron, DLR, and Leblanc had the benefit of long term development plans. With the first two, I don’t think we missed much. DLR should be an established 4C by now. Leblanc is a strange one to me. He was never going to be high impact but he seemed to fall off a cliff.

With hindsight, I think they all should have been fed high minutes in the AHL. None of them merited a fast track approach.

 

[417]

Good development won’t save everyone. Some are destined to be busts. Some players are nearly impossible to ruin, health and lifestyle issues aside.

Good development methods and planning will impact some significantly, and many moderately. It’s guesswork pick anyone player and say what might have been. I don’t think Tinordi, McCarron, DLR, and Leblanc had the benefit of long term development plans. With the first two, I don’t think we missed much. DLR should be an established 3rd liner by now. Leblanc is a strange one to me. He was never going to be high impact but he seemed to fall off a cliff.

With hindsight, I think they all should have been fed high minutes in the AHL. None of them merited a fast track approach.

Tinordi & McCarron were "need" picks...that much is clear

Leblanc wouldn't of been drafted by the Habs if the draft wasn't in Montreal...Trevor Timmins has made that clear, so from the beginning, it was a bad pick, since it wasn't even who they wanted.

DLR "should" be an established 3rd liner by now, agreed, perhaps if the coaching staff was as invested in his development as they are in Plekanec's usage, he would be at this point. I hope he's given a real opportunity, because I think he could do the job.

 

[417]

They definitely plateau but we've seen more cases of regression than plateauing with this organization.

Sure...but when it comes to Leblanc, Tinordi & Beaulieu especially IMO.

I see 3 guys who didn't progress at all from when they were drafted.

That to me, signals they plateaued. They were very good against their peers in the CHL, but neither really brought their game to the next level in the pro circuit, either AHL or NHL.

DLR, Galchenyuk...I definitely see regression there, but I also think that's mostly related to how the coaching staff decided to use both players.

 

[Belial]

We live in an era of team-building and process-improvement in the business world, in which owners recognize the negative impact of poor development on employees. You can stack your office with the best looking resumes, but let them rot in a poor office culture and you'll see many employees leave or stop producing. That's why more businesses have started investing money to address these invisible developmental issues. You won't see bad habits, bad communication, lack of motivation, or failure to reward on any chart, but you can see the end results in declining dollars and performance. Talent can veer off course and be compromised if we ignore the people behind the jobs. That applies to all of us, but especially to younger, newer employees.

Same thing in the hockey world. If a young player was progressing well relative to his peers but then stalled, it's clear that something slowed him down. Bad habits, bad communication, lack of motivation, or failure to reward -- take your pick. If that player looks worse than he did when he started, the coach or trainer is usually at fault for ignoring his unique needs. Trying to squeeze him into the same developmental template is poor development. He might've needed more time here, more attention there, more work in that area, some intervention to keep him from falling off course. Going that extra mile increases the odds of a better player; ignoring those unique factors increases the odds of a developmental stall. Sure, there are players with irredeemably bad attitudes who ignore all advice, or players who physically plateau and are unable to progress -- those are the built-in limits that go beyond what any team's development can do. But when a player has the right attitude and demonstrates the skills at a certain level, there's rarely a reason for him to regress beyond an absence of development.

This will never be an exact formula, obviously, but if we have to take an educated guess, a player who arrives at a level and can't keep up was probably scouted poorly. On the other hand, a player who was able to keep up at his level but then dropped back was probably poorly developed.

Great post!

Now we can debate to the infinite what was/is the real problem...

People who say guys like DLR or McCarron regressed are basing this on what exactly?

Eye test? Personal bias maybe?

I don't think DLR regressed, he didn't progress enormously but regressed? Don't buy it...

McCarron just lacks speed and stamina to keep up, I don't think this is coachable, to be honest...

 

[WeThreeKings]

Sure...but when it comes to Leblanc, Tinordi & Beaulieu especially IMO.

I see 3 guys who didn't progress at all from when they were drafted.

That to me, signals they plateaued. They were very good against their peers in the CHL, but neither really brought their game to the next level in the pro circuit, either AHL or NHL.

DLR, Galchenyuk...I definitely see regression there, but I also think that's mostly related to how the coaching staff decided to use both players.

Well LeBlanc went from a guy who played in the NHL, didn't look out of place and scored some points to a guy who couldn't even play a regular shift in the AHL.

Tinordi went from a third pairing D man to someone who couldn't cut the NHL roster.

Beaulieu had plateaud then suddenly got better when Gonchar started mentoring him but with his situation his hockey IQ is a limitation he can't surpass.

 

[417]

Well LeBlanc went from a guy who played in the NHL, didn't look out of place and scored some points to a guy who couldn't even play a regular shift in the AHL.

Let's not forget...he played 42 games on a putrid Habs team, in a lost season.

The next season was the lockout year, he went to Hamilton and was absolutely brutal the entire year. He then got jumped over by Gallagher in the prospect depth chart. Gallagher eventually made the team after the lockout ended that same year, Leblanc never earned a recall that season.

Tinordi went from a third pairing D man to someone who couldn't cut the NHL roster.

Tinordi was never a 3rd pairing Dman with any consistency...he couldn't hold down his spot because he couldn't process the game fast enough.

Beaulieu had plateaud then suddenly got better when Gonchar started mentoring him but with his situation his hockey IQ is a limitation he can't surpass.

I always thought Beaulieu plateaued in the CHL.

From his draft to today, he's the same exact player.