Trevor Timmins Discussion Part III

[bsl]

You and I very specifically had the Leblanc/Lefebvre debate years ago and you needed another mod to step in b/c you couldn't handle the facts and went over the top. Want to revisit? You claim that everyone is to blame, but then pin all of it on Lefebvre. While Sly might not have had "success" (however that is defined for an AHL coach seems to vary greatly around here and Hudon stands out as one and Scherbak's 87 pt pace would 2nd that) he didn't make the decision to goto Harvard and then switch and then go pro and then . . . Also, Leblanc made a stupid decision to fight Jesse Blacker and really did damage to his ankle in that fight and lost almost a whole season of development at a crucial time. Then, what did Leblanc do after he went to another team? What did your boy Danny Kristo do? Conversely for all the DLR lovers around here, his mistake was probably not going to the Windsor Spitfires to play in a better league.

You are right that Leblanc was drafted more or less at his spot. The player drafted on last name was Tinordi. McCarron was drafted on body shape. This all points not to a failure to develop--no coach can develop talent; it's a fan-centric confirmation bias laden fallacy that you can turn a good player into a great player--but rather a failure to project. That's on scouts, guy.

Exactly. Page after page of defending the indefensible. I just don't get it. Why bother?

And I've said over and over and over that it's not just on him, management, MT/CJ, Timmins and his staff, the players, they all have a hand in this. But Lebefvre was at the top along with MB in who I wanted to see fired and replaced with someone better. If MB goes and the new GM wants to get rid of Timmins then so be it but imo he's much less at fault then Lefebvre and this management team for rushing these kids and poorly handling them.

I'm sorry but that is absurd. Timmins is not less at fault than the coaching and development staff. That's just not true. Timmins bears at least 50% responsibility and likely more for every 1st round fail. He drafted these players.

You are a great poster and I love your research and dedication, but I have never agreed with your assertion that very good players can be greatly damaged by so called poor development, and mediocre players can be made much better by so called good development. I simply do not agree with this.

I think the whole concept of 'player development' is a cliche with no basis in truth. If a guy is 18-20 and has played highly competitive hockey since age 5, he bloody well knows everything he has to do on and off the ice to succeed, or he does not. If he does not succeed, then he's likely dumb, or lazy , lacks skills, or strength, or some combination of these. All of these metrics can be known at the draft.

If a player has the skill and the desire, they will motivate themselves and do the work that is required to make the NHL and succeed. Coaches have far less influence than you say. I simply do not agree with you on their influence.

Finally, and the whole reason for my posting so many times and so vehemently on Timmins is this: The guy has almost 20 years experience in drafting. He has seen hundreds of prospects play, talked to hundreds of prospects, seen hundreds of games, seen hundreds of prospects fail and succeed, and why they failed and succeeded. And with all of that experience, he should be one of the most knowledgeable and successful scouts in the NHL. Like top 5 if not top 3. And he is clearly not. If Timmins had 5 years experience, I would cut him some slack. But he has about 20 years experience. It is for this reason that I cannot believe the excuses he is getting here. How much longer do you need? Another 5 years?

I think you and some others are defending the indefensible.

You argue as well as your name-sake.

Most of those players were either drafted, developed, or acquired by major figures within the organization today. That's poor asset management in and of itself.

I can't understand. Are you agreeing or not? I believe he was saying that all of these so called victims of 'bad development' failed after leaving here also. It was a valid point.

So what you have done is highlight the draft is a crap shoot of varying degree. Because that is what it is, even when you pick the right kind of prospect.

Typically it is the draft pool itself, as a whole, that comes through even as individual players do not. I see people trading Poehling, Suzuki etc. NOOOO. We have a promising top 6 C pool now among Kotkaniemi, Poehling, Suzuki and Oloffson, but we cannot rely that anyone specifically will be a top 6 player, though Kotka is the likeliest.

What am I babbling about right type of player ? Guys who lack talent for one, like Tinordi and Big Mac, who cant skate, like Eric Chouinard, Terry Ryan etc.

So when we draft guys like Scherbak, the right kind, we will have busts, but hopefully along the way we also hit on a Tarasenko or Kuznetsov. Go with Tinordi, Big Mac, Chipchura picks and if you hit you will have a great 3rd liner or a wonderful no.5 D man.

So another Timmins first round fail is OK because it was the 'right kind of pick', so he did well' Yeah OK. Scherbak is a bust that was just waived. That's what matters. Results. Not intentions.

So what you have done is highlight the draft is a crap shoot of varying degree. Because that is what it is, even when you pick the right kind of prospect.

Typically it is the draft pool itself, as a whole, that comes through even as individual players do not. I see people trading Poehling, Suzuki etc. NOOOO. We have a promising top 6 C pool now among Kotkaniemi, Poehling, Suzuki and Oloffson, but we cannot rely that anyone specifically will be a top 6 player, though Kotka is the likeliest.

What am I babbling about right type of player ? Guys who lack talent for one, like Tinordi and Big Mac, who cant skate, like Eric Chouinard, Terry Ryan etc.

So when we draft guys like Scherbak, the right kind, we will have busts, but hopefully along the way we also hit on a Tarasenko or Kuznetsov. Go with Tinordi, Big Mac, Chipchura picks and if you hit you will have a great 3rd liner or a wonderful no.5 D man.

So if the draft is a 'crap shoot', which it is not by the way, why have scouts? Another classic meme here.

So easy to say who will be a career minor leaguer once all is said and done.

Yeah it is. They're career minor leaguers. There . I said it. Easy.

Watched Sly coach in Hamilton f0r years. Completely dead from the neck up . Might be the dumbest man to ever coach a pro team.

Not like the rest of them are Mensa candidates.

 

[yianik]

So if the draft is a 'crap shoot', which it is not by the way, why have scouts? Another classic meme here.

Hmmm.

If you are picking top 2 , not a crap shoot, maybe can include top 3, but then the odds of selecting a top forward/D start declining to about 50/50 as you end the top 10 to about 20% as you get into the 20s, so crap shoot to a degree.

My point is this. If you pick guys who can't skate, have limited skill etc , 2 way types, your success rate is going to be lower than if you pick skill, speed players. And we have selected of the former group, with lousy results.

And FYI, I havent been happy with TT. I eyeballed a few drafts and each year about 24 players are top players ( top 6F, top 3/4D and starting goalie ). Sure it matters where you pick, but on replacement level this confirmed my thoughts that you need to draft about 1 top player every year. TT has not veed doing that, he has serious catch up to do.

 

[ECWHSWI]

I think the whole concept of 'player development' is a cliche with no basis in truth. If a guy is 18-20 and has played highly competitive hockey since age 5, he bloody well knows everything he has to do on and off the ice to succeed, or he does not. If he does not succeed, then he's likely dumb, or lazy , lacks skills, or strength, or some combination of these. All of these metrics can be known at the draft.

the cliche actually is what comes after the bolded.



FYI...

at 18-20 Andrei Markov was not even a NHLer
at 18-20 Brad Marchand was not a NHLer either
at this age, Kuznetzov was not a NHLer
and there's Marchesseault, Pacioretty here, W. Karlsson, and you can add a shitload of names to the list of players who for some reason were not ready to play in the NHL at 18-20 but later on, with development, became good contributors to their NHL team...

guys like P. Bergeron and Carbonneau learned the defensive side of their job in the NHL, they were top offensive players in the Jr...

 

[Gabe84]

the cliche actually is what comes after the bolded.



FYI...

at 18-20 Andrei Markov was not even a NHLer
at 18-20 Brad Marchand was not a NHLer either
at this age, Kuznetzov was not a NHLer
and there's Marchesseault, Pacioretty here, W. Karlsson, and you can add a ****load of names to the list of players who for some reason were not ready to play in the NHL at 18-20 but later on, with development, became good contributors to their NHL team...

guys like P. Bergeron and Carbonneau learned the defensive side of their job in the NHL, they were top offensive players in the Jr...

Mark Streit was pretty bad in his first season in the NHL at 27 years old. He really found his offensive game at 29 and became a realiable defenseman with the Flyers at 30 years old.

That's a guy drafted by Timmins.

 

[ECWHSWI]

Mark Streit was pretty bad in his first season in the NHL at 27 years old. He really found his offensive game at 29 and became a realiable defenseman with the Flyers at 30 years old.

That's a guy drafted by Timmins.

yup, countless examples, I don't have much of an opinion on TT as I don't think he's necessarly bad but he could be replaced and we'd be fine... but to suggest players are somewhat fully developped at 20 ? huh no!

 

[Whitesnake]

the cliche actually is what comes after the bolded.



FYI...

at 18-20 Andrei Markov was not even a NHLer
at 18-20 Brad Marchand was not a NHLer either
at this age, Kuznetzov was not a NHLer
and there's Marchesseault, Pacioretty here, W. Karlsson, and you can add a ****load of names to the list of players who for some reason were not ready to play in the NHL at 18-20 but later on, with development, became good contributors to their NHL team...

guys like P. Bergeron and Carbonneau learned the defensive side of their job in the NHL, they were top offensive players in the Jr...

Actually to watched Bergeron and Carbo play in juniors, they were very good offensive players....but they were already complete players. We are not talking pure 1-way offensive player here. Thing is it's a rare feature, if it never happened, that a guy with no junior success ends up being a great NHL'er. Yet, I also understand that it happens MUCH more frequently that star junior players do NOT develop all of them in star NHL'ers either. So yes, development plays a role. It does. I don't know why in this board, it's always white or black. It's not. It's always about a combination of things. But are we soon going to hear how Connor Crisp was finally a great pick that wasn't developed well by Lefebvre too?

How can people say without hesitation that Tinordi is a development issue and Crisp isn't? Why is it that Scherbak is a development issue but not Fischer? Is Gallagher development success? Is Hudon a development failure?

People just take a stance.....and dress their argumentation around it. I love Timmins, I hate Lefebvre, hence it's a development issue. For me, I hated Lefebvre for 3 years now. BUt think Timmins time is done. You actually can fault both of those guys. And in any sane world filled with guys that know their stuff, both guys would have lost their job based on recent history. Now that Lefebvre is gone, I hope that the spotlight goes back to Timmins. Hopefully for him, he will be saved by 2017 and 2018. But that remains to be seen.

 

[Whitesnake]

Mark Streit was pretty bad in his first season in the NHL at 27 years old. He really found his offensive game at 29 and became a realiable defenseman with the Flyers at 30 years old.

That's a guy drafted by Timmins.

That's like the exception of exceptions. No idea why it would be brought up to show as an example. And in today's NHL, with the UFA period coming sooner, no team will EVER have the chance to wait for a d-man to be good at 29 years old. Just impossible.

 

[1909]

Timmins= the most overrated "head scout- hockey VP" in the whole NHL.

 

[Whitesnake]

Timmins= the most overrated "head scout- hockey VP" in the whole NHL.

Well overrated for the ones who thought for so long that he was the ultimate best of the best, and that oh no, if we lose, what will we do type of reactions? Yeah....totally. But some might have a few good points about him still being top 15. Yet, for that to happen, we would have to dissect each and every team and see who is out there NOW and what they did. 'Cause it's not enough to take Timmins from 03 to today and count the number of prospects.....some head scouts have been there for just 3, 4, 5 years. Maybe in prorata, their numbers are much better.

 

[montreal]

Reway was a good pick. You do take risks on talented players, no problem with that. But people love to excuse Timmins and unfortunately use Reway illness to explain that if not for that...he would have made it. There's just nothing that suggest that to be honest. Especially not with Julien in charge. If people thought Scherbak was not a fit for Julien....not sure what they would call Reway.....

injuries are valid excuses imo, there's no telling what Reway would have been with more maturity or what Nygren could have done if he was healthy when the Habs wanted to call him up.

I'm sorry but that is absurd. Timmins is not less at fault than the coaching and development staff. That's just not true. Timmins bears at least 50% responsibility and likely more for every 1st round fail. He drafted these players.

You are a great poster and I love your research and dedication, but I have never agreed with your assertion that very good players can be greatly damaged by so called poor development, and mediocre players can be made much better by so called good development. I simply do not agree with this.

I think the whole concept of 'player development' is a cliche with no basis in truth. If a guy is 18-20 and has played highly competitive hockey since age 5, he bloody well knows everything he has to do on and off the ice to succeed, or he does not. If he does not succeed, then he's likely dumb, or lazy , lacks skills, or strength, or some combination of these. All of these metrics can be known at the draft.

If a player has the skill and the desire, they will motivate themselves and do the work that is required to make the NHL and succeed. Coaches have far less influence than you say. I simply do not agree with you on their influence.

I'm on the other side of the fence, I'm a big believer that hockey is mostly mental, say 80% as you skate, pass, shoot, there's not a lot to it imo. So for me hockey is mostly about confidence at this level outside of no talent grinders that coaches like CJ and MT love to have on their team. Once you lose that confidence it can be very hard to get back.

As for coaching i think it plays a huge part, I look at how crappy teams can turn things around when they fire their coach and bring in someone much better. Doesn't always happen but at times you need someone that can push players the right way. You say that if a player has skill and desire they will motivate themselves, but they may need a good coach to show them certain things or how to improve on their weaknesses.

I've said Timmins has his share of the blame but if you read through all the Timmins threads most seem to like the job he did up until '07. So what happened after that? Do people think the game changed on him and he didn't adjust quick enough? One thing we do know is that aside from a lack of picks and a lack of quality picks, we hired a coach that had ZERO games of experience as a head coach and all the sudden over the course of 6 years we can't develop for shit. Now Timmins has his blame but as someone that watched almost every AHL team, I point the finger more at Lefebvre but that doesn't mean Timmins doesn't share the blame as well as the players and management for rushing them.

 

[PaulD]

You're wrong about Lefebvre. I heard many interviews with him over the years and he was making more sense than Julien and Therrien put together.

Nope. On Sly, You are wrong. Dead wrong.

Even Therrien beats him in the brains department.

 

[bsl]

Hmmm.

If you are picking top 2 , not a crap shoot, maybe can include top 3, but then the odds of selecting a top forward/D start declining to about 50/50 as you end the top 10 to about 20% as you get into the 20s, so crap shoot to a degree.

My point is this. If you pick guys who can't skate, have limited skill etc , 2 way types, your success rate is going to be lower than if you pick skill, speed players. And we have selected of the former group, with lousy results.

And FYI, I havent been happy with TT. I eyeballed a few drafts and each year about 24 players are top players ( top 6F, top 3/4D and starting goalie ). Sure it matters where you pick, but on replacement level this confirmed my thoughts that you need to draft about 1 top player every year. TT has not veed doing that, he has serious catch up to do.

I agree Yes go for offensive potential top six players. And that's another reason I dislike Timmins. But I was not talking about that. I was disagreeing that it's a crap shoot per player picked, regardless of the player style. A crap shoot is 100 % luck. The draft is probably 20% luck. Luck at the draft should never be an excuse for bad drafting, especially year after year. And luck should also not be cited as purely the reason for a great late pick. In fact, in fairness, Timmins made a great pick on Gallagher. I don't call that luck.

the cliche actually is what comes after the bolded.



FYI...

at 18-20 Andrei Markov was not even a NHLer
at 18-20 Brad Marchand was not a NHLer either
at this age, Kuznetzov was not a NHLer
and there's Marchesseault, Pacioretty here, W. Karlsson, and you can add a ****load of names to the list of players who for some reason were not ready to play in the NHL at 18-20 but later on, with development, became good contributors to their NHL team...

guys like P. Bergeron and Carbonneau learned the defensive side of their job in the NHL, they were top offensive players in the Jr...

Pretty sure I did not say guys are fully developed at age 20. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[ECWHSWI]

I agree Yes go for offensive potential top six players. And that's another reason I dislike Timmins. But I was not talking about that. I was disagreeing that it's a crap shoot per player picked, regardless of the player style. A crap shoot is 100 % luck. The draft is probably 20% luck. Luck at the draft should never be an excuse for bad drafting, especially year after year. And luck should also not be cited as purely the reason for a great late pick. In fact, in fairness, Timmins made a great pick on Gallagher. I don't call that luck.



Pretty sure I did not say guys are fully developed at age 20. Don't put words in my mouth.

well you did say they should know by 18-20 so...

 

[bsl]

well you did say they should know by 18-20 so...

Edit f*** it I can't be bothered.

 

[No fan fiction]

injuries are valid excuses imo, there's no telling what Reway would have been with more maturity or what Nygren could have done if he was healthy when the Habs wanted to call him up.



I'm on the other side of the fence, I'm a big believer that hockey is mostly mental, say 80% as you skate, pass, shoot, there's not a lot to it imo. So for me hockey is mostly about confidence at this level outside of no talent grinders that coaches like CJ and MT love to have on their team. Once you lose that confidence it can be very hard to get back.

As for coaching i think it plays a huge part, I look at how crappy teams can turn things around when they fire their coach and bring in someone much better. Doesn't always happen but at times you need someone that can push players the right way. You say that if a player has skill and desire they will motivate themselves, but they may need a good coach to show them certain things or how to improve on their weaknesses.

I've said Timmins has his share of the blame but if you read through all the Timmins threads most seem to like the job he did up until '07. So what happened after that? Do people think the game changed on him and he didn't adjust quick enough? One thing we do know is that aside from a lack of picks and a lack of quality picks, we hired a coach that had ZERO games of experience as a head coach and all the sudden over the course of 6 years we can't develop for ****. Now Timmins has his blame but as someone that watched almost every AHL team, I point the finger more at Lefebvre but that doesn't mean Timmins doesn't share the blame as well as the players and management for rushing them.

Pointing the finger at Lefebvre needs to be taken with several grains of salt. If you knew as much about the AHL as you purport, you'd know that an AHL team usually has only 4-5 legitimate prospects at most at any given time. When, pray tell, did Lefebvre ever have that many? Who are they and where are they now? How many are in the NHL? His first 2-3 seasons he was dealing with one of the worst farm systems in the NHL The previous regime got us a 3rd overall choice for a reason. The cupboard was bare. You might argue the last 2-3 seasons he should have had a better result b/c the talent should have been replenished. Sly didn't make Tinordi & McCarron slow. He didn't make Scherbak unwilling to work at a necessary level. He didn't make Nygren hate Hamilton (Hamilton could do that to anyone).

Go back to the 2012 draft which was absolutely crucial to get right. Sly didn't make Brady Vail & Erik Nystrom not worth signing & Dalton Thrower close to that. They were that way when drafted. We at least got a rental on Vanek for Collberg, but that was a wasted pick otherwise. Yes, Bozon was beset by illness, but was he really a legit prospect or a borderline hopeful? He had 12 pts in 44 games last year in a not very good league. That's a thoroughly wasted draft. Wasted. That's not on Sly. Those should have been his building blocks. He never really got to coach any of them, except Hudon--a 5th rd pick--and where is he? Tell me again about Sly vs Timmins? That one draft, which was so vital, should be enough evidence on its face.

very team has players with injuries. Boston lost Norman Leveille and Duncan Macpherson.
Every team has players with injuries. Boston lost Norman Leveille and Duncan Macpherson.
The next draft: 8 picks. A second must-have draft to restock and start the rebuild. Sly still hasn't made McCarron slow. Lekhonen didn't play for Sly. Crisp couldn't make the ECHL and Fucale spent most of his time there, too. Not on Sly. Gregoire was 176th overall. Where did we think he was going to play? He still has a career, as an AHLer. Not on sly. Reway not on Sly. De La Rose and Andrighetto are where, again?

That's 15 draft choices--FIFTEEN--over 2 very important drafts. Which ones do we pin on Sly or the development crew again?

Next draft: Scherbak is a first rounder and he just got waived. Pin that on Sly? Lernout is a stiff. He can't skate. Koberstein may not be signed. He's shown no development in college. Audette was a flyer on a fast kid and a nod of respect to his dad. Nobody here thought he was legit. Who is Hayden Hawkey. Evans never played for Sly. Another wasted draft. Which one is on Sly? Scherbak, who was on an 87 pt pace for him? Right.

That's 21 bodies. Which one of those is directly attributable to Sly? Which one. Can you legitimately even find one?

 

[groovejuice]

Pointing the finger at Lefebvre needs to be taken with several grains of salt. If you knew as much about the AHL as you purport, you'd know that an AHL team usually has only 4-5 legitimate prospects at most at any given time. When, pray tell, did Lefebvre ever have that many? Who are they and where are they now? How many are in the NHL? His first 2-3 seasons he was dealing with one of the worst farm systems in the NHL The previous regime got us a 3rd overall choice for a reason. The cupboard was bare. You might argue the last 2-3 seasons he should have had a better result b/c the talent should have been replenished. Sly didn't make Tinordi & McCarron slow. He didn't make Scherbak unwilling to work at a necessary level. He didn't make Nygren hate Hamilton (Hamilton could do that to anyone).

Go back to the 2012 draft which was absolutely crucial to get right. Sly didn't make Brady Vail & Erik Nystrom not worth signing & Dalton Thrower close to that. They were that way when drafted. We at least got a rental on Vanek for Collberg, but that was a wasted pick otherwise. Yes, Bozon was beset by illness, but was he really a legit prospect or a borderline hopeful? He had 12 pts in 44 games last year in a not very good league. That's a thoroughly wasted draft. Wasted. That's not on Sly. Those should have been his building blocks. He never really got to coach any of them, except Hudon--a 5th rd pick--and where is he? Tell me again about Sly vs Timmins? That one draft, which was so vital, should be enough evidence on its face.

very team has players with injuries. Boston lost Norman Leveille and Duncan Macpherson.
Every team has players with injuries. Boston lost Norman Leveille and Duncan Macpherson.
The next draft: 8 picks. A second must-have draft to restock and start the rebuild. Sly still hasn't made McCarron slow. Lekhonen didn't play for Sly. Crisp couldn't make the ECHL and Fucale spent most of his time there, too. Not on Sly. Gregoire was 176th overall. Where did we think he was going to play? He still has a career, as an AHLer. Not on sly. Reway not on Sly. De La Rose and Andrighetto are where, again?

That's 15 draft choices--FIFTEEN--over 2 very important drafts. Which ones do we pin on Sly or the development crew again?

Next draft: Scherbak is a first rounder and he just got waived. Pin that on Sly? Lernout is a stiff. He can't skate. Koberstein may not be signed. He's shown no development in college. Audette was a flyer on a fast kid and a nod of respect to his dad. Nobody here thought he was legit. Who is Hayden Hawkey. Evans never played for Sly. Another wasted draft. Which one is on Sly? Scherbak, who was on an 87 pt pace for him? Right.

That's 21 bodies. Which one of those is directly attributable to Sly? Which one. Can you legitimately even find one?

During his exit interviews Lefebvre actually proudly admitted that he didn't believe in development, so spent no time pursuing it. Unless you believe that it serves no purpose whatsoever, this reflects terribly on the entire management group, especially Bergevin.

It's not about turning draft picks into stars. It's about helping prospects become NHLers with all the tools they need to do so. Posters ignoring this is more than a little astonishing, and it smells like a reflex stance to excuse poor management more than anything else.

 

[montreal]

It never fails, every year there's at least one poster trying to spin the wheel of excuses for Lefebvre. Look at Laval last year, worst team in the league, McCarron as a 3rd year pro looked like shit, playing with ECHLers mostly. The defense was a f***ing tire fire. I can't believe that two former NHLers couldn't at least work with their players so that they didn't have so many defensive breakdowns. He has to be the worst coach i've ever seen. I don't care if you don't have any talent, you should at least be able to get the players to play a little better, not look like they don't what the f*** they are doing out there.

This year McCarron looks so much better. He's 2nd on the team in assists, 4th in points, he's on pace for almost double the points and they don't have much firepower in Laval this year with the loss of Agostino, Chaput. At least last year they had the best player in the league in Terry and still sucked.

The defense looks so much more structured, the are the best team in the AHL in shots allowed, they are among the best teams in the AHL in ga although if Lindgren is out long term that won't last as Marcoux was terrible and while McNiven has looked better he hasn't played much since turning pro and needs more work.

I just don't get how someone can look at a player like Leblanc who was one of our best players under one coach and then another a different he looked like shit. Or how McCarron got worse every year under one coach and so far is playing some of his best hockey since turning pro under a different coach. But it's not the coaches fault, the fact that so many players regressed under him but it's not his fault. But if that were the case then what's that say about management? That they fired the wrong guy? If it wasn't Lefebvre's fault, why did he get sent packing and Timmins still the AGM? Now I'm now fan of MB but I'm willing to bet he FINALLY got it right after 6 years of having one of the worst coaches our AHL team has had and replaced him with a much better choice.

 

[Toene]

I dont know about the scouting business but maybe some more knowledgeable people than me could answer this : are there any young scout "prospects" being talked about/hyped in those circles? What I mean is a kind of Dubas/Chayka/Brisebois of the scouting world, accumulating low-key great successes with their fresh, astute vision.

I say this because Im not against change, far from it, but firing Timmins also means committing to someone for the long-term, since it's a job that can be properly evaluated sometimes a decade after the choices made.
If they pick a HS with average vision because of inflated/undeserved reputation, we may be stuck with someone who, like Timmins and co, seems to always be a bit behind the trends. Vision, vision, vision, please. So no change for the sake of it, only if an excellent, certified bust-dodger candidate comes up. And Im not sure I trust MB for such a hire. Id prefer the next management makes that move.

 

[Whitesnake]

I was amongst the few who bashed Lefebvre for quite a while now....but when your GM tells the world that you don't have to win to develop properly......you have to believe that Lefebvre's weaknesses started with Bergevin view on things....He is the one who didn't believe in winning. He's the one who let Lefebvre for so long. At one point, do you have blame Houle, or you blame Corey for appointing him for a job Houle couldn't refuse? Well Lefebvre is no Houle.....but he still was supported by a GM with no vision. And that couldn't pull the plug as for him...there was actually no plug to pull...winning was not important.

Lefebvre has a lot of blame to take. I've proven with stats that other teams have done better or MUCH better with teams like Lefebvre had to work with. This whole "but he worked with so many players" is just disregarding everybody else who also had to do it and did better. And quite a few teams who did better had the same type of players that we did. And at one point, NOBODY keeps a job with so many consecutive losing years. NOBODY. In any sport.

 

[Chili]

Selke was looking for players who would put the team first. He sought players who in equal measure were dedicated to winning and who detested losing, players who were self confident, self directed, and self motivated and who would work within a team concept. Each player was expected to transform his personal expectations, attitudes, and motives into team expectations, team attitudes, and team motives.

From: Jacques Plante

That`s what Frank Selke was looking for in players and it resulted in alot of team success, first in Toronto then with the Habs. In my opinion as relevant now as back then.

What do the Habs look for in players both at the pro and amateur level? Would like to hear what both Bergevin and Timmins look for. Some of the players Bergevin has added like Weber, Shaw,Byron, Domi seem to fit the above criteria. Among the drafted players certainly sounds like Gallagher especially.

It`s not up to the scouts to set the organizational standards but it is up to them to find the talent. I especially like the emphasis above on self motivated because players will face many challenges in their careers they`ll have to deal with.

 

[No fan fiction]

It never fails, every year there's at least one poster trying to spin the wheel of excuses for Lefebvre. Look at Laval last year, worst team in the league, McCarron as a 3rd year pro looked like ****, playing with ECHLers mostly. The defense was a ****ing tire fire. I can't believe that two former NHLers couldn't at least work with their players so that they didn't have so many defensive breakdowns. He has to be the worst coach i've ever seen. I don't care if you don't have any talent, you should at least be able to get the players to play a little better, not look like they don't what the **** they are doing out there.

This year McCarron looks so much better. He's 2nd on the team in assists, 4th in points, he's on pace for almost double the points and they don't have much firepower in Laval this year with the loss of Agostino, Chaput. At least last year they had the best player in the league in Terry and still sucked.

The defense looks so much more structured, the are the best team in the AHL in shots allowed, they are among the best teams in the AHL in ga although if Lindgren is out long term that won't last as Marcoux was terrible and while McNiven has looked better he hasn't played much since turning pro and needs more work.

I just don't get how someone can look at a player like Leblanc who was one of our best players under one coach and then another a different he looked like ****. Or how McCarron got worse every year under one coach and so far is playing some of his best hockey since turning pro under a different coach. But it's not the coaches fault, the fact that so many players regressed under him but it's not his fault. But if that were the case then what's that say about management? That they fired the wrong guy? If it wasn't Lefebvre's fault, why did he get sent packing and Timmins still the AGM? Now I'm now fan of MB but I'm willing to bet he FINALLY got it right after 6 years of having one of the worst coaches our AHL team has had and replaced him with a much better choice.

This was not about Lefebvre. This is the Trevor Timmins thread. I gave you a list of 21--TWENTY-ONE --draft choices from the first three drafts after the regime change. Those were the most important drafts of the decade. We have nothing to show for them--nothing. The only picks in the NHL were the ones who actually played for Lefebvre. The fact that this also disqualifies your Lefebvre arguments is just a bonus.

The fact that you keep going back to Leblanc--from which you had to be saved previously--is just ridiculous. Best player on the team the previous year? Do you know how bad that team was? Brian Willsie was the leading scorer with 44pts! There are 1244 NHL games among 12 players, including 2 with 1 game each and Willsie & Ryan White who have 694 between them. Best NHL career of the lot: Willsie or White; i.e., barely 4th line energy guys. Saying "one of the best" of that lot is like being the smartest Trump kid. It's not much of a bar.

How did Leblanc do when set free? It was the same. He was a terrible player in a terrible Euro league at 25 and was done.

Worse, you keep going back to McCarron. The issue is skating. He can't skate. An AHL head coach is many things but power skating instructor isn't one of them. It's pretty clear they have been searching for something--that one magical thing--that McCarron might actually be able to do besides "Go stand there and be large," so he isn't a complete waste of a 1st rd pick. They haven't found it. He can't skate. That is on Timmins, was on Timmins and always will be on Timmins.

But, you keep going to the strawman that this is somehow about redeeming Lefebvre.

 

[No fan fiction]

injuries are valid excuses imo, there's no telling what Reway would have been with more maturity or what Nygren could have done if he was healthy when the Habs wanted to call him up.



I'm on the other side of the fence, I'm a big believer that hockey is mostly mental, say 80% as you skate, pass, shoot, there's not a lot to it imo. So for me hockey is mostly about confidence at this level outside of no talent grinders that coaches like CJ and MT love to have on their team. Once you lose that confidence it can be very hard to get back.

As for coaching i think it plays a huge part, I look at how crappy teams can turn things around when they fire their coach and bring in someone much better. Doesn't always happen but at times you need someone that can push players the right way. You say that if a player has skill and desire they will motivate themselves, but they may need a good coach to show them certain things or how to improve on their weaknesses.

I've said Timmins has his share of the blame but if you read through all the Timmins threads most seem to like the job he did up until '07. So what happened after that? Do people think the game changed on him and he didn't adjust quick enough? One thing we do know is that aside from a lack of picks and a lack of quality picks, we hired a coach that had ZERO games of experience as a head coach and all the sudden over the course of 6 years we can't develop for ****. Now Timmins has his blame but as someone that watched almost every AHL team, I point the finger more at Lefebvre but that doesn't mean Timmins doesn't share the blame as well as the players and management for rushing them.

Your confirmation bias is incredible. At the pro level talent is more than 90% of it. Jim Rome regularly asks players that very question. They all have incredible skills. The difference between the AHL and the NHL is actually almost imperceptibly small b/c the guys are so good. Fans put to it heart, caring, ethic, desire, compete, work, etc. Those are all fans' confirmation bias because quite frankly until you have played at that level you will never have an understanding of just how good they are.

Oh, and there's this thing called google scholar where you can look up empirical studies of this very topic: Google Scholar

 

[No fan fiction]

Was Galchenyuk traded at right time? Yes he was. Was Collberg traded at the right time? What you call fan fiction, I call what separates a great GM that keeps a job to a guy who is fired the day after. Yeah, fan fiction, calling DLR a 4th line powers RIGHT NOW when my point is that he should have been traded EARLIER before he get that 4th line powers. What you are doing is actually not that hard. Wait till everything is done. And then claim that you knew it all along and that based on what we know NOW, it still was the same thing 1 or 2 years ago. Your expertise is to bash people with opinions. By trying to transform that into supposed fiction 'cause we all know YOU dictate what's real.

What's your point man? That everything Bergevin does is just what could have been done? That 100% of his decisions happened for the best of reasons and that there's absolutely no other things that could have been done? Because pros know best? How the heck are the professionnals so higher in your standards when there are pros that are fired every year? You really can't make a difference between thinking DLR RIGHT NOW could have brought us a 2nd rounder.....or.....knowing before that his ceiling was reached and that you could have traded him before to get a pick? Beaulieu gave us a 3rd round pick.....but if we still use him and sucks tremendously.....and we have to waive him......you would have come here and tell us that it was FAN FICTION to want a 3rd rounder out of that failure....hey guy...it happened. You just have no idea what can or could be fan fiction. There are stupid decisions that are made every day that for you would be fan ficition till it happens.

No idea why you stick around if you hate that board so much.

Take this team and tell me IN ADVANCE what you think fan fiction is. Instead of waiting to see it happening and then bash posters who think we could have done differently.....Was it fan fiction to want Lefebvre be fired 2 or 3 years ago? I guess we were way too fictional for you? How's his head coaching job now? 'Cause that guy who is so good is surely head coaching somewhere else?

Strange how that works.....I think Timmins is not doing a good job. Far from it. But any fan of his could come here and tell you how your fan fiction is up and running when you continuously bash Timmins. How do you know every bad pick is because of him? How do you know that? How's your fan fiction different from other fan fiction?

Enough man. We are discussing hockey. And we have opinions that we hoped could have happened. You hope that Timmins would be better. Some others hope Lefebvre would have done a better job. Not sure why those posters needs to be put in a category because of it.....'cause in the end, everybody is right here. Every freakin body.

No. No. No. This was always about the unimpeachibility of one Trevor Timmins. Of the 21 picks over the first 3 yrs of this regime, how many became NHL players? How many of those who became NHL players were the ones Lefebvre coached (like DLR, Andrighetto, Hudon). Oops. Never was it said that he was wonderful. It was said that Trevor Timmins bears the brunt of any ire.

Do you really think DLR as a 9 min/game 4th liner on Detroit gets you a 2nd pick? That is fan fiction.
The garbage about getting Domi without trading Galchenyuk? Fan fiction. I bet an XBox doesn't even allow that trade.
This is like the people who spent an entire year debating the exact date that Halak should have been traded.
This is the level of Gredo didn't move stuff. That's fan fiction based on a movie, not real life events. That's what this nonsense is like.

 

[No fan fiction]

We drafted him pretty much exactly where he was expected to go. So it's safe to say at one point he had the value of a high 2nd round pick.

I'd argue he still had that value after his first year in N.A, so summer 2015 he still had early 2nd round pick value. After that he started to struggle and his value likely dropped every year.

It's been a running theme of Bergevin to wait until a young guy is at his lowest before trading him, I think in large part because he's scared that the player might turn it around with the new team. He wants to be 100% the guy won't turn it around be become a good NHL player.

But isn't that his job? To make sure that someone is a viable player for the Montréal Canadiens, not the Laval Rocket or Buffalo Sabres? Draft choices are like cars. They lose 1/3 of their value the instant you drive them off the lot. They only hold or improve value by becoming classics.

 

[Sorinth]

But isn't that his job? To make sure that someone is a viable player for the Montréal Canadiens, not the Laval Rocket or Buffalo Sabres? Draft choices are like cars. They lose 1/3 of their value the instant you drive them off the lot. They only hold or improve value by becoming classics.

Disagree entirely. Has Poehling lost 1/3 of his value since being drafted? No, his value has increased because he had a very good D+1 year, and answered some of the question marks that he had on draft day. He hasn't become a classic either since he's very much still a question mark at the NHL.

A better analogy would be a bunch of people with wrapped presents swapping them between themselves. You get a present, can see the shape, you maybe shake it around, see how much it weighs, read the card, etc... and with that can make an educated guess about what the present actually is. If you don't think it's something you want/need you swap it for a different present, because once you open it everybody knows what it is, and if it's crap nobody will trade you anything for it.

Bergevin always wants to open the present and see what it is, he's not willing to risk swapping it when it's still wrapped because it might be something he really wants. Part of his job is to get the right present, which means being good at figuring out what the present is before unwrapping.