Trevor Timmins Discussion Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.

JohnLennon

Registered User
Mar 26, 2011
5,782
1,553
It's an interesting list. I would have thought some teams would be higher, ie. Nashville especially with a high end prospect like Tolvanen and guys like Fabbro and Pettersson, all of whom should be closer to the NHL than the Habs top prospects.

Can't argue that our last draft should have moved the team up the list substantially.
Yeah, I thought the same as you. While the Preds do have a high-end prospect in Tolvanen, it seems it wasn't enough to make up for an otherwise thin pool. Pronman was not a big fan of Fabbro, as he lacks that potential for next-level offense, skates average and doesn't have the best hands. Pettersson, while good in the AHL, is 24 years old now and while a late bloomer, his skating was quite slow and he apparently wasn't good at winning puck battles. Basically the reason Nashville fell is because Tolvanen is literally the only player he has ranked out of the "have a chance" category.

Pronman doesn't really care how close they are to the NHL, but more about their potential once they're in the NHL. He basically values top-end talent more than pool depth or prospects that project to become depth players, so I guess that explains it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: groovejuice

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
Yeah, I thought the same as you. While the Preds do have a high-end prospect in Tolvanen, it seems it wasn't enough to make up for an otherwise thin pool. Pronman was not a big fan of Fabbro, as he lacks that potential for next-level offense, skates average and doesn't have the best hands. Pettersson, while good in the AHL, is 24 years old now and while a late bloomer, his skating was quite slow and he apparently wasn't good at winning puck battles. Basically the reason Nashville fell is because Tolvanen is literally the only player he has ranked out of the "have a chance" category.

Pronman doesn't really care how close they are to the NHL, but more about their potential once they're in the NHL. He basically values top-end talent more than pool depth or prospects that project to become depth players, so I guess that explains it.
That's interesting because if I were to describe the Habs prospect pool, i'd speak more about its depth (quantity) more than it's top-end talent.

But i'm limited in terms of what I know about our prospect pool, mostly just my thoughts gathered from reading some of the experts on here.
 

JohnLennon

Registered User
Mar 26, 2011
5,782
1,553
That's interesting because if I were to describe the Habs prospect pool, i'd speak more about its depth (quantity) more than it's top-end talent.

But i'm limited in terms of what I know about our prospect pool, mostly just my thoughts gathered from reading some of the experts on here.
I agree with you, and I think it is still a partial reason why the Habs are ranked highly. The main reason, I'm quite confident, is that he has Kotkaniemi ranked as one of the 8 elite prospects in the league, and that carried them into the top 7.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 417

Perrah

Registered User
Jul 2, 2009
3,372
843
That's interesting because if I were to describe the Habs prospect pool, i'd speak more about its depth (quantity) more than it's top-end talent.

But i'm limited in terms of what I know about our prospect pool, mostly just my thoughts gathered from reading some of the experts on here.
There in lies the problem to me. Habs have huge holes to fill and only 1 high end prospect. Even if Kotkaniemi is the #1c everyone craves the defense will still be in shambles. I dont see mete as a top pairing guy and ditto for Juulsen.
 

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
There in lies the problem to me. Habs have huge holes to fill and only 1 high end prospect. Even if Kotkaniemi is the #1c everyone craves the defense will still be in shambles. I dont see mete as a top pairing guy and ditto for Juulsen.
It's a process...we're likely to have another top 10 pick this year.

it'll take some time, but it *appears* as though we're finally headed in the right direction as it relates to prospects.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Laurentide

xposbrad

Registered User
Jul 11, 2009
1,059
229
Well according to Corey Pronman...the Habs have a farm system that ranks somewhere from #1 to #10.

We'll know over the next 5 days where he has them exactly, since he releases 2 teams per day on his rankings.

That doesn't make sense, we have 1 high end prospect. I really don't care what Pronman says though, we're still bottom 10. Sportingnews has us 18 which I think is actually a bit high considering they have Juulsen at #4 and I think his bar is a #4 dman. Our system is overall very weak, we need min 1-2 more drafts and maybe a prospect or draft pick for trading Max back to crack top 15.
 
  • Like
Reactions: montreal

417

BBQ Chicken Alert!
Feb 20, 2003
51,255
27,464
Ottawa
That doesn't make sense, we have 1 high end prospect. I really don't care what Pronman says though, we're still bottom 10. Sportingnews has us 18 which I think is actually a bit high considering they have Juulsen at #4 and I think his bar is a #4 dman. Our system is overall very weak, we need min 1-2 more drafts and maybe a prospect or draft pick for trading Max back to crack top 15.
Well I'm sure Pronman has his reasoning...I doubt hes just randomly doing these rankings
 

Adam Michaels

Registered User
Jun 12, 2016
77,249
123,914
Montreal
Awesome lol

The best part about Pronman's daily ranking is all the replies he gets from frustrated fans distraught over the fact he's got the Habs so high lol

I actually haven't read any of his articles. At some point I will sit and read every single team's profile.

But after so many years of Habs being at the bottom of the league in terms of prospect pools, it's good to see them ranked so high for once.

After this year's draft, most experts (and by experts I mean those who do this professionally for a living) all pretty much declared Montreal as one of the teams who had the best drafts. Wings and Isles were two other teams.

It just feels good to finally have some things go Habs' way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 417

BJCOLLINS

Registered User
Jul 7, 2003
2,539
878
Pirate Satellite
Draft history? You mean that in a bad way? Because the drafting has been average to better than average.

Visit Hdb and go back 5 years, use our picks and look at who we’ve missed....... just out of the CHL.....I know it’s 20/20 but many other teams have done better. Cheers.
 

montreal

Go Habs Go
Mar 21, 2002
57,329
39,839
www.youtube.com
Visit Hdb and go back 5 years, use our picks and look at who we’ve missed....... just out of the CHL.....I know it’s 20/20 but many other teams have done better. Cheers.

I assume you are talking '12 to '16 since '17 and '18 are too soon to say. I don't like to look at a few years, I will always go with his full body of work cause teams will have that one great draft and then struggle to repeat that. Like us in '07 or boston in '14, tampa in '11, etc...

Clearly the Habs screwed up in '12, Galchenyuk and Hudon were really good picks but with 4 of the top 64 picks it should have gone better. '13 doesn't look much better with Lehkonen, Ghetto, DLR which is a shame after having 4 top 55 picks. I still think Reway would have been an NHLer had he not had his health issues. Maybe McCarron pulls a DLR and looks better a year from now ala DLR last year. But either way he's not likely going to be gamebreaker. That said Timmins admitted the mistake they made going for need (size) and how it backfired.

'14 I still think could end up pretty good for us considering we had just 1 pick in the top 72. Scherbak I happen to like a lot, just worried he won't fit in well under Julien who I can't stand. Evans it might be a bit of a write off year for him after not being able to work out for most of the off-season but still think he can be an NHLer. I expect Hawkey to be one of the best goalies in the NCAA again, would not have traded him.

'15 just 1 pick in the top 86, that's f***ing terrible. Juulsen is a safe bet to be an NHLer and likely a really solid one. What can Addison and Vejdemo do, it's their first full season in the AHL so we'll see over the next 2 years what they can do.

'16 is where things seem to be looking up for Timmins. Sergachev, Mete right there it's looking like he nailed the draft but if Bitten can turn into a decent 4th liner that will make it even better. Not bad for having only 1 top 69 pick.
 

26Mats

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
31,736
24,111
I assume you are talking '12 to '16 since '17 and '18 are too soon to say. I don't like to look at a few years, I will always go with his full body of work cause teams will have that one great draft and then struggle to repeat that. Like us in '07 or boston in '14, tampa in '11, etc...

Clearly the Habs screwed up in '12, Galchenyuk and Hudon were really good picks but with 4 of the top 64 picks it should have gone better. '13 doesn't look much better with Lehkonen, Ghetto, DLR which is a shame after having 4 top 55 picks. I still think Reway would have been an NHLer had he not had his health issues. Maybe McCarron pulls a DLR and looks better a year from now ala DLR last year. But either way he's not likely going to be gamebreaker. That said Timmins admitted the mistake they made going for need (size) and how it backfired.

'14 I still think could end up pretty good for us considering we had just 1 pick in the top 72. Scherbak I happen to like a lot, just worried he won't fit in well under Julien who I can't stand. Evans it might be a bit of a write off year for him after not being able to work out for most of the off-season but still think he can be an NHLer. I expect Hawkey to be one of the best goalies in the NCAA again, would not have traded him.

'15 just 1 pick in the top 86, that's ****ing terrible. Juulsen is a safe bet to be an NHLer and likely a really solid one. What can Addison and Vejdemo do, it's their first full season in the AHL so we'll see over the next 2 years what they can do.

'16 is where things seem to be looking up for Timmins. Sergachev, Mete right there it's looking like he nailed the draft but if Bitten can turn into a decent 4th liner that will make it even better. Not bad for having only 1 top 69 pick.


2012 was a good draft, imo: Timmins nailed the #3 overal pick, and from two 2nds, a 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th, you can really on expect 1 top 6/9 forward - would be better if Hudon were bona fide top 6, but if he ends up being a top 9 forward that puts up 40 - 50 points, it's a great draft.

2013, Timmins had a mandate coming from the new GM to draft for size.

2016 was more good work; when you have a very late 1st rounder, no 2nd, and no 4th, an excellent draft is finding 1 top 6 forward, or a top 4 dman, or a #1 goalie. If Juulsen turns out to be a top 4 dman, Timmins nailed the draft. Currently I project Juulsen as a top 4 dman, so I project Timmins to have nailed the draft. We should know for sure within the next 3 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dralaf

montreal

Go Habs Go
Mar 21, 2002
57,329
39,839
www.youtube.com
2012 was a good draft, imo: Timmins nailed the #3 overal pick, and from two 2nds, a 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th, you can really on expect 1 top 6/9 forward - would be better if Hudon were bona fide top 6, but if he ends up being a top 9 forward that puts up 40 - 50 points, it's a great draft.

2013, Timmins had a mandate coming from the new GM to draft for size.

2016 was more good work; when you have a very late 1st rounder, no 2nd, and no 4th, an excellent draft is finding 1 top 6 forward, or a top 4 dman, or a #1 goalie. If Juulsen turns out to be a top 4 dman, Timmins nailed the draft. Currently I project Juulsen as a top 4 dman, so I project Timmins to have nailed the draft. We should know for sure within the next 3 years.

no way is '12 a great draft, you can't have a great draft and miss on 33rd, 51st and 64th. Hudon I'm a big fan of and Galchenyuk at 3rd was the right pick at the time. Usually I'd be very happy with 2 NHLers from one draft but not when we have 4 top 64 picks and only 1 is an NHLer and that one clearly disappointed for various reasons.

'13 they said they learned their lesson so hopefully they did.

Not sure if you are mixing up '15 and '16, '15 had the late 1st and '16 we picked Sergachev 9th OA. I don't see Juulsen as a top 4 D on a top team, needs to improve his offensive game a lot first. But even if he does, if that's all they end up with I don't think I'd say they nailed the draft, I'd say they got a big part of their future with limited picks and only one high one.
 

Habs

We should have drafted Michkov
Feb 28, 2002
20,946
14,144
I hope TT is gone with the rest of the crew, by next years draft. Gut the entire scouting department as well, especially in the West.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bsl

26Mats

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
31,736
24,111
no way is '12 a great draft, you can't have a great draft and miss on 33rd, 51st and 64th. Hudon I'm a big fan of and Galchenyuk at 3rd was the right pick at the time. Usually I'd be very happy with 2 NHLers from one draft but not when we have 4 top 64 picks and only 1 is an NHLer and that one clearly disappointed for various reasons.

'13 they said they learned their lesson so hopefully they did.

Not sure if you are mixing up '15 and '16, '15 had the late 1st and '16 we picked Sergachev 9th OA. I don't see Juulsen as a top 4 D on a top team, needs to improve his offensive game a lot first. But even if he does, if that's all they end up with I don't think I'd say they nailed the draft, I'd say they got a big part of their future with limited picks and only one high one.


What percentage of 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks do you expect to become top 9 forwards or top 4 dmen or number 1 goalies???

I think for 2nd round picks it's less than 25%. For 3rd and 4th round picks it's much, much lower. If we got a player of Hudon's quality every year after the first round, I'd be ecstatic, even if we had 2 second rounders. Missing on those 4 picks isn't good, but getting Hudon in the 5th makes up for it, especially when he nailed the top 3 pick, which was by far most important.

If not for Timmins, we could have been stuck with Griffin Reinhart, Derrick Pouliot,
Slater Koekkoek, or Grigorenko. Look what the scouts before we picked left their teams with: Nail Yakupov and Ryan Murray! Thank god we have Timmins and didn't get stuck with Griffin Reinhardt, a Marc Bergevin type player!

11EdmontonNail YakupovRSarnia Sting [OHL]35062741361422017-18
12ColumbusRyan MurrayDEverett Silvertips [WHL]264126072902017-18
13MontrealAlex GalchenyukCSarnia Sting [OHL]4181081472551512017-18
14NY IslandersGriffin ReinhartDEdmonton Oil Kings [WHL]37022262016-17
15TorontoMorgan RiellyDMoose Jaw Warriors [WHL]38831140171892017-18
16AnaheimHampus LindholmDRogle BK [Swe-1]371421011431782017-18
17MinnesotaMathew DumbaDRed Deer Rebels [WHL]31044841281632017-18
18PittsburghDerrick PouliotDPortland Winterhawks [WHL]13853136492017-18
19WinnipegJacob TroubaDU.S. National Development Team [USHL]32634951292392017-18
110Tampa BaySlater KoekkoekDPeterborough Petes [OHL]764913302017-18
111WashingtonFilip ForsbergLLeksands IF [Swe-1]3311171382551452017-18
112BuffaloMikhail GrigorenkoCQuebec Remparts [QMJHL]217224264302016-17
113DallasRadek FaksaCKitchener Rangers [OHL]2043444781192017-18
114BuffaloZemgus GirgensonsCDubuque Fighting Saints [USHL]34844571011032017-18
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dralaf

montreal

Go Habs Go
Mar 21, 2002
57,329
39,839
www.youtube.com
What percentage of 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks do you expect to become top 9 forwards or top 4 dmen or number 1 goalies???

I think for 2nd round picks it's less than 25%. For 3rd and 4th round picks it's much, much lower. If we got a player of Hudon's quality every year after the first round, I'd be ecstatic, even if we had 2 second rounders. Missing on those 4 picks isn't good, but getting Hudon in the 5th makes up for it, especially when he nailed the top 3 pick, which was by far most important.
I don't look at top 9 or top 4 d man. I just look for one of the best scouts in the NHL to hit on most of his 1st and 2nd round picks. Of course every so often you will have a Fischer type of 1st rounder and I'm strongly of the opinion that things could have went a little bit better for players like Beaulieu, Leblanc and Tinordi if we had a better development system in place.

For Hudon it depends on what he turns into, if he's a 30 pt NHLer that is not good enough to consistently find in the 1st round. You have to find top talent and it's usually going to be in the top 2 rounds. Of course every draft is going to have some hidden gems in the mid to late rounds, I just think top scouts need to hit those top 50 picks most of the time. Some years the draft classes just aren't deep enough, the '12 and '13 drafts for instance don't appear to be so deep. That's why I've been a Timmins supporter, I think for the most part he's done a good job due to us not having a lot of picks, missing so many 2nd round picks, and some of the years we did have several top 2nd round picks weren't deep drafts. He clearly can find talent, but our development system has not helped him at all imo.
 

Whitesnake

If you rebuild, they will come.
Jan 5, 2003
89,202
36,190
2012 was a good draft, imo: Timmins nailed the #3 overal pick, and from two 2nds, a 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th, you can really on expect 1 top 6/9 forward - would be better if Hudon were bona fide top 6, but if he ends up being a top 9 forward that puts up 40 - 50 points, it's a great draft.

2013, Timmins had a mandate coming from the new GM to draft for size.

2016 was more good work; when you have a very late 1st rounder, no 2nd, and no 4th, an excellent draft is finding 1 top 6 forward, or a top 4 dman, or a #1 goalie. If Juulsen turns out to be a top 4 dman, Timmins nailed the draft. Currently I project Juulsen as a top 4 dman, so I project Timmins to have nailed the draft. We should know for sure within the next 3 years.

This is where the Timmins supporters just go wrong. To call 2012 a great draft because he nailed the #3 pick and Hudon might be hitting 40 points. Makes no sense. First, we never give teams for hitting a top 3 pick. Never. Nobody will say how Chicago was great for picking Toews. We'll hear how they just were lucky to be so bad. Yet, in Montreal, our head scout gets credit for getting right a No3 pick.

Then, the excuse about the mandate. If Timmins, who is in charge, tells Bergevin that the big guy Bergevin is suppose to want will not be a NHL'er, the player will NOT be picked. Period. Timmins believed in McCarron just as much as Bergevin believed in him. If the sole mandate was to draft for size, why was Lehkonen chosen instead of Ismael-Diaby? Or Keegan Kanzig? And if that's how you explain the Crisp pick, why didn't he went John Hayden?

2016? I guess you mean 2015? Well we'll see about Juulsen, there's just not enough infos right now. But what if there are others chosen after that does better? And it's all great to talk about the other picks how they are too far....

And it's so easy to say that it's development and not the drafting. It's actually virtually impossible to know it. Unless a guy is picked....does nothing....is traded...and starts blossoming. Which even if that would be the case, it could be a case of the player taking charge himself of his growth. But you usually have to put both together.

Timmins has been subpar lately to say the least. A great supposed top 5 head scout is not supposed to need what everybody else needs. You don't become top 5 by picking top 3. You are supposed to be top 5 by how you can hit homeruns later on. The worst head scout would pick Crosby 1st. The worst head scout wouldn't pick Palat in the 7th round.

But there is a possibility that Timmins redeem himself with the last 2 drafts. That remains to be seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lshap and habsfan92

26Mats

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
31,736
24,111
I don't look at top 9 or top 4 d man. I just look for one of the best scouts in the NHL to hit on most of his 1st and 2nd round picks. Of course every so often you will have a Fischer type of 1st rounder and I'm strongly of the opinion that things could have went a little bit better for players like Beaulieu, Leblanc and Tinordi if we had a better development system in place.

For Hudon it depends on what he turns into, if he's a 30 pt NHLer that is not good enough to consistently find in the 1st round. You have to find top talent and it's usually going to be in the top 2 rounds. Of course every draft is going to have some hidden gems in the mid to late rounds, I just think top scouts need to hit those top 50 picks most of the time. Some years the draft classes just aren't deep enough, the '12 and '13 drafts for instance don't appear to be so deep. That's why I've been a Timmins supporter, I think for the most part he's done a good job due to us not having a lot of picks, missing so many 2nd round picks, and some of the years we did have several top 2nd round picks weren't deep drafts. He clearly can find talent, but our development system has not helped him at all imo.

You want a scout to hit on most of their 1st and 2nd round picks, but can you name 1 single scout scout that has even hit on 50% of their non-lottery 1st round picks and more than 30% of their 2nd round picks?

Timmins has hit on 80% of his lottery picks (Andrei Kostitsyn being his 1 miss, and even Kostitsyn imo could have been a solid 20 goal 50 point 3rd liner if better developed on and off the ice). Price, McDonagh, Galchenyuk, and Sergachev were great picks. Ak wasn't, that's 80%.

Timmins' record on non-lottery 1st rounders is going to be a lot better if (once) Scherbak and Juulsen establish themselves, and Poehling could put his record in elite company.

If Pacioretty, Juulsen, and Scherbak made it. Chipchura, Fischer, Leblanc, Tinordi, and Beaulieu didn't. That's 38%. 44% if Poehling makes it. I haven't compared with other teams in a while but that's damn good if I remember correctly. I also did an analysis of his 2nd rounders and he was in the top tier, if I remember correctly. I think his numbers will improve now that he's not going to be mandated to draft for size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cphabs

dcyhabs

Registered User
May 30, 2008
4,223
2,511
Montreal
It's like the advanced stats where they count shots because goals are rare. If you look at the previous drafts and sort a bit (by points for forwards, by history for D and G) most of the top players, and more as time passes, are first round picks. Only a few players outside the top few make an impact. Getting Gallagher and Subban is enough to make an impact. It is hard to say whether the successes are random or planned.

The big problem with the habs (and Oilers, and even the Bruins) is that the clueless GMs keep trading good players. Sure, Bergevin is an idiot, but most GMs are idiot ex-players. People talk about moneyball but they forget that it's not just stats. The big change is getting away from the guys with primary school educations and no real knowledge who justify their jobs with playing and management experience. Lots of people crap on Bergevin's playing ability, and there is something to the bitterness he and MT and CJ and many others feel at having been good but not great (Bergevin was, at worst one of the thousand best hockey players on the planet. I'm quite sure I'm not top thousand on the planet in anything) but limiting yourself to a pool of francophones is a very small limitation relative to limiting the pool of general managers (who need to know stats, advanced stats, economics, contract law, business management, marketing, advertising, and many other things) to a pool of 2000 or so athletes with no significant education (with some notable exceptions who have generally fleeced the other guys) is completely insane.

I'm real sure that if the habs hired from the HEC instead of from NHL/AHL grads the language requirement would be a detail.

Drafts are tough. You can do everything right and still fail. Wickenheiser had great stats. Daigle was a consensus number 1 pick, so was Yakupov. It's hard to tell which guys are going to continue to improve after the draft.

On the other hand you have the potato theory, and MB fails that one big time. Pension plan puppets, the eyes on the prize equivalent for the leafs did a slightly biased evaluation of their GM by comparing him to a potato, but the potato could re-sign players automatically with a given increase that I don't recall. MB, like the leafs GM, completely, absolutely, abjectly fails this, especially since it would have arbitarily given Radulov a small raise. On the other hand the potato would have given Markov a raise and he would have earned it in spite of what most people would have thought. In retrospect:

Give Radulov 7-8 million long term.
Give Markov 6 million plus short term (2 years, no problem).
Stay the hell away from Drouin and his huge contract.
Void as many MB trades as possible in retrospect.
Don't dump tons of defensemen, let the Knights take whoever but don't screw up your team. Beaulieu and Emelin were flawed but they had elite aspects. They were massively better then the third pairing guys who were pathetically put in to replace them.
The further back you go the better you end up because MB's significant trades suck and the significant ones absolutely bury the insignificant ones by definition. Dumping players to try to shed $4million in salary while you throw money at Drouin who does not make the team better (seriously, power play specialists are only worthwhile if you understand that they are power play specialists and avoid letting them get destroyed playing big minutes at even strength, like Dr Recchi, don't let them play against top two line players) overall.

</drunken rant>
I don't feel better. Like many others I've lost interest in the team. I really thought MT was brought in to tank. His first year he exceeded all expectations, why did he go back to what had made him fail consistently everywhere after that first year? Because he was a not very bright guy who played hocket quite well. Fine, he sucked at the NHL level but he was probably one of the top 5000 hockey players in the world. Does that mean he can coach? No. His big skill was hockey, not coaching. Find someone who may not be able to play like Gretzky but who knows how to coach. Do sprinter's coaches run/swim fast? Can tennis coaches play? Some people can study and coach without playing. Deep sigh.... If you are looking for intellectual ability don't look for it among the guys who dump Dougie Hamilton, a top 25-50 player, because he goes to museums on road trips instead of hooter's.
 

dcyhabs

Registered User
May 30, 2008
4,223
2,511
Montreal
You want a scout to hit on most of their 1st and 2nd round picks, but can you name 1 single scout scout that has even hit on 50% of their non-lottery 1st round picks and more than 30% of their 2nd round picks?

Timmins has hit on 80% of his lottery picks (Andrei Kostitsyn being his 1 miss, and even Kostitsyn imo could have been a solid 20 goal 50 point 3rd liner if better developed on and off the ice). Price, McDonagh, Galchenyuk, and Sergachev were great picks. Ak wasn't, that's 80%.

Timmins' record on non-lottery 1st rounders is going to be a lot better if (once) Scherbak and Juulsen establish themselves, and Poehling could put his record in elite company.

If Pacioretty, Juulsen, and Scherbak made it. Chipchura, Fischer, Leblanc, Tinordi, and Beaulieu didn't. That's 38%. 44% if Poehling makes it. I haven't compared with other teams in a while but that's damn good if I remember correctly. I also did an analysis of his 2nd rounders and he was in the top tier, if I remember correctly. I think his numbers will improve now that he's not going to be mandated to draft for size.
Is AK a miss? There were better players available but he was good. I always thought he had two problems:
1. Too much partying/playing hungover.
2. Pretty much every game he would get absolutely nailed with his head down. I suspect he was concussed every second or third game.

I really think he was getting concussed frequently. He would play solidly, but he would just get totally hammered quite often. Concussions just suck, and the way the NHL deals with them is total fantasy. Concussions massively reduce what people are capable of doing and pretty much completely change the personality of the victim even if they do everything right and go through the protocol. It's a really crappy thing, and it explains all the ex-atheletes who end up alone and broke in the gutter. Concussions just totally suck. I haven't had one but I've lived with people who have and it's just crap. There is no positive side. It totally, completely, sucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 26Mats

dcyhabs

Registered User
May 30, 2008
4,223
2,511
Montreal
Drafts are point in time... You draft the guys who look best at a certain moment. Then some of them plateau, some regress, and a few, like Subban, Benn, some other guys, improve every year and end up improving on their draft position.

Years ago sorting drafts by games played gave you about half first round players and half random, often rounds 7-11. The last few years you get a lot more high draft picks with just a few guys out of sequence. Just hitting Gallagher and Subban probably puts the habs at least at the midpoint. Doing more than that is tough, even without crappy GMs trading good picks. The Bruins and maybe the Oilers have traded very badly as well (Seguin, Hall, Hamilton...) and the Bruins have drafted well enough (Pasternak, McAvoy...) to recover.

The habs don't have a monopoly on stupidity. Most teams are dumb. But do we want to be "most teams?" We want to be better. Hire smart people, not ex-players.
 

dcyhabs

Registered User
May 30, 2008
4,223
2,511
Montreal
Don't drink and post... Deep sigh. I think this is more posts than I normally make in a month in less than an hour.

I honestly don't know how to evaluate drafts. Advanced stats after the fact? Even then how much of the results can be intelligently predicted and how much are luck?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->