Trevor Timmins Discussion Part III

[Habs]

Timmins has made some bad calls lately. Wonder if we changed scouts since his heyday?

There is no explanation as to why Eric Crawford and the entire Western scouting staff have jobs, they are that bad at what they do. Crawford was in the Canucks org for years and years, and of course the running joke was how he could never find talent in his own backyard, especially the WHL. So Montreal promotes him to Director of Pro Scouting of all things. As soon as Crawford was booted out of the Canucks, their drafted improved immensely in the West. He's a complete tool, but don't worry I'm sure he'll find a long and happy career in Montreal with zero expectations or accountability needed.

 

[Habs]

Trouba is not better than Galchenyuk...

Well I guess that's a matter of position and what you expect out of dmen as compared to forwards.

 

[HABitual Fan]

It's a little unfair to compare the draft selections to the guys drafted before since there was no opportunity to draft them (In that round).

I mentioned it to see if they actually got a better player than your pick and if they also missed drafting someone taken later much like when bergeron was drafted, hard to blame your scout when many other teams also missed on him as well.

 

[Whitesnake]

So you have Timmins' d core behind Carolina and the Preds, i.e. #3 in the NHL?

(you'd really take that Carolina dcore over a top 3 of Subban, McDonagh, and Sergachev, and then there's Streit, and a bottom pair of Juulsen and Mete - or put Beaulieu and Weber/Emelin until the kids are ready). Or just acquire bottom pairing dmen in the trade or UFA market. They're not that difficult to find. It's top pairing and top 4 dmen that have the real value.

What saves Trevor Timmins is his 2007 draft. 1 draft that we keep bringing up that gave us Subban, McDonagh and Pacioretty. A draft that is totally out of the ordinairy but yes...he had it anyway. What the other teams have been able to do was to draft guys from different years so that you could build depth. And not just depend of 1 year like we did with the 2007 draft. Besides...I hvae no idea what it gives us....the fact that he might be #3 in D. Where is he at C? Where is he at forwards? Where is he at power forward?

 

[Whitesnake]

Yes, although Timmins would take shots at small guys (Subban, Gallagher, Corey Locke) the way the game was played back then made it necessary to draft for size, hence the Tinordi pick, an attempt to get that "big, tough defenseman." We won't have to worry about that anymore. And, Bergevin openly stated that there would be more of an emphasis on size in drafting when he took over in 2012.

Timmins is his own boss. Bergevin could have told him that if he hesitates between 2 players, go with the big one. That, I could buy. But false that Timmins just caves in and just draft whoever Bergevin wants.

The famous the way the game was played back then, again, made Nashville pick Ellis. Made Ottawa pick that frail Erik Karlsson. Made LA pick Hickey. And enough with the going for size theory. IN 2010, the only BIG guy we picked was Tinordi. IN 2011, yep 3 guys at least with big bodies. Then in 2012, none? Unless you consider Vail a big guy? In 2013, 3 guys with Mac, DLR and Crips...but that's out of 8 guys. Was there really a FOCUS to add and concentrate on big guys??? Or just a normal percentage of it and that finally the big guys we picked just ended up....bad picks? Why is it so hard to understand that there are bad picks? He also added bad small frail picks too.....so why is it that his small players that are bad picks are his own....but the big ones aren't?

 

[ottawa]

Why is it so hard to understand that there are bad picks? He also added bad small frail picks too.....so why is it that his small players that are bad picks are his own....but the big ones aren't?

Because we have an anti-Bergevin narrative we have to push in every thread on this board it seems.

I just don't see Bergevin interfering in drafting, I mean, I know he's stupid but not enough to interfere with something so our of his expertise. I think our scouts have full reign on that, MB might point out our needs but that's it.

 

[montreal]

Timmins is his own boss. Bergevin could have told him that if he hesitates between 2 players, go with the big one. That, I could buy. But false that Timmins just caves in and just draft whoever Bergevin wants.

Bergevin is his boss. I'm not saying that MB tells Timmins what to do, but he is certainly his boss and if your boss says do something, you usually have to follow (as long as it's nothing illegal of course)

 

[Brainiac]

... and if your boss says do something, you usually have to follow (as long as it's nothing illegal of course)

Well, it depends on which line of work you're in...

 

[Whitesnake]

Bergevin is his boss. I'm not saying that MB tells Timmins what to do, but he is certainly his boss and if your boss says do something, you usually have to follow (as long as it's nothing illegal of course)

I will never believe that Bergevin told Timmins to draft Romanov. Or to draft Crisp. Or to draft Cayden Primeau. Bergevin scout when he has the time. Which is clearly not 1/10 of what he hired scouts for. Bergevin handles the GMing part. And then he hires people to do some other job that he can't. Again, you could choose to believe that Bergevin asks Timmins to concentrate on size....on speed....on character. But it's absolutely impossible that a guy who has been doing this job for 15 years now will do exactly what a newly appointed GM will tell him to do. Timmins without power is not with the Habs right now. He is still here 'cause he controls that part of his job. I'm just sure of it.

 

[26Mats]

Timmins is his own boss. Bergevin could have told him that if he hesitates between 2 players, go with the big one. That, I could buy. But false that Timmins just caves in and just draft whoever Bergevin wants.

The famous the way the game was played back then, again, made Nashville pick Ellis. Made Ottawa pick that frail Erik Karlsson. Made LA pick Hickey. And enough with the going for size theory. IN 2010, the only BIG guy we picked was Tinordi. IN 2011, yep 3 guys at least with big bodies. Then in 2012, none? Unless you consider Vail a big guy? In 2013, 3 guys with Mac, DLR and Crips...but that's out of 8 guys. Was there really a FOCUS to add and concentrate on big guys??? Or just a normal percentage of it and that finally the big guys we picked just ended up....bad picks? Why is it so hard to understand that there are bad picks? He also added bad small frail picks too.....so why is it that his small players that are bad picks are his own....but the big ones aren't?

Bergevin said he placed more of an emphasis on size and Timmins echoed this when asked if there was any change in his mandate since Bergevin took over: he said there's more of an emphasis on size. There's nothing to debate. Timmins is not his own boss. Bergevin is his boss.

 

[Whitesnake]

Bergevin said he placed more of an emphasis on size and Timmins echoed this when asked if there was any change in his mandate since Bergevin took over: he said there's more of an emphasis on size. There's nothing to debate. Timmins is not his own boss. Bergevin is his boss.

And yet it doesn't show in his actions. And McCagg, who is close to Timmins, said that Timmins is his own boss. Bergevin is his boss in a way that he keeps him employed. But to say that he tells him who to pick is ludicrous. Check Timmins record before and after Bergevin and you'll see that the size thing is invented as it didn't change one bit before and after.

 

[montreal]

I will never believe that Bergevin told Timmins to draft Romanov. Or to draft Crisp. Or to draft Cayden Primeau. Bergevin scout when he has the time. Which is clearly not 1/10 of what he hired scouts for. Bergevin handles the GMing part. And then he hires people to do some other job that he can't. Again, you could choose to believe that Bergevin asks Timmins to concentrate on size....on speed....on character. But it's absolutely impossible that a guy who has been doing this job for 15 years now will do exactly what a newly appointed GM will tell him to do. Timmins without power is not with the Habs right now. He is still here 'cause he controls that part of his job. I'm just sure of it.

Who said that MB told Timmins to draft Romanov? But you don't know what impact Churla or MB have, since he is Timmins boss. If MB says I want bigger tougher players and Churla says I like Crisp, who says that Timmins doesn't go with it. We just don't know what goes on behind the scenes. But we do know that MB is Timmins boss and you can't tell your boss to f*** off I'm not doing that and still have a job. Churla is the head scout so who knows how much pull he has now.

And yet it doesn't show in his actions. And McCagg, who is close to Timmins, said that Timmins is his own boss. Bergevin is his boss in a way that he keeps him employed. But to say that he tells him who to pick is ludicrous. Check Timmins record before and after Bergevin and you'll see that the size thing is invented as it didn't change one bit before and after.

I trust Grant when it comes to Timmins but I still wonder how much he knows about MB/Churla since he's not in the room. Like at the draft when they showed MB trading that 2nd round pick and the look on Timmins face as he wanted to pick Hillis. I doubt MB says pick Poehling over say Kostin, or Kotka over Boqvist but I wouldn't be surprised if he said we need to get guys that have the right attitude, character, size, physical/grinding game, etc.. At least between him and Churla who at least seem like they would favor that kind of player. It's kind of odd we don't hear more about Churla and his role/impact.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Romanov Alexander (d)

SOG 1

BLS 1

Hits 1

TOI (Shifts) 13:44(20)

TOA 03:56

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Ice time seems to be increasing. Making the KHL team and getting more and more ice time is a good sign. This is great for his development. The 2017 and 2018 drafts look to be very good for us! How many NHL player we get from these drafts? Poehling, Ikonen, Brook, Fleury, Primeau, Kotkanimei, Ylonen, Romanov, Olofsson, etc. Getting 2 NHL players from one draft is good. Getting 9 or more NHL players from two drafts is very good drafting!

 

[Hostile Offer]

Ice time seems to be increasing. Making the KHL team and getting more and more ice time is a good sign. This is great for his development. The 2017 and 2018 drafts look to be very good for us! How many NHL player we get from these drafts? Poehling, Ikonen, Brook, Fleury, Primeau, Kotkanimei, Ylonen, Romanov, Olofsson, etc. Getting 2 NHL players from one draft is good. Getting 9 or more NHL players from two drafts is very good drafting!

Don't get too far ahead yet. These kids are 18-19 years old, they still have lots of development to do although Kotkaniemi, Poehling, maybe Brook I would already count as locks to be NHLers.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Don't get too far ahead yet. These kids are 18-19 years old, they still have lots of development to do although Kotkaniemi, Poehling, maybe Brook I would already count as locks to be NHLers.

I'm willing to bet Poehling, Kotkaniemi, Primeau, Brook, Ylonen, Romanov are NHL players. As far as Fleury, Ikonen, Olofsson and some of the others in the last two drafts, I agree with you that it's early. However, I'm not just talking out of my ass. These last two drafts have a lot of NHL potential. 12 top 100 picks in two drafts is a big deal! Probability is working in our favor at producing NHL players. I have done my homework on top 100 picks and how they translate to NHL players. You can't ignore trends. There is a measuring factor of teams who had plenty of top 100 picks and how some of them translate into NHL players. Of course you can get lucky and snag a few outside of the top 100 but those are wild shot of darts. Most NHL players are generated in the first 3 rounds and the Habs had plenty in the last two drafts.

Look at the 2012-2016 draft (top 100 picks only). We had 18 top 100 picks in 5 drafts. NHL players from these draft years are Galchenyuk (Domi), DLR, Lehkonen, Scherbak, Juulsen, Sergachev (Drouin), Mete.... so far. Then there is still some others we don't know yet (Lernout, Vejdemo, Bitten). That's an average of 3.6 top 100 picks per year. We have 7 NHL players so far (Average of 1.4 NHL'er per year). This is on par to the NHL norm.

Now think about 12 top 100 picks in two drafts (an average of 6 per year). That is almost double of the average we had in the 5 previous draft years. If 3.6=1.4, then 6=2.33. There is no guarantees in life but the Habs will generate 5-10 NHL players in the last two draft years. Not talking about hope, I'm talking about probability based on the NHL trends in the last 10 drafts.

The real question is how many of these NHL players are top of the line-up vs bottom of the line-up potential.

 

[Whitesnake]

Don't get too far ahead yet. These kids are 18-19 years old, they still have lots of development to do although Kotkaniemi, Poehling, maybe Brook I would already count as locks to be NHLers.

True. Not that long ago, Tinordi was a surefire NHL'er. Leblanc also. Beaulieu a top 4. Things can change quite fast. What Primeau has done so far is remarkable. Yet...we were drooling over McNiven and Lindgren and now, it's relatively more quiet. Yes, you have to believe that Kotka, Brook and Poehling are surefire NHL'ers. But as of now, that's it.

 

[yianik]

Just to be clear, we dont need NHL players, we need top 6 forwards and top 3D men ( people say top 4 D but I think it is more top 3, because of skill needed to he top 3 ). If you get one such player a draft then you should be okay. Since 2012 we have had what, Chucky and Sergachev ( I assume ) as top players ? So that is 7 drafts and 2 guys. TT owes us about 5 more from drafted players in the system and team.

 

[Habs Halifax]

True. Not that long ago, Tinordi was a surefire NHL'er. Leblanc also. Beaulieu a top 4. Things can change quite fast. What Primeau has done so far is remarkable. Yet...we were drooling over McNiven and Lindgren and now, it's relatively more quiet. Yes, you have to believe that Kotka, Brook and Poehling are surefire NHL'ers. But as of now, that's it.

There is a NHL trend over the last 10 years when you measure the ability to generate NHL players with top 100 picks. If you have an average amount of top 100 picks, you generate 1-2 NHL players per draft. The average would be 3-4 top 100 picks. So lets say 3.5 top 100 picks = 1.5 NHL players per draft year.

Habs stand to generate 5-10 NHL players from the last two drafts. It's not hope like with Tinordi cause I'm looking more deeper than just hope on one player. What's funny is how people don't realize that we only have Gallagher from 4 years of drafting. Why? Some people think it has nothing to do with only 8 top 100 picks in those 4 years (2008-2011).

Of course there is exceptions to the rule, but the exception is not the rule

 

[Whitesnake]

There is a NHL trend over the last 10 years when you measure the ability to generate NHL players with top 100 picks. If you have an average amount of top 100 picks, you generate 1-2 NHL players per draft. The average would be 3-4 top 100 picks. So lets say 3.5 top 100 picks = 1.5 NHL players per draft year.

Habs stand to generate 5-10 NHL players from the last two drafts. It's not hope like with Tinordi cause I'm looking more deeper than just hope on one player. What's funny is how people don't realize that we only have Gallagher from 4 years of drafting. Why? Some people think it has nothing to do with only 8 top 100 picks in those 4 years (2008-2011).

Of course there is exceptions to the rule, but the exception is not the rule

Generating NHL'ers is not what makes a team good. Generating bottom 6'ers or bottom 2 on D or backup goalies will not help you win anything. You can acquire those guys. What you need to do through your draft is to get players you can't get anywhere else. Especially in Montreal when we are often on ND list or since UFA can't come here. The UFA that come here are the fillers.

From 2008 to 2011, Anaheim added Josh Manson and Sam Vatanen with picks after 100. Add what they were able to do with their picks before 100, add Rakell at 30, Karlsson at 53. Calgary: Ferland, Brodie et Gaudreau. WIth Picks 104, 113, 114. etc.

I really have no idea what the number of picks in the top 100 make Timmins unable to pick Justin Faulk instead of Tinordi. We had 5 picks in 2010. Amongst the less number of picks in a draft. Yet, we picked Gallagher. If we would not have picked Gallagher, we would have heard how it's impossible for him to draft somebody good because of lack of picks. But since we did pick Gallagher, we praise him.....Boston only had 5 picks in 2014. Only 2 top 100. Out of that draft.....they picked Pastrnak, Donato, Heinen and Bjork. They take whatever percentage peole want to throw at me...and just spit it out. Stop caring about percentages. Start caring about teams that change their team because of great drafting.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Generating NHL'ers is not what makes a team good. Generating bottom 6'ers or bottom 2 on D or backup goalies will not help you win anything. You can acquire those guys. What you need to do through your draft is to get players you can't get anywhere else. Especially in Montreal when we are often on ND list or since UFA can't come here. The UFA that come here are the fillers.

Yes, I already said this. The key is what these NHL players turn into. However, I rather have those top 100 picks we have vs just the average amount or below the average amount. Our probability of generating NHL players and some of them top of the line-up type players is very good.

You want to talk about false hope? Talk about the hope with the prospects from 2008-2011. That was false hope. We had a few 1st round busts and no chance at all cause the probability was very low based on the 100 picks we had. This is a huge black hole and affected us greatly for several yeas after. Not many are willing to admit this cause they hate Bergevin.

12 top 100 picks in the last two drafts is a big deal. Romanov is one of them. There will be surprises and their will be disappointments. However, probability is working in our favor. Think about how many players have the potential to crack the world juniors? When was the last time you saw this potential? Poehling, Brook, Ikonen, Primeau, Kotkaniemi, Romanov, Ylonen, Olofsson, Suzuki. Of course I don't think they all make the tournament for sure but at least half of them will IMO.

 

[Andrei79]

Yes, I already said this. The key is what these NHL players turn into. However, I rather have those top 100 picks we have vs just the average amount or below the average amount. Our probability of generating NHL players and some of them top of the line-up type players is very good.

You want to talk about false hope? Talk about the hope with the prospects from 2008-2011. That was false hope. We had a few 1st round busts and no chance at all cause the probability was very low based on the 100 picks we had. This is a huge black hole and affected us greatly. Not many are willing to admit this cause they hate Bergevin.

12 top 100 picks in the last two drafts is a big deal. Romanov is one of them. There will be surprises and their will be disappointments. However, probability is working in our favor.

The 2008 draft didn't force Bergevin to trade Sergachev for Drouin or Shaw for 2 high 2nds. That's what's been killing this team, having net losses in most of its big transactions.

Take Yzerman. He didn't like Drouin any more than Bergevin liked Galchenyuk. But, that doesn't mean he didn't value him. Proof ? He managed to add a conditional 2nd to the deal despite Drouin having a worse career than Galchy to that point. If he didn't like Galchenyuk, why didn't MB trade him after his 30 goal season for a kings ransom instead ? He's an awful GM, pointing to 2008 to 2011 is a copout considering 2007 got him a Norris winner and a top 10 scorer.

 

[Habs Halifax]

The 2008 draft didn't force Bergevin to trade Sergachev for Drouin or Shaw for 2 high 2nds. That's what's been killing this team, having net losses in most of its big transactions.

Take Yzerman. He didn't like Drouin any more than Bergevin liked Galchenyuk. But, that doesn't mean he didn't value him. Proof ? He managed to add a conditional 2nd to the deal despite Drouin having a worse career than Galchy to that point. If he didn't like Galchenyuk, why didn't MB trade him after his 30 goal season for a kings ransom instead ? He's an awful GM, pointing to 2008 to 2011 is a copout considering 2007 got him a Norris winner and a top 10 scorer.

This is not a measure of how good or bad Bergevin is. This is a measure of how many top 100 picks you have and your probability of generating NHL players and potential top of the line-up players over a certain span of years.

I'm not a Bergevin hater cause it's not my style to hate. However, my support for him has diminished for year to year since the Subban trade. If you threw him under the bus before me, congrats to you. I think he had a decent off season this year but those player for player trades scare me still. I think the minute we show signs of turning things around, Bergevin starts putting his fingers in the cooker jar again and it will be too early to start making all in moves.

With or without Bergevin, I choose patience! I am willing to go through at least 2 more tank years. I'm OK with trading Weber then Price but only if the return is solid. If a team calls and low balls an offer, I tell them to call me back when you are serious about acquiring a major asset.

 

[Whitesnake]

Yes, I already said this. The key is what these NHL players turn into. However, I rather have those top 100 picks we have vs just the average amount or below the average amount. Our probability of generating NHL players and some of them top of the line-up type players is very good.

You want to talk about false hope? Talk about the hope with the prospects from 2008-2011. That was false hope. We had a few 1st round busts and no chance at all cause the probability was very low based on the 100 picks we had. This is a huge black hole and affected us greatly for several yeas after. Not many are willing to admit this cause they hate Bergevin.

12 top 100 picks in the last two drafts is a big deal. Romanov is one of them. There will be surprises and their will be disappointments. However, probability is working in our favor. Think about how many players have the potential to crack the world juniors? When was the last time you saw this potential? Poehling, Brook, Ikonen, Primeau, Kotkaniemi, Romanov, Ylonen, Olofsson, Suzuki. Of course I don't think they all make the tournament for sure but at least half of them will IMO.

And then, in 2013, we had 6 top 86 picks...thank god for Lehkonen. And yet, That's bad for 6 top 86 picks. Yet...not only you need TONS of picks you need them in GREAT years. So what we need in Montreal, for the supposed best head scout in the biz, is exactly the same thing that everybody else needs. So yes, it's better to have more picks. And higher the better. Not sure people will contest that. But where teams show how great they are, is by not missing their top picks. And by finding gems elsewhere. We haven't done that enough. Yet, the last 2 picks are looking great. For sure.

 

[Habs Halifax]

And then, in 2013, we had 6 top 86 picks...thank god for Lehkonen. And yet, That's bad for 6 top 86 picks. Yet...not only you need TONS of picks you need them in GREAT years. So what we need in Montreal, for the supposed best head scout in the biz, is exactly the same thing that everybody else needs. So yes, it's better to have more picks. And higher the better. Not sure people will contest that. But where teams show how great they are, is by not missing their top picks. And by finding gems elsewhere. We haven't done that enough. Yet, the last 2 picks are looking great. For sure.

As I said before, there is exception to the rule but the exception is not the rule.

6 top 100 picks in 2013. We pretty much have DLR and Lehkonen. One top 6 potential and one bottom 6 potential. That is 2/6 on the top 100 picks which is below the norm (the trends are 1.5/3.5 ish). What are you trying to say? This will repeat itself in 2017 and 2018? Were never going to be above the norm and any draft year when it comes to top 100 picks and generating NHL players? Does that sound reasonable to you?

I'm willing to bet with you that the 2012 and 2013 draft years were below the norm and the 2017 and 2018 draft years will be above the norm. 11 top 100 picks in 2012/2013 vs 13 top 100 picks in 2017/2018. I'll test your memory... how many potential world junior players did we have in the 2013/2014 tournament? Were talking about Galchenyuk, Collberg, Hudon, McCarron, DLR, Fucale, Lehkonen, Ghetto, Reway vs Poehling, Kotkaniemi, Suzuki, Brook, Primeau, Ylonen, Romanov, Ikonen, Olofsson. Lets see how this turns out. Lets talk about this again in a few years when we know who makes it and who doesn't.

Galchenyuk vs Kotkaniemi
Fucale vs Primeau
Collberg vs Ikonen
McCarron vs Poehling
Lehkonen vs Suzuki
DLR vs Olofsson
Hudon, Ghetto, Reway vs Ylonen, Brook, Romanov
Thrower, Bozon, Fail, Crisp vs Fleury, Hillis, Harris, McShane

We generated 5 NHL players from the 2012 and 2013 draft years (Galchenyuk, Hudon, Lehkonen, DLR, Ghetto). Are you trying to tell us we only get 5 NHL players from the 2017 and 2018 draft years? 11 top 100 picks in 2012/2013 and 13 top 100 picks in 2017/2018. Very similar draft years in top 100 picks.

I repeat, there is exception to the rule but the exception is not the rule. There is for sure variance from year to year. Some years we will be on average, some will be below average, and some will be above. The key here is we gave ourselves a huge probability to be above average. The same kind of probability we gave ourselves in the 2012 and 2013 drafts. We were below average in the 2012/2013 draft years in hindsight, will we be below average in the 2017 and 2018 drafts?

Lets talk in a few years. I'll remember to bring it up when you are wrong and you can remember to bring it up when I am wrong

 

[Habs Halifax]

I think these two draft spans are very good comparables and interested to see what people think will be the better group of 2 years of drafting

2012 and 2013 Draft years:
- 11 top 100 picks
- 2012 top 100 picks were 3, 33, 51, 64, 94
- 2013 top 100 picks were 25, 34, 36, 55, 71, 86
- 5 NHL players in Galchenyuk, Hudon, Ghetto, DLR, Lehkonen

2017 and 2018 Draft Years:
- 13 top 100 picks (I included Suzuki... remove him if you wish to make it 12)
- 2017 top 100 picks were: 13, 25, 56, 58, 68, 87
- 2018 top 100 picks were: 3, 35, 38, 56, 66, 71, 97
- How many NHL players? We don't know yet

Including all the picks, this is my player for player comparables....

Galchenyuk vs Kotkaniemi
McCarron vs Poehling
Lehkonen vs Suzuki
Collberg vs Ikonen
Fucale vs Primeau
Hudon vs Ylonen
DLR vs Olofsson
Ghetto, Reway, Thrower, Bozon, Vail, Nystrom vs Brook, Fleury, Romanov, Hillis, Harris, McShane

What 2 year span produces more NHL players and how many top of the line-up vs bottom of the line players?