Trevor Timmins Discussion (Part IV)

[montreal]

at any rate, Beaulieu went for a 6th this year, and we got a 3rd (Walford) for him 2 years ago...

Yes, Walford still has potential - he might be our 1st successful 3rd round pick in the last 15 years (the Timmins era).

Emelin, Yannick Weber, Ryan O'Byrne, Ryan White. But Harris looks legit, man is he impressive.

 

[26Mats]

Emelin, Yannick Weber, Ryan O'Byrne, Ryan White. But Harris looks legit, man is he impressive.

I don't consider any of those picks successes. They are players that can be had on the waiver wire or cheap in UFA. Emelin is debatable. He was debatably a top 4 d in the old, more physical NHL.

But yes, I hope Harris is the first. And, Timmins has gotten many top 6 forwards, top 4 d, and number 1 goalies (i.e. non-dime a dozen players) after the 3rd round (Mete, Gallagher, Grabovski, etc...)

 

[montreal]

I don't consider any of those picks successes. They are players that can be had on the waiver wire or cheap in UFA. Emelin is debatable. He was debatably a top 4 d in the old, more physical NHL.

But yes, I hope Harris is the first. And, Timmins has gotten many top 6 forwards, top 4 d, and number 1 goalies (i.e. non-dime a dozen players) after the 3rd round (Mete, Gallagher, Grabovski, etc...)

Sorry but that's crazy, Emelin is 100% a draft success, I just don't see how he couldn't be. Even Weber with over 400 NHL games, White/O'Byrne over 300. For the 3rd round that's certainly solid imo, I know everyone has different standards but to me that's really high if you don't consider over 300 NHL games for a 3rd round pick as a draft success. To each their own as I can understand that they weren't impact players but imo you don't have to be an impact player to be a success. If they were 1st round picks it would be a bit different.

 

[26Mats]

Sorry but that's crazy, Emelin is 100% a draft success, I just don't see how he couldn't be. Even Weber with over 400 NHL games, White/O'Byrne over 300. For the 3rd round that's certainly solid imo, I know everyone has different standards but to me that's really high if you don't consider over 300 NHL games for a 3rd round pick as a draft success. To each their own as I can understand that they weren't impact players but imo you don't have to be an impact player to be a success. If they were 1st round picks it would be a bit different.

I only consider players that can't easily be obtained in the ufa market or via trade for late round picks to be successes. If Beaulieu were drafted in the 3rd round, would he be a success? He meets your criteria, but was traded for a 6th, sucks, and has a bad attitude. Why use a 3rd to later get a 6th?

Weber amd o'byrne were available on the ufa market. Why waste a 3rd on such player and play them before their prime when you can just get them in their prime for free?

Emelin is debatle in his prime because some say he was good un the old nhl. Others think he was a liability all along.

I would use 3rd round picks to try to draft players that can't be obtained for free. The success rate is very low, but better than wasting the pick on a caliber of player i can get for free.

 

[L4br3cqu3]

Sorry but that's crazy, Emelin is 100% a draft success, I just don't see how he couldn't be. Even Weber with over 400 NHL games, White/O'Byrne over 300. For the 3rd round that's certainly solid imo, I know everyone has different standards but to me that's really high if you don't consider over 300 NHL games for a 3rd round pick as a draft success. To each their own as I can understand that they weren't impact players but imo you don't have to be an impact player to be a success. If they were 1st round picks it would be a bit different.

Agreed, this is crazy talk, 3rd rounders ain't even expected to be NHLer to begin with.

 

[montreal]

I only consider players that can't easily be obtained in the ufa market or via trade for late round picks to be successes. If Beaulieu were drafted in the 3rd round, would he be a success? He meets your criteria, but was traded for a 6th, sucks, and has a bad attitude. Why use a 3rd to later get a 6th?

Weber amd o'byrne were available on the ufa market. Why waste a 3rd on such player and play them before their prime when you can just get them in their prime for free?

Emelin is debatle in his prime because some say he was good un the old nhl. Others think he was a liability all along.

I would use 3rd round picks to try to draft players that can't be obtained for free. The success rate is very low, but better than wasting the pick on a caliber of player i can get for free.

I don't agree with looking at it that way especially since we don't seem to fair so well in the UFA market and you usually have to overpay there. Just seems an odd way to look at it imo. Not that there is a great way to judge you bottom line guys.

I think you should use 3rd round picks on guys that will help you win hockey games. Beaulieu is a tough one, in one way he's a success, he made the NHL and stayed there, put up 29 pts one year. For a 1st rounder he's a disappointment, and of course there's the thought of what might have helped him be a little better if not developed so poorly by being rushed at 20 when he clearly didn't look ready and of course the AHL head coach getting the job despite never being a head coach. But that has been discussed to death. Then you have to look at the draft class overall. Aside from Klefbom, Rackell, Namestnikov, Danault, no one else has outproduced him. I could go either way here I guess, I can see why some wouldn't count him as a success and I can see why others would. If I had to pick I would lean towards success given everything.

 

[26Mats]

Agreed, this is crazy talk, 3rd rounders ain't even expected to be NHLer to begin with.

I wouldn't call your way of seeing it crazy talk, poor and flawed thinking.

I don't rate a 3rd rounder compared to other third rounders. Most of them suck. Why call a player a good pick when he sucks but is better than the majority of bad players?

I do rate a scout on whether he's able to get more top 9 forwards, top 4 d, and number 1 goalies, percentage wise, than his peers.

So a scout us better than his peers in the 3rd round if he can get a higher rate of "successes" as defined above, than his peers.

I dont care how many nhl games a scouts picks play. I care about the number of quality players he drafts, not dine a dozen players that can be obtained for free without fiving up a third.

 

[calder candidate]

I wouldn't call your way of seeing it crazy talk, poor and flawed thinking.

I don't rate a 3rd rounder compared to other third rounders. Most of them suck. Why call a player a good pick when he sucks but is better than the majority of bad players?

I do rate a scout on whether he's able to get more top 9 forwards, top 4 d, and number 1 goalies, percentage wise, than his peers.

So a scout us better than his peers in the 3rd round if he can get a higher rate of "successes" as defined above, than his peers.

I dont care how many nhl games a scouts picks play. I care about the number of quality players he drafts, not dine a dozen players that can be obtained for free without fiving up a third.

I rather have a scout that pick the best player available 5/7 time than the scout that take the best player available 3/7 time... if the 3/7 scout end up picking more impact player it is a better result but that is called luck.
You have to evaluate base on who was available... a guy can be a top 9 player and still be a terrible pick if there were a bunch of first liner pick after him and you can’t compare a guy that was pick in the 3rd to a guy pick in the 2nd because that player wasn’t available for the scout to pick so it isn’t the scout fault that pick wasn’t available to him...

 

[Lucky Luke]

Timmins lost me at David Fischer.

 

[calder candidate]

Timmins lost me at David Fischer.

Not going to find many people defending that pick... But I think I had a even bigger issue with Crisps

 

[Mrb1p]

I don't consider any of those picks successes. They are players that can be had on the waiver wire or cheap in UFA. Emelin is debatable. He was debatably a top 4 d in the old, more physical NHL.

But yes, I hope Harris is the first. And, Timmins has gotten many top 6 forwards, top 4 d, and number 1 goalies (i.e. non-dime a dozen players) after the 3rd round (Mete, Gallagher, Grabovski, etc...)

Emelin was 100% a 2nd pairing D for at least two or three years.

 

[26Mats]

Emelin was 100% a 2nd pairing D for at least two or three years.

He probably was in the old NHL, which is what era he was drafted for. So he probably is a success, i.e. top 4. Some will say once he wasn't plaing with Markov, like Komisarek, he got exposed. Honestly, it was so long ago, I'm not going to get into the debate. I just have vivid memiries of him inexplicably following the puck in the playoffs and leaving his side wide open for easy goals. Or bobbling the puck or getting stripped of the puck for goals and scoring chances.

 

[DAChampion]

Emelin is a successful third round draft pick.

 

[calder candidate]

He probably was in the old NHL, which is what era he was drafted for. So he probably is a success, i.e. top 4. Some will say once he wasn't plaing with Markov, like Komisarek, he got exposed. Honestly, it was so long ago, I'm not going to get into the debate. I just have vivid memiries of him inexplicably following the puck in the playoffs and leaving his side wide open for easy goals. Or bobbling the puck or getting stripped of the puck for goals and scoring chances.

I don’t think there a debate to be had... Emelin was a successful pick in is prime he would have been top 4 on 97% of the team, he had a better career than a lot of player pick before him, if you think he was that horrible it is because you didn’t have the same scrutiny with player on other team...

 

[Adam Michaels]

I only consider players that can't easily be obtained in the ufa market or via trade for late round picks to be successes. If Beaulieu were drafted in the 3rd round, would he be a success? He meets your criteria, but was traded for a 6th, sucks, and has a bad attitude. Why use a 3rd to later get a 6th?

At some point, where you were selected in the draft is no longer relevant. Beaulieu was a 1st round pick that was traded for a 3rd round pick 5 years after he started his pro career. He then was traded for a 6th round pick in his 7th season.

The same can be said in reverse. Gallagher was a 5th round pick. Where he was selected is no longer relevant. He can easily get a 1st round pick right now, if not more.

 

[calder candidate]

I only consider players that can't easily be obtained in the ufa market or via trade for late round picks to be successes. If Beaulieu were drafted in the 3rd round, would he be a success? He meets your criteria, but was traded for a 6th, sucks, and has a bad attitude. Why use a 3rd to later get a 6th?

Weber amd o'byrne were available on the ufa market. Why waste a 3rd on such player and play them before their prime when you can just get them in their prime for free?

Emelin is debatle in his prime because some say he was good un the old nhl. Others think he was a liability all along.

I would use 3rd round picks to try to draft players that can't be obtained for free. The success rate is very low, but better than wasting the pick on a caliber of player i can get for free.

If Beaulieu would have been drafted in the 3rd rd he would have been a success since most 3rd rd don’t do anything if your getting a pick back vs. nothing for all other team it a win...

 

[26Mats]

If Beaulieu would have been drafted in the 3rd rd he would have been a success since most 3rd rd don’t do anything if your getting a pick back vs. nothing for all other team it a win...

As i said, most 3rd rounders don't become top 4 d, top 9 forwards, or number 1 goalies. Thats all i want from the draft. The rest can be had easily in the ufa market, the trade market for very cheap, or the waiver wire.

I'd rather have 1 brayden point than 100 beaulieu's.

The fact that beaulieu is better than 90% or whatever percent of 3rd round picks since 95% or whatever percent don't become anything that can't be obtained for free. Ultimately he's someone that could have been obtained for free, or almost free. That's what he is. A good try, so in that sense a good pick, a better pick than most, but still doesn't cut it. I only vare about the players that cut it. The rest are failed picks. And as i said 95 percent of 3rd round picks will be failures. Its just the nature of picks after the 2nd round.

Gallagher was a great 5th round pick, because he's top 6, in fact first line.

Halak was a great late puck because he was a number one goalie for a while and got us eller, who got us Shaw.

Mete's a great late pick because he looks top 4.

Same with Streit.

Grabovski was a great 5th round pick because he was top 6 before his concussion problems and got us a 2nd which gainey used on Lang for an anticipated cup run in the centennial year.


The reason these were great picks is because they led to top 4 d. Top 9 forwards or number 1 goalies. Not because they were ahlers, or waiver wire players or 4th liners that were better than all the other ahlers picked after them.

 

[26Mats]

At some point, where you were selected in the draft is no longer relevant. Beaulieu was a 1st round pick that was traded for a 3rd round pick 5 years after he started his pro career. He then was traded for a 6th round pick in his 7th season.

The same can be said in reverse. Gallagher was a 5th round pick. Where he was selected is no longer relevant. He can easily get a 1st round pick right now, if not more.

Thats a different conversation than the one we're having. We're discussing what makes a successful 3rd round pick.

I only think a very small percentage are successful, because i define success as a player that couldn't just as easily be obtained on the waiver wire, the ufa market, or a trade for a late round pick - i.e. without using a 3rd round pick.

 

[Adam Michaels]

Thats a different conversation than the one we're having. We're discussing what makes a successful 3rd round pick.

Ah!

I only think a very small percentage are successful, because i define success as a player that couldn't just as easily be obtained on the waiver wire, the ufa market, or a trade for a late round pick - i.e. without using a 3rd round pick.

Shouldn't this question be asked for any player selected in any round? Even a first round pick is successful if they can't be easily obtained through the means you mentioned.

If a first round pick from one year is on the second line with a third round pick from another year, does that make the first rounder a failure or the third rounder a success?

 

[26Mats]

Ah!



Shouldn't this question be asked for any player selected in any round? Even a first round pick is successful if they can't be easily obtained through the means you mentioned.

If a first round pick from one year is on the second line with a third round pick from another year, does that make the first rounder a failure or the third rounder a success?

yes and no, imo.

Ultimately, imo, you want to get as many top 6/9 forwards, top 4 d, and number one goalies out of the draft because those players aren't easily obtainable on the waiver wire, ufa market, or trade market for very late round picks. So if you shank your 1st round pick but light up your 3rd round pick (ex: Brayden point), ultimately who cares what round you got the good player in.

But, you would expect a higher percentage in the first round than the 2nd round, and than the 3rd round, etc...

And, in a particular draft you may find a top 9 forward, but there were so many other good players available after him, that it's hard to consider the pick a success (example Andrei Kostitsyn). Galchenyuk may enter that category depending on where his career along with Rielly, Dumba, Forsberg, Terravainen etc... go.

And, Timmins always says with top 5 picks he considers a success a top line forward, a top pair d or am elite number 1 goalie.

I'm just dead against considering picks like O'byrne successes because he's better than 95% of 3rd round picks. Ultimately he wasn't very useful, so he, like 95% of other 3rd round picks, was failure.

 

[1909]

He's not quite ready for NA anyway so I'm fine with this. I want him to go injury free next year and really establish himself as a top guy in the Liiga.

Maybe Habs should spend more time finding kids in the Q like Barré-Boulet, Batherson and Huntingdon.....

 

[sandviper]

Maybe Habs should spend more time finding kids in the Q like Barré-Boulet, Batherson and Huntingdon.....

I would imagine they have more scouts and spend more time in the Q than scouting Europe. Geographically close and likely cheaper for them to invest in scouting-wise but I guess they don't feel strongly about who they see or they see more upside in players outside the Q.

In fairness, Montreal isn't the only one not drafting a lot from the Q. 8 were drafted in the first 2 rounds last year which I think is pretty good, but only 15 in the last 5 rounds. Obviously, the 3 you mentioned specifically, it sucks Montreal couldn't get them, but neither did 30 other teams (taking into account 1 player per team).

 

[Agalloch]

I would imagine they have more scouts and spend more time in the Q than scouting Europe. Geographically close and likely cheaper for them to invest in scouting-wise but I guess they don't feel strongly about who they see or they see more upside in players outside the Q.

In fairness, Montreal isn't the only one not drafting a lot from the Q. 8 were drafted in the first 2 rounds last year which I think is pretty good, but only 15 in the last 5 rounds. Obviously, the 3 you mentioned specifically, it sucks Montreal couldn't get them, but neither did 30 other teams (taking into account 1 player per team).

Habs offered contracts to Barré-Boulet and Huntingdon and they chose Tampa Bay instead.

 

[1909]

I would imagine they have more scouts and spend more time in the Q than scouting Europe. Geographically close and likely cheaper for them to invest in scouting-wise but I guess they don't feel strongly about who they see or they see more upside in players outside the Q.

In fairness, Montreal isn't the only one not drafting a lot from the Q. 8 were drafted in the first 2 rounds last year which I think is pretty good, but only 15 in the last 5 rounds. Obviously, the 3 you mentioned specifically, it sucks Montreal couldn't get them, but neither did 30 other teams (taking into account 1 player per team).

TB, the best team in the whole NHL, don't shy away from the Q....

 

[sandviper]

TB, the best team in the whole NHL, don't shy away from the Q....

Which is why they went to TB... best team.