Trevor Timmins Discussion (Part V)

Status
Not open for further replies.

montreal

Go Habs Go
Mar 21, 2002
57,329
39,839
www.youtube.com
The 12-15 period is the one that is shameful as they had plenty of picks and drafted high at least one year.

It's look like the '12 draft was just a bad year to suck and have a top pick. 1 player from that draft has over 300 pts to date although Galchenyuk's next point he will hit the 300 mark as well. Only 5 players from that draft class have over 200 pts, Forsberg, Galchenyuk, Hertl, Rielly, TT, At the same time though they needed to do a better job then Galchenyuk, 39 pts from Hudon and trading Collberg for Vanek.

That '13 draft looks a good bit better as you have MacKinnon at over 400 pts, with Barkov and Monahan getting close and 9 players already over the 200 pt mark. So a better class then '12 but still not looking so hot. The Habs f***ed up and Timmins admitted such when they went for need in size. It was the first draft for Churla as well. McCarron, DLR, Crisp, 3 top 71 picks used to get bigger which was just stupid. Now the only hope left is that Leks finds a way to score more and that maybe one day McCarron can be as good as DLR who they just gave away for nothing cause they weren't smart enough to see putting Pleks on waivers a week sooner would mean they get to keep their 2nd round pick that they rushed to the NHL at 19 for some stupid reason.

'14 they had just 1 pick in the top 72 but while Scherbak was a risky pick that they either didn't do their homework on or misjudged him as he never seemed to be mature enough to take his career seriously but Lernout and Koberstein were more of the big body mistakes I'm guessing. I have liked Hawkey and Evans so we'll see if they ever do anything as late round picks but good gambles there.

'15 just 5 picks and just 1 in the top 85, f***ing brutal. After going high risk in Scherbak they went safe in Juulsen which i think he can be a decent bottom pairing D but missing on Aho stings and even the local kid Beauvillier would have been a decent pick up. Vejdemo is starting to show something as a possible bottom liner but still he turns 24 in Jan so we'll see if he can turn into anything or not.

Tkachuk was the BPA, at least for a lot of people.

I had Quinn Hughes over Tkachuk based off their NCAA play since that's the league I watch the most after the AHL. Hughes is lighting it up and with how good Timmins has been at picking blueliners I thought he might go that route although who knows what kind of pressure MB put on him to get him a center since he wasn't able to do it himself cause trades are hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tinyzombies

Habs

We should have drafted Michkov
Feb 28, 2002
20,946
14,144
It's look like the '12 draft was just a bad year to suck and have a top pick. 1 player from that draft has over 300 pts to date although Galchenyuk's next point he will hit the 300 mark as well. Only 5 players from that draft class have over 200 pts, Forsberg, Galchenyuk, Hertl, Rielly, TT, At the same time though they needed to do a better job then Galchenyuk, 39 pts from Hudon and trading Collberg for Vanek.

That '13 draft looks a good bit better as you have MacKinnon at over 400 pts, with Barkov and Monahan getting close and 9 players already over the 200 pt mark. So a better class then '12 but still not looking so hot. The Habs ****ed up and Timmins admitted such when they went for need in size. It was the first draft for Churla as well. McCarron, DLR, Crisp, 3 top 71 picks used to get bigger which was just stupid. Now the only hope left is that Leks finds a way to score more and that maybe one day McCarron can be as good as DLR who they just gave away for nothing cause they weren't smart enough to see putting Pleks on waivers a week sooner would mean they get to keep their 2nd round pick that they rushed to the NHL at 19 for some stupid reason.

'14 they had just 1 pick in the top 72 but while Scherbak was a risky pick that they either didn't do their homework on or misjudged him as he never seemed to be mature enough to take his career seriously but Lernout and Koberstein were more of the big body mistakes I'm guessing. I have liked Hawkey and Evans so we'll see if they ever do anything as late round picks but good gambles there.

'15 just 5 picks and just 1 in the top 85, ****ing brutal. After going high risk in Scherbak they went safe in Juulsen which i think he can be a decent bottom pairing D but missing on Aho stings and even the local kid Beauvillier would have been a decent pick up. Vejdemo is starting to show something as a possible bottom liner but still he turns 24 in Jan so we'll see if he can turn into anything or not.



I had Quinn Hughes over Tkachuk based off their NCAA play since that's the league I watch the most after the AHL. Hughes is lighting it up and with how good Timmins has been at picking blueliners I thought he might go that route although who knows what kind of pressure MB put on him to get him a center since he wasn't able to do it himself cause trades are hard.

Man, I loved Quinn Hughes, don't even get me started.
 

Habs Halifax

Loyal Habs Fan
Jul 11, 2016
68,166
25,918
East Coast
It is very nice but I think some of these range are too large their should be a pretty big difference in value if your drafting 32 or 75 and there’s should be a quite as big from drafting 31 to 32 also you have do you assign a value top9 depth to each player even if there isn’t any bias must be a pretty long process or is it a formula.

It still is applied equally to all teams and I did work with various different formulas with not much movement in team rankings. Some teams moved maximum 3 spots. You have to realize how many levels of categories are factored in with different values set for each. I kept finding the results of team rankings didn’t change much when I tried like 10 different formulas

The formula you see and rankings from it verify what most believe. What team do you think don’t fit and should be much higher or lower? You tell me
 

calder candidate

Registered User
Feb 25, 2003
4,696
2,594
Montreal
Visit site
It still is applied equally to all teams and I did work with various different formulas with not much movement in team rankings. Some teams moved maximum 3 spots. You have to realize how many levels of categories are factored in with different values set for each. I kept finding the results of team rankings didn’t change much when I tried like 10 different formulas

The formula you see and rankings from it verify what most believe. What team do you think don’t fit and should be much higher or lower? You tell me

I’m not saying that the ranking is wrong.
It just that if a team pick at 32 can you really compare to someone who picks at 75th and say that is the same value, odds of hitting at 75th are a lot lower. even if the ranking still hold up, your ranking probably always going to hold up since there rarely 75 players that have a impact or NHL career all team that pick over ~50th to 75th are getting punish for not hitting when they don’t really have a same shot at hitting but since there so many it even out...
Sometime if you over fit you model so the the result exactly match the set of data you have it doesn’t have the same accuracy with future set of data.
 

Whitesnake

If you rebuild, they will come.
Jan 5, 2003
89,202
36,190
Well, you won't be able to change my mind if you can't find a specific point in time to compare to. Naming random names spread over a range of time won't cut it for me.

I'm fully aware of what you are trying to say with the bust/hit/hope factors. What I am trying to tell you is we have both quality and quantity today with several trending very well. That's high degree of probability that we have prospects who turn into impact players vs busting or disappointing. I don't believe we have had this kind of prospect pool in decades. We have had good prospects before but with both quality & quantity? Doubt that

Look at Hillis vs Leblanc for example. Are they not similar in terms of hope? Or who would you say compares better to Leblanc when he was trending at his best would be today? Poehling? Or would Teasdale be similar to Leblanc? Who from the past would have a season like Teasdale as a 19 year old and the playoffs he had?
Well, you won't be able to change my mind if you can't find a specific point in time to compare to. Naming random names spread over a range of time won't cut it for me.

I'm fully aware of what you are trying to say with the bust/hit/hope factors. What I am trying to tell you is we have both quality and quantity today with several trending very well. That's high degree of probability that we have prospects who turn into impact players vs busting or disappointing. I don't believe we have had this kind of prospect pool in decades. We have had good prospects before but with both quality & quantity? Doubt that

Look at Hillis vs Leblanc for example. Are they not similar in terms of hope? Or who would you say compares better to Leblanc when he was trending at his best would be today? Poehling? Or would Teasdale be similar to Leblanc? Who from the past would have a season like Teasdale as a 19 year old and the playoffs he had?

But it's not a question of changing people"s mind. We ALL (100%) want a prospect to play great no matter the level. It's just a question of who has arrived compared to might arrive. To this day, the Mete pick is a better pick than Romanov. Because one has arrived. But yes, while the Mete pick TODAY is a better pick...OF COURSE does the Romanov pick has a MUCH greatest potential. Not even close.

But my main point was this...how people ALREADY state how our scouts were right...when most of them have proven zilch at the pro level? My only point. Nothing about potential. Nothing about loving or not the kids that are playing great at their level.

'CAuse no matter what Teasdale has done at his level, NOBODY will ever mistake him for a top 6 player. Won't happen. Teasdale looked better at the Mem Cup than Suzuki did.....it should tell a whole lot....
 

Habs Halifax

Loyal Habs Fan
Jul 11, 2016
68,166
25,918
East Coast
But it's not a question of changing people"s mind. We ALL (100%) want a prospect to play great no matter the level. It's just a question of who has arrived compared to might arrive. To this day, the Mete pick is a better pick than Romanov. Because one has arrived. But yes, while the Mete pick TODAY is a better pick...OF COURSE does the Romanov pick has a MUCH greatest potential. Not even close.

But my main point was this...how people ALREADY state how our scouts were right...when most of them have proven zilch at the pro level? My only point. Nothing about potential. Nothing about loving or not the kids that are playing great at their level.

Sure, they are nothing until they are something type thinking? I get that and I fully expect to see some bust surprises. But I also expect to see some postive surprises like Fleury this year too. I'm talking about having both quality and quantity and how this helps our probability of hitting. I have not seen this type of prospect pool in decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jaffy27

Kriss E

Registered User
May 3, 2007
55,329
20,272
Jeddah
Sure, they are nothing until they are something type thinking? I get that and I fully expect to see some bust surprises. But I also expect to see some postive surprises like Fleury this year too. I'm talking about having both quality and quantity and how this helps our probability of hitting. I have not seen this type of prospect pool in decades.

The quality so far has been rather...meh. It isn't high end. Our best bet at that as it stands is KK and he seems to be playing on planet Mars right now.
Poehling and Brook, they need to be better in the AHL. Fleury, ya pretty decent..good depth guy, plays well in his zone, can lay the body, very little to his offensive game.
Suzuki is playing well, that's good. How far will that go...don't know. KK was doing quite well last year too...

Timmins' specialty back a decade ago...people were discussing how he's the best at bringing in NHL level talent. In terms of elite quality though...that's way more rare. Our current crop seems to follow that trend.
Habs fans are all excited about this group of prospects but really...nothing about the current core and upcoming prospects gives me confidence that they will even be better than the previous group to reach the ECF.

You cannot start a rebuild without having elite talent. The only one we have is Price. The rest is average to good in terms of raw talent. That isn't going to cut it. Not sure how many times we need to go through this for people to catch on...it's pretty lame.
 

Whitesnake

If you rebuild, they will come.
Jan 5, 2003
89,202
36,190
Sure, they are nothing until they are something type thinking? I get that and I fully expect to see some bust surprises. But I also expect to see some postive surprises like Fleury this year too. I'm talking about having both quality and quantity and how this helps our probability of hitting. I have not seen this type of prospect pool in decades.

You don't agree? That they are nothing till they are something? Leblanc was something. Tinordi was something. Beaulieu was something.

I did personnally state that this pool seemed to be the best quality/quantity ratio we've had in a long time. Absolutely. But let's look at what we have right now.....First, we pretty much agree that before 2016, we are not talking about that. Yes, maybe Vejdemo will have a chance. Never believed Evans would...but I remember not that long ago how Evans was the best invention after the wheel.....But we can say how great this pool is because of the last 3 drafts no? So 2017, Poehling will be a NHL'er. Remains to be seen what kind of ceiling he has. Who else do we have Brook, Ikonen, Primeau, Fleury. Fleury is a NHL'er. Top 4? We don't know. But surely NHL'er. And Primeau looks incredible. Surely potential No1....he is in thei pros and shows what he can do in the pros. Brook and Ikonen...possible that people have to revise their opinion on Brook? And Ikonen well bad luck might mean that this kid will never be what we anticipated him to be.

2018: Who in that list not only assures you that they are NHL'ers...but will play a key role? KK. Yep. Who else? As great as Jordan Harris is doing....Can people most definatley think is a surefire NHL'er that will play a top 4 role in the NHL? Is the resurgence of Samuel Houde D+2 means that he's now a potential top 6 NHL? Still I think that while 2017 has the greatest chance to give us quality...2018 might give us quantity....but top 6/top4D? That so remains to be seen. 2019? Well I personnally after not a lot of faith in the last 4 picks. With Caufield, Struble and Norlinder as the potential gamebreakers and playing top roles. Yet again, that so remains to be seen.

So yes, lot of potential. Because of the tons of picks we had. So in the end what Timmins did is do better when he has more picks to choose from....something every head scout will do if given a chance.

I know that at one point, when Timmins came in from 2003 to 2007, it was seen really as deep in quality than in quantity. Strange that nobody remembers what 2006 looked like when the picks were made.....Ben Maxwell and Ryan White who we picked at 49 and 66 was seen by a LOT of mock drafts as surefire 1st rounders. Then Timmins came in with his Valentenko vs Emelin comparison. And Fischer was that tall puckmoving d-man we were waiting for so long. So even if it was never my point, I would say that around 2007 when McDonagh fell to us, it was starting to look damn good as a prospect pool.
 

Habs Halifax

Loyal Habs Fan
Jul 11, 2016
68,166
25,918
East Coast
You don't agree? That they are nothing till they are something? Leblanc was something. Tinordi was something. Beaulieu was something.

I did personnally state that this pool seemed to be the best quality/quantity ratio we've had in a long time. Absolutely. But let's look at what we have right now.....First, we pretty much agree that before 2016, we are not talking about that. Yes, maybe Vejdemo will have a chance. Never believed Evans would...but I remember not that long ago how Evans was the best invention after the wheel.....But we can say how great this pool is because of the last 3 drafts no? So 2017, Poehling will be a NHL'er. Remains to be seen what kind of ceiling he has. Who else do we have Brook, Ikonen, Primeau, Fleury. Fleury is a NHL'er. Top 4? We don't know. But surely NHL'er. And Primeau looks incredible. Surely potential No1....he is in thei pros and shows what he can do in the pros. Brook and Ikonen...possible that people have to revise their opinion on Brook? And Ikonen well bad luck might mean that this kid will never be what we anticipated him to be.

2018: Who in that list not only assures you that they are NHL'ers...but will play a key role? KK. Yep. Who else? As great as Jordan Harris is doing....Can people most definatley think is a surefire NHL'er that will play a top 4 role in the NHL? Is the resurgence of Samuel Houde D+2 means that he's now a potential top 6 NHL? Still I think that while 2017 has the greatest chance to give us quality...2018 might give us quantity....but top 6/top4D? That so remains to be seen. 2019? Well I personnally after not a lot of faith in the last 4 picks. With Caufield, Struble and Norlinder as the potential gamebreakers and playing top roles. Yet again, that so remains to be seen.

So yes, lot of potential. Because of the tons of picks we had. So in the end what Timmins did is do better when he has more picks to choose from....something every head scout will do if given a chance.

I know that at one point, when Timmins came in from 2003 to 2007, it was seen really as deep in quality than in quantity. Strange that nobody remembers what 2006 looked like when the picks were made.....Ben Maxwell and Ryan White who we picked at 49 and 66 was seen by a LOT of mock drafts as surefire 1st rounders. Then Timmins came in with his Valentenko vs Emelin comparison. And Fischer was that tall puckmoving d-man we were waiting for so long. So even if it was never my point, I would say that around 2007 when McDonagh fell to us, it was starting to look damn good as a prospect pool.

You don't have to believe me but I was not high on Leblanc, Tinordi, and Beaulieu like you think I am. Grouping me into the popular bandwagon is not fair. Don't you understand by now, I'm not afraid to go against the grain and I don't like popular band wagons or herds of sheep? What makes you think I had a different line of thinking back when and I was not on these boards?

- Leblanc's hope at the best is close to who today? More like Teasdale, Hudon, Hillis types. Or maybe Oloffson and Ikonen types.

- Tinordi's hope at the best is close to who today? More like Struble type.

- Beaulieu's hope at the best is close to who today? More like Brook and Juulsen.

- Gallagher is like who before NHL? That one is hard for me cause I don't think we have someone like him. His goal scoring ability in the WHL was very very good!

I feel like I have keep repeating myself though... I'm talking about how our prospect pool has both quality and quantity and this improves our probability. For every guy you can cherry pick from the past, I can show you 2 guys to compare them too. Why? Cause our draft power has been very high in the last 3 drafts and the trends with draft +1 and +2 look very good!
 

Whitesnake

If you rebuild, they will come.
Jan 5, 2003
89,202
36,190
You don't have to believe me but I was not high on Leblanc, Tinordi, and Beaulieu like you think I am. Grouping me into the popular bandwagon is not fair. Don't you understand by now, I'm not afraid to go against the grain and I don't like popular band wagons or herds of sheep? What makes you think I had a different line of thinking back when and I was not on these boards?

- Leblanc's hope at the best is close to who today? More like Teasdale, Hudon, Hillis types. Or maybe Oloffson and Ikonen types.

- Tinordi's hope at the best is close to who today? More like Struble type.

- Beaulieu's hope at the best is close to who today? More like Brook and Juulsen.

- Gallagher is like who before NHL? That one is hard for me cause I don't think we have someone like him. His goal scoring ability in the WHL was very very good!

I feel like I have keep repeating myself though... I'm talking about how our prospect pool has both quality and quantity and this improves our probability. For every guy you can cherry pick from the past, I can show you 2 guys to compare them too. Why? Cause our draft power has been very high in the last 3 drafts and the trends with draft +1 and +2 look very good!

Just like I have to repeat myself than my sole and only point was NOT to say that our prospect pool isn't good or is not interesting, but solely that you cannot put them in the ARRIVED category. We will praise the scouting group when they will play key role with the NHL team. Right now, we can TOTALLY be loving to see the kind of development our kids are in and loving every second of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tighthead

V13

Fire Sell Tank
Sep 21, 2005
13,922
1,806
M1 Habsram
He only drafted 1 dman in the 2nd round since Subban in 2007 all the way until Brook in 2017, and that was Thrower. Thrower along with Matthieu Carle are his only two D Busts in the 2nd round in 17 years.

It's looking real good for Romanov, Brook, Struble, in the 2nd, and Mete, Fleury and Norlinder after the 2nd. All 6 of those players are looking much better than Carke and Thrower post draft.

It's too bad i was quite high on Thrower, I thought the guy had the right mix of mobility and grit with some decent offensive upside. Also able to play with a chip on his shoulder I though we would have a Dietz - Thrower pairing on the team at some point Turn out i was dead wrong. The guy has been mostly an ECHLer post junior. Dietz busted too
 
  • Like
Reactions: 26Mats

danyhabsfan

Registered User
Feb 12, 2007
8,222
3,032
Montreal
It's too bad i was quite high on Thrower, I thought the guy had the right mix of mobility and grit with some decent offensive upside. Also able to play with a chip on his shoulder I though we would have a Dietz - Thrower pairing on the team at some point Turn out i was dead wrong. The guy has been mostly an ECHLer post junior. Dietz busted too


both are RD I think?
 

26Mats

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
31,736
24,115
It's too bad i was quite high on Thrower, I thought the guy had the right mix of mobility and grit with some decent offensive upside. Also able to play with a chip on his shoulder I though we would have a Dietz - Thrower pairing on the team at some point Turn out i was dead wrong. The guy has been mostly an ECHLer post junior. Dietz busted too

He was a mix of toughness and skill - just not NHL caliber...
 

Tanknation

Registered User
Feb 24, 2012
3,028
3,344
I don't care what anyone says when they try defending this awful scouting staff. Timmins and the scouts are garbage, and have been every year but that one year. When you produce Fleury, a top 4, in the past 5 years or more you don't deserve to have a job here. Even if Caufield pans out, Timmins does not deserve any credit as 99% of people on these boards would have picked him. Should we pay them millions? I bet if you take random peoples choices on these boards in past 8 years, they would have done a better job in regards to selection than this current staff. In fact, habs should do just that, they are wasting thier money on this useless scouting staff. We are not strapped in a cap world when it comes to scouts. Montreal should have elite scouting staff. I won't get into management as that is putrid as well and another story...
 
Last edited:

CauZuki

Registered User
Feb 19, 2008
12,289
12,110
It's way too early to say a 19 year old (who produced at 0.5 ppg over his 18 year old season) was the wrong pick.
It takes time for 6'3/6'4 youngstere with a thin build to fill out , it will take time but it's clear as day he has elite passing IQ.
All of his hesitating today can be explained by a young player attempting not to make mistakes.
Or are we thinking that Kotkaniemi won't evolve and has peaked at 18?

Some people here are just too much for me...
 
Last edited:

Hins77

Registered User
Apr 2, 2013
3,819
3,390
Imo, the fact that this player is younger than the other should be not a major factor for selecting or not a player. I mean, its pretty hard to evaluate a progression curve. How can you justify that this guy (tkachuk) will get a shorter progression than Kotkaniemi because he is 10 month older? You just have to take the best player thats it. Timmins seems to put a lot of emphasis on who is the youngest
 

Habs Halifax

Loyal Habs Fan
Jul 11, 2016
68,166
25,918
East Coast
Imo, the fact that this player is younger than the other should be not a major factor for selecting or not a player. I mean, its pretty hard to evaluate a progression curve. How can you justify that this guy (tkachuk) will get a shorter progression than Kotkaniemi because he is 10 month older? You just have to take the best player thats it. Timmins seems to put a lot of emphasis on who is the youngest

The age thing does matter but to what extent? Hard to predict hunger to improve and develop accurately.

BPA? There was like 5 of them when we picked 3rd. More like BP'sA in that situation. Caufield is an example of BPA IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gains

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
73,927
42,989
Galchenyuk was the right pick.
Kotkaniemi was the right pick.

Both looked great until the coaches got into the act.
 

Habs Halifax

Loyal Habs Fan
Jul 11, 2016
68,166
25,918
East Coast
I don't care what anyone says when they try defending this awful scouting staff. Timmins and the scouts are garbage, and have been every year but that one year. When you produce Fleury, a top 4, in the past 5 years or more you don't deserve to have a job here. Even if Caufield pans out, Timmins does not deserve any credit as 99% of people on these boards would have picked him. Should we pay them millions? I bet if you take random peoples choices on these boards in past 8 years, they would have done a better job in regards to selection than this current staff. In fact, habs should do just that, they are wasting thier money on this useless scouting staff. We are not strapped in a cap world when it comes to scouts. Montreal should have elite scouting staff. I won't get into management as that is putrid as well and another story...

- 08-11 Drafts was on par with drafting power vs results. We ranked near dead last with drafting power and the NHL production also ranks dead last.

- 12-15 Drafts was not on par with drafting power vs results. Drafting power was mid pack and results are bottom of the pack. Timmins is certainly open to criticism for those years.

- 16-19 Drafts are too early to know but our drafting power was top 10 and the results so far is also top 7.

Context is important if you want to do a fair evaluation. I posted the research to support my opinion in previous pages (post 682). It holes much more value cause we get to see where we fall with all teams using the same rules applied to each team equally
 

Koivu11

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
May 4, 2004
5,242
16,317
Since 2014 we only have 3 picks outside of the first round who have played some games in the NHL: Lernout, Mete and Fleury. Sad.
 

26Mats

Registered User
Jun 23, 2018
31,736
24,115
Since 2014 we only have 3 picks outside of the first round who have played some games in the NHL: Lernout, Mete and Fleury. Sad.

Most of those draft years since 2014 can't be judged yet.

Brook, Romanov, Ylonen, Struble, Harris, Norlinder, Primeau, Faribrother, Hillis are all showing positive signs.

The drafting wasn't good in 2014 (where we had one late 1st and no 2nd).

But since 2015 it's been good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->