Trevor Timmins Discussion (Part V)

[1909]

oh that's weak...

As much as Timmins batting average,

No time to lose writing 20 pages. Go on HockeyDB and go thru every team over the last 16 years.

 

[26Mats]

Please don't be another Beaulieu or even worse...Dalton Thrower...

We have had so many busts...lol

Timmins has been one of the best at drafting Dmen:

Subban McDonagh
Sergachev Streit
Mete Juulsen
Emelin, Beaulieu, Y. Weber
Romanov, Brook

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

From a different thread there was a discussion on Timmins, and I did a quick tabulation comparing Habs draft record to all the Cup winning teams since Timmins started in 2003 - I counted Number of players drafted over 100 games since 2003 - just a quick tabulation. Obviously it favors older draft picks, and it doesn't factor in number and strength of picks so it isn't perfect, but it gives a rough and tumble idea of where the Habs stand in producing NHLers since Timmins took over.

Chicago - 34
Anaheim - 32
Pittsburgh - 32
LA - 29
TB - 29
STL - 28
Washington - 26
Montreal - 26
Detroit - 26
Carolina - 25
Boston - 23
NJ - 21

So Montreal is lower middle of the pack, which I think is probably about right league wide. Obviously the dry spell in 2008 - 2011 really impacts that. The numbers will keep evolving but the nature of draft evaluation is that one is always 5-10 years behind due to having to wait for the prospects to develop. Cheers!

 

[montreal]

In his presser, Timmins basically admitted he drafted for need, so he did actually specifically draft LH defensemen after the 1st.

For Struble, I can understand the pick with the skills he has.

But, how many good drafting teams do this ? Anyone here agree with it ?

what i don't understand is last year at the draft he said they made a mistake going for need in '13 and learned from it. So how did they learn from it if they did it again like they did in '06 when they clearly drafted for need on defense and it ended up being a total disaster since they got a whopping 3 NHL games out of those 4 blueliners they picked.

the only thing that makes sense is if they thought this draft wasn't very deep and just said f*** it and draft some LD's and some off the board picks.

As long as Caufield hits big I'll be happy with the draft and a few guys do sound interesting so we'll see what happens.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

what i don't understand is last year at the draft he said they made a mistake going for need in '13 and learned from it. So how did they learn from it if they did it again like they did in '06 when they clearly drafted for need on defense and it ended up being a total disaster since they got a whopping 3 NHL games out of those 4 blueliners they picked.

the only thing that makes sense is if they thought this draft wasn't very deep and just said **** it and draft some LD's and some off the board picks.

As long as Caufield hits big I'll be happy with the draft and a few guys do sound interesting so we'll see what happens.

There is a difference between 2013 and 2019 philosophies. In '13 they were addressing a specific trait(size) early in the draft, whereas they looked to address a positional need in '19 (LD). They put an emphasis on LD's who can skate and move the puck as opposed to just taking LD's because they were good LD's.

The biggest difference is that they went with the BPA (Caufield) despite their stated need instead of reaching for the need (McCarron). Under the previoius philosophy they may have ignored Caufield, Krebs and Newhook and drafted Harley. Hard to say what they would have done for sure but the real theme of this draft is speed, character and athleticism and they made sure that every LD they took fit these criteria. If they used the same philosophy in '13 they would have passed on McCarron and Crisp.

In summary I think they drafted for need again but seemed to learn from their tunnel vision in '13 as they definitely expanded the scope of the current particular need.

 

[A55P2]

There is a difference between 2013 and 2019 philosophies. In '13 they were addressing a specific trait(size) early in the draft, whereas they looked to address a positional need in '19 (LD). They put an emphasis on LD's who can skate and move the puck as opposed to just taking LD's because they were good LD's.

The biggest difference is that they went with the BPA (Caufield) despite their stated need instead of reaching for the need (McCarron). Under the previoius philosophy they may have ignored Caufield, Krebs and Newhook and drafted Harley. Hard to say what they would have done for sure but the real theme of this draft is speed, character and athleticism and they made sure that every LD they took fit these criteria. If they used the same philosophy in '13 they would have passed on McCarron and Crisp.

In summary I think they drafted for need again but seemed to learn from their tunnel vision in '13 as they definitely expanded the scope of the current particular need.

Couldn't have said better, great post. It's exactly what went down.

 

[Habs Icing]

yeah 5th, 6th, 7th rounders....

You know how many players from the Q were drafted this past weekend?

18

Let me repeat that.

18.

Maybe Timmins isn't the one who should be asked why he isn't drafting Q players. Maybe questions should be asked why the Q sucks at putting out NHL players.

 

[Hacketts]

Most people had Galchenyuk ranked 5th or lower from what I remember, and Reilly, Dumba, and Trouba were all rated high and still on the board. For a guy who supposedly knows how to find defensemen, it's kind of odd he missed these guys, no? I won't fault him for Lindholm because he was a reach (a successful one though, Timmins should take note) and Forsberg because he fell for some reason, but many people thought the Habs would take him. Anyway, not the worst pick, but AG wasn't a good one either. Timmins wiffed on every pick that draft.

That's bull ****

Everyone thought he was going 2 or 3.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

That's b

Everyone thought he was going 2 or 3.

The stuff you say on this board is garbage

There are a lot of kids on these boards who are too young to remember anything about a draft that was 7 years ago.

Galchenyuk was the most unanimously agreed upon first round pick on this board that I have seen in my 21 years here on HFBoards. Perhaps Sergachev comes close but that is it. He was the center that almost everyone was clamouring for. There was very little support for taking Rielly, as the most vocal opposition to Galchenyuk was from Grigorenko supporters but even that crowd dwindled significantly as the draft approached. There were small pockets of Forsberg supporters but it really was about getting that center and it was a landslide victory for Galchenyuk.

 

[Garbageyuk]

That's bull ****

Everyone thought he was going 2 or 3.

There are a lot of kids on these boards who are too young to remember anything about a draft that was 7 years ago.

Galchenyuk was the most unanimously agreed upon first round pick on this board that I have seen in my 21 years here on HFBoards. Perhaps Sergachev comes close but that is it. He was the center that almost everyone was clamouring for. There was very little support for taking Rielly, as the most vocal opposition to Galchenyuk was from Grigorenko supporters but even that crowd dwindled significantly as the draft approached. There were small pockets of Forsberg supporters but it really was about getting that center and it was a landslide victory for Galchenyuk.

2012 NHL Draft: Top 30 Prospects - Sportsnet.ca

His rankings: No. 4 by NHL’s Central Scouting, No. 14 ISS, No. 6 Red Line Report, No. 2 McKeen’s Hockey

Nice try boys. You should probably have an idea what you are talking about before spouting off about "kids too young to remember anything" or calling someone's post bullshit.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

2012 NHL Draft: Top 30 Prospects - Sportsnet.ca

His rankings: No. 4 by NHL’s Central Scouting, No. 14 ISS, No. 6 Red Line Report, No. 2 McKeen’s Hockey

Nice try boys. You should probably have an idea what you are talking about before spouting off about "kids too young to remember anything" or calling someone's post bull****.

Sounds like I was right, you are too young to remember, otherwise you would know the truth and not have to mistakenly attempt an example that is self defeating.

If you have any integrity at all you will dig up the 2012 draft thread and accept the truth. Your cited rankings are meaningless just like the ones that had Lavoie going to us this year or Caufield and Krebs not falling to us. Even with that 3 of the 4 rankings that you list are 2,4 and 6 for an average of 4th overall. Anyone with a grain of intellectual integrity would discard the one outlier at 14. Your little list actually works against you, I wonder why you couldn't see that before posting your reply........?

 

[MD thaivuN]

Timmins has been one of the best at drafting Dmen:

Subban McDonagh
Sergachev Streit
Mete Juulsen
Emelin, Beaulieu, Y. Weber
Romanov, Brook

Romanov and Brook better pan out because it sure looks like Timmins doesn't have much to show for as far as this decade of drafting D's goes. Starting to look like the Detroit Red Wings and their "amazing" reputation of drafting and developing lol

 

[Garbageyuk]

Sounds like I was right, you are too young to remember, otherwise you would know the truth and not have to mistakenly attempt an example that is self defeating.

If you have any integrity at all you will dig up the 2012 draft thread and accept the truth. Your cited rankings are meaningless just like the ones that had Lavoie going to us this year or Caufield and Krebs not falling to us. Even with that 3 of the 4 rankings that you list are 2,4 and 6 for an average of 4th overall. Anyone with a grain of intellectual integrity would discard the one outlier at 14. Your little list actually works against you, I wonder why you couldn't see that before posting your reply........?

First of all, it's not my list. Second, you are the only one talking about what hfboards thought at the time, which is more meaningless than anything. Also, the link shows that there were indeed concerns about him, and he wasn't the consensus top 3 pick you are trying to say he was - that was the point. Oh, and that "outlier" as you call it, turned out to be accurate. All the other drivel you brought up about "integrity" or whatever is irrelevant. You seem triggered, maybe take a break from HF.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

First of all, it's not my list. Second, you are the only one talking about what hfboards thought at the time, which is more meaningless than anything. Also, the link shows that there were indeed concerns about him, and he wasn't the consensus top 3 pick you are trying to say he was - that was the point. Oh, and that "outlier" as you call it, turned out to be accurate. All the other drivel you brought up about "integrity" or whatever is irrelevant. You seem triggered, maybe take a break from HF.

What is your malfunction? He was picked 3rd, the outlier was 14.....you are wrong. The link you provided had him at three and you listed 2,4,6 and 14 as the other examples. So that is 2,3,4,6 and 14. He was drafted 3rd so yes he went exactly where the consensus was. That is without factoring in everyone knew Montreal was going to take a center. This entire board knew it was coming as well and near unanimously applauded it as you would if you were old enough at the time.

Put away your biased, revisionist goggles and accept that the pick seemed like a good pick at the time but just didn't work out. This happens all the time, as a matter of fact it holds true for the vast majority of picks in every draft ever held.

Now dust yourself off and move on.

 

[Ezpz]

From a different thread there was a discussion on Timmins, and I did a quick tabulation comparing Habs draft record to all the Cup winning teams since Timmins started in 2003 - I counted Number of players drafted over 100 games since 2003 - just a quick tabulation. Obviously it favors older draft picks, and it doesn't factor in number and strength of picks so it isn't perfect, but it gives a rough and tumble idea of where the Habs stand in producing NHLers since Timmins took over.

Chicago - 34
Anaheim - 32
Pittsburgh - 32
LA - 29
TB - 29
STL - 28
Washington - 26
Montreal - 26
Detroit - 26
Carolina - 25
Boston - 23
NJ - 21

So Montreal is lower middle of the pack, which I think is probably about right league wide. Obviously the dry spell in 2008 - 2011 really impacts that. The numbers will keep evolving but the nature of draft evaluation is that one is always 5-10 years behind due to having to wait for the prospects to develop. Cheers!

The numbers are a little disingenuous or misleading. Chicago for example had about 30 picks between the 2003-2004 drafts(17 picks in 2004; even at the time that was two entire drafts worth of picks-- now it would be roughly 2.5). They also had to re-tool due to cap problems and added another two entire drafts worth of picks in 2010-2012. Anaheim are basically the only team ahead of us on your list that didn't spend a significant period of time tanking and stockpiling picks.

For a lot of these teams they are picking up players in the later rounds. Our GMs have been treating picks like valueless items and going into various drafts with 4-7 picks. With how much of the draft comes down to development, luck and other factors; it's abundantly clear statistically that a shotgun approach makes more sense. Every successful team stockpiled picks. We're even seeing the short term results of that in our own current pool. More picks is the "best" way to get better drafts. It's a combination of having more chances and taking more risks with more picks. Maybe in 2018 we wouldn't have taken Romanov or traded down and got extra assets if we were conservative. You can see pretty clearly in our 5-6 pick drafts that our strategy is "play it safe" which has backfired 10 out of 10 times.

We're coming off of 10 and 11 pick drafts and still have 9 for next year which I guess we'll add to.

Anaheim are the freak exception. They go into a draft with 5 picks and get 4 nhlers.

 

[Garbageyuk]

What is your malfunction? He was picked 3rd, the outlier was 14.....you are wrong. The link you provided had him at three and you listed 2,4,6 and 14 as the other examples. So that is 2,3,4,6 and 14. He was drafted 3rd so yes he went exactly where the consensus was. That is without factoring in everyone knew Montreal was going to take a center. This entire board knew it was coming as well and near unanimously applauded it as you would if you were old enough at the time.

Put away your biased, revisionist goggles and accept that the pick seemed like a good pick at the time but just didn't work out. This happens all the time, as a matter of fact it holds true for the vast majority of picks in every draft ever held.

Now dust yourself off and move on.

My god. Do you understand what pre-draft rankings are? They are not bets as to where a prospect will get drafted. It appears this conversation is beyond your understanding - you are completely lost and are simply lashing out at this point.

 

[Hacketts]

No I'm not. I said a lot of scouts had him ranked around 5th. You claimed it was bull****, and the other guy made it sound like he was rated as a clear cut consensus top 3 pick. I then posted a link that shows that there were concerns about him, and it was nowhere near a consensus for him being rated in the top 3. Pretty cut and dry.

The only thing that is cut and dry is your nonsense.

Most of this board lived through that draft... you clearly didn't. So there is really no point debating something that you're unfamiliar with.

 

[Garbageyuk]

The only thing that is cut and dry is your nonsense.

Most of this board lived through that draft... you clearly didn't. So there is really no point debating something that you're unfamiliar with.

I backed up what I was saying with proof, subsequently explained to you exactly what I was saying and how the link supports it, and you are still just slinging insults and being belligerent. Do you even read all of the posts you respond to?

 

[calder candidate]

Timmins has been one of the best at drafting Dmen:

Subban McDonagh
Sergachev Streit
Mete Juulsen
Emelin, Beaulieu, Y. Weber
Romanov, Brook

Subban, Mcdonagh, Sergachev Y. Weber, Beaulieu were all traded and beside Subban all others never had a impact for Mtl or brought any significant value back.

Streit was bounce between D and FW before he last lost to UFA.

Emelin had a career

Mete, Juulsen, Romanov, Brook haven’t done anything in the NHL yet...

I says that isn’t much to brag about

 

[jaffy27]

2012 NHL Draft: Top 30 Prospects - Sportsnet.ca

His rankings: No. 4 by NHL’s Central Scouting, No. 14 ISS, No. 6 Red Line Report, No. 2 McKeen’s Hockey

Nice try boys. You should probably have an idea what you are talking about before spouting off about "kids too young to remember anything" or calling someone's post bull****.

He specifically said on this board......geez

 

[jaffy27]

The only thing that is cut and dry is your nonsense.

Most of this board lived through that draft... you clearly didn't. So there is really no point debating something that you're unfamiliar with.

He’s been a member since 2016 so it’s quite clear he has no idea what the feel was here on THIS board at the 2012 draft

 

[Garbageyuk]

He specifically said on this board......geez

Yeah, and he responded to my post where I was talking about scouts, and pundits. Why would someone assume I was talking about hf posters, especially after I posted a link to what I was talking about?

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

The link showed that not every scout or list had him ranked in the top 3, and that many had him around 5 or lower. That was my point all along.

You following now?

You claimed that he was drafted ahead of Rielly, Trouba and Dumba even though they were all ranked ahead of him by most people. That is just incorrect and likely a direct lie as your intellectual dishonesty has been on full display.

Curious why you didn't list these other rankings when you posted Galchenyuk's......I had a peak and think I just might know lol

I could tell you why but you, along with everyone else knows why. Provide facts to back up your claim or direct your tin foil hat towards another signal.

 

[Garbageyuk]

You claimed that he was drafted ahead of Rielly, Trouba and Dumba even though they were all ranked ahead of him by most people. That is just incorrect and likely a direct lie as your intellectual dishonesty has been on full display.

Curious why you didn't list these other rankings when you posted Galchenyuk's......I had a peak and think I just might know lol

I could tell you why but you, along with everyone else knows why. Provide facts to back up your claim or direct your tin foil hat towards another signal.

So what? Some scouts had them ranked higher and some didn't, obviously.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

So what? Some scouts had them ranked higher and some didn't, obviously.

Galchenyuk was ranked higher than all of them on almost every list.

You are were knowingly lying and punching well out of your weight class with me.

Welcome to my ignore list