Trevor Timmins discussion, when does he get blamed?

[LyricalLyricist]

Habs are a weird team

We basically have 4 untouchables that were all drafted by Timmins (Price, Subby, Pacioretty & Gallagher).

Then aside Galchenyuk, who else would be desirable?

A lot of meh and bleh fowards.

Everyone wants Ryjo, Drouin etc, but if we cant touch those guys, who we moving?

Very little top end talent.

That's a weird way of looking at it. You're assuming other teams have several more untouchables than we do and drafted in last 10 years no less.

Yes, some teams have more, some teams have less but we're pretty much average. You're also ignoring that he drafted McDonagh who clearly would've been desirable, not his fault we traded him.

In last 10 years a team like Chicago has:

Hjalmarsson
Toews
Kane
Saad
Teravainen

As good-high value guys and 2 were top 3 picks.

I think we're fine. More is always good though!

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

While 2012 to 2015 still needs to be determined, I think you still can see a pattern that from 2003 to 2007, it was incredibly strong either with fillers and top players. Since 2008 it's Gallagher and GAlchy, a top 3 pick. Again, everytime we talk about top teams, we diss them based on the fact that they have top 5 picks in their ranks, which makes it easier. So based on that...do we diss the Galchy pick? I personnally don't think so....while tons of people wanted Galchy, he still had to make the pick. But it,s been more quiet. And yes, I realize that 2008 and 2010, was also relatively quiet in number of picks. Yet.....we praise Timmins for Grabovski, a 150th pick, a Streit at 262nd, a Halak at 271th....let just say that he wasn't able to duplicate that during those 2 small draft years. 2011 will also be fairly quiet unless we can have something out of Dietz and Nygren. 2012 is all on Hudon now and let remember 2012 was once looking awfullly great. Now, the new 2012 is 2013, who still looks fairly good. Again, maybe aside from Crisp, EVERYBODY could play in the NHL. And too soon to say about 2014 and 2015, even though I think 2014 will be quiet.

Why would we 'diss' other team's top five picks? I see no reason to do that. I've simply said that it's unfair to just look at players drafted when one team drafts top five and the other is consistently drafting around 18th or 19th. Your results will be different.

Like I said, we had two top five picks and did extremely well with both. So it's not like we didn't take advantage of the few times we actually had top picks.

Since 2008? Well... 2008 was a wash. We didn't draft until essentially the 3rd freaking round. So you can write that one off completely. The only impact player there is Braeden Holtby - a guy we couldn't use anyway. Are we going to blame him for not turning hamburger into fillet mignon? By the time we got to the table there was nothing there. It's not like there were a ton of stars we missed out on. We practically started in the 3rd freaking round man. It's a wash.

So let's look at 2009 - 2012. We get: Gallagher, Beaulieu and Galchenyuk. Plus whoever else develops out of there.

You don't think those are good enough players to get out of four drafts? Come on man.

Good drafts: Can't agree with 2003. Not with top end players available. And you have 4 top 80 picks. And when you pick 3 guys out of the same junior team, it's either that you know something nobody knew....or you missed something.... End-result tells you which one it was.....
2004: Aside from Chip...yeah, good draft. Emelin, Streit and Halak, impressive. And to be honest, we have no idea how his injury really hampered him.
2005: Well Price....but rest was meh. So it comes down to semantics, does getting 1 incredible player makes it a GREAT draft....or just a GREAT pick?
2007: Good? Nope...Incredible.
2010: Can't agree. But again, it comes down to getting Gallagher making it a great DRAFT. I think it makes it a great pick. If 2007 is just a good draft...imagine getting Kuznetsov AND Gallagher...
2011: How is that good? We still have no idea where Beaulieu is going....he still Learning the position. And the rest won't make it. And it's good? So getting 1 NHL'er makes it a good draft?
2012: Great pick with Galchy. We'll see how good is it based on Hudon. Mind you, getting Collberg meant getting 1/2 season of Vanek....not bad. I wouldn,t say good DRAFT though yet.

For the rest....well I agree. I think we could still say 2008 was a bad draft.....but he didn't have a lot of room to play with. We all know that. But he was able to do miracles with lower picks than what he had in 2008...so I guess it's all about expecatations.

When your first pick overall is somewhere around 20 and you walk away with Gallagher in the 5th? Yup it's a great draft. If you get the maybe the best player in hockey with a 5th overall? Yup it's a good draft. If you get the best player available at 3rd overall? It's a good draft! I don't care if that's all you get. You're lucky to get ONE impact player per draft.

Most teams are lucky to get one core player out of the first round of a draft. We've had several core players taken in later rounds. Halak, Gallagher, Streit, Subban all in or after the 2nd round... It doesn't get better than that.

 

[LePoche69]

Tinordi is not a bust. He is only 23 and stuck because of CBA rules.

That's a strange way to put it. The CBA rules are blocking him to play in the AHL, not in the NHL. In a way, it would looked worst if it wasn't for the CBA.

That said, I do agree he can't be labelled a bust yet since I do think he will play in the NHL at some point. But at 23, with that much games in the AHL and NHL, I think it is pretty fair to say he won't achieve what you ask from a first rounder.

It was a strange pick right from the start. It is not unusual at all to find big stay at home d-men later in the draft. Since he hadn't show any offensive game at any level before the draft, I wonder what was the logic of drafting him in the first round, and even trading up to get him.

 

[Habs 4 Life]

Tinordi is not a bust. He is only 23 and stuck because of CBA rules.

Sorry but I can't really agree, I don't think Tinordi is an NHLer and right now he is looking a lot more like a bust then not.

Heck even Barberio in his short time has looked better up here.

 

[Whitesnake]

When your first pick overall is somewhere around 20 and you walk away with Gallagher in the 5th? Yup it's a great draft. If you get the maybe the best player in hockey with a 5th overall? Yup it's a good draft. If you get the best player available at 3rd overall? It's a good draft! I don't care if that's all you get. You're lucky to get ONE impact player per draft.

Most teams are lucky to get one core player out of the first round of a draft. We've had several core players taken in later rounds. Halak, Gallagher, Streit, Subban all in or after the 2nd round... It doesn't get better than that.

Well that's not exactly who the pros like Grant his McKeen do when they analyse who are the "winners" of the draft. They evaluate the overall draft even if they acknowledge that the top 5 or top 10 pick was an obviously great one....they look at other picks to evalute the draft in its entirety. Example: Grant gave an A+ to Philly saying that Provorov was obviously a great pick but that Konecny, at 24th, was one of the steals of the draft. And then goes on by talking about Sandstrom, Tomek, how Vorobyov was maykbe the beste value pick of them all and even talk about DoveMcFalls and Kase....and then gives his A+. I never see anywhere a type of review that says.....They got this guy, who cares about the rest.....Yeah, when it comes down to McDavid, Ovechkin and those top top superstars, I guess it won't matter as much....but why in analysis do they care about the rest of the draft picks when in the end, the only thing that matter is the top 5?

 

[Sorinth]

Good drafts: Can't agree with 2003. Not with top end players available. And you have 4 top 80 picks. And when you pick 3 guys out of the same junior team, it's either that you know something nobody knew....or you missed something.... End-result tells you which one it was.....
2004: Aside from Chip...yeah, good draft. Emelin, Streit and Halak, impressive. And to be honest, we have no idea how his injury really hampered him.
2005: Well Price....but rest was meh. So it comes down to semantics, does getting 1 incredible player makes it a GREAT draft....or just a GREAT pick?
2007: Good? Nope...Incredible.
2010: Can't agree. But again, it comes down to getting Gallagher making it a great DRAFT. I think it makes it a great pick. If 2007 is just a good draft...imagine getting Kuznetsov AND Gallagher...
2011: How is that good? We still have no idea where Beaulieu is going....he still Learning the position. And the rest won't make it. And it's good? So getting 1 NHL'er makes it a good draft?
2012: Great pick with Galchy. We'll see how good is it based on Hudon. Mind you, getting Collberg meant getting 1/2 season of Vanek....not bad. I wouldn,t say good DRAFT though yet.

For the rest....well I agree. I think we could still say 2008 was a bad draft.....but he didn't have a lot of room to play with. We all know that. But he was able to do miracles with lower picks than what he had in 2008...so I guess it's all about expecatations.

If you are going to criticize the 2003 draft based on the number of picks and how good the draft was (Which I'm fine with) then surely 2010 was a great draft based on the fact that we had 5 picks total only one of which was in the top-100. Similar for 2011, the odds of getting a single NHL player are against you when all you have is one 1st round pick and a bunch of 4th round or worse.

If I were to assign a letter grade
2003 (C): Missed out on too much but still had several quality picks
2004 (A-): Several quality NHLers and one very good player
2005(A+): Hit a homerun with a top-5 pick and got several players who had some very good years even if the careers didn't last
2006(F)
2007(A+)
2008(-): Lack of picks makes the goose egg the expected result
2009(F)
2010(A): Lack of picks means getting a single NHLer is a success, getting a 1st liner is great
2011(B): Same as 2011, lack of picks means getting a single NHLer is a success. If Beaulieu, could become an A if Beaulieu develops

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Well that's not exactly who the pros like Grant his McKeen do when they analyse who are the "winners" of the draft. They evaluate the overall draft even if they acknowledge that the top 5 or top 10 pick was an obviously great one....they look at other picks to evalute the draft in its entirety. Example: Grant gave an A+ to Philly saying that Provorov was obviously a great pick but that Konecny, at 24th, was one of the steals of the draft. And then goes on by talking about Sandstrom, Tomek, how Vorobyov was maykbe the beste value pick of them all and even talk about DoveMcFalls and Kase....and then gives his A+. I never see anywhere a type of review that says.....They got this guy, who cares about the rest.....Yeah, when it comes down to McDavid, Ovechkin and those top top superstars, I guess it won't matter as much....but why in analysis do they care about the rest of the draft picks when in the end, the only thing that matter is the top 5?

I'm sure McKeen's goes line by line through the draft on each player and rates it as they see it when the draft occurs.

Here at HFboards we have the benefit of hindsight and looking at draft results from 12 years ago. Fortunately for us we can see that the results from 2005 - Carey Price (despite us being heavily criticized for taking him) became the best goalie in the league and won every award under the sun.

Did the rest pan out? Maybe not. But did you take the time to look at the rest of that draft? How many other great players are there? It's the same as you saying that 2008 was a bad draft. How can it be a bad draft if there's nobody left to draft to start with?

Bottom line is that we've consistently pulled out very good (sometimes star or superstar players) in our drafts despite drafting in the bottom half most of the time. There may be a few teams who have done better but there aren't many.

 

[Whitesnake]

If you are going to criticize the 2003 draft based on the number of picks and how good the draft was (Which I'm fine with) then surely 2010 was a great draft based on the fact that we had 5 picks total only one of which was in the top-100. Similar for 2011, the odds of getting a single NHL player are against you when all you have is one 1st round pick and a bunch of 4th round or worse.

If I were to assign a letter grade
2003 (C): Missed out on too much but still had several quality picks
2004 (A-): Several quality NHLers and one very good player
2005(A+): Hit a homerun with a top-5 pick and got several players who had some very good years even if the careers didn't last
2006(F)
2007(A+)
2008(-): Lack of picks makes the goose egg the expected result
2009(F)
2010(A): Lack of picks means getting a single NHLer is a success, getting a 1st liner is great
2011(B): Same as 2011, lack of picks means getting a single NHLer is a success. If Beaulieu, could become an A if Beaulieu develops

Not sure how 2007 could get the same result as 2005. As mcuh as we think highly of Price, getting McDonagh, Subban and Pacioretty is better in the result of a draft in its entirety. You had nothing after Price. Though it might be not fair to judge Lats becaue of his concussion problems...still.

I agree with 2010. Who did we miss? Klingberg, Prout, Fast, Stone and Andersen. But the 1st round pick still hurts right now. WE could have done more. Is it a scouting problem? Tough to say. Probably not. But if we take the chance on Kuz....it most definately becomes a A+.

But lack of picks can't explain everything. If we keep praising Timmins for finding gems late in the draft.....we can probably expect him to do so again? The gems he found between 2003 and 2005, aside from Gallagher, we haven't seen that YET. I stress the "yet". 2012 to 2015 could totally provide that. But we haven't seen that lately. And he was known as the guy who finds gems late in the draft. Remember the whole "our 5th round is better than our 1st"? Well that was pretty much wrong. But he was able to do that from 2003 to 2005 though.

I'm consequent though....I look at the Hawks draft and sorry, I will not say the Hawks have a A draft in 2006 and in 2007 because they got Kane and Toews. They suck immensely after that. When the "scouting" really is important isn't on the first top 3 or top 5 when the picks are actually gimmes....it's when it,s tougher to analyse a player and determine his ceiling and his possible progression.

I'm sure McKeen's goes line by line through the draft on each player and rates it as they see it when the draft occurs.

Here at HFboards we have the benefit of hindsight and looking at draft results from 12 years ago. Fortunately for us we can see that the results from 2005 - Carey Price (despite us being heavily criticized for taking him) became the best goalie in the league and won every award under the sun.

Did the rest pan out? Maybe not. But did you take the time to look at the rest of that draft? How many other great players are there? It's the same as you saying that 2008 was a bad draft. How can it be a bad draft if there's nobody left to draft to start with?

Bottom line is that we've consistently pulled out very good (sometimes star or superstar players) in our drafts despite drafting in the bottom half most of the time. There may be a few teams who have done better but there aren't many.

I do understand the difference between the markings 1 day after the draft happens and the hindsight markings. Still, Grant and those pros knowns that what's important is to give yourself the chance to bring as many pros you can, and as many key players you can.

2 of the star players we've brought in, were top 5 picks. And 2 other superstar players we've brought in were 22nd and 44th. So false that we didn't have top 5 picks to help the team. And false that after 20....there's actually nothing you can hope for. I mean, every freakin year, you will find numerous gems in the 2nd round.

 

[jfm133]

That's a weird way of looking at it. You're assuming other teams have several more untouchables than we do and drafted in last 10 years no less.

Yes, some teams have more, some teams have less but we're pretty much average. You're also ignoring that he drafted McDonagh who clearly would've been desirable, not his fault we traded him.

In last 10 years a team like Chicago has:

Hjalmarsson
Toews
Kane
Saad
Teravainen

As good-high value guys and 2 were top 3 picks.

I think we're fine. More is always good though!

If Teravainen is in that list for Chicago, Hudon should be in the CH list. Very similar players. Only difference is Chicago is giving the opportunity to Terravainen to play early in the NHL, while Motreal is cautious with Hudon. Same frame, similar stats in the AHL. Hudon is better in the NHL with a point per game!!!!

But at 23, with that much games in the AHL and NHL, I think it is pretty fair to say he won't achieve what you ask from a first rounder

What should be asked from an average late first round pick? I think Tinordi, as a defenceman still has the possibility to be an average late first round pick. Not great, not a bust.

 

[Teufelsdreck]

At one time or another, everyone wishes for a mulligan. For example, as Bruins fans often bemoan, Pacioretty was available at #22 and Subban slipped to the second round.

Over the past 10 years, my biggest disappointments have been Fischer, Tinordi, and what's the name of that forward from Harvard with the French name?

 

[Whitesnake]

At one time or another, everyone wishes for a mulligan. For example, as Bruins fans often bemoan, Pacioretty was available at #22 and Subban slipped to the second round.

Over the past 10 years, my biggest disappointments have been Fischer, Tinordi, and what's the name of that forward from Harvard with the French name?

Dan Bolduc.

 

[jfm133]

Sorry but I can't really agree, I don't think Tinordi is an NHLer and right now he is looking a lot more like a bust then not.

Heck even Barberio in his short time has looked better up here.

Where was Chara at 23?

New York Islanders NHL 82 2 7 9 157 -27

That was with a weak team that had the luxury to play him. With numbers like that Chara would not have played on a very good NHL team. With minus 27 he was the worst on his team. I am not telling you that Tinordi will be a Chara, but between that and being a bust...

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I do understand the difference between the markings 1 day after the draft happens and the hindsight markings. Still, Grant and those pros knowns that what's important is to give yourself the chance to bring as many pros you can, and as many key players you can.

Sure. But not all pros are created equal and neither is the draft position or your opportunity to get them.

2 of the star players we've brought in, were top 5 picks.

A success rate of 100 percent. With a fifth overall pick you're likely to get a regular NHLer but not likely to get a star player. In both cases we took the best player available and with Galchenyuk it looks like we may have gotten the best player in the draft.

And 2 other superstar players we've brought in were 22nd and 44th.

We drafted three star players outside the top ten: McD, Max and PK.

So false that we didn't have top 5 picks to help the team.

Who said we didn't? We had two and we did as well as we could with them.

And false that after 20....there's actually nothing you can hope for. I mean, every freakin year, you will find numerous gems in the 2nd round.

Seventieslord put out a study on your odds on getting a superstar outside the top ten. It's very hard to do.

Yes there are sometimes one or two stars to be found in the 2nd round but you're trying to cherrypick one player out of 60 picks. It's like finding a needle in a haystack. Your odds of getting superstar players outside the top five is very hard to do. Even with a fifth pick you're unlikely to land a superstar.

I'll see if I can find that old study that I posted here. It may have gotten deleted when they upgraded the servers. If I can find it though, I'll show it to you. I'm sure you'll find it enlightening.

Anyways have a look at this. Here's the lineup we've built with him through the draft only. I'd say that's a damn good team to get via the draft only:

Max Chuck Gallagher
SKosti Grabovski A Kosti
Lapierre Chipchura Latendresse
McCaron D'Agostini White

Subban McDonnaugh
Beaulieu Streit
Emelin Weber

Price
Halak

 

[Sorinth]

Not sure how 2007 could get the same result as 2005. As mcuh as we think highly of Price, getting McDonagh, Subban and Pacioretty is better in the result of a draft in its entirety. You had nothing after Price. Though it might be not fair to judge Lats becaue of his concussion problems...still.

If there was an A+++++ I would give that to the 2007 draft, but the max you can give is an A+. I agree they aren't on the same level, but 2005 is still an A+, there's just no category above it to properly qualify the 07 draft.

I judge Lats as an average top-6 player, same for S. Kostitsyn. We got a stud at a position where you somewhat expect it (Though Price has still exceed expectations for that pick), but also added a couple top-6 players, and one meh NHLer in D'Agostini. That for me is an A+.

I agree with 2010. Who did we miss? Klingberg, Prout, Fast, Stone and Andersen. But the 1st round pick still hurts right now. WE could have done more. Is it a scouting problem? Tough to say. Probably not. But if we take the chance on Kuz....it most definately becomes a A+.

If we had drafted Gallagher at 22nd and Tinordi in the 5th round then you would probably consider it a great draft. In the end it's doesn't matter where you picked them, what matters is who you got. We got a first liner without a top pick, and only one pick in the top-100. That's great. Every team can say if they took this guy instead of that guy it would have been amazing.

But lack of picks can't explain everything. If we keep praising Timmins for finding gems late in the draft.....we can probably expect him to do so again? The gems he found between 2003 and 2005, aside from Gallagher, we haven't seen that YET. I stress the "yet". 2012 to 2015 could totally provide that. But we haven't seen that lately. And he was known as the guy who finds gems late in the draft. Remember the whole "our 5th round is better than our 1st"? Well that was pretty much wrong. But he was able to do that from 2003 to 2005 though.

Well the expectation shouldn't be he finds late gems every draft only that he finds them more often then other teams. Also keep in mind there where more rounds in those early years. Halak was a 9th round pick, so that same draft class this year and he goes undrafted.

I'm consequent though....I look at the Hawks draft and sorry, I will not say the Hawks have a A draft in 2006 and in 2007 because they got Kane and Toews. They suck immensely after that. When the "scouting" really is important isn't on the first top 3 or top 5 when the picks are actually gimmes....it's when it,s tougher to analyse a player and determine his ceiling and his possible progression.

I'm fine with that, I wouldn't give us an A in 2012 just because of Galchenyuk. The expectation with a top-3 pick is you get a great player, so as long as you don't screw it up you should get a B for meeting expectations. But if you get a Galchenyuk outside of the top 5/10 then you deserve an A because you exceeded the expectations.

I didn't grade 2012 because I want to see what Hudon can do as I'm quite high on him. But if I had to right now I'd probably give that year a B-, Galchenyuk's great but expected, we had high 2nds and they've seemingly failed which is bad.

 

[montreal]

Sorry but I can't really agree, I don't think Tinordi is an NHLer and right now he is looking a lot more like a bust then not.

Heck even Barberio in his short time has looked better up here.

Barberio is 25 and has around 400 games at the pro level (NHL/AHL) which is about twice that of Tinordi. Plus when you consider in today's NHL is much more about puck moving and speed, things Barberio is more known for and Tinordi isn't. Tinordi has played 3 NHL games and 6 AHL games since getting injured last March, not sure how he can look or not look like an NHLer to anyone in such a short period after sitting so long. Yes you can go off his struggles in the past years but that doesn't mean he won't still put it together. He very well may end up a bust, but to me there's still time as he's barely played and this year could end up more of a write off depending on what management has in store for him.

 

[Rapala]

2003 was a puzzler for sure with soo many prospects exposed much closer to home.
These guys weren't late bloomers either.
Giroux pissed me off because I was sure we knew...
And then LL a media driven selection if ever there was one.

 

[DangerDave]

Can't just look at 1st rounders. Even if we did though we got:

2005 - Arguably the best player in hockey 5th overall
2007 - Two captains. One a first pairing blueliner and the other a top sniper in the league who's currently leading our team
2011 - A projected top pairing blueliner
2012 - Arguably the best player in the draft (too soon to say)

I don't think that's a bad list, esp considering from 2013 and on we don't know what we've really got coming up.

When we look beyond the first though, we see that we've done very well.

Some people think that first rounders are guaranteed gems but the truth is that very few outside the top 10 become impact players. Best player drafted 11-30 in 2009 was kreider then it was extremely weak other than that.

Habs have drafted extremely well and that's fact. When your entire core other than Petry are your own picks and the team is this successful, then you know you drafted well.

Calling Kostytsin a bust is crazy to me but I heard someone say Boedker is a bust so I guess some people aren't happy unless you draft a franchise player in the first round.

I did notice that Timmins is not the greatest at drafting euros though. He should maybe stick to drafting NA.

 

[Habs100]

I have hopes for

Ghetto
Hudon
McCarron
Scherbak


Juulsen
Dietz

They are all knocking at the door.

 

[Jeffrey]

Some people think that first rounders are guaranteed gems but the truth is that very few outside the top 10 become impact players. Best player drafted 11-30 in 2009 was kreider then it was extremely weak other than that.

Calling Kostytsin a bust is crazy to me but I heard someone say Boedker is a bust so I guess some people aren't happy unless you draft a franchise player in the first round.

2009 Ryan O'Reilly
2003 in the first round you have almost every picks after Kostitsyn that are more valuable and better.

 

[CapSpace]

There is no excuses for drafting an overager, undrafted, skills less plug like Crisp in 2013 with our freaking 3r round pick instead of home guy Duclair. None.

 

[Jeffrey]

There is no excuses for drafting an overager, undrafted, skills less plug like Crisp in 2013 with our freaking 3r round pick instead of home guy Duclair. None.

Don't go there!

My blood is boiling when talking about Duclair.

Apparently he had "attitude" problems.
That's ********.. Reway has more of an attitude problem and we still drafted him.

Crisp was a man crush of Timmins and such a waste of a good selection.

 

[Habs100]

Don't go there!

My blood is boiling when talking about Duclair.

Apparently he had "attitude" problems.
That's ********.. Reway has more of an attitude problem and we still drafted him.

Crisp was a man crush of Timmins and such a waste of a good selection.

Timmins said "MB puts more of an emphasis on size" than before. That year they drafted McCarron, De La Rose and Crisp. I wouldn't be surprised if Timmins was mandated to draft at least 1 big player in each of the first 3 rounds.

It was a mistake to tell Timmins to draft more size instead of Best Player Available.

 

[Wats]

We're also in a division with 2 of the best scouting departments in hockey (Detroit and Ottawa) and a very good one in Tampa Bay.

If you disregard Detroit and Ottawa (who are phenomenal drafters and definitely better than us) and compare us to the others, we're not that far behind, especially if you look at the caliber of players. I'll take one Brendan Gallagher over 5 Joonas Donskois or Marcus Folignos.

I would like to see us get more out of our later rounds from the last few years for sure but I don't think it's really killing us at the moment.

With such good drafting teams like Tampa/Detroit/Ottawa in the division, Habs need to step up their game IMO, that list is just non-top 14 picks so a lot of the teams have added a lot more talent than what is listed. Florida/Buffalo don't need to rely on 2nd rounders and on due to their high number of lottery 1st rounders.

Habs drafting record since 2008 suggests there can be improvements made IMO. Maybe a change in philosophy to be more similar to teams like Ottawa/Detroit. Their consistency isn't luck.

 

[DangerDave]

2009 Ryan O'Reilly
2003 in the first round you have almost every picks after Kostitsyn that are more valuable and better.

Oreilly 2nd round.

Kostitsyn was a massive winger with tons of skill. Can't blame him at all for that. Still wasn't a bust... At all.

Bottom line is we have a contending team with a core consisting of drafted player. We can nit pick all the little things that that didnt go our way or we can look at the overall picture.

Now imagine having mcdonagh...

 

[Habsrule]

Man it is a tough crowd whenever the team is losing.

I do find it funny though how so many people are complaining about Timmons drafting when the Habs have had injuries this year and the rookies have looked good stepping up.

Carr, Andrighetto and Hudon have all looked good in their games. McCarron is having a really good rookie year in the AHL. De La Rose proved last year that he can play in the NHL as a fourth liner and is only down to work on his offensive game. Keep in mind that he was killing penalties in the playoffs last year. Then in a roundabout way Lessio has five points in six games since joining the Ice Caps. Sure he was not drafted by the Habs but he went from Kristo -> Thomas -> Lessio.

Those are just the players who are knocking on the door right now.

The draft is always a crapshoot and you will lose a lot more than you win.