HF Habs: Trevor Timmins (Part 13)

[montreal]

continue.... Trevor Timmins Fired (Part 12)





I never said Caufield was rushed but 100% Poehling, Primeau, DLR, Juulsen, McCarron, Tinordi, Beaulieu, Leblanc, Scherbak, were all rushed. The one I could say maybe now was Leblanc as he was playing great in Hamilton (pre Lefebvre, what a coincidence) but I would have liked to see him work on his skating, speed and adding mass and strength first but I could at least see the sense of it. The others all had issues with their game that should have been addressed in the AHL first before calling them up. I've been over this a million times though, at some point it's just a waste of my time as people either don't believe in good coaching/proper development or they do. I think most people don't know nearly as much as they like to think they do and we are clearly seeing what happens when you have a good coach that trusts his young players and puts them in position to succeed vs oh no you made a mistake, it cost us a goal, down to the 4th line you go, then it's off to the press box and then down to the AHL, rinse and repeat over and over. But that's what happens when you have poor plan for development and the results back it up.

What's proper development though? It's different for every player.

What if they decide he earns 9 games? And then he produces in those 9 games?

Did it hurt Ryan O'Reilly to be drafted in the second round and make the NHL right away?

I'm not saying he's developed enough to actually make the team. I'm just saying we shouldn't have the same development path for every player.

It is different for every player, proper development is not putting players in the NHL that aren't ready for it imo. You need to work on your shot, do that in the AHL, you need to work on your skating, do that in the AHL, don't bring them up to the toughest league in the world, if they can't do that in a weaker league.

I've watched Roy and at least so far based off his play I think it would be a terrible idea to put him in the NHL. If he has a great off-season though, then we'll see but based off today, no I wouldn't want to see them do that.

Well it's gonna be a hard decision, because do you really send him back to the q at 19? I mean he's just gonna completly dominate the league with no purpose. Can he play in Europe?

It will only be tough if he's made a lot of progress in other areas. I don't know if there's something that would prevent him from playing in the Euro leagues if we signed him. Not that I'm aware of but it could be in the CHL agreement as I never read it.

Click to read more...

 

[jfm133]

I agree with you that Roy should play in the juniors next year, but you lose a lot of credibility to defend that point of view when you say that Poehling, Primeau, DLR, Juulsen, McCarron, Tinordi, Beaulieu, Leblanc, Scherbak, were all rushed. Come on man! It makes no sense at all. The only big mistake is Kotkaniemi who should have stayed in Europe at 18 and 19. You really have a big problem accepting that most busts are draft busts.

I never said Caufield was rushed but 100% Poehling, Primeau, DLR, Juulsen, McCarron, Tinordi, Beaulieu, Leblanc, Scherbak, were all rushed. The one I could say maybe now was Leblanc as he was playing great in Hamilton (pre Lefebvre, what a coincidence) but I would have liked to see him work on his skating, speed and adding mass and strength first but I could at least see the sense of it. The others all had issues with their game that should have been addressed in the AHL first before calling them up. I've been over this a million times though, at some point it's just a waste of my time as people either don't believe in good coaching/proper development or they do. I think most people don't know nearly as much as they like to think they do and we are clearly seeing what happens when you have a good coach that trusts his young players and puts them in position to succeed vs oh no you made a mistake, it cost us a goal, down to the 4th line you go, then it's off to the press box and then down to the AHL, rinse and repeat over and over. But that's what happens when you have poor plan for development and the results back it up.



It is different for every player, proper development is not putting players in the NHL that aren't ready for it imo. You need to work on your shot, do that in the AHL, you need to work on your skating, do that in the AHL, don't bring them up to the toughest league in the world, if they can't do that in a weaker league.

I've watched Roy and at least so far based off his play I think it would be a terrible idea to put him in the NHL. If he has a great off-season though, then we'll see but based off today, no I wouldn't want to see them do that.



It will only be tough if he's made a lot of progress in other areas. I don't know if there's something that would prevent him from playing in the Euro leagues if we signed him. Not that I'm aware of but it could be in the CHL agreement as I never read it.

 

[Andrei79]

I agree with you that Roy should play in the juniors next year, but you lose a lot of credibility to defend that point of view when you say that Poehling, Primeau, DLR, Juulsen, McCarron, Tinordi, Beaulieu, Leblanc, Scherbak, were all rushed. Come on man! It makes no sense at all. The only big mistake is Kotkaniemi who should have stayed in Europe at 18 and 19. You really have a big problem accepting that most busts are draft busts.

If I'm just looking at DLR and Primeau. One was 19 when he was called up despite not being productive in the AHL. The other barely played any professional hockey and has been running a 4.00 GAA. And you feel montreal loses "a lot" of credibility by pointing then out ? Are you serious ?

 

[jfm133]

None of these players were brought up to quickly. Sorry. Some were pure draft busts, other like Poehling, Primeau and Juulsen are stil legit prospects. Also, many of them played only a few games with the Habs before going back to the AHL. That's current practice with many young players. You bring them up for a few games so they can understand what the NHL really is.

If I'm just looking at DLR and Primeau. One was 19 when he was called up despite not being productive in the AHL. The other barely played any professional hockey and has been running a 4.00 GAA. And you feel montreal loses "a lot" of credibility by pointing then out ? Are you serious ?

 

[Andrei79]

None of these players were brought up to quickly. Sorry. Some were pure draft busts, other like Poehling, Primeau and Juulsen are stil legit prospects. Also, many of them played only a few games with the Habs before going back to the AHL. That's current practice with many young players. You bring them up for a few games so they can understand what the NHL really is.

Well, obviously if your definition of being rushed is being thrown unto NHL ice as a toddler in diapers, then you won't find these players were brought up too quickly.

For example, say De La Rose is a draft bust, then how does it make any sense that he wasn't rushed at 19 years old, when he apparently was never good enough for the league to start with.

 

[Sorinth]

It is different for every player, proper development is not putting players in the NHL that aren't ready for it imo. You need to work on your shot, do that in the AHL, you need to work on your skating, do that in the AHL, don't bring them up to the toughest league in the world, if they can't do that in a weaker league.

I would go one step further and say being it's about being ready for an important role in the NHL. Mete for example was NHL ready in the sense that he was good enough to play in the NHL but for the most part he was just hanging in there keeping his game super simple. But that's not a good environment for development and unsurprisingly he didn't develop any further.

If you want to help develop Roy into a top-6 player then don't bring him up to the NHL unless he's ready for that top-6 spot in the NHL.

 

[jfm133]

You really think De La Rose did not end up being a better player because he played 33 games on the fourth line at 19? He went back to the AHL after that. A lot of players had a similar path between the AHL and the NHL and had good NHL careers.

Well, obviously if your definition of being rushed is being thrown unto NHL ice as a toddler in diapers, then you won't find these players were brought up too quickly.

For example, say De La Rose is a draft bust, then how does it make any sense that he wasn't rushed at 19 years old, when he apparently was never good enough for the league to start with.

 

[montreal]

I agree with you that Roy should play in the juniors next year, but you lose a lot of credibility to defend that point of view when you say that Poehling, Primeau, DLR, Juulsen, McCarron, Tinordi, Beaulieu, Leblanc, Scherbak, were all rushed. Come on man! It makes no sense at all. The only big mistake is Kotkaniemi who should have stayed in Europe at 18 and 19. You really have a big problem accepting that most busts are draft busts.

no offense but coming from someone that thinks Lefebvre was a good enough coach, your opinions are hard to take seriously. Plus it's utter nonsense, of course it makes sense to anyone that understands development. Poehling get benched in the AHL because he made a terrible play that cost a goal and then days later he gets called up. You don't call up a 20 year old center that gets benched, if he's struggling in the AHL, only a jackass with no clue calls said player up. Primeau gave up 14 goals in 3 games and MB called him up to face the best offense in the NHL. If you are struggling against AHL teams, why on earth would you call up a 20 year old goalie? DLR spent half the season on the AHL 4th line, if he's not good enough to play on a higher line at 19, why are you calling him up to the NHL? KK, Galchenyuk both needed to work on their skating, they had no business being in the NHL at 18. Juulsen had like 1 point in the AHL in the first month or so, he just started to put up some points and then gets called up. Why would you call up a 20 year old blueliner that struggled so badly to produce any offense at all.

But it's a waste of time, you have it all figured out, development and coaching don't matter, please tell me more about it, as you clearly know so much and the rest of us so little. I guess Caufield just suddenly figured it out as I know you said Dom wasn't a bad coach, which of course is utter horseshit.

None of these players were brought up to quickly. Sorry. Some were pure draft busts, other like Poehling, Primeau and Juulsen are stil legit prospects. Also, many of them played only a few games with the Habs before going back to the AHL. That's current practice with many young players. You bring them up for a few games so they can understand what the NHL really is.

Did you ever think that you can be brought up too quick and still be a draft bust?

I would go one step further and say being it's about being ready for an important role in the NHL. Mete for example was NHL ready in the sense that he was good enough to play in the NHL but for the most part he was just hanging in there keeping his game super simple. But that's not a good environment for development and unsurprisingly he didn't develop any further.

If you want to help develop Roy into a top-6 player then don't bring him up to the NHL unless he's ready for that top-6 spot in the NHL.

Yea for sure, I hated that they put Mete in the NHL when another year in the OHL and then a year or more in the AHL would have been good for him imo.

Agree 100% on Roy, it's what drove me nuts about MB's time here as his coaches would pull that crap, call up skilled player, put him on the 4th line to make him a better person. If you have a Scherbak you either put him in the top 6 or you don't call him imo, same for Roy.

 

[jfm133]

Except for very strong teams in the NHL, most don't wait to get a player at his peak to bring him up. Look at Romanov, it was not pretty at time, but he learned in the NHL. He is one good example of a player you would blame Bergevin for if it would have turned out bad.

I know that bashing Lefebvre is slam dunk here. So you get no credit for that. We had this discussion about the so called development. For you, that and calling up players too early are the universal excuses. You will never be proven wrong with these claims because there is no alternative history. There is no history where Scherbak would have played four or five years in the AHL before playing a single game in the NHL. But I am quite sure he would have been a bust anyway.

Also, another way to look at your obsession with development is to look at the NFL. There is no development league, and players are usually drafted at age 21-24. So much older than in the NHL. I am a fan of the New England Patriots. Fans of the Pats there mostly whiners like Habs fans here. They whine, but it's hard to blame Bill Belichick, the GM and head coach. The it's "In Bill We Trust", and it's for good reasons. That being said, Belichick got an awful stretch in the draft between 2014 and 2020. A lot of high picks were busts, and it was not as good as in the past in later rounds. So, fans there cannot blame development, because players play with the big team, the practice squad, or are cut right away. So the greatest head coach of all time is in charge of these players. So when they bust, all the blame goes to Bill the GM and is draft decision. Bill the coach is never in doubt. It's always Bill the GM and his poor draft decisions that are blamed. I think what we see in the NFL applies even more in the NHL because most players are drafted at 17/18 years old. 90% of the outcome is decided at the draft. That's why Joshua Roy falling to #150 was scouting malpractice by all NHL teams, including Montréal. You cannot let a player with such a track record fall so far down. Again, 90% is decided at the draft. If you drafted a player without the right stuff to mature into a NHL player under adequate coaching. There is no special trick to reverse that.

The case of Joshua Roy is a very good example. The kid understood at 17 that he needed to change his training and eating habits. If he sticks with that decision on the long run, he will make a very good NHL player. If after a while he goes back to laziness and eating too much, he will be a bust. No coaching will change that. Most of the outcome is up to the player if he has the talent. Again, it's will and talent and you cannot teach that. The rest is teachable by most coaches. The two goals Caufield scored tonight, no coach can teach that to a player. Roy is the same, his hockey sense, vision, shot, passing ability. He has it naturally.

no offense but coming from someone that thinks Lefebvre was a good enough coach, your opinions are hard to take seriously. Plus it's utter nonsense, of course it makes sense to anyone that understands development. Poehling get benched in the AHL because he made a terrible play that cost a goal and then days later he gets called up. You don't call up a 20 year old center that gets benched, if he's struggling in the AHL, only a jackass with no clue calls said player up. Primeau gave up 14 goals in 3 games and MB called him up to face the best offense in the NHL. If you are struggling against AHL teams, why on earth would you call up a 20 year old goalie? DLR spent half the season on the AHL 4th line, if he's not good enough to play on a higher line at 19, why are you calling him up to the NHL? KK, Galchenyuk both needed to work on their skating, they had no business being in the NHL at 18. Juulsen had like 1 point in the AHL in the first month or so, he just started to put up some points and then gets called up. Why would you call up a 20 year old blueliner that struggled so badly to produce any offense at all.

But it's a waste of time, you have it all figured out, development and coaching don't matter, please tell me more about it, as you clearly know so much and the rest of us so little. I guess Caufield just suddenly figured it out as I know you said Dom wasn't a bad coach, which of course is utter horseshit.



Did you ever think that you can be brought up too quick and still be a draft bust?



Yea for sure, I hated that they put Mete in the NHL when another year in the OHL and then a year or more in the AHL would have been good for him imo.

Agree 100% on Roy, it's what drove me nuts about MB's time here as his coaches would pull that crap, call up skilled player, put him on the 4th line to make him a better person. If you have a Scherbak you either put him in the top 6 or you don't call him imo, same for Roy.

 

[Whitesnake]

For people who keep talking about rushing kids....you really don't believe that showing and making kids play in the NHL some games even if it means going back in the AHL can't have its merits? Couldn't it be part of a development to come in even if you are not ready and see for yourself what you need to improve first hand?

I mean, I suspect some are just waiting for the end result before they can assess if there is a development issue or not. Caufield was close for being called a development miss....and then he's not. But if the point is that people have nothing against rushing kids IF it's to place him in a role they should belong to....fine. But then, do you really go with Josh Roy from the Q, to the AHL...to RIGHT WAY top 6 in the NHL?

Why can't a kid not learn slowly on a bottom 6 even if it's potential could be top 6?

 

[ReHabs]

For people who keep talking about rushing kids....you really don't believe that showing and making kids play in the NHL some games even if it means going back in the AHL can't have its merits? Couldn't it be part of a development to come in even if you are not ready and see for yourself what you need to improve first hand?

I mean, I suspect some are just waiting for the end result before they can assess if there is a development issue or not. Caufield was close for being called a development miss....and then he's not. But if the point is that people have nothing against rushing kids IF it's to place him in a role they should belong to....fine. But then, do you really go with Josh Roy from the Q, to the AHL...to RIGHT WAY top 6 in the NHL?

Why can't a kid not learn slowly on a bottom 6 even if it's potential could be top 6?

I think skilled players need to be put in a position to play a skill game -- aka o-zone, attacking, powerplay time.

Plopping a player on the 4th line to play garbage minutes with inconsistent linemates and short shifts doesn't help, especially not one who needs to adapt to the speed of the NHL. Why shouldn't he go down to the AHL and thrive there instead?

Caufield is a good example -- he had 9 points in eight AHL games, he clearly didn't need more seasoning there. With better TOI and opportunities he's thrived under MSL. The punitive Ducharme-Therrien approach didn't help him at all.

 

[26Mats]

Any of our local prospect gurus have an opinion on where he ranks in our prospect pool?

Behind guys like Roy, Mysak, Farrell?

I'm not a Guru, but I have Kidney ahead of Heineman. I suppose Kidney, Mysak, Heineman, and Ylonen are all in that 2nd tier below Roy and Farrell when it comes to the forwards. Hopefully RHP and Simoneau can also keep playing their way into that second tier.

 

[KevSkillz4]

I'm not a Guru, but I have Kidney ahead of Heineman. I suppose Kidney, Mysak, Heineman, and Ylonen are all in that 2nd tier below Roy and Farrell when it comes to the forwards. Hopefully RHP and Simoneau can also keep playing their way into that second tier.

Agree, I think Kidney, Mysak, Heineman and Ylonen are all in the same tier. They have potential to be great bottom 6/Top 9 players, with top 6 potential if they develop their offensive talent.

 

[bopeep]

Agree, I think Kidney, Mysak, Heineman and Ylonen are all in the same tier. They have potential to be great bottom 6/Top 9 players, with top 6 potential if they develop their offensive talent.

Hopefully Tuch and maybe Biondi slide in there as well - they all bring something different to the pool

 

[KevSkillz4]

Hopefully Tuch and maybe Biondi slide in there as well - they all bring something different to the pool

Yes, Tuch and Biondi looks good prospects too. Now it's a question how they are going to be developped. Potential is there, for sure!

Habs have a good prospect pool, with adding a high pick this year and more, the future is very bright.

 

[montreal]

Except for very strong teams in the NHL, most don't wait to get a player at his peak to bring him up. Look at Romanov, it was not pretty at time, but he learned in the NHL. He is one good example of a player you would blame Bergevin for if it would have turned out bad.

I know that bashing Lefebvre is slam dunk here. So you get no credit for that. We had this discussion about the so called development. For you, that and calling up players too early are the universal excuses. You will never be proven wrong with these claims because there is no alternative history. There is no history where Scherbak would have played four or five years in the AHL before playing a single game in the NHL. But I am quite sure he would have been a bust anyway.

Again, 90% is decided at the draft. If you drafted a player without the right stuff to mature into a NHL player under adequate coaching. There is no special trick to reverse that.

The case of Joshua Roy is a very good example. The kid understood at 17 that he needed to change his training and eating habits. If he sticks with that decision on the long run, he will make a very good NHL player. If after a while he goes back to laziness and eating too much, he will be a bust. No coaching will change that. Most of the outcome is up to the player if he has the talent. Again, it's will and talent and you cannot teach that. The rest is teachable by most coaches. The two goals Caufield scored tonight, no coach can teach that to a player. Roy is the same, his hockey sense, vision, shot, passing ability. He has it naturally.

No one said anything about only calling up a player when he's at his peak. It's simple, if you are struggling at the AHL level, then don't call up a 20 year old prospect until he's shown he's not struggling. That really shouldn't be hard to understand and is just logical even if it can't be proven to be right or wrong as who cares about that since it's just a message board. What matters is what happens and before MB we did not have a development problem were just about every prospect regressed so clearly something went very wrong and just about everyone involved now outside of Molson has been fired for it. So clearly there was an issue and now we need to see if it's fixed.

I actually get a lot of credit for Lefebvre on this board to the posters that were here then, cause I was the first one to call out how terrible of a job he was doing, I was the one taking shit from clueless posters that thought they knew so much but clearly were in over their heads and talking out their ass. I had a poster stalk me because he was so mad about my comments on Lefebvre. When Beaulieu and Tinordi where in Hamilton I started telling posters they were not looking good and had concerns about their development, fans gave me all kinds of shit, until they started to see both struggle in the NHL. So I proven right on Lefebvre cause MB ended up firing him for a reason. But getting credit or not means nothing as it doesn't change the fact that our development, coaching, drafting under MB was bad for many years.

Scherbak could easily just have been a bad pick, he was a very good playmaker but didn't seem like the type that wanted to work hard and was terrible in his own end. No one ever said he should spend 4 or 5 years in the AHL but he was handled extremely poorly, so a lot of stupid decisions were made with him which I've posted about countless time. But just because he may have been bust regardless of development/coaching, doesn't mean they didn't do a terrible job with him.

Where do you get 90% is at the draft, how do you know what 17 year olds have the right stuff as you put it, how do you know which ones will mature in time and have the right stuff later on?

As for Roy, yes coaches can help with that, coaches can see that you aren't working hard enough off the ice or whatever and push you to do better. Now you have to be mature enough to listen and respond and follow directions but the right coaches know how to push players. When Guy Boucher was HC in Hamilton I thought he made some excellent points in his pre or post game interviews on how to deal with young players.

For people who keep talking about rushing kids....you really don't believe that showing and making kids play in the NHL some games even if it means going back in the AHL can't have its merits? Couldn't it be part of a development to come in even if you are not ready and see for yourself what you need to improve first hand?

I mean, I suspect some are just waiting for the end result before they can assess if there is a development issue or not. Caufield was close for being called a development miss....and then he's not. But if the point is that people have nothing against rushing kids IF it's to place him in a role they should belong to....fine. But then, do you really go with Josh Roy from the Q, to the AHL...to RIGHT WAY top 6 in the NHL?

Why can't a kid not learn slowly on a bottom 6 even if it's potential could be top 6?

Rushing kids can have merits, it's all about confidence and the problem is when you mess with that, it can be very hard to get back. It's a gamble that imo you need to be careful with. So if you are rushing kid after kid and it's blowing up in your face, then perhaps it's time to stop rushing them and try a different approach.

Each kid is different, each will respond to things differently, some handle pressure and or failure well, others don't.

The reason why Caufield was looked at as a possible development miss was not because he was rushed imo, but because of how Dom handled him. Your team sucks, your season is over and one of your best young players and greatest hopes for the future and what does he do wit the struggling player? He drops him to the 3rd and 4th line and then the AHL. Not saying that can't work to turn him around but why not just keep him on the top line since what will it cost you since the season is over. If not then he should have been in the AHL sooner imo.

But the case of Caufield clearly shows what coaching and confidence can do. It's not like MSL just reinvented the wheel here, as there was no way Caufield was that bad under Dom for a guy that can shoot like that to have only 1 goal in 30 games. In half the games he's now got 10 times the goals, so it's not like he suddenly just got better either. The coach helped him get his confidence back by trusting him and playing him in a key role which is what I have been pushing for under MB and his dinosaur coaches for years now.

But it's not rushing them if you think they are ready. Caufield just had one of the best U-20 seasons I've seen from a forward in the NCAA so I'm ok with him being in the NHL. It's not like KK or Galchenyuk where they were coming off major knee injuries and clearly had a lot of work to do with the skating, strength, balance for KK, defensive play for Galchenyuk. If Poehling gets benched in the AHL or Primeau gives up 14 goals in 3 games, you just don't call them up, that's rushing and it's stupid or at least risky. It could certainly work out, some can excel more when the pressure is turned up even more, others fold.

Roy's game to me doesn't look NHL ready, but if he comes to camp and the skating, speed, strength look better then we'll see. If he's in the NHL then it's got to be top 6 or you don't call him up imo.

 

[montreal]

It's certainly going to be interesting to see how the picks coming up in the next few years do and how Timmins will end up looking assuming we actually do have much improved development team and plan in place.

 

[Canadienna]

It's certainly going to be interesting to see how the picks coming up in the next few years do and how Timmins will end up looking assuming we actually do have much improved development team and plan in place.

I know it's a big debate around here but it sure seems like he at least left us with some interesting late round steals.

 

[ReHabs]

Timmons was responsible for development too so those failures are entirely on him and are better with him gone if only because of that

 

[montreal]

Timmons was responsible for development too so those failures are entirely on him and are better with him gone if only because of that

He didn't hire MT, Julien, Lefebvre or Dom. The only coach I heard that was on hired on his suggestion was Guy Boucher and I don't know to what degree that was, I just remember hearing he suggested Boucher for the Hamilton job. We also don't know if he had any say in guys getting called up or not. So was he for Poehling being in the NHL after getting benched in the AHL or was that MB's call? Or Primeau giving up 14 goals in 3 games and then gets called up to face the Avs as a 20 year old goalie.

 

[ReHabs]

He didn't hire MT, Julien, Lefebvre or Dom. The only coach I heard that was on hired on his suggestion was Guy Boucher and I don't know to what degree that was, I just remember hearing he suggested Boucher for the Hamilton job. We also don't know if he had any say in guys getting called up or not. So was he for Poehling being in the NHL after getting benched in the AHL or was that MB's call? Or Primeau giving up 14 goals in 3 games and then gets called up to face the Avs as a 20 year old goalie.

I mean, that was his title wasn’t it? Head of player development?

We developed like zero impact players

 

[montreal]

I mean, that was his title wasn’t it? Head of player development?

We developed like zero impact players

Price, Pac, Subban, depending on Definition Gallagher.

As for Timmins I don't know what his job was other then the draft, do you think he hired MT, Julien, Dom or Lefebvre?

 

[ReHabs]

Price, Pac, Subban, depending on Definition Gallagher.

As for Timmins I don't know what his job was other then the draft, do you think he hired MT, Julien, Dom or Lefebvre?

Sorry, I meant we developed zero impact players since his promotion to being in charge of the entire amateur drafting and development department. Unless I'm mistaken it happened shortly into Bergevin's tenure.

Price, Pac, Subban, and Gallagher were all drafted over ten years ago - it's ancient history. Given his department's track record since then, he couldn't develop McDavid into a 80 point player, it seems like.

And yes Lefebvre does fall under his purview imo - if he was as bad as it seems (and I believe he was) Timmins should've solved the issue. This is how leadership works, the most senior person is responsible for the outcomes under his/her department.

 

[montreal]

Sorry, I meant we developed zero impact players since his promotion to being in charge of the entire amateur drafting and development department. Unless I'm mistaken it happened shortly into Bergevin's tenure.

Price, Pac, Subban, and Gallagher were all drafted over ten years ago - it's ancient history. Given his department's track record since then, he couldn't develop McDavid into a 80 point player, it seems like.

And yes Lefebvre does fall under his purview imo - if he was as bad as it seems (and I believe he was) Timmins should've solved the issue. This is how leadership works, the most senior person is responsible for the outcomes under his/her department.

His promotion was to AGM so we don't know what his job was other then the draft. How do you know he didn't suggest MB get rid of Lefebvre? Who knows what was said to MB and if he listened to anyone or not.

 

[ReHabs]

His promotion was to AGM so we don't know what his job was other then the draft. How do you know he didn't suggest MB get rid of Lefebvre? Who knows what was said to MB and if he listened to anyone or not.

If he's in charge of the draft and all his picks are getting ground up into mincemeat when they get through the AHL, if he has any integrity he (after exhausting all options...) gives Bergevin an ultimatum - either me or him, he's undoing my work and hurting our organization!

He didn't do that though.