Trevor Timmins Part II

[ProspectsFanatic]

No, it was a big mistake not taking Kopitar.
We could of had Kopitar and Quick.

Kopitar, Quick >> Price

He could of picked Letang over Latendress aswell.

Why does drafting Price automatically mean that we would have drafted Quick? This is pure speculation.

Drafting G wasn't even an absolute need for us at that draft.

Price > Kopitar. End of the story.

 

[ginomini]

Really nice analysis Chris Cutter!
It tends to porve what a lot of posters here a saying, Timmins have been bad since 2008.

Howver, I think 2012 and after could turn out to be pretty good.

(could have been amazing if we have avoided WTF picks like Crisp and Koberstein, could have Forsling and Bjork/Duclair/Buch/Hayden)....

 

[Le Barron de HF]

Really nice analysis Chris Cutter!
It tends to porve what a lot of posters here a saying, Timmins have been bad since 2008.

Howver, I think 2012 and after could turn out to be pretty good.

(could have been amazing if we have avoided WTF picks like Crisp and Koberstein, could have Forsling and Bjork/Duclair/Buch/Hayden)....

Thank you, what I find particularly interesting is that it is a good counter-argument to those (and I have been part of them) who defend Timmins' lackluster resume since 08 due to lack of quality picks. While it is a valid argument, Timmins has been batting under .500 vs CSS with the picks he has which is a cause for concern. Anyway, I'm glad some of you have appreciated my analysis as flawed as it may be, didn't want it to go unnoticed after the work it took

 

[ginomini]

Thank you, what I find particularly interesting is that it is a good counter-argument to those (and I have been part of them) who defend Timmins' lackluster resume since 08 due to lack of quality picks. While it is a valid argument, Timmins has been batting under .500 vs CSS with the picks he has which is a cause for concern. Anyway, I'm glad some of you have appreciated my analysis as flawed as it may be, didn't want it to go unnoticed after the work it took

As flawed as it may be, it's still the best way to evauate Timmins objectively. It's the less flawed analysis possible for us.

 

[montreal]

Timmins said in 2006 and 2007 that the reason why he went hard on d-men was for organizational needs

I don't recall hearing that for '07. I do remember hearing that for '06 and I thought I recalled Timmins saying later on that it was a mistake or something to that nature. I'd have to go back and look all that up again though as it's been some time.

I think Timmins was hired just before the 2003 draft, so it's not completely clear how responsible he was.

Timmins I'm pretty sure was hired just after the '02 draft. In July I believe but couldn't find the date when I did a quick search.

Weren't Condon/Lindgren/Mcniven singed as UFA and not drafted?

Timmins job isn't just about the draft, just like when they traded for Pateryn, Bournival, Thomas etc... Although I don't know how much say he will have during the trades, there's no way I would believe that they don't consult Timmins since he would have been the one to scout them along with his team. Pateryn was traded for just days after the '08 draft where he was picked out of the USHL. That just screams Timmins, an American defensemen that played in the USHS and USHL.

So players like McNiven, Lindgren, Condon will be on Timmins imo over anyone else. Granted that doesn't mean he hasn't picked some terrible ones. How on earth Philippe Lefebvre got an NHL contract, or Alain Berger or Robert Mayer.

 

[Mathletic]

Only thing is TT has been here for 14 years. The longer he goes the more likely a player will fall into his lap. Look at Gallagher. Good pick but lets be real its not like TT knew Galley would turn into the player he is. He took a flyer on a 5th rounder. With 3 USHL players taken after Galley lets count our lucky stars TT didn't go back to that well.

How many scouts have been there for 14 years?

Same way Dallas took a flyer on Benn. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. Good on TT for making that pick. Was there luck involved? Of course, I had Gallagher in my first round that year. Make me a scout for another team in that league and Gallagher isn't available in the 5th round. That said, he was there and he picked him. Good on him.

 

[Whitesnake]

2007 isn't the norm for any HS. But let's look at the other years:

2003 - 4 NHLers
2004 - 4 NHLers
2005 - 4 NHLers
2006 - 1 NHLer
2007 - 4 NHLers - 3 exceptional
2008 - butkiss
2009 - butkiss the sequel
2010 - 1 NHLer
2011 - 1 NHLer
2012 - 1 NHLer (maybe another on the way)

The jury is still out on the remaining drafts but 2013 looks like 3-5 NHLers could emerge. Not great NHLers but NHlers all the same.

I agree with you that the first drafts were great but something happened in 08 or after the 07 draft. I can't recall if Gauthier became assistant GM in 08 or if scouts were released around then.

Quantity isn't important. The idea of the draft is to be able to get the players you can't get through UFA or trades. And don't take my word for it...take Bergevin's word who keep saying how hard it is and that top players need to be drafted.

I'm not a big Timmins fan but any good or great draft will be an exception for any scout. Nobody picks core players with any consistency. When evaluating drafting, I think you have to take all a scout's drafts into account.

I have no problem with that. Yet, when people keep coming to this draft to show how exceptional he is, then it makes no sense. Since we all know it's not the norm and just can't be.

 

[Mrb1p]

I have no problem with that. Yet, when people keep coming to this draft to show how exceptional he is, then it makes no sense. Since we all know it's not the norm and just can't be.

It makes as much sense as taking 2008 or 2009 and saying hes bad because of them.

 

[DAChampion]

It makes as much sense as taking 2008 or 2009 and saying hes bad because of them.

Yes, for Timmins the only limit that makes sense is 2003-2016, or 2013-2011 if you want to say that 2012-2016 are currently uncertain.

 

[Whitesnake]

It makes as much sense as taking 2008 or 2009 and saying hes bad because of them.

Great news that NOBODY is saying that then....

Yes, for Timmins the only limit that makes sense is 2003-2016, or 2013-2011 if you want to say that 2012-2016 are currently uncertain.

No it doesn't. If EVERYBODY can be analyzed through trends, it means that the Head scout can to. Therrien has a great winning record as coach. Can't believe we fired them because it wasn't going that well for a couple of months....LOOK AT THE OVERALL RECORD!!!!!

And 2012 is not uncertain. We got Galchenyuk with a top 3 pick. And most people in here think that Hudon is a waste. So everything else didn't work out. 2013...yeah, still a question mark...though NOBODY but Lehkonen have a chance to ever be a top 6 player. And that's a big if. So Timmins continue his trends....most NHL'ers than a lot of people....but most of them are interchangeable....and will go at one point in a insignificant trade that will at best make this team go lateral.....again.

So as an organization. When you are the owner. And you are being told by your GM how he should be given a contract for life to your head scout....and you have so little top players coming from drafts for a lot of years now, and of the great trait of your head scout is that he's getting NHLers...that rapidly are getting traded for nothing.....well it has to be one of the other. Either your head scout is finally not that good. Either your GM sucks at getting a coach that wil make those players perform. Or he sucks at getting as high a value as he could for those players instead of draining those value to the ground before getting close to nothing for them.

 

[Mathletic]

No it doesn't. If EVERYBODY can be analyzed through trends, it means that the Head scout can to. Therrien has a great winning record as coach. Can't believe we fired them because it wasn't going that well for a couple of months....LOOK AT THE OVERALL RECORD!!!!!

And 2012 is not uncertain. We got Galchenyuk with a top 3 pick. And most people in here think that Hudon is a waste. So everything else didn't work out. 2013...yeah, still a question mark...though NOBODY but Lehkonen have a chance to ever be a top 6 player. And that's a big if. So Timmins continue his trends....most NHL'ers than a lot of people....but most of them are interchangeable....and will go at one point in a insignificant trade that will at best make this team go lateral.....again.

So as an organization. When you are the owner. And you are being told by your GM how he should be given a contract for life to your head scout....and you have so little top players coming from drafts for a lot of years now, and of the great trait of your head scout is that he's getting NHLers...that rapidly are getting traded for nothing.....well it has to be one of the other. Either your head scout is finally not that good. Either your GM sucks at getting a coach that wil make those players perform. Or he sucks at getting as high a value as he could for those players instead of draining those value to the ground before getting close to nothing for them.

Personally, I've never analyzed coaches or players over trends. I always thought that was stupid for the most part. It can be justified when something important happens. Let's say a player suffers a major injury or something like that, then yeah, I think it makes sense to pay closer attention to a subset of his stats. But micro-analyzing, like we're seeing too often on the board like so and so has 1 goal in 14 games ... when in reality it's at least 2 in 15 ... leads to nothing illuminating. Same goes for coaches and scouts. If you think there's a reason for Timmins becoming a worse scout after 2007, fine. But I don't see one.

I could envision something like a scout drafting a stud in the 5th round and then re-orienting his draft strategy to emphasize the skills he saw in that player, say a big guy who skated well and then drafting based on that strategy. That could make him worse but on the whole, drafting core players is very difficult to do. It happens less than 20% of the time with picks in the second half of the first round. I don't expect anyone to hit for 500 with those picks.

I do think Timmins deserves some blame for going for "safe" players. I don't think he's as good as some are saying. For example, when blasting Lefebvre, to say that so and so was drafted by Timmins, so he must be a solid player is just wrong IMO. Timmins has made several bad picks over the years. But so did a host of scouts across the league.

 

[Draft]

I think it may have to do with an over-emphasis on size and grit while the NHL is consistently moving towards being more fast and skilled.

 

[Habs Icing]

Quantity isn't important. The idea of the draft is to be able to get the players you can't get through UFA or trades. And don't take my word for it...take Bergevin's word who keep saying how hard it is and that top players need to be drafted.

Okay quality then:
Halak
A.K
Grabovski
Streit
Price
Latendresse
McDonagh
PK
Patches
Y. Weber
Gally
Beaulieu
Chucky

I count 13.

 

[Whitesnake]

Okay quality then:
Halak
A.K
Grabovski
Streit
Price
Latendresse
McDonagh
PK
Patches
Y. Weber
Gally
Beaulieu
Chucky

I count 13.

Which goes right back to my pre 2007 argument.....but I guess we'll try to pretend as if it's not the case. And when I say "quality", it means, as I keep saying, players that play a key role....the ones Bergevin keep saying that the only way you get them, is through draft, as UFA and trades are tough to make. So CLEARLY you can remove Yanick Weber from that last list. Beaulieu? Let,s wait....he was STILL this year a healthy scratch. 6 years after being taken. And I will agree with the rest of your list. Though, we discuss the quality of Lats and Grabs. And AK well based on what there before, yeah fine player....but we could have done much much more.

But I do count 10 pre 2007. 3 after. And out of those 10 pre 2007 quite a few aren't top 10 picks. Which means that Timmins used to be able to do miracles with picks after the 1st. So that's 3 out of 32 picks from 2008 to 2012. 10 out of 42 from 2003 to 2007. And yeah, poor him he had only 3 2nd rounders to work with from 2008 to 2012. Yet, your list shows that there's only 2 2nd rounders in there. Most of your list is composed of picks after the 3rd round. And some in the 1st too.

Timmins is with this team for 14 years now. And that was fine for me. A very good head scout with some very good findings. While he is surely very good, my point is that it might not be the end of the Montreal Canadiens if we decide to go in another direction. Mind you....going full Churla IS NOT the other direction I want to go either. And while the GM's aren't up to par and so was the coaching in the very last years....maybe we should also look at other spheres of this organization to go to another level.

Mind you right now....I have NO FAITH in the people in place to find the right people. And unfortunately it starts with the owner.....

 

[ginomini]

I think another interesting way of evaluating Timmins + Developpement would be looking at every team's top 4d + #1 G + top 9 fwd. Impact players on a roster. How many of those players have been drafted and developped by the team for which they are playing now.

That's what you want of your scouting team, bring impact players to the organisation.

 

[scrubadam]

Why does drafting Price automatically mean that we would have drafted Quick? This is pure speculation.

Drafting G wasn't even an absolute need for us at that draft.

Price > Kopitar. End of the story.

Price better than Kopitar but I think this team could of been a lot better with Kopitar and another goalie. No trade for Gomez either. Habs could of signed or drafted another goalie. Still have guys like Murray/Holtby/Bishop that were available at some point not to mention Halak. We could of had a C line of Kopi/Saku/Plek thats pretty good down the middle.

 

[scrubadam]

2003 is so frustrating because I don't understand how the organization would draft an enigmatic Belarussian forward over some big old Canadian boys that play C.

Team forgot that you need to be good down the middle to win a cup. Since then been some epic fail to address that need. Thats across two owners and 3 GM's so far so.

 

[Whitesnake]

2003 is so frustrating because I don't understand how the organization would draft an enigmatic Belarussian forward over some big old Canadian boys that play C.

Team forgot that you need to be good down the middle to win a cup. Since then been some epic fail to address that need. Thats across two owners and 3 GM's so far so.

Let just say that at least they went for pure skills. So that part was tough to blame them. But there was so much other pure skills and players that seemed safer that this is what is more problematic. I would have went Parise ahead of Kosty even if Carter and Getzlaf were maybe not seen as great point producer.

 

[Montreal Impact FC]

kostitsyn back then was such a highly tslented kid with raw scoring hability a tremendous shot and skated and lloked like a young forsberg.

at that point we dont know what his mentality really his.. since they were kids at that moment who knows.. maybe if he would have brought to another organisation with a different mindset and different background he could have reached his ceiling.. at the end kf the day it was a risky pick with high potential reward keep in mind back then we were desprately looking for young superskilled star... we knew he would take some time and no one was complaining when we saw his skills in his first training camp at 19 years old. the project didnt work it happens with many teams. remember the years with kovalev?

unfortunately belorussian players seemed to have a strange mentality but we got highly skilled players sergei andrei and the infamous mikhail

 

[get25]

Anyone heard Chainey saying he tough he would have been fired given TT's results?
I think it was two or three days ago on "On-Jase".
The question was asked two or three times and the answer is not very loud but it is obvious.

He was scouting for the Ducks for about 20 years (Head scout from 1996 till 2011) and was pretty good.

Last few years, he picked (2011): Rackell, Gibson and Karlsson (also Manson).
Previous year (2010) ain't so bad: Fowler, Etem, DSP
Then in 2009: Holland, Palmieri, Vatanen.
And in 2008: Gardiner and Schultz.

BTW, in 2003, they got Getzlaf and Perry in 19th and 28th, arguably best forwards of that draft.
Carter 11th and Parise 17th are also good but they were already gone.

That year we took AK instead of Getzlaf, Carter, Parise or Perry. We also took Urquart instead of Bergeron or Weber and Lapierre instead of Backes.

Imagine 2010 PO with Getzlaf, Bergeron and Backes instead of Gomez and AK. Add Plekanec and one of Koivu/Kovalev in offense.
UFA would have lined-up to come in Montreal.

Two years later, our line-up would have been: Price, Markov, PK, McDonagh, Getzlaf, Bergeron, Backes, Plekanec and Pacioretty.
Best top-3 defense in the league and best top-5 offense in the league.
DD would certainly not have been a top-6.

 

[montreal]

Ya it wasn't a need, that's why we could have taken Quick or Bishop in the 3rd round.

Kopitar, Quick/Bishop > Price. End of story.

I'd still take Price over Kopitar, Quick/Bishop. Put Quick or Bishop on the Habs during Price's years and I bet they don't do nearly as well as he does. Imo he's that far ahead of them that while having Kopitar would be huge for us, having the best goalie in the world is more important for the Habs since they so heavily rely on goaltending.

If Price doesn't get injured last year, imo the Habs would have made the playoffs and that would be 8 of the last 9 years in the playoffs with Price do most of the heavy lifting. I think having the best player at one of the most important positions, especially on a team that so badly needs that position to excel is just too much to pass up.

 

[DAChampion]

Lehkonen is such a great pick.

 

[Bieber fever]

The results are underwhelming for a team that spend **** load of money on scout and developement

 

[DAChampion]

The results are underwhelming for a team that spend **** load of money on scout and developement

This team spent its development money on Lefebvre.

 

[MrNasty]

There is one thing that is a certainty and it is the same for every HF team page. Somebody, anybody needs to be an excuse for not winning a cup or for anything really other than team perfection.
Usually it is the coach, sometimes a GM, sometimes the scouting and it goes on and on to the other coaches, the cafeteria server and occasionally, but rarely it is a players fault. That is HFB. Ironically, the picks that Timmins makes that are raved about on HFB turn out like crap and the picks people hate turn out well.

This month it is head scout. The head coach gets a pass for a short while, the GM for a shorter period. Most players are ok because it is usually the GM, HC or HS fault over theirs.