Trevor Timmins - The day they made me draft Louis Leblanc....

[Habs100]

Talent is plenty with the Leafs and Bruins but a complete hockey team is why the Bruins are winning that series.

Habs lack guys with grit and talent. Aside from Gallagher, we are not winning too many puck battles so we can get the puck to guys like Drouin and Galchenyuk in open spaces. We need to target prospects with the Size/Skating/Skill/Grit combo. Skill is nice but we need complementary players. We have way too many soft players. It has nothing to do with “attitude”

My personal opinion is that this Leafs team in their prime beats this Bruins team in their prime. It's an/experience issue.

The Bruins and Jackets have size and skill. The other 6 teams in the league are built on speed and skill.

I'm not opposed to getting a player like Debrusk, of course, I just don't want anymore Debrusks without the skill.

 

[Habs Halifax]

My personal opinion is that this Leafs team in their prime beats this Bruins team in their prime. It's an/experience issue.

The Bruins and Jackets have size and skill. The other 6 teams in the league are built on speed and skill.

I'm not opposed to getting a player like Debrusk, of course, I just don't want anymore Debrusks without the skill.

It comes down to a complete hockey team. Leafs can be exposed on D. Bruins have no team weakness

 

[Habs100]

Timmins has been here for 15 years. Bergevin for 6 years. We have never reached a 3rd round. How about changing the philosophy and the scouting group first and go from there? While going from there ALSO mean getting rid of Bergevin....Timmins without Bergevin, as far as top players are concerned, drafted Price, Subban, Pacioretty, Gallagher and McDonagh. And despite that, we did NOT trade all of them for nothing. Price, Pacioretty and Gallagher are STILL here. Those are the ones with value. Leaves Subban and McDonagh. McDonagh a big miss....and while Subban was a stupid trade, it should not have been stupid at least in the first years...which...finally it was. But Weber is STILL not Gomez. So again, the work that Timmins did is STILL here. And aside from ONE guy that was TOTALLY wasted, McDonagh, everything is there based on Timmins work.

I'd really like to know.....are we going to close this team if Timmins leaves? What do people have so much problem with trying to just look elsewhere and see who else might do a better job? Are you all so aware of every scout in the league that you KNOW that Nobody would do a better job? The guy that represents more what this team is, is Timminsi based on how long he's been here. Yes, Bergevin WILL ALSO have to go. And hoping it will happen next summer after another bad year.

I just don't trust Bergevin to get someone better than Timmins. In fact, the odds, as I see them, would say he'd hire the Sylvain Lefebvre of scouting.

So, when we get a new GM, I'd hope he'd keep Timmins on for a bit. If this new GM seems adept in other areas I'd have confidence in him choosing a new scouting directions.

I think if you combine what Timmins gives us with good work in the UFA and trade markets you have a contender. So, I wouldn't want to throw that away for some random scout.

My hope with Timmins is that after a great start up until 2007, since the game has become more speed and skill oriented and since he's learned his lesson about going after guys with limited up side or size (like Chipchura, Tinordi, Fischer, McCarron and De la Rose) he's going to go for talent like Subban, Pacioretty, Gallagher, Scherbak, Juulsen, Mete, Hudon, Lehkonen, Grabovski, Latendresse, and Streit in the later 1st round and later rounds in general, and continue to kill it with lottery picks, like Price, McDonagh, Galchneyuk, and Sergachev.

At worst, even if a new head scout is brought in, I'd like to see Timmins stay on and try to find dmen and wingers.

 

[Habs100]

It comes down to a complete hockey team. Leafs can be exposed on D. Bruins have no team weakness

Yes the Leafs are still building their D core as well. That is true. But imo, they could win with a better dcore that was fast and slick without being physically intimidating.

 

[LaP]

I tend to believe in the 10% rule. A coach can only make a player 10% better or 10% worse.

I tend to agree with that. But that's actually a 20% difference between the best case and the worst case. 20% is a lot. It's basically the difference between a 40 points guy and a 50 points guy (45 + 10% = 49.5 and 45 - 10% = 40.5). Personally i think any impact a coach might have on a player is often short lived. Players are who they are and eventually they revert back to their original potential after some years when it doesn't click with the coach anymore. See Dale Weise as an example or Oleg Petrov. But a good coach can still exploit that short window and i would say with the salary cap it's almost essential to. In the end you can't create skills out of nothing but a good coach can still help a young player or even a vet to make some progress and to become more confident on his abilities at the NHL level. It's a different game that the junior or AHL and some guys need help to take the next step. A bad coach can destroy that confidence in a heartbeat too.

I think the biggest negative impact a coach can have on a kid is if the coach makes the kid looks worse than he really is then the kid becomes what i would call categorized. Other coaches and teams wont lose time with him and often he ends up in Europe after 3 or 4 years in the AHL. Sometime they come back later like Petrov but rarely. Reputation is everything in this league. If your reputation is one of a failure and a guy who doesn't have what it takes then often it's already too late specially if your toolbox is the one of a 3rd liner. A coach can have an influence on that. For guys like Hudon the difference between being a star in Europe or a deluxe 3rd liner in the NHL is very thin and often the coach in the AHL has a say in the final decision.

I don't believe a coach can create a Kucherov. This type of guys will succeed no matter what. But i do believe guys like Point and Gourde might not be as successful as they are in our system.

 

[Whitesnake]

That's an irrelevant question to ask me. Don't you think? We're not discussing my encyclopedic knowledge of NHL players. We're discussing Karpan's. And by helping to build the Vegas he has more than proven to me he knows what he is doing. Whether I saw it coming or not has nothing to do with our discussion. Actually, if I or you didn't see it coming, we should take that as a lesson in humility. We don't know as much as we think we do.

As for your big eraser comment that Gallant is the real reason Vegas is where they are, well, all I have to say is yes Gallant is an excellent coach and I wanted him here instead of Julien but we know the politics of this province so that was not going to happen. BUT having said that how great of a coach was he in Florida? If you don't have the horses you're going nowhere. My instincts tell me despite the fact that I wanted Gallant instead of Julien I'll still admit there was not much Gallant could do for this team. No top 6 centers, lacking two top 2 pairing d-men and then all the injuries, I don't think Gallant could have done anything.

I never said there was anything great. But I do think the amateur drafting is good. We have other pillars in this organization that are rotten and porous: AHL (player development), pro scouting and the management staff. Let's rectify those problems first and and then let's see where amateur scouting fits in after that.

So you really believe that Karpan and McPhee, the guy that traded Forsberg for Erat and the guy that nobody in here would have thought to hire as a GM, even if the language factor would not exist, sorry but I can't believe that what we are seeing here is exclusively a proof that they are capable of building a great team. Believing that means that compared to EVERYONE ELSE, they are able to build a contending team in 1 year. Who else were able to do that? That Vegas success is a combination of a lot of things. Yes, they surely did a good job. But there are probably the FIRST ones that are surprised by it. If their goal would have been to build a winning team from the get go, they would not have made so many moves to leave more interesteing players on the table. They still went for a lot of picks 'cause they thought their end game was the future. But yes, OBVIOUSLY they did a good job. So no, it has nothing to do with how you, I or everybody else INCLUDING THEMSELVES thought where it was going. Yeah, he thought at the time that it would be a good team. Clearly, it would be as the expansion rules was a huge friend to him. But the way they did this year? They had no idea. And you know it.

Yes, we have a lot of things to work on. I was really asking the question 'cause there is actually NOTHING that is fine. It's not because the amateur scouting isn't the worse, or because the amateur is better than the rest that it's actually good. I don't think it was. People keep giving excuses to him that they don't give to others. On one year, they didn't have enough picks. Well Boston is seeing 4 picks out of 5 in the 2014 draft, 3 of which will most likely play a key role in the near future. Then, Timmins gets a lot of picks but....it might not be a huge draft so it's not his fault either. It's not his fault if he doesn't have high picks to work with or 2nd rounders....yet, no words on the other teams that don't have the same. Pretty sure I've never hear how poor Rangers scouting, it was not his fault based on how many years they missed their 1st rounders. I'M pretty sure that on a list, Timmins is way ahead the Rangers scouting team....with no asterisks attached to it.

 

[Whitesnake]

Look at the balance on that line... they complement each other. Marchand and Pasternak are aggressive while Bergeron plays the responsible two way game

Skill is important but how they complement each other is underrated. This is the Leafs problem. Bruins are the better hockey team while the skill is similar between the two teams.

How much skill does the Preds have up front?

Yes, complementary skills are key. If your point is aggressiveness....Gallagher is aggressive. What differentiate Marchand and Gallagher? Aggressiveness? Or Skills? Galchenyuk is aggressive. But what separates him with Pastrnak? Pure skills.

 

[Whitesnake]

I mean, at one point, we will watch how Jake Evans develop. But....let say he doesn't develop as well....what would be the people evaluation of draft vs development? That it proves our development sucks 'cause Jake Evans was a great scorer in the NCAA? You just can't do that. Tons of senior top scorers have never been even fine AHL'ers. It's actually an extreme minority that were PPG seniors that ended up in the NHL. Not saying it was a bad pick though. Jake Evans has talent. I prefer that type of pick in the 7th round. I'm fine with that pick. It was a good pick.....but maybe for what it was. Him not developing into a top 6 might have nothing to do with development....

 

[Habs Icing]

...yet, no words on the other teams that don't have the same. Pretty sure I've never hear how poor Rangers scouting, it was not his fault based on how many years they missed their 1st rounders. I'M pretty sure that on a list, Timmins is way ahead the Rangers scouting team....with no asterisks attached to it.

I'll bet Timmins' record holds up against 25 of the teams out there.

 

[Whitesnake]

I'll bet Timmins' record holds up against 25 of the teams out there.

If it holds up just as much, it means that it might not be the irreplaceable guy I hear about. That's it. The only thing I'm saying on that subject is that I just don't get how irreplaceable he seems to be for some of you. What are we really going to miss? And why can't another scout, a professionnal, I'm not advocating for an amateur to take his place here...why can't another professionnal not be able to do as good as job? It took what Vegas did this year so for people to wake up about Karpan. So....what if there are some other hidden gems out there?

 

[Whitesnake]

I just don't trust Bergevin to get someone better than Timmins. In fact, the odds, as I see them, would say he'd hire the Sylvain Lefebvre of scouting.

So, when we get a new GM, I'd hope he'd keep Timmins on for a bit.

Well that's the best point anybody can give me about NOT replacing Timmins. That's actually the only one.

Even if Timmins would be bad, which he is not, it would probably be better to keep a bad scout than to go and get an extra bad one.....But...having said....what's the expression again....even a bad clock is right sometimes? I would bet Bergevin would be able to. A bet I would probably lose....I know....

 

[Price is Wright]

I tend to agree with that. But that's actually a 20% difference between the best case and the worst case. 20% is a lot. It's basically the difference between a 40 points guy and a 50 points guy (45 + 10% = 49.5 and 45 - 10% = 40.5). Personally i think any impact a coach might have on a player is often short lived. Players are who they are and eventually they revert back to their original potential after some years when it doesn't click with the coach anymore. See Dale Weise as an example or Oleg Petrov. But a good coach can still exploit that short window and i would say with the salary cap it's almost essential to. In the end you can't create skills out of nothing but a good coach can still help a young player or even a vet to make some progress and to become more confident on his abilities at the NHL level. It's a different game that the junior or AHL and some guys need help to take the next step. A bad coach can destroy that confidence in a heartbeat too.

I think the biggest negative impact a coach can have on a kid is if the coach makes the kid looks worse than he really is then the kid becomes what i would call categorized. Other coaches and teams wont lose time with him and often he ends up in Europe after 3 or 4 years in the AHL. Sometime they come back later like Petrov but rarely. Reputation is everything in this league. If your reputation is one of a failure and a guy who doesn't have what it takes then often it's already too late specially if your toolbox is the one of a 3rd liner. A coach can have an influence on that. For guys like Hudon the difference between being a star in Europe or a deluxe 3rd liner in the NHL is very thin and often the coach in the AHL has a say in the final decision.

I don't believe a coach can create a Kucherov. This type of guys will succeed no matter what. But i do believe guys like Point and Gourde might not be as successful as they are in our system.

I agree it can be temporary and 10% is max. Not that it's always 10%. I think Michel Therrien made Dale Weise a better player by 10% while Therrien made Ryan White 10% worse. But other cases it was less and sometimes 0%. I don't think Gallagher having his best season is because Therrien was holding him back or Julien makes him better.

I don't know if Jason Bonsignoire is an NHL top six centre if drafted by someone else, especially since he was taken so high because of his size and Ethan Moreau, who had an NHL career and was drafted 10 spot lower than 4th overall Bonsignoire, had 36 more points on the same team. He likes to claim his career was derailed and the Oilers preferred Smyth, but Smyth had 105 points in his draft year. Bonsignoire? 62. Maybe he was a size draft and nothing else. But maybe the right coaching he ends up a bottom six player? Who knows, but I don't think great coaching makes great players. Great coaching just keeps great players great.

 

[habsfan909]

Well that's the best point anybody can give me about NOT replacing Timmins. That's actually the only one.

Even if Timmins would be bad, which he is not, it would probably be better to keep a bad scout than to go and get an extra bad one.....But...having said....what's the expression again....even a bad clock is right sometimes? I would bet Bergevin would be able to. A bet I would probably lose....I know....

We need to replace Timmins. Not because he's been a big problem, he's been OK. Just not good enough and too many 1st round misses.
We just need to fire Marc first and let the new President/GM clean house and rebuild. SO that means in 2022 we should be ready to fire Timmins.

 

[Price is Wright]

I'll bet Timmins' record holds up against 25 of the teams out there.

From when, 2003 to 2017 when most teams haven't had the same guy running their draft that long?

To me you have to break him into three eras.

2003-2007
2008-2012
2013-2017

The first era he was unquestionably one of the best in the league at the draft.

The second era he was one of the worst and only had one successful pick outside of the Top 10 in the draft.

That leaves the third era. If you think he's doing fine or it's too early, that's fine. I look around the league at the 2013/2014/2015 guys making much bigger impacts than Habs picks (aside from Sergachev) and wonder why we need to keep him and Churla. I don't see anything special.

 

[Habs100]

Well that's the best point anybody can give me about NOT replacing Timmins. That's actually the only one.

Even if Timmins would be bad, which he is not, it would probably be better to keep a bad scout than to go and get an extra bad one.....But...having said....what's the expression again....even a bad clock is right sometimes? I would bet Bergevin would be able to. A bet I would probably lose....I know....

There's a difference between a scout with a bad track record, a top 15 track record (i.e. middle of the pack) and a top 10 track record.

It's hard to exactly determine this, but I'm pretty sure Timmins is at least top 15 and probably top 10. Hopefully he can continue to increase is trade record, as he has been doing since 2012. It had taken a serious hit from 2008 to 2011.

 

[Habs100]

We need to replace Timmins. Not because he's been a big problem, he's been OK. Just not good enough and too many 1st round misses.
We just need to fire Marc first and let the new President/GM clean house and rebuild. SO that means in 2022 we should be ready to fire Timmins.

You do know that every team, when you don't look at their lottery picks, has more 1st round misses than hits, don't you? In one comparison I did, Timmins' non-lottery first round hits and misses was pretty much the exact same ratio as Nashville's.

Timmins is 3 of 9 on non lottery picks and 4 for 5 on lottery picks.
The first is pretty good. The second is outstanding.

 

[habsfan909]

You do know that every team, when you don't look at their lottery picks, has more 1st round misses than hits, don't you? In one comparison I did, Timmins' non-lottery first round hits and misses was pretty much the exact same ratio as Nashville's.

Timmins is 3 of 9 on non lottery picks and 4 for 5 on lottery picks.
The first is pretty good. The second is outstanding.

3 for 9 is really not great. Not to mention the 3 aren't exactly top 6 players and his misses were pretty bad.
Since Nashville didn't draft as well in 1st round, that makes it acceptable for us to do so?

 

[Habs100]

3 for 9 is really not great. Not to mention the 3 aren't exactly top 6 players and his misses were pretty bad.
Since Nashville didn't draft as well in 1st round, that makes it acceptable for us to do so?

I don't have time now, but if you go back from 2003 to 2016 (or whatever year you can judge), can you find a team that was better than 1/3 on non-lottery first round picks? How many teams are?

The three I count are Pacioretty, Scherbak, and Juulsen. Some will consider that not right because Juulsen and Scherbak have not proven themselves. I am confident that Scherbak will be at least a 50 point top six player if he stays healthy and when he starts to be used properly. Juulsen I see as top 4 dman. That is my standard for sucess: top 6 forward or top 4 dman or number 1 goalie.

To me it's irrelevant how many bottom six forwards, bottom pairing dmen, or #2 goalies a scout gets, because those players are easy to pick up for cheap.

 

[habsfan909]

I don't have time now, but if you go back from 2003 to 2016 (or whatever year you can judge), can you find a team that was better than 1/3 on non-lottery first round picks? How many teams are?

The three I count are Pacioretty, Scherbak, and Juulsen. Some will consider that not right because Juulsen and Scherbak have not proven themselves. I am confident that Scherbak will be at least a 50 point top six player if he stays healthy and when he starts to be used properly. Juulsen I see as top 4 dman. That is my standard for sucess: top 6 forward or top 4 dman or number 1 goalie.

To me it's irrelevant how many bottom six forwards, bottom pairing dmen, or #2 goalies a scout gets, because those players are easy to pick up for cheap.

Right but Scherbak and Juulsen very well may not be top 6/top 4. Maybe they'll play that position on the Habs because we don't have a lot of talent but they very well may not last. I'm hoping they both peak with us and reach their full potential. Actually the only reason I was tuning in to games at all towards the end of the season was to watch Chucky and Scherbak.
If Scherbak/Juulsen don't reach their potential though (and neither are guarantees) then Timmins could just as easily be 2/9 or even 1/9.

 

[Habs100]

Right but Scherbak and Juulsen very well may not be top 6/top 4. Maybe they'll play that position on the Habs because we don't have a lot of talent but they very well may not last. I'm hoping they both peak with us and reach their full potential. Actually the only reason I was tuning in to games at all towards the end of the season was to watch Chucky and Scherbak.
If Scherbak/Juulsen don't reach their potential though (and neither are guarantees) then Timmins could just as easily be 2/9 or even 1/9.

Absolutely, if Scherbak and/or Juulsen don't pan out as I (and many see them panning out) then Timmins' record in non-lottery picks is horrible. But, I do see each as the real deal, so I'm comfortable with calling them successful picks. I'm not going to argue with people about that. If they don't want to call them yet, they're entitled to their opinions.

But for sure Timmins' non-lottery 1st round pick track record depends heavily on those 2, and Poehling. And the style of play that these 3 recent late round picks play encourages me to think that Timmins is over trying to get players based on size and/or with limited offensive upside with non-lottery 1st round picks, like Chipchura, Fischer, Tinordi, and McCarron

 

[Cole Caulifield]

So you really believe that Karpan and McPhee, the guy that traded Forsberg for Erat and the guy that nobody in here would have thought to hire as a GM, even if the language factor would not exist, sorry but I can't believe that what we are seeing here is exclusively a proof that they are capable of building a great team. Believing that means that compared to EVERYONE ELSE, they are able to build a contending team in 1 year. Who else were able to do that? That Vegas success is a combination of a lot of things. Yes, they surely did a good job. But there are probably the FIRST ones that are surprised by it. If their goal would have been to build a winning team from the get go, they would not have made so many moves to leave more interesteing players on the table. They still went for a lot of picks 'cause they thought their end game was the future. But yes, OBVIOUSLY they did a good job. So no, it has nothing to do with how you, I or everybody else INCLUDING THEMSELVES thought where it was going. Yeah, he thought at the time that it would be a good team. Clearly, it would be as the expansion rules was a huge friend to him. But the way they did this year? They had no idea. And you know it.

Yeah pretty sure they got really lucky and didn't expect that at all. And look how their perspective changed from accumulating picks to going on a wild pick spending spree at the deadline. They made a pretty huge blunder with Tatar it looks like... a 1st, 2nd and 3rd and this guy is a healthy scratch in 2 of 4 games ? 6 pts in 20 reg. season games with them ? That's the type of assets bleeding that will cut the legs of this team a few years down the road if it continues. Clearly they wanted to improve their team. But McPhee pulled another Erat for Forsberg type move there with Tatar. They sacrified a lot of futures for a marginal player who will not help them. On one hand it is the pro scouting that got Karlsson, you wonder how they could have gotten it so wrong. Also, I will be curious to see how it goes for them in the 2nd year after the reject underdogs cinderella motivation wears off.

 

[Whitesnake]

Yeah pretty sure they got really lucky and didn't expect that at all. And look how their perspective changed from accumulating picks to going on a wild pick spending spree at the deadline. They made a pretty huge blunder with Tatar it looks like... a 1st, 2nd and 3rd and this guy is a healthy scratch in 2 of 4 games ? 6 pts in 20 reg. season games with them ? That's the type of assets bleeding that will cut the legs of this team a few years down the road if it continues. Clearly they wanted to improve their team. But McPhee pulled another Erat for Forsberg type move there with Tatar. They sacrified a lot of futures for a marginal player who will not help them. On one hand it is the pro scouting that got Karlsson, you wonder how they could have gotten it so wrong. Also, I will be curious to see how it goes for them in the 2nd year after the reject underdogs cinderella motivation wears off.

Yeah. I mean, nobody shouldu be surprised if they miss the playoffs next year. Still, what they are doing this year is nothing short but spectacular. I mean....beating the Sharks is awfully possible. And Tatar...well yeah....it was a mistake. Clearly.

 

[MaxDummy]

My personal opinion is that this Leafs team in their prime beats this Bruins team in their prime. It's an/experience issue.

Chara is in his prime too in your scenario?

 

[Habs Icing]

If it holds up just as much, it means that it might not be the irreplaceable guy I hear about. That's it. The only thing I'm saying on that subject is that I just don't get how irreplaceable he seems to be for some of you. What are we really going to miss? And why can't another scout, a professionnal, I'm not advocating for an amateur to take his place here...why can't another professionnal not be able to do as good as job? It took what Vegas did this year so for people to wake up about Karpan. So....what if there are some other hidden gems out there?

I noticed you didn't really dispute my premise so I can only believe you agree with it. Out of a 30 team league if you're 5-6 in scouting over 15 years you're doing a pretty decent job. So let me ask you what makes you think if you change Timmins you'll get that top 5-6 head scout and not that bottom 15-20 scout?

Basically what you are suggesting is doing what the Senators did with Duchenes/Turris trade. Pay through the nose for someone comparable if we're lucky.

I look at Timmins' record and I see a black hole in the years 2008 to 2011. Looking at the rest of his tenure I dismiss that as the incomparable Gauthier meddling into other people's jobs. If you remember he had the organization working on a skeleton staff. That included scouting. And yes I know he was only ass GM for half those years. I see an improvement from 2012 and onwards. The picks have returned to pre 2008 quality. You may not think so but I do and we will have to wait to see which one of us is right. I'm not one who thinks change is always good. Sometimes it is bad, extremely bad. Look at the Sens with their Turris trade. With sub-moronic people working in player development, pro scouting and in management I think we have enough on our plate to rectify. We don't need to go after the amateur scouting.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Yes, complementary skills are key. If your point is aggressiveness....Gallagher is aggressive. What differentiate Marchand and Gallagher? Aggressiveness? Or Skills? Galchenyuk is aggressive. But what separates him with Pastrnak? Pure skills.

Skating is the difference as well. That creates time and space