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

[Whitesnake]

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.

I'm not talking about his rank because it is impossible to determine where he fits. Some will like to say that he is amongst the best 'cause of the number of guys that played more than 100 games. To which I respond....who the heck cares if he drafted Matt D'Agostini, Ryan White, Max Lapierre and all those guys that in the end changed nothing to the NHL team and all type of guys you can get through trades, UFA or whatever and might be more proven than all of them reunited. Then, while we all know that he did a pretty good job from 2003 to 2007, people in love with him will dispute the fact that we do another analysis from 2008 to now. And when the exercice is done from 2008, he is amongst the worst. So it is impossible to know where he fits. And one of the other reasons why it's impossible is that you are comparing Timmins to what exactly? To other teams? Or other scouting group? Do we know exactly when each scouting group changed over the years? Why do we compare Timmins 15 years over a team 15 years when they probalby changed scouting groups in the middle of it, while the first part is awful, but the 2nd part might be better?

I'm not comparing anything. I'm saying it's not good enough. Especially for a team who is not a favorite to get UFA's. Especially for a team who could be in players NTC. The Habs team cannot just be amongst the top 10. They need to be the very best. And not the very best based on the fact that in 2007 we drafted 3 stars. This is not good enough 'cause the name of the game is continuity. Name of the game is because we are in a cap situation, you cannot have a great team if you can't come out regularly with players that can change your team. So yes, you have to go after our amateur scouting 'cause it's clealry not good enough. I mean, we are supposed to be a great scouting group 'cause we bring so many NHL'ers and yet come trade deadline, you need to go after players like Martinsen, Ott and King because the depth is awful. Imagine when it's time to talk about talented players....

 

[Habs Icing]

I'm not talking about his rank because it is impossible to determine where he fits. Some will like to say that he is amongst the best 'cause of the number of guys that played more than 100 games. To which I respond....who the heck cares if he drafted Matt D'Agostini, Ryan White, Max Lapierre and all those guys that in the end changed nothing to the NHL team and all type of guys you can get through trades, UFA or whatever and might be more proven than all of them reunited. Then, while we all know that he did a pretty good job from 2003 to 2007, people in love with him will dispute the fact that we do another analysis from 2008 to now. And when the exercice is done from 2008, he is amongst the worst. So it is impossible to know where he fits. And one of the other reasons why it's impossible is that you are comparing Timmins to what exactly? To other teams? Or other scouting group? Do we know exactly when each scouting group changed over the years? Why do we compare Timmins 15 years over a team 15 years when they probalby changed scouting groups in the middle of it, while the first part is awful, but the 2nd part might be better?

I'm not comparing anything. I'm saying it's not good enough. Especially for a team who is not a favorite to get UFA's. Especially for a team who could be in players NTC. The Habs team cannot just be amongst the top 10. They need to be the very best. And not the very best based on the fact that in 2007 we drafted 3 stars. This is not good enough 'cause the name of the game is continuity. Name of the game is because we are in a cap situation, you cannot have a great team if you can't come out regularly with players that can change your team. So yes, you have to go after our amateur scouting 'cause it's clealry not good enough. I mean, we are supposed to be a great scouting group 'cause we bring so many NHL'ers and yet come trade deadline, you need to go after players like Martinsen, Ott and King because the depth is awful. Imagine when it's time to talk about talented players....

You compare him to other teams to get a sense of his worth, of his level of competence in comparison to the league.

If you expect amateur scouting to fill all your needs then in 5-6 years you'll be screaming to have the next head scout fired. And you'll be going through those cycles of hiring and firing till your great-grandchildren tell you "Hey gramps can it will you."

We went after Ott, King and Martinsen not because the amateur scouting staff didn't do their job but because management doesn't know how to do theirs.

 

[Whitesnake]

You compare him to other teams to get a sense of his worth, of his level of competence in comparison to the league.

If you expect amateur scouting to fill all your needs then in 5-6 years you'll be screaming to have the next head scout fired. And you'll be going through those cycles of hiring and firing till your great-grandchildren tell you "Hey gramps can it will you."

We went after Ott, King and Martinsen not because the amateur scouting staff didn't do their job but because management doesn't know how to do theirs.

And again, you are as good as you are now. Not where you were 10 years ago. That's why we can't move to the next level it's because we are stuck in the past. That what the Montreal Canadiens are all about. Reason why we still went with big and slow when other teams had alraedy started to move towards fast and skills. Reason why we kept applauding the past 'cause we had nothing to applaude in the present etc.

We laugh at the Flyers for their inability to draft a goalie and yet....how about our centermen record? How about our power forward record? Nowhere did I say that in 5 years I expect the scouting group to fill ALL the needs. Why? 'Cause actually we don't start from scratch. We have already some pieces in place. We had those pieces. And we still have some. So all you needed since 2008 is to fill the blanks. How the heck am I too demanding when I'M actually thinking we could get a few more pieces in a 8-9 year stretch?

Reality is that TODAY, the other teams are where we are. And it might have nothing to do with what they did in 2007. They are looking forward. And maybe for some of tohem, with a much better scouting group than they had. While we are still looking and drooling over what we did 11 years ago.....

 

[Price is Wright]

Here's the thing.

You can have average drafting if you have exceptional trading and signing.
You can have average trading if you have exceptional signing and drafting.
You can have average free agency if you have exceptional drafting and trading.

Since 2008, drafting has been average. If this club was signing the right free agents and trading for the best players, it'd be okay. Ultimately it's up to the GM who oversees the three departments to make up for whatever holes are needed. But if the GM can't sign or trade for a centre, his scouting has to find him one. If the GM can't draft or sign a centre he has to trade for one. And if the GM can't trade or draft a centre, he has to sign one. Bergevin and his entire staff has failed at this and other areas of the club. That's why nobody, with exception to maybe a few regional scouts and Stephen Waite, should be keeping their jobs right now.

 

[Sorinth]

Here's the thing.

You can have average drafting if you have exceptional trading and signing.
You can have average trading if you have exceptional signing and drafting.
You can have average free agency if you have exceptional drafting and trading.

Since 2008, drafting has been average. If this club was signing the right free agents and trading for the best players, it'd be okay. Ultimately it's up to the GM who oversees the three departments to make up for whatever holes are needed. But if the GM can't sign or trade for a centre, his scouting has to find him one. If the GM can't draft or sign a centre he has to trade for one. And if the GM can't trade or draft a centre, he has to sign one. Bergevin and his entire staff has failed at this and other areas of the club. That's why nobody, with exception to maybe a few regional scouts and Stephen Waite, should be keeping their jobs right now.

So what happens when you do draft one but the coach puts him at wing to show him who wears the big boy pants? Is it still the scouts fault?

 

[Price is Wright]

So what happens when you do draft one but the coach puts him at wing to show him who wears the big boy pants? Is it still the scouts fault?

Why is the scout only able to find one potential top six centre in 15 years? Two if we count Mikhail Grabovski?

 

[Sorinth]

Why is the scout only able to find one potential top six centre in 15 years? Two if we count Mikhail Grabovski?

Because he was drafting BPA and so ended up with 4 top pairing defenceman, one of the leagues top goalscorers, one of the best goalies, etc...

At the end of the day, what matters is the amount of top end talent you draft. The position they play is of secondary importance. Getting 6 elite players in 15 years is a pretty good record.

 

[Price is Wright]

Because he was drafting BPA and so ended up with 4 top pairing defenceman, one of the leagues top goalscorers, one of the best goalies, etc...

At the end of the day, what matters is the amount of top end talent you draft. The position they play is of secondary importance. Getting 6 elite players in 15 years is a pretty good record.

I've covered it before that Timmins constantly thought a defensive D was the best player available when a better centre was available. His worst draft picks in the first round was due to this (Fischer over Giroux, Tinordi over Coyle and Kuznetsov) and there's other examples where the scouting on the Canadiens when it comes to the centre position is inadequate. They constantly get their BPA wrong because they scout defencemen more than centres. Unless you want to believe Brett Lernout was a better pick than Brayden Point.

And also Timmins admitted in an article about Cayden Primeau that he didn't take him earlier not because of BPA but because he didn't want to take a goalie.

“Bill was pushing hard in earlier rounds, too,” Timmins said in a telephone interview with Sportsnet this past weekend.

The Canadiens’ assistant general manager and director of amateur scouting had done his homework, too. Timmins had seen Primeau play and came away impressed, saying he would have acquiesced to Berglund’s prodding sooner than the 199th pick if the organization wasn’t relying on superstar Carey Price at the NHL level and hadn’t already filled its pipeline at the position—from Charlie Lindgren to Michael McNiven to Zachary Fucale.

So Timmins doesn't always take BPA, and their sense of BPA has often favoured defencemen, even defensive defencemen, over centres.

 

[Sorinth]

I've covered it before that Timmins constantly thought a defensive D was the best player available when a better centre was available. His worst draft picks in the first round was due to this (Fischer over Giroux, Tinordi over Coyle and Kuznetsov) and there's other examples where the scouting on the Canadiens when it comes to the centre position is inadequate. They constantly get their BPA wrong because they scout defencemen more than centres. Unless you want to believe Brett Lernout was a better pick than Brayden Point.

And also Timmins admitted in an article about Cayden Primeau that he didn't take him earlier not because of BPA but because he didn't want to take a goalie.



So Timmins doesn't always take BPA, and their sense of BPA has often favoured defencemen, even defensive defencemen, over centres.

They are obviously not going to get it right anywhere close to 100% of the time, probably not even 25% of the time. But I'd bet it's similar across the league, every team passed on Point multiple times for example. The only way to judge is to compare his success rate to that of his peers. And I'm willing to bet getting an elite player every 2-3 years on average will put him in good company.

 

[Price is Wright]

They are obviously not going to get it right anywhere close to 100% of the time, probably not even 25% of the time. But I'd bet it's similar across the league, every team passed on Point multiple times for example. The only way to judge is to compare his success rate to that of his peers. And I'm willing to bet getting an elite player every 2-3 years on average will put him in good company.

I don't expect them to get it right 100% of the time.

I expect more than one NHL top 6 centre outside of a Top 5 pick in 10 years of drafting.

If the only top 4 D Timmins drafted from 03-13 was McDonaugh I doubt you would be making this excuse for him. But you are here when it comes to centre.

Again the failure is on every head but Timmins is a part of it. Keeping him because of 2005 and 2007 is silly.

 

[Whitesnake]

So what happens when you do draft one but the coach puts him at wing to show him who wears the big boy pants? Is it still the scouts fault?

Whether we agree or not, Galchenyuk wasn't always playing center in Juniors. He wasn't always playing center with Therrien. He is not playing center with Julien. It's not a complete surprise that this guy might not be your real typical centerman.

Because he was drafting BPA and so ended up with 4 top pairing defenceman, one of the leagues top goalscorers, one of the best goalies, etc...At the end of the day, what matters is the amount of top end talent you draft. The position they play is of secondary importance. Getting 6 elite players in 15 years is a pretty good record.

Well that's the thing....that's not true. He is not solely drafting BPA. He totally said that 2006 and 2007 was to replenish the D squad. He said that 2009, it was NOW the time to go after centermen. We know that during his tenure, even if it was the order of the GM that were there, he still decided to go for big and grit. And with the power that they have given him, if he was not convinced that those guys would not have a chance to make the NHL, he would NOT have drafted them no matter the order. Maybe that instead of Crisp, we go Guentzel if we go BPA. Maybe we go Copp. Maybe in 2010, instead of going big and grit we decide that Kuznetsov is actually the BPA and go for it.

Yes, he did go BPA once in a while. That's how he got Gallagher. That's how he got Hudon. Reway was surely a BPA pick. But he has to do that all the time. And even if he does't aim for needs, a C will be BPA. So instead of going needs with their big and tough forwards and big and tough d-men....you do end up with some BPA C.....

And yes.....when all is said and done, drafting 6 elite in 15 years is good. But it's not helpful if the majority of his 6 happened 11 years ago. It makes no sense to be fine with that. Thing change in the league. Salary cap happens. Expansions happen. Trades happen. You need to be more regular than that based on what the league is about.

 

[scrubadam]

Even if there was no MT does anyone really think AG is that big top 6 C we have been looking for? I don't know I just don't see it in his game. He is AK 2.0 to me. Don't forget his draft was a crap draft. Look at the 2 guys ahead of him both are pretty much busts at this point. Even Reilly at 5 is a decent 2nd pair guy. We aren't talking Matthews/Laine draft here. It was a bad draft that we got the 3rd OVA pick in. It sucks that when the habs have a bad season its in a draft with not much franchise talent.

I fully expect this draft to be the same. We will draft a player who will be "ok", but I doubt we get a guy who can help a franchise like WPG or TOR got. And I bet whenever the next big Center prospect is going to be drafted habs will manage to finish 1st or 2nd in their division again so we miss out once again.

 

[Whitesnake]

Even if there was no MT does anyone really think AG is that big top 6 C we have been looking for? I don't know I just don't see it in his game. He is AK 2.0 to me. Don't forget his draft was a crap draft. Look at the 2 guys ahead of him both are pretty much busts at this point. Even Reilly at 5 is a decent 2nd pair guy. We aren't talking Matthews/Laine draft here. It was a bad draft that we got the 3rd OVA pick in. It sucks that when the habs have a bad season its in a draft with not much franchise talent.

I fully expect this draft to be the same. We will draft a player who will be "ok", but I doubt we get a guy who can help a franchise like WPG or TOR got. And I bet whenever the next big Center prospect is going to be drafted habs will manage to finish 1st or 2nd in their division again so we miss out once again.

And that's what sucks so bad....top 3 pick, 2012 was not strong. Now, we would need a centerman, which there plenty of them.....last year. Not this year. Still....we should always go BPA but chances are last year, a centerman would have also be a BPA.

 

[Price is Wright]

Even if there was no MT does anyone really think AG is that big top 6 C we have been looking for?

I don't know if he'd be a 1C superstar but probably a Kyle Turris level centre yeah.

 

[Habs100]

Chara is in his prime too in your scenario?

I was more responding to the poster saying the Bruins would win because of their size advantage and I was saying their experience advantage is huge. The other poster also pointed out the Bruins have a better defense, which imo also isn't based on a size advantage but an ability/hockey skill advantage.

So, no I wasn't thinking of players like Marleau, Plekanec, and Chara.

 

[Habs100]

I don't know if he'd be a 1C superstar but probably a Kyle Turris level centre yeah.

A kyle Turrris level center would be a godsend. Partly because, of course we don't have a true top six center, and partly because Turris's effect on a game is underrated. Kudos for Bryan Murray going out and getting him (could have been us, but again our GM's haven't done much, all of our talent comes from the draft).

 

[Sorinth]

Well that's the thing....that's not true. He is not solely drafting BPA. He totally said that 2006 and 2007 was to replenish the D squad. He said that 2009, it was NOW the time to go after centermen. We know that during his tenure, even if it was the order of the GM that were there, he still decided to go for big and grit. And with the power that they have given him, if he was not convinced that those guys would not have a chance to make the NHL, he would NOT have drafted them no matter the order. Maybe that instead of Crisp, we go Guentzel if we go BPA. Maybe we go Copp. Maybe in 2010, instead of going big and grit we decide that Kuznetsov is actually the BPA and go for it.

Yes, he did go BPA once in a while. That's how he got Gallagher. That's how he got Hudon. Reway was surely a BPA pick. But he has to do that all the time. And even if he does't aim for needs, a C will be BPA. So instead of going needs with their big and tough forwards and big and tough d-men....you do end up with some BPA C.....

BPA isn't always the guy with the most skill. Kostitsyn had more skill then a lot of the guys drafted after him, yet with hindsight we know he wasn't the BPA.

And yes.....when all is said and done, drafting 6 elite in 15 years is good. But it's not helpful if the majority of his 6 happened 11 years ago. It makes no sense to be fine with that. Thing change in the league. Salary cap happens. Expansions happen. Trades happen. You need to be more regular than that based on what the league is about.

If this is strictly about Timmins then it's worth pointing out Bergevin came in he changed Timmins role in 2012. It's less clear that Timmins has the same authority/independence at the drafts that he had when Gainey was GM.

If it's about scouting/development as a whole, then yes we shouldn't be happy with the recent results and things need to change. If I was in charge I would keep Timmins around, but probably get rid of most of the other guys

 

[Whitesnake]

BPA isn't always the guy with the most skill. Kostitsyn had more skill then a lot of the guys drafted after him, yet with hindsight we know he wasn't the BPA.

Not sure why you say that. Of course it's more than that. It's pure skills, it's skating, it's hockey IQ, it's everything. Kostitsyn couldn't be the BPA 'cause there were too many things missing. Was tough to analyse his play based on the opposition. Clearly, he had the greatest pure skills. But since BPA is more than that, that's not what I'M talking about.

If this is strictly about Timmins then it's worth pointing out Bergevin came in he changed Timmins role in 2012. It's less clear that Timmins has the same authority/independence at the drafts that he had when Gainey was GM.

If it's about scouting/development as a whole, then yes we shouldn't be happy with the recent results and things need to change. If I was in charge I would keep Timmins around, but probably get rid of most of the other guys

I don't really understand. So you don't know which role he's playing but you'd keep him? Yep, chances are we don,t know for sure. But what we still know it's that it's Timmins who talks to us about each prospect we draft, telling us explicitly what they are, telling us explicitly what he had seen first hand. And what we also know it's that it's still him who is sitting beside Bergevin and who calls the prospects names. Purely hypothetical, but for me, because they added a job to his work, Churla is the in-between between the scouts and him. I guess it's another verification step.....but Timmins is scouting everywhere. He is seen everywhere. And it's impossible to think that he doesn't agree with every pick that is made. Even under Bergevin.

 

[bsl]

That's because NHL teams employ scouts all over the world who not only watch the kids in person but also do digging to learn more about the kids. McKeen's and CSS don't have those kinds of resources and MAY send one rep to big tournaments such as Ivan Hnlinka or WU18 where NHL teams have scouts checking these players out all season. Furthermore, most NHL teams employ people with extensive hockey backgrounds (playing, coaching etc). Gare Joyce mentioned in his book on the NHL draft (Future Greats and Heartbreaks) that only one draft list is reflective of the scouting community and that is the actual NHL draft picks....not any of the guides.

If I was a gm I would kill for 31 draft lists every year. Over 5 years it would become quite obvious who the best scouts are.

 

[Sorinth]

Not sure why you say that. Of course it's more than that. It's pure skills, it's skating, it's hockey IQ, it's everything. Kostitsyn couldn't be the BPA 'cause there were too many things missing. Was tough to analyse his play based on the opposition. Clearly, he had the greatest pure skills. But since BPA is more than that, that's not what I'M talking about.

So how are you determining which picks they went with BPA and which ones they didn't?

I don't really understand. So you don't know which role he's playing but you'd keep him? Yep, chances are we don,t know for sure. But what we still know it's that it's Timmins who talks to us about each prospect we draft, telling us explicitly what they are, telling us explicitly what he had seen first hand. And what we also know it's that it's still him who is sitting beside Bergevin and who calls the prospects names. Purely hypothetical, but for me, because they added a job to his work, Churla is the in-between between the scouts and him. I guess it's another verification step.....but Timmins is scouting everywhere. He is seen everywhere. And it's impossible to think that he doesn't agree with every pick that is made. Even under Bergevin.

I'd keep him because up until Bergevin took over he had an amazing record. So yeah I'd give him a chance to prove he still has it.

I find it insane to think that the draft list the Habs compile is 100% what Timmins wants and nobody else has any influence on where/how prospects get ranked/drafted. What's the point of even having a team if it's 100% Timmins's list?

 

[Whitesnake]

So how are you determining which picks they went with BPA and which ones they didn't?

The only way is that you based yourselves with the tons of lists that exists 'cause those lists from agencies, they are going with BPA. They don't have needs....they have no teams. So you do a resume of all the agencies. Most agencies didn't have Tinordi at 22. Most agencies didn't have McCarron at 25. They clearly didn't have Fischer at 20. They didn't have Crisp there. They had no idea who Koberstein was etc. But you also know it when Timmins himself says that they are going to concentrate that draft on D......or on C......And then we replenish that D squad in 2016 and 2017. Yes, chances are it will pay off with Sergachev and Mete. But it,s still based on needs. But while I had him on my list, there's no Walford was a BPA where we picked him.

I'd keep him because up until Bergevin took over he had an amazing record. So yeah I'd give him a chance to prove he still has it. I find it insane to think that the draft list the Habs compile is 100% what Timmins wants and nobody else has any influence on where/how prospects get ranked/drafted. What's the point of even having a team if it's 100% Timmins's list?

Well I guess that we don't have the same meaning of the word amazing. Especially with the 08-11 preceeding Bergevin arriving.

As far as the list is concerned....well that's not exactly it. Timmins cannot be everywhere at the same time. So the list is compiled through everybody's work. Then, those guys, his team, calls him and tells him to come and see specific players. So you have to think that he has his own players, but there are also players he was referred that he will endorse or not. In no way shape or form do I see him agreeing to get a player he dislikes. He is the GM of the draft. Would Bergevin make a move he disagrees with?

 

[Vachon23]

Marc Bergevin, on TLMEP, says Trevor Timmins is staying on but that some changes to amateur scouting and the rest of the hockey department could be coming.

Churls out ?

 

[The Great Weal]

For the love of god, can they grow a brain and go for those Moosehead scouts? They know what the f*** they are doing.

 

[Habs100]

The only way is that you based yourselves with the tons of lists that exists 'cause those lists from agencies, they are going with BPA. They don't have needs....they have no teams. So you do a resume of all the agencies. Most agencies didn't have Tinordi at 22. Most agencies didn't have McCarron at 25. They clearly didn't have Fischer at 20. They didn't have Crisp there. They had no idea who Koberstein was etc. But you also know it when Timmins himself says that they are going to concentrate that draft on D......or on C......And then we replenish that D squad in 2016 and 2017. Yes, chances are it will pay off with Sergachev and Mete. But it,s still based on needs. But while I had him on my list, there's no Walford was a BPA where we picked him.



Well I guess that we don't have the same meaning of the word amazing. Especially with the 08-11 preceeding Bergevin arriving.

As far as the list is concerned....well that's not exactly it. Timmins cannot be everywhere at the same time. So the list is compiled through everybody's work. Then, those guys, his team, calls him and tells him to come and see specific players. So you have to think that he has his own players, but there are also players he was referred that he will endorse or not. In no way shape or form do I see him agreeing to get a player he dislikes. He is the GM of the draft. Would Bergevin make a move he disagrees with?

Trust me Whitesnake, this Trevor Timmins not getting fired and thus Bergevin not choosing his successor is a good thing. We don't want Bergevin choosing his successor. This is Bergevin's last year and we'll see what the new management team will decide when they come in.

For now, just appreciate that Timmins has a good record with lottery picks and I expect him to use our 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th round picks to go after some highly skilled players (like Grabovski, Mete, Gallagher, Hudon, and Lehkonen) and not big guys with limited upside (like Crisp, De la Rose and McCarron).

 

[Adam Michaels]

For the love of god, can they grow a brain and go for those Moosehead scouts? They know what the **** they are doing.

It would be smart of them to get them. Another smart move would be to go get guys from Bolts, Preds, and Ducks, to name a few, as they are a few teams whose amateur scouting departments have been drafting real well.