Trevor Timmins Part II

[DAChampion]

In the MB vs TT debate. Look at guys like Collberg, Zucale, Thrower, etc... who were hyped and turned out meh before they even hit the AHL. All 2nd rounders by the way. That's not development issue...

Thrower had injury issues.

 

[montreal]

I don't think people are saying he's bad. I think it's mostly about stopping with this "the best" syndrom we have in Montreal, from Timmins, to Price, to the crowd and so on other nonsense. And that at one point, at worst, people might think it would be time to change IF we have a great candidate in the ranks, so to change the dynamic might not be that bad. I mean, every other team in this league do NOT have Timmins and quite a few in there have very good results nonetheless. So scouting might not start and end with Timmins. And again, I think that following the 2007 season, there was like no way to change the guy. Nobody would have change him after that year. So even if Savard, Gainey and Gauthier kept him, it's pretty much irrelevant. At one point, it's Bergevin who could have decided to part ways and he didn't. That was his decision. Great part about it is that it's impossible to know if we would have been better if we would have changed him....not knowing who could have taken his place. Still.....why the need to bring Churla....and what were his credentials before that?

I think he's one of the best in the NHL, but it's not like I pay any attention to other teams scouts. I really believe with better development things would look better for him. The Habs have rushed too many to the NHL and Lefebvre is just terrible imo. That said Timmins has made his mistakes just like everyone does.

It's weird, most of the management critics defend tt and vice versa. I generally support what mb does and I personally think TT is average at best.

If you go back and look at the Habs drafting pre-Timmins through the '90's, that is average at best outside of '98.

I think it comes down to how important you think "development" is.

The more pro TT posters IMHO think development is the be end and end all. Basically all players that are drafted are even, lumps of clay and its the development that forms them.

OTOH you can look at it that talent trumps "development". If a player doesn't have the talent they will hit their ceiling and that ceiling is not an NHL player. (and I include drive/work ethic in talent as well)

Hockey is much more mental then just talent trumps development. Most of these kids getting drafted at least in the top 50/100 are talented yet look at the stats on the success rate of those players picked outside the top 10/20 and see how quickly it drops. Why is that? Some teams develop talent better, they don't rush their prospects, they give them time to work on their issues and they have good coaching at the AHL level. Some kids just peak though, they were always talented but when they got to a point where others were bigger/stronger etc... they couldn't progress.

When picking up franchise level talents, it is.

Imagine if we could grab a Giroux type player with the 20th pick this year.

like drafting one of the best goalscorers at 22nd overall?

I don't have an issue with people criticizing Timmins but disagree with the notion that he should receive majority of the blame. Drafting and developing go hand in hand, if end result is bad both should be questioned. Personally find it quite the coincidence though that Timmins with his track record of churning NHLers would suddenly lose it completely when MB brought his guys. Not going to say he couldn't have made better picks but my concern is would it have made any difference with the development in place?

I'd swap Fucale with Crisp though, as much as I hated Fucale pick he did have some success at junior level post-draft.

agreed.

 

[Sorinth]

Sorry. The way you think you would fire a 0.300 hitter just because he had a slump for two weeks. Again, what matters is the average and the quality of the pitches (picks) over a long period.

It seems the argument is that a .300 hitter means he's out 70% of the time and you can't be considered the best or even one of the bests if unless you have more hits then outs

In the MB vs TT debate. Look at guys like Collberg, Zucale, Thrower, etc... who were hyped and turned out meh before they even hit the AHL. All 2nd rounders by the way. That's not development issue...

Well in 2013 we had 3 2nd round picks, so sure we can say Fucale was a bad pick (Personally I think it's too early to write him off) but 2 of the others made the NHL. In 2012 both 2nd round picks seemed to have busted.

So out of 5 picks, 2 made the NHL, one looks like a potential top-6 guy and the other will probably top out as a 4th liner. Yet compare that to the NHL average which is 34% of 2nd round picks play 100 games, and 10% become top-6 players and Timmins is looking average too slightly above average depending on how you view Lehkonen's potential. So to me those misses whether they are scouting or development aren't even an issue. And yes certainly there are some bad picks that are 100% on scouting, but it's normal.

 

[Chili]

It seems the argument is that a .300 hitter means he's out 70% of the time and you can't be considered the best or even one of the bests if unless you have more hits then outs



Well in 2013 we had 3 2nd round picks, so sure we can say Fucale was a bad pick (Personally I think it's too early to write him off) but 2 of the others made the NHL. In 2012 both 2nd round picks seemed to have busted.

So out of 5 picks, 2 made the NHL, one looks like a potential top-6 guy and the other will probably top out as a 4th liner. Yet compare that to the NHL average which is 34% of 2nd round picks play 100 games, and 10% become top-6 players and Timmins is looking average too slightly above average depending on how you view Lehkonen's potential. So to me those misses whether they are scouting or development aren't even an issue. And yes certainly there are some bad picks that are 100% on scouting, but it's normal.

Interesting that you posted the success % there.

When I did my analysis of the draft, I came up with these %'s based on 250 games played (125 for goaltenders)...

1979 to 2001 NHL drafts combined

% chance of drafting a 250 game player, by first 30 players, second 30, etc.

1st 61%
2nd 30%
3rd 24%
4th 15%
5th 12%
6th 12%
7th 7.5%
7+ an average of 3 players per year were found there, number of picks varied.

I didn't include 2002 to 2016 because data is incomplete, would not change those %'s much anyway.

When teams are making trades, you see why trading draft picks is much preferable to trading a top prospect.

You can see that historically, odds are not much better finding a player in the 2nd round then the 3rd, which would explain why 2nd rounders are traded so much.

In reviewing the drafts over the years the trends do reveal which teams do the best jobs and it is clear to me that more recently that does not include the Habs.

 

[jfm133]

Too much importance is placed on coaches in development at the pro level. Most of the very talented players simply bypass the AHL. For the other, the most important thing in the outcome is the natural curve of development for each player. Some players reach their ceiling early and so will not pan out at the pro level because they simply cannot improve on key aspects of their game.

The other important thing is what goes on outside the rink, the dedication, work ethic, mental thoughness. Talent on the ice is one thing, the desire to do all that is needed to reach full potential is another thing. It's a lot of work and sacrifice. So talent is one thing, the will of the player to do all that is needed to maximize it is another thing.

It seems the argument is that a .300 hitter means he's out 70% of the time and you can't be considered the best or even one of the bests if unless you have more hits then outs

Bad faith on these forums...

A season 0.300 hitter in baseball is elite, but for a stretch he can hit 0.050 but will compensate by hitting 0.550 in another stretch.

The point is to say that average on the long run is the key considering how high overall the draft picks are.

 

[Frank Drebin]

like drafting one of the best goalscorers at 22nd overall?

Yes, Timmins had a great draft in 2007, exactly one decade ago.

 

[Sorinth]

Interesting that you posted the success % there.

When I did my analysis of the draft, I came up with these %'s based on 250 games played (125 for goaltenders)...

1979 to 2001 NHL drafts combined

% chance of drafting a 250 game player, by first 30 players, second 30, etc.

1st 61%
2nd 30%
3rd 24%
4th 15%
5th 12%
6th 12%
7th 7.5%
7+ an average of 3 players per year were found there, number of picks varied.

I didn't include 2002 to 2016 because data is incomplete, would not change those %'s much anyway.

When teams are making trades, you see why trading draft picks is much preferable to trading a top prospect.

You can see that historically, odds are not much better finding a player in the 2nd round then the 3rd, which would explain why 2nd rounders are traded so much.

In reviewing the drafts over the years the trends do reveal which teams do the best jobs and it is clear to me that more recently that does not include the Habs.

I use http://www2.tsn.ca/fantasy_news/story/?id=455673 to get the %'s

Personally, I don't find the # of games played to be a particularly relevant stat for scouting. Yes you are finding NHL players which is good but finding NHL players' doesn't add a lot of value in terms of building a team. It's finding good players that matters.

As for the Habs drafting, everyone likes to say since 2007 ... when talking about recently. Yet the only reason that year is chosen is because it makes Timmins look bad. I get it 08-09 were obviously not good years. But if the intentions were purely about recent drafts then I don't see why that is the cutoff date. We could just as easily use 2010 onwards. Because to me those drafts have seemed mostly fine. We got a top-6 forward in 2010, arguably a #4 D in 2011 despite not having any 2nd or 3rd round picks either year. 2012 is disappointing for me since we had an extra 2nd and a high 2nd. Still if Hudon carves out a good career it will be an ok draft. 2013 looks very good. 2014+ I don't have a problem with any of the drafts but it's still very early we don't really know how we did those years.

I mean 2010-2013 looks to have netted us two top-6 forwards, a #4 D, and 5 other "potential" NHL players who are still finding their roles. My guestimate is of those 5 one will emerge as a top-6 guy, 2 will be top-9 guys, one will be a 4th liner and one will be journeyman. So have we done bad recently or were there simply two bad drafts back to back which are being used to paint a worse picture then it actually is?

 

[Lebowski]

Still think it's unfair to criticize Timmins for the current state of our prospect pool. He's not given enough ammunition in the top 2 rounds more often than not.

I do have a minor gripe with how he tends to go completely off board in the middle rounds with "potential" role players... The Pezzettas, Kobersteins and Crisps of this world...

 

[jfm133]

In reviewing the drafts over the years the trends do reveal which teams do the best jobs and it is clear to me that more recently that does not include the Habs.

What is more recently for you? Because 2008-2011 Timmins was depleted of good draft picks. If you come with 60% for the whole first round and 30% for the second, it is fair to assume that mid first round picks should be around 45% and end of second round around 25%

2008, first pick #56 (25%) no first round
2009 first pick #18 (45%) no second round
2010 first pick # 22 (45%) no second round (Gallagher)
2011 first pick # 17 (Beaulieu) no second round

So two players under those conditions is not great, but not bad.

 

[Sorinth]

Too much importance is placed on coaches in development at the pro level. Most of the very talented players simply bypass the AHL. For the other, the most important thing in the outcome is the natural curve of development for each player. Some players reach their ceiling early and so will not pan out at the pro level because they simply cannot improve on key aspects of their game.

The other important thing is what goes on outside the rink, the dedication, work ethic, mental thoughness. Talent on the ice is one thing, the desire to do all that is needed to reach full potential is another thing. It's a lot of work and sacrifice. So talent is one thing, the will of the player to do all that is needed to maximize it is another thing.

Which is exactly why coaches matter. If you are in a positive development environment it will reinforce things like dedication/hard work. A player/prospect is going to put in that extra work/sacrifice and become better. On a flip side a bad environment with a coach you hate and your work ethic is likely going to go down and for a lot of players that's a death sentence. There will always be some who don't let any external factors effect their work ethic, but that's rare, virtually everyone else will be impacted by the environment.

We see it all the time in the NHL were a team tunes out the coach and players stop working hard enough. If that's happening with a prospect then they aren't improving and will fail. Just look at your own life, if you like your team/boss you are likely more productive and do a better job. If you hat your boss your dedication is going to drop significantly. Expecting any different just because they play hockey is foolish.

 

[Chili]

I use http://www2.tsn.ca/fantasy_news/story/?id=455673 to get the %'s

Personally, I don't find the # of games played to be a particularly relevant stat for scouting. Yes you are finding NHL players which is good but finding NHL players' doesn't add a lot of value in terms of building a team. It's finding good players that matters.

As for the Habs drafting, everyone likes to say since 2007 ... when talking about recently. Yet the only reason that year is chosen is because it makes Timmins look bad. I get it 08-09 were obviously not good years. But if the intentions were purely about recent drafts then I don't see why that is the cutoff date. We could just as easily use 2010 onwards. Because to me those drafts have seemed mostly fine. We got a top-6 forward in 2010, arguably a #4 D in 2011 despite not having any 2nd or 3rd round picks either year. 2012 is disappointing for me since we had an extra 2nd and a high 2nd. Still if Hudon carves out a good career it will be an ok draft. 2013 looks very good. 2014+ I don't have a problem with any of the drafts but it's still very early we don't really know how we did those years.

I mean 2010-2013 looks to have netted us two top-6 forwards, a #4 D, and 5 other "potential" NHL players who are still finding their roles. My guestimate is of those 5 one will emerge as a top-6 guy, 2 will be top-9 guys, one will be a 4th liner and one will be journeyman. So have we done bad recently or were there simply two bad drafts back to back which are being used to paint a worse picture then it actually is?

Good link and it seems to confirm the numbers I posted.

The talent available in the first round is highly variable (ie the difference between 2003 and 1999 first rounds).

There could be numerous ways to evaluate the draft, games played is only one objective way. How do you define a 'good player' ?

When I look at the draft, I look at all teams and that is when the better drafts surface.

All teams have prospects with potential, the ones who actually turn into NHL players should be the goal in my opinion.

What is more recently for you? Because 2008-2011 Timmins was depleted of good draft picks. If you come with 60% for the whole first round and 30% for the second, it is fair to assume that mid first round picks should be around 45% and end of second round around 25%

2008, first pick #56 (25%) no first round
2009 first pick #18 (45%) no second round
2010 first pick # 22 (45%) no second round (Gallagher)
2011 first pick # 17 (Beaulieu) no second round

So two players under those conditions is not great, but not bad.

By Bergevin's own recent confession, they have less then 5 top prospects.

Beyond that I posted the annual roster trend analysis I do each year.

That is what I based my opinion on.

 

[Belial]

He took on bunch of Junior players and rookie pros from 2009 draft. I guess any fault should be deflected?

Like seriously, you can't be serious...

Leblanc, Nattinen, Bennett, Avtsin, Dumont, Walsh, Clichy and Simila!!!

What the heck is there to develop? This is just a total failure from Timmins and his crew!

Can we stop with this whole development crap? You can't develop NHL players from ****!

 

[BLONG7]

Like seriously, you can't be serious...

Leblanc, Nattinen, Bennett, Avtsin, Dumont, Walsh, Clichy and Simila!!!

What the heck is there to develop? This is just a total failure from Timmins and his crew!

Can we stop with this whole development crap? You can't develop NHL players from ****!

TT has to be held accountable also...he has had some good drafts, and at the same time, he has been awful...drafting and developing is the key to all of this, and at times, we do neither very well.

 

[jfm133]

By Bergevin's own recent confession, they have less then 5 top prospects.

Beyond that I posted the annual roster trend analysis I do each year.

That is what I based my opinion on.

Let's say that Galchenyuk is no longer a prospect, so you really think that from 2013 to 2016, given we had only on top-25 pick, we should have more than 5 top prospects? Anyways, what is a top prospect to start with?

Lekhonen has never been considered a top prospect and he will end up a good to-6 for us down the road. Same for Danault.

On the other hand, many top prospects never pan out, half of the first rounders end up as busts or marginal players.

So who can judge the real quality of our prospect pool?

Which is exactly why coaches matter. If you are in a positive development environment it will reinforce things like dedication/hard work. A player/prospect is going to put in that extra work/sacrifice and become better. On a flip side a bad environment with a coach you hate and your work ethic is likely going to go down and for a lot of players that's a death sentence. There will always be some who don't let any external factors effect their work ethic, but that's rare, virtually everyone else will be impacted by the environment.

We see it all the time in the NHL were a team tunes out the coach and players stop working hard enough. If that's happening with a prospect then they aren't improving and will fail. Just look at your own life, if you like your team/boss you are likely more productive and do a better job. If you hat your boss your dedication is going to drop significantly. Expecting any different just because they play hockey is foolish.

If an AHL player misses his career because he hates the coach he is the problem. Coaches cannot change the personalities of their players. Coaches cannot train hard, eat well, sleep well for their players. Do all you need to do and perform on the ice and the coach will love you. That's as simple as that. How many very talented guys missed a good career by lack of discipline? No pain no gain and many are not willing to pay the price. Coaches cannot teach the will to succeed.

 

[scrubadam]

If its about development, then how come habs latest prospects have nearly no value? None of our prospects seem to be good enough to obtain good players in trades.

Guys from the last 3 drafts have not spend much time if any at all with Sly so shouldn't they be highly coveted? I know Julsen wasn't a top 10 pick but how come his name is never mentioned when Sakic is looking for a young top 4 D?

 

[1909]

If an AHL player misses his career because he hates the coach he is the problem. Coaches cannot change the personalities of their players. Coaches cannot train hard, eat well, sleep well for their players. Do all you need to do and perform on the ice and the coach will love you. That's as simple as that. How many very talented guys missed a good career by lack of discipline? No pain no gain and many are not willing to pay the price. Coaches cannot teach the will to succeed.

... And we can find good examples of such busts in every organisations. Coaches can do so much. They can bring the horse to the river but can't force him to drink from it.

 

[Chili]

Let's say that Galchenyuk is no longer a prospect, so you really think that from 2013 to 2016, given we had only on top-25 pick, we should have more than 5 top prospects? Anyways, what is a top prospect to start with?

Lekhonen has never been considered a top prospect and he will end up a good to-6 for us down the road. Same for Danault.

On the other hand, many top prospects never pan out, half of the first rounders end up as busts or marginal players.

So who can judge the real quality of our prospect pool?

I defer to Bergevin here. He would know what they have coming along.

Beyond that we can set our own measuring stick to look back at a draft, as we like to do because it does take a long period to really be able to evaluate.

 

[Hoople]

Yes, Timmins had a great draft in 2007, exactly one decade ago.

Its like that open bag of Lays potato chips in the back of the pantry. Sure, the chips are stale. Sure the expiration date was from 3 years ago. Doesn't matter. The chips were delicious when I first opened the bag so I'm going to keep it around.

 

[Sorinth]

Good link and it seems to confirm the numbers I posted.

The talent available in the first round is highly variable (ie the difference between 2003 and 1999 first rounds).

There could be numerous ways to evaluate the draft, games played is only one objective way. How do you define a 'good player' ?

In a completely subjective way of course . Mostly I'm looking for top-9 forwards and top-4 defenceman, I don't care too much about bottom pairing D-men or 4th liners simply because they are easy to acquire outside of the draft.

When I look at the draft, I look at all teams and that is when the better drafts surface.

All teams have prospects with potential, the ones who actually turn into NHL players should be the goal in my opinion.

By players with potential I was talking about guys who had made the NHL but we haven't figured out where they will end up such as Lehkonen/McCarron. Will they become top-6 players, will they be 3rd/4th liners?

If an AHL player misses his career because he hates the coach he is the problem. Coaches cannot change the personalities of their players. Coaches cannot train hard, eat well, sleep well for their players. Do all you need to do and perform on the ice and the coach will love you. That's as simple as that. How many very talented guys missed a good career by lack of discipline? No pain no gain and many are not willing to pay the price. Coaches cannot teach the will to succeed.

If the coach creates a crappy atmosphere then players will develop less.

A lot of players have similar level of skills/physical attributes so in the end the ones that continue to develop are the ones who will succeed.

There are countless examples of players who had discipline issues, didn't work hard enough who turned it around and eventually put in the work, got better and became NHLers. That simply doesn't happen unless there is a good relationship between the coach and the player.

Some people need more external motivation, if we provide it then they are more likely to succeed. If we create an environment that demoralizes people then more of them will fail. That's what it comes down to.

By Bergevin's own recent confession, they have less then 5 top prospects.

Beyond that I posted the annual roster trend analysis I do each year.

That is what I based my opinion on.

What does 5 top prospects mean. Top-5 league wide? Then of course we don't. If he's saying we don't have 5 prospects that he thinks will make the NHL I disagree, and even if he thought that he probably shouldn't say it.

For the rosters there is clearly different philosophies at play. At least under Therrien we very clearly favoured going with veterans over giving young guys a chance. So it doesn't surprise me that the number is so low for us.

And everything Bergevin has done has pointed to his belief of using veterans for depth players. He's constantly looking for and getting veteran depth players. Other teams go the other route and give those spots to young guys to learn and grow.

 

[Chili]

In a completely subjective way of course . Mostly I'm looking for top-9 forwards and top-4 defenceman, I don't care too much about bottom pairing D-men or 4th liners simply because they are easy to acquire outside of the draft.

That's fair, as long as it was at a given point in time.

Best time to me is early in the season, before injuries set in.

I say 'a given point in time' because this is constantly changing.

By players with potential I was talking about guys who had made the NHL but we haven't figured out where they will end up such as Lehkonen/McCarron. Will they become top-6 players, will they be 3rd/4th liners?

Could add another column to that analysis...'Maybes'.

What does 5 top prospects mean. Top-5 league wide? Then of course we don't. If he's saying we don't have 5 prospects that he thinks will make the NHL I disagree, and even if he thought that he probably shouldn't say it.

For the rosters there is clearly different philosophies at play. At least under Therrien we very clearly favoured going with veterans over giving young guys a chance. So it doesn't surprise me that the number is so low for us.

And everything Bergevin has done has pointed to his belief of using veterans for depth players. He's constantly looking for and getting veteran depth players. Other teams go the other route and give those spots to young guys to learn and grow.

Someone could correct me, but the question in French was about trades and how many prospects he would not deal. And when he was asked how many top prospects he referring to the reply was less the five.

I took the rosters and posted the results at the time, based on the original team drafted.

The results can be interpreted as anyone wishes.

If I post the results again next year, I will include a column for undrafted free agents.

 

[Sorinth]

If its about development, then how come habs latest prospects have nearly no value? None of our prospects seem to be good enough to obtain good players in trades.

Guys from the last 3 drafts have not spend much time if any at all with Sly so shouldn't they be highly coveted? I know Julsen wasn't a top 10 pick but how come his name is never mentioned when Sakic is looking for a young top 4 D?

So that's how you evaluate prospects? How often their name comes up in trade rumors

Someone could correct me, but the question in French was about trades and how many prospects he would not deal. And when he was asked how many top prospects he referring to the reply was less the five.

Ok, that makes more sense. The number of prospects I would not deal is 0, but there are a number I'm quite high on.

I took the rosters and posted the results at the time, based on the original team drafted.

The results can be interpreted as anyone wishes.

If I post the results again next year, I will include a column for undrafted free agents.

It's certainly an interesting look, but like most stats it's all about how they are interpreted. Personally I would be interested in how many top-6 forward spots and top-4 defenceman are drafted. But that makes it much harder as some teams have very fluid depth charts where a guy can be on any line depending on the game, like Byron for us, he's played every single line.

 

[Belial]

So that's how you evaluate prospects? How often their name comes up in trade rumors

Hey man, I understand you want to be positive and all but since 2007 the only player drafted by this organization that is not Galchenyuk and had an important impact on this team is Gallagher!

How in the world can you expect to build a strong contender team with such poor drafting?

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Timmins is extremely overrated around here, simply because it's a national sport to overrate Habs prospect, especially if they aren't francophone.

It is also true that Timmins has had the misfortune of working for a series of highly incompetent GMs. This means there isn't a solid infrastructure around him to help in the selection process, and there isn't a great prospect farming system.

But let's be clear: the problem is mostly drafting. Nothing can prevent a greatly talented, hard-working adult hockey player from making it, and no amount of polishing can turn a turd into a diamond.

 

[Sorinth]

Hey man, I understand you want to be positive and all but since 2007 the only player drafted by this organization that is not Galchenyuk and had an important impact on this team is Gallagher!

How in the world can you expect to build a strong contender team with such poor drafting?

Because we've drafted a Hart/Vezina winning goalie, a Norris winning defenceman, another top-pairing defenceman, one of the leagues top snipers in addition to Galchenyuk and Gallagher. Plus numerous lesser assets which is more then enough to have a great core if we were able to add some good UFAs/trades and not waste the guys we did draft. You just want to ignore that because it doesn't suit your argument.

How long will people harp on two bad drafts 08 & 09? I mean Timmins was amazing, had two bad years and has been great since 2010 so I really don't see the problem.

 

[DJ Breadman]

Timmins is extremely overrated around here, simply because it's a national sport to overrate Habs prospect, especially if they aren't francophone.

It is also true that Timmins has had the misfortune of working for a series of highly incompetent GMs. This means there isn't a solid infrastructure around him to help in the selection process, and there isn't a great prospect farming system.

But let's be clear: the problem is mostly drafting. Nothing can prevent a greatly talented, hard-working adult hockey player from making it, and no amount of polishing can turn a turd into a diamond.

It's rare that people make a good post around here. This is a great post.