Trevor Timmins Part II

[Lafleurs Guy]

You gotta be kidding right?



Backstrom >> Galchenyuk
Holtby = Price
Forsberg = Pacioretty
Alzner < McDonagh
Carlson = Subban
Johansson > Kostitsyn, Lehkonen, D'agostini
Orlov > Beaulieu
Vrana > Scherbak
Kuznetsov >>>> Leblanc
Eakin =/< Gallagher
Wilson > McCarron
Bowey > Tinordi
Burakowski >>> De la rose
Perreault >> Dumont

Varlamov > Any habs goalkeeper drafted not named Price
Neuvirth (see Varlamov)
Grubauer (see Varlamov)
Samsonov (see Varlamov)

Washington are the top team in the NHL for a reason. They know how to draft.

Neither Holtby nor Carlson = Price and Subban. Come on man.

 

[Habby Gilmore]

Has anyone broken down TT's drafting history by GM? Did he draft different types of players under different GMs? Or has he been pretty steady in the types of players he picks?

 

[Blind Mind]

What new guys are you talking about? MB's team? Everyone knows it takes 4 to 5 years to see what you really have in a draft. MB's first draft was 2012. Add 4 years to that and it brings us to 2016. So we can only assess the first year that MB was on the job. It wasn't a great draft for us but it wasn't a bad one either. It looks like we're going to get Chucky and Hudon from that draft. With MB's second draft it is still too early but it looks like we might get 4 - with an outside chance of getting more than 4 - NHLers. With the third and later drafts the jury is still out. And this leads you to believe the problem is with the new guys. Pray tell us how you came to that conclusion.

Because I see the problem with the 08 to 11 drafts. And MB was nowhere near this team then despite what you may think. It was our good friends Gauthier & Gainey. In those draft years we had a combination of those two depleting the organization of draft picks and of Timmins making a couple of miscalculations with Tinordi & Leblanc. But that happens to the best of scouting staff.

But I'm really interested in hearing your reasons for blaming the new guys whose first draft should only start to show results this year at the earliest.

Well explained, people are not patient enough. You gotta wait to see results of a draft.

 

[Jeffrey]

Neither Holtby nor Carlson = Price and Subban. Come on man.

Holtby and Price are very close. I don't see how they are not close at all. Holtby is maybe consistent Price has more dominance both are top 3 goaltender in the NHL.

As for Carlson he is maybe not as good as Subban offensively but he is way more reliable defensively.

 

[Whitesnake]

Marcus Johansson - Lekhonen even

Really?

 

[Sorinth]

Maybe because that was never the point? Maybe because my only point and sole point EVER was to say that he struggles since his great 2007? Is there an analysis made since 2008? And THAT rebuttal of yours was to say that he WAS surely the best or amongst the best based on his OVERALL record since 2003. So YOU actually go the DA BEST route...which then brings your own question.....have you done the research? And by research I mean, not only this research since 2003 but not only by team...but have you determined which head scout starts and ends where for each team? So that if a team sucks from 2003 to 2010....but changed their head scout and were great since 2010 that maybe THAT head scout could be the best all proportions aside?

I've never once claimed he's the best of the best, I've said he's one of the best. SO yeah maybe the new head scout for Las Vegas is actually #1, but even if he is it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Timmins is the absolute best, or second best, or third best, he's in that group who are at the top of the league.

And yes I have done some research, I've looked through other teams draft history, I've looked at the percentages picks turn into players and compared Timmins to that. There are plenty of posts where this kind of research has been done and it's shown Timmins is one of the bests. But somehow this is irrelevant unless we do the same for every head scout in the league? Give me a break.

 

[calder candidate]

Why do you cut 2007?

Because everyone keep saying that Timmins stats are improve because of that draft also I believe that was Dorion first draft in Ottawa, try to compare apples to apples

 

[Whitesnake]

I've never once claimed he's the best of the best, I've said he's one of the best. SO yeah maybe the new head scout for Las Vegas is actually #1, but even if he is it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Timmins is the absolute best, or second best, or third best, he's in that group who are at the top of the league.

And yes I have done some research, I've looked through other teams draft history, I've looked at the percentages picks turn into players and compared Timmins to that. There are plenty of posts where this kind of research has been done and it's shown Timmins is one of the bests. But somehow this is irrelevant unless we do the same for every head scout in the league? Give me a break.

Yeah, we all know that research that was done since 2003 and we obviously ALL know that those numbers are mostly driven by his drafts from 2003 to 2007.....which was NEVER refuted. It was NEVER refuted that from 2003 to 2007, he was amongst the best if not THE best. But instead of just acknowledging my point, you just decided to NOT accept that I was talking about a trend, the trend that started after 2007, something which EVERY OTHER job in this league can be looked at but somehow he can't. I'd love to see those posts about this kind of research that tells me about the percentages picks turn into players with what he has done since 2008. As this seems to be the basis of your evaluation.

Reality is that he struggles since 2008. But he has a chance to redeem himself as there might be some very good prospects incoming. In 2012, only Hudon left that could be added to his resume. In 2013, You don't want to accept it? Not my problem. I'll remember that you don't do trends though. I guess that's why you love the Habs so much. No Cups in 23 years, but hey, they are STILL THE best team ever.....we STILL are #1 in Cups since the beginning of the league! No trends do make things look much better than they really are!

 

[Sorinth]

Yeah, we all know that research that was done since 2003 and we obviously ALL know that those numbers are mostly driven by his drafts from 2003 to 2007.....which was NEVER refuted. It was NEVER refuted that from 2003 to 2007, he was amongst the best if not THE best. But instead of just acknowledging my point, you just decided to NOT accept that I was talking about a trend, the trend that started after 2007, something which EVERY OTHER job in this league can be looked at but somehow he can't. I'd love to see those posts about this kind of research that tells me about the percentages picks turn into players with what he has done since 2008. As this seems to be the basis of your evaluation.

Reality is that he struggles since 2008. But he has a chance to redeem himself as there might be some very good prospects incoming. In 2012, only Hudon left that could be added to his resume. In 2013, You don't want to accept it? Not my problem. I'll remember that you don't do trends though. I guess that's why you love the Habs so much. No Cups in 23 years, but hey, they are STILL THE best team ever.....we STILL are #1 in Cups since the beginning of the league! No trends do make things look much better than they really are!

When it comes down to 2 data points it's not a trend. If a 40 goal scorers goes a couple of games without scoring is that also a trend? They don't score every 2 games like clockworks, they'll score a hat trick one game and shoot blanks for a bunch of others. It's just as dumb to expect absolute consistency in scouting, some drafts you'll come up empty and others you'll hit gold multiple times. What matters is what you do overall, not what you did in one or two specific years.

You might not like that as an answer, but it is an answer to the so called trend which isn't even a trend because he bounced back from his 2 bad years. 2010 and onwards he's done quite well for the picks he's had.

 

[Whitesnake]

When it comes down to 2 data points it's not a trend. If a 40 goal scorers goes a couple of games without scoring is that also a trend? They don't score every 2 games like clockworks, they'll score a hat trick one game and shoot blanks for a bunch of others. It's just as dumb to expect absolute consistency in scouting, some drafts you'll come up empty and others you'll hit gold multiple times. What matters is what you do overall, not what you did in one or two specific years.

You might not like that as an answer, but it is an answer to the so called trend which isn't even a trend because he bounced back from his 2 bad years. 2010 and onwards he's done quite well for the picks he's had.

Obviously, when you exagerrate, you are actually able to prove a point. Unfortunately for you, you are actually disagreeing with something I never said. Why do you talk about "a couple of games" for the scorer? If the 40-goal scorer (which actually you happen to know at the END of the year), is at 20-goal in the middle of the year and has a 10-game drought.....we CANNOT talk about that trend 'cause.....he actually might to come to 40 or because he scored 40 in the past years? Once you've made a good job for yourself whether it's in the past or what could be the future, you are off base as far as a trend is concerned? Do you not realize that when people talk about trends.....they are just that? A trend? That it doesn't mean that you are actually thinking that the guy who is in a bad stretch, is actually the worst hockey player in the planet and have been for years? Why can't you deal with that?

And who talked about having to reach absolute consistency? I'M just saying that he had a bad stretch and he was not, AS OF NOW, able to get those gems in later rounds and wasn't able to use his 1st rounders as good as he should. And when you compare that to his 2003 to 2007, it then becomes even more clear.

But you've decided that he's done "quite well" so I guess that's how it will be. For you. So we'll TOTALLY have to agree to disagree. Yet as I keep mentioning time after time after time again, this is an ONGOING evaluation and that could TOTALLY change quickly. There might be a few prospects on their way and that analysis will/should be revised.

 

[Andrei79]

Anybody wants to do the exercice of comparing head scouts/director of player personnel ?

It would arduous but a cool exercise.

We did Ottawa.

If we look at Futa/Yanneti in Los Angeles (joined after Lombardi, in 2006, started at the 2007 draft), who've been looked at by plenty of other organizations, this is what we see:

Drew Doughty, Kyle Clifford, Alex Martinez, Slava Voynov, Dwight King, Jordan Nolan, Tyler Toffoli, Tanner Pearson, Linden Vey, Andrew Campbell, Wayne Simmonds, Brayden Schenn (look who got picked right after) and free agent signing Jake Muzzin (outstanding signing).

A lot of good players.

It's surprising because they've picked a lot of busts and disapointing players in the 1st, but they mostly made up with the amount of picks they had.

 

[Whitesnake]

Anybody wants to do the exercice of comparing head scouts/director of player personnel ?

It would arduous but a cool exercise.

We did Ottawa.

If we look at Futa/Yanneti in Los Angeles (joined after Lombardi, in 2006, started at the 2007 draft), who've been looked at by plenty of other organizations, this is what we see:

Drew Doughty, Kyle Clifford, Alex Martinez, Slava Voynov, Dwight King, Jordan Nolan, Tyler Toffoli, Tanner Pearson, Linden Vey, Andrew Campbell, Wayne Simmonds, Brayden Schenn (look who got picked right after) and free agent signing Jake Muzzin (outstanding signing).

A lot of good players.

It's surprising because they've picked a lot of busts and disapointing players in the 1st, but they mostly made up with the amount of picks they had.

I commend you for doing this. But it's an absolutely futile exercice. 'Cause whoever in here are probably PAID to SAVE Trevor Timmins (he HAS to be seen as one of the best even if we have no idea which head scout came to their respective team), they'll always find something.....every other team had either more picks, better picks, greater picks at greater draft year, less snow, more sun, less annoying in-laws etc....And not only that, but they'll tell you how Timmins has already done a great job based on Hudon and Scherbak and probably soon we'll start reading about Hawkey......and they'll completely forgot to do the same exercie with other teams. In their futuristic vision and comparative analysis, only the Habs have incoming prospects that might one day, be a regular 4th liner. No other teams do. Already predicting that the ones who "never said he was the best but only AMONG the best" will NEVER find another one who comes close to him. So good luck with that. Have a nice battle. Did my share. Time for others to step in....if you really feel like it. Timmins for life! If he goes, that's it. Sell it to Québec. Yeah, I know....the ones that will read this and said that "but I've NEVER said that"...who cares at this point. Your main argumentation is about something I've never said and it didn't stop you.

Timmins does no wrong. And when he does, it's either because of the number or the quality of the picks, because **** happens in the scouting world, and because other scouts from the organiziation didn't do their job right. I think that's what is vehiculated around here. Makes no sense but hey, you can't win every battle.

 

[jfm133]

A lot of empty talking here but I still wait for the head scout who did much better than Timmins on the long run with similar quality and quantity of picks.

 

[Jeffrey]

A lot of empty talking here but I still wait for the head scout who did much better than Timmins on the long run with similar quality and quantity of picks.

Washington is clearly one.
The fact that Washington is the top team in the NHL at this moment is a good proof of that.

 

[scrubadam]

A lot of empty talking here but I still wait for the head scout who did much better than Timmins on the long run with similar quality and quantity of picks.

Why not just compare him to himself. Go on Hockeydb, look at 08-13 drafts. Look at the players TT drafted and look at the players taken within a few picks and then ask yourself if TT got the better player.

Doesn't matter how many picks or where TT picked with this method. Its just straight comparison of who TT missed out on. I will start you off:

Tinordi/Leblanc/Beaulieu/Dietz/Dieder
vs
Kuznetzov/Krider/Klefboom/Gaudreau/Shaw

Tell me which group of players is better.

If TT is one of the best or the best then he should be grabbing the better player in the draft no?

 

[habfaninvictoria]

Why not just compare him to himself. Go on Hockeydb, look at 08-13 drafts. Look at the players TT drafted and look at the players taken within a few picks and then ask yourself if TT got the better player.

Doesn't matter how many picks or where TT picked with this method. Its just straight comparison of who TT missed out on. I will start you off:

Tinordi/Leblanc/Beaulieu/Dietz/Dieder
vs
Kuznetzov/Krider/Klefboom/Gaudreau/Shaw

Tell me which group of players is better.

If TT is one of the best or the best then he should be grabbing the better player in the draft no?

That's cherry picking a bit, because there are different priorities in different drafts (do we need a D etc). It goes to show what a crap shoot the draft is. Scouting a kid at 16-17 gives you only a glimpse of the man he'll become, and the investment in these 18 year olds is massive. I wonder what the $ amount is to get a player from draft into the NHL. No matter what that # is I can't imagine a position in an organization that has more influence as the director of amateur scouting. GM's and coaches, even professional scouts get more credit (and blame).

 

[Whitesnake]

Washington is clearly one.
The fact that Washington is the top team in the NHL at this moment is a good proof of that.

No what he wants, is the same type of picks, at the same time, in the same round, on the same draft.....like the only thing left to do is compare Timmins to.....Timmins.

I think that in the end, I will admit....I got it all wrong. It's not the Timmins post 2007 that was average. It's the Timmins pre 2007 that doesn't deserve the praise. 'Cause if that period would have been done by another team, you'd hear how of course they had great draft, look at the quality and quantity of picks they had....

 

[scrubadam]

That's cherry picking a bit, because there are different priorities in different drafts (do we need a D etc). It goes to show what a crap shoot the draft is. Scouting a kid at 16-17 gives you only a glimpse of the man he'll become, and the investment in these 18 year olds is massive. I wonder what the $ amount is to get a player from draft into the NHL. No matter what that # is I can't imagine a position in an organization that has more influence as the director of amateur scouting. GM's and coaches, even professional scouts get more credit (and blame).

Well at the end of the day its the scouts job to get the best player. If TT thinks Kuz is better than Tinordi he should fight for that pick its his job.

And its not cherry picking its the best way to compare because it takes out all the crap about draft position/draft picks etc... TT takes Tinordi who busts and then 3 picks later Kuz is taken, a C the team desperately needs.

So I don't think TT should hit homeruns on every pick, but do the excercise from 08-13 and you will find more misses than hits. You will also be shocked at how many good players the habs could have in the lineup right now that TT chose a player who amounted to nothing.

 

[Chili]

That's cherry picking a bit, because there are different priorities in different drafts (do we need a D etc). It goes to show what a crap shoot the draft is. Scouting a kid at 16-17 gives you only a glimpse of the man he'll become, and the investment in these 18 year olds is massive. I wonder what the $ amount is to get a player from draft into the NHL. No matter what that # is I can't imagine a position in an organization that has more influence as the director of amateur scouting. GM's and coaches, even professional scouts get more credit (and blame).

The $ cost of scouting, drafting, signing (i.e. signing bonus) and developing a prospect is a great question.

I heard Jarmo Kekalainen say recently prospects can take up to 8 years to develop.

Someone, somewhere has probably put a dollar figure on this and it's not cheap.

I think it's one reason 1st rounders get some preferred treatment because of the financial investment involved.

 

[ginomini]

Why not just compare him to himself. Go on Hockeydb, look at 08-13 drafts. Look at the players TT drafted and look at the players taken within a few picks and then ask yourself if TT got the better player.

Doesn't matter how many picks or where TT picked with this method. Its just straight comparison of who TT missed out on. I will start you off:

Tinordi/Leblanc/Beaulieu/Dietz/Dieder
vs
Kuznetzov/Krider/Klefboom/Gaudreau/Shaw

Tell me which group of players is better.

If TT is one of the best or the best then he should be grabbing the better player in the draft no?

That way of evaluating it is completely wrong. You can't say a pick is bad because a guy take in the next ten picks ends up being good. You compare him with the best possible scenario saying he should have pick em all when we all know it's completely impossible.
Timmins isn't a Marty McFly, he can't go five fiteen years in the future to see who will be the best.


If you want to evaluate him you have to look at maybe 30 picks after his and see how many good players have been picked. If there are lets say 10, then you can say he missed the pick as he should be in the first tier of the league.

However, if there is only 2 or 3 players (it is often the case) you can't count on any scouts to always hit the <10 % chance to get a solid NHLer.


While looking at late round hits like Gaudreau it's completely ridiculous. You can't evaluate like this past the middle of the third round/ late third depending on the drafts because it starts to be a complete crap shoot. I'm talking about less then 2% to get a good player.

However, you can notice that Timmins have not hit enough home runs in the later rounds.
Only Gallagher in the last years.

 

[scrubadam]

That way of evaluating it is completely wrong. You can't say a pick is bad because a guy take in the next ten picks ends up being good. You compare him with the best possible scenario saying he should have pick em all when we all know it's completely impossible.
Timmins isn't a Marty McFly, he can't go five fiteen years in the future to see who will be the best.


If you want to evaluate him you have to look at maybe 30 picks after his and see how many good players have been picked. If there are lets say 10, then you can say he missed the pick as he should be in the first tier of the league.

However, if there is only 2 or 3 players (it is often the case) you can't count on any scouts to always hit the <10 % chance to get a solid NHLer.


While looking at late round hits like Gaudreau it's completely ridiculous. You can't evaluate like this past the middle of the third round/ late third depending on the drafts because it starts to be a complete crap shoot. I'm talking about less then 2% to get a good player.

However, you can notice that Timmins have not hit enough home runs in the later rounds.
Only Gallagher in the last years.

I think my way is much simpler than yours. Look at who he picked look at a guy taken within a few spots. If TT was so good he would be taking the better player.

No need for % or how many picks he had or where his pick was or x,y,z. He had the chance to take a player and he chose a bust its very simple.

And I don't expect TT to pick every player. He will have busts most picks don't make it. But I listed 5 players TT took and 5 he missed on. Shouldn't a guy who is "the best" or one of the best be doing better than 0/5. how about he gets 1 or 2 of those so we can say he is average at least.

This is what alarmed me to TT. I was looking at our drafts one day and started to see the players he chose and who was taken almost directly after and TT was taking the wrong player. Just go to hockeyDB and look for yourself.

No hoops to jump through, no comparing to 30 other teams and trying to give context to their situation. Its a simple and straight excercise that anyone can do with about 30 minutes of time. So I challange you to do it and come back to me and tell me that TT chose the right players from 08-11(even 12 + 13 but thats still early). I would love if our team had Kuz/Gaudreau on it instead of Dider and Tinordi. Or Krider instead of Leblanc.

 

[Uncle Gary]

Holtby and Price are very close. I don't see how they are not close at all. Holtby is maybe consistent Price has more dominance both are top 3 goaltender in the NHL.

As for Carlson he is maybe not as good as Subban offensively but he is way more reliable defensively.

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[lamp9post]

However, you can notice that Timmins have not hit enough home runs in the later rounds.
Only Gallagher in the last years.

Nor should he be expected to. However:

There is Hudon (5th round) who some want to include in the group of 7 forwards we protect from the expansion draft.

We also just signed Bourque (6th round) although I'm unsure how much impact he will make.

Mete (4th round) is looking like quite the steal at this point.

 

[Le Barron de HF]

The most honest way to evalute Timmins' work would be to go back to the NHL's CSS final draft rankings & Bob McKenzie's top 90 and pick highest player available off the list versus who Timmins actually picked. I've been pretty busy lately but I did 2008's (couldn't find TSN's list).

Danny Kristo (bust), picked 56th overall. Was ranked 37th among NA Skaters by CSS.

Had a very promising NCAA career but despite some decent stats in the pros, has never gotten a shot in the show. Considering where he was picked and where he was ranked, this one is hardly a mistake by Timmins.

Highest ranked player available off CSS list: Jamie Arniel. Kristo > Arniel. Win for our staff.

Steve Quailer (bust), picked 86th overall. Was ranked 131st among NA Skaters by CSS.

Quailer had a decent freshman season with the Northeastern University (25 pts in 41 GP & 4th on their team for scoring) but he blew out his knee in an exhibition game the next season which derailed his development massively. That being said, he was obviously a reach considering where we picked him.

Highest ranked player available off CSS list: Matt Calvert. Quailer << Calvert. Loss for our staff.

Jason Missiaen (bust), picked 116th overall. Was ranked 23rd among NA Skaters by CSS.

Massive bust off the start. Was picked solely on freakish size and the team didn't even both signing him after his career in Junior. Massive failure by our staff here. You can afford to make a pick like that when you're in a situation like the Isles were at that draft (13 picks) but not when you don't have a first round pick and you only have 5 picks in total.

Highest ranked goaltender available off CSS list: Kevin Poulin. Missiaen < Poulin. Considering Poulin is nothing special and that we have Price, it's not a huge loss but remains a loss for our staff.

Maxim Trunev (bust), picked 138th overall. Was ranked 55th overall among European Skaters by CSS.

Was one of the youngest player in the draft. He's finally getting it together in the KHL this year but at the end of the day, who cares.

Highest ranked player available off CSS list: Philip Larsen. Trunev < Larsen. Loss for our staff.

Patrick Johnson (bust), picked 206th overall. Was unranked by CSS.

It's worth noting that Anders Lindback was picked the very next pick by the Predators. But this late in the draft, it's pretty much blind luck.

Essentially, aside from Kristo (which is hardly a win in itself), this draft was pretty abysmal with this form of evaluating Timmins.

If someone else could try the same guidelines with another draft, I think that would be the fairest way to evaluate our scouting staff's work (I'll admit it's a bit similar to Mathletic's method but slightly different). I find with this strategy a) you avoid hindsight 20/20 b) you can see the merit as to why we picked X player if he was the supposedly BPA according to the CSS and other scouting services.

 

[ginomini]

Nor should he be expected to. However:

There is Hudon (5th round) who some want to include in the group of 7 forwards we protect from the expansion draft.

We also just signed Bourque (6th round) although I'm unsure how much impact he will make.

Mete (4th round) is looking like quite the steal at this point.

Yes it seems like 12-16 might be good.

I was talking about 8-11, if you want to stay on top in this league you must find NHLers in the later rounds only one player per draft (1st rounder) is not enough.

I'm not throwing Timmins under the bus here, I actually like him, tough it's pretty obvious that 8-11 have been bad.

I think my way is much simpler than yours. Look at who he picked look at a guy taken within a few spots. If TT was so good he would be taking the better player.

No need for % or how many picks he had or where his pick was or x,y,z. He had the chance to take a player and he chose a bust its very simple.

And I don't expect TT to pick every player. He will have busts most picks don't make it. But I listed 5 players TT took and 5 he missed on. Shouldn't a guy who is "the best" or one of the best be doing better than 0/5. how about he gets 1 or 2 of those so we can say he is average at least.

This is what alarmed me to TT. I was looking at our drafts one day and started to see the players he chose and who was taken almost directly after and TT was taking the wrong player. Just go to hockeyDB and look for yourself.

No hoops to jump through, no comparing to 30 other teams and trying to give context to their situation. Its a simple and straight excercise that anyone can do with about 30 minutes of time. So I challange you to do it and come back to me and tell me that TT chose the right players from 08-11(even 12 + 13 but thats still early). I would love if our team had Kuz/Gaudreau on it instead of Dider and Tinordi. Or Krider instead of Leblanc.

It's not a good way of doing it because you have hindsight.
You could also take your method with every bust of every NHL teams. After every pick there is a possibility of picking a better player, except maybe 4 or 5 picks per draft.

Lets say for the Josiah Didier pick, yes he could have picked Gaudreau, but in the fifteen picks after Didier, Gaudreau is the real impact player, the only one with more than 100 NHL games and there are only 4 with others with at least 1 NHL game.

That said, Timmins had 1/15 chance to pick and impact player instead of Didier without hindsight.