Trevor Timmins Part II

[hototogisu]

Dont see how thats relevant. Should we wait 82 drafts to evaluate TT?

My point being that if we can't say that TT hasn't been great lately because in 07 and before he had great drafts, then how can we criticize DD or Pleks when they had good season 3 or 4 years ago or whatever ?

DD doesn't live off his 60 pts season for his entire life yet Timmins can live of the 07 draft until me and you are both dead and buried.

Well if you want to look at it that way, all Desharnais did was score 60 points one year. The impact of Timmins drafting 3 players that are franchise cornerstones would carry through to the next 15 or so years of the teams' existence.

So yeah, it's fair to say he can dine out on those picks a little bit longer than Desharnais can dine out on his 60 point season.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Ironically when the Habs drafted Tinordi it was seen a great pick by most around here and by most hockey analysts. The game changed since then and Tinordi could not keep up.

I remember this board going gaga over how well Montreal did in the 2012 draft. We were right about Chucky but Collberg & Thrower turned out awful. Goes to show how little we fans know about prospects too....yet the entire second and third round was horrible for just about every team so I guess we should blame every scout for being bad that year.

Was it just the fans that thought the 2012 draft was a good one? NO! Many scouts though the same and there were many reports giving the Habs a good drafting rating.

You can quote me later but I will go on record saying Sergachev will be a top pairing D man. He's got all the tools you look for and has elite level skating. That's important in today's game. Some are high on Mete and Bitten but they slipped in the draft because they are smaller type players. They may work out but they may not. They have to be elite to make it as smaller players.

 

[CanadienShark]

I can't see how you can give credit for late round steals, they're essentially pure luck.

Brendan Gallagher in the 5th round? Great! Except they felt Tinordi, Mark MacMillan, and Morgan Ellis were better prospects. Pure fluke that Gallagher was left at 147 overall.

First and second rounds is where a scouting department should be judged. Thats where you're making the tough decisions.

This is simply not true. The draft is sometimes a risky game for GMs. If they think that a specific guy might/will fall to their next pick, they'd be silly to pick him. It's risk-reward, which is why you sometimes see "risers" and sometimes "fallers." If they identified Gallagher as a guy with potential, but felt he had some flaws in his game and they might be able to pick him up a round or two later, they should do it. It's not pure luck. It's luck, combined with a "scouting eye", player development, etc., etc.

In other words... there's a million things affecting how a scouting departments might be judged. It's too simplistic to say that you should only judge the 1st and 2nd rounds.

 

[Whitesnake]

Ironically when the Habs drafted Tinordi it was seen a great pick by most around here and by most hockey analysts. The game changed since then and Tinordi could not keep up.

I remember this board going gaga over how well Montreal did in the 2012 draft. We were right about Chucky but Collberg & Thrower turned out awful. Goes to show how little we fans know about prospects too....yet the entire second and third round was horrible for just about every team so I guess we should blame every scout for being bad that year.

So many things here....first....yep, we don't know about prospects as much. Thank god, if we'd do, we'd make those teams save a lot of money....But I have no idea why you judge us so much for thinking it was a good draft and yet...not so much the professionnals for having made that draft. And again, as I keep saying, if we can't judge people because we know so little....we shouldn't judge players, coaches and GM's 'cause they also ALL know much more than we do.

In the end, in any work you do, you are always judged by your results. And the way you analyse those, is by looking back. And unfortunately for us, we won't be able to tell our boss how great we are based on what we did 8 years ago.

As far as other head scouts being blamed, yep, they are. On every board.

 

[scrubadam]

Ironically when the Habs drafted Tinordi it was seen a great pick by most around here and by most hockey analysts. The game changed since then and Tinordi could not keep up.

I remember this board going gaga over how well Montreal did in the 2012 draft. We were right about Chucky but Collberg & Thrower turned out awful. Goes to show how little we fans know about prospects too....yet the entire second and third round was horrible for just about every team so I guess we should blame every scout for being bad that year.

Analyast are always high on every draft. Every year every kid taken is going to be the next whoever and future star.

Fans I give even less credance. According to them we would draft a superstar in every round and the habs team would be full of allstars we drafted. Of course fans loved Tinordi I think there was Chara comparisons floating around LOL.

Reminds me of another big D habs took instead of a C. Fisher over Giroux.

 

[Scriptor]

Completely false. A scouting department is judged on the quality of the whole list. Sometime they will pick a guy later because they think he will likely still be there.

You often look good in part out of the mistakes of other teams. I am sure they had Bitten and Mete much higher on their list this year than where they were able to pick them, but they were lucky that nobody picked them before.


That being said, there will always be a part of luck involved on a single pick of a 17 years old player. Even a top-10, ask Edmonton. But overall, if you have a good average on the long run, it's not because of luck. Timmins have a very good average given where he was allowed to pick over 14 years now.

Good point. You often hear the, "He was 12th on our list. We were surprised he was still there when we got him at #67," or something along those lines.

 

[montreal]

False equivalency.

Every GM in the NHL now has a "regular" of 7 picks, while it used to be 9+ round for past scout / GMs. Players can be signed after the 7th round, therefore, we should include the McNiven of this world in Timmins draft numbers. 6 picks is now a normal occurrence for scouts around the NHL. (9-10 picks for rebuilding teams etc.) This alone should never be used as an excuse for bad scouting performance.

total ********. Not one Hab scout has ever had less then 6 draft picks, not one. Yet Timmins has had less then 6 3 times. How the **** does that not impact him? How do you expect results when he's been limited in his top 50 picks.

 

[1909]

total ********. Not one Hab scout has ever had less then 6 draft picks, not one. Yet Timmins has had less then 6 3 times. How the **** does that not impact him? How do you expect results when he's been limited in his top 50 picks.

When you have less picks, you have to be more careful....

 

[DAChampion]

total ********. Not one Hab scout has ever had less then 6 draft picks, not one. Yet Timmins has had less then 6 3 times. How the **** does that not impact him? How do you expect results when he's been limited in his top 50 picks.

It's a moot point.

1) The NHL switched from 9 to 7 rounds of drafting a while back.
2) Timmins gets compared to his contemporaries, not to the 1986 draft.
3) It's common for draft picks to be traded nowadays. Both Gauthier and Bergevin have had second round picks come and go, in equal numbers.
4) The lack of 8th round draft picks doesn't affect his performance.

 

[montreal]

When you have less picks, you have to be more careful....

when you pick less and fewer top 50, fans should expect it to impact the results. there's a reason why the stats on players taken outside the 1st round aren't good. To me it's like fans completely forget just how bad our drafting was pre-Timmins. To me there's a lot wrong with the Habs still but I would put Timmins near the end of that list. Fix the other issues first and then worry about him.

 

[Sorinth]

I know, it's tough to analyse all those....but I just thought that without any big problems, we could be able to just say "He looked great from 2003-2007...but it's more difficult since then...." wouldn't be that big of a deal.....

Keep in mind that a lot of picks take a long time to establish themselves. If we look at where Timmins picks from 03-07 were at the end of the 5th season since being drafted.

Emelin is still in the KHL and hasn't even had his big season there yet.
D'Agostini, has had one promising half season in the NHL the year before but is struggling hard in year 5 and gets traded
Weber has his first full NHL season
White/O'Byrne/Lapierre/Halak, still bouncing back and forth between NHL/AHL


His record from 03-07 looks a lot worse if you don't know how those guys careers end up. Because the only lat round picks who made it quickly are Streit and S. Kostitsyn.

Time is certainly running out for most of them, but it wouldn't surprise me if another two players from the 2011 and 2012 classes end up with NHL careers.

When you have less picks, you have to be more careful....

Well if having less picks changes who he would draft, then it's possible it's a big factor in his underwhelming draft years. Maybe he was being more careful, went with the "safe" pick like Leblanc and Tinordi and it blew up in his face. Maybe the key is giving him lots of picks so that he doesn't have that pressure to go with safe picks.

 

[DAChampion]

Well if having less picks changes who he would draft, then it's possible it's a big factor in his underwhelming draft years. Maybe he was being more careful, went with the "safe" pick like Leblanc and Tinordi and it blew up in his face. Maybe the key is giving him lots of picks so that he doesn't have that pressure to go with safe picks.

Have are in a win-now mode, the fact he's averaging seven picks a year is very positive for him.

 

[jfm133]

Let's dig in a bit,

Beaulieu, no 2nd.
Chucky, Colberg, Thrower (Nothing in the 2nd round)
McCarron, De La Rose, Fucale, Lekhonen (If only Lekhonen is a regular: underwhelming)
Scherbak, no 2nd.
Juulsen, no 2nd.
Sergachev, no 2nd.

Let's dig in a bit,

Beaulieu, no 2nd.
Chucky, Colberg, Thrower (Nothing in the 2nd round)
McCarron, De La Rose, Fucale, Lekhonen (If only Lekhonen is a regular: underwhelming)
Scherbak, no 2nd.
Juulsen, no 2nd. BUT PETRY
Sergachev, no 2nd. BUT SHAW

 

[jfm133]

Timmins is one of the best, and many forget that he is now working with a very good GM protecting assets instead of giving them away like Gainey use to do.

Montoya, Petry, Redmond, Barberio, Radulov, Byron, Danault, Shaw, Mitchell, Flynn and Carr were obtained for

Condon (domino effect), Weise, Fleischman, Nevins, 2 x 2nd round picks (net), 4th, 5th and 7th round picks.

That is assets management!!!

 

[DAChampion]

Timmins is one of the best, and many forget that he is now working with a very good GM protecting assets instead of giving them away like Gainey use to do.

Montoya, Petry, Redmond, Barberio, Radulov, Byron, Danault, Shaw, Mitchell, Flynn and Carr were obtained for

Condon (domino effect), Weise, Fleischman, Nevins, 2 x 2nd round picks (net), 4th, 5th and 7th round picks.

That is assets management!!!

Gainey was truly awful at asset management.

 

[Sorinth]

Timmins is one of the best, and many forget that he is now working with a very good GM protecting assets instead of giving them away like Gainey use to do.

Montoya, Petry, Redmond, Barberio, Radulov, Byron, Danault, Shaw, Mitchell, Flynn and Carr were obtained for

Condon (domino effect), Weise, Fleischman, Nevins, 2 x 2nd round picks (net), 4th, 5th and 7th round picks.

That is assets management!!!

Gainey was truly awful at asset management.

Bergevin has certainly been better then Gainey in terms of asset management, but I'd argue it's easier when you already have a good team as you are mostly just maintaining rather then building.

It's also never good to look at only the positives while ignoring the bad. Doing the same exercise with Gainey I can say he acquired Cammalleri, Gionta, Hamrlik, Gorges, Pacioretty, and Kovalev for Rivet, Balej, a 2nd and a 5th round pick. Clearly that's a massive misrepresentation of his tenure though.


When looking at asset management for Bergevin we also have to look at the bad side as well. For example we had two well regarded first round picks who looked great as NHL rookies in Tinordi and Leblanc yet in the end all we got for them was John Scott. That's also part of the Bergevin's asset management legacy. So is having a PWF coming off a 35 goal season and trading him away for a series of ever worsening replacements for the next 4 years until finally getting Radulov. And if we can't re-sign him, we are back at square one again, etc...

 

[DAChampion]

Bergevin has certainly been better then Gainey in terms of asset management, but I'd argue it's easier when you already have a good team as you are mostly just maintaining rather then building.

It's also never good to look at only the positives while ignoring the bad. Doing the same exercise with Gainey I can say he acquired Cammalleri, Gionta, Hamrlik, Gorges, Pacioretty, and Kovalev for Rivet, Balej, a 2nd and a 5th round pick. Clearly that's a massive misrepresentation of his tenure though.


When looking at asset management for Bergevin we also have to look at the bad side as well. For example we had two well regarded first round picks who looked great as NHL rookies in Tinordi and Leblanc yet in the end all we got for them was John Scott. That's also part of the Bergevin's asset management legacy. So is having a PWF coming off a 35 goal season and trading him away for a series of ever worsening replacements for the next 4 years until finally getting Radulov. And if we can't re-sign him, we are back at square one again, etc...

Gainey excelled at losing players for nothing: Hainsey, Beauchemin, Sourray, Streit, Komisarek ... He also lost the catastrophic McDonagh and Ribeiro trades.

Bergevin has a few bad moves sure, but overall the record is stronger.

 

[SOLR]

total ********. Not one Hab scout has ever had less then 6 draft picks, not one. Yet Timmins has had less then 6 3 times. How the **** does that not impact him? How do you expect results when he's been limited in his top 50 picks.

All I'm saying: it's no longer an edge case for an NHL Scout to have 6 picks per year total. Comparing eras is by definition a false equivalency, not sure how you don't understand this.

The point you should be making (and I see that you did while going completely overboard and calling this ********): it's always the 2nd rounder missing. I don't think we are lacking in pure numbers of picks (as we can sign contracts over the rounds every year), while the evidence is, we don't often draft from the 2nd round.

Let's dig in a bit,

Beaulieu, no 2nd.
Chucky, Colberg, Thrower (Nothing in the 2nd round)
McCarron, De La Rose, Fucale, Lekhonen (If only Lekhonen is a regular: underwhelming)
Scherbak, no 2nd.
Juulsen, no 2nd. BUT PETRY
Sergachev, no 2nd. BUT SHAW

Yep, I have much less complaints about the last 2 years, I mentioned Shaw and was also thinking of Petry. We started buying good players that we kept with 2nd rounder. Clearly an adjustment by Bergevin. I was writing this analysis from Timmins's point of view.

 

[montreal]

All I'm saying: it's no longer an edge case for an NHL Scout to have 6 picks per year total. Comparing eras is by definition a false equivalency, not sure how you don't understand this.

The point you should be making (and I see that you did while going completely overboard and calling this ********): it's always the 2nd rounder missing. I don't think we are lacking in pure numbers of picks (as we can sign contracts over the rounds every year), while the evidence is, we don't often draft from the 2nd round.

not overboard at all. Fans are crapping all over Timmins for '08 to present, where's the context? The mere fact that no Hab scout has ever had less then 6 picks, and now all the sudden since '08 it's happened 3 times but that's not supposed to be an impact. And if you read the previous Timmins threads, I pointed out how we are picking less and how few top 50 picks he's had. You can't hold him to the same standards if he's picking less and lower. It's crap to suggest otherwise.

edit- found it, post 877

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2008333&page=36

If you look at 2003 to 2007 drafts, Timmins had a total of 42 picks. That's 8.4 per draft and then in '08 and '10 he had only 5 picks each time and only 1 pick was in the top 50 (Tinordi). From '08 to '11, Timmins had a total of 25 picks. From '03 to '07 he had 10 top 50 picks vs 3 from '08 to '11.

Now since the '12 draft and on, he's had 32 picks but this time he's had 8 top 50 picks. Let's see what he does with them cause that's where he needs to get them right.

 

[Sorinth]

Gainey excelled at losing players for nothing: Hainsey, Beauchemin, Sourray, Streit, Komisarek ... He also lost the catastrophic McDonagh and Ribeiro trades.

Bergevin has a few bad moves sure, but overall the record is stronger.

I'm not going to say Gainey had a great record, it's certainly a mixed bag. But at the end of the day when you look at what he had to work with when he came in 2003, and compare it to what he left the next guy there is huge improvement. I'm not sure you can say the same thing with Bergevin, look at what he inherited when he became GM and look at the team now. I don't see a huge improvement.

I don't think a pure asset management look at things is a good way to evaluate a GM. But even if that's what we look at, it's not clear cut. Losing Ribeiro for nothing is clearly a huge negative asset management wise. Yet it opened a spot for Plekanec who became arguably a better asset in his own right. Without opening that spot, Plekanec as an asset probably doesn't develop properly and ends up like Lars Eller.

 

[scrubadam]

My opinion is that maybe a GM has more influence on a draft then some give credit.

08-11 look at who was in charge. Gauthier. We can blame him for the lack of picks and also the bad picks especially the 1st rounders.

Tinordi/LL over Krieder/Kuz bad bad bad!!!

03-07 Gainey running the ship and lots of good players.

12-today MB running the ship and we have Lek already hopefully Mac/Serg/Julsen/Scherback to add to the list.

So I concede that some of the constraints on Timmins effected his performance in 08-11. That also means we should be seeing improvement very soon. Those 12/13/14 picks should be doing something and soon.

 

[jfm133]

I'm not going to say Gainey had a great record, it's certainly a mixed bag. But at the end of the day when you look at what he had to work with when he came in 2003, and compare it to what he left the next guy there is huge improvement. I'm not sure you can say the same thing with Bergevin, look at what he inherited when he became GM and look at the team now. I don't see a huge improvement.

I don't think a pure asset management look at things is a good way to evaluate a GM. But even if that's what we look at, it's not clear cut. Losing Ribeiro for nothing is clearly a huge negative asset management wise. Yet it opened a spot for Plekanec who became arguably a better asset in his own right. Without opening that spot, Plekanec as an asset probably doesn't develop properly and ends up like Lars Eller.

Sorry, Beauchemin, Hainsey, Streit, Ribiero, Souray, Higgins and McDonagh were great assets to keep, or trade in time for fair value, if the goal was to have a good team and he just gave them away. Don't tell me he inherited a worst situation than Bergevin. He had Koivu, Markov and Théodore in their prime. Plekanec and Ribiero as rising centermen.

The best decision from Gainey was to keep Timmins, who was brought in by André Savard, but even then, he found a way to damage seriously his best draft year by trading McDonagh.

 

[Sorinth]

Sorry, Beauchemin, Hainsey, Streit, Ribiero, Souray, Higgins and McDonagh were great assets to keep, or trade in time for fair value, if the goal was to have a good team and he just gave them away. Don't tell me he inherited a worst situation than Bergevin. He had Koivu, Markov and Théodore in their prime. Plekanec and Ribiero as rising centermen.

The best decision from Gainey was to keep Timmins, who was brought in by André Savard, but even then, he found a way to damage seriously his best draft year by trading McDonagh.

Sorry but Theodore in his prime? How long did that last a season and a half?

And my whole point is that despite losing good players he was able to replace them. Had we kept Souray, we wouldn't have signed Hamrlik, and you know what Hamrlik was better over the next 4-5 years, so it turned out to be a positive. You can't have all three of Koivu, Plekanec, and Ribeiro, there simply isn't room on the roster.

And I can also say the best decision Bergevin made was to keep Timmins. Without him, what does Bergevin really have to show for himself?

 

[DAChampion]

Sorry but Theodore in his prime? How long did that last a season and a half?

And my whole point is that despite losing good players he was able to replace them. Had we kept Souray, we wouldn't have signed Hamrlik, and you know what Hamrlik was better over the next 4-5 years, so it turned out to be a positive. You can't have all three of Koivu, Plekanec, and Ribeiro, there simply isn't room on the roster.

And I can also say the best decision Bergevin made was to keep Timmins. Without him, what does Bergevin really have to show for himself?

Sourray, Streit, and valuable impending UFA in general should be resigned or trades for picks. Gainey handicapped himself by having a rule of never negotiating extensions during the season, which he mostly stuck to.

There was no room for Ribeiro -- still should have gotten more value in return.

 

[Treb]

Solid in nets.

Decent top 4 but weak bottom pairing.

Horrible forward group.

LOL sounds pretty much like the habs today.

Pacioretty - Galchenyuk - Gallagher
Kostitsyn - Grabovski - Kostitsyn
Lehkonen - Lapierre - Andrighetto/Latendresse
Hudon - Chipchura - McCarron
DLR - White

C line is a bit weak (especially since Grabovski and Lapierre are done) but the rest is good. Same thing goes for Latendresse. Throw a top 6 C in there and the forward group is good enough.

McDonagh - Subban
Emelin - Streit
Beaulieu - Sergachev
Tinordi - Weber

I have a hard time figuring out why you say the bottom pairing is weak.

Price
Halak

Best duo in the league AINEFC.

Also, we would benefit from a Boucher type of AHL coach (many players that made the NHL credited him to some extent) instead of a Lefebvre type (I have yet to hear a player saying he helped him).