Trevor Timmins Part II

[Apoplectic Habs Fan]

The whole draft and development team and philosophy needs to be looked at.

To me you draft and develop nurturing talent not filling roster spots. Acquiring bottom 6 players in the NHL is the easiest thing you can do. Take the homerun swing and go for skills with later picks. The focus should always be talent. To me there is a directive in the type of player this management wants and its not focused on talent

The AHL seemed to be about learning Therriens system so they could not look terrible defensively if called up. Again not furthering skills.

And you have to look at the scouts i place. Is it time for new eyes? Not just Timmins but all over the world. MTL has almost unlimited funds. No reason to not have the best of the best all over the globe

 

[Mathletic]

I think thats a good point. TT tends to fall in love with some physical specimens. Chipchura/Tinordi/Fischer/Crisp/Torp/McCarron etc... Ya he takes some small guys here or there but a lot of oafs in there that have the tools but tool box is in question.

add to that De La Rose, Lernout, Koberstein, Didier and others he couldn't get in Pouliot and Morin.

 

[Whitesnake]

Ottawa identified a scout behind Hakan Andersson in Detroit, brought him over, and saw an increase in great players drafted.

We need to look to see who is behind another scout in Washington or Tampa Bay. Who is finding these gems, and offer them a boat load of money to take over the head scouting here in Montreal.

We need to look at teams like Halifax in the Q, Frolunda in the SHL, and find out who is identifying young talent there. Pay them to come over, or pay the guys in the SHL to feed us information while they are scouting for their club team there.

There is a bunch of ways to get creative with scouting and get the best people, much like Toronto did. They said, who is dominant in the OHL; London, Sault St. Marie and Oshawa. They went out and got the minds responsible for their success and added them to their organization. As a result, they've been able to add intriguing young talent into their organization, development has improved, and it isn't just their first round picks. Their grabbing guys like Nielsen, Korshkov, Grundstrom, etc. etc.

Well all that is great and I totally agree. And while Bergevin would have the last word on this......Timmins is the one with his position who should and could convince his GM to do so. Seems he's fine with the pals he has now. But his job would permit him to call for some serious changes in personnel. Boisvert and Audette are puppets solely to please the Quebec crowd. Put some real talent in there. And elsewhere.

 

[yianik]

There are quite a few examples of players drafted late that carve out a great career in the NHL: Markov was drafted 6th round, Datsuyk drafted 6th round, Zetterberg drafted 7th round, just to name a few.

Even others who were never drafted like Martin St. Louis who have HOF careers.

I don't get discouraged by how late a pick is selected. I'm even thinking that our 7th round pick last year, Arvid Henrikson can impress us. I recall reading encouraging things about him during his first development camp last summer.

Well yes. I mean for sure finding a top player in the lower rounds ( 3,4-7 ) is really long odds and maybe just happens every few years, but you still go for that guy.

We laugh at the BargainBin stuff, but are also amazed how frequently MB gets a really good bottom guy, or better, once a Hab, for chump change.

So use our picks , obviously all of them, for skill and skating players. I mean, what is the point of say over 5 years, and 20 picks ( 4-7 ) to gun for just roster kind of players. We end up with say 3. So what ? Would rather go for the skill guys and nab one of those who turns into a top 6 forward than have another 3 bottom 6.

 

[The Great Weal]

Why can't we just always go for skill?

 

[montreal]

Seems like Churla is moving up the ladder, hope he doesn't replace Timmins. I still wonder how much impact he has since joining the organization. With the way he played the game, still have to wonder if he was more behind certain picks like McCarron, Crisp, Koberstein, Pezzetta, etc... with him moving up the ranks I wouldn't be surprised if we saw more picks like this.

I don't have a big issues with the Fischer pick, I think it was more to do with the Habs not going BPA due to them lacking D prospects at the time if I recall correctly. He was 6'5, a smooth skater and a pmd. Not the worst pick at 20, granted you need to get those right but for only one 1st round pick to never see the NHL (since I would bet big money that Juulsen will see the NHL within a few years), that's not bad at all. I don't pay attention to other teams but I would think that compares well with other teams.

Still hope they look to fix the development end this summer, but concerned if Timmins has less of a role and Churla more of a role.

 

[yianik]

Have to say I wonder what the philosophy is because that can be critical.

I have ranted before about our 1st round philosophy when we were selecting players who had every quality, but were weak skaters. Team would always say skating would improve but did not, and so all were doomed to pretty much bust eg Ward, Ryan, Chouinard, the other Higgins etc etc

Skill and skating, that is what you go for. Guys fitting these criteria and being 5 foot 11 or over. also welcome.

I know it is easy to attack the Tinordi pick, but when we got him wasn't the positive spin.... yeah, the big shut down D we have waited on for two decades ... . Well a shut down D ( ie no offense ) is at best a top 4, meaning 4th best. While a 4th D is not a dime a dozen, it is also not a particularly top player. I never understood this pick, and I don't get how he was BPA.

Same with Crisp. Big guy, no skill. Why ? How was he BPA ?

Scherbak busts, I am disappointed, but not at the pick. Crisp and Tinner tick me off.

 

[Whitesnake]

Seems like Churla is moving up the ladder, hope he doesn't replace Timmins. I still wonder how much impact he has since joining the organization. With the way he played the game, still have to wonder if he was more behind certain picks like McCarron, Crisp, Koberstein, Pezzetta, etc... with him moving up the ranks I wouldn't be surprised if we saw more picks like this.

You know my take on this. If true, it means Timmins has no say. And we pretty much know this isn't true. Besides, we have now NUMEROUS examples of things not working out. I really don't see how Churla would impose his views and Timmins would just say whatever.

This is what Timmins said after we have drafted Koberstein...

"Koberstein was a guy we went under the radar, we had our fingerprints all over. We spent some time with him after the season, and I think this guy has some good upside and long range projection. He's a great kid, tons of character but he's a good hockey player too..."

In regards to his commitment to Fairbanks of the NCAA:

"He'll come to our development camp next week and we'll go from there. He's a guy we call a five-year player. He'll go back to Olds, be the captain, be the leader, play there another year and then go to the NCAA. It's a five year potential commitment on him."

So he's a good kid, great character...oh and good hockey player too.

That won't work.

 

[montreal]

Have to say I wonder what the philosophy is because that can be critical.

I have ranted before about our 1st round philosophy when we were selecting players who had every quality, but were weak skaters. Team would always say skating would improve but did not, and so all were doomed to pretty much bust eg Ward, Ryan, Chouinard, the other Higgins etc etc

Skill and skating, that is what you go for. Guys fitting these criteria and being 5 foot 11 or over. also welcome.

I know it is easy to attack the Tinordi pick, but when we got him wasn't the positive spin.... yeah, the big shut down D we have waited on for two decades ... . Well a shut down D ( ie no offense ) is at best a top 4, meaning 4th best. While a 4th D is not a dime a dozen, it is also not a particularly top player. I never understood this pick, and I don't get how he was BPA.

Same with Crisp. Big guy, no skill. Why ? How was he BPA ?

Scherbak busts, I am disappointed, but not at the pick. Crisp and Tinner tick me off.

I don't have any problems with the Tinordi pick, it's the Crisp pick that was harder to understand but injuries haven't helped him. It's hard to know how quickly the NHL would change, if 10 years ago you said 6'6 physical defensemen wouldn't be highly sought after, people would have called you crazy. It doesn't help that he played under some terrible coaching either. That said it makes you wonder if the people pushing for Tinordi, were also pushing for McCarron and now we have to hope they got that one right. I really liked what I saw from McCarron in the OHL but after getting called up to the NHL he hasn't looked the same at all which is very concerning. That said hopefully he turns into at least a solid 4th liner for us.

 

[Whitesnake]

So.....are we picking players 'cause huge character guys have more chance to be a NHL'er? Are we picking players based on potential so that guys we are picking, if they make it, have more chance to be KEY players?

I guess Timmins has done a little bit of both....but not enough. Surely, a Scherbak pick is a homerun type of pick. No problem with that. Some would say that so was Beaulieu. Well I would agree except.....we might have overestimated his REAL offensive potential. Reway is that pick of homerun pick I like. I guess so was Audette. Same with Ghetto. Same with Gallagher which in that case worked. While some other picks LOOKED that way too....like Avtsin, Trunev and a few others, maybe those were just a bad offensive evaluation.

Anyway......is there a Corsi/Fenwick type of stats for head scouts....'cause to me...that's what Timmins is working for.

 

[Whitesnake]

And especially when I hear how a 5th rounder might eventually fill a "need". I read that about Koberstein. What kind of need is a guy not making it going to fill? If you pick a Crisp 'cause you want bigger and tougher guys in your lineup....again....what kind of need is he going to fill in the ECHL?

What you do is unless you are picking real high in the 1st round and can CLEARLY see that the guy is a no-miss, and you have choice between a goalie and a centerman, THEN the need is incredibly clear. As the guy might even play for you, in your NHL team, in 3 months. Other than that....BPA......and if you have too many little skills Centermen and 5 of them are about to make it......you freakin do a Jones for Johansen type of trade. That happened. And still can happen. As that way, when 2 guys are a little older and more NHL really ready.....you KNOW that they have WAY more chance to fill a REAL need than a 5th rounder you have no idea where he's heading....

That's my take. Enough about who should have been picked where. Enough about the analysis of how great, super great, duper great or extra great Timmins was with his picks. But let's discuss strategies instead. I know, less fun, less confrontational, but let's see how interested some of you are REALLY into discussing things like that.

 

[Habs]

So.....are we picking players 'cause huge character guys have more chance to be a NHL'er? Are we picking players based on potential so that guys we are picking, if they make it, have more chance to be KEY players?

I guess Timmins has done a little bit of both....but not enough. Surely, a Scherbak pick is a homerun type of pick. No problem with that. Some would say that so was Beaulieu. Well I would agree except.....we might have overestimated his REAL offensive potential. Reway is that pick of homerun pick I like. I guess so was Audette. Same with Ghetto. Same with Gallagher which in that case worked. While some other picks LOOKED that way too....like Avtsin, Trunev and a few others, maybe those were just a bad offensive evaluation.

Anyway......is there a Corsi/Fenwick type of stats for head scouts....'cause to me...that's what Timmins is working for.

I want to know who dictates the direction Timmins takes.. is that numbskull MB saying we want 'size' and to only go after that, or are they still drafting BPA after round 1?

 

[Whitesnake]

I want to know who dictates the direction Timmins takes.. is that numbskull MB saying we want 'size' and to only go after that, or are they still drafting BPA after round 1?

I have the hardest of time thinking Timmins is a puppet. After all these years with us. After the continuous change in the guy's title, you have to think he has THE say about who is taken. But also about the direction. No doubt that Bergevin might give some kind of direction....but if Timmins is as great as people say he is, if he's not satisfied with that, he should just resign and go elsewhere. A guy with that power cannot just be a yes man. Refuse to believe that.

 

[FireBurningBin]

And especially when I hear how a 5th rounder might eventually fill a "need". I read that about Koberstein. What kind of need is a guy not making it going to fill? If you pick a Crisp 'cause you want bigger and tougher guys in your lineup....again....what kind of need is he going to fill in the ECHL?

The one problem I have with those kinds of picks is the concept of "floor" or what not as being significant. It's as if we don't often see the "top 6 or bust" picks often find their way into the NHL as 4th liners themselves. Compare Fasching and Crisp for example. The former at the time of the draft looked to have more top 6 potential. From that, I don't see how it appears evident that Crisp in opposition would have a higher likelihood in becoming a bottom 6 forward. Fasching is only 3 inches shorter. Guys with low ceilings like Pezzetta seem to miss the NHL as often, if not more, than prospects with offensive upside.

On a similar note, the NHL has moved away from a top 6/bottom 6 dichotomy towards a top 9/4th line one. Even if you question Duclair or Bjorkstrand's ability to put up top 6 numbers, there is less pressure for them to meet their absolute potential, and instead you just need to hope that they can become offensive contributors, regardless of their imperfections.

 

[Whitesnake]

The one problem I have with those kinds of picks is the concept of "floor" or what not as being significant. It's as if we don't often see the "top 6 or bust" picks often find their way into the NHL as 4th liners themselves. Compare Fasching and Crisp for example. The former at the time of the draft looked to have more top 6 potential. From that, I don't see how it appears evident that Crisp in opposition would have a higher likelihood in becoming a bottom 6 forward. Fasching is only 3 inches shorter. Guys with low ceilings like Pezzetta seem to miss the NHL as often, if not more, than prospects with offensive upside.

On a similar note, the NHL has moved away from a top 6/bottom 6 dichotomy towards a top 9/4th line one. Even if you question Duclair or Bjorkstrand's ability to put up top 6 numbers, there is less pressure for them to meet their absolute potential, and instead you just need to hope that they can become offensive contributors, regardless of their imperfections.

Great point. True that quite a few top end junior scorers DO end up being fillers in the NHL. Yet, what we go with is almost picking a filler from the get go....makes no sense. Should always go with an A prospect so that if he falls...he could become a C. Starting with C.....can often just go below that...and below is not a NHL player.

So that people panicking because I'm "unhappy" with the Pezzetta pick should understand that I would not have been mad with a Sokolov type of pick in the same round EVEN if he doesn't make it. OF COURSE......at one point....you STILL need a few hits. All great to pick offensive potential...if you are always 0 for 7, well you will pay the price. And while the strategy is a good one....NOW it's all about picking the right guys that fits that strategy. But at least, if we could have that strategy to begin with....that would be so much better.

 

[scrubadam]

I think bottom line from the draft to development there are major issues. 07 is 10 years ago its time to move on from it.

The org needs to fix this and pick a stratgey. I think first things first the goal should be to draft the best C in the draft that is not a top 10 pick. If a guy is at 15 and he is going to be the best C then do something to get him.

Teams win cups down the middle. The team has been dying for a C for 20 years. Its comical what the team has missed out on in the past 14 years enough is enough. If Brown/Kunin/McLeod turn into 60+ point Centers I will pull my hair out LOL.

 

[ginomini]

If we look at Timmins first round picks, there haven't been many times here he has picked the BPA based on talent, pure talent players. Let's see what it would look like

-Kostitsyn, they thought he was the most talented
-Chipchura - Rob Shremp or Zajac where the most talented guys
-Price, no comment
-Fischer - Giroux
-McDonagh - Cherepanov
-Pacioretty - Perron or Brett MacLean
-Leblanc - Schroeder
-Tinordi - Kuznetsov
-Beaulieu he was the most talented
-Galchenyuk same as Beaulieu
-McCarron - Theodore
-Scherbak - Could argue Goldobin or Ho Sang
-Juulsen - Beauvillier or Jeremy Roy
-Sergachev clearly the most talented

So in 14 first picks he have drafted the most talented player in the first round 3 times out of 13 (excluding Price)

The result wouldn't be clearly better.
That said, I'm all for swinging for the fences in the later rounds, but I still think that the first round is where you can get value picks there are a lot of first round picks where no super talented but are very valuable players for their team. See guys like Kreider, McDonagh, Backlund, Brandon Sutter, Colin Wilson, De Haan, Danault, etc.
I have no problem picking these guys in the first has they have way for chance of succeeding then if you pick similar guys in the later rounds, still you gotta pick the right guys, Tinordi, Chipchura, Leblanc and Fischer were not.

 

[Mathletic]

The one problem I have with those kinds of picks is the concept of "floor" or what not as being significant. It's as if we don't often see the "top 6 or bust" picks often find their way into the NHL as 4th liners themselves. Compare Fasching and Crisp for example. The former at the time of the draft looked to have more top 6 potential. From that, I don't see how it appears evident that Crisp in opposition would have a higher likelihood in becoming a bottom 6 forward. Fasching is only 3 inches shorter. Guys with low ceilings like Pezzetta seem to miss the NHL as often, if not more, than prospects with offensive upside.

On a similar note, the NHL has moved away from a top 6/bottom 6 dichotomy towards a top 9/4th line one. Even if you question Duclair or Bjorkstrand's ability to put up top 6 numbers, there is less pressure for them to meet their absolute potential, and instead you just need to hope that they can become offensive contributors, regardless of their imperfections.

I invite people to look at past "safe" picks. Incredible the number of busts in that group. You always head how Curtis Lazar is sure to become an NHL'er an whatnot. More often than not they become marginal players who sign at minimum salary as FA not long after their draft.

 

[Whitesnake]

If we look at Timmins first round picks, there haven't been many times here he has picked the BPA based on talent, pure talent players. Let's see what it would look like

-Kostitsyn, they thought he was the most talented
-Chipchura - Rob Shremp or Zajac where the most talented guys
-Price, no comment
-Fischer - Giroux
-McDonagh - Cherepanov
-Pacioretty - Perron or Brett MacLean
-Leblanc - Schroeder
-Tinordi - Kuznetsov
-Beaulieu he was the most talented
-Galchenyuk same as Beaulieu
-McCarron - Theodore
-Scherbak - Could argue Goldobin or Ho Sang
-Juulsen - Beauvillier or Jeremy Roy
-Sergachev clearly the most talented

So in 14 first picks he have drafted the most talented player in the first round 3 times out of 13 (excluding Price)

The result wouldn't be clearly better.
That said, I'm all for swinging for the fences in the later rounds, but I still think that the first round is where you can get value picks there are a lot of first round picks where no super talented but are very valuable players for their team. See guys like Kreider, McDonagh, Backlund, Brandon Sutter, Colin Wilson, De Haan, Danault, etc.
I have no problem picking these guys in the first has they have way for chance of succeeding then if you pick similar guys in the later rounds, still you gotta pick the right guys, Tinordi, Chipchura, Leblanc and Fischer were not.

Well if you add every guy on the list you mentioned as far as more skilled, yeah, we are superior. Now it's the McDonagh and Pacioretty analysis. You might be right for Pacioretty.....we could have missed him. Was surely not seen as a 40-goal scorer. So we would have missed him for sure. McDonagh? Well....he was not suppose to last as long. And the only reason he did was the incredibly surprising yet totally stupid Thomas Hickey pick. That's why McDo fell. And while he was probably not seen as a guy who had 1 insane quality....his overall play made people believe he was skilled and I don't think Cherepanov on skills should have been taken ahead of him. But then....based on your list, we do add Zajac, Giroux, Kuznetsov, Theodore, Goldobin (though Scherbak was right up there in talent too) and Beauvilier or Roy? Well that looks pretty good on top of Price, Galchy and others. But yeah, minus Pacioretty for sure. We could talk till tomorrow about McDo. But on talent alone....we still have Subban....

But again, as I said before top picks in the 1st round....you could potentially divert from the skills and see more about needs. McDo was seen as a surefire complete NHL'er and he is.....a surefire complete NHL'er. But then, I also thought Brett McLean would be a surefire NHL'er (though I don't agree with you about the skills part, I had always seen him as a very good 3rd line C maybe at best a 2nd line...but that was at best.

Anyway, at some point it comes to down to our analysis. But in some of our strategies, Crisp and others...there's just no discussion. NOBODY can tell me he was the BPA and most talented player available. Nobody. Not even Timmins.

And one more thing, again, whenver Timmins and Co come out with "surprising" picks coming out of nowhere....it NEVER paid off. Well not true....last time it paid off was in....2004. With Grabs and Streit. Halak in 2003. So...maybe it's time to stop trying too much.

 

[ginomini]

My analysis did not take really long to do and I came up with the conclusion that if you want role players in the first you better be really sure of your pick.

I hope the team is consistently making this kind if analysis to change their strategy...

 

[TopTenPlayz]

I think bottom line from the draft to development there are major issues. 07 is 10 years ago its time to move on from it.

The org needs to fix this and pick a stratgey. I think first things first the goal should be to draft the best C in the draft that is not a top 10 pick. If a guy is at 15 and he is going to be the best C then do something to get him.

Teams win cups down the middle. The team has been dying for a C for 20 years. Its comical what the team has missed out on in the past 14 years enough is enough. If Brown/Kunin/McLeod turn into 60+ point Centers I will pull my hair out LOL.

Drafting for needs isn't the solution imo. Claude Giroux was a right winger prior to his draft. Timmins said that his guts told him to pick Giroux but the organizational already had a bunch of small wingers at that time. Also, the Habs lacked d-men in their system so that's why they chose Fischer. In 2013, they drafted McCarron obviously because they had a need to bulk up their forwards but by doing that, they missed out on Shea Theodore whom Anaheim took right after the Habs. The Habs didn't even consider Theodore because they had Beaulieu and Tinordi in their system.

Ottawa traded their 15th overall pick in 2010 to Stl for Rundblad. Rundblad was a mid first round pick the year prior. Ottawa really wanted another young d-man to compliment Jared Cowen and Erik Karlsson. The Blues used the selection to draft....Vladimir Tarasenko. Bottom line, I say bpa is still the best way to go; if it happens to be a center, great!!

 

[yianik]

Again though, there has to be a checklist for BPA and certain things weighted more than others, even if it is mentally calculating things.

Kuznetsov had great skill but was inconsistent. What did that tell scouts / TT ? Did that mean he lacked CHaracter as he was not a hard worker at least game in game out if not shift to shift ?

Jason Ward ? Matt Higgins ? Great character, warriors, captain material. Blah blah blah. Does not overcome skating/ skill issues.

Character , warrior type, goes to the tough areas etc. Sounds swell and appeals to us. but the guy must have talent.

I mean, can a very talented but perhaps inconsistent guy not turn up his attitude and find that work ethic so that he earns that CHaracter label in time ? Is that not a better chance than a character guy developing a high skill set between junior and the NHL ? Of course not.

Look at a guy like Gallagher. The poster boy for hard nosed CHaracter guy. Well you know in his draft year he had like 40 goals. So he showed ability. It isn't like he was a 17 goal scrub in juniors.

Lots of things factor in and character is not something I am making a complete joke about. Though when you think about it all these guys that are drafted have character to some high degree because they could not have gotten to that level otherwise in terms of hard work, determination and sacrifice.Lots of things. But how are they weighted ? What is most important and are we weighting the wrong things the most , or at least too much ?

TALENT+SKATING=BEST CHANCE TO DRAFT A TOP END PLAYER

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

People are acting like MB doesn't go for those types of guys in the later rounds ever. Who are the non-skill picks really? Pezzetta, Crisp, DLR? What about Hudon, Reway, Mete, Ghetto, Bitten, Nystrom and Evans. Even Gregoire and Addison to a lesser extent. Gregoire's pro career has been underwhelming but still had some upside. Addison's overager production isn't special but he's still pretty intriguing.

Some posters make it out like the guy just drafts grinders all the time. The Crisp pick stung because of who was still available and Pezzetta seemed bad the second it happened but otherwise the guy's made a lot of picks that I've liked.

 

[SpeedyPotato]

But wouldn't you rather draft an unskilled grinder in the 6th round over a guy who was a touted top 5 pick, adjusting to North America, with a bum shoulder, who scored 30+ goals on one of the worst teams in the CHL?

I was stoked when we picked Evans. He may never amount to anything at the NHL, but he is a swing for the fences, rather than a sacrifice bunt that doesn't even get your guy on base.

Are you referring to Pezzetta and if so, who's the 30+ chl goal scorer we should've picked instead? Sokolov?

 

[Wats]

Absolutely. Skills first. Then skills 2nd. And you finish your analysis with skills too. You know that's my take for as long as I don't remember.

Makes no sense really, why waste a pick on low upside grinders when every year actual guaranteed nhlers get traded for that same low round picks.