View Single Post
Old
06-06-2013, 11:22 AM
  #63
montreal
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Sark
Posts: 23,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The story is that Gainey gave Sather a choice of McDonagh or Fischer (which sounds like Gainey), and Sather went for McDonagh.
Do you have a link cause I never heard that before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
This has NOTHING to do with my or some others criticisms of Timmins.

My criticism of him is his completely blowing 2, now possibly 3 with LL, first round picks, when there were much better choices.

Who CARES if he drafts well for plugs in the 5th round? Gally aside.

His first round record is awful. That is the round that counts.

And, except for Gally, name one legit star TT has drafted beyond the second round.

He's **** in the first. And no hidden gems past round 2 except Gally in 11 years. WOW.
Timmins 1st round picks have had their share of problems Galchenyuk aside, it's a concern for sure.

As for the 5th round, we'll see what Dietz and Hudon can do. You got to admit, Timmins last 3 5th round picks are impressive (gallagher/dietz/hudon) granted it's still very early and things could end up very different down the road.

As for hidden gems, everyone's opinion of the definition of hidden gem will vary, but outside the 2nd round,

Halak- @ 271st overall, great value pick
Streit- @ 262nd overall, also great value pick
Grabovski- @ 150th overall, he's a ****** bag but still a very good 5th round pick
Emelin- it's too bad they couldn't get him over here sooner but a very solid pick for sure
S.Kostitsyn- @200th it's too bad it didn't work out here but still a good pick this high.

With the more recent drafts, we'll see if any more step up.




Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsProspectsExpert View Post
Yes, I don't think you heard my right, once again, this is so obvious, I can't do anything else than agree. But, coincidentally the success that had Timmins in the later stages of the draft mainly come from CHLers. I was just explaining you my take on the logic behind it.
I think I understand what you are saying now but it could be coincidence. It would be interesting to hear Timmins take on the later round picks and how much stock they put into what league each plays.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsProspectsExpert View Post
My take on the 50 contracts argument is; I agree that for the NCAA players the 2+ more years you have to evaluate them help you diminish the risk of wasting a contract on rookies that doesn't deserve it. But even then, the evaluation doesn't become perfect with those extra years, some players are still "borderliner", for example, we signed Joe Stejskal when it was unnecessary. Nevertheless at the end on the day, the goal is to select the best player and I don't think that this futile technicality really make any difference when drafting a prospect. And, if it has made a difference, I believe it was a mistake, particularly if you compare our list of CHLers and NCAA players we have drafted in the later rounds. Anyway, when you are drafting NCAA players your goal is to sign them one day or an other, so signing them in 2 years or in 4 years doesn't really make a difference in the end. And as an offset, if you are finally able to lend on a good player, those extra years become a risk because you might lose the player, as Anaheim did with Justin Schultz for example.
Just to be clear, this isn't always the case, the loophole is only for players that don't go directly to the NCAA. Guys like Didier, Stejskal, Walsh, McDonagh, Fischer etc... the loop hole wouldn't have applied to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmanfish90 View Post
Do you actually believe this?

So what you're saying, depending on the team and how they've structured they're authority on who's the senior drafting person and makes the final decision, that in some/most scenarios it's the GM, but in others it could be a head scout?

I highly highly doubt this. At the end of the day, all these scouts (including Timmins) are highly reputable advisors. Maybe in 2003 since Gainey was less than 2 months in the job he let Timmins make more of the selections, but even he TT was less than a year on the job, so he deferred to the entire scouting staff to make the decision collectively and they decided on AK in round 1, with speculation that TT wanted Getzlaf.

My point in all this is, in 99% of the cases, GM gets final say on the draftee..
What i'm saying is, that it's up to the GM on how much stock he wants to put into his head scouts opinions and that there's no cut and dry answer that every GM will do things their own way. Some may want to be in on every pick, but others know they don't have the time to scout a ton of players so after the early round picks they will leave it up to their scouts to make the correct call.

Ask yourself this, do you recall hearing a lot about Gainey scouting the CHL, NCAA/USHL, or Euro leagues? Not talking about the WJC's or development camps, or other big events that all management attends like Memorial Cup, etc... Everything i've heard is that Gainey was more inclined to go with what his scouts had to say. I've heard that PG was the opposite, that he was heavily involved in the draft.

Timmins was brought in by Savard after working with Savard, Timmins started right around the '02 draft so one would think that Timmins was highly thought of by Savard in regards to his opinions at the draft table. I do remember clearly right after the draft when Savard started talking about the Urquhart pick as he brought up the good playoffs he had with the rocket. So it sure sounded like Savard had a lot of say in the '03 draft.


Last edited by montreal: 06-06-2013 at 11:28 AM.
montreal is offline   Reply With Quote