Did Trevor Timmins learn from his mistakes?
View Single Post
07-03-2013, 07:36 PM
Join Date: Nov 2012
Originally Posted by
Well, the point's already been made that the contract rule gives the team some flexibility to let some prospects hothouse in the NCAA longer than it could with CHLers.
But I think the numbers are a bit skewed by adding the 6th and 7th rounders. The percentage of those picks becoming anything is pretty close to 0. In the 2005-2011 tranch, you have 6 of those NCAA type picks versus only 2 CHL. If you just eliminate those picks altogether, then I'm not so sure that the case is as strong that drafting NCAA types is a mistake.
Going by your 1.5 NCAA assessment, the ratio is actually 1.5 out of 6 -- which is 25%. I won't argue about Macmillan or Quailer, but if we round up the .5 number (how can you have half of a hockey player that might or might not play / has or has not played in the NHL?), then the percentage is 33%. Not bad. Not bad at all.
With the CHLers, the ratio is 5 out of 9. That's an outstanding number for rounds 3 to 5. I'm not sure that's an indication of NCAA types versus CHLers or an indication of good drafting. In other words, I'm not convinced by these numbers that, in principle, drafting NCAA types in rounds 3 to 5 is inherently worse than drafting CHLers. I incline to the view that it just indicates that Timmins and friends have had very good success with CHLers in those rounds. So, I would explore the argument that it says more about those specific drafts than it does about taking NCAA types versus CHLers in general in those rounds.
Anyway, we'll see whether there is a trend going forward. Another potentially interesting breakdown would be with the Europeans. The Habs were pretty weak for a while after A. Savard left, but there may be a trend of them looking more to Sweden in particular.
Interesting thread. Thanks for putting together the numbers.
Thank you for bringing your view on that topic. Happy to see that some are able to give their point of view, not just criticism.
Originally Posted by
Even more curiously, why does he have a list? Those picks would have been horrendous. Three of his top four picks are risky, and the other (Sorenson) has limited offensive upside. I like Lehkonen, but no way you risk your first round pick on him. Habs had three second rounders so he was worth a flyer with the third one. Carrier has extremely well documented character issues and health concerns....
As for Buch....... helluva lot easier for someone to say they'd pick Buchnevich than to actually do it. Not one NHL teams was willing to waste a second rounder on a flaky Russian..that's 100+ senior scouts and 30 head scouts who thought differently than you...but hey...it's easy to sit back and say "I'd have taken Buchnevich."
If by the off chance he actually has a lengthy, successful NHL career..the Habs prospect expert will always be able to come back on here and say "I told you so!"...so what's the risk for him? Buchnevish flops and you can always blame it on the NHL team not giving him a proper chance...and how the lure of playing in the KHL was too much. Easy.
Alright, alright, you have to right to have your opinion. However, I have feeling that whoever I would have chosen, you would have find a way to tell me how I was wrong..
You who you would have rather pick? We could compare in 5 years and find who did best..?
And by the way, I'm confuse.. wasn't it you that was criticism me that I was acting like an expert?
Last edited by HabsProspectsExpert: 07-03-2013 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by HabsProspectsExpert