HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Brunet Gives Timmins some love (disses french media?)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-29-2012, 02:57 PM
  #176
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 25,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Bottom line. Keep Timmins but surrounded him better and make sure people of influence ARE everywhere. 'Cause even if you have 50 scouts, if he puts extra attention solely to 1 or 2 guys, it won't change a thing. Just don't put tons of Serge Boisvert all around the world....Quantity AND quality are in order here. And Timmins needs to be open-minded change his strategy a bit and adapt to the new philosophy concept. The guy in itself is a good head scout. Not his fault if he works with less picks than most and see his good guys being traded all over the place for nothing. Yet, he should be better in the 1st round. And as much as I'm a NCAA fan, he should be more diversified.

I say Keep Timmins that is.....if we don't make him GM. I'm clearly open to that possibility. You might lose him at the head scout position, but you know that he's going to hire the good guy to do his job. And you know that at draft day, he'll also have some influence.
I'm not sure how you can really expect the guy to be better than he's been. People talk about his first rounders as though he hasn't done well but he has. Higgins was a 30 goal scorer for us. That's awesome for 14th overall. Yes he fell off the side of the earth later on for some reason but that's certainly not a drafting problem. And for all the grief that Timmins gets on the Kosti pick, that's still not a bad pick for 10th overall. I know 2003 was a super deep draft but AK isn't bad at all.

You can always cherrypick a Claude Giroux or somebody else but bottom line is that we've done really well for where we've drafted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Thing is I would trade quantity for quality. People talk about the Flyers and they were able to trade AND Richards AND Carter, because they had a Giroux in bank. And yet, even Richards and Carter were Philly draft picks. Their problem as far as drafting goes with goalies. Yet, they reached a Cup final. Every team has their own problems. We haven't been able to draft a big offensive centerman in all those years. And aside from MaxPac, we haven't been able to draft a big power forward.

As far as Timmins being the best, well tough to judge his work and the entire NHL field especially if you take into consideration the 2011 or even 2010 drafts. Even 2009 is still pretty much unknown. We think he did great, we are pretty certain of it, but which OTHER teams could you say didn't do as good of a job? Or even better? Problem is that for the other years, while we can all recognize that he's been the best at recognizing NHL talent, NOT 1 player has already reached an elite level. We do have some potential elites as far as McDo, Subban, Price, MaxPac and a few others but as of right now, none are there yet. While others might not have the quantity we do, but do have the quality.

So to say that there's nothing to improve is just not true. Even the best players admit they have to work on. Why not the GM, head coach or head scout? I believe that a draft as tons of purposes. But one major purpose is to be able to get guys you wouldn't be able to trade for or get via UFA 'cause they are too important to their team. Like Giroux. 'Cause for every O'Byrne, Lapierre, and Co that makes Timmins record so great, I can tell you that you have the ability to get those guys through trades or UFA's. But great players? It is a little more difficult. I'm not saying it never happens (see Richards, Carter...), but it's more difficult. And in a salary cap era, you can become a better team for a long period of time when you actually can benefit from the greatness of a player at a younger age when you can actually surf over his non-UFA status.

As far as Timmins, english and all, well you do see the difference do you? A guy who speaks 3 times a year compared to a guy who speaks 2 times a day. If the GM is open enough to get a bilingual coach, and to have the "audacity" to get 4, 5, 6 good local franco players, I can tell you that nobody will talk about the "unilinguality" of our GM, whether he's Timmins, Benning or whoever.
I don't think you really can expect to get an elite level player if you're always drafting middle of the pack. Maybe sooner or later you'll find a guy but superstars are like a needle in the haystack beyond the first round. That kind of means that if he's going to find one, it has to be with the 17th pick overall or whatever. It's not surprising in the least that we haven't uncovered a superstar.

What is suprising though is the talent that he HAVE gotten later on. Latendresse, Subban, SKosti, Grabs, Pleks, MaxPac... that's pretty damn good. Overall, Timmins has done an amazing job. Unfortunately we keep trading or giving away those players and at the same time we don't give him top picks to work with. Only top five pick we have gotten is our best player.

If you really want to improve our draft success rate, we just need to give him more high picks to work with. That will improve our hit rate far more than adding extra scouting will. It's great to have extra scouting but even with it, you probably still won't find a superstar later on because they probably aren't even there.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 01-29-2012 at 03:02 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 03:01 PM
  #177
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 25,413
vCash: 500
I'm going to make this a seperate post because it's kind of a separate argument but...

Anyone else think that we may have been drafting players who could've turned out much better than they did? We haven't had the superstars to help those guys along. Look at John Leclair... with us he didn't do much but the second he winds up on Philly he immediately (in his very first game) becomes a top scorer. Why? Because he had elites to play with over there.

How much better would Brian Savage or Chris Higgins have been if we'd have had a superstar center for them to play with? How much better could MaxPac be today if we had somebody with that kind of talent to help him? We've lacked the top picks to get those kinds of players. Your scouting can tell you that Chris Pronger is going to turn out much better than Alex Daigle all they want but if you don't have the 2nd overall it's not going to matter anyway. And that's been our problem is so many drafts.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 03:09 PM
  #178
uiCk
GrEmelins
 
uiCk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: MTL
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I'm going to make this a seperate post because it's kind of a separate argument but...

Anyone else think that we may have been drafting players who could've turned out much better than they did? We haven't had the superstars to help those guys along. Look at John Leclair... with us he didn't do much but the second he winds up on Philly he immediately (in his very first game) becomes a top scorer. Why? Because he had elites to play with over there.

How much better would Brian Savage or Chris Higgins have been if we'd have had a superstar center for them to play with? How much better could MaxPac be today if we had somebody with that kind of talent to help him?
Yes and no. Higgins has played over 50 games in Vancouver with some elite talent. Not that he was brought in to play a top 6 role, but he could of gotten there, if there was some sign that he can be a top scorer.
On the other side, Komi looked like all star , because he was playing with elite player in Markov, and main reason why he got the contract he got, and now he looks ordinary.
i think MaxPac will be that elite talent, that will make other players look better when he plays with them.
No doubt though, having a talented core to bring in your new core, is always beneficial. Aka Detroit.

uiCk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 03:29 PM
  #179
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 25,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiCk View Post
Yes and no. Higgins has played over 50 games in Vancouver with some elite talent. Not that he was brought in to play a top 6 role, but he could of gotten there, if there was some sign that he can be a top scorer.
On the other side, Komi looked like all star , because he was playing with elite player in Markov, and main reason why he got the contract he got, and now he looks ordinary.
i think MaxPac will be that elite talent, that will make other players look better when he plays with them.
No doubt though, having a talented core to bring in your new core, is always beneficial. Aka Detroit.
I don't think Max is the kind of guy that will make others better. I think if we're lucky, he turns into a gamebreaking type scorer who bangs in rebounds and racks up goals as he shoots the puck so often. He's not going to elevate the play of those around him unless you include having a guy like Gomez suck assists off of him.

We still need that true franchise forward, I don't think Max is it. And I think if we had one, Max would be better than he is now.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 03:50 PM
  #180
Marchy79
Registered User
 
Marchy79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I'm not sure how you can really expect the guy to be better than he's been. People talk about his first rounders as though he hasn't done well but he has. Higgins was a 30 goal scorer for us. That's awesome for 14th overall. Yes he fell off the side of the earth later on for some reason but that's certainly not a drafting problem. And for all the grief that Timmins gets on the Kosti pick, that's still not a bad pick for 10th overall. I know 2003 was a super deep draft but AK isn't bad at all.

You can always cherrypick a Claude Giroux or somebody else but bottom line is that we've done really well for where we've drafted.

I don't think you really can expect to get an elite level player if you're always drafting middle of the pack. Maybe sooner or later you'll find a guy but superstars are like a needle in the haystack beyond the first round. That kind of means that if he's going to find one, it has to be with the 17th pick overall or whatever. It's not surprising in the least that we haven't uncovered a superstar.

What is suprising though is the talent that he HAVE gotten later on. Latendresse, Subban, SKosti, Grabs, Pleks, MaxPac... that's pretty damn good. Overall, Timmins has done an amazing job. Unfortunately we keep trading or giving away those players and at the same time we don't give him top picks to work with. Only top five pick we have gotten is our best player.

If you really want to improve our draft success rate, we just need to give him more high picks to work with. That will improve our hit rate far more than adding extra scouting will. It's great to have extra scouting but even with it, you probably still won't find a superstar later on because they probably aren't even there.
In the 2003 draft, there is a list 10 players long between 11-33 (20 picks) I would take over AK in a heartbeat.
I would also like to say with that being said that I LIKE Kostitsyn... But it's because I dont regard the player to the draft position after the case. I like the player he is today because of his style of play. That doesnt mean if I could, would I go back and attempt a re-do there? Sure I would, in a heart beat. But we ultimately got what we got, and we shouldn't be pining on what could have been. Only what is I only say that to guage TT's effectiveness when it comes to respect in the '03 draft, and overall from there.

He's also missed on 1/2 of the first rounders from 03-08. 1 is elite (Price) the other 2 (Patches, & McDonough) are good nhlers... But havent proven anything to date.

The other 3 (Chipchura, Fischer, & AK) are poor selections. AK at least is a good NHL'er, however in comparison to his brethren drafted in the same round, he is very marginal. Fischer was a horrible decision, on a kid who was on many team's DND list, AND taken light years ahead of his rank. Chipchura... Injuries may have played a factor here... But he is simply not first round material.

Yes, we have done OK for what we have drafted, but if you look around the NHL... there may not be as much quantity, but there are definately teams who drafted better quality players. Philly is cited as an example of this... And the advantage of doing so was seen last summer, when they dealt away 2 elite players from their '03 draft selected below our guy, that landed them Couturier, B. Schenn, Simmonds, a 3rd last year (Nick Cousins) and a 2nd this year.

Plenty of teams ice elite players who were not first round choices...
Alfredsson, Neal, Pominville, Letang, Shea Weber, Dan Girardi, Edler, Lundqvist, Quick, Elliott, Howard, Thomas, Wideman, Campbell, Timonen, Chara,Benn, Datsyuk, Yandle, Byfuglien are all Allstars this year that werent even first round selections...

Karlsson, Eberle, Perry, & Giroux all represent guys who were drafted AFTER the 15th pick. those guys are also this year's allstars.

That's 20 guys that arent first rounders, and 4 guys past the 15th selection. That's out of 46 guys who are on that team (24/46).

They are available. We just havent gotten lucky in this respect.

Marchy79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 10:05 PM
  #181
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I'm not sure how you can really expect the guy to be better than he's been. People talk about his first rounders as though he hasn't done well but he has. Higgins was a 30 goal scorer for us. That's awesome for 14th overall. Yes he fell off the side of the earth later on for some reason but that's certainly not a drafting problem. And for all the grief that Timmins gets on the Kosti pick, that's still not a bad pick for 10th overall. I know 2003 was a super deep draft but AK isn't bad at all.

You can always cherrypick a Claude Giroux or somebody else but bottom line is that we've done really well for where we've drafted.

I don't think you really can expect to get an elite level player if you're always drafting middle of the pack. Maybe sooner or later you'll find a guy but superstars are like a needle in the haystack beyond the first round. That kind of means that if he's going to find one, it has to be with the 17th pick overall or whatever. It's not surprising in the least that we haven't uncovered a superstar.

What is suprising though is the talent that he HAVE gotten later on. Latendresse, Subban, SKosti, Grabs, Pleks, MaxPac... that's pretty damn good. Overall, Timmins has done an amazing job. Unfortunately we keep trading or giving away those players and at the same time we don't give him top picks to work with. Only top five pick we have gotten is our best player.

If you really want to improve our draft success rate, we just need to give him more high picks to work with. That will improve our hit rate far more than adding extra scouting will. It's great to have extra scouting but even with it, you probably still won't find a superstar later on because they probably aren't even there.
Pleks isn't his pick. Again, cherry picking isn't what I'm doing. Giroux is not about cherry picking, it's about a philosophy. Now, he has done in later rounds for sure. Not sure where I'm denying it. Yet, you're saying that it's tough to get an elite player, well look at the elite talent we've seen at the all-star game and the ones dominated the league.....we are not talking solely about top 5 picks. Tons of guys were there that was available when we picked. And again, I DO mention that everything might and should change the day that Subban, MaxPac and Co reaches that level. So far it did not happen. Only Price could fit in that pack.

Higgins is 2002. Not Timmins. Kosti pick, well don't get me started. In 2003, we should have done more than not a bad pick. And if things go as scheduled, we are about to let him go and not get anything in return. Not what a 2003 high draft pick should be about. Carter and Richards might have been traded, but at least they got something for them. I agree though....it's WAY more a question of the GM we had. Something some people in here keep trying to pretend as if we had the best GM's ever, but we didn't.

And again, seems that my point of view isn't clear so I'll repeat it. I'm not doing like some here and going pick by pick, year by pick and talk about who we should have and stuff. I'm talking about stuff I know, drafting philosophy, places, regions and leagues they like more than others and all.....and I believe that with the strategy they have in hand, they have to do better. Whether it's in the US where they seem to concentrate a whole lot. Whether it's in the Q where tons of teams aren't that interested, whether it's in the rest where the ratio could be better.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 10:46 PM
  #182
onice
Registered User
 
onice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 6,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roulin View Post
During that period, Philly had 5 first round picks, 4 second round picks. Montreal had 6 first round picks, 6 second picks.

Again, I'm a Timmins supporter, but Pryor has been spectacular. Credit where credit is due.
Do i need to post again Philly's picks against Timmins? For the period between 03 & 07:

Giroux - Price
Carter - Halak
Van Reimsdyk - Patches
Downie - Andrei K.


Richards - McDonagh, Subban, Emelin, Streit, Grabovski, Sergei

C. Fraser & Alex Picard - Lats, D'Ago, Weber, Lapierre, O'Byrne, White, Chipchura

If you're gonna describe Pryor's drafting as spectacular then what adjective are you gonna use for Timmins? Godlike.

I believe the reason you over value Pryor and under value Timmins is because Pryor worked for two GMs that knew what they were doing and made intelligent trades and signings that improved the team and helped the prospects. Timmins, on the other hand, worked for a couple of goof balls that made mostly atrocious trades and stupid signings. And when that wasn't disastrous enough, gave away some of the prospects for absolutely nothing.


Last edited by onice: 01-29-2012 at 10:53 PM.
onice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 10:51 PM
  #183
Player 61
#Winning
 
Player 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,179
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Player 61
Timmins is the only "NEW" solution to the problem that is on the books, the problem is what we used to call the old boys club at CYUL, less now at airport, but exists everywhere....

Player 61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 11:15 PM
  #184
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 25,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost # 1 View Post
In the 2003 draft, there is a list 10 players long between 11-33 (20 picks) I would take over AK in a heartbeat.
Sure. But the 2003 draft was the deepest draft since 1979 and probably 2nd only to that draft.

Again, we got a good player out of this draft but you were going to get a good one no matter where you drafted from. Timmins gets a lot of grief for this but it's undeserved. WE got a good player in the 10th spot.

And again, those other players got to play with HOFers. Perry went on to play with Getzlaff (another 2003 pick) Selanne, Pronger and Niedermayer. AK got to play with Koivu and Markov. Big difference man...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost # 1 View Post
I would also like to say with that being said that I LIKE Kostitsyn... But it's because I dont regard the player to the draft position after the case. I like the player he is today because of his style of play. That doesnt mean if I could, would I go back and attempt a re-do there? Sure I would, in a heart beat. But we ultimately got what we got, and we shouldn't be pining on what could have been. Only what is I only say that to guage TT's effectiveness when it comes to respect in the '03 draft, and overall from there.

He's also missed on 1/2 of the first rounders from 03-08. 1 is elite (Price) the other 2 (Patches, & McDonough) are good nhlers... But havent proven anything to date.

The other 3 (Chipchura, Fischer, & AK) are poor selections. AK at least is a good NHL'er, however in comparison to his brethren drafted in the same round, he is very marginal. Fischer was a horrible decision, on a kid who was on many team's DND list, AND taken light years ahead of his rank. Chipchura... Injuries may have played a factor here... But he is simply not first round material.
Well, what do you expect from the guy? Fisher is taken 20th overall. It's not surprising in the least that he didn't amount to anything. Chipchura was also taken later on... We get a 20th overall and he (unsurprisingly) doesn't amount to much. Then people cherrypick the best available player who's taken 6 picks later and say that we suck at drafting. To me, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If you're drafting 20th overall, you shouldn't expect to get a great player. You'll be lucky to get a good NHL player at that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost # 1 View Post
Yes, we have done OK for what we have drafted, but if you look around the NHL... there may not be as much quantity, but there are definately teams who drafted better quality players. Philly is cited as an example of this... And the advantage of doing so was seen last summer, when they dealt away 2 elite players from their '03 draft selected below our guy, that landed them Couturier, B. Schenn, Simmonds, a 3rd last year (Nick Cousins) and a 2nd this year.

Plenty of teams ice elite players who were not first round choices...
Alfredsson, Neal, Pominville, Letang, Shea Weber, Dan Girardi, Edler, Lundqvist, Quick, Elliott, Howard, Thomas, Wideman, Campbell, Timonen, Chara,Benn, Datsyuk, Yandle, Byfuglien are all Allstars this year that werent even first round selections...

Karlsson, Eberle, Perry, & Giroux all represent guys who were drafted AFTER the 15th pick. those guys are also this year's allstars.

That's 20 guys that arent first rounders, and 4 guys past the 15th selection. That's out of 46 guys who are on that team (24/46).

They are available. We just havent gotten lucky in this respect.
You're pulling out names like Alfredsson though who was drafted over a decade ago. And guys like Girardi and Pominville aren't elite. Sure they're at the All-Star game but so is Rafael Diaz man. Of course you're going to come up with a ton of names if you look at all 29 teams and every pick that's an impact player regardless of where they've come from if you include drafts all the way back to the early 90s.

Put us up against most other teams for the past five years and I'm pretty sure that we're going to fare relatively well against them as long as we're not looking at an Edmonton type situation where they're drafting potential superstars every year with the 1st overall. We've done pretty well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Pleks isn't his pick. Again, cherry picking isn't what I'm doing. Giroux is not about cherry picking, it's about a philosophy. Now, he has done in later rounds for sure. Not sure where I'm denying it. Yet, you're saying that it's tough to get an elite player, well look at the elite talent we've seen at the all-star game and the ones dominated the league.....we are not talking solely about top 5 picks. Tons of guys were there that was available when we picked. And again, I DO mention that everything might and should change the day that Subban, MaxPac and Co reaches that level. So far it did not happen. Only Price could fit in that pack.
I've heard your philosophy on the Q. I get what you're saying here but sometimes guys develop their talents after the draft and guys who you wouldn't expect to become superstars eventually do. Just like a guy like Vector Hedman may never become the blueliner he was expected to be.

I know you're saying he's in our backyard and we should've known but I think you're being unfair here. If Giroux was that good, he would've gone earlier. Fact is he surprised everyone with how good he turned out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Higgins is 2002. Not Timmins. Kosti pick, well don't get me started. In 2003, we should have done more than not a bad pick. And if things go as scheduled, we are about to let him go and not get anything in return. Not what a 2003 high draft pick should be about. Carter and Richards might have been traded, but at least they got something for them. I agree though....it's WAY more a question of the GM we had. Something some people in here keep trying to pretend as if we had the best GM's ever, but we didn't.
As I said above, 2003 was a ridiculous year. And again, do you think that AK does better if he's drafted to a club that actually has a superstar to play with? I do. I think our lack of superstar not only hurts us from a direct production standpoint, it hurts us from the perspective of other prospects not developing the way they otherwise might have.

Flip Perry and AK around and the two of them may have wound up with completely different careers. I know that a lof of folks here may scream 'BS' at me but I think it's true. Look at James Neal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
And again, seems that my point of view isn't clear so I'll repeat it. I'm not doing like some here and going pick by pick, year by pick and talk about who we should have and stuff. I'm talking about stuff I know, drafting philosophy, places, regions and leagues they like more than others and all.....and I believe that with the strategy they have in hand, they have to do better. Whether it's in the US where they seem to concentrate a whole lot. Whether it's in the Q where tons of teams aren't that interested, whether it's in the rest where the ratio could be better.
What do you mean by this? I'm just trying to understand what you think we should be doing differently here.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 01-29-2012 at 11:21 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2012, 11:36 PM
  #185
WeeBey
Registered User
 
WeeBey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost # 1 View Post
In the 2003 draft, there is a list 10 players long between 11-33 (20 picks) I would take over AK in a heartbeat.
Hindsight is 20/20. You can say that now but it's not so easy when these guys are just kids. Like I stated earlier, AK had a good pre-draft ranking (he was third in European skaters) and played in the WJC every year since he was 15.

WeeBey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 12:36 AM
  #186
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
I've heard your philosophy on the Q. I get what you're saying here but sometimes guys develop their talents after the draft and guys who you wouldn't expect to become superstars eventually do. Just like a guy like Vector Hedman may never become the blueliner he was expected to be.

I know you're saying he's in our backyard and we should've known but I think you're being unfair here. If Giroux was that good, he would've gone earlier. Fact is he surprised everyone with how good he turned out.
Giroux went in the 1st round. 22nd player chosen. We are not talking about Jean-Gabriel Pageau here. His numbers do suggest top 3 player now, but if he was so small and there would have been so many question marks, he would have went much higher like Pageau, Gallagher, Locke or whoever small players with really great skillset nonetheless. 2006 wasn't incredible but wasn't a bad year either. Pretty good players went in the 2nd round as well. Nobody is blasting the Habs for having picked another guy when we had a top 3 pick here. NOBODY would have predicted a top 5 pick at the time. But 20 from 22? Come on. See, I'm even adding Berglund in the mix, who still is not developing as I thought he would. But would have been a much wiser choice AT THE TIME. Yet, Timmins went on record saying that 2006 and 2007 were there to replenish the D squad. Timmins went with needs at the time. And while I do say that needs has to play a part, like the need of big offensive centermen, there is a freakin limit. 10 D's out of 16 picks. And what it gave us is McDo and Subban. 'Cause we are about to throw Weber in the garbage.....let's hope we trade the kid wisely. BUt going with needs at that rate, we have to say that the strategy failed. Funny part is that the success we are having with D kids drafted AFTER those 2 years, might be able to make us forget about that. From Bennett, to Tinordi, Ellis, and the 2011 D picks....that's an impressive bunch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
As I said above, 2003 was a ridiculous year. And again, do you think that AK does better if he's drafted to a club that actually has a superstar to play with? I do. I think our lack of superstar not only hurts us from a direct production standpoint, it hurts us from the perspective of other prospects not developing the way they otherwise might have.

Flip Perry and AK around and the two of them may have wound up with completely different careers. I know that a lof of folks here may scream 'BS' at me but I think it's true. Look at James Neal.
Well, flip Perry and AK and maybe Perry is good enough so that he makes other players come believing that we might be a better team in the end. At one point, some players are initiators, not just good followers. And if it's elite players at the forward position you are looking for, well you draft Perry or whoever in 2003, and you draft....Kopitar in 2005. So it might be the start of something real good offensively. You don't have Price, but you might have the same Halak or whatever other moves you made since history changed. Yet, would AK had become a better player with Kopitar? Possible. I'm not exactly bashing what you're saying. Yet, this organization kept believing we were good enough at the center position for how many years now? With Koivu and Pleks? I guess we weren't after all. But elite players HAVE been drafted later than our draft picks. They were. To me, your comment prooves that Timmins has brought quantity, but maybe not quality. Unless we think that Grabs would have made AKost better. Or Lats, Sergei and Co.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
What do you mean by this? I'm just trying to understand what you think we should be doing differently here.
I explain it just with the statements after that. Q, US, a better, more quantity and quality in the draft team. Guys that have more influence, more guys that are able to visit other regions than theirs to compare their own player they're trying to sell etc. Trying to revisit or improve Timmins way of working, so that his great picks becomes extraordinairy ones with quality top picks even if they are not top 5. Timmins might very well be THE best asset we have PLAYERS included. So if Timmins is Datsyuk like, we cannot be satisfied with very good. We have to aim higher so that the draft makes us a team to watch. Again, if we draft more quality, we don't have to buy a core in the UFA market full of smurfs.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 01:04 AM
  #187
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 25,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Giroux went in the 1st round. 22nd player chosen. We are not talking about Jean-Gabriel Pageau here. His numbers do suggest top 3 player now, but if he was so small and there would have been so many question marks, he would have went much higher like Pageau, Gallagher, Locke or whoever small players with really great skillset nonetheless. 2006 wasn't incredible but wasn't a bad year either. Pretty good players went in the 2nd round as well. Nobody is blasting the Habs for having picked another guy when we had a top 3 pick here. NOBODY would have predicted a top 5 pick at the time. But 20 from 22? Come on. See, I'm even adding Berglund in the mix, who still is not developing as I thought he would. But would have been a much wiser choice AT THE TIME. Yet, Timmins went on record saying that 2006 and 2007 were there to replenish the D squad. Timmins went with needs at the time. And while I do say that needs has to play a part, like the need of big offensive centermen, there is a freakin limit. 10 D's out of 16 picks. And what it gave us is McDo and Subban. 'Cause we are about to throw Weber in the garbage.....let's hope we trade the kid wisely. BUt going with needs at that rate, we have to say that the strategy failed. Funny part is that the success we are having with D kids drafted AFTER those 2 years, might be able to make us forget about that. From Bennett, to Tinordi, Ellis, and the 2011 D picks....that's an impressive bunch.
Well, first of all I thought he went 26th. Minor point but sorry about that because I was incorrect about it being six picks later. As for Giroux himself, wasn't it you who was saying that Timmins said the guy was too slow? Couple that with him being small and I can see why we passed on him.

Look, you can very easily make the case that we missed the boat on the guy because... well, we did. He's obviously a great scorer now and we should have in hindsight taken him. I just feel like it's unfair of us to hammer Timmins on this. Yes it was two picks away from us but again, if the guy's talent was so visible then why did it take 22 picks before he was drafted? 21 other teams missed the boat on this guy. I know he's in our backyard but there was obviously a reason for him to drop that low.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Well, flip Perry and AK and maybe Perry is good enough so that he makes other players come believing that we might be a better team in the end. At one point, some players are initiators, not just good followers. And if it's elite players at the forward position you are looking for, well you draft Perry or whoever in 2003, and you draft....Kopitar in 2005. So it might be the start of something real good offensively. You don't have Price, but you might have the same Halak or whatever other moves you made since history changed. Yet, would AK had become a better player with Kopitar? Possible. I'm not exactly bashing what you're saying. Yet, this organization kept believing we were good enough at the center position for how many years now? With Koivu and Pleks? I guess we weren't after all. But elite players HAVE been drafted later than our draft picks. They were. To me, your comment prooves that Timmins has brought quantity, but maybe not quality. Unless we think that Grabs would have made AKost better. Or Lats, Sergei and Co.
You will get zero argument from me that we haven't done a good job at drafting centers. Again though, its unsurprising considering where we've drafted.

As for Kopitar over Price... I actually remember thinking (and hoping) that we were going to draft Kopitar for the very reasons that you've cited here. But we went with Price and I can't say that I'm upset with it. Bob Mackenzie himself said last year that ten years from now there's only one player with any kind of chance to be considered the best player in that draft other than Croby and it's Carey Price. I think we all know that Crosby wins that contest hands down, but it shows you how highly regarded Price is. As far as Bobby Mac was concerned, he is the only player who will be included in that conversation. I certainly can't (and won't) fault Timmins for getting us a great goalie and I hope you're not doing this either. If we're going to criticize him for when he actually hits homeruns then we're really missing the boat on how we evaluate him.

As for Perry on the Habs... like I said, it's all speculative. I just feel like there's no way he becomes the player he is today without Getzlaff, Selanne, Ryan, Pronger and Niedermayer helping him to emerge along the way. That's just a great environment to thrive in. If he comes here he's got Koivu and Markov. I'm sorry but I just don't see him developing and thriving here. That's conjecture I know, but I don't see Ryan as the kind of player who's going to elevate others. He's a sniper not a playmaker and he's going to be a lot more effective with big guys who can help get him the puck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
I explain it just with the statements after that. Q, US, a better, more quantity and quality in the draft team. Guys that have more influence, more guys that are able to visit other regions than theirs to compare their own player they're trying to sell etc. Trying to revisit or improve Timmins way of working, so that his great picks becomes extraordinairy ones with quality top picks even if they are not top 5. Timmins might very well be THE best asset we have PLAYERS included. So if Timmins is Datsyuk like, we cannot be satisfied with very good. We have to aim higher so that the draft makes us a team to watch. Again, if we draft more quality, we don't have to buy a core in the UFA market full of smurfs.
I fully agree with this and I think you know that. I'm all for building via the draft. I'm just not sure what you're suggesting that we do here that we aren't already doing. I guess we could get MORE scouts and that's cool. But for me, I think the most important thing is to get higher picks. That to me is the single biggest thing we can do for our team. Top picks take the guesswork out of a lot of the equation and it's where the very best players are usually found. Why not just give him more to work with? This helps you achieve the higher quality goal that you're mentioning more than anything else would. Top picks in my opinion are more valuable than adding more scouts at this point.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 02:58 AM
  #188
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 22,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Bottom line. Keep Timmins but surrounded him better and make sure people of influence ARE everywhere. 'Cause even if you have 50 scouts, if he puts extra attention solely to 1 or 2 guys, it won't change a thing. Just don't put tons of Serge Boisvert all around the world....Quantity AND quality are in order here. And Timmins needs to be open-minded change his strategy a bit and adapt to the new philosophy concept. The guy in itself is a good head scout. Not his fault if he works with less picks than most and see his good guys being traded all over the place for nothing. Yet, he should be better in the 1st round. And as much as I'm a NCAA fan, he should be more diversified.

I say Keep Timmins that is.....if we don't make him GM. I'm clearly open to that possibility. You might lose him at the head scout position, but you know that he's going to hire the good guy to do his job. And you know that at draft day, he'll also have some influence.
Speaking of Boisvert, I wonder how he is doing at his job? He seem like a good heart and soul type of guy. I don't know if he has a great hockey mind though.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 07:09 AM
  #189
onice
Registered User
 
onice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 6,170
vCash: 500
It's unbelievable how some of you guys think. You look at players picked by the other 29 teams and compare those players to Timmins players. Are you guys pucking for real?

If you honestly did that for every head scout, they would all look like idiots. But you guys don't do that for the other head scouts.

That's not how you evaluate a head scout! What you do is compare one head scout's body of work with another head scout's body of work.

But I keep hearing: he should have done better or he has to change his philosophy. I still challenge anyone to come up with a team that is not Chicago or Pittsburgh that drafted better than Timmins between 03 & 07. I exclude those two teams because they each had about 5 picks in the top 5. Hell, even I could not screw up too badly having 5 shots in the first 5 picks.

When one of you guys can come up with one or two head scouts that has a better BODY OF WORK than Timmins then I'll listen to your complaints; otherwise, you guys haven't got a leg to stand on and you're just whining because you have nothing better to whine about.


Last edited by onice: 01-30-2012 at 07:15 AM.
onice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 07:24 AM
  #190
onice
Registered User
 
onice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 6,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
Speaking of Boisvert, I wonder how he is doing at his job? He seem like a good heart and soul type of guy. I don't know if he has a great hockey mind though.
Well, let's look at the choices from the Q that the Habs made in the last two drafts:

Ellis - is starting to look more and more like a sleeper that will develop into a good NHL d-man.

Beaulieu - one can argue he simply fell to us but we still had to have him evaluated as a top pick

Archambault - still up in the air - who knows how he'll turn out.

Bournival - when the O'Byrne trade was proposed I'm sure the GM either looked at Boisvert's reports or asked him for his thoughts on the player.

Right now it doesn't look too bad.

I think Timmins and his staff have done great work. The only place I would ask them to improve on is selecting players from the Q. Montreal I think has one of the smallest scouting staff. They have 6-7 amateur scouts. Philly has 13. For Quebec I would probably hire another scout in addition to Boisvert.

onice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 07:36 AM
  #191
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
But I keep hearing: he should have done better or he has to change his philosophy. I still challenge anyone to come up with a team that is not Chicago or Pittsburgh that drafted better than Timmins between 03 & 07. I exclude those two teams because they each had about 5 picks in the top 5. Hell, even I could not screw up too badly having 5 shots in the first 5 picks.

When one of you guys can come up with one or two head scouts that has a better BODY OF WORK than Timmins then I'll listen to your complaints; otherwise, you guys haven't got a leg to stand on and you're just whining because you have nothing better to whine about.
Not in numbers, 'cause 2005 was pretty mediocre to say the least, but Boston has been able to add Bergeron, Krejci, Kessel, Lucic and Marchand. All top players in their respective field. And note where they were picked. Only 1 top 5. A Kessel that ended up giving them Seguin, Hamilton and Co but that, I know, is more a GM job than a head scout one. Yet, Kessel was a good enough talent to give them that. In quantity, again, Timmins wins. In quality, Boston picks are Pretty good and you can clearly make a case that it's slightly better mostly based on already proven playoff performance. I'm not mentioning Versteeg, 'cause THAT value we had plenty of with Latendresse, SKost, Grabs....

As far as your point about having high picks and being easy to do, well maybe top 5. Though there are instances when teams did screw up. And it's easier to make a mistake top 10. Even Boston did at one point 'cause Hamill is just not what they thought he'd be at this point. I never was a fan, yet, he's showing better things lately so we'll see. But Couture went 1 spot after. So, YES every team does their mistakes. But if we would have actual results to show for....you can more easily forgive those mistakes. Just like a GM and trading a kid like Colborne for Kaberle. That's a big mistake. Yet, they won a cup and their future still looks incredibly promising. And for whoever keeps saying that everybody does mistakes and we could easily say that about the other 29 scouts, well obviously we do. But don't worry, each fanbase does it. So they all whine about their scouting and some really DO deserve it more. And we all know about that scouting isn't an exact science and all, yet, you do have to revisit it from time to time. You do have to be looked at to see how it's going. Clearly the guy still has a job so he is amongst the best. It shouldn't mean to just never change anything because of it. Maybe they could find a way to perfect it. Why would people be against that?

Again, though, nowhere am I saying he's not good. Geez. But what's frustrating is that he's that good and we don't use every tool we can, so I can imagine how better he would be if they'd use it. That's all. I keep mentioning how Timmins might be our greatest asset INCLUDING all the players, so again, not sure where I'm dissing him. But they could improve at some point. Everybody can, not sure why a head scout or a team's drafting strategy wouldn't.


Last edited by Whitesnake: 01-30-2012 at 07:48 AM.
Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 08:37 AM
  #192
Halifaxhab*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost # 1 View Post
Absolutely he has... and you could add Streit to that list, as a late round in '04.

Streit is the only one who is elite on his late round selections however... making him the only NHL'er out of the bunch who would have cost a pretty penny in return for.

Halak was dealt for pretty darn good return.

D'ago had his chances here. He really struggled and was waiver eligible. There really wasnt much of a chance to get a huge return for him. We essentially were buying time with the inclusion of Pulashaj on that deal. Really turned out well for STL though, who had the time to let him grow in an NHL role.

Grabo has been a huge head case. Here & Toronto. They needed a lot of patience to get him to the level he was at last year. This guy quit on Montreal when he was here. I think that's 'NUFF SAID about this clown.

S. Kost He was also a head case... Even going so far to tell management of his opinion after they dealt off Halak, and the absolute crap intensity season he gave us. He essentially bought his ticket from his actions here.


It's nice that he found these guys... Dont get me wrong. But mngmt could only do what they did in essentially every case.

We DONT need to always go for the guy with both size & skill... Sometimes it would be nice to see him attempt to select an enforcer (something other teams did attempt... not any of TT selections could be thought of as this), OR the small guy with a lot of talent (which he goes for a lot). I get that not every player doesnt have the makeup of say Eric Lindros... There isnt an exceptional mix here in Montreal when it comes to prospects. I can say with relative ease, if TT was focused on nailing down sized prospects who can fulfill a gritty roleplayer in the NHL some day... His % would come tumbling down some. They're hard to fully guage. Which is why it's so impressive to land the Neils, & Lucic's of the NHL.

Dietz is STILL just potential. Nothing is proven when it comes to him yet...
I'm not going to argue with you anymore about the draft. I feel you are off on your assessment, as I am sure you feel I am.

Agree to disagree.


But, how in the H - e - double hockey sticks is Streit elite?

By those standards these guys are also:

Kaberle
Wizniewski
Gilbert


I can go on. But obviously the standards by which we rate players are very different.

There is no denying that Striet is very good offensively, but he is sub-standard defensively. So not even close to Elite.

Guys like
Markov
Shea Weber
Chara

those guys are Elite.

Halifaxhab* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 08:44 AM
  #193
onice
Registered User
 
onice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 6,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Not in numbers, 'cause 2005 was pretty mediocre to say the least, but Boston has been able to add Bergeron, Krejci, Kessel, Lucic and Marchand.
Boston has drafted well in that time period but not better than Timmins. Here are Boston's results

Kessel
Bergeron
Lucic
Marchand
Stuart
Krejci
Versteeg
Sobotka
Henwick

When you look at quantity Timmins destroys them and when you look at quality (their top drafted talent) they still come up second.

Kessel
Bergeron
Lucic
Marchand
Krejci
Stuart

Compared to

Price
Halak
McDonagh
Patches
Subban
Andrei K
Grabovski
Sergei k.
Emelin

Again, you give more value to Boston's prospects because the team won a Cup. Well, you give us Chiarelli instead of Bobsled or The Ghost and I maintain Montreal would have won more than one cup and would have probably been in the finals 3 or 4 times.

No scouting staff can fulfill all your needs. That's why you have a GM to take the surpluses and trade them for needs. Chiarelli did that. Holmgren did that. Gainey & Gauthier didn't. Bobsled & The Ghost remind me of rich boys I went to school with. They would give their allowance away to their poorer friends just because they were that way.

What you overlook is the waste and terrible asset management by those two bunglers. With Timmins and his staff in place teamed by a half decent GM (not even a very good one just a half decent one) we would be talking about a dynasty in Montreal and not a bottom feeder.

You realize in those 5 years (between 03 & 07) Timmins has had 17 prospects make it as NHLers. That's almost a complete team. Only an idiot or idiots could take those riches and squander them so badly that we've become a lottery pick.

In many ways this Habs team reminds me of the Expos. Great drafting but for one reason or another can't hold onto our talent or convert a talent or two (we have too much of) into a different sort of talent we need.

The more I think about this the angrier I get. We have the best man in the league working for us in the scouting department but we have had two GMs that I claim have been worse than Houle.

When Rejean took over there was nothing in the cupboard. Savard had been sleeping on the job forthe last 4-5 years. Houle had to rebuild the scouting staff and had to cut payroll because Molson (the company not the family) were looking to save money.

Gainey & Gauthier didn't have that. They had owners that wanted to win and they had a head scout that is the best at his job and they brought us to this point. 3-4 points from last place. These two GMs are worse than Houle.


Last edited by onice: 01-30-2012 at 09:27 AM.
onice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 09:00 AM
  #194
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
 
HabsByTheBay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London
Country: United States
Posts: 1,207
vCash: 500
We could use a full time Q scout but it's not just about the Q.

We don't have any assigned Russian scouts, and no full-time Swedish or Czech/Slovak scout (we have a guy whose responsibilities are all of Europe who is Swedish but that's not the same thing).

One of the best ways to utilize our financial advantage is to pay for top scouts to blanket the hockey world.

HabsByTheBay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 09:11 AM
  #195
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Imo once you start trying to discredit Trevor Timmins for his drafting it becomes a slipper slope making the person doing it look dumber and dumber the deeper they dig their hole.

This team has top notch drafting, we may have missed some home runs but every org does. Considering that he's picked a lot of low picks that became NHL players, he has almost an uncanny knack for doing that and so far Leblanc, Tinordi and Beaulieu all look to be promising.

How people can rag on Timmins when people like Gainey and Gauthier not only squandered picks but dealt away NHL caliber players for nothing puzzles me. Had we got a better return for a lot of those players (some were flipped a few months later after playing poorly for a better return, that says a lot about how your GM moves assets) we wouldn't be discussing this because TT would look like a genius.

The job of the head scout and scouting department is to stock the cupboard full of future NHLers whether it's the first pick or last. TT has done a commendable job. The job of the coaching staff is to develop said players and the job of the general manager is to trade from an area of strength in order to address an area of weakness or get another pick that can do this. Our general managers have done the complete opposite.

I'm not one to complain about losing guys like Sergei etc, what I care about is the return we got. I'd rather we held onto these "cancers" long enough to yield a fairly good return for them rather than just trading them out of no where for a bag of pucks.

People can blame Trevor all they want but all it does is make you look foolish and misinformed. We all know it's whatever was going around the pub last night or on antichambre, doubtful and opinion you were able to form yourself as logically there's really very little reason to dislike Timmins. He's given our club ample players to work with in order to acquire picks (recycle) or trade for players we can use. Our GM's haven't really had a great vision for this team and feel in a cap era throwing away promising but struggling young ELC RFA's is a solid hockey move. In reality this is terrible asset management, whether Ribs or Sergei were "cancers" or "mishandled".

Think what you want about Gainey, Gauthier, the towel boy, the players, but leave Timmins out of your delusions. It isn't his fault this team is doing poorly, maybe if people made use of his picks and got him some recycled picks rather than trading away a 2nd every year for a guy you aren't even going to re-sign.... we wouldn't be here talking about it.

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 09:17 AM
  #196
onice
Registered User
 
onice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 6,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post

Think what you want about Gainey, Gauthier, the towel boy, the players, but leave Timmins out of your delusions. It isn't his fault this team is doing poorly, maybe if people made use of his picks and got him some recycled picks rather than trading away a 2nd every year for a guy you aren't even going to re-sign.... we wouldn't be here talking about it.
THANK YOU!!! Someone who can see what's in front of his nose.

onice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 09:30 AM
  #197
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
THANK YOU!!! Someone who can see what's in front of his nose.
Yeah I don't just regurgitate whatever AC or 990 says each week, I know this is uncommon around these parts but I actually look at the situation objectively and form my own opinion. Around here this is blasphemy though so watch out, it's just a lot easier to jump on the hate bandwagon and copy/paste an opinion rather than taking the time to you know, watch the games, follow the team and form a real opinion of the matter. Something based on facts and not a bunch of media smoke and mirrors.

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 10:10 AM
  #198
Halifaxhab*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neofury View Post
Yeah I don't just regurgitate whatever AC or 990 says each week, I know this is uncommon around these parts but I actually look at the situation objectively and form my own opinion. Around here this is blasphemy though so watch out, it's just a lot easier to jump on the hate bandwagon and copy/paste an opinion rather than taking the time to you know, watch the games, follow the team and form a real opinion of the matter. Something based on facts and not a bunch of media smoke and mirrors.
BRAVO

I have felt the same for quite some time.


And if anyone wants to blame TT for squanderinganything, let's watch Tinordi's devellopment, because he was instrumental in pushing Gauthier to trade up for him.

Halifaxhab* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 01:13 PM
  #199
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 25,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
It's unbelievable how some of you guys think. You look at players picked by the other 29 teams and compare those players to Timmins players. Are you guys pucking for real?

If you honestly did that for every head scout, they would all look like idiots. But you guys don't do that for the other head scouts.

That's not how you evaluate a head scout! What you do is compare one head scout's body of work with another head scout's body of work.

But I keep hearing: he should have done better or he has to change his philosophy. I still challenge anyone to come up with a team that is not Chicago or Pittsburgh that drafted better than Timmins between 03 & 07. I exclude those two teams because they each had about 5 picks in the top 5. Hell, even I could not screw up too badly having 5 shots in the first 5 picks.

When one of you guys can come up with one or two head scouts that has a better BODY OF WORK than Timmins then I'll listen to your complaints; otherwise, you guys haven't got a leg to stand on and you're just whining because you have nothing better to whine about.
That's exactly what I was saying above. Some posters are pulling out names like Datsyuk and Alfredsson who were drafted long ago (before Timmins was even here) by different teams and then wondering why we don't have those kinds of players. Girardi and Pominville? How are those guys in any way close to elite players? It's just crazy to try to evaluate a head scout's work that way.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-30-2012, 01:17 PM
  #200
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 25,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Boston has drafted well in that time period but not better than Timmins. Here are Boston's results

Kessel
Bergeron
Lucic
Marchand
Stuart
Krejci
Versteeg
Sobotka
Henwick

When you look at quantity Timmins destroys them and when you look at quality (their top drafted talent) they still come up second.

Kessel
Bergeron
Lucic
Marchand
Krejci
Stuart

Compared to

Price
Halak
McDonagh
Patches
Subban
Andrei K
Grabovski
Sergei k.
Emelin
I agree. Based on that list anyway we definitely look like we've done better. Lapierre, Latendresse, O'Byrne and Chipchura are all decent young NHLers as well.

Lafleurs Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.