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

Scott Mellanby named Director of Player Personnel

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-28-2012, 10:50 PM
  #176
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 9,877
vCash: 1707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
Bergie can apply to both...
yeah but i don't like to call bergevin that because that other senile moron already appropriated the nickname.

also, did anybody really defend the 'skeleton crew' approach? i was under the impression that this was one of the rare things the entire habs board could agree on, from the raging lunatics, to the sensible posters; that we needed to hire more staff.

MasterDecoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2012, 10:56 PM
  #177
QuebecPride
@Etienne_Pouliot
 
QuebecPride's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sherbrooke , Qc
Country: Martinique
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Bourdain View Post
Was talking about the connections people were making with Dudley (Assistant GM to GM of Thrashers, then Mellanby as ex-Captain) etc.
IIRC Dudley wasn't with Atlanta when Hartley was there....

QuebecPride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2012, 11:18 PM
  #178
Chris Cutter
Devil's Advocate
 
Chris Cutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Beauce
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JC93 View Post
Is it true that Bergevin played for Crawford in Vancouver? If that's true, I would take a guy who's played for him's word before complaining on the internet.
Marc Bergevin played under Crawford in 2003-2004 but it was only for 9 regular season games and 3 playoff games since he was acquired at the trade deadline. It's a small sample to judge a coach but I guess it's better than nothing...

Chris Cutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 02:21 AM
  #179
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,726
vCash: 500
In retrospect that's a good hire. I especially like the connection with Hartley. A lot of people respecting one another working with each other should be good for the organisation spirit.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 03:13 AM
  #180
MooseOllini
BobBarker
 
MooseOllini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Portugal
Posts: 3,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimota View Post
In retrospect that's a good hire. I especially like the connection with Hartley. A lot of people respecting one another working with each other should be good for the organisation spirit.
Yeh. No matter where you work at, a good atmosphere changes everything. I remember how much I hated my first job. I bet thats how people felt around PG lol.

MooseOllini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 05:32 AM
  #181
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsatheo View Post
Not sure if it was the intent, but I found this funny.
Most of my posts are weak attempts at humour. Occasionally. I hit the mark.

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 05:38 AM
  #182
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDecoy View Post
yeah but i don't like to call bergevin that because that other senile moron already appropriated the nickname.

also, did anybody really defend the 'skeleton crew' approach? i was under the impression that this was one of the rare things the entire habs board could agree on, from the raging lunatics, to the sensible posters; that we needed to hire more staff.
No there are still one or two posters that still defend Gauthier. They take it as a personal insult when Gauthier's failings are pointed out.

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 05:59 AM
  #183
Subban76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,332
vCash: 500
I see a lot of people trying to figure what he will do based on his job title. Guys, its just a title and it changes from one organization to another.

Its been confirmed that Mellanby will be in charge of our prospect development so that Timmins can focus on the scouting. He said that development is very important and players develop differently and some respond to different techniques, so its important to have someone full time on that job.

He will also be involved in UFA signings, trades and waiver.

As for people saying that development was not a problem, I disagree. We were great a drafting, but average at developing. Definetly an area that needed to be improved.

Really happy with this signing

Subban76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 06:08 AM
  #184
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
As for people saying that development was not a problem, I disagree. We were great a drafting, but average at developing.
Logic doesn't follow.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 06:26 AM
  #185
bcv
My french sucks.
 
bcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Logic doesn't follow.
Many young guys were traded for nothing and became good players wherever they were traded to instead of blossoming here.

bcv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 06:39 AM
  #186
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Logic doesn't follow.
Sure it does.

Timmins' reputation lies mostly with the large number of NHL players he has drafted but more than half of those players are on other teams. When those players were on the Habs, they either struggled or couldn't find a spot on the roster (O'Byrne, Sergei K., Latendresse) but after a year or so on other teams those players blossomed into productive regulars.

That situation demonstrates Timmins' has an eye for talent but the organization lacked an ability to develop that talent.

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 06:39 AM
  #187
EllertoKostitsynGoal
Registered User
 
EllertoKostitsynGoal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Mtl
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcv View Post
Many young guys were traded for nothing and became good players wherever they were traded to instead of blossoming here.
If the problem was devellopment, wouldn't those players have taken a while to actually blossom on their new team. It seems that usually those players didn't take long to be good for their new team, they did that the second they were traded. Wich makes me think that the main problem was evaluating what we had. Management has had a problem in the last few years with that, it seems like their players analysis was to look at total points without taking anything else into account(ice time, linemates, pp time), wich is weird from a team that is good at drafting and develloping two way players.

EllertoKostitsynGoal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 06:39 AM
  #188
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcv View Post
Many young guys were traded for nothing and became good players wherever they were traded to instead of blossoming here.
Sounds more like an asset management issue than development.

Further, most--if not all--of those young players did indeed develop in Montreal, and many of them were even in the process of blossoming when dealt.

The only exception that comes to mind is McDonagh, and he'd have been hard to screw up coming out of College.

What player's development curve is indicative of Montreal's poor player development?

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 06:42 AM
  #189
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Sure it does.

Timmins' reputation lies mostly with the large number of NHL players he has drafted but more than half of those players are on other teams. When those players were on the Habs, they either struggled or couldn't find a spot on the roster (O'Byrne, Sergei K., Latendresse) but after a year or so on other teams those players blossomed into productive regulars.

That situation demonstrates Timmins' has an eye for talent but the organization lacked an ability to develop that talent.
Nope, it still doesn't make sense.

O'Byrne is still not a good defenseman.

Latendresse was a regular in Montreal and an effective one.

Sergei Kostitsyn, similarly, had already enjoyed success. Indeed, he--like Latendresse--had mostly developed.

Further, the fact that these players spent years in the pros in Montreal's organisation speaks to the fact that they were undeniably developed by Montreal. If they were able to step into another team's lineup and have some role and some impact immediately, that's a testament to Montreal's development, as it means they were already in the midst of blossoming (i.e., developed to a large degree).

You're speaking of problems with asset management (from coaching and management)--not development.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 06:49 AM
  #190
Subban76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Logic doesn't follow.
Not sure where you don't follow. Quite simple and logic. Drafting and developing are not the same things.

We were good at drafting good prospects, but average at best at developing them. Can't be more logic than that!

Subban76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 06:52 AM
  #191
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
Not sure where you don't follow. Quite simple and logic. Drafting and developing are not the same things.

We were good at drafting good prospects, but average at best at developing them. Can't be more logic than that!
Yes, you can be more logic than that. You wouldn't know if the drafting was good if the development was subpar. While the two are indeed separate areas of management, they're mutually inclusive when it comes to evaluating them from an outsider's perspective.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 06:53 AM
  #192
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Nope, it still doesn't make sense.

O'Byrne is still not a good defenseman.

Latendresse was a regular in Montreal and an effective one.

Sergei Kostitsyn, similarly, had already enjoyed success. Indeed, he--like Latendresse--had mostly developed.

Further, the fact that these players spent years in the pros in Montreal's organisation speaks to the fact that they were undeniably developed by Montreal. If they were able to step into another team's lineup and have some role and some impact immediately, that's a testament to Montreal's development, as it means they were already in the midst of blossoming (i.e., developed to a large degree).

You're speaking of problems with asset management (from coaching and management)--not development.
Asset management is one thing. That's trading redundant prospects for nothing. But development is something else.

It means preparing your prospects to play at the nHL level in a hockey mad city like Montreal. It also means managing your player's expectations and how they should work in conjunction with the team's needs.

Sergei's case is a perfect example. Where he saw himself and where the team saw him were irreconcilable viewpoints.

You say O'Byrne is not a good d-man. In Colorado he plays a regular shift. I'll take the opinion of a NHL coaching staff over your opinion.

Sergei enjoyed success here? Really? I'm sure you know what revisionism means. After breaking into the lineup he was sent down to Hamilton or did you forget that? That's not success

In the last part of his tenure in Montreal Lats was demoted to the 3rd and 4th line playing meager minutes. That's success in your books?

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 06:53 AM
  #193
Subban76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Sounds more like an asset management issue than development.

Further, most--if not all--of those young players did indeed develop in Montreal, and many of them were even in the process of blossoming when dealt.

The only exception that comes to mind is McDonagh, and he'd have been hard to screw up coming out of College.

What player's development curve is indicative of Montreal's poor player development?
Completely disagree. Many did not develop into their full potential which was tap into by other organisations by surrounding them properly.

Besides, I think that the hiring and full time commitment of Mellanby to the task proves that the situation was not optimal and probably flawed.

Subban76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 06:55 AM
  #194
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Asset management is one thing. That's trading redundant prospects for nothing. But development is something else.

It means preparing your prospects to play at the nHL level in a hockey mad city like Montreal. It also means managing your player's expectations and how they should work in conjunction with the team's needs.

You say O'Byrne is not a good d-man. In Colorado he plays a regular shift. I'll take the opinion of a NHL coaching staff over your opinion.

Sergei enjoyed success here? Really? I'm sure you know what revisionism means. After breaking into the lineup he was sent down to Hamilton or did you forget that? That's not success

In the last part of his tenure in Montreal Lats was demoted to the 3rd and 4th line playing meager minutes. That's success in your books?

Sergei's case is a perfect example. Where he saw himself and where the team saw him were irreconcilable.
I don't think you understand the concept of development all that well. There's nothing I can add to my previous post, and nothing in your post has actually responded to any of it other than a few snide remarks.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 06:55 AM
  #195
Subban76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Yes, you can be more logic than that. You wouldn't know if the drafting was good if the development was subpar. While the two are indeed separate areas of management, they're mutually inclusive when it comes to evaluating them from an outsider's perspective.
Go read my post just before which will answer my logic and your lack of.

Of course the 2 can be separated. Not that complicated.

Subban76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 06:57 AM
  #196
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
Completely disagree. Many did not develop into their full potential which was tap into by other organisations by surrounding them properly.
Of course many did not develop into their full potential! Any time you trade a player under the age of 25-26 (or more, in some cases), you're not likely to have developed them to their full potential! That's a silly way to assess development, frankly.

What players have improved by such leaps and bounds to prove Montreal's ineptitude or, at best, average player development?

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 07:03 AM
  #197
Subban76
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
Of course many did not develop into their full potential! Any time you trade a player under the age of 25-26 (or more, in some cases), you're not likely to have developed them to their full potential! That's a silly way to assess development, frankly.

What players have improved by such leaps and bounds to prove Montreal's ineptitude or, at best, average player development?
Who said that's how I assess development? Don't try and get into my head, you're not good at it.

Ribeiro, AK, Robidas, etc. Plenty never developped into their full potential.

It's not just about trading them!!! It's about all teh talent we drafted in the past 15 years that never develop into what they could have been. Plenty of examples out there. Proof, Habs are the ones with teh most drafted NHL players in the past 15 years, yet they are the ones with the least stars in them.

For christ sake, its well known and documented in teh past years that habs was not great at developing players, but YOU must be right and Beregvin hiring someone specifically for that must be wrong.

Subban76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 07:06 AM
  #198
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post
I don't think you understand the concept of development all that well. There's nothing I can add to my previous post, and nothing in your post has actually responded to any of it other than a few snide remarks.
You can't add anything more because you got nothing more.

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 07:12 AM
  #199
Mike8
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 11,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
Ribeiro, AK, Robidas, etc. Plenty never developped into their full potential.

It's not just about trading them!!! It's about all teh talent we drafted in the past 15 years that never develop into what they could have been. Plenty of examples out there.

Ribeiro and Robidas have nothing to do with Montreal's player development of late.

You claim Kostitsyn wasn't developed properly, but there's no evidence to the contrary on this. You claim that the two (drafting and development) can be "separated easily," and yet you cite two examples from several regimes ago, and one example where there is no evidence to substantiate your claim.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Subban76 View Post
Proof, Habs are the ones with teh most drafted NHL players in the past 15 years, yet they are the ones with the least stars in them.
That's proof of poor asset management, not poor player development. If anything, it's evidence of excellent player development--especially since a healthy majority of those players were indeed developed in Montreal's system.

Mike8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2012, 07:14 AM
  #200
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike8 View Post

What players have improved by such leaps and bounds to prove Montreal's ineptitude or, at best, average player development?
Ribeiro
Sergei K.
Lats
McDonagh
Beauchemin
Robidas
Grabovski

onice 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 12:08 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.