HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Since Trevor Timmins

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-11-2012, 08:19 AM
  #26
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Which proove, like I keep saying, that it's not the quantity that counts but the quality. And when you have quality, you do work to keep your quality and not trade it for nothing. Detroit's draft is just a proof of that. Quality drafting, great additions. Us, we've had quantity drafting, that sometimes translated into quality but that was "successfully" traded or lacked development.
Since 2003...which was the subject of the original post. Detroit has not drafted much in terms of frontline players.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 08:21 AM
  #27
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
That doesn't change my pount. Detroit is in fact perceievd as one of the best drafting teams in the NHL. The fact that they tend to trade their top picks year after year only goes to make their task of drafting high end prospects that much more difficult.

As for using players that predate Timmins tenure in Montreal, I was looking st the body of work that Detroit's fron office has done since they've been in place. It doesn't seem fait to set a cut off date that starts when Timmins did. Ken Holland has been there since 1982 as has Jim Devellano. Jim Nill started off in 1994. Is it fair to exclude players they drafted that are still helping the franchise today just because it doesn't prove your point? I don't hink so. If Timmins had drafted Roy, Beliveau, LaFleur and Richard then I would have given him credit for it but he didn't. Detroint front office DID draft the players I had put on my list.

As for no brainer 1st overall picks in the top 5, plenty of top 5 picks have been busts. I won't waste my time looking them up but suffice it to say, I can easily find an extensive list of players that were busts in the top 5 so it's not as no brainer as you make it out to be. Off the top of my head I'm thinking Brule, Pouliot, Stefan etc....
There have been a lot of top 5 busts, but on a percentage basis, most teams will get a very good player 75-80% of the time. If you look at 5th or 6th or 7th round picks the odds of getting a good player are like 5-10%.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 08:32 AM
  #28
Watsatheo
Error 503 Service
 
Watsatheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,080
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Since 2003 is the topic.

Since 2003, it becomes:


42. Justin Abdelkader, W
64. Jim Howard, G
97. Johan Franzen, W
132. Darren Helm, C
132. Kyle Quincey, D

From Europe? The great Hakan has spotted 1 regular since 2003 from europe. 1. Sure, there's the prospects now and they look like they'll make it, but c'mon, don't tell me that's a solid record now?
Well I did say they went through a dry spell over a few years. The draft years of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 hasn't been too good. Even then, Franzen is a pretty good regular.

They've really turned it around since 2007 IMO. I think a few of Nyquist (will be in NHL next season), Jarnkrok, Pulkkinen, Tatar, among other players, will turn out to be good players. I'm jelly of some other their prospects considering how late they draft year after year.

Watsatheo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 08:34 AM
  #29
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pled View Post
Since Trevor Timmins

2003-2012

team | player | game | g/p

MTL | 25 | 4325 | 173
You had to go and post this, huh? This only underscores the incompetency of the Gainey/Gauthier management era.

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 08:37 AM
  #30
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
There have been a lot of top 5 busts, but on a percentage basis, most teams will get a very good player 75-80% of the time. If you look at 5th or 6th or 7th round picks the odds of getting a good player are like 5-10%.
I doubt the accuracy of the percentages in your posts as you have a history of pulling numbers out of your ass to prove your point and then not respond when being called on it.

Besides, it still doesn't change anything I said in any of my posts. Just you being a **** distruber abnd trying to prove me wrong unsuccessfully.

shutehinside is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 08:39 AM
  #31
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post


VAN | 15 | 2221 | 148 - Sedin twins

TOR | 18 | 2130 | 118 - Okay, they actually suck at drafting

NJD | 22 | 2118 | 096 - thought of as one of thebest drafting teams in the NHL. Parise, Henrique etc etc etc

DET | 16 | 1897 | 119 - Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Lidstrom, Fedorov, Yzerman etc etc

CAL | 20 | 1675 | 084 - Yes they suck at drafting too

TAM | 20 | 1655 | 083 - Lecavalier, Hedberg etc
Are you for real or are you just being obstinate?

The Sedins were top 5 if not top three picks and it was almost 10 years ago.

Yzerman and the rest were all between 15 and 20 years.

Parise, I'll give you. I find it funny while you dismiss McDo, Subban or patches, you bring up Henrique without any sense of irony.

Lecal & Hedberg were top 2 picks.

C'mon man compare apples with apples.

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 08:43 AM
  #32
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,840
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsatheo View Post
Well I did say they went through a dry spell over a few years. The draft years of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 hasn't been too good. Even then, Franzen is a pretty good regular.

They've really turned it around since 2007 IMO. I think a few of Nyquist (will be in NHL next season), Jarnkrok, Pulkkinen, Tatar, among other players, will turn out to be good players. I'm jelly of some other their prospects considering how late they draft year after year.
We'll see. As of now, our pool looks good too so we'll see. I know you know more about the detroit system than I do that's what I'm comparing recent history rather than near future.

LyricalLyricist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 08:50 AM
  #33
Not The One
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montréal, Qc.
Posts: 1,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pled View Post
Since Trevor Timmins

2003-2012

team | player | game | g/p

MTL | 25 | 4325 | 173
None of that wins you games.

We've been hearing about our great prospects since before Hockey's Future had a forum. The habs were ranked in the top five for years and what has it gotten them...

Hopefully better management of our actual players rather than our drafting will permit the Habs to take the next step.

Not The One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 09:07 AM
  #34
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
Are you for real or are you just being obstinate?

The Sedins were top 5 if not top three picks and it was almost 10 years ago.

Yzerman and the rest were all between 15 and 20 years.

Parise, I'll give you. I find it funny while you dismiss McDo, Subban or patches, you bring up Henrique without any sense of irony.

Lecal & Hedberg were top 2 picks.

C'mon man compare apples with apples.
How's this for a comparison. The Habs as we are right now do not have the same calibre of players that any of those teams have. Everything else is semantics. I don't care why we don't or when they were drafted or by who. These are star players that were drafted and making a difference on those NHL rosters right now. Apples to apples is they have them we don't. Happy?

shutehinside is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 09:08 AM
  #35
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
I doubt the accuracy of the percentages in your posts as you have a history of pulling numbers out of your ass to prove your point and then not respond when being called on it.

Besides, it still doesn't change anything I said in any of my posts. Just you being a **** distruber abnd trying to prove me wrong unsuccessfully.
Fine...go ahead and do the stats since 2003 on how many top 5 picks are true busts and give me a percentage.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 09:24 AM
  #36
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Fine...go ahead and do the stats since 2003 on how many top 5 picks are true busts and give me a percentage.
You brought up this made up numbers, you figure out what the rigth ones are. I'm not doing your homework for you.

shutehinside is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 09:34 AM
  #37
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
While they're all looking quite good, I wouldn't put any of them in the "Star" category just yet. Price is probably the closest and while I'm a huge fan of his, he hasn't won anything for us yet. PK is making huge strides but he's also hot and cold and hasn't put it together for an entire season. Patches has had 1 very good year and hopefully he can continue but it's still too early. Halak is a tandem goalie that I wouldn't exactly say is one of the tp 10 in the NHL. McDonagh also has a lot of potential but still hasn't proven himself either.

Time will tell what these players become but as of now, I'd say we don't have a true star yet. Even at maximum potential we'd have 2 or 3 in 10 years and all in the last few years. Like I said, with great success comes greater expectation. I'm not doubting he's done well, I'm saying that there's more pressure to hit a homerun and draft a bona fida super star. Hopefully Galy can become that player. Once you've drafted a star player all the critics go away. Case in point these bottom 6 teams. Noone every says anything about the drafting of 4 of these 6 teams:

VAN | 15 | 2221 | 148 - Sedin twins

TOR | 18 | 2130 | 118 - Okay, they actually suck at drafting

NJD | 22 | 2118 | 096 - thought of as one of thebest drafting teams in the NHL. Parise, Henrique etc etc etc

DET | 16 | 1897 | 119 - Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Lidstrom, Fedorov, Yzerman etc etc

CAL | 20 | 1675 | 084 - Yes they suck at drafting too

TAM | 20 | 1655 | 083 - Lecavalier, Hedberg etc

Point is when you draft a star player it doesn't really matter how many man games and 2nd, 3rd or 4th line players you draft. People focus on the top 3, top 2 and starting goalie. Once you draft those, getting the rest is much easier through trades and UFA signings.
Lamoriello traded up to draft Parise, which desrves extra credit.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 09:36 AM
  #38
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 559
vCash: 500
I wonder how you would go about actually verifying a scout's work? I suspect that you could never get a big enough statistical sample to really make any sort of accurate analysis. I mean, Timmins himself has been here for what 9 drafts? 10 if you include 2003 (and there seems to be some confusion over how much influence he had on that draft). During that time the Habs have drafted about 75 players (depending on how accurate my quick count is). How many did Detroit draft? Percentage-wise, how do we stack up, number of picks versus number of NHL players? Through pure chance the more picks you have the more players you will get to the NHL.

But of course that's not really fair or accurate either. There are picks, and then there are picks. I would trade five seventh round picks for one first round pick any day of the week. Having five seventh round picks might drag down your average simply because seventh round picks are not very good. On the other hand, having one pick in the first round and none the rest of the way gives you a pretty good chance of being 100% in that year. So if you want to do a statistical analysis you'd have to break it down further. Say round by round. But that doesn't really work either. A top five pick is going to be much more likely to make it to the NHL than a 30th overall. Ditto for the 31st versus the 60th.

So how would you break it down? Slots of five maybe? How do you fare compared to other teams when drafting in the 1-5 slot, the 6-10 slot, the 11 to 15 slot and so on. But then you get back to my initial doubt, in that I doubt that you would get a large enough sample size in each slot to really be able to compare team to team. Well, maybe you could compare team to team, but what do you do if a team changes its head scout? How long do most teams employ a head scout for?

It would be an interesting analysis, should you be able to do it, and it might be a more accurate reflector of a team/scout's true drafting ability. If Timmins consistently does better at every slot, or at most slots, then you can say that he is a better scout. But if his numbers are skewed because he's had better slots than other teams...

If that analysis were to work you could then break it down even further, star players versus regular Joes. Who is more likely to pick the average NHL player and who is more likely to pick an impact player? Right now everybody seems to have their opinions ("Timmins only drafts average players, no home runs!") but would it be possible to come up with some empirical data to support or refute that theory?

JohnnyReb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 09:38 AM
  #39
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Since 2003...which was the subject of the original post. Detroit has not drafted much in terms of frontline players.
But who cares about since 2003 since they can still surf on the quality drafting that happened before? So sure. Detroit has sucked at drafting. Yet, they continued being amongst the best teams out there. So the point of this thread was to proof that Timmins is amongst the best at recognizing NHL talent...fine....didn't know that was to be done....again...and again....and again.....Yet, the management we've had succesfully screwed up the work that was done at that level. And other teams who didn't have as successful drafts as we did are still amongst the best on the ice. But hey, if we're satisfied at being great at the draft since 2003, I guess that's fine. I mean, at least we're winning something.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 09:42 AM
  #40
Watsatheo
Error 503 Service
 
Watsatheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,080
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
We'll see. As of now, our pool looks good too so we'll see. I know you know more about the detroit system than I do that's what I'm comparing recent history rather than near future.
Well I'm not really comparing their drafting to ours but I think they've gone from overrated to underrated lol. They've actually drafted quite a few good players (not elite but good) players outside of the famous 3. They have some very nice players that will be coming up and I hope the Habs trade with them in the future for a couple of them.

Watsatheo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 09:50 AM
  #41
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
But who cares about since 2003 since they can still surf on the quality drafting that happened before? So sure. Detroit has sucked at drafting. Yet, they continued being amongst the best teams out there. So the point of this thread was to proof that Timmins is amongst the best at recognizing NHL talent...fine....didn't know that was to be done....again...and again....and again.....Yet, the management we've had succesfully screwed up the work that was done at that level. And other teams who didn't have as successful drafts as we did are still amongst the best on the ice. But hey, if we're satisfied at being great at the draft since 2003, I guess that's fine. I mean, at least we're winning something.
I think they're getting caught up in the minutia of it all and not looking at the bottom line.

Detroit, Vancouver, New Jersey etc are perrenial contenders in large part to their drafting. Who cares if you're the best drafting team in the universe. We finshed 15th out of 15 teams last year! Is it all Timmins fault, of course not but at the same token we don't seem to have a player, drafted or otherwise that can carry a team on his back and will them to be a better team a la Datsyuk, Sedins, Parise etc can. That I think is the real determination of drafting success.

Further to that look at the perrenial contending teams. Chicago, Nashville, Detroit, Vancouver, Boston, Pittsburgh etc all built throught the draft and all drafted "star" calibre players. Some with top picks or top 5's, some not. As good as Timmins has been and consistant, we're still not at that level and our draft picks thus far haven't been at that level either. It is what it is.

shutehinside is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 09:56 AM
  #42
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
You brought up this made up numbers, you figure out what the rigth ones are. I'm not doing your homework for you.
They are not made up numbers, the vast majority of top 5 NHL picks since 2003 are superstars, stars or at worst very good players. There are a few exceptions, but for every Zherdev(2003) there are 4 guys like Staal Fleury Vanek and Horton. In 2006 all 5 top 5 picks are above average players. 2007 was a relatively weak year with Hickey probably a bust(but he was a "reach"). 2008 Schenn is the closest thing to a bust and a new start in Phillie may jump start his career.


Last edited by Monctonscout: 07-11-2012 at 10:34 AM.
Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 10:08 AM
  #43
yianik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,871
vCash: 500
Im guessing part of Detroits success is that even if they arent drafting that well, they at least develop their players and get them in their line-ups, as opposed to trading them away for lesser value over the long term. If it wasnt for overall poor trading by Houle and Gainey, this team would have been better, Id guess quite a bit better. Our problem hasnt been drafting, its been bad trades. Detroit also has an edge in that its been such a successful well run organization that players want to play there so signing its own guys and UFAs has likely been easier and probably cheaper than for many teams. You know, a guy wants to win a Cup, Detroit is always on the list.

yianik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 10:09 AM
  #44
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
They are not made up numbers, the vast majority of top 5 NHL picks since 2003 are superstars, starts or at worst very good players. There are a few exceptions, but for every Zherdev(2003) there are 4 guys like Staal Fleury Vanek and Horton. In 2006 all 5 top 5 picks are above average players. 2007 was a relatively weak year with Hickey probably a bust(but he was a "reach"). 2008 Schenn is the closest thing to a bust and a new start in Phillie may jump start his career.
If you didn't make up the stats you posted then why not list them again? I say there's a 92% chance you made them up off the top off your head and a 100% chance you pulled them out of your ass.

Show me the REAL numbers and not the made up numbers and then you can post them. I can post made up stats as well to prove my points should I choose to but I don't because I don't want to get called out on it like I just did with you and then have to backtrack and try to BS my way out of it like you'll try to do in your next response to this point.

Btw, don't you owe me 500 vCash from the PA Parenteau bet that you lost? I have your avatar waiting for you as well for the start of the season

shutehinside is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 10:11 AM
  #45
onice
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 5,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post


Further to that look at the perrenial contending teams. Chicago, Nashville, Detroit, Vancouver, Boston, Pittsburgh etc all built throught the draft and all drafted "star" calibre players. Some with top picks or top 5's, some not. As good as Timmins has been and consistant, we're still not at that level and our draft picks thus far haven't been at that level either. It is what it is.
That last paragraph is horse droppings.

To fix what is not working you have to realize what is broken.

The reason the Habs were bottom feeders last year and mediocre the last 10 years is because of the two incompetent boobs in the management office.

Stats are constantly presented on this board showing that Timmins has had one of the best if not the best drafting record the last 10 years. So to dismiss him as part of a club that has done nothing is ridiculous.

That's on par to saying well forget Stamkos' records. He has been part of a losing team, he can't be as good as Kopitar who has won a cup.

Maybe the Habs have been lousy despite Timmins' valiant efforts. Maybe the Habs record coupled with Timmins record should show you just how terrible Gainey & Gauthier were for this team.

With an average GM - and I think Bergevin & his staff are better than average - this team could have been a yearly contender with Timmins running the draft.

He wasn't responsible for sending McDonagh & Higgins away for scrapes or Sergei for absolutely nothing or Lapierre for for what was it a 5th rd pick or D'agostini for Palushaj? An average GM would have converted Timmins' surpluses into assets not into liabilities like Gainey & Gauthier did.

onice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 10:24 AM
  #46
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,116
vCash: 500
The Habs have been wretched recently but it could have been even worse without the efforts of Timmins plus the luck of getting the #5 pick in the 2005 lottery. (Should we insert Halak into the equation? Timmins was also responsible for drafting him, so the Habs would probably have struggled a few years longer with Huet.)

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 10:24 AM
  #47
shutehinside
Registered User
 
shutehinside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by onice View Post
That last paragraph is horse droppings.

To fix what is not working you have to realize what is broken.

The reason the Habs were bottom feeders last year and mediocre the last 10 years is because of the two incompetent boobs in the management office.

Stats are constantly presented on this board showing that Timmins has had one of the best if not the best drafting record the last 10 years. So to dismiss him as part of a club that has done nothing is ridiculous.

That's on par to saying well forget Stamkos' records. He has been part of a losing team, he can't be as good as Kopitar who has won a cup.

Maybe the Habs have been lousy despite Timmins' valiant efforts. Maybe the Habs record coupled with Timmins record should show you just how terrible Gainey & Gauthier were for this team.

With an average GM - and I think Bergevin & his staff are better than average - this team could have been a yearly contender with Timmins running the draft.

He wasn't responsible for sending McDonagh & Higgins away for scrapes or Sergei for absolutely nothing or Lapierre for for what was it a 5th rd pick or D'agostini for Palushaj? An average GM would have converted Timmins' surpluses into assets not into liabilities like Gainey & Gauthier did.
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm a results driven person and the results haven't been there in part to our drafting. Whether you choose to see it that way or not is up to you. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise just expressing the way I see it. A couple of different choices and maybe we have Giroux or Carter in our line up and we be one a vastly different team. I know this is revisionist history but it highlights the point I'm trying to make which is we don't have the horses in the barn to make us a perennials contender yet. We don't.

shutehinside is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 10:30 AM
  #48
Steve Shutt
Don't Poke the Bear
 
Steve Shutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: Colombia
Posts: 416
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pled View Post
Since Trevor Timmins

2003-2012

team | player | game | g/p

MTL | 25 | 4325 | 173
SAN | 24 | 4078 | 170
CHI | 28 | 4058 | 145 <-- 2010 Cup
BOS | 26 | 3897 | 150 <-- 2011 Cup
CBJ | 30 | 3889 | 130
PIT | 25 | 3768 | 151 <-- 2009 Cup
BUF | 24 | 3721 | 155
ANA | 22 | 3532 | 161 <--- 2007 Cup
LAK | 26 | 3453 | 133 <---- 2012 Cup
NAS | 26 | 3442 | 132
NYI | 33 | 3414 | 103
EDM | 30 | 3347 | 112
WAS | 23 | 3344 | 145
COL | 26 | 3285 | 126
PHI | 24 | 3248 | 135
BUF | 27 | 3222 | 119
NYR | 27 | 3032 | 112
FLO | 20 | 2949 | 147
PHX | 17 | 2724 | 160
DAL | 23 | 2683 | 117
OTT | 23 | 2638 | 115
MIN | 23 | 2611 | 114
CAR | 17 | 2586 | 152
WIN | 20 | 2223 | 111
VAN | 15 | 2221 | 148
TOR | 18 | 2130 | 118
NJD | 22 | 2118 | 096
DET | 16 | 1897 | 119 <-- 2008 Cup
CAL | 20 | 1675 | 084
TAM | 20 | 1655 | 083
Other than Detroit - looks like drafting has had a pretty important role in winning the cup

Steve Shutt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 10:34 AM
  #49
hototogisu
Global Moderator
Poked the bear!!!!!
 
hototogisu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,939
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by shutehinside View Post
Further to that look at the perrenial contending teams. Chicago, Nashville, Detroit, Vancouver, Boston, Pittsburgh etc all built throught the draft and all drafted "star" calibre players. Some with top picks or top 5's, some not. As good as Timmins has been and consistant, we're still not at that level and our draft picks thus far haven't been at that level either. It is what it is.
You might as well throw out Chicago, Vancouver and Pittsburgh, as the core of their teams revolve around at least 2 top-3 picks (Toews/Kane, Sedin/Sedin, Crosby/Malkin). That has nothing to do with scouting and everything to do with finishing last and picking the top name on the board - child's play. And now we've got our own in Galchenyuk and another top-5 pick in Price, so let's see how that plays out.

Nashville's superstars were/are gems that they found later in the draft, but what have they accomplished that Montreal hasn't? A team that has never made the conference final in their franchise history is a "perennial contender"?

Detroit is Detroit. I don't think there's any shame in admitting we're not at their level of finding superstars at later rounds in the draft, because no one is.

Boston is pretty much the only example you've given that works but even then, their Norris trophy winning defenseman and Vezina/Conn Smythe winning goaltender were acquired through free agency. I will grant that their own draft picks (Bergeron, Lucic, Krejci, Marchand) did play a big role in their Cup success though.

Los Angeles would be a good example - Kopitar, Quick, Brown and Doughty were all drafted by the Kings and all played a big role in their success. On the other hand, before this run as an 8th seed, no one would have ever called them "perennial contenders", and a case could be made that the additions of Richards and Carter helped push them over the edge.

So no, I would not say that the "perennial contenders" are where they are because of their ability to find stars in the draft (which has always been the one criticism of Timmins).

hototogisu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-11-2012, 10:37 AM
  #50
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by yianik View Post
Im guessing part of Detroits success is that even if they arent drafting that well, they at least develop their players and get them in their line-ups, as opposed to trading them away for lesser value over the long term. If it wasnt for overall poor trading by Houle and Gainey, this team would have been better, Id guess quite a bit better. Our problem hasnt been drafting, its been bad trades. Detroit also has an edge in that its been such a successful well run organization that players want to play there so signing its own guys and UFAs has likely been easier and probably cheaper than for many teams. You know, a guy wants to win a Cup, Detroit is always on the list.
Most of Detroit's sucess has been on the backs of Lidstrom(1989) Datsyuk(1998) Zetterberg(1999) and co They don't have guys of that calibre from their younger group or on the way. wether those picks were luck or great drafting it hasn't really been sustained.

Monctonscout 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 02:15 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.