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

Montreal Canadiens Drafting Hit Rate (under Trevor Timmins)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-01-2013, 09:07 PM
  #26
Physical HABuse
Registered User
 
Physical HABuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24get View Post
I think NB is spending more time knowing the real value of our players than BG.

But also, we must remember the context when this happened.
BG redid the team in one summer.
Letting go Koivu and given Plek previous season (39 points), he had to get a center.

Who else was he going to give up as a top prospect? PK, MaxPac, Lats, SKost?
For all we know, Fischer may have been offered.

At that time, we barely had a top-6 and our defense was Markov, Hamrlik, Oby and Gorges. We got Gill, Mara and Spacek as UFA.

I do remember the centers available at that time and there was not many. We ended up with Gomez, Plek, Lapierre and Metropolit.

At that time, we let go: Koivu, Tanguay, Kovalev, Lang, Komisarek, Kostopoulos, Begin, etc.

Hindsight is 20/20 but we have to look at the whole picture at that time not now.

The team that BG built was able to get to conference finals (thanks to Halak) which is quite impressive given all the changes that were done.
And Gomez feeding Gionta and Cammy was a part of this run.

If McDonagh is the only impact player that we missed in a decade (2003-2012) is not so bad. Especially given he was traded for a top-6 center.
Maybe I am emotional about this because the PO we had, winning against Washington and Pittsburgh, was so great that it may be worth not having McDonagh.

What do you prefer: McDonagh or the PO run we had that year + Eller?
You can not have both...
I appreciate your point of view. Very good points.

Physical HABuse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2013, 09:28 PM
  #27
Habiton
Registered User
 
Habiton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
No, we only have 6 spots for defencemen and the majority of those will be occupied with veterans. If we can't draft and develop offensive players we will never compete with the best in the league.
You do realize that we can trade players right?

Surplus isn't a bad thing, in fact if you can get stronger assets and trade them your team is better for it.

Habiton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2013, 10:32 PM
  #28
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
The problem with these analyses is that they don't [adequately] account for draft rank.

A pick at 6th overall is much easier than a pick at 18th overall. The batting average analogy to baseball does not work, as in baseball every player faces every kind of pitcher over a full season. In drafting, some batters only go up against the worst pitchers, and some only go up against the best pitchers. Similarly, the difference between 1st and 2nd round is huge, whereas the difference between 4th and 5th round is very small (by comparison). Finally, the concept of a "1st round" selection is misleading, as the difference between 5th and 25th overall is comparable to or larger than the difference between 25th and 199th overall.

Given that this calculation would only take a few hours to do properly, I'm surprised nobody has done it yet. I think there's a mismatch between the people who know statistics and the people who know hockey, and very few really know both. In this case, I have the stats knowledge but not the hockey knowledge to do the calculation properly.

If somebody with good knowledge of players drafted in the past 10 years wants to help me out, we can do the calculation together in a way that makes sense.

I think a good idea would be to take the 2003-2008 drafts, and give every player a rank between 1 and 10 in a manner that tries to be objective. I can then fit the numbers to an exponential model, rather than the usual fictional step-function models.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2013, 10:56 PM
  #29
Habiton
Registered User
 
Habiton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
The problem with these analyses is that they don't [adequately] account for draft rank.

A pick at 6th overall is much easier than a pick at 18th overall. The batting average analogy to baseball does not work, as in baseball every player faces every kind of pitcher over a full season. In drafting, some batters only go up against the worst pitchers, and some only go up against the best pitchers. Similarly, the difference between 1st and 2nd round is huge, whereas the difference between 4th and 5th round is very small (by comparison). Finally, the concept of a "1st round" selection is misleading, as the difference between 5th and 25th overall is comparable to or larger than the difference between 25th and 199th overall.

Given that this calculation would only take a few hours to do properly, I'm surprised nobody has done it yet. I think there's a mismatch between the people who know statistics and the people who know hockey, and very few really know both. In this case, I have the stats knowledge but not the hockey knowledge to do the calculation properly.

If somebody with good knowledge of players drafted in the past 10 years wants to help me out, we can do the calculation together in a way that makes sense.

I think a good idea would be to take the 2003-2008 drafts, and give every player a rank between 1 and 10 in a manner that tries to be objective. I can then fit the numbers to an exponential model, rather than the usual fictional step-function models.
Hence the point of using averages. Once you get into the "advanced" statistics your opening yourself up to more error based on subjectivity. Clearly you think this is useless, although I would appreciate you not being so passive aggressive about it. It is a simple calculation based on a team with no extra advantages. Over the past 9 drafts we have had two top 5 selections and the others were mostly in the 15-25 range which I would say would be on par to be average. Sure you can ***** and complain about the first round and to a point I agree (not in this case due to our low amount of high selection). Third round +, even Second round + unless your in a fantastic position it really doesn't mean much at all.

Maybe next time you should try to post something relevant instead of attacking my methods, some of us are here to look at the stats and see what they really mean. Not a strict or advanced statistical analysis that 1% of the members on this board will ever understand nor should they but an easy way to see how Timmins has been more successful than the average scout in the league. If you cant see that after this, I will just have an additional member on my ignore list.

Habiton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2013, 11:22 PM
  #30
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habiton View Post
Hence the point of using averages. Once you get into the "advanced" statistics your opening yourself up to more error based on subjectivity. Clearly you think this is useless, although I would appreciate you not being so passive aggressive about it. It is a simple calculation based on a team with no extra advantages. Over the past 9 drafts we have had two top 5 selections and the others were mostly in the 15-25 range which I would say would be on par to be average. Sure you can ***** and complain about the first round and to a point I agree (not in this case due to our low amount of high selection). Third round +, even Second round + unless your in a fantastic position it really doesn't mean much at all.

Maybe next time you should try to post something relevant instead of attacking my methods, some of us are here to look at the stats and see what they really mean. Not a strict or advanced statistical analysis that 1% of the members on this board will ever understand nor should they but
I liked your post and I like the numerous ones I've seen like it. I'm merely pointing out how things could be done better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habiton View Post
an easy way to see how Timmins has been more successful than the average scout in the league.
Everybody knew that already, so what are you contributing that's new?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habiton View Post
I will just have an additional member on my ignore list.
If you're going to go ballistic everytime someone engages with your posts, then you will have a massive ignore list. You can put me on ignore, I don't care, but I recommend you grow a thicker skin.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 12:30 AM
  #31
25get
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,755
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Physical HABuse View Post
I appreciate your point of view. Very good points.
Well this is based on facts not impressions.

We can not understand Gomez unless we see Plek getting 39 points with Kovalev...

Seems many redefine the reality to fit their agenda.

25get is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 01:29 AM
  #32
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24get View Post
Well this is based on facts not impressions.

We can not understand Gomez unless we see Plek getting 39 points with Kovalev...

Seems many redefine the reality to fit their agenda.
It's also possible a lot of people were simply not paying that much attention in the period 2006-09, rather than them "redefining reality", they might just be ignorant, which is fine.

Here's what I remember: we were all obsessed with the center position. Gainey went hard after Lecavalier, after Sundin, and then he settled for Lang, and finally he settled for Gomez. Both of Lecavalier and Sundin let to media circuses in Montreal, and I think both circuses lasted over a year. It's reasonable to speculate that we didn't need to give up McDonagh, but we should understand that in the minds of many, strenghtening the center position was a top priority.

That same summer, Gainey signed offensive center prospects prospects Mikael Johansson and Andreas Engvist, as well as drafted 5 centers with 7 picks in the 2009 draft, including Louis Leblanc with the 1st rounder. A year later, Halak was traded for Eller. That, coupled with the re-emergence of Plekanec, is why I think we have collectively calmed down since.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 05:00 AM
  #33
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habiton View Post
You do realize that we can trade players right?

Surplus isn't a bad thing, in fact if you can get stronger assets and trade them your team is better for it.
So instead of getting better scouts we just try and log jam a pile of dmen into our bottom pairing hoping one pans out quick enough to trade him. Wow that is much simpler.

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 06:36 AM
  #34
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 9,905
vCash: 1707
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24get View Post
What do you prefer: McDonagh or the PO run we had that year + Eller?
You can not have both...
hmmm.... that playoff run was the most fun i had as a fan since god knows when. every shot was a heart attack, every cammy shot was a goal! oh, and larry is awesome

MasterDecoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 07:13 AM
  #35
Freaky Habs Fan
Registered User
 
Freaky Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: New-Brunswick
Posts: 9,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
So instead of getting better scouts we just try and log jam a pile of dmen into our bottom pairing hoping one pans out quick enough to trade him. Wow that is much simpler.
I know you don't like our scouting staff, but why all the hate? What are you expecting from a scouting staff?

Freaky Habs Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 07:43 AM
  #36
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24get View Post
I think NB is spending more time knowing the real value of our players than BG.

But also, we must remember the context when this happened.
BG redid the team in one summer.
Letting go Koivu and given Plek previous season (39 points), he had to get a center.

Who else was he going to give up as a top prospect? PK, MaxPac, Lats, SKost?
For all we know, Fischer may have been offered.

At that time, we barely had a top-6 and our defense was Markov, Hamrlik, Oby and Gorges. We got Gill, Mara and Spacek as UFA.

I do remember the centers available at that time and there was not many. We ended up with Gomez, Plek, Lapierre and Metropolit.

At that time, we let go: Koivu, Tanguay, Kovalev, Lang, Komisarek, Kostopoulos, Begin, etc.

Hindsight is 20/20 but we have to look at the whole picture at that time not now.

The team that BG built was able to get to conference finals (thanks to Halak) which is quite impressive given all the changes that were done.
And Gomez feeding Gionta and Cammy was a part of this run.

If McDonagh is the only impact player that we missed in a decade (2003-2012) is not so bad. Especially given he was traded for a top-6 center.
Maybe I am emotional about this because the PO we had, winning against Washington and Pittsburgh, was so great that it may be worth not having McDonagh.

What do you prefer: McDonagh or the PO run we had that year + Eller?
You can not have both...
So many things here....

First...he DIDN'T have to get rid of Koivu. Then, putting yourself in a position of not having the upper hand is the WORST you can do as a GM. If the idea was to get rid of Koivu....what do you think if Sather ask for Price, Subban and McDonagh? You do it 'cause you have no other choice? I'm obviously exagerating but you get the idea. Gainey put himself in that situation. As a GM, you need to see things ahead of situations. And if redoing a team means getting this playoff run but then going back to the type of "success" in the playoff we saw since then...nope it's not worth it. Other teams, the real succesful ones didn't put a patch on their team for one year. They slowly but surely build a team that became stronger with years and build it for the playoffs as well. We needed miracles from Halak that year. Yes others have contributed offensively, but when Halak was out of his miracles in his 3rd round...we saw that the great offense was able to do miracles of their own against the great and incredible Leighton, by having 7 goals in 5 games against it. Compared to the 25 goals for by Chicago, a real offensive machine.

But yes, a 3rd round was fun. 1st one in 20 years. Of course it was great. But turning it around like you just did (McDonagh or a PO run and Eller)....how about No playoff run that year but a consistently better REAL contending team after that year with much better moves than what we had at the time? And what does Eller has anything to do with that? Oh because Halak was so great we were able to get good value? Okay...but using that logic...trade Price instead....and get BETTER value. Who would care about Eller...if anything...he could have easily be Eller plus.

This Gainey era was all about patching. I hated Gauthier as well but at the very least, the guy gave us those 2nd rounders that we might be able to make this team a much better team for years to come in one of the best draft since 2003.

Hindisight is 20/20. Thing is NOT in hindisight, people hated the deal the second they realized it was McDonagh going the other way. Geez, I hated it and was probably one of the most reserved, trying to give Gomez his chance to redeem himself and so on...but the incredibly high majority killed this deal when it happened. And seeing that we had to BUY this guy's contract and see how solid McDonagh has become is just proving that people were right indeed.

Funny that you are talking about hindsight yet use it to try to prove a point by saying that we should prefer the 3rd round we got...when the deal was made....we weren't in the 3rd round. So not using hindsight, at the time, and to this day, I would prefer a REAL solid rebuild with playoff performers on a longer run than 1 year.....

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 07:58 AM
  #37
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freaky Habs Fan View Post
I know you don't like our scouting staff, but why all the hate? What are you expecting from a scouting staff?
To me, Timmins is great. As my avatar states...he's, right now, Habs MVP. No doubt about that. But that's for 2 reasons. He's been doing great things....but it also prooves that nobody else, as of now, as stepped up to be a MVP. Which is also sad...

Now, what I'm expecting from a scouting group is to be able to find us the guy that we can,t have through trades or UFA's. We know that this UFA market is a tough market. You are not able to attract in that market real game changing players for years and years. Prust will be fine....and somehow is able to change our game but that's because we sucked in the department for quite some time. On any other tougher team, Prust just fills a place. Here...he comes as a hero. And our others UFA's.....Cammy, Gionta well...good little players. Except for 1 playoff...they did not were able to change our game and culture. Cammy gave us Bourque, which we hope will be able to do in a regular basis...still to be proven.

And trades well, there are less trades than ever. Thanks to that great salary cap. So the draft it is....and while we were able to provide quantity....we had more trouble with quality, though it's not all black and white. We also were able to find some gems that are no longer with us so that's not a scouting fault. But we have to admit that somehow, Timmins 1st rounders are mostly underwhelming than the rest of his draft. Since 2003, we are still waiting for Price to become a consistent goalie. We hope that MaxPac will become the player he once proved he could become. And we can wait for Tinordi to show us what he's able to do. But that's it. Others are totally unproven, became flops, or have been rather okay. And while people keep saying that we can't do miracles because you don't have regular top 5 players, which is true, Timmins was able to be better with players AFTER his 1st rounders...further from the top 5.

So the pressure is there for our market and based on what Bergevin keeps repeating....OUR key is the draft. If it is, we have to expect a couple of things from this present management. If it's REALLY the case, you have to add more people to the scouting group. DONE. You have to scout everywhere...seems to be DONE. You have to hire some of the best in the business....REMAINS TO BE SEEN. But as a GM, you mostly have to recognize what your team is all about. What I mean is that if you think you stink....go and get more picks for the upcoming draft. Try to trade your players for additional 1st rounders or 2nd rounders. ONLY if you stink. But even if you don't, you still might be able to get rid of some of the players you can get rid of because of the depth you were able to build and get additional draft picks. So that's what I'm expecting from a GM. Like I said before...hated Gauthier but we will be having fun in this upcoming draft because of him. If it against comes to that, Bergevin will need to be as awaken. Now, the idea is that it NEVER comes to that as it will be a proof that we are slowly improving and on our way to become a contender. Teams in our conference have improved and will be building themselves that way. Add Detroit and add a better managed Columbus...and geez, it won't be easy.

But going back to the scouting group, I would be expecting better 1st rounders no matter where we picked. 'Cause it is possible to do as TONS of 2nd rounders have become key players in this league. If those 2nd rounders have become great....it probably means that teams should have picked them in the 1st round instead. I know...it also means that it's a crapshoot. Well teams that are becoming contenders have build with that crapshoot. From Lucic, to Marchand, to Bergeron, Krejci and Co. To Quick, Kopitar and Co, those 2 teams were able to do it differently than Chicago and Pittsburgh. Yet, those latter 2 teams were also able to add a few pieces of their own to make them better. But we all know that it started with Kane, Toews, Crosby and Malkin...that's for sure.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 10:39 AM
  #38
Habs
Registered User
 
Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,288
vCash: 500
I think what you consider a 'star player' and what others do, are two different things.

Habs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 10:41 AM
  #39
Mario Lemieux fan 66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24get View Post

What do you prefer: McDonagh or the PO run we had that year + Eller?
You can not have both...
The real question should be : What do you prefer: McDonagh or Galchenyuk ? If McDonagh was still a Habs, the Habs would not have been able to draft Galchenyuk.

Timmins does a really good job and the Habs could have won already another Stanley Cup if the two last GM had along term vision instead of an every year playoff Obsession and an overall bad contract management.

Souray, Streit, Koivu, Tanguay, Kovalev, Komisarek, Mcdonaugh, Sergei Kostitsyn, Pouliot, Higgins and Ryder (soon to be) were all lost for nothing in return.

Souray should have been trade for a 1st round pick+ a good prospect, Streit and Mcdonagh still should belong to the Habs, Koivu should have been trade for a 2nd round pick+prospect, Kovalev should have been trade for a 1st round pick, Tanguay Komisarek and Ryder should have been sign or trade.

The habs lost 3 top 3 dmen + Komisarek + 4 top 6 forward all for nothing.

Mario Lemieux fan 66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 11:42 AM
  #40
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Lemieux fan 66 View Post
The real question should be : What do you prefer: McDonagh or Galchenyuk ? If McDonagh was still a Habs, the Habs would not have been able to draft Galchenyuk.

Timmins does a really good job and the Habs could have won already another Stanley Cup if the two last GM had along term vision instead of an every year playoff Obsession and an overall bad contract management.

Souray, Streit, Koivu, Tanguay, Kovalev, Komisarek, Mcdonaugh, Sergei Kostitsyn, Pouliot, Higgins and Ryder (soon to be) were all lost for nothing in return.

Souray should have been trade for a 1st round pick+ a good prospect, Streit and Mcdonagh still should belong to the Habs, Koivu should have been trade for a 2nd round pick+prospect, Kovalev should have been trade for a 1st round pick, Tanguay Komisarek and Ryder should have been sign or trade.

The habs lost 3 top 3 dmen + Komisarek + 4 top 6 forward all for nothing.
Oh geez...that's ANOTHER great argument. Let's praise the pathetic management from Gainey and Gauthier 'cause it gave us Galchenyuk.

Okay, so I hope we fire Bergevin. And let's now bash Gainey and Gauthier too as well. 'Cause the combination of their effort did NOT made it possible to finish bottom 3 this year so we cannot now draft Jonathan Drouin. Pathetic management. So in the end, if we screw up next year and if Price struggles big time, let's praise them 'cause we will be getting Connor McDavid? Is that it?

Everything else you said after makes sense....but that first line...people, please just stop.

That would make just as much sense as for the Bruins fans to bash their team 'cause their ECF will make them lose their 1st round....WE can be happy that they are losing it but their fans shouldn't be as it's another proof that they are on their way up...way up. I hope we will never be able to draft a top 3 pick ever again....as it will be a proof that we are FINALLY a real contender...Besides, we may have the best head scout in the business. Which should proove that you can get your hands on really solid players to still continue to be a contender anyway....

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 11:56 AM
  #41
Mario Lemieux fan 66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Oh geez...that's ANOTHER great argument. Let's praise the pathetic management from Gainey and Gauthier 'cause it gave us Galchenyuk.
I just state a fact. If Mcdonagh was still a Habs the Habs will not have been able to draft him. We can't remake the past we can only hope that the Habs direction learn from the mistakes of the last two GM ( no short term patch that hurt the future and a better management of the assets).

Mario Lemieux fan 66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 12:30 PM
  #42
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Lemieux fan 66 View Post
I just state a fact. If Mcdonagh was still a Habs the Habs will not have been able to draft him. We can't remake the past we can only hope that the Habs direction learn from the mistakes of the last two GM ( no short term patch that hurt the future and a better management of the assets).
Yeah, but the same people who keeps criticizing the "hindsight" way of seeing things are actually also using hindsight to explain things which for me makes on sense.

And i don't get how McDonagh being part of the Habs would mean we would not have drafted Galchenyuk. We had Subban and we still drafted Galchenyuk. You had McDo, maybe he doesn't have the type of development he has with the Rags right now, we would have probably be more reserved with him etc...There is just no indication that we would not have drafted Galchy.

'Cause if you play that game....we could play tons of games. You don't do that trade, and if you believe like some do, that no Gomez, means no Gionta and no Cammy (which I don't believe but let say we do...), it means we don't make the playoffs. I mean McDo is great, but McDo in 2009-2010 does not equal Gomez, Gionta and Cammy. Which means we don't make the playoffs. And as you noted...we would not have replaced Koivu appropriately so we really don't make the playoffs.

So if you say that this McDo trade does not give us Galchy, which I don,t agree, well I can say that this trade did not permit us to get Hall, Seguin, Gudbranson, Skinner, Fowler, Tarasenko etc...Yet, we were still able to get our hands on Tinordi which is a pretty good player nonetheless DESPITE us finishing bottom 4 based on our ECF. But strangely, nobody cares about that as it gave us a ECF. So that's my point....play in semi-finals or in finals and that's the ultimate goal. As much as I'M a draft freak, I'm mostly a win freak as everybody is. Getting better draft picks is just consolation when you don't win.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 12:43 PM
  #43
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Yeah, but the same people who keeps criticizing the "hindsight" way of seeing things are actually also using hindsight to explain things which for me makes on sense.

And i don't get how McDonagh being part of the Habs would mean we would not have drafted Galchenyuk. We had Subban and we still drafted Galchenyuk. You had McDo, maybe he doesn't have the type of development he has with the Rags right now, we would have probably be more reserved with him etc...There is just no indication that we would not have drafted Galchy.

'Cause if you play that game....we could play tons of games. You don't do that trade, and if you believe like some do, that no Gomez, means no Gionta and no Cammy (which I don't believe but let say we do...), it means we don't make the playoffs. I mean McDo is great, but McDo in 2009-2010 does not equal Gomez, Gionta and Cammy. Which means we don't make the playoffs. And as you noted...we would not have replaced Koivu appropriately so we really don't make the playoffs.

So if you say that this McDo trade does not give us Galchy, which I don,t agree, well I can say that this trade did not permit us to get Hall, Seguin, Gudbranson, Skinner, Fowler, Tarasenko etc...Yet, we were still able to get our hands on Tinordi which is a pretty good player nonetheless DESPITE us finishing bottom 4 based on our ECF. But strangely, nobody cares about that as it gave us a ECF. So that's my point....play in semi-finals or in finals and that's the ultimate goal. As much as I'M a draft freak, I'm mostly a win freak as everybody is. Getting better draft picks is just consolation when you don't win.
I think the idea is that we shouldn't be too bitter about the past. The past over, and the draft is an equalizer. Even if we made dumb moves in the past, it will not take an eternity to recover because the NHL has automatic stabilisers (the draft) in place.

So let's not dwell on or microanalyses the past. Gainey is gone. Gauthier is gone. We have a ful slate of draft picks coming up, we have a decent system, we have Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Subban, and Eller on the team... in spite of all our mistakes, we've been compensated by the system and by luck, so it is within our power to compete within 3 years.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 12:47 PM
  #44
No Team Needed
Registered User
 
No Team Needed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 3,218
vCash: 500
Also, McDonaugh is pretty overrated around here.

No Team Needed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 01:03 PM
  #45
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I think the idea is that we shouldn't be too bitter about the past. The past over, and the draft is an equalizer. Even if we made dumb moves in the past, it will not take an eternity to recover because the NHL has automatic stabilisers (the draft) in place.

So let's not dwell on or microanalyses the past. Gainey is gone. Gauthier is gone. We have a ful slate of draft picks coming up, we have a decent system, we have Galchenyuk, Gallagher, Subban, and Eller on the team... in spite of all our mistakes, we've been compensated by the system and by luck, so it is within our power to compete within 3 years.
I'm SOLELY responding to people who keeps bringing this "but we wouldn't have Galchenyuk" syndrom. Or "but Gomez was an ideal trade at the time" which it never was. Or things like that. They bring the past, I respond. I'd done initiating as far as the past is concern. But just can't let go people who keeps bringing those things up...sorry.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 01:04 PM
  #46
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Team Needed View Post
Also, McDonaugh is pretty overrated around here.
Solid top 4. How is that overrated? He'd be top 4 here for sure don't worry. Anyway, as far as the subject of this post, Timmins, he drafted McDonagh. Not his fault if he's gone.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 01:23 PM
  #47
Habiton
Registered User
 
Habiton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I liked your post and I like the numerous ones I've seen like it. I'm merely pointing out how things could be done better.


Everybody knew that already, so what are you contributing that's new?


If you're going to go ballistic everytime someone engages with your posts, then you will have a massive ignore list. You can put me on ignore, I don't care, but I recommend you grow a thicker skin.
I didn't see anywhere where you noted in your post that you liked my post. you started off saying why it's useless then you went on to try and get someone with hockey knowledge to help you make a more accurate one. I have no problems with criticism if you think I did something wrong or you disagree with my evaluation of a player please let me know. That being said for you to come in here call it useless and ask for someone to help you best it all the while thinking that your positively contributing to this discussion is a little ridiculous no?

This is a message board, not real life. If people want to bash me they go on the ignore list, this is supposed to be a fun place to discuss and debate not rage and spread hate.

Back onto the post, I am open to assigning a multiplier based on where a player is selected, however I'm not sure of an objective way to insert that. Does anyone have a suggestion? Perhaps I can set up a poll and take the average from there.

In response to another post, I evaluate a "star" player as someone who has made the all star team, has had a tremendous season and is valued by experts to be top 5 in terms of value at his position. PK and Price conform to that standard to me, if you don't believe so that's fine it doesn't change Timmins hit rate. Just changes the chances of getting an impact player (+ively) and getting a star player (-ively)

Habiton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 01:42 PM
  #48
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habiton View Post
I didn't see anywhere where you noted in your post that you liked my post. you started off saying why it's useless then you went on to try and get someone with hockey knowledge to help you make a more accurate one.
I just double-checked, I didn't use the word "useless".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habiton View Post
have no problems with criticism if you think I did something wrong or you disagree with my evaluation of a player please let me know.
You obviously have a major problem with mere suggestions, never mind criticisms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habiton View Post
That being said for you to come in here call it useless and ask for someone to help you best it all the while thinking that your positively contributing to this discussion is a little ridiculous no?
It's not ridiculous to point out that this can be done a lot better with a few hours of work.

Look man, you spent about 30 minutes looking up draft lists on hockeydb/wikipedia and then showed that Timmins is "above average": something we all already knew from having seen other people including ourselves do the exact same trick numerous times. Did you expect to be celebrated as a hero for your groundbreaking insight?

I'll tell you what, if you actually have not seen that same post before, elsewhere, and you came up with the idea on your own, then kudos to you. But really, since that post has been written 100 times, and we don't learn anything new when somebody else writes the same post, it's valid to ask how it can be done better.

But if you have not seen it before, then great. I wrote a similar post in 2008 or so when I was just starting to read hockey message boards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Habiton View Post
onto the post, I am open to assigning a multiplier based on where a player is selected, however I'm not sure of an objective way to insert that. Does anyone have a suggestion? Perhaps I can set up a poll and take the average from there.
It's an easy thing to do, just use where the player is selected as the rank. They come sorted, some players are selected 1st, some 2nd, and so on.

The harder part is evaluating players. You cannot sort the impact of players as well as you can sort their draft rank.


Last edited by DAChampion: 06-02-2013 at 01:47 PM.
DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 02:02 PM
  #49
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
I think what you consider a 'star player' and what others do, are two different things.
I agree with you.

Same holds true for an impact player.

Kudos to the OP for doing a lot of work. There is still too much subjectivity in it though.

Which is why I always default to one thing that is not subjective. Results on the ice.

Hamilton struggled mightily last season. Montreal was successful in the regular season but injuries combined with a lack of depth sank us in the playoffs.

To me that is average/below average at best. Yes, Gainey and Gauthier along with Carbo and Martin get the lion's share of the blame for the last 10 years of futility under Timmins reign.

The lack of depth hurt us as well so Timmins has to answer for that as well. The years of only focusing on BPA instead of projected needs is biting us in the ass.


DAChampion, great posts!!

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 02:11 PM
  #50
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 24get View Post
I think NB is spending more time knowing the real value of our players than BG.

But also, we must remember the context when this happened.
BG redid the team in one summer.
Letting go Koivu and given Plek previous season (39 points), he had to get a center.

Who else was he going to give up as a top prospect? PK, MaxPac, Lats, SKost?
For all we know, Fischer may have been offered.

At that time, we barely had a top-6 and our defense was Markov, Hamrlik, Oby and Gorges. We got Gill, Mara and Spacek as UFA.

I do remember the centers available at that time and there was not many. We ended up with Gomez, Plek, Lapierre and Metropolit.

At that time, we let go: Koivu, Tanguay, Kovalev, Lang, Komisarek, Kostopoulos, Begin, etc.

Hindsight is 20/20 but we have to look at the whole picture at that time not now.

The team that BG built was able to get to conference finals (thanks to Halak) which is quite impressive given all the changes that were done.
And Gomez feeding Gionta and Cammy was a part of this run.

If McDonagh is the only impact player that we missed in a decade (2003-2012) is not so bad. Especially given he was traded for a top-6 center.
Maybe I am emotional about this because the PO we had, winning against Washington and Pittsburgh, was so great that it may be worth not having McDonagh.

What do you prefer: McDonagh or the PO run we had that year + Eller?
You can not have both...
Essentially, you're giving Gainey a B+ grade for a disaster. The team he visualized when he made those radical moves fell apart like wet toilet paper the season after the run to the ECF and the Habs still haven't fully recovered from the contracts he inflicted on them. Tanguay cost them a first rounder and blown away like a will-o-the wisp. McDonagh was a casualty of Gainey's misjudgment. Gauthier managed to unload Cammalleri and got some value in return but Gomez flopped and had to be put on high-paid vacation. Gionta persists. Eller had nothing to do with it. If Gauthier hadn't landed Eller in the Halak trade he would have received other assets.

Teufelsdreck 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 04:46 AM.

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.