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

Are You Happy With The Drafting of Trevor Timmins?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-18-2011, 10:29 AM
  #151
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 31,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
Which in the end is what the reality is. Don't know why you'd have to bring solely the good moves. Or why you'd only bring the bad. Problem with the 2003 and 2006 draft is that it were team changing drafts. And that based on personal experiece with him, I hated his thought process for not going with Giroux then. Didn't like it then, still don't like it now.

Nobody says that 2007 might not go in the books as one of the best drafts ever. EVERYBODY recognize that. Yet, you should never mention the bad ones? It can't be a crapshoot only when it pleases people. I mean if it's always a crapshoot, well let's not praise Timmins for his good moves then.......I mean, great moves means the guy is a god, but the bad moves means the draft is a crapshoot?

Depending of the quality of the draft, nobody can convince me that the 1st round is a crapshoot. 'Cause when people based their evaluation of Timmins, the first stat they use is the NHL played games. Well look throughout history, and the 1st round has seen the most guys that has played an NHL game. And I'd go as far as to think the same for the 2nd round. From the 3rd round and the rest, then you can say that it's crapshoot. And frankly, Timmins RARELY will be based for his 3rd round and up drafting. Okay, I would do it sometimes but not based on hindsight but based on who I had in mind AT THAT TIME, and their though process behind picking a guy for the sake of picking him like Kishel, Johnson and Co. But usually Timmins will get some heat for "some" of his picks in the 1st round....a little less for the 2nd....and even less for the 3rd, where "crapshoot" is not exactly what this portion of the draft is all about. Yes, there will always be a part of it. But if it would FULLY be, they wouldn't spend the money or the time in their analysis, they'll just watch the game on TV and roll the dice which they don't.

They make good moves, they are praised for it. And honesetly, I DO NOT buy the Detroit made a mistake in the Zetterberg case 'cause he wasn't their 1st rounder or Habs made a mistake with Halak 'cause he wasn't a 1st round etc....They picked him. They have a good idea of which teams like which players, they take a risk. But they end up choosing them. And should be recognize for it. But I have no idea why they should be exempt from criticisms? Which other job has that?
The same fans that love to complain about Giroux/Fischer would be calling for TT to go with the guy with size had Giroux been drafted and developped into a Locke and Fischer had developped into a Gonchar or Ehrhoff.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 10:42 AM
  #152
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
The same fans that love to complain about Giroux/Fischer would be calling for TT to go with the guy with size had Giroux been drafted and developped into a Locke and Fischer had developped into a Gonchar or Ehrhoff.
Yet, nobody will complain about the Gallagher pick when he's actually going to develop well. There are small players and small players. Locke fell down in the draft because people knew he wouldn't translate it. Yet, some might have thought the same for Gallagher and will be proven wrong. But Gallagher is NOT the norm. Locke is. Smaller players who fall down the draft as talented as they are but have too many other problems so that they'd become just a good AHL player. Giroux still was picked in the 1st round. His talent was too great to ignore and that's beyond the stats. Everything he was doing on the ice, added to how progressed throughout the years, that had to counted for something. Not because Mathieu Carle's has faster feet at that time that it should be good enough to be discarded. And let's say that it was not enough to not choose him, well clearly they didn't need a whole lot to be convinced.

And my personal problem with that, as most people know, is that while the Q is not what it used to be, you still can have some interesting players coming out from that. And I was really dissapionted by the lack of interest we had in the past. It's not because there's less talent in a league that there's actually NO talent. And I think that's what they thought. Why? Because when you don't appoint a fulltime scout in a place, it has to tell you a lot of what you think of it.

I personnally believe that the Q could be OUR Detroit's Euros. Where if you're aware enough, you still could pick up some gems despite not having a whole lot to choose from. And ESPECIALLY when BY NO MEANS, the guy you decide to go with (Fischer) was NOT surefire prospect to begin with. I believe that the love for the US is disproportionate compared to the rest of the leagues. Understanding that the US is improving, and while I am a Q fan, I am also a BIG NCAA fan, I know that there's some terrific players in there. But players that were showing much more than what Fischer had shown prior to the draft. I do believe that sometimes needs are important. Not against that personally, still believe that if we would have went with needs, the same way Timmins went with needs in 2006, 2007, we would have picked Carter or Getzlaf in 2003. But as much as they thought we needed d-men in 2006, Giroux was TOO great of a talent to not be the BPA at the time at that rank. Though as WTK will tell you, I ALSO had Patrik Berglund as my other pick I would not have minded at that time. Would have filled a need, at that time, of that big centerman. I would have thought Berglund would have already been a decisive player in this league, slow progress but he's getting there. Clearly not as Giroux is doing though.

Whitesnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 11:32 AM
  #153
Franked
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
In terms of results Timmins is one of the top guys in the NHL, top 5 I'd say. I base this on both quality and quantity of players drafted. But people chose to nitpick about the players he DIDN'T get instead of being happy for the players he DID draft.

Short of hiring god as our head scout, whoever it is WILL miss some very good players at some point. The whole NHL missed the boat on St.Louis, Lidstrom, Datsyuk and Zetterberg, even Detroit's head scout as great as those picks were, if he knew they'd be great players he wouldn't have waited until the 3rd(Lidstrom), 6th(Datsyuk) or 7th(Zetterberg) round to draft those players.

In 1999 Detroit drafted Zetterberg 210th overall but drafted 3 guys in rounds 4, 5 and 6 taht played a grand total of 32 NHL games.

In 1998 they took Fischer in Rd 1(a good pick before he got the heart problem), but they drafted SIX other players in rounds 2-6 that never played a single NHL game before getting Datsyuk at #171.

Those are just examples to show that the draft is extremely hard to predict even for the best of the best.

I just find it annoying that whenever TT gets praise for getting Price, Subban, Gallagher or whoever, somebody always has to bring up Carter, Giroux etc
I understand what you were doing, I just didn't agree with the logic. We praise the 2007 draft because of the results (4 solid nhlers in 4 rounds, that's impressive), we should judge the 2006 draft (first round bust, couple journeymen and Ryan White) by the same standards. It was a bad draft, and people are right to include it in their analysis of our scouting team.

Anyway I know I was nitpicking because on the whole we both agree that the scouting staff is not the problem. I just had a problem with your arguments. If you want to defend Timmins, point out his success rate, because that's all that matters here. Not why he chose so and so, but how they turned out.

Franked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 11:49 AM
  #154
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 31,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franked View Post
I understand what you were doing, I just didn't agree with the logic. We praise the 2007 draft because of the results (4 solid nhlers in 4 rounds, that's impressive), we should judge the 2006 draft (first round bust, couple journeymen and Ryan White) by the same standards. It was a bad draft, and people are right to include it in their analysis of our scouting team.

Anyway I know I was nitpicking because on the whole we both agree that the scouting staff is not the problem. I just had a problem with your arguments. If you want to defend Timmins, point out his success rate, because that's all that matters here. Not why he chose so and so, but how they turned out.
The point is that he has brought in an excellent group of young players to the NHL. Yes some drafts have not been as good but it's like a hitter in baseball, 3 for 4 night more than offsets an 0/4 night.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 12:15 PM
  #155
Franked
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
The point is that he has brought in an excellent group of young players to the NHL. Yes some drafts have not been as good but it's like a hitter in baseball, 3 for 4 night more than offsets an 0/4 night.
I know and I agree, I was just nitpicking. I don't think you need to defend the bad moves in order to defend Timmins. Just point out his overall success.

I'm sorry for splitting hairs, it only got people confused.

Franked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 12:22 PM
  #156
Clipitar
Registered User
 
Clipitar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
The point is that he has brought in an excellent group of young players to the NHL. Yes some drafts have not been as good but it's like a hitter in baseball, 3 for 4 night more than offsets an 0/4 night.
I think Franked's overall point in this discussion is that you can evaluate TT's work positively when you look at his full tenure as the director of scouting and point out his numerous success, yet any thorough evaluation also involves pointing out some glaring mistakes (though we can't know for sure in some cases if he had the last word for each and every single 1st round bust selections).

Things are not black & white here, that's not how you evaluate your personnel anyway. I don't see any issue with saying: "Hey Trevor, you sure messed up bad with some 1st round selections that could've put us over the top in the past 7 years or so, but you still are one of the best at finding gems in later rounds, and that makes you one of the best out there in the scouting world and we're lucky to have you".

Bringing up tons of examples of other teams also missing out on key players becomes irrelevant at some point in the discussion. We're not evaluating these other departments, and if we were to compare, I'm only interested by the performance of the cream of scouting out there (like top-3 in the League), not the 10 teams or so that also missed out on Giroux or Getzlaf. In that sense, I also believe you have to judge on results and not intentions and hype management. At least that's how I see it.

Clipitar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 12:56 PM
  #157
Franked
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
I have a question for Habs fans. We always praise Timmins for the number of nhlers he drafts, but what is better between a great number of successful picks, or a small number of star quality picks?

For example, let use the drafts from 2003 to 2007 (2008 and after are still too early to tell) and compare the Flyers and the Habs.

2003

Flyers - Carter, Richards (and Colin Fraser)
Habs - Akost, Halak, Lapierre, O'Byrne

2004

Flyers - No NHLer in 11 picks
Habs - Grabovski, Streit... Emelin? Chipchura?

2005

Flyers - Steve Downie
Habs - Price, Latendresse, Skost, D'Agostini

2006

Flyers - Giroux
Habs - Ryan White

2007

Flyers - Van Riemsdyk
Habs - Max Pac, Mc Do, Subban and Webber

Both teams have had 1 top 5 pick (Habs - Price, Flyers - Van Riemsdyk).

The Flyers have drafted 4 first line forwards - Giroux, a top 10 center in the league at least, Carter, a 40 goal first line center, and Richards, another top line star center (also one of the best in the league, even though I hate the guy). Van Riemsdyk is a top line forward, but I'm not sure of his upside yet. Other than that, they haven't drafted much.

The Habs have drafted 2 great goaltenders (Price is at least top 10 in the league, Halak I think is better than his numbers this year suggest).

They have drafted 3 top 4 defensemen -Streit, a number one defenseman, Subban, also a number one defenseman, soon if not already, and with a huge upside, McDo, already top 4. They've drafted 2 other nhl defensemen - Webber and O'byrne, both regular NHLers. (Emelin I'm not sure where he stands).

They have drafted 8 forward who are regulars in the NHL : 5 top 6 forwards (Akost, Grabovski, Skost, MaxPac and Latendresse), 2 bottom 6 NHL regulars (Lapierre and White) and D'Agostini (is he a top 6? Not sure). Chipchura was sent to the minors this year, so I don't consider him a full time NHLer.

So they couldn't be more opposite. The Habs beat the Flyers on the number of NHLers and the variety (the position they play). Yet the Habs could never find a star forward, either through the draft, trade or free agency. The Flyers drafted 3, maybe 4 depending on how Van Riemsdyk turns out) but not much else. (note that the Habs drafted a star in Price). Still, of all the picks by the two teams, I think the best players are Giroux, Carter, Richards and Price (not necessarily in that order, just pointing out that the Flyers seem to have found more star talent).

So to my question : when it comes to drafting, do you think it's better to draft a small number of star players, and then fill out the rest of your roster through trade and free agency, or is it better to draft a good number of nhlers and then try to acquire a star through trade or free agency?

Honest question BTW, would like to know what people think. I'm not too sure myself. And I used the Flyers because like the Habs they only had one top 5 pick so they are comparable in regards to the quality of picks.

Franked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 01:09 PM
  #158
jamz
Registered User
 
jamz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Montréal
Country: Martinique
Posts: 1,079
vCash: 500
No I want Angelo Esposito!

jamz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 01:18 PM
  #159
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franked View Post
I have a question for Habs fans. We always praise Timmins for the number of nhlers he drafts, but what is better between a great number of successful picks, or a small number of star quality picks?

For example, let use the drafts from 2003 to 2007 (2008 and after are still too early to tell) and compare the Flyers and the Habs.

2003

Flyers - Carter, Richards (and Colin Fraser)
Habs - Akost, Halak, Lapierre, O'Byrne

2004

Flyers - No NHLer in 11 picks
Habs - Grabovski, Streit... Emelin? Chipchura?

2005

Flyers - Steve Downie
Habs - Price, Latendresse, Skost, D'Agostini

2006

Flyers - Giroux
Habs - Ryan White

2007

Flyers - Van Riemsdyk
Habs - Max Pac, Mc Do, Subban and Webber

Both teams have had 1 top 5 pick (Habs - Price, Flyers - Van Riemsdyk).

The Flyers have drafted 4 first line forwards - Giroux, a top 10 center in the league at least, Carter, a 40 goal first line center, and Richards, another top line star center (also one of the best in the league, even though I hate the guy). Van Riemsdyk is a top line forward, but I'm not sure of his upside yet. Other than that, they haven't drafted much.

The Habs have drafted 2 great goaltenders (Price is at least top 10 in the league, Halak I think is better than his numbers this year suggest).

They have drafted 3 top 4 defensemen -Streit, a number one defenseman, Subban, also a number one defenseman, soon if not already, and with a huge upside, McDo, already top 4. They've drafted 2 other nhl defensemen - Webber and O'byrne, both regular NHLers. (Emelin I'm not sure where he stands).

They have drafted 8 forward who are regulars in the NHL : 5 top 6 forwards (Akost, Grabovski, Skost, MaxPac and Latendresse), 2 bottom 6 NHL regulars (Lapierre and White) and D'Agostini (is he a top 6? Not sure). Chipchura was sent to the minors this year, so I don't consider him a full time NHLer.

So they couldn't be more opposite. The Habs beat the Flyers on the number of NHLers and the variety (the position they play). Yet the Habs could never find a star forward, either through the draft, trade or free agency. The Flyers drafted 3, maybe 4 depending on how Van Riemsdyk turns out) but not much else. (note that the Habs drafted a star in Price). Still, of all the picks by the two teams, I think the best players are Giroux, Carter, Richards and Price (not necessarily in that order, just pointing out that the Flyers seem to have found more star talent).

So to my question : when it comes to drafting, do you think it's better to draft a small number of star players, and then fill out the rest of your roster through trade and free agency, or is it better to draft a good number of nhlers and then try to acquire a star through trade or free agency?

Honest question BTW, would like to know what people think. I'm not too sure myself. And I used the Flyers because like the Habs they only had one top 5 pick so they are comparable in regards to the quality of picks.

not sure I quite get the "either/or" your presenting... because it's not like any team sets out trying "not" to get star players via the draft.

and since you pointed out that both habs/flyers had only 1 top 5 pick in the span you measured, I assume you aren't suggesting aggressively trading up to get high picks and a better shot at "star" players?

in any case, if you really are comparing Mtl/Philly drafting over the past few years, I don't know how you could come to any other conclusion than the fact that we did much better than the flyers over the same span, as far as drafting talent.

that the flyers currently have much better roster talent/depth, is a reflection of how well they manage their assets, and how poorly we've managed ours, but that's another debate, one that bears no relevancy to Timmins work as director of scouting.

i mean just look at it (and even if you disagree with my =/</> the sheer amount of assets/talent we accumulated compared to theirs is almost mind blowing)



Price = Giroux (i'd take price in a heart beat, even though Giroux is a star in the making)
Subban = Richards (RIchards has done more, but Subban is a bonafide #1 dman imo)
McDo < Carter (this one may flip in the near future, McDo looks like the real deal)
Maxpac = JVR (interesting to see who has the better career, toss up at this point)
Streit > Downie (not even close)
Halak
Grabovski
A.Kost
Latendresse
S.Kost
Weber
D'agostini
Lapierre
O'Byrne
White
Emelin
Chipchura

So Montreal drafted more or less equal top-end talent, while also drafting the equivalent of a very good bottom-9 fwd group & solid bottom-3 def group, plus another potentially elite goalie...

A.Kost- Grabs- S.Kost
Lats- Lapierre- D'ago
White- Chipchura


O'byrne- Weber
Emelin

Halak

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 01:33 PM
  #160
Neutrino
Registered User
 
Neutrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 370
vCash: 500
There were a few blunders here and there, but mostly understandable.

The overall drafting is pretty impressive, but boy what would we look like with Giroux if we didn't waste that pick on Fischer...

Neutrino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 01:45 PM
  #161
WeThreeKings
DJ Nikita
 
WeThreeKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,375
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WeThreeKings
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamz View Post
No I want Angelo Esposito!
I can officially announce I am correct about Angelo Esposito.

He is 22.

He is not in the NHL.

Too bad that guy who had me quoted on that in his signature to prove me wrong isn't around anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neutrino View Post
There were a few blunders here and there, but mostly understandable.

The overall drafting is pretty impressive, but boy what would we look like with Giroux if we didn't waste that pick on Fischer...
Replace Nokelainen with Giroux on the bench, watching Gomez in the final minute of 3rd.

WeThreeKings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 01:52 PM
  #162
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 31,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clipitar View Post
I think Franked's overall point in this discussion is that you can evaluate TT's work positively when you look at his full tenure as the director of scouting and point out his numerous success, yet any thorough evaluation also involves pointing out some glaring mistakes (though we can't know for sure in some cases if he had the last word for each and every single 1st round bust selections).

Things are not black & white here, that's not how you evaluate your personnel anyway. I don't see any issue with saying: "Hey Trevor, you sure messed up bad with some 1st round selections that could've put us over the top in the past 7 years or so, but you still are one of the best at finding gems in later rounds, and that makes you one of the best out there in the scouting world and we're lucky to have you".

Bringing up tons of examples of other teams also missing out on key players becomes irrelevant at some point in the discussion. We're not evaluating these other departments, and if we were to compare, I'm only interested by the performance of the cream of scouting out there (like top-3 in the League), not the 10 teams or so that also missed out on Giroux or Getzlaf. In that sense, I also believe you have to judge on results and not intentions and hype management. At least that's how I see it.
The only real evaluation that counts is to the rest of the NHL. In an ideal world I'd want to be a top 5 team in drafting, making trades, signing FA's...have top 5 goaltending, top 5 defense and top 5 group of forwards. It would be next to impossible to be that good in all areas but that's what I want them to aim for.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 02:00 PM
  #163
hototogisu
Global Moderator
Poked the bear!!!!!
 
hototogisu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 33,760
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
I can officially announce I am correct about Angelo Esposito.

He is 22.

He is not in the NHL.

Too bad that guy who had me quoted on that in his signature to prove me wrong isn't around anymore.
Guy's barely even in the AHL...13 points in 57 games last year.

I know he had a couple of knee injuries that probably made his development even harder but yeesh.

hototogisu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 02:01 PM
  #164
montreal
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Sark
Posts: 23,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franked View Post
IChipchura was sent to the minors this year, so I don't consider him a full time NHLer.
So to my question : when it comes to drafting, do you think it's better to draft a small number of star players, and then fill out the rest of your roster through trade and free agency, or is it better to draft a good number of nhlers and then try to acquire a star through trade or free agency.
Chipchura should be a regular, the guys played 170 NHL games and it's my understanding that he was only sent down since they didn't have room for him, once Nokelainen was traded he was recalled and hasn't gone back since. I watched the Habs-Yotes game on center ice via the Yotes broadcast and they said that the coaching staff was very happy with the way Chipchura has played. The problem for him has been the injuries, that last concussion cost him a lot of time and he's already had several so he's got to be careful since each one makes it easier to get another.

As for drafting getting more NHLers vs better impact ones, while I don't like to compare our drafting to other teams as teams are all in different situations when they go into the draft so if the Habs had the roster that the flyers have had, they might have done things differently. That said I'd rather have the impact players vs a larger number of picks making the NHL, but I still think that it's very good that our scouting staff can find so many NHLers via the draft especially as a Hamilton fan since aside from an off year here or there they have been great at stockpiling good young players in the AHL year after year. (this year it's light but next year looks to be more then double what you would expect from a new crop of rookies)

montreal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 02:10 PM
  #165
Franked
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
not sure I quite get the "either/or" your presenting... because it's not like any team sets out trying "not" to get star players via the draft.

and since you pointed out that both habs/flyers had only 1 top 5 pick in the span you measured, I assume you aren't suggesting aggressively trading up to get high picks and a better shot at "star" players?

in any case, if you really are comparing Mtl/Philly drafting over the past few years, I don't know how you could come to any other conclusion than the fact that we did much better than the flyers over the same span, as far as drafting talent.

that the flyers currently have much better roster talent/depth, is a reflection of how well they manage their assets, and how poorly we've managed ours, but that's another debate, one that bears no relevancy to Timmins work as director of scouting.

i mean just look at it (and even if you disagree with my =/</> the sheer amount of assets/talent we accumulated compared to theirs is almost mind blowing)



Price = Giroux (i'd take price in a heart beat, even though Giroux is a star in the making)
Subban = Richards (RIchards has done more, but Subban is a bonafide #1 dman imo)
McDo < Carter (this one may flip in the near future, McDo looks like the real deal)
Maxpac = JVR (interesting to see who has the better career, toss up at this point)
Streit > Downie (not even close)
Halak
Grabovski
A.Kost
Latendresse
S.Kost
Weber
D'agostini
Lapierre
O'Byrne
White
Emelin
Chipchura

So Montreal drafted more or less equal top-end talent, while also drafting the equivalent of a very good bottom-9 fwd group & solid bottom-3 def group, plus another potentially elite goalie...

A.Kost- Grabs- S.Kost
Lats- Lapierre- D'ago
White- Chipchura


O'byrne- Weber
Emelin

Halak
I do disagree with your =/</> except for Max and VanRiemsdyk, but that's debatable. My question was theoretical, I picked the best example I could find, but of course it's not perfect.

I do like your answer though and the rational part of my brain mostly agrees, but I think an argument could be made that drafting a star in some cases beats drafting any number of ok players. One of the reasons being that it's almost impossible to trade for a star center, while there are plenty of ways to second/third line forwards and second/third pairing dmen.

For example, had we drafted Getzlaf in 03, would you miss Lapierre, O'Byrne, Halak and Akost? And if draft picks are considered assets, do you think the Ducks would trade Getzlaf for these 4 players?

I think an argument could be made for the two sides.

Franked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 02:24 PM
  #166
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franked View Post
I do disagree with your =/</> except for Max and VanRiemsdyk, but that's debatable. My question was theoretical, I picked the best example I could find, but of course it's not perfect.

I do like your answer though and the rational part of my brain mostly agrees, but I think an argument could be made that drafting a star in some cases beats drafting any number of ok players. One of the reasons being that it's almost impossible to trade for a star center, while there are plenty of ways to second/third line forwards and second/third pairing dmen.

For example, had we drafted Getzlaf in 03, would you miss Lapierre, O'Byrne, Halak and Akost? And if draft picks are considered assets, do you think the Ducks would trade Getzlaf for these 4 players?

I think an argument could be made for the two sides.
I think it's pretty obvious that 1 star player is of more value than 4 (or more) average players, because you can always find average players rather easily via trade or ufa market.

but talking about picks, is a different story.

Would montreal trade A.kost for any one of Getzlaf/Parise/Richards/Carter/Weber etc... of course.

Would Montreal, or any team for that matter, trade down from 11th overall, 1 for 1... of course not.


and again, comes to the point that all teams/scouting departments are trying to land stars with the players they pick, especially first rounders, but in the first round, outside of the top 5-10, teams will often (probably rightfully so) prioritize "safer" picks than reaching for high-risk/high-reward players.

I think critiquing Timmins for picking Fisher is well warranted, drafting a first round player who doesn't even make it to the NHL is a pretty bad miss, regardless of what players got picked later...

but I don't follow the logic that b/c of that miss, or because almost every year there are some players picked after his first round selection who end up better players, that his drafting record is anything less than superp.

when you draft the list of NHL talent that he has, many of which were far FAR better than many players, including first rounders, picked ahead of them, i don't see how anyone can really complain.

Drafting is never a guarantee, and Timmins record of stocking his organization with future NHL talent is as good or better than any other draft boss in the league over the past decade.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 02:26 PM
  #167
Bobby G
Registered User
 
Bobby G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
People who bash Timmins really have no idea how good the Canadiens have it, and have no idea what we'll be missing when he leaves. I'll stand by that.
Seriously, I've only read through a couple pages of the thread, but I was shocked to see some people not happy with Timmins. Some people's expectations are impossible to attain. The Habs have done a great job of drafting compared to most teams.

I can understand people being upset with our coach or GM, but I really can't understand how anyone can be disappointed in the job Timmins has done.

Bobby G is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 02:33 PM
  #168
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,646
vCash: 500
I'd take JVR over Pacioretty but picking Pacioretty at #22 was really shrewd. I loved that 2007 draft, especially since the Habs didn't trade up to pick Angelo. So Timmins selected two really good prospects ithat year.

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 02:34 PM
  #169
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 10,568
vCash: 500
in retrospect, AK was a mistake.

on the other hand, if you want the habs to try to draft more stars, that would involve going more after high-risk, high-reward picks no? which ironically, is probably what timmins did when drafting AK...

i see no problem with his drafting. the problem has always been the development of these players. the last 3-4 years, players are not rushed, covered more by the coach (for better imo), and given time to grow at their own pace. i think that's a step in the right direction but only time will tell whether im right or not...

even though he wasn't drafted by us, im hoping for palushaj to turn out into a good 3rd liner. his game is slowly getting better so here's hoping...

MasterDecoy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 02:38 PM
  #170
Marchy79
Registered User
 
Marchy79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Barrie
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franked View Post
I have a question for Habs fans. We always praise Timmins for the number of nhlers he drafts, but what is better between a great number of successful picks, or a small number of star quality picks?

For example, let use the drafts from 2003 to 2007 (2008 and after are still too early to tell) and compare the Flyers and the Habs.

2003

Flyers - Carter, Richards (and Colin Fraser)
Habs - Akost, Halak, Lapierre, O'Byrne

2004

Flyers - No NHLer in 11 picks
Habs - Grabovski, Streit... Emelin? Chipchura?

2005

Flyers - Steve Downie
Habs - Price, Latendresse, Skost, D'Agostini

2006

Flyers - Giroux
Habs - Ryan White

2007

Flyers - Van Riemsdyk
Habs - Max Pac, Mc Do, Subban and Webber

Both teams have had 1 top 5 pick (Habs - Price, Flyers - Van Riemsdyk).

The Flyers have drafted 4 first line forwards - Giroux, a top 10 center in the league at least, Carter, a 40 goal first line center, and Richards, another top line star center (also one of the best in the league, even though I hate the guy). Van Riemsdyk is a top line forward, but I'm not sure of his upside yet. Other than that, they haven't drafted much.

The Habs have drafted 2 great goaltenders (Price is at least top 10 in the league, Halak I think is better than his numbers this year suggest).

They have drafted 3 top 4 defensemen -Streit, a number one defenseman, Subban, also a number one defenseman, soon if not already, and with a huge upside, McDo, already top 4. They've drafted 2 other nhl defensemen - Webber and O'byrne, both regular NHLers. (Emelin I'm not sure where he stands).

They have drafted 8 forward who are regulars in the NHL : 5 top 6 forwards (Akost, Grabovski, Skost, MaxPac and Latendresse), 2 bottom 6 NHL regulars (Lapierre and White) and D'Agostini (is he a top 6? Not sure). Chipchura was sent to the minors this year, so I don't consider him a full time NHLer.

So they couldn't be more opposite. The Habs beat the Flyers on the number of NHLers and the variety (the position they play). Yet the Habs could never find a star forward, either through the draft, trade or free agency. The Flyers drafted 3, maybe 4 depending on how Van Riemsdyk turns out) but not much else. (note that the Habs drafted a star in Price). Still, of all the picks by the two teams, I think the best players are Giroux, Carter, Richards and Price (not necessarily in that order, just pointing out that the Flyers seem to have found more star talent).

So to my question : when it comes to drafting, do you think it's better to draft a small number of star players, and then fill out the rest of your roster through trade and free agency, or is it better to draft a good number of nhlers and then try to acquire a star through trade or free agency?

Honest question BTW, would like to know what people think. I'm not too sure myself. And I used the Flyers because like the Habs they only had one top 5 pick so they are comparable in regards to the quality of picks.
Awesome Post!!!

I DO see what you are saying loud and clear, and I was thinking about this exact ideology right around draft time this year, when I posted that the entire group (Gaut,Martin, TT) should go.

Ahem, Since then, I do have to say Gauthier has removed himself very far from MY personal axe. I was worried he was very wishy washy as a GM. He has had one heck of a run pulling moves for the habs, and has regained MY trust in his role (not that it probably matters to him much lol).

Martins... I am still on the fence on. I just want to see a good performance, and I personally do feel we are more capable than we show. I dont think he gets full potential out of these guys. He's off the firing squad due to the miraculous turn around, but my Jury is still out on him, in regards to an extension. I want to see more from this year, and perhaps when he gets his #1 d back, in any way.

But on the topic of TT, He doesnt make the final calls, but I am not the biggest fan of his 'safe' approach. Yes, it DOES produce many quality NHL guys... and it has netted us a few great picks... But no homerun center picks, when it was the weakness when he first CAME is a bit rediculous now.
Dont get me wrong, I think he's done an admirable job, but it's time to get some sexy pics for forwards...
If we keep our drafted d-core together, IMO we could be stellar. But the slump on selecting a great forward is getting a little too long in the tooth for my liking.

I know I am crying with the Virginia Ham in my arms... But sometimes, thaat change in philosophy is what's needed. I am a believer in the cyclical nature of things...
Sometimes, change for the sake of change is needed to get over the hump. I for one am willing to risk it, to see if someone else can get luckier with high quality 1st line picks. We've been fighting for 6-8 for far too long IMO.

Marchy79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 02:38 PM
  #171
MasterDecoy
Carlos Danger
 
MasterDecoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beijing
Posts: 10,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
I'd take JVR over Pacioretty but picking Pcioretty at #22 was really .Pacioretty was less certain. I loved that 2007 draft, especially since the Habs didn't trade up to pick Angelo. So Timmins selected two really good prospects ithat year.
me too. you just need to watch JVR to know how scary good he could become. thing is, they both manage to put points on the board at about the same pace while JVR plays in a more offensive system with better linemates.

who knows, maybe JVR will never reach that potential while max will. either way, picking him up at 22nd, awesome

MasterDecoy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 02:40 PM
  #172
Bobby G
Registered User
 
Bobby G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,713
vCash: 500
Also correct me if I'm wrong (it was a while ago) but as I remember the word on Kostitsyn during his draft year was that he was THE most talented player in the draft but he might have health issues (epilepsy?? I think it was). Getting him at 10 was praised as a huge steal as long as his health didn't catch up to him

Bobby G is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 02:42 PM
  #173
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Okay, the context does matter. If player A is the better prospect but suffers a major injury and ends up worse than player B, is player B the better pick judging by results? I mean, results aren't everything. As a scouting staff your job is to select the best probable combination of a prospect to succeed in the NHL. Probability is a special thing though. If player C is deemed as a 99.9% chance to reach his potential as a star, and doesn't, while player D is deemed as a 0.01% chance to succeed and does, does it make it wrong to select player C? Of course not. You play the odds and over the long term, you'll get results like timmins have, but not everything will be perfect. The only real blemish is Fischer, Ak is what he is.
Lame. AK is what he is...Yeah: He is a draft choice that cost us Carter or Getz or Richards or...

Is what he is... WTF is that?

It was a bad mistake. No matter how much we like the guy, and how good he is, it was really bad mistake.

AK was a bad pick in that draft. TT (If it was him, but who cares) made a big mistake. And don't bring up hindsight. AK was a risky pick in a draft with no risks.

It has cost us hugely. You guys are not realizing how huge one or two missed great draft picks cost a team. It's a massive mistake to miss good picks when you have the chance to get them.

TT thumbs down. 2 gross mistakes that cost us so much, and you think he's been OK? No way.

bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 02:43 PM
  #174
Teufelsdreck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterDecoy View Post
in retrospect, AK was a mistake.

on the other hand, if you want the habs to try to draft more stars, that would involve going more after high-risk, high-reward picks no? which ironically, is probably what timmins did when drafting AK...

i see no problem with his drafting. the problem has always been the development of these players. the last 3-4 years, players are not rushed, covered more by the coach (for better imo), and given time to grow at their own pace. i think that's a step in the right direction but only time will tell whether im right or not...

even though he wasn't drafted by us, im hoping for palushaj to turn out into a good 3rd liner. his game is slowly getting better so here's hoping...
My memory is fuzzy. Remind me, whom would most scouts have selected ahead of Kostitsyn besides Carter and Getzlaf?

Teufelsdreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 02:53 PM
  #175
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller Time View Post
sure, but that same scouting team then selected Filatov 6th overall 2 years later...

passing over:
Carlson
Karlsson
Myers
Eberle
Ennis
DelZotto
Sbisa
Hodgson
Boedcker



Timmins ... made a mistake, sure, but so did about 15-16 other teams, INCLUDING Columbus, who picked Brassard 6th overall.


so really, Timmins was no more "wrong" than they were in that draft.
Who the **** cares if other teams also made mistakes. Please please all of you stop bringing this up. Habs made a huge mistake, and I don't give a flying **** what other teams did.

How in hell do other people making a mistake excuse you of making the same one? Tell me? How?

It's called being better at drafting, not the same. Is that not what we should expect? It's so bloody lame to say : 'Well, other teams made the same mistake, so that's OK' 'Other teams' are the ****ing Columbus Blue jackets. Who the **** cares what they do?

bsl 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 12:42 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.