HFBoards

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

10/28/09 Montreal @ Pittsburgh 730PM RDS/FS-P habs lose a big one

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-29-2009, 04:39 PM
  #201
Avim86
Registered User
 
Avim86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal , Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitor8 View Post
Look at the players I just named you ..look who we could of had instead if the drafting was just a little different :

2003- Carter or Parise or Getzlaf or Richards (instead of Kostisyn)
2004- Zajac or Wolski or Meszaros (instead of Chipchura)
2005- Kopitar or Staal (instead of Price)
2006- Varlamov or Berglund or Foligno (instead of Fisher)
2007- Traded McDonagh so I won't say anything
2007- David Perron (instead of Pacioretty..STILL too early to tell..i'll give you that)
2008- No Pick
2009 - Louis Leblanc (still too early to tell)


Those are the first round of the past years ..

so yes hindsight is 20/20 but who else is suppose to get the blame ..

You get praised for doing amazing picks or drafting players that maybe you didn't even you think would be that good (Streit, Halak , etc .. ) but u get **** for drafting players that don't contribute as much as you had hoped ..it's the business !
DUMBEST LOGIC EVER. I didn't realise gm's had the ability to see through time.

Avim86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 04:39 PM
  #202
Traitor8
Registered User
 
Traitor8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Iraq
Posts: 4,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Um, actually, yes.

For most of them, it does take around 7 years from the time they are drafted at 18 years old to the time they are at their peak.

There are exceptions, but they tend to be superstar players/high draft picks and consequently get more hype. And forwards. Most of the exceptions are forwards, because it is much more difficult to play defense or goalie at a high level without experience.
Ummm...how about NO !

I don't want him to reach his PEAK because that was suppose to be 82 pts a year ..with 35-40 goals easy for him.

He will round out to about a 20-25 goal scorer with 50 pts a year .. that's his PEAK and that's a HELL OF A BUST for a 10th overall pick

Your argument would be perfect if Andrei is consistently getting 20-25 goals with 50-60 pts now and me and others are here *****ing at how low his performance is and you say "wait until he hits his peak and will be a 35 goal scorer" ..

Traitor8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 04:41 PM
  #203
Traitor8
Registered User
 
Traitor8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Iraq
Posts: 4,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK46Awesome View Post
DUMBEST LOGIC EVER. I didn't realise gm's had the ability to see through time.

Dumbest logic ever heh ? Way to provide some in depth analysis and commentary.

Now answer this question for me:

How do you judge a Head Scout's performance? Shouldn't I look at the competition AMONG other factors?

If you were the Montreal Canadiens owner, you have to give him an evaluation today or tommorwo ..how would you rate his performance ? What do you think his strengths and weaknesses are and do you think about replacing him now or in the future and why?

Traitor8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 04:41 PM
  #204
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitor8 View Post
Yep and he GETS **** FOR THAT ! at least, he didn't have 5-6 consecutive first round busts !
That would have been difficult, seeing as he didn't get to make 5-6 consecutive first round picks in the first place.

He was the GM of record for the 2001 and 2002 drafts, in which he selected Mike Komisarek, Alexander Perezhogin, Duncan Milroy, Chris Higgins and Tomas Linhart in the first or second rounds. AFAIK the only other real NHLer he drafted was Plekanec. This isn't much to go on, but let's just say it doesn't exactly wow me either. Certainly, Timmins/Gainey's batting average is much better than that.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 04:43 PM
  #205
Traitor8
Registered User
 
Traitor8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Iraq
Posts: 4,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
That would have been difficult, seeing as he didn't get to make 5-6 consecutive first round picks in the first place.

He was the GM of record for the 2001 and 2002 drafts, in which he selected Mike Komisarek, Alexander Perezhogin, Duncan Milroy, Chris Higgins and Tomas Linhart in the first or second rounds. AFAIK the only other real NHLer he drafted was Plekanec. This isn't much to go on, but let's just say it doesn't exactly wow me either. Certainly, Timmins/Gainey's batting average is much better than that.

Maybe your right but again, it's a discussion about how Gainey/Timmins suck .. not how much they are better than Savard. I will go check Savard's track record and get back to you on that ..

However, let's say for argumetns sake that Gainey's batting avg or wtv u call it is better than Savard ...do i care ? If something is better than something that sucks, doesn't make it good ..

Traitor8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 04:44 PM
  #206
Avim86
Registered User
 
Avim86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal , Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitor8 View Post
Dumbest logic ever heh ? Way to provide some in depth analysis and commentary.

Now answer this question for me:

How do you judge a Head Scout's performance? Shouldn't I look at the competition AMONG other factors?

If you were the Montreal Canadiens owner, you have to give him an evaluation today or tommorwo ..how would you rate his performance ? What do you think his strengths and weaknesses are and do you think about replacing him now or in the future and why?
Well let's see... how about your logic is faulty because you're asuming a constant which there isn't...you are comparing different years at different stages that aren't relevant at all , if you take into consideration montreal draft position over last few years(which does play a huge factor see Detroit).
We are actually among the better teams when it comes to players making the nhl , I'm sure more then half the teams if they had the choice would draft different players.
So by your great logic I can assume that all scouts (besides detroit) should be fired because they somehow missed zetterberg and datsyuk 7 times...
The draft has no logic or science behind it , it is pretty much general acknowledgment mixed with alot of luck. I truly believe that if we had tanked a couple of those years , we would have a much better team , however we are in montreal and we always expect a winner because we are the most annoying fans on this planet.

Avim86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 04:48 PM
  #207
Traitor8
Registered User
 
Traitor8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Iraq
Posts: 4,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK46Awesome View Post
Well let's see... how about your logic is faulty because you're assuming a constant which there isn't...you are comparing different years at different stages that aren't relevant at all , if you take into consideration Montreal draft position over last (which does play a huge factor see Detroit).
All the players that I mentioned were picked AFTER our picks so our draft position is not the problem at all. How am I comparing different years ..they are all picked in the same years, in the same draft.

And please answer the rest of my question, I'm dying to know.


I would say this:

Timmins

Strengths: Picks player who will be nhlers for sure ..constant 3rd-4th liners...poor 2nd liners.

Weaknesses: No Star or superstar developed. Jury is still out on some of his picks (Price among others).
Busts of the highest quality at very important draft positions.

Future: Will likely be let go once Gainey is let go. Allow new GM to be put in position and name his people UNLESS dramatic improvement is shown. Could be asked to remain as scout but not as head scout.

Traitor8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 04:48 PM
  #208
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitor8 View Post
He will round out to about a 20-25 goal scorer with 50 pts a year .. that's his PEAK and that's a HELL OF A BUST for a 10th overall pick
Most 10th overall picks are busts then.

For fun, here's the list of players picked 10th overall for 10 years before Andrei:
2002- Eric Nystrom
2001- Dan Blackburn (I'll give a mulligan on this one)
2000- Mikhail Yakubov (Who?)
1999- Branislav Mezei (Not a bad NHLer but I doubt what you had in mind)
1998- Nikolai Antropov (Probably the best of the lot, but not much more than that 25-goal 50-point guy either)
1997- Brad Ference
1996- Lance Ward (The guy was even re-drafted in 1998)
1995- Radek Dvorak
1994- Nolan Baumgartner
1993- Jocelyn Thibault

There's a not-inconsiderable chance that Andrei Kostitsyn will turn out to be the best 10th overall pick of those 10 years...

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 04:50 PM
  #209
Traitor8
Registered User
 
Traitor8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Iraq
Posts: 4,853
vCash: 500
What kind of useless stat is that ..
talk about different years and different factors being taken into consideration. That's the most useless stats ever.

Hey lets check the 11th overall pick ..maybe they are better and then i'll hope to get the 11th overall pick next draft instead of the 10th ?
WTH ??!

You keep trying to show me how good Timmins is by trashing other organization and picks but you dont look at HIS WORK AND HIS PICKS ! They suck ..if they are slightly better than others who sucked ..hey ..guess what ? THEY STILL SUCK !

Traitor8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 04:52 PM
  #210
Avim86
Registered User
 
Avim86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal , Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitor8 View Post
All the players that I mentioned were picked AFTER our picks so our draft position is not the problem at all. How am I comparing different years ..they are all picked in the same years, in the same draft.

And please answer the rest of my question, I'm dying to know.


I would say this:

Timmins

Strengths: Picks player who will be nhlers for sure ..constant 3rd-4th liners...poor 2nd liners.

Weaknesses: No Star or superstar developed. Jury is still out on some of his picks (Price among others).
Busts of the highest quality at very important draft positions.

Future: Will likely be let go once Gainey is let go. Allow new GM to be put in position and name his people UNLESS dramatic improvement is shown. Could be asked to remain as scout but not as head scout.
In all fairness I didn't finish my post.
How many superstars get picked after the 10th position , even the teams that picked them were only wishing for a solid nhler , it's general knowledge that unless the draft is exceptionally full of talented players , anything passed top 10 is a gamble.Name me 5 teams that you consider did a better job at drafting solid nhl players with similar or worse position in the standings in the last , let's say 6-7 years.

Avim86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 04:56 PM
  #211
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitor8 View Post
and maybe under Savard's tenure, Higgins wouldn't of partied as much and there would be better player development ..we don't know about that because we were never given a chance to see it.
And maybe if I had been the GM, our first line would be Ovechkin-Crosby-Malkin.

We don't know that Savard would done better, but we don't know he wouldn't have done worse, either.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 04:58 PM
  #212
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitor8 View Post
What kind of useless stat is that ..
talk about different years and different factors being taken into consideration. That's the most useless stats ever.
I did say it was for fun. You might, in fact, want to look around the 8-12 range to see what the picks look like.

The point, however, is that even picking 10 is no guarantee of success. Even allowing that the 10th overall pick has been unusually squandered, it's still a very good clue that Andrei actually compares rather favorably to his draft position. As 10th overall picks go, he's pretty good.

You're not blaming Timmins because his work sucks. You're blaming him because he hasn't provided you with a miracle.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 05:03 PM
  #213
BeastScottThornton*
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitor8 View Post
What kind of useless stat is that ..
talk about different years and different factors being taken into consideration. That's the most useless stats ever.

Hey lets check the 11th overall pick ..maybe they are better and then i'll hope to get the 11th overall pick next draft instead of the 10th ?
WTH ??!

You keep trying to show me how good Timmins is by trashing other organization and picks but you dont look at HIS WORK AND HIS PICKS ! They suck ..if they are slightly better than others who sucked ..hey ..guess what ? THEY STILL SUCK !
We've backed "Math Man" into a corner and so it's soon time for his "well if Timmins' isn't good enough, who do you replace him with" spiel.

I personally prefer looking at the actual performance on the ice and making an informed assessment based on comparisons from around the league. It seems as though Math Man only watches Canadiens games, and as a result his expectations are so low that he genuinely thinks Timmins is doing a great job. At this point, anyone who defends Timmins' 1st round drafting record is either doing it to irritate you, or it's because they don't know any better.

BeastScottThornton* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 05:06 PM
  #214
Avim86
Registered User
 
Avim86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal , Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,508
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeastScottThornton View Post
We've backed "Math Man" into a corner and so it's soon time for his "well if Timmins' isn't good enough, who do you replace him with" spiel.

I personally prefer looking at the actual performance on the ice and making an informed assessment based on comparisons from around the league. It seems as though Math Man only watches Canadiens games, and as a result his expectations are so low that he genuinely thinks Timmins is doing a great job. At this point, anyone who defends Timmins' 1st round drafting record is either doing it to irritate you, or it's because they don't know any better.
Alright mr.hockey knowledgeable..name me 5 teams that had better 1st round drafts in the last 6 years , which had similar or worse positioning in the draft (by your logic anybody who had a worse pick then us should have been doing a good job or at least better then our scouts have.)

Avim86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 05:14 PM
  #215
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeastScottThornton View Post
We've backed "Math Man" into a corner
Really? You haven't made one sensible point since this discussion started, I'm not sure how you propose to back me into a corner except by displaying your ignorance, or cherry-picking facts that bolster your point in the vast sea of facts that don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeastScottThornton View Post
I personally prefer looking at the actual performance on the ice and making an informed assessment based on comparisons from around the league.
Every independent assessment of drafting I've seen made over the league makes a glowing review of the Habs' drafting record. Just googling around I found one on Bird Watchers Anonymous based on a statistical model that puts the Habs in second place for pick efficiency for 1999-2005.

It's actually only in Montreal that the work of Timmins is so roundly criticized.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 05:16 PM
  #216
andreconstantin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: mtl
Country: Canada
Posts: 257
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to andreconstantin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitor8 View Post
Look at the players I just named you ..look who we could of had instead if the drafting was just a little different :

2003- Carter or Parise or Getzlaf or Richards (instead of Kostisyn)
2004- Zajac or Wolski or Meszaros (instead of Chipchura)
2005- Kopitar or Staal (instead of Price)
2006- Varlamov or Berglund or Foligno (instead of Fisher)
2007- Traded McDonagh so I won't say anything
2007- David Perron (instead of Pacioretty..STILL too early to tell..i'll give you that)
2008- No Pick
2009 - Louis Leblanc (still too early to tell)

Those are the first round of the past years ..

so yes hindsight is 20/20 but who else is suppose to get the blame ..

You get praised for doing amazing picks or drafting players that maybe you didn't even you think would be that good (Streit, Halak , etc .. ) but u get **** for drafting players that don't contribute as much as you had hoped ..it's the business !
If this if that. I could have went to a better program in school if I knew what I was doing. If this if that. It's hard to predict the future and these players wouldn't have had the same path in Montreal and wouldn't have developed the same way. The organization has tons of good young prospects and they need time to developp, every team regrets of not taking X or Y player.

andreconstantin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 05:20 PM
  #217
Goldthorpe
Meditating Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitor8 View Post
What kind of useless stat is that ..
talk about different years and different factors being taken into consideration. That's the most useless stats ever.

Hey lets check the 11th overall pick ..maybe they are better and then i'll hope to get the 11th overall pick next draft instead of the 10th ?
WTH ??!
You said that 50 pts was a hell of a burst for a 10th pick overall. This claim assumes that the expectation for such a pick should be well beyond this kind of production. Yet, observing the same pick over multiple years shows that in many cases, the player picked doesn't even bring this kind of performance. Thus your assumption that it is abnormal to pick a 50pts player at this this rank is wrong. Thus your original claim is wrong. A 50pts player picked 10th overall isn't "a hell of a burst". If you checked picks ranged between, say, 8th and 12th, I really doubt you would see any difference.

Quote:
You keep trying to show me how good Timmins is by trashing other organization and picks but you dont look at HIS WORK AND HIS PICKS ! They suck ..if they are slightly better than others who sucked ..hey ..guess what ? THEY STILL SUCK !
Obviously (and I'm amazed this actually has to be explained), you can only evaluate a head-scout drafting performance by comparing it to others head-scouts drafting performances - if not, what is your frame of reference? Your own personal and arbitrary opinion of what sucks and what doesn't sucks?

If John Doe scores 30 goals in his league this year, is he among the best players in the league, among the worst ones, or just average? Well, of course it depends of the other player's results. If the second scorer only have 15 goals, John is a hell of a player. It would make no sense to watch John play a game and say "hey, this guy shot 5 times on goal and only scored once, god he sucks!!", and then refusing to compare his shooting percentage with the rest of the league by claiming that you are only interested in HIS WORK AND HIS GOALS!

Goldthorpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 05:27 PM
  #218
Traitor8
Registered User
 
Traitor8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Iraq
Posts: 4,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldthorpe View Post
You said that 50 pts was a hell of a burst for a 10th pick overall. This claim assumes that the expectation for such a pick should be well beyond this kind of production. Yet, observing the same pick over multiple years shows that in many cases, the player picked doesn't even bring this kind of performance. Thus your assumption that it is abnormal to pick a 50pts player at this this rank is wrong. Thus your original claim is wrong. A 50pts player picked 10th overall isn't "a hell of a burst". If you checked picks ranged between, say, 8th and 12th, I really doubt you would see any difference.


Obviously (and I'm amazed this actually has to be explained), you can only evaluate a head-scout drafting performance by comparing it to others head-scouts drafting performances - if not, what is your frame of reference? Your own personal and arbitrary opinion of what sucks and what doesn't sucks?

If John Doe scores 30 goals in his league this year, is he among the best players in the league, among the worst ones, or just average? Well, of course it depends of the other player's results. If the second scorer only have 15 goals, John is a hell of a player. It would make no sense to watch John play a game and say "hey, this guy shot 5 times on goal and only scored once, god he sucks!!", and then refusing to compare his shooting percentage with the rest of the league by claiming that you are only interested in HIS WORK AND HIS GOALS!
Ok exaclly ...so I am comparing Kostitsyn to other playrs drafted after him in 2003 and I did so for the following years as well..

You can't compare 1993 to 2003 ...or 1994 to 2003 or even 2002 to 2003 because they are differnet DRAFTS ..they are differnet years..differnet players and differen depths.

2003 was the deepest draft in at least the past 20 yrs and maybe NHL history.
2003 10th overall pick was more like a 5th overall pick in 1998 .. get what I mean ?
How me comparing players in the SAME DRAFT year to each other is "idiotic" but them coming up with a list of players thare totally not relatd to each other except for draft position is good argument ?

Traitor8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 05:37 PM
  #219
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitor8 View Post
You can't compare 1993 to 2003 ...or 1994 to 2003 or even 2002 to 2003 because they are differnet DRAFTS ..they are differnet years..differnet players and differen depths.
Then you have to say Kostitsyn is a bust for a 2003 pick (and more specifically a 2003 10th overall pick), rather than a bust for a 10th overall pick in general.

Saying that he is a bust for a 10th overall pick implies that he's much worse than the typical 10th overall pick.

Of course, it's easy to say you wish they'd pick Getzlaf or Carter, but by the same logic you can say you're glad they didn't pick Steve Bernier or Eric Fehr.

(Oh, and for fun, the 5th overall pick in 1998 was Vitaly Vishnevsky. Not the best of examples. )

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 05:47 PM
  #220
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeastScottThornton View Post
We've backed "Math Man" into a corner and so it's soon time for his "well if Timmins' isn't good enough, who do you replace him with" spiel.

I personally prefer looking at the actual performance on the ice and making an informed assessment based on comparisons from around the league. It seems as though Math Man only watches Canadiens games, and as a result his expectations are so low that he genuinely thinks Timmins is doing a great job. At this point, anyone who defends Timmins' 1st round drafting record is either doing it to irritate you, or it's because they don't know any better.

You'd be very disappointed if you were to compare objectively.

Example ?
Wings : the only 1st rounder (drafted by them) they have in their line up is Kronwall and prior to that the last 1st rounder to have a decent career is Lapointe, drafted in -> 1991...

Sharks : in 2003 picked Michalek instead of Phaneuf, Carter, etc. and the same year they even picked Bernier instead of Parize and Getzlaf... and huh, where are Kaspar, Jillson, Morris and their other 1st rounders ?

two teams doing poorly in the 1st round of the draft and yet one went to the SCF the last two years and the other is doing great also (in reg season at least)...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 05:53 PM
  #221
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
The Penguins' weren't drafting too hot, either, between the time they drafted Martin Straka in 1992, and that stretch between 2002 and 2006 in which they had five consecutive top-5 draft picks, including four consecutive top-twos.

MathMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 05:54 PM
  #222
Goldthorpe
Meditating Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,099
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Traitor8 View Post
Ok exaclly ...so I am comparing Kostitsyn to other playrs drafted after him in 2003 and I did so for the following years as well..
No, that's not what you did. What you did is pick and chose players arbitrarily and expected the result to mean anything. That's what you did. You're the 663th person to did it on this forum about the 2003 draft and about Timmins drafting record in general, and it still just doesn't work. It's biased. It's not based on statistics, it's useless.

Quote:
2003 was the deepest draft in at least the past 20 yrs and maybe NHL history.
2003 10th overall pick was more like a 5th overall pick in 1998 .. get what I mean ?
How me comparing players in the SAME DRAFT year to each other is "idiotic" but them coming up with a list of players thare totally not relatd to each other except for draft position is good argument ?
Build your model and make an actual statistical analysis (it doesn't even need to be complex), or all this is meaningless. If you don't understand why this is necessary (and the fact that you keep arguing your claim seems to indicate otherwise), you are simply out of your element here.

Goldthorpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 06:02 PM
  #223
ECWHSWI
P.K. is perfect.
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 14,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The Penguins' weren't drafting too hot, either, between the time they drafted Martin Straka in 1992, and that stretch between 2002 and 2006 in which they had five consecutive top-5 draft picks, including four consecutive top-twos.
Yeah, too easy to make Timmins look bad... EVERYONE would have picked Malkin, Crosby, Ovechkin, Toews, Kane, Stamkos, Hedman, Tavares, etc have they been available...

choices like theses are no brainer, if we want to know how good Timmins and his colleages are we have to look beyond the obvious choices...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 06:11 PM
  #224
BeastScottThornton*
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK46Awesome View Post
Alright mr.hockey knowledgeable..name me 5 teams that had better 1st round drafts in the last 6 years , which had similar or worse positioning in the draft (by your logic anybody who had a worse pick then us should have been doing a good job or at least better then our scouts have.)
Well hey, let's extend this to the second or even the third round.

Philly with Carter, Richards, Giroux
Dallas with Neal, Benn, Eriksson, Niskanen
Anaheim with Getzlaf, Perry, Ryan
St. Louis with Backes, Perron, Oshie, and Berglund
Colorado with Statsny and Wolski
Boston with Bergeron, Krejci, Kessel, and Lucic

Apart from a couple of exceptions (Ryan and Kessel, who I compare to our Price pick), we had a shot at these guys. I compiled this after a quick peek... imagine if I put in some real time at making Timmins look like the B level scout that he is.

BeastScottThornton* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-29-2009, 06:13 PM
  #225
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
Yeah, too easy to make Timmins look bad... EVERYONE would have picked Malkin, Crosby, Ovechkin, Toews, Kane, Stamkos, Hedman, Tavares, etc have they been available...
The Pens didn't just get four straight top-two picks -- they did it in years where they could get two super talents in Crosby and Malkin, and got Crosby following an all-NHL draft lottery to boot.

We should fire Timmins for not having the luck of the Irish. 5th is close, but no cigar. He should have been able to draft Crosby.

MathMan 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 11:47 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.