No worries Naoned, and thank you for providing this link.
Originally Posted by neofury
Fair enough but imo it isn't his responsibility to translate or give a summary really, he found content, he gave it to us, if someone else wants to be a nice guy and translate it awesome, but imo the OP's responsibility ends at making the thread and posting the article.
I'll be the first to admit a brief summary would be nice, but how is it in anyway his responsibility, did he originally comment on it in French? I see tons of French articles people post and flat out say if someone else wants to translate it go right ahead, and nobody ever complains.
You do have a point, but we're trying to make this board as user friendly as possible.
Not all posters have the time to try and find an online translator to figure out what is being said. Plus I think you'll agree with me. Online translators are decent, but not a great way to decipher what is being said in an article.
As I mentioned, I'm grateful to Naoned for providing this link. I didn't expect him/her to translate the article word for word. Just a brief little description of what the article entails would be nice.
I also understand that sometimes a poster may be in a hurry, and might not have time to post a brief summary. Or they don't feel confident enough to do a proper translation.
In those cases, maybe the poster can make a comment like "Could someone please help me translate this?"
The bottom line like it or not. This is an English speaking board. I receive complaints on a regular basis from English speaking posters on this issue. It's only a matter of time before these complaints make their way to the administrators.
If we want to continue to have non-English articles posted on our board. We have to be able to be flexible and provide as much information as possible. I really don't think this is too much to ask.
it's a nice article and it's worth reading it and debating on it. Quit the frikkin language debate already.
Originally Posted by alexstream
-Everything is a question of perception
-While fans are puking all over the place on Timmins pick because of d'Ago, Pacio and David Fischer, guys like Scott Burnside are praising Timmins big time.
-d'Ago is only a 6th round pick, one of only two of that draft year to have played NHL games (the other is Tim Kennedy)
-Pacio is one of 7 of that draft year (2007) to have played NHL games, 4 of which were picked in the top 4 of that draft. He's still really young, yadayadayay.
-Fans blast Timmins for skipping Perron and Giroux, but with their actual stats, they are no better than Guillaume Latendresse was with us, and Lats was "qualified" as a bust by most of the fans. [my comment : greener in the neighbour courtyard] Had both of these guys played here, the expections would have been higher and similar thing to lats might have happened.
-Every other team before the Habs (Fischer) on Giroux year skipped Giroux and they mostly all picked guys who are not there yet (Mitera, Wyshart)
-Subban (2nd round) might become better than most of the other players of his brass
an amazing total of 12 players drafted by the habs between 2003 and 2006 [my comment : I think it's more than any other team in the NHL] are playing in NHL right now, eight of which were drafted in 2004 and 2005 [my comment : 2006 is still early, since Fischer is still very young!].
it's a nice article and it's worth reading it and debating on it. Quit the frikkin language debate already.
Montreal has not drafted particularly well in the first round over the past 25-30 years.
Wichenhiser, Huntr, heroux, Turcotte, Svoboda, Charbonneau, Pederson, Cassels, Charron, Vallis, Stephenson, Bilodeau, Wilkie, Koivu, Brown, Ryan, Higgins, Ward, Chouinard, Butarulin, Hainsey, Komi, Higgins, A. Kost.
They have done a fabulous job with goalies and guys like Streit.
The drafting improved dramatically when Andre Savard arrived, and has continued to be solid ever since. Our first round drafting hasn't been fabulous, but neither have our picks been very high. When they were we got valuable NHL commodities (Price at 5, Komi at 10). After the first round I think the drafting has been outstanding. Gui and Subban are second round steals. Late round finds like Streit and Halak and Sergei Kostitsyn are ridiculous steals. Also BG gave away a lot of picks and prospects trying to get a winner for the centennial, so it's not surprising the cupboard's drier than it was before.
Look at how many guys drafted by the Habs under Timmons are playing around the league. He's done an outstanding job.
Pierre Gauthier's pro scouting department on the other hand....
The draft: All is a matter of perception, by Mathias Brunet.
To read the comments of outside observers on the Canadiens is often interesting.
The analyses are not always right, but there's often a perspective that one does not necessarily find with some Montreal commentators.
Take for example the ESPN commentator Scott Burnside who, this week, spoke of the fact that the Canadiens had succeeded in stealing Trevor Timmins from the Ottawa Senators organisation, a scout that he qualified as one of the foremost talent evaluators in the National Hockey League and who, in 2004 and 2005, managed to draft eight players who had become NHL regulars.
The opinions of others should be respected, those who condemn the Canadiens' scouts work as well as those who laud Timmins and his gang. Still, it is surprising to realise the large gap between the observers' perceptions and those of the fans who want to show Timmins the door, and those analysts like Burnside who see him as one of the best of his profession.
The draft is, however, a subtle science, often misunderstood. One must avoid hasty judgments and, above all, to always put the choices in a global perspective.
I heard of writer analyse Bob Gainey's work and speaking of the choices of Matt D'Agostini, Max Pacioretty and David Fischer as being the worst disappointments of his reign.
I was surprised to see D'Agostini's name among the trio. Put things in context. Certainly, D'Agostini does not provide the hoped for output after a promising start of career, but we are talking here about a late sixth round choice in 2005. And how many sixth round choices that year have reached the NHL? Two. Tim Kennedy of the Sabres and... D'Agostini.
Pacioretty? It's too early to speak of a disappointment in his case for he was drafted two and a half years ago only. Moreover, but six of the 30 players drafted in the first round in 2007 are in the NHL right now, of which four were chosen among the first seven. Pacioretty was drafted 22nd and he is one of ten drafted players in that round to have played at least 30 games in the league. I am ready to bet a small coffee that P.K. Subban, chosen in the second round in 2007, will play more NHL games than the large majority of those chosen before him.
David Fischer, first choice in 2006, progresses more slowly than forecast. I have never been a big fan. But I will wait at least to see him in the professional ranks before classifying him as a failure. Claude Giroux is proving to be a judicious choice of the Flyers. But errors can happen. They all make them. The San Jose Sharks, who draft generally well, preferred Ty Wishart. The Los Angeles Kings, that got themselves Anze Kopitar in 2005, opted for Trevor Lewis instead of Giroux. The Anaheim Ducks chose Mark Mitera instead of Giroux.
We return often on the fact that the CH could have counted on Giroux and David Perron in its ranks. I ask myself if we would have judged them more severely if they played in Montreal, where the youngsters' outputs never seem to meet expectations. With 33 points in 60 games and a -10, would we be criticising Perron as being in regression when compared with his 50 point season the previous year? After all, we qualified Guillaume Latendresse almost as a draft failure even if he showed statistics similar to Perron's since the beginning of his career. Would we criticise Giroux, who is an extraordinary playmaker, for not scoring enough goals as he has only 12? And had the CH held three first round picks that the Blues had in 2007, would we be accusing them of having drafted Lars Eller and Ian Cole before Perron?
For the moment, 12 players drafted by the Canadiens' scouts between 2003 and 2006 are in the NHL: the two goaltenders who represent one of the Canadiens' strong points, Jaroslav Halak and Carey Price. Andrei Kostitsyn, who dominated on the first line before being injured. Mark Streit, the first defenseman of the Islanders. Ryan O'Byrne, whom they judge good enough to try the experiment on the first pair with Andrei Markov. Mihail Grabovsky, one of the best Maple Leaf forwards when he was injured. Guillaume Latendresse, who had a major impact on the Minnesota Wild's season with 16 goals in only 33 games. Sergei Kostitsyn, selected in the last round in 2005, one of the CH's good forwards since he is used on the first line with Tomas Plekanec. And, in support roles, Maxim Lapierre, Kyle Chipchura, Matt D'Agostini and Ben Maxwell. The others, like Pacioretty, Subban, Kristo, Leblanc and Weber, are still in development. This is in fact not bad, more than any other clubs are doing.
Guys instead of looking at the bad picks we made(Fisher over Berglund(sp?)) why don't you do a list of the good picks.What if in 05' we picked Brule over Price or in 03' we take Jessiman over Kostitsyn. You will see EVERY team ****s up on first round picks(10-30 overall)
I think the real problem is how we handle the players from the draft to their nhl careers... our development has been questionable .
put timmins in Detroit ... or somewhere where there is respect for the time it takes for a player to climb the ladder, reach milestones and establish himself in the NHL ... and he'd be hailed as the best head scout in the league.
lats/ribeiro/higgins/price/halak/both kostisyns... and all the other players like robidas/beauchemin/hainsey/grabovsky ect... who werent good enough for the organization were ALL mishandled. ... we just waisted too much raw talent during the last few years.
and that has nothing to do with the outcome
ie; dagostini was well handled imo, given chances to prove himself and shown confidence. halak on the other hand, was treated like a pushover until just now, he got tossed on the side and fought back... he made his own luck without a lot of support. Now halak is better, but the outcome justifies nothing imo.
montreal draft will always be criticized by media/fans because most media/fans have zero patience and want to win now meanwhile prospects take time to developp. like Mathias said in his article it take time for prospects to achieved their full potential. look at obyrne, last year everyone want to put his ass on waivers and now he's playing top minute with Markov
look at Sergei at the beginning of the year, same as obyrne and now everyone is back in love with little kostitsyn
JUST BE PATIENT but this is montreal so its unlikely
Brunet has been a Timmins mark for a long time. That's why he's been popular in these boards.
There's a good reason to be optimistic. Before leaving, Gainey gave us an amazing gift: Guy Boucher. In the recent years, Habs rushed young players to fills holes but also because they were not developing fast enough in Hamilton to be worth it. Giving their history together, it's doubtful Gauthier will fire Martin anytime soon and I don't share the concerns some people have to lose Boucher to another NHL team.
He needs to learn how to coach a pro team and said so himself many times. None of Tremblay, Vigneault, Therrien and Carbonneau had experience in pro leagues and their downfall all had the same cause: they lost control over the veterans. It also gave Koivu the reputation of being a coach killer. Leading a team in a men's league is a lot different than the juniors. Guys like Boudreau, Bylsma and Babock all coached in the AHL before joining the NHL and it paid off.
And in the meantime, Hamilton is an excellent place to be for guys like Subban, Weber, Desharnais and hopefully Kristo, Leblanc and Avtsin. I'm more concerned that Timmins will look a lot better than he actually is in the coming years.