Former Canucks: Players & Management (Kevin Bieksa retirement watch)

[Wilch]

This is fascinating.

Essentially they did a study and realized they were undervaluing WHL and overvaluing QMJHL, and implicitly says that Delorme was a good scout but not a good manager of scouts and that likely caused systemic issues.

Gilman also implies that they did not follow their draft list "to the letter of the law" and that ended up hurting them, i.e they probably had a list and then Delorme second guessed it/let guys sway him.

My guess is there was no formal metric to balance the equation between the different leagues. Either that or the scouts aren't on the same page in rating players.

Meaning two players, one from the WHL and the other from the QMJHL, who should be rated exactly 80, may be rated 75 and 85 respectively. That would really mess up the overall list.

 

[timw33]

My guess is there was no formal metric to balance the equation between the different leagues. Either that or the scouts aren't on the same page in rating players.

Meaning two players, one from the WHL and the other from the QMJHL, who should be rated exactly 80, may be rated 75 and 85 respectively. That would really mess up the overall list.

I think it's time to dig up that awful 2010 canucks final draft list that leaked: Did the Canucks Unintentionally Reveal Their 2010 Draft Board?

3. Alex Burmistrov (sweet jesus)
16. Kuznetzov (would have been highest rated skater if we had decided to pick and give Florida our 2011 pick (Jensen))
31. Polasek (aaaaaaaaahahahahahah, QMJHL player very high)
55. Friesen (aaaaaaaaahahahahahah)
38. Schwartz (went 14th)
78. Coyle (yiiiikes)
85. Hannay (that he's in the top 120 of anything is just awwwful, 6 points, 150 PIM in Q, feels like a Q overvalue)

 

[Melvin]

I think it's time to dig up that awful 2010 canucks final draft list that leaked: Did the Canucks Unintentionally Reveal Their 2010 Draft Board?

3. Alex Burmistrov (sweet jesus)
16. Kuznetzov (would have been highest rated skater if we had decided to pick and give Florida our 2011 pick (Jensen))
31. Polasek (aaaaaaaaahahahahahah, QMJHL player very high)
55. Friesen (aaaaaaaaahahahahahah)
38. Schwartz (went 14th)
78. Coyle (yiiiikes)
85. Hannay (that he's in the top 120 of anything is just awwwful, 6 points, 150 PIM in Q, feels like a Q overvalue)

You know, aside from Burmi, the rankings of the Euro skaters don't seem bad.

 

[MS]

I think it's time to dig up that awful 2010 canucks final draft list that leaked: Did the Canucks Unintentionally Reveal Their 2010 Draft Board?

3. Alex Burmistrov (sweet jesus)
16. Kuznetzov (would have been highest rated skater if we had decided to pick and give Florida our 2011 pick (Jensen))
31. Polasek (aaaaaaaaahahahahahah, QMJHL player very high)
55. Friesen (aaaaaaaaahahahahahah)
38. Schwartz (went 14th)
78. Coyle (yiiiikes)
85. Hannay (that he's in the top 120 of anything is just awwwful, 6 points, 150 PIM in Q, feels like a Q overvalue)

Interesting that Gilman commented on this, as I've mentioned a bunch of times here how messed up it was that there were 7 Q players in the top 35 or so ranked players in a year where 1 Q guy actually went in the top 50.

 

[timw33]

Interesting that Gilman commented on this, as I've mentioned a bunch of times here how messed up it was that there were 7 Q players in the top 35 or so ranked players in a year where 1 Q guy actually went in the top 50.

Just looked over our record drafting QMJHL players in the last 20 years—it is just as dire as you'd expect.

19 picks from the Q and 0 NHLers (Bourdon looked like the only one that would stick).

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I think it's time to dig up that awful 2010 canucks final draft list that leaked: Did the Canucks Unintentionally Reveal Their 2010 Draft Board?

3. Alex Burmistrov (sweet jesus)
16. Kuznetzov (would have been highest rated skater if we had decided to pick and give Florida our 2011 pick (Jensen))
31. Polasek (aaaaaaaaahahahahahah, QMJHL player very high)
55. Friesen (aaaaaaaaahahahahahah)
38. Schwartz (went 14th)
78. Coyle (yiiiikes)
85. Hannay (that he's in the top 120 of anything is just awwwful, 6 points, 150 PIM in Q, feels like a Q overvalue)

yeah but

6. Tarasenko
7. Gudbranson

considering irl gudbranson went third and tarasenko 16 that's something right?

 

[bossram]

My guess is there was no formal metric to balance the equation between the different leagues. Either that or the scouts aren't on the same page in rating players.

Meaning two players, one from the WHL and the other from the QMJHL, who should be rated exactly 80, may be rated 75 and 85 respectively. That would really mess up the overall list.

Really nice to hear from someone coherent and articulate.

Current brass could take note: Things weren't going well, so Gillis/Gilman conduct ex-post evaluation, learn from their mistakes, and make a change.

Hmmm....what a novel enterprise.

 

[Wilch]

I think the only real way to ascertain what Gilman said is to look at their white board, pick out & separate the WHL and QMJHL players by their ranking.

So something like this:

WHL
(1) Johansen (11 overall)
(2) Nino (17 overall)
(3) Brad Ross (33 overall yikes)
(4) Schwartz (38 overall ugh)

I won't bother with the Q, they had Gormley at 1 from the Q and 4th overall.

 

[timw33]

Really nice to hear from someone coherent and articulate.

Current brass could take note: Things weren't going well, so Gillis/Gilman conduct ex-post evaluation, learn from their mistakes, and make a change.

Hmmm....what a novel enterprise.

When Gilman said "we commissioned a study on our recent scouting and made changes accordingly" it made me miss Gillis/Gilman so badly. They use facts and information over gut feelings.

 

[NoShowWilly]

The guy stands in there and admits to the flaws his management group had. He is such good radio. I only wish he came on 15 minutes earlier at the start of my commute home.

Ferraro is perfectly placed. Pull into the driveway at the end of his interview.

 

[Nuckles]

hmmm

 

[F A N]

When Gilman said "we commissioned a study on our recent scouting and made changes accordingly" it made me miss Gillis/Gilman so badly. They use facts and information over gut feelings.

I like their process, but I am uncertain about the merits of their theory. Essentially, the results of the study they commissioned gave them insight as to which leagues over the past 5 or so years produced more NHL players. In reality, I think that's a flawed study in the first place because certain leagues have good years and bad years and you're essentially playing the percentages rather than doing the traditional scouting work or even using advanced stats. For example, the USHL was not a league that was among the top producers of NHL players at the time.

The type of projection (based on scoring at his age) that some posters used here to justify the Petersson draft pick would have been rather irrelevant when the team is placing a greater emphasis on players coming out of certain leagues. For this reason, I actually don't know if the Canucks would have drafted Nylander or Ehlers if Benning wasn't there. I mean we heard rumors that that is what the scouts favoured but the "study" suggests that a greater emphasis was put on players coming out of the OHL, NCAA, and WHL and given the rankings at the time could logically have put Ritchie or Virtanen on top.

 

[Melvin]

I like their process, but I am uncertain about the merits of their theory. Essentially, the results of the study they commissioned gave them insight as to which leagues over the past 5 or so years produced more NHL players. In reality, I think that's a flawed study in the first place because certain leagues have good years and bad years and you're essentially playing the percentages rather than doing the traditional scouting work or even using advanced stats. For example, the USHL was not a league that was among the top producers of NHL players at the time.

The type of projection (based on scoring at his age) that some posters used here to justify the Petersson draft pick would have been rather irrelevant when the team is placing a greater emphasis on players coming out of certain leagues. For this reason, I actually don't know if the Canucks would have drafted Nylander or Ehlers if Benning wasn't there. I mean we heard rumors that that is what the scouts favoured but the "study" suggests that a greater emphasis was put on players coming out of the OHL, NCAA, and WHL and given the rankings at the time could logically have put Ritchie or Virtanen on top.

Can you please link to the study so that I can read it?

 

[Intangibos]

I like their process, but I am uncertain about the merits of their theory. Essentially, the results of the study they commissioned gave them insight as to which leagues over the past 5 or so years produced more NHL players. In reality, I think that's a flawed study in the first place because certain leagues have good years and bad years and you're essentially playing the percentages rather than doing the traditional scouting work or even using advanced stats. For example, the USHL was not a league that was among the top producers of NHL players at the time.

The type of projection (based on scoring at his age) that some posters used here to justify the Petersson draft pick would have been rather irrelevant when the team is placing a greater emphasis on players coming out of certain leagues. For this reason, I actually don't know if the Canucks would have drafted Nylander or Ehlers if Benning wasn't there. I mean we heard rumors that that is what the scouts favoured but the "study" suggests that a greater emphasis was put on players coming out of the OHL, NCAA, and WHL and given the rankings at the time could logically have put Ritchie or Virtanen on top.

I could understand not drafting out of the Q, but were our scouts doing much drafting out of the WHL? I'm pretty sure our management was fine with our Swedish scouts.

 

[F A N]

I could understand not drafting out of the Q, but were our scouts doing much drafting out of the WHL? I'm pretty sure our management was fine with our Swedish scouts.

The team wasn't drafting much out of the WHL. That was the point Gilman was making making. Gilman said that the Canucks had systematically undervalued WHL players.

As for our Swedish scouts, I'm not sure. It seemed like the Swedish scouts got the team's 4th or (mostly) 5th pick under Gillis. Rodin was a bit of an anomaly. With that said, our picks from Sweden have largely been a hit or miss. Doesn't seem to be much in between.

 

[Intangibos]

The team wasn't drafting much out of the WHL. That was the point Gilman was making making. Gilman said that the Canucks had systematically undervalued WHL players.

As for our Swedish scouts, I'm not sure. It seemed like the Swedish scouts got the team's 4th or (mostly) 5th pick under Gillis. Rodin was a bit of an anomaly. With that said, our picks from Sweden have largely been a hit or miss. Doesn't seem to be much in between.

I always assumed that we didn't pick out of the WHL not because we undervalued players but because our WHL scouting was questionable at best. Your explanation is reasonable though.

 

[Mr Plow]

For this reason, I actually don't know if the Canucks would have drafted Nylander or Ehlers if Benning wasn't there. I mean we heard rumors that that is what the scouts favoured but the "study" suggests that a greater emphasis was put on players coming out of the OHL, NCAA, and WHL and given the rankings at the time could logically have put Ritchie or Virtanen on top.

I remember Tony Gallaher saying Gillis told him they liked Larkin at 5. Is it true? Who knows.

 

[pitseleh]

I like their process, but I am uncertain about the merits of their theory. Essentially, the results of the study they commissioned gave them insight as to which leagues over the past 5 or so years produced more NHL players. In reality, I think that's a flawed study in the first place because certain leagues have good years and bad years and you're essentially playing the percentages rather than doing the traditional scouting work or even using advanced stats. For example, the USHL was not a league that was among the top producers of NHL players at the time.

That's not even close to what Gilman said in the interview. He said they compared where they had players placed on their lists against where players were actually being selected and saw players were being taken very differently than they had been placed on their list.

That said, the fact that it took them as long as it did to fix things is certainly something that should give rise to criticism. It should have been obvious to anyone taking over this was a poor drafting team, and fixing that should have been a priority.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

last five days,

alex burrows: 2 pts

vancouver canucks: __ pts

 

[ChefBoiRD]

last five days,

alex burrows: 2 pts

vancouver canucks: __ pts

Curious how many points Jonathan Dahlen has over the last 5 days

 

[F A N]

I always assumed that we didn't pick out of the WHL not because we undervalued players but because our WHL scouting was questionable at best. Your explanation is reasonable though.

The problem with that assumption is that Delorme was a WHL scout. And Gradin for many years was based out of Vancouver too. That has long been the criticism right? The Canucks have, for whatever reason, been missing out on guys that plays "in their backyard."

I remember Tony Gallaher saying Gillis told him they liked Larkin at 5. Is it true? Who knows.

It's probably true and Larkin is certainly more Horvat than Nylander and Ehlers. More importantly, when Gillis was supposedly out scouting Larkin, the Canucks were near a wildcard spot and was likely to draft just outside of the top 10. People forget this fact. The Canucks likely weren't focused on guys who were sure-fire top 10 picks. It's good to hear that they Larkin, but unless they are trading down, drafting Larkin at #6 would have been a reach.

That's not even close to what Gilman said in the interview. He said they compared where they had players placed on their lists against where players were actually being selected and saw players were being taken very differently than they had been placed on their list.

First of all, I was referring to the results of the study. Second of all, it was on that basis that they came out with the belief that certain leagues have statistically been better at producing or produced more NHL players.

Again, I think the process is sound. I just disagree with the theory.

 

[RandV]

I remember Tony Gallaher saying Gillis told him they liked Larkin at 5. Is it true? Who knows.

I don't recall exactly what he said but keep in mind when Gillis/Gallagher would have been talking about Larkin the Canucks were higher up in the standings. I believe we had a near perfect final week to fall as low as we could in our point range to draft 6th, but we were also only a few points away from drafting 10+.

If you want to buy in the Larkin rumour then probably the best you could say is that had Gillis been allowed to complete the Kesler trade deadline and had that got us the OTT 1st in return then we probably would have taken Larkin at #10. At #6 though Ehlers/Nylander still probably comes first.

 

[terrible dee]

The problem with that assumption is that Delorme was a WHL scout. And Gradin for many years was based out of Vancouver too. That has long been the criticism right? The Canucks have, for whatever reason, been missing out on guys that plays "in their backyard."



It's probably true and Larkin is certainly more Horvat than Nylander and Ehlers. More importantly, when Gillis was supposedly out scouting Larkin, the Canucks were near a wildcard spot and was likely to draft just outside of the top 10. People forget this fact. The Canucks likely weren't focused on guys who were sure-fire top 10 picks. It's good to hear that they Larkin, but unless they are trading down, drafting Larkin at #6 would have been a reach.



First of all, I was referring to the results of the study. Second of all, it was on that basis that they came out with the belief that certain leagues have statistically been better at producing or produced more NHL players.

Again, I think the process is sound. I just disagree with the theory.

Gillis knew EXACTLY what he was doing,

He knew the 2011 squad was done, and that he needed to revamp the team.

He also knew that the key to ANY successful team is their top two centers,

That was the motive behind his grabbing Horvat, as people were hoping for the 2011 squad to get back and finish the job, Gillis was building the next generation.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that he had Larkin targetted, he was looking for foundational centers like Horvat.

If you look at that draft, I think Gillis knew he wasn't getting one of the top three centers, Bennet, Drai or Reinhart...BUT after those guys you had to go all the way to Larkin who went at 15 to find the next CENTER

This confirms that Gillis was on a mission for centers, and rightfully wasn't interested in any of the defensemen or wingers, I think he told Gallager this to get the word out that he was willing to trade down and pick Larkin, that way he ended up with the best center available and probably another pick as well.

That's what I liked about Gillis, whether he was right or wrong I 100% understood and agreed with his philosophy, so even when he made a bad move, it didn't matter because in his shoes I would have done the same thing....except Luongo, I would not have signed him, I never thought he was all that good.

 

[pitseleh]

First of all, I was referring to the results of the study. Second of all, it was on that basis that they came out with the belief that certain leagues have statistically been better at producing or produced more NHL players.

What study? The study Gilman described is not the study you are describing.

 

[vancityluongo]

except Luongo, I would not have signed him, I never thought he was all that good.

Nah, he's still that good. Is Philipp Grubauer the next 'darling' of the goaltender's union? -