Breaking down the Amateur Scout staff

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Where's your opinion on European scouting? Personally, aside from Edler, we have done horrible in Europe.

Hard to say Europe has been horrible when we've done next to nothing with Europe

2 53 Anton Rodin
5 143 Peter Andersson

6 175 Jonathan Iilahti

4 120 Ludwig Blomstrand
6 180 Pathrik Westerholm
7 210 Henrik Tommernes

5 145 Anton Cederholm

1 second round pick that got injured and 6 very longshot picks. That's it, not even a decent sample.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,630
5,893
Gillis has had five years. If you get one pick right for three years and you already get a line there.

Many team's 2010 picks are just cracking the NHL full-time this season. And had Hodgson not been traded and Schroeder not been hurt, both those guys would be in the lineup playing a 3rd line or better role this season.
 

RobertKron

Registered User
Sep 1, 2007
15,413
8,500
It should be kept in mind that the development side of things is also clearly seen as a work in progress. Gillis went hard at that when he came in, and the team just bought an AHL team, so obviously they're nowhere near satisfied with that area.
 

Ziostilon

Registered User
Feb 14, 2009
3,829
23
i went back and took a harder look at the drafts

i may have over-reacted a bit

however, like many have said. The throbbing *-on for the QMJHL by whichever member of the scouting department

why in the throwaway 7th round would you pick Steve Anthony, Sawyer Hannay out of the QMJHL. When the "Q" turns out the least amount of NHL players.

Don't even mention Honzik
 

604

Registered User
Nov 1, 2011
7,279
1,486
Those who use Jensen over Saad as a reason for bad scouting probably use the "We didn't draft Gallagher because WHL scouting!!!" card too.

Actually Saad over Jensen is one of the ones it makes sense to criticize the Canucks scouting on...

Bob Mackenzie (one of the few guys that leaves their list up for comparison post draft) had Saad (and Grimaldi) over Jensen (http://www.tsn.ca/draftcentre/feature/?id=47549).

It should be noted that for the two 1st round picks prior (2008 - Hodgson and 2009 - Schroeder...no 2010 pick) and one year after (2012 - Gaunce), we picked exactly who we should have according to Bob's list...same with 2013 - Shinkaruk but we went out on a limb with Horvat who was rated below Nichushkin, Domi, Zadarov, and Wennberg on Bob's list and were available.

....


Comparing pre-draft lists to how your scouts actually do is a great way to benchmark (note: you need to give each list 1 pick, not the best of 3 or 4 potential picks which is what a lot of people do).

It's why I think it makes sense to get mad at stuff like missing Kopitar who we passed on despite him being ahead on almost everybody's list and not upset about picks like Josh Holden who was at the top of everybody's list when we stepped up to pick (Holden was an amazing scorer who got hurt and never achieved his max potential)...Horvat vs. Nichuskin will be a huge + or - in evaluating the scouting staff in the future...just like Kopitar vs. Bourdon is. Going against the consensus should earn praise when it works and criticism when it doesn't.
 
Last edited:

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,459
Vancouver, BC
Lots of thoughts here ....

We outright know our scouting was still completely broken at the time of the 2010 draft. Our draft board for that draft was inadvertently released a few months back, and it was an absolutely horrifying disaster. Like, couldn't be any worse if they tried.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1452789

Literally every player we liked +10 picks over their consensus ranking was a massive bust, while again virtually every player who ended up being a good pick from that draft outside of the top 10 picks, we had rated substantially lower than the consensus. Basically every single thing we took a stand on we got wrong.

Additionally, we can see how utterly broken our QMJHL scouting was at this point. In the worst year *ever* from the QMJHL, with 1 player selected from the first 50 picks, our scouts had 7 players (6 of which would go on to be total washouts) in the top 36 picks. Just a complete farce, and for something like this to happen, something at that point was badly wrong in how we were putting together our lists. Meanwhile, Brendan Gallagher is ripping up the WHL in our own backyard and not even rated - wouldn't have taken him if he was still available in the 7th round.

__________

So we know our scouting is completely awry as of 2010.

And when you look at that draft board, it's not surprising that the four drafts from 2007-2010 are a total disaster. You reap what you sow.

Two #1 picks (Hodgson and Schroeder) have had mixed returns. But out of the other 21 players we selected in those four drafts, only two (Connauton and Andersson) have even turned into serviceable AHL players. That's absolutely appalling.

And when you get to the discussion of why our AHL team is so bad, it's those four drafts. Those players should be forming the core of our minor-league squad and system depth right now, and we have zilch to show for it.

As an aside it's interesting how the 2009 draft, which was viewed very positively here circa 2010 or 2011, has gradually declined into another disaster.

________

So I guess the question is whether we've fixed things since 2010, and it's hard to tell.

We definitely look like we've sorted the OHL. As we should have, given Gillis' connections to that region. Looks like we've made some good hirings, and our picks from that region - which we'd ignored for a decade - are promising.

Otherwise ... meh. We see the same sort of weird QMJHL stuff popping up in 2011 and 2012. Same guys making WHL decisions. Same head scout. Gradin's drought in Europe is becoming an issue.

2013 does look really good right now. Hopefully that's a good sign moving forward.

But 2011 (aside from Corrado) is starting to go the way of 2009, and as mentioned previously, with the 2009 draft we can see how a 'good' draft can go bad in a hurry and how lower-level production can be a mirage which is exposed when players hit the AHL.

As long as Delorme is in a position of influence, my confidence in our drafting remains low. The guy is a proven fool.

__________

And I guess my last criticism would be how we use our contract slots. Too many contracts to bad players. Poor signings of veteran AHL players.

We finally cleared some slots this summer, and instead of spending them on quality signings from the NCAA or Europe, or on high-end AHL players to drive success at that level, we're recycling garbage like Sauve and Mullen.

We had great offseason in 2010 to bring in 4 guys (Sweatt, Lack, Tanev, Volpatti) who added a lot to our AHL team and bolstered our system depth. That seemed to bode well for the future.

But since then, we've barely signed anyone. A couple young OHL guys who were longer-term projects (Archibald was a good call), and Kellen Lain. This team should have the money to bring in top signings to bolster ourselves, but we've lost our way recently.

If you're going to trade draft picks to bolster a contending roster (which I have no problem with), you'd better find other ways to build your system.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,459
Vancouver, BC
Pro scouts have nailed it lately with Waiver Wire pick-ups.

Stanton, Weise and even Sestito are all regulars.

Not to mention the signings of Richardson and Santorelli.

Yeah, pro scouting this summer was pretty good given the budget we had to work with.

Santorelli, Richardson are very good buys, and Stanton was an incredible pickup (if we'd traded a #2 pick for him, everyone would think it was a great deal given his play).

Dalpe hasn't worked out but all in all it's a big improvement from the Barker-esque recent signings.

Those who use Jensen over Saad as a reason for bad scouting probably use the "We didn't draft Gallagher because WHL scouting!!!" card too.

The issue is not that we didn't draft Gallagher.

The issue is that we didn't even have him rated. Guy is ripping up the WHL in your own backyard, and he isn't even on a 150-player list your scouts put together (and guys like Sawyer Hannay are) it's a pretty good sign that your WHL scouting is total garbage.

I had Saad over Jensen and he's the guy I would have taken there, but that was a toss-up at the time. Some of the comments on this board about Saad (who nobody wanted) are pretty laughable in hindsight, though.
 

SighReally

Registered User
Sep 6, 2011
1,625
0
The issue is not that we didn't draft Gallagher.

The issue is that we didn't even have him rated. Guy is ripping up the WHL in your own backyard, and he isn't even on a 150-player list your scouts put together (and guys like Sawyer Hannay are) it's a pretty good sign that your WHL scouting is total garbage.

I had Saad over Jensen and he's the guy I would have taken there, but that was a toss-up at the time. Some of the comments on this board about Saad (who nobody wanted) are pretty laughable in hindsight, though.

Fair enough. My point was more so the fact that people apply a lot of 20/20 hindsight vision on our drafts focusing on failures to draft player X while ignoring the fact that many teams still passed on player X. Saad was one of those players who I thought had a very poor draft season though I didn't know much about him at the time (I didn't know much about Jensen either; I actually wanted Rattie at that time).

I didn't even know we didn't have Gallagher on our top 150 in the WHL. Actually I didn't even know they published those lists.

Good points on our drafting though. Though I feel that (with the exception of Williamson who really is an unknown quantity at this time) our depth drafting in 2013 has looked a lot better compared to our previous years. I can see Subban, if not making the NHL, being a good AHLer as the only thing that's holding him back is his size. Both Cederholm and Cassels show promise and Liberati is one of those players you use your later rounds on as a project. Hopefully this is a sign to come.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,459
Vancouver, BC
Fair enough. My point was more so the fact that people apply a lot of 20/20 hindsight vision on our drafts focusing on failures to draft player X while ignoring the fact that many teams still passed on player X. Saad was one of those players who I thought had a very poor draft season though I didn't know much about him at the time (I didn't know much about Jensen either; I actually wanted Rattie at that time).

I didn't even know we didn't have Gallagher on our top 150 in the WHL. Actually I didn't even know they published those lists.

Good points on our drafting though. Though I feel that (with the exception of Williamson who really is an unknown quantity at this time) our depth drafting in 2013 has looked a lot better compared to our previous years. I can see Subban, if not making the NHL, being a good AHLer as the only thing that's holding him back is his size. Both Cederholm and Cassels show promise and Liberati is one of those players you use your later rounds on as a project. Hopefully this is a sign to come.

I agree completely on the 'missing a player' thing. If it's one case, or two cases. The expectations of many fans are too high, and most people don't realize that only 35% of first-round picks become NHL players of any real value, and most of those are in the top 10 picks. People look at some guy picked 10 picks later and are OMG over it, but don't see the bigger picture - in the case of Patrick White (and admittedly horrible pick), only 1 of the next 15 players became an NHLer of any significant ability.

However, when you've missed *every single mid-round WHL player to make it in the last 15-18 drafts* it's a major pattern, and a major issue. It isn't missing Gallagher, or Lucic, or whoever ... it's missing all of them.

In our own backyard, over the last 20 years, we should have snagged at least one or two gems. Grabner is the only WHL draftee to make our team since 1995. Even Calgary - a terrible drafting team - has drafted 9 successful WHLers in that same period.

As for the 2010 list, it was released by accident in the background of a team-produced video on canucks.com a few months back. So as fans we got lucky and can see that (absolutely brutal) list and get an idea of where we're going wrong.

As for 2013, I agree it is the best-looking draft we've had in awhile. Since the weirdly/unexplainably good 2004 draft, our only legitimately good draft in a 15-year period starting in 1998.
 

Balls Mahoney

2015-2016 HF Premier League World Champion
Aug 14, 2008
20,402
1,922
Legend
It's weird to me that people are upset about pro scouting. This team has remained elite through the GMMG reign through really smart and beneficial UFA signings and trades.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,459
Vancouver, BC
It's weird to me that people are upset about pro scouting. This team has remained elite through the GMMG reign through really smart and beneficial UFA signings and trades.

Generally, yes.

But between the 2011 Finals and this most recent offseason, that two-year stretch was pretty poor.

Garrison was a homerun (but hardly a surprise or great scouting there) and Weise a decent call, but everything else was pretty ick. Booth, Sturm, Barker, Gragnani, Pahlsson, and so on. Plus decisions to retain guys like Ballard and Alberts. Kassian hasn't been the player expected (but still might yet).

$9 million on Ballard-Booth last year really hurt.

They really needed to re-establish some credibility this summer, and they have.
 

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
27,000
6,572
I agree completely on the 'missing a player' thing. If it's one case, or two cases. The expectations of many fans are too high, and most people don't realize that only 35% of first-round picks become NHL players of any real value, and most of those are in the top 10 picks. People look at some guy picked 10 picks later and are OMG over it, but don't see the bigger picture - in the case of Patrick White (and admittedly horrible pick), only 1 of the next 15 players became an NHLer of any significant ability.

However, when you've missed *every single mid-round WHL player to make it in the last 15-18 drafts* it's a major pattern, and a major issue. It isn't missing Gallagher, or Lucic, or whoever ... it's missing all of them.

In our own backyard, over the last 20 years, we should have snagged at least one or two gems. Grabner is the only WHL draftee to make our team since 1995. Even Calgary - a terrible drafting team - has drafted 9 successful WHLers in that same period.

As for the 2010 list, it was released by accident in the background of a team-produced video on canucks.com a few months back. So as fans we got lucky and can see that (absolutely brutal) list and get an idea of where we're going wrong.

As for 2013, I agree it is the best-looking draft we've had in awhile. Since the weirdly/unexplainably good 2004 draft, our only legitimately good draft in a 15-year period starting in 1998.



There was something written about this draft shifting to Crawford's control, and that they moved to a systemic approach instead of scouts just arguing their opinion. It was more about region now. A group of scouts make a call for the WHL, another for the OHL, and so on. Higher up, there is cross over across regions. This way, there is more accountability for each region and the key decision maker is Crawford. It's a more business like approach. Here is mention of this via the Vancouver Sun:


“We did a pretty comprehensive scouting overview last summer. We did a couple of studies on where those guys in the last five drafts came from and how it translated into (making the NHL). We did some analytics on where they came from and where it was best to get players. There were some pretty noticeable trends that we’ve taken strong command of.â€

The trends were so compelling the Canucks quietly reorganized their amateur scouting division and changed methodology. They built a new chain of command based on regions, established clearer priorities and focused resources on three key areas: Western Canada, Ontario and the United States.

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/...t+without+homegrown+talent/8595402/story.html



So through analytics, following cap trends and keeping track of playoff trends, they have decided to focus their efforts on the WHL, OHL and the US. I like the focus.
 

604

Registered User
Nov 1, 2011
7,279
1,486
I find the criticism of not picking Gallagher completely rediculous.

The guy was a 5'9" who was a PPG in Vancouver but if we had picked him, it would have been widely criticized as us picking a midget because he played for Vancouver.

Gallagher was small and got pushed around a lot at the WHL level. I saw him a lot and had no idea he was actually going to make the NHL as opposed to a guy like Dan Bertram who went absolutely nowhere due to his size despite being a much better skater than Gallagher.

I would go as far as saying that almost nobody criticized not picking him at the time of the draft so complaining about a pick like that is completely ridiculous.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Lots of thoughts here ....

We outright know our scouting was still completely broken at the time of the 2010 draft. Our draft board for that draft was inadvertently released a few months back, and it was an absolutely horrifying disaster. Like, couldn't be any worse if they tried.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1452789

Literally every player we liked +10 picks over their consensus ranking was a massive bust, while again virtually every player who ended up being a good pick from that draft outside of the top 10 picks, we had rated substantially lower than the consensus. Basically every single thing we took a stand on we got wrong.

Additionally, we can see how utterly broken our QMJHL scouting was at this point. In the worst year *ever* from the QMJHL, with 1 player selected from the first 50 picks, our scouts had 7 players (6 of which would go on to be total washouts) in the top 36 picks. Just a complete farce, and for something like this to happen, something at that point was badly wrong in how we were putting together our lists. Meanwhile, Brendan Gallagher is ripping up the WHL in our own backyard and not even rated - wouldn't have taken him if he was still available in the 7th round.

To me this is most damning evidence: a whole list which is terrible.

McNally in the top 30 just hammers home how far out of touch the Canucks were with the rest of the league on this guy given how far he dropped. Polasek at 31, yet he went 145. Freisen at 55 (went 172)

I'm sure a lot of lists have wild cards though, so even ignoring that look at some of the early picks and where the Canucks had them rated ie Coyle at 78 or Brock Nelson at 63.

As an aside it's interesting how the 2009 draft, which was viewed very positively here circa 2010 or 2011, has gradually declined into another disaster.

So I guess the question is whether we've fixed things since 2010, and it's hard to tell.

Most drafts look great, every then just gets worse as time exposes the weak links.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,630
5,893
McNally in the top 30 just hammers home how far out of touch the Canucks were with the rest of the league on this guy given how far he dropped. Polasek at 31, yet he went 145. Freisen at 55 (went 172)

I'm sure a lot of lists have wild cards though, so even ignoring that look at some of the early picks and where the Canucks had them rated ie Coyle at 78 or Brock Nelson at 63.

The Canucks that year were also only willing to defer their first round pick to Florida if Tinordi or Bennett were available. Out of touch? I'm not so sure since everybody has their draft rankings. McNally was actually ranked 40th among NA skaters by Central Scouting. Polasek was actually highly ranked in 2009 but was passed over. The proof, of course, is in the pudding. The Canucks haven't exactly drafted well in Gillis' first few years and he has tried to address the issue by repositioning his scouts. The Canucks drafting philosophy has also changed since 2010 with a greater emphasis on players who have size and are harder to play against.
 

CanaFan

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
19,887
5,849
BC
There was something written about this draft shifting to Crawford's control, and that they moved to a systemic approach instead of scouts just arguing their opinion. It was more about region now. A group of scouts make a call for the WHL, another for the OHL, and so on. Higher up, there is cross over across regions. This way, there is more accountability for each region and the key decision maker is Crawford. It's a more business like approach. Here is mention of this via the Vancouver Sun:




http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/...t+without+homegrown+talent/8595402/story.html



So through analytics, following cap trends and keeping track of playoff trends, they have decided to focus their efforts on the WHL, OHL and the US. I like the focus.


Interesting read, and relieved to see Gillis acknowledge that the status quo - prior to this last draft - has not been good enough. I've been a vocal dissenter of Gillis' draft record from 2008-10 but even I am impressed with the early signs from the 2013 draft and am hopeful that it is a function of this new approach/focus. It really does start to hurt your head to realize that from 2007-2010 the organization has exactly 1 full-time NHL player to show for their efforts. That kind of production - whatever the reason and whomever you want to blame - will bankrupt a team's assets pretty quickly. Good on Gillis for recognizing this, though one wishes he had done so a bit sooner perhaps.
 

arsmaster*

Guest
Comparing pre-draft lists to how your scouts actually do is a great way to benchmark (note: you need to give each list 1 pick, not the best of 3 or 4 potential picks which is what a lot of people do).

It's why I think it makes sense to get mad at stuff like missing Kopitar who we passed on despite him being ahead on almost everybody's list and not upset about picks like Josh Holden who was at the top of everybody's list when we stepped up to pick (Holden was an amazing scorer who got hurt and never achieved his max potential)...Horvat vs. Nichuskin will be a huge + or - in evaluating the scouting staff in the future...just like Kopitar vs. Bourdon is. Going against the consensus should earn praise when it works and criticism when it doesn't.

Pre-draft lists are a terrible way to benchmark IMO. What makes Bob Mackenzie's polled scouts better than ours?

We see it every year, Jordan Schroeder is a great example of a player who "fell" to 22, way down from the pre-draft rankings, and 4 years later it looks like the pre-drafts were way off.

Pre-draft helps "fans" analyze their teams picks. Teams have enough data, and enough resources to track the players down the line. The old adage is still true, it takes about 5 years to rate a draft class.

I'd personally look to try and poach some more good area scouts from good drafting teams like Ottawa.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,459
Vancouver, BC
There was something written about this draft shifting to Crawford's control, and that they moved to a systemic approach instead of scouts just arguing their opinion. It was more about region now. A group of scouts make a call for the WHL, another for the OHL, and so on. Higher up, there is cross over across regions. This way, there is more accountability for each region and the key decision maker is Crawford. It's a more business like approach. Here is mention of this via the Vancouver Sun:

So through analytics, following cap trends and keeping track of playoff trends, they have decided to focus their efforts on the WHL, OHL and the US. I like the focus.

Hopefully things are going in the right direction.

At least now they're making the obvious picks (Shinkaruk, Subban) instead of picks that are obviously bad the second they're announced.

To me this is most damning evidence: a whole list which is terrible.

McNally in the top 30 just hammers home how far out of touch the Canucks were with the rest of the league on this guy given how far he dropped. Polasek at 31, yet he went 145. Freisen at 55 (went 172)

I'm sure a lot of lists have wild cards though, so even ignoring that look at some of the early picks and where the Canucks had them rated ie Coyle at 78 or Brock Nelson at 63.

I'm amazed at how little outrage there is to that list (and zero media mention of it). Seeing it for the first time was the most upsetting thing for me as a Canuck fan since the 2011 Finals.

Just for reference, here's a list of the 'good' draft picks outside of the top 10 (guys who are playing regularly in the NHL right now) of that draft and where we had them rated :

9. Cam Fowler (12)
14. Jaden Schwartz (38)
16. Vlad Tarasenko (6) - fell due to Russian factor
19. Nick Bjugstad (21)
22. Jarred Tinordi (18)
23. Mark Pysyk (50)
28. Charlie Coyle (78)
29. Emerson Etem (46)
30. Brock Nelson (63)
37. Justin Faulk (41)
42. Devante Smith-Pelly (83)
47. Tyler Toffoli (45)
66. Radko Gudas (NR)
71. Michael Bournival (NR) - despite ranking every other crap player from the Q absurdly high
147. Brendan Gallagher (NR)
154. Dalton Prout (NR)

Basically, they missed on absolutely everyone. They were kind of on the right track with Tinordi, and with Tarasenko (who only fell due to non-playing concerns) ... and absolutely nothing else. There will surely be other guys who emerge out of that draft ... but for now this is a pretty fair representation of the best picks.

Conversely, here's the list of players they had rated 10+ spots above their consensus ranking :

4. Brandon Gormley (drafted 13th - 0 GP)
14. Mark Visentin (drafted 27th - 0 GP)
22. Jon Merrill (drafted 38th - 1 GP)
23. Julian Melchiori (drafted 87th - 0 GP)
24. Mathieu Corbiel-Theriault (drafted 102nd - 0 GP)
26. Pat McNally (drafted 115th - 0 GP)
27. Petr Straka (drafted 55th - 0 GP)
28. Calle Jarnkrok (drafed 51st - 0 GP) - this one is a decent call from Gradin
29. Stan Galiev (drafted 86th - 0 GP)
31. Adam Polasek (drafted 145th - 0 GP)
36. Louis Dominque (drafted 136th - 0 GP)
37. Fredrik Petterson (drafted 128th - 0 GP)

... and I'll stop there, because it isn't going to be anything different for anyone in the next 70 picks. Gormley is still a decent prospect but would have been a disaster at #4 overall. Jarnkrok was a pretty good call from Gradin. Everything else is crap.

Again - basically every legitimately good pick out of the draft they had no clue on, and every player they had a hunch about (save Jarnkrok) was wrong. You could have brought a drunk hobo off the street, had him throw darts at the CSS list, and we would have been better off.

Sometimes not getting players in the draft is bad luck, not having high enough picks, or not having enough picks. But in this draft, we could have had 20 picks scattered absolutely anywhere, and we still weren't going to get a single player. Just a total disaster of a draft.

It's actually lucky we traded away so many picks this year, so at least we got *something* for them.
 

vanuck

Now with 100% less Benning!
Dec 28, 2009
16,797
4,012
The thing I remember Gillis saying in the past was that the Q was apparently underscouted. It seems like there was a fair bit of overemphasis on that region, and if they really were weighted more heavily it might explain why so many Q guys were ranked so highly on that list.
 

Outside99*

Guest
I've long complained about the poor scouting from the Q (too much emphasis followed by poor choice) but if that's even possible, it might have been worse had the Canucks had all their picks!

Because you can see the pattern - Sauve picked in the 2nd round 2008, Polasek ranked 31st in the 2010 pre-draft - he probably gets drafted in the 2nd round as well had the Canucks retained the pick!

Gudas - I remember being intrigued by his unusually high +/- relative to teammates even.

Bournival - you could see the motor in this guy back in junior.
 

Balls Mahoney

2015-2016 HF Premier League World Champion
Aug 14, 2008
20,402
1,922
Legend
It's rather humorous and sad that a general consciences here on the 'Nucks board is better at picking prospects than the entire scouting department of the Vancouver Canucks.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,630
5,893
Basically, they missed on absolutely everyone. They were kind of on the right track with Tinordi, and with Tarasenko (who only fell due to non-playing concerns) ... and absolutely nothing else. There will surely be other guys who emerge out of that draft ... but for now this is a pretty fair representation of the best picks.

Conversely, here's the list of players they had rated 10+ spots above their consensus ranking :

4. Brandon Gormley (drafted 13th - 0 GP)
14. Mark Visentin (drafted 27th - 0 GP)
22. Jon Merrill (drafted 38th - 1 GP)
23. Julian Melchiori (drafted 87th - 0 GP)
24. Mathieu Corbiel-Theriault (drafted 102nd - 0 GP)
26. Pat McNally (drafted 115th - 0 GP)
27. Petr Straka (drafted 55th - 0 GP)
28. Calle Jarnkrok (drafed 51st - 0 GP) - this one is a decent call from Gradin
29. Stan Galiev (drafted 86th - 0 GP)
31. Adam Polasek (drafted 145th - 0 GP)
36. Louis Dominque (drafted 136th - 0 GP)
37. Fredrik Petterson (drafted 128th - 0 GP)

... and I'll stop there, because it isn't going to be anything different for anyone in the next 70 picks. Gormley is still a decent prospect but would have been a disaster at #4 overall. Jarnkrok was a pretty good call from Gradin. Everything else is crap.

I think you're taking things way too literal and giving too much stock on where the Canucks ranked certain players over where they were eventually drafted. Not every team tries to predict how the draft will unfold and select players based on whether a player they like will surely be available later on. Teams typically make a list of the players they like and rank them based on who they feel to be the BPA. If you are arguing that the Canucks' scouting for this draft sucked I would agree with you, but if your proof is that their rankings were completely out to lunch then I would disagree.

I can speculate a bit and say you're not giving credit where credit is due. The Canucks didn't have a 4th round pick and traded their first round pick at the draft. I can speculate and say that maybe Gillis and or the scouts really didn't like the draft and so Gillis decided to get out of that draft. With the draft picks the Canucks chose to keep, Gillis told us at the time that he was drafting players who likely had a longer development time than the norm.

If the list can be trusted, it looks like Canucks had Gormley, Gudbranson, and Fowler in that order. That's hardly being out to lunch. There were some who had those players in that order. That's actually how I remember having it as well. Fact is both Gormley and Fowler dropped in the draft, but nobody would have blinked an eye if Gormley went 4th overall that year. Who else on defense were absolutely off the board as first round picks? Melchiori and McNally for sure. Certainly not Merrill. The forwards list look fine to me. Goaltending wise the Canucks had Campbell and Visentin as the top two goalies and that's exactly how it went. Corbiel-Therault? Well he was ranked 34th by RLR and was ranked 3rd among NA goalies in midseason rankings but slipped. Louis Domingue was one spot behind him in the midseason rankings and finished 5th among NA goaltenders and in hindsight I don't have a problem with drafting him ahead of Pickard and Wedgewood. Fredrik Petterson was ranked #2 among Euro goalies by CS.

It's clear that the Canucks' scouting haven't been good. There have been years were the Canucks seem to have overvalued QMJHL players and especially goalies. But like I said, unlike previous GMs, Gillis has attempted to address problems. There was a significant restructuring of the amateur staff this past year.
 

Hammer Time

Registered User
May 3, 2011
3,957
10
Goalie prospects are wastes of picks IMO.

Way too volatile to spend high draft picks on. I like what we're doing in net, at least systematically.

Not to mention you can always sign the best goalies in Europe after they've proven themselves there. The Ducks have gotten their current top 3 goalies this way.

So I feel I need to dig deeper here, especially with the Thornton comment. It's clear you've got a motive.

Kings won a Cup. Let us look at some things that occurred on their way to get their:

Let's start in 2005: Kopitar fell into their laps...are fault, credit where it's due. Same with Quick in the 3rd nice pick. Let's not forget JMFJ, who forced a move out of Carolina. Another 3rd overall pick ends up on the Kings.

Still a bottom 10 in the league in 2005-2006. Another highish pick (11th) they take Bernier and the 2nd time eligible Trevor Lewis in the first round. Decent draft.

Finish the season with the 3rd worst record in 2006-2007. A lottery pick. The take Thomas Hickey. He's in the league now, but it could be one of the worst top 5 picks of all times. The also got a solid 2/3 tweener in Wayne Simmonds that year.

That's what happens when you suck, early picks at the beginning of rounds every year.

2007-2008 things got even worse record wise, but clearly finishing tied as the worst team in the league benefitted them. The lose the lottery, have 3 picks in the first 32 including 2nd overall. The hit on the 1st and 3rd (Teubert busting doesn't matter with that many early picks, especially when a franchise d-man is 2nd overall).

2008-2009. Bottom 5 team in the league. Draft a top kid in Brayden Schenn. Good pick, hard to miss in the top 5. Had 8 picks in this draft.

2009-2010 the kids are finally starting to come of age. They make the playoffs. It's the first time since 2002 (8 years) they haven't had a pick in the top 15. This is a key point.

Now being bad to mediocre for so long allowed the Kings (very similar story here with the Hawks) to accumulate youth. The currency to get better quickly in the NHL.

It finally came together for them to win a cup in 2012. Why? They moved a 3rd overall (top 4 dman), a 5th overall (top prospect outside the NHL at the time), that developed 2/3 tweener, and an abundance of picks and prospects to go out and add two established top line players in the league.

IF YOU THINK THE CANUCKS ARE IN ANY WHERE NEAR THE SAME PART OF THEIR CYCLE AS THE KINGS I JUST DONT KNOW WHAT TO SAY.

This isn't to say the Canucks are great drafters or developers, but for me, with what they've iced as a roster, and what they've accomplished during that time, I'd say their probably in the mid level of all NHL teams. Definitely a lot of room to improve.

I won't dig deep into the Hawks, but 2007 they got a 1st overall, 2006, 3rd overall...they got cornerstone studs.

We got ours in 1999.

Comparing our team to the Chicago's and LA's is a losing battle from the start....we didn't have losing teams this decade, they did. They're cores are substantially younger, and they had an abundance of moveable assets, similar to the Kings to continually roll over their roster with youth. That is just something we could never do.

Has nothing to do with the GM, just the ripeness of the team. One more win in 2011, and this doesn't get debated as hard....but comparing 25 year old avg age rosters to ours is unfair, and frankly, I don't expect it to stop. A franchise that's never won a thing, but we're entitled to compete for the cup every year, whilst still drafting top line talent from the bottom of every round.

I don't really think the Kings drafting has been particularly good. I mean, anyone could have taken Doughty at 2nd overall, and their other lottery picks (Hickey? B. Schenn with OEL and Kadri the next 2 picks?) don't look good in hindsight either.

The trading, however, has been amazing: Lombardi is one of the best GMs in the league at taking advantage of GMs who have given up on their players. Williams for O'Sullivan (Rutherford), Richards for Schenn and Simmonds (Holmgren), Johnson for Carter (Howson). Those 3 trades would supply one-half of their Cup winning top 6.
 

biturbo19

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
25,156
10,137
Not to mention you can always sign the best goalies in Europe after they've proven themselves there. The Ducks have gotten their current top 3 goalies this way.

I wouldn't necessarily say that, or that drafting goaltending prospects is a 'waste'. You just have to be targeting the right ones (easier said than done).

But you bring up the Ducks and their 'current top 3 goalies'...but you don't have to scan to hard to notice they spent a high pick near the top of the 2nd round on John Gibson and look to have hit it out of the park. Tremendous value on that pick based on where he's at already as a prospect.

And looking around the NHL, there are plenty of FA signings out of Europe, later picks who went the college route, etc. But there are also a pretty healthy contingent of the very best goaltenders in the league who were 1st rounders.

I just don't think you can say 'spending picks on goaltenders is a waste' or 'poor value', much more than you can say 'spending high picks on defencemen is a waste'. The bottom line is the quality of scouting...sure goaltending prospects are somewhat volatile (as are blueliners), but you can't let that scare you off completely. If they really are the best prospect on the board, it doesn't make sense to bypass them just because some teams have drafted goaltending duds in the past.

Especially when you look at the going rate on a high end young goaltender, even our own personal Canucks style example of this, with the Schneider trade. Whether or not that was 'fair value' for him...even a 9th overall pick is a nice 'value' on a 'wasted goaltender pick'.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->