Confirmed with Link: Canucks draft F Hunter Shinkaruk 24th Overall (1st Round)

[timw33]

Which first rounder have we selected "off the board" when Gillis was in charge. Schroeder was most certainly the BPA, Hodgson was in his year and both Bo and Hunter were this year

That's precisely my point, we were thinking taking the BPA in Hodgson was too good to be true, but Gillis has made it a recurring theme and it's showing to be a better strategy than Nonis'

 

[Pip]

That's precisely my point, we were thinking taking the BPA in Hodgson was too good to be true, but Gillis has made it a recurring theme and it's showing to be a better strategy than Nonis'

ahh my mistake. I agree

 

[Bleach Clean]

Which first rounder have we selected "off the board" when Gillis was in charge. Schroeder was most certainly the BPA, Hodgson was in his year and both Bo and Hunter were this year

Bo actually was not the BPA. Jensen wasn't either, as Saad and Grimaldi ranked higher per Mackenzie's list. The point is though that Gillis, seemingly, still gets great value at his position in the 1st due to "common sense" selections. No reaches.

 

[Tiranis]

Bo actually was not the BPA. Jensen wasn't either, as Saad and Grimaldi ranked higher per Mackenzie's list. The point is though that Gillis, seemingly, still gets great value at his position in the 1st due to "common sense" selections. No reaches.

Depends on how you consider BPA, I guess. They were both ranked very close to the spot we picked them at. Closer than Bourdon even and that was the least off the board pick by Nonis.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Depends on how you consider BPA, I guess. They were both ranked very close to the spot we picked them at. Closer than Bourdon even and that was the least off the board pick by Nonis.

BPA per consensus lists, is the explanation I've seen on here. In that sense, Bo and Jensen were not clear BPAs. Hodgson, Schroeder and Gaunce were.

Nonis was more off the board, no doubt.

 

[Pip]

Bo actually was not the BPA. Jensen wasn't either, as Saad and Grimaldi ranked higher per Mackenzie's list. The point is though that Gillis, seemingly, still gets great value at his position in the 1st due to "common sense" selections. No reaches.

I guess you're technically right, but I would still say we picked BPA. Maybe it's just because I have a looser definition of the term BPA, but if the two players are comparable I wouldn't say we necessarily passed over the best player avaliable because it is debatable who that player is.

 

[AmazingNuck]

BPA per consensus lists, is the explanation I've seen on here. In that sense, Bo and Jensen were not clear BPAs. Hodgson, Schroeder and Gaunce were.

Nonis was more off the board, no doubt.

The Canucks employ their own scouts, which means they have their own ranking of players to draft, so BPA is a pretty misused term around here.

Has anyone ever seen the Canucks' draft rankings? I highly doubt Nonis or Gillis looked at their own scouts' rankings and decided to not draft according to the top of those rankings.

 

[StringerBell]

The Canucks employ their own scouts, which means they have their own ranking of players to draft, so BPA is a pretty misused term around here.

Has anyone ever seen the Canucks' draft rankings? I highly doubt Nonis or Gillis looked at their own scouts' rankings and decided to not draft according to the top of those rankings.

Unfortunately, yes.

 

[AmazingNuck]

Unfortunately, yes.

Where? I'd like to see a copy.


http://canucksarmy.com/2013/6/24/did-the-canucks-post-their-2010-draft-board


McNally at 26th? Available on our first pick, taken with our first pick.

My point isn't that the Canucks are a great drafting team. My point is that the Canucks have a ranking of players, and whoever is on top of that list is "BPA" according to the Canucks. So, in a way, the Canucks have drafted "BPA" with every one of their picks.

 

[Tables of Stats]

Unfortunately, yes.

You see them for one year and we don't know if that was a single scout's list or a team list. It was also a list from before the scouting organization's overhaul was too far in. We haven't seen anything to this point.

 

[BenningHurtsMySoul]

Where? I'd like to see a copy.

You really don't.

 

[AmazingNuck]

You really don't.

Too late.

Pretty terrible list. At least Gillis selects from the top of that list.

 

[Pip]

Too late.

Pretty terrible list. At least Gillis selects from the top of that list.

something to take into account, and was brought up in the thread on the prospects board about this very list. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=67960489#post67960489

I know this is Vancouvers list, and Montreal fans have mini-hijacked the thread, but there are two things that Timmins has said in the past that proves that everyone's list is different.

1) They only make a list of about 75 players they want to draft, which means that they know that their list will be quite different than everyone elses since they only rank about 35% of the total players picked.

2) When asked about players after they drafted them, the interviewer brings up CS or ISS rankings, Timmins is oblivious to what those rankings are and has said that those rankings are really just a guide to make sure they have scouted all the players that are available that year.

So it should not be surprising that teams get guys in the 5th or 6th round that they have first or second round grades on. All teams have different criteria for drafting and put different weights on things like IQ, shot, skating,size, weight, fighting, intangibles, compete level, family values, College program they will attend, coaching quality of their club teams to help them progress, etc...

This is why I get angry when I see posters state things so matter of fact about prospects and where they will be picked, there are so many possibilities that it is impossible to say "There is no chance so and so is there in the second round", or "so and so is a horrible pick at #8" after a club reaches from the concensus.

 

[yoss]

I'm just glad we didn't end up with Feaster's BPA at #22.

Or (I believe) Washington's at 23 for that matter or Toronto's before both of those. Not that I know anything about the kid really, but I'm liking what I've been reading about his offensive upside.

Who can say how it all pans out of course.

 

[Hodgy]

BPA per consensus lists, is the explanation I've seen on here. In that sense, Bo and Jensen were not clear BPAs. Hodgson, Schroeder and Gaunce were.

Nonis was more off the board, no doubt.

I find it amusing that you are adopting the customary practice....

 

[Bleach Clean]

I find it amusing that you are adopting the customary practice....

Still sore are we? When there's no definitive source, custom is all there is.

Probably best that I do not respond to any more posts of this ilk because they will derail the thread.

 

[Callhee]

Hunter is blogging his prospect camp experience if anyone is interested.

http://canucks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=677117

Seems as if he and Horvat are getting along well, would love to see a line of Shinkaruk-Horvat-?.

 

[arsmaster*]

Hunter is blogging his prospect camp experience if anyone is interested.

http://canucks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=677117

Seems as if he and Horvat are getting along well, would love to see a line of Shinkaruk-Horvat-?.

Not me.

My dream is the Canucks future 2nd line is Gaunce-Horvat-Kassian.....obviously with hopes Shinkaruk-Kesler-Jensen become the 1st.

 

[Callhee]

Not me.

My dream is the Canucks future 2nd line is Gaunce-Horvat-Kassian.....obviously with hopes Shinkaruk-Kesler-Jensen become the 1st.

I meant for the prospects camp and Young stars tournament. But yeah, a Shinkaruk-Kesler-Jensen line sounds pretty good too, but it looks as if there are too many shooters, who's going to set up the shot? Maybe Shinkaruk-Kesler-Kassian?

 

[Wisp]

Not me.

My dream is the Canucks future 2nd line is Gaunce-Horvat-Kassian.....obviously with hopes Shinkaruk-Kesler-Jensen become the 1st.

I try to avoid throwing out line-ups like this because you never know how much the roster changes by the time these kids are ready to play in the top 6. Like, you're assuming the Sedins depart, but it's also possible the Sedin's hang around and their game ages much better than Kesler's and he departs. Or maybe they both stay and we can overload the top six. Or maybe all three are gone and we're forced to start an aggressive youth movement.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I was thinking something like this:

Shinkaruk-Horvat-Kesler
Jensen-Schroeder-Kassian
Burrows-Gaunce-Hansen

 

[PhilMick]

I was thinking something like this:

Shinkaruk-Horvat-Kesler
Jensen-Schroeder-Kassian
Burrows-Gaunce-Hansen

That would be so glorious if their career trajectories worked out that way, man alive. ****, I'd be happy if even half the prospects there panned out.

 

[701]

I try to avoid throwing out line-ups like this because you never know how much the roster changes by the time these kids are ready to play in the top 6. Like, you're assuming the Sedins depart, but it's also possible the Sedin's hang around and their game ages much better than Kesler's and he departs. Or maybe they both stay and we can overload the top six. Or maybe all three are gone and we're forced to start an aggressive youth movement.

Not to mention the continuing annual draft yield of players, at least some of them likely to be forwards in the Schroeder, Jensen, Gaunce, Shinkaruk range of quality now that we have reliably decent drafting. So the lineup schemes will always be evolving by addition as well as attrition.

 

[y2kcanucks]

That would be so glorious if their career trajectories worked out that way, man alive. ****, I'd be happy if even half the prospects there panned out.

Agreed. It's highly highly highly unlikely we ever see that lineup, but it gives us something to get excited about at least. A far cry from the days of Nathan Barrett and Jesse Schultz.

 

[arsmaster*]

PRNuck, love the avatar.