Well, you had made it a point to single Grabner out as a selection that showed how superior pre-Gillis drafting was, so I'm not sure what we're to make of that since you were arguing that Canucks drafting was "decent."
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=112043589&highlight=#post112043589
This was a post made 2 days ago. The implication being here that Grabner was a "decent" pick, and he was included in a list of players that was meant to be complimentary towards the Canucks "pre-Gillis" drafting.
I did not 'single' Grabner out. I listed him as a player who made it to the NHL during the draft years preceding Gillis. You are reaching here by now projecting some sort of view that I thought Grabner was a '"savvy" pick. We are looking at the drafting as a whole.
Before going on to talk about a 6 year span under Gillis. Which is why I pointed out the fact that there were 3 drafts in prior to Gillis that produced 0 NHL players with far more draft picks, because you were arguing that the Canucks drafting was "average" prior to Gillis coming in and mucking things up beyond recognition.
I'd argue that he more or less stayed the course with the Canucks drafting and it continued to be mediocre. I'd also give him some leeway because expectations for a portion of that time were pushing for the Stanley Cup, so assets were going to be surrendered. This is something folks like to gloss over when looking at Gillis drafting record. Other factors affect what is going on.
Yes, and one of those years was back in 2000. You've cited 2000, 2002 and 2007. I'm not just focusing on one or two years in isolation - I'm looking at them as a whole. A fair approach, given that Gillis was here for 6 years, would be to look at the drafting from 2002 to 2007. In that time frame the Canucks picked 7 NHL players who played at least 100 games. Slightly better than 1 per year. Some years were better than others - 2004 was an amazing draft and 2007 was atrocious. Yes, 2002 was as well. The team did produce NHL players, which was my point. And just players - we drafted an outstanding NHL starting goalie, a top pairing defenceman, an elite two-way centre and an excellent middle six forward (Hansen).
Again - I'm not saying here that each individual pick was amazing, or that players like Grabner were amazing draft picks. The team did produce 7 players however, which thus far is much better than Gillis.
Well, this is sort of the problem I had with what you were saying. Even your most recent post in here is going "it's WAY too early to speculate on things, guys" in regards to Benning's two drafts (and it is something I 100% agree on) but we're very quick to be dismissive to Gillis' latter drafts.
Or we're inconsistent with pointing out Grabner was an "average" pick (or whatever ****ing terminology you want to use) but writing off Hodgson. They're both players with similar games played and have been in similar straits. It also ignores that Gillis went against the grain and selected Hodgson over the "obvious" pick of Kyle Beach, who ended up having a career worse than CoHo.
I'm personally of the opinion that Gillis' drafting was disappointing and that he should be criticized for it, but it is nowhere near as bad as people on here like to proclaim it as being. The Canucks really weren't cranking out NHLers on a consistent basis, outside of that 2004 draft and it is a trend that was going on long before Gillis ever arrived in Vancouver.
Fine. We do have to wait until we can accurately assess Gillis' drafting record - specifically the 2012 / 2013 draft. If we are being realistic the team
might get one NHL player out of Gaunce, Shinkaruk, and Subban. So 3 players out of 6 years, as opposed to 7 players in 6 years. As an aside - Grabner has played 3x the amount of games Hodgson has (who will be Europe bound shortly imo), and he's playing about 13 minutes per game. He is what he is - a mediocre bottom 6 player. Still has, and will have a much better NHL career than Cody however.
The point I was making is you could argue that the Canucks drafting has been consistently underwhelming, aside from a few bright spots and you can make different arguments. Also, the personnel really hasn't changed since 2000 to now (outside of Gillis shaking things up momentarily) with the same "Chief" being involved (Delorme.)
I'd probably switch to whiskey if the same scouting/drafting personnel, methodologies, etc. have been with the Canucks from the 80s until now. Granted, that's probably not far away with Benning in charge, but really, the Canucks drafting in the 80s really has no point in this conversation because it has been so long ago, the usual suspects we like to talk about aren't involved and player development, drafting strategies and approaches have changed significantly.
I don't disagree with any of this. The point I was making regarding all of this was to refute the weird spin that Gilllis' drafting was somehow this amazing gestation period and in actuality he was secretly revolutionizing the way NHL teams draft so that it was all worth it. He wasn't, and it certainly was not.
