Do you trust Mike Gillis with a rebuild?

[RandV]

It's something that's been piling on since the early 2000s.

We were a competitive team battling for a playoff spot for the most part.
We didn't have our own developed prospects, so you had to trade picks to get other team's players.
Well now you don't have the draft picks to start developing your own players.

It just kept piling on, and you can see it collapsing now

I've always likened it to accruing debt, where a deadline rental is like taking out a loan.

Burke actually had a lot of picks, but did horribly with them. Nonis compensated by making loads of deadline trades, and is the one that really brought our numbers down. Gillis first draft 2008 was left over to Nonis, so that gets moved back from him. Otherwise he hasn't been too bad.

The only 'bad' draft for Gillis concerning number of picks was 2010, but after that for the last 3 seasons we've been 1 below par. Meaning we've had one less draft pick than we started with. This upcoming draft we're only missing a 4th, but it's very likely that at least one more pick will get added.

 

[tantalum]

Man-games played by players drafted between 2006-2010:
28th with 585 (lowest is Dallas w 206 and Calgary w 463)
Highest is St. Louis w 2333 and LA w 2237.

Is this man games of current roster players on those teams or the man games of the guys that team drafted between those years?

If man games by guys they drafted I get 2428 for the Blues (regular season). 1810 of those come from the 2006 and 2007 drafts (~75%). Of the remaining games a #4 overall pick in 2008 has half of them. Then they hit a couple of gems in Schwartz and Tarasenko in 2010 and they are now in their first full years.

In other words, 87% of the man games played by Blues draft picks have come in the pre-2008 drafts and Pietrangelo (a blue chip #4 pick). Which given we are holding this Blues team up as a pinnacle of drafting success (scouting or number of picks or for whatever other reason), really shows that it's pretty much too early to be expecting much of anything from ANY Gillis picks at this point (his picks from 2008-2010 have played over 300 games. Not the 600 games the Blues have but he didn't have a Pietrangelo. Hodgson has played close to what Schwartz and Tarasenko have combined).


Certainly more picks is going to lead to a better chance of success. No real argument there, but I'm guessing if you looked at many of the other top teams it would be like St. Louis. The 2006/2007 players dominate the games played.

 

[Lundface*]

Is this man games of current roster players on those teams or the man games of the guys that team drafted between those years?

If man games by guys they drafted I get 2428 for the Blues (regular season). 1810 of those come from the 2006 and 2007 drafts (~75%). Of the remaining games a #4 overall pick in 2008 has half of them. Then they hit a couple of gems in Schwartz and Tarasenko in 2010 and they are now in their first full years.

In other words, 87% of the man games played by Blues draft picks have come in the pre-2008 drafts and Pietrangelo (a blue chip #4 pick). Which given we are holding this Blues team up as a pinnacle of drafting success (scouting or number of picks or for whatever other reason), really shows that it's pretty much too early to be expecting much of anything from ANY Gillis picks at this point (his picks from 2008-2010 have played over 300 games. Not the 600 games the Blues have but he didn't have a Pietrangelo. Hodgson has played close to what Schwartz and Tarasenko have combined).


Certainly more picks is going to lead to a better chance of success. No real argument there, but I'm guessing if you looked at many of the other top teams it would be like St. Louis. The 2006/2007 players dominate the games played.

I found the exact same thing...even the "good" drafting teams like Chicago during Gillis' tenure have only had hits with TONS of picks. Saad is a perfect example, with picks before even he was selected. Van had 1 pick in that same span, how can you compare the two clubs?

To expand on this: For me personally having no picks in 2010 sucked but it was well worth it since those picks went towards an eventual Stanley cup chance, as did picks in 2011. But what did all those wasted picks go towards when Nonis missed the playoffs 2/3 years? He burnt picks just to try and chase the playoffs.

Contrast that to what Gillis did. The team was 50/50 but instead of burning picks on trash, he gained a pick and stayed pat. Now going into this draft atleast with a low seeding Van will also have its 1/2/3 round picks still there to make.

 

[CanaFan]

Is this man games of current roster players on those teams or the man games of the guys that team drafted between those years?

If man games by guys they drafted I get 2428 for the Blues (regular season). 1810 of those come from the 2006 and 2007 drafts (~75%). Of the remaining games a #4 overall pick in 2008 has half of them. Then they hit a couple of gems in Schwartz and Tarasenko in 2010 and they are now in their first full years.

In other words, 87% of the man games played by Blues draft picks have come in the pre-2008 drafts and Pietrangelo (a blue chip #4 pick). Which given we are holding this Blues team up as a pinnacle of drafting success (scouting or number of picks or for whatever other reason), really shows that it's pretty much too early to be expecting much of anything from ANY Gillis picks at this point (his picks from 2008-2010 have played over 300 games. Not the 600 games the Blues have but he didn't have a Pietrangelo. Hodgson has played close to what Schwartz and Tarasenko have combined).


Certainly more picks is going to lead to a better chance of success. No real argument there, but I'm guessing if you looked at many of the other top teams it would be like St. Louis. The 2006/2007 players dominate the games played.

I got the numbers from Hockeydb for all games played (not just with their drafting team) so I don't know if they are updated for the current season, but your point holds true either way.

 

[Wisp]

My favorite Gillis 'getting more picks' was getting a 2013 third back when he traded for Booth for Samuelson and Sturm.

We traded it for Higgins for the cup run, got it back for almost free, and drafted Cole Cassels with it.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

My favorite Gillis 'getting more picks' was getting a 2013 third back when he traded for Booth for Samuelson and Sturm.

We traded it for Higgins for the cup run, got it back for almost free, and drafted Cole Cassels with it.

I'd forgotten about that. At the time it seemed like a bit of a throw in with the Booth deal. Now it may lead to a real NHL player.

 

[tiny103]

I will always be impressed with Gillis for one thing:

He actually convinced someone to take Patrick White.

 

[Ernie]

I will always be impressed with Gillis for one thing:

He actually convinced someone to take Patrick White.

Patrick White had the value of a 2nd round pick. Nothing more to it than that.

 

[CanaFan]

if someone wanted to do a real study they should consult this

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2013/4/25/4262594/nhl-draft-pick-value-trading-up

and add up the total value of every pick by every team over the past 7 or 8 years and see where teams arrive

Good article, I may try that if I get some time to swap the weighted values in for each team's actual picks.

 

[VC]

And in those drafts Vancouver had 14 picks in the top 3 rounds while Detroit had 22.

It really does help to have more lottery tickets, bound to at least have little odds to win something. Detroit does seem to have a good eye for players that they will be able to develop within their system. With the Canucks owning the Comets should help with the development process if they continue to identify players that they can work with.

Next season with the Comets should give a good look at what Gillis has already started with restocking the organization.

 

[biturbo19]

Honestly, hearing the recent Gillis radio show interview, i actually do have some renewed confidence in his ability to carry on as the GM of this team.

It's the first time in a long time that i've heard him truly admit and own up to a mistake. And it's a big one. As Gillis admitted, he has gotten away from what it was that made this team successful and the way he wanted to build a team. If he is truly, genuinely at a place where he realizes that mistake and is willing to re-embrace that philosophy from when he first arrived here...i think he could turn things around quickly, and a "rebuild" isn't at all necessary.

The fact that he recognizes the problem with this team in the last couple years and where he has taken it, and is willing to admit that...i'll give him the benefit of the doubt for next year at least, in that he has built successful teams in that mold before here. If he can truly get back to doing what made him so successful and took this team to within one game of a Stanley Cup...then i trust him with the team next year.

 

[Wisp]

Biturbo, your post about learning from mistakes reminds me of one of my biggest worries I have about getting a new GM: 'what mistakes will we suffer while he learns on the job?' Vancouver's a unique market that a GM who apprenticed in Anaheim or Detroit might be blindsided by (drama of course is inherent).

I also prefer the guy who has 'I-told-yah-so' ammo versus a meddlesome owner..

 

[F A N]

I'm wondering what "style of play" means as far as the draft goes. Gillis did acquire Mathias so does that mean Gillis is still into acquiring guys who are big, fast, and skilled?

I was actually in support of Gillis chasing moving goal posts. I thought that instead of blindly believing in one style of play, the team should change with the times and employ a style of play that works. But I suppose the best franchises have a style of play in mind and stick to it.

 

[PZA*]

Honest question... I'm honestly shocked how hard the Canucks have fallen after dominating the West for several years, what the happened?

 

[Hammer79]

Honest question... I'm honestly shocked how hard the Canucks have fallen after dominating the West for several years, what the happened?

Cap crunch led to only minor signings over the summer and forced Schneider deal. A string of injuries to our best players, Hanzal ended Santorelli's season and knocked Henrik out with a rib injury. Epic slumps by key players, Burrows and Daniel for starters. Garrison and Edler on D had mediocre seasons. Combine that with some jitters from our rookie #1 after the Luongo trade. Also there was the 6 game suspension to Torts while the team continued to struggle. Goal scoring went on an epic drought. Lately they have been scoring more, but giving up way too many prime chances.

 

[Wisp]

I'm wondering what "style of play" means as far as the draft goes. Gillis did acquire Mathias so does that mean Gillis is still into acquiring guys who are big, fast, and skilled?

I was actually in support of Gillis chasing moving goal posts. I thought that instead of blindly believing in one style of play, the team should change with the times and employ a style of play that works. But I suppose the best franchises have a style of play in mind and stick to it.

Why can't size co-exist with skill?

This is a GM who selected Shinkaruk right after selecting Bo Horvat.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Honest question... I'm honestly shocked how hard the Canucks have fallen after dominating the West for several years, what the happened?

GM who sat on his ass not adding to the core because he felt his team was good enough, despite the signs that this team originally needed some tweaking before needing a bigger overhaul due to the problems getting bigger every year.

 

[F A N]

Why can't size co-exist with skill?

This is a GM who selected Shinkaruk right after selecting Bo Horvat.

Size can co-exist with skill and I think last year's draft was actually a departure from the two previous years where there was a clear preference for bigger guys.

 

[RandV]

Honest question... I'm honestly shocked how hard the Canucks have fallen after dominating the West for several years, what the happened?

Remember the Torts/Calgary locker room thing? That was coming off an extremely tough and condensed 6 (or so) road trip through California where the team started getting banged up and ended up losing most of those games. Then Torts goes and gets himself suspended for 7 games, at which point things spiraled out of control from a bad two weeks to a bad two months.

That's just this season though. Looking at the bigger picture keep in mind that our star players started 'dominating' the West when they were 30, while our competition has star players that are much younger.

 

[Street Hawk]

Is this man games of current roster players on those teams or the man games of the guys that team drafted between those years?

If man games by guys they drafted I get 2428 for the Blues (regular season). 1810 of those come from the 2006 and 2007 drafts (~75%). Of the remaining games a #4 overall pick in 2008 has half of them. Then they hit a couple of gems in Schwartz and Tarasenko in 2010 and they are now in their first full years.

In other words, 87% of the man games played by Blues draft picks have come in the pre-2008 drafts and Pietrangelo (a blue chip #4 pick). Which given we are holding this Blues team up as a pinnacle of drafting success (scouting or number of picks or for whatever other reason), really shows that it's pretty much too early to be expecting much of anything from ANY Gillis picks at this point (his picks from 2008-2010 have played over 300 games. Not the 600 games the Blues have but he didn't have a Pietrangelo. Hodgson has played close to what Schwartz and Tarasenko have combined).


Certainly more picks is going to lead to a better chance of success. No real argument there, but I'm guessing if you looked at many of the other top teams it would be like St. Louis. The 2006/2007 players dominate the games played.

Vancouver's picks from 2006-2010 that are in the NHL right now are:

Grabner - 2006 first rounder
Hodgson - 2008 first rounder
Schroeder - 2009 first rounder

A few others over that time frame have gotten a cup of coffee, which includes the likes of K. Conn, Sauve, but overall that's pretty darn weak for an organization that was only able to pick 3 guys who are now between 22-26 years of age in the NHL.

So, to the original question, do I trust MG to rebuild this team? I have a difficult time envisioning it because he's handed out multiple NTC deals. Unless he is able to move some of them out, I can't see how this team is going to get the facelift it needs.

I still can't fathom why this former agent didn't use leverage against the twins. You have 2 skilled players who don't have speed and whose production have dropped over the past 2 seasons. Why not see how this entire season played out before trying to extend them? Should he be worried about losing them? Yes, but also factor in, that these 2 want to continue to play together, like they have for the past 15 plus years of their pro careers. How many NHL teams have $12 million in cap space coming up and need both a Centre and a winger to fit into their top 6? Pretty slim pickings IMO.

So, there was no rush to extend the twins until they should that they could reverse the trend of decreasing offensive production. Now, the team is saddled with a pair of $7 million players who are the face of the franchise. Their best days are behind them now.

If the twins were not extended, then this club could be made over and go in a new direction.

 

[Wisp]

Street Hawk, I'd rather young players have the Sedins as mentors than have no one.


This is our top six forward situation:
Sedin-Sedin-X
x-Kesler-x

It's a four year time frame. Even if the Sedin twins are reduced to living skeletons - and I don't believe they are - it's unlikely we will acquire more than one young 'face lift' star player in that time frame, but there will be room for three. And certainly not room for six that you insist the Sedin's presence would be blocking.

 

[Street Hawk]

Street Hawk, I'd rather young players have the Sedins as mentors than have no one.


This is our top six forward situation:
Sedin-Sedin-X
x-Kesler-x

It's a four year time frame. Even if the Sedin twins are reduced to living skeletons - and I don't believe they are - it's unlikely we will acquire more than one young 'face lift' star player in that time frame, but there will be room for three. And certainly not room for six that you insist the Sedin's presence would be blocking.

Sedins as mentors... well, you and I will have opposing views on that point.

I respect what they have done for the franchise for all of these years. I just think $7 million per season over the next 4 years is major overpayment. Basically, Gillis did what Tom Hicks did with ARod all those years ago, when he basically outside himself. Was there another team that was going to have $14 million in cap room and needing both a centre and winger for their top 6? Gillis should have played that hand.

As for young players that the twins might be blocking, there are:

Horvat, Shinkaruk, Jensen.

See what return comes back for Kesler and whether Kassian develops his consistency to get into the top 6. That's 3 players, 1 legit maybe and 1 unknown at this time. Plus there's the upcoming draft where outside of Ekblad, there's only 1 Dman rated into the top 10 and that's Haydn Fluery from Red Deer. See what they do.

Schroeder, probably best he move onto another team.

I look at it from the POV that if the Nucks want to change their make up of their team, I think the twins have to move on.

 

[iFan]

So Gillis wants to be a offensive team again lol gets here and wants to change the team which worked out great, lose game 7 of the SCF and he wanted to change to a big, defensive, tough team, which we aren't, and it has ****ed us since and now wants to change back... At least he knows what style this team should be playing now but its a bit late given their age and decline and likely confidence shattered. Given this back and forth with the system and trading Schneider and calling Luongo our #1 only to move Luongo too within a year it's looking like a complete disarray with management. I'd give Gillis another chance cause he has done good as a GM when he first got here, but he needs to stick with the plan and stop this side show ****.

 

[CanucksSayEh]

If Boston or LA wins again, Gillis will change his mind, and trade Henrik for Kyle Clifford.

 

[biturbo19]

Biturbo, your post about learning from mistakes reminds me of one of my biggest worries I have about getting a new GM: 'what mistakes will we suffer while he learns on the job?' Vancouver's a unique market that a GM who apprenticed in Anaheim or Detroit might be blindsided by (drama of course is inherent).

I also prefer the guy who has 'I-told-yah-so' ammo versus a meddlesome owner..

This is a very astute set of points.

We all know Gillis has made mistakes, but the key here, is that he seems to have learned from them. Maybe. The whole "chasing moving goalposts" is what i've seen from his moves since the cup finals loss. And i haven't agree with very many of them...but if he's willing to go back to the mindset that brought us moves which took us to the Cup Finals...that's something. A new GM coming in as a fresh faced 1st time GM may have similar ideas...but what happens if he gets caught up in the whole flow of things and diverts course to chase the pack like Gillis did? A brand new GM is going to be a roll of the dice, just as much as Gillis is next year...with the caveat that Gillis has actually done this before, and done it very well. I'm willing to bank another year on him finding his way again and re-establishing this team as the sort of outfit it was before he went off on some BIG SIZE RAWR tangent and inadvertently sabotaged what made this team great.

And the other point re: ownership is something to consider as well. IF the Tortorella hire, and prior to that the Luongo deal was indeed meddlesome ownership playing into the hockey process...then absolutely, Gillis has the ammunition to say, "**** Aquas all of your ideas have been disastrous just let me run the team my way". Though at this point, it's really all just speculation.