Have the canucks quietly built up a solid prospect pool?

[tradervik]

Harman Dayal did a detailed statistical analysis of draft effectiveness for all NHL teams from 2014 to 2017 and I think the conclusion is that the Canucks have drafted some excellent players but, when you factor in the expected value based on draft position, their record is slightly below average and the prospect pool is not quite as strong as you would expect it to be. In particular, the Canucks have failed to draft any impact players outside the 1st round. 22 teams have managed to do so with the best teams being Tampa Bay, Boston, and Nashville.

Link: Behind the Numbers: An analysis of every NHL team’s recent... (paywall)

 

[CanaFan]

I don't think you realize how bad the Gillis era was at drafting. Gillis is in the running for worst drafting GM in the history of the NHL. There is a pretty good thread on the main boards where someone ranked teams drafting. Starting in 2008 the Gillis era drafting was worst in NHL. Benning era is middle of the pack. The startling thing was if you lump the two eras together the Canucks are at the bottom again. Gillis's drafting is sooo bad that completely negates the average to above drafting that Benning has done. And here you are stating that Gillis's drafting was bad because of regular season success. lol

Because it pretty much is.

What excellent drafting has Benning done outside of his #6, #5, #5, and #7 picks?

Boeser?

and ?

 

[Hoghandler]

I don't think you realize how bad the Gillis era was at drafting. Gillis is in the running for worst drafting GM in the history of the NHL.

This is what I find most fascinating. So many people go out of their way to gloss over just how poor of a position this organisation was in the day Gillis was fired. As if it's some big mystery why there has been a dark period over the last 5 years. The current age cohort of players drafted during Gillis' tenure is 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30. What, are we supposed to be competitive with a complete dearth of drafted players in this age range?

Mike couldn't find a sniff of talent with 4 late 1st rd picks. Benning is 2 for 2 with late 1st rd picks. Draft position doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[CanaFan]

This is what I find most fascinating. So many people go out of their way to gloss over just how poor of a position this organisation was in the day Gillis was fired. As if it's some big mystery why there has been a dark period over the last 5 years. The current age cohort of players drafted during Gillis' tenure is 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30. What, are we supposed to be competitive with a complete dearth of drafted players in this age range?

Mike couldn't find a sniff of talent with 4 late 1st rd picks. Benning is 2 for 2 with late 1st rd picks. Draft position doesn't tell the whole story.

How is Benning 2 for 2? He gave one away for a defenseman who half the league could see was garbage long before he ever did. From the same draft that he used a #6 pick on a 3rd liner.

Doesn’t sound like he can judge talent based on that.

 

[Upoil]

How long does Benning get before Gillis isn't an excuse anymore? Asking for a friend.

 

[Hoghandler]

How is Benning 2 for 2? He gave one away for a defenseman who half the league could see was garbage long before he ever did. From the same draft that he used a #6 pick on a 3rd liner.

Doesn’t sound like he can judge talent based on that.

He's 2 for 2 because he drafted 2 good NHL players with his only 2 late 1st round picks. Hence the term '2 for 2'.

How many turnovers he had as a defenseman isn't relevant either.

 

[CanaFan]

He's 2 for 2 because he drafted 2 good NHL players with his only 2 late 1st round picks. Hence the term '2 for 2'.

How many turnovers he had as a defenseman isn't relevant either.

So he can judge these players when they are 17 and play junior but not when they’re 19 and playing in the NHL?

His lack of talent evaluation means we only have 1 of these 2 picks to show for it. That’s relevant.

What was Boston’s track record with late round picks while Benning was there? Any better than Gillis’?

 

[Pip]

He's 2 for 2 because he drafted 2 good NHL players with his only 2 late 1st round picks. Hence the term '2 for 2'.

How many turnovers he had as a defenseman isn't relevant either.

It seems pretty relevant as we have nothing to show for the pick.

 

[Hoghandler]

How long does Benning get before Gillis isn't an excuse anymore? Asking for a friend.

Excuse for what?

The age cohort of drafted players we would have on our roster from the Gillis era is 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30. Do you think some more talents in that age range could help us ice a more competitive team? In terms of team accomplishments, of course Gillis' failures are still haunting this organisation.

In terms of individual moves, Benning can and has always been judged based on the merits of those transactions. Hence why there has been so many poor moves, followed by criticism.

 

[racerjoe]

I am probably one of the bigger fans of Gillis on this site, I can admit the drafting under him wasn't that good.

This does nothing to show that Benning is a good drafter, and everything I have seen, from the article above to other charts shows benning as being average at best with the current Canucks.

This also doesn't look at how horrible he was in Boston during the same time frame as Gillis. The bottom line is why are we comparing the two at drafting? They were in completely different cycles of team building. Who would expect a team that was two time President trophy winning team to have as good a track record as a team that has been literally the second worst in the NHL? Forest and trees here people.

 

[Phenomenon13]

Harman Dayal did a detailed statistical analysis of draft effectiveness for all NHL teams from 2014 to 2017 and I think the conclusion is that the Canucks have drafted some excellent players but, when you factor in the expected value based on draft position, their record is slightly below average and the prospect pool is not quite as strong as you would expect it to be. In particular, the Canucks have failed to draft any impact players outside the 1st round. 22 teams have managed to do so with the best teams being Tampa Bay, Boston, and Nashville.

Link: Behind the Numbers: An analysis of every NHL team’s recent... (paywall)

Wasn't there a post before that said we are average at drafting but we just werent used to it so some people see Benning as some sort of draft god.

 

[Phenomenon13]

I am probably one of the bigger fans of Gillis on this site, I can admit the drafting under him wasn't that good.

This does nothing to show that Benning is a good drafter, and everything I have seen, from the article above to other charts shows benning as being average at best with the current Canucks.

This also doesn't look at how horrible he was in Boston during the same time frame as Gillis. The bottom line is why are we comparing the two at drafting? They were in completely different cycles of team building. Who would expect a team that was two time President trophy winning team to have as good a track record as a team that has been literally the second worst in the NHL? Forest and trees here people.

I've seen the argument made before.

The comparison is made to show that Bruins drafting has become better since Benning left and that Bruins have actually produced nhl players more efficiently than the Canucks when comparing expected value. I believe it's used to show that Benning wasn't the main reason why the Bruins drafted so well but that's my take on it based on how it was presented.

I dont believe we should use this comparison as it's quite limited. I think if you want to properly assess the drafting prowess of the Canucks than you have to compare it league wide like the Harman article.

 

[racerjoe]

I've seen the argument made before.

The comparison is made to show that Bruins drafting has become better since Benning left and that Bruins have actually produced nhl players more efficiently than the Canucks when comparing expected value. I believe it's used to show that Benning wasn't the main reason why the Bruins drafted so well but that's my take on it based on how it was presented.

I dont believe we should use this comparison as it's quite limited. I think if you want to properly assess the drafting prowess of the Canucks than you have to compare it league wide like the Harman article.

Sure, either way I haven't seen anything that says we are above average.

 

[Hoghandler]

So he can judge these players when they are 17 and play junior but not when they’re 19 and playing in the NHL?

His lack of talent evaluation means we only have 1 of these 2 picks to show for it. That’s relevant.

The issue was not with the drafting. This discussion is about the merits of our drafting. Trades and free agency aren't relevant.

If you're arguing we didn't go 2 for 2 at the draft, you're going to have to explain what mistakes were made on the draft floor, or leading up to the selection.

Am I happy we had pro scouts clamouring for Erik Gudbranson for years? No. The lack of talent evaluation from the pro scouting group is a separate issue. Unrelated to our draft.

It seems pretty relevant as we have nothing to show for the pick.

It's not relevant. Draft picks are always judged on their own merits. If Brock Boeser gets dealt for Griffin Reinhart we're not going to circle back and question the Boeser pick.

 

[John Johnson]

You still ignore the fact it’s extremely unlikely EP would’ve been available at much lower in the 1st round. We got him as a result of drafting relatively high.

He was ranked outside of the top 10 by quite a few pundits, most people thought we were reaching.

 

[racerjoe]

The issue was not with the drafting. This discussion is about the merits of our drafting. Trades and free agency aren't relevant.

If you're arguing we didn't go 2 for 2 at the draft, you're going to have to explain what mistakes were made on the draft floor, or leading up to the selection.

Am I happy we had pro scouts clamouring for Erik Gudbranson for years? No. The lack of talent evaluation from the pro scouting group is a separate issue. Unrelated to our draft.



It's not relevant. Draft picks are always judged on their own merits. If Brock Boeser gets dealt for Griffin Reinhart we're not going to circle back and question the Boeser pick.

How about the fact there was a clear better player drafted directly after the player we selected that Benning former team snapped up? I mean I would assume the team Benning was with all year he would have seen him play? Does that count?

 

[Upoil]

Excuse for what?

The age cohort of drafted players we would have on our roster from the Gillis era is 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30. Do you think some more talents in that age range could help us ice a more competitive team? In terms of team accomplishments, of course Gillis' failures are still haunting this organisation.

In terms of individual moves, Benning can and has always been judged based on the merits of those transactions. Hence why there has been so many poor moves, followed by criticism.

Ok.

Gillis was in charge for 6 years. This has resulted in the talent dearth for an 'age cohort' (as you love to call it) of 7 years (24 to 30 year olds).

Benning has been in charge for just over 5 years. Do we have to wait 1 or 2 years until it isn't Gillis' fault?

 

[John Johnson]

Because it pretty much is.

What excellent drafting has Benning done outside of his #6, #5, #5, and #7 picks?

Boeser?

and ?

-Jared Mccann 24OA 2014 (Traded but is an NHL regular on the Pens)
-Thatcher Demko 36OA 2014 (Our future starting goalie most likely)
-Nikita Tryamkin 66OA 2014 (Good top 4/bottom pairing Dman who is likely to come back to the NHL)
-Gustav Forsling 126OA 2014 (Traded but is a decent bottom pairing/depth call up guy)
-Brock Boeser 23OA 2015 (Obvious)
-Adam Gaudette 149OA 2015 (One of the biggest steals of that draft)
-2016 was probably the worst drafting year.
-2017 still has a few players that the jury is out on, and the recent 2018 and 2019 drafts I don't think its the right time to say who could make it an who won't. Overall it isn't stupendous but its definitely not bad, especially since the draft is basically a crapshoot after the first round.

 

[Hoghandler]

How about the fact there was a clear better player drafted directly after the player we selected that Benning former team snapped up? I mean I would assume the team Benning was with all year he would have seen him play? Does that count?

Of the 50 players taken directly after Jared McCann, 1 of them has more career points. What kind of standard are we setting here for grading draft picks?

What if Benning was mad at his scouts for missing on Pastrnak, because that's who he wanted?

 

[Hoghandler]

Ok.

Gillis was in charge for 6 years. This has resulted in the talent dearth for an 'age cohort' (as you love to call it) of 7 years (24 to 30 year olds).

Benning has been in charge for just over 5 years. Do we have to wait 1 or 2 years until it isn't Gillis' fault?

I think the question you need to be asking is, if you want to win hockey games, how important is it to have quality drafted players in the 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 age range? In 1 or 2 years, adjust the age range 1 or 2 years and ask yourself the question again.

Good teams are built through the draft. If you fail at the draft for 8 years, it's going to leave an indelible imprint on the organisation. This imprint far outlived Mike Gillis.

 

[tantalum]

-Jared Mccann 24OA 2014 (Traded but is an NHL regular on the Pens)
-Thatcher Demko 36OA 2014 (Our future starting goalie most likely)
-Nikita Tryamkin 66OA 2014 (Good top 4/bottom pairing Dman who is likely to come back to the NHL)
-Gustav Forsling 126OA 2014 (Traded but is a decent bottom pairing/depth call up guy)
-Brock Boeser 23OA 2015 (Obvious)
-Adam Gaudette 149OA 2015 (One of the biggest steals of that draft)
-2016 was probably the worst drafting year.
-2017 still has a few players that the jury is out on, and the recent 2018 and 2019 drafts I don't think its the right time to say who could make it an who won't. Overall it isn't stupendous but its definitely not bad, especially since the draft is basically a crapshoot after the first round.

The last sentence is the problem. It isn't stupendous but not bad. They've been the worst team in the league during the last 4 years. It should be the best in the league but the right things weren't done. Extra picks were not acquired. Youth was sent out or allowed to leave the league. Given the context I would definitely say while the drafting may be "not bad" that the prospect pool IS bad.

 

[racerjoe]

Of the 50 players taken directly after Jared McCann, 1 of them has more career points. What kind of standard are we setting here for grading draft picks?

What if Benning was mad at his scouts for missing on Pastrnak, because that's who he wanted?

Is that the standard? I believe some posters have been doing this in the past and it shows Gillis to be a better drafter than thought.

I am just looking for the best way.

Benning can always overrule his scouts, but if we are giving him that leeway should he also get credit? We can't have it both ways.

Personally I think this is all a smokescreen anyway, and really think @Melvin has shown that drafting is more of a crapshoot. We are just looking at small sample sizes for everyone. What I think we can definitively say is Benning is a crap Pro Talent Evaluate and team builder.

 

[F A N]

Why did we draft Kole Lind? J/k.

Seriously if Lind and Gadjovich were looking like better prospects our prospect pool would look a lot better. That's how it works. Appearances.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Is that the standard? I believe some posters have been doing this in the past and it shows Gillis to be a better drafter than thought.

I am just looking for the best way.

Benning can always overrule his scouts, but if we are giving him that leeway should he also get credit? We can't have it both ways.

Personally I think this is all a smokescreen anyway, and really think @Melvin has shown that drafting is more of a crapshoot. We are just looking at small sample sizes for everyone. What I think we can definitively say is Benning is a crap Pro Talent Evaluate and team builder.

Agreed. The number of players reaching a certain standard of performance a GM has drafted throughout the entire draft in a particular 3 or 4 year period is obviously too small and volatile a cohort to mean much. A team's 1st round pick does involve way more analysis and volition on the part of a GM and his staff, and Benning has made some great picks and some terrible ones. There's no evidence they're much better or worse than average. They've horribly misjudged a handful of NHL players.

 

[Hoghandler]

What I think we can definitively say is Benning is a crap Pro Talent Evaluate and team builder.

Our pro scouting has been awful. But the topic is our prospect pool. I'm not going to downgrade our drafting because the pro scouting sucks...