Have the canucks quietly built up a solid prospect pool?

[racerjoe]

What evidence shows consistently poor regular season performance results in better prospect pools, as they are traditionally measured by media outlets and hockey journalists?

I think you have the two things mixed up.

Logic dictates this. If I am picking for anything if I have the first pick in a non snake draft draft I should be picking the better player.

If this happens or not is another story, and also goes to my original point... Drafting is a crapshoot.

 

[Hit the post]

Ok sure, the conversation is heading towards who is better at drafting and not who is a better GM. No argument here about who is a better GM, Gillis is definitely a better gm but drafting Benning is definitely better. It's not even debateable.

They probably would've been both better working as assistants under another GM.

 

[bandwagonesque]

I think you have the two things mixed up.

Logic dictates this. If I am picking for anything if I have the first pick in a non snake draft draft I should be picking the better player.

If this happens or not is another story, and also goes to my original point... Drafting is a crapshoot.

You weren't talking about logic, or what should happen, or whether or not drafting is a crapshoot. You categorically claimed that teams that finish near the bottom of the standings over a four-year period should have better prospect pools. Can you cite any rankings that indicate this is true? Most of the top teams in recent rankings seem to be bubble teams, with a few terrible teams and playoff teams mixed in. Bad teams usually have prospects drafted in the 1st round graduate so quickly that their rankings are highly volatile.

 

[racerjoe]

You weren't talking about logic, or what should happen, or whether or not drafting is a crapshoot. You categorically claimed that teams that finish near the bottom of the standings over a four-year period should have better prospect pools. Can you cite any rankings that indicate this is true?

Read it again. It should be. by logic. [mod] Also go back to my earlier post where my conversation began, it is the first or second comment I made. Drafting is a crapshoot.

Also I don't know what you meant still earlier by if we discount the perennial contenders. Cause the way I read it means by discounting the tops teams... well why would you do that? But again I could be getting that wrong as I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Read it again. It should be. by logic. [mod] Also go back to my earlier post where my conversation began, it is the first or second comment I made. Drafting is a crapshoot.

Also I don't know what you meant still earlier by if we discount the perennial contenders. Cause the way I read it means by discounting the tops teams... well why would you do that? But again I could be getting that wrong as I don't understand what you are saying.

There are a handful of teams the are cup contenders every year and liquidate prospects and picks with no real concern for the future, as they should. Organizational ranking for the rest of the league are all over the map.

So if what you're saying should be true, can you provide any evidence it is?

 

[RandV]

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

Sensational nonsense, there's plenty of examples of brutal drafting throughout the leagues history.

And I referenced that drafting topic in another thread today. While the GM ultimately wears the success or failure of a draft, I like to take a more nuanced view as there's so many factors that go into it and it's very likely the part of the job that the GM has the least input in. So I like to expand the view to include scouting regimes. When Gillis was hired, the scouting apparatus was built by Burke & Nonis and had Ron Delorme running the draft. When Gillis departed, Crawford was in place along with a bunch of new hires like Judd Bracket.

So back to that drafting topic and repeating myself, they break it down into 4 year groups.

2008-2011 with Ron Delorme the head scout - 30th in the league
2012-2015 with 3/4 years Eric Crawford as head scout - 12th in the league
2016-2019 with 3/4 years of Judd Brackett as head scout - 18th in the league (this one obviously inconclusive)

Basically Gillis' "drafting" looks so bad because he left the Brian Burke crew in place too long. When he was fired with the most recent drafts still not NHL ready people used that first span to proclaim how bad he was and never really adjusted the opinion when hindsight showed things turning around. Had he been kept another year to get credit for the 2014 draft that label would have been put entirely to rest.

 

[RandV]

Sure, its alot easier to hit on picks when youre drafting high but regular season success and being able to draft should not and are not two mutually exclusive events. There are numerous teams around the league who are competitive every year yet still manage to draft well.

Gillis is why we had one of, if not THE worst prospect pool during his time here.... NOT because the team was competitive

Im too lazy now but someone should pull up our drafting record during Gillis tenure and compare it to other teams with similar success to the Canucks then.

Like I said above you can blame him for taking to long to fix it but the reason we had such a poor prospect pool was the amateur scouting department built and left in place by Burke and Nonis.

 

[MS]

What evidence shows consistently poor regular season performance results in better prospect pools, as they are traditionally measured by media outlets and hockey journalists?

It's pretty obvious just to the eyeball. Obviously it isn't a perfect linear relationship but if you look at any list like this (and I've just looked at a bunch over the past 5 years), most of the 'top' teams have been weaker in the standings and most of the 'worst' teams have been consistently competitive. That isn't to say a TB can't be near the top and a Calgary near the bottom, but overall the relationship is pretty clear to the naked eye.

If you're so sure this exists and that literally everyone is wrong about this seemingly obvious correlation, prove it. Plot team point totals over the previous 5 years vs. their prospect rankings and show us your results. I'm pretty sure you'll see a statistically significant relationship but if that doesn't appear ... everyone will give you a tip of the chapeau. Otherwise don't claim stuff you aren't planning on backing up.

 

[MS]

Sensational nonsense, there's plenty of examples of brutal drafting throughout the leagues history.

And I referenced that drafting topic in another thread today. While the GM ultimately wears the success or failure of a draft, I like to take a more nuanced view as there's so many factors that go into it and it's very likely the part of the job that the GM has the least input in. So I like to expand the view to include scouting regimes. When Gillis was hired, the scouting apparatus was built by Burke & Nonis and had Ron Delorme running the draft. When Gillis departed, Crawford was in place along with a bunch of new hires like Judd Bracket.

So back to that drafting topic and repeating myself, they break it down into 4 year groups.

2008-2011 with Ron Delorme the head scout - 30th in the league
2012-2015 with 3/4 years Eric Crawford as head scout - 12th in the league
2016-2019 with 3/4 years of Judd Brackett as head scout - 18th in the league (this one obviously inconclusive)

Basically Gillis' "drafting" looks so bad because he left the Brian Burke crew in place too long. When he was fired with the most recent drafts still not NHL ready people used that first span to proclaim how bad he was and never really adjusted the opinion when hindsight showed things turning around. Had he been kept another year to get credit for the 2014 draft that label would have been put entirely to rest.

Pretty much this. Plus the high finishes/low draft picks and picks spent to be competitive obviously reduced the number of 'hits' that would have occurred for a lesser team.

As you say - look at what Gillis inherited. The 2007 draft we didn't have a single player play a single NHL game, and the 2008 draft which was run by the existing staff would have had a total of 8 GP if Gillis hadn't overruled them to take Hodgson over Kyle Beach. 8 GP in two years is what he inherited. 2005 was the Kopitar-Bourdon debacle when we passed on a franchise center because 'not many good players have come from Slovenia' even though Kopitar was playing in Sweden.

The problem isn't that 'Gillis couldn't draft', the problem is that Gillis came into a team where Ron Delorme - a friend and ex-teammate from their days in Colorado - was the director of scouting, and he trusted Delorme and believed that his poor results were from poor direction from above. He's repeatedly said what a mistake that ended up being and how waiting too long to make changes there was his biggest mistake. By the time he finally fixed the drafting in 2012, the results were very solid from that point onward.

Aaaaaaaand, of course, the usual suspects have drafted us into another BUT GILLIS to avoid talking about what an incompetent buffoon Jim Benning is.

 

[sting101]

Sensational nonsense, there's plenty of examples of brutal drafting throughout the leagues history.

And I referenced that drafting topic in another thread today. While the GM ultimately wears the success or failure of a draft, I like to take a more nuanced view as there's so many factors that go into it and it's very likely the part of the job that the GM has the least input in. So I like to expand the view to include scouting regimes. When Gillis was hired, the scouting apparatus was built by Burke & Nonis and had Ron Delorme running the draft. When Gillis departed, Crawford was in place along with a bunch of new hires like Judd Bracket.

So back to that drafting topic and repeating myself, they break it down into 4 year groups.

2008-2011 with Ron Delorme the head scout - 30th in the league
2012-2015 with 3/4 years Eric Crawford as head scout - 12th in the league
2016-2019 with 3/4 years of Judd Brackett as head scout - 18th in the league (this one obviously inconclusive)

Basically Gillis' "drafting" looks so bad because he left the Brian Burke crew in place too long. When he was fired with the most recent drafts still not NHL ready people used that first span to proclaim how bad he was and never really adjusted the opinion when hindsight showed things turning around. Had he been kept another year to get credit for the 2014 draft that label would have been put entirely to rest.

Are you being serious?
stop making these bad excuses
Gms have a big say in the picks in the top50. Gillis was awful....like the worst in the NHL awful....end of story

 

[Canucks1096]

Pretty much this. Plus the high finishes/low draft picks and picks spent to be competitive obviously reduced the number of 'hits' that would have occurred for a lesser team.

As you say - look at what Gillis inherited. The 2007 draft we didn't have a single player play a single NHL game, and the 2008 draft which was run by the existing staff would have had a total of 8 GP if Gillis hadn't overruled them to take Hodgson over Kyle Beach. 8 GP in two years is what he inherited. 2005 was the Kopitar-Bourdon debacle when we passed on a franchise center because 'not many good players have come from Slovenia' even though Kopitar was playing in Sweden.

The problem isn't that 'Gillis couldn't draft', the problem is that Gillis came into a team where Ron Delorme - a friend and ex-teammate from their days in Colorado - was the director of scouting, and he trusted Delorme and believed that his poor results were from poor direction from above. He's repeatedly said what a mistake that ended up being and how waiting too long to make changes there was his biggest mistake. By the time he finally fixed the drafting in 2012, the results were very solid from that point onward.

Aaaaaaaand, of course, the usual suspects have drafted us into another BUT GILLIS to avoid talking about what an incompetent buffoon Jim Benning is.

Gillis on tsn radio once said outside of the 1st round, GM don't have much input. They mainly have input in the 1st round pick. By that, Gillis does get involve in the 1st round. I can cut him some slack outside of the 1st round but not the 1st round since he has a lot of input in it. No excuses for Jensen, Gaunce, Schroeder, Shinkaruk picks.

 

[F A N]

Like I said above you can blame him for taking to long to fix it but the reason we had such a poor prospect pool was the amateur scouting department built and left in place by Burke and Nonis.

Gillis actually hired a lot of new scouts and greatly expanded our scouting staff (the merits of which is debatable). I mean Judd Brackett was hired during Gillis' first season here. Was he given one USHL pick over the years? Their solution was to put Eric Crawford in charge. The 2013 draft was suppose to reflective of the "fixes". That draft only produced Horvat.

Gillis was a great GM. But I don't think he had the right processes in place for the draft. That was a problem that Gillis and Gilman admitted. Benning obviously came in with a lot more amateur scouting experience and it didn't take long for him to identify Brackett and gave him the reigns.

 

[MS]

Gillis on tsn radio once said outside of the 1st round, GM don't have much input. They mainly have input in the 1st round pick. By that, Gillis does get involve in the 1st round. I can cut him some slack outside of the 1st round but not the 1st round since he has a lot of input in it. No excuses for Jensen, Gaunce, Schroeder, Shinkaruk picks.

Jensen was a horrible pick - no argument there.
Gaunce was one of the best players available even in hindsight in a terrible draft.
Schroeder was a home-run swing on the most talented guy late in another weak draft.
Shinkaruk was much the same - although I agree that pick was a poor one as I really didn't like the player much.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the Gaunce and Schroeder picks. Only 30% of players taken in picks 20-30 ever stick in the NHL in a meaningful role and many times you can make perfectly solid decisions that still don't work out. You go through all of those picks, and there's only 1-2 guys in the next 10 picks who have really amounted to anything.

The problem is that most people seem to think that most #1 picks go on to be NHL players ... and for the guys taken after pick #20, this just isn't true. The odds are stacked in favour of the player busting.

 

[Javaman]

I would not use the word "solid" to describe the Canucks prospect pool at this point in time.

 

[MS]

I would not use the word "solid" to describe the Canucks prospect pool at this point in time.

It's frankly awful behind the two guys we just took with top-10 picks. Now, most teams don't have multiple top-10 picks in their prospect pool and that's enough to get us up to the middle of the pack. But we're going to crater into the bottom-10 in the league when Hughes (and Demko) graduates.

 

[Javaman]

It's frankly awful behind the two guys we just took with top-10 picks. Now, most teams don't have multiple top-10 picks in their prospect pool and that's enough to get us up to the middle of the pack. But we're going to crater into the bottom-10 in the league when Hughes (and Demko) graduates.

Heh. Imagine how bad our prospect pool will look if we make the playoffs this season....

It's basically Podkolzin and a crapload of question marks.

And Benning will likely get an extension.

FML ... as Canucks fan.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

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

Is that true? Dave Nonis still had the worst draft I can recall in recent Canucks history in 2007.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

Jensen was a horrible pick - no argument there.
Gaunce was one of the best players available even in hindsight in a terrible draft.
Schroeder was a home-run swing on the most talented guy late in another weak draft.
Shinkaruk was much the same - although I agree that pick was a poor one as I really didn't like the player much.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the Gaunce and Schroeder picks. Only 30% of players taken in picks 20-30 ever stick in the NHL in a meaningful role and many times you can make perfectly solid decisions that still don't work out. You go through all of those picks, and there's only 1-2 guys in the next 10 picks who have really amounted to anything.

The problem is that most people seem to think that most #1 picks go on to be NHL players ... and for the guys taken after pick #20, this just isn't true. The odds are stacked in favour of the player busting.

MS it can't be worse than 25th overall Patrick White + 33rd overall Taylor Ellington.

I still remember them talking about Taylor Ellington at 33rd like he was a Willie Mitchell clone. Meanwhile PK Subban went a few picks later.

 

[Canucks1096]

Is that true? Dave Nonis still had the worst draft I can recall in recent Canucks history in 2007.

With the exception of 2016 and 2019. 2007 is the only draft in Canucks history that didnt have at least one nhl games played.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Still early on 2016...Juolevi and Lockwood will more than likely see the NHL..The 2010 draft (and 2007) is a foregone conclusion.

 

[82Ninety42011]

How have we quietly built anything we've been laughing stock of NHL and hit on a few top ten picks and missed on a few. Our drafting in later rounds is abysmal as well. It's taken 5 years to get this far and we still are a bubble team at best.

 

[bandwagonesque]

It's pretty obvious just to the eyeball. Obviously it isn't a perfect linear relationship but if you look at any list like this (and I've just looked at a bunch over the past 5 years), most of the 'top' teams have been weaker in the standings and most of the 'worst' teams have been consistently competitive. That isn't to say a TB can't be near the top and a Calgary near the bottom, but overall the relationship is pretty clear to the naked eye.

If you're so sure this exists and that literally everyone is wrong about this seemingly obvious correlation, prove it. Plot team point totals over the previous 5 years vs. their prospect rankings and show us your results. I'm pretty sure you'll see a statistically significant relationship but if that doesn't appear ... everyone will give you a tip of the chapeau. Otherwise don't claim stuff you aren't planning on backing up.

I'm not claiming anything. I'm contesting a claim for which no evidence was provided.

 

[dwarf]

I am not sure how anyone can claim we even have a prospect pool, when our AHL team is just a steaming cluster.

First round picks in today's world are doing their best to not be prospects, they want into the NHL and making big money as fast as possible.

To me prospects are players who are taken in later rounds, who need time to develop in the AHL. The likelihood of players who refuse to come to north America, and acclimatize to our game, tend to end up playing their careers in Europe.

I look at players like Juolevi, Woo, and Lind as long shot prospects at this point who may surprise and make it. These are prospects.

Players like Demko, Hughes, Boeser, and Petersson are already NHLers.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Gillis was terrible at drafting. Our drafting record between 2008-2013 was literally all whiffs

You mean the scouting staffs of the GMs in question?

 

[Scott Stevens]

Benning is Pejorative Slured. Catch up, people.