News Article: The shift away from the CHL: Leaving behind an organizational sore spot

[F A N]

The shift away from the CHL: Leaving behind an organizational sore spot

A few quotes from Drance and Dayal's Athletic article:

At the start of GM Jim Benning’s regime, the Canucks leaned hard on the CHL in their drafting. The Canucks made 28 picks between the 2014 and 2017 drafts, with 17 of those selections being CHL players. That’s nearly 61 percent of their picks, which is considerably higher than the league average that floats in the 41 percent range.

These weren’t just a high volume of mid- and late-round selections, either. The club invested many of its top picks within Canada. Vancouver drafted five CHL prospects in the first two rounds and two more in the third round during these first four draft years.

That trend has changed recently, though.

The Canucks have allocated just four of their 26 selections to CHL products in the last four drafts. Vancouver hasn’t drafted a player out of the QMJHL in six years since Guillaume Brisebois. It’s no secret that the Canucks made a ton of hay south of the border under Judd Brackett and since his departure, there’s been an increased amateur interest outside of North America. All but one of Vancouver’s six draftees were from Europe this year while three of their five picks were from there in 2020.

Intentional or not, this shift away from home isn’t a bad idea at all because the Canucks’ historical draft results from Canada haven’t been fruitful.

Over the last two drafts, the Canucks have used three late-round picks on Swedish defencemen at the J20 Nationell level: Viktor Persson in 2020 and Jonathan Myrenberg and Hugo Gabrielson in 2021. That’s in addition to them leveraging a pair of seventh-round picks on forwards Arvid Costmar (2019) and Lucas Forsell (2021).

The Canucks have also drafted more players out of Europe apart from Sweden. Before someone comments on our USHL/NCAA drafting post-Brackett, the Wild made a lot of picks from the WHL this past draft. I don't think this year was a particularly strong draft for the USHL compared to 2019.

So what do you guys think of the shift? This seems a bit of a cop out but few of us had issues drafting based on our strength scouting US hockey. Then again, there was obviously a lot of talent coming out of US hockey. J20 Sweden? Also worth noting is that there hasn't been much in the way of additions or changes to European scouting staff apart from the addition of Patrik Jonsson who was instrumental in the Hoglander selection.

Click to read more...

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

This is like avoiding an aspect of your job because you suck at it.

 

[Gstank]

I think the Canucks see the European junior leagues and USHL as heavily underscouted and that they are able to find steals there because of it. I would say the CHL is the most heavily scouted junior league in the world which makes it harder to find steals and probably takes up more resources to scout.

 

[AppleHoneySauce]

This is like avoiding an aspect of your job because you suck at it.

That or Aqua being a cheapo and seeing how bad the NA scouting is decided to do some downsizing.

 

[Dural]

I doubt this is specific to the Canucks, although the extent of it could be. Canada has a relatively small population, and other junior programs have gotten better, so the CHL is less important now. Germany would seem to be the next obvious hot bed for prospects.

Canada is similar to Sweden/Finland, despite small populations, they produce a lot of players due to a strong hockey culture.
U.S. is similar to Germany/Central Europe (although decades ahead), much larger populations, but other sports are more popular and will attract most of the great athletes. Despite this being the case, the population itself is still an asset in producing players, since the ones especially suited to hockey will be disproportionally attracted to it.

 

[RobertKron]

It's pretty tough to know if there's actually been an intentional shift without seeing the team's draft list, and the arguments that led to it. There are so few picks that it's entirely possible that they just happened to like those players more, or players from the CHL that they liked weren't on the board by the time the Canucks came up, or they thought someone had a cool name or whatever.

 

[Dab]

When you don’t have a lot of picks you’ve got to think creatively about where you select players from. Seems as though they are wary to use one of their few picks on the heavily scouted CHL

 

[mriswith]

This would be fine if they were firing NA scouts while avoiding NA until the replacements prove themselves but I haven't heard of that happening in any significance.

 

[I in the Eye]

I think the Canucks see the European junior leagues and USHL as heavily underscouted and that they are able to find steals there because of it. I would say the CHL is the most heavily scouted junior league in the world which makes it harder to find steals and probably takes up more resources to scout.

To me, steals are only relevant when you are drafting towards the ends of rounds, because you have a good team - so you're looking to bridge the prospect gap with the bad teams... With top of round picks, give me an abundance of stats, eye tests, information, and opinions. The Canucks shouldn't be going for steals, IMO - not unless they have stockpiled picks in a draft and can afford to be more risky. The Canucks should be drafting top of each round talent with as few question marks as possible. If they trade away this top of each round talent by trading the pick, that's their problem, IMO. Still don't go for steals because the draft is a gamble enough to be riskier then they need to be - the Canucks are a bad team, they can't afford prospects not panning out like the good teams can. Also, with few picks because the picks have been traded away, the gambles should be less risky, not more risky.

Personally, I don't mind what leagues the Canucks decide to scout or focus on... Just don't draft duds. No extra points from me for going for steals in underscouted leagues that don't become players.

 

[Bubbles]

Abysmal drafting from the WHL is something that has plagued this organization since the 90s. Then there is the recent complete ignorance of the QMJHL.

It's a strange attitude to have. Instead of addressing the weakness, just doubling down on Swedish prospects because we have decent scouts there.

 

[I in the Eye]

Abysmal drafting from the WHL is something that has plagued this organization since the 90s. Then there is the recent complete ignorance of the QMJHL.

It's a strange attitude to have. Instead of addressing the weakness, just doubling down on Swedish prospects because we have decent scouts there.

I think there are just too many players in the WHL and the QMJHL for the Canucks to use their 1980's approach to scouting. To have success in these large leagues, I think there would have to be a complete overhaul to the Canucks method to 2020 standards.

 

[m9]

This was a bad year to attempt this plan. Should be some steals out of the CHL due to the weird season.

 

[VanJack]

The Canucks have picked a few players from Major Junior Hockey and signed a few others as UFA's, which have surprisingly turned out better than some of the players they drafted. I'm thinking about guys like Zack MacEwen, Jalen Chatfield and Michael Carcone. At least they're still playing pro hockey.

But later on in the draft, the CHL has been a black hole for the Canucks. They're had far more success with picks from college hockey or Europe, mainly Sweden.

I tend to agree with some posters that the CHL is so heavily scouted that few later round picks seem to develop in their draft plus one seasons.

That's been the case for the Canucks who've drafted a bevy of d-men from the Dub, the OHL and the Q in late rounds, and in a lot of cases never even offered them contracts.

I don't if it's Canucks scouting or if the CHL just isn't producing as many picks as they used to beyond the first round. A lot of very talented Canadian kids are now going the NCAA scholarship route. Whatever the reason, I don't see anything changing any time soon.

 

[bossram]

Abysmal drafting from the WHL is something that has plagued this organization since the 90s. Then there is the recent complete ignorance of the QMJHL.

It's a strange attitude to have. Instead of addressing the weakness, just doubling down on Swedish prospects because we have decent scouts there.

Such a strange response from the club. They recognize their CHL scouts are bad...so just don't select from the CHL? I mean...how about get new scouts? Or would that mean Brandon Benning has to get a new job, so nevermind.

 

[vanarchy]

The shift away from the CHL: Leaving behind an organizational sore spot

A few quotes from Drance and Dayal's Athletic article:




The Canucks have also drafted more players out of Europe apart from Sweden. Before someone comments on our USHL/NCAA drafting post-Brackett, the Wild made a lot of picks from the WHL this past draft. I don't think this year was a particularly strong draft for the USHL compared to 2019.

So what do you guys think of the shift? This seems a bit of a cop out but few of us had issues drafting based on our strength scouting US hockey. Then again, there was obviously a lot of talent coming out of US hockey. J20 Sweden? Also worth noting is that there hasn't been much in the way of additions or changes to European scouting staff apart from the addition of Patrik Jonsson who was instrumental in the Hoglander selection.

Thanks for the excerpts, this is an interesting topic.

The main issue for me is the mindset behind this “strategy”. Of course the CHL is highly scouted and more competitive but this isn’t a solution to that problem. It’s actually kind of mind-boggling that our GM would be able to get away with such an aimless approach to a problem.

As @mriswith pointed out, they should at the very least clean house or restructure the scouting staff that aren’t doing shit while they select from other leagues.

 

[F A N]

One thing I would say is that historically teams have benefited from drafting out of underrated geographic areas/leagues.

This is like avoiding an aspect of your job because you suck at it.

I agree. But focusing on doing what you are good at and letting someone else do what you are bad at isn't a bad idea either.

To me, steals are only relevant when you are drafting towards the ends of rounds, because you have a good team - so you're looking to bridge the prospect gap with the bad teams... With top of round picks, give me an abundance of stats, eye tests, information, and opinions. The Canucks shouldn't be going for steals, IMO - not unless they have stockpiled picks in a draft and can afford to be more risky. The Canucks should be drafting top of each round talent with as few question marks as possible. If they trade away this top of each round talent by trading the pick, that's their problem, IMO. Still don't go for steals because the draft is a gamble enough to be riskier then they need to be - the Canucks are a bad team, they can't afford prospects not panning out like the good teams can. Also, with few picks because the picks have been traded away, the gambles should be less risky, not more risky.

Personally, I don't mind what leagues the Canucks decide to scout or focus on... Just don't draft duds. No extra points from me for going for steals in underscouted leagues that don't become players.

I don't think the geographical/league change applies to top picks and I don't think the Canucks are looking for steals per se. As for drafting players with as few question marks as possible, I don't think that's a good strategy in the later rounds. Prospects with few question marks are "safe picks". At the top of the draft that could mean the #1 overall pick. In the later rounds that's probably a vanilla player. It's quite a common strategy to draft players with identifiable traits that could translate to the NHL. Question marks aren't really a problem. You want to draft players with strengths that project to be NHL calibre with weaknesses that might be fixable.

Abysmal drafting from the WHL is something that has plagued this organization since the 90s. Then there is the recent complete ignorance of the QMJHL.

It's a strange attitude to have. Instead of addressing the weakness, just doubling down on Swedish prospects because we have decent scouts there.

I don't think it's a strange attitude. Focus on your strengths is quite universal.

It's not like there hasn't been attempts to address the weakness though. Remember the study Crawford did under Gillis that identified the leagues to focus on? The result of that study was that OHL and to a lesser extent WHL were better leagues to focus on than QMJHL. Interestingly, WHL actually has Delorme, Gradin (who is based here), Troy Ward (Weisbrod guy), and Jim's son. Brackett also seems to like drafting out of the WHL.

The scouting hires under Brackett have pretty much all been USHL. More recently we added Harvey (OHL), Ward (WHL), and repositioned Conacher (NCAA).

I honestly don't get the logic. Harvey is an OHL guy. Our top scouts (and scouts with connections to management) are based in the West Coast. Somehow, we have moved away from these regions a bit.

 

[President of Hockey]

Well, if you're getting Juolevi and Virtanen out of your CHL picks, Boeser and Hughes out of your US picks and Pettersson and Hoglander out of your Euro picks it's probably a good idea to simply ignore Canada in your drafting...

 

[I in the Eye]

I don't think the geographical/league change applies to top picks and I don't think the Canucks are looking for steals per se. As for drafting players with as few question marks as possible, I don't think that's a good strategy in the later rounds. Prospects with few question marks are "safe picks". At the top of the draft that could mean the #1 overall pick. In the later rounds that's probably a vanilla player. It's quite a common strategy to draft players with identifiable traits that could translate to the NHL. Question marks aren't really a problem. You want to draft players with strengths that project to be NHL calibre with weaknesses that might be fixable.

I don't think there is a plan or strategy other than they get good feelings about certain players, and over the last little while, these good feelings involved players from the European leagues. That could stay the same or change depending on how they feel.
---
It's the combination of talent vs. question marks to make a determination on. If it was me, whenever there is projected higher round talent available, take the player. Where the Canucks took Belarus guy in the 2nd round, there was still 1st round talent with mid/end 1st round question marks still available. I'd take one of them over the Belarus guy they feel good about - Belarus guy wasn't Best Player Available on draft day. If they really feel good about Belarus guy and felt he wouldn't pass the 2nd round, then they should have acquired another pick to draft him. The Canucks prospect pool is weak. And with a minimal amount of picks, the Canucks can't afford to take a chance on a guy who is perhaps a 1st round talent with non-1st round question marks when players with 1st round talent possessing 1st round question marks are available. When you don't have many picks, not only is it a safer pick, it's also a better pick... as there's a better chance you get a NHL player. With more picks, by all means, take a flyer on a player you especially feel good about - assuming he passes the smell tests from the scouts and math people.

 

[MarkMM]

I could see an Edler-Myers pairing making sense as, getting heavy DZ starts and being a top PK unit for us. This would help negate some of Edler's footspeed issues, and if Hughes and Rathbone are on the other two pairings, Edler-Myers would be better suited to being the shut down pairing.

So does Schmidt work with Hughes or Rathbone? As a pairing that plays behind our top 2 lines, I'd be fine giving either a look and seeing how it goes. Think Hughes needs someone with a more conservative mentality on the ice, but Rathbone-Schmidt could be a solid puck possession duo.

Wonder if either Juolevi or Hughes can play the right side. Maybe OJ can turn better on his off side? If a healthy off season can gain OJ a step, Hughes and Juolevi could mesh well together. A bit of wishful thinking for sure, but a healthy off-season can make a big difference.

One thing I would say is that historically teams have benefited from drafting out of underrated geographic areas/leagues.



I agree. But focusing on doing what you are good at and letting someone else do what you are bad at isn't a bad idea either.



I don't think the geographical/league change applies to top picks and I don't think the Canucks are looking for steals per se. As for drafting players with as few question marks as possible, I don't think that's a good strategy in the later rounds. Prospects with few question marks are "safe picks". At the top of the draft that could mean the #1 overall pick. In the later rounds that's probably a vanilla player. It's quite a common strategy to draft players with identifiable traits that could translate to the NHL. Question marks aren't really a problem. You want to draft players with strengths that project to be NHL calibre with weaknesses that might be fixable.



I don't think it's a strange attitude. Focus on your strengths is quite universal.

It's not like there hasn't been attempts to address the weakness though. Remember the study Crawford did under Gillis that identified the leagues to focus on? The result of that study was that OHL and to a lesser extent WHL were better leagues to focus on than QMJHL. Interestingly, WHL actually has Delorme, Gradin (who is based here), Troy Ward (Weisbrod guy), and Jim's son. Brackett also seems to like drafting out of the WHL.

The scouting hires under Brackett have pretty much all been USHL. More recently we added Harvey (OHL), Ward (WHL), and repositioned Conacher (NCAA).

I honestly don't get the logic. Harvey is an OHL guy. Our top scouts (and scouts with connections to management) are based in the West Coast. Somehow, we have moved away from these regions a bit.

Years ago Detroit talked about this being a deliberate strategy, a combination of using puck possession as a driving filter along with preferencing under-scouted European leagues where they'd get arbitrage opportunities of better players picked later in the draft, so it wouldn't be entirely unheard of IF this was deliberate strategy, just don't know if it's really all that true anymore with these leagues being under-scouted.

I don't think there is a plan or strategy other than they get good feelings about certain players, and over the last little while, these good feelings involved players from the European leagues. That could stay the same or change depending on how they feel.
---
It's the combination of talent vs. question marks to make a determination on. If it was me, whenever there is projected higher round talent available, take the player. Where the Canucks took Belarus guy in the 2nd round, there was still 1st round talent with mid/end 1st round question marks still available. I'd take one of them over the Belarus guy they feel good about - Belarus guy wasn't Best Player Available on draft day. If they really feel good about Belarus guy and felt he wouldn't pass the 2nd round, then they should have acquired another pick to draft him. The Canucks prospect pool is weak. And with a minimal amount of picks, the Canucks can't afford to take a chance on a guy who is perhaps a 1st round talent with non-1st round question marks when players with 1st round talent possessing 1st round question marks are available. When you don't have many picks, not only is it a safer pick, it's also a better pick... as there's a better chance you get a NHL player. With more picks, by all means, take a flyer on a player you especially feel good about - assuming he passes the smell tests from the scouts and math people.

Yeah, it may not be a deliberate strategy per se but more that if certain scouts either sucked or couldn't articulate a compelling case then when there was an argument with our CHL scouts pushing for their players and SHL scouts pushing for theirs, well, the better debaters /more respected scouts would win those arguments and by default we'd not draft the CHL ones. Especially if the track record of a CHL scout (Virtanen) compared to a SHL scout (Petersson) or American scout (Boeser) made the team lose any trust in the CHL scout.

 

[Royal Canuck]

Well, if you're getting Juolevi and Virtanen out of your CHL picks, Boeser and Hughes out of your US picks and Pettersson and Hoglander out of your Euro picks it's probably a good idea to simply ignore Canada in your drafting...

Not to mention Cody Hodgson out of the OHL, Hunter Shinkaruk was the last 1st round WHL pick I believe.

There's plenty of talent in the CHL, the Canucks just aren't good at picking the right talent.

 

[EpochLink]

Not to mention Cody Hodgson out of the OHL, Hunter Shinkaruk was the last 1st round WHL pick I believe.

There's plenty of talent in the CHL, the Canucks just aren't good at picking the right talent.

Hunter ‘my daddy is a rich dentist’ Shinkaruk.
Bust City.

 

[F A N]

Years ago Detroit talked about this being a deliberate strategy, a combination of using puck possession as a driving filter along with preferencing under-scouted European leagues where they'd get arbitrage opportunities of better players picked later in the draft, so it wouldn't be entirely unheard of IF this was deliberate strategy, just don't know if it's really all that true anymore with these leagues being under-scouted.

Agreed. At one time, USHL and later CJHL weren't very well scouted either. So maybe the Canucks have something there. Certainly, Persson and Costmar has given the team some reason for optimism.

Not to mention Cody Hodgson out of the OHL, Hunter Shinkaruk was the last 1st round WHL pick I believe.

There's plenty of talent in the CHL, the Canucks just aren't good at picking the right talent.

Virtanen was the last 1st round WHL pick. After that we have Kole Lind and Jett Woo (who is basically a confirmed Brackett guy) in the second round.

 

[Breakers]

I have been saying this on this board for a bit now

Ron Delorme SUCKS at his job. He is terrible. Just so so Bad.

His Bio used to specifically say he specializes in the CHL.

It still blows my mind that after the Sedins were drafted in 1999 in the first round, the Team didnt draft a player out of europe in the 1st round till Pettersson

Sergachev wins OHL defenseman of the year in his draft year, and was the youngest to win it since doughty or something like that.
The award I believe is voted on by coaches and GM's in the OHL, so the guys who watch that league the most, and they went with Juolevi who wasnt even nominated

 

[kcunac]

For sure we should focus on where we think we can get value - but should we go to the extreme of not picking a 1st round CHL faller and instead look to the 2nd tier league in Belarus?

Time will tell.

 

[F A N]

For sure we should focus on where we think we can get value - but should we go to the extreme of not picking a 1st round CHL faller and instead look to the 2nd tier league in Belarus?

Time will tell.

If it wasn't for the pandemic, Danila would have been drafted out of the Q. A lot of people here like Stankoven but I'm usually down on small forwards with questionable skating abilities. Personally I can see this year's 2nd round being really bad. Not a lot of "1st round fallers" I really like.