Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Review: HAS our drafting/development Actually Improved Under Gillis?


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#1 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,942 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:40 PM

*
POPULAR

I don't pretend to be a 'resident prospect expert' or anything, but i've gathered all the information i could to draw some conclusions on this topic. Whether or not our current prospects pan out is up for debate, but i tried to be as unbiased as possible when rating them.


2008: Beyond Hodgson, all busts except maybe Sauve.

Give him a pass because he just got here?


2009: Schroeder, Rodin, Connauton, Price, Andersson, Cannata, Anthony.

Schroeder will be an NHLer, but in what regard? Not sure. Rodin not so sure if he's an outright bust, but he's yet to accomplish much in Chicago. K-Con will make it, but to what degree is unknown. Anthony is of course a bust. But the other players are long-term projects who may or may not make it. Honestly, i'm alright with this class, but the proof isn't here yet either. And a lot of teams did pass on Schroeder. Rodin being so highly-touted at the time i'll take as a bad joke?


2010: Hey we traded our top-3 picks, so... McNally, Polasek, Friesen, Iilahti, Hannay. IF any of these guys pan out, we won't see them for years. Cool.


2011: Jensen, Honzik, Grenier, Labate, Blomstrand, Corrado, Westerholm, Tommernes

Jensen will likely be a scorer in the NHL, but to what degree is unknown. Honzik is a bust. Grenier has 4th line upside. Labate is another long-term project. Blomstrand = ??? Corrado is a potential steal. The others are longshots. This class is also 'alright', but still no sure-fire stars.


2012: Gaunce, Mallet, Hutton, Myron, Beattie. Gaunce has 2-way center potential. Mallet 4th line upside. The rest all long-term projects.



Overall it looks like we've ditched guys who can help us out right away in favour of longer-term guys. Fine, i guess, if we didn't need help right away, which we definitely do. But the question yet to be answered is if those longer-term guys will indeed pan out. Who knows...


But back to the original question: HAS our drafting/development Actually Improved Under Gillis?


Gillis:

Total: 30 picks
Favourable Top-6 f, Top-4 d picks: 6
Promising Long-term Projects: 7
'Meh' Long-term Projects: 8
Outright Busts: 9
Bust-to-pick ratio (tbd): 30%


Nonis:

Total: 24 picks
Definite All-Stars: 1
Definite Top-6 f, Top-4 d, Starting g picks: 4
Definite Bottom-6 f, bottom/depth d, depth g picks: 2
Definite Busts: 17
All-Star to pick ratio: 4%
Bust-to-pick ratio: 71%



Burke:

Total: 54 picks
Definite All-Stars: 3
Definite Top-6 f, Top-4 d, Starting g picks: 3
Definite Bottom-6 f, bottom/depth d, depth g picks: 2
Definite Busts: 46
All-Star to pick ratio: 6%
Bust-to-pick ratio: 85%


Conclusions:

- Note that rating Gillis' picks is still shaky at this point, while ranking Nonis' and Burke's is cut and dry.
- Our drafting success in terms of percentages appears to have gradually improved over the years. This comes with higher and higher budgets.
- It appears that in the past we basically HAD no player development. It was 100% up to the player to pan out on his own. Understandable for a poor team. Now that we have at least some player development, hopefully those long-term projects have a better chance of panning out. But this is inconclusive.
- In the past we've had multiple 100% bust draft classes. Hopefully that trend goes away, although 2010 looks very shaky.
- While we've improved here over the years in terms of percentages, the 'star' drafting has actually declined. But that remains to be seen.
- Our drafting is still not even close to your Detroits, Chicagos of the NHL. Will it ever be? That is inconclusive.

Again, it's too early to tell with a lot of Gillis picks, so perhaps some 'resident prospect experts' can shed some more light on whether these recent ratings are accurate, sans homer goggles.

In my opinion, the new Canucks drafting/development motto should be: "Give busts a chance."
  • 6
Posted Image

#2 6of1_halfdozenofother

6of1_halfdozenofother

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,367 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 06

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:48 PM

*
POPULAR

I'm of the belief that the biggest obstacle in terms of prospect development remains to be the head coach of the Canucks.
  • 24
People who label others as bandwagoners, people who tell other people "how" to cheer for their team, "how" they should act or what they should wear to "support" their team, people who only want to hear positive thoughts and don't want to read about how the team can do better - these are people who are insecure and uncomfortable within their own skin.

I'll support my team the way I choose, thank you very much. You can choose to support your team the way you want to, and I won't judge you on it as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on me. I'll also be quick to point out where I think the team can do better, because identifying that there is a problem is the first step to fixing it; denying or ignoring a problem won't solve anything.

Go Canucks Go.

#3 apollo

apollo

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,795 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 10

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:51 PM

Too early to tell but mg hasn't drafted impressively what so ever


Go to hockey futures website and look at every other teams picks in the past 4-5 years. Canucks picks have extremely low success rates compared to other teams.
  • 1

2cz94w5.jpg

The NHL is a fixed old boys club. I've come to acceptance with that and just watch for entertainment. The 2011 & 2012 Canucks are champs in my books. Go Canucks Go!
 


#4 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,013 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:52 PM

*
POPULAR

Gillis is way overrated, but having AV as a coach doesn't really help.
  • 12

m97o1w.jpg

Credit to Parise11


#5 Bill F-ing Murray

Bill F-ing Murray

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 369 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 07

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:53 PM

*
POPULAR

I don't pretend to be a 'resident prospect expert' or anything, but i've gathered all the information i could to draw some conclusions on this topic. Whether or not our current prospects pan out is up for debate, but i tried to be as unbiased as possible when rating them.


2008: Beyond Hodgson, all busts except maybe Sauve.

Give him a pass because he just got here?


2009: Schroeder, Rodin, Connauton, Price, Andersson, Cannata, Anthony.

Schroeder will be an NHLer, but in what regard? Not sure. Rodin not so sure if he's an outright bust, but he's yet to accomplish much in Chicago. K-Con will make it, but to what degree is unknown. Anthony is of course a bust. But the other players are long-term projects who may or may not make it. Honestly, i'm alright with this class, but the proof isn't here yet either. And a lot of teams did pass on Schroeder. Rodin being so highly-touted at the time i'll take as a bad joke?


2010: Hey we traded our top-3 picks, so... McNally, Polasek, Friesen, Iilahti, Hannay. IF any of these guys pan out, we won't see them for years. Cool.


2011: Jensen, Honzik, Grenier, Labate, Blomstrand, Corrado, Westerholm, Tommernes

Jensen will likely be a scorer in the NHL, but to what degree is unknown. Honzik is a bust. Grenier has 4th line upside. Labate is another long-term project. Blomstrand = ??? Corrado is a potential steal. The others are longshots. This class is also 'alright', but still no sure-fire stars.


2012: Gaunce, Mallet, Hutton, Myron, Beattie. Gaunce has 2-way center potential. Mallet 4th line upside. The rest all long-term projects.



Overall it looks like we've ditched guys who can help us out right away in favour of longer-term guys. Fine, i guess, if we didn't need help right away, which we definitely do. But the question yet to be answered is if those longer-term guys will indeed pan out. Who knows...


But back to the original question: HAS our drafting/development Actually Improved Under Gillis?


Gillis:

Total: 30 picks
Favourable Top-6 f, Top-4 d picks: 6
Promising Long-term Projects: 7
'Meh' Long-term Projects: 8
Outright Busts: 9
Bust-to-pick ratio (tbd): 30%


Nonis:

Total: 24 picks
Definite All-Stars: 1
Definite Top-6 f, Top-4 d, Starting g picks: 4
Definite Bottom-6 f, bottom/depth d, depth g picks: 2
Definite Busts: 17
All-Star to pick ratio: 4%
Bust-to-pick ratio: 71%



Burke:

Total: 54 picks
Definite All-Stars: 3
Definite Top-6 f, Top-4 d, Starting g picks: 3
Definite Bottom-6 f, bottom/depth d, depth g picks: 2
Definite Busts: 46
All-Star to pick ratio: 6%
Bust-to-pick ratio: 85%


Conclusions:

- Note that rating Gillis' picks is still shaky at this point, while ranking Nonis' and Burke's is cut and dry.
- Our drafting success in terms of percentages appears to have gradually improved over the years. This comes with higher and higher budgets.
- It appears that in the past we basically HAD no player development. It was 100% up to the player to pan out on his own. Understandable for a poor team. Now that we have at least some player development, hopefully those long-term projects have a better chance of panning out. But this is inconclusive.
- In the past we've had multiple 100% bust draft classes. Hopefully that trend goes away, although 2010 looks very shaky.
- While we've improved here over the years in terms of percentages, the 'star' drafting has actually declined. But that remains to be seen.
- Our drafting is still not even close to your Detroits, Chicagos of the NHL. Will it ever be? That is inconclusive.

Again, it's too early to tell with a lot of Gillis picks, so perhaps some 'resident prospect experts' can shed some more light on whether these recent ratings are accurate, sans homer goggles.

In my opinion, the new Canucks drafting/development motto should be: "Give busts a chance."


It's way to early for this thread. also the outright bust doesn't equal definite bust so any figures you chose to use will be inconclusive.
Sidenote what do you define as a bust. as per this article setting standards of say 200-500 games would mean that the earliest a player could reach 200 would have been drafted 4 years ago. so this is argument is moot and very premature.... statistically anyway



Question: How Many NHL Draft Picks Make it to the NHL?

Over 200 players are selected at every NHL draft. How many of them go on to have NHL careers? What are the prospects for a player selected in the first round of the NHL Draft compared to later rounds?
Answer: To properly evaluate a draft, you need a few year's distance from it. So let's look at the 1990s.
To define whether a player "makes it," let's set the threshold at 200 NHL games. We'll call them "career players."
Between 1990 and 1999, there were 2,600 names called at the NHL Entry Draft.
As of 2007, 494 of those players have appeared in at least 200 NHL games. That's a success rate of 19 percent.
But of course, not all draft picks are created equal. The guys picked in the first round are a cut above the rest:
Success rate of first-round draft picks

  • Of the 494 career players drafted in the 1990s, 160 were selected in the first round.
  • Of those 160 career players, over half have played more than 500 NHL games.
  • Among the older players (those drafted from 1990 to 1994), six first-round picks have made it to 1,000 games. Another couple of dozen are still active and within reach of 1,000.
  • Based on the 1990s sample, a first-round draft pick has a 63 percent chance of being a career player.
    Results can vary widely from year to year:
  • The 1993 NHL Draft produced 22 career players from 26 first-round picks.
  • In 1999, less than half of the first-round selections went on to become career players (12 out of 28).
Beyond the first round.
This is where the NHL dream begins to fade in a hurry:
  • From 1990 to 1999, about one-quarter of the players selected in the second round turned into NHL career players.
    Those drafted in the third round and beyond are really up against it.
  • From over 2,000 players selected in the third round and beyond during 1990s, just 261 made it as NHL career players. That's about 12 percent.


Edited by Bill F-ing Murray, 04 March 2013 - 12:55 PM.

  • 6

Posted Image


“Since the beginning of recorded history, which is defined by the invention of writing by the Sumerians around 6,000 years ago, historians have cataloged over 3700 supernatural beings, of which 2870 can be considered deities.

So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say “Oh which one? Zeus? Hades? Jupiter? Mars? Odin? Thor? Krishna? Vishnu? Ra?…” If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God,”

I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me.I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.”

Ricky Gervais


#6 susraiders

susraiders

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,472 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 11

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:53 PM

How you can call any pick a bust after two years is incredible. Most of our core has been drafted by us or signed as an undrafted free agent. I don't see this changing anytime soon.
  • 0

#7 EagleShield

EagleShield

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 13

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:53 PM

*
POPULAR

Don't forget that with our success under GMMG, we fell down the pecking order. It's easy to make good picks when you have 1st overall 3 years in a row, but when you're in the high 20s every year, even your 1st rounder isn't a certainty.
  • 7

#8 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,477 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:54 PM

*
POPULAR

I'm of the belief that the biggest obstacle in terms of prospect development remains to be the head coach of the Canucks.


Bieksa
Kesler
Burrows
Hansen
Edler
Schneider
Hodgson
Schroeder

All above players drafted and then 'developed' under AV

Edited by Squeak, 04 March 2013 - 01:07 PM.

  • 9
Posted Image

#9 RAMBUTANS

RAMBUTANS

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,410 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 06

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:57 PM

MG is bad at drafting. AV is bad at all things.

Fire both.
  • 1
Mr. Reputable of the HFBoards

#10 gradin123

gradin123

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,101 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 03

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:59 PM

The Canucks don't have one impact/scoring forward on their roster who was brought in by Gillis via free agency,trade or draft.

AV is a scapegoat. He actually gets more out the talent the Canucks have then he should. The Canucks just aren't that talented.
Booth is a overpaid/overrrated floater and Gillis has a good knack of finding players off bad teams who have somewhat productive years there simply because they are the focal points on those bad teams(ie. they get all the power play time and top line minutes)

Gillis is a complete and utter failure as a GM. Mark my word if AV is fired the Canucks will get worse.

Edited by gradin123, 04 March 2013 - 01:28 PM.

  • 4

#11 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,927 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:59 PM

I'm of the belief that the biggest obstacle in terms of prospect development remains to be the head coach of the Canucks.

Cause he coaches the wolves when he's not coachng the Canucks? :picard: AVs job is to win NHL games not develop prospects. Thats for lower tier clubs to do like the Wolves, K-wings or their respective Jr. Clubs. AV sees these guys what? a week out of the year? Give me a break, AV is not the one to make or break these guy's development.
  • 2
Posted Image

#12 Bill F-ing Murray

Bill F-ing Murray

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 369 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 07

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:01 PM

Bieksa
Kesler
Burrows
Hansen
Edler
Schneider
Tanev
Hodgson
Kassian
Schroeder

All players drafted and then 'developed' under AV


no they were not. tanev was undrafted and kass was traded for... just saying
  • 0

Posted Image


“Since the beginning of recorded history, which is defined by the invention of writing by the Sumerians around 6,000 years ago, historians have cataloged over 3700 supernatural beings, of which 2870 can be considered deities.

So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say “Oh which one? Zeus? Hades? Jupiter? Mars? Odin? Thor? Krishna? Vishnu? Ra?…” If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God,”

I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me.I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.”

Ricky Gervais


#13 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,013 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:01 PM

Bieksa
Kesler
Burrows
Hansen
Edler
Schneider
Tanev
Hodgson
Kassian
Schroeder

All players drafted and then 'developed' under AV



And Michel Therrien developed Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Fleury, Staal. We should get him!!!!

Just because he is the coach doesn't mean he developed all those players otherwise you could say the same about every team?..... Schroeders played like 10 games, not sure how AV has developed him... or Kassian

Edited by TheGame., 04 March 2013 - 01:02 PM.

  • 3

m97o1w.jpg

Credit to Parise11


#14 apollo

apollo

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,795 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 10

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:04 PM

And Michel Therrien developed Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Fleury, Staal. We should get him!!!!

Just because he is the coach doesn't mean he developed all those players otherwise you could say the same about every team?..... Schroeders played like 10 games, not sure how AV has developed him... or Kassian


I'm not a huge av fan but in his defense he actually did develop a lot of those guys when he coached the moose.

I would blame mg more than av for the lack of prospect development
  • 0

2cz94w5.jpg

The NHL is a fixed old boys club. I've come to acceptance with that and just watch for entertainment. The 2011 & 2012 Canucks are champs in my books. Go Canucks Go!
 


#15 apollo

apollo

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,795 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 10

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:05 PM

And Michel Therrien developed Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Fleury, Staal. We should get him!!!!

Just because he is the coach doesn't mean he developed all those players otherwise you could say the same about every team?..... Schroeders played like 10 games, not sure how AV has developed him... or Kassian


I'm not a huge av fan but in his defense he actually did develop a lot of those guys when he coached the moose.

I would blame mg more than av for the lack of prospect development
  • 0

2cz94w5.jpg

The NHL is a fixed old boys club. I've come to acceptance with that and just watch for entertainment. The 2011 & 2012 Canucks are champs in my books. Go Canucks Go!
 


#16 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,477 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:06 PM

no they were not. tanev was undrafted and kass was traded for... just saying


Yeah - realized that afterwards - I guess I should say just developed.
  • 0
Posted Image

#17 NuxFan09

NuxFan09

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,179 posts
  • Joined: 20-December 11

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:12 PM

*
POPULAR

It's tough to judge the drafting of Mike Gillis because since he's been GM, the team has perennially been one of the best in the league. Being one of the best teams in the league means several things:

A) Your 1st round picks are going to be on the low side so you're not necessarily getting those home run bluechip players from the draft.

B) You're constantly making moves to improve, which usually involves trading draft picks so you're left with less prospects in the system overall.

C) You have a deep team full of accomplished NHL'ers, which means less spots for rookies to come in and make an impact in the NHL.

That being said, I think the development of the prospects the Canucks do have has improved greatly. When Nonis was in charge, it was difficult enough for drafted prospects to even make it to the AHL level. Under Gillis, the Canucks' drafted prospects have generally done well at the level from which they were drafted and then made the successful transition to the AHL.

I think Gillis' worst draft was his first one as GM. In 2008, he only had 5 picks and drafted Cody Hodgson, Yann Sauve, Prabh Rai, Mats Froshaug and Morgan Clark. Hodgson, regardless of what happened with him in Vancouver, turned out to be a very successful pick, although 10th overall picks SHOULD be a success, and Sauve graduated to and made an impact in the AHL, while the rest pretty much disappeared off the face of the Earth within a couple years of being drafted.

Since then, only one player (Schroeder) has made it to the NHL, but as I said, the Canucks have perennially been a top team so you can't hold that against the rest of their prospects. At least we've seen pretty much the entire crop of players from the 2009 draft get to the AHL. Perhaps that's a pretty low standard, but it's still an improvement on the state of the organization's development under Nonis.
  • 6

#18 NuxFan09

NuxFan09

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,179 posts
  • Joined: 20-December 11

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:18 PM

The Canucks don't have one impact/scoring on their roster who was brought in by Gillis via free agency,trade or draft.

AV is a scapegoat. He actually gets more out the talent the Canucks have then he should. The Canucks just aren't that talented.
Booth is a overpaid/overrrated floater and Gillis has a good knack of finding players off bad teams who have somewhat productive years there simply because they are the focal points on those bad teams(ie. they get all the power play time and top line minutes)

Gillis is a complete and utter failure as a GM. Mark my word if AV is fired the Canucks will get worse.


This is a failure of a post. Since Gillis has been GM, the standard has been set much higher. The team is a top team every year. He has basically done everything but win a Cup. Complete and utter failure as a GM? Give me a break.
  • 2

#19 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,960 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:21 PM

The only sample we can really use from Gillis is the 08 and 09 drafts. Everything else is too early, and 2010 is largely a write off, because of our picks being dealt - this was also a notoriously weak draft, so I have no problem with dealing our first.

2011 and 2012 are too recent, as these guys aren't even out of junior yet.

That being said, I would have to correct you on some evaluations. The first being Andersson, who is currently on the Wolves top pairing, and has been a defense main stay down there all year. Being a Swede, and playing in the SEL gives him some upside as a puck mover. We'll see him as a call up as early as next year.

The 2011 class might be most indicative of Gillis's changes to the drafting/development department. Corrado and Jensen are steals for where they went, and Swedish defenseman Tommernes has been a key part of his SEL team's success, even while playing against partial NHL line ups.

From this past year, Gaunce has shown tremendous development this past month, demonstrating offense with 17 points in 12 games. Myron has taken the jump to pro and is currently PPG in the ECHL awaiting AHL call up. Hutton has gone from benched rookie to top pairing D on the powerhouse Maine team.

You seem to forget the epic fails by Nonis, which were blatant even at the time of the draft. I'm talking Patrick White, Daniel Rahimi, to a large degree taking Grabner 16th when he was rated in the 40s (which is where our 2nd was that year), and of course Juraj Simek, Evan Fuller and Dan Gendur.

Let's give Gillis some more time, as I think our most recent drafts might be his best.
  • 3

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#20 Vancanwincup

Vancanwincup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:24 PM

As already posted this says it all..
Not to mention how many late first round picks MG has had.

Question: How Many NHL Draft Picks Make it to the NHL?

Over 200 players are selected at every NHL draft. How many of them go on to have NHL careers? What are the prospects for a player selected in the first round of the NHL Draft compared to later rounds?
Answer: To properly evaluate a draft, you need a few year's distance from it. So let's look at the 1990s.
To define whether a player "makes it," let's set the threshold at 200 NHL games. We'll call them "career players."
Between 1990 and 1999, there were 2,600 names called at the NHL Entry Draft.
As of 2007, 494 of those players have appeared in at least 200 NHL games. That's a success rate of 19 percent.
But of course, not all draft picks are created equal. The guys picked in the first round are a cut above the rest:
Success rate of first-round draft picks
  • Of the 494 career players drafted in the 1990s, 160 were selected in the first round.
  • Of those 160 career players, over half have played more than 500 NHL games.
  • Among the older players (those drafted from 1990 to 1994), six first-round picks have made it to 1,000 games. Another couple of dozen are still active and within reach of 1,000.
  • Based on the 1990s sample, a first-round draft pick has a 63 percent chance of being a career player.
    Results can vary widely from year to year:
  • The 1993 NHL Draft produced 22 career players from 26 first-round picks.
  • In 1999, less than half of the first-round selections went on to become career players (12 out of 28).
Beyond the first round.
This is where the NHL dream begins to fade in a hurry:
  • From 1990 to 1999, about one-quarter of the players selected in the second round turned into NHL career players.
    Those drafted in the third round and beyond are really up against it.
  • From over 2,000 players selected in the third round and beyond during 1990s, just 261 made it as NHL career players. That's about 12 percent.

  • 3

#21 Honky Cat

Honky Cat

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,804 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 10

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:25 PM

As a lot of folks here have already mentioned...The downside of our success under MG is that we are picking late in the 1st round,which is almost a 2nd round pick.....Usually,guys in the top ten in the 1st round are in the NHL within a year or two..the rest are projects.
  • 1

#22 6of1_halfdozenofother

6of1_halfdozenofother

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,367 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 06

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:39 PM

Cause he coaches the wolves when he's not coachng the Canucks? :picard: AVs job is to win NHL games not develop prospects. Thats for lower tier clubs to do like the Wolves, K-wings or their respective Jr. Clubs. AV sees these guys what? a week out of the year? Give me a break, AV is not the one to make or break these guy's development.


If AV's job is to win NHL games, he's being awfully shortsighted about it. Instead of focussing on the next game, he should also be thinking about how to utilize talent coming down the pipeline. He's worrying about how to win the battle, when in fact he's got a whole war that he's squandering - primarily by not identifying what the strengths of his prospects are, and trying to mould them into the types of players that they're not. Not everyone needs to be two-way defensive drones; mix it up, let the players develop and utilize creative playmaking. That's how to prevent teams from studying and ripping apart whatever "system" AV is running, especially since AV isn't quick enough on his feet to respond to changes by opponent coaches mid-game.
  • 1
People who label others as bandwagoners, people who tell other people "how" to cheer for their team, "how" they should act or what they should wear to "support" their team, people who only want to hear positive thoughts and don't want to read about how the team can do better - these are people who are insecure and uncomfortable within their own skin.

I'll support my team the way I choose, thank you very much. You can choose to support your team the way you want to, and I won't judge you on it as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on me. I'll also be quick to point out where I think the team can do better, because identifying that there is a problem is the first step to fixing it; denying or ignoring a problem won't solve anything.

Go Canucks Go.

#23 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,942 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:47 PM

Corrado and Jensen are steals for where they went,


I'll give you Corrado of course, but Jensen? Homer goggles. On par, at best. But i guess we'll see.
  • 0
Posted Image

#24 Spoosh

Spoosh

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,474 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 05

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:50 PM

I think this AV hate is getting out of hand.

Can't people have own opinions? Why does everyone ape each other and cause mass destruction within CDC. Only a handful of faithful Av -haters were mooching about here last summer, and now the figures are multiplied by thousands.

AV doesn't develop young players. He evaluates and surely brings some opinion to discussion on their progress and ideas during the summer and camp. But the real development is on the shoulders of junior teams and the AHL. No one is ever ready as a human being or even a player, so the development of course is never-ending in that sense. So AV does have a little effect to it, but he's not the decisive factor in their development to be NHL-ready...
  • 2
© 2000, 2014 K'Spoosh Entertainment Ltd.

Misuse of this almost copyrighted information will with near certainty lead to misuse of it.


Posted Image

#25 dorrcoq

dorrcoq

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,037 posts
  • Joined: 12-September 05

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:51 PM

I'm of the belief that the biggest obstacle in terms of prospect development remains to be the head coach of the Canucks.


Sure...AV is to blame when the only forward we have that even rates consideration as a callup is Ebett. Give your head a shake. The whole team concept of drafting small, fast (?), soft players has come back to bite them.
  • 0

#26 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,864 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:52 PM

It's way to early for this thread. also the outright bust doesn't equal definite bust so any figures you chose to use will be inconclusive.
Sidenote what do you define as a bust. as per this article setting standards of say 200-500 games would mean that the earliest a player could reach 200 would have been drafted 4 years ago. so this is argument is moot and very premature.... statistically anyway

The part you quoted makes the most sense when comparing our drafting to other teams, or even comparing Gillis to Nonis and Burke. As mentioned by TOML, one or more picks from each draft class for Gillis seem likely to make the NHL in some regard. I mostly agree with the assessments, but even if you have only one of Gillis' picks from each draft go on to play 200 NHL games, that's a 14.3% drafting record. If you add in a couple more players that make it from the several drafts Gillis has had, the percentage looks better.

When we're drafting in the later part of the rounds, especially the first round, you aren't going to get many short term successes. Most are going to be players that take a few years to develop before they're ready, especially on a team that's expected to make the playoffs each year. I think we've done all right.

I'm not a huge av fan but in his defense he actually did develop a lot of those guys when he coached the moose.

I would blame mg more than av for the lack of prospect development

It's a good point some need to remember about the Moose, he did bring a number of our core players up through the system there. I don't agree on blaming MG on lack of prospect development though, as he's worked to give them good opportunities and even explores different options to give players chances (Jensen and Grenier both playing overseas this year).
  • 1

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#27 Kassian

Kassian

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,328 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 11

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:56 PM

As already posted this says it all..
Not to mention how many late first round picks MG has had.

Question: How Many NHL Draft Picks Make it to the NHL?

Over 200 players are selected at every NHL draft. How many of them go on to have NHL careers? What are the prospects for a player selected in the first round of the NHL Draft compared to later rounds?
Answer: To properly evaluate a draft, you need a few year's distance from it. So let's look at the 1990s.
To define whether a player "makes it," let's set the threshold at 200 NHL games. We'll call them "career players."
Between 1990 and 1999, there were 2,600 names called at the NHL Entry Draft.
As of 2007, 494 of those players have appeared in at least 200 NHL games. That's a success rate of 19 percent.
But of course, not all draft picks are created equal. The guys picked in the first round are a cut above the rest:
Success rate of first-round draft picks

  • Of the 494 career players drafted in the 1990s, 160 were selected in the first round.
  • Of those 160 career players, over half have played more than 500 NHL games.
  • Among the older players (those drafted from 1990 to 1994), six first-round picks have made it to 1,000 games. Another couple of dozen are still active and within reach of 1,000.
  • Based on the 1990s sample, a first-round draft pick has a 63 percent chance of being a career player.
    Results can vary widely from year to year:
  • The 1993 NHL Draft produced 22 career players from 26 first-round picks.
  • In 1999, less than half of the first-round selections went on to become career players (12 out of 28).
Beyond the first round.
This is where the NHL dream begins to fade in a hurry:
  • From 1990 to 1999, about one-quarter of the players selected in the second round turned into NHL career players.
    Those drafted in the third round and beyond are really up against it.
  • From over 2,000 players selected in the third round and beyond during 1990s, just 261 made it as NHL career players. That's about 12 percent.


/thread
  • 0

Posted Image


#28 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,864 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 04 March 2013 - 02:00 PM

Sure...AV is to blame when the only forward we have that even rates consideration as a callup is Ebett. Give your head a shake. The whole team concept of drafting small, fast (?), soft players has come back to bite them.

So we forget about Schroeder because he's played a bunch of NHL games now? He's technically a callup with Manny and Kesler out with injuries, where he might not have had room on the roster otherwise. We have other options as well for depth roles, just not top end ones, so it's a little simplistic (and an exaggeration) to say Ebbett is our only callup of note.

Rodin, Archibald, Sweatt, Gordon and even Mallet could be useful callups in a pinch, but hardly anyone I'd want to rely on long term until they develop more. You're also forgetting Jensen, who will be back in North America in a week or so, and that we've already promoted players from prospects to the roster (Schroeder as I mentioned, Kassian, Weise and Volpatti to an extent, all under Gillis).
  • 1

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#29 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,927 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 04 March 2013 - 02:02 PM

If AV's job is to win NHL games, he's being awfully shortsighted about it. Instead of focussing on the next game, he should also be thinking about how to utilize talent coming down the pipeline. He's worrying about how to win the battle, when in fact he's got a whole war that he's squandering - primarily by not identifying what the strengths of his prospects are, and trying to mould them into the types of players that they're not. Not everyone needs to be two-way defensive drones; mix it up, let the players develop and utilize creative playmaking. That's how to prevent teams from studying and ripping apart whatever "system" AV is running, especially since AV isn't quick enough on his feet to respond to changes by opponent coaches mid-game.

AV works with what he has if he has a roster full of "NHLers" why would he scratch one to play a prospect for 5 or 6 minutes a night? I think he has done a good job with Schroeder who has gotten his opportunities this season due to injury. Schroeder is learning what it takes to play in the NHL by first being defensively responsible. To me that is great for his development and if he is defensively responsible first he will always be an asset to an NHL team even if he goes through periods of his career where he is not putting up the offensive numbers.

Edited by Aladeen, 04 March 2013 - 02:03 PM.

  • 2
Posted Image

#30 Vancanwincup

Vancanwincup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 541 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 04 March 2013 - 02:20 PM

I'll give you Corrado of course, but Jensen? Homer goggles. On par, at best. But i guess we'll see.


Steal and no "homer goggles" just seeing and understanding talent.
  • 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.