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

[TOMapleLaughs]

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."

[apollo]

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.

[Erik Karlsson]

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

[Bill F-ing Murray]

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."

[susraiders]

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.

[EagleShield]

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.

[Squeak]

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

[RAMBUTANS]

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

Fire both.

[gradin123]

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.

[Aladeen]

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

[Bill F-ing Murray]

Bieksa

Kesler

Burrows

Hansen

Edler

Schneider

Tanev

Hodgson

Kassian

Schroeder

All players drafted and then 'developed' under AV

[Erik Karlsson]

Bieksa

Kesler

Burrows

Hansen

Edler

Schneider

Tanev

Hodgson

Kassian

Schroeder

All players drafted and then 'developed' under AV

[apollo]

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

[apollo]

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

[Squeak]

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

[NuxFan09]

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.

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.

[NuxFan09]

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.

[Ossi Vaananen]

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.

[Vancanwincup]

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.

[Honky Cat]

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.