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

[TOMapleLaughs]

Corrado and Jensen are steals for where they went,

[Spoosh]

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...

[dorrcoq]

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

[elvis15]

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

[Kassian]

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.

[elvis15]

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.

[Aladeen]

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.

[Vancanwincup]

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

[Bruce Boudreau]

I think Gillis and the Canucks scouting is improving slowly year by year in increments.

They finally might draft a player from the WHL this year. They have been missing out on a lot of talent by ignoring the WHL and drafting a majority of NCAA and OHL players.

They have committed more to scouting in the west this year. We will find out if the picks they make back up what they have been saying about drafting more players from western Canada.

You have to remember Gillis had to overhaul the entire way the Canucks did scouting. Before Dave Gagner the Canucks didn't have a player development guy or a skills coach like Glenn Carnegie.

This will be year 5 of the Gillis plan. I'm hoping that this upcoming draft will be the best one since he's been here and he now has had time to implement all the elements of his plan.

All you can really ask is that drafting improves year to year can't you?

[TOMapleLaughs]

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

[kacvan]

We'll never know because AV hates rookies.

[disisdayear]

Cause he coaches the wolves when he's not coachng the Canucks? 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.

[naslundfan921]

Too Soon to analyze and tough to blame GMMG when the team is doing so well you are usually left at the bottom of the draft

[sting]

It has widely been considered a successful draft if you can come away with one solid player per year.

Gillis after 5 drafts: NHL players= Kassian, Schroeder, Tanev

Blue chippers= Jensen, Gaunce, Corrado, Lack

NHL potential= Andersson, Cannata, Connauton, McNally, Hutton.

Longshots= Sauve, Polasek, Grenier, Labate, McEneny, Rodin, Blomstrand Tommernes, Honzik, Friesen, Price.

Drafting from the bottom of the draft IMO were doing ok. Can we please draft some western Canadians though?

Time will tell on the draft but the team personnel has been excellent.

Hamhuis,Higgins,Lapierre,Garrison,Booth are all quality acquisitions that cost next to nothing.

[Kack Zassian]

Saying our drafting sucks is one thing, but lets see what kind of quality proceeded our recent 1st round picks

2009:

22nd overall Jordan Schroeder:

Unanimously better players picked in the next 10 spots?

- Marcus Johansson (Ryan O'Reilly went 11 spots after)

2010:

25th overall traded

High quality players between 25-25?

- Evgeny Kuznetsov, Charlie Coyle (Faulk went 37th)

2011:

29th overall Niklas Jensen

Other players with solid upside 10 picks after?

- Ty Rattie, Rickard Rakell, Boone Jenner (Brandon Saad went 43rd)

2012:

26th overall Brendan Gaunce

Too early to really gauge much, but Matt Finn looks like a steal.

I mean when your constantly getting bottom-5 picks you don't have a whole lot of high end talent to work with....

Obviously I would have taken Marcus Johansson, or Ryan O'Reilly (in hindsight), and you could make a case for Rattie/Jenner > Jensen but most teams typically strike our between 25-35 overall pick. Its really 80% scouting 20% luck at that point.

[Kack Zassian]

We'll never know because AV hates rookies.

[Jacare]

math wise if you can get one nhl player out of an entire draft class your doing alright. especially if your picking late. isn't the % breakdown something like top 10 picks that play more than 80 nhl games something like 60%? then 10-20 at 35%, 20-30 20%, second round like 10%, and like 2-5% for every round after? so you spend the money on scouting and you get a list of players your really hyped about only to find that when its your time to pick they're all gone. and your left with picking potential players who havent got it figured out yet and maybe wont. you only hear about the zetterburgs and the datsyuks, and O'riellys etc. because they overcame the odds, but they are statistical anomaly's and you can't build an organization around decisions based on luck. the odds are lotteryesque

[canuck73_3]

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

[Garrison]

Hodgson was a terrific draft pick, I know Eberle was left on the table but many other teams also let him through their grasps. Jensen looks like a promising pick and Schroeder looks pretty solid for a 22nd overall pick. He isn't a stud, but he is an NHL caliber player. Corrado looks decent and I'm very unsure about Gaunce. His two picks ups from college on the other hand are both studs. Tanev and Lack are beasts. They can be a big part of our future.

[canucklehead44]

I think the benchmark for a solid draft is having one of your first or second round picks pan out (or at least be better than 5/10 players selected after) and then snag a 200+ game player in the later rounds OR you have a first round pick that is better than at least 9/10 of the next players picked (snagging one really good player in the first round makes for a successful draft IMO).

Take an average draft as a B, here are the report cards I give each GM.

BURKE

1999: INCOMPLETE - Burke got the Sedins but nobody else. This is a bit of a write-off, as the 2 & 3 picks usually turn out well and he failed to draft anybody else after.

2000 - F

2001: A-. This is an example of a good draft. Umberger is a better player than all of the guys picked after him in the first round and we picked up a top 4 defenseman in Bieksa later.

2002 - F

2003: B-. Kesler was an awesome pick but there were a few guys after him who also had great careers.

NONIS

2004: A+ . This year was probably our best drafting ever. We got a first round player better than 9/10 of the following picked, an all-star in the third round, a high-end 3rd line player + a fourth line "career player".

2005: INCOMPLETE / B+ - This year was good but unfortunate (RIP Luc). Bourdon would have ended up better than 7/10 players picked after him (most likely) and Raymond is better than the 10 players picked after him.

2006: B - . Grabner is better than 7/10 but we had nobody else.

2007: F

GILLIS

2008: B- . Hodgson is better than 6/10 but I don't think we will end up with any other career players.

2009: Schroeder is an NHL player so he is a decent pick.