2017 NHL Draft - Chicago, Illinois June 23-24 2017

[aGENT]

If we can move up to late first for a guy like Jokiharju...

 

Even better, I'd still like to see something like Tanev to TBL for Koekoek and 14th. Still be able to grab a faller (Lilj?) or a guy like Suzuki, Yammamoto, Valimaki, Brannstrom etc.

Edited June 22, 2017 by J.R.

[Camel Toe Drag]

Benning loves Makar. That's what I got from his interview on 1040. 

[Screw]

30 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

SUCCESS RATE OF FIRST-ROUND DRAFT PICKS

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:

• 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.

 

So many are "whiffs"/swings and misses.  It's a crapshoot and just as you feel that Makar or Glass should be...they may or may not be.  So having the luxury of hindsight isn't something afford to teams when they draft.  You do your research, compile information and then take a chance.

 

The topic is the draft, not "why Canucks fans react as they do".  With that, you are but one fan and don't speak for everyone.

I am a long suffering Canuck fan, but I recognize the difficulty in this stuff.  That it's often a roll of the dice and you make decisions NOT ONLY on what you need in a current situation, but on future and projected need.  Some of it pans out, some of it doesn't.

Well that's all we have...is an "I think" in all of this.  Not sure why you feel the GM's hold the key to more?  Some special power that makes or breaks it.  They go on what they know, as well as what they need.  And then the rest is up to fate and the player involved in how it pans out.

Of the 23 first round picks made from 1986 to 2010 in the pre-Horvat era.  ( not counting bourdon in this and cutting it off at Guance in 2011 because we are still waiting to see)    The Canucks selected 11 players that went on to have regular NHL careers: Linden, Nedved, Ohlund, Ference, Allan D. Sedin, H. Sedin, Umberger, Kesler, Schnieder, & Grabner.  That is about 47% You can see it is well below the Average success rate you quoted.   With regards to the bolded section of your post:  I would call that a professional scouting and development staff.

[Sugar baby watermelon]

28 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

benning said on 1040, that if the player they like in the late first round is still available, they might consider, moving their 2 second round picks to move up.

I wonder who they are inquiring about there.... inquiring minds would like to know

[ashlynnbrookefan]

58 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

SUCCESS RATE OF FIRST-ROUND DRAFT PICKS

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:

• 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.

 

So many are "whiffs"/swings and misses.  It's a crapshoot and just as you feel that Makar or Glass should be...they may or may not be.  So having the luxury of hindsight isn't something afford to teams when they draft.  You do your research, compile information and then take a chance.

 

The topic is the draft, not "why Canucks fans react as they do".  With that, you are but one fan and don't speak for everyone.

I am a long suffering Canuck fan, but I recognize the difficulty in this stuff.  That it's often a roll of the dice and you make decisions NOT ONLY on what you need in a current situation, but on future and projected need.  Some of it pans out, some of it doesn't.  With that, sure...we haven't had the best history.  But as one of those long suffering fans, I don't suffer needlessly...like before a draft has even happened, in grumbling about an outcome that we don't even know yet.

 

Well that's all we have...is an "I think" in all of this.  Not sure why you feel the GM's hold the key to more?  Some special power that makes or breaks it.  They go on what they know, as well as what they need.  And then the rest is up to fate and the player involved in how it pans out.

GMs don't make picks by throwing a dart at a board, it's not all a crapshoot. If you're a professional GM with a massive scouting background you should hit on a much higher percentage than what most people on this board would. It's not up to fate, it's up to you and your scouts when making the pick, if the player doesn't have potential to grow and you take him then it's a bad pick, it's not a "meh, oh well. Next year we'll get 'em". That's why it takes years, typically, in the league to get the position where you're making those decisions, because it's anything but a guessing game. 

[smithers joe]

17 minutes ago, Sugar baby watermelon said:

I wonder who they are inquiring about there.... inquiring minds would like to know

maybe josh norris  or cal foote or who knows. 

[Nucker 67]

4 minutes ago, ashlynnbrookefan said:

GMs don't make picks by throwing a dart at a board, it's not all a crapshoot. If you're a professional GM with a massive scouting background you should hit on a much higher percentage than what most people on this board would. It's not up to fate, it's up to you and your scouts when making the pick, if the player doesn't have potential to grow and you take him then it's a bad pick, it's not a "meh, oh well. Next year we'll get 'em". That's why it takes years, typically, in the league to get the position where you're making those decisions, because it's anything but a guessing game. 

Pretty sure Gillis guessed. His first round picks:

 

2008 - Cody Hodgson = FAIL

2009 - Jordan Schroeder = FAIL

2010 - No 1st, 2nd or 3rd (Gillis traded the 1st along with Bernier and Grabner to FLA for Ballard and Oreskovich = BIG FAIL

2011 -  Nicklas Jensen = FAIL

2012 - Brendan Gaunce = FAIL, SO FAR

2013 - Bo Horvat (thanks to Schneider trade) and Hunter Shinkaruk = JURY IS OUT ON SHINKARUK

 

...then he was fired.

[ashlynnbrookefan]

9 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

Pretty sure Gillis guessed. His first round picks:

 

2008 - Cody Hodgson = FAIL

2009 - Jordan Schroeder = FAIL

2010 - No 1st, 2nd or 3rd (Gillis traded the 1st along with Bernier and Grabner to FLA for Ballard and Oreskovich = BIG FAIL

2011 -  Nicklas Jensen = FAIL

2012 - Brendan Gaunce = FAIL, SO FAR

2013 - Bo Horvat (thanks to Schneider trade) and Hunter Shinkaruk = JURY IS OUT ON SHINKARUK

 

...then he was fired.

That's what you get when you hire a former players agent. 

[Nuck1991]

if canucks walk out with makar or glass or heiskanen, that is a big win. I would love it makars falls to us but its highly unlikely.

[Nucker 67]

Just now, ashlynnbrookefan said:

That's what you get when you hire a former players agent. 

Yes, I agree, and maybe that's why I trust Benning with drafting, he was the Director of Scouting in BUF and an assistant GM in BOS and knows what to look for in a player. Some are still sore about us getting Virtanen, but he's still developing and may still turn out to be a great player. Boeser and Juolevi are home runs IMO.

[Camel Toe Drag]

8 minutes ago, ashlynnbrookefan said:

That's what you get when you hire a former players agent. 

Gillis didn't have the final say in his scouting regime like Bennig has. I don't think MG is the one to blame for those picks falling through. 

[theo5789]

2 minutes ago, Camel Toe Drag said:

Gillis didn't have the final say in his scouting regime like Bennig has. I don't think MG is the one to blame for those picks falling through. 

Pretty sure the GM would have the final say. He could be trusting his scouts or whoever, but in the end, he makes the choice. Unless you think Aqualini was calling the shots during the draft.

[ashlynnbrookefan]

4 minutes ago, Camel Toe Drag said:

Gillis didn't have the final say in his scouting regime like Bennig has. I don't think MG is the one to blame for those picks falling through. 

I put the failures on this organization from ownership down, I think they're way too involved, everyone has their part to play in this teams failures but I don't put it on any one person in particular, Gillis included

[-DLC-]

46 minutes ago, ashlynnbrookefan said:

GMs don't make picks by throwing a dart at a board, it's not all a crapshoot. If you're a professional GM with a massive scouting background you should hit on a much higher percentage than what most people on this board would. It's not up to fate, it's up to you and your scouts when making the pick, if the player doesn't have potential to grow and you take him then it's a bad pick, it's not a "meh, oh well. Next year we'll get 'em". That's why it takes years, typically, in the league to get the position where you're making those decisions, because it's anything but a guessing game. 

I didn't say the process is a crapshoot ("you do your research, compile information...").    

 

How a player pans out is a crapshoot.  Who can predict slumps, injury, not having chemistry or being in synch with other teammates, etc.?

 

"If the player doesn't have potential to grow"....well, as prospects, I'd hope they all do.  At that age, it's probably expected that they will "grow" and aren't an "as is" deal.  

 

It's not a guessing game as to who you pick....but, after that, it most certainly is.  
 

Now, you do get these "generational" players who come along and they're the best bet.  But they're few and far between.  Everything else is putting your hope into someone and hope they pan out.

 

 

[Camel Toe Drag]

6 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Pretty sure the GM would have the final say. He could be trusting his scouts or whoever, but in the end, he makes the choice. Unless you think Aqualini was calling the shots during the draft.

I know for a fact that Gillis gave his scouting team full autonomy on whom they decided to draft. Whether Gillis decided to involve himself or not is another story. Benning takes more ownership in drafting obviously due to his heavy background. He works closely alongside his staff to determine the best fit. Just. 2 different styles that's all. 

[CANUCK-EXPRESS]

Ok so Benning likes Glass, Pettersson or Vilardi at 5? I'll be so happy with any one of them!!

[ashlynnbrookefan]

1 minute ago, debluvscanucks said:

I didn't say the process is a crapshoot ("you do your research, compile information...").    

 

How a player pans out is a crapshoot.  Who can predict slumps, injury, not having chemistry or being in synch with other teammates, etc.?

 

"If the player doesn't have potential to grow"....well, as prospects, I'd hope they all do.  At that age, it's probably expected that they will "grow" and aren't an "as is" deal.  

 

It's not a guessing game as to who you pick....but, after that, it most certainly is.  
 

Now, you do get these "generational" players who come along and they're the best bet.  But they're few and far between.  Everything else is putting your hope into someone and hope they pan out.

 

 

So after you pick a player it's all a guessing game? That's absurd. Does everyone turn out like you'd hope? Absolutely not but to call it a guessing game isn't right. If players don't reach their potential for the reasons you listed then it was poor scouting and drafting. There's a reason they put so much money and effort into scouting, and it's not so they can play the guessing game, it's so they can make the best pick of their ability, part of that is projecting where that player will be when fully mature. It's certainly not a crapshoot at any stage at that level, you make educated moves with the hope your information and scouting is on point

[J-Dizzle]

27 minutes ago, ashlynnbrookefan said:

That's what you get when you hire a former players agent. 

That, a trip to the finals and a couple presidents trophies.  I still don't understand the hate for Gillis amongst Canucks fans.  

[ashlynnbrookefan]

3 minutes ago, J-Dizzle said:

That, a trip to the finals and a couple presidents trophies.  I still don't understand the hate for Gillis amongst Canucks fans.  

Gillis didn't build that team, he was handed it. 

[J-Dizzle]

Just now, ashlynnbrookefan said:

Gillis didn't build that team, he was handed it. 

Every GM inherits something.  Gillis took what he was 'handed' and ran with it.  He did an incredible job subsidizing the Sedin's and Kesler.