Canucks Prospect Pool - A Reflection and Evaluation Thread

[Rob_Zepp]

2 hours ago, Wizardofoz said:

Shouldn't 4 or 5 of these players already be on the team? Other teams have players younger than this already playing. Aren't some of those listed no longer prospects? I thought once they play in the NHL or are over 23 they are no longer prospects? Doesn't the prospect ranking go up if none play in the NHL?

Yes, absolutely.   Because other teams are doing something means Vancouver should be the same.   Absolutely.  

 

Use whatever definition you like - in my world I figure that if you are not a bonafide full-time NHL player yet, you are a prospect.  You can add age if you want - just remember some current NHL stars (superstars) didn't get their first NHL shifts until 22-23.

 

Cheers  

[ilduce39]

4 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

For the most part, I think the tank crowd preached the importance of high picks

 

I wasn't one of them infact i (and a whole group of others) argued against it: 

stating "it's better to remain competitive and play meaningful games"...

stating "that you don't need top picks to build contending teams"..

stating "You don't want to be bottom feeder like the oilers as loosing culture will ruin our prospects."

stating "this fanbase couldn't handle consecutive loosing seasons."

 

-Juolevi, Pettersson, Virtanen and now Hughes are all the results of the team sucking, be it because of injuries or because it was planned, either way it ended with the same result high draft picks and top end......

-Gaudette is the result of Gillis picking up another pick for Diaz 

-Gadjovich is the result of Torts getting hired in CBJ

 

Then you got tanking type moves which involve trading away vets for players/prospect - Dahlen & Goldi

 

If anything the tank crowd has gotten their way, what they've wanted has come to fruition.

 

 

I agree completely, which is why I roll my eyes at the Botchford-esque “rebuild of 2014” complaining.  We ended up with the main result (top picks) just a few less mid rounders.  With the mid rounders we’ve had, JB has been able to make hay.  I think Willes wrote about that recently (I skimmed it so I might be wrong) in that the teams who drafted the most pros don’t have cups.  It’s about drafting an elite core.  To that end it was (and is) hard to argue with that element of tanking.  You need top players to win, and by far the easiest way to get top players is through the top of the draft.  The problem, I think, is rushing those guys in without support once you get them.  Which tank-worthy teams are in danger of doing.  Teams who draft the top players aren’t guaranteed squat. We let Pettersson cook a year... if he’s not ready (I think he will be) he will cook again this year.  Same goes for Hughes.  I have some faith on that front. We’ll suck if they’re not ready but there’s enough mid-level depth that they won’t be thrown to the wolves. Plus that comes with a chance at other Hughes.

 

I would have preferred being less of a bottom feeder (though now that we’re past it I’ll gladly take the high picks) and I think injuries played a role in knocking us down a few spots every year.  In that regard I’m a little optimistic: a healthy season with an influx of good young talent and we could bounce back in a big way. I think the bones of a competitive team are there. We’re just missing the top end guys.  That’s what’s killed us the past few years: Sedin, Kesler, Bieksa, Salo, Hamhuis decline/departure with no one to pick up the slack.  In hindsight, even without injuries we’d likely have been top-10 drafting most years anyways.  The moves JB made kept us out of the abyss... but didn’t result in the drafting-14th place limbo some feared.

 

Having watched the team closely, yeah there were abysmal stretches and yes the overall record is terrible... but there were also enough moral victories and periods of competitive hockey that I’m confident Bo and co know what it takes. (Plus the one playoff appearance.) They’re still hungry to improve and have good attitudes. 

 

A bigger part is probably just their makeup... we’re blessed that guys like Bo, Brock, Baer and Stecher are serious about their profession. If the losing has gotten to them they haven’t shown it.  But it obviously didn’t hurt to have some seasoned pros like the Twins or Sutter to reinforce that good character.  

 

That’s kind of my point: it’s taken 5 years but this team hasn’t gone toxic. Stale at times, but not toxic. Which I think can happen pretty easily with all of that losing.  (Heck, even with winning: looking at teams like the Sens, Flames and Habs making weird moves because of the room.) If we did it the “tank” way who’s to say it would be as good? I still have a ton of optimism that the next wave are coming into a good room that’s committed to getting to the next level.  

 

I write it every year but every year we seem closer.  The mental makeup seems solid, there’s more youth pushing and more elite level guys ready to step up. 

[AK_19]

I agree that prospects most recently drafted shouldn't really count as we really don't know what we have in them until D+1. Both our top picks right now were relatively status quo and, based on the season they just had, a rational place to pick. What makes a good drafter is being able to tell which prospects will progress better. 

 

I disagree with the notion that Gillis should get a pass on his first rounders since they were later in the draft because of the success of his own team. Gillis drafted in the late 1sts Schroeder, Shinkaruk, and Jensen. Those three players combined aren't worth Benning's late 1st rounder in Boeser or McCann. Both of Benning's later first rounder have shown far more promise than Gillis's picks. 

[canucksnihilist]

Whatever.   Arguing over past projections is useful how?

 

what I know is that the team is poised to be a fast high energy team in a few years.   We probably have another lottery pick or 2 coming our way as well, which bodes well.  

 

[Baggins]

2 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Yes, absolutely.   Because other teams are doing something means Vancouver should be the same.   Absolutely.  

 

Use whatever definition you like - in my world I figure that if you are not a bonafide full-time NHL player yet, you are a prospect.  You can add age if you want - just remember some current NHL stars (superstars) didn't get their first NHL shifts until 22-23.

 

Cheers  

My opinion is you're a prosect until you're at least two years past being classified an NHL rookie and and/or waiver eligible. Upper limit being 25 with a combined total of one full season of NHL games be on the fence of being a prospect. It's a subjective title and one that fits almost any player that hasn't established himself as an NHL regular and is still prospective NHL'er.

 

adjective: prospective

1. (of a person) expected or expecting to be something particular in the future.

   • likely to happen at a future date; concerned with or applying to the future.

 

 

[Wizardofoz]

3 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Yes, absolutely.   Because other teams are doing something means Vancouver should be the same.   Absolutely.  

 

Use whatever definition you like - in my world I figure that if you are not a bonafide full-time NHL player yet, you are a prospect.  You can add age if you want - just remember some current NHL stars (superstars) didn't get their first NHL shifts until 22-23.

 

Cheers  

Well whatever Vancouver is doing, the team has been going in the wrong direction for 4 years or have they been losing to get better picks? I haven't heard them say that I have heard them say the team is better but they are last and other teams are better. Maybe the Canucks should do what other teams are doing.

 

I can't find a website that shows how long it takes star players to make the NHL, when I look up the player it just shows them in the NHL at 18 or 19,at least the really good star players. Some of the others seem to be only one or two years of being stars.

[Wizardofoz]

2 hours ago, AK_19 said:

I agree that prospects most recently drafted shouldn't really count as we really don't know what we have in them until D+1. Both our top picks right now were relatively status quo and, based on the season they just had, a rational place to pick. What makes a good drafter is being able to tell which prospects will progress better. 

 

I disagree with the notion that Gillis should get a pass on his first rounders since they were later in the draft because of the success of his own team. Gillis drafted in the late 1sts Schroeder, Shinkaruk, and Jensen. Those three players combined aren't worth Benning's late 1st rounder in Boeser or McCann. Both of Benning's later first rounder have shown far more promise than Gillis's picks. 

I like that Gillis got the team to the Stanley cup, I don't understand how any true fan can blame him for getting the team there, it is the ultimate goal of the game.

This seems silly now, people are happy because there are a bunch of players I have never seen play for the Canucks and think Gillis did a bad job. Isn't winning still the goal? The Canucks were a great team for 5 years, at the top of the standings, the best team in the league for two years in a row, they made the playoff 7 out of 8 times and had cap space every year.

 

I can't understand how he is a villain now, what has happened to the fans in Vancouver when a GM like that is now, BAD. How does anyone know what his plan for the future was? Should a GM start trading players for low first round picks once the team gets close to being good enough for the cup? How else can a team picking 29th get a better pick?

 

All I can say is this GM has the worst record of any Canuck team in it's history, that I can look up, it is the worst ever. And fans like the team's standings? They are god awful by any standards.

[DrJockitch]

I have a mixed opinion on Benning.  He took what may have been the worst job in hockey at the time.  The Canucks were old and stale, and had no youth in the lineup or coming along.  He was handicapped by NTC/NMC in pretty much every vet and that put him in bad positions for trading players and rebuilding the team.  I also believe that ownership gave him a direction to try and honour the Sedins, so no sell off like Buffalo and Toronto did.

This affected Benning in two very serious ways, he was not able to add high end draft pics by trading quality vets and the real drop to the bottom was delayed by a couple of years which put us into a time when the blatant tanking of Buffalo and the Leafs forced the league to change the expansion draft in a way that has screwed Vancouver harder than anyone.  Still pisses me off that Buffalo got first OA this year since it was their blatant tank job that made them change the rules.

Benning also was forced to build around the Sedins who really don't suit the style of play he wanted to play.  He also had no players in the early 20s and needed to start filling that gap instead of going full Oilers.

He hasn't done a great job trading and seems to really over-value some players in a way I just don't get.  I haven't been a big fan of his signings either but some of the ones I have been the hardest on have worked out the best, like Vanek.  LE is a pretty awful signing though.  

What I like though is now that the shackles are off somewhat we know what his team is, skating, skating, skating and I like that.  He also puts a value on toughness, though doesn't burn draft picks to get it.  He also seems to have done a very good job drafting.  Our prospect group is looking very good now.  I know people who think they are great experts quibble about picks they would have preferred based on some profile they red on them or as is often the case they just look at points, height and weight and decide then and there if it was a good pick.

What I like most about Linden and Benning though is they seem to be learning from their mistakes.

As far as Gillis goes, he does deserve more credit than he gets.  He managed this team through the best stretch in its history and almost got us all the way.  He was progressive in many ways that the current group isn't.  Man he bungled the goalie situation, his drafting was truly terrible and never quite seemed on the same page as AV.  Part of the problem GMs have is their reputation is often built on the back of the guys that came before.  Gillis didn't get most of his core, he inherited it.  Benning didn't make the tire fire he walked into, he inherited it.

P.S. Don't want to sound like I am dragging on the Sedins, great guys and players, they just had a distinct effect on the ability to rebuild.

[AK_19]

2 hours ago, Wizardofoz said:

I like that Gillis got the team to the Stanley cup, I don't understand how any true fan can blame him for getting the team there, it is the ultimate goal of the game.

This seems silly now, people are happy because there are a bunch of players I have never seen play for the Canucks and think Gillis did a bad job. Isn't winning still the goal? The Canucks were a great team for 5 years, at the top of the standings, the best team in the league for two years in a row, they made the playoff 7 out of 8 times and had cap space every year.

 

I can't understand how he is a villain now, what has happened to the fans in Vancouver when a GM like that is now, BAD. How does anyone know what his plan for the future was? Should a GM start trading players for low first round picks once the team gets close to being good enough for the cup? How else can a team picking 29th get a better pick?

 

All I can say is this GM has the worst record of any Canuck team in it's history, that I can look up, it is the worst ever. And fans like the team's standings? They are god awful by any standards.

Perhaps there was some misunderstanding in my last post. I don't think Gillis is a villain or am I claiming in anyway that Benning is even a better GM than him. I think he was the 2nd best GM in our franchise after Patt Quinn. 

With that being said, Gillis was probably the worst drafting GM I can remember for our franchise. His high 1st rounders are not an excuse either in comparison to Benning or other top teams in the league. The Washington Capitals, Boston Bruins, Chicago Blackhawks, San Jose Sharks, and Pittsburgh Penguins, are all teams who finished near the top of the standings and still drafted well. What's the excuse after the first round? I believe the only player worth noting was Hutton during that entire stretch. 

I have a feeling part of the issue with Gillis was the Winnipeg Jets getting a team which caused us to lose the Moose who did an excellent job developing our prospects. The Chicago Wolves did a terrible job on the development side of our prospects.  

[Westcoasting]

6 hours ago, danaimo said:

PK made those comments minutes after his younger got drafted by an NHL team.  It was the biggest day of Jordan's life and the press were swarming around PK.  Of course PK is going to want to pump his brother up to the press and let him have some time in the spotlight.  What else could he say? " Me and Malcolm were much better, Jordan sucks and will never make it to the big time". It was just PK throwing some glory over his brother, a classy thing to do.  Unfortunately, some people took the comment as a serious analysis of Jordan's abilities and let their imagine run wild.

Actually the comments P.K. made were a week or two before the draft. He wasn't just "throwing some glory over his brother". Jordan was ranked by Central Scouting at around 50 to 60 and the Canucks got him in the fourth round. P.K. himself wasn't in the top 100 and Montreal went way off the board selecting him.

[kloubek]

What I like about our prospect pool is the skill level we have.  Prospects are great and all, but we have quite a handful of guys with high ceilings.  Most will bust, no doubt, but I bet you a couple of the middle tier guys will amount to something and will end up real finds/steals.

 

Nevermind the fact we could probably build 1/2 a good forward nhl lineup and a possible top pairing with the near-surefire prospect tier....

[danaimo]

14 minutes ago, Westcoasting said:

Actually the comments P.K. made were a week or two before the draft. He wasn't just "throwing some glory over his brother". Jordan was ranked by Central Scouting at around 50 to 60 and the Canucks got him in the fourth round. P.K. himself wasn't in the top 100 and Montreal went way off the board selecting him.

Pretty sure this video was recorded at the draft, minutes after Jordan's name was called by the Canucks.  But if you think this was filmed a week or two before, then okay, perhaps they hired actors to sit in those seats behind and got lucking in predicting the information on the ticker at the bottom of the screen.

Sounds like PK was throwing some glory over his brother to me. Building him up on his big day. You obviously interpret it quite differently.  That's okay, you believe whatever you want.

[Westcoasting]

1 minute ago, danaimo said:

Pretty sure this video was recorded at the draft, minutes after Jordan's name was called by the Canucks.  But if you think this was filmed a week or two before, then okay, perhaps they hired actors to sit in those seats behind and got lucking in predicting the information on the ticker at the bottom of the screen.

Sounds like PK was throwing some glory over his brother to me. Building him up on his big day. You obviously interpret it quite differently.  That's okay, you believe whatever you want.

Oh nice! No i read another previous post with some P.K. comments about his brother and it was two weeks before the draft. No need to get all worked up!

 

"Jordan plays more of a cerebral type of game and is more of a thinker and I play off my instincts and try to do a little bit of everything," P.K. Subban said. "I think Jordan's skill level is much higher than mine. I'm on the ice with him every day during the summer doing skill stuff, and he's the one demonstrating the drill."

[danaimo]

Westcoasting, the point I was making was that PK's comments were made to compliment his brother but many fans read it as a serious analysis of Jordan's talent.   Of course he's going to say positive stuff about his brother whether it is at the draft or a week before.  Take it for what it is, just a soundbite.

[Westcoasting]

3 minutes ago, danaimo said:

Westcoasting, the point I was making was that PK's comments were made to compliment his brother but many fans read it as a serious analysis of Jordan's talent.   Of course he's going to say positive stuff about his brother whether it is at the draft or a week before.  Take it for what it is, just a soundbite.

Gotcha now! I took your comments way out of context...Cheers!

[DeNiro]

On 6/23/2018 at 10:27 AM, Rob_Zepp said:

 

Flash forward to June 2018, not sure exactly what the top 10 would look like but here are some candidates and it would be difficult to see anyone not named Horvat on that former list even cracking the top 10?   Roughly ordered - please add your own re-jiggle.      Point is, THIS Is a prospect pool that can support a successful NHL tea

 

Elias Pettersson
Thatcher Demko

Quinn Hughes

Olli Juolevi
Jonathan Dahlen

Big Tall Guy in Russia

Nikolay Goldobin
Kole Lind

Jett Woo
Adam Gaudette
Brendan Leipsic

Tyler Madden
Lukas Jasek
Petrus Palmu
Jalen Chatfield   
William Lockwood  

Dmitri Zhukenov   
Zack MacEwen    
Jack Rathbone

 

Left out some notables in Gadjovich, DiPietro, and Brisebois which makes the list even more impressive.

 

I would also replace Zhukenov with Manuykan as I think Zhukenov is an even longer shot to make it at this point. Also missing are Utonen, Gunnarsson, and Brassard who I think all have just as good of shot being a bottom pair guy as Chatfield.

 

Great list though either way. We finally have high end depth in every position as well as guys who project to be solid role players. Good place to be.

[Brovat]

4 hours ago, Wizardofoz said:

I like that Gillis got the team to the Stanley cup, I don't understand how any true fan can blame him for getting the team there, it is the ultimate goal of the game.

This seems silly now, people are happy because there are a bunch of players I have never seen play for the Canucks and think Gillis did a bad job. Isn't winning still the goal? The Canucks were a great team for 5 years, at the top of the standings, the best team in the league for two years in a row, they made the playoff 7 out of 8 times and had cap space every year.

 

I can't understand how he is a villain now, what has happened to the fans in Vancouver when a GM like that is now, BAD. How does anyone know what his plan for the future was? Should a GM start trading players for low first round picks once the team gets close to being good enough for the cup? How else can a team picking 29th get a better pick?

 

All I can say is this GM has the worst record of any Canuck team in it's history, that I can look up, it is the worst ever. And fans like the team's standings? They are god awful by any standards.

Don’t worry man. 

 

Benning will be at the 2030 draft as an announcer and dis our number 5 pick. 

[Brovat]

1 hour ago, kloubek said:

What I like about our prospect pool is the skill level we have.  Prospects are great and all, but we have quite a handful of guys with high ceilings.  Most will bust, no doubt, but I bet you a couple of the middle tier guys will amount to something and will end up real finds/steals.

 

Nevermind the fact we could probably build 1/2 a good forward nhl lineup and a possible top pairing with the near-surefire prospect tier....

I’m not sure. Lots of the mid guys are built to play NHL hockey and be solid players. 

 

Break them down one by one and read what they bring, watch the highlights, it’s like a puzzle where guys just fit. 

 

Maybe I’m a fool I dunno. I’d eat pretty much anything Benning serves me at this point though. 

[CanadianRugby]

On ‎2018‎-‎06‎-‎23 at 1:27 PM, cuporbust said:

Great thing is we didn't tank. Injuries had a big part to play in our draft positions.  Benning still tried to develope a win no matter what attitude at least. 

 

Our management never made it ok to lose. With record setting man games lost , the team gave us good draft positions all on their own.  

Eriksson & Sutter didn't score and Gudbranson couldn't defend when healthy.  Those guys were supposed to carry the team the last couple years.  Them getting injured only helped the team as we went from a picking in the teens to picking near the top.  

 

On ‎2018‎-‎06‎-‎23 at 10:27 AM, Rob_Zepp said:

The Benning team has now completed their fifth amateur draft.   That seems a fair milestone to compare the prospect pool his team inherited and the one they presented have.   Prior to this arrival, this as the"consensus pool" (2013):

 

Vancouver Canucks Top 10 Prospects

1. Hunter Shinkaruk, Center 
2. Bo Horvat, Center 

 

Wow Shinkaruk was ranked higher than Horvat?  I guess that shows the unpredictability of prospects. 

 

11 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

For the most part, I think the tank crowd preached the importance of high picks

 

I wasn't one of them infact i (and a whole group of others) argued against it: 

stating "it's better to remain competitive and play meaningful games"...

stating "that you don't need top picks to build contending teams"..

stating "You don't want to be bottom feeder like the oilers as loosing culture will ruin our prospects."

stating "this fanbase couldn't handle consecutive loosing seasons."

 

-Juolevi, Pettersson, Virtanen and now Hughes are all the results of the team sucking, be it because of injuries or because it was planned, either way it ended with the same result high draft picks and top end......

-Gaudette is the result of Gillis picking up another pick for Diaz 

-Gadjovich is the result of Torts getting hired in CBJ

 

Then you got tanking type moves which involve trading away vets for players/prospect - Dahlen & Goldi

 

If anything the tank crowd has gotten their way, what they've wanted has come to fruition.

 

 

You're one of the few people on here that can admit wrong or has the ability to change their opinion.  

 

On ‎2018‎-‎06‎-‎23 at 5:55 PM, ilduce39 said:

The “trade everyone and tank” crowd can’t handle that JB has done a great job without doing it their way.  

This is true for a lot of the tank crowd.  Though it's also true for a lot of the anti tank crowd.  That they can't even admit that so many of them were saying if the team finished near the bottom it would ruin all our prospects and we'd be doomed to be the next Edmonton.  

 

On ‎2018‎-‎06‎-‎23 at 5:55 PM, ilduce39 said:

The way I see it, if we had done it their way and shot our wad to go all-in on the 2014/2015 drafts it wouldn’t have ended any better at all.  

I disagree.  Benning has done a good job drafting so you'd figure with more draft picks our prospect pool would look better?  

 

The only argument against it at the time was that we can't finish at the bottom as constant losing ruins prospects.  Are our prospects ruined?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

 

4 minutes ago, CanadianRugby said:

You're one of the few people on here that can admit wrong or has the ability to change their opinion.  

 

Well it would be extremely hypocritical for me, as I argued with you and a few others about how this team doesn't need high draft picks and becoming a bottom feeder isn't a recipe for success...... only for a few years later to turn around and talk about how promising this teams future is, as a result of those high draft picks..