Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Canucks Prospect Pool - A Reflection and Evaluation Thread


Rob_Zepp

Recommended Posts

On 24/06/2018 at 8:43 PM, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Those players are the result of tanking moves. All of them. Tanking doesn’t just get you high picks in the first round but high picks in the following rounds. It also pushed the team to sell off roster assets for prospects and picks. 

 

I really like what JB has done but let’s be honest. The people that have been calling for tanking have technically got there way and our future is really bright because of it. Nothing wrong with admitting that finishing near the bottom has improved our team. 

Not Boeser. Nor do you have to be tanking to be a seller at the trade deadline. Virtually every team out of the race will shop some pending ufa's they're willing to move on from at the deadline. So trading for assets at the deadline isn't a tanking move, it's just asset management. Trading those players before the season even starts is a tanking move as it weakens your team for the entire season as opposed to when hope of the playoffs is lost.

 

Even if you're the worst team in the league the Stanley cup winner has the chance to take the player you want from the second round on as they're selecting 31st, you're sellecting 32nd. So really your argument only applies to the first round not the following rounds. Whether rebuilding or contending you need to score some hits with later picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I have to respectfully disagree. Jake and OJ were always going to take a few years to develop into effective NHL players, especially with the effort put on Jake to develop into a solid 200ft player, instead of just having him rely on his speed and physical play.

 

I'm not convinced that a guy like Ehlers or Nylander would've had the same kind of success on this team than they have had on their respective teams. The Jet have a much bigger and tougher team than we did (and still do) so I don't think that Ehlers would've had the same type of room to make plays here, that he has enjoyed over in Winnipeg. Also Nylander has been playing in a more faster paced conference, along with playing with guys like Matthews. 

I agree with almost everything though I think Ehlers could have leapfrogged Baertschi here, not saying anything against Virtanen whom I think is a more physical speedier Bernier who was great for the Devils.  Nylander I agree. I doubt he would have shown much more than Goldy has to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2018 at 12:12 PM, King Heffy said:

I mean only removing the firsts from our group now. 

 

So:

1. Hunter Shinkaruk, Center 
2. Bo Horvat, Center 
3. Frankie Corrado, Defense 
4. Nicklas Jensen, Left Wing 
5. Brendan Gaunce, Center 
6. Jordan Subban, Defense 
7. Henrik Tommernes, Defense 
8. Eddie Lack, Goaltender 
9. Joseph LaBate, Center 
10. Patrick McNally, Defense

 

Vs:

  1. Thatcher Demko
  2. Jonathan Dahlen
  3. Nikita Tryamkin
  4. Nikolay Goldobin
  5. Kole Lind
  6. Jett Woo
  7. Adam Gaudette
  8. Brendan Leipsic
  9. Jonah Gadjovich
  10. Tyler Madden

 

I like the second group much better.  All of these guys would have been available if we had been drafting at the end of the first round.

 

 

On 6/23/2018 at 12:33 PM, bloodycanuckleheads said:

When you look back in 5 or 10 years, you will find out that the majority of these players busted too (Zhukenov has virtually no chance of making the NHL, etc...).

 

It's ridiculous how this board always over-rates our prospects and just assumes they'll all turn out amazing.  Just to point out...  5 years ago, absolutely everyone here had Shinkaruk pencilled in as a 1st line scorer.  Everyone here also thought Subban was going to be a dominant d-man.  Every year, you guys are wrong.  Horribly wrong.


Also, your list includes quite a few players who aren't actually prospects (Leipsic, Goldobin, Tryamkin).

 

And, isn't it surprising how our prospect pool is ranked near the bottom of the league - after we were drafting last in each round?!!  And then, once we started drafting at the top of every round, our prospect pool got magically better?!!  No, that's not a coincidence at all - and it's not evidence that Benning is an amazing drafter.  It's expected.  100% expected.  Your prospect pool better rise dramatically in quality after you were the worst team in the league over the last 3 years.  In fact, it should be better than it is now.  Unfortunately, we made a few horrible mistakes along the way with our best picks (Virtanen, Juolevi). 

 

On 6/23/2018 at 12:37 PM, Rob_Zepp said:

If a player is not on the NHL roster they are, by definition, a prospect.   As the former list has one (Horvat) name that is a legitimate player and there are at least five players on the new list who will be NHL players (a couple likely stars) you can be as pessimistic as you like, but the lists are night and day.

 

This was not a thread about "amazing drafting" or otherwise, it was about comparing prospect pools but clearly you see it yet another way to post your dislike of Benning and point out your dislike of both the Virtanen and Juolevi picks - two players that will still make you eat a lot of crow (Jake this  year, OJ soon too).


Cheers happy guy.   :)

When Benning was signed as GM, the Canucks had a terrible prospect pool -- ranked at or near the bottom of various prospect pool rankings.

 

There were two reasons for this:

 

1. The Canucks had been a very successful team for a number of years and were therefore never drafting high in first round, except when they traded for the pick that brought in Horvat--and even that was only a #9 overall pick. (EDIT: Forgot about Hodgson at #10 overall. I guess anything in the top third of the draft -- top 10 -- counts as a high draft pick. Thanks to @aGENT)

 

2. As has been established by analysis cited in other threads and elsewhere, even taking into account draft position, Gillis had a very poor draft record.

 

So, bad draft position and bad drafting conditional on position led to a terrible prospect pool.

 

Since then,

 

3. The Canucks have had a very poor record and therefore have had a lot of high draft picks.

4. Benning has re-structured the scouting staff and approach. I personally think the key is Judd Brackett, who seems excellent as the guy in charge of amateur scouting-vastly better than Ron Delorme was, although Delorme is somehow still in the organization.

5. And Benning himself is much more hands-on in scouting that Gillis was or than most GMs are. That is his background and that is his strongest area of comparative advantage as a GM.

 

It was therefore pretty much inevitable, as bloodycanucklehead, says that the prospect pool would improve a lot. 

 

Is Benning better at drafting that Gillis? Of course he is, and it is not close. But Gillis was so bad at drafting that this is not exactly high praise.

 

Should Benning have done better at drafting? I think he has made some mistakes -- most notably the much discussed Virtanen and Juolevi picks. But no GM is 100% and even those picks are not terrible and may end up quite good (although neither guy is likely to be an elite player). But the Boeser, Gaudette, Demko, and Pettersson picks were great. Hughes is also a great prospect, but I think was at the top of most boards when the Canucks picked him, so that was not a tough pick to make. I also like the Woo pick.

 

Is this prospect pool good enough to be the basis for a Cup contender? I am not sure, but I don't think so, although it is not too far off.

 

Can Benning do the other things a good GM needs to do to build a Cup contender? That is the biggest question mark for me. Personally I would like to see Benning stay away from UFA signings and trades, apart from trying to acquire picks. He should focus on the draft as that is playing to his strength.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JamesB said:

 

 

When Benning was signed as GM, the Canucks had a terrible prospect pool -- ranked at or near the bottom of various prospect pool rankings.

 

There were two reasons for this:

 

1. The Canucks had been a very successful team for a number of years and were therefore never drafting high in first round, except when they traded for the pick that brought in Horvat--and even that was only a #9 overall pick. 

 

2. As has been established by analysis cited in other threads and elsewhere, even taking into account draft position, Gillis had a very poor draft record.

 

So, bad draft position and bad drafting conditional on position led to a terrible prospect pool.

 

Since then,

 

3. The Canucks have had a very poor record and therefore have had a lot of high draft picks.

4. Benning has re-structured the scouting staff and approach. I personally think the key is Judd Brackett, who seems excellent as the guy in charge of amateur scouting-vastly better than Ron Delorme was, although Delorme is somehow still in the organization.

5. And Benning himself is much more hands-on in scouting that Gillis was or than most GMs are. That is his background and that is his strongest area of comparative advantage as a GM.

 

It was therefore pretty much inevitable, as bloodycanucklehead, says that the prospect pool would improve a lot. 

 

Is Benning better at drafting that Gillis? Of course he is, and it is not close. But Gillis was so bad at drafting that this is not exactly high praise.

 

Should Benning have done better at drafting? I think he has made some mistakes -- most notably the much discussed Virtanen and Juolevi picks. But no GM is 100% and even those picks are not terrible and may end up quite good (although neither guy is likely to be an elite player). But the Boeser, Gaudette, Demko, and Pettersson picks were great. Hughes is also a great prospect, but I think was at the top of most boards when the Canucks picked him, so that was not a tough pick to make. I also like the Woo pick.

 

Is this prospect pool could enough to the basis for Cup contender? I am not sure, but I don't think so, although it is not too far off.

 

Can Benning do the other things a good GM needs to do to build a Cup contender? That is the biggest question mark for me. Personally I would like to Benning stay away from UFA signings and trades, apart from trying to acquire picks. He should focus on the draft as that is playing to his strength.

 

 

 

 

Well said. 

 

Lots to feel good about right now but we’ve still got a ways to go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2018-06-23 at 7:49 PM, WWM_Canuck said:

 

This is absolutley correct. The “depth” that everyone raves about can only be properly assessed in 3-5 years. At this point the only thing that can be said with certainty is that JB drafted a very good player in Boesser.  On the flip side, two of the players JB has drafted high in the first round (Virtanen and OJ) are, at best, signifiantly lagging on their projected development.  When viewed objectively it is a pretty average performance, particualy when the players that were drafted with the picks immediatley following Virtanen and OJ are consdiered.

OJ is hardly lagging in his development.  He turned pro in his D+1 year and put up great numbers in Ligia. He has his ups and downs, but isn’t that a normal part of development?  

 

He us starting his d+3 year this camp. He could easily make the club. How is a d man lagging in development only two years past his draft when he has a legit shot of making the NHL this season?  

 

JV is lagging, but let’s hope he has a good start to the season. 

 

Gaudette looks to be a steal.  As for the rest, yes they are still prospects. But do serriously believe that this is an average prospect pool?  Pettersson is the best player currently not playing in the NHL, just as Rasmus Dahlin. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

OJ is hardly lagging in his development.  He turned pro in his D+1 year and put up great numbers in Ligia. He has his ups and downs, but isn’t that a normal part of development?  

 

He us starting his d+3 year this camp. He could easily make the club. How is a d man lagging in development only two years past his draft when he has a legit shot of making the NHL this season?  

 

JV is lagging, but let’s hope he has a good start to the season. 

 

Gaudette looks to be a steal.  As for the rest, yes they are still prospects. But do serriously believe that this is an average prospect pool?  Pettersson is the best player currently not playing in the NHL, just as Rasmus Dahlin. 

 

 

If JV can develop a chip on his shoulder and find lanes to get his shot through, i have no doubt he can put up 15-20 goals a year. But, one thing that really irks me with how he plays is, he takes shots from angles that arent even going to create a scoring chance. Keep cycling the puck around to your forwards and d get shots through and get your big ass to the front of the net, score some greasy goals. 

 

As far as OJ goes, people are super hard on him, mostly because they see how good Tkachuk is and have the what could have been syndrome. He is a stellar dman, super high hockey iq. Passing is tape to tape. People say Dan hamhuis is his potential, but i think he will be a little better. 

 

I still would have chosen Matthew, simply because that would have formed one of the best up and coming lines in all of hockey. But, you need D to win. 

 

Tkachuk - Horvat - Boeser 

 

Drool worthy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people are still doubting Benning and his scouts drafting prowess. Some point to the fact that Benning has had the luxury of drafting high in his drafts.

 

Let us look at all of the Canucks first-round picks under Benning. That is where most of your core pieces will come from.

 

Year     Pick #     Player                    Age

2014     6            Jake Virtanen        21

2014     24          Jared McCann       22

2015     23          Brock Boeser         21

2016     5            Olli Juolevi             20

2017     5            Elias Pettersson    19

2018     7            Quinn Hughes       18

 

There are some things that are quite telling looking at Benning's list of first rounders. One; two of his first rounders were low, #24 and #23 (where the previous regime usually picked). Two; none of the other four first-rounders, #6, #5, #5, and #7, were top three picks where most stars, franchise players, and generational players are found. Three; all these firsts were taken recently and therefore all are very young. Four; despite their relatively young ages, it would be hard to argue against any of them becoming at least everyday NHLers.

 

Not only will all of these first rounders become everyday NHLers, you can argue that one has the makings of a star and two, the makings of franchise level players. Has there been another team in the NHL that has done this? Not picking top three, picking in the twenties twice and yet coming up with six everyday NHLers in a row with a star and two franchise players amongst them? If another team has done this then I would say that team drafts very well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JamesB said:

 

 

When Benning was signed as GM, the Canucks had a terrible prospect pool -- ranked at or near the bottom of various prospect pool rankings.

 

There were two reasons for this:

 

1. The Canucks had been a very successful team for a number of years and were therefore never drafting high in first round, except when they traded for the pick that brought in Horvat--and even that was only a #9 overall pick. 

 

2. As has been established by analysis cited in other threads and elsewhere, even taking into account draft position, Gillis had a very poor draft record.

 

So, bad draft position and bad drafting conditional on position led to a terrible prospect pool.

 

Since then,

 

3. The Canucks have had a very poor record and therefore have had a lot of high draft picks.

4. Benning has re-structured the scouting staff and approach. I personally think the key is Judd Brackett, who seems excellent as the guy in charge of amateur scouting-vastly better than Ron Delorme was, although Delorme is somehow still in the organization.

5. And Benning himself is much more hands-on in scouting that Gillis was or than most GMs are. That is his background and that is his strongest area of comparative advantage as a GM.

 

It was therefore pretty much inevitable, as bloodycanucklehead, says that the prospect pool would improve a lot. 

 

Is Benning better at drafting that Gillis? Of course he is, and it is not close. But Gillis was so bad at drafting that this is not exactly high praise.

 

Should Benning have done better at drafting? I think he has made some mistakes -- most notably the much discussed Virtanen and Juolevi picks. But no GM is 100% and even those picks are not terrible and may end up quite good (although neither guy is likely to be an elite player). But the Boeser, Gaudette, Demko, and Pettersson picks were great. Hughes is also a great prospect, but I think was at the top of most boards when the Canucks picked him, so that was not a tough pick to make. I also like the Woo pick.

 

Is this prospect pool good enough to be the basis for a Cup contender? I am not sure, but I don't think so, although it is not too far off.

 

Can Benning do the other things a good GM needs to do to build a Cup contender? That is the biggest question mark for me. Personally I would like to see Benning stay away from UFA signings and trades, apart from trying to acquire picks. He should focus on the draft as that is playing to his strength.

 

 

 

 

Why do some of you want to confuse things.   This wasn’t comparing GMs or season point totals - simply prospect pools.   Period.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/23/2018 at 10:34 AM, 189lb enforcers? said:

Before Team Tank... and after.

Dont need a hill to see where this leads to. 

DC5F53B4-A30C-4CF6-981B-2BB99A018BA3.jpeg.5bc576a4d542c1d7c3abc6188c2561ec.jpeg

Based on a number of your comments it seems you are suggesting that Benning and Co. are just building the prospect pool solely on the basis of picking higher in the draft. Although that is definitely helping it would be hard not to agree that the drafting overall and trades have stocked a better prospect pool. For those of us that have been watching this team for 48 years (Only 47 for me..went to my first game in 1971) we are well aware high picks don't mean anything if you don't do a good job of scouting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2018-06-26 at 2:38 PM, Baggins said:

Not Boeser. Nor do you have to be tanking to be a seller at the trade deadline. Virtually every team out of the race will shop some pending ufa's they're willing to move on from at the deadline. So trading for assets at the deadline isn't a tanking move, it's just asset management. Trading those players before the season even starts is a tanking move as it weakens your team for the entire season as opposed to when hope of the playoffs is lost.

Here’s the thing it seems like people can make up what ever criteria they want to determine tanking, but I’m going to stick with any move that purposely makes your roster worse in the short term, in exchange for long term future success. As being along the lines of a tanking “moves”.  Canucks moving Hansen in the summer vs trade line both equate to the same end goal, future focus, short term hurt.  That’s what rebuilding teams (Benning) do, very few contending teams (Gillis) have the depth to be able to do so.  Again which is why we are comparing Apples to Oranges here.    It’s not a surprise that after the deadlines Canucks also nosedived in standings in each of the last three years, we went from being a bubble team to bottom 5 in the league, all in the span of two months.  If those are not tanking moves it sure had the same affect. 

 

 

On 2018-06-26 at 2:38 PM, Baggins said:

Even if you're the worst team in the league the Stanley cup winner has the chance to take the player you want from the second round on as they're selecting 31st, you're sellecting 32nd. So really your argument only applies to the first round not the following rounds. Whether rebuilding or contending you need to score some hits with later picks.

Sure a 31st place team gets to select a player, but that has nothing to do when considering total depth of a prospect pool.  Benning has already had two cracks at landing a NHL player long before the other teams get their second attempt.  Yes there is a HUGE benefit to a building a prospect pool by having early picks second round.  This shouldn’t even be an argument but that fact that it is, is mind blowing. 

 

Lets break this down even more to put an end to this once and for all.

In 2017 canucks picks 5th overall and 32nd overall, in which we take Pettersson and Lind,  Canucks get to add to two solid pieces to their pool.  Compare that to the Predators who picked 30th and 61st overall due to playing in the cup finals.  They picked Tolvanen (who’s a star and would be a top 10 pick in a redraft) and Mismash (which is a sweet name).  With the top 5 pick Canucks have better selections. Canucks end up with MORE talent in their prospect pool, take out Pettersson and Nashville does.  Shocking how that works. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Why do some of you want to confuse things.   This wasn’t comparing GMs or season point totals - simply prospect pools.   Period.   

Rob, I appreciate the fact that you make a lot interesting contributions to CDC, including the OP that started this thread. But there is no rule that other posters have to stick narrowly to what the original poster has in mind. And many threads do take on a life of their own. Personally, I think that is healthy, within reason. In this case, your OP makes at least some people think about drafting records of GMs and it is natural that the thread might take a tangent in that direction. I don't see that we need to call out the thought police to prevent that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, JamesB said:

 

 

When Benning was signed as GM, the Canucks had a terrible prospect pool -- ranked at or near the bottom of various prospect pool rankings.

 

There were two reasons for this:

 

1. The Canucks had been a very successful team for a number of years and were therefore never drafting high in first round, except when they traded for the pick that brought in Horvat--and even that was only a #9 overall pick. 

 

2. As has been established by analysis cited in other threads and elsewhere, even taking into account draft position, Gillis had a very poor draft record.

 

So, bad draft position and bad drafting conditional on position led to a terrible prospect pool.

 

Since then,

 

3. The Canucks have had a very poor record and therefore have had a lot of high draft picks.

4. Benning has re-structured the scouting staff and approach. I personally think the key is Judd Brackett, who seems excellent as the guy in charge of amateur scouting-vastly better than Ron Delorme was, although Delorme is somehow still in the organization.

5. And Benning himself is much more hands-on in scouting that Gillis was or than most GMs are. That is his background and that is his strongest area of comparative advantage as a GM.

 

It was therefore pretty much inevitable, as bloodycanucklehead, says that the prospect pool would improve a lot. 

 

Is Benning better at drafting that Gillis? Of course he is, and it is not close. But Gillis was so bad at drafting that this is not exactly high praise.

 

Should Benning have done better at drafting? I think he has made some mistakes -- most notably the much discussed Virtanen and Juolevi picks. But no GM is 100% and even those picks are not terrible and may end up quite good (although neither guy is likely to be an elite player). But the Boeser, Gaudette, Demko, and Pettersson picks were great. Hughes is also a great prospect, but I think was at the top of most boards when the Canucks picked him, so that was not a tough pick to make. I also like the Woo pick.

 

Is this prospect pool good enough to be the basis for a Cup contender? I am not sure, but I don't think so, although it is not too far off.

 

Can Benning do the other things a good GM needs to do to build a Cup contender? That is the biggest question mark for me. Personally I would like to see Benning stay away from UFA signings and trades, apart from trying to acquire picks. He should focus on the draft as that is playing to his strength.

 

 

 

 

Generally don't disagree with most of the post but Gillis also drafted Hodgson 10th OA in 2008.

 

We could have had any of Myers, Karlsson, Gardiner, Eberle instead, with better scouting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheCammer said:

Based on a number of your comments it seems you are suggesting that Benning and Co. are just building the prospect pool solely on the basis of picking higher in the draft. Although that is definitely helping it would be hard not to agree that the drafting overall and trades have stocked a better prospect pool. For those of us that have been watching this team for 48 years (Only 47 for me..went to my first game in 1971) we are well aware high picks don't mean anything if you don't do a good job of scouting.

Correct on both accounts, but consider my perspective as a much needed posting Ying to the Yang in here, which sees Captain Obvious stating that this pool is superior to the Prez Trophy winners’. 

 

Lets give credit to the draftibg where its due, but not at the expense of ignoring the context aspect that I was banging on about concerning the lifecycle of elite rosters.

 

I enjoyed your comment on the ugly truth concerning this team’s overall drafting record, dating back to the beginning and how this club, historically, picks the wrong kid with its key picks.

 

Simultaneously, as a long-time fan, I agree with your apt perspective on not relying on those high Canuck picks to pan out, having witnessed JB, Brackett and co reshape that drafting desolation into the recent success we enjoy today, while I also believe ‘we’ have greatly benefited from the resultant repeated, accidental Tanks’ top-7 picks  each round, year after year, after year, after year... 

 

The two points aren’t mutually exclusive. Give a good scouting agency a higher pick and expect a better yield. Do this several years in a row and expect a quality prospect pool. Do this with Delorme at the helm, meh, maybe more suckcess. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Correct on both accounts, but consider my perspective as a much needed posting Ying to the Yang in here, which sees Captain Obvious stating that this pool is superior to the Prez Trophy winners’. 

 

Lets give credit to the draftibg where its due, but not at the expense of ignoring the context aspect that I was banging on about concerning the lifecycle of elite rosters.

 

I enjoyed your comment on the ugly truth concerning this team’s overall drafting record, dating back to the beginning and how this club, historically, picks the wrong kid with its key picks.

 

Simultaneously, as a long-time fan, I agree with your apt perspective on not relying on those high Canuck picks to pan out, having witnessed JB, Brackett and co reshape that drafting desolation into the recent success we enjoy today, while I also believe ‘we’ have greatly benefited from the resultant repeated, accidental Tanks’ top-7 picks  each round, year after year, after year, after year... 

 

The two points aren’t mutually exclusive. Give a good scouting agency a higher pick and expect a better yield. Do this several years in a row and expect a quality prospect pool. Do this with Delorme at the helm, meh, maybe more suckcess. 

 

 

Was Delorme involved with the horrifying draft record of our previous regime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Generally don't disagree with most of the post but Gillis drafted Hodgson 10th OA in 2008.

 

We could have had any of Myers, Karlsson, Gardiner, Eberle instead, with better scouting.

CoHo looked to be a perfect player at the time. 

That one is complicated.

Along with LB, that’s two key cogs that failed two engage the push forward. Terrible luck.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Was Delorme involved with the horrifying draft record of our previous regime?

Oh, ya. 

There are a few articles floating around on it. 

I’ve posted a few around here myself. 

 

I recall all meeting him when I was young. His hand was like a ball-glove, not uncommon for a big scrapper, but he wasn’t the biggest man. I was too young to respect his career at the time, but I always heard about him and have since come to realize the size of the fight in this man was Ripper-like. He represented himself very well and was a great role model. I don’t enjoy speaking poorly of him, draft record, or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

CoHo looked to be a perfect player at the time. 

That one complicated. Through in LB and that’s two key cogs that failed two engage the push forward. Terrible luck.  

Perfect might be a bit much. He looked like a good player (and to some degree was) until health issues derailed his career. But his skating wasn't ever a strong suit and his daddy issues could probably have been better sussed out in interviews etc. Again, better scouting and we could have been better off.

 

The point was largely to illustrate that the Schnedier/Horvat pick wasn't Gillis' only early 1st anyway.

 

And, yes cherry picking and all but, even with those late 1sts while contending, we could still have had Markus Johansson or Ryan O'Reilly instead of Schroeder, Boone Jenner instead of Jensen, Tanner Pearson instead of Gaunce...

 

Bourdon was pre-Gillis and that's just an uncontrollable tragedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Perfect might be a bit much. He looked like a good player (and to some degree was) until health issues derailed his career. But his skating wasn't ever a strong suit and his daddy issues could probably have been better sussed out in interviews etc. Again, better scouting and we could have been better off.

 

The point was largely to illustrate that the Schnedier/Horvat pick wasn't Gillis' only early 1st anyway.

 

And, yes cherry picking and all but, even with those late 1sts while contending, we could still have had Markus Johansson or Ryan O'Reilly instead of Schroeder, Boone Jenner instead of Jensen, Tanner Pearson instead of Gaunce...

 

Bourdon was pre-Gillis and that's just an uncontrollable tragedy.

I know what you mean here. No disagreement. I’m just dont think CoHo was the wrong choice at the time. His daddy didn’t like the career-ending treatment he got from the Canucks. I have kids and would do the same. 

 

I still think that CoHo, on draft day, was as close to a cant-miss Doug Weight clone pick as one could project. 

 

Like most skill players, he didn’t rely on speed to create, so kind of a subjective take on speed to be used against him, though, ya, the hindsight game has some beauties. 

 

CoHo was a clutch, future Captain, 1 or second line complementary pivot to meant to supplement the core. Shame it didn’t work out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

I know what you mean here. No disagreement. I’m just not in the camp who doesn’t think CoHo was the wrong choice at the time. His daddy didn’t like the career-ending treatment he got from the Canucks. I have kids and would do the same. 

 

I still think that CoHo, on draft day, was as close to a cant-miss Doug Weight clone pick as one could project. 

 

Like most skill players, he didn’t rely on speed to create, so kind of a subjective take on speed to be used against him, though, ya, the hindsight game has some beauties. 

 

CoHo was a clutch, future Captain, 1 or second line complementary pivot to meant to supplement the core. Shame it didn’t work out. 

Hodgson's career ended because of a genetic condition, nothing the Canucks did:

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/retired-nhler-cody-hodgson-giving-back-game-loves/

Quote

Finally, after what would be his final NHL season with the Nashville Predators, he underwent a muscle biopsy and was subsequently diagnosed with malignant hyperthermia, a genetic disorder that can be triggered by prolonged physical activity.

 

With the diagnoses, doctors told Hodgson that his career was over.

He was certainly a decent prospect. I'm not saying it was a 'bad' pick. But again, with better scouting, perhaps we end up with the generational D, a much needed complimentary D or a comparable ceiling guy without the daddy issues, better skating (and still playing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is very many fans who would disagree that our prospect pool is the best ever. Even the owners made the statement that our prospects are at the best level in years. Benning or Bracket? Who cares as long a this group stays together. I say it is a combo of Linden down, including the fact that the owners seem to be on board with this approach. How excited are  the fans? Try and get a ticket for the up coming prospects games.

There is a lot to be excited about.

Just imagine if we had of done a better job of TANKING !  :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...