The Utica crisis, and the inability to retain/ develope our top end draft picks

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I don't know if there is or isn't a problem in Utica developing our prospects.  However, I do see a problem with our number of prospects.  We traded away a lot of second and third round picks recently, who could be pushing for spots on our current Canuck's roster.  Maybe the problem in Utica is JB trading away so many second and third round picks to fill an age gap here, so now there is an age gap down there?  

well, he's not trading them anymore. We've had at least one 2nd rounder for the last 2 and probably this draft. I don't know how much of the 'trade for tweener' strategy was Jim's or Linden-Aqulini, but those days have been gone for a while.

 

 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

well, he's not trading them anymore. We've had at least one 2nd rounder for the last 2 and probably this draft. I don't know how much of the 'trade for tweener' strategy was Jim's or Linden-Aqulini, but those days have been gone for a while.

 

 

And thank goodness there was that philosophical shift.  However, I think the early years of trading away those second and third rounders has created a hole in the Utica team.  Yes we have some really good first, and second year prospects, but we are missing having more of the guys a couple years older.  I counted (likely wrong) 4 seconds and 3 thirds lost in trades, so that's (potentially) seven more prospects in Utica, who are 20 -22 pushing for jobs up here.  That IMO is a BIG gap.  

[stawns]

40 minutes ago, cuporbust said:

U obviously didn't read anything so .....

 

I said tryamkin had nothing to do with utica . Hard to comment on a post from someone that didnt read the original post. 

Why would he?  It's sensationalist garbage, at best.

[JM_]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

And thank goodness there was that philosophical shift.  However, I think the early years of trading away those second and third rounders has created a hole in the Utica team.  Yes we have some really good first, and second year prospects, but we are missing having more of the guys a couple years older.  I counted (likely wrong) 4 seconds and 3 thirds lost in trades, so that's (potentially) seven more prospects in Utica, who are 20 -22 pushing for jobs up here.  That IMO is a BIG gap.  

I suppose, by maybe 2 guys? he's picked up some un-drafted and over agers too. I think the current overall total is -2 on the picks. 

[VegasCanuck]

#FakeNews

 

 

[Nucker 67]

"Why isn't anyone taking Kole Lind?"

 

...because he only has 2 goals in his 46 game AHL career so far.

 

Or....is it because of the coaching and development in Utica?

 

 

[mll]

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

And thank goodness there was that philosophical shift.  However, I think the early years of trading away those second and third rounders has created a hole in the Utica team.  Yes we have some really good first, and second year prospects, but we are missing having more of the guys a couple years older.  I counted (likely wrong) 4 seconds and 3 thirds lost in trades, so that's (potentially) seven more prospects in Utica, who are 20 -22 pushing for jobs up here.  That IMO is a BIG gap.  

A player is typically waiver eligible after 3 years pro.  2014 picks would have graduated by now.

 

[xereau]

I don't think that there is a crisis. At all. All teams lose young picks.  Especially young, entitled ones.  If anything is in crisis, it is the youth themselves these days.  They don't want to have to earn their way.

[Winter Soldier]

Housing affordability is a crisis.

 

Utica's situation is not.

[Nucker 67]

I wonder why Gaunce never made the jump. The Canucks preach that players need to learn the 200-foot game and be defensively responsible.

 

Isn't this how Gaunce plays? How is Schaller, for example, that much better than Gaunce? Have they given up on him?

[butters]

people always needing a crisis to follow a hockey team is the real crisis

[Winter Soldier]

4 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

I wonder why Gaunce never made the jump. The Canucks preach that players need to learn the 200-foot game and be defensively responsible.

 

Isn't this how Gaunce plays? How is Schaller, for example, that much better than Gaunce? Have they given up on him?

Gaunce is exactly where he needs to be. There isn't a place for a guy who is defensively responsible but scores once a year.

[D-Money]

33 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I don't know if there is or isn't a problem in Utica developing our prospects.  However, I do see a problem with our number of prospects.  We traded away a lot of second and third round picks recently, who could be pushing for spots on our current Canuck's roster.  Maybe the problem in Utica is JB trading away so many second and third round picks to fill an age gap here, so now there is an age gap down there?  

Yup.

 

Benning hit homeruns with Pettersson, Boeser, and Gaudette. But overall, his inability to a) add picks, and b) identify pro talent (the latter would have helped the former) are big black marks on his GM career.

 

Personally, I'm ready to move on from Benning - but it has little to do with a perceived problem in Utica.

[Pears]

Honestly Dahlen is a bit overrated because of his friendship with Pettersson. He wanted out because he wasn’t being gifted minutes. End of story. 

[Alflives]

25 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I suppose, by maybe 2 guys? he's picked up some un-drafted and over agers too. I think the current overall total is -2 on the picks. 

I'm having trouble understanding how 7 (second and third round picks) becomes only 2 prospects on the farm?  I would think that guys drafted in the second and third rounds would be more likely to play NHL games than undrafted guys, no?  

That's why I don't think there is an issue with our coaches in Utica developing players.  I think the players to develop have not been there in the numbers needed for a higher level of successes.  I think I'm confusing myself with all this thinking. 

[stawns]

5 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Yup.

 

Benning hit homeruns with Pettersson, Boeser, and Gaudette. But overall, his inability to a) add picks, and b) identify pro talent (the latter would have helped the former) are big black marks on his GM career.

 

Personally, I'm ready to move on from Benning - but it has little to do with a perceived problem in Utica.

There is no evidence that stockpiling picks, outside of the first round, equates success in any way.

[stawns]

Just now, Alflives said:

I'm having trouble understanding how 7 (second and third round picks) becomes only 2 prospects on the farm?  I would think that guys drafted in the second and third rounds would be more likely to play NHL games than undrafted guys, no?  

That's why I don't think there is an issue with our coaches in Utica developing players.  I think the players to develop have not been there in the numbers needed for a higher level of successes.  I think I'm confusing myself with all this thinking. 

What's confusing you is that you seem to think the majority of picks outside the first round go on to play in the NHL.  

 

Spoiler alert........they don't.

[Alflives]

Just now, stawns said:

There is no evidence that stockpiling picks, outside of the first round, equates success in any way.

I wonder why we have a draft that goes beyond round one then?  I think it makes sense that having two second rounders and three third rounders would increase our chances of one of the five becoming an important NHL player over just two total picks in those rounds, wouldn't it?  You guys are going to get me into the bottle before noon!  

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

What's confusing you is that you seem to think the majority of picks outside the first round go on to play in the NHL.  

 

Spoiler alert........they don't.

I accept that.  But if only 20 % of second round picks, and 10% of third round picks become NHL players, why wouldn't having more picks in those rounds improve our chances?  Math is not my strongest suit.  Not that I have a strong suit.  

[189lb enforcers?]

Consumers be consumin’

 

Don’t consume the sexy, click-bait nontraveries out there.