The Ron Delorme Era

[BureisBest]

Ron Delorme has been our Chief Amateur Scout since the 2001 NHL Entry Draft and has come under plenty of scrutiny from fans and media. Somehow, Delorme has held onto his job during the tenures of Brian Burke, Dave Nonis, and Mike Gillis, despite the fact that we have not produced many good prospects. He's had some hits and a lot of misses, but I wanted to take a look at the actual statistical facts and see how he has done.

The following stats represent his results from the 2001-2009 draft (didn't think it was fair to include '10, '11, or '12 yet, as those players haven't had enough time to make an impact). You be the judge of how Ron has done and if he should still be in charge of our scouting.

Total players selected from 2001-2009 - 63.

Players who have played in the NHL - 22/63 (34.92%)

Players who never made the NHL - 41/63 (65.08%)

Players who have played 50+ games - 11/63 (17.46%)

All-Stars selected (Kesler/Edler) - 2/63 (3.17%)

The following is (made NHL/total picks), and (50+ GP/total picks) by round:

Round 1 picks - (7/8)...(5/8)*

Round 2 picks - (2/7)...(1/7)

Round 3 picks - (3/6)...(1/6)

Round 4 picks - (1/7)...(0/7)

Round 5 picks - (3/9)...(2/9)

Round 6 picks - (2/8)...(0/8)

Round 7 picks - (2/9)...(1/9)

Round 8 picks - (1/4)...(0/4)

Round 9 picks - (1/4)...(1/4)

* Luc Bourdon was well on his way to making this figure 6/8 if not for his tragedy.

Having only 1-of-7 second-round picks make an impact in the NHL is atrocious, and 1-of-6 third-rounders, and 0-of-7 fourth-rounders is terrible as well. Having only 2-of-63 total players become All-Stars is pretty bad as well, and both of them are one-time all-stars. Good scouts do most of their damage in rounds 2-4, in that remaining top-100 after the 1st-round. Delorme has failed brutally in that area.

The bottom line for me is Ron Delorme hasn`t delivered results, and we`re in a results-oriented business. He`s had some hits, but he`s had a lot of misses, especially in rounds 2-4, where you can pick up some very good players. In 2007, not a single player we drafted ever stepped onto an NHL rink, including a 1st (Patrick White) and an early 2nd (Taylor Ellington). He is well-liked within the organization, an ex-teammate of Mike Gillis, and there seems to be some personal loyalty from the Canucks to Delorme, clouding their judgement and affecting our strength as an organization. He should have been gone years ago, yet he enters this month`s draft as our Chief Scout for the 13th draft-in-a-row.

[DeNiro]

Depends how much pull he actually has, or whether or not the GM just takes his advice and makes his own decision.

I think the GM is the most important part of drafting. He makes the final call. It's not like Delorme comes to him and says he has to take a certain player. He just provides information on players that may be available based on the GMs request.

I personally think the draft is just a crap shoot, and we're better off just sticking to the ISS rankings and getting the best player available; rather than going off the board. I think we would have had alot more success in the 2nd and 3rd rounds if we did that.

2011 showed that this team can have a strong draft when they have all of their picks. I think that draft will be one of our strongest in quite a while. But if we really can't draft in the 2nd round, I think we're better off doing what we did that year and getting two 3rd round picks.

Also, the fact that this team hasn't had it's own farm team to help develop these prospects, has been a big part of their failure IMO. Now that they have one, we'll see if they can mold some of these project players into actual NHLers, rather than just hoping for the best like they have in the past.

[goalie13]

While it appears you have done a fair bit of work here, it really doesn't tell the story unless you compare it against the league average.

Also, keep in mind that the NHL drafts far more kids than there are jobs for. As you stated, the Canucks have drafted 63 players from 2001 to 2009, except there are still only 23 roster spots. So in some respects, those doing the drafting are doomed to failure as they draft way more players than they will ever need.

[Ghostsof1915]

That's why I was shocked when Gillis took over this wasn't the first thing that was addressed. The second round is abysmal, and the 5th round is surprising.

We've pretty much lost our 2nd rounder in Rodin, we traded our third rounder Connauton for a rental, Sauve a 2nd rounder was taken over Justin Schultz or Luke Adam, or Hamonic.

We drafted Schroeder when he was projected higher, should have raised alarm bells on why teams were passing on him.

We took a "safe" pick in Taylor Ellington in the 2nd round and that was a bust. The fact we got anything for Pat White was amazing.

We had 3 2nd round picks in 2002-03, none ever panned out.

I've harped on this before, there is no salary cap on scouting. We need more scouting in the CHL and BCJHL, and better scouting. We need better pro scouts, because the guys we're picking up (Roy, Ballard, etc.) are not worth trading assets for.

As much as I like guys like Snepts, and Gradin, if they aren't getting the job done. Get in someone who can. You can always have ex-Canucks in other parts of management.

[MJDDawg]

Not that I'm disagreeing, but those percentages don't mean much without comparable to the rest of the league.

I do remember reading something a few years back that suggested that Delorme's staff were doing one of the best jobs in the league at drafting. Remember it's not just based on whether the draft pick plays for the Canucks but whether the player ends up playing in the NHL. There's a long list of Canuck draft picks that didn't succeed or weren't given a chance here and then subsequently had success elsewhere. The scouting staff can't control what the GM does with the pick.

[Ghostsof1915]

While it appears you have done a fair bit of work here, it really doesn't tell the story unless you compare it against the league average.

Also, keep in mind that the NHL drafts far more kids than there are jobs for. As you stated, the Canucks have drafted 63 players from 2001 to 2009, except there are still only 23 roster spots. So in some respects, those doing the drafting are doomed to failure as they draft way more players than they will ever need.

[goalie13]

Wrong. You can never have too many assets. If you have no places for them, you can trade them for draft picks and keep the cupboards full. The more assets you have and the better they are means they push for more jobs. The more competition for jobs, the better players get. Get hit by a bunch of injuries? No problem call up players. If your 7th dman would be a top 4 dman somewhere else, you'd complain? If our 4th line guys were outplaying Kesler or the Sedin's on a regular basis, how does that hurt us? Depth helps win cups. I don't think the Canucks have been able to roll 3 lines and have talent and skill on all three, since the Bure/Linden era.

[Ghostsof1915]

I agree on all points, except the one about me being wrong.

How is it wrong? The OP was making his point based on how many guys were drafted versus how many are playing in the NHL. When 63 guys are drafted and there are only 23 roster spots you are guaranteed that not all of them will make it to the NHL. The NHL drafts enough kids to replace about 40% of all NHL players, every single year. It's simple math, they aren't all going to make it.

[Aladeen]

I think All the Scouts need to go...

[pomorick]

I think All the Scouts need to go...

[Salmonberries]

The Canucks scouting staff seems to be the place where old Canucks go to die.

[BureisBest]

While it appears you have done a fair bit of work here, it really doesn't tell the story unless you compare it against the league average.

Also, keep in mind that the NHL drafts far more kids than there are jobs for. As you stated, the Canucks have drafted 63 players from 2001 to 2009, except there are still only 23 roster spots. So in some respects, those doing the drafting are doomed to failure as they draft way more players than they will ever need.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Sadly, it doesn't look to get any better anytime soon.

[sting]

Crazy to think a GM would just walk in and fire a scouting staff. MG just needs to keep adding valuable personnel and let the cream rise to the top. Gagner and Mellanby were fine additions and Smyl and Babych have been doing some solid work as well in new positions not to mention Gillman and Henning.

As mentioned by DeNiro the GM has the final say and without a top notch minor league program you are never going to maximize results in player development.

A successful draft is considered 1.5 players that contribute to top 9F, top 5D, and starting GK per season.

From 99 - 09 ...Burke..H.Sedin, D.Sedin, Umberger, Bieksa, Burrows, Kesler. Nonis...Schneider, Edler, Hansen, Bourdon, Raymond, Grabner. Gillis...Tanev, Hodgson, Schroeder.

Not fair to judge the last 3 seasons as 21 and under prospects rarely make key impacts to good teams.

As you can see we're pretty much average....although considering our drafted core took us to a cup final and 2 presidents trophies I would consider our scouting above average.

[LostViking]

No sense in evaluating from 2009 onward, since many players from 2009 are still developing (Price, Andersson, Cannata, even Schroeder's future isn't clear yet).

http://proicehockey.about.com/od/prospects/f/draft_success.htm

According to this article, 63% of first round picks play at least 200 NHL games (I assume late round picks are usually the ones not to make it). 25% for second round, 12% from all other rounds.

Canucks have drafted 56 players between 2001 and 2007:

6 (86%) of our 7 first round picks are solid NHLers (Umberger, Kesler, Schneider, Bourdon*, Grabner, Hodgson)

1 (17%) of out 6 second round picks are solid NHLers (Raymond)

3 (7%) of out 43 other picks are solid NHLers (Bieksa, Edler, Hansen)

My only conclusion is we haven't done well in the later rounds, but do just fine in the first round, despite picking later than most teams.

Bona fide NHLers:

2001: Umberger, Bieksa

2002:

2003: Kesler

2004: Schneider, Edler, Hansen

2005: Bourdon, Raymond

2006: Grabner

2007:

2008: Hodgson

Depth:

2001: King

2002:

2003: McIver

2004: Brown

2005: Bliznak

2006: Shirokov

2007:

2008:

[Fred65]

The success rate for the amateur draft is 63% for the first round and then 12% for the remaining rounds. Thats based on an old report, but it's the only one I can find.

If you now say to yourself...the first 10 picks are the most likey to enjoy success, then the balance of the first round picks drop dramatically.

During Delormes tenure he's had to deal with Pat Quinn ( for ever searching for a big centre ) BB who OK based on the Sedins alone and Nonis plus of course MG. MG tenure has seen the arrival of Hodgson, Schroeder, No pick 2010, Nickals Jensen and Brendan Gaunce 1st round selections all of who have good chance of success, and lets not forget he is also the GM who instituted looking very carefully for FA's ie Tanev, Lain, McNally,Archibald and the latest Erickson. Of course you'd alway like to see more or better but the emphasis he's given his scouts appear to be the right direction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Vancouver_Canucks_draft_picks