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

Little bit of an analysis on the picks in our range.


Tom Sestito

Recommended Posts

Kesler, Hank, Dank, Edler, Jensen(new), Schroeder.

Traded 1sts for regulars

Kassian (Hodgson)

I'd like to point out that we have some beauty picks in Hansen 9th round 287th overall

Bieksa 5th round 151st overall

and undrafted signings of

Burrows

Tanev

Lack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the Canucks do have a chance at getting the first overall pick! As do all non-playoff teams.

I suspect you (and many others) probably already know this, but the draft lottery was changed last year. Now, every non-playoff team has a weighted shot at getting the number one pick. The further down a team finishes, the better chance they get.

I've posted this before, but here it is again - a list of the odds each non-playoff team has of winning the first overall pick in the draft lottery:

30th place: 25.0%

29th place: 18.8%

28th place: 14.2%

27th place: 10.7%

26th place: 8.1%

25th place: 6.2%

24th place: 4.7%

23th place: 3.6%

22th place: 2.7%

21th place: 2.1%

20th place: 1.5%

19th place: 1.1%

18th place: 0.8%

17th place: 0.5%

Every position that the Canucks (or any other team) falls increases (admittedly only slightly in many cases) the chances that it can win that first overall pick.

And that's a prize worth winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea we need talent. Shinkaruk and Jensen are the only talented forwards we have. Horvat is probably gonna be a 2nd line grinder. We need some players who can pull off a quick dangle and snipe it top cheese every now and then

Got to disagree on Horvat, he may top out at the second line center spot but it won't be as a grinder, he has way to much going for him.

I see him as a 50 to 80 point Seilke candidate in his prime.

Fox and Cassels could end up first line players or very good second line players.

If Jensen and Kassian keep their trajectory we may be good to go in a year or two at most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on the fence, that's why I posted it.

If we win a few games down the stretch, it helps us evaluate IMO, and a losing culture just isn't a good thing.

It's just.. we need to nail this pick. Far from contrary belief, we've actually been really good in the first round under Gillis. Schroeder, looking like our only bust at this point from the 1st round... is the USA wjc all time leading scorer.

Like I've said before, C Jared McCann LW Adrian Kempe RW Kasperi Kapanen D Haydn Fleury are guys I really, really like.

Virtanen, Ritchie, Perlini are guys that teams with depth in their system should gamble on.. not us.

McCann has gillis pick written all over him, not sure if it would be bad or not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We live in a different time than the present? We're not talking about 23 years ago, we're talking about every year since. The Redwings have had one 19th overall and one 20th overall spanning back since 1991.

The Redwings AHL team, the Grand Rapids Griffins, won the Calder Cup last year. How many top 20 picks were on that roster? Not one.

The Red Wings also have 80 points, just 1 more than us. Barely clinging to a last play off spot in the weaker east. I'm personally cheering for Washington and Columbus to knock off Detroit and TO.

The current team to admire for building with what you get is led by the wings disciple Yzerman. Two rook of the year candidates in Palat drafted 7th round and Tyler Johnson a free agent signee as an undrafted WHL overager who led the league in goals (cough Fox).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome but the question is about the 1st round, how many Canuck selected first rounders are NHL regulars playing on the Canucks 2013-14 roster? The answer is 1 player that was selected in 2003, Ryan Kesler.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that the Sedins were 2nd round picks....

Edit-

My bad, since 2000. Sedins were drafted in 1999.

That being said, Jensen is going to be a regular and Schroeder has been on this team all year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were picked in 1999, if you saw the orignal post before that quote reply I am talking about 2000 and on how many Canucks 1st rounders play on this team.

Yea, I edited it...

But, let's take a look where our 1st rounders have ended up since 2000.

Horvat - top 10 in his league in scoring

Shinkaruk - Was tearing it up prior to injury

Hodgson -> Kassian *upgrade in my opinion*

Grabner - Traded for Ballard *both teams lost the trade but I feel Grabner was given up on prematurely, and I also believe Ballard was miss-used and miss-treated here*

Gaunce - is in the top 10 scoring in his league

Schroeder - Currently on roster, possible bust, but is not being used to his strengths

Patrick White - Was the new age Gretzky but slept with Gillis' wife so he cut him loose, no other GM wanted to risk the chance of him seducing their partners and families.

Bourdon - R.I.P.

Schneider -> Horvat

Kesler - 1st liner

Umberger - Don't remember what happened with him... I think he was asking for too much money. Good 3rd liner now/Mediocre 2nd liner now?

Smith - Bust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO first rounders, high first rounders in particular should be picked on the basis of best physical talent. Please don't miss physical.

Before anyone says, ÿeah, duh, no brainer... Ossi is pointing out below heavily hyped players that have not made it. Hype often, to a degree justifiably, goes up when a guy has a great scoring season in the CHL or WJC. Performance against top comp is a good indicator, but not as good as raw physical talent which is what should be the focus of scouting.

Read that physical, not just talent. Lets pick on CoHo. Amazing raw skills. In reality a good pick at 10th overall, but not a home run. Reason why Hodgson does not excel, in spite of skills and fabulous resume'in junior, is his athleticism is not up to par with many NHLérs. Same could have been said for Hamil who was a complete bust. Guess CoHo just had a better attitude (LOL)?

Couple picks later, Karlsson had nearly as good a resume, but explosive speed and effortless skating to go with his top end skills???

Point being, top round selections should first and foremost project TOP end NHL calibre athleticism in addition to the skill set.

Yay, someone who shares my love for McCann! Great post, I think anyone who is a regular nhler can be considered a success. You also demonstrated that some of the more hyped players like Hamil and Ellerby failed to really produce. It's because of this that I think we should shy away from Ehlers as top end talent doesn't translate to success at the NHL level.

McCann is by far the safest pick in the 10-14 range, with a decent amount of upside.

What is Ehlers speed, explosiveness, balance and strength like? (Honest Question) Or does he not qualify...

A first round pick, if they qualify to the athleticism comments above, should be a safe pick already? And if so, what is wrong with then going for elite skills?

Sounds like you're just not used to players panning out for us. And I don't blame you.

The trick would be to get a player that does. The 2015 draft is full of studs and stars. Gonna be hard to fail there.

Most franchise players are acquired via the draft. Since the Sedins are declining, we're going to need new ones. And given the way the team is declining on the whole and their decent prospects are all years away from being decent NHLers, I can see us getting new ones via the draft, regardless of what we as fans want the team to do in this regard. We're not talking about just one draft either. We're talking about 3-4. This team is not close.

I don't see why skepticism should not be part of the equation. We went 4 or 5 years with only CoHo (Kassian) to show as an NHL regular.

But scouting reports do suggest MG, since Jensen, has been drafting NHL calibre athletes (Gaunce led the combines in strength and fitness testing for example) who have decent enough skills. Perhaps (likely) no franchise players fair, but its a lot easier to project a procession of guys making the squad the next 4 years.

We just need to creep a few more with elite skills into the mix...

If the Canucks do trade Kesler/Edler/Whoever, they should be aiming to get 2015 1st and 2nd rounders, imho. Buffalo has and they're going to be a better team because of it.

Historically guys like Kesler have also scored young studs already closer to NHL ready. Best example is Calgary trading a solid vet in his prime for Iginla.

Not that you are wrong, drafting is and should be the key strategy, but there is no one method. Seguin was available last year. I bet we could have had him had we offered Kesler at the time? All kinds of problems with this next suggestion, but it should not take much more than Edler to acquire Yakupov? We traded away Nedved to be more play off ready. Anyway, there is something out there...

I wish people would stop pretending to appropriate or speak for some kind of "we".

There are lots of different perspectives.

Yours certainly isn't the "real" one.

Does Detroit hinder their prospects development as well, by keeping their youth in their system until they are actually NHL ready?

Which Canucks prospects are hindered and should have been in the NHL?

Btw, there are 6 18yr olds in the NHL - two of them on teams with winning records - McKinnon and Nichushkin.

Recent history has Detroit keeping guys like Nyquist down until they win a spot on the team. Win the spot, versus how much grooming should be the key emphasis?

Johnson and Palat in Tampa, whom I mentioned a few posts back, beat out Druin for spots. Yes they were 22/23 years old, but nobody expected them to do so. Credit coaching when they make guys earn a spot! (my own personal #1 lesson after participating on CDC the last few years).

O

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if anything all these different opinions point to one CLEAR fact: amateur scouting (which includes the "ranking" of the prospects) and the ranking lists created for draft day are a total crapshoot. EVERY year there are prospects that pan out that were drafted FAR below prospects that were expected to. It's a crapshoot people. There literally is no difference between drafting 5 or 25. 25th might be a future All-star and #5 might turn out to be a truck driver in 5 years. Actually there's little difference between draft in the first round and the 7th (seriously there are 7th rounders that have panned out better than 1st rounders).

And please don't "flame" for the above opinion...I'm not stupid. I know when you are drafting you are playing the odds. And the "odds" state that a 1st "should" pan out ahead of and at a faster rate than a 7th. But let's face it, if scouts actually knew what they were doing, then the Central Rankings would all pan out exactly as they're ranked. And Detroit would suck and the Oilers would win the cup every year. Again I know I'm speaking in severe hyperbole (so I hope you're all getting that), the facts are the facts. There is no debate here folks. We CANNOT debate with any logic or proof that if we draft a couple positions higher we'd be winning in the end somehow. No proof whatsoever. Just as there is NO validity in the "Detroit" argument. Crapshoot. Guesswork. And luck. That is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if anything all these different opinions point to one CLEAR fact: amateur scouting (which includes the "ranking" of the prospects) and the ranking lists created for draft day are a total crapshoot. EVERY year there are prospects that pan out that were drafted FAR below prospects that were expected to. It's a crapshoot people. There literally is no difference between drafting 5 or 25. 25th might be a future All-star and #5 might turn out to be a truck driver in 5 years. Actually there's little difference between draft in the first round and the 7th (seriously there are 7th rounders that have panned out better than 1st rounders).

And please don't "flame" for the above opinion...I'm not stupid. I know when you are drafting you are playing the odds. And the "odds" state that a 1st "should" pan out ahead of and at a faster rate than a 7th. But let's face it, if scouts actually knew what they were doing, then the Central Rankings would all pan out exactly as they're ranked. And Detroit would suck and the Oilers would win the cup every year. Again I know I'm speaking in severe hyperbole (so I hope you're all getting that), the facts are the facts. There is no debate here folks. We CANNOT debate with any logic or proof that if we draft a couple positions higher we'd be winning in the end somehow. No proof whatsoever. Just as there is NO validity in the "Detroit" argument. Crapshoot. Guesswork. And luck. That is all.

Edmonton sucks every year because they suck at developing and they don't have veterans to mentor their youth. Detroit has good scouts and they always have their lineup filled with veterans. On top of that, I think somebody pointed out that their farm team's system is similar to their big club's so that shouls make the transition smoother.

The difference between a first round pick and a seventh round pick is the tools they have. First rounders have more speed, skill, and vision. Seventh rounders have MUCH less offensive upside. They may not skate as fast, their shot is probably weak and they probably have sub-par hands. It's much easier to develop someone with all the tools than someone with none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Red Wings also have 80 points, just 1 more than us.

Not sure if serious.

Have you heard of Nyqvist?

He's the 24 year old with 25 goals in 48 games? 4th round pick.

Tatar - a 2nd round pick - (and again, not a fish dip) has 18 goals in 64 games in his rookie season - that's a 23 goal pace. Ask yourself how many rookies are 20+ goal scorers, and whether those tend to be middling forwards.

Jurco is a ppg AHLer - 21 yr old 2nd round pick - scoring at a 16 goal/33 point pace (5,11 in 27) as a rookie playing 12 or 13 minutes.

Sheahan has 21 points in 33 games - a 52 point pace - as a rookie.

I think you naysayers might want to hold off on declaring the obituary of the Detroit Red Wings.

You take players like Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Weiss, Helm, Samuelsson out of any team's lineup and they're going to be hard pressed to make the playoffs - and yet there they are, having leap frogged the Laffs nevertheless.

Do you really think they managed that without all that quality contribution from those very good rookies on their roster?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If drafting is a crap shoot, then why does Detroit almost always draft good players? Excuses.

Passed on Ryan O'Reilly by taking Ferraro.

I don't see Detroits drafting better than a lot of teams, they're just the best at developing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recent history has Detroit keeping guys like Nyquist down until they win a spot on the team. Win the spot, versus how much grooming should be the key emphasis?

Johnson and Palat in Tampa, whom I mentioned a few posts back, beat out Druin for spots. Yes they were 22/23 years old, but nobody expected them to do so. Credit coaching when they make guys earn a spot! (my own personal #1 lesson after participating on CDC the last few years).

O

I wouldn't necessarily call that "recent" - it's been a staple of the Redwings for some time, and arguably should be, particularly when you're talking about a highly competitive hockey team. Guys remain in their system until they are Detroit Redwings ready - and it would be senseless to argue that that approach somehow "hinders" their development. The proof is in the results - once again they have a signifcant wave of outstanding young talent, not particularly highly touted, that may be underestimated by folks on these boards - but that would contribute to the irony, wouldn't it? Names don't win Calder Cups.

The Wings might alter that approach somewhat by necessity in circumstances like this season when the bulk of their core has been injured, but those young players, not seemingly marquis or high picks, have stepped up and produced.

Yes, Yzerman could certainly be considered a V2.0 of that approach - and why wouldn't he take that approach - he's seen the process first hand for decades, and what results are possible when executed.

It's really not that debatable imo - look at the crop of young talent they are currently graduating and the next wave behind them, and people who think their system, their drafting, their approach to development are somehow being 'exposed' probably don't have the respect for that organization that they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF what you say is true about 1st rounders vs. 7th rounders, the Detroit's scouting staff should be FIRED instead of PRAISED. They picked a ton of BUSTS before they picked Z+D. If drafting is such a science then why would they let those 2 slide so far down the draft board and risk them being picked up by someone else? Drafting is NOT a science...it is a CRAPSHOOT. It's like trying to win in Vegas. You can take all the courses you want about a game of chance, you can study it, you can memorize all the stats etc that you want, but in the end it is still a game of chance. The odds are just about the same (in the overall grand scheme of drafting) of selecting a decent player at 25 as they are at drafting at 5. Case in point: 2004 we selected Cory Schneider 26th overall. Players that went above Cory: Cam Barker (3), Al Montoya (6), Olesz (7), Picard (8), Valabik (10), Tukonen (11), Thelen (12), Dubnyk (14), Schwarz (17), Kaspar (22), Chuko (24), Schremp (25). Tell me, if scouting is such a science, which one of these "higher picks" should we have taken instead of Cory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could make my "quote" button work. OLDNEWS: you simply CANNOT defend Detroit's drafting or developmental success by comparing it with any AHL "success". How many guys eat up the AHL, even lead the league in scoring, and end up not being able to make in the NHL? Sadly, most. Calder Cup success means little to nothing in the NHL...again, how come Eakins hasn't been able to turn the Oil into a winner? He was a CC finalist and has a ton of 1st rounders to work with.

The chasm between the AHL and NHL is MASSIVE. Putting talent and hockey sense aside (you're not going to make it without it anyways), you have size, speed, conditioning, dedication and attitude. There are as many players in the NHL that have skipped the so-called "developmental" leagues as there are those that have gone through it. Again, and I stand by my point earlier, it's a crapshoot. Some guys respond to certain coaching tactics while others don't. If Detroit is the model for developmental efficiency then why isn't the NHL filled with players that have come through the Griffins? There are as many busts as there are successes...same as everyone else.

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...