Canucks draft comparison

[rb4u]

The difference is the ability of the big bad Bruins to get their players albeit drafted or FA signings into the lineup. Look since 2009 until present; the Bruins have played over 600 man games regardless if there still with the team or another NHL team. The Canucks unfortunately have a paltry 131. Yes 1/3 of that comes from a #2 pick but just the same the remaining man games crush us. Does this speak to developmental efficiencies or simply....poor drafting. Granted our 2013 draft class has three prospects but time will tell.

You are on the same track as I am, when thinking about how we are developing our prospects. Take a closer look into the DET drafting record and you will see that other than miracle draft picks (all 30 teams passed them multiple times… even DET) Zetterberg and Datsyuk, their drafting has produced lots of solid role players (Quincey,Helm, Franzen, Abdelkader, J Andersson, Jurco, Ericsson). Whether you can credit that all to scouting or to a strong development system… we all can make our own conclusions. Personally, I think that both needs to work hand in hand (ie. only draft prospects that fit into your system).

With the move of our AHL team from WPG to CHI to UTI. not to mention the constant changing of AHL head coaches and systems. One can wonder if a more consistent hand with development could have helped some of our prospects better. I for one firmly believe that instead of changing with each passing tide (DET -> BOS -> LA -> ?), we just have to pick one system and stick with it over the long haul. This will allow everyone from the GM to the scouting department to the farm team to share a common direction/goal when it comes to drafting, trades, scouting and development.

For you can win with maximizing your strengths (being the best puck possession team out there). Not sure if the winning can happen by not minimizing your weaknesses (what kind of team are we now? Neither the biggest/baddest or most skilled/fastest). What GMMG spoke off before he got canned rang some truth to me, when he said that we can't win chasing after a moving target. A skilled puck possession team was what got us back into the Finals, and as tempting as it was to look at the success of the Bruins and wanting to emulate their system. It is difficult for to abruptly change the course and direction of an organization without expecting the kind of drop off that we have witness the past 3 years...

[Canucklehead73]

Drafting can be a gamble, the other half of a GM's job is to make trades with those players and sign FA's to build a desired framework for success on the ice. Looking at Bostons roster players not drafted by them were traded for drafted players so they have turned those picks into active roster spots. Have they been successful? Hard to argue with their team performance.

[higgyfan]

In the earlier years, Boston did well with later picks like Bergeron, Lucic, Marchand, Versteeg (traded) and Kejci.

Of course the big win for them was the Kessel trade = Seguin, Knight and Hamilton.

It appears that Van has done better in the more recent years, but it will be a few years before we know for sure.

.

[rb4u]

Honestly, looking back at the draft records and games played of the last 9 years, the Canucks drafted pretty well during the Gillis era considering where we were drafting. You look at Nonis and Burke prior and the thing that jumps out most is how few picks we were actually left with each year (and some extreemly questionable early round picks by Nonis). When you consider Gillis' success with college free agent signings, I think it is really hard to fault him for the quality of the prospects currently in the system. The players the Canucks are currently missing are in that 23-26 year old age range - that would be mostly the Nonis era. Admittedly he traded away Grabner, but he's not doing much these days, and maybe he could've done better than Schroeder.

For all of the people calling for our scouts heads, I just don't see huge failure there. Should we improve if we can? Of course. But there are only a handful of late round gems every year, and the canucks have done about as well as any other team with getting them. Edler 3rd round, Corrado 5th, Hansen 9th. Cederholm and Cassels look like very good picks. And every team has early round busts too.

Well said. Chasing after the Cup almost always means mortgaging the future (I don't agree with this philosophy but that is for another thread…). Trying to score that one missing piece that will push your team over the top is a risky proposition since there can only be one winner at the end of the season. Teams like DET with good drafting/development systems can afford to give up their first rounders (check out my previous posts and you will be amazed), but they are not the norm. Most teams struggle to graduate 2 players per draft class to provide the big club with a constant source of renewal.

Wondering out loud if placing someone like a Stan Smyl (in the past) or Eric Crawford (present) is the right way to go, considering it is one of the most important jobs in the organization.

In the earlier years, Boston did well with later picks like Bergeron, Lucic, Marchand, Versteeg (traded) and Kejci.

Of course the big win for them was the Kessel trade = Seguin, Knight and Hamilton.

It appears that Van has done better in the more recent years, but it will be a few years before we know for sure.

.

Something to consider is if better drafting is the result of better scouting or higher draft order?

[TOMapleLaughs]

1. Comparing our drafting with any non-Canadian teams' drafting is a sad, sad endeavor.

2. Just because Benning may arrive, it doesn't mean his drafting arrives with him. Just as Burke's ufa signings in Anaheim weren't available to TO.

On that note, i'm not sure if i'm agreeing or disagreeing with the ultra-long OP.

[Fred65]

SFU did a study of drafting in the NHL. Detroit ranked 21st in the league....Vcr 20th. But what was suprising is except for the extremes ie the very top and bottom teams every one else was pretty close and could easily explained by draft order. Vcr is getting a better than average pick this year....but it's supposedly not a great year. When folks bring up these stats it's rarely shown the compartive strength of each draft year ie I can't recall seeing any stats that actually graded draft strengths rather than teams. Having a #6 pick this year will likely not produce a franchise player...next year...all together different

National Hockey League - Top 30

1. Buffalo - 10yrs - 91 draft picks - 28 NHL Players = 30.7% success rate (1)

2. Boston - 10yrs - 85 draft picks - 26 NHL Players = 30.5% success rate (1)

3. Ottawa - 10yrs - 92 draft picks - 26 NHL Players = 28.2% success rate (2)

4. Pittsburgh - 10yrs - 95 draft picks - 27 NHL Players = 28.4% success rate

5. Colorado - 10yrs - 96 draft picks - 27 NHL Players = 28.1% success rate (1)

6. San Jose - 10yrs - 78 draft picks - 21 NHL Players = 27.0% success rate (3)

7. Montreal - 10yrs - 90 draft picks - 24 NHL Players = 26.6% success rate (2)

8. Anaheim - 10yrs - 74 draft picks - 19 NHL Players = 25.6% success rate

9. Nashville - 9yrs - 88 draft picks - 20 NHL Players = 24.0% success rate (3)

10. NY Rangers -10yrs - 100 draft picks - 23 NHL Players = 23.0% success rate (1)

11. Columbus - 7yrs - 74 draft picks - 17 NHL Players = 22.9% success rate (3)

12. Minnesota - 7yrs - 61 draft picks - 14 NHL Players = 22.9% success rate (1)

13. Chicago - 10yrs - 110 draft picks - 25 NHL Players = 22.7% success rate

14. Toronto - 10yrs - 84 draft picks - 19 NHL Players = 22.6% success rate (1)

15. Dallas - 10yrs - 91 draft picks - 20 NHL Players = 21.9% success rate

16. Los Angles - 10yrs - 97 draft picks - 21 NHL Players = 21.6% success rate (1)

17. Washington - 10yrs - 92 draft picks - 19 NHL Players = 20.6% success rate (1)

18. Florida - 10yrs - 92 draft picks - 19 NHL Players = 20.6% success rate (1)

19. NY Islanders - 10yrs - 97 draft picks - 20 NHL Players = 20.6 % success rate (1)

20. Vancouver - 10yrs - 84 draft picks - 17 NHL Players = 20.2% success rate

21. Detroit - 10yrs - 85 draft picks - 17 NHL Players = 20.0% success rate (2)

22. Carolina - 10yrs - 80 draft picks - 16 NHL Players = 20.0% success rate (2)

23. Philadelphia - 10yrs - 89 draft picks - 17 NHL Players = 19.1% success rate (1)

24. Edmonton - 10yrs - 98 draft picks - 18 NHL Players = 18.3% success rate (6)

25. St. Louis - 10yrs - 89 draft picks - 15 NHL Players = 16.8 % success rate (3)

26. Atlanta - 8 yrs -78 draft picks - 13-NHL Players = 16.6% success rate (1)

27. Calgary - 10yrs - 99 draft picks - 16 NHL Players = 16.1% success rate

28. Tampa Bay - 10yrs - 102 draft picks - 16 NHL Players = 15.6% success rate (2)

29. New Jersey - 10yrs - 91 draft picks - 14 NHL Players = 15.3% success rate (6)

30. Phoenix - 10yrs - 86 draft picks - 13 NHL Players = 15.1% success rate (1)

http://www.theartofscouting.com/default.aspx?p=nhlprospect

[TOMapleLaughs]

If we don't tank next year as well, that's a fail.

[rb4u]

Drafting can be a gamble, the other half of a GM's job is to make trades with those players and sign FA's to build a desired framework for success on the ice. Looking at Bostons roster players not drafted by them were traded for drafted players so they have turned those picks into active roster spots. Have they been successful? Hard to argue with their team performance.

I see the biggest job for any GM as to be managing assets. Turning undrafted picks that a team is allocated each year into tangible players that can fill out a roster.

DET often either trades away their low first rounder for a B grade player with term or trade down for multiple 2nd/3rd round picks. Rationale being two cracks at 20% is better than one shot 30% (low 1st rounder). That a bird in the hand (ie. B grade role player that has developed and is NHL ready), is worth the unrealized potential that a 25-30th pick.

From 2002-2013, DET kept exactly 5 of their 1st rounder (2005, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2013). At least from my research, these were all considered decent years when it came to the top 30 prospects. During the same span, they accumulated 16 2nd rounders, 12 3rd rounders , 9 4th rounders and 15 5th rounders. Trend? Perhaps. At the same time, they almost always did a better job managing their assets and trading them (both veterans and prospects) before their expiry date. (personally I think this was GMMG's biggest failure during his time here).

http://www.nhltradetracker.com/user/trade_list_by_team/Detroit_Red_Wings/1

Contrast to the VAN model

Ehrhoff -> 4th rounder

Pahlsson <- two 4ths and a low prospect

Roy <- 2nd and a mid prospect

Weise -> Diaz -> 5th

Ballard + Oreskovich <- Bernier + Grabner + 1st

Oreskovich lost to waivers

Bernier <- 2nd and 3rd (which makes it sad that Ballard = 1st, 2nd, 3rd and Grabner!!!)

Not to mention the number of prospects that dropped off the map by holding them too long instead of trading for 3-7 round picks

http://www.nhltradetracker.com/user/trade_list_by_team/Vancouver_Canucks/1

[rb4u]

SFU did a study of drafting in the NHL. Detroit ranked 21st in the league....Vcr 20th. But what was suprising is except for the extremes ie the very top and bottom teams every one else was pretty close and could easily explained by draft order. Vcr is getting a better than average pick this year....but it's supposedly not a great year. When folks bring up these stats it's rarely shown the compartive strength of each draft year ie I can't recall seeing any stats that actually graded draft strengths rather than teams. Having a #6 pick this year will likely not produce a franchise player...next year...all together different

National Hockey League - Top 30

1. Buffalo - 10yrs - 91 draft picks - 28 NHL Players = 30.7% success rate (1)

2. Boston - 10yrs - 85 draft picks - 26 NHL Players = 30.5% success rate (1)

3. Ottawa - 10yrs - 92 draft picks - 26 NHL Players = 28.2% success rate (2)

4. Pittsburgh - 10yrs - 95 draft picks - 27 NHL Players = 28.4% success rate

5. Colorado - 10yrs - 96 draft picks - 27 NHL Players = 28.1% success rate (1)

6. San Jose - 10yrs - 78 draft picks - 21 NHL Players = 27.0% success rate (3)

7. Montreal - 10yrs - 90 draft picks - 24 NHL Players = 26.6% success rate (2)

8. Anaheim - 10yrs - 74 draft picks - 19 NHL Players = 25.6% success rate

13. Chicago - 10yrs - 110 draft picks - 25 NHL Players = 22.7% success rate

14. Toronto - 10yrs - 84 draft picks - 19 NHL Players = 22.6% success rate (1)

16. Los Angles - 10yrs - 97 draft picks - 21 NHL Players = 21.6% success rate (1)

20. Vancouver - 10yrs - 84 draft picks - 17 NHL Players = 20.2% success rate

21. Detroit - 10yrs - 85 draft picks - 17 NHL Players = 20.0% success rate (2)

23. Philadelphia - 10yrs - 89 draft picks - 17 NHL Players = 19.1% success rate (1)

24. Edmonton - 10yrs - 98 draft picks - 18 NHL Players = 18.3% success rate (6)

25. St. Louis - 10yrs - 89 draft picks - 15 NHL Players = 16.8 % success rate (3)

27. Calgary - 10yrs - 99 draft picks - 16 NHL Players = 16.1% success rate

29. New Jersey - 10yrs - 91 draft picks - 14 NHL Players = 15.3% success rate (6)

30. Phoenix - 10yrs - 86 draft picks - 13 NHL Players = 15.1% success rate (1)

http://www.theartofscouting.com/default.aspx?p=nhlprospect

Thanks for posting that!

Astonished to see NJD at the bottom of the list and BUF at the top.

If we don't tank next year as well, that's a fail.

I always kid with my friends that strategic "tanking" should be part of any team's strategy.

Especially if its a strong draft and your team realistically doesn't have an excellent chance of making it to the finals. Even more so if it's a lockout shorten season 2012-2013 (less pain for the season's ticket holders) plus a strong year 2013. Imagine tanking last year for only 40+ games and getting one of MacKinnon, Barkov, Droulin or Seth Jones...

[Brick Tamland]

2002 DET (4 players. Incredible considering they started without a 1st rounder!)

2) 58th Jiri Hudler 526 114 181 295 198

2) 63rd Tomas Fleischmann 515 115 168 283 156

3) 95th Valtteri Filppula 558 125 184 309 178

4) 131st Johan Berggren NA

5) 166th Logan Koopmans NA

6) 197th Jimmy Cuddihy NA

7) 229th Derek Meech 144 4 13 17 45

8) 260th Pierre-Olivier Beaulieu NA

9) 262nd Christian Soderstrom NA

10) 291st Jonathan Ericsson 325 14 54 68 260

2003 DET (2 useful players)

2) 64th Jim Howard 285 0 5 5 18

4) 132nd Kyle Quincey 375 23 88 111 356

5) 164th Ryan Oulahen NA

6) 170th Andreas Sundin NA

6) 194th Stefan Blom NA

7) 226th Tomas Kollar NA

8) 258th Vladmir Kutny NA

9) 289th Mikael Johansson NA

2004 DET

3) 97th Johan Franzen 567 180 167 347 369

4) 128th Evan McGrath NA

5) 151st Sergei Kolosov NA

5) 162nd Tyler Haskins NA

6) 192nd Anton Axelsson NA

7) 226th Steve Covington NA

8) 257th Gennady Stolyarov NA

9) 290th Nils Backstrom NA

2005 DET

1) 19th Jakub Kindl 213 9 40 49 113

2) 42nd Justin Abdelkader 327 38 50 88 225

3) 80th Christofer Lofberg NA

4) 103rd Mattias Ritola 43 4 5 9 17

5) 132nd Darren Helm 291 44 59 103 68

5) 137th Johan Ryno NA

5) 151st Jeff May NA

6) 175th Juho Mielonen NA

7) 214th Bretton Stamler NA

2006 DET

2) 41st Cory Emmerton 139 12 9 21 22

2) 47th Shawn Matthias 330 51 53 104 121

2) 62nd Dick Axelsson NA

3) 92nd Daniel Larsson NA

6) 182nd Jan Mursak 46 2 2 4 8

7) 191st Nick Oslund NA

7) 212nd Logan Pyett NA

2007 DET

1) 27th Brendan Smith 119 6 28 34 117

3) 88th Joakim Andersson 108 11 14 25 20

5) 148th Randy Cameron NA

6) 178th Zack Torquato NA

7) 208th Bryan Rufenach NA

* FA Luke Glendening 5.0B

2008 DET

1) 30th Tom McCollum 1 0 0 0 0

3) 91st Max Nicastro 5.5C

4) 121st Gustav Nyquist 97 32 29 61 18

5) 151st Julien Cayer NA

6) 181st Stephan Johnston NA

7) 211st Jesper Samuelsson NA

2009 DET

2) 32nd Landon Ferraro 4 0 0 0 2 6.5C

2) 60th Tomas Tatar 100 24 23 47 34

3) 75th Andrej Nestrasil 5.0C

3) 90th Gleason Fournier 5.5C

5) 150th Nick Jensen 6.0C

6) 180th Mitch Callahan 1 0 0 0 0 6.0C

7) 210th Adam Almquist 2 1 0 1 0 6.5C

* FA Trevor Parkes 5.5C

* FA William Coetzee 5.5C

2010 DET

1) 21st Riley Sheahan 44 9 15 21 6 7.0C

2) 51st Calle Jarnkrok 12 2 7 9 4

3) 81st Louis-Marc Aubry 6.5D

4) 111st Teemu Pulkkinen 3 0 0 0 2 7.0C

5) 141st Petr Mrazek 11 0 0 0 0 8.0C

6) 171st Brooks Macek

7) 201st Ben Marshall 6.0C

* FA Jared Coreau 6.0C

2011 DET

2) 35th Tomas Jurco 36 8 7 15 14 7.5C

2) 48th Xavier Ouellet 4 0 0 0 2 7.0C

2) 55th Ryan Sproul 1 0 0 0 0 7.0C

3) 85th Alan Quine NA

4) 115th Marek Tvrdon 6.5C

5) 145th Philippe Hudon 5.0C

5) 146th Mattias Backman 6.5C

6) 175th Richard Nedomlel 5.5C

7) 205th Alexey Marchenko 6.5C

2012 DET

2) 49th Martin Frk 7.0D

3) 80th Jake Paterson 6.0C

4) 110th Andreas Athanasiou 7.0C

5) 140th Mike McKee 6.0C

6) 170th James De Haas 5.5C

7) 200 Rasmus Bodin 5.5B

2013 DET

1) 20th Anthony Mantha 8.0C

2) 48th Zach Nastasiuk 6.5C

2) 58th Tyler Bertuzzi 6.0D

3) 79th Mattas Janmark-Nylen 7.0D

4) 109th David Pope 6.0D

5) 139th Mitch Wheaton 6.0C

6) 169th Marc McNulty 5.5C

7) 199th Hampus Melen 5.5D

The difference i see, their first two picks almost always pan out... That's better scouting.

[rb4u]

The difference i see, their first two picks almost always pan out... That's better scouting.

You can scout 18 years olds all you want but if player development is not keeping up, then potential becomes just that... Potential.

[Goal:thecup]

I think a thorough review of our drafting is necessary; not that we have done that poorly, imo we have done ok and better lately, but just because so many of the scouts et al have been with the team for a very long time.

It should be easy enough to look at all their reports and see how the players panned out.

It really shouldn't matter at this stage which players we picked; it should be an evaluation of how the players they suggested actually worked out.

I imagine a couple techs could come up with some decent analyses within a week.

Incoming GM could see who should continue to work on scouting and draft suggestions.

I would think that all scouts etc. would have had to submit their recommendations and that they are on file.

All managers would have had to submit their summaries of this work and their final recommendations.

Match it all up against the record of player successes and failures and see how everybody did with their predictions and decisions.

Then the new GM could make some improvements to the systems, culling out dead wood, and putting good people in positions to succeed.

The dearth of prospects from the Dub in prior years is screaming for a review, for example.

Another thing that may be unearthed is if there is a scout or group whose recommendations have been largely ignored yet the players they recommended have done well.

Maybe they already do this, I don't know, but a lot of people have held their jobs for a long time, and this implies that improvements may be possible.

I know it is far from an exact science, but some scientific analysis could help clear out some dead wood, recognize and reward successful employees, and eventually draft players more likely to make significant contributions to the success of the team.

PS I would love to work on a project like this so if TL & Co are reading this, PM me; shameful self-promotion, probably broke the board rules.

[Fred65]

The difference i see, their first two picks almost always pan out... That's better scouting.

Sure names like Detroit prospects, McCallom, Ferraro, Fsk, Shehan, Oulette, Emerton , Smith, Kindle are all house hold names & destined for stardom and were all either 1st or 2nd round picks. Mantha might do it but he was a high risk selection...two bad game, 1 good game. Maybe you didn't read the SFU study, Detroit was ranked 21st for scouting. They've has some lucky picks earlier...players they passed over themselves numerous times and spun the bottle with them but that's just luck. Much like Vcr getting Corrado in the 5th round....luck

[Light Bearer]

&nbsp; &nbsp;

Tipping Point was injuries: Kesler, Hamhuis, Edler, Raymond, Samuelsson, Erhoff

Bieksa was skating on one knee and Rome was suspended

Salo, Ballard and Tanev were the only healthy D-men available

[FlyLow_]

There is a lot of potential in our 2013 draft, that is for sure. The first 5 picks should all play in the NHL in some capacity, we'll see I guess..

Pretty sad drafting other than that.