Guillaume Brisebois | D

[Shiftynifty]

1G 1A +2 so far at the end of 2nd.

[Canucks Prophet]

Some quotes from a recent article on Brisebois that the Canucks App posted. 

"He came to the office to sign his contract and I tried to play a joke on him" laughed Titan GM Sylvain Couturier. "I gave him a Flyers pen to sign his contract with and he didn't want to use that pen at all. He said 'I'm not touching that'. He was really proud to sign with the Canucks"

"He has been put in tough situations and given tough assignments for a young player, but he always answers the challenge. I think this has been good for him. He is playing 25 minutes a night, so there is a lot of ice time for him, but at the same time, those are tough minutes he's playing going up against the best players in the QMJHL night after night."

[Alexandre]

 I was just thinking, in the Canuck defence of the future, if our top prospects fulfilled their promise, would Brisebois be more valuable than say a Tryamkin?

[Spotted Zebra]

9 minutes ago, Alexandre said:

 I was just thinking, in the Canuck defence of the future, if our top prospects fulfilled their promise, would Brisebois be more valuable than say a Tryamkin?

No, Tryamkin would be the big monster Dman we've been in a never ending search for.

I haven't seen much of Brisbeois seems simmilsr to Hutton, which is still good

[Sean Monahan]

4 minutes ago, Spotted Zebra said:

No, Tryamkin would be the big monster Dman we've been in a never ending search for.

I haven't seen much of Brisbeois seems simmilsr to Hutton, which is still good

I haven't watched him myself but from what I've read he sounded more like a Tanev to me.

[Derp...]

7 minutes ago, Wild Sean Monahan said:

I haven't watched him myself but from what I've read he sounded more like a Tanev to me.

He plays more like Tanev, not fancy like Hutton, just makes the high percentage play. Good Skater, and good first pass. Shot will get better, but I think ahead of where Tanev was at the same age, behind Hutton though offensively. 

 

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, Derp... said:

He plays more like Tanev, not fancy like Hutton, just makes the high percentage play. Good Skater, and good first pass. Shot will get better, but I think ahead of where Tanev was at the same age, behind Hutton though offensively. 

 

And he's a lefty.  

[Sean Monahan]

7 minutes ago, Derp... said:

He plays more like Tanev, not fancy like Hutton, just makes the high percentage play. Good Skater, and good first pass. Shot will get better, but I think ahead of where Tanev was at the same age, behind Hutton though offensively. 

 

Aren't most draft picks ? Lol

[Rush17]

With Brisebois getting his new contract.  Does he receive any contract $$ well in Jrs?  Not sure how that works.  His years in jr count towards his entry level deal doesnt it or is it just based on AHL/NHL play time?

[Gyllenhaal]

2 hours ago, Rush17 said:

With Brisebois getting his new contract.  Does he receive any contract $$ well in Jrs?  Not sure how that works.  His years in jr count towards his entry level deal doesnt it or is it just based on AHL/NHL play time?

The only money he would get is from his signing bonus. Until he plays 10 games in the AHL/NHL his contract slides, meaning he doesn't get his salary and he doesn't count towards our cap.

[JamesB]

12 hours ago, Alexandre said:

 I was just thinking, in the Canuck defence of the future, if our top prospects fulfilled their promise, would Brisebois be more valuable than say a Tryamkin?

It is early enough that we can still daydream about both guys. So I am projecting Brisbois as Niklas Lidstrom and Tryamkin as Zdeno Chara. Not sure who will win the Norris trophy first.

More seriously, they both look like good prospects and are consistent with Benning's ability to get maximum value from the draft. Let's hope Benning has a lot of picks (including some high ones) to work with this year. 

The Canucks will probably need a Norris candidate type D if they are going to contend for a Cup again in the near future and those guys are very hard to project -- much harder than with forwards. So we need quite a few good D prospects to provide a decent chance that one will develop into the franchise-type D.

Brisbois and Tryamkin are a start, and we are very happy to well Hutton has done. But we need some more good D prospects in the pipeline.

[N4ZZY]

I say we draft with our first pick a franchise centre man. if we have the ability to draft Matthews. I say we do it. our forward lines would be much deeper with Matthews in the line up. and then every other pick we have. focus on the dman. 

[flickyoursedin]

7 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

I say we draft with our first pick a franchise centre man. if we have the ability to draft Matthews. I say we do it. our forward lines would be much deeper with Matthews in the line up. and then every other pick we have. focus on the dman. 

I totally agree with this. Dmen take a long time to develop that most of the great NHL dmen out there aren't even drafted in the first round.

[Quantum]

10 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

I say we draft with our first pick a franchise centre man. if we have the ability to draft Matthews. I say we do it. our forward lines would be much deeper with Matthews in the line up. and then every other pick we have. focus on the dman. 

That's the smart call. The Canucks don't need to waste a high pick on potential "high end bust" like Thomas Hickey (4th overall pick in 2007 by Kings, waived by Kings and picked up by Islanders. A respectable NHLer but nowhere near a Top 2 guy), Cam Barker (3rd overall pick in 2004. Never reached potential), Erik Johnson (1st overall in 2006. He's a solid NHLer but not a Top 2 guy and definitely not worth having been picked before Jonathan Toews that year), Zack Bogosian (3rd overall, over 400 NHL games played, people still wonder if he can become a Top 2 guy), and Erik Gudbranson (3rd overall in 2010, mediocore numbers, still young though). I'm not saying any of these guys are huge busts by any means (well, besides Barker and possibly Hickey, but that's soley based on where he was drafted his year) but find a stud defenseman is much harder then finding a stud forward... especially when picking high in the draft. I mean, if I was St. Louis, I'd still be kicking myself for not picking Jonathan Toews at 1st overall when I had the chance. You can find stud D-men high in the draft (Ekblad, Jovanovski, Hedman) but the risk is higher generally speaking... but that's my two cents.

[Alexandre]

2 hours ago, JamesB said:

It is early enough that we can still daydream about both guys. So I am projecting Brisbois as Niklas Lidstrom and Tryamkin as Zdeno Chara. Not sure who will win the Norris trophy first.

More seriously, they both look like good prospects and are consistent with Benning's ability to get maximum value from the draft. Let's hope Benning has a lot of picks (including some high ones) to work with this year. 

The Canucks will probably need a Norris candidate type D if they are going to contend for a Cup again in the near future and those guys are very hard to project -- much harder than with forwards. So we need quite a few good D prospects to provide a decent chance that one will develop into the franchise-type D.

Brisbois and Tryamkin are a start, and we are very happy to well Hutton has done. But we need some more good D prospects in the pipeline.

I checked all the prospects picked by Benning and Gillis. In 2 drafts, Benning picked 7 defensemen out of 14 picks. Gillis = 14 Dmen out of 37 picks from 6 drafts. So 50% of Benning's picks were Dmen and only 38% of Gillis's picks were Dmen. It seems Benning is thinking the same.

I am very happy with all the Dmen Benning has picked so far. They all seem to be good prospects. I also like that he used 2, 3rd round selections on D (Brisebois and Tryamkin). I am just hoping he finally picks one higher than round 3.

 

[D-Money]

1 hour ago, Alexandre said:

I checked all the prospects picked by Benning and Gillis. In 2 drafts, Benning picked 7 defensemen out of 14 picks. Gillis = 14 Dmen out of 37 picks from 6 drafts. So 50% of Benning's picks were Dmen and only 38% of Gillis's picks were Dmen. It seems Benning is thinking the same.

I am very happy with all the Dmen Benning has picked so far. They all seem to be good prospects. I also like that he used 2, 3rd round selections on D (Brisebois and Tryamkin). I am just hoping he finally picks one higher than round 3.

 

I think the difference will be what picks were used. In his first draft, Gillis used the 41st overall pick on Sauve. The following draft he used pick #83 on Connauton. All the other ones were chosen well beyond 100. It's no wonder that other than striking gold on Hutton, and cooking close with Corrado, we have no quality young D-men.

Now in back-to-back drafts, JB had used pick #66 to draft a D-man. And I bet he uses a couple of picks in the first two rounds this year on more.

[JamesB]

7 hours ago, Alexandre said:

I checked all the prospects picked by Benning and Gillis. In 2 drafts, Benning picked 7 defensemen out of 14 picks. Gillis = 14 Dmen out of 37 picks from 6 drafts. So 50% of Benning's picks were Dmen and only 38% of Gillis's picks were Dmen. It seems Benning is thinking the same.

I am very happy with all the Dmen Benning has picked so far. They all seem to be good prospects. I also like that he used 2, 3rd round selections on D (Brisebois and Tryamkin). I am just hoping he finally picks one higher than round 3.

 

 

5 hours ago, D-Money said:

I think the difference will be what picks were used. In his first draft, Gillis used the 41st overall pick on Sauve. The following draft he used pick #83 on Connauton. All the other ones were chosen well beyond 100. It's no wonder that other than striking gold on Hutton, and cooking close with Corrado, we have no quality young D-men.

Now in back-to-back drafts, JB had used pick #66 to draft a D-man. And I bet he uses a couple of picks in the first two rounds this year on more.

I agree that it is encouraging to see Benning take drafting D-men more seriously than Gillis did. And when we factor in that Benning appears to be better at drafting and that Benning has not traded away as many high picks we can expect an improvement in the defensive pipeline.

I heard Gillis (and others) point out that it is not a good strategy to use high draft picks on Ds because they are so much harder to project than forwards at age 18. But that is not the whole story, You still need to get high quality Ds somewhere and they are very hard to trade for or to get as UFAs, so you still need to make a serious effort to get good Ds in the draft.

It is encouraging that based on their play this year both Neill (5th round) and Olson (7th round) look like very good picks for where they were taken. They are both longshots to ever play in the NHL, of course, but their progress is impressive so far.

Just looking at the numbers, last year Olson had 24 pts in 68 games (0.35 PPG) and was -13 on the year. This year so far he has 23 pts on 28 games (0.82 PPG) and is +15. And he is listed at 6-2. He could add another inch in height over the next couple of years (which is typlcal) and once he fills out, he could be a decent size even by NHL standards.

Maybe the Canucks will end up with Chychrun this year.

[D-Money]

8 minutes ago, JamesB said:

 

I agree that it is encouraging to see Benning take drafting D-men more seriously than Gillis did. And when we factor in that Benning appears to be better at drafting and that Benning has not traded away as many high picks we can expect an improvement in the defensive pipeline.

I heard Gillis (and others) point out that it is not a good strategy to use high draft picks on Ds because they are so much harder to project than forwards at age 18. But that is not the whole story, You still need to get high quality Ds somewhere and they are very hard to trade for or to get as UFAs, so you still need to make a serious effort to get good Ds in the draft.

It is encouraging that based on their play this year both Neill (5th round) and Olson (7th round) look like very good picks for where they were taken. They are both longshots to ever play in the NHL, of course, but their progress is impressive so far.

Just looking at the numbers, last year Olson had 24 pts in 68 games (0.35 PPG) and was -13 on the year. This year so far he has 23 pts on 28 games (0.82 PPG) and is +15. And he is listed at 6-2. He could add another inch in height over the next couple of years (which is typlcal) and once he fills out, he could be a decent size even by NHL standards.

Maybe the Canucks will end up with Chychrun this year.

That is true. Of the top-25 scoring forwards in the league, nearly half were top-5 picks (Kane, Seguin, Hall, D. Sedin, Wheeler, Ryan, Backstrom, H. Sedin, Draisatl, Ovechkin, Malkin, MacKinnon), and most of the remainder were still first rounders. Very few currently elite forwards were late round steals and/or free agents.

Whereas among the top-20 scoring D-men, it's a much different story. Here is where they were drafted:
15th overall, 5th round, 20th, 37th, 27th, 38th, 49th, 8th, 7th, 43rd, 3rd round, 14th, 8th round, 14th, 6th, 4th round, 3rd round, 2nd, 6th round, and 54th

However, as you can see above, nearly half of the top scoring D-men were still 1st rounders. 3/4 of them were picked in the first two rounds. And of the 5 guys above who were found in the 3rd round and beyond, only two are under 30 (Klingberg and Barrie), indicating that teams are getting better at evaluating draft eligible D-men. Also of note, none of them were undrafted free agents.

The main thing the Canucks desperately need is a top-pairing defenseman...ideally, two of them. And, in this day and age, it is extremely rare to find a top pairing D-man 1) by trade, 2) in free agency, or 3) beyond the 2nd round of the draft. And we haven't used a first or second rounder on a D-man since 2008.

[JamesB]

16 minutes ago, D-Money said:

That is true. Of the top-25 scoring forwards in the league, nearly half were top-5 picks (Kane, Seguin, Hall, D. Sedin, Wheeler, Ryan, Backstrom, H. Sedin, Draisatl, Ovechkin, Malkin, MacKinnon), and most of the remainder were still first rounders. Very few currently elite forwards were late round steals and/or free agents.

Whereas among the top-20 scoring D-men, it's a much different story. Here is where they were drafted:
15th overall, 5th round, 20th, 37th, 27th, 38th, 49th, 8th, 7th, 43rd, 3rd round, 14th, 8th round, 14th, 6th, 4th round, 3rd round, 2nd, 6th round, and 54th

However, as you can see above, nearly half of the top scoring D-men were still 1st rounders. 3/4 of them were picked in the first two rounds. And of the 5 guys above who were found in the 3rd round and beyond, only two are under 30 (Klingberg and Barrie), indicating that teams are getting better at evaluating draft eligible D-men. Also of note, none of them were undrafted free agents.

The main thing the Canucks desperately need is a top-pairing defenseman...ideally, two of them. And, in this day and age, it is extremely rare to find a top pairing D-man 1) by trade, 2) in free agency, or 3) beyond the 2nd round of the draft. And we haven't used a first or second rounder on a D-man since 2008.

Nice analysis. Thanks for going to the effort of doing the background research.

[tyhee]

On 2015-12-22 at 0:39 PM, D-Money said:

That is true. Of the top-25 scoring forwards in the league, nearly half were top-5 picks (Kane, Seguin, Hall, D. Sedin, Wheeler, Ryan, Backstrom, H. Sedin, Draisatl, Ovechkin, Malkin, MacKinnon), and most of the remainder were still first rounders. Very few currently elite forwards were late round steals and/or free agents.

Whereas among the top-20 scoring D-men, it's a much different story. Here is where they were drafted:
15th overall, 5th round, 20th, 37th, 27th, 38th, 49th, 8th, 7th, 43rd, 3rd round, 14th, 8th round, 14th, 6th, 4th round, 3rd round, 2nd, 6th round, and 54th

However, as you can see above, nearly half of the top scoring D-men were still 1st rounders. 3/4 of them were picked in the first two rounds. And of the 5 guys above who were found in the 3rd round and beyond, only two are under 30 (Klingberg and Barrie), indicating that teams are getting better at evaluating draft eligible D-men. Also of note, none of them were undrafted free agents.

The main thing the Canucks desperately need is a top-pairing defenseman...ideally, two of them. And, in this day and age, it is extremely rare to find a top pairing D-man 1) by trade, 2) in free agency, or 3) beyond the 2nd round of the draft. And we haven't used a first or second rounder on a D-man since 2008.

Firstly, D-Money, thanks for that work.

 

I decided to continue on from your last paragraph which speaks of top pairing d-men. I looked through every NHL team and arbitrarily defined a top pairing d-man as one of the top two in average minutes per game on his team. It isn't perfect but it doesn't depend on any subjective judgments. There were probably better methods available to pick the top d-men and this results in some players (Hunwick, Stone for example) that few would consider legitimate top pairing d-men on decent teams, but I placed a fair value on being completely objective and on going by what the coaches thought of their players when assigning ice time.

 

The results were:

 

Montreal: Subban (2^nd rd) Markov (6^th rd)

Boston: Chara (3^rd rd, VFA) Krug (undrafted FA)

Detroit: Kronwall (1^st rd) DeKeyser (undrafted FA)

(Green is just behind DeKeyser in ave TOI at present)

Florida: B Campbell (6^th rd, trade) Ekblad (1^st rd #1 overall)

Ottawa: Karlsson (1^st rd) Methot (6^th rd, trade)

Tampa: Hedman (1^st rd #2) Stralman (7^th rd, VFA)

Buffalo: Ristolainen (1^st rd) Bogosian (1^st rd, trade)

Toronto: Hunwick (7^th rd, VFA) Phaneuf (1^st rd, trade)

(Morgan Reilly, a 1^st round pick, is a close 3^rd in ave TOI on the Leafs)

 

Wash Carlson (1^st rd) Niskanen (1^st round)

NYI Hamonic (2^nd rd) Leddy (1^st rd, obtained in trade)

NYR McDonagh (1^st rd; trade) Klein (2^nd rd, obtained in trade)

(at this moment Girardi, an undrafted FA, is 1 second behind Klein in ave TOI for NYR)

NJ Greene (undrafted FA) Larsson (1^st rd)

Phi del Zotto (1^st rd) Streit (9^th rd, obtained in trade)

Pit Letang (3^rd rd) Daley (2^nd rd, obtained in trade)

Carolina Faulk (2^nd rd) Hainsey (1^st rd)

CBJ Johnson (1^st rd) Savard (4^th rd)

 

Dallas Klingberg (5^th rd) Goligoski (2^nd rd; trade)

St L Pietrangelo (1^st rd) Bouwmeester (1^st rd-#3 overall, obtained in trade)

Chi Keith (2^nd rd) Seabrook (1^st rd)

Nash Josi (2^nd rd) Weber (2^nd rd)

Minn Suter (1^st rd, FA) Spurgeon (6^th rd not signed, signed as rookie FA)

Col Beauchemin (3^rd rd, FA) Johnson (1^st rd, trade)

(Tyson Barrie, a 3^rd rounder, is a close 3^rd in ave TOI for Colorado)

Wpg Byfuglien (8^th rd, trade) Myers (1^st rd, trade)

 

LA Doughty (1^st rd #2) Muzzin (5^th rounder not signed, rookie FA)

SJ Burns (1^st rd, trade) Vlasic (2^nd rd)

Vanc Edler (3^rd rd) Tanev (undrafted FA)

Phoenix Ekman-Larsson (1^st rd) Stone (3^rd rd)

Calg Brodie (4^th rd) Giordano (undrafted FA)

Edm Klefbom (1^st rd) Sekera (3^rd rd, signed as FA)

Ana Fowler (1^st rd) Bieksa (??) (5^th rd, trade)

(to much complaining on the Ducks forum on hfboards, Bieksa narrowly leads Hampus Lindholm in average TOI. Lindholm was a 1^st rd pick)

 

Totals: 17 of 60 were drafted by their present teams in the 1^st round

7 of 60 were drafted by their present teams in the 2nd round

3 of 60 were drafted by their present teams in the 3^rd round

4 of 60 were drafted by their present teams lower than the 3^rd round

7 of 60 came to their present teams as undrafted or rookie free agents, 5 of whom were never drafted and 2 of whom were low round picks who did not sign with the team drafting them

16 of 60 came to their present teams via trade

6 of 60 came to their present teams as veteran free agents

 

Draft placings by round:

 

1-26

2-10

3-6

4-2

5-3

6-4

7-2

8-1

9-1

not drafted-5

 

Conclusions: None of this will be surprising or profound.

-Almost half of all top pairing defencemen are drafted in the 1^st round and the number available to be drafted later generally decreases as the rounds go by, especially after the 3^rd round, but 30% of the players in the top two on their teams in average ice time were either drafted later than the 3^rd round or went undrafted and were signed as undrafted free agents.

-63.3% of all top pairing defencemen were either drafted by their present teams or signed by them as rookie free agents.

-10% of top pairing defencemen came to their present teams as veteran free agents and about 26.7% were obtained by trade.

Taking into account that (a) most of the top 2 d-men on each team are still with the organization they broke in with, and (b) obtaining a player by the draft is certainly cheaper than by trade or getting a veteran free agent it seems fairly clear that the best way to acquire top defencemen, just like it is the best place to acquire top forwards, is through the draft.  That doesn't mean, though, that top d-men can't be acquired via trade or free agency, just that it isn't common and (my speculation) that will be because general managers want to keep those players and the cost to acquire them via trade or free agency will be high.

Edited December 30, 2015 by tyhee
missed two players acquired by trade