How does Ron Delorme keep his job through all the regimes

[kilgore]

Here's a fun little exercise and read from last year that illustrates the point of just how bad the Ron Delorme era was. Sorry for the length but I can't figure out how to get the tables to show up in the spoiler box.

You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll hurl.

.....................

Amazing. In spite of the obvious flaws, like only picking forwards, it still shows the pathetic job that Delorme has done. (It also raises the idea that a team could fire the scouting staff, only pick top scoring forwards, and then trade those assets later for good D and G positions). Still be ahead.

Cool! Now do one for the Mike Penny years. It will perhaps better illustrate your point.

regards,

G.

One of the main reasons for our teams perennial failure is that we have never had a decent scouting department. Its been mentioned already but Penny was chief when the Canucks were yearly picking near the top because of their dismal on ice performance. Between bad trades (Neely) and dumb drafting we didn't stand a chance.

That study never gets old. It's so simplistic yet it shows how often times scouts can be swayed by their subjective opinion. I would love to see a similar study ran with NHL Equivalences allowing for picks outside the CHL.

Anyone who doesn't think analytics is the way of the future in NHL drafts is either completely ignorant or illogical. When we start getting good shot data, draft won't be nearly such a crap-shoot. If we can get reliable shot data I don't think their would even need to be a 6th or 7th round (there barely is a need for them today). Some teams over the past 4 or so years have already taken a very heavy analytical approach to draft (Winnipeg, LA, and now the Leafs to name a few). Now of course, I would never advocate for a purely number based drafting approach (although this study does make a compelling argument) but every model should have a significant filter through quantitative means to arrive upon a pool of top candidates. At that point a subjective, observational data provided by scouts could help rank the remain pool by whatever characteristics a given team is looking for in prospects. No doubt scouting is moving away from little arenas and more towards spreadsheets and game tape breakdowns. Too bad Benning is anti-progressive and has stated that he thinks analytics isn't useful in scouting and drafting (and for that matter at the NHL level based on his actions and explanations over the past year).

If this is true, we are doomed. It reminds me of myself betting on horses. I've only gone a few times in my life. I know nothing about it. Last time was like 8 years ago. Because I knew nothing, I took advantage of going down and right up to the front while they trotted the horses out just before the race. I studied which horse 'looked' like it would be a winner. Which was looking energetic, and confident and healthy compared to the others. I did come close, and placed a couple of times, but it was no way to pick a winner. I know its not that simple, but Benning flying around NA watching random games, and basing his decisions, less on analytics, and more on where one player may look good when trotting out for that particular game, is not a sustainable way to draft.

[Salmonberries]

Old school hockey guys like Benning and Delorme are gut players, you can't expect these guys to embrace such a new-fangled (not to mention complicated) concept as analytics. A guy like Ron Delorme, he`s been around so long all he needs to do is watch a player practice and he knows what that player is. He doesn`t even need to see him play games. Now that`s what you call old time hockey savvy.

[Hairy Kneel]

I'd rather have Gradin.

[TheCammer]

The Canucks draft record over the past 15 years since Ron Delorme was named Chief Amateur Scout has been spotty to say the least.

Yet, through all the regime changes at GM somehow Delorme and most of the other scouts have kept their jobs throughout. I really don't get why. You see Peter Chiarelli go into Edmonton and the first thing he does is fire most of the scouts.

It seems like the Canucks are afraid to make true fundamental changes to their organization. Yes they will change their president, head coach and GM but all the people behind the scenes remain the same.

The last time the Canucks made big changes to their scouting staff Brian Burke was still GM.

This is something I have been asking myself for close to 12 years. Never understood it. Still don't. There have certainly been enough errors over the years to warrant being canned.

[Gollumpus]

One of the main reasons for our teams perennial failure is that we have never had a decent scouting department. Its been mentioned already but Penny was chief when the Canucks were yearly picking near the top because of their dismal on ice performance. Between bad trades (Neely) and dumb drafting we didn't stand a chance.

Correct. Penny is being mentioned as some great guru who was driven out of town and went on to do great things... in Toronto. The Leafs have at three guys in their scouting area who had input here in the (mostly) dry pre-Gillis years.

regards,

G.

[Alexandre]

Maybe because he is the ultimate team guy and so deferred to the various GMs he worked under instead of insisting on his picks. Maybe Delorme could have had a better record as chief scout if he wasn't over ruled so much by his superiors.

[Chalky]

Perhaps it is because the GMs he works for don't listen to him (speculation), or perhaps it's because he is a monster who could twist you into a pretzel and they are afraid of him. Last time they tried to fire him they sent 3 people to do it....none of them returned.

[desiboynux4lifee*******]

Fire him!!!!!!

[canuckhound73]

The Canucks draft record over the past 15 years since Ron Delorme was named Chief Amateur Scout has been spotty to say the least.

Yet, through all the regime changes at GM somehow Delorme and most of the other scouts have kept their jobs throughout. I really don't get why. You see Peter Chiarelli go into Edmonton and the first thing he does is fire most of the scouts.

It seems like the Canucks are afraid to make true fundamental changes to their organization. Yes they will change their president, head coach and GM but all the people behind the scenes remain the same.

The last time the Canucks made big changes to their scouting staff Brian Burke was still GM.

His drafting record has actually been pretty good for a team who for over a decade didn't have a top 10 pick who was able to develop here, either thru accidental death, or demanding a trade.

Till Bo Horvat, it had been FOURTEEN YEARS since we had a draft pick in the top 10, outside of Hodgson, who wanted out of here and got his wish, and Bourdon, who was killed. FOURTEEN years we have had to endure drafting mostly in the 20s.

Delorme has, for this franchise, been in on guiding the team to drafting 2 Art Ross trophy winners, 1 Hart trophy, 1 Pearson trophy, 1 Selke trophy, 1 Jennings trophy. Since the Sedin draft, they have drafted 12 players who have played 100+ NHL games, 8 of which have played the majority of those games as Canucks including Sedins, Kesler, Schneider, Bieksa, Edler, Hansen and Raymond.

The team won 2 Presidents trophies, got to a Stanley Cup Final (coulda been 2 maybe if Bertuzzi hadn't happened)

Since the 1999 draft.

15 Stanley Cups have been awarded to only 10 teams. That means 20 other teams have failed to win a cup.

15 Western Conference Titles have been awarded to only 9 teams, the Canucks have 1. That's more than 6 other franchises in the west., only 4 teams in the west Anaheim, Detroit, Chicago & L.A. have more finals appearances than Vancouver.in that span.

15 Presidents trophies have been given out. 11 teams have won that. Canucks have won 2. The Detroit Red Wings with 4 are the only other team to win multiple titles in that time. There are 28 teams who have won less Presidents trophies than the canucks in that time,

So from a team standpoint, it looks like the Canucks have done VERY well.

Individually.

15 Hart trophies. 11 winners. 1 Canuck, Henrik Sedin. Only the last 9 were drafted since 1999. So the 6 prior were before Delormes era really started. The Canucks have drafted as many or more Hart Trophy winners in the past 15 years than every team but 1, Pittsburgh with Malkin & Crosby.

15 Art Ross trophies. 11 different winners. 2 Canucks, Henrik & Daniel Sedin. 9 of the last 10 were drafted in 1999 or later. Theres been No team has drafted more Art ross Trophy winners than the Canucks in that time. Only the Penguins have drafted as many.

15 Selke Trophies. 10 different winners. 1 Canuck, Kesler. only 4 winners drafted since 1999. Canucks have drafted more Selke winners than 27 other teams in the past 15 yrs.

15 Jennings Trophy winners. 19 different winners. 1 Canuck. Schneider. Only 5 of which did it for the team that drafted them. Canucks are ahead of most of the teams here too. regardless which stat you want to break it down by.

We are lacking in Norris & Vezina trophies. But then again.. most teams are as they were dominated by 2-3 players for the first few years of this 15 yr span.

With only the Sedins in the top 5, and only 5 top 10 picks during his tenure (1 died, and 1 demanded to be traded from here). Ron Delorme, whether himself, or through the general managers at the time, has drafted FOUR major trophy winners, combining in 6 total awards.

That's the 4th most awards, behind Pittsburgh 14 (Malkin & Crosby), Washington 13 (Ovechkin) and Chicago 9 (Toews, Kane, Keith, Crawford).

That's tied for 1st in most individual winners with Chicago.

Of the 42 award winners drafted since 1999, we have 4. That's 9.5% of them, the average is about 3.3%

Of the 80 awards won by players drafted since 1999. We have 6. That's 7.5%, the average is about 3.3%

ONLY TWO of those picks were in the top 3, or top 5, or top 8.

So, if you want to say hes done a bad job at being our head scout..... then what do you have to say about the 8 teams without an award winner in that time, or the 6 others with only 1 award in that time.

We've been to a finals once, won 2 Presidents trophies, 6 major NHL individual awards from 4 players we drafted.

Theres about 20 teams in the league, that I think would take THAT level of success in the past 15 years.... and lets be brutally honest, if we just go on the past say 12 years (average wait time for a prospect is 3 or so yrs) the Canucks numbers are even more impressive.

Has there been better teams drafting in the past 15 years? Sure. But you can count them on your fingers without using any of them twice, and still have some left over.

The ONLY dud drafts I say we've had in 15 years is 2007 & 2010. the rest have been from "ok" to "very good" and a couple "extremely good" ones.

If you really want to criticize anyone in that time. Try player development or our coaches & GMs... they are the ones who decide what our draftees become after they are picked. But as I just pointed out, their stats would suggest they have a pretty good record.