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

[Discussion] *Updated* Is It Really All That Bad?


Warhippy

Recommended Posts

The key to maintaining an organization is to continue to bring in young replacement players. Fans look at those years and see seven years with no players of note being developed. If they had of been able to add 4 solid pros  form those years it would have made a huge difference. I think the goal should be to add one player a year that you developed.

 

Linden and Benning are on that pace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it was really that poor. 

 

The problem with your OP, IMO, is the inconsistent way you've decided who was an NHL player. What is the metric you are choosing? Petry, Marincin, Klefbom doesn't count? But Corrado does? Gaunce counts but Reider and Lander doesn't? And that's Edmonton, one of the worst teams after the 1st round is excluded. 

 

I tell tell you what, WH...if you seriously want the answer to this...set a threshold, do all 30 teams, figure out a success rate and see for yourself that we are not average...not even close...terrible. 

 

If you declare a known cutoff then we can have a real discussion. Until then you have massaged the numbers. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, appleboy said:

If you open your eyes you will see that from 2005 to 2011 we drafted no one of note.

True...and were not just talking about the top end talent we drafted those years (that didn't bust,but underachieved)...We couldn't even draft serviceable players for the bottom half of our lineup....At least Calgary got players like Bouma,Brodie,Granlund and Gaudreau after the 1st round....

 

All thats left to show for six years of drafting 2005-11 is Raymond,Grabner, Schroeder (all now borderline AHL/NHL tweeners) and Connauton.

 

Oilers have 8 current NHL players drafted from 05-11

Flames have 8 current NHL players drafted from 05-11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

True...and were not just talking about the top end talent we drafted those years (that didn't bust,but underachieved)...We couldn't even draft serviceable players for the bottom half of our lineup....At least Calgary got players like Bouma,Brodie,Granlund and Gaudreau after the 1st round....

 

All thats left to show for six years of drafting 2005-11 is Raymond,Grabner, Schroeder (all now borderline AHL/NHL tweeners) and Connauton.

 

Oilers have 8 current NHL players drafted from 05-11

Flames have 8 current NHL players drafted from 05-11

 

Oilers have a minimum of 12 by my count. More depending on the cutoff. 

 

Unless the metric is clearly agreed upon it is a moot discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, theminister said:

Yes, it was really that poor. 

 

The problem with your OP, IMO, is the inconsistent way you've decided who was an NHL player. What is the metric you are choosing? Petry, Marincin, Klefbom doesn't count? But Corrado does? Gaunce counts but Reider and Lander doesn't? And that's Edmonton, one of the worst teams after the 1st round is excluded. 

 

I tell tell you what, WH...if you seriously want the answer to this...set a threshold, do all 30 teams, figure out a success rate and see for yourself that we are not average...not even close...terrible. 

 

If you declare a known cutoff then we can have a real discussion. Until then you have massaged the numbers. 

 

 

 

Calm down.

 

I clicked and checked each players' bio and history for games played points etc and pre 2009 careers.

 

The bolder made it or have made it the plain text gave either flamed out busted or are to young or undeveloped to tell.

 

Feel free to through each year team by team like I have and make your own comparitive list

 

Or dont

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Calm down.

 

I clicked and checked each players' bio and history for games played points etc and pre 2009 careers.

 

The bolder made it or have made it the plain text gave either flamed out busted or are to young or undeveloped to tell.

 

Feel free to through each year team by team like I have and make your own comparitive list

 

Or dont

I am completely calm, WH. I appreciate the discussion, if only to dispel the myth that I think you are promoting.

 

I'll do any team you want... and compare it against the Canucks...just tell me the metric...give me a year range and games played range.

 

/ Edit: probably best for exclude the most recent years, as there is uncertainty for all teams, and give me 5-10 teams of your choice. I'll do them. They will all be worse than the Canucks, I assure you. Any ones you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Raymond Luxury Yacht said:

I think we are in the average in regards to drafting over time, some teams get lucky, some have better scouts.  I think JB is the type of GM/Scout that has the chance to draft safe and get lucky.  As long as he doesn't trade away more pics for help now....but I feel like Aquilini has a megaphone next to JB's (or TL's) ear, so I expect another trade before next season giving up a pic and something for aging 2nd line scoring

Because Vey, Beartschi, Pedan and Gudbranson are aging players... OK, bud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, theminister said:

I am completely calm, WH. I appreciate the discussion, if only to dispel the myth that I think you are promoting.

 

I'll do any team you want... and compare it against the Canucks...just tell me the metric...give me a year range and games played range.

That's the thing.  I'm not perpetuating a myth.

 

I'm trying to put one to rest.  People keep claiming our drafting is so terrible.  Well in comparison it appears middle of the pack.

 

Metrics.  Draft position.  NHL games played.  Length of time spent in NHL 

 

While we have little to show from 2005 to 2011.  We also look at position of and amount of picks and then weighed against the other teams I've shown who've drafted top 10 or better and with multiple 1st and 2nd round picks.

 

And while we've no appreciable talent to speak of.  We've also not wasted or squandered those drafts and picks based on how well our team was doing with a 6 year win now mentality 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

That's the thing.  I'm not perpetuating a myth.

 

I'm trying to put one to rest.  People keep claiming our drafting is so terrible.  Well in comparison it appears middle of the pack.

 

Metrics.  Draft position.  NHL games played.  Length of time spent in NHL 

 

While we have little to show from 2005 to 2011.  We also look at position of and amount of picks and then weighed against the other teams I've shown who've drafted top 10 or better and with multiple 1st and 2nd round picks.

 

And while we've no appreciable talent to speak of.  We've also not wasted or squandered those drafts and picks based on how well our team was doing with a 6 year win now mentality 

You probably missed my edit above...

 

So what is the metric? Because you are not dispelling anything because you have not set the metric... it is being arbitrarily applied differently in your analysis to the Canucks players and the other teams.

 

Which teams are you suggesting were worse than the Canucks? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, shazzam said:

2006 to 2011 drafts were absolutely terrible. We do not have 1 impact player. That is why this team had such a decline. We did not have the next wave of young players and I feel bad for the twins as they still have to carry the load.

Correct..and that's where the "Black Hole' term exists...The Canucks last year were a group of players winding down the end of their careers,or players too young to really pull on the rope...Basically devoid of impact players in the prime of their careers (25-30).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is why i dont have high expectations for anybody that the canucks draft anymore. i just keep an open mind and see how they turn out. if they suck, then they suck. but if they're good, then awsome. yay for they canucks. im really liking this tryamkin guy we drafted ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Honky Cat said:

Correct..and that's where the "Black Hole' term exists...The Canucks last year were a group of players winding down the end of their careers,or players too young to really pull on the rope...Basically devoid of impact players in the prime of their careers (25-30).

Bang on.

 

Half a decade of basically nothing, behind EVERY other team in a competitive process.

 

Yes, draft position and number of picks matter in the discussion... but your success rate should;t be the bottom of the league regardless. We are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, theminister said:

You probably missed my edit above...

 

So what is the metric? Because you are not dispelling anything because you have not set the metric... it is being arbitrarily applied differently in your analysis to the Canucks players and the other teams.

 

Which teams are you suggesting were worse than the Canucks? 

I posted the teams already.

 

Metrics being draft position.  Games played (100+) length of NHL career and for fun...if they're still on their drafted team.  With players chosen 2013+ being somewhat exempt as most are still developing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, theminister said:

Bang on.

 

Half a decade of basically nothing, behind EVERY other team in a competitive process.

 

Yes, draft position and number of picks matter in the discussion... but your success rate should;t be the bottom of the league regardless. We are.

Except if course nobody mentioning us drafting bottom 10 and the amount of times we traded those picks or prospects in a race for the cup being a top 5 team in the league. 

 

Easier drafting keepers when drafting top 10 and having multiple high picks than it is drafting bottom 10 and having no picks or less quality picks to speak of no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I posted the teams already.

 

Metrics being draft position.  Games played (100+) length of NHL career and for fun...if they're still on their drafted team.  With players chosen 2013+ being somewhat exempt as most are still developing

Whether they are are their drafted teams should be neglible IMHO... that doesn't factor in the scouting. That's management. Regardless...using that addition (Which I think is faulty) that would show that we've not produced a single NHL player from 2007-2012.
 

So let's agree on 100+ GP and not including 2013 on? Yes?

 

Because your numbers in the OP are wrong... I'll do EDM for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Warhippy said:

Except if course nobody mentioning us drafting bottom 10 and the amount of times we traded those picks or prospects in a race for the cup being a top 5 team in the league. 

 

Easier drafting keepers when drafting top 10 and having multiple high picks than it is drafting bottom 10 and having no picks or less quality picks to speak of no?

Yes... but that is only part of the discussion. You are asking if the success rate is really that bad. It is. By any metric you choose.

 

Ok... so picks 5 or more comparable teams (or I can correct your OP because it is wrong) that also have had low picks over that time...We don't beat anyone. Not one.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Players over 100 GP between 2005-2012:

 

VCR: 5

EDM: 16 ( 6 AFTER the 1st round)

CAL: 8 (Also freaking terrible but still better than us)

 

 

How about good teams... as you said who have traded lots of picks and drafted low?

 

LA: 19

CHI: 15

DET: 14

PIT: 12

SJS: 14

WAS: 14

 

See, WH? If you apply a fair metric... the Canucks get beat by everyone. Everyone. Even a team as pathetically bad as Calgary. They too have a 'black hole' of drafting... just because that one other team does too doesn't mean we don't.

 

Half a decade of basically nothing can't be called anything less.

 

/ Really, all you've done is mislead people in the OP, WH. I'm not suggesting you've done it on purpose but you have because you've counted players for the Canucks that you've not counted for other teams by the same measurement. If anyone actually looks closer at what you included for each team they will see that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dixon Ward said:

Great post, I never would have guessed these numbers. Half of Canucks fans forget that the word fanatic derives from the word fanatic.  They think it means critical, cynical or pessimistic.   It's an easy job to be a cynic when all teams have a 1 in 30 chance of winning a cup.  They seem to want to be right much more than be a fan. I am more excited about this year's team than most years in my 34 years as a fan.  

NEWB. Try 46 :lol: lol. Keep cheering bro!

Spoiler

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree that our drafting was pretty average during those Gillis years, especially when you account for draft position and pick volume.

 

And I think some of our worst drafting probably happened during the 90s. Other than the top-3 picks of the twins and Nedved, the 1994 Ohlund pick, and Peca in the 2nd round in 1992 (maybe throw in Cooke and Schaefer as "hits" during that decade at least relative to draft position), I think we were quite poor relative to volume and position through that decade.

 

We actually had some very good results during the 1970s and 1980s and had quite a few hits. It helped that we enjoyed decent position and a generally high volume in picks (mostly due to the team being bad for much of that period).

 

The 2000s had some hit and miss years and probably are pretty average on a whole, especially given that we didn't have many high picks in the first round. 2004 was a very good draft  (getting Schneider, Edler, and Hansen). And in 2005, Bourdon (RIP) would likely have been a great player. Most of the other years were big misses (EDIT: Kesler in 2003 was a great pick).

 

Gillis's drafts are actually looking better with age. There are still players drafted during his regime that might yet pan out (like Rödin) and some later gems (like Hutton). Hodgson was an unlucky result for a pick that was universally praised at the time. Taken all together, those years have already reached average "hit" status in terms of return on the volume/position of the picks made. And Gillis's attempts to revamp the scouting department seemed to be paying dividents by the final year of his tenure.

 

Benning started where the Gillis regime left off and has had what appear to be above average results (for hit rate relative to volume/position). And the early indications seem good for the transition (in scouting leadership) from Eric Crawford to Brackett/Weisbrod.

 

Overall, drafting is a cycle. You have periods of good luck and bad luck. You have years when you're competing so you have low pick volume (from "win now" trades) and poor draft position (due to good records). And when you're in the cellar, you have high picks and better volume (from selling). In the long term view, we've been average and have ridden the highs and lows the same as most teams.

 

Currently, we're in the rebuilding phase so we should be able to draft better players with our higher first round picks. And while pick volume hasn't been great, we've mainly spent our picks on long terms core pieces who are on the younger side, so we're still doing fine with our hit rate, all things considered.

 

And the scouting department seems to be in good shape now. The changes implemented by Gillis and continued by Benning seem to be paying off, at least based on early returns (we won't really know which picks "hit" for a few years yet). By definitely reasons for optimism.

 

Overall, unless you're drafting early first round, you are really just throwing darts. And even great scouts miss (and can miss often and repeatedly) at those percentages. But it's a cycle and things always come around again and you start to get some lucky hits, sometime even from the same scouts who missed for years. That's just how things go at the draft table.

 

But I actually like our chances to occasionally outperform pick volume/position with the current scouting and management. And I also feel like the wheel of luck is due to come around again for this team, so we might enjoy a very healthy hit rate for our current and future picks/prospects, and possibly draft among the better teams in the league for the next while.

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...