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

[theminister]

7 minutes ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

Yea, you're right, I wouldn't consider guys that have been eligible for 7+ years to play in the NHL and have less than 100 games of experience, NHL players. Anyone can cherry pick any stats they want based upon opinion. I don't know how guys like Schroeder, Hodgson, Corrado and such could be considered anything more than fringe NHLers at best.

I wouldn't use 100 GP either... my threshold would be higher however that is the one that WH identified so I used that... but regardless, we would get trounced using any metric chosen. It gets worse for us if you raise the GP actually. Much worse.

 

It's too bad that WH takes my rebuttal of his numbers as an affront, I think he's a very good poster, but his is greatly mistaken on this fact.

 

We have had the Black Hole he is arguing against... it's right there in the data. No way around it. 

[Honky Cat]

25 minutes ago, Sean Avery said:

Nobody was really saying that our drafting nowadays is bad... they were mostly talking about our drafting in the past and us "overrating" our prospects.

.One has to be excited about our drafting in the last 4 drafts....The current state of the Vancouver Canucks circa 2015-16 (28th place finish) is directly interconnected to the fact that the Canucks failed to draft enough NHL caliber talent from 2005-12....Its delusional to think otherwise.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

2 hours ago, Jam126 said:

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

Where did you get that from my comment, really, I'd like to know.  I was referring to my expectation that ownership wants JB to trade for second line scoring, for an existing roster player and a pick.  Not sure I could have made that any more clear.  I literally said, aging second line scoring, and you bring up 2 defensemen, a key piece of put future who I am excited for, and player who doesn't even play here.  What gives?  

[Standing_Tall#37]

9 minutes ago, theminister said:

I wouldn't use 100 GP either... my threshold would be higher however that is the one that WH identified so I used that... but regardless, we would get trounced using any metric chosen. It gets worse for us if you raise the GP actually. Much worse.

 

It's too bad that WH takes my rebuttal of his numbers as an affront, I think he's a very good poster, but his is greatly mistaken on this fact.

 

We have had the Black Hole he is arguing against... it's right there in the data. No way around it. 

I don't call it a black hole I refer to it as an air bubble...he's a terrific poster and it's not meant to be personal.

 

 If a guy hasn't played 80 games by time he's 25(if drafted at 18) and had an additional 50 games/ season each additional year I have a hard time considering him an NHL player. Unless of course it's a goalie I grade them Abit differently. 

[Sean Avery]

59 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

.One has to be excited about our drafting in the last 4 drafts....The current state of the Vancouver Canucks circa 2015-16 (28th place finish) is directly interconnected to the fact that the Canucks failed to draft enough NHL caliber talent from 2005-12....Its delusional to think otherwise.

At least our drafting is better already than it was back then... xD

[cripplereh]

there has been a real hate for us since 2010 and most other fans/teams all see us the same way since then.I just think once we start winning again people will be like "OMG how did the canucks do that ,they cam from no where" and we all can sit back and laugh!!!!

[Mattrek]

The only problem with your analysis is that you're essentially saying that all players who play in the NHL are equal. Most of the players you mention for Edmonton and Calgary were/are mainstay staples of the team. Most of the players you mention for Vancouver are barely NHL players. Only recently since 2012 has our drafting drastically improved.

 

Players who scored 30 pts in a season for Edmonton:

 

Cogliano

Gagner

Eberle

Hall

Nugent-Hopkins

Yakupov

Draisaitl

Mcdavid

 

Players who scored 30 pts in a season for Calgary:

 

Backlund

Bouma

Brodie

Gaudreau

Monahan

Bennett

 

Players who scored 30 pts in a season for Vancouver:

 

Raymond

Hodgson

Horvat

 

Which list would you rather have? Vancouver has been terrible at drafting until only recently. Not all NHL players are equal. You can't just say this team drafted this many players so we actually aren't bad at drafting. Most of our picks haven't made the NHL or are barely NHL'ers. The only star we've found has been Horvat and again that was only recently. So yes we have been terrible at drafting and I'm very glad we now have Benning at the helm to right our disastrous performance in the past.

[lmm]

10 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Disclaimer:  I know this has been done to death, Oldnews made a similar thread back in March about a similar topic.  If you don't want to read about it don't come in here whining about how it's been done to death

 

I continue hearing about our "DRAFTING BLACK HOLE"  Like somehow we're the absolute worst most godawful team for drafting on the planet.

 

It got me thinking, but what about draft position?  What about when we were trading picks/prospects for cup runs because we were "an elite" team?

 

How do we fair against our closest divisional rivals?

 

So I looked.  And it turns out really.  It isn't that bad.  For our lack of picks, for our high draft position under Gillis and mediocre years under Nonis it really isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be.  I honestly think people like to complain just to complain, they listen to guys like Botchford and TMZ 1040 and they start to believe their bs.

 

So here's the drafting for the last 10 ish years for Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary.  Just take a peak

 

Edmonton:

2005:  Cogliano (25)  Chorney (36) Syvret (81)

2006:  Petry (45) Peckham (75)

2007:  Sam Gagner (6) Linus Omark (97) 

2008:  Eberle (22)

2009:  Paajarvi-Svensson (10)  Lander (40)

2010:  Hall (1)  Pitlick (31)  Marincin (46)

2011:  Nugent-Hopkins (1)  Klefbom (19) Musil (31)

2012:  Yakupov (1)

2013:  Nurse (7)

2014:  Leon Draisaitl (3)

2015:  Connor McJesus (1)

2016:  Puljujarvi (4)

 

A total of 10 NHL Players.  All picked in the 1st round, all but 2 picked in the top 10.  Only 3 unknown or on the bubble

 

Calgary:

2005:  Pelech (26)

2006:  Irving (26)

2007:  Backlund (24)  

2008:  Nemisz (25)  Bouma (78)  Brodie (114) 

2009:  Erixon (23)  Ortio (171)

2010:  Ferland (133)

2011:  Baertschi (13)  Granlund (45)  Gaudreau (104)

2012:  Jankowski (21) Da Bestst playa in the draft yo 

2013:  Monahan (6) Poirier (22) Klimchuk (28)

2014:  Bennett (4)  Smith (54)

2015:  Andersson (53) Kylington (60)

2016:  Tkachuk (6)

 

A total of 10 NHL players.  5 picked in the 1st round.  Only 7 unknown or on the bubble

 

Vancouver:

2005:  Bourdon (10) Raymond (51)

2006:  Grabner (14)

2007:  White (25)

2008:  Hodgson (10)

2009:  Schroeder (22) Rodin (53) Connauton (83)

2010:  Friesen (172)

2011:  Jensen (29)  Grenier (90)  Corrado (150)

2012:  Gaunce (26) Hutton (147)

2013:  Horvat (9) Shinkaruk (24) Cassels (85) Subban (115) 

2014:  Virtanen (6)  McCaan (24)  Demko (36)  Tryamkin (66)

2015:  Boeser (23) 

2016:  Juoleiv (5) 

 

A total of 12 NHL players, 7 picked in the first round with 9 unknown or on the bubble

 

Why does this matter?  I mean surely this won't sway the minds of those who need to feel down about something right?

 

Well it actually DOES matter.  If you look at each teams' perspective draft years, who is still in their org, who was cut free early or who went on to success after they were drafted it is stark.  

 

Case in point is Edmonton who with multiple high picks over the last decade only has 2 maybe 3 guys in their entire decade of drafting top 10 or better drafted outside of the 1st round who MIGHT be NHL players.

 

Case in point is Calgary who over the last decade managed to be mediocre, squander numerous chances to do something meaningful with moderate draft positioning and still managed to do very little with it.  In fact we have 2/3rds of their 2011 draft class on our roster right now (dammit)

 

And now vancouver.  We won the lottery with Bourdon (rip) who never got a chance to pan out, but was still a top 10 pick and then barring bias and futures drafted fairly high or without picks in the first few rounds numerous times and still have come out with a better possible deth of players/prospects than the other two teams with more picks and better draft positioning.

 

I know this will be panned for lack of accuracy, a lack of fact basis or intrinsic knowledge of corsi/rel ANALytics and crap like that.  but it isn't supposed to be in depth.

 

It is supposed to be eye opening.  We bemoan our drafting over the last decade, but even with Burke and Nonis and Gillis and now Benning coughing up picks/prospects like there's no tomorrow over the last decade (in Bennings case apparently trying to fill a 21-25 age gap) we still somehow managed to come out ahead of the other 2 teams in the division.

 

So really, it could be so much worse.  In fact; while it is downright mediocre it isn't as bad as the Albrutal drafting record over the same period barring a gem here and there.

 

So ask yourself looking at this list, is it really as bad as people make it out to be?

 

Updated:  I am adding some teams, since sooo many people already seem to be missing the point and just saying.  Yup, Canucks drafting was/is terrible without even looking at the comparison.

 

Bruins:

2005:  Lashoff (22)  Sobotka (106)

2006:  Kessel (5) Lucic (50) Marchand (71) 

2007:  Hamill (8)

2008:  Colborne (16)

2009:  Caron (25)

2010:  Seguin (2) Knight (32) Spooner (45)

2011:  Hamilton (9) Khokhlachev (40)

2012:  Subban (24) Griffith (131)

2013:  Arnesson (60) Celarik (90) Fitzgerald (120)

2014:  Pastrnak (25) 

2015:  Zboril (13) DeBrusk (14) Senyshyn (15) 

2016:  McAvoy (14)  Frederic (29)

 

10 NHL players, 5 picked in the first round, 9 unknown or on the bubble for the big bad bruins

 

Blackhawks:

2005:  Skille (7) Hjalmarsson (108)

2006:  Toews (3)

2007:  Kane (1)

2008:  Beach (11)

2009:  Pirri (59) Kruger (149)

2010:  Hayes (24) Nordstrom (90)

2011:  McNeil (18) Danault (26)  Clendenning (36) Saad (43)  Shaw (139)

2012:  Taravainen (18)

2013:  Hartman (30) 

2014:  Schmaltz (20)

2015:  Knott (54) Gilbert (91)

2016:  DeBrincat (39) 

 

11 NHL Players, 5 picked in the 1st round, 8 on the bubble or unknown

 

Kings:

2005:  Kopitar (11)  Quick (72)

2006:  Bernier (11) Lewis (17)

2007:  Hickey (4) Simmonds (61)

2008:  Doughty (2) Teubert (13) Voynov (32)

2009:  Schenn (5) Clifford (35) Vey (96)

2010:  Forbort (15)  Toffoli (47)  

2011:  Gibson (49) Shore (82)

2012:  Pearson (30) 

2013:  Zykov (37) Auger (103)

2014:  Kempe (29)  McKeown (50)

2015:  Cernak (43)

2016:  Clague (51)

 

13 NHL Players, 6 picked in the first round and 9 unknown or on the bubble

 

Islanders:

2005:  O`Marra (15)

2006:  Okposo (7) MacDonald (160)

2007:  Katic (62)

2008:  Bailey (9)  Hamonic (53)

2009:  Tavares (1)  DeHaan (12) Nilsson (62) Czikas (92)

2010:  Neidereitter (5) Nelson (30)

2011:  Strome (5) Pedan (63)

2012:  Reinhart (4)  Pokaa (34) Pelech (65)

2013:  Pulock (15) 

2014:  Dal Colle (5) Ho-Sang (28

2015:  Barzal (16) Beauvillier (28) 

2016:  Bellows (19)

 

14 NHL Players, 10 picked in the first round with 8 unknown or on the bubble

 

Blue Jackets:

2005:  Brule (6) McQuaid (55) Russel (67) Boll (101) 

2006:  Brassard (6)  Mason (69) Sestito (85)

2007:  Voracek (7)  

2008:  Filatov (6) Calvert (127) Atkinson (157) 

2009:  Moore (21) Savard (94)

2010:  Johansen (4)

2011:  Jenner (37)

2012:  Murray (2) Dansk (31) 

2013:  Wennberg (14) Rychel (19) Dano (27) Bjorkstrand (89)

2014:  Milano (16) 

2015:  Werenski (8) Carlsson (29) Bittner (38)

2016:  Dubois (3)

 

15 NHL Players with 5 taken in the 1st round and 9 unknown or on the bubble.

 

I included the "BEST TEAMS" and some of the worst teams in this newest update with the best and worst records respectively for cup wins drafting etc by perception and virtue of stats.  If we look closely we see these teams have an absolute wealth of picks in regards to extra picks as well as choice draft positioning.

 

And if we pay VERY close attention we see a lot of these players either didn't pan out, were top 10 picks or are not even on their draft teams any more.  Talk about horrible asset management.

 

And if we weigh these teams against the canucks we can absolutely see that with the canucks lack of extra picks, low draft positioning that we are a literal middle of the pack team in terms of drafting.  The Kings/Hawks found their gems top 10 or outside of the 1st round.  Jackets and Isles found theirs by and large top 10 or with extra picks.

 

So again, I ask.  Is it REALLY that bad??

I think your judgement of who has played in the NHL and who has not is a little skewed.

You have Schreoder, Connaughton, Gaunce and Corrado bolded as NHLer while 3 of 4 have been waived while Gaunce has 1 point in 20 career games, Yet Jeff Petry played 51 games for the habs last year is not.

Bolded Tryaimkin but not Pedan and both played 13 games last year.

3 Canucks from 2014 really bumps up the numbers, yet none are a lock for 2016.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

9 hours ago, Jam126 said:

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

uh huh. k

[granpappy]

hopefully it comes down to a case of tanev for gudbranson and mcain for landeskog.  that would make it really not all that bad for me

[Boudrias]

Are things better than 3 years ago. IMHO yes but the sometimes blind optimism that seems to reign in here is just that optimism. This club is still led by the Twins and that is pretty sad considering their age and likely retirement in 2 seasons. The Canucks have prospects but that is it nothing has been proven by any of them at an elite NHL yet.

 

My definition of blind optimism is a substantial number of fans who think the Canucks can be CUP contenders by acquiring just one more scoring forward.  Sure, bet the farm on a less than desirable player like Kane. Move assets out to acquire him as obviously the CUP upside makes that gamble well worth it.  

 

The Canuck rebuild will take much more time. Hopefully the 1D was drafted in Joulevi but the 1C is not here yet. When both these future players on actually playing for the Canucks fans can start dreaming about becoming a contender.

[gameburn2]

23 hours ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said:

Someone will have to explain this to me.

 

We won back-to-back President's trophies and nearly won a cup with a team that included 7 of our own draft picks:  Sedins, Edler, Bieksa, Kesler, Raymond, Schnieder.  How is that bad?

 

I saw that National Post article headlined, "Drafting: Toronto gets a pass, Canucks fail".  They cherry-picked the period that is always discussed here; you know, that period where we had a great team that didn't have room for raw rookies?  So that's fair, considering that we added a bunch of players from the period before that.  And then of course, the article concluded that the best measure of success is the number of players that have played a small number of games with your team, or another team I guess.  So, having five guys that can't cut it in the bigs for more than 100 games is considered to be "more successful" drafting than adding a guy like Hansen that plays for a decade plus on dominant teams.

 

I cannot stand the discussions around this - quoting percentages and what-not.  The number of guys that make it has more to do with the number of NHL spots available than the abilities of the draftees.  You can't compare draft success across teams by comparing the number of guys that play.  Perhaps you could by comparing the quality of the drafted players, but maybe that says more about development than drafting.  Besides which, it depends a lot on how competitive the NHL club is.  Some dominant teams are drafting role players to fill out the roster, whereas weaker teams might be looking for core players.  One team may have a garbage budget and rely on ELC's; for example, I'm sure that Carolina has great "draft success" if you merely count the players, but if you measure the quality, it's hard to justify that evaluation.  But, even still, it was easy for them to add players, good or not, because the team is no good.  So if a team is generally unsuccessful at being a team, does it really matter that they played a lot of their own draft picks?  A good team may add one prospect in a year, even though 6 of their prospects could have made a crap team.  Maybe there's a team with so many bad contracts that their own well-drafted prospects never get an opportunity.  Then you have pick-trading on so on.  Maybe a team would have drafted that great player, but got a better one by trading the pick.  That won't show up in the draft record.  The draft record itself does not provide a reliable measure of drafting ability. 

You are right about the opportunity issue: if few or no spots are available, then assessing draft picks by number of games played over their first 3 or 4 years is probably invalid. 

 

A team needs from 8 to 12 core players, and the rest are depth/fillers.  Assuming a career is a modal average best of 13 years in length (20 to 33), and you don't want/can't have the whole team the same age, then you need one core player per draft year average and hopefully one depth player per year drafted.  Some years you will get 2 of one type, or 2 of another, or as in the 2006 to 2011 years, only 1 depth player per year or even none.  Yes, bad drafting, to not get even one depth player per draft year.  My reading of Benning is that he is doing much better so far: somewhere around 1.5 core players per draft (maybe 1.75 to 2.0), and probably about 1 depth player per draft.  But, his team also has spots available: during the president's trophy years I don't think Virtanen would have made the team, nor Hutton, let alone McCann.  With a few years delay in opportunity maybe 1 or 2 of these never make an NHL team -- injury and opportunity together will make a difference.

[WhoseTruckWasIt]

19 minutes ago, gameburn2 said:

You are right about the opportunity issue: if few or no spots are available, then assessing draft picks by number of games played over their first 3 or 4 years is probably invalid. 

 

A team needs from 8 to 12 core players, and the rest are depth/fillers.  Assuming a career is a modal average best of 13 years in length (20 to 33), and you don't want/can't have the whole team the same age, then you need one core player per draft year average and hopefully one depth player per year drafted.  Some years you will get 2 of one type, or 2 of another, or as in the 2006 to 2011 years, only 1 depth player per year or even none.  Yes, bad drafting, to not get even one depth player per draft year.  My reading of Benning is that he is doing much better so far: somewhere around 1.5 core players per draft (maybe 1.75 to 2.0), and probably about 1 depth player per draft.  But, his team also has spots available: during the president's trophy years I don't think Virtanen would have made the team, nor Hutton, let alone McCann.  With a few years delay in opportunity maybe 1 or 2 of these never make an NHL team -- injury and opportunity together will make a difference.

Well, I'm not trying to say that they weren't bad at drafting in those years - they were clearly bad.  What I am saying is that the whole discourse is pretty murky when all factors are considered.  We could have easily played Grenier for 101 games instead of some other depth player.  That would affect the results under consideration, but it wouldn't make him a better player, or the Canucks better at drafting.

 

Personally, I just don't see how this can be quantified.  I would base an evaluation of drafting ability primarily by the quality of the players (no, that isn't determined by points scored), next by consistency over a very long period, next by the number of high round busts, and finally by the overall quantity of NHL-regular quality players, not fringe players, and for that you really should be looking at a list of which picks were traded.

 

In general, I would prefer to look at organizational success as it is pretty difficult to separate drafting from development, organizational culture, the degree of competitiveness and amount of success experienced by the team, mentoring by other players, even training staff and facilities, sleep doctors, etc..  The difference between a good and bad AHL organization is so monumental that the actual scouting part of the draft is kind of a moot point.  And, as is often pointed out, it is difficult to separate amateur scouting from pro scouting.  GM's are criticized for trading picks, but if they land good players, then the organization's scouting ability can't really be criticized.

 

That said, TheMiinister has clearly shown beyond a doubt that a black hole of draft success existed for a seven year period, and there is no way that it doesn't hurt badly.  I agree with the OP that there is often some context missing when the black hole is discussed, but there is no way around how poor that drafting is.  And you can really see how good L.A. is.  They are a team that went lock-stock on the Detroit model, and people still hold them up as tanking greats.

[Honky Cat]

18 minutes ago, WhoseTruckWasIt said:

Well, I'm not trying to say that they weren't bad at drafting in those years - they were clearly bad.  What I am saying is that the whole discourse is pretty murky when all factors are considered.  We could have easily played Grenier for 101 games instead of some other depth player.  That would affect the results under consideration, but it wouldn't make him a better player, or the Canucks better at drafting.

 

Personally, I just don't see how this can be quantified.  I would base an evaluation of drafting ability primarily by the quality of the players (no, that isn't determined by points scored), next by consistency over a very long period, next by the number of high round busts, and finally by the overall quantity of NHL-regular quality players, not fringe players, and for that you really should be looking at a list of which picks were traded.

 

In general, I would prefer to look at organizational success as it is pretty difficult to separate drafting from development, organizational culture, the degree of competitiveness and amount of success experienced by the team, mentoring by other players, even training staff and facilities, sleep doctors, etc..  The difference between a good and bad AHL organization is so monumental that the actual scouting part of the draft is kind of a moot point.  And, as is often pointed out, it is difficult to separate amateur scouting from pro scouting.  GM's are criticized for trading picks, but if they land good players, then the organization's scouting ability can't really be criticized.

 

That said, TheMiinister has clearly shown beyond a doubt that a black hole of draft success existed for a seven year period, and there is no way that it doesn't hurt badly.  I agree with the OP that there is often some context missing when the black hole is discussed, but there is no way around how poor that drafting is.  And you can really see how good L.A. is.  They are a team that went lock-stock on the Detroit model, and people still hold them up as tanking greats.

LA drafted incredibly well AFTER the first round....Quick,King,Martinez,Simmonds,Voynov,Nolan,Clifford,Toffoli...All these players were picked in a 5 year span from 2005-10.....It really illuminates how bad the Canucks scouting was at that time..IMO

[canuckpuckluck1]

From what I have read so far, no one has really touched on the one thing that I think has compounded such a poor draft history by the Canucks.

The Canucks have never really had a strong AHL program. The Manitoba years were OK, but the Chicago Wolves was a disaster.

The current set up in Utica is phenomenal. Not only does the city love the team, but the Canucks actually have full control on roster, player development and have coaching staff in place that have a vested interest in mouldings the prospects into NHLers.

The purchase of the AHL franchise by the Canucks is the best move the organisation has made with regards to building a future.

[bobbyg43]

Yes the quality of picks seem to have improved but we have along ways to go yet..We seem to be lacking in cultivating later round picks to the roster like?

The Sedin duo is still driving the team until this changes an replacements found JB is filling time an space with hodge podge trades that patch middle roster with temporal fixes for short term.the major fix will be in when we land the next Center piece to lead next charge at elite level standings.although D rebuild appears on its way , offensive production is still a question mark.i would like to see fully stock the farm with planned players now.( players on a plan )

[hammertime]

On July 24, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Warhippy said:

Disclaimer:  I know this has been done to death, Oldnews made a similar thread back in March about a similar topic.  If you don't want to read about it don't come in here whining about how it's been done to death

 

I continue hearing about our "DRAFTING BLACK HOLE"  Like somehow we're the absolute worst most godawful team for drafting on the planet.

 

It got me thinking, but what about draft position?  What about when we were trading picks/prospects for cup runs because we were "an elite" team?

 

How do we fair against our closest divisional rivals?

 

So I looked.  And it turns out really.  It isn't that bad.  For our lack of picks, for our high draft position under Gillis and mediocre years under Nonis it really isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be.  I honestly think people like to complain just to complain, they listen to guys like Botchford and TMZ 1040 and they start to believe their bs.

 

So here's the drafting for the last 10 ish years for Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary.  Just take a peak

 

Edmonton:

2005:  Cogliano (25)  Chorney (36) Syvret (81)

2006:  Petry (45) Peckham (75)

2007:  Sam Gagner (6) Linus Omark (97) 

2008:  Eberle (22)

2009:  Paajarvi-Svensson (10)  Lander (40)

2010:  Hall (1)  Pitlick (31)  Marincin (46)

2011:  Nugent-Hopkins (1)  Klefbom (19) Musil (31)

2012:  Yakupov (1)

2013:  Nurse (7)

2014:  Leon Draisaitl (3)

2015:  Connor McJesus (1)

2016:  Puljujarvi (4)

 

A total of 10 NHL Players.  All picked in the 1st round, all but 2 picked in the top 10.  Only 3 unknown or on the bubble

 

Calgary:

2005:  Pelech (26)

2006:  Irving (26)

2007:  Backlund (24)  

2008:  Nemisz (25)  Bouma (78)  Brodie (114) 

2009:  Erixon (23)  Ortio (171)

2010:  Ferland (133)

2011:  Baertschi (13)  Granlund (45)  Gaudreau (104)

2012:  Jankowski (21) Da Bestst playa in the draft yo 

2013:  Monahan (6) Poirier (22) Klimchuk (28)

2014:  Bennett (4)  Smith (54)

2015:  Andersson (53) Kylington (60)

2016:  Tkachuk (6)

 

A total of 10 NHL players.  5 picked in the 1st round.  Only 7 unknown or on the bubble

 

Vancouver:

2005:  Bourdon (10) Raymond (51)

2006:  Grabner (14)

2007:  White (25)

2008:  Hodgson (10)

2009:  Schroeder (22) Rodin (53) Connauton (83)

2010:  Friesen (172)

2011:  Jensen (29)  Grenier (90)  Corrado (150)

2012:  Gaunce (26) Hutton (147)

2013:  Horvat (9) Shinkaruk (24) Cassels (85) Subban (115) 

2014:  Virtanen (6)  McCaan (24)  Demko (36)  Tryamkin (66)

2015:  Boeser (23) 

2016:  Juoleiv (5) 

 

A total of 12 NHL players, 7 picked in the first round with 9 unknown or on the bubble

 

Why does this matter?  I mean surely this won't sway the minds of those who need to feel down about something right?

 

Well it actually DOES matter.  If you look at each teams' perspective draft years, who is still in their org, who was cut free early or who went on to success after they were drafted it is stark.  

 

Case in point is Edmonton who with multiple high picks over the last decade only has 2 maybe 3 guys in their entire decade of drafting top 10 or better drafted outside of the 1st round who MIGHT be NHL players.

 

Case in point is Calgary who over the last decade managed to be mediocre, squander numerous chances to do something meaningful with moderate draft positioning and still managed to do very little with it.  In fact we have 2/3rds of their 2011 draft class on our roster right now (dammit)

 

And now vancouver.  We won the lottery with Bourdon (rip) who never got a chance to pan out, but was still a top 10 pick and then barring bias and futures drafted fairly high or without picks in the first few rounds numerous times and still have come out with a better possible deth of players/prospects than the other two teams with more picks and better draft positioning.

 

I know this will be panned for lack of accuracy, a lack of fact basis or intrinsic knowledge of corsi/rel ANALytics and crap like that.  but it isn't supposed to be in depth.

 

It is supposed to be eye opening.  We bemoan our drafting over the last decade, but even with Burke and Nonis and Gillis and now Benning coughing up picks/prospects like there's no tomorrow over the last decade (in Bennings case apparently trying to fill a 21-25 age gap) we still somehow managed to come out ahead of the other 2 teams in the division.

 

So really, it could be so much worse.  In fact; while it is downright mediocre it isn't as bad as the Albrutal drafting record over the same period barring a gem here and there.

 

So ask yourself looking at this list, is it really as bad as people make it out to be?

 

Updated:  I am adding some teams, since sooo many people already seem to be missing the point and just saying.  Yup, Canucks drafting was/is terrible without even looking at the comparison.

 

Bruins:

2005:  Lashoff (22)  Sobotka (106)

2006:  Kessel (5) Lucic (50) Marchand (71) 

2007:  Hamill (8)

2008:  Colborne (16)

2009:  Caron (25)

2010:  Seguin (2) Knight (32) Spooner (45)

2011:  Hamilton (9) Khokhlachev (40)

2012:  Subban (24) Griffith (131)

2013:  Arnesson (60) Celarik (90) Fitzgerald (120)

2014:  Pastrnak (25) 

2015:  Zboril (13) DeBrusk (14) Senyshyn (15) 

2016:  McAvoy (14)  Frederic (29)

 

10 NHL players, 5 picked in the first round, 9 unknown or on the bubble for the big bad bruins

 

Blackhawks:

2005:  Skille (7) Hjalmarsson (108)

2006:  Toews (3)

2007:  Kane (1)

2008:  Beach (11)

2009:  Pirri (59) Kruger (149)

2010:  Hayes (24) Nordstrom (90)

2011:  McNeil (18) Danault (26)  Clendenning (36) Saad (43)  Shaw (139)

2012:  Taravainen (18)

2013:  Hartman (30) 

2014:  Schmaltz (20)

2015:  Knott (54) Gilbert (91)

2016:  DeBrincat (39) 

 

11 NHL Players, 5 picked in the 1st round, 8 on the bubble or unknown

 

Kings:

2005:  Kopitar (11)  Quick (72)

2006:  Bernier (11) Lewis (17)

2007:  Hickey (4) Simmonds (61)

2008:  Doughty (2) Teubert (13) Voynov (32)

2009:  Schenn (5) Clifford (35) Vey (96)

2010:  Forbort (15)  Toffoli (47)  

2011:  Gibson (49) Shore (82)

2012:  Pearson (30) 

2013:  Zykov (37) Auger (103)

2014:  Kempe (29)  McKeown (50)

2015:  Cernak (43)

2016:  Clague (51)

 

13 NHL Players, 6 picked in the first round and 9 unknown or on the bubble

 

Islanders:

2005:  O`Marra (15)

2006:  Okposo (7) MacDonald (160)

2007:  Katic (62)

2008:  Bailey (9)  Hamonic (53)

2009:  Tavares (1)  DeHaan (12) Nilsson (62) Czikas (92)

2010:  Neidereitter (5) Nelson (30)

2011:  Strome (5) Pedan (63)

2012:  Reinhart (4)  Pokaa (34) Pelech (65)

2013:  Pulock (15) 

2014:  Dal Colle (5) Ho-Sang (28

2015:  Barzal (16) Beauvillier (28) 

2016:  Bellows (19)

 

14 NHL Players, 10 picked in the first round with 8 unknown or on the bubble

 

Blue Jackets:

2005:  Brule (6) McQuaid (55) Russel (67) Boll (101) 

2006:  Brassard (6)  Mason (69) Sestito (85)

2007:  Voracek (7)  

2008:  Filatov (6) Calvert (127) Atkinson (157) 

2009:  Moore (21) Savard (94)

2010:  Johansen (4)

2011:  Jenner (37)

2012:  Murray (2) Dansk (31) 

2013:  Wennberg (14) Rychel (19) Dano (27) Bjorkstrand (89)

2014:  Milano (16) 

2015:  Werenski (8) Carlsson (29) Bittner (38)

2016:  Dubois (3)

 

15 NHL Players with 5 taken in the 1st round and 9 unknown or on the bubble.

 

I included the "BEST TEAMS" and some of the worst teams in this newest update with the best and worst records respectively for cup wins drafting etc by perception and virtue of stats.  If we look closely we see these teams have an absolute wealth of picks in regards to extra picks as well as choice draft positioning.

 

And if we pay VERY close attention we see a lot of these players either didn't pan out, were top 10 picks or are not even on their draft teams any more.  Talk about horrible asset management.

 

And if we weigh these teams against the canucks we can absolutely see that with the canucks lack of extra picks, low draft positioning that we are a literal middle of the pack team in terms of drafting.  The Kings/Hawks found their gems top 10 or outside of the 1st round.  Jackets and Isles found theirs by and large top 10 or with extra picks.

 

So again, I ask.  Is it REALLY that bad??

good read. though I find it presumptuous to list CoHo Corrado Guance Connauton as nhlers!

[Phat Fingers]

On July 24, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Warhippy said:

OK, so looking at 2005 to 2011.  Look at ALL of the other teams, look at our pick placement vs theirs, look at the amount of our picks vs theirs.  Now.  Tell me again we have terrible drafting.  We may not have drafted an "impact player" or traded our picks/prospects while we were an elite team, but weighed against these current powerhouse teams or teams with seemingly yearly top 10 picks.  It is not as bad as you make it out to be

W.H.

 

Great post and interesting take on our record.  I don't agree with your assessment. Quality of the picks also needs to be included.

 

One take away, Calgary and Edmonton's drafting was awful in those years. Gillis can at least point to team success and low 1st rounders. Gillis had an incredible run,  His strength was getting free agents. His biggest weakness, drafting. He also made a few great trades early, but made some horrible ones later.  

 

Our drafting went off a cliff around the time Hogdson was drafted. Yes he did play in the NHL and was highly touted, but also was a bust. A common theme of the Gillis era.  The Gillis era draft philosophy was supposed to be cutting edge, at least it was touted that way when he was signed.  It wasn't, and it took until the Horvat/Hutton draft years to correct. Hogdson and Schoeder highlight the best and worst of Gillis.

 

Both great players in junior, smallish scorers. One couldn't and still can't skate, if only his ego could. The other lacks the ability to overcome his size in the NHL. 

 

 Whatever metrics Gillis used to decide his picks, was flawed.  Not getting an NHL player from his system, other than Tanev and Lack, hurt the franchise.  You could argue that our on ice success was the overriding factor, sure.  I don't think it is that clear cut. Gillis only drafted one defender in the top two rounds during his tenure.  Our biggest organizational need was defence over that time and Gillis did not attempt to address it. 

 

    Gillis seemed to adjust his scouting criteria in 2012. Gaunce and Hutton both look good. 2013 looks promising, Horvat easily could have been passed over for Nish.  Still he failed to address defence and drafts Shinkaruk.  If Rodin pans out, Gillis may get some redemption.  

 

EW

[theilluminati]

On 2016-07-24 at 7:50 PM, lmm said:

I think your judgement of who has played in the NHL and who has not is a little skewed.

You have Schreoder, Connaughton, Gaunce and Corrado bolded as NHLer while 3 of 4 have been waived while Gaunce has 1 point in 20 career games, Yet Jeff Petry played 51 games for the habs last year is not.

Bolded Tryaimkin but not Pedan and both played 13 games last year.

3 Canucks from 2014 really bumps up the numbers, yet none are a lock for 2016.

This is a massive understatement...the OP's judgement is completely bent...he has the following Canuck draft picks as "NHL players"

 

Nikita Tryamkin-13 NHL GP

Brendan Gaunce-20 NHL GP

Frank Corrado-67 NHL GP

Ben Hutton-75 GP

Jared McCann-69 NHL GP

Jake Virtanen-55 NHL GP

 

now lets just look at the first team he "tries" to compare, the sad-sack Oilers...the following Oiler draft picks are NOT "NHL players" according to the OP

 

Taylor Chorney-123 NHL GP including 55 for Wash. last season

Jeff Petry-365 NHL GP

Linus Omark-79 NHL GP

Anton Lander-193 NHL GP

Martin Marincin-150 NHL GP

Oscar Klefbom-107 NHL GP

 

 

Petry alone has more NHL GP than the 6 Canuck draft picks listed above but he's not an "NHL Player"...like I said...completely bent in terms of judgement...I'm quite certain if I went over the list of each of the other teams he's listed I'd find roughly the same amount of non-"NHL Players"...

 

 

 

 

[mpt]

Our problems go back way further than 2005.  That's when we sorta started turning it around

 

Look at our picks from 1991 and on.  It was a sad sight to see

 

Besides Ohlund, Sopel, Cooke, Ruutu, we didn't draft anyone between 1991 and 1999 when the Sedins came along, then Bieksa in round 5 a few years later in 2001, then nothing until Kesler in 2003. 2004 we started turning it around and had some actual players we could use, even though our 1st rounders had a good or bust rating