Canucks Prospect Pool - A Reflection and Evaluation Thread

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Generally don't disagree with most of the post but Gillis also drafted Hodgson 10th OA in 2008.

 

We could have had any of Myers, Karlsson, Gardiner, Eberle instead, with better scouting.

Or we could have had beach, teubert, boychuk, Pickard cuma, Nemisz, McCollum, leveille. or gustafsson. In which Hodgson had more games played than all of those players combined. 

 

I dont think Cody was a bad pick at all. He would have had a solid NHL career had he not had injury issues. Likely over the 500 game more and around .5ppg. 

 

The 2008 draft is a fun one to look at. It was a really poor first round (12 of the 30 players were essentially busts) and you sprinkle in a handful of elite guys. 

[Baggins]

3 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Here’s the thing it seems like people can make up what ever criteria they want to determine tanking, but I’m going to stick with any move that purposely makes your roster worse in the short term, in exchange for long term future success. As being along the lines of a tanking “moves”.  Canucks moving Hansen in the summer vs trade line both equate to the same end goal, future focus, short term hurt.  That’s what rebuilding teams (Benning) do, very few contending teams (Gillis) have the depth to be able to do so.  Again which is why we are comparing Apples to Oranges here.    It’s not a surprise that after the deadlines Canucks also nosedived in standings in each of the last three years, we went from being a bubble team to bottom 5 in the league, all in the span of two months.  If those are not tanking moves it sure had the same affect. 

 

Trade deadline is asset management. Tanking is doing it before the season even begins. You set your team up to lose from the get go - you're tanking. You try to make the playoffs and fall short - you shift to asset management. TO tanked. We tried to ice a team that could compete. Both use asset management at the trade deadline.

 

3 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Sure a 31st place team gets to select a player, but that has nothing to do when considering total depth of a prospect pool.  Benning has already had two cracks at landing a NHL player long before the other teams get their second attempt.  Yes there is a HUGE benefit to a building a prospect pool by having early picks second round.  This shouldn’t even be an argument but that fact that it is, is mind blowing. 

Lets break this down even more to put an end to this once and for all.

 

In 2017 canucks picks 5th overall and 32nd overall, in which we take Pettersson and Lind,  Canucks get to add to two solid pieces to their pool.  Compare that to the Predators who picked 30th and 61st overall due to playing in the cup finals.  They picked Tolvanen (who’s a star and would be a top 10 pick in a redraft) and Mismash (which is a sweet name).  With the top 5 pick Canucks have better selections. Canucks end up with MORE talent in their prospect pool, take out Pettersson and Nashville does.  Shocking how that works. 

What does that have to do with the need to score hits in later rounds? The cup winner selects 31st, the bottom team selects 32nd. You're talking rounds, I'm talking selection number. After the worst team makes their first pick the cup winner selects immediately ahead of them in every other round. 31st ahead of 32nd, 62nd ahead of 63rd, etc. Every team, contender or bottom feeder, needs hits in later rounds. The only advantage the worst team has is with their first round pick. After that the cup winners first pick is immediately before the worst teams later round picks. 

 

Gee having a top five pick is an adcvantage? Really? I never would have figured that out. Of course that isn't what I was talking about. My point is everybody loved the Lind pick and both Nashville and Pittsburgh had the opportuniy to take him because they were selecting directly ahead of us at that point. The only advantage the worst team has is with their first pick. After that top teams are selected just ahead of you every other round. The only disadvantage for the top team is their pick in the final round where the odds are stacked against scoring a hit anyway.

[Rob_Zepp]

5 hours ago, JamesB said:

Rob, I appreciate the fact that you make a lot interesting contributions to CDC, including the OP that started this thread. But there is no rule that other posters have to stick narrowly to what the original poster has in mind. And many threads do take on a life of their own. Personally, I think that is healthy, within reason. In this case, your OP makes at least some people think about drafting records of GMs and it is natural that the thread might take a tangent in that direction. I don't see that we need to call out the thought police to prevent that.

There are literally dozens of threads to trash or fanboi Benning / the concept of this thread was to get out from under that and simply look at the pool.   Apparently they was too much to ask.  Same thing with discussions about player x or y, there are some who will somehow get Virtanen or EP in there somehow and, poof, thread derailed.

 

You are right, people can post what they want.   Just don’t people get tired of same thread at some point?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

Trade deadline is asset management. Tanking is doing it before the season even begins.

 

According to who. Did you write the definition for tanking?  Setting your team up for short term pain in exchange for long term gain is a tanking move. It’s why the tanking crowd is upset when player don’t get moved and Homer’s like you are defending those non moves talking about keeping the team “competitive”

 

Quote

 

You set your team up to lose from the get go - you're tanking. You try to make the playoffs and fall short - you shift to asset management. TO tanked. We tried to ice a team that could compete. Both use asset management at the trade deadline.

I currious as how you determine one team is planing on tanking vs a team trying to remain competitive. You a super scout that has the ability to predict which teams will make the playoff vs which ones won’t?  Seems like to me most analyst have predicted canucks to be a bottom feeder these last few years. Perhaps your biased has put blinders on your ability to judge this team from just looking at ye roster. 

 

Quote

What does that have to do with the need to score hits in later rounds?

 

Nothing that’s your own criteria that you brought up which has zero to do with the discussion. Who ever said you don’t need to hit in later rounds. 

 

 

Quote

 

The cup winner selects 31st, the bottom team selects 32nd. You're talking rounds, I'm talking selection number.

 

I’m talking prospect pool depth. The more higher value picks you have the more likely you are going to have a deeper pool. Mind blowing hey?

 

 

 

Quote

 

After the worst team makes their first pick the cup winner selects immediately ahead of them in every other round. 31st ahead of 32nd, 62nd ahead of 63rd, etc. Every team, contender or bottom feeder, needs hits in later rounds. The only advantage the worst team has is with their first round pick. After that the cup winners first pick is immediately before the worst teams later round picks. 

 

Simple math. How many swings did canucks get in the top 40 selections last year. How many did nashiville. 

 

 

Quote

Gee having a top five pick is an adcvantage? Really? I never would have figured that out. Of course that isn't what I was talking about.

 

Quote

My point is everybody loved the Lind pick and both Nashville and Pittsburgh had the opportuniy to take him because they were selecting directly ahead of us at that point.

 

Sure and tolvanen is better than lind so nsh could care less about lind. The point is Vancouver pool is “deeper” because they got more picks ealier than a contending team gets. 2 picks in the top 40 compared to only 1. Canucks get two high odd quality assets nsh only gets one. 

 

You see your confused. You are ignoring quantity. No one is saying nsh doesn’t  get the opportunity at getting a quality prospect. They had opportunity and they landed one. But they only had one shot in the top 45 becuase of there playoff success. Bottom feeders get multiple shots and thus why bottom feeders tend to have a deeper prospect pool over contending team. 

 

 

[JamesB]

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

There are literally dozens of threads to trash or fanboi Benning / the concept of this thread was to get out from under that and simply look at the pool.   Apparently they was too much to ask.  Same thing with discussions about player x or y, there are some who will somehow get Virtanen or EP in there somehow and, poof, thread derailed.

 

You are right, people can post what they want.   Just don’t people get tired of same thread at some point?

If people really did get tired of repeating essentially the same comments, CDC and most other sports discussion forums would have to shut down -- and so would most sport radio.

 

As for evaluating GMs, that is one topic that never goes away. Fans and media for pretty much every team in every sport are constantly evaluating and re-evaluating the performance of the GM. 

[Baggins]

20 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

According to who. Did you write the definition for tanking?  Setting your team up for short term pain in exchange for long term gain is a tanking move. It’s why the tanking crowd is upset when player don’t get moved and Homer’s like you are defending those non moves talking about keeping the team “competitive”

Starting the name calling so soon?

 

Trading Vrbata with a year left on his deal for picks = tanking move. Trying to move Vrbata at the trade deadline with playoffs out of reach = asset management. Good teams don't do the former but will do the latter if out of the playoffs. That's the difference between being a tanking team and just plain old asset management.

 

 

27 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Nothing that’s your own criteria that you brought up which has zero to do with the discussion. Who ever said you don’t need to hit in later rounds.

If you're not going to respond to my actual point don't respond. My point was after the bottom feeders first pick a contender is selecting in the same area of the draft from there on. The bottom feeders draft advantage ends after their first pick. The worst team in the league could have players X, Y, and Z as their top choice for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds but the cup champs could take all three of those players one pick ahead of you with their 1st, 2nd  and 3rd picks. You don't seem to get that. Instead you're contending the bottom feeder has the advantage in every round. Looking at each round individually, yes. But looking at the draft as a whole, no. Because the cup winner will always be picking one selection ahead of the bottom team every time after that first overall pick.

 

The bottom feeder has an advantage over the fringe playoff teams every round. The contender has an adavantage over the bottom feeder after the bottom feeders first pick. The contender doesn't get a top pick but they get the same as a top pick for the next 5 rounds. This is where contenders can stay contenders. All teams need to score hits with later picks. Outside the top 5 or 10 it's not so much where you're picking, it's who you're picking. That's where good scouting really comes in.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

Starting the name calling so soon?

 

Trading Vrbata with a year left on his deal for picks = tanking move. Trying to move Vrbata at the trade deadline with playoffs out of reach = asset management. Good teams don't do the former but will do the latter if out of the playoffs. That's the difference between being a tanking team and just plain old asset management.

 

Canucks didn't trade Vbrata? Making up moves now?

 

 

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

 

If you're not going to respond to my actual point don't respond.

You responded to MY point first, then added an obvious statement that had nothing to do with my post.  

  

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

My point was after the bottom feeders first pick a contender is selecting in the same area of the draft from there on. The bottom feeders draft advantage ends after their first pick

 

No not when looking at the prospect pool as a WHOLE.  This is really not that hard to understand.  We look at the canucks pool and it looks really good, not simply because there talent on there, (Every team has talent in their pool)  Canucks pool looks good because of the "amount" of talent there are on that list. In 2017 canucks get to add two players in the 1-35 range to their pool, while a team like Nashville only gets to add one.. How do you not see the advantage...Two players in a pool is more appealing than one player?  Thus being a bottom feeder allows you the opportunity to add more higher ranked talent to your pool than compared to a contender. 

No one is saying the "value" of player 31 is different than 32, both teams get to add a decent grade prospect pool,  What people are saying is the "amount" of quality players is where the advantage comes from.  

in the last two years

Canucks have picked: Pettersson (5), Lind (33), Gadjovich (55), Dipietro (64), Hughes (7) and Woo (37).

Compare that to the NSH (a contending team) who only have: Tolvanen (30), Mismash (61) Farrence (92)

 

Now initial comparison Canucks pool looks better, which it clearly is. Someone like you would simply chalk that up to better scouting and then say "The bottom feeders draft advantage ends after their first pick". But you can see when looking at the number of swings the advantage doesn't stop there.  

 

Scouting is important but you need to consider that most enticing names on that list are all top 60 picks, which in this case NSH has only had one player in that ranking Tolvanen (who is the 3rd best player out of everyone).  So it's not that NSH has had bad scouting, it's that they haven't had the opportunity to take as many top picks due to being a contending team, and that's why their pool doesn't look as good as the bottom feeding team over the last two years.

 

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

 

. The worst team in the league could have players X, Y, and Z as their top choice for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds but the cup champs could take all three of those players one pick ahead of you with their 1st, 2nd  and 3rd picks. You don't seem to get that. Instead you're contending the bottom feeder has the advantage in every round. Looking at each round individually, yes. But looking at the draft as a whole, no. Because the cup winner will always be picking one selection ahead of the bottom team every time after that first overall pick.

No i'm looking at a teams "prospect pool" as a whole, come on baggins you're smarter than this. 

Anyways this bores me.  Have a good long weekend.

 

[Baggins]

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

Canucks didn't trade Vbrata? Making up moves now?

Do you know what the word 'trying' means?

 

Sums up you're skill at understanding what is said.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 minute ago, Baggins said:

Do you know what the word 'trying' means?

 

AKA you know you completely messed up and are now looking for an easy out without having to admit it......

 

1 minute ago, Baggins said:

Sums up you're skill at understanding what is said.

 

If you want to bad mouth someones "skill at understanding" you might make sure you are using the correct grammar.  

your/you're 

[Baggins]

14 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

AKA you know you completely messed up and are now looking for an easy out without having to admit it......

 

 

If you want to bad mouth someones "skill at understanding" you might make sure you are using the correct grammar.  

your/you're 

Funny you could pick that up but don't know what the word 'trying' means. It's right there at the beginning of the sentence for all to see.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

6 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Funny you could pick that up but don't know what the word 'trying' means. It's right there at the beginning of the sentence for all to see.

Look at you go.  "Trying" to squirm your way off the topic of prospect pool evaluation because of how wrong you look.  It's ok "It's right there... for all to see..." Maybe next time you'll bring more to the discussion, but i wont hold my breath. The funny thing, is had canucks approached Vbrata in the summer he would have likely waived, instead we ended up with some pathetic attempt of "trying" with the result of zero return.....Real top quality asset management, great example 

[Baggins]

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Look at you go.  "Trying" to squirm your way off the topic of prospect pool evaluation because of how wrong you look.  It's ok "It's right there... for all to see..." Maybe next time you'll bring more to the discussion, but i wont hold my breath. The funny thing, is had canucks approached Vbrata in the summer he would have likely waived, instead we ended up with some pathetic attempt of "trying" with the result of zero return.....Real top quality asset management, great example 

As I already said, that would have been a tanking move. Trying to move him at the deadline was just asset management.

 

Do you see the word this time?

 

All any team can do at the deadline is try and move expiring contracts they don't intend to re-sign. When it comes to ntc's there's no guarantee the player will be moved. Benning tried to move Miller at the deadline when his contract was expiring as well. There's a reason there's ufa's every summer and they don't all come from playoff teams.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

5 minutes ago, Baggins said:

As I already said, that would have been a tanking move. Trying to move him at the deadline was just asset management.

 

Do you see the word this time?

 

All any team can do at the deadline is try and move expiring contracts they don't intend to re-sign. When it comes to ntc's there's no guarantee the player will be moved.

So why didn’t caps trade beagle or Carlson shouldnt they have been considering asset management. Make up all criteria for tanking moves you your still wrong. 

 

Quote

Benning tried to move Miller at the deadline when his contract was expiring as well. There's a reason there's ufa's every summer and they don't all come from playoff teams.

No he didn’t. haha dude keep paddling you’re in deep water. You Might just want to call it a night. 

[Baggins]

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

So why didn’t caps trade beagle or Carlson shouldnt they have been considering asset management. Make up all criteria for tanking moves you your still wrong. 

 

No he didn’t. haha dude keep paddling you’re in deep water. You Might just want to call it a night. 

Holy crap!

 

So now you don't know the difference between a playoff team and a non-playoff team at the deadline. This explains a great deal.

[wai_lai416]

On 2018-06-23 at 12:58 PM, King Heffy said:

Acquired via trade though, which didn't involve us finishing near the bottom of the standings.  Sub in DiPietro if you like though.  The point I'm trying to make is that Benning has done a better job of building the prospect pool, even if you take out our best pieces.

still comparing apples to orange. we had a late pick in those rounds with Gaunce and Shinkaruk in a relatively weak draft.. look at everyone that's drafted behind them.. literally all of them have 0 success in the NHL except a couple which all other teams passed on too.. so u can't really blame the management for weak draft.. and besides we are just overhyping over rating all our late drafts..  literally none of them played a decent amount of NHL games with anything resembling success.. seen it way too often.. hyped prospect fails in the NHL.. in 5 years time we might be saying the exact same thing how bad our prospects were minus those top 10 picks

[King Heffy]

5 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

still comparing apples to orange. we had a late pick in those rounds with Gaunce and Shinkaruk in a relatively weak draft.. look at everyone that's drafted behind them.. literally all of them have 0 success in the NHL except a couple which all other teams passed on too.. so u can't really blame the management for weak draft.. and besides we are just overhyping over rating all our late drafts..  literally none of them played a decent amount of NHL games with anything resembling success.. seen it way too often.. hyped prospect fails in the NHL.. in 5 years time we might be saying the exact same thing how bad our prospects were minus those top 10 picks

So roll the 2nd picks up to the first round, since I excluded all the first round draft picks we made.

[iceman64]

On 6/23/2018 at 12:33 PM, bloodycanuckleheads said:

When you look back in 5 or 10 years, you will find out that the majority of these players busted too (Zhukenov has virtually no chance of making the NHL, etc...).

 

It's ridiculous how this board always over-rates our prospects and just assumes they'll all turn out amazing.  Just to point out...  5 years ago, absolutely everyone here had Shinkaruk pencilled in as a 1st line scorer.  Everyone here also thought Subban was going to be a dominant d-man.  Every year, you guys are wrong.  Horribly wrong.

Also, your list includes quite a few players who aren't actually prospects (Leipsic, Goldobin, Tryamkin).

 

And, isn't it surprising how our prospect pool is ranked near the bottom of the league - after we were drafting last in each round?!!  And then, once we started drafting at the top of every round, our prospect pool got magically better?!!  No, that's not a coincidence at all - and it's not evidence that Benning is an amazing drafter.  It's expected.  100% expected.  Your prospect pool better rise dramatically in quality after you were the worst team in the league over the last 3 years.  In fact, it should be better than it is now.  Unfortunately, we made a few horrible mistakes along the way with our best picks (Virtanen, Juolevi). 

Unfortunately, we made a few horrible mistakes along the way with our best picks (Virtanen, Juolevi).   Only thing i dis-agree with, Virtanen being a power forward is the hardest player to coach because of the bulldog style of a power forward by nature. I watched a young "messier" make a lot of boneheaded mistakes and needed work in self discipline.. sound familiar? 

 

Juolevi? kind of reminds me of Lumme, Lumme's confidence was a problem and believe me he sucked really BAD at first and took him a bit extra to hit his stride too but when he got there he was more than ok.   Juolevi seems to have followed that exact path but had a year with Salo that helped him over come that and will make a 1st or 2nd pairing D if his ceiling is hit which i don't see as hard to reach.

 

Have to agree with most of what you said there other than that, especially with shink and subban...  shink i thought was a good 2 line prospect and subban?  well i think a lot of the was the subban name that people got caught up in here...  (shrugs)

 

I didn't like Bennings choice last year or this year even but i hope i'm proven wrong...  i would have picked Matthew Tkachuk and Bouchard/Dobson but hey if Benning puts the right players in the mix and gets some grit with scoring ability to compliment what we have now via a cpl of trades or free agents, we'll be ok and go back to making the playoff's soon.

 

 

[Hockey101 class]

I think our young prospects are awesome I love Virtanen he needs more ice time this year a lot more by far he's our most exciting player to watch his speed an power make him a beast on the ice this kid's gonna be a 30 goal scorer in a couple years all you haters/ whiners wait an see. Juolevi cant wait he's got size skill and smarts, he can also rip that puck he's a sure fire top 4 Dman. . Hughes well this kids's elite were so lucky to have him yeah he's small but who cares this kids electrifying.Oh yeah andtheres this Petterson kid.and other good prospects the future is bright for Canuck fans.

[wai_lai416]

12 hours ago, King Heffy said:

So roll the 2nd picks up to the first round, since I excluded all the first round draft picks we made.

It’s still a weak draft unless u were picking in the first round top 10

[Mattrek]

It is WAY too early to start judging Benning’s picks. Give him at least 5 years to have time to go through the system and sees what the NHL is like for a few years. These are kids, we forget this because of their incredible athletic ability that we look forward to whenever we watch a game. They take time to develop. Virtanen only just started showing real progress 4 years after he was picked and he was rushed. We can evaluate then the past few years draft pick choices. It’s fun to speculate, but none of us really knows what will happen until it happens. Remember the ceiling expectation of Bo? Or that hype up of Jordan Subban? None of us knows what happens in the future.