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

Are the Canucks elite in terms of converting draft picks into long term roster players?

Rate this topic


Patel Bure

Recommended Posts

Are the Canucks elite in terms of converting draft picks into long term roster players?

 

While it’s likely a valid criticism that the Vancouver Canucks have bled picks during Benning’s tenure, the question is, “to what extent has these bled picks actually hindered us?”  Based on my research, and in comparison to both Tampa Bay and Colorado (two teams that are generally highly regarded as having drafted and developed prospects at an elite level), I think the Canucks have actually done quite well.  They appear to have outperformed Colorado (who were more reliant on first rounders during their rebuild), and appear to be on par with Tampa Bay during their rebuilding years.

 

In terms of converting draft picks into current full-time NHL players that currently play for the team that drafted them, the Canucks seem to be superior to Colorado, and appear to be on par with Tampa Bay:

 

Canucks = 8 picks converted into roster players from 2013-2019.  7 seasons.


2013: Horvat
2014: Demko
2015: Boeser
2017: Pettersson + Rathbone
2018: Hughes
2019: Podkolzin + Hoglander

 

Tampa = 8 picks converted into current roster players from 2007-2015 (9 seasons)

 

2015:  Anthony Cirelli (3rd round)
2014: Brayden Point (3rd round)
2012: Andrei Vasilevsky 
2011:  Nikita Kucherov + Ondrej Palat
2009: Victor Hedman
2008: Steven Stamkos
2007: Alex Killorn

 

Avalanche = 8 picks converted into current roster players from 2011-2019.

 

2019:  Bowen Byram + Alex Newhook (possibly)

2017:  Cale Makar + Conor Timmins

2016:  Tyson Jost

2015:  Mikko Rantanen

2013:  Nathan Mackinnon

2011:  Gabriel Landeskog
 

Although Horvat wasn’t drafted by Benning, he was developed under this management regime.  Although it’s premature, I would also argue that Klimovich would *already* be selected in the first round in a 2021 redraft (and yes, I’m admitting that it’s *way* too early to do a redraft projection here.....but still).

 

Anyways, please let me know if you see anything missing from my analysis, or if you see any faux pas.

Edited by Patel Bure
  • Cheers 2
  • Haha 1
  • Vintage 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Number one, don’t add a guy not drafted by the GM while trying to talk about drafting success.

I think I did preface my post by stating that Benning didn’t draft Horvat (that, or I made that disclaimer somewhere else?), but whatever way you slice it, Benning’s management team was the one that developed Horvat and so Benning’s regime should get a lot of credit for Horvat as well. 
 

With respect to both Tampa and Colorado, I don’t think they had the same GM throughout the years that I highlighted either.

Edited by Patel Bure
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, drummer4now said:

Not even close… 

 

This one of those situations everything seems fine on paper when it comes to show there a bare minimum results and I mean from the players drafted compared to Tampa or Colorado. 

 

4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Also, Tampa in terms of drafting and player development kicks the $&!# out of Benning. It’s not even close.

You guys might be right but can we make that assertion as of this writing?  Tampa and Colorado’s core are further along the path than ours.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patel Bure said:

I think I did preface my post by stating that Benning didn’t draft Horvat (that, or I made that disclaimer somewhere else?), but whatever you slice it, Benning’s management team was the one that developed Horvat and so Benning’s regime should get a lot of credit for Horvat as well. 
 

With respect to both Tampa and Colorado, I don’t think they had the same GM throughout the years that I highlighted either.

Like I said, no need to include guys not drafted by Benning to pump up Benning’s drafting record. He is a decent drafter but the team under his watch is pretty $&!#ty overall at development other than pretty sure thing players.

 

Brayden Point alone destroys Benning in relation to Tampa Bay on both fronts unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

 

You guys might be right but can we make that assertion as of this writing?  Tampa and Colorado’s core are further along the path than ours.  

We can’t make any assertion at all including your entire OP. Too many apples to oranges comparisons in there.

 

You could have saved yourself some typing and just said you think Benning is the best drafting GM in the history of the nhl.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Like I said, no need to include guys not drafted by Benning to pump up Benning’s drafting record. He is a decent drafter but the team under his watch is pretty $&!#ty overall at development other than pretty sure thing players.

 

Brayden Point alone destroys Benning in relation to Tampa Bay on both fronts unfortunately.

Even if we exclude Horvat, that’s still one long term full-time roster player per year on average.  7 players in the 7 seasons that I highlighted.  That still equals or surpasses Tampa and Colorado in terms of picks converting to legitimate roster players over the time spent rebuilding. 
 

Are the Canucks, as an organization, comparable to where Tampa and Colorado are right now?  Of course not.  However, it goes without saying that we began our rebuild much later than both of those teams....and so do course those teams are further along the path than we are.  All I’m saying is that from a drafting and developing standpoint, we appear to be on similar paths as them.  Time will tell if guys like Pettersson, Hughes, Boeser, Podkolzin, Demko, etc., become as good as Colorado and Tampa’s core.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

You also claim that Colorado relied on first rounders for their core like that diminishes their success. So have the Canucks though but you treat it as a positive. Most teams draft the majority of their elite level core players in the 1st or 2nd round.

I didn’t say that to diminish their success.  All I’m saying is that if anyone makes the argument against Benning that, “he stumbled onto good prospects because his teams were all crappy and he simply benefitted from high draft picks,” they should compare the Canucks and Colorado.

 

Hoglander, Demko, and Rathbone are all non 1st round picks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Also, Rathbone and Podkolzin are not actually roster players yet other than making the team this preseason. They have a ways to go before being classified as such.

Juolevi was moved largely in part because Rathbone outperformed him and earned that 3rd pairing spot by merit.  Personally?  I would have placed Rathbone in Abby so that he could have logged bigger minutes.  As of this writing though, that 3rd pairing spot is Rathbone’s and it doesn’t look like he’ll be going anywhere anytime soon.

 

Podkolzin also looks like he’ll be playing alongside Miller and Petan.  Could either Podz or Bones be demoted in the future?  Obviously yes.  But as of right now, both players have made this team based on merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patel Bure said:

Even if we exclude Horvat, that’s still one long term full-time roster player per year on average.  7 players in the 7 seasons that I highlighted.  That still equals or surpasses Tampa and Colorado in terms of picks converting to legitimate roster players over the time spent rebuilding. 
 

Are the Canucks, as an organization, comparable to where Tampa and Colorado are right now?  Of course not.  However, it goes without saying that we began our rebuild much later than both of those teams....and so do course those teams are further along the path than we are.  All I’m saying is that from a drafting and developing standpoint, we appear to be on similar paths as them.  Time will tell if guys like Pettersson, Hughes, Boeser, Podkolzin, Demko, etc., become as good as Colorado and Tampa’s core.

Drafting high generally produces better players. 
 

Virtanen and Juolevi certainly tarnish Benning’s cult status as a drafting guru but even more so contradict any notion he is an elite level player developer. As does giving up all of those latest round home runs for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No if they were elite they wouldn't suck and by suck I mean be in the draft lottery every year.

 

They piss away picks. It's straight math. If they have 8 picks that means someone else has 6. The odds increase drastically.

Edited by Chris12345
  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

We can’t make any assertion at all including your entire OP. Too many apples to oranges comparisons in there.

 

You could have saved yourself some typing and just said you think Benning is the best drafting GM in the history of the nhl.

I don’t think Benning is the best at drafting in the NHL.  What I will say is that from 2013-2019, the Canucks have converted picks into roster players at similar levels of efficiency to Colorado and Tampa; two teams that are generally regarded as being elite in terms of drafting and developing.

 

Our drafting and developing period from 2013-2019 suggests that this whole notion of the Canucks having “bled picks” is an unfounded worry since we’ve averaged one roster player per year since 2013.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

I didn’t say that to diminish their success.  All I’m saying is that if anyone makes the argument against Benning that, “he stumbled onto good prospects because his teams were all crappy and he simply benefitted from high draft picks,” they should compare the Canucks and Colorado.

 

Hoglander, Demko, and Rathbone are all non 1st round picks.  

Hoglander and Demko were high second rounders. 40th and 36th. Certainly good picks at those spots.

 

Rathbone has proven literally nothing at the NHL level yet to be considered a draft and development win for the core.

 

Even Hoglander needs more time to be considered as such. Demko is also early in that journey.

 

Doesnt mean they all won’t be, it’s just too early to directly compare them to either of those two other teams core groups.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patel Bure said:

I don’t think Benning is the best at drafting in the NHL.  What I will say is that from 2013-2019, the Canucks have converted picks into roster players at similar levels of efficiency to Colorado and Tampa; two teams that are generally regarded as being elite in terms of drafting and developing.

 

Our drafting and developing period from 2013-2019 suggests that this whole notion of the Canucks having “bled picks” is an unfounded worry since we’ve averaged one roster player per year since 2013.

Tampa has won two cups. Colorado is a strong annual SC contender. The Canucks have barely been able to win two games in a row.

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Drafting high generally produces better players. 
 

Virtanen and Juolevi certainly tarnish Benning’s cult status as a drafting guru but even more so contradict any notion he is an elite level player developer. As does giving up all of those latest round home runs for nothing.

Yes, Benning screwed the pooch with Virtanen and Juolevi, but those 8 aforementioned picks all go in the first round in a redraft.  Even Klimovich probably goes #1 in a redraft (and yes, I’m admitting that it’s *way* too early to make this claim).

 

Guys like Demko, Rathbone, and Hoglander clearly make up for the Virtanen and Juolevi screw ups.

 

-Horvat goes #5 in a redraft (yes, not a Benning pick but developed by Benning’s regime)

-Demko goes top 20

-Boeser goes around #10 or slightly higher

-Pettersson goes 2nd or 3rd overall.

-Rathbone goes somewhere in the first 

-Hughes goes top 5.

-Hoglander goes between 15-20.

-Some have argued that Podkolzin would have gone top 5 had he not committed to playing in Russia for two years.

-And like I said, in a 2021 redraft, Klimovich probably sneaks into the first round at 30-32.

 

So based on all this, I would still argue that Benning and his regime should be considered very strong in the drafting and developing department despite the Virtanen and Juolevi gaffes, and despite all of these supposed bled picks.  
 

Our overall picks to roster player conversion still seems to be elite.

 

Even departed players that didn’t pan out such as Hutton, Tryamkin, Gaudette, and Virtanen all got Atleast 1+ season in with us (two or more excluding Tryamkin).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...