[Discussion] Canucks Development Success From 2006/2022

[Warhippy]

I have had this discussion a number of times over the past year.  The development success or lack thereof for the Canucks.  Since 2003/2004 the Canucks have only drafted 11 total RHD.  Which; as we all know is a source of MAJOR issue for the team as the RHD position is second only to the RHC position for tems in the league.

 

Now, here's the thing.  if we look past positional standards.  The Canucks have only drafted 12 players since 2006 that have achieved the "200 game cohort metric" that is deemed the mark of success for a draft pick.  Of those 12 players, 5 were picked in the top 10.  4 of those 11 players were taken in the the 2014 draft with Demko being the next to hit 200 games.

 

Since 2012, the Canucks have drafted a total of 108 total players.  Drafting an average of 6.3 times per draft since 2006 with an 11.88% success rate of total drafted and developed players that have achieved that 200 game metric dictated to be the success for an NHL draft pick.

 

When we take away those 5 picks that achieved success from the top 10 we have an even more anemic 6.48% success rate for drafted and developed players.

 

Now here is where it gets really sad.  The following players actually made their success away from Vancouver.  or achieved their 200 game + metrics on other teams or away from vancouver's development system.  

 

Grabner:  640 games, 200 games achieved with the Islanders, Rangers, Coyotes, Leafs

Hodgson:  328 games, 200 games achieved with Buffalo

Connauton:  360 games, achieved between Dallas/Columbus/Arizona

Forsling:  257 games, achieved with Chicago and Florida

McCann:  444 games, achieved with Florida, Pittsburgh, Seattle

Gaudette:  218 games, achieved with Vancouver, Chicago, Ottawa

 

When we look at that list we see that of those 12 players, truly only 6 players in fact reached or effectively reached that 200 game metric considered by experts to be the measure of a successful draft pick.  There are only 3 teams comparable to the Canucks in terms of failures to develop any qualified NHL players over that 200 game metric over the last 16 years.  This includes the Coyotes with 14, Wings with 17 and Flames with 16.  Every other team in the league since 2006 has successfully drafted a minimum of 18+ NHL players over that time.

 

Now I am not going to get in to the ins/outs of things as I just want to generate a discussion.  We know that the issue with the Chicago/Manitoba loans prior to the rebuilding of Utica was very weird.  Utica to Abby was supposed to be a bright spot.  But what is the reason behind such abysmal development?  We bemoan a lack of depth and can lay it at the feet of poor drafting, but has our drafting truly been so poor that we literally can not draft anything that can skate in a pro league?

 

What is your thoughts on this?  What has happened with and to our development that it is truly this bad that is not directly related to drafting?  For comparison, the Leafs drafted 6 total players in 2006 that played the minimum 200 game metric (holzer) but all others played a minimum 400+ games in their careers.

 

Really curious to get others opinions on our development issues and whether or not the twins can actually fix it, concerns about Abby etc.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Warhippy

[iceman64]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

I have had this discussion a number of times over the past year.  The development success or lack thereof for the Canucks.  Since 2003/2004 the Canucks have only drafted 11 total RHD.  Which; as we all know is a source of MAJOR issue for the team as the RHD position is second only to the RHC position for tems in the league.

 

Now, here's the thing.  if we look past positional standards.  The Canucks have only drafted 12 players since 2006 that have achieved the "200 game cohort metric" that is deemed the mark of success for a draft pick.  Of those 12 players, 5 were picked in the top 10.  4 of those 11 players were taken in the the 2014 draft with Demko being the next to hit 200 games.

 

Since 2012, the Canucks have drafted a total of 108 total players.  Drafting an average of 6.3 times per draft since 2006 with an 11.88% success rate of total drafted and developed players that have achieved that 200 game metric dictated to be the success for an NHL draft pick.

 

When we take away those 5 picks that achieved success from the top 10 we have an even more anemic 6.48% success rate for drafted and developed players.

 

Now here is where it gets really sad.  The following players actually made their success away from Vancouver.  or achieved their 200 game + metrics on other teams or away from vancouver's development system.  

 

Grabner:  640 games, 200 games achieved with the Islanders, Rangers, Coyotes, Leafs

Hodgson:  328 games, 200 games achieved with Buffalo

Connauton:  360 games, achieved between Dallas/Columbus/Arizona

Forsling:  257 games, achieved with Chicago and Florida

McCann:  444 games, achieved with Florida, Pittsburgh, Seattle

Gaudette:  218 games, achieved with Vancouver, Chicago, Ottawa

 

When we look at that list we see that of those 12 players, truly only 6 players in fact reached or effectively reached that 200 game metric considered by experts to be the measure of a successful draft pick.  There are only 3 teams comparable to the Canucks in terms of failures to develop any qualified NHL players over that 200 game metric over the last 16 years.  This includes the Coyotes with 14, Wings with 17 and Flames with 16.  Every other team in the league since 2006 has successfully drafted a minimum of 18+ NHL players over that time.

 

Now I am not going to get in to the ins/outs of things as I just want to generate a discussion.  We know that the issue with the Chicago/Manitoba loans prior to the rebuilding of Utica was very weird.  Utica to Abby was supposed to be a bright spot.  But what is the reason behind such abysmal development?  We bemoan a lack of depth and can lay it at the feet of poor drafting, but has our drafting truly been so poor that we literally can not draft anything that can skate in a pro league?

 

What is your thoughts on this?  What has happened with and to our development that it is truly this bad that is not directly related to drafting?  For comparison, the Leafs drafted 6 total players in 2006 that played the minimum 200 game metric (holzer) but all others played a minimum 400+ games in their careers.

 

Really curious to get others opinions on our development issues and whether or not the twins can actually fix it, concerns about Abby etc.

Well it's not that easy, simply put that's a simplified way of looking at it, especially there was and is, to this day, absolutely no way of knowing how a player will work out or not. 

 It's not the norm but even first overall picks have busted or worked out but not on the level of expectation assumed.

 Then where the franchise was at the time and since then, especially in the case where we list Luc B, easily a top pairing D just starting to break out and as calm as Tanev with the puck. 

 R.R. too, with the heart of a lion for his team mates is a rare thing to that extent, took on anyone. 

Un-named player who should have worked out with the twins but took a 6 mil Swan dive, on top of that Luongo and his contract.. on and on, fans demanding a one and done and at the cost of the farm, we traded picks for roster players or attached to deals.

 Don't get me started man.. that's just the tip of the mountain, and it's pissed me off for so long, yet some are still on about ONE cup..

 My question to them is, how do you win a cup without depth after you sold it to get the roster?!

 

 

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

I’m optimistic that in a few years, the combination of the move to Abby and the new regime’s investment in development staff will pay dividends.

 

But it’s true that we’ve had a long stretch of pretty dismal player development. Lots of reasons for this.

 

The loss of the Manitoba Moose was a big setback. The Chicago AHL years were tough, as we didn’t have full control of the farm, and the independently run Wolves teams were always focused first on winning and their box office. Developing prospects for Vancouver was down the list of priorities in Chicago.

 

The move to Utica helped. But it also coincided with a period (under Benning) where our pick volume was far lower than it should have been, given the cycle the team was in. In Benning’s defence, we also had a lot of picks come straight to the NHL and bypass AHL development. And we also drafted some good players who developed either in Europe or the NCAA. But even still, we should have been finding a way to draft more than our allotted 7 picks (and certainly not less than 7 per year).

 

I think we’ll see better performance on the player development side over the coming years, but that might not become obvious until we’re maybe five years into the future and can really see home grown players regularly stepping into roles in the lineup and augmenting the depth, and at that point we can (hopefully) look back and appreciate the work that got us there.

 

EDIT: I realize I didn’t mention MG or really critique his record. And certainly drafting (as well as overall pick volume) and player development were major issues under that regime. I suppose I give them a bit of a pass since they were clearly “all in” on winning and very nearly delivered a Cup. Of course, MG should have done a much better job (drafting and developing) but he was pretty effective on his main goal, which was to put together a contender in Vancouver. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

[Warhippy]

10 hours ago, iceman64 said:

Well it's not that easy, simply put that's a simplified way of looking at it, especially there was and is, to this day, absolutely no way of knowing how a player will work out or not. 

 It's not the norm but even first overall picks have busted or worked out but not on the level of expectation assumed.

 Then where the franchise was at the time and since then, especially in the case where we list Luc B, easily a top pairing D just starting to break out and as calm as Tanev with the puck. 

 R.R. too, with the heart of a lion for his team mates is a rare thing to that extent, took on anyone. 

Un-named player who should have worked out with the twins but took a 6 mil Swan dive, on top of that Luongo and his contract.. on and on, fans demanding a one and done and at the cost of the farm, we traded picks for roster players or attached to deals.

 Don't get me started man.. that's just the tip of the mountain, and it's pissed me off for so long, yet some are still on about ONE cup..

 My question to them is, how do you win a cup without depth after you sold it to get the roster?!

 

 

No depth.

 

No play time.

 

It's hand in hand eh

[Warhippy]

7 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I’m optimistic that in a few years, the combination of the move to Abby and the new regime’s investment in development staff will pay dividends.

 

But it’s true that we’ve had a long stretch of pretty dismal player development. Lots of reasons for this.

 

The loss of the Manitoba Moose was a big setback. The Chicago AHL years were tough, as we didn’t have full control of the farm, and the independently run Wolves teams were always focused first on winning and their box office. Developing prospects for Vancouver was down the list of priorities in Chicago.

 

The move to Utica helped. But it also coincided with a period (under Benning) where our pick volume was far lower than it should have been, given the cycle the team was in. In Benning’s defence, we also had a lot of picks come straight to the NHL and bypass AHL development. And we also drafted some good players who developed either in Europe or the NCAA. But even still, we should have been finding a way to draft more than our allotted 7 picks (and certainly not less than 7 per year).

 

I think we’ll see better performance on the player development side over the coming years, but that might not become obvious until we’re maybe five years into the future and can really see home grown players regularly stepping into roles in the lineup and augmenting the depth, and at that point we can (hopefully) look back and appreciate the work that got us there.

 

EDIT: I realize I didn’t mention MG or really critique his record. And certainly drafting (as well as overall pick volume) and player development were major issues under that regime. I suppose I give them a bit of a pass since they were clearly “all in” on winning and very nearly delivered a Cup. Of course, MG should have done a much better job (drafting and developing) but he was pretty effective on his main goal, which was to put together a contender in Vancouver. 

I guess the argument can be made even that players who jump directly to the NHL never really did see the back end of our development program at all

[iceman64]

10 hours ago, Warhippy said:

No depth.

 

No play time.

 

It's hand in hand eh

Yeah building a farm takes time but I was dismayed to see us not going all in on D picks this draft but they'd better start on it or in 2-3 years when we fully in our window and we don't have D depth.. I'll be pissed.. 

[Warhippy]

19 hours ago, iceman64 said:

Yeah building a farm takes time but I was dismayed to see us not going all in on D picks this draft but they'd better start on it or in 2-3 years when we fully in our window and we don't have D depth.. I'll be pissed.. 

Having looked hard and consistently back through the years the Canucks have avoided taking large bodied "safe players" in favour of skilled projects or home run picks.  They have avoided drafting RHD and RHC players almost exclusively like there was a bias against them.  They have an insane preference for drafting swedes, having taken an average of 2 swedes a draft since 2007 while completely avoiding the WHL.  Yet manage to draft much of their defense from the NCAA and QMJHL

 

This has been so alarmingly consistent that I can not fathom how the pattern hasn't been seen as an issue.

 

Development wise it gets even worse.  On average Canucks prospects that are not highly touted are essentially left to develop in lower leagues and then brought up as an afterthought and never given treatment or opportunities by the big club at all.  Like they're happy to draft and stockpile redundant players and then just forget about them

[iceman64]

On 11/28/2022 at 6:57 AM, Warhippy said:

No depth.

 

No play time.

 

It's hand in hand eh

Yeah building a farm takes time but I was dismayed to see us not going all in on D picks this draft but they'd better start on it or in 2-3 years when we fully in our window and we don't have D depth.. I'll be pissed.. 

[iceman64]

At the end of the day, the most painful job in the NHL these days is being a Canucks fan... 

[Warhippy]

5 hours ago, iceman64 said:

At the end of the day, the most painful job in the NHL these days is being a Canucks fan... 

I dunno.  Being a Canucks prospect these days is pretty hard

[Provost]

I came here expecting the shortest thread ever.

 

We haven’t developed much of anything since that stretch when Bieksa, Burrows, Kesler, Edler, and Hansen all came up from Winnipeg.

 

I guess when you are as bad as our team has been, prospects end up on the big club long before they are ready and have had a chance to marinate in the minors a bit.

Edited November 30, 2022 by Provost

[Warhippy]

8 hours ago, Provost said:

I came here expecting the shortest thread ever.

 

We haven’t developed much of anything since that stretch when Bieksa, Burrows, Kesler, Edler, and Hansen all came up from Winnipeg.

 

I guess when you are as bad as our team has been, prospects end up on the big club long before they are ready and have had a chance to marinate in the minors a bit.

For myself I have to try to wrap my head around the success years of 2007/2012 ish where we were competing.  Then from 2012/2015 where we had the twins.  But 2015/2022 thus far is insane.  The Devils, Canes, Stars, Rangers Kings, Ducks, Leafs, Oilers, Jets, Flyers, Lightning, panthers, Sharks, Sens, Habs, Islanders, Sabres, Caps, Hawks, Blues, Wild, Jackets and Penguins have as many successfully drafted 200+ game players in 8 years as we have since 2006.  In fact only the Avs and Flames have a record comparable to ours in that 8 year span but have numerous successfully drafted players in the16 years total.

 

It's genuinely shocking how absoultely poorly this development program has been.  Even with our draft numbers of over 6 picks per draft average we should have churned out at least a few players that may have hit the big leagues but....no

[IBatch]

On 11/27/2022 at 10:21 PM, Warhippy said:

I have had this discussion a number of times over the past year.  The development success or lack thereof for the Canucks.  Since 2003/2004 the Canucks have only drafted 11 total RHD.  Which; as we all know is a source of MAJOR issue for the team as the RHD position is second only to the RHC position for tems in the league.

 

Now, here's the thing.  if we look past positional standards.  The Canucks have only drafted 12 players since 2006 that have achieved the "200 game cohort metric" that is deemed the mark of success for a draft pick.  Of those 12 players, 5 were picked in the top 10.  4 of those 11 players were taken in the the 2014 draft with Demko being the next to hit 200 games.

 

Since 2012, the Canucks have drafted a total of 108 total players.  Drafting an average of 6.3 times per draft since 2006 with an 11.88% success rate of total drafted and developed players that have achieved that 200 game metric dictated to be the success for an NHL draft pick.

 

When we take away those 5 picks that achieved success from the top 10 we have an even more anemic 6.48% success rate for drafted and developed players.

 

Now here is where it gets really sad.  The following players actually made their success away from Vancouver.  or achieved their 200 game + metrics on other teams or away from vancouver's development system.  

 

Grabner:  640 games, 200 games achieved with the Islanders, Rangers, Coyotes, Leafs

Hodgson:  328 games, 200 games achieved with Buffalo

Connauton:  360 games, achieved between Dallas/Columbus/Arizona

Forsling:  257 games, achieved with Chicago and Florida

McCann:  444 games, achieved with Florida, Pittsburgh, Seattle

Gaudette:  218 games, achieved with Vancouver, Chicago, Ottawa

 

When we look at that list we see that of those 12 players, truly only 6 players in fact reached or effectively reached that 200 game metric considered by experts to be the measure of a successful draft pick.  There are only 3 teams comparable to the Canucks in terms of failures to develop any qualified NHL players over that 200 game metric over the last 16 years.  This includes the Coyotes with 14, Wings with 17 and Flames with 16.  Every other team in the league since 2006 has successfully drafted a minimum of 18+ NHL players over that time.

 

Now I am not going to get in to the ins/outs of things as I just want to generate a discussion.  We know that the issue with the Chicago/Manitoba loans prior to the rebuilding of Utica was very weird.  Utica to Abby was supposed to be a bright spot.  But what is the reason behind such abysmal development?  We bemoan a lack of depth and can lay it at the feet of poor drafting, but has our drafting truly been so poor that we literally can not draft anything that can skate in a pro league?

 

What is your thoughts on this?  What has happened with and to our development that it is truly this bad that is not directly related to drafting?  For comparison, the Leafs drafted 6 total players in 2006 that played the minimum 200 game metric (holzer) but all others played a minimum 400+ games in their careers.

 

Really curious to get others opinions on our development issues and whether or not the twins can actually fix it, concerns about Abby etc.

Did you take into account, that the Canucks won more games then any team except Detroit and SJ from 2000-2015?   That's important too. 

 

 

There is a better way to demonstrate our relative ineffectiveness to draft and develop players.    THN did this for about a decade but recently stopped (very very unfortunate - stupid ribbons for everyone now ... new owner and he's sucking badly).   They did something called ADP.  Average draft position.   Then ranked all the 21 and unders (still do but now it's just a letter grade - stupid because no comparisons anymore - everyone gets a participation trophy more or less) ... Then ranked each team using 10 NHL scouts.   Then factored in where they drafted over a four year period.   And arrived at a number.   JB was usually around plus 4.   In other words, when we sucked sucked (rebuild that was never called that), we averaged around 7th but picked like we had four years of 3rd overalls.   That's currently represented on the team with Demko, EP,  QHs and Brock.   Used to have rapey JV too.   
 

Agree we suck though.   And Burke also blew his 4th on Allen.   Quin whiffed two years in a row with Stajonov and Antoski.  But did draft Aucion,  Ohlund and Sopel.  And Bure, Linden and Nedved.  Plus others.  Burke was his right hand man back then too. 

 

One thing is for certain, each draft GMs expect one roster player and hope for two.  Nonis and Gillis left us with an 8 year gap which is unfortunate.   Hutton, Coho ... yikes!.  RIP Bourdon though. 

 

JB first draft was very decent.   Just like Nonis's (our last great draft really).  

 

If you want to see a good period of drafting, check out what Milford managed.   But don't cry when you see who else we could have had instead either lol.    Canucks have created a gap between QHs now.   That's going to hurt us. 

Edited November 30, 2022 by IBatch

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

For myself I have to try to wrap my head around the success years of 2007/2012 ish where we were competing.  Then from 2012/2015 where we had the twins.  But 2015/2022 thus far is insane.  The Devils, Canes, Stars, Rangers Kings, Ducks, Leafs, Oilers, Jets, Flyers, Lightning, panthers, Sharks, Sens, Habs, Islanders, Sabres, Caps, Hawks, Blues, Wild, Jackets and Penguins have as many successfully drafted 200+ game players in 8 years as we have since 2006.  In fact only the Avs and Flames have a record comparable to ours in that 8 year span but have numerous successfully drafted players in the16 years total.

 

It's genuinely shocking how absoultely poorly this development program has been.  Even with our draft numbers of over 6 picks per draft average we should have churned out at least a few players that may have hit the big leagues but....no

You need to forget about how many picks we've had past the 3rd round.   On average 12.5% of those picks combined - collectively - don't play 100 NHL games.   In other words, you don't get a Hansen often - or a Gaudette or a whomever.  Every 8 years maybe a Gaudette.  That's average. 

 

50% of second rounders though play 100 games.   About the exact same as picks 22 overall to the end of the second round.   Lind and Gads likely make that bar.    

 

If you want guys to play 200 games - then draft 15 and above.   That's important.   

Edited November 30, 2022 by IBatch

[IBatch]

10 hours ago, Provost said:

I came here expecting the shortest thread ever.

 

We haven’t developed much of anything since that stretch when Bieksa, Burrows, Kesler, Edler, and Hansen all came up from Winnipeg.

 

I guess when you are as bad as our team has been, prospects end up on the big club long before they are ready and have had a chance to marinate in the minors a bit.

Detroit was famous for this.   Their guys didn't come up until they were 21-22 because their team was that good.   Even Datsyuk and Zetterberg to their marinating.   Sakic also did this with Makar.   And expect they will continue.   Tampa Bay.   Good teams make it hard for players to make it on their teams.   The only reason Horvat made it so soon was because he had a man body and he was good at face offs.   It's not the norm to have 18-19 year olds make the team.   There for sure was reason for optimism given EP and QHs did it before 20 as well.   Nedved.   His third year he made a jump despite having a big frame.   

 

All i can say is this team didn't bottom out properly and now has an age gap, not enough guys in the pipe and either needs to make some savy trades to get to the next level or some savy trades to bottom out again.   And draft well either way.   Demko's draft was wasted that's history now - the last truly great draft was Nonis's first one (he also had some terrible drafts too).   

 

Our pool is bad.   Our team is mediocre but has assets.   We need to use them.

 

 

Edit.  18 is awfully young to start in this league.   Orr was a bust - Joe Thornton was a bust!  So was Stamkos!  So maybe Laffrenierre!   Not common that 18 year olds do what Barrasso, Borque and Gretzky and Crosby did.  Gretzky also scored over 100 in the AHL barely 17 lol.   So.   Yes draft well.   Develop well.   And factor in how well we did as well.   Because you can't really expect much in the latter half of the first round or without your seconds.   You need both to do much.  Gillis doesn't get a bye either - he only traded one first, Holland traded his firsts year after year after year after year.  

Edited November 30, 2022 by IBatch

[Fred65]

Frankly the best option for Canuck proospects is either the NCAA or SEL. The attempts, should we say paathetic attempts to bbring along a player in the AHL is not good IMO. The NCAA  train/play 6 days a week, littel travel time and have a full staff of quaified coaches ( many moving to the NHL )  SEL is prettyy much the same. The AHL is about money. I'm glad McDonough stayed in Uni. Imagine him playing on this current team, losing agaiin and again

Edited November 30, 2022 by Fred65

[Alflives]

Just now, Fred65 said:

Frankly the best option for Canuck proospects is either the NCAA or SEL. The attempts, should we say paathetic attempts to bbring along a player in the AHL is not good IMO. The NCAA  train/play 6 days a week, littel travel time and have a full staff of quaified coaches ( many moving to the NHL )  SEL is prettyy much the same. The AHL is about money

No matter where our guys develop we need to get them to learn how to play a hard to play against style.  And, if they have it in them, to learn how to fight. We are way too easy to play against, especially in our top minute guys.  Sure would have liked to keep McEwen and Gadjovic.   

[Fred65]

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

No matter where our guys develop we need to get them to learn how to play a hard to play against style.  And, if they have it in them, to learn how to fight. We are way too easy to play against, especially in our top minute guys.  Sure would have liked to keep McEwen and Gadjovic.   

MacEwen is pretty well playing every game, then again it is Philly.  He's a guy that understands what he needs to do to play in the NHL andd does it. Gadjpvich not so much.  I must say Joshhua is playing OK but is not as advertised. He is a NCAA trained player 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

MacEwen is pretty well playing every game, then again it is Philly.  He's a guy that understands what he needs to do to play in the NHL andd does it. Gadjpvich not so much.  I must say Joshhua is playing OK but is not as advertised. He is a NCAA trained player 

I accept Johusa's fills his role well.  But he's a guy who just can't play higher up than fourth line minutes.  We need guys who can play the heavy, hard to play against role, while playing top minutes.  If we do move Garland, and it's not just to clear cap, I hope it's for a forward or D who is a pain to play against.  I'm not a fan of Josh Anderson's contract, but he would definitely be the kind of player I'd want to see here.  But younger and cheaper and not so injured.  

[Fred65]

19 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I accept Johusa's fills his role well.  But he's a guy who just can't play higher up than fourth line minutes.  We need guys who can play the heavy, hard to play against role, while playing top minutes.  If we do move Garland, and it's not just to clear cap, I hope it's for a forward or D who is a pain to play against.  I'm not a fan of Josh Anderson's contract, but he would definitely be the kind of player I'd want to see here.  But younger and cheaper and not so injured.  

If Mtl can find one ( Arber Xhekaj ) then why not us. He's 21, 6'4"/238 and will go with any one and has sited up for 20 games so far this season. Why ??? it's recogniziing the need IMO