HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Vancouver Canucks (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   Several notable prospects but little depth in Vancouver Canucks' system (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1277679)

HF Article 10-30-2012 09:25 PM

Several notable prospects but little depth in Vancouver Canucks' system
 
 
Had the NHL lockout not come to pass, it certainly would have been an interesting training camp in Penticton this season for the Vancouver Canucks. They have graduated a number of players over the past five years, leaving only a couple of select, higher-tier prospects to mature and come of age. With Ryan Kesler and Alex Edler still on the shelf after surgeries, it was shaping up to be an impromptu game of musical chairs to fill the holes left by Kesler’s and Edler’s convalescence.



Overall, the Canucks prospect depth is strongest on the back-end, including their depth in goal.… read more



More...

Hammer79 10-30-2012 10:16 PM

Our draft pool is a victim of the regular season success of the Canucks. The Canucks haven't picked lower than 22nd since Hodgson in 2008, who was later traded for Kassian. The club has also traded away a lot of picks, we didn't even pick until the 4th round in 2010. There hasn't been a lot of high picks to restock the cupboards.

timw33 10-30-2012 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer79 (Post 55411639)
Our draft pool is a victim of the regular season success of the Canucks. The Canucks haven't picked lower than 22nd since Hodgson in 2008, who was later traded for Kassian. The club has also traded away a lot of picks, we didn't even pick until the 4th round in 2010. There hasn't been a lot of high picks to restock the cupboards.

I disagree with this assessment.

Our draft pool is victim of putrid Western Canadian scouting and a completely lost 2007 draft. It hurts to look at that 2007 draft or our record in drafting (or signing) WHL players.

Having no picks in the top 90 of the 2010 draft hasn't helped much either. Same with the Bourdon/Kopitar pick (I liked Luc, but Kopitar at the time was the obvious choice—this is something MG has done with the Hodgson, Schroeder and Gaunce picks, snatched the guys who have fallen a bit from where they were expected).

BerSTUzzi 10-30-2012 11:28 PM

I love the line about Honzik being stuck behind two goalies and not getting any starts. (obviously the writer had no clue he's injured)

Bleach Clean 10-30-2012 11:30 PM

I think the draft pool would look a lot better if Gillis just keeps his picks. The lack of depth is in direct correlation here.


He also has a penchant for going off the board beyond the 1st round. Honzik, Grenier, Rodin (projected 3rd round), Mallet are all picks moving away from the consensus. It remains to be seen if it was the right call to draft that way. But it will affect rankings like this.

ihaveyuidonttouchme 10-30-2012 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BerSTUzzi (Post 55413229)
I love the line about Honzik being stuck behind two goalies and not getting any starts. (obviously the writer had no clue he's injured)

ahahaha good one:laugh:

me2 10-31-2012 12:35 AM

I look at our pool and think the depth is that bad we just lack 2 or 3 elite guys. If we had those I'd be quite happy with the depth.

Hammer79 10-31-2012 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timw33 (Post 55412967)
I disagree with this assessment.

Our draft pool is victim of putrid Western Canadian scouting and a completely lost 2007 draft. It hurts to look at that 2007 draft or our record in drafting (or signing) WHL players.

Having no picks in the top 90 of the 2010 draft hasn't helped much either. Same with the Bourdon/Kopitar pick (I liked Luc, but Kopitar at the time was the obvious choice—this is something MG has done with the Hodgson, Schroeder and Gaunce picks, snatched the guys who have fallen a bit from where they were expected).

Yes, 2007 was an unmitigated disaster, like most of the Nonis era. There's a reason he hasn't moved beyond asst. GM of the Leafs being Burke's yes-man to GM'ing his own team.

However, I'm writing off anyone before 2008, just looking at the MG era. Picks before 2008 have either graduated or busted by now, mostly the latter. We've had late draft picks, and have traded away a lot of top round picks. Scouting problems or not, the lack of picks took a big toll on system depth.

blendini 10-31-2012 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me2 (Post 55414263)
I look at our pool and think the depth is that bad we just lack 2 or 3 elite guys. If we had those I'd be quite happy with the depth.

Such is the downside of having a good regular season team. In the past 10 years, we've only had 3 picks in the top 20. Grabner, Hodgson and Bourdon. You can swap in Kassian for Hodgson, which means we only have one draft pick under 20.

dave babych returns 10-31-2012 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me2 (Post 55414263)
I look at our pool and think the depth is that bad we just lack 2 or 3 elite guys. If we had those I'd be quite happy with the depth.

Oh, that's all. :laugh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by blendini (Post 55421259)
Such is the downside of having a good regular season team. In the past 10 years, we've only had 3 picks in the top 20. Grabner, Hodgson and Bourdon. You can swap in Kassian for Hodgson, which means we only have one draft pick under 20.

Lots of good to great prospects go outside of that range though.

The Canucks prospect depth has also been hurt by trades moving picks that could have been used during the Gillis regime. By my count they have dealt a 1st, a 2nd, three 3rds and two 4ths.

That's seven picks, basically a full draft except worse because no pick was later than 117th overall. Used wisely that could be 1 or 2 elite prospects plus another 1 or 2 middling guys.

I wouldn't necessarily say that moving each of those picks was a mistake in the grand scheme of things, but essentially Mike Gillis has given himself four drafts worth of picks across five drafts to continue to rebuild the Canucks prospect depth and that's a tall order.

Other than Chris Tanev his college free agent signings have not significantly supplemented our depth - not enough to make up for all the lost picks anyways.

So I would agree that the Canucks relatively poor depth is a product of their regular season success, but it is as much about the expectations created (that led them to execute trades moving draft picks for depth forwards and a top four defenseman) as it is about the resulting draft position.

Bleach Clean 10-31-2012 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave babych returns (Post 55423039)
Oh, that's all. :laugh:



Lots of good to great prospects go outside of that range though.

The Canucks prospect depth has also been hurt by trades moving picks that could have been used during the Gillis regime. By my count they have dealt a 1st, a 2nd, three 3rds and two 4ths.

That's seven picks, basically a full draft except worse because no pick was later than 117th overall. Used wisely that could be 1 or 2 elite prospects plus another 1 or 2 middling guys.

I wouldn't necessarily say that moving each of those picks was a mistake in the grand scheme of things, but essentially Mike Gillis has given himself four drafts worth of picks across five drafts to continue to rebuild the Canucks prospect depth and that's a tall order.

Other than Chris Tanev his college free agent signings have not significantly supplemented our depth - not enough to make up for all the lost picks anyways.

So I would agree that the Canucks relatively poor depth is a product of their regular season success, but it is as much about the expectations created (that led them to execute trades moving draft picks for depth forwards and a top four defenseman) as it is about the resulting draft position.



Completely agreed. It's picking late and the dearth of picks that has led to this.


Further, Schroeder struggling put a question mark on the team's C depth. So instead of looking at Left D, RW, C and G as strengths for the pipeline, we must remove C from the list. That definitely hurts any ranking.


RD needs some help, and LW is barren. These are the key weaknesses of the pool. Granted, the team has a plethora of LWers in the NHL. Still, it's good to have at least 1 option that the team can turn to if need be.

Scurr 10-31-2012 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave babych returns (Post 55423039)
That's seven picks, basically a full draft except worse because no pick was later than 117th overall. Used wisely that could be 1 or 2 elite prospects plus another 1 or 2 middling guys.

Finding one elite prospect with all those picks would be going against the average.

Hopefully a Luongo trade helps restock the cupboard.

craigcaulks* 10-31-2012 03:22 PM

Excuse my lack of interest in reading the article, but haven't we had a poor prospect pool for 20 years?

ZenMaster* 10-31-2012 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigcaulks (Post 55424057)
Excuse my lack of interest in reading the article, but haven't we had a poor prospect pool for 20 years?

Considering Canucks have about 10 home-grown players on a back-to-back president trophy winning team speaks miles about how piss poor our drafting is.

Canucks have also drafted two art ross trophy winners, a selke winner, a number one goalie, and a top 10 defenceman.

craigcaulks* 10-31-2012 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenMaster (Post 55424125)
Considering Canucks have about 10 home-grown players on a back-to-back president trophy winning team speaks miles about how piss poor our drafting is.

Canucks have also drafted two art ross trophy winners, a selke winner, a number one goalie, and a top 10 defenceman.

I am glad we see eye2eye on the subject. Another excellent yawner of an article I can't bother to read. Meanwhile, the Oilers are on year 6 of their deepness.

me2 10-31-2012 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by me2 (Post 55414263)
I look at our pool and think the depth is NOT that bad we just lack 2 or 3 elite guys. If we had those I'd be quite happy with the depth.

Fixed that, should have been a not in there.
#1
#2
#3 Kassian
#4 Jensen
#5 Lack
#6 Gaunce
#7 Tanev
#8 Corrado
#9 Cannata
#10 Schroeder,
#11 KCon
#12 Mallet
#etc: Rodin, Labate, McNally, Tommernes....

If say we had signed J Schultz at #2 and traded Luongo for #1 on that list I don't see how the depth would be seen a problem - having guys like Jensen at #4 or Corrado at #8 seems good. The problem is not the depth, the problem is that all we have the depth guys and everything is shuffled up a couple of spots. Hopefully Gillis can find a way to fix it.

vanuck 10-31-2012 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammer79 (Post 55414507)
Yes, 2007 was an unmitigated disaster, like most of the Nonis era. There's a reason he hasn't moved beyond asst. GM of the Leafs being Burke's yes-man to GM'ing his own team.

However, I'm writing off anyone before 2008, just looking at the MG era. Picks before 2008 have either graduated or busted by now, mostly the latter. We've had late draft picks, and have traded away a lot of top round picks. Scouting problems or not, the lack of picks took a big toll on system depth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave babych returns (Post 55423039)
Oh, that's all. :laugh:



Lots of good to great prospects go outside of that range though.

The Canucks prospect depth has also been hurt by trades moving picks that could have been used during the Gillis regime. By my count they have dealt a 1st, a 2nd, three 3rds and two 4ths.

That's seven picks, basically a full draft except worse because no pick was later than 117th overall. Used wisely that could be 1 or 2 elite prospects plus another 1 or 2 middling guys.

I wouldn't necessarily say that moving each of those picks was a mistake in the grand scheme of things, but essentially Mike Gillis has given himself four drafts worth of picks across five drafts to continue to rebuild the Canucks prospect depth and that's a tall order.

Other than Chris Tanev his college free agent signings have not significantly supplemented our depth - not enough to make up for all the lost picks anyways.

So I would agree that the Canucks relatively poor depth is a product of their regular season success, but it is as much about the expectations created (that led them to execute trades moving draft picks for depth forwards and a top four defenseman) as it is about the resulting draft position.

I agree with this. The drafting's better compared to Nonis, but we have to keep getting better and find ways to retain our picks if possible. When you realize MG's only had 4 drafts' worth of picks across 5 drafts it really opens your eyes.

RandV 10-31-2012 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleach Clean (Post 55413263)
I think the draft pool would look a lot better if Gillis just keeps his picks. The lack of depth is in direct correlation here.


He also has a penchant for going off the board beyond the 1st round. Honzik, Grenier, Rodin (projected 3rd round), Mallet are all picks moving away from the consensus. It remains to be seen if it was the right call to draft that way. But it will affect rankings like this.

To be fair Gillis does a better job of keeping our picks than Burke or Nonis ever did. When you're a contender you're likely going to need to trade this picks at some point.

Starting from 2009, since Gillis wasn't in control of what 2008 picks we had, the team has made 25 draft selections. Making some comparisons, Detroit has 29, Pittsburgh 27 (with 9 this past draft as they were hosting), Boston 25, San Jose 25, Washington 26, and so on. So really while the numbers are low we aren't really behind the curve.

In regards to our 2nd round picks and beyond, I believe Gillis has adapted the strategy of taking the BPA in the first round, and for the 2nd round and beyond taking players that are closest to making the league, often overagers.

RobertKron 10-31-2012 07:15 PM

Do the people writing these articles get paid?

Eddie Vedder 10-31-2012 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MW (Post 55429471)
Do the people writing these articles get paid?

No.

need four characters so I'll say it again, No.

NugentHopkinsfan 10-31-2012 07:41 PM

Gillis has been here 4 years, promised to revamp our drafting and developing. He drafted Hodgson based on his strong character, then traded him because of character issues. Under Gillis we haven't really seen an improvement. So far Nonis accomplished more in 2004 alone than Gillis has in 4 drafts but of course that can change and probably will.

timw33 10-31-2012 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan (Post 55430169)
Gillis has been here 4 years, promised to revamp our drafting and developing. He drafted Hodgson based on his strong character, then traded him because of character issues. Under Gillis we haven't really seen an improvement. So far Nonis accomplished more in 2004 alone than Gillis has in 4 drafts but of course that can change and probably will.


GM MGs biggest mistake has been keeping the Western scouts and Ron Delorme. Haven't successfully drafted or signed a WHL player who has gone on to play in the NHL since Michael Grabner.

Barney Gumble 10-31-2012 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NugentHopkinsfan (Post 55430169)
Gillis has been here 4 years, promised to revamp our drafting and developing. He drafted Hodgson based on his strong character, then traded him because of character issues. Under Gillis we haven't really seen an improvement. So far Nonis accomplished more in 2004 alone than Gillis has in 4 drafts but of course that can change and probably will.

Nonis' subsequent three drafts pretty much wiped that accomplishment out.

Taelin 10-31-2012 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barney Gumble (Post 55431651)
Nonis' subsequent three drafts pretty much wiped that accomplishment out.

Never forget the tragedy of the 2007 draft... :cry: :facepalm:

timw33 10-31-2012 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taelin (Post 55431677)
Never forget the tragedy of the 2007 draft... :cry: :facepalm:

We don't speak of it around here. It's like the lost generation.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:05 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.