Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosh
Don't knock Patrick White!, He netted us Erhoff for 2 years
The Canucks have repeatedly shown a lack of patience to develop their 1st rounders. Cory Schneider being the exception, which is why most Canuck fans are saying "OMG SAVIOR!"
Case in point the last 12 years
2000 - Nathan Smith - left Vancouver for Pittsburgh after doing nothing but getting injured for the Canucks.
2001 - R.J. Umberger - Canucks couldn't get a deal done, he sat out for a year, and then got traded for Martin Ruchinsky for like.. 17 games.
2002 - No first round pick
2003 - Ryan Kesler - 2nd line center
2004 - Cory Schneider - Starting Goalie (Projected)
2005 - Luc Bourdon - Died (RIP)
2006 - Michael Grabner - Traded for Keith Ballard, #5 Defenseman
2007 - Patrick White - Traded for Christan Erhoff, no longer with team
2008 - Cody Hodgson - Traded for Zack Kassian, 4th liner (Scratch)
2009 - Jordan Schroeder - Has not made the team yet
2010 - No 1st round pick
2011 - Nicklas Jensen - Has not made the team yet
2012 - Unknown.
So.. in the past 11 drafts, we end up with.. a 2nd line center, a projected starting goalie, a #5 defenseman, and a 4th liner.
That's pretty bad...
This thread is about the proposed return for that projected starting goalie. So.. if you remove him from the last 11 drafts... then it's even more depressing. If we trade Schneider, I'd rather get proven prospects with NHL experience rather than picks. Vancouver does not know how to draft. They got lucky with the twins and that's pretty much it
|
You seem to like to spin a lot of things in their most negative possible light, to strengthen your argument.
A little disingenuous to say that they lack patience in developing their first rounders, and then use the fact their two most recent first rounders are still in the AHL/Juniors as an example of their poor drafting record.
Obvious other flaws include listing a recent high first round pick in his rookie year as a 4th liner/scratch. That may be what he's been in his short time here so far, but makes no allowance for what he is likely to become.
I also think it's unwise not to separate the draft/development records of the Burke/Nonis and Gillis regimes when making such statements. Both facets seem to have improved under Gillis. I'm not saying he's been flawless, but it's far easier to defend Gillis' admittedly smaller body of work in these areas than that of Burke/Nonis.