View Single Post
11-01-2012, 01:38 PM
dave babych returns
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,671
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
We gave up that 2nd round pick to get Steve Bernier. Only in hindsight that turned out to be a bust (though at least Bernier is still in the league - albeit as a 4th liner). He (Bernier) filled a need that was lacking in the lineup (prospect with skill AND size).
Yeah I don't disagree. In fact I said originally I don't think you can say that all of those trades were bad ones (heck I'm happy with the Higgins and Lapierre deals), although in hindsight the players we gave up costlier returns for were no what we thought they could be.

(We actually gave up a 2nd and a 3rd for Bernier, the 3rd - which was Los Angeles' originally - was used to select Brayden McNabb who will in all likelihood play a larger role in the NHL over the next few years than Steve Bernier will.)

Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I wouldn't call Gaunce an "elite" prespect yet, we just drafted him.
Well I wouldn't either, like I said I was working from what poster me2 appeared to mean.

In any event obviously Gaunce is a pretty promising prospect (hence his selection in the 1st round), whatever quibbling you may wish to do about the specific terminology.

It's a lot easier to pick players two and a half years after the draft.
Yeah, it sure is. Of course nobody has gone through and suggested that the Canucks definitely should have taken this or that player.. merely that certain players were available and if the Canucks had a draft selection available they could have had a chance to take those players.

My point is simply that the Canucks have given up more than an entire draft's worth of selections over the last five years, any NHL franchise should expect to get about four promising prospects (and when I say "promising" I mean to include players like Corrado, McNally, etc who are clearly projects and are years away from being NHL ready - if they ever will be) from seven early and mid-round picks and half-decent franchises should produce at least a couple of regular NHLers from that kind of assortment of picks.

This is what the Canucks have given up in these various trades and it's close to what people are saying our system is missing.

Essentially, we could have produced a respectable level of organizational depth with the exact same draft positions we've had all these years - contrary to what others have stated.

How many prospects like McNally and Corrado do we need? I'm not sure exactly what he meant by "elite prospects" but to me it means prospects that have developed to where they are knocking on the door of the NHL.
I took it to mean high calibre prospects, not necessarily ready to 'graduate' but with a high chance of doing so.

As for how many prospects like McNally and Corrado an organization needs, I would say that most teams would take as many as they can get (as long as they eventually have room to offer them a contract). I don't think you can hand either player a roster spot even years down the line, so I'd rather have twice as many of them as we do if it means twice the likelihood of producing solid NHLers on entry level contracts.

I'm not overly impressed with Gillis draft history yet but I think in general peoples expectations aren't in line with the reality of picking 18-19 year olds. Gillis is also clearly evolving his draft strategy imo, so at least he's taking steps to help improve it.
I think it's pretty early to be judging Mike Gillis on his drafting, although in my opinion we've only really got to the point now where we can comfortably make judgements about Dave Nonis' work at the draft.

dave babych returns is online now   Reply With Quote