View Single Post
03-05-2013, 10:41 AM
Registered User
CanaFan's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,777
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
2006 was a bad draft too. Getting Grabner is good, but he passed on other better players and then did nothing with the rest of the picks. 2005 was bad outside of Raymond. There was no excuse to pass on Kopitar given what we knew about our team then and given that Kopitar had inexplicably slipped to our pick.

It's hard to give him much credit for 2004, outside of letting the scouts make their 'reach' pick in Edler (which was a great decision), because he wasn't there to handle the scouting. That draft mostly belongs to Burke.

What we do know is that he was about to have another abysmal draft in 08 because his scouting staff identified Beach as the guy to pick, not Hodgson.


On the other side, Tanev and Lack can't be overlooked. They were signed to make up for the lack of picks in 2010 and have both proven to be at the very least 2nd round value (I would argue Tanev is worth a 1st).

The thing is, there are a lot more coals in the fire with Gillis. The team might be taking a long-term approach which is why we haven't seen a ton of guys make the NHL yet, but at least we haven't seen many busts yet. Outside of Nonis' NHLers, he picked a bunch of guys who weren't even good enough for the AHL.
I'm typing on my phone so I'll keep this short. You don't evaluate drafts by how many good players you didn't take but on how many you did. Sure we passed on Giroux to take Grabner. And Gillis passed on Karlsson to take Hodgson. Are we really going to play this game? And to give Gillis 'credit' for 2008 but dismiss Nonis' role in the 2004 draft shows your bias pretty clearly. At least apply the same standards for both FFS. And keep hypothetical nonsense like 'Nonis would have drafted Beach instead of Hodgson' out of any discussion of drafting records. That is reaching to say the least. Finally I do give Gillis credit for Tanev and Lack - great job of scouting and recruiting. But neither is related to drafting in the slightest. Age, profile, and cost makes them vastly different than drafting a 17 year old kid.

CanaFan is offline