HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Several notable prospects but little depth in Vancouver Canucks' system

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-01-2012, 12:38 AM
  #26
archangel archangel
Registered User
 
archangel archangel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,121
vCash: 50
Sorry blaming Nonis for the current non-nhl roster depth is a bit silly. Gillis has been with the Canucks for five years and when we are talking about prospect depth we are talking about the last five years of drafting. From my perspective Gillis has not gotten the late round steals that both Nonis and Burke got. Jordan Schroeder should be in the NHL this season. He was drafted 4 years ago, did his full spell in junior and now is in his 3 year in the AHL at some point in time he needs to step up. I keep hearing "Smartest guy in hockey" about the guy but his production numbers have not been all that great. The prospect pool is shallow partly due to how great the Canucks have been. However, other teams such as Detroit and a few other still managed to get some late round steals. Only two players drafted by Gillis have made it to the nhl and one has not been traded and some people are writing of Yann Sauve. For me a weakness I see with the prospect pool is that we have drafted some good projects hoping they pan out, however we are not developing them properly and that is a problem. We are five drafts into the Gillis administration and most other teams are cutting ties with players drafted 6 years ago and not on the NHL roster. We need to let go the hate against Nonis and Burke(yet they are the ones who drafted the guy mentioned in this thread) and look at how Gillis is developing players

archangel archangel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 12:58 AM
  #27
Taelin
Moderator
Resident Hipster
 
Taelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcrazycanuck View Post
Sorry blaming Nonis for the current non-nhl roster depth is a bit silly. Gillis has been with the Canucks for five years and when we are talking about prospect depth we are talking about the last five years of drafting. From my perspective Gillis has not gotten the late round steals that both Nonis and Burke got. Jordan Schroeder should be in the NHL this season. He was drafted 4 years ago, did his full spell in junior and now is in his 3 year in the AHL at some point in time he needs to step up. I keep hearing "Smartest guy in hockey" about the guy but his production numbers have not been all that great. The prospect pool is shallow partly due to how great the Canucks have been. However, other teams such as Detroit and a few other still managed to get some late round steals. Only two players drafted by Gillis have made it to the nhl and one has not been traded and some people are writing of Yann Sauve. For me a weakness I see with the prospect pool is that we have drafted some good projects hoping they pan out, however we are not developing them properly and that is a problem. We are five drafts into the Gillis administration and most other teams are cutting ties with players drafted 6 years ago and not on the NHL roster. We need to let go the hate against Nonis and Burke(yet they are the ones who drafted the guy mentioned in this thread) and look at how Gillis is developing players
Joe Cannata - 6th round
Patrick McNally - 4th round
Joseph Labate - 4th round
Frank Corrado - 5th round

These are late rounders that Gillis have drafted that I see will have an impact. It hasn't been long enough to see the impact Gillis' late round drafting, since they usually take longer to develop.

Taelin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 05:57 AM
  #28
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
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.


I think that you would have to see the Canucks as behind the curve. SJ is the closest comparable. They draft late and also have been in contention for some time. The key difference is their track record. They draft late, but still have a history of drafting NHL talent (especially at forward). VAN doesn't carry that rep.



Quote:
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.

I see his strategy, but it remains to be seen if it is the correct approach. It's unconventional. Which might net him a great return. Then again, we're already seeing prospects like Grenier and Honzik fail to impress.


When thinking about drafting aspects, I can't help but notice that an emphasis is on skating is constant. Everyone but Gaunce seems to be a good skater, and even he seemed to do well in tests among his peers.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 07:15 AM
  #29
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcrazycanuck View Post
Sorry blaming Nonis for the current non-nhl roster depth is a bit silly. Gillis has been with the Canucks for five years and when we are talking about prospect depth we are talking about the last five years of drafting. From my perspective Gillis has not gotten the late round steals that both Nonis and Burke got. Jordan Schroeder should be in the NHL this season. He was drafted 4 years ago, did his full spell in junior and now is in his 3 year in the AHL at some point in time he needs to step up. I keep hearing "Smartest guy in hockey" about the guy but his production numbers have not been all that great. The prospect pool is shallow partly due to how great the Canucks have been. However, other teams such as Detroit and a few other still managed to get some late round steals. Only two players drafted by Gillis have made it to the nhl and one has not been traded and some people are writing of Yann Sauve. For me a weakness I see with the prospect pool is that we have drafted some good projects hoping they pan out, however we are not developing them properly and that is a problem. We are five drafts into the Gillis administration and most other teams are cutting ties with players drafted 6 years ago and not on the NHL roster. We need to let go the hate against Nonis and Burke(yet they are the ones who drafted the guy mentioned in this thread) and look at how Gillis is developing players
It takes a few seasons for most players to make the jump from junior to the NHL, unless they are lottery picks or outliers. Most go back to junior for 2 seasons until they are 20, and spend another season or two in the AHL to hone their professional game. This year's prospects to make the team would have been drafted in the class of 2008. This would be the first season that we would have seen the results of MG drafting on NHL-ready depth.

The depleted NHL-ready-prospect pool of the last few years is all on the Nonis regime, because MG's picks would not be expected to be ready to make the jump yet until this season. All of MG's first rounders have been in the #22 or later slot, except Hodgson who fetched us Kassian. Picks out of the top 10 or so are traditionally the late-bloomers, with the odd exception here or there.

Hammer79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 09:57 AM
  #30
Taelin
Moderator
Resident Hipster
 
Taelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
It takes a few seasons for most players to make the jump from junior to the NHL, unless they are lottery picks or outliers. Most go back to junior for 2 seasons until they are 20, and spend another season or two in the AHL to hone their professional game. This year's prospects to make the team would have been drafted in the class of 2008. This would be the first season that we would have seen the results of MG drafting on NHL-ready depth.

The depleted NHL-ready-prospect pool of the last few years is all on the Nonis regime, because MG's picks would not be expected to be ready to make the jump yet until this season. All of MG's first rounders have been in the #22 or later slot, except Hodgson who fetched us Kassian. Picks out of the top 10 or so are traditionally the late-bloomers, with the odd exception here or there.
I also semi-write off the 2008 draft, because Gillis was hired right before the draft and had no preparation. Only his first rounder (Hodgson -> Kassian) counts as his draft pick in my mind. The rest were made with the same scouting staff that was under Nonis.

Taelin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 11:46 AM
  #31
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Finding one elite prospect with all those picks would be going against the average.
Well, I took me2's post to mean that "elite" means something along the lines of a Brendan Gaunce or a Brandon Saad kind of prospect.. ie. clearly a top prospect (if not the top prospect) in their organization, although certainly not one of the top five to ten overall.

(If me2's post was suggesting that we just need 2-3 Yakupov/Huberdeau/Hamilton calibre prospects that would be simply ridiculous.)

Like I said you could scoop up one of those players fairly easily in the first round of any draft (the 2010 draft where we traded our 1st we could have selected Evgeny Kuznetsov - HF's 6th highest ranked prospect - or Howden, Charlie Coyle, Jon Merrill..). You can even occasionally find those players in the second round (although right now it doesn't look like there was one available at the spot in the 2nd round where we would have picked in 2010, but Oscar Lindberg went a couple spots later and is putting up point a game numbers in the SEL).

Another five 61st-120th overall picks should easily net two or three Frank Corrado, Kevin Connauton, Patrick McNally calibre prospects as well, which would help significantly with our depth.

Quote:
Hopefully a Luongo trade helps restock the cupboard.
Agreed. It'd be nice to see him return those 2-3 "elite" prospects or the picks required to get them if he doesn't bring back an impact player.

dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 12:30 PM
  #32
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
although right now it doesn't look like there was one available at the spot in the 2nd round where we would have picked in 2010, but Oscar Lindberg went a couple spots later and is putting up point a game numbers in the SEL
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).

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 12:44 PM
  #33
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Well, I took me2's post to mean that "elite" means something along the lines of a Brendan Gaunce or a Brandon Saad kind of prospect.. ie. clearly a top prospect (if not the top prospect) in their organization, although certainly not one of the top five to ten overall.

(If me2's post was suggesting that we just need 2-3 Yakupov/Huberdeau/Hamilton calibre prospects that would be simply ridiculous.)

Like I said you could scoop up one of those players fairly easily in the first round of any draft (the 2010 draft where we traded our 1st we could have selected Evgeny Kuznetsov - HF's 6th highest ranked prospect - or Howden, Charlie Coyle, Jon Merrill..). You can even occasionally find those players in the second round (although right now it doesn't look like there was one available at the spot in the 2nd round where we would have picked in 2010, but Oscar Lindberg went a couple spots later and is putting up point a game numbers in the SEL).

Another five 61st-120th overall picks should easily net two or three Frank Corrado, Kevin Connauton, Patrick McNally calibre prospects as well, which would help significantly with our depth.
I wouldn't call Gaunce an "elite" prespect yet, we just drafted him.

It's a lot easier to pick players two and a half years after the draft.

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'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.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 01:38 PM
  #34
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.)

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 01:54 PM
  #35
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
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.
Or we could have taken players that never sniff the NHL (odds are) and the depth on the NHL team would have suffered.

Prospects like McNally and Corrado are nice to have, but they're still a million miles away from being NHLers. The only prospects that matter at all to the organization are ones that make a contribution on the big club, these late picks have a slim hope of doing that.

I don't really care how deep the farm team is, I care how deep the Canucks are. I would trade 2nd and 3rd round picks every year for 3-5 years of Lapierre's and Higgins' type players, you'd be crazy not to. When you strike it big with those picks those are exactly the kind of players you're hoping to find.

Gillis is playing the odds when he trades those picks. He's trading lottery tickets for cash money.


Last edited by Scurr: 11-01-2012 at 02:10 PM.
Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 03:29 PM
  #36
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Or we could have taken players that never sniff the NHL (odds are) and the depth on the NHL team would have suffered.
Indeed.

Quote:
Prospects like McNally and Corrado are nice to have, but they're still a million miles away from being NHLers. The only prospects that matter at all to the organization are ones that make a contribution on the big club, these late picks have a slim hope of doing that.
Indeed.

Quote:
I don't really care how deep the farm team is, I care how deep the Canucks are.
Sure, I agree. Although the point of having two pretty good project players is that one of them could turn into a pretty good young NHL player, I'm sure you'll agree that having these types of players is vital to an NHL team's success. And the more you have the more likely that you'll be filling holes on your big league roster with young, cheap, improving players rather than older players with higher cap hits and a stronger likelihood of declining effectiveness.

Ultimately a team can squander organizational depth to fill holes on their NHL roster (and a certain amount of it is almost always a good thing) but relying on that to ice a decent NHL team is unsustainable.

Quote:
I would trade 2nd and 3rd round picks every year for 3-5 years of Lapierre's and Higgins' type players, you'd be crazy not to. When you strike it big with those picks those are exactly the kind of players you're hoping to find.
Well, except for the fact that when you strike it big with those picks you have repeated chances to get a player like that under contract for less than his actual value until they finally hit unrestricted free agency. Look at Jannik Hansen for instance. He was a bargain at well under a million, now he is a bargain again at a million and change, and on his next contract he might well be a bargain again and he'll probably only then start making about what Higgins makes now.

I wouldn't trade 2nds and 3rds together for Steve Bernier (although I recognize why it was done under the circumstances), I wouldn't trade a 1st rounder for Keith Ballard (again I recognize why it was done), I wouldn't trade a 3rd rounder for Andrew Alberts.

I'd gladly give up those kinds of picks for a Chris Higgins or a Max Lapierre, although in the case of Higgins they could have had him for nothing eight months earlier, which is what I'd really rather be doing.

Quote:
Gillis is playing the odds when he trades those picks. He's trading lottery tickets for cash money.
Sure, but the immediate payout is relatively low and the odds of the "lottery" are relatively high, I definitely respect the value of making that trade off from time to time but if it keeps up over time you are losing value overall.

To this point I wouldn't say I'm terribly unhappy with the choices Gillis has made, but if people want an explanation for why the Canucks prospect pool is filled with nobodies then this trade off is it.

dave babych returns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 03:44 PM
  #37
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Sure, I agree. Although the point of having two pretty good project players is that one of them could turn into a pretty good young NHL player, I'm sure you'll agree that having these types of players is vital to an NHL team's success. And the more you have the more likely that you'll be filling holes on your big league roster with young, cheap, improving players rather than older players with higher cap hits and a stronger likelihood of declining effectiveness.

Ultimately a team can squander organizational depth to fill holes on their NHL roster (and a certain amount of it is almost always a good thing) but relying on that to ice a decent NHL team is unsustainable.
That's the big difference between what Gillis is doing with those picks and what Nonis did. Gillis is getting years of mileage out of them. He's also getting players that he can get under contract for reasonable money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Well, except for the fact that when you strike it big with those picks you have repeated chances to get a player like that under contract for less than his actual value until they finally hit unrestricted free agency. Look at Jannik Hansen for instance. He was a bargain at well under a million, now he is a bargain again at a million and change, and on his next contract he might well be a bargain again and he'll probably only then start making about what Higgins makes now.
Higgins makes 1.9m, Hansen makes 1.35m, Lapierre 1m, they're all great deals. A guy like Mason Raymond got more money than Higgins on his second contract.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Sure, but the immediate payout is relatively low and the odds of the "lottery" are relatively high, I definitely respect the value of making that trade off from time to time but if it keeps up over time you are losing value overall.

To this point I wouldn't say I'm terribly unhappy with the choices Gillis has made, but if people want an explanation for why the Canucks prospect pool is filled with nobodies then this trade off is it.
This is really where we disagree, I don't like the odds of the lottery and I've really liked the immediate payout and long term potential of the players we've acquired.


Last edited by Scurr: 11-01-2012 at 03:52 PM.
Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 04:01 PM
  #38
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,400
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Or we could have taken players that never sniff the NHL (odds are) and the depth on the NHL team would have suffered.

Prospects like McNally and Corrado are nice to have, but they're still a million miles away from being NHLers. The only prospects that matter at all to the organization are ones that make a contribution on the big club, these late picks have a slim hope of doing that.

I don't really care how deep the farm team is, I care how deep the Canucks are. I would trade 2nd and 3rd round picks every year for 3-5 years of Lapierre's and Higgins' type players, you'd be crazy not to. When you strike it big with those picks those are exactly the kind of players you're hoping to find.

Gillis is playing the odds when he trades those picks. He's trading lottery tickets for cash money.
I disagree with you about Corrado being a million miles away from being an NHLer. I think Corrado could be good enough to play at the NHL level beginning the 2013-14 season. He's currently one of the top d-men in the OHL right now. Gillis stipulated before sending Corrado to his OHL team this year that if the NHL resumes operations, Corrado is made available to the Canucks training camp. That tells you how highly Gillis thinks of him and his chances of making the Canucks relatively quickly.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 04:06 PM
  #39
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
I wouldn't trade 2nds and 3rds together for Steve Bernier (although I recognize why it was done under the circumstances), I wouldn't trade a 1st rounder for Keith Ballard (again I recognize why it was done), I wouldn't trade a 3rd rounder for Andrew Alberts.
Could be worse. Could be Dave Nonis and all those picks he gave away for players who didn't have NHL careers after they bombed on the Canucks (think Carney might the exception).

As much as I would prefer Alberts not be on the roster - not even only in a depth role; on a bad NHL team, he'd be a #6. Stiffs like Weinrich (sp?) were good for the AHL (maybe not even that) when Nonis traded for him.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 04:31 PM
  #40
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 12,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
Sure, but the immediate payout is relatively low and the odds of the "lottery" are relatively high, I definitely respect the value of making that trade off from time to time but if it keeps up over time you are losing value overall.

To this point I wouldn't say I'm terribly unhappy with the choices Gillis has made, but if people want an explanation for why the Canucks prospect pool is filled with nobodies then this trade off is it.
Simple fact is that when you’re a contending team, you have to make these sorts of deals to maximize the depth on your NHL roster.

The thing I like that Gillis has done is that he’s (generally) spent these picks on players who we were able to maintain under team control, as opposed to 20-game rentals. A 2nd-3rd rounder for 20 games from an average player isn’t a great return. A 2nd-3rd rounder for 2-3 seasons from an average player is a great return.

Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I disagree with you about Corrado being a million miles away from being an NHLer. I think Corrado could be good enough to play at the NHL level beginning the 2013-14 season. He's currently one of the top d-men in the OHL right now. Gillis stipulated before sending Corrado to his OHL team this year that if the NHL resumes operations, Corrado is made available to the Canucks training camp. That tells you how highly Gillis thinks of him and his chances of making the Canucks relatively quickly.
Absolutely. Corrado is at a completely different level from guys like Sauve and Connauton when they came out of junior. To be able to walk into an AHL playoffs at age 18 and hold your own was exceptionally impressive.

I’d be surprised if he isn’t contending for an NHL spot at our 2013 training camp, and wouldn’t have been utterly shocked if we’d kept him around this year. This player would be a first-rounder or (at worst) a high 2nd-rounder if that draft was re-done today. He looks like the real deal.

__________

As for our drafting under Gillis, it still hasn’t been nearly good enough. First-rounders look OK but Corrado is the only guy taken after that who really looks like a player. As Rodin and Sauve start to look more and more like busts the overall picture isn’t great. Not overhauling our scouting staff (especially Delorme) is his biggest error to this point as GM.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 04:32 PM
  #41
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I disagree with you about Corrado being a million miles away from being an NHLer. I think Corrado could be good enough to play at the NHL level beginning the 2013-14 season. He's currently one of the top d-men in the OHL right now. Gillis stipulated before sending Corrado to his OHL team this year that if the NHL resumes operations, Corrado is made available to the Canucks training camp. That tells you how highly Gillis thinks of him and his chances of making the Canucks relatively quickly.
I hope you're right. For every guy with this kind of hype there are still more examples of guys that flame out than actually make it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
I wouldn't trade 2nds and 3rds together for Steve Bernier (although I recognize why it was done under the circumstances), I wouldn't trade a 1st rounder for Keith Ballard (again I recognize why it was done), I wouldn't trade a 3rd rounder for Andrew Alberts.
IMO the mistake Gillis made with Bernier was not trading a 2nd and 3rd for him, it was pissing off St.Louis and getting him offer sheeted. Bernier is an idea 4th liner imo, very physical, and unlike Weise and Glass, he doesn't look out of place on a 3rd line in a pinch. Had Gillis kept his salary under control like he has with other players, we could still be getting milage out of that deal.

Alberts is a good player imo, I'm not sure people understand how hard the job is. Not only are you not playing games, but the Canucks regularly go without practising for stretches throughout the season. Can you imagine going from skating with a few guys and a coach to playing an NHL game?

People loved that Ballard deal at the time, I didn't. Still can be salvaged imo.


Last edited by Scurr: 11-01-2012 at 04:47 PM.
Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 04:36 PM
  #42
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I disagree with you about Corrado being a million miles away from being an NHLer. I think Corrado could be good enough to play at the NHL level beginning the 2013-14 season. He's currently one of the top d-men in the OHL right now. Gillis stipulated before sending Corrado to his OHL team this year that if the NHL resumes operations, Corrado is made available to the Canucks training camp. That tells you how highly Gillis thinks of him and his chances of making the Canucks relatively quickly.
I agree. I think this guy is close to being an NHL defenceman already. Of all our prospects other than Jensen and Lack this guy impressed me the most when I've seen him play. All in all our prospect depth is not that good but I think that Corrado is a pleasant surprise.

vanwest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 04:45 PM
  #43
Trends Analyst
Across the Universe
 
Trends Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,572
vCash: 500
Ugh, stop talking about 2007!

We could have Perron and Subban.

Trends Analyst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 04:47 PM
  #44
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 12,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I hope you're right. For every guy with this kind of hype there are still more examples of guys that flame out than actually make it.
I understand what you’re saying, as because this board gets ridiculously over-excited over any prospect that does anything, it’s hard to separate legitimate excellence from guys just doing reasonably well.

Players like Labate/McNally/Friesen are guys I’d say have ‘developed well for mid/late round picks’ and have given themselves a chance to be NHL players down the road if they keep developing. Still not great bets though.

Corrado looks like a #1-2 pick when you see him play. He’s grown significantly since being drafted, and his skating and hockey sense are outstanding. For a 5th-round pick to be dropped into the AHL playoffs and play as well as he did is basically unheard-of. If we’d taken him with the Jenson pick and he was doing what he’s doing, nobody would really be complaining.

I’m usually someone who is called ‘too negative’ in evaluating prospects but to me he fully looks like the real deal.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 04:47 PM
  #45
Trends Analyst
Across the Universe
 
Trends Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
IMO the mistake Gillis made with Bernier was not trading a 2nd and 3rd for him, it was pissing off St.Louis and getting him offer sheeted.
Be singing a different tune right now if David Backes was a Canuck.

Trends Analyst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 04:47 PM
  #46
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,400
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord of Bones View Post
Ugh, stop talking about 2007!

We could have Perron and Subban.
Could have had Giroux in 2006. Kopitar in 2005.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 04:48 PM
  #47
Trends Analyst
Across the Universe
 
Trends Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Could have had Giroux in 2006. Kopitar in 2005.
I dont remember Giroux being as obvious a pick as the other 3 from where we drafting though.

The other 3 seemed like no brainers to everyone except Nonis.

Trends Analyst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 04:49 PM
  #48
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord of Bones View Post
Be singing a different tune right now if David Backes was a Canuck.
That offer was a rookie mistake, it had no chance of working.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 04:50 PM
  #49
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Corrado looks like a #1-2 pick when you see him play. He’s grown significantly since being drafted, and his skating and hockey sense are outstanding. For a 5th-round pick to be dropped into the AHL playoffs and play as well as he did is basically unheard-of. If we’d taken him with the Jenson pick and he was doing what he’s doing, nobody would really be complaining.
He's a lottery ticket with the first couple numbers up... I'm not going to start spending the millions yet.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-01-2012, 04:52 PM
  #50
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,818
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
He's a lottery ticket with the first couple numbers already up... I'm not going to start spending the millions yet.
Well if it's a 649 ticket, just one more number and you get back 5 times your money back!.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:00 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.