black ace wrote:The baseball comparison is a terrible one. Its like saying you should trade all your picks for guys in there late 20's because thats who contributes most. It would be a betterer comparison if good hockey prospects went to US colleges but they dont. For the most part the only players that go to US colleges are players that develop late or arent good enough to get drafted in the CHL.
Some good hockey prospects go to college, most do not.
However, the picks we are talking about - the guys after the first 100 or so selections - are not generally speaking "good hockey prospects" which is probably why Gillis uses this strategy only in the later rounds.
I dont see how taking a 20 year old who has been passed over twice is better than taking an 18 year old from the WHL. In most cases the 20 year old had a breakout season playing against younger competition and now he is going to go play fewer than half the number or games against weaker competition.
Well in the specific example of Mallet, he got fourth line minutes on his team until this season at which point he exploded and produced more than comparable forwards at the same age vs. the same competition.
So it's a change in opportunity and role as much as it is physical development and experience that led to Mallet's production this season - he outscored players drafted higher than him in his original draft year (ie. guys also playing against younger competition, who were never passed over).
Who has better coaches the CHL or US colleges ?
Well I don't know but it sounds like you're prepared to make some sweeping generalizations. Can you support the argument I suspect you're making (that fringe prospects develop worse in the NCAA than they would in the CHL then jumping into pro at age 20, ready or not)?
It just seems like Gillis keeps trying to reinvent the wheel when there wasnt any problems with the old one. In case he didnt notice moneyball didnt work in baseball long term. You need good scouts. Thats the bottom line. I would rather him pick 2nd tier Swedish players that might turn out to be stars than 19-20 year olds who are going to go to the US to play.
The Canucks have drafted overage players at a higher rate than the rest of the league since before Mike Gillis was around. As for picking players headed to the NCAA it's worked pretty well for the Canucks over the last decade or so.. Bieksa, Kesler, Schneider, Raymond and others fit that description and have all gone onto contribute at the NHL level.