Draft 2012

[the Dogsalmon]

my money says that unless Gillis pulls off a miracle on July 1st...his time is over by March...he has been far from impressive in any way shape or form...

[Aaronp18]

my money says that unless Gillis pulls off a miracle on July 1st...his time is over by March...he has been far from impressive in any way shape or form...

It'll be a miracle if you keep your money.

[Fred]

Funny I was reading an article in THN about Schultz and they made this point

And as good as Schultz is, there will be some growing pains along the way. As evidenced by his 18 goals and 44 points in just 37 games with Wisconsin, Schultz has a special offensive component to his game. He probably has the poise and skill to quarterback an NHL power play now, but he’s not a particularly physical or developed player and playing against college players who are in their teens and early 20s and competing against men who are NHL veterans represents an enormous adjustment for any young player.

This to me is a parallel to Mallet playing as a 20 year old in the Q against 16-18 year olds.

I Like the idea of Gillis looking for an edge, IMO that's a positive...but it is an experiment that flys in the face of the established practise which has developed over 50 years. I'm sure he's not the first to have this idea..... presumably others have had the same idea but given up when it didn't work.

One thing for sure he's thinking outside the box ...... strange how he has put the Dub outside the box

[tantalum]

Mallet was not an overager though. What does it say about all the draft picks from previous years, such as the previously mentioned Howden, that he had an arguably equal performance even though he's younger than them?

He fell through a draft, but when given a chance to have premiere icetime he ran with it. Is it a flash in the pan? Maybe but when you look at it, he's scoring at a rate similar to guys taken in the first round a year or two earlier, at the same hockey age in a similar league. It would seem to suggest he has a talents that allow him to perform at a similar level. So the question really is how do you measure his upside? Do you say he's a late bloomer and his upside is thus increasing or was this a flash in the pan season that he'll never be able to duplicate?

Remember, a lot of why people are saying it's a confusing pick is based on one simple thing...guys who fail to get picked in a draft or two tend to get taken later. That doesn't necessarily mean they have less talent or upside just that the scouts are looking at the younger guys. I see no problem with the theory on paper.

[black ace]

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.


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).


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)?


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.

If Gillis is taking the side of a 3rd to 7th rounder likely isint going to work out so its easier to give up on a 22 year old College player that hasnt developed than a 20 year old CHL player than great but I would think the better way to develop a player is to put him in the best possible position to develop and the best development league in the world is the CHL.

[tantalum]

Thought I'd post this here:

2012 PROSPECT SUMMER DEVELOPMENT CAMP ROSTER<

DEFENCEMEN

Allen, Conor* D, U-Mass
Andersson, Peter, D, Orebro
Blain, Jeremie*, D, Acadia (QMJHL),Victoriaville (QMJHL)
Hutton, Ben D, Kemptville, Nepean
McEneny, Evan* D, Kitchener (OHL)
Taker, Shayne* D Notre Dame
Baker, Jake* D, N Michigan
Baldwin, Corbin* D, Spokane (WHL)
Corrado, Frankie D, Chicago (AHL)
Sudbury DaSilva, Justin* D, Ohio State
Rush, Cooper* D, Huntsville (OJHL)
Zajac, Nolan* D, Omaha

FORWARDS

Carrier, Alexandre* F, Red Bull
Friesen, Alex C, Niagara (OHL)
Hudson, Woody* F, Indiana
Jooris, Josh* C, Union
Langlois, Jeremy* C, Quinnipiac
Mallet, Alexandre F, Rimouski
Miller, Kenton* C, Moose Jaw (WHL), Calgary (WHL)
Robinson, Buddy* F, LSSU
Westerholm, Pathrik C/LW, Malmo J, Malmo
Bartliff, Kurtis* F, Colgate
Beattie, Matt F, Exeter -
Franson, Cain* C, Vancouver (WHL)
Gaunce, Brendan F, Belleville (OHL)
Hall, Zachary* F, Barrie (OHL)
Jensen, Nicklas W Herning, DEN Chicago (AHL), Oshawa (OHL)
Kambeitz, Adam* F, Red Deer (WHL)
LaBate, Joe C, Wisconsin
Momesso, Stefano* LW, Hawkesbury

GOALTENDERS

Cannata, Joe, Chicago (AHL), Merrimack
Corbeil, Mathieu*, Saint John (QMJHL)
Rumpel, Joel*, Wisconsin --
Walsh, Andrew*, Bemidji State --
Yanakeff, Will*, Michigan St --

*Indicates a player that has not been drafted or signed by the Vancouver Canucks.

[dbr]

If Gillis is taking the side of a 3rd to 7th rounder likely isint going to work out so its easier to give up on a 22 year old College player that hasnt developed than a 20 year old CHL player than great but I would think the better way to develop a player is to put him in the best possible position to develop and the best development league in the world is the CHL.

The point is that a player in the NCAA can stay there four years to work on his game, a player in the CHL has to go back into the draft if a team does not wish to sign them after two years.

So the CHL would have to be a pretty fantabulous development league to allow players to mature at literally twice the rate they do in the NCAA to make up for that drawback..

[Fred]

The problem with the NCAA is relatively few games, competition iffy, and frankly the need to study. I understand they train hard off and on ice. Every day they both have strenuous work outs in the realms of 3 hours. But they only play weekends. Some NCAA teams are strong others are over aged Junior A, including the no fighting rule ( thrown out of game ). This is why the Canucks wanted to take Patrick White out of college, poor program, poor coaching. The CHL on the other hand is a grind and competitive and tough.

[dbr]

The problem with the NCAA is relatively few games, competition iffy, and frankly the need to study. I understand they train hard off and on ice. Every day they both have strenuous work outs in the realms of 3 hours. But they only play weekends. Some NCAA teams are strong others are over aged Junior A, including the no fighting rule ( thrown out of game ). This is why the Canucks wanted to take Patrick White out of college, poor program, poor coaching. The CHL on the other hand is a grind and competitive and tough.

Are you thinking of Jordan Schroeder? If I recall the Canucks wanted him out because they thought he was ready for pro hockey and were not enamoured with the program he was in. I don't recall them ever trying to get Patrick White out of school, likely because he was a terrible prospect.

As for the rest of your post, I don't see any specific reason to believe that the NCAA is an inferior destination for project players, to the tune of being worth giving up half of your window to gauge their worthiness of a pro contract (as I already mentioned to black ace).

[Potatoe1]

On the subject of Alexandre Mallet I thought I'd lift some interesting dialogue from over at HFBoards on this player -

I don't mind the late picks too much (although you have to wonder why we couldn't have used a 7th round pick on someone like Nick Ebert just for the potential alone), but Mallett over Severson still pisses me off.

Why? Mallet has progressed better than every single late 2nd/early 3rd round pick from the 2010 draft (his original year of eligibility). What exactly is wrong with him? He outproduced Petr Straka (55th overall, same team) and Kirill Kabanov (65th overall), plus a whole bunch of other players drafted that year. Not to mention that he's a two-way player that will fight pretty much every opportunity he gets.

Hell, he had a better season than: John McFarland (33rd overall), Brett Bulmer (39th overall), Ryan Spooner (45th overall), etc.

So? Most 2nd/3rd round picks never make it to the NHL. I'd much rather spend that pick on a player who could make it than an overager who hasnt shown anything until this year.

He's not an overager though. :facepalm: He's a guy that has produced at a comparable rate as 1st round picks Quinton Howden (25th) and Austin Watson (18th) while actually being 4 months younger than both.

He went from being pigeon-holed as a 4th liner to being a 1st liner with PP time. Of course his points jumped. Maybe the skill was always there but not the opportunity. The fact is that no one can deny that he's a tough, two-way center that has produced at a level comparable to Howden and Watson, both 1st round picks from 2010. Considering both of those guys play a similar type of game, I think the comparison is valid.

Isn't the Q a higher scoring league? I wouldn't put any stock in comparing numbers one to one with players in the WHL or OHL.

It's not. WHL is the highest scoring league right now. I love how you're just trying to find a way to discredit his numbers though. No possible way the Canucks found what might be a gem. :laugh:

I included pauser's posts to provide context, not because they are interesting.

Pauser is just having his ass handed to him in that debate.

Still not sure I like the pick but Tiranis makes some great points there.

I guess the nice thing about drafting a 20 year old is you pretty much know what you have right away. We should have a prety good idea if the pick was good by the end of camp.

[Potatoe1]

As for the rest of your post, I don't see any specific reason to believe that the NCAA is an inferior destination for project players, to the tune of being worth giving up half of your window to gauge their worthiness of a pro contract (as I already mentioned to black ace).

I actually prefer the NCAA as a post draft development league (if the program is strong). The players are older, the hockey is better and there is more practices and off ice training.

[mpp]

Aside from Momesso junior:

Zajac, Nolan* D, Omaha
Franson, Cain* C, Vancouver (WHL)

...younger bros of Travis Z. and Cody F.

[Aaronp18]

As for the rest of your post, I don't see any specific reason to believe that the NCAA is an inferior destination for project players, to the tune of being worth giving up half of your window to gauge their worthiness of a pro contract (as I already mentioned to black ace).

I actually prefer the NCAA as a post draft development league (if the program is strong). The players are older, the hockey is better and there is more practices and off ice training.

Yup, I couldn't agree more.

There is way too much emphasis placed on winning or statistics in amateur sports. The focus should really be on development, especially when kids are still growing into their bodies.

Work on the raw skills and individuals as opposed to team systems. It's pretty embarrassing to see minor hockey teams attempting to trap their way to wins.

When you can work out and practice more often than play games players will be better for it in the long run. The travel and games schedule of the CHL can be hard on younger kids and it may even take longer for some players to develop under that type of regimen.

This is why you will find some players developing much better under the NCAA system. They need the practice and gym time that they do not receive playing in the CHL.

[coco_canuck]

I don't have a problem with selecting 19-20 year olds, and I don't have an issue with players committed to the NCAA.

One concern I do have is necessarily drafting for need outside the first two rounds, and specifically drafting college players without giving other leagues much consideration.

Every team makes some selections based on a specific need, but there needs to be a fine line between need and best player available. Same goes for preferring college players, if there is say an OHL kid who projects much better than the best available college player, then I'd rather go with the OHL kid than reaching for someone else.

Since we don't sit at the draft table, it's difficult to say why they may have passed on someone else over the kid they picked in a given round, but Gillis has been mostly open with his draft strategy, and at the moment I'm not completely sold.

[Orcasfan]

I don't have a problem with selecting 19-20 year olds, and I don't have an issue with players committed to the NCAA.

One concern I do have is necessarily drafting for need outside the first two rounds, and specifically drafting college players without giving other leagues much consideration.

Every team makes some selections based on a specific need, but there needs to be a fine line between need and best player available. Same goes for preferring college players, if there is say an OHL kid who projects much better than the best available college player, then I'd rather go with the OHL kid than reaching for someone else.

Since we don't sit at the draft table, it's difficult to say why they may have passed on someone else over the kid they picked in a given round, but Gillis has been mostly open with his draft strategy, and at the moment I'm not completely sold.

We don't really know if this draft's strategy of taking older kids or college-bound kids is something that will be repeated in later drafts. It may have been instigated especially as a response to this year's overall weakness in the draft class after the first 10-20 kids. But. if that is the case, I appreciate even more the flexibility demonstrated by Gillis and his team!

There also seems to be a definite bias from some folks comparing the development potential through the CHL and college. I don't doubt that the CHL is the best development league in the world for juniors. But if you compare the development process for 18-20 year olds, I think some of the college programs have just as much, if not more to offer. The problem is that there is such diversity in the quality level of college programs and leagues. Whereas, with the CHL, the quality level is much more uniform across the country, though there is always a variable as far as coaching is concerned. So it becomes difficult to do a general comparison. You would have to look at an particular college situation to get a better perspective. And some kids need to get that maturing influence that being at college can give, not to mention the benefit of further education!