I understand how it all works Fosco. The last three drafts won't be judged for a few years, it's his 08-09-10 drafts that I'm referring to. 17 picks, should be more but that's another debate, and only one NHL player. It's not his BPA first round picks that concern me, it's the later picks that somewhat annoy me!!!
- LeftCoaster

Still too early.

In 2008, Gillis had only been with the team for two weeks. He went with the scouts' lists except for choosing Hodgson over Beach when he fell to the Canucks. Other guys were trash, except for Sauve, who looked alright early on, but fell off a cliff developmentally. I guess Gillis should have spent his entire two weeks of previous experience finding better scouts...

It's too early to judge 2009 because the Canucks took several prospects who were widely considered long term projects. And a few of those could still be effective NHLers.

Schroeder is just now breaking into the league, and IMO looks to have a decent career.

Rodin looked promising early on, but severe shoulder injuries stopped him from playing the gritty game he was accustomed to because he was unable to go into the dirty areas. He'll likely still be able to forge out a decent career in the SEL, where it's not as physical.

Andersson is one of the projects. He just came over from Sweden last season, and immediately won a top pairing role on the Wolves. He'll get some callup duty within the next two years, and I think he'll eventually be able to wrestle a permanent bottom pairing spot, whether it's with the Canucks or not.

Price was another project, because it was well known he wanted to go the collegiate route. He's had an excellent college career with Colgate, and looked very good in his 5 games with the Wolves last year. This kid could very well still be an NHLer.

Unfortunately he didn't want to sign with the Canucks, and he's apparently attending Minnesota's prospect camp.

Joe Cannata was another long term college player. He was nominated for a Hobey Baker in his final year, and has played very well in the AHL.

Steven Anthony, who was the last pick for the Canucks in that draft, was a high-risk/high-reward pick, who (not joking) was considered a potential 1st round pick early in his major jr career.

Anthony is the only one of that draft class who I think you can close the book on.

The rest were/are all good picks for the later rounds.

In 2010, we all know that the Canucks didn't even have a pick until the 4th round, which they used on Pat McNally—another long term project player who unquestionably would have gone earlier had he not made it abundantly clear he wanted to finish college.

Up until last season, when he was suspended from the team, he was a stud on the blue line for Harvard. Time will tell if he picks up where he left off.

Adam Polasek was chosen next—a guy who looked excellent on the Wolves at the end of the year, and was praised as being one of the team's best defenders at the end of the year when he stepped up after Andersson was injured. Again, there is still some NHL potential here.

Next was Alex Friesen. I'm not really a fan, personally. Hard working defensive forward with low upside. Low risk pick at the time, that hasn't turned out.

Sawyer Hannay was the final pick in 2010. Bad pick. Not really going to defend this one. But again, this is a 7th rounder...


So, to sum up, the trend in these drafts seems to be there are maybe a bit too many long term projects...

I guess MG felt the NHL roster was strong enough that he could take a risk on some projects.

Certainly not the best draft record, but there are a few NHLers already, and likely a couple more.

The bottom line is that many of them are still developing. Patience.

Short highlights from today's prospect game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC8b0KuDCuQ

Still too early.

In 2008, Gillis had only been with the team for two weeks. He went with the scouts' lists except for choosing Hodgson over Beach when he fell to the Canucks. Other guys were trash, except for Sauve, who looked alright early on, but fell off a cliff developmentally. I guess Gillis should have spent his entire two weeks of previous experience finding better scouts...

It's too early to judge 2009 because the Canucks took several prospects who were widely considered long term projects. And a few of those could still be effective NHLers.

Schroeder is just now breaking into the league, and IMO looks to have a decent career.

Rodin looked promising early on, but severe shoulder injuries stopped him from playing the gritty game he was accustomed to because he was unable to go into the dirty areas. He'll likely still be able to forge out a decent career in the SEL, where it's not as physical.

Andersson is one of the projects. He just came over from Sweden last season, and immediately won a top pairing roll on the Wolves. He'll get some callup duty within the next two years, and I think he'll eventually be able to wrestle a permanent bottom pairing spot, whether it's with the Canucks or not.

Price was another project, because it was well known he wanted to go the collegiate route. He's had an excellent college career with Colgate, and looked very good in his 5 games with the Wolves last year. This kid could very well still be an NHLer.

Unfortunately he didn't want to sign with the Canucks, and he's apparently attending Minnesota's prospect camp.

Joe Cannata was another long term college player. He was nominated for a Hobey Baker in his final year, and has played very well in the AHL.

Steven Anthony, who was the last pick for the Canucks in that draft, was a high-risk/high-reward pick, who (not joking) was considered a potential 1st round pick early in his major jr career.

Anthony is the only one of that draft class who I think you can close the book on.

The rest were/are all good picks for the later rounds.

In 2010, we all know that the Canucks didn't even have a pick until the 4th round, which they used on Pat McNally—another long term project player who unquestionably would have gone earlier had he not made it abundantly clear he wanted to finish college.

Up until last season, when he was suspended from the team, he was a stud on the blue line for Harvard. Time will tell if he picks up where he left off.

Adam Polasek was chosen next—a guy who looked excellent on the Wolves at the end of the year, and was praised as being one of the team's best defenders at the end of the year when he stepped up after Andersson was injured. Again, there is still some NHL potential here.

Next was Alex Friesen. I'm not really a fan, personally. Hard working defensive forward with low upside. Low risk pick at the time, that hasn't turned out.

Sawyer Hannay was the final pick in 2010. Bad pick. Not really going to defend this one. But again, this is a 7th rounder...


So, to sum up, the trend in these drafts seems to be there are maybe a bit too many long term projects...

I guess MG felt the NHL roster was strong enough that he could take a risk on some projects.

Certainly not the best draft record, but there are a few NHLers already, and likely a couple more.

The bottom line is that many of them are still developing. Patience.
- Fosco

I think it's always easy to analyze prospects/draft-picks when given the benefit of hindsight. Let's face it, there is simply no guaranteed way to know if a player will have success (see Daigle, Wickenheiser, Stefan etc as just a few examples) at the pro level. If this was the case, every team would be filled with stars and have all their needs addressed.

Although you can make a case for empirical data on making a decision (at least in terms of a broad sample size), there is always going to be an element of luck/fortuity. All one has to do is look at the ridiculously small percentage of players that actually make it to the NHL level - then take around 2-3% of that figure to get the amount of players that actually make any sort of substantial impact.

Eagles

Shady McCoy

I like Hansen, but a 5 year deal? Are you nuts? Alot can change in 1 season. You don't go 5 years. Brutal.

I like Hansen, but a 5 year deal? Are you nuts? Alot can change in 1 season. You don't go 5 years. Brutal.
- rugdnit

What exactly is nuts about it? he would only be 31-32 at the end of the contract. For what he brings to the table (his work ethic, dedication, heart, versatility, as well as the improvement he's shown in terms of offensive production), I don't see how the Canucks can NOT afford to try to lock him up for that sort of term. He is the quintessential unsung hero, and basically does it all. You aren't going to find many of these types of players.

What exactly is nuts about it? he would only be 31-32 at the end of the contract. For what he brings to the table (his work ethic, dedication, heart, versatility, as well as the improvement he's shown in terms of offensive production), I don't see how the Canucks can NOT afford to try to lock him up for that sort of term. He is the quintessential unsung hero, and basically does it all. You aren't going to find many of these types of players.
- Zogg

He's at least worth the same deal Higgins got 2.5 for 4yrs.

No

Jensen can't kill penalties, doesn't hit and doesn't have the heart Hansen has.

If he does, it will be a huge mistake by the Canucks.
- IanEsplen

I agree with all except kill penalties. HE does. Great positional player.

He's at least worth the same deal Higgins got 2.5 for 4yrs.
- A_SteamingLombardi

3rd line depth is important.

I think it's always easy to analyze prospects/draft-picks when given the benefit of hindsight. Let's face it, there is simply no guaranteed way to know if a player will have success (see Daigle, Wickenheiser, Stefan etc as just a few examples) at the pro level. If this was the case, every team would be filled with stars and have all their needs addressed.

Although you can make a case for empirical data on making a decision (at least in terms of a broad sample size), there is always going to be an element of luck/fortuity. All one has to do is look at the ridiculously small percentage of players that actually make it to the NHL level - then take around 2-3% of that figure to get the amount of players that actually make any sort of substantial impact.
- Zogg

Luck is a huge factor in the later rounds.

The more picks you have, the likelier you are to get a "hit". Like the lottery.

And, the further you get from that number 1 pick the more difficult it gets to evaluate these players.

The Canucks have been a very good team the last 5 years, and that has directly influenced their draft position and prospect pool, as well as their draft philosophy. Longer term project picks are always gambles, and Gillis may have overplayed that hand.

Regular season success has also affected the number of picks they've had.

Obviously Gillis has traded away more picks than many would have liked, but that's how it is when you're a contending team trying to fill holes.

I think Gillis did a better job than most of his predecessors in that regard—guys like Lapierre and Higgins were integral pieces to that SFC team, and weren't rentals either.

Definitely beats trading 2nds and 3rds for over the hill Carneys and Smolinskis...hell, even Roy was better than those two...

I agree with all except kill penalties. HE does. Great positional player.
- thundachunk

He's shown some solid defensive play this tournament on the PK and at ES, and has also thrown some hits. Showed improvement with the Wolves last year too.

Can't really judge his "heart" yet, but he was mixing it up with Nurse against the baby Oilers the other day, and definitely hasn't shied away from the physical play.

Pretty impressed with him so far this rookie camp.

Jimmy Fallon was awful when he started late night to. now hes my fav.


Give it time...
- vancity787

And if it keeps failing, everyone start sending the letters to the team and get "The Big Easy" on the air.

I like Hansen, but a 5 year deal? Are you nuts? Alot can change in 1 season. You don't go 5 years. Brutal.
- rugdnit

I'd LOVE it if the Canucks could lock Hansen up long term to a reasonable deal.

Just don't want another NTC...

And if it keeps failing, everyone start sending the letters to the team and get "The Big Easy" on the air.
- IanEsplen

Ernie Els?

Ernie Els?
- vancity787

Nope...the other one

He's at least worth the same deal Higgins got 2.5 for 4yrs.
- A_SteamingLombardi

Definitely

I'd LOVE it if the Canucks could lock Hansen up long term to a reasonable deal.

Just don't want another NTC...
- Fosco

To me, an ideal contract would be around three year in the 2-2.5 area.

Just because the Devils overpaid (massively) for Clowe, doesn't mean the Clarkson deal will look any better in a year. Both franchises will quickly regret those signings.
- KB3Point0

And yet Clarkson still makes less than LUUUUUU. If this guy doesn't have a great season, he will have to be bought out. At least he will get paid until 2030

Do you really think it's the best move to re-sign the Sedins at their age ?

Or is it better to use the cap space to do a re-set. As a completely neutral non Canucks fan it seems to me their best before date has been reached, and the likelihood of winning a Cup going forward with them as the core is very low.

Really not meaning to troll just curious what Canucks fans think.

blog up

Do you really think it's the best move to re-sign the Sedins at their age ?

Or is it better to use the cap space to do a re-set. As a completely neutral non Canucks fan it seems to me their best before date has been reached, and the likelihood of winning a Cup going forward with them as the core is very low.

Really not meaning to troll just curious what Canucks fans think.
- Rang

Sedins should retire Canucks.

You don't have to get rid of the two best players on the team to do a reset.

You still have to replace their talent and production, and it will be impossible to do that through UFA for cheaper than what the Sedins would sign for; the Canucks also don't have the trade chips to replace them (would never get equal value); and it's unlikely any of their prospects will turn out to be first line talent.

They need to re-sign them.