Did the Canucks Unintentionally Reveal Their 2010 Draft Board?

Thomas Drance
June 24 2013 10:15PM


Screenshot via Canucks TV

On Monday we quoted a Laurence Gilman interview about draft preparation that was posted by Canucks TV. We then embedded the video in full in our daily headshots post. Obviously we weren't paying close enough attention, as the above image and its potential significance completely escaped us.

Luckily the good folks at HFBoards, and user "thefeebster" in particular, are comparatively sharper instruments. At 1:31 of the aforementioned draft video, "thefeebster" noticed what appears to be a Canucks master draft list from the "2010 Final Meeting." This document, which certainly looks like how we'd imagine the Canucks draft list for the 2010 NHL Draft would, becomes legible if you adjust the quality of the video to 1080 pixels and zoom in a few times...

Read on past the jump.

First off, it would seem to be pretty careless for the Canucks to let a potentially sensitive - and potentially embarrassing - document like this surface publicly. Just because it's somewhat shocking and uncharacteristic of the organization, I find it difficult to imagine that the above image is actually a screencap of the teams 2010 draft board.

On the other hand, the rankings on this document certainly don't match up with, say, the ISS list for 2010. Also, you can see annotations at the top-half of the left column, and it appears that whichever member of the front office to whom this document belonged was scrawling the actual draft order on the list itself (before giving up early in the second round). That leads me to believe that it is what it looks like, but obviously we can't say for certain either way.

"TheFeebster" took the time to transcribe the entire list into a more readable format, and we've copy and pasted his work into this post:

  1. Hall
  2. Seguin
  3. Burmistrov
  4. Gormley
  5. JACK CAMPBELL
  6. Tarasenko
  7. Gudbranson
  8. Skinner
  9. Fowler
  10. Forbort
  11. Johansen
  12. Connelly
  13. McIlrath
  14. Visentin
  15. Granlund
  16. Kuznetsov
  17. Nino
  18. Tinordi
  19. Bennett
  20. Sheahan
  21. Bjugstad
  22. Merrill
  23. Melchiori
  24. Corbiel-Therault
  25. Hishon
  26. McNally
  27. Straka, Petr
  28. Jarnkrok, Calle
  29. Gailev, Stanislav
  30. Lindberg, Oscar
  31. Polasek, Adam
  32. Kabanov
  33. Ross, Brad
  34. Rensfeldt
  35. Hayes, Kevin
  36. Dominque, Louis
  37. Petterson-Wentzel
  38. Schwartz, Jaden
  39. Knight, Jared
  40. McFarland, John
  41. Faulk, Justin
  42. Zucker, Jason
  43. Larsson, Johan
  44. Watson, Austin
  45. Toffoli, Tyler
  46. Etem, Emerson
  47. Pitlick, Tyler
  48. Pickard, Calvin
  49. Johns, Stephen
  50. Pysyk, Mark
  51. Marincin, Martin
  52. Culek, Jakub
  53. Howden, Quinton
  54. Hamilton, Curtis
  55. Friesen, Alex
  56. Spooner, Ryan
  57. Gudas, Radko
  58. Mrazek, Petr
  59. Holl, Justin 
  60. Pulkkinen, Teemu
  61. Wannstrom, Sebastion
  62. Bocharov, Stanislav
  63. Nelson, Brock
  64. Alt, Mark
  65. Martindale, Ryan
  66. McNeill, Reid 
  67. Aubry, Louis
  68. Leach, Joey
  69. MacMillan, Mark
  70. Petrovic, Alex
  71. Simpson, Kent
  72. Brittain, Sam
  73. Cehlin, Patrick
  74. Gustafsson, Johan
  75. Iilahti, Jonathan
  76. Brodin, Danielk
  77. Nemeth, Patrik
  78. Coyle, Charlie
  79. McCormick, Max
  80. Kitsyn, Maxim
  81. Donskoi, Joonas
  82. Wind, Cameron
  83. Smith Pelley, Devante
  84. Tommernes, Henrik
  85. Hannay, Sawyer
  86. Zahn, Teigan
  87. MacKenzie, Matt
  88. Weal, Jordan
  89. Chudinov, Maxim
  90. Houser, Michael
  91. Wedgewood, Scott
  92. Sundher, Kevin
  93. Beukeboom, Brock
  94. O'Donnell, Brendan
  95. Herbert, Caleb 
  96. Archibald, Brandon
  97. Chaput, Michael
  98. Salmivirta, Mikael
  99. Hjalmarsson, Simon
  100. Marchenko, Alexei
  101. Brickley, Connor
  102. Clark, Jason 
  103. Henley, Cedrick
  104. Gauthier Leduc, Jerome
  105. Gardiner, Max
  106. Schemitsch, Geoffrey
  107. Smith, Dalton
  108. Yogan, Andrew
  109. Barbeshev, Sergei
  110. Hakanpaa, Jani
  111. Aittokallio, Sami
  112. Stahl, Tyler
  113. Kantor, Michael
  114. Marshall, Ben 
  115. Abeltshauser, Konrad
  116. Shipley, Steven
  117. Kuhnhackl, Tom
  118. Bulmer, Brett
  119. Grubauer, Phillip
  120. Arnold, Bill

I'm just blown over by how fascinating this list is - if it's truly Vancouver's 2010 draft board, that is. For example, you'll remember that the Canucks traded their 2010 first round pick to Florida in the Keith Ballard acquisition, but the traded pick was a conditional one. That condition? That if one of a short list of players remained on the board when the twenty-fifth overall selection rolled around, then Vancouver would keep the pick and surrender their first round pick for the 2011 NHL Draft instead. If memory serves, the trade was ultimately completed when the Montreal Canadiens selected Jared Tinordi with the 22nd overall pick in the draft.

So which players other than Tinordi were the Canucks hoping would be available with the twenty-fifth overall pick? We know, I suppose, that the list didn't extend past #22 (because John Merril, Vancouver's 22nd ranked prospect according to this list which may or may not be anything, wasn't selected until the 38th pick). So was Nick Bjugstad, who the Canucks were reportedly very desirous of last summer, among those protected players? Was Riley Sheahan?

I also find it pretty fascinating that that the Canucks had two goaltenders ranked in the top-15 of their draft list. That's an illuminating nugget with respect to how the club views prospect goaltenders...

Notable "wtf" features of this draft list include Charlie Coyle being ranked in the mid-70s on the list. Already in Coyle's young career he's proved that assessment to be way off the mark. The other massively questionable scouting decision? Jack Campbell at fifth overall. Yikes.

Still, I'm not sure having Jack Campbell ranked fifth overall is any worse for Canucks fans than the fact that local product and already productive NHLer Brendan Gallagher wasn't on the teams radar, like at all. Obviously they just didn't view him as a prospect...

Of course, it's not all bad. At least the Canucks scouting staff nailed Taylor Hall over Tyler Seguin. There are also some pretty interesting late round pick outs, which is something you like to see.

Finally, the Canucks had Henrik Tommernes - a player they ultimately selected with their 7th round pick a year later, in 2011 - ranked one slot ahead of Sawyer Hannay, who they actually did select in the seventh round in 2010. But they passed on Tommernes for some reason in 2010, and waited an additional year to select him. I guess it all worked out, but I'd be curious to hear the rationale behind that sequence of decisions...

So what do you think Canucks fans, is the list real or some sort of prop that we shouldn't take seriously? 

Sticktap @Bishnu_B

3136ae487fac57943f99a50e66e4d6cf
Thomas Drance lives in Toronto, eats spicy food and writes about hockey. He is an NHL News Editor at theScore, the ex-managing editor of CanucksArmy.com and an opinionated blowhard to boot. You can follow him on twitter @thomasdrance.
Avatar
#1 kagee
June 24 2013, 10:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Makes me want to fire the entire scouting staff, especially Snepts whose was supposed to scout the WHL before.

Atrocious scouting, they should just pay for all the scouting magazines/ebooks out there, that'll probably be better than what they are doing currently, at least they did something right when drafting Guance when he miraculously fell to them last year.

Avatar
#2 Cam Charron
June 24 2013, 10:23PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

Undrafted goaltender Michael Houser at 90... won the OHL MVP and went to a Memorial Cup with London in 2012.

He has a club foot, but we're not selling shoes.

Avatar
#3 Jon Jones
June 24 2013, 10:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

There is no way that is real, it could very easily just be one of many lists compiled when the scouts came together. Like Gilman said in the interview, every scout is battling with each other to decide who should be ranked higher.

Avatar
#5 JCDavies
June 24 2013, 10:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I would like to know the significance of the highlighted names. Are they not interested in the names that aren't highlighted? Why was Seguin's name in yellow?

I agree with Jon Jones, however; this is probably one of a dozen lists. It was probably Snepts' list.

Avatar
#6 Miyagi
June 24 2013, 10:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I think this is the actual Vancouver draft board. Vancouver picked McNally and Polasek, Friesen, Iilahti, and Hannay that year. I'm on my iPad, so it's hard to check for me,, but those guys are most likely the best available at the time Van was required to select (using this ranking).

Avatar
#7 Ryan Biech
June 24 2013, 10:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@miyagi

Yep - they were the best available when they were picked according to that list.

Avatar
#8 Rupercht
June 24 2013, 10:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

A decoy list for the rest of the league to read. Pure gamesmanship. I know, I know, there's no gamesmanship in a gentlemans league like the NHL...or poker for that matter.

Avatar
#9 Rivalpiper
June 24 2013, 10:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Very pleased to see this post—when I was watching the video, I was taken aback that they would allow a document to be shown pretty clearly on-screen. Then I figured they knew what it contained, and didn't care.

Avatar
#10 I've always said, can the scouts
June 24 2013, 10:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Fracking embarrassing, but proof why Canucks fans want the scouting staff canned. Bunch of bums.

Avatar
#11 Passive Voice
June 24 2013, 11:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

WHL kids 11. Johansen, Ryan (Went 4th) 12. Connolly, Brett (Went 6th) 13. McIlrath, Dylan (Went 10th) 17. Niederreiter, Nino (Went 5th)

#wateringholes

Avatar
#12 Mantastic
June 24 2013, 11:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The list clearly states that it is the final meeting list. No teams come into the draft with multiple lists, they complete them the day before the draft if not earlier

Avatar
#13 Passive Voice
June 24 2013, 11:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

There's an unidentified column, which could plausibly be some sort of tier estimation. Hall/Seguin have a "1". Burmi through Fowler are "2". Forbort-McIlrath get "3". Granlund-Tinordi "4". Bennett-Melchiori "5".

Corresponding column for 2nd-round targets is...less linear.

Avatar
#14 Curtis
June 25 2013, 12:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

"before giving up early in the second round"

Well it was the Canucks circa 2010.

Avatar
#15 Passive Voice
June 25 2013, 12:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Further to watering holes, Q kids:

4. Gormley, Brandon (went 13th) 24. Corbeil, Mathieu (102nd) 27. Straka, Petr (55th) 29. Galiev, Stanislav (86th) 31. Polasek, Adam (145th, to us) 32. Kabanov, Kirill (65th) 36. Domingue, Louis (138th)

IOENO

Avatar
#16 @Jyrki21
June 25 2013, 08:37AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

What's written there to the right of the word "angeles" -- it looks like "Tonya" or "Jovya" or something. You'd think that could be the individual that the list belongs to.

Avatar
#17 Unknown Comic
June 25 2013, 09:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Just learned it's Kevin Lowe's list. He left it in the can at the hotel, just like you would think he would, and Gilman was just having a chuckle over it.

Avatar
#18 NM00
June 25 2013, 10:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Why exactly does everyone blame individual scouts when we have little to no insight into their individual thought processes?

Gillis et al are the people in charge of interpreting these evaluations and arguments and determining how they fit into their organizational drafting philosophy.

Relative to their draft positions, the Canucks were doing fairly well in the Nonis era.

Gillis has more resources at his disposal and, to date, his draft selections have provided very little value to the Canucks both in terms of graduates and high end minor league prospects.

Perhaps it is Gillis' philosophy that is the issue here...

Avatar
#19 Graham S.
June 25 2013, 11:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Dallas Cowboys had there list reconstructed from screen shots too.

Wouldn't be surprised if this is authentic as its hard to keep tabs on all video, pictures, etc. that are taken.

Not too bothered as we didn't have a high pick and to date none of these prospects have really lit it up.

Avatar
#20 Ruprecht
June 25 2013, 12:19PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
NM00 wrote:

Why exactly does everyone blame individual scouts when we have little to no insight into their individual thought processes?

Gillis et al are the people in charge of interpreting these evaluations and arguments and determining how they fit into their organizational drafting philosophy.

Relative to their draft positions, the Canucks were doing fairly well in the Nonis era.

Gillis has more resources at his disposal and, to date, his draft selections have provided very little value to the Canucks both in terms of graduates and high end minor league prospects.

Perhaps it is Gillis' philosophy that is the issue here...

Yes!!! Not to mention by the end of the season there are a couple of pretty decent lists compiled by groups of scouts for the entire league to read.

We really haven't drafted well, but I have no complaints about the free agent signings, with a couple of mulligans. Perhaps both of these observations are borne from our GM being from the Agent side of the fence. Like he knows how to assess what agents want for their clients, or what they want to hear from an organization. Lots of negotiating there.

Whereas the draft is a beast he hasn't really experienced until he became a GM. Which involves more assessment directed toward future gains. Potential. Which I think, given our position over the last few years, he might be getting better at. Although that's a time will tell statement. I think/hope it's part of the growing pains of learning.

One thing is for certain, given what is happening to the league, this draft is going to be a nutty one. Perhaps the defining draft of his career. Hopefully we get the benefit of a GM who has learned some decent lessons over the last couple of years. The lessons we learn in life are what mold our philosophies after all.

Avatar
#21 JCDavies
June 25 2013, 01:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

Why shouldn't the scouts receive some of the blame? They are part of the process; nobody in the organization should be above criticism.

Avatar
#22 Scott Hall
June 25 2013, 01:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Who knows if that IS the actual list. The bottom line is the Canucks draft poorly. Their system is weak and has been that way for a long, long time.

Avatar
#23 NM00
June 25 2013, 02:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
JCDavies wrote:

Why shouldn't the scouts receive some of the blame? They are part of the process; nobody in the organization should be above criticism.

Because we don't know specifically what they are doing well or what they are doing poorly.

Blaming the "Canucks scouts" is a little vague.

The Canucks drafted Umberger, Bieksa, Kesler, Schneider, Edler, Hansen, Bourdon, Raymond & Grabner from 2000 - 2007. All without the benefit of ultra high draft picks.

Did the Canucks scouts forget how to draft? Did the Canucks scouting team get worse when more scouts were added? Are they giving poor information to Gillis and co? Who knows.

As much as anything, a large problem has been giving away prospects like Hodgson, Grabner and, quite possibly, KConn for too little.

The last NHL regular the Canucks drafted and developed is who? Raymond?

Avatar
#24 JCDavies
June 25 2013, 03:55PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

Decisions are only as good as the information they are based on and the scouting department is a big part of the information gathering process. To exclude the department from criticism would blunt the rest of the critique.

A lack of "specific knowledge" shouldn't be enough to prevent people from asking questions.

Avatar
#25 NM00
June 25 2013, 05:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
JCDavies wrote:

Decisions are only as good as the information they are based on and the scouting department is a big part of the information gathering process. To exclude the department from criticism would blunt the rest of the critique.

A lack of "specific knowledge" shouldn't be enough to prevent people from asking questions.

How exactly am I stopping you from asking questions?

Let me put it this way. Scout X is in charge of region Y. Scout X compiles his own board of region Y.

We have no access to this board. We have no idea how Gillis and co are interpreting this board. Should we really be criticizing scout X without having a look at his board?

With the GM, we at least have his selections to compare with other selections made around the same spot in the draft.

It could be poor info from scouts. It could also be a poor organizational philosophy from the GM.

Considering many of the best players on the best team in the NHL in 2010-2011 were selected by the Canucks during the Burke & Nonis era, methinks the problem has more to do with the GM than the scouts he employs.

Avatar
#26 JCDavies
June 25 2013, 09:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

"How exactly am I stopping you from asking questions?"

I thought I was responding to this statement:

"Why exactly does everyone blame individual scouts when we have little to no insight into their individual thought processes?"

And this:

"Because we don't know specifically what they are doing well or what they are doing poorly.

Blaming the "Canucks scouts" is a little vague."

Which seemed to suggest that we shouldn't direct criticism towards the scouting department.

Avatar
#27 NM00
June 26 2013, 12:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@JCDavies

You are misinterpreting the quotes.

If people have a specific reason to criticize scout X, go for it.

"Why shouldn't the scouts receive some of the blame? They are part of the process; nobody in the organization should be above criticism."

This is a non-sequitar. Reread what I am saying. We have no idea what information each individual scout is providing to Gillis.

We only have the selections pre-Gillis and during the Gillis era to go on.

Is it the fault of the scouting department that the Canucks have drafted a lot of older players in the Gillis era?

Or could the issue be the organizational philosophy that priviledges older players, avoiding the WHL, exclusively taking forwards in the 1st round etc.

Methinks it is the latter.

Avatar
#28 scoutfiSh
June 26 2013, 08:42AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Very interesting...

Bottom line is Canucks scouting in the province of BC has to be better.

They cant continue to have players like B Gallagher grow up 10mins away from Rogers Arena and not even be on the radar.

Aquilini knows it, thats why Snepts was shuffled out. Lets hope that solves the problem.

Avatar
#29 JCDavies
June 26 2013, 12:03PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

I don't think I am misinterpreting your statements.

You are asking that criticism for the scouting department be held until we have specific knowledge of "what they are doing well or what they are doing poorly." It is not likely that that type of inside knowledge will become public and by insisting on it you are basically putting the scouting department beyond question.

While not perfect, their record should be enough (as a starting point at least) to base criticism/praise on.

Your argument, as I read it, seems to be: the Canucks were good at drafting before Gillis; Gillis has a poor record drafting players; since the scouting department hasn't changed much, they must still be doing a good job; therefore, the problem must be Gillis.

The argument only holds if you believe that the Canucks were, in fact, a good scouting/drafting team before Gillis was hired (an opinion I do not share). As soon as you doubt the Canuck's drafting record (which is open to interpretation), the scouting department is open to question and the argument no longer holds.

I haven't once argued that Gillis' organizational philosophy isn't partly to blame for the current state of the Canuck's farm system, only that the scouting department also deserves some of the blame.

One quick point on the Burke/Nonis/Gillis WHL narrative:

Brian Burke did not hit on one WHL draft pick. Nonis, to his credit, did manage to hit on one.

After 10 drafts and 78 selections (14 of which were from the WHL), Burke and Nonis had a WHL success rate of: Grabner.

The notion that the Canuck's WHL problem is unique to Gillis doesn't support the facts.

Avatar
#30 Canucks92
June 27 2013, 02:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

OK, well if it is our draft list, it looks pretty bad. But everyone ripping into Canuck scouts need to settle down. You're not going to have a great draft every year.

Canucks scouts have made some great late round picks in the last ten years, especially on D: Edler - 3rd round, 91st overall Bieksa - 5th round, 151st overall Corrado - 5th round, 150th overall

Jensen and Gaunce are looking like great late first round picks as well-- much better then most of the teams who drafted in similar positions those years. And for those of you who will say that Gaunce was a no brainer at 26, well, professional NHL scouts who had 20th-25th overall would evidently beg to differ.

Avatar
#31 elvis15
June 27 2013, 02:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

A little behind on this post, but my take is it's a Canucks filter draft ranking. They kept the top picks in there in case someone fell to them but then the list after where they would have been in the 1st round were centered on their later picks.

Remember, the Canucks didn't have another pick until the 4th round that year, and McNally just happens to be at #26 so in the early part of that second grouping. The other players listed around him are players taken in the late 2nd/early 3rd until you get down to a little later. Then there are players that were picked in the higher 2nd round or late 1st still so the Canucks probably did a cursory cover of what they'd do with a 2nd or 3rd rounder in case they traded and got one back.

Comments are closed for this article.