The 2009 Canucks Draft Class: 5 Years Later

Sometimes it is a fun exercise to go down history lane and
review the way things were.  It was the
summer of 2009, and the Vancouver Canucks had finished first in the Northwest
Division with 100 points and 45 wins.  In
the post-season, the Canucks earned their first series sweep against the St.
Louis Blues only to be eliminated in 6 games against the Chicago Blackhawks kicking off a heated rivalry between the two teams.

That summer the Canucks were picking 22nd overall
in the NHL Entry Draft and it was one of the rare drafts where Mike Gillis et.
al had a selection in every round.  The
Canucks management was yet to start their selection of big overagers, but they
were still many questionable selections. 

Now that it is five years later let us review how the
Vancouver selections have developed since then. 

Jordan Schroeder, 22nd overall

The Vancouver Canucks selected Jordan Schroeder in the first
round of 2009.  Schroeder was coming out
of his freshman year at the University of Minnesota where he scored a very impressive 45 points
(13 goals,  32 assists) in 32 games.  He was considered the definition of a small
but skilled forward; but he could not repeat that performance where his sophomore
year limited him to 28 points in 37 games. 
He signed with the Canucks and left the NCAA and joined the Canucks
affiliates in the AHL. 

He saw some improvement but quickly plateaued and never
seemed to develop from there.  He had
many opportunities over the years, being ranked the 5th
best prospect
by Canucks Army in 2012 but never seemed to shine.  Thomas Drance argued he should have been qualified
this summer
but ultimately the Canucks management decided to let him
go. 

He was signed to his hometown team the Minnesota Wild but
was sent down to their AHL team the Iowa Wild. 
Through the first 10 games of the AHL season he has been in the top 10
of AHL scoring putting up 11 points in 10 games.  As one of two 2009 Canucks draftees to play in the NHL, he has
played 56 games scoring 6 goals and 9 assists.  

Anton Rodin, 53rd overall

Anton Rodin was once considered one of the most highly
skilled prospects
in the Canucks pool. 
In his draft year he put up 55 points in 37 games with Brynas J20 in the
SuperElit and 13 points in 8 games with Sweden’s U19 team.  In the following year Rodin graduated to the
SHL playing with Brynas as a 19 year old scoring 5 points in 36 games.

He transitioned to the American Hockey League in 2011-2012
and over two seasons he scored 41 points in 111 games, did not get a call up to
the NHL, and was never able to adapt to the North American game.  Last summer he was not
qualified
by the Canucks and returned to the SHL to play with Brynas.  Since then he has 46 points in 65 games over
two seasons.  His right are still owned
by Vancouver should he ever return to the NHL.

(Edit: Anton Rodin was tendered a qualifying offer by the Canucks, but signed in Sweden instead. He is still technically Canucks property, but chances of him returning to North America are very remote)

Kevin Connauton, 83rd overall

Kevin Connauton was once considered the Canucks best
defencemen prospect, and Canucks Army’s 6th
best prospect
, until the emergence of Frank Corrado allowed the Canucks to
feel comfortable trading Connauton as part of the ill-fated Derek
Roy trade
. 

Drafted out of Western Michigan University where he put up
18 points in 40 games, he left after one year to join the WHL’s Vancouver Giants
where he amassed a huge 72 points in 69 games. 
He signed his entry-level contract that summer and joined the Canucks in
Chicago and Manitoba for the next three seasons performing reasonably well but
never getting an opportunity to be called up to the NHL.

It was not until the trade to the Dallas organization that
gave Kevin the opportunity to play in the NHL, making him the second prospect in this draft class to graduate to the NHL. 
He has played 43 games this season and last putting up a total of 9
points but his ceiling looks to have limited him to be a bottom pairing NHL
defencemen.  In the last two seasons he
has put up positive Corsi Rel numbers (over a limited number of games) but with
high OZone Start-%.

Jeremy Price, 113rd overall

Defencemen Jeremy Price was a fairly reasonable pick for the
Canucks in 2009 as he was coming out of the Central Junior Hockey League (in
Eastern Ontario) where he put up 41 points in 55 games.  He then went on to play four years at Colgate
University amassing 76 points in 149 points but never seemed to get better year
by year. 

Price was once ranked 18th in the Canucks system by
Canucks Army and he was given a cup of coffee in the AHL with Chicago for 5
games in 2013, but ultimately the Canucks did not sign him and he was eligible
to be a free-agent.  Last season Price
played with the Carolina Stingrays of the ECHL scoring 14 points in 38 games
but he is not listed as playing this season.

Peter Andersson, 143rd overall

At the time of his selection Andersson was a questionable
choice but so far he has proven to be better than initial thoughts.  In his draft year he scored 8 points in the
SuperElit and then graduated to the SHL with Frolunda scoring 5 points in 21
games.  That performance convinced Vancouver
to sign him to an Entry-level contract.

For the last three seasons Andersson has been in the AHL
with no call-ups to the NHL.  In three
seasons he has scored 21 points in 112 games. 
His underlying
numbers
suggest he carries a strong at Rel Gf% while facing weaker competition
and getting help from his teammates.

This summer is the expiry of his ELC and the Canucks and
Andersson are going to have to decide if they want to re-sign him, or if Andersson
will make like Rodin and go back to Sweden. 
It’s possible that the former 19th
best prospect
could be a depth defencemen on a few teams but
that’s not likely with the Canucks current defence depth.   It’s just as likely to see him as trade bait
at the trade deadline.

Joe Cannata, 173rd overall

Joe Cannata once brought high hopes to Canucks fans for the
future in net.  Cannata played in the
NCAA putting up good numbers and scouts thought he had an NHL starter
as his ceiling
.  Since leaving
college he has yet to be able to excel in the pro game, leaving many fans disappointed
with Cannata in net.

Cannata was drafted after his first year from Merrimack
College where he played 23 games and finishing with a .918 sv%.  His year to year save percentage went up and
down but he finished his career with over 3,150 shots against good for an NCAA
sv% of .915, above league average.  His
small sample performance in the AHL in 2012-2013 was quite positive but his
backup role in Utica last year was not overwhelming.  This year, the 24 year old goalie is starting
in the ECHL and has a .935 through his first five games.

Cannata is looking to be re-qualified at the end of the year
as he will be an RFA.  He’s currently
fallen farther and farther down the depth charts and there’s small chance he
will be promoted to the NHL any time soon. 
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the former 16th
best prospect
out of the system soon. 

Steven Anthony, 187th overall

Steven
Anthony
was drafted with the final selection for the Canucks in 2009 out of
the Saint John’s Sea Dogs in the QMJHL. 
That year he scored 48 points in 67 games a number he could not repeat
as the next two years saw him score 28 and 23 points in 61 games
respectively.

After finishing his QMJHL career, Anthony signed his ELC with the
Canucks and was sent to the ECHL due to the Chicago Wolves preferring to ice a veteran-laden lineup rather than play Canucks
prospects.  That year he suffered a
massive concussion due to an illegal hit from Devin DiDiomete, which
caused Anthony miss most of the following season.  2013-2014 was his last chance in the system;
instead he was only able to score 14 points in 33 games in the Central Hockey
League.  Anthony was not qualified and
that ended that chapter on his time in the Canucks system.

Conclusion

The 2009 NHL Entry Draft was the last year before Mike
Gillis and his team started experimenting with their off the board
choices.  Many of Vancouver’s 2009 selections were
quite reasonable picks at the time and left the fans with much optimism for their
future, but much like many other future selections,
these just did not work out for one reason or another.  From the 2009
draft class only two players remain the system: Peter Andersson and Joe
Cannata.  But it remains to be seen just how much longer they’ll last.

  • Cool Story, Brodie!!!

    On the one hand, Schroeder is an outright bust.

    On the other hand, he was a better use of a first rounder than what the Canucks did at the 2010 draft…

    • Cool Story, Brodie!!!

      On the other hand, I want my Grabner back. I never liked that trade, and I liked it even less when he scored 30 goals the next season. You know, the season the Canucks went to the finals?

      Probably would have been pretty useful to have around for that run…

      • NM001

        Why do we praise Grabner like he was the one that got away. Here are some fun tidbits, he scored 34 when he left Vancouver, followed by 20, 16, 12 the next seasons. Instead of viewing the 34 goals as an anomaly people around here still talk about it like we let the second coming of Stamkos or Ovechkin leave.

        Furthermore Grabner would never have scored 34 in Vancouver. Had he stayed do you assume with no wake up call in being traded, a further wake up call in being waved, the inability to get first line minutes or first line pp time in Vancouver, and not playing with a true star like Tavares, over someone like Kesler (probably his ceiling in terms of playing time in Vancouver/second line winger).

        Now that the Islanders have a wealth of young talent Grabner looks more and more like he will slowly slide even further down their depth chart then he already has. I wouldn’t be surprised if he ends up like Cheechoo 56 goals, followed by 37, 23, 12, then out of the NHL.

        Also keep in mind if Grabner was so good that the Canucks blundered in trading him, why was he waived in Florida. A team that could have very much used his 34 goals that season as well.

        It’s easy to criticize in hindsight when you have perfect information, but at the time of the trade I did not hate it. Would I have made the trade, the answer is no, but it’s tough to criticize when you look at the optics of it at the time the trade was made.

        And to all those who point out his goal totals, and the fact we got Keith Ballard who didn’t turn out well for us, ask yourself would we have been better off with one less d-man and Grabner on the team in the finals. Would we have even made the finals?

        • andyg

          For starters

          http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?disp=1&db=200910&sit=5v5&pos=skaters&minutes=100&teamid=0&type=individual&sort=ishots60&sortdir=DESC

          Secondly

          http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?disp=1&db=201014&sit=5v5&pos=skaters&minutes=2000&teamid=0&type=individual&sort=ishots60&sortdir=DESC

          Grabner never needed a wake up call in Vancouver.

          What he needed was an opportunity.

          “And to all those who point out his goal totals, and the fact we got Keith Ballard who didn’t turn out well for us, ask yourself would we have been better off with one less d-man and Grabner on the team in the finals. Would we have even made the finals?”

          That’s a false dichotomy.

          The Canucks could have kept Mitchell, who never wanted to leave, Grabner and their 2010 first rounder.

          That would have undoubtedly made the 2010-2011 team stronger than it was.

          And it would have given the Canucks a better shot in 2011-2012 as the Canucks would have had Mitchell over Ballard and the Kings wouldn’t have had Mitchell playing 24 minutes a game on the way to a Stanley Cup…

          • NM001

            This is fun, let’s cherry pick stats like NM00 to make our argument and shove it down people’s throats.

            http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/ratings.php?db=201314&sit=5v5&type=individual&teamid=0&pos=skaters&minutes=100&disp=1&sort=PCT&sortdir=DESC

            Here was Grabner last year.

            Hmm I had trouble finding him had to use the find function he was so low. Oh look there he is at #168. So I can see how when I said he was on the decline and looked like Cheechoo (elite scorer who is headed south) I was completely off base.

            Again I said I wouldn’t have made the trade, but had Ballard turned out better then Mitchell (health concerns), then this discussion would be moot. In hindsight it’s easy to say Ballard was a disaster and that Mitchell would have been better. But what if Mitchell never fully recovered and had to retire early into the season with post concussion symptoms, and Ballard had continued to improve as his underlying numbers suggested. The fact that Mitchell goes on to fully recover and play big minutes for LA and Ballard ends up being in AV’s doghouse does not mean the trade was terrible at the time.

            We ended up buying a lemon, giving away Mitchell who fully recoved, and lost out on a potential Cheechoo level player who started strong but is now on the decline. Would I have done what you suggested above knowing what we do now, of course! Who wouldn’t keep Mitchell and Grabner, and not make the trade with Florida, to suggest otherwise is just folly. But to pretend that you knew all along this would play out this way is just stupid.

            Since you will probably say you knew this all along and that your never wrong though, how about I take a quote from you regarding Bonino:

            “Look, it was/is definitely an underwhelming trade as far as I’m concerned.

            I’m not really sure how much better Bonino will be than Santorelli who, in all likelihood, would have required a smaller committment for less money based on what he eventually signed for to go back to the inferior conference.

            And Santorelli is a right handed centre which the Canucks don’t really have anymore aside from possibly Vey…”

            http://canucksarmy.com/2014/7/23/the-vancouver-canucks-apparently-really-like-nick-bonino – link to article.

            My point is your not always right, you cherry pick stats to prove your point, you try and cram your line of thinking down people’s throats like your Nostradamus, and if anyone disagrees with you, you either misrepresent your information, misread what someone wrote on purpose to provide contrary information, or resort to bullying tactics and name calling.

            If we look at the information you provided, why use the 20 games he had with the Canucks. Surely you must know that 20 games, and 200-300 minutes of play is not enough information to draw any conclusions. Then you use a 4 year average when I suggest that his first year or two on the islanders was probably an anomaly coupled with playing with Tavares. I still think he ends up like Cheechoo with his numbers falling off a cliff and him ending up outside the NHL. Only time will tell if this comes true but the way his numbers are trending it would seem that it is more likely he ends up outside the NHL in the coming years then reverting back to a 30 goal first line winger.

          • NM001

            1. Why are you still engaging with a troll? It doesn’t speak very highly of your cognitive abilities.

            2. Can you stop using ‘your’ when it should be either ‘you are’ or ‘you’re’ please. It is difficult to the reader now that it appears it is not a typo.

            3. I suggest you look up ‘cherry picking’. Linking to a statistical website does not qualify unless one is deliberately suppressing information.

            “Surely you must know that 20 games, and 200-300 minutes of play is not enough information to draw any conclusions”

            That was to show the information the Canucks had at their disposal when they made the decision to trade him.

            I added 2010-2014 to give you a larger sample size.

            “Then you use a 4 year average when I suggest that his first year or two on the islanders was probably an anomaly coupled with playing with Tavares.”

            On what are you basing this?

            “My point is your not always right”

            How much better has Bonino proven to be than Santorelli?

            And if you believe he is significantly better, on what basis?

            “In hindsight it’s easy to say Ballard was a disaster and that Mitchell would have been better. But what if Mitchell never fully recovered and had to retire early into the season with post concussion symptom”

            Mitchell’s injury is the reason he signed for so little in the first place as opposed to what Ohlund signed for the previous offseason, for example.

            The risk was already built into his contract.

            “if anyone disagrees with you, you either misrepresent your information, misread what someone wrote on purpose to provide contrary information, or resort to bullying tactics and name calling.”

            Example?

            I’ve engaged with you twice now and I rarely bother with someone as wilfully ignorant – or perhaps legitimately ignorant – as you.

            Since your farewell speech yesterday was clearly a cry for attention as opposed to something sincere, I’m afraid this will be the last non-mocking response you will receive from NM00…

          • andyg

            You’ve definitely earned top billing. You’ve left your village to become this village’s idiot. You can also add ignorant blowhard and moron to your resume. You sound like the child/test tube baby of Big Fat David Pratt.

          • NM001

            Literally any metric you pick Bonino is better then Santorelli.

            Picking out my gramatical errors is a good way to deflect attention from the issues.

            Cherry picking is the correct use there. You purposely picked the only two time periods your argument is relevant. 20 games which is insufficient to draw conclusions, and a 4 year sample that includes 2 years on Tavares’ line and 1st unit pp that I implied were outliers.

            My argument was that Grabner had an outlier season, is no Stamkos or Ovechkin, and that he is more like Cheechoo playing his way from a fluke season or two, to the KHL or some other league. I personally don’t think he scores 30+ goals on the Canucks that year, and I’m glad we don’t have him now. He makes 3 million against the cap and 5 million on the final year of the contract. I’m glad we stayed away from that to be honest.

            Also I don’t need to resort to name calling to make my point I use facts, reason, logical arguments, and in your opinion unreadable English. You on the other hand spend more time commenting on a team that you clearly have an issue with. I don’t spend my time on other teams blogs trashing the team and the fanbase. Even if I wanted to (Why whould I though?), the blog owner wouldn’t stand for it and I’d be banned. I don’t mind constructive dialogue but with you it never is.

            Also since reading comprehension is not your strong suit, I wrote:

            “Maybe it’s time I just read another blog, and leave this one to the trolls. It’s clearly trending that way, and anyone who has been here since the early days can see that plain and simple.

            Enjoy your blog NM00 it was clearly made for you (or made by you perhaps?)”

            The key here is Maybe it’s time, not it is time, I have left for good, this is my last post or anything else like that. The reality is there is no other site for the Canucks with content like this right now. I just wish they would clean up the cesspool that is the comments section, so that meaningful discussion about a team that I am a fan of can take place, and I don’t have to wade through all the crap that you post, and that the other trolls who have followed suit do.

            Here’s an idea for you though, you clearly have such a big following and represent the fan base on here, why not start your own blog. This blog has been growing over the years and now makes a decent amount of money, with your insight into this team and your legion of followers, I’m sure your site could become even bigger making you rich. Then I would never have to visit that site, and go back to enjoying Canucks Army for what it is, a balanced statistical analysis blog of my favourite team, that encourages friendly discussion and analysis of the team and it’s play.

  • Cool Story, Brodie!!!

    What a wasteland. I was thinking the 2009 draft was a weak one in general but nearly half the players drafted have played in the NHL already and some teams (Nashville, Islanders) really did well out of it. To have basically zero players, even depth players, even contributing minor leaguers five years on, that’s breathtakingly bad.

    Recap should include Steven Anthony was part of the Luongo deal. The sweetener to get us Matthias?

    • andyg

      Nothing was worse than the 2010 draft.

      Not only are the Canucks unlikely to get an NHLer out of that draft, the draft picks they traded were used to acquire players with negative value once factoring in their contracts.

      1. Michael Grabner and a 1st rounder for the Keith Ballard albatross.

      2. 2nd rounder was used to acquire Steve Bernier. Thanks to the Blues quid pro quo, Bernier was overpaid for both of his years in Vancouver and was the Luca Sbisa of the Ballard trade.

      3. 3rd rounder was traded for Andrew Alberts who was an overpaid 7th/8th defenseman during his Vancouver tenure.

      The Canucks would have been better off setting their 2008 – 2010 draft picks on fire…

        • Cool Story, Brodie!!!

          For all intents and purposes, 2007 is the same as 2009 in that White is the equivalent of (replacement level) Schroeder.

          Not that I blame you Mr Delorme…

          • Cool Story, Brodie!!!

            The 2009 draft has already produced 100 NHL man games.

            The 2007 has produced 0 NHL man games.

            The 2007 draft is definitely worse than the 2009 and 2010 drafts.

          • Spiel

            Free agency produces man games.

            And both the draft and free agency have the ability to produce man games with negative value.

            That’s why we have the concept of replacement level.

            Schroeder hasn’t done a single thing to establish himself as better than the Andrew Ebbetts of the world.

            I suppose one can argue that KConn is holding down a utility defenseman job which makes him marginally better than a replacement player for now.

            In which case, point taken.

            Although it’s another example of a draft that may as well have been a bust since it’s done next to nothing for Vancouver…

          • Spiel

            It’s a testament to how good the Sedins, Luongo, Kesler and a few others were that the Canucks were as good as they were for as long as they were given the absolute dearth of young talent drafted or developed in recent years. I suppose we papered over some of it with judicious free agent signings and a few good trades for complementary pieces. But overall it is really kind of awe-strickingly awful to not be able to bring in almost not a single real player over a five year stretch.

          • Spiel

            Gillis used all of his first rounders on forwards.

            He also gave up notable assets and/or cap space for Sundin, Demitra, Bernier, Samuelsson, Higgins, Sturm & Booth.

            While Higgins and Samuelsson were/are solid in the middle of the roster, we’re not exactly talking about core players.

            The Canucks may have well have kept Grabner, Raymond & Morrison…

            Benning has only had the job for a few months and Vrbata is better than any forward the previous regime brought in during their 6 year reign.

            The same can be said for Miller as he’s better than any goalie Gillis acquired (though not as good as the two he gave away).

            The only thing Gillis did on par with the previous 2 GMs is maintain a solid defence core with Ehrhoff, Hamhuis, Rome, Tanev & Stanton.

            Though Hamhuis was a pure gift…

            It’s amazing that it took a disaster year like last season for the fanbase to acknowledge how useless he was in upgrading the roster he inherited…

          • andyg

            I think that there is an argument on negative replacement value here but you would need to provide measurements on player and pick values, which you haven’t done.

            One of the ways Baseball measures player value is wins above replacement (WAR). Had you provided a similar hockey measure we would have more than an opinion that Schroeder and KConn are above/below replacement level. We would have a way to measure it and see it in the data. Had you compared player value to draft pick value we would know how little value (because it was little) Schroeder and KConn added to the 2009 draft and we could compare it to other drafts. But we don’t have this.

            Since you brought up the concept of replace value, I would suggest this:

            Before they are used, all draft picks have a positive chance (regardless of how small) of selecting an NHL caliber player.

            Therefore, all draft picks that fail to select NHL caliber players have negative produced value.

            If you agree with this premise, then every 2007 draft pick, and likely every 2010 draft pick, has produced or will produce negative value.

            The value of the Schroeder and KConn picks is at least debatable.

            And, yes, there are many examples of Vancouver drafts that have added next to no value…

          • andyg

            Well we don’t need WAR to have a workable definition of replacement level

            http://www.hardballtimes.com/replacement-level-article/

            I pretty much agree with the author’s example that “minor league free agents are a perfect fit for replacement level.”

            So someone like Ebbett.

            Minnesota signed Schroeder as a replacement player as well.

            Basically the top of an AHL roster.

            I agree, though, that KConn may be marginally above replacement level for now so the book isn’t entirely closed on 2009 as it is for 2007…

          • andyg

            Whether it’s WAR or some other measurement for value, if you are comparing the value of a player like Schroeder or KConn to the value of a pick you would need to need to use some form of measurement.

            Otherwise all we are left with is opinion/suggestion that the Schroeder and KConn picks may have provided little to no value.

            I am open to the argument that the value of the Schroeder pick is equivalent to the value of the White pick but you would need to support the argument with more than speculation.

          • andyg

            “I am open to the argument that the value of the Schroeder pick is equivalent to the value of the White pick but you would need to support the argument with more than speculation.”

            I am open to the argument that the value of the Schroeder pick surpasses the value of the White pick.

            Your position also requires support which you have not provided.

            What makes the 56 NHL games he has played any more valuable to an NHL team than having those (replacement) games played by a free agent such as Ebbett?

            Schroeder actually has to play ABOVE replacement level for his value to be above White…

  • Cool Story, Brodie!!!

    Michael D’s regime was abysmal when it came to drafting. Just awful. The more recent guys could change opinion a bit but what a disaster. He couldn’t make smart trades or draft. I wonder what might have been if he drafted ONE player that turned out to be a top 6 contributor (especially the Cup run). Again, some guys from more recent drafts may become top 6 players but ya never know.

    It makes me sick to think back and realize Michael D did not add one legit top 6 player to the organization. The jury is still out on Horvat, Gaunce, Shink etc but wow. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut. One of us would’ve probably drafted better than Michael D.

    http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/teams/dr00008756.html

  • Cool Story, Brodie!!!

    And the saga of the inept Canucks continues.

    I hear Gillis is now trying to pitch the mono-rail in Springfield.

    #mayorrobertsonbikestothisgaylovershouse

  • Spiel

    At the time many people, myself included, were happy with the Schroeder pick. He didn’t pan out. Other teams were right to let him fall like he did.

    Reports said the Canucks were ready to take Rodin in the first round if Schroeder had not fallen.

    Other teams mined a few a gems after the Canucks picked. Imagine the Canucks in 2011 with Ryan O’Reilly instead of Jordan Schroeder. Ouch.

    Meanwhile LA and Anaheim picked up useful players beyond the 1st round.

  • Spiel

    Let’s see…why do the Canucks have such a piss poor draft record?

    Well, maybe they suck at drafting. Maybe they don’t know how to develop players. and maybe because they keep trading away any one who’s any good and keep the crap they don’t develop.

    Maybe it’s all of the above.

    Ding Ding ding! The price is right, come on down!

  • andyg

    “Schroeder actually has to play ABOVE replacement level for his value to be above White…”

    This is inconsistent with the negative value point you made earlier.

    “I am open to the argument that the value of the Schroeder pick surpasses the value of the White pick.

    Your position also requires support which you have not provided.”

    OK:

    The 56 games, 6 goals and 15 assists Schroeder has so far to White’s 0 games, 0 goals and 0 assists.

    The 2 GMs that viewd Schroeder as worth NHL contracts to the 0 GMs that offered White contracts.

    The 2 coaches (so far) that have viewed Schroeder good enough to receive NHL ice time to White’s 0 coaches to do so.

    Schroeder’s very respectable 52.1% Corsi the last 2 seasons to White’s…

    • andyg

      I didn’t say Schroeder has provided negative value.

      I said he hasn’t established that he’s any better than Ebbett (a replacement player).

      “The 2 GMs that viewd Schroeder as worth NHL contracts to the 0 GMs that offered White contracts.

      The 2 coaches (so far) that have viewed Schroeder good enough to receive NHL ice time to White’s 0 coaches to do so.”

      Sigh.

      This is just going back to the notion that playing NHL games equals value.

      It does not.

      If you understand the concept of a replacement level player – and I think you do since you brought up WAR in baseball – playing games is not enough…

      • andyg

        “I didn’t say Schroeder has provided negative value.”

        I think it was implied when you claimed that “White is the equivalent of (replacement level) Schroeder.”

        White, clearly, has produced no value.

        $600,000 players that produce 52.1% Corsi rates have value.

        For what it’s worth, Ebbett had a 45.8% Corsi with the Canucks…

        “Sigh.

        This is just going back to the notion that playing NHL games equals value.

        It does not.

        If you understand the concept of a replacement level player – and I think you do since you brought up WAR in baseball – playing games is not enough…”

        I believe this is why most people in baseball rely on numbers and data to determine player value rather than simply looking at a list of minor league free agents…

        • andyg

          “I didn’t say Schroeder has provided negative value.”

          I think it was implied when you claimed that “White is the equivalent of (replacement level) Schroeder.”

          White hasn’t provided negative NHL value, though.

          And for the sake of accuracy, while Schroeder did make $600,000 last year, he was making more on his ELC when he played 31 games for Vancouver

          http://www.capgeek.com/player/1645

          There is a reason Schroeder is on a 2 way contract right now…

          “I believe this is why most people in baseball rely on numbers and data to determine player value rather than simply looking at a list of minor league free agents”

          I suspect the difference of opinion – and why you believe I have implied that Schroeder has produced negative value – is based on your understanding of replacement level.

          This discussion won’t go anywhere until we agree on what that is…

          • andyg

            “And for the sake of accuracy, while Schroeder did make $600,000 last year, he was making more on his ELC when he played 31 games for Vancouver”

            With the upgrade in possession he provided over Ebbett (replacement player), looks like money well spent…

  • andyg

    “White hasn’t provided negative NHL value, though.”

    But the 2007 #25 pick has.

    Before the selection the #25 had value. Since the selection White has produced no value and currently has none. Therefore, negative value…

    If the Schroeder pick produces ANY VALUE, it is superior to the White pick.

    “There is a reason Schroeder is on a 2 way contract right now…”

    Oh? And what’s the reason White can’t get an AHL contract and is playing in the Slovak Extraliga?

    “I suspect the difference of opinion – and why you believe I have implied that Schroeder has produced negative value – is based on your understanding of replacement level.

    This discussion won’t go anywhere until we agree on what that is…”

    Below replacement players play all the time. The value of a 0 WAR player is that he is superior to a below replacement player.

    Unless you introduce a measure for players above and below replacement, all we have is a list of minor league free agents and, you’re correct, this discussion can’t go anywhere.

    • andyg

      “Before the selection the #25 had value. Since the selection White has produced no value and currently has none. Therefore, negative value…”

      Yet he was traded for 2 years of Ehrhoff and Schroeder wasn’t even qualified.

      White was plenty valuable if we want to diverge from the original discussion into nonsense…

      “Below replacement players play all the time. The value of a 0 WAR player is that he is superior to a below replacement player.”

      Read the article I linked again.

      You don’t seem to understand what a replacement player is and how easy they are to acquire…

      “Unless you introduce a measure for players above and below replacement, all we have is a list of minor league free agents and, you’re correct, this discussion can’t go anywhere.”

      False.

      If one understands replacement level, one understands that it does not matter that Schroeder being a marginally better hockey player than White means nothing (to this discussion) if he can’t stick in the NHL.

      By the way JC, where have you been lately…

      • andyg

        “Yet he was traded for 2 years of Ehrhoff”

        Or was he a throw-in (and could have been substituted with any other mid-to-low-level prospect) in a deal that was really a cash dump to set up the Heatley deal…

        I doubt San Jose overvalued White as much as delusional Canucks Fans…

        “You don’t seem to understand what a replacement player is and how easy they are to acquire…”

        Hmm … seems like teams would avoid playing players on lists like this then…

        http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=6&season=2014&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=12%2ca

        “that it does not matter that Schroeder being a marginally better hockey player than White means nothing (to this discussion) if he can’t stick in the NHL.”

        Any positive contribution to wins, even if it is only short term, is positive value.

        If Schroeder’s 52.1% Corsi contributed to more wins than Ebbett’s (replacement player) 45.8% Corsi, then that is positive value. Even if he never plays an NHL game again (unlikely), this value wouldn’t just disappear…

        “By the way JC, where have you been lately…”

        Most days, too busy to post. By the time I get to read most articles/posts, people have moved on and it’s not worth posting…

        • andyg

          “Hmm … seems like teams would avoid playing players on lists like this then”

          You realize that a major component of achieving positive or negative WAR is playing time (namely plate appearances for hitter and innings for pitchers).

          The player list to which you linked is full of players that actually played.

          White was/is incapable of providing negative value assuming he never plays an NHL game.

          “If Schroeder’s 52.1% Corsi contributed to more wins than Ebbett’s (replacement player) 45.8% Corsi, then that is positive value. ”

          You are not showing that Schroeder contributed more than replacement level by posting his Corsi percentage.

          Corsi percentage – like say batting average or OBP – are not WAR.

          “Or was (White) a throw-in (and could have been substituted with any other mid-to-low-level prospect) in a deal that was really a cash dump to set up the Heatley deal…”

          Or is Schroeder a replacement player whose NHL contributions could have been replaced by any other random AHL player.

          You are still not demonstrating an understanding of replacement level while going off on tangents…

          • NM001

            “White was/is incapable of providing negative value assuming he never plays an NHL game.”

            White produced zero value. The #25 pick produced negative value…

            BTW, the link was related to one of your other points. Please re-read…

            “You are not showing that Schroeder contributed more than replacement level by posting his Corsi percentage.

            Corsi percentage – like say batting average or OBP – are not WAR.”

            While WAR is a measure of value in baseball, you have not provided a similar measure to go along with your replacement player argument. Therefore, I used another metric to compare the value of Schroeder and your example of a replacement player (Ebbett): Corsi. I have shown that Schroeder produced better in than Ebbett in something (possession) that is thought to be valuable and is a strong indicator for future team performance.

            This is no different than when teams pay more for players with high OBP because they find them more … valuable.

            If you want to talk about what has not been supported:

            You have not shown that Schroeder had a negative (or even neutral) impact on the Canucks record while he was in Vancouver.

            You have not shown that the replacement players available to the Canucks at the time would be able to produce to a level equal to Schroeder or better.

            You have not shown that Schroeder provided the Canucks with zero value (or less) when he was in Vancouver.

          • NM001

            “White produced zero value. The #25 pick produced negative value…”

            I repeat: he was traded for Ehrhoff.

            Your subjective delusions are your own issue…

            “While WAR is a measure of value in baseball, you have not provided a similar measure to go along with your replacement player argument.”

            You don’t need a WAR-like measure for hockey to understand the concept of a replacement player.

            “I have shown that Schroeder produced better in than Ebbett in something (possession) that is thought to be valuable and is a strong indicator for future team performance.”

            Not a single respected analyst looks merely at Corsi percentage at the player level with considering zone starts and quality of teammates and competition.

            “This is no different than when teams pay more for players with high OBP because they find them more … valuable.”

            False.

            OBP is one component of value.

            Among other things that are considered include position, baserunning, slugging, health etc.

            NHL teams value Schroeder as a replacement player which is why he is in the minors on a two way contract…

            “You have not shown that Schroeder had a negative (or even neutral) impact on the Canucks record while he was in Vancouver.”

            Show me where I made this claim.

            “You have not shown that the replacement players available to the Canucks at the time would be able to produce to a level equal to Schroeder or better.”

            Sigh.

            Go back and read up on what a replacement player is.

            And I never made this claim, either.

            “You have not shown that Schroeder provided the Canucks with zero value (or less) when he was in Vancouver.”

            A third claim which I have not made.

            “Schroeder actually has to play ABOVE replacement level for his value to be above White…”

            This is inconsistent with the negative value point you made earlier.”

            This negative value “point” is where you want to take the discussion.

            My claim is simple as it’s been the same claim the entire time.

            Schroeder has to play above replacement level to be worth more than White.

            If you disagree, explain why.

            If you agree, then demonstrate why a player on a two way contract who never spent a full season in the NHL has provided value above replacement level.

            If you choose to go back to your strawman tangents, you will have the last word…

          • NM001

            “Not a single respected analyst looks merely at Corsi percentage at the player level with considering zone starts and quality of teammates and competition.”

            Schroeder zone start adjusted Corsi: 51.3%

            Ebbett zone start adjusted Corsi: 46.8%

            Happy now?

            For the record, I have not once in almost 2 years seen you produce QoT, QoC or ZS data to support any of your arguments. So…

            “”You have not shown that the replacement players available to the Canucks at the time would be able to produce to a level equal to Schroeder or better.”

            Sigh.

            Go back and read up on what a replacement player is.

            And I never made this claim, either.”

            Hmmmm:

            “White is the equivalent of (replacement level) Schroeder.”

            “Or is Schroeder a replacement player whose NHL contributions could have been replaced by any other random AHL player.”

            OK.

            “”You have not shown that Schroeder provided the Canucks with zero value (or less) when he was in Vancouver.”

            A third claim which I have not made.

            “Schroeder actually has to play ABOVE replacement level for his value to be above White…”

            My claim is simple as it’s been the same claim the entire time.

            Schroeder has to play above replacement level to be worth more than White.”

            AND

            “White is the equivalent of (replacement level) Schroeder.”

            The position you have taken is that for a player to have more value than a busted draft pick (e.g. White), the player must produce at above replacement level.

            We know that busted draft picks (e.g. White) don’t provide any value, so you MUST be saying that “Schroeder provided the Canucks with zero value (or less)”.

            So *Sigh* you have made this claim…

            “False.

            OBP is one component of value.

            Among other things that are considered include position, baserunning, slugging, health etc.”

            There is no set formula for measuring value. One could use any of those measures in any combination to compare players. If you want a more complicated measure than Corsi alone, then, by all means, use it. Support your argument with it. Or disprove my argument with it. Show that Schroeder was replacement level from 2012-2014.

            “”You have not shown that Schroeder had a negative (or even neutral) impact on the Canucks record while he was in Vancouver.”

            Show me where I made this claim.”

            “”White is the equivalent of (replacement level) Schroeder.”

            “Schroeder has to play above replacement level to be worth more than White.””

            If your not using replacement level as a point of neutral value then nothing you have said up to now makes any sense…

            “your strawman tangents”

            LOL at this! Nice diversionary tactic…