Benning's Reputation Tied To Shinkaruk

[Westcoasting]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Actually between 1996 and 99 they traded off Chelios, Roenick and Eddy the eagle.  I don't know if it was a planned rebuild of if the owner was just too cheap but between 2000-2004 (5 years) the hawks made 64 selections at the draft,  That's over an average of 12 picks a year. 

 

Keep in mind that back then there was 9 rounds at to 7 today, but that's still an additional 3 extra picks per year. 

 

The put that in perspective canucks in the last (2000-2016) 17 years have only selected 115 times.  In that same time span Hawks have selected 168, that's 53 more picks than canucks over the last 17 years. 

 

 

yep, he was in Arizona

The only thing good i remember about the hawks after Roenick was Eric Daze... and no one else! I honestly can't think of one guy who would be considered  a high end player in Chicago from the Roenick days till Toews was drafted.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

13 minutes ago, Westcoasting said:

The only thing good i remember about the hawks after Roenick was Eric Daze... and no one else! I honestly can't think of one guy who would be considered  a high end player in Chicago from the Roenick days till Toews was drafted.

yeah they sucked, Amonte and Steve Sullivan were ok players, nothing you build a team around, especially not with Jocelyn Thibault in net. 

[CeeBee51]

5 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

 Honestly if teams are just drafting where they finished, why do we have a draft lottery? 

So sportsnet can fill a few hours of programming time.

[CanadianRugby]

22 hours ago, The Lock said:

They acquired them through having a bad team. It doesn't mean they tanked. They still had players like Roenick on the team for them so they didn't just sell off everyone in order to tank.

You don't get 8 picks in 4 rounds by being a good team.  You get them by trading players away.

[DeNiro]

His reputation is going to be tied to passing on Ehlers and Tkachuk with his picks.

 

When this teams scoring dries up and those two are both top scorers in the league, we'll look back to those two blunders.

[10pavelbure96]

3 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

His reputation is going to be tied to passing on Ehlers and Tkachuk with his picks.

 

When this teams scoring dries up and those two are both top scorers in the league, we'll look back to those two blunders.

Horvat and Boeser should make up for that, the jury is still out on Jake, patience is a virtue, and it's not like we skipped Tkachuk for nobody, Juolevi will be a hell of a player.  Winnipeg and Calgary have all that young firepower and still can't pull it together.

[DeNiro]

1 minute ago, 10pavelbure96 said:

Horvat and Boeser should make up for that, the jury is still out on Jake, patience is a virtue, and it's not like we skipped Tkachuk for nobody, Juolevi will be a hell of a player.  Winnipeg and Calgary have all that young firepower and still can't pull it together.

People went on and on about having patience with Kassian too.

 

The problem is, like with Kassian, it's between his ears that's the problem. Kassian had glaring holes in his game long before his drug problem. Low hockey IQ and a poor work ethic are hard things to coach out of players.

 

I hope Juolevi becomes a solid top 4 guy, but this team is going to desperately need scoring going forward. There were sure fire picks to fill that need right there for the taking, and we passed for a player whose ceiling is pretty up in the air right now. We can't afford to pass on sure things at this stage of the rebuild.

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

People went on and on about having patience with Kassian too.

 

The problem is, like with Kassian, it's between his ears that's the problem. Kassian had glaring holes in his game long before his drug problem. Low hockey IQ and a poor work ethic are hard things to coach out of players.

 

I hope Juolevi becomes a solid top 4 guy, but this team is going to desperately need scoring going forward. There were sure fire picks to fill that need right there for the taking, and we passed for a player whose ceiling is pretty up in the air right now. We can't afford to pass on sure things at this stage of the rebuild.

Do these "misses" as you imply delay the rebuild, or make the result of the rebuild mediocre?  What I'm thinking is if JB drafts, and trades for a next core that is full of average players, then we end up with a mediocre team for that cycle.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

 

On 1/22/2017 at 2:28 AM, messier's_elbow said:

As you know, Gillis got us arguably our best player who he drafted via trade. I agree he was a good GM but Benning is superior at drafting. Virtanen is still up in the air but most of his other picks are trending very nicely. Gillis got unlucky with Hodgson who looked like a blue chipper then his back problems/daddy issues came to the surface. 

Too early to make that call.  Sure things are looking good for a number of them right now - but Hodgson STILL looked good +2 years after he was drafted.  Look how Corrado looked early on.

 

Won't know until at least a few more years one way or the other IMHO.

 

Note:  I am only commenting on the jobs both have done as GMs of the Canucks...

[DeNiro]

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Do these "misses" as you imply delay the rebuild, or make the result of the rebuild mediocre?  What I'm thinking is if JB drafts, and trades for a next core that is full of average players, then we end up with a mediocre team for that cycle.

Thankfully he has made some really good pickups in Tryamkin and Stecher in the meantime. However this team needs as many assets as it can get its hands on to ensure the best rebuild possible.

 

Even if Tkachuk or Ehlers didn't represent a Benning type player, their value in any future trade would likely bring back a significant piece.

 

As it stands right now I would say we have two young top 6 scorers to build around going forward (Horvat, Boeser). Had we taken Tkachuk and Ehlers we would almost have our future top 6 in place, and still be fine on D going forward. We'll have to wait and see what Benning does with a trade though, I see a Tanev or Hutton trade happening this year.

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Thankfully he has made some really good pickups in Tryamkin and Stecher in the meantime. However this team needs as many assets as it can get its hands on to ensure the best rebuild possible.

 

Even if Tkachuk or Ehlers didn't represent a Benning type player, their value in any future trade would likely bring back a significant piece.

 

As it stands right now I would say we have two young top 6 scorers to build around going forward (Horvat, Boeser). Had we taken Tkachuk and Ehlers we would almost have our future top 6 in place, and still be fine on D going forward. We'll have to wait and see what Benning does with a trade though, I see a Tanev or Hutton trade happening this year.

I like how you say, "best rebuild possible".  I think a lot of posters (younger ones especially) just assume a rebuild results in a competitive team.  They have only lived through the Sedin years, where the rebuild was very successful.  Honestly, looking at our next core group I just don't see this rebuild getting back to the Sedin core level.

[xereau]

With all the talk in this thread about which strategy for sucking is the best for rebuilding through the draft, I thought I would add:

 

Dis-incentivize failure all together.

 

I have several different ideas on this, but they mostly revolve around making the draft random.

 

Something.. err different -- A paper tournament based on points and record vs specific teams last season.  30vs1, 29vs2, etc.  Until a winner is decided. This would mean your draft pick position is garnered completely by your effort on the ice in the previous season.   As soon as the last horn goes in the last period of the last game in the regular season, you know the exact draft order.  This would make for interesting playoff stories as Cinderella teams that also happen to have an incredible drafting position in the same year make headlines.

[xereau]

13 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

I see a Tanev or Hutton trade happening this year.

We probably need to draft D again.  And we also do need another forward.

 

Hutton for Mark Stone?

 

Ottawa needs D.

[canucklehead44]

It is too early to judge Benning's draft picks other than Virtanen. Sure Boeser looks good so far, but don't forget how incredible Hodgson looked right after we drafted him as well. Even early on his career he looked like a can't miss prospect. At the time of the trade we thought it was going to be this incredible ongoing story comparing Hodgson vs Kassian but they both completely bombed. 

 

I think the only pick we can really get a fair assessment on is Virtanen (and I guess McCann). 

Nylander, Ehlers, Fabbri and Larkin are already 1st/2nd line players. Ritchie is on pace for close to 20 goals. Perlini scored 14 in 17 games in the AHL and has 7 in 21 in the NHL. Fiala and Vrana are at least first line players in the AHL. The only player with garbage AHL production is Connor Bleakley and he went back into the draft (5th round). 

 

Now, with some of the smaller guys like Ho Sang, Milano etc not exactly ripping up the AHL, they might not have as much of a chance to become full time NHLers as Jake. That said, if all he becomes is a bottom six forward that kinda sucks. Not the worst pick of the draft (Dal Colle and Fleury look equally poor), but not exactly looking like a solid selection. 

 

[xereau]

14 minutes ago, canucklehead44 said:

It is too early to judge Benning's draft picks other than Virtanen. Sure Boeser looks good so far, but don't forget how incredible Hodgson looked right after we drafted him as well. Even early on his career he looked like a can't miss prospect. At the time of the trade we thought it was going to be this incredible ongoing story comparing Hodgson vs Kassian but they both completely bombed.

Kassian is doing well in Edmonton.  Having seeng a dozen or so Edm games, I like where his game is at this season.

 

Don't forget about Juolevi.  I just checked out his progress, and he is nearly ppg, and plus 20.

[10pavelbure96]

I know that you need goals to win but you need stellar D to win a championship. And while calgary was being praised and praised for all the work they did to their back end, Benning is quietly building what very well could be one of the best D corps in the west in a few years or less. Plus we play a tough grind it out 200 foot game and Horvat Baertschi and Granlund continue to get better while honey badger is in the prime of his career. And I truly believe that Boeser is the real deal. 

 

Even if Virtanen is a bust I think we are doing OK. 

[canucklehead44]

2 hours ago, xereau said:

Kassian is doing well in Edmonton.  Having seeng a dozen or so Edm games, I like where his game is at this season.

 

Don't forget about Juolevi.  I just checked out his progress, and he is nearly ppg, and plus 20.

Kassian scored at close to a 20 goal pace on our third line his last year in Vancouver and 14 the year before. His 5 on 5 point production was in the 88th percentile in the league - he was not a bad offensive player by any stretch. 

Regardless, considering Prust cleared waivers and never played in the NHL again after Vancouver we more or less traded a 5th round pick to get rid of Kassian. 

Again with Juolevi we need to see what he can do in the NHL. By not judging Benning I mean for both good and bad - it will take some time to see how his draft picks pan out. Tkachuk would be 3rd on our team in scoring - Juolevi will have to be good to prove himself as the right pick. Tkachuk should have gone 3rd - I feel Puljujarvi got pulled up a bit by Laine and Dubois had an enticing completeness to his game. Tkachuk at one point was #2, he would have been a steal at #5. 

[Gollumpus]

22 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Actually between 1996 and 99 they traded off Chelios, Roenick and Eddy the eagle.  I don't know if it was a planned rebuild of if the owner was just too cheap but between 2000-2004 (5 years) the hawks made 64 selections at the draft,  That's over an average of 12 picks a year. 

 

Keep in mind that back then there was 9 rounds at to 7 today, but that's still an additional 3 extra picks per year. 

 

The put that in perspective canucks in the last (2000-2016) 17 years have only selected 115 times.  In that same time span Hawks have selected 168, that's 53 more picks than canucks over the last 17 years. 

Yup, but there is a difference between quality and quantity, and after a quick scan it looks like the Hawks really didn't benefit that much for the number of picks which they amassed.

 

Between 2000 - 2004 the Hawks picked up 2 additional 1sts, 4 additional 2nds, 4 additional 4ths, 2 additional 5ths, 2 additional 6ths, 4 additional 7ths, 1 additional 8th and 3 additional 9ths.  These extra picks for the Hawks got them two guys who played a significant role for their team (keeping in mind where they were in the draft order eg. Horvat was the acquired pick over the Shinkaruk selection at the Canuck's earned spot). Anyone else who they acquired from the draft are guys they would have had anyways (eg. Keith, Seabrook and Crawford).

 

- 2000 draft (15 picks), nobody.

- 2001 draft (13 picks), nobody.

- 2002 draft (9 picks), nobody.

- 2003 draft (10 picks), nobody.

- 2004 draft (17 picks), Bickell (2nd) and Brouwer (7th) were acquired. Bickell played a part in three Cup wins while Brouwer helped them win one. Both are no longer with the Hawks.

 

I get the theory that having more picks gives a team a better chance of picking a winner, but it is no guarantee that these extra picks will pay off. Further, while it is nice to talk about finding diamonds in the rough from a lower round pick (eg. Hansen) the chances of this type of success are pretty slim.

 

The Canucks had 41 picks in the time period you chose while the Hawks had 64. Where the difference lies is that the Hawks got more value from their own picks than the Canucks got from theirs, and even then, the Hawks had a significant number of flops. They had seven 1sts in that time period, and of them Seabrook and maybe Ruutu (not with the Hawks) have panned out. The Canucks picked up Kesler and Schneider in that time from 1st round picks.

 

                                                         regards,  G.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

48 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

Yup, but there is a difference between quality and quantity, and after a quick scan it looks like the Hawks really didn't benefit that much for the number of picks which they amassed.

 

Between 2000 - 2004 the Hawks picked up 2 additional 1sts, 4 additional 2nds, 4 additional 4ths, 2 additional 5ths, 2 additional 6ths, 4 additional 7ths, 1 additional 8th and 3 additional 9ths.  These extra picks for the Hawks got them two guys who played a significant role for their team (keeping in mind where they were in the draft order eg. Horvat was the acquired pick over the Shinkaruk selection at the Canuck's earned spot). Anyone else who they acquired from the draft are guys they would have had anyways (eg. Keith, Seabrook and Crawford).

 

- 2000 draft (15 picks), nobody.

- 2001 draft (13 picks), nobody.

- 2002 draft (9 picks), nobody.

- 2003 draft (10 picks), nobody.

- 2004 draft (17 picks), Bickell (2nd) and Brouwer (7th) were acquired. Bickell played a part in three Cup wins while Brouwer helped them win one. Both are no longer with the Hawks.

I get the theory that having more picks gives a team a better chance of picking a winner, but it is no guarantee that these extra picks will pay off. Further, while it is nice to talk about finding diamonds in the rough from a lower round pick (eg. Hansen) the chances of this type of success are pretty slim.

 

The Canucks had 41 picks in the time period you chose while the Hawks had 64. Where the difference lies is that the Hawks got more value from their own picks than the Canucks got from theirs, and even then, the Hawks had a significant number of flops. They had seven 1sts in that time period, and of them Seabrook and maybe Ruutu (not with the Hawks) have panned out. The Canucks picked up Kesler and Schneider in that time from 1st round picks.

 

                                                         regards,  G.

 

You're clearly missing the entire benefit of having multiple picks.  Haven't extra picks allows a team to go off the board with high risk players, rather than play it safe with your only pick.

 

The acquired pick might not be the one that turns into Jamie Benn, but it does make it more likely that you find the Byfuglein.  Try shooting a flying duck with a rifle vs a shotgun..  In that 5 year span hawks found 18 players that played over 150 games in the NHL. Compare that to the canucks who only found 8. 

 

Gems in the overall picture are slim, but again your odds are far more likely to find them by having multiple selections.  And it only takes one to change the outlook on your franchise.  Just ask the stars with Benn, or the sharks with Pavelski, or the flames with Gaudreau. 

[Baggins]

7 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

You're clearly missing the entire benefit of having multiple picks.  Haven't extra picks allows a team to go off the board with high risk players, rather than play it safe with your only pick.

 

The acquired pick might not be the one that turns into Jamie Benn, but it does make it more likely that you find the Byfuglein.  Try shooting a flying duck with a rifle vs a shotgun..  In that 5 year span hawks found 18 players that played over 150 games in the NHL. Compare that to the canucks who only found 8. 

 

Gems in the overall picture are slim, but again your odds are far more likely to find them by having multiple selections.  And it only takes one to change the outlook on your franchise.  Just ask the stars with Benn, or the sharks with Pavelski, or the flames with Gaudreau. 

Linden Vey has 138 NHL games. You may want to set the bar higher. Eg: Cam Barker has played 310 NHL games on 4 teams but is a bust playing in the KHL. Jack Skille has 354 NHL games on 5 teams. He had to go the PTO route to stay in the NHL this season. Jack Dowell has 157 NHL games over 7 seasons, and has been back in the AHL for three years now. Lasse Kukkonen played 159 NHL games over 3 seasons and has been back in Europe for 8 years now. I could go on but you get the point. These are hardly success stories.