Contrasting Views

[kingofsurrey]

10 minutes ago, canucklehead80 said:

I'm of the thinking that we've already hit rock bottom. Expecting improvement this year. Playoffs? Not so sure, but barring the insane number of key injuries last year and hopefully more improvement from B & B and development improved play from some of our younger players I think we should be at least in the hunt closer to April. 

We haven't hit the bottom yet.....   Not until we get a new top line ( a top line that is not diminishing in skill/ speed )   and/ or  a dominating second line....

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said:

 

 

[JCM7]

19 hours ago, Aircool said:

Well, I would have rebuilt. So that's why I don't give him credit for his tough situation... If you have an aging roster that has underperformed what do you do with it when it's no longer capable of winning a cup? You restart.

 

You are correct, you cannot build a deep team in 2 years when you have a crap team. Begs the question why you would try, and not just rebuild. Why? Because greedy ownership and bad decision-making with regards to the on-ice product. This team STILL has no secondary scoring, it is STILL a one line team. I'm not even talking about 3 lines capable of scoring... If you don't have two, you have no business anywhere other than the bottom 5-10 teams in the NHL...

 

Edler isn't a top pairing defenseman, he really never was, just a by-product of the leagues best powerplay. He's a #3. Perhaps a good one, but nonetheless, a #3. The thing people need to realize when numbering defenseman... You aren't a #1 if you are one of the 30 best defenseman in the league. It's not a sliding scale, you are either ELITE or you are not. Just like you aren't a #2 because you might be a Top-60 defenseman in the league. Which is the meaningless logic people use to try and elevate Edler's status, it doesn't make him any better if you call him a Top-pairing D-man. He's still just what he is.

 

You are right, you cannot stockpile depth through Free Agency, cap space is punishing, and you do need young talent. If you have an underperforming aging roster with few to no young players coming through, what does that scream? Again... Rebuild.

 

I don't understand what the point of your post is... You are defending Jim Benning for not giving depth to a team with which he insists on attempting and failing to contend. The points you list are reasons why he shouldn't try to defend, because he will be incapable of it. So rather than try to defend him, why not question his judgement? The answer, in case you don't know, is because the average sports fan decides on their answer to a question, they then make up facts to support their answer... Not the other way around, hence the lunacy on CDC.

Sedins = ntc

Edler = ntc

Burrows = ntc

Hansen = ntc

 

Kesler and Bieksa waived to go, but offered limited trade options.  Hammer did the same and couldn't be moved.

 

So, what assets do you trade to bring in young talent?  As a result of the salary cap, young talent is incredibly valuable.  Even if these players wanted to be moved your probably not going to bring in a blue chip prospect for anyone except for maybe the Sedins and to do that you would have to retain millions of dollars in salary because what contender has $14mil in cap space?

 

I'm definitely not saying that I agree with every move that JB has made, but I do agree that young players learn and develop much more effectively on a competitive team.  

 

Obviously you're not going to trade good young players to rebuild.  So obviously you wouldn't trade Virtanen, Horvat, Markstrom, etc.  When you eliminate young players and players with ntc, you're left with Chris Tanev.  He is the most marketable Canucks not protected by ntc.  He is 26 and would fetch a decent return.  

 

A complete tear down isn't really an option due to the lack of movable pieces.  Nevertheless, JB has managed to bring in several good young players who are likely to help the team in years to come.  None of these players are Connor McDavid or Austin Matthews, but in order to get those players you literally have to win a lottery.  I haven't researched each team's prospect pool in great depth but I do know that ours has grown in leaps and bounds since JB arrived.  I would be surprised if you could find many teams who have picked up as many good prospects in the last 2 years.

 

You are quick to criticize others for defending JB's approach and yet you haven't made one specific point.  All you have really said is "everyone sucks and JB should be rebuilding".  Clearly the team needs to put as much emphasis as possible on bringing in and developing good young players.  If this isn't obvious I don't know what is.  

 

What actual move would you make to make this happen faster.  If you say "rebuild" you've missed the point entirely.

 

[Mathew Barzal]

The only thing I outright don't like about Benning is his determination to acquire 'guaranteed NHL players' at the cost of our unknown quantities.

 

Closing the age gap is a poor excuse for dealing picks for players that have visibly failed or stalled in their development for 4-5 years on other teams. It's moneyball at its worst.

 

Everything else I can understand.

[Aircool]

20 minutes ago, JCM7 said:

Sedins = ntc

Edler = ntc

Burrows = ntc

Hansen = ntc

 

Kesler and Bieksa waived to go, but offered limited trade options.  Hammer did the same and couldn't be moved.

 

So, what assets do you trade to bring in young talent?  As a result of the salary cap, young talent is incredibly valuable.  Even if these players wanted to be moved your probably not going to bring in a blue chip prospect for anyone except for maybe the Sedins and to do that you would have to retain millions of dollars in salary because what contender has $14mil in cap space?

 

I'm definitely not saying that I agree with every move that JB has made, but I do agree that young players learn and develop much more effectively on a competitive team.  

 

Obviously you're not going to trade good young players to rebuild.  So obviously you wouldn't trade Virtanen, Horvat, Markstrom, etc.  When you eliminate young players and players with ntc, you're left with Chris Tanev.  He is the most marketable Canucks not protected by ntc.  He is 26 and would fetch a decent return.  

 

A complete tear down isn't really an option due to the lack of movable pieces.  Nevertheless, JB has managed to bring in several good young players who are likely to help the team in years to come.  None of these players are Connor McDavid or Austin Matthews, but in order to get those players you literally have to win a lottery.  I haven't researched each team's prospect pool in great depth but I do know that ours has grown in leaps and bounds since JB arrived.  I would be surprised if you could find many teams who have picked up as many good prospects in the last 2 years.

 

You are quick to criticize others for defending JB's approach and yet you haven't made one specific point.  All you have really said is "everyone sucks and JB should be rebuilding".  Clearly the team needs to put as much emphasis as possible on bringing in and developing good young players.  If this isn't obvious I don't know what is.  

 

What actual move would you make to make this happen faster.  If you say "rebuild" you've missed the point entirely.

 

The thing is, you can rebuild while having the Sedins on your roster. That's entirely plausible... It's just these meaningless attempts at playoff runs in the last couple years that I disagree with. I would have much rather preferred a more definitive rebuild, to acquire some actual blue-chip prospects capable of playing in the NHL at 18 or 19. The Seth Jones' of the world. Then trying to construct some veteran depth around it to supplement it. We need some new cornerstones of our team.

 

Why not retain 50% on both Sedins if they decided they were willing to leave to a contender? If you are rebuilding, do you really need that 7 million you'd retain for the short term that would have been remaining on their contracts. I don't think you have to get rid of them, but if they chose to go... It's entirely reasonable.

 

I don't buy the notion that young players can't develop as well on teams that aren't as competitive. That is complete nonsense. This is just people using Edmonton as the basis for all their junk arguments.

 

Trading Virtanen and Horvat? What? I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

 

Our team's prospect pool isn't particularly special at all.... It's not bad. It's just really thin. Many teams have better prospect pools though.

 

I think you have completely lost track of the conversation. I made the statement that people have all these high expectations and positive opinions while never considering what can go wrong with our team. What injuries are likely, which players regression is likely. Then I said that it's the GM's job to ensure that we are as best prepared as we can be to handle these LIKELY possibilities... I mean you can't plan for losing Henrik, Daniel, Edler, Tanev, Miller... You have to be reasonable with your considerations.... The reason I made this statement was to highlight the fact that we should be evaluating our team's potential this season, and JBs efficacy as our GM through this lens... Evaluating how well our team is built to contend, since that has been their decision... If you believe it isn't well built to contend, then you have to question that very decision to contend then...

 

I think I've made VERY specific points... You're just getting caught up in people trying to sidetrack the discussion by formulating scenarios like if Chicago lost Kane... And then the bickering over the actual impact of that...

[JCM7]

27 minutes ago, Aircool said:

The thing is, you can rebuild while having the Sedins on your roster. That's entirely plausible... It's just these meaningless attempts at playoff runs in the last couple years that I disagree with. I would have much rather preferred a more definitive rebuild, to acquire some actual blue-chip prospects capable of playing in the NHL at 18 or 19. The Seth Jones' of the world. Then trying to construct some veteran depth around it to supplement it. We need some new cornerstones of our team.

 

Why not retain 50% on both Sedins if they decided they were willing to leave to a contender? If you are rebuilding, do you really need that 7 million you'd retain for the short term that would have been remaining on their contracts. I don't think you have to get rid of them, but if they chose to go... It's entirely reasonable.

 

I don't buy the notion that young players can't develop as well on teams that aren't as competitive. That is complete nonsense. This is just people using Edmonton as the basis for all their junk arguments.

 

Trading Virtanen and Horvat? What? I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

 

Our team's prospect pool isn't particularly special at all.... It's not bad. It's just really thin. Many teams have better prospect pools though.

 

I think you have completely lost track of the conversation. I made the statement that people have all these high expectations and positive opinions while never considering what can go wrong with our team. What injuries are likely, which players regression is likely. Then I said that it's the GM's job to ensure that we are as best prepared as we can be to handle these LIKELY possibilities... I mean you can't plan for losing Henrik, Daniel, Edler, Tanev, Miller... You have to be reasonable with your considerations.... The reason I made this statement was to highlight the fact that we should be evaluating our team's potential this season, and JBs efficacy as our GM through this lens... Evaluating how well our team is built to contend, since that has been their decision... If you believe it isn't well built to contend, then you have to question that very decision to contend then...

 

I think I've made VERY specific points... You're just getting caught up in people trying to sidetrack the discussion by formulating scenarios like if Chicago lost Kane... And then the bickering over the actual impact of that...

I agree with a lot of what you are saying.  I also agree that if there was ANY possibility that the Canucks could obtain a young player of Seth Jones' caliber that they absolutely should do that.  The definition of "contend" might be a bit of a grey area.  I think that JB is trying to remain competitive but I don't think he is under the impression that this team is or will be a cup contender in the immediate future.

 

If you have cap space and you use it to sign Erikkson, I don't see think that you're in any way sacrificing youth to do so.  You can't use this money to get younger.  Movement of young players is restricted so the only way you can get them is to draft them or trade for them.  The Canucks have nothing to trade that would get them a player like Seth Jones.

 

The comment about trading Horvat or Virtanen was to point out that we actually only have a small handful of "old" players and virtually all of them have a ntc.  My point was that if you eliminate players like Horvat and Virtanen as trade possibilities and you eliminate players with ntc as trade possibilities, we have very little left to trade.  If your only remaining option to get younger is through the draft, then there is no point in tearing down to rebuild because we have nothing of great enough value to obtain high enough draft picks to make a big enough difference.  Mid-round draft picks are great, but they are like buying lottery tickets.

 

I don't agree with JB because it seems like the cool thing to do.  I agree because we don't have the resources to sell to initiate a viable rebuild.  Therefore I think his method is the most reasonable option based on the teams current position.

[oldnews]

57 minutes ago, Mathew Barzal said:

The only thing I outright don't like about Benning is his determination to acquire 'guaranteed NHL players' at the cost of our unknown quantities.

 

Closing the age gap is a poor excuse for dealing picks for players that have visibly failed or stalled in their development for 4-5 years on other teams. It's moneyball at its worst.

 

Everything else I can understand.

Uh, do you have a single example of a player Benning acquired that has failed or stalled in their development for 4-5 years lol?

[kingofsurrey]

We all want a cup in vancouver.

 

We just disagree on the best path to that objective.

 

[Honky Cat]

Just now, kingofsurrey said:

We all want a cup in vancouver.

 

We just disagree on the best path to that objective.

 

Absolutely...!.....What if one of these 'rebuild' teams that are winning the prospect pool awards right now (lets say Toronto)...What if they improve this year and finish as a 'middle of the pack bubble team', ....and wind up picking 12th overall at next years draft..Would that be a success?...The team has improved, so can't complain about that......but wouldn't that sabotage the rebuild,,? (no high end draft pick).

[dura_mater]

On 26/07/2016 at 2:59 PM, kingofsurrey said:

No PP QB

No second line

Top line gets seniors discount at Denny's -  we will need a truckload of tape to keep them taped up  and  playing all season. 

No  1 D or 2 D  on our club right no.  Sorry Edler and Tanev are more 3 D's on most teams. 

 

Yup its going to be a long season.  Probably drafting in the 25-30 range.  Hopefully we can get a future 1 C in the draft next year. 

 

Hopefully this is rock bottom and we can start to go up from here........

I'll propose this to you a second time.  If you're so certain the Canucks will finish bottom 5; care to make a wager on it?  Loser stays off CDC for a year?

[Aircool]

1 hour ago, JCM7 said:

I agree with a lot of what you are saying.  I also agree that if there was ANY possibility that the Canucks could obtain a young player of Seth Jones' caliber that they absolutely should do that.  The definition of "contend" might be a bit of a grey area.  I think that JB is trying to remain competitive but I don't think he is under the impression that this team is or will be a cup contender in the immediate future.

 

If you have cap space and you use it to sign Erikkson, I don't see think that you're in any way sacrificing youth to do so.  You can't use this money to get younger.  Movement of young players is restricted so the only way you can get them is to draft them or trade for them.  The Canucks have nothing to trade that would get them a player like Seth Jones.

 

The comment about trading Horvat or Virtanen was to point out that we actually only have a small handful of "old" players and virtually all of them have a ntc.  My point was that if you eliminate players like Horvat and Virtanen as trade possibilities and you eliminate players with ntc as trade possibilities, we have very little left to trade.  If your only remaining option to get younger is through the draft, then there is no point in tearing down to rebuild because we have nothing of great enough value to obtain high enough draft picks to make a big enough difference.  Mid-round draft picks are great, but they are like buying lottery tickets.

 

I don't agree with JB because it seems like the cool thing to do.  I agree because we don't have the resources to sell to initiate a viable rebuild.  Therefore I think his method is the most reasonable option based on the teams current position.

The thing about all our NTCs is that they aren't long term contracts. Also, if you tell players you are rebuilding, and that if they want to win while they still perform they'll have to leave... They'll probably waive. I mean, if players aren't wanted, they won't stay. I do understand your position though, it's reasonable. I just don't like opinions that are like, "Canucks are going to make the playoffs for sure, Sedins will score 80+ points, yada yada"... these opinions without any sort of recognition of the state of the franchise are just infuriating in a way... You can't argue with a person who thinks like that.

 

1 hour ago, Honky Cat said:

Absolutely...!.....What if one of these 'rebuild' teams that are winning the prospect pool awards right now (lets say Toronto)...What if they improve this year and finish as a 'middle of the pack bubble team', ....and wind up picking 12th overall at next years draft..Would that be a success?...The team has improved, so can't complain about that......but wouldn't that sabotage the rebuild,,? (no high end draft pick).

To both of you actually, this is fine for Toronto if this happens. It's not ideal, but it's fine. They will have acquired franchise cornerstones to build around. They already had Rielly, now they have Nylander, Marner, Matthews. You can build a team around that core, might not be a cup contender, I don't know.

 

If the Leafs finish 12th worst or something, the thing about that is that it means their young players are forcing management to accelerate the timeline, because they are performing. If they don't force you to accelerate the timeline, then you just stick to the plan. If they do, then that means you are in a good state. You have a young core who is excelling. The thing I HATE about the Canucks, is that we have no such young core at the moment. Yet Benning is trying to contend and is missing the opportunity to more easily construct such a core by getting high pedigree players. 

[kingofsurrey]

1 minute ago, dura_mater said:

I'll propose this to you a second time.  If you're so certain the Canucks will finish bottom 5; care to make a wager on it?  Loser stays off CDC for a year?

I am not positive Canucks will finish bottom 5.  I think it is likely.

We have an aging top line. No effective second line.  No D men that generate any offence.

Basically a real lack of scoring on our club. 

No effective  Powerplay. D man. QB to drive it. 

 

These are huge issues that will make our chances of a playoff berth unlikely.  

 

If things work out , the Canucks may finish  22 nd overall.  

I really don't care about how we finish next year.

 

I want to see our Try and Guddy step up and become potential 1,2   D men.

I want to see Horvat , Rodin, Sven step up and become  solid 2nd liners and potential first line players.

I want to see Marky get 40-50  games this year in net

 

Basically i want to see development in our new young core. 

 

 

 

[Honky Cat]

33 minutes ago, Aircool said:

The thing about all our NTCs is that they aren't long term contracts. Also, if you tell players you are rebuilding, and that if they want to win while they still perform they'll have to leave... They'll probably waive. I mean, if players aren't wanted, they won't stay. I do understand your position though, it's reasonable. I just don't like opinions that are like, "Canucks are going to make the playoffs for sure, Sedins will score 80+ points, yada yada"... these opinions without any sort of recognition of the state of the franchise are just infuriating in a way... You can't argue with a person who thinks like that.

 

To be of you actually, this is fine for Toronto if this happens. It's not ideal, but it's fine. They will have acquired franchise cornerstones to build around. They already had Rielly, now they have Nylander, Marner, Matthews. You can build a team around that core, might not be a cup contender, I don't know.

 

If the Leafs finish 12th worst or something, the thing about that is that it means their young players are forcing management to accelerate the timeline, because they are performing. If they don't force you to accelerate the timeline, then you just stick to the plan. If they do, then that means you are in a good state. You have a young core who is excelling. The thing I HATE about the Canucks, is that we have no such young core at the moment. Yet Benning is trying to contend and is missing the opportunity to more easily construct such a core by getting high pedigree players. 

So Horvat,Juolevi,Boeser,Virtanen and Demko are not worthy of being players you can build a team around?..We can speculate all we like ,but no one can predict how Toronto or Vans young players will turn out.

 

The point I was making was that a team like Toronto could just as easily turn into a 'bubble team' ..unable to move forward,and too good to fall back.

[Aircool]

1 hour ago, Honky Cat said:

So Horvat,Juolevi,Boeser,Virtanen and Demko are not worthy of being players you can build a team around?..We can speculate all we like ,but no one can predict how Toronto or Vans young players will turn out.

 

The point I was making was that a team like Toronto could just as easily turn into a 'bubble team' ..unable to move forward,and too good to fall back.

No that isn't a good enough core. If the rest of your team was role players, that's not good enough. If Virtanen is in Utica next year, then only 1 of those players will be in the NHL next year, so that's hardly a parallel situation to Toronto.

 

I don't think that Toronto could turn into a 'bubble team' with its young core. It's got enough high end talent to surround with role players, that over the course of 2-3 seasons would become a regular playoff team. It's definitely not enough for cup contention, but hardly a 'bubble team'. You've got a 1C, 2C, probably a first line winger in Marner, potential #1D in Rielly, maybe only a #2... A starting goalie in Andersen. You can build around that, and be a productive team. Especially with Babcock's coaching!

 

The thing about the kind of team you are describing is that they usually have 1-2 MAJOR holes in terms of a core. Like Columbus. Had a major hole that they filled with Seth Jones (at least they hope.), but they did it by opening another MAJOR hole, 1C. They are just short a core player. Getting a 1C doesn't automatically make them a playoff team necessarily, but it puts them in a position where they could conceivably surround that core to become playoff team. That's the hardest part, getting the core, and Columbus is a prime example of why you can't acquire a core member, it costs you a different one.

[Honky Cat]

5 minutes ago, Aircool said:

No that isn't a good enough core. If the rest of your team was role players, that's not good enough. If Virtanen is in Utica next year, then only 1 of those players will be in the NHL next year, so that's hardly a parallel situation to Toronto.

 

I don't think that Toronto could turn into a 'bubble team' with its young core. It's got enough high end talent to surround with role players, that over the course of 2-3 seasons would become a regular playoff team. It's definitely not enough for cup contention, but hardly a 'bubble team'. You've got a 1C, 2C, probably a first line winger in Marner, potential #1D in Rielly, maybe only a #2... A starting goalie in Andersen. You can build around that, and be a productive team. Especially with Babcock's coaching!

 

The thing about the kind of team you are describing is that they usually have 1-2 MAJOR holes in terms of a core. Like Columbus. Had a major hole that they filled with Seth Jones (at least they hope.), but they did it by opening another MAJOR hole, 1C. They are just short a core player. Getting a 1C doesn't automatically make them a playoff team necessarily, but it puts them in a position where they could conceivably surround that core to become playoff team. That's the hardest part, getting the core, and Columbus is a prime example of why you can't acquire a core member, it costs you a different one.

I'm not convinced that Toronto is going to be miles ahead of the Canucks during these next few years..Also,we can not really judge  a parallel situation until our previous picks, Juolevi,Boeser and Demko are in the lineup (2017-18),...all things being even.....Marner and Nylander are not exactly rugged,so we will get a good look at them this year (they could wind up looking like a bunch of Mason Raymonds in their rookie debuts)...Matthews I'm sure will be great....The Leafs have to get their D sorted out,and who knows if Andersen will be good enough to be a #1.

 

Canucks have their own work cut out in the next few years,especially acquiring a replacement for Henrik...but I like the way JB is constructing the team ...If Demko projects like he should,we will be set in goal for the next decade and more (and that will make or break you in the playoffs)...Horvat,Virtanen,Gudbranson bring a physical element...Juolevi and Baertschi will bring a skill element.

 

 

[WeneedLumme]

6 hours ago, Mathew Barzal said:

The only thing I outright don't like about Benning is his determination to acquire 'guaranteed NHL players' at the cost of our unknown quantities.

 

Closing the age gap is a poor excuse for dealing picks for players that have visibly failed or stalled in their development for 4-5 years on other teams. It's moneyball at its worst.

 

Everything else I can understand.

 

5 hours ago, oldnews said:

Uh, do you have a single example of a player Benning acquired that has failed or stalled in their development for 4-5 years lol?

I guess he's referring to players like Baer and Guddy, clearly failed players. Personally, I like Benning's determination to make trades that increase the expected value of the team's assets.

 

Trading a pick that has maybe a 30% chance of becoming an NHL player, including maybe a 10% chance of becoming an impact player, for a young player with maybe a 50 to 100 % chance of being an NHL player with 20 to 50% chance of becoming an impact player makes a lot of sense to me.

 

Projecting the career trajectories of young hockey players is, after all, JB's forte. He's better at it than most people. When he sees the opportunity to increase the likelihood of having a valuable player, he takes it. While not every prospect or trade will work out, the net result of what he's doing is clearly improving the team. 

 

I wonder how many Canuck fans would be willing to trade the team JB has assembled so far (including the prospect pipeline) for the one he took over a couple of years ago?

[Fred65]

1 hour ago, WeneedLumme said:

 

I guess he's referring to players like Baer and Guddy, clearly failed players. Personally, I like Benning's determination to make trades that increase the expected value of the team's assets.

 

Trading a pick that has maybe a 30% chance of becoming an NHL player, including maybe a 10% chance of becoming an impact player, for a young player with maybe a 50 to 100 % chance of being an NHL player with 20 to 50% chance of becoming an impact player makes a lot of sense to me.

 

Projecting the career trajectories of young hockey players is, after all, JB's forte. He's better at it than most people. When he sees the opportunity to increase the likelihood of having a valuable player, he takes it. While not every prospect or trade will work out, the net result of what he's doing is clearly improving the team. 

 

I wonder how many Canuck fans would be willing to trade the team JB has assembled so far (including the prospect pipeline) for the one he took over a couple of years ago?

I've stated this before there is no value...none .... in comparing Gillis and Benning. Totally different times. Gillis was on the verge of winning the SC and despite debilitating injuries he took the Canucks to game 7 of the Cup and also managed two Presidents trophies. You understand NO ONE , NO ONE has ever, ever, done that in Vcr in it's entire history. It was all about NOW in the Gillis era. Bennings era is about well lets try again. Think about this the rebuild ( if that's what we want to call it ) was started during the Gillis era. He realized the gig was over and it was time to start a rebuild. He did this by acquiring Horvat and Markstrom. I might add he signed Tanev as a FA and also brought in Hutton, Gaunce, Shinkaruk, Cassels, Grenier and Subban.. Unfortuneately had Aquamans accountant  hanging around Gillis neck demanding more profit (play-offs ) to buy more real estate in Vcr. Aquaman imposed Torterelli on Vcr and then had the brass to bitch when it didn't work out. Before Linden took his job he actually had to demand full control of hockey operations .....which speaks volumes about how much Aquaman interfered in the club.

 

As to drafting here's reality. Second round picks have on average a 20% chance to ever play 100 games of more in the NHL !! subsequent picks have as expected less. We can all name the exceptions but the list of youngsters who never make it is very very long. Take any team I usually look at the much praised Detroit and it's so called model. Now count the number of players that are drafted that make the 100 games list and then add all the draft picks that never make it ....guess which is the longest list

 

http://canucks.nhl.com/club/draftstats.htm?year=All&round=All&team=DET&supl=N

 

Heck only 65% of first round picks make the 100 game and of them I'm betting the majority are in the top 15 picks

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

I've stated this before there is no value...none .... in comparing Gillis and Benning. Totally different times. Gillis was on the verge of winning the SC and despite debilitating injuries he took the Canucks to game 7 of the Cup and also managed two Presidents trophies. You understand NO ONE , NO ONE has ever, ever, done that in Vcr in it's entire history. It was all about NOW in the Gillis era. Bennings era is about well lets try again. Think about this the rebuild ( if that's what we want to call it ) was started during the Gillis era. He realized the gig was over and it was time to start a rebuild. He did this by acquiring Horvat and Markstrom. I might add he signed Tanev as a FA and also brought in Hutton, Gaunce, Shinkaruk, Cassels, Grenier and Subban.. Unfortuneately had Aquamans accountant  hanging around Gillis neck demanding more profit (play-offs ) to buy more real estate in Vcr. Aquaman imposed Torterelli on Vcr and then had the brass to bitch when it didn't work out. Before Linden took his job he actually had to demand full control of hockey operations .....which speaks volumes about how much Aquaman interfered in the club.

 

As to drafting here's reality. Second round picks have on average a 20% chance to ever play 100 games of more in the NHL !! subsequent picks have as expected less. We can all name the exceptions but the list of youngsters who never make it is very very long. Take any team I usually look at the much praised Detroit and it's so called model. Now count the number of players that are drafted that make the 100 games list and then add all the draft picks that never make it ....guess which is the longest list

 

http://canucks.nhl.com/club/draftstats.htm?year=All&round=All&team=DET&supl=N

 

Heck only 65% of first round picks make the 100 game and of them I'm betting the majority are in the top 15 picks

You keep reposting this, and I'll keep giving you pluses.  Excellent.

[Fred65]

3 minutes ago, Alflives said:

You keep reposting this, and I'll keep giving you pluses.  Excellent.

What did Sgt. Joe Friday use to say ....just gimme the facts ma'm just gimme the facts 

 

problem is some are having trouble with reality 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Fred65 said:

What did Sgt. Joe Friday use to say ....just gimme the facts ma'm just gimme the facts 

 

problem is some are having trouble with reality 

Gannon and Friday.  Great duo.