Louie Eriksson and Jake Virtanen and Jim Benning

[Alflives]

35 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

If Benning trades for a pick, I always laugh because I know he is trying to appease people like you.  

 

He clearly understands the draft much better than you or I.  That is exactly why he traded some late picks for low risk projects.  He understands their value.  Thats why he uses them freely.  

Second round picks (IMO) are great for getting gem D men.  I look at Nashville, and they got Josi and Webber in round two.  Then traded Webber for another second round pick D man - PK.  I didn’t go through the entire league, but I know there are a lot of really important D men who were drafted in round two.  I don’t care if a guy is a plug, who plays 500 games.  I do care about getting Gem players (like Josi, Webber, Subban, and many others) though.  

[oldnews]

16 hours ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

 

First off, you referred to the "Shana-Plan" first. I simply used that as the timeline for what you were talking about since the "Shana-Plan" started when he took control obviously. 

 

Second, you said that they don't have one player on their current roster who wasn't a top 10 pick or named Dermott drafted in the last 5 years. You're just plain wrong. I proved that wrong easily looking at the last 5 drafts since that's the timeline you laid down. You said last 5 years, not me. 

 

?  You proved what wrong? 

You named players drafted in 2013, players that have never played an NHL game, players they didn't draft....you named not a single NHL asset on their roster that they drafted to 'prove' that point wrong.

 

2018

Sandin

Durzi

DerArgunchintsez

Stotts

Hollowell

Kral

Holmberg

Bouthillier

Kizimov

 

2017

Liljegren

Rasanen

Scott

Kara

Gordeev

McGregor

O'Connell

 

2016

Matthews

Korshkov

Grundstrom

Woll

Greenway

Brooks

Middleton

Bobylev

Walker

Mattinen

Chebykin

 

2015

Marner

Dermott

Bracco

Nielsen

Djierkals

Lindgren

Timashov

Desrocher

Korostolev

 

2014

Nylander

Valiev

Piccinich

Joshua

Vesey

Engvall.

 

If you found more that Dermott outside the top 10 there over the last 5 drafts, you're more creative than I am - you're simply moving goalposts.

 

 

[oldnews]

17 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

We won a lottery too, the 2017 lottery.  Only the most stubborn homers can make stockpiling draft picks sound like a bad idea.

 

17 hours ago, oldnews said:

Cool story. 

 

16 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

 

We won a lottery in 2017?   With all due respect, what are you talking about?  That's nonsense and you know it.

 

As is the weak strawman you propped up in the secong claim. 

 

You're completely confusing - perhaps intentionally - two distinct things.

I don't recall anyone on these boards every calling the addition of extra picks a "bad idea".  This is as weak as some of the other straw thrown around in this thread.

 

The point that has been made - is that you can have 18 picks outside the first round ie like the Leafs did in the 15 and 16 drafts - but if you have merely one of them on your roster - a 34th overall that they already possessed - then the stockpile the pickz 'strategy' isn't really genius - it's only one step in a process that includes drafting  - and developing - and if you whiff on steps two and three, step one was literally worthless.

Your last post is an interesting sidetrack - with some good points - which have nothing to do with either of your cool story claims. 

 

[bigbadcanucks]

2 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

Both of the trades you mentioned included 1st round picks in them.  They wouldn't happen without them.  They also included 2nd round picks.  No meaningful trades were made at all with picks in rounds 3-7.  Yet you included a long rant about how many 3,4,5,6,7 they brilliantly acquired.

 

The AHL team in not the NHL team.  I sorry Utica.  I could careless about your win/loss record.  Sometimes its better to have a bad team because then a player who might not otherwise gets more meaningful minutes.  This is how a 7th pick turns into Kucherov.  

 

The goal is to play NHL games.  I am sorry I can't see how you are making a strong argument about this excellent GMing by the Leafs based off of teh acquisition of these picks.

If I may jump in to the conversation...

 

I get what you're saying, but I am all for Jim Benning trading diminishing assets for draft picks or developing prospects, especially in the context of rebuilding a team.  From what I can gather, the counter point is that it would have been better if JB was able to get something for players like Matthias, Hamhuis (maybe not a good example), and others rather than nothing. 

 

To your point about the deals the Leafs made where the first round pick was the core asset given up, the secondary assets (i.e., later round picks) provided them with the added leverage that allowed them to outbid another team.  Assets are assets, and how they are deployed are all within the context of the deal that is being made and the competitive nature under which they are made.

 

You make some strong/valid/factual points regarding the likelihood of 2-7 picks making the NHL but wouldn't you agree that stockpiling or acquiring draft picks for players that may not fit what you're doing as a team that you can later utilize in the marketplace a good thing? 

 

IMO, this really isn't a Leafs/Canucks argument (though the dialogue thus far is based on that), but moreso how Jim Benning has not been able to extract as much return as he could possibly have over the past few years. 

 

Personally, I am not altogether upset that JB hasn't been able to do much with players like Matthias...I'm somewhat disappointed that he's had more misses on the late picks than hits (though his work in the early rounds picking Boeser/Petterson/Hughes trumps that)...the list is long - Mackenze Stewart, Kyle Petit, Tate Olson, Carl Neill, Dmitry Zhukenov, Brett McKenzie, Rodrigo Abols, Jakub Stukel, Cole Candella, Matt Brassard have all turned into throw-aways.  And the list will probably continue to grow.  So, would having more picks in the late rounds result in more players that you toss in the BFI bin?  Law of probability says yes, but you do increase your chance of unearthing an Adam Gaudette statistically. 

Edited April 19, 2019 by bigbadcanucks

[Noble 6]

16 minutes ago, oldnews said:

?  You proved what wrong? 

You named players drafted in 2013, players that have never played an NHL game, players they didn't draft....you named not a single NHL asset on their roster that they drafted to 'prove' that point wrong.

 

2018

Sandin

Durzi

DerArgunchintsez

Stotts

Hollowell

Kral

Holmberg

Bouthillier

Kizimov

 

2017

Liljegren

Rasanen

Scott

Kara

Gordeev

McGregor

O'Connell

 

2016

Matthews

Korshkov

Grundstrom

Woll

Greenway

Brooks

Middleton

Bobylev

Walker

Mattinen

Chebykin

 

2015

Marner

Dermott

Bracco

Nielsen

Djierkals

Lindgren

Timashov

Desrocher

Korostolev

 

2014

Nylander

Valiev

Piccinich

Joshua

Vesey

Engvall.

 

If you found more that Dermott outside the top 10 there over the last 5 drafts, you're more creative than I am - you're simply moving goalposts.

 

 

 

Dermott (2nd) and Johnsson (7th) are currently playing for the Leafs. Grundstrom (2nd) played for them in the NHL and got traded. Again, you said last 5 drafts, not me. 

 

If you're purely using NHL games played as the only relevant piece of information, then it's too early to evaluate the 2017 and 2018 drafts. Liljegren and Sandin are virtual locks and they might get one more player in the NHL. For reference, the only player we have from the 2017 or 2018 drafts playing in the NHL are Pettersson and Hughes, top 10 picks. 

 

If we're talking about value, they've gotten some of that too as I explained earlier. 

[oldnews]

11 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

Nice rant, and spin.  

 

We argue draft strategies, argue what's most effective and how well it's working.  Saying the Leafs copied the Hawks/Kings/Pens draft strategy doesn't proclaim anything. 

Still need to hit on your picks.

Win a big trade.

Make smart signings.

Yet even if do everything right.  You can be Tampa Bay and get swept in the 1st round.  

Nobody is the next Blackhawks until they win their 3rd Stanley Cup.  

Dude - in 2016 you declared the Leafs rebuild 'finished'.

You posted drivel threads expecting the Canucks rething to be 'on pace' - with a team that has been drafting top 10 since 2008.

Proclaimed the Leafs the next Blackhawks, drooling over their core while not realizing it takes a lot more than a few shiny top10s to be a dynasty.

 

You now finally have the sense to walk back your fool's game.  Kudos to you for that.

[Noble 6]

2 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

if you know a GM that will take 2,3,4,5,6,7 for a 1st rd pick then I am with you!  Lets trade all the rentals and marginal players for picks.  Lets spit ball all the quantity the Canucks can into a 1st rd pick.  Lets do that for sure! I just don't think that is a strategy that is going to work on another human being with professional sports management experience.

 

Jim likes to sign college free agents because they are less of crap shoot.  If he really wanted to of couse, he could trade for a bunch of 5th rd picks.  He chooses not to.  This is a conscious decision.  There are 50 contract slots available, and he doesn't see your route as a solid way to build a team.  I mean if you yourself think he is so good at drafting why would you doubt his understanding of the value of picks?

 

 

At 3:43 in the video:

 

Benning: "Do you guys wanna do it (trade down for additional late picks)?"

Brackett: "Yeah I think it gives us another shot. We're late at this point we're only gonna up our odds of getting someone and I'm okay with that."

Weisbrod: "It's a matter of whether the extra picks late are of value to you."

Brackett: "They are."

 

Can you explain this please? If extra draft picks are meaningless, why was Brackett, the man running our drafts, keen acquiring more by trading down?

 

 

at 3:10:

 

Benning: "For the 6th round, would we do the 6th this year and next year both?"
Weisbrod: "It's up to Judd (Brackett), we're getting value."

Brackett: "I'd do it." 

 

If extra picks 6th rounders are meaningless, why did Brackett want to acquire an extra one for this year?

[oldnews]

3 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

For the people who say we never had the assets to make trades for picks... Stop with the excuses

 

@oldnews. Some more reading material for you to ignore.  Crickets

What a slippery  post.   You make a strange claim - implying that the Canucks had lots of tradeable assets when Benning arrived - and then not a word about it - instead you proceed to fluff Leaf deals - that yielded what?

 

I've already posted the sum of all the stockpilez over the past five drafts.  You can impress yourself all you want with your one step rebuild - but unfortunately teams need to do something with their picks...  The fact of the matter is that the only real benefit they've extracted thus far is flipping guys like Grundstrom or Durzi as secondary pieces in a deal for Muzzin that also cost them their 1st.

The irony there is that if they'd drafted more - and better defensemen over the past decade they might not be shopping with multiples of futures for obvious and glaring needs to fill holes in their roster.

And again - even after signing yet another 1st overall - and declaring themselves "Stanley Cup favorites" - reality has set in - and they find themselves in a dogfight to get out of the first round - yet to win a single playoff round despite 'finishing' their rebuild years ago.    Fluff away on the stockpiles all you want - but again, that's not really what their 'rebuild' has consisted of and there's very little to reflect it on their actual roster - which is what fn matters in the end.

 

 

[oldnews]

@The 5th Line

 

I'm not going to bother repeating myself - I'm going to repost a question I asked another poster and invite you to follow up on the actual claim you implied - and then readily abandoned in favour of Leaf-fluffing - in your last post.

 

On 4/9/2019 at 11:14 PM, oldnews said:

Show us what your blow up would have looked like.

 

I mean really - you walk in, Tortorella and Gillis have just left the building.

 

Here's your team:

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000392014.html

 

Tell us where you'd get all the picks.

 

Take Kesler, Garrison, Bieksa, Lack, or Diaz out of any story - they were dealt for picks in reality.

Don't pretend to get anything for 15 pt, $5 million Burrows -  or 20 pt Hansen - let alone a Goldobin, pick and Dahlen/Karlsson.

Luongo is already gone.

 

Dont pretend to be able to deal the Sedins or Edler.   Try to keep it real.

 

 

So here you go:

 

Higgins (NTC) 

Kassian,

Santorelli,

Richardson,

Hamhuis (NTC),  we all know what happened when Hamhuis was otb, sorta.

Booth,

Tanev, tradeable asset - and still is - but at age 23 - he's not a teardown asset, so don't pretend to cash in on 23 yr old Tanev.

Stanton,

Weise,

Weber,

Sestito,

Dalpe.

Matthias,

Schroeder,

Jensen,

Archibald,

Laine,

Corrado,

Welsh,

Zalewski,

Ferriero,

Peltier,

Sauve

 

OK - that's your list.   Go.

 

 

[CaptainLinden16]

14 minutes ago, bigbadcanucks said:

If I may jump in to the conversation...

 

I get what you're saying, but I am all for Jim Benning trading diminishing assets for draft picks or developing prospects, especially in the context of rebuilding a team.  From what I can gather, the counter point is that it would have been better if JB was able to get something for players like Matthias, Hamhuis (maybe not a good example), and others rather than nothing. 

 

To your point about the deals the Leafs made where the first round pick was the core asset given up, the secondary assets (i.e., later round picks) provided them with the added leverage that allowed them to outbid another team.  Assets are assets, and how they are deployed are all within the context of the deal that is being made and the competitive nature under which they are made.

 

You make some strong/valid/factual points regarding the likelihood of 2-7 picks making the NHL but wouldn't you agree that stockpiling or acquiring draft picks for players that may not fit what you're doing as a team that you can later utilize in the marketplace a good thing? 

 

IMO, this really isn't a Leafs/Canucks argument (though the dialogue thus far is based on that), but moreso how Jim Benning has not been able to extract as much return as he could possibly have over the past few years. 

 

Personally, I am not altogether upset that JB hasn't been able to do much with players like Matthias...I'm somewhat disappointed that he's had more misses on the late picks than hits (though his work in the early rounds picking Boeser/Petterson/Hughes trumps that)...the list is long - Mackenze Stewart, Kyle Petit, Tate Olson, Carl Neill, Dmitry Zhukenov, Brett McKenzie, Rodrigo Abols, Jakub Stukel, Cole Candella, Matt Brassard have all turned into throw-aways.  And the list will probably continue to grow.  So, would having more picks in the late rounds result in more players that you toss in the BFI bin?  Law of probability says yes, but you do increase your chance of unearthing an Adam Gaudette statistically. 

Yes you are right MORE is always better when it comes to anything, but its not binary decision.  Its not like Jim is sitting there with the option for more picks and justs says no thank you.  Its about value.  Its about how much he values a 4th rd pick then what that player is providing currently for the team.  Its about his own belief that he will sign a college free agent or two with the extra contract slots available.  Its about the flexibility of trading a 5th round pick for a player who plays a position of need and doesn't need to be developed for 5 years until you actually know what you have in that player.

 

Yes more picks is better.  More lotto tickets is better.  But buying a lotto ticket in itself has a negative payoff due to the fact that 1 dollar in isn't paid out on the other end when you consider taxes and the take by the lotto provider.

 

There are negative trade offs to more 7th rd picks more 3rd round picks and even more 2nd round picks.  I get that Roman Polak for two 2nd round picks sounds like a ridiculously good trade, but the guy is still playing hockey effectively.  Most 2nd round picks never play NHL hockey.  I mean if the average 2nd round pick doesnt see NHL ice and Roman Polak does.  What's better for your team someone who can play a role and contribute in a positive way or the hope that you draft Shea Weber?   

[oldnews]

21 minutes ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

 

Dermott (2nd) and Johnsson (7th)

Jesus Murphy - Johnsson was drafted in 2013.  Just stop.  The goalposts are tired of moving.

[Noble 6]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Jesus Murphy - Johnsson was drafted in 2013.  Just stop.  The goalposts are tired of moving.

 

YOU said last 5 drafts in your original post, not me. I've repeated that multiple times. 

 

If you want to eliminate 2013 go for it, but you haven't addressed any of my points in your last 2 replies. 

[CaptainLinden16]

8 minutes ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

 

 

At 3:43 in the video:

 

Benning: "Do you guys wanna do it (trade down for additional late picks)?"

Brackett: "Yeah I think it gives us another shot. We're late at this point we're only gonna up our odds of getting someone and I'm okay with that."

Weisbrod: "It's a matter of whether the extra picks late are of value to you."

Brackett: "They are."

 

Can you explain this please? If extra draft picks are meaningless, why was Brackett, the man running our drafts, keen acquiring more by trading down?

 

 

at 3:10:

 

Benning: "For the 6th round, would we do the 6th this year and next year both?"
Weisbrod: "It's up to Judd (Brackett), we're getting value."

Brackett: "I'd do it." 

 

If extra picks 6th rounders are meaningless, why did Brackett want to acquire an extra one for this year?

Isn't it Brackett's job to be the scouting director????

 

Its your job and your like nope I don't like anybody.  So nobody judd??  nope trade the picks, its not my job to know something about these players and want you take one of my recommendations.  Not at all.  I want you to trade the picks please.

 

If I am an NHL scout or a director of scouting then I would want a billion picks.  It gives me a better chance of saying hey look  "I found Kucherov!"

 

[Davathor]

Reading you guys arguing and crying at each other just gave me eye cancer

[oldnews]

5 minutes ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

 

YOU said last 5 drafts in your original post, not me. I've repeated that multiple times. 

 

If you want to eliminate 2013 go for it, but you haven't addressed any of my points in your last 2 replies. 

We can't even agree on math @Horvat is a Boss

 

You seem to believe that 6 drafts ago should be included in the last 5.   I literally laid out every pick of theirs over the past 5 drafts - and you for whatever reason still insist on making Johnsson one of them.  He was drafted before even Spamaman arrived. 

 

Does "the Spamaplan" now include and get credit for players drafted by the likes of Nonis and Burke - or in the interim between them and the #proper-rebuild?

 

I think that's the point most of you guys have a hard time deciphering - and it's evident here.

 

I think we're probably done here = getting nowhere

[Noble 6]

4 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

Isn't it Brackett's job to be the scouting director????

 

Its your job and your like nope I don't like anybody.  So nobody judd??  nope trade the picks, its not my job to know something about these players and want you take one of my recommendations.  Not at all.  I want you to trade the picks please.

 

If I am an NHL scout or a director of scouting then I would want a billion picks.  It gives me a better chance of saying hey look  "I found Kucherov!"

 

 

Alright, sounds good.

 

So why not actually get more picks so we, in fact, do have a higher chance of finding a Kucherov as you just said?

[Noble 6]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

We can't even agree on math @Horvat is a Boss

 

You seem to believe that 6 drafts ago should be included in the last 5.   I literally laid out every pick of theirs over the past 5 drafts - and you for whatever reason still insist on making Johnsson one of them.  He was drafted before even Spamaman arrived. 

 

Does "the Spamaplan" now include and get credit for players drafted by the likes of Nonis and Burke - or in the interim between them and the #proper-rebuild?

 

I think that's the point most of you guys have a hard time deciphering - and it's evident here.

 

I think we're probably done here = getting nowhere

 

I wasn't including 2018 because the only teams that have someone in the NHL are the teams who had top-10 picks. My bad, shoulda said that. I was including it when we were talking about value though since drafted players outside the top 10 can have value. 

[CaptainLinden16]

Just now, Horvat is a Boss said:

 

Alright, sounds good.

 

So why not actually get more picks so we, in fact, do have a higher chance of finding a Kucherov as you just said?

Because its not a BINARY decision! Jesus you people, its like all 30 GMS believe that the only way to build a team is to draft 30 times in the 7th round, so you can miss for a decade and then land Kucherov.   98-99% never play a minute in the NHL that get drafted in the 7th rd.  Michael Del Zotto and Luke Schenn have.  They are more useful to their teams than a 7th round pick.  

 

Its not even that Luke Schenn is more usueful than a 7th rd pick.  It's Luke Schenn's 2019 season of 20 games is more useful than a 7th rd pick on a team that didn't make the playoffs.  His 20 games already played exceeds the most likely outcome of a 7th rd pick by a factor of 20.

[Noble 6]

1 minute ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

Because its not a BINARY decision! Jesus you people, its like all 30 GMS believe that the only way to build a team is to draft 30 times in the 7th round, so you can miss for a decade and then land Kucherov.   98-99% never play a minute in the NHL that get drafted in the 7th rd.  Michael Del Zotto and Luke Schenn have.  They are more useful to their teams than a 7th round pick.  

 

Its not even that Luke Schenn is more usueful than a 7th rd pick.  It's Luke Schenn's 2019 season of 20 games is more useful than a 7th rd pick on a team that didn't make the playoffs.  His 20 games already played exceeds the most likely outcome of a 7th rd pick by a factor of 20.

 

I'd rather go into a draft with a 3.7% chance of drafting a Kucherov than a 3% chance when rebuilding. 

 

If we don't draft a Kucherov how else do you want to get one?

[CaptainLinden16]

1 minute ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

 

I'd rather go into a draft with a 3.7% chance of drafting a Kucherov than a 3% chance when rebuilding. 

 

If we don't draft a Kucherov how else do you want to get one?

you think its a 3.7% chance at drafting Kucherov esque player in the 7th round?  Are you serious?  Drafting an all-star caliber player in the 7th rd is a .013% chance.  6/450

 

Here is the best 7th rd picks in the last 15 years and only the top 6 are all stars.  Thats 450 picks in the last 15 years.

 

https://thehockeywriters.com/10-best-7th-round-picks-of-the-last-15-years/