Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

jyu

Members
  • Posts

    1,344
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jyu

  1. While i agree 100%, i bet he gets moved for a second rounder… They should set the price high. I’m hoping it’s for Boston’s first and they bounce out in the first round. And Schenn re-signs with us.
  2. jyu

    Jim Benning

    It’s not easy i guess. Maybe games played for your team and stats? You are right about JV. He played enough games and have the stats to qualify as an NHLer.
  3. jyu

    Jim Benning

    Thanks. You have good points. I see your point regarding JV and OJ. JV was actually legally cleared so if it wasn’t for that, he would still be playing. I’m still thinking that OJ is on JB. Clearly, there was a better player available in Tkachuk. See the rankings here: http://www.mynhldraft.com/2016-draft/nhl-draft-rankings/. So I’m under the impression that we prioritized position over BPA. Injuries have certainly prevented OJ from making progress and COVID may have ended it. I was hoping he could turn into a top 4 and at the least a serviceable bottom pairing defenceman.
  4. Yes, that would be saavy move. Jarry will cost more than what Demko costs us now. And, facing Demko in the same division... don't like it but maybe we must give up something to address our right side.
  5. Boston doesn't have a first if they are indeed giving it up for Gavrikov. Otherwise, I'd ask their 1st. Boston's 2nd rounder is nearly 3rd rounder so it's not very appealing. I'd love for Boston to get knocked out in the first round after winning the president's trophy and that pick becomes something like 24th overall. Probably won't happen but one can dream. For Demko, my ask would be one of their RHD prospects + 2nd. If we do trade Demko, it will be interesting. They will likely make a play for Jarry in the offseason.
  6. I hope they don't have tricks up their sleeves. Tricks don't work when rebuilding the defence. It's going to be a slow process. In the meantime, enjoy Petey and Hughes and other young guys as they step in over time.
  7. jyu

    Jim Benning

    I'd say that for one picking in the top 5 or top 10, you are rebuilding/retooling so you want to identify and draft star players into your core. For the one that is picking in the 20+, your success at the draft should be measured by the number of NHL games they play for you as your team is already in contention and those guys can help make the final push. Let's look at Gillis first. The league wide success rate as per @DSVIIis about 50% for 20-30 range and 78% for picks 6-10. Gillis's hit rate in the 20+ range was 0-for-4 (2009, 2011, 2012, 2013 -- Shinkaruk). Very poor indeed. He traded away a first in 2010 even, so he had one less at bat. And in fact, he really could have saved himself if he hit on these picks from 2009 to 2011 because the core players really needed a push in 2012-2015. His hit rate on picks 6-10 range was 2-for-2: 2008 (Hodgson) and 2013 (Horvat). Horvat can be considered a star (2-time all star) so he did very well there -- although I don't know how they defined a star in compiling the stats shared by @DSVII. Hodgson, well, he was a bonafide NHLer but his career was shortened and Gillis made a trade for Kassian who didn't pan out. In the end Hodgson didn't play enough games for us, like 70 games. So from that perspective, Hodgson could be seen as failed draft pick. Although Gillis didn't do great at the draft table, I have and would like to defend Gillis. Gillis's priorities were to win the cup. Drafting and filling the prospect pool was not his primary goal, which he himself regretted later. The cap has been in place only for a few years when he took over and some teams were still going for the cup by mortgaging he future like the pre-cap era and for those teams, they did not put enough emphasis on picks. The trend is completely different now. If Gillis were the GM now and he had the same team, I bet you Gillis will perform better at the draft. As for Benning... The hit rate on picks in the range 2-5 is 93%. His went 1-for-2 as he hit on Petey but struck out on Juolevi. On the surface, it looks like he didn't do well there... but then, on the metric of finding a star player, he succeeded. The league wide rate for finding a star with picks 2-5 is only 34% (I'm surprised to be honest -- I thought it would be much higher). His hit rate on 6-10 is 1-for-2. Win on Hughes but lost on Virtanen -- I'm not counting Podz for now. The league wide success rate is 78% and for finding star is 13%. So again, he find a star player. And he also hit on range 20-30: McCann and Boeser. McCann didn't play enough games for us and the subsequent trade didn't work out so maybe that is a failed pick but Boeser is still on the team and have played 370 games for us. We all have our opinion on Boeser these days but I'd say that pick was a success. So Benning went 1-for-2 in that range. I honestly think he wasn't bad at all. Let me put it this way. If he has hit on JV pick and OJ pick, say he got Ehlers and Sergachev.... He would be the only GM that I can think of, that have hit on all 100% of his 1st rounders.
  8. jyu

    Jim Benning

    Thanks. I replied your points one by one. Overall I agree with you that Accelerating the rebuild doesn’t work in general. Benning tried anyways and in the end, it set us back. But if it worked, he would have pulled off the impossible. And I think he may have been able to pull it off if not for his questionable roster moves post-2020 playoffs and COVID punishing his lenient cap usage. I don’t want to argue for or against specific moves but i think getting sutter was good. I would not want Pettersson doing the tough match up while still needing to develop his game, same with Bo earlier on. Gudbrason was a bad move for sure. Gave up on McCann too quick. Same with Forsling, I personally did not like that move to get Clendening myself. He stated on many occasions that he wanted to surround the young guys with vets. You don’t want Edmonton Oilers, where guys like Hall and RNH were expected to play like a seasoned vet from the getgo. Getting the vets in the right age group was to avoid running the prospects. Some moves went bad, some moves were OK, and some went well in my opinion. You can’t compare to Gillis promoting players from within like Kesler, Schneider, Burrows, because they were in the system well before Gillis arrived. Juice in 2001. Kesler drafted in 2003. Edler, Schneids, Hansen in 2004. Raymond in 2005. These guys have been in the system developing for 3-5 years before Gillis even got there. Benning had none. Like literally zero player ready to step in when he took over in 2014. He had Bo and Marky in the system but they needed further development. Bo made it in 2015 and slowly worked his way up the line up, he was mentored by guys like Sedins and Sutter. Marky around 2016 and full time in 2017. He too was mentored by an experienced vet in Miller… Ryan Miller. And Gillis had prime Sedins and Luongo, to go along with those young NHL players. Sedins were already PPG players and Luongo was considered a top 3 goalie in the league at the time. And obviously they would go on to become hall of famers. Benning didnt have a core of hall of famers. He didnt even have young NHL roster players. Instead he was left with an aging core who all had NMC or NTC. Hmm. This bolded point assumes that if JB didnt trade for say Gudbransons or Sutters, we would have performed better — that by making these moves he ended up actually rebuilding insted of turning it around. Correct? If he didn’t make those moves, we would have performed more or less the same: 2nd worst in the league for two consecutive seasons in 2016 and 2017. I dont think those moves did anything other than trading away prospects — which i agree were poor decisions. Two that are playing are not just playing though. One is a top 10, arguably a top 5 center in the league. The other guy is a top 5 puck possession defenceman in the league. Two that are not playing, yes that is unfortunate. I wish we picked Ehlers and Chychrun or Sergachev. the team was going to rebuild with or without those moves. It wasn’t accidental. When all you have are 30+ year olds with literally no young player or prospects, rebuild is inevitable no matter what benning did or didn’t do. My regret is, that he and the owner should have accepted this inevitable rebuild and to have rebuild methodically instead of making moves that didn’t make much difference only to waste assets. This is exactly what Linden was saying and he was shown the door. hmmm but 2018 was when things started to look better for the first time in years. Petey came into the league. Then QH at the end of the season. And Brock still had the upsides and Bo as well. You mean we should have stripped down at that point and go for a top pick in 2020 and 2021? interesting. Maybe you have a good point there. We sure could use a defenceman or two now. Yes he was swinging for the fences. Getting Miller helped make this team better for the short term for sure. I don’t regret that trade though. As @Alflives claims, it’s the owner!! #selltheteam You have to acknowledge that he had to fill the NHL roster as well as fill the prospect pipeline. Balancing that is near impossible. In the end, he didn’t pull it off but he at least let us some good pieces behind so that doing a retool actually might work this time. Like Gillis, Allvin was left with two potential hall of famers in Petey and Hughes as well as a top ten goalie in Demko. And not too barren of a prospect pool with Podz, Hogs, Klim, Rathbone, Jurmo, which have since then been upgraded with Lekkerinaki and Raty and two high picks in 2023.
  9. jyu

    Jim Benning

    Your calculations are reasonable. There's no denying that Gillis' downfall was at the draft. If he drafted decently enough, the 2012-2015 team probably gets one more crack at the cup. For example, if he had drafted just one scorer, just one, to fill in for Daniel Sedin and to hold the LA series from going 3-0 but say 2-1... Then, Daniel returns and we win game 4 and the series is tied 2-2. The core got stale because there was no young player coming up to disrupt and generate competition for roles. Everybody came to the training camp, knowing their spot was already claimed for and went about it mechanistically. That gave us a good regular season team who knew the formula for winning regular season games but it never developed another gear for the playoffs because it didn't need to. As for the drafting success of JB, everyone would agree that JB had two grand slams: Petey and Hughes. People argue that Hughes was the consensus blah blah but that wasn't the case. Some teams like Detroit couldn't resist the temptation to draft a top 3 rated prospect in Zadina even though I think they were all set to draft Hughes developed in their own backyard. Other teams were scared off by Hughes' size and went way off board like nuts (Kotkaniemi, Hayton). So both picks to me were the greatest contributions JB made to the team along with drafting Demko as well as developing Horvat and Marky, who were not drafted by Benning but developed during his tenure. I look at 2014-2019 as rebuilding years even though the team refused to use that word and I think he laid good foundation by hitting on the first rounders and surrounding them with good supplementary players. During that time, his greatest duds were Virtanen and Juolevi. Especially Juolevi, who didn't even make the NHL. At #5, you expect at least an NHL player. He was unlucky with injuries but I think the GM needs to own up for the failed first round picks, especially if it's #5 or #6 overall picks. So he had two grand slams (EP, QH), one doubleplay (JV), one tripleplay (OJ), and three hits (Boeser, McCann, and Podz). That's not bad in the first round compared to any other GMs in the league. Drafting NHL players in the later rounds depend more on the scouting team and luck than the GM. The Canucks just don't really have the history of drafting good players in the later rounds whether it was Quinn, Burke, Gillis, or Benning. For the same reason, I wouldn't blame Gillis for not being able to draft players in the later rounds. Gillis didn't have much success in the first round: Hodgson (10), Schroeder (22), 2010 1st traded, Jensen (29), Gaunce (26), Horvat (9), Shinkaruk (26). He was serving a different goal to that of Benning though.
  10. Yeah i guess they were just getting rid of older guys who have value in preparation for a retool. They have some good young players to build around. sort of like how some people here wanted to trade both miller and horvat. kinda smart of them actually. Getting meier and a top 10 pick this year will help their retool tremendously.
  11. Wolanin > OEL. At this point, our only saving Grace is LTIR for O.
  12. What kind of lab do you work for — that people all look depressed?
  13. Hughes have matured. That’s the only difference i see between the two clips. he and petey have both grown tremendously. They could go with either of them for captaincy.
  14. Hey at least we are all having fun and laughing. That’s good. This is way less stressful than last year where every point mattered.
  15. Exciting game. Miller played well. I wish they play Podz a bit more or just send him down. He needs more ice time to develop his game.
  16. The last time we had anything resembling intimidation was WCE era. Jovo and Ohlund were big guys that played tough and were great two way players. Murray Baron and Bryan Allen were big stay home guys. Brent Sopel, the caveman intimidated with his looks and probably smell as well. Marek Malik was tall although not very tough. And Salo. His shot could hit anybody, including his teammates. Very intimidating. Then we had Brashear up front. Bertuzzi. Cooke, who could cheapshot you if you didn't keep your head up. Ruutu. Like Cooke but not as dirty. That was a good team. Only if they had a goaltender.
  17. Appreciate it if you can provide the stats. Not disagreeing but I haven't seen any evidence to back up this claim. IMO, Horvat is average defensive player while Miller is highly variable defensively. Miller can play very well defensively because he actually can read plays well but he doesn't bother at times to the thing that is needed to be done and he can also be atrocious with the puck and make low percentage plays. Miller will sometimes make you think, "hmm that was a good defensive play by Miller" and the next moment, "wow that was terrible". Horvat on the other hand doesn't have great anticipation of where the puck is going or the next moves of the opponents (not a great reader of the game), but he is always moving his feet to try to get in good positions so he's never atrocious the way Miller can be at times but elite opponents will surely find a way to beat him a couple of times for good scoring chances.
×
×
  • Create New...