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

theo5789

Members
  • Posts

    10,599
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by theo5789

  1. He drafted McCann and traded him a year later. Reports suggest that Benning wanted Bleackley at the time and he was picked a spot before us and was left picking who they thought was BPA at the time, which may be a blessing in disguise but also pissed Benning off that the scouts had missed out on Pastrnak altogether. It is possible that it came down between Juolevi or Tkachuk and they went with a positional need on top of the potential character issue. We will see over time if this ever comes out or not though, but they go through player interviews and perhaps they got a vibe they didn't like then. Just as an example, no one would've questioned Duchene's character, but almost as soon as he was traded from Colorado, they seemed to turn things around. Some behind the scenes stuff comes out and you start to see his character flaws that we may have never known had it not been for the incident. So it's not an impossibility that character didn't come into play, but it's also not a huge reach to go for a highly ranked dman at the time. Most pundits had OJ ranked around 7-8, so it's not like it was a major reach. Similarly, EP was ranked around 7-12 and had be picked the supposed BPA at the time, then we should've gone with Glass. It paid off with EP, OJ has had some bad luck and unfortunately it hasn't worked out for us yet. As for Lucic, I'm stumped on that one, but I guess there may be a different mantra toward drafting prospects for character to try and get players that will want to sign with the Canucks (particularly college prospects) and guys that are driven to get to the next level (and thus why some of our later picks have been punching above their weights). The Lucic target is really the only outlier towards a non-character type player and maybe it was overlooked to supposedly give the Sedins some protection (unlike someone like Tkachuk who's more agitator than enforcer).
  2. +24 in his year in Utica, must've been a defensive stalwart that season as well
  3. Last I heard, he was a top PKer in Utica and played around 20 minutes a night while having his ice time/games played managed due to recovering from his surgeries. He does need to still improve on his defensive game no doubt, as he will need to work on his turns getting comfortable with the knee and just getting more reps at the professional level since he's been out quite some time. I don't think he will become the dman we were hoping for when we drafted him, but I remain optimistic that he will still be a legit NHLer as long as we don't rush him just to get him to the NHL asap, but rather ensure he's the best player he can possibly be when he does make the NHL and sticks.
  4. I get the feeling the Squamfam is Taj and he posts his own tweets as verification. He would fit right in with some select media here.
  5. Weren't you the one that wasn't high on our prospect pool because Utica had nothing to show for thus far and several of us debated with you over the fact that we had prospects coming from many angles? I remember you were suggesting that we were dreamers because we believed in our prospects from the get go. Now you're suddenly on the amateur drafting success bandwagon without your evidence based system? I guess this works in your angle towards anti-Benning, so now you've changed your tune. With that said, Brackett hasn't been fired, he's been offered a contract. Benning wants to keep the team together. Benning has always been part of the process for the drafting. Any success (or failures) here, he gets some credit/blame as well, just like Brackett as well. Benning and Brackett have worked well together over this time and if Brackett wants more autonomy or he's out, then who's really putting themselves ahead the team? Citing NHL scouts is one thing, but I'd like to see full quotes rather than their interpretations of what is said. I posted a TSN article earlier that demonstrates how a misinterpretation could change the entire context for those who only read headlines. People like "Taj" and JD Burke have been very critical of every decision that Benning has made where the former is blatant about it on their Twitter account and the latter is very stubborn on his opinions. Bias like that can lead to spinning stories to how they want it to be told. As for the Juolevi pick, who cares if it was Benning's pick? So he hasn't panned out so far, but that is more due to unforseen injuries (surely Brackett the all seer knew it was coming though and was completely against drafting him) rather than inability to play. To credit the rest of the 1st round picks to Brackett instead is absurd. Benning credited Delorme for the Petey pick (from the horse's mouth) and yet people still are spinning it as a pick by Brackett or others who left the organization instead despite Benning being elated about the pick even before the pick was made. No one is calling Benning a drafting genius and if they are, then they are wrong. But in the same breath, those that thing Brackett is some draft god that will cripple our franchise is also wrong. As a whole, our drafting team has seen a major upswing and that is led under the direction of Benning (as Brackett himself said, again from the horse's mouth). If Brackett wants to leave and break up the band, then he's going to have quite the reputation to uphold with the hype train following him now.
  6. One word Fred, projection. What does that prove? I said I get Connauton vibes from Rafferty, I never said they were clones.
  7. Wonder how many deaf ears this will fall on and we start hearing about how Rathbone will be walking as a UFA because he hasn't signed yet or especially if he returns back to college.
  8. Connauton was in the AHL at the same age when Rafferty was in college. Rafferty wasn't too impressive in college. At Rafferty's current age, Connauton was already toiling around the NHL. His two stints back in the AHL, he's been pretty dominant. I'm not going to go over why +/- is not the most reflective of defensive play as we have gone over this before. But it's been noted that his defensive work needs improvement to get to the next level by Utica staff. Connauton has stuck around the NHL for a while now albeit a journeyman. It is not a knock to be compared to him. I'd like to hope for more from Rafferty, but why get excited over wishful thinking, am I right? Hoping he's a late bloomer like Tanev and finds an NHL level game, however I can't see Rafferty being that type of defensive player considering his biggest knock at the moment is his defense. If he can round his defensive game to be even close to Tanev's level then he's a top 4 dman easily. But yes Connauton has redefined his game a bit and found a niche as a journeyman 6/7 and I'm sure Rafferty would be glad to at least have a career like this which would likely set him for life financially along with whatever degree he finished with college.
  9. I talked to a scout that told me Brackett had a plan in place for two pandemics. #InsiderScoopTSN
  10. He's stuck around the league as a 5/6/7 guy. For a guy we signed for free as a 24 year old, that really isn't that bad nor should we expect more of. If he's any better, then it's gravy.
  11. How any GM that didn't have a pandemic in their 5 year plan is beyond me. Clearly they haven't planned for every scenario.
  12. I'm getting Kevin Connauton vibes from him. Decent offensively and good numbers in the AHL, but needs work defensively at the NHL level.
  13. He will get his looks for when the veteran UFAs in Sutter, Beagle, Roussel are on the way out. He needs to keep that goal in mind and keep putting the work in to take one of those spots. Hopefully he lives up to what I had hoped Markus Granlund would've been for us and be our Jarnkrok type player.
  14. And it's arguable that these players are all bouncing around in this area. Jankowski had a down year this past year for whatever reason, but he had been trending up prior to that and he still is currently a top PKer. The one hit wonders need to show more consistency because they aren't good defensively, so without that they could be out of the league, so I'm not yet sold they are "better" at this point based on an outlier (just like I'm not writing off Jankowski over an outlier season so far in his career). We will see if he continues to drop off or bounces back, but he is still hanging around the top 30 picks of that draft class even including picks that every team had missed for rounds. It's not like they were even in consideration even close to Jankowski's pick at that point. It's doubtful some of those players could even be argued to be picked over Jankowski at the time of the draft even by the best experts. I have him hovering around 25, I suspect you have him hovering around 35. Whatever the case, even in hindsight world, he's still not available come 42nd pick and thus why the Calgary crew didn't want to risk losing out on him and picking the player they were high on at a spot they felt comfortable with. At least he's not an outright bust. It wasn't a home run, but I'd say they at least hit a double which is better than being struck out. And considering the averages around that pick, it hasn't been a failure at all so far and not as bad of a pick as it's being portrayed.
  15. This is exactly what I've been trying to get at. I've never suggested Weisbrod to be mastermind or anything, I just think the criticism he gets is far greater than he deserves. It's generally the same crowd that criticizes Benning because they already have made up their mind on him and thus puts any failures of the team specifically on single people that they have beef with.
  16. I'll give you Pelech as he's more impressive than I had originally thought. Skjei has the minutes, but he's not great defensively, however I would place him slight above Jankowski. Kerfoot's track record currently places him above Jankowski. Matheson was 6th for TOI per game on Florida, he's at best a 4/5, but more a 5/6. Not above for me. Athanasiou and Gustafsson have been one hit wonders thus far. Not definitive for me, but I understand the belief that they are "better" so far. Sundqvist and Hinostroza are forwards. Sundqvist is good in his role, but he's a 4th line forward and Hinostroza isn't impressive. Gostisbehere had a couple of good seasons, but is falling fast and he's getting closer to being their "Eriksson". Jankowski is also a top PKer in Calgary, so he's right in that group that you mentioned. So as I mentioned initially that I had placed him around 25, but it's arguable between that and maybe 30, which still places him in the 1st round of a re-draft. So at the end of the day (although it's not fully concluded yet), while he was "ranked" lower, it hasn't been as far of a reach in hindsight. Plus keep in mind several players listed were players that were drafted much later and many teams had missed these players as well and in some cases for several rounds, so it's not like it was obvious at the time.
  17. I personally think he's well within this group which would put him 22-38 range as I took off about 21 players off your list.
  18. I agree that he probably should have said what he said and especially the way he did because it does put lofty expectations. However, it was probably more a comparable player (and they tried to appease the market) that they were going with. Media experts put comparable players all the time and no one says a peep if they don't live up to those expectations or even comparisons. Weisbrod and crew probably sold the pick too hard to justify the "reach" and it doesn't appear that he has done that since. At the end of the day, when you put that all aside, the pick Jankowski himself IMO has pretty much lived up to his draft spot though for that draft year. So he wasn't as spectacular as he was sold to be, but he's also not as bad as some are portraying him to make it a sticking point on Weisbrod. I think had the Canucks drafted Jankowski, some would actually look at his development path and be quite satisfied. He's really only looked poor statistically this past season, but he's still a regular player.
  19. This is the part that I disagree with. They got a serviceable NHLer out of their 1st round pick. Not all 1st rounders are going to be superstars. Now of course they likely expected more from him and he never reached his ceiling, but his floor was higher which takes away some of the risk involved. A 3C at pick 21 is not the worst outcome and while it may have surprised people at the time of the pick, this should at least justify the pick that they found an NHLer in a year that many weren't or have accomplished little in their time. The likely had a list of players above Jankowski, but they wanted him and thought he could be something special and knew he could be had later. They traded down and got an additional pick. Perhaps they would've liked to trade down further, but there were no feasible trading partners, so they simply took the player they wanted. Similarly to why we didn't want to trade down further than a certain point for EP and couldn't make a trade with the team that we felt comfortable doing so and thus took him at 5 when he too probably could've gone later (yes I know it's a bigger reach than for EP, but it's the same principle and I believe it applies here).
  20. I think this summarizes the whole Jankowski situation. People calling it a bad pick is because of the expectation that was put on him by his team which I say is not the best strategy. The people that are calling it a back pick are basing it on that expectation and how he didn't live up to that, but at the end of the day, he was decent pick (despite him being ranked lower) to the point where he's at least a 1st round quality player in that draft year. Put Jankowski in a stronger year under the same circumstances and this would be a different discussion.
  21. Do your own research and do a re-draft without bias (if that's possible), there's probably 20 definitive players ahead of him. A group including him at the 21-30 range. He was a surprise pick at the time, but the pick isn't as far off as it's made out to be. Just cause it was a "surprise" pick doesn't make it the wrong one. Brendan Gaunce was ranked as high as a mid 1st rounder. So it looked like we got a gem at 26th, look how that panned out. The public rankings that many of the "experts" go with are really only as valuable up to a certain point and it becomes a crapshoot beyond that. Teams reach all the time or take "fallers", so yes this may be a bigger reach than normal compared to the public rankings, but the end result is not as dire. If you read others' responses, I'm not the only one that feels this way. There's probably as many people that share my views that are opposed to it, at least the ones being vocal about it.
  22. Is that your own list? I would certainly put Jankowski over some of those people on that list. I would put him at about 25th based on that list you've provided (assuming you didn't rank this list in order).
  23. They were thinking they want a rapidly growing centerman, they were seeing a riser in the draft. A guy that went from 74th ranked to 43rd and who knows how much higher he was by the time the draft rolled around. They certainly felt other teams after them in the 1st could have taken him, but we will never know. The fact that he was rapidly growing could have meant teams may have overlooked him prior (see someone like Tanev). A 6'2 centerman (at the time, now 6'4) who has decent speed and with the assumption to grow from his then 168lb frame to hopefully 200+ lbs (now 215lbs) would be enticing to most in today's game. His career progression was fine for a 1st round pick and really only up until this current season where he hit a snag offensively. I'm not saying they had a brilliant draft strategy, but what I've been saying from the start is that Jankowski wasn't as bad of a pick as it's made out to be. While that may be true, there were no draft rankings that had Pettersson at 5. I would say he averaged around 10 and that's where there is more certainty as players selected in the top 10 are scouted way more. The 2nd half of the 1st round and on of most drafts become crap shoots. He was 43rd on central scouting, but could've easily continued to rise to say 35 on some draft boards. Calgary probably could find a trading partner to get them closer and they didn't want to miss out on their player. I get the shock of it, but it's not a simple as he was ranked at a certain spot by a public ranking site and thus that's where he should be picked. I agree drafting by need may not be the best strategy, but they targeted potential. Center was their weak point in their prospect pool. I'm not arguing for their draft strategy though. I've only been suggesting that Jankowski is not a bad as people are making it seem. They traded down to acquire their target player and added a pick (no one would think this is a foolish decision as this strategy is deployed all the time). Games played is less of a factor considering they knew he was a longer term project and he went through the college system rather than jumping into the NHL right away (and that was never the plan for him, nor was their vision for this player). There is no doubt that there were better players, but you could talk about this in any draft year and who teams should've picked instead. Jankowski was not the best of his draft class, nor should he be expected to be, but he's not as bad as people are making it seem. I disagree that Girgensons or Laughton are significantly better players (sure they more games, but I explained about that Jankowski was a longer term project for them in hopes for more). Picking a goalie in the 1st round is always questionable and there's always the Russian factor (how many Russians have gone through Calgary?). Teravainen was probably someone they felt comfortable passing on considering they had Gaudreau and Baertschi. Hertl is probably someone they should've looked at instead, but again, then went with a target they were comfortable with that was ranked lower and added a pick as well in a round that they didn't have a pick.
  24. I'm not comparing them as players. He was publicly ranked lower in a range where the top players are far more scouted and have more refined lists more knowingly where players would land. Yes Petey was making a name for himself and he became a riser as well and rightfully so. Many teams likely expected him to be a few years out while he filled out, but knew he had top 10 talent. When you're drafting that high, teams think more about immediate help rather than longer term projects with high potential where that is more the norm for bottom 3rd of the 1st round. There are different mentalities from where they were drafted, but at the end of the day both were players that were picked higher than they were ranked and as Benning suggested you just pick the player you want (based on whatever criteria is important to them) rather than risk losing them. They certainly thought much more highly about him than likely most did, but felt that other teams would've taken him in the 1st round if they didn't. There were two other centers taken in the 1st after Jankowski and who knows who else would be had they been available and they simply moved on. It was the latter part of the 1st in a weak draft, most players have flaws there, they were looking more at potential of a rapidly growing centerman. If we had drafted him, the way he progressed would've been just fine and his draft spot has mostly been justified at this point anyway even if was a reach then, so hard to say they were "wrong" with that pick. People reacted similarly when we drafted Pettersson (of course there were some that didn't, but go back to his thread if you don't believe me). They didn't have the mentality that he would just be an okay player, they thought highly of him. And while they were wrong about the Nieuwendyk prediction, he was probably the best center in that range. Even at 14th, Girgensons hasn't done much, Hertl is good but not an NHL center, and Laughton hasn't really been much more impressive than Jankowski at that point. They targetted a player they liked, added a 2nd round pick and they were not far off with where they had picked Jankowski in hindsight. I think the pick has been justified at this point and I get why some would think it was crazy at the time, but their assessment seemed alright and they didn't lose out on much for the potential they were hoping for.
  25. They felt he was the BPA at that point and in hindsight, they weren't wrong. That why that point is relevant. It may have seem absurd at the time, but they assessed 1st round talent and he is likely a 1st round talent in a re-draft or at least very close, so in reality it wasn't a stretch. They could've let him slide and hoped for the best, but then another team would've potentially nabbed him and got that honour, while they could've picked a different player at the time that didn't work out anyway. Not all teams go with the public rankings, teams have their own systems and go with their own risks. So as I mentioned, he was rising in the draft rapidly and while he was ranked in that range publicly, he could've still be rising by draft time and say a few teams had him ranked 30th or so, then it's as big of a reach. It starts becoming a crap shoot after the top half of the first round in most drafts anyway. They may have taken a larger leap than expected (and at least traded down and added a pick), but were they wrong? They knew he was a long term project and thinking about the long term future of the team rather than short term. EP was considered to be a few years away as well because of his size. While he had been putting up decent numbers in his draft year, I don't think most teams expected him to be as good as quickly as he has and playing at the weight he is and flourishing. I remember the initial reaction here when EP was drafted and people thought it was nuts as well. I guess I'll ask you this, if we traded down to 8th and EP was selected 7th, would you be satisfied just taking the next player on your list?
×
×
  • Create New...