Benning the New Think Tank for GMs

[Crabcakes]

**manicdonkey**

thanks, I missed the think tank

[badbeatjackpot]

BoSang is Bobby Sanguinetti

I think the key to sustainability with this method Benning is employing is to start to reverse the process in a few years when the team (hopefully) peaks. Then you're trading your excess bubble players for the extra draft picks in subsequent drafts so that as the team crests and starts to fall again the prospect pool is stocked heavily by the time the window of success should be closing.

Done expertly it should lead to a team that's always competitive having prospects when the team is faltering and having draft picks when the team is strong.

I agree with this.

Once the logjam plays itself out, the next moves are to try to maximize the returns on the players that didn't make the cut.

We may end up like SJ on the Ehrhoff side of the deal when we traded White however, that is when Benning will truly be able to show his skills. Will he take a 3rd rounder and find a gem in the draft or will he find a hidden gem in a prospect like Pedan, OR, will he get fleeced and take back a bust by trading an NHL ready prospect.

[khay]

I like the OP and I agree that Benning has made some interesting moves that I like. But we will have to wait to see how Vey, Baertchi, Clendening, and Pedan work out before assessing his strategy. I agree that they do not all have to be successful, but we need at least two of them to be good NHL players before we can call this strategy a "success".

But I think you are exaggerating the originality. I think we might be affected by what is sometimes called "avialability bias". We pay a lot more attention to the draft and to trades for players we have heard of. We pay less attention to trades for prospects so we do not notice them much, especially when other teams make those trades. Therefore these trades are "less available" in memory and we underrate their frequency.

One move of this type that Gillis made was when he traded a 1st round pick and Grabner (a mature prospect) for Ballard and Oreskovich (also a prospect a few years in). Gillis said at the time that Oreo was important part of the trade. We know how that one worked out.

My sense is that propects are often traded two to four years after being drafted but whenever I hear of such a trade I ignore it.

The downside of such trades is that guys who underperform relative to their draft position usually continue to underpeform. Another issue is that it is almost impossible to get "star" level players in this way -- the guys you can build a Cup contender around -- players like Crosby and Malkin in Pittsburgy, Toews and Patrick Kane in Chicago, Doughty and Kopitar in LA, the Sedins, Stamkos and Hedman in Tampa etc. Those guys were all high first round picks.

Sometimes 2nd rounders become stars (Bergeron and Lucic in Boston or Weber in Nashville) but those kinds of guys are not available as 21 to 23 year-olds in return for 2nd or 3rd round picks.

The biggest need the Canucks have is franchise type players to replace the Sedins. And it hard to get those kind of players anywhere except in the draft. Horvat, Virtanen and McCann might become very good players, but we need a good 1st round pick again this year.

Good point, although there are some exceptions, the only way to get franchise players is through drafting.

Although I support the trade of Forsling for Clendening, I don't think you can get a franchise type player through trades like this. We know what Clendening will be, he will be a solid player for us... But it is very unlikely for him to develop into a franchise type player whereas Forsling "could" become Erik Karlsson (or could completely bust).

I think Benning must be aware of your point and that's why he didn't trade our 1st and wants to recoup the 2nd and 3rd before the draft. Especially considering the fact that this team lacks that dominant #1 defender coupled with the fact that so many top defenceman come outside of top 10, I would be shocked if he doesn't add at least one more pick in the first 3 rounds.

[tyhee]

... Hard to believe it took over 40 years to get a development team that management could actually call the shots on. ...

Sorry to nitpick a point that isn't central to the thread, but Canucks owned the Rochester Americans of the AHL on entering the NHL in 1970, selling that team in 1972 due to dwindling attendance in the 4 years the Canucks (WHL 1968-70, NHL 1970-72) owned the team.

IMO, JB's strategy has been one borne out of necessity. ...

I agree. JB took over a team with few players or good prospects in their early twenties and has been building up a group in that largely missing age range. Targeting talented players who were stuck or out of favour with the teams that drafted them was also an apparent fit for his scouting background.

Four of the trades he's made in his short time with the Canucks-the Vey, Clendening, Pedan and Baertschi trades-involved trading for talented players that were not succeeding or were stuck behind others. Vey, Clendening and Baertschi were all soon to become waiver-eligible and were going to have trouble making the Kings, Hawks and Flames respectively, while Pedan was stuck in a logjam of defensive prospects with the Islanders and temporarily assigned to the ECHL.

It's easy to be optimistic with Vey and Clendening having made the team immediately, Pedan developing and Baertschi appearing to have made a good start in his very short time so far in Utica, but none have made sufficient contributions at the NHL level yet to show their acquisitions were successful.

We'll get to watch and see how successful those moves are. If two out of Vey, Clending, Pedan and Baertschi become good NHL players the strategy will have been successful. If three become good NHL players it will have been extremely successful and probably lead to some teams paying more attention to players that have become stuck in their organizations.

[Team Bagues]

I'm least worried about Pedan. Post #31 is really on point.

Most worried about Forsling for Clendenning, but at the time we really needed a body. I think both parties oversold each player. Forsling just reminds me of a Lumme type, which we could use if Jordan Subban doesn't make the league. That being said I don't think JB has been crazy or reckless at all.

Hey man. Lumme was awesome. He always had this scared look on his face as he dangled through the opposing defence.

[darkpoet]

It only seems new, because after 40+ years we finally have a competent and intelligent management staff that are all on the same page and collectively have 1 goal: WINNING
Winning now, while also making sure that asset management ensures we'll be winning later as well.
So long as that exists upstairs, this team will always be competitive, if not elite.

[Fred65]

 

Hey man. Lumme was awesome. He always had this scared look on his face as he dangled through the opposing defence.

 

Lumme was the best, his skating almost effortless, his vision terrific. I watched him playing with alumni a week or so ago nad I joke not I never saw him actually push hard on his skates...just seemed to glide over the ice

[alfstonker]

I agree that Benning used this method to speed up the "rebuilding" into "retooling on the fly". The problem of this model is that you may get your 2nd liner/pairing players at best; as other teams have the luxury of knowing the progress of players before you acquiring them. Definitely these players that Benning trade for aren't sure bet even after a few years of development suggest that there may be holes in their game or other flaws that won't make them a slam dunk success in the NHL. The best case scenario is that the original team have players who play a similar role and couldn't offer the opportunity for those older prospects to step up (i.e. like Grabner was a few years ago with us), and may be (just a may be) you can get a player with higher chance of success.

On the other hand, I think that your stats are a bit misleading. Instead of having consecutive success with your 1st and 2nd round picks, the other way to look at this is how will throwing away consecutive draft picks affect your prospect pool. By trading away two consecutive first round picks, there is a 1 - (0.3*0.3) = 0.91 chance that either or both of them may one day become NHL player(s). Similarly, by trading away two consecutive second round picks, there is a 1 - (0.7 * 0.7) = 0.51 chance that either or both of them becoming NHL player(s).

For example, we have technically traded 2 consecutive 2nd round picks for Vey and Baertschi. The assets that we traded away was approximate 51% chance of having 1 or 2 NHL players (i.e. 9% chance of 2 NHL players, plus 42% chance of 1 NHL player).

Are you saying that Vey and Baertschi are NOT NHL players? I think they are.

The trouble is that there are so many high picks who don't pan out that people tend to concentrate on the ones that are traded away that then come good. Take Grabner for instance, his points return is not any better than Raymonds, who we were pleased to see leaving, yet people go on about Grabner as if he was Vbrata.

I think the real difference now is that whereas I did not trust Gillis's judgement in such situations, I have a lot more faith in Benning.

[OfficeDonkey]

Agreed. He's been real good.

[MadOgre]

In response to the OP.

The flaw with such praise and adulation is the assumption that JB will continue to employ said business model indefinitely. As a few before me have pointed out this business model is unlikely to result in SC success and is also unlikely to continue past the next 1-2 years. JB is simply employing the best method available to fill a scathing hole left behind by Gillis.

I for one do not foresee this strategy by JB lasting for to many more seasons. Once the cupboard is restocked JB will shift strategies to finding jems in the draft and fleecing other gm's in trades as he actually has the talent needed to properly assess young talent, something Gillis did not have.

GM's of past did not have to deal with such an empty cupboard as JB is faced with and were able to draft a lot better than Gillis could ever dream of achieving.

After 2010 the writing was on the wall for this organization and everyone knew that. Although I thought 2011 looked to be a decent year with the addition of Paulson as a 3rd line center. But the LA Kings stopped that thought in its tracks. Its also worth noting that Gillis had the opportunity to acquire Dustin Brown at the 2011 trade deadline and declined. If we had Dustin Brown when we met the Kings in the first round we would probably have a SC banner in our rafters today.

The real problem in the long line of GM's is Gillis.

Ownership may have been behind Utica more than Gillis, although Gillis legal ability made him the perfect person to get that job done. Could you imagine Nonis working that deal out LOL.

Gillis did have some nice and good contributions to the organization. But his absolute abysmal draft success is what broke the bank in terms of the necessity for JB to employ his current restocking strategy.

Also the LA Kings do not employ this strategy as both SC's have been won with a Mike Gillis strategy!!! The only difference is Lombardi acquired better SC type players and has been able to keep them in place longer than Gillis was able to. If Gillis didn't let all our star defenseman walk for virtually nothing!!! Ohlund, Ehroff, Salo just to name a few, all walked for absolutely 0 !!! we might have still contended.

Just to reiterate LA has for 3 seasons employed pretty much the same roster. They do not employ the strategy that JB is currently using!

JB looks very smart compared to Gillis, and IMO JB is a much better hockey and GM mind than Gillis, but, his strategy will change in the next 1-2 years as his needs for the organization will also change. This is just filling the hole. The hole wont last forever.

[Ghostsof1915]

The OP is making this seem like some new approach to GMing a team. Benning is doing what a good GM is supposed to do. Improve talent on the hockey club by whatever means available. He is keeping his first rounders and not blowing them on rentals.

Rather using 2nd and 3rd rounders to upgrade our talent pool. Benning is using his advantage as a scout and as an ex-player he has a vision of what he wants the team to look like. He also knows from playing when you have a group of guys in the same age group they will more likely work and play better as a team. He knows that a lot of teams on paper look good, but it's the character and makeup, and talent that makes a good team, a great team.

If our team was already stacked with talent, I doubt Benning would have traded any 2nd or 3rd rounders. I like what I see so far.

He's going to make mistakes. But I doubt they will be the type of mistakes the previous regime had. He's done things in one season that Gillis couldn't, such as provide the Sedin's a winger that works. And one that can play 1st or 2nd line and still be effective. He's also looked at upgrading the depth on forwards, defence and goal. Gillis could pick up prospects from college and waivers. But he picked up his fair share of plugs too.

The real challenge is this offseason. Who stays? Who goes? I don't envy Benning because he's going to get flak from armchair GM's regardless of what he does.