theminister Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 It's pretty clear from his words that he intends to move one of Markstrom or Lack. That is, unless he is blowing smoke as misdirection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 It's pretty clear from his words that he intends to move one of Markstrom or Lack. That is, unless he is blowing smoke as misdirection. The only thing I see him saying there is this: "I haven't talked about that (NTC clauses), but at our pro meetings we're talking about our options and what direction we want to go with the goalies," said Benning. "Once we get out of these meetings, we'll have a better idea and act upon what we decide." The other part is purely the Province - Restricted free agent goaltender Jacob Markstrom is having a standout playoff run with the Comets and could command a third-round pick and there's also the possibility of moving Eddie Lack for a second-round pick if the club can't reach a palatable contract extension. Who he intends to use to recover picks isn't defined at all - The Province speculates Bieksa, or a goaltender - one of the tweener forwards is certainly a possibility. I can't say I appreciate the Province's style at all - they interweave themselves and their angles into the material in a way that imo weakens and cheapens their credibility. The questions they lead with are not included in the article - I just don't see much value in this type of 'reporting'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I like BPA. It's not like the guy is going to play for us next season. BPA allows us to trade for a better player than which we would've drafted I agree with this. Just not 20 years in a row. Sooner or later we will recognize that you have to overspend to gain D via trade and free agency. So we should have a balanced drafting philosophy over a period of time. You can get good D. Aka Ehrhhof. Lucky on a good D. Aka Hamhuis wanting to come home. But you cannot get stud D men! And 18 of the last 20 years the Stanley Cup champs have had at least one true stud D man! Maybe someone's conscience will get the better of them, and we'll draft a D man in the first round this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The only thing I see him saying there is this: "I haven't talked about that (NTC clauses), but at our pro meetings we're talking about our options and what direction we want to go with the goalies," said Benning. "Once we get out of these meetings, we'll have a better idea and act upon what we decide." The other part is purely the Province - Restricted free agent goaltender Jacob Markstrom is having a standout playoff run with the Comets and could command a third-round pick and there's also the possibility of moving Eddie Lack for a second-round pick if the club can't reach a palatable contract extension. Who he intends to use to recover picks isn't defined at all - The Province speculates Bieksa, or a goaltender - one of the tweener forwards is certainly a possibility. I can't say I appreciate the Province's style at all - they interweave themselves and their angles into the material in a way that imo weakens and cheapens their credibility. The questions they lead with are not included in the article - I just don't see much value in this type of 'reporting'. No, it wasn't that I was referring to. I had just heard his interview with Rintoul on 1040. His words were, paraphrased, "When we decide which one of the two young goalies to move, after our meetings, we feel we will get a pretty high draft pick back." It was clear that his statement did not include Miller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 No, it wasn't that I was referring to. I had just heard his interview with Rintoul on 1040. His words were, paraphrased, "When we decide which one of the two young goalies to move, after our meetings, we feel we will get a pretty high draft pick back." It was clear that his statement did not include Miller. well until it happens my head will be firmly planted in the sand lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 "No, there's no chance of that." GMJB [Moving up to the top 5] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 That doesn't sound like someone considering attempting to move up to 3 - it sounds like someone teliing the Province - politely - that they should stick to fantasy pools and video games. ...and the many trinket-chasers here on CDC that surface this time of year, advocating trading developing prospects for new bags of magic beans. Benning is steadfast and sticking with his plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peaches Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 We don't need another two-way Center. If we're going to take a C, it should be a big-time offensive player. Not a decent scorer who's responsible defensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 We don't need another two-way Center. If we're going to take a C, it should be a big-time offensive player. Not a decent scorer who's responsible defensively. The same would be true if it were a D man. We need a guy who can anchor our end & clear the net. Or a guy who can run the power play and walk the line on offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I agree with this. Just not 20 years in a row. Sooner or later we will recognize that you have to overspend to gain D via trade and free agency. So we should have a balanced drafting philosophy over a period of time. You can get good D. Aka Ehrhhof. Lucky on a good D. Aka Hamhuis wanting to come home. But you cannot get stud D men! And 18 of the last 20 years the Stanley Cup champs have had at least one true stud D man! Maybe someone's conscience will get the better of them, and we'll draft a D man in the first round this year? What does any of that really mean though Surfer? The first and most obvious point to be made is a question - how many of these stud D men you are talking about were drafted in the 1st round? When was Duncan Keith drafted? When was Lidstrom drafted? When was Letang drafted (or whomever you perceive Pitt's stud to be - Gonchar was not drafted by them) etc etc Chara wasn't drafted by Boston - but they got a stud D man! Neither Neidermayer nor Pronger were drafted by Anaheim. Carolina? Tampa? Boyle wasn't even drafted, period. You literally have to go back more than a decade to find a second example (in addition to LA) of something you're asserting is a must for all Championship teams. How do you know there isn't a 'stud' d-man already in the system? Do you know the ceilings of the entire prospect pool? If you know that, you should be fortune-moneyballing for big paydays for an NHL franchise. Listening to Benning, he's liking the prospect pool of defensemen - Corrado, Clendening, Pedan, Hutton, Cederholm, Tryamkin, Subban.....he feels it's now a matter of developing them. For all you know, there could be a stud in there. Or in the 2nd round if they manage to recover a pick. Or the 3rd... Three of those guys were added in or since the draft last year (one in the draft, one for a pick, and one for a drafted player) - so the balance you're asking for is already being addressed. In any event, he's also said he's pretty happy picking 23rd - I personally would probably prefer to pick a D at that spot considering how many quality guys are likely to be available in that range - but I'm not a fortune teller - and I probably wouldn't make that decision beforehand not knowing who will be on the board and what the context will be at the time. One thing is pretty evident though - drafting a 1st round stud has had no real correlation to actual Stanley Cup Champions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miltt Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 was the offer just Bo Horvat for the 3rd pick? If so I might be down for that. No, it was Bo, Shink and our 1st. Too much... Way too much.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANUCK-EXPRESS Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I would do 23rd + McCann + Jensen and a roster player for 3rd OA. Draft Hanifin. But I'm no GM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 Really like how JB is so willing to update the fans. So frank and open with his thoughts. Haven't seen that in Vancouver for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 What does any of that really mean though Surfer? The first and most obvious point to be made is a question - how many of these stud D men you are talking about were drafted in the 1st round? When was Duncan Keith drafted? When was Lidstrom drafted? When was Letang drafted (or whomever you perceive Pitt's stud to be - Gonchar was not drafted by them) etc etc Chara wasn't drafted by Boston - but they got a stud D man! Neither Neidermayer nor Pronger were drafted by Anaheim. Carolina? Tampa? Boyle wasn't even drafted, period. You literally have to go back more than a decade to find a second example (in addition to LA) of something you're asserting is a must for all Championship teams. How do you know there isn't a 'stud' d-man already in the system? Do you know the ceilings of the entire prospect pool? If you know that, you should be fortune-moneyballing for big paydays for an NHL franchise. Listening to Benning, he's liking the prospect pool of defensemen - Corrado, Clendening, Pedan, Hutton, Cederholm, Tryamkin, Subban.....he feels it's now a matter of developing them. For all you know, there could be a stud in there. Or in the 2nd round if they manage to recover a pick. Or the 3rd... Three of those guys were added in or since the draft last year (one in the draft, one for a pick, and one for a drafted player) - so the balance you're asking for is already being addressed. In any event, he's also said he's pretty happy picking 23rd - I personally would probably prefer to pick a D at that spot considering how many quality guys are likely to be available in that range - but I'm not a fortune teller - and I probably wouldn't make that decision beforehand not knowing who will be on the board and what the context will be at the time. One thing is pretty evident though - drafting a 1st round stud has had no real correlation to actual Stanley Cup Champions. I agree with most of this. Our depth is fine on D. And we have good defenders. What we lack is a standout performer on D with top end skill. The fact, it is there, that teams have drafted Norris winners in the 2knd and later rounds is true. But I'm not sure we can rely on it. We've had no such luck. You asked me who am I to limit the ceiling of our prospects? The same question in reverse is also fair. Are we in a position to project one of our prospects as a guy with the skills to carry the team on its back? Its more fair to expect some of them to competently fill certain roles considering their skills. I'm not against acquiring guys like Clendenning. I encourage it. Its just my opinion we increase our odds of finding high end skill by intermittently drafting D at the top of the draft. Edler to me for example is an illustration of a well spent draft pick. A great result for a 3rd round pick! Drafting in the first round maybe you get him with world class speed & agility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathew Barzal Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 If we were going to make an attempt at 3rd overall it would have to be a quantity for quality trade and with our already shallow pool we can't afford to deal in quantity. If Benning is the scout we hope we is then looking to move up is pointless, acquiring seconds and thirds should be the priority so we can target specific diamonds in the rough that Benning has keyed in on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I agree with most of this. Our depth is fine on D. And we have good defenders. What we lack is a standout performer on D with top end skill. The fact, it is there, that teams have drafted Norris winners in the 2knd and later rounds is true. But I'm not sure we can rely on it. We've had no such luck. You asked me who am I to limit the ceiling of our prospects? The same question in reverse is also fair. Are we in a position to project one of our prospects as a guy with the skills to carry the team on its back? Its more fair to expect some of them to competently fill certain roles considering their skills. I'm not against acquiring guys like Clendenning. I encourage it. Its just my opinion we increase our odds of finding high end skill by intermittently drafting D at the top of the draft. Edler to me for example is an illustration of a well spent draft pick. A great result for a 3rd round pick! Drafting in the first round maybe you get him with world class speed & agility? No one can. It doesn't work that way. Nor does drafting the first pmd available in the draft give a team something to rely on. It just seems to me at times that you've constructed a box within which you think on this particular matter - that the team must have this puck carrying dynamo saviour - except in reality there is no formula or box that this comes delivered in. It's easy to make a shopping list, but expecting it to be delivered is another thing. No one was in a position to project that Duncan Keith or Weber would be dominant Norris type defensemen - if they were, they wouldn't have been 2nd round picks. To answer your question about the prospect pool - who is to say that Jordan Subban won't be a top 10 pmd in the NHL in the future? Who's to say that Frankie Corrado doesn't break out into a 40 point defeseman in 3 years from now. Who knows, but regardless, there's really nothing that can be relied upon imo. You can draft yourself a Ryan Murphy or whomever - it doesn't mean you can rely on him to carry your team on his back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 If we were going to make an attempt at 3rd overall it would have to be a quantity for quality trade and with our already shallow pool we can't afford to deal in quantity. If Benning is the scout we hope we is then looking to move up is pointless, acquiring seconds and thirds should be the priority so we can target specific diamonds in the rough that Benning has keyed in on. Precisely this. Given the hand you got, go out and make the best out of it and that's what JB has shown thus far. If there's a love that makes sense to move up then he'll do it but if not, he'll gladly pick where he stands. Great example is last year stealing McCann and Subban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I would do 23rd + McCann + Jensen and a roster player for 3rd OA. Draft Hanifin. But I'm no GM. If that's all it took there should be a statue of Benning built outside Rogers Arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 So is he still against Kylington, as reported? Scouts seem to have him ranked lower in their lists. If Kylington's still available I hope Trader Jim's Oliver that like white on rice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 No one can. It doesn't work that way. Nor does drafting the first pmd available in the draft give a team something to rely on. It just seems to me at times that you've constructed a box within which you think on this particular matter - that the team must have this puck carrying dynamo saviour - except in reality there is no formula or box that this comes delivered in. It's easy to make a shopping list, but expecting it to be delivered is another thing. No one was in a position to project that Duncan Keith or Weber would be dominant Norris type defensemen - if they were, they wouldn't have been 2nd round picks. To answer your question about the prospect pool - who is to say that Jordan Subban won't be a top 10 pmd in the NHL in the future? Who's to say that Frankie Corrado doesn't break out into a 40 point defeseman in 3 years from now. Who knows, but regardless, there's really nothing that can be relied upon imo. You can draft yourself a Ryan Murphy or whomever - it doesn't mean you can rely on him to carry your team on his back. Meh, am I single minded in what I want? Sure... From where I come from a balanced team would have these skills available to it. No reason to apologize for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.