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

Canucks Four Biggest Non-Mistakes Over the Last Year


IBatch

Recommended Posts

1) You don't have anything valid to say so you defend it with "I don't care..." hehe Great response! I explained the context as it was only relevant to Junkyard dogs comment....so why are YOU bringing it up? Funny.

I don't care about the average age of our goalies. I really don't. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Did Boston care about the age of their tandem when they beat us in the final? Nope. Neither do I, yet you keep bringing it up like it should matter to somebody.

If you want a private conversation with JD pm him instead of posting for all to see and respond to.

2) Obviously you have issues with comprehension...coupled with whatever else. Somebody's opinion doesn't jive with yours or somebody writes an argument that stumps you so you make idiotic comments? Take the ring off Frodo.

Resorting to personal attacks is sure sign your argument sucks. Nothing you've written has stumped me in the least. I simply disagree with you. You seem to be the one that's taking issue with being disagreed with.

I stated that there is no evidence that shows Sutter will perform better with the Canucks.... he's played in the league for years and hasn't shown that he can regularly produce points effectively. He also played against easier matchups while in Pitts and he still didn't produce. So, I asked for evidence of any previous years where he did produce....but the wording probably fooled you... if I substituted "examples" or "previous history" you might understand.

No you didn't. Your words....

"What I am asking for is ANY evidence that shows that Sutter can improve his game now that he is a vet and has played in the NHL for many years."

You sir are now back peddling and saying I have a comprehension problems as a smoke screen. Changing it from asking for evidence to there is no evidence and from future performance to past performance. It seems to me you didn't comprehend what you yourself first asked for: Evidence of what can happen in the future.

Have you seen enough of Sutters play to properly assess what he may or may not be? I've already stated I haven't and thus have an open mind on the deal. Mainly because Benning has seen a great deal of him. More than enough to assess his play.

3) AGAIN.... I give you a solid argument and you have nothing to reply with. So you resort (I'm not talking about a place to relax and holiday here.... resort = fall back to/final option) to "I don't care.... wah". Childish.

There is a big difference between playing C and W....especially if the player is defensively irresponsible and can't take faceoffs. But, your "I DON'T CARE....WAH" argument is good enough! Point taken. 8 year old kids have the same argument....

What solid argument? "Beartsch performed poorly but I like him". That's a solid argument?? I don't care about their positions. Both are Vey and Bear are good gambles for the cost. Did you miss the party where I said you can never have enough centers? Maybe you haven't been a fan long enough to remember Mason Raymond having to play center here.

Here's your solid argument: A guy that has performed poorly (your own words) is worth a 2nd round pick. But a guy that has performed extremely well in the AHL is not. Hmm, head scratcher.

You completely ignore every point I make, don't answer those points at all, and then have the nerve to say I have poor comprehension.

VEY WAS A ROOKIE> ROOKIES HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO IMPROVE. Can you argue that?

VEY'S FACEOFF PERCENTAGE WAS RIGHT IN THE BALLPARK OF HENRIK, KESLER, MATTHIAS, AND BONINO FOR THEIR ROOKIE SEASONS. Any answer for that?

I also pointed out Vey's faceoff percentage wasn't much below Santo's last season. And you seem to think Santo is good at faceoffs. Who do you think is more likely to improve in that area 24 yr old Vey in his second season or 30 yr old veteran Santorelli? Which of the two has the higher odds of becoming more than he was last season?

There's four question you likely won't answer. I even bolded them for you.

Here's my argument why both are good gambles:

Odds_zpssvxltqfj.png

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/6/27/5845256/nhl-draft-2014-analysis-luck

Now this one is generous and sets the bar low at 100 NHL games. This is important - that 31.1% is just playing 100 games or more. It doesn't mean elite, star, or even good. Just that 31.1% will play at least 100 games.

This link: http://proicehockey.about.com/od/prospects/f/draft_success.htm sets the bar higher at 200 games to qualify as "a career player"....

"From 1990 to 1999, about one-quarter of the players selected in the second round turned into NHL career players."

Again, this doesn't mean elite, star, or even good. Just that one quarter will manage to play 200 NHL games. Notice it dropped from 31.1% for 100 games to 25% for 200 games.

This is why I see both trades as excellent gambles. But hey your "solid argument" (your opinion) is more convincing than actual statistics right?

4) I'm passing judgement too quickly? We traded for Vey because he was supposed to center our 3rd line, he was supposed to be NHL ready...... ONE YEAR LATER and what? We found out that Vey isn't good enough to center any lines and he isn't NHL ready! Now we're stuck with him in the HOPES that he develops and becomes a NHL player and we can't find a place for him in the lineup....and to top it off, we can't send him down to the Comets.

You want us to be patient with Vey? Is that why we signed him? We didn't trade for Vey so that we could let a prospect, who isn't NHL ready, to develop his game with the Canucks.... We have enough centers now and we have a ton in our prospects pool so benning and WD are not considering Vey at C anymore.

It was a bad trade. Bad trades happen and I understand this....is benning the only GM that made a bad trade? NO.... but must CDC ignore the fact because it doesn't fit your image of benning? Sorry...it's not all about you.

Yes you are. It's rare for rookies to step in and excel. There's a learning curve. If you are as impatient with all our other prospects you're going to be pretty miserable for years to come. It amazes me you think we gave up on Kassian too quickly.

We didn't trade for Vey to be our third line center. We had several centers last year. We traded for him because he was a quality prospect that became available around the draft. Trading for him would potentially speed up our rebuild. None of our prospects on our farm team had put up the kind of number Vey has in the AHL. It doesn't take an Einstein to see the sense in that trade.

If you're going to give up on rookies after one season we're going to need a lot more draft picks. A boat load more. Because not many step right in and perform to a high level so we'll be tossing out a lot of them after one season. Unless his name is Kassian of course.

Btw, was it Benning or Willie that told you Vey wasn't being considered at center any more? Not that it matters. Many centers also play wing and Vey can also play the point on the pp. Sucks to have a player that's versatile.

Now instead of answering any of my questions or addressing my points just say I don't comprehend and question my intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baggins:

VEY WAS A ROOKIE> ROOKIES HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO IMPROVE. Can you argue that?

VEY'S FACEOFF PERCENTAGE WAS RIGHT IN THE BALLPARK OF HENRIK, KESLER, MATTHIAS, AND BONINO FOR THEIR ROOKIE SEASONS. Any answer for that?

I also pointed out Vey's faceoff percentage wasn't much below Santo's last season. And you seem to think Santo is good at faceoffs. Who do you think is more likely to improve in that area 24 yr old Vey in his second season or 30 yr old veteran Santorelli? Which of the two has the higher odds of becoming more than he was last season?

There's four question you likely won't answer. I even bolded them for you.

Here's my argument why both are good gambles:

Odds_zpssvxltqfj.png

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/6/27/5845256/nhl-draft-2014-analysis-luck

Now this one is generous and sets the bar low at 100 NHL games. This is important - that 31.1% is just playing 100 games or more. It doesn't mean elite, star, or even good. Just that 31.1% will play at least 100 games.

This link: http://proicehockey.about.com/od/prospects/f/draft_success.htm sets the bar higher at 200 games to qualify as "a career player"....

"From 1990 to 1999, about one-quarter of the players selected in the second round turned into NHL career players."

Again, this doesn't mean elite, star, or even good. Just that one quarter will manage to play 200 NHL games. Notice it dropped from 31.1% for 100 games to 25% for 200 games.

This is why I see both trades as excellent gambles.

Baggins: Thanks for posting this graph and the stats around prospects/draft picks making it in the NHL. Getting a skilled, aready drafted prospect that is projected to make it in the NHL is statistically much better than getting a 2-5th round pick by far (or even lower 1st rounders) and often is the best choice for any GM when looking to add a roster player to the team. Also you get much more immediate return based that more 20 year olds make the team than 18 year old former Junior players.....great post - thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not your teacher, parent or guardian.... NOBODY is forcing you to read anything on CDC. If something is too long and gives you a headache just click away, ignore it, scroll down or whatever else you want to do.

Yes.... I wish all of CDC didn't write their thoughts on this forum and just stood by and made snide comments on matters that are way above them. How great would CDC be with characters all like yourself! Just one liners and nothing of substance on CDC.... Oh, I forgot to include that all members of CDC must agree on the subject too...

Don't bother replying or reading....I absolve (this is not some gimmick to improve your abs) you from any further anxiety due to my extensive posts. I will ignore your comments. :)

Well aren't you just a ray of sunshine :picard:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't care about the average age of our goalies. I really don't. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Did Boston care about the age of their tandem when they beat us in the final? Nope. Neither do I, yet you keep bringing it up like it should matter to somebody.

If you want a private conversation with JD pm him instead of posting for all to see and respond to.

Resorting to personal attacks is sure sign your argument sucks. Nothing you've written has stumped me in the least. I simply disagree with you. You seem to be the one that's taking issue with being disagreed with.

No you didn't. Your words....

"What I am asking for is ANY evidence that shows that Sutter can improve his game now that he is a vet and has played in the NHL for many years."

You sir are now back peddling and saying I have a comprehension problems as a smoke screen. Changing it from asking for evidence to there is no evidence and from future performance to past performance. It seems to me you didn't comprehend what you yourself first asked for: Evidence of what can happen in the future.

Have you seen enough of Sutters play to properly assess what he may or may not be? I've already stated I haven't and thus have an open mind on the deal. Mainly because Benning has seen a great deal of him. More than enough to assess his play.

What solid argument? "Beartsch performed poorly but I like him". That's a solid argument?? I don't care about their positions. Both are Vey and Bear are good gambles for the cost. Did you miss the party where I said you can never have enough centers? Maybe you haven't been a fan long enough to remember Mason Raymond having to play center here.

Here's your solid argument: A guy that has performed poorly (your own words) is worth a 2nd round pick. But a guy that has performed extremely well in the AHL is not. Hmm, head scratcher.

You completely ignore every point I make, don't answer those points at all, and then have the nerve to say I have poor comprehension.

VEY WAS A ROOKIE> ROOKIES HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO IMPROVE. Can you argue that?

VEY'S FACEOFF PERCENTAGE WAS RIGHT IN THE BALLPARK OF HENRIK, KESLER, MATTHIAS, AND BONINO FOR THEIR ROOKIE SEASONS. Any answer for that?

I also pointed out Vey's faceoff percentage wasn't much below Santo's last season. And you seem to think Santo is good at faceoffs. Who do you think is more likely to improve in that area 24 yr old Vey in his second season or 30 yr old veteran Santorelli? Which of the two has the higher odds of becoming more than he was last season?

There's four question you likely won't answer. I even bolded them for you.

Here's my argument why both are good gambles:

Odds_zpssvxltqfj.png

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/6/27/5845256/nhl-draft-2014-analysis-luck

Now this one is generous and sets the bar low at 100 NHL games. This is important - that 31.1% is just playing 100 games or more. It doesn't mean elite, star, or even good. Just that 31.1% will play at least 100 games.

This link: http://proicehockey.about.com/od/prospects/f/draft_success.htm sets the bar higher at 200 games to qualify as "a career player"....

"From 1990 to 1999, about one-quarter of the players selected in the second round turned into NHL career players."

Again, this doesn't mean elite, star, or even good. Just that one quarter will manage to play 200 NHL games. Notice it dropped from 31.1% for 100 games to 25% for 200 games.

This is why I see both trades as excellent gambles. But hey your "solid argument" (your opinion) is more convincing than actual statistics right?

Yes you are. It's rare for rookies to step in and excel. There's a learning curve. If you are as impatient with all our other prospects you're going to be pretty miserable for years to come. It amazes me you think we gave up on Kassian too quickly.

We didn't trade for Vey to be our third line center. We had several centers last year. We traded for him because he was a quality prospect that became available around the draft. Trading for him would potentially speed up our rebuild. None of our prospects on our farm team had put up the kind of number Vey has in the AHL. It doesn't take an Einstein to see the sense in that trade.

If you're going to give up on rookies after one season we're going to need a lot more draft picks. A boat load more. Because not many step right in and perform to a high level so we'll be tossing out a lot of them after one season. Unless his name is Kassian of course.

Btw, was it Benning or Willie that told you Vey wasn't being considered at center any more? Not that it matters. Many centers also play wing and Vey can also play the point on the pp. Sucks to have a player that's versatile.

Now instead of answering any of my questions or addressing my points just say I don't comprehend and question my intelligence.

 

First you try and ridicule me about my lengthy posts... it wasn't very difficult for me to manipulate you into replying with a wall of text Hehe funny.

I explained to you already about the reason why I used the "younger goalie tandem" .... nobody cares if you're interested in it or not. It's especially puzzling why you keep bringing it up after I explained the reasons behind it? Sure, keep taking things out of context...but how can you expect me not to get frustrated if you fail to understand the obvious?

I have no problems with people responding.... I have problems with people who misquote me or completely misunderstand the conversation.

Personal attacks? Nothing personal....just stating the obvious and replying to you in the same manner that you started with in your post to me. You come at me aggressively after you misinterpreted my post and you think I won't do the same? You think it's "off bounds" to comment on how you misinterpreted my post? hehe

Had you replied respectfully than I would have done the same to you. I understand you disagree with me....do YOU understand that I disagree with you? Stop holding yourself so high and mighty and expecting some sort of respect when you don't do the same in return.

Comprehension

You quoted me with, "What I am asking for is ANY evidence that shows that Sutter can improve his game now that he is a vet and has played in the NHL for many years."

This is EXACTLY my point.....you interpret this as me asking for future evidence? Looking into a crystal ball? **shaking head**

Give me any evidence from Sutters past that shows he can improve his game now.....this is another way to word it. DO YOU COMPREHEND NOW? Both have the same meaning....just worded slightly different. Nothing personal....but you mocked me for your misinterpretation and I just pointed out your error :)

I mentioned his history playing in the NHL so there should be enough examples from his past to show that there is still room for improvement. But, you are still arguing that your interpretation is correct...... right, OK than.

Why would I need to back peddle when you argued my point for me? However, I appreciate it.

Again, YOU may not care about the difference in positions Vey and Baertsch play, but I do... I think that the C position is much more important and there is a need to factor size, speed, FO abilities and style of play to be successful.

I should also add that you failed to mention the reason we traded for Vey? Was it to learn his game in the NHL....or was it to replace Santorelli at C? Regardless....it didn't work out and now we have a waiver eligible prospect who still isn't ready and he is no longer in our long-term plans. It was a poor move.

You fault me for not commenting on an ignorant point you make? You make it seem like there's some relevance with your statement, and I choose to ignore it because it works both ways and there's no point in going back and forth over it....but just to prove it so, you said, "VEY WAS A ROOKIE> ROOKIES HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO IMPROVE." Can I argue with this? haha How about,

VEY WAS A ROOKIE> ROOKIES HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO FAIL OR BE STAGNANT. Any answer for this? Such a stupid argument, THIS is why I ignored it.

So you admit that Vey wasn't good at FO....and Santos was better. This is a start....

However, FO's were only a small portion of my argument for Santorelli over Vey, but you want to make the argument ONLY about FOs?....what about Vey's size? Speed? Defensive game? Physical game? or that he's waiver eligible? Santorelli is proven, Vey will not match him in any of these other areas in his second year....if ever. Vey cost us a 2nd round pick and we could have signed Santorelli for cheap....but you want to ignore this too. Oh....you also prefer to ignore that Vey wasn't ready, he's doesn't factor into a position other than a 4th line player. Why is it so hard to admit that the trade didn't work out? At the moment.....every line proposal I've seen has forgotten about Vey, has him listed at C on the 4th line or a Winger in the bottom 6 with a question mark beside it. This seems to be the consensus. Basically, we gave up a 2nd round pick for a 4th liner (maybe)....and you don't see any faults here?

OH....and you brought up M. Raymond, how did things work out for him? Lesson should have been learned. At least he has speed and was defensively responsible.

You're gonna post random stats to help your argument? What's the point... Where does the stat show the differences in style of game? size being a factor? Defensive reliability?

At this point in Vey's career....where he was picked in the draft doesn't factor in. What matters is how he has performed thus far and if he has the necessary tools to make it in the NHL NOW...why? BECAUSE HE IS WAIVER ELIGIBLE...

Or are you insinuating that we don't want draft picks anymore because the odds of success are so low? This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard argued on CDC.... I don't even remember people suggesting this prior to benning. benning says the odds are low so 2nd round picks are not worthy of anything and now you believe this to be true? And benning supposed to be a scout monster isn't he? Or does he just specialize in 1st round picks and he isn't very good at the rest of them?

AND I NEVER SAID BAERTSCH WAS A BAD MOVE....

It amazes you that we gave up on PF just as he was getting close to development? Yeah....nothing like this ever happened in Canucks history right? hehe

You accuse me of being impatient and I suggest there's no future for him here.....

Please tell me where you think he will fit in our lineup...now, or in the future? Also, how do you feel about a prospect who isn't ready for the NHL playing for the Canucks? Being gifted ice time over other deserving prospects or players?

How do you not see the risk involved with waiver eligible players? Stop drinking the BS coming out of benning! He says picks are risky...have a low percentage of success, yet he loves picks?

Picks are essential for any teams future.....even the 5th rounds and higher.

And you failed to address the main points I made..... Why is it that people like you defend benning when he makes an awful trade? You claim that he isn't to blame because he was at a disadvantage due to NTC, cap, or everything else. However, why are other GMs able to get great deals or, at the least, respectable deals when they are in the same situation? Maybe cause they have someone like benning on their speed dial...

The Ducks are FORCED to trade Vey and benning gives them EXACTLY what they want? Is their GM savvy or is ours inept?

Obviously they wouldn't ask for a 1st....so they're asking price must have been a 2nd right? OR!!!!!! Maybe benning thought he got a great deal? The Ducks possibly asked for two 1st round picks and "savvy" benning countered with our 2nd?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He was deployed in a shut down roll against the other teams top players and still managed to score 21 goals. :picard:

 

He will still be deployed in a shut down roll against the other teams top players....his production should be fairly similar and not go higher right?

Nobody is questioning his defensive game and I don't mind him being here......I DON'T LIKE WHAT WE PAID FOR HIM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Benning has done his job, however, to be devil's advocate; look what the team gave up in order to acquire these players; not to mention the ridiculous salaries that some of them are being paid (i.e. Bartkowski - 1.75; Sutter - 3.3/4.375; Prust - 2.5). Do we have enough money left for Franson??? Just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my argument why both are good gambles:

Odds_zpssvxltqfj.png

http://www.sbnation.com/nhl/2014/6/27/5845256/nhl-draft-2014-analysis-luck

"From 1990 to 1999, about one-quarter of the players selected in the second round turned into NHL career players."

This is why I see both trades as excellent gambles.

Nice graph use, instead of just calling people names in trying to win a debate like some around her do. That said, I haven't seen anything from Vey/Bart that showed me that they're for sure NHLers. To me they're no better gamble/assets than a 2nd rounder. But hey that's just me.

Wow does that graph ever support the argument that tanking is the best strategy too. You want career NHLers, let alone stars, you want to draft in the top 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice graph use, instead of just calling people names in trying to win a debate like some around her do. That said, I haven't seen anything from Vey/Bart that showed me that they're for sure NHLers. To me they're no better gamble/assets than a 2nd rounder.

Wow does that graph ever support the argument that tanking is the best strategy too. You want career NHLers, let alone stars, you want to draft in the top 10.

Unfortunately it doesn't actually show the quality of the picks, just the percentage that managed to play 100 or more NHL games. Cam Barker was a 3rd overall pick and has played 310 NHL games. A success by the standard of both links I provided. Hardly a win of a 3rd overall pick though. I doubt anybody would consider him a win even he was a bottom end second rounder.

There are no guarantees when it comes to prospects or picks. But players who put up Veys type of numbers in the ahl do tend to make it in the NHL. How effective he will become or how long he can stay in the NHL is yet to be seen, but he'll certainly pass the 100 NHL game mark making him a success according to the one chart and beating the odds of a 2nd round pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you failed to address the main points I made..... Why is it that people like you defend benning when he makes an awful trade? You claim that he isn't to blame because he was at a disadvantage due to NTC, cap, or everything else. However, why are other GMs able to get great deals or, at the least, respectable deals when they are in the same situation? Maybe cause they have someone like benning on their speed dial...

The Ducks are FORCED to trade Vey and benning gives them EXACTLY what they want? Is their GM savvy or is ours inept?

1 - I haven't seen anything I consider "awful". I have responded to this. Several times in fact. You just seem to ignore my answer because it doesn't match yours opinion. NTC's can in fact create a disadvantage. If a player says these are the six teams I'll go to and five of them have no need for the player you have no advantage when you're only getting one offer. Not being in the room, and I'm assuming you weren't either, we can't say how many teams were being dealt with. The return is based on how badly the teams you can deal with want the player, and how many teams are involved. Value is dictated by what others are willing to pay. It's just that simple.

2 - I've replied to this already as well. You're assuming we were the only team interested in Vey. Can you say with any certainty that no other team was contacted about his availability and that no other team made an offer? Likely not. Considering Vey had no ntc it's highly unlikely we were the only one making an offer. For the umpteenth time, I consider it a fair trade considering the odds of a 2nd rounder panning out at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. I don't know too much about Sutter either and I'm not sure exactly who he has been paired with, but I did read that his linemates weren't so bad all the time....

With this as the basis, I'd say yes, your Sutter analysis is STRONG.

Considering that you are admitting ignorance about this player, are you SURE that you can evaluate the price we paid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor Baggins.... did I upset you with logic?

1) You don't have anything valid to say so you defend it with "I don't care..." hehe Great response! I explained the context as it was only relevant to Junkyard dogs comment....so why are YOU bringing it up? Funny.

2) Obviously you have issues with comprehension...coupled with whatever else. Somebody's opinion doesn't jive with yours or somebody writes an argument that stumps you so you make idiotic comments? Take the ring off Frodo.

Here's an example of your comprehension issues...

I stated that there is no evidence that shows Sutter will perform better with the Canucks.... he's played in the league for years and hasn't shown that he can regularly produce points effectively. He also played against easier matchups while in Pitts and he still didn't produce. So, I asked for evidence of any previous years where he did produce....but the wording probably fooled you... if I substituted "examples" or "previous history" you might understand.

You want to fault others because your comprehension levels are low? I'm not asking him to tell the future.... haha

3) AGAIN.... I give you a solid argument and you have nothing to reply with. So you resort (I'm not talking about a place to relax and holiday here.... resort = fall back to/final option) to "I don't care.... wah". Childish.

There is a big difference between playing C and W....especially if the player is defensively irresponsible and can't take faceoffs. But, your "I DON'T CARE....WAH" argument is good enough! Point taken. 8 year old kids have the same argument....

4) I'm passing judgement too quickly? We traded for Vey because he was supposed to center our 3rd line, he was supposed to be NHL ready...... ONE YEAR LATER and what? We found out that Vey isn't good enough to center any lines and he isn't NHL ready! Now we're stuck with him in the HOPES that he develops and becomes a NHL player and we can't find a place for him in the lineup....and to top it off, we can't send him down to the Comets.

You want us to be patient with Vey? Is that why we signed him? We didn't trade for Vey so that we could let a prospect, who isn't NHL ready, to develop his game with the Canucks.... We have enough centers now and we have a ton in our prospects pool so benning and WD are not considering Vey at C anymore.

It was a bad trade. Bad trades happen and I understand this....is benning the only GM that made a bad trade? NO.... but must CDC ignore the fact because it doesn't fit your image of benning? Sorry...it's not all about you.

God. You just made me dumber. Maybe if you use fewer words, your point would be clearer. Not that it matters, considering that you have refused to take any notice of the points against your worthless argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately it doesn't actually show the quality of the picks, just the percentage that managed to play 100 or more NHL games. Cam Barker was a 3rd overall pick and has played 310 NHL games. A success by the standard of both links I provided. Hardly a win of a 3rd overall pick though. I doubt anybody would consider him a win even he was a bottom end second rounder.

There are no guarantees when it comes to prospects or picks. But players who put up Veys type of numbers in the ahl do tend to make it in the NHL. How effective he will become or how long he can stay in the NHL is yet to be seen, but he'll certainly pass the 100 NHL game mark making him a success according to the one chart and beating the odds of a 2nd round pick.

Oh man. Real world examples? That's a terrible argument compared to percentages. If you consider how much rope a top ten pick gets, plus the 5 second chances they'll get after they bust with the first team, I'd say you can safely disregard those percentages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately it doesn't actually show the quality of the picks, just the percentage that managed to play 100 or more NHL games. Cam Barker was a 3rd overall pick and has played 310 NHL games. A success by the standard of both links I provided. Hardly a win of a 3rd overall pick though. I doubt anybody would consider him a win even he was a bottom end second rounder.

There are no guarantees when it comes to prospects or picks. But players who put up Veys type of numbers in the ahl do tend to make it in the NHL. How effective he will become or how long he can stay in the NHL is yet to be seen, but he'll certainly pass the 100 NHL game mark making him a success according to the one chart and beating the odds of a 2nd round pick.

Yup, while it does give you a pretty good guarantee of someone who will be somewhat useful, it by no means guarantees a star. Remember there are players like Patrik Stefan and Pavel Brendl, the two players drafted around the Sedins (1st and 4th respectively) who never became near what the hype they had for such high picks. Then there's players like Malhotra, Torres and Pyatt (7th, 5th and 8th respectively) who had useful NHL careers, but never really achieved to the level of their draft status. Rico Fata, Brett Connolly, Scott Glennie, MPS, Cody Hodgson, Thomas Hickey, etc., etc., etc.

For every star to come out of the top ten of the draft, there are plenty of busts and marginal players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man. Real world examples? That's a terrible argument compared to percentages. If you consider how much rope a top ten pick gets, plus the 5 second chances they'll get after they bust with the first team, I'd say you can safely disregard those percentages.

I wouldn't go as far as disregarding them. Many top ten picks go on to long careers as third/fourth line players. You're always hoping to get a superstar or star with those picks but that's not the reality. If those two links on successful draft picks had the standard of star players the percentages would obviously be much, much lower.

I prefer the second of the two links though because he used 200 games as the standard for a successful career. That's the number of games required to qualify for a pension. But even that set of numbers is based on the players perspective of successful by gaining a pension as opposed to the GM's perspective of successful by drafting a quality player with a lengthy career.

But those numbers do show how many draft picks are complete busts. Particularly when you get outside the first round. Which is why I believe trading seconds for Baertschi and Vey as much better gambles than using those picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Benning has done his job, however, to be devil's advocate; look what the team gave up in order to acquire these players; not to mention the ridiculous salaries that some of them are being paid (i.e. Bartkowski - 1.75; Sutter - 3.3/4.375; Prust - 2.5). Do we have enough money left for Franson??? Just saying.

I said above that I thought that the Sutter extension was premature. We should have seen him play for half a season first.

Having said that, what exactly has Benning been doing with his signings? Is there a pattern? Yes there is.

  • Term. Players he wants to keep to be building blocks for the future or part of the team structure that is built to remain competitive and help to develop young players are getting term. Sutter, Dorset, Tanev, Sbisa, Miller, Markstrom
  • One Year Contract. The rest, Benning is signing to one year terms. This is for several reasons: wait and see how they work out, use as trading chips or rentals (other teams don't want to pay for players with term or NTC's ie Higgins). Prust, Vey, Baertschi, Kenins, Bartkowski, Weber, Corrado
  1. If you don't give term, you probably have to pay a little more.....yes?
  2. I would place Franson firmly in group 2....a fill in guy who they only want to sign for a year.....I'd be willing to bet that Franson wants term (since he's just come off two 1 year contracts) so we don't have a match.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, while it does give you a pretty good guarantee of someone who will be somewhat useful, it by no means guarantees a star. Remember there are players like Patrik Stefan and Pavel Brendl, the two players drafted around the Sedins (1st and 4th respectively) who never became near what the hype they had for such high picks. Then there's players like Malhotra, Torres and Pyatt (7th, 5th and 8th respectively) who had useful NHL careers, but never really achieved to the level of their draft status. Rico Fata, Brett Connolly, Scott Glennie, MPS, Cody Hodgson, Thomas Hickey, etc., etc., etc.

For every star to come out of the top ten of the draft, there are plenty of busts and marginal players.

This is the anti-tank argument and I think that Elvis has stated the case very well.

It is also the same argument that suggests that development is more important than drafting.

There is also a pattern to the types of players that Benning drafts. They are character players who are coachable and who will develop well. He has also drafted some players who have gone through some personal adversity and performed well despite of it. (Neill, Stewart to name a couple).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...