[Video] Benning: We won't draft by position, taking best player.

[Boddy604]

3 hours ago, homersexual said:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/benning-we-wont-draft-by-position-taking-best-player/

He wants to draft a d-man.

He thinks there are 15 top players (top 4 D or top 6 F) in the draft, then it drops off.

Maybe Benning saying there's 15 quality picks is his subtle way of saying maybe we will trade off Vrbata after all.

[JamesB]

3 minutes ago, Boddy604 said:

Maybe Benning saying there's 15 quality picks is his subtle way of saying maybe we will trade off Vrbata after all.

It is interesting that he specifically mentioned the number 15. The top 14 picks go to the 14 teams who miss the playoffs. The 15th pick goes to the last playoff team.

I believe that Benning is being honest, but he did not need to answer the question. By answering it he is implying that there is a significant advantage to finishing out of the playoffs (or in the last playoff spot). That is the kind of thing you want to emphasize when you are going to miss the playoffs. So maybe he is expecting the Canucks to finish out of the playoffs and, I agree, maybe that means he will trade Vrby.

[DownUndaCanuck]

Pretty stupid way to build a team IMO. Zero balance.

You think drafting the BPA gets us the most value into our organization, right? Make sense? It's not that simple.

If we keep drafting wingers or the best available player and keep neglecting our burning need for a top defenceman, here's what's going to happen.

We'll keep waiting for our 3rd-7th round picks pan out as top stud defencemen which is a MINISCULE chance. There aren't many defencemen in the league let alone star top-4 defencemen who are found that way. So we're already low on the percentages game.

If Benning is thinking of bringing in maximum value to our club with the BPA then trading them for a top defenceman, he's not going to get it. Look at the cost of defencemen these days. No one is parting with a top defenceman. Hamonic is demanding a fair bit. Guys like Ekblad will never be moved. Seth Jones was just traded for Johansen. Unless we have value like that going in, we're not going to fleece a team with a Virtanen/Boeser-like player for a top-4 defenceman. We'd have to give a LOT more value in terms of wingers/forwards/picks to get a defenceman. Essentially, a top-6 forward < top-4 defenceman, and we'd have to end up paying FAR more value to get a stud D-man than would be worth drafting the BPA and moving him or someone else.

This upcoming draft is a blessing for the Canucks, with about 5-10 stud defencemen in the first round. We have a decent stab at one if not two of these defencemen, and quite frankly we have to take it. Our defence is the reason we're losing games right now, that pathetic depth is probably bottom-3 in the league and is a glaring joke every single night. Benning is content with it for some absurd reason and until he gives his head a shake and puts more attention on our back-end, we'll never win games let alone make the playoffs.

[two drink minimum]

2 hours ago, HC20.0 said:

It's nice having a GM who is actually open and honest up front. Refreshing. We need D prospects badly, and I think this is the best chance at a draft since 2012 to get some. We'll see what happens in the standings, but I think if we end up too far down to get a D, I wouldn't be surprised if Benning moves up. 

Might I remind you that M.Gillis built a damn good hockey team even though he was some what closed off. I don't care how the GM is with media as long as he builds a cup winner

[Boddy604]

2 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Pretty stupid way to build a team IMO. Zero balance.

You think drafting the BPA gets us the most value into our organization, right? Make sense? It's not that simple.

If we keep drafting wingers or the best available player and keep neglecting our burning need for a top defenceman, here's what's going to happen.

We'll keep waiting for our 3rd-7th round picks pan out as top stud defencemen which is a MINISCULE chance. There aren't many defencemen in the league let alone star top-4 defencemen who are found that way. So we're already low on the percentages game.

If Benning is thinking of bringing in maximum value to our club with the BPA then trading them for a top defenceman, he's not going to get it. Look at the cost of defencemen these days. No one is parting with a top defenceman. Hamonic is demanding a fair bit. Guys like Ekblad will never be moved. Seth Jones was just traded for Johansen. Unless we have value like that going in, we're not going to fleece a team with a Virtanen/Boeser-like player for a top-4 defenceman. We'd have to give a LOT more value in terms of wingers/forwards/picks to get a defenceman. Essentially, a top-6 forward < top-4 defenceman, and we'd have to end up paying FAR more value to get a stud D-man than would be worth drafting the BPA and moving him or someone else.

This upcoming draft is a blessing for the Canucks, with about 5-10 stud defencemen in the first round. We have a decent stab at one if not two of these defencemen, and quite frankly we have to take it. Our defence is the reason we're losing games right now, that pathetic depth is probably bottom-3 in the league and is a glaring joke every single night. Benning is content with it for some absurd reason and until he gives his head a shake and puts more attention on our back-end, we'll never win games let alone make the playoffs.

You're pretty cynical, Jesus.  He said the intent was to draft a D man and that's what they're looking at but if there's something better available, they'll go that route. Do you pass up a Tkachuk or something to draft a now need? D men almost always take 3+ years to Crack the NHL, then another 2 or 3 to be top pairing guys. Whereas a forward can be on the top line in the NHL in 1 or 2 years. He's right in what he's saying. If his options are a future top 6 forward vs hopefully in 3 or so years make the team D man that has holes in his game, take the forward. It makes sense.

[JamesB]

3 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Not really, first he said that they have good forward depth in prospects and now they want to focus on defense.  That I take to be for the whole draft.  Later, he's talking about his overall philosophy in drafting which is BPA.  In the first round, he'll take the BPA but is looking for D.  I'm interpreting that he means, if there is a tie, he'll take the D.  In the later rounds, he feels free to take D.

He's quite open which is surprising and really seems to be enjoying himself.  Maybe he's seen something he really likes.

I have exactly the same read, and it makes sense. In the first round there is often a significant drop off in just a few positions. There is, for example, a big difference between #4 overall picks and #8 overall picks. If you are picking #4 and the BPA is a forward, especially if the best D available is, for example, ranked #8 then it would be a big mistake to pick the D. Benning would take the BPA in this situation.

But if two guys are very similar, and one is a D, that is the guy Benning will take.

But in later rounds, certainly in the 3rd round and beyond, relative ranking does not mean much. The expected difference between a guy ranked 72 overall and a guy ranked, say, 92 overall, is very small. If a forward is ranked 72 and a D is ranking 92 you don't lost much in expected value by picking the D. (See, for example, http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/analyzing-value-nhl-draft-picks/)

Therefore, if you are picking at 72 overall (3rd round), you might as well pick the best D on your list. If you pick 4 or 5 Ds in the late rounds you have a good chance that one of them will pan out. And Ds are harder to predict anyway, so you are more likely to get a high quality D in the late rounds than you are to get a high quality forward.

Also, it is harder to acquire high quality D prospects once they are doing well.

It looks to me like Benning has the best strategy for the draft. Now, of course, he just needs to make good reads on the actual players, which is his strength (unlike Gillis and Nonis, who were weak in this area).

And we need lots of draft picks. Late round picks are always lottery tickets and the way to do well in a lottery is to have lots of tickets. The two late round Ds from last year (Neill and Olson) seem to be doing well.

[DownUndaCanuck]

4 minutes ago, Boddy604 said:

You're pretty cynical, Jesus.  He said the intent was to draft a D man and that's what they're looking at but if there's something better available, they'll go that route. Do you pass up a Tkachuk or something to draft a now need? D men almost always take 3+ years to Crack the NHL, then another 2 or 3 to be top pairing guys. Whereas a forward can be on the top line in the NHL in 1 or 2 years. He's right in what he's saying. If his options are a future top 6 forward vs hopefully in 3 or so years make the team D man that has holes in his game, take the forward. It makes sense.

I would take Chychrun over just about anyone in that draft except Matthews, because we still have a need for a big strong powerforward.

If Puljujarvi is available and we have the 2nd overall pick, I'd still take a defenceman. Because quite frankly, we have enough wingers on this team and we're becoming extremely unbalanced.

[oldnews]

15 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Pretty stupid way to build a team IMO. Zero balance.

You think drafting the BPA gets us the most value into our organization, right? Make sense? It's not that simple.

If we keep drafting wingers or the best available player and keep neglecting our burning need for a top defenceman, here's what's going to happen.

We'll keep waiting for our 3rd-7th round picks pan out as top stud defencemen which is a MINISCULE chance. There aren't many defencemen in the league let alone star top-4 defencemen who are found that way. So we're already low on the percentages game.

If Benning is thinking of bringing in maximum value to our club with the BPA then trading them for a top defenceman, he's not going to get it. Look at the cost of defencemen these days. No one is parting with a top defenceman. Hamonic is demanding a fair bit. Guys like Ekblad will never be moved. Seth Jones was just traded for Johansen. Unless we have value like that going in, we're not going to fleece a team with a Virtanen/Boeser-like player for a top-4 defenceman. We'd have to give a LOT more value in terms of wingers/forwards/picks to get a defenceman. Essentially, a top-6 forward < top-4 defenceman, and we'd have to end up paying FAR more value to get a stud D-man than would be worth drafting the BPA and moving him or someone else.

This upcoming draft is a blessing for the Canucks, with about 5-10 stud defencemen in the first round. We have a decent stab at one if not two of these defencemen, and quite frankly we have to take it. Our defence is the reason we're losing games right now, that pathetic depth is probably bottom-3 in the league and is a glaring joke every single night. Benning is content with it for some absurd reason and until he gives his head a shake and puts more attention on our back-end, we'll never win games let alone make the playoffs.

chirp chirp

[Boddy604]

7 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I would take Chychrun over just about anyone in that draft except Matthews, because we still have a need for a big strong powerforward.

If Puljujarvi is available and we have the 2nd overall pick, I'd still take a defenceman. Because quite frankly, we have enough wingers on this team and we're becoming extremely unbalanced.

And that's why you're not a GM. D men don't get picked as often in the 1st not because they're not as good but because there's a lot more risk to d men than there is forwards. If a forward can put a puck in the net, they're a success and that's it. D men have a way bigger game to develop cuz if they can't chip in offensively AND play good defensively, they're a fringe player. And it's hard to gauge a player at junior level cuz it's still all about scoring at that level. 2 way play and defensive zone shut downs doesn't become even half as important until higher up. NHL average game is a score of 3-2, juniors is more like 6-4. 

[Sweathog]

35 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Pretty stupid way to build a team IMO. Zero balance.

You think drafting the BPA gets us the most value into our organization, right? Make sense? It's not that simple.

If we keep drafting wingers or the best available player and keep neglecting our burning need for a top defenceman, here's what's going to happen.

We'll keep waiting for our 3rd-7th round picks pan out as top stud defencemen which is a MINISCULE chance. There aren't many defencemen in the league let alone star top-4 defencemen who are found that way. So we're already low on the percentages game.

If Benning is thinking of bringing in maximum value to our club with the BPA then trading them for a top defenceman, he's not going to get it. Look at the cost of defencemen these days. No one is parting with a top defenceman. Hamonic is demanding a fair bit. Guys like Ekblad will never be moved. Seth Jones was just traded for Johansen. Unless we have value like that going in, we're not going to fleece a team with a Virtanen/Boeser-like player for a top-4 defenceman. We'd have to give a LOT more value in terms of wingers/forwards/picks to get a defenceman. Essentially, a top-6 forward < top-4 defenceman, and we'd have to end up paying FAR more value to get a stud D-man than would be worth drafting the BPA and moving him or someone else.

This upcoming draft is a blessing for the Canucks, with about 5-10 stud defencemen in the first round. We have a decent stab at one if not two of these defencemen, and quite frankly we have to take it. Our defence is the reason we're losing games right now, that pathetic depth is probably bottom-3 in the league and is a glaring joke every single night. Benning is content with it for some absurd reason and until he gives his head a shake and puts more attention on our back-end, we'll never win games let alone make the playoffs.

Benning has acknowledged that our defensive depth has to get deeper, and I'm sure he already has a plan to rectify it. His philosophy of drafting the BPA in the 1st round makes sense, especially if the BPA clearly has more potential than the best player in the needed position. 

 

If we end up with an overabundance of talented forwards, and still end up short on D, we can always sacrifice some forward depth to even it out. There are always teams that need scoring, and don't mind giving up defensive talent to get it.

[messier's_elbow]

1 hour ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I would take Chychrun over just about anyone in that draft except Matthews, because we still have a need for a big strong powerforward.

If Puljujarvi is available and we have the 2nd overall pick, I'd still take a defenceman. Because quite frankly, we have enough wingers on this team and we're becoming extremely unbalanced.

I think Chychrun is overrated. He's the third best Dman in this draft in my opinion. 

[soshified]

1 hour ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

I would take Chychrun over just about anyone in that draft except Matthews, because we still have a need for a big strong powerforward.

If Puljujarvi is available and we have the 2nd overall pick, I'd still take a defenceman. Because quite frankly, we have enough wingers on this team and we're becoming extremely unbalanced.

And that's why trading exists.

In the last 10 years, on the top of my head, i don't even remember a defenceman in the top 5 being able to play as a top 4 right away, except for Ekblad and Jones.

[CanadianRugby]

7 minutes ago, soshified said:

And that's why trading exists.

In the last 10 years, on the top of my head, i don't even remember a defenceman in the top 5 being able to play as a top 4 right away, except for Ekblad and Jones.

I was so mad when Florida got Ekblad and Tampa got Hedman.  Vancouver has never had a D man like that.

[funkyfresh]

1 hour ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Pretty stupid way to build a team IMO. Zero balance.

You think drafting the BPA gets us the most value into our organization, right? Make sense? It's not that simple.

If we keep drafting wingers or the best available player and keep neglecting our burning need for a top defenceman, here's what's going to happen.

We'll keep waiting for our 3rd-7th round picks pan out as top stud defencemen which is a MINISCULE chance. There aren't many defencemen in the league let alone star top-4 defencemen who are found that way. So we're already low on the percentages game.

If Benning is thinking of bringing in maximum value to our club with the BPA then trading them for a top defenceman, he's not going to get it. Look at the cost of defencemen these days. No one is parting with a top defenceman. Hamonic is demanding a fair bit. Guys like Ekblad will never be moved. Seth Jones was just traded for Johansen. Unless we have value like that going in, we're not going to fleece a team with a Virtanen/Boeser-like player for a top-4 defenceman. We'd have to give a LOT more value in terms of wingers/forwards/picks to get a defenceman. Essentially, a top-6 forward < top-4 defenceman, and we'd have to end up paying FAR more value to get a stud D-man than would be worth drafting the BPA and moving him or someone else.

This upcoming draft is a blessing for the Canucks, with about 5-10 stud defencemen in the first round. We have a decent stab at one if not two of these defencemen, and quite frankly we have to take it. Our defence is the reason we're losing games right now, that pathetic depth is probably bottom-3 in the league and is a glaring joke every single night. Benning is content with it for some absurd reason and until he gives his head a shake and puts more attention on our back-end, we'll never win games let alone make the playoffs.

Hears a list of defense men, drafted outside first round or picked up in free agency(NA), playing top 4 minutes. 

Teams	Player	Round
Anaheim Ducks	SAMI VATANEN	4
	Kevin Bieksa	5
Arizona Coyotes	Michael Stone	3
	Nicklas Grossman	2
Boston Bruins	Zdeno Chara	2
	Torey Krug	NA
	Dennis Seidenberg	6
	Kevan Miller	NA
Buffalo Sabres	Josh Gorges	NA
	Jake McCabe	2
Calgary Flames	TJ Brodie	4
	Mark Giordano	NA
	Kris Russell	3
	Dennis Wideman	8
Carolina Hurricanes	Justin Faulk	2
	Jaccob Slavin	4
	John-Michael Liles	5
Chicago Blackhawks	Duncan Keith	2
	Niklas Hjalmarsson	4
	Trevor van Riemsdyk	NA
Colorado Avalanche	Francois Beauchemin	3
	Tyson Barrie	3
	Nick Holden	NA
Columbus Blue Jackets	David Savard	4
Dallas Stars	Alex Goligoski	2
	Jason Demers	7
	John Klingberg	5
	Johnny Oduya	7
Detroit Red Wings	Danny DeKeyser	NA
Edmonton Oilers	Andrej Sekera	3
	Justin Schultz	2
Florida Panthers	Brian Campbell	6
	Willie Mitchell	8
Los Angeles Kings	Jake Muzzin	5
	Alec Martinez	4
	Brayden McNabb	3
Minnesota Wild	Jared Spurgeon	6
	Marco Scandella	2
Montreal Canadiens	P.K. Subban	2
	Andrei Markov	6
	Jeff Petry	2
	Alexei Emelin	3
Nashville Predators	Roman Josi	2
	Shea Weber	2
	Mattias Ekholm	4
New Jersey Devils	Andy Greene	NA
	David Schlemko	NA
New York Islanders	Travis Hamonic	2
	Johnny Boychuk	2
New York Rangers	Kevin Klein	2
	Dan Girardi	NA
	Dan Boyle	NA
	Keith Yandle	4
Ottawa Senators	Marc Methot	6
	Patrick Wiercioch	2
Philadelphia Flyers	Mark Streit	9
	Shayne Gostisbehere	3
	Radko Gudas	3
Pittsburgh Penguins	Kris Letang	3
	Brian Dumoulin	2
	Trevor Daley	2
San Jose Sharks	Marc-Edouard Vlasic	2
	Justin Braun	7
	Paul Martin	2
St Louis Blues	Colton Parayko	3
Tampa Bay Lightning	Anton Stralman	7
	Jason Garrison	NA
Toronto Maple Leafs	Matt Hunwick	7
Vancouver Canucks	Alexander Edler	3
	Christopher Tanev	NA
	Ben Hutton	5
Washington Capitals	Nate Schmidt	NA
Winnipeg Jets	Dustin Byfuglien	8
	Toby Enstrom	8

 

That is just dmen who are getting top 4 minutes. If I expanded to top 6 minutes, the list would be huge. 

Also, there are about 70 dmen out of possible 120 spots. That means about 60% of top 4 dmen are coming from outside of the first round. 

The first round should always be Best Player Available. You can focus on defense after that.. .

[cripplereh]

we will either scrap for a playoff spot or sell of at trade deadline and I hope we can do both with our youth!

[73 Percent]

1 hour ago, messier's_elbow said:

I think Chychrun is overrated. He's the third best Dman in this draft in my opinion. 

Begging to think this too

[DownUndaCanuck]

1 hour ago, soshified said:

And that's why trading exists.

In the last 10 years, on the top of my head, i don't even remember a defenceman in the top 5 being able to play as a top 4 right away, except for Ekblad and Jones.

2015 - Hanifin #5, he's playing top-4 minutes in the NHL. The other two picked in the top-10 are going to be star defencemen as well, already excelling at the WJC.

2014 - Ekblad #1. Sophmore season and he's the #1 defenceman on a Cup contending team.

2013 - Seth Jones, Nurse, Ristolainen all drafted top-10. They're all playing 20+ minutes now and are pretty damn good at the NHL level.

2012 - The big year for defencemen. Ryan Murray, Griffin Reinhart, Morgan Reilly, Dumba, Pouliot, Trouba and Koekkoek. Granted only 4 of those guys are playing full-time in the NHL currently, the others are still prime defensive prospects. No real stars but they're all still 20 minute, top-4 defencemen either now or in a couple of seasons time except maybe Koekkoek.

2011 - Adam Larsson #4, now NJD's best defenceman. Dougie Hamilton at #9, was Boston's best defenceman last season and is now finding his way again. Brodin at #10 isn't a star but he plays around 20 minutes on a stacked Minnesota blueline

 

In the last 5 years we have seen 12 out of the 17 defencemen drafted in the top-10 end up playing 20+ minutes as top-4 defencemen and that's not even to mention Werenski and co. drafted  later in 2015 who are bound to be star NHL defencemen in time.

Top-10 defencemen are studs. Middle 10 to later 20s defencemen are a bit more of a risk, but people need to shake these previous ideas of defencemen taking a long time to develop and of being risky.

The facts are right there. Highly drafted defencemen are usually skilled and already play a well rounded game, and in today's faster-paced NHL you don't have to be as physically mature anymore to be a good defenceman - just a good skater and have great hockey IQ. For most of the guys above, if they didn't crack the NHL as a teenager they were playing top-4 minutes by their 20s.

That's what we'd get out of someone like Chychrun or maybe even Juolevi or Sergachev, and quite frankly that's EXACTLY what the Canucks need right now.

[alfstonker]

6 hours ago, desiboynux4lifee******* said:

Benning said we done this before in Buffalo hmmmmmmm anyone know the gems he drafted in Buffalo?

He said he drafted SPEED in Buffalo, and he is drafting for speed here. Judge for yourself on if any were gems.

Brian Campbell

Derek Roy

Daniel Paille

Chris Thorburn

Thomas Vanek

Jason Pominville

Clarke McArthur

Andrej Sekera

Drew Stafford

[goal-ghost]

3 hours ago, JamesB said:

It is interesting that he specifically mentioned the number 15. The top 14 picks go to the 14 teams who miss the playoffs. The 15th pick goes to the last playoff team.

I believe that Benning is being honest, but he did not need to answer the question. By answering it he is implying that there is a significant advantage to finishing out of the playoffs (or in the last playoff spot). That is the kind of thing you want to emphasize when you are going to miss the playoffs. So maybe he is expecting the Canucks to finish out of the playoffs and, I agree, maybe that means he will trade Vrby.

I think that's a misinterpretation of what was said. There aren't 30 homogeneous draft lists that guarantee the players your team scouting has identified as the "top 15" will be gone after the 15th pick. He mentions doing well in the 20-24 range in Buffalo just before that comment.

His point is that, so far, of the odds on favorites for first rounders to be there are about 15 players they have evaluated as top end. I would not only take that 15 quite generally but also assume that he thinks some of them will be available later in the round.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

It's a good thing Sergachev is the BPA where ever we are drafting at