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

Ron Hextall on the state of the Flyers (Canucks related)


tas

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Toews said:

1. Patrick, Nolan ~ C   2017
2. Sanheim, Travis ~ LHD 2014
3. Lindblom, Oskar ~ LW/RW 2014
4. Myers, Phil ~ RHD undrafted, signed 2015
5. Rubtsov, German ~ C/W 2016
6. Morin, Sam ~ LHD 2013
7. Frost, Morgan ~ C/LW 2017
8. Allison, Wade ~ RW 2016
9. Hagg, Robert ~ LHD 2013
10. Vorobyev, Mikhail ~ C 2015
11. Ratcliffe, Isaac ~ LW 2017
12. Laczynski, Tanner ~ C 2016
13. Friedman, Mark ~ RHD 2014
14. Laberge, Pascal ~ C/RW 2016
15. Aube-Kubel, Nicolas 2014

 

That's what the Flyers prospect pool looks like. They also have Provorov 2015 and Konecny 2015 who just graduated. They are stacked at every single position. They have not only kept their picks, but they have acquired quite a few as well. They don't have to tank because they have drafted quite well and quite often.

Thank you.  

 

Since the Pronger trade in 2009, when they gave up 2 1st round picks, and they finished high for 3 years running (went to the SC final in 2010 and bowed out in the 2nd round the following 2 seasons before missing the playoffs in 2012/13) their renewal process has been on.  You could argue it has been on since drafting Sean Couturier 8 OA in 2011.  So they're really very similar to the Canucks in their renewal.  Keep in mind that their cupboard wasn't quite as bare to begin with.

 

These are all players acquired since the 2013 draft.  That's the Horvat year and Bennings first Canuck draft was 2014, same as Ron Hextall.

 

Bleacher ranks the Flyers prospect pool #2 and Hockey Writers rank them #1 (Canucks #7 fwiw)

 

Why the difference between the 2?  I don't think we see the same attempt to win while rebuilding that we saw with the Canucks particularly in the first year.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Hextall has been GM of the Flyers since May 7, 2014 so he has been in charge for 4 drafts.

 

Unlike many of his predecessors, he has been patient with the draft and has been collecting prospects.  

 

Like the comments on culture.  Really hard to develop and is important to preserve and pass down to younger players.  

CC

 

The Oilers stock piled their picks at the bottom of the league, accumulating top 5's (never mind the draft position), but the point is, they had no veterans to teach them "culture", when they got rid of their GM, hired a new coach, traded a top player, and signed a few UFA's....all in a very short time.........

 

Are you saying that they are not going to be a winning culture for a long time?

 

Toronto, did much the same thing........(I think they are 1 Tanev away, but that's not my point!) ............and not because their vets taught them anything

 

My point is if culture and experience was the catalyst, then they should not have needed McDavid and Matthews

 

What made Edmonton an up and coming team...................was

 

#1. A ownership that finally realized they needed high end management and moved towards that regards

#2. A GM, that realized that he needed a coach with strength and direction, and to change their assets around

#3. A Coach that gave direction and focus

#4. Some skilled tough role players that will put you through the board whether you started it or not (Lucic, Kassian and Maroon)

#5. Defensemen, regardless of age, that could defend

#6. A goalie that could stop the puck

 

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY

 

#7.CROSBY AND MALKIN..................................I mean McDavid and Draisaitl

 

Without which, they still would be a mediocre team..................

 

The point is they didn't learn from vets, they started winning because they had talent..............GM talent. Coaching talent and player talent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

CC

 

The Oilers stock piled their picks at the bottom of the league, accumulating top 5's (never mind the draft position), but the point is, they had no veterans to teach them "culture", when they got rid of their GM, hired a new coach, traded a top player, and signed a few UFA's....all in a very short time.........

 

Are you saying that they are not going to be a winning culture for a long time?

 

Toronto, did much the same thing........(I think they are 1 Tanev away, but that's not my point!) ............and not because their vets taught them anything

 

My point is if culture and experience was the catalyst, then they should not have needed McDavid and Matthews

 

What made Edmonton an up and coming team...................was

 

#1. A ownership that finally realized they needed high end management and moved towards that regards

#2. A GM, that realized that he needed a coach with strength and direction, and to change their assets around

#3. A Coach that gave direction and focus

#4. Some skilled tough role players that will put you through the board whether you started it or not (Lucic, Kassian and Maroon)

#5. Defensemen, regardless of age, that could defend

#6. A goalie that could stop the puck

 

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY

 

#7.CROSBY AND MALKIN..................................I mean McDavid and Draisaitl

 

Without which, they still would be a mediocre team..................

 

The point is they didn't learn from vets, they started winning because they had talent..............GM talent. Coaching talent and player talent

I don't disagree.

 

It really all started with new management, followed by a culture change and some incredible luck :picard:

 

Teams with normal luck are going to have to do it the hard way.  Right Gary Bettman!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crabcakes said:

I don't disagree.

 

It really all started with new management, followed by a culture change and some incredible luck :picard:

 

Teams with normal luck are going to have to do it the hard way.  Right Gary Bettman!

It is a difficult pill to swallow and it has taken a little time for some to adjust, but I honestly think that the only way to beat Bettman is to tank, exactly what Bettman is trying to have teams avoid.

 

It may take a little longer now that the bottom team doesn't automatically get first over all, but the truth is, that tanking and sell off of vets, give a team more, better, higher picks, which will if good scouting is in place, give a team much better odds of building a strong team...........in comparison to those teams that believe they can win by signing lots of UFA's and ride them until they fall, will not have those additional assets in the end

 

Imagine, 2 teams..........one that has a strong scouting staff picking in the top 5 for 5 years in a row, and a top 10 team that has good scouting........My belief is eventually, all things being equal, the bottom team will surpass the top team eventually, and in addition both teams will average higher than a team that has poor scouting in any position,(if the Bettman luck is not applied). (Keep in mind that the Bettman luck can not be applied to every team every year, so again eventually both teams that have good scouting will cycle in the top 10 year after year if they continue with their original policy

 

In addition to good scouting and Bettman's luck, trading assets that have peaked and are now on the down side of their careers, and/or are redundant will create additional picks, and again teams with good scouting capitalize more often on those additional picks

 

The caveat to this is a Good GM that can identify all this and filter out all the noise (media and snivelling fans), which means he must have a great president and owner.......

 

A chain is only as strong as its weakest length.................but a GM that has a good game plan and is truly honest to upper executive, will either be fired or successful..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, tas said:

the fact that hextall refused to tank and then won the 2nd overall pick is the perfect argument against tanking and for competing. it perfectly underlined the point that with the way the lottery format is now, there's no point in tanking because even finishing dead last there's only a 1 in 5 chance you get to pick the top player. 

The flyers had a 2.4% chance of winning that lottery ticket. Just because the 2.4% ticket beat the 18% ticket one year doesn't make the 18% ticket pointless. I'd take those odds over the last three seasons. 97% of the time, philly is picking low.

 

Besides the real payoff of tanking isn't just better odds at winning lottery, but drafting higher in each of the six successive rounds. I'd rather Benning draft Cole Lind with the second highest draft pick of the 2nd round than risk it falling to the mid 2nd as a successful competitive roster might very well do. It is a blessing in disguise that our best efforts were simply not that good.

 

Also, Hextall has been doing quite the opposite of the Canucks in terms of asset management, he's not a very good comparison if you're trying to say that he and Benning are on the same page. Just look at how many picks he's accumulated since he started and the vets for picks trades he has done (and drafted with).

 

Take a look at which side of the ledger picks and prospects usually fall in trades by these two GMs. As well as the # of picks they accumulated.

http://www.nhltradetracker.com/user/trade_list_by_team/Philadelphia_Flyers/1

http://www.nhltradetracker.com/user/trade_list_by_team/Vancouver_Canucks/

 

2014-2016 - first four rounds in those three drafts.

Vancouver - 4 Firsts, 1 Second, 3 Thirds, 1 Fourth  

Philly - 4 Firsts, 4 Seconds, 4 Thirds, 3 Fourths

 

Sure Benning is talking the same talk as Hextal is saying, but Hextall's actions are more in line with a proper rebuild than a "This is a 100 point team" retool.

In 2017, we are on the same page. It could have just started earlier.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DSVII said:

The flyers had a 2.4% chance of winning that lottery ticket. Just because the 2.4% ticket beat the 18% ticket one year doesn't make the 18% ticket pointless. I'd take those odds over the last three seasons. 97% of the time, philly is picking low.

 

Besides the real payoff of tanking isn't just better odds at winning lottery, but drafting higher in each of the six successive rounds. I'd rather Benning draft Cole Lind with the second highest draft pick of the 2nd round than risk it falling to the mid 2nd as a successful competitive roster might very well do. It is a blessing in disguise that our best efforts were simply not that good.

 

Also, Hextall has been doing quite the opposite of the Canucks in terms of asset management, he's not a very good comparison if you're trying to say that he and Benning are on the same page. Just look at how many picks he's accumulated since he started and the vets for picks trades he has done (and drafted with).

 

Take a look at which side of the ledger picks and prospects usually fall in trades by these two GMs. As well as the # of picks they accumulated.

http://www.nhltradetracker.com/user/trade_list_by_team/Philadelphia_Flyers/1

http://www.nhltradetracker.com/user/trade_list_by_team/Vancouver_Canucks/

 

2014-2016 - first four rounds in those three drafts.

Vancouver - 4 Firsts, 1 Second, 3 Thirds, 1 Fourth  

Philly - 4 Firsts, 4 Seconds, 4 Thirds, 3 Fourths

 

Sure Benning is talking the same talk as Hextal is saying, but Hextall's actions are more in line with a proper rebuild than a "This is a 100 point team" retool.

In 2017, we are on the same page. It could have just started earlier.

 

Of course it's far easier moving out veterans for additional picks when you already have a good prospect pool to replace them with. Something Benning was sorely lacking.

 

Where Benning and Hextall are on the same page is not intentionally tanking your team. Any time you're rebuilding you run the risk of hitting bottom. But intentionally setting your team up to hit bottom is a different beast altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is only what I and many others have said all along. Tanking disrespects the game . It disrespects sport in general.

It is a good job we have guys like Hextall and other like minded people in the game, otherwise we would have season after season of 15 teams trying their best to plummet to the bottom.

Of course this should have been foreseen and stopped long before Edmonton sold their soul to the devil and abused their place in the NHL and it should have been resolved in a far more fair minded way.

 

"Shut up Ron. Don't act like your better than every other non-playoff team because your team was gifted a top pick. Obviously you don't have to tank if you're being given top prospects."

 

Are you for real? How did he know he would get the No 2 pick. They finished 19th. in the league. That is nowhere near a tank. The Flyers have never missed the playoffs consecutively in the last 22 years (and 4 times in total)  Your comment should embarrass you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, combover said:

Except Vancouver has a losing culture with no idenity and has returned to that formula for a  another season.

hextal is just a clueless as benning on building a team. 

Hextal and his 1st will toil around in the middle to bottom the pack until just like vancouver a gm that knows how to BUILD a team gets hired not a fist puppet.

its the same interview and answers benning once gave years ago then the "competative team" has gone on to finish in the bottom 3-4 seasons. 

Maybe benning hextal need to be asked what they think competative is. It seems losing most nights hanging on by a thread having a goaltender stand on his head fewest goals scored horrible pp horrible pk being butter soft finish second last  would be bennings answer on competative.

 

 

 

You've got to be an absolute scream at parties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Baggins said:

Of course it's far easier moving out veterans for additional picks when you already have a good prospect pool to replace them with. Something Benning was sorely lacking.

 

Where Benning and Hextall are on the same page is not intentionally tanking your team. Any time you're rebuilding you run the risk of hitting bottom. But intentionally setting your team up to hit bottom is a different beast altogether.

The point is that both Hextall and Benning have tried to retain a good team culture where a strong work ethic and constant improvement is present and not accepting losing.  That's an environment where players will develop better.

 

Development > drafting

 

A team can control how it develops players.  It's pretty hard to control where you're drafting.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hextall's roster and prospects context in his predictably boring comments are a moot point when discussing rebuilding strategies. He can say anything in that scenario and it doesn't mean a damn thing because his team is not on the rebuild phase of the sine wave - which some posters have been referencing to prop up the Canucks past decisions/delusions about rebuild strategies as they relate to tanking. 

 

In my opinion at least, intentionally tanking might look like trading your stud Dman captain and RW sniper, while showing zero quit on the ice and playing kids, regardless of available skill or star power. Were there negative culture consequences in the Toronto rebuild? It doesn't have to be an Edmonton model; the pathetic exception; the much heralded broken-clock example that has too much occupation on here, as the tanking norm. 

 

As a point of interest for us who aren't 10 years old, or whatever this age handicap is in seemingly only being able to see back as far as Edmonton's train wreck to speak on bottoming out and tanking, I recall the NHL smothering Sheldon Souray's final years because of his lack of tanking acceptance in Edmonton. He refused to play on a team that really was intentionally playing to lose. He rocked that ship and they kicked him off of. Give the man your respect for being everything you want the Canucks to be during a rebuild phase. 

 

That kind of tanking is not Sport. Let's not prop it up as if it were OR the way it's supposed to be. Souray, that's the norm; that's a hockey player. They refuse to quit. That is why tanking was never a thing before. That's also why there is a draft and the ability to look into a kid's eyes and heart. Edmonton lacked the character to survive the bottom. That roster fail was all on the management. They lacked the character on the roster to survive that cycle. It does not have to be like that for the Canucks or how it went for Toronto. 

 

In the WHL, these rebuild, err re-thingy, cycles are shorter due to the 4 year window players typically have before turning 20. Continual roster cycles of feast and famine are a rebuilder/tanker's dream. It's a quick turn around. I never hear complaints from anyone, players alike, about tanking to pick high in the Dub. When the season is lost, they quickly access and prepare for the next one by quickly moving assets. Everything there is built through the drafts. 

 

Hextall and Benning are only soothing the belching, hot dog and beer absorbing fans. It's lip service, nothing more, than to make such statements outside a dressing room full of hockey addicted freaks, like Burrows, Horvat or Giroux. Don't read into it. 

 

Here is character: TL routinely blocked shots when his crap team was out of the playoffs and down in a game by 5. Bo will do the same. These are hockey players. They do not know the word quit in sport. Nobody gets to the NHL to be a victim of circumstance. It's crazy to suggest this is even possible. Effort and passion remain far after the team compete level is reduced by trading supernovas for futures. The team will always play to win if it has character. Is Vanek that guy? Gagner? I'm not sure, but for a roster lacking pushback and snarl, I have concerns about his continuation of insulating an emerging, softish core with undersized gentlemen players, as most of you are aware of from previous posts. 

 

Edmonton, shamelessly tanking by playing back-up goalies as starters who are not part of future plans, plus an AHL D core is not to be seen again. Toronto and even Carolina style tank-jobs were still competitive and so would've been a Canucks tank, had they managed to purge aged assets and solid trade pieces for futures.

 

Is there a loser/tank culture on these bottom feeder teams in the Dub too or does everything fall back to one management group in Edmonton for continued reference of tanking? It's boring and dishonest to keep using this one instance as the norm. Must we continually cite the one blundered tank job as the standard that tanking refers too?

 

Teams of hockey players, let alone NHLers, play to win and players know no other way. It's a built-in guarantee that, regardless of how well the team is built, players will play to their capacity, and even beyond aka underdog, if you have the right character on the roster in the first place. Tanking in the WHL is merely collecting and shining up kids for the next season or two. Time to stop treating tanking as if it's a moral crime and a surrender of honour and valour by using Edmonton as the standard in the NHL. 

 

In the end, Hextall is making jargon claims from a position of luxury, quite the opposite his rival, JB, who is a pauper, in comparison of prospects and young impact roster players. His casually stating that nobody is about to "pull an Edmonton" doesn't mean a team can't play to its capacity AND occupy the bottom of the standings while making huge roster strides at the same time. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

 

Development > drafting

 

A team can control how it develops players.  It's pretty hard to control where you're drafting.  

Good development of mediocre draft picks will give you career  AHL  players.

 

 

Great drafting is essential and of course these picks need to be properly developed so they continue to improve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

The point is that both Hextall and Benning have tried to retain a good team culture where a strong work ethic and constant improvement is present and not accepting losing.  That's an environment where players will develop better.

 

Development > drafting

 

A team can control how it develops players.  It's pretty hard to control where you're drafting.  

I think you're being a bit too idealistic about the bigger picture. This is not to say that I feel development is a redundancy. You need players to develop, which Hextall has/had in 2014, while JB did not. 

 

In a perfect world, your claims are great. In mine, LB dies and things don't go as planned.

 

The point, you say, as if there were one to make on the grounds of a lateral comparison between teams and GMs regarding rebuild strategy and tanking, is a moot point for Hextall to make in the first place. So I don't understand the value in stating it with acertions that this becomes an endorsement on rebuilding by JB. (This is a comparison thread?) 

 

RH, being philosophical about musings on how to rebuild while he sits on a superb prospect pool and young roster in the deteriorating East, is easy to say. The doing is a little different, which he won't be needing to do. Hence, the luxury and disparity in making such comments in the first place. 

 

He made excellent trades since he started. He rebuilt fast. Aligning his tenure with JBs proves he is fast tracking his rebuild, the one that never needed to bottom out, unlike JBs.

 

IMO, there is no comparison to make that can prove that JBs reluctance to rebuild in 2014 is working out as well as RH's direction, not that they started from anything resembling a comparable future. That's the point, nothing more. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

The point is that both Hextall and Benning have tried to retain a good team culture where a strong work ethic and constant improvement is present and not accepting losing.  That's an environment where players will develop better.

 

Development > drafting

 

A team can control how it develops players.  It's pretty hard to control where you're drafting.  

Come on CC.....where did you hear that? LOL

 

Development is very important.no doubt, but there are way too many examples of top tier players that came into the league and have dominated from year one or two.......

 

I know your point and it is valid that players be developed properly...........but you can teach defense, you can't teach talent or size!

 

I remember thinking as I coached kids hockey that players like Orr and Gretzky, learned more on the pond than at the rinks............I will agree that latter round players need more time to develop, but the league is full of first and second round players, who didn't spend anytime in the minors....maybe 4 years in junior, but came into the league pretty fast and furious

 

I know there is room for argument with my statement, but I think you know what I mean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

I think you're being a bit too idealistic about the bigger picture. This is not to say that I feel development is a redundancy. You need players to develop, which Hextall has/had in 2014, while JB did not. 

 

In a perfect world, your claims are great. In mine, LB dies and things don't go as planned.

 

The point, you say, as if there were one to make on the grounds of a lateral comparison between teams and GMs regarding rebuild strategy and tanking, is a moot point for Hextall to make in the first place. So I don't understand the value in stating it with acertions that this becomes an endorsement on rebuilding by JB. (This is a comparison thread?) 

 

RH, being philosophical about musings on how to rebuild while he sits on a superb prospect pool and young roster in the deteriorating East, is easy to say. The doing is a little different, which he won't be needing to do. Hence, the luxury and disparity in making such comments in the first place. 

 

He made excellent trades since he started. He rebuilt fast. Aligning his tenure with JBs proves he is fast tracking his rebuild, the one that never needed to bottom out, unlike JBs.

 

IMO, there is no comparison to make that can prove that JBs reluctance to rebuild in 2014 is working out as well as RH's direction, not that they started from anything resembling a comparable future. That's the point, nothing more. 

 

 

I really do try to simplify my points.  By that I mean, limit them to ideally 1 idea.  I've found that if I make too many points, many responders will reply to a supporting comment and my message gets lost.

 

So if I just say that every team needs veterans with high character who are respected and can show the young players what it takes to be an NHL player who has had a long career.  People get it.  When the group buys in to what it takes, the nebulous thing called culture is being passed down.

 

I have hung on to Hextall's comments because he is another GM who is in similar circumstances who places a high value on culture too.  And culture goes hand in glove with development.  When a team has a good culture, both GM's have kept certain veterans to pass on this culture.  Some posters on here think that culture is a load of BS.  I guess that is why I decided to comment.

 

As far as being idealistic about the bigger picture, isn't that all you can be?  You can strive towards an ideal but of course real life gets in the way.  Strategic Plans are in place but they have to be monitored and reviewed because in the real world, the execution of these plans don't play out perfectly.  

 

Hextall was made GM of the Flyers at about the same time as Benning was hired.  He had a different team and developed a different strategic plan.  He has a different owner who had to approve it.  Maybe the Flyers had a better prospect pool in 2014 and maybe their #2C, still in his prime, didn't insist on a trade.  It does look like Hextall is farther along than Benning.  Maybe his plan is better, maybe he started out from a better position, maybe he stuck to the plan better (it's pretty clear that Benning made changes to his approach last year).  Both GM's will build winning teams.  Will they build cup winning teams?  Time will tell.  Maybe one day they both meet in the cup final.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By next year, when Morin, Sanheim, Provorov & Myers, perhaps Hagg have all graduated?

 

They can look past a legacy of shat defence over the last 5 years. Particularly on the right side. The real reason  they have hung an otherwise pretty exciting forward group, and multiple goalies, out to dry.Some blame the goalies, who did have poor stretches? They were asked to do a lot, under heavy duress at times though. And goal tending also carried them at times, Neuvirth & Mason, for streaks. But their D always sucked and held them back!

 

It got better last year with Provorov's arrival.. It should be acceptable this year. As he gets better, and gets reinforcements.

 

They also have a crew of pretty good goalie prospects who will steal spots if their vets don't hold things up through any more tough patches?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Come on CC.....where did you hear that? LOL

 

Development is very important.no doubt, but there are way too many examples of top tier players that came into the league and have dominated from year one or two.......

 

I know your point and it is valid that players be developed properly...........but you can teach defense, you can't teach talent or size!

 

I remember thinking as I coached kids hockey that players like Orr and Gretzky, learned more on the pond than at the rinks............I will agree that latter round players need more time to develop, but the league is full of first and second round players, who didn't spend anytime in the minors....maybe 4 years in junior, but came into the league pretty fast and furious

 

I know there is room for argument with my statement, but I think you know what I mean

Some guys have generational talent. Or a notch below it, like, say Pastrnak, Nylander may be like that? And have absolutely dynamic agility and skills the average NH:'er does not. Importantly, they also stepped right in & could think the game at the higher speed as it takes place in the NHL.  That is rare!

 

I dont think, barring the generational players, certainly not the step below, look at the step back Larkin took in year two, that you can accurately predict which guys will kill it in draft plus one or draft plus two years?

 

You certainly cannot draft, sy 6th or 5th overall, and guarantee a guy will work right away.

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...