Would Canucks had been a dynasty, had Jim Benning been drafting for Mike Gilles

[spook007]

Over the last couple of years there has been a lot of discussions of which way a new team should be built.

This made me think of the 2011 team, and the time leading up to it. 

Think its fair to say our drafting in those days were well below par, meaning we didn't have much coming through the system of high end.

 

All the teams who has dynasties seems to have a constant influx of youth coming through, and it kind of saddens me that after 2011 the Sedins had to ride the pine without much influx of quality players.

 

Just think of players similar to Brock, Gaudette, Lind, Demo, McCann, Tryamkin etc. all picks that could be had even if you were a playoff team, compared to White, Ellington, Suave, Hodgson, Schroeder, Rodin, Jensen, Hozik, Gaunce, Mallet, Shinkaruk etc. 

 

So I just wondered if we had a Jim Benning doing the scouting/Drafting in those days, could the era of the Sedins led Canucks have lasted longer than the one SC appearance, maybe even with a SC?

[JM_]

No, MG would have traded away the top picks anyway. Maybe Jim could have found a "Gaudette" somewhere in there but the results would have been the same imo. 

[DrJockitch]

Were the Bruins or Sabres a dynasty?

[-AJ-]

Gillis was a fantastic GM at giving us the best shot we had for the Cup, and that was his main job here. He was fine.

 

Benning is doing a fantastic job at rebuilding, and that's his job here. He too, is fine.

[spook007]

2 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Were the Bruins or Sabres a dynasty?

No but don't think Bruins had a set of top end players like sedins leading them. 

[Coconuts]

Hard to say, but that's the speculation game for you. For all we know Benning could have been at the helm and we wouldn't have made the final, let alone have been a dynasty. Maybe Benning doesn't rob the Sharks and get us a PMD to pair with Edler. Maybe Benning doesn't pick up Malhotra or Samuelsson. Maybe we draft better but don't make the moves that put us over the top or maybe we do and we fall short in the second round anyway.

[spook007]

Just now, -AJ- said:

Gillis was a fantastic GM at giving us the best shot we had for the Cup, and that was his main job here. He was fine.

 

Benning is doing a fantastic job at rebuilding, and that's his job here. He too, is fine.

That was actually one of my thoughts. Like or loathe MG but he built a good team. If we had had quality players coming through to support the Sedins, we could possibly have continued challenging for the cup a few more years. In stead it just slowly crumbled... Youth is important for managing the cap.

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

Gillis was a fantastic GM at giving us the best shot we had for the Cup, and that was his main job here. He was fine.

the topic is "dynasty" though. Sure MG went all in, not unlike what Ottawa's GM is doing right now. I'm not sure anyone would put Dorion in the fantastic category, just going all-in. As for the future building, its pretty clear this is where MG was weakest. 

[spook007]

8 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Hard to say, but that's the speculation game for you. For all we know Benning could have been at the helm and we wouldn't have made the final, let alone have been a dynasty. Maybe Benning doesn't rob the Sharks and get us a PMD to pair with Edler. Maybe Benning doesn't pick up Malhotra or Samuelsson. Maybe we draft better but don't make the moves that put us over the top or maybe we do and we fall short in the second round anyway.

I meant MG still at the helm, but JB doing the drafting/head of scouting...

 

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the topic is "dynasty" though. Sure MG went all in, not unlike what Ottawa's GM is doing right now. I'm not sure anyone would put Dorion in the fantastic category, just going all-in. As for the future building, its pretty clear this is where MG was weakest. 

Yes that was exactly my point. MG build a good team, but with nothing on the shelves and NMC - NTC's in most contracts he also handcuffed himself.

If we had had good players coming through, we could maybe have extended the time we could compete for the SC. Like Sharks or Ducks etc.

[cuporbust]

25 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Hard to say, but that's the speculation game for you. For all we know Benning could have been at the helm and we wouldn't have made the final, let alone have been a dynasty. Maybe Benning doesn't rob the Sharks and get us a PMD to pair with Edler. Maybe Benning doesn't pick up Malhotra or Samuelsson. Maybe we draft better but don't make the moves that put us over the top or maybe we do and we fall short in the second round anyway.

PMD? Play making d man? 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

25 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the topic is "dynasty" though. Sure MG went all in, not unlike what Ottawa's GM is doing right now. I'm not sure anyone would put Dorion in the fantastic category, just going all-in. As for the future building, its pretty clear this is where MG was weakest. 

Going for it (cup) and future building are difficult to pull off at the same time.  I think fantastic GMs for those that can do that.

 

Ottawa's GM has to deal with Canadian Tire Money man....that's something we don't have to worry about here.

[spook007]

1 minute ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Going for it (cup) and future building are difficult to pull off at the same time.  I reserve fantastic GMs for those that can do that.

 

Ottawa's GM has to deal with Canadian Tire Money man....that's something we don't have to worry about here.

Need good drafting thats for sure...

[Where's Wellwood]

31 minutes ago, cuporbust said:

PMD? Play making d man? 

I always though it meant puck moving D man

[NUCKER67]

Benning has had the ability to make better draft picks because of the Canucks drafting order the last few years. This has allowed him to draft Virtanen, Boeser, McCann, Juolevi and Pettersson with the 1sts. But what Benning has also done is sign good undrafted players (Stecher, McEneny, Chatfield and MacEwen), signing some good UFAs (Nilsson, Del Zotto, Vanek and Burmistrov and trading to get Gudbranson, Goldobin, Dahlen, Granlund, Baertschi, Pouliot and Sutter.  

 

Gillis had the benefit of taking over a team ready to contend and make a push, he added some nice pieces for their run (Lapierre, Samuelsson, Ehrhoff, etc). But when I look at Gillis' drafting, it's not very good. Gaunce, Hutton and Horvat are his best (only good?) picks over the 6 years he was GM. That's not much. To his credit, he also brought in Markstrom. To his discredit, he didn't do his homework on Kassian and basically gave Hodgson away.

 

Benning is taking this team from the bottom of the league and building it back up into a contender. I don't think Gillis would be capable of that.   

[apollo]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

No, MG would have traded away the top picks anyway. Maybe Jim could have found a "Gaudette" somewhere in there but the results would have been the same imo. 

MG did that and won back to back president trophies. 

 

 

Also MG has drafted our MVP... Bo... He had lots of great picks/additions considering the limited # of draft picks we had. 

 

Got Tanev for free... 

 

He's given us our best forward and best dman... what more do people want? 

 

MG = GOAT. 

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

It depends, part of mike gillis drafting woes were simply because he traded a lot of picks away.  So it would really come down to if we believe JB would have been able to land a gem with the picks Gillis left him.  Although it wouldn't be entirely accurate (since JB was only assistance GM), i think the closest representation would be to compare Boston's picks in the same range.  I'm bored so I will do the work

 

2008
10 Cody Hodgson vs Joe Colborne (16)
41 Yann Sauve vs Maxime Sauve (47)
131 Prabh Rai vs Jamie Arniel (97)
161 Mats Josten-Froshaug vs Nicolas Tremblay (173)
191 Morgan Clark vs Mark Goggin (197)

    
2009
22 Jordan Schroeder vs Jordan Caron (25)
53 Anton Rodin vs BOS HAD NO PICK IN RANGE
83 Kevin Connauton vs Ryan Button (86)
113 Jeremy Price vs Lane MacDermid (112)
143 Peter Andersson vs BOS HAD NO PICK IN RANGE
173 Joe Cannata vs Tyler Randell (176)
187 Steven Anthony vs Ben Sexton (206)

2010
115 Patrick McNally Vs Craig Cunningham (97)
145 Adam Polasek vs Justin florek (135)
172 Alex Friesen vs Zane McIntyre (165)
175 Jonathan Iilahti vs Maxin Chudinov (195)
205 Sawyer Hannay vs Zach Trotman (210)

2011
29 Nicklas Jensen vs Alexander Khokhlachev (40)
71 David Honzik vs Anthony Camara (81)
90 Alexandre Grenier vs BOS HAD NO PICK IN RANGE
101 Joe Labate vs BOS HAD NO PICK IN RANGE
120 Ludwig Blomstrand vs Brian Ferlin (121)
150 Frankie Corrado vs Rob O'Gara (151)
180 Pathrik Westerholm vs Lars Volden (181)
210 Henrik Tommernes

 

2012
26 Brendan Gaunce vs Malcolm Subban (24)
57 Alexandre Mallet vs Matt Grzelcyk (85)
147 Ben Hutton vs Cody Payne (145)
177 Wesley Myron vs Matthew Benning (175)
207 Matthew Beattie vs Colton Hargrove (205)

 

2013
9 Bo Horvat vs BOS HAD NO PICK IN RANGE
24 Hunter Shinkaruk vs BOS HAD NO PICK IN RANGE
85 Cole Cassels vs Peter Cehlarik (90)
115 Jordan Subban vs Ryan Fitzgerald (120)
145 Anton Cederholm vs Wiley Sherman (150)
175 Mike Williamson vs Anton Blidh (180)
205 Miles Liberati vs Mitchell Dempsey (210)

 

So when really breaking it down and comparing what Boston did to Vancouver in similar ranges I think we can see the answer would be no.  In fact, giving the picks he had, Gills actually drafted better than Boston did. 

 

[Tre Mac]

Prez: Linden

GM: Gillis

Asst GM/ Cap Guy: Gilman

Head Scout: Benning

Asst Scout: Me

Coach: Quinn

Asst Coaches : Sullivan, AV, Brown

Stick Boy: You

 

That's the dream team

[kloubek]

I would say that Benning is a better drafter and might have helped, but we were not going to be a "dynasty" regardless.  Even with GMMG at the helm we probably would have done ok if we didn't try to keep our window for the cup open for so long... which I'm assuming was ownership's decision. One year, sure - by trying to do so for the length of time we did completely depleted our prospect base and had crappy draft positions.

 

The 2011-2012 season wasn't bad by any stretch, but you could already see our age catching up with us, and getting blown out in the first round by the Kings should have been the wakeup call.  We should have dismantled everything, started a full rebuild (minus getting rid of the Sedins which likely wasn't possible) right away.  Had we done that, we would have had all these young guys already suitable for the NHL (and some coming into their prime) while the Sedins were still strong contributors and would have been contenders again maybe as of last year or perhaps even the year prior.  Instead we waited until the Sedins lost their game and now have to replace their production too. 

It was all bad decision making, but it is what it is.   We're well on our way now to being "great again".

[Tre Mac]

.

[Fanuck]

27 minutes ago, Where's Wellwood said:

I always though it meant puck moving D man

It does.