The Utica crisis, and the inability to retain/ develope our top end draft picks

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, hobart16 said:

Was he really? I don't know about his Swedish career, but if you saw him in person you would be shocked that he is making a living as a professional athlete. Very small. Watching him play he is quick enough I guess, and definitely has some skill, but I would be very surprised to see him have an NHL career.  If a coach is trying to win a game and can't decide whether or not to put you or Carter Bancks in to win a game, you aren't looking at the NHL any time soon. But these young guys are hard to figure. 

 

Yes, there a lots of questions about Dahlen.  His best game is below the dots in the Ozone, but he isn't really physically very big, strong, or tough.  Maybe he game just doesn't translate to the much tougher NA game?

[canucksnihilist]

13 hours ago, aGENT said:

Hast thou seen thy light? 

Reality is a strange mistress....  I mean the moon / heinlin

[ItalianCanuck1]

 

[Smashian Kassian]

I like Ryan Johnson overseeing our prospects. I think hes a good mind & I trust him in that role.

 

The Dahlen thing does raise some questions. And with guys like Palmu & Gadjovich things havent gone well there this season either.

 

But I think a big part of the problem is just not having alot of guys. Management came in with no interest in stockpiling picks, they traded out alot of picks, and those are guys that would be coming up through Utica.

 

Not every prospect is going to work. Some guys will get to Utica and struggle. Its not like its been a barren wasteland, we have had successes there (Markstrom, Demko, MacEwen, Brisebois, Juolevi was playing good, exc). 

 

I think the problem more-so is not having enough prospects coming through over the years. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[aGENT]

14 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

I like Ryan Johnson overseeing our prospects. I think hes a good mind & I trust him in that role.

 

The Dahlen thing does raise some questions. And with guys like Palmu & Gadjovich things havent gone well there this season either.

 

But I think a big part of the problem is just not having alot of guys. Management came in with no interest in stockpiling picks, they traded out alot of picks, and those are guys that would be coming up through Utica.

 

Not every prospect is going to work. Some guys will get to Utica and struggle. Its not like its been a barren wasteland, we have had successes there (Markstrom, Demko, MacEwen, Brisebois, Juolevi was playing good, exc). 

 

I think the problem more-so is not having enough prospects coming through over the years. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It also generally takes 2-3 years for prospects to even become AHL elligible. We're only starting to see the first real waive of draft picks showing up and that's nothing but timing (ie: not a 'failure of management').

 

It also ignores the guys who simply bypassed it and went straight  to the NHL and/or developed/are developing in college hockey instead.

[-DLC-]

On 3/6/2019 at 10:40 AM, JamesB said:

Yes, they were good for a long stretch before that and did not have high draft picks, but they never won a Cup. And other teams were also good in that period but did not fall as far and are further along now.

 

One of the problems is development.

After a "so close" miss in a grueling SCF, teams do fall hard.  The mental anguish that comes with that is depleting.  I think if you look at that stat, it'll show that it's quite normal to unravel after losing the cup.  You put it all out there (in lengthy, physically exhausting series) and it's "not enough".  Leaves an impression on the brain that has players question, lose some of the unity they may have had, leave to try again somewhere new, etc.   They "tried" but just weren't able to get back there, to that level of investment, energy, enthusiasm.  

 

The teams that are further along may not have suffered a devastating blow and the hockey version of PTSD.

 

Also....is the "problem" development or is it that many just don't develop into NHL caliber players?   

[JamesB]

2 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

After a "so close" miss in a grueling SCF, teams do fall hard.  The mental anguish that comes with that is depleting.  I think if you look at that stat, it'll show that it's quite normal to unravel after losing the cup.  You put it all out there (in lengthy, physically exhausting series) and it's "not enough".  Leaves an impression on the brain that has players question, lose some of the unity they may have had, leave to try again somewhere new, etc.   They "tried" but just weren't able to get back there, to that level of investment, energy, enthusiasm.  

 

The teams that are further along may not have suffered a devastating blow and the hockey version of PTSD.

 

Also....is the "problem" development or is it that many just don't develop into NHL caliber players?   

The recent comments made by Ryan Kesler emphasize that losing the SCF in 2011 really hit him hard -- to the point where he just wanted out of Vancouver. I am sure it was tough on a lot of guys -- Luongo, Hamhuis, Salo, Burrows, and the Sedins of course, among others. 

 

But that was a long time ago now. Certainly by next year I think the current management has to take full responsibility for the team's performance -- good or bad.

[Alflives]

4 hours ago, ItalianCanuck1 said:

 

JB was really working on his dishonesty this morning, wasn't he?  And what does he mean by "fall through the cracks"?  Can a rebuilding team, that has not had its full allotment of draft picks during the rebuilding phase, afford for even one prospect to "fall through the cracks"?  

[-DLC-]

10 minutes ago, JamesB said:

The recent comments made by Ryan Kesler emphasize that losing the SCF in 2011 really hit him hard -- to the point where he just wanted out of Vancouver. I am sure it was tough on a lot of guys -- Luongo, Hamhuis, Salo, Burrows, and the Sedins of course, among others. 

 

But that was a long time ago now. Certainly by next year I think the current management has to take full responsibility for the team's performance -- good or bad.

I just don't think you can tie "this" team's performance to those in the past - it's a wipe the slate clean stage. 

 

Performance is different than results.  The team's been performing better than should be expected considering all the things factoring in.  Filling in gaps for extended stretches, a schedule that gives little relief to those doing so, etc.

 

I think they've had some pretty good performances, even if the result wasn't there.  Which, in the end, may be a blessing in disguise.  Although I'd love the team to have the playoff experience, it would likely take a huge toll on those already feeling the effects of fatigue and residual injury. 

 

Been a period of assessment, learning, developing.  I don't know why we have to really have expectations beyond that.  

[canuck73_3]

4 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said:

I like Ryan Johnson overseeing our prospects. I think hes a good mind & I trust him in that role.

 

The Dahlen thing does raise some questions. And with guys like Palmu & Gadjovich things havent gone well there this season either.

 

But I think a big part of the problem is just not having alot of guys. Management came in with no interest in stockpiling picks, they traded out alot of picks, and those are guys that would be coming up through Utica.

 

Not every prospect is going to work. Some guys will get to Utica and struggle. Its not like its been a barren wasteland, we have had successes there (Markstrom, Demko, MacEwen, Brisebois, Juolevi was playing good, exc). 

 

I think the problem more-so is not having enough prospects coming through over the years. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not being able to stockpile picks =/= no interest. It's laughable that people even think this. Our biggest chips that could have helped land picks were tied with NTC, the Sedins and Edler very clearly had ZERO interest in moving. That is a 100% fact. 

 

Ther was a deal in place for Hamhuis to Washington rumour was that involved Bowey and a pick. Hamhuis said no to any Eastern Conference team. 

 

He eventually left Benning with Chicago who did not have the cap space for a pick and prospect move. And Dallas who decided not to wait any longer for an answer and to go with Russell for Jokipakka a prospect and a Pick. 

 

Burrows got as much value you could get out of a declining asset and Dahlen turned into a player we looked at drafting last season. 

 

As did Hansen with Goldobin I doubt any pick offering would have much of a chance to be as significant as Goldobin. 

 

Kesler left the team with only Anaheim to negotiate and he still got a pick out of that. 

 

And with the way picks are valued/overvalued today I doubt an injured Sutter or Tanev gets us a pick worth trading them for right now. Maybe one or both can fetch a good pick or two at the draft. 

 

To flat out say that they have no interest in acquiring picks is straight bulls*** wadr. 

[Smashian Kassian]

3 hours ago, canuck73_3 said:

Not being able to stockpile picks =/= no interest. It's laughable that people even think this. Our biggest chips that could have helped land picks were tied with NTC, the Sedins and Edler very clearly had ZERO interest in moving. That is a 100% fact. 

 

Ther was a deal in place for Hamhuis to Washington rumour was that involved Bowey and a pick. Hamhuis said no to any Eastern Conference team. 

 

He eventually left Benning with Chicago who did not have the cap space for a pick and prospect move. And Dallas who decided not to wait any longer for an answer and to go with Russell for Jokipakka a prospect and a Pick. 

 

Burrows got as much value you could get out of a declining asset and Dahlen turned into a player we looked at drafting last season. 

 

As did Hansen with Goldobin I doubt any pick offering would have much of a chance to be as significant as Goldobin. 

 

Kesler left the team with only Anaheim to negotiate and he still got a pick out of that. 

 

And with the way picks are valued/overvalued today I doubt an injured Sutter or Tanev gets us a pick worth trading them for right now. Maybe one or both can fetch a good pick or two at the draft. 

 

To flat out say that they have no interest in acquiring picks is straight bulls*** wadr. 

 

I said they had no interest in stockpiling picks when they started. They wanted to be, and remain, a playoff team. They moved out picks for immediate help or guys that were 'further along' that could play/help the team ASAP. 

 

The NTC thing is overblown. Of course the Twins werent going anywhere, and that's fine. Garrison, Bieksa, Hansen, Burrows all had them & all were moved for good returns. Garrison & Bieksa got 2nd round picks, the problem is they turned around & traded them for more immediate help. 

 

I would agree we haven't been overflowing with expendable assets, especially recently. But part of it is just not trading away all they picks they have, and be pro-active on moving they guys that you might be able to move. 

 

For example, and I'm not saying all these were bad moves, but this is 11 picks traded:

2nd (Vey), 2nd (Beartschi), 2nd (Sutter), 2nd (Gudbranson), 3rd (Dorsett), 3rd (Pedan), 4th (Pouliot), 4th (Gudbranson), 5th (Prust), 5th (Larsen), 6th (Etem).  

 

So even if you had kept some of those picks, and tried to be pro-active with a few guys they could've potentially moved. Your talking about more kicks at the can, more guys coming through the system.

 

On Hamhuis; I think they weren't pro-active from the outset because they wanted him to help the team get into the playoffs. They ended up dragging it out to the wire & were left empty-handed. Plus they never made a firm decision on keeping him or trading him which complicated it. I think if they set out early in the year with a plan to move him they could have. I even think, while harder perhaps, that might have been a possibility with Edler too. Them aside, they definitely could have traded Tanev years ago when his value was really high, & got a great return.

 

Here's quotes from Benning talking to Sportsnet after trading for Gudbranson, just for an idea of the mindset before.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/benning-hemmed-hawed-trading-mccann/

 

"Where we're at right now, I think we owe it to our fans to try to field the most competitive team that we can right now" 

 

He then listed off Boeser, Demko & the upcoming 5th overall pick as pieces going forward. Then this, which seems contradictory to me. 

 

"Once we get the pieces in place from a team building perspective, we're gunna hold onto those draft picks." 

 

"But when we talked about giving up that second pick, we had 2 forwards & 2 defenseman that we were keying in on that we would take with that pick. Then you start talking about it & its 2 more years of junior, 2 years in the american league, maybe their 5th year they can come up & play some games, but they don't help your team win till 6-7 years down the line".

 

I don't get how it makes sense to wait to keep draft picks, when its going to take that long just to get the pieces in place?

 

Why wouldn't you draft so you have players coming up to supplement your top pieces you get high in the draft. And with a good scouting staff made you get another impact guy sooner than you think. Not all of the 2nd-7th rounders are going to hit so you gotta give yourself as many chances as possible when your a rebuilding team. Which is my point in all this.

[Smashian Kassian]

9 hours ago, aGENT said:

It also generally takes 2-3 years for prospects to even become AHL elligible. We're only starting to see the first real waive of draft picks showing up and that's nothing but timing (ie: not a 'failure of management').

 

It also ignores the guys who simply bypassed it and went straight  to the NHL and/or developed/are developing in college hockey instead.

I'm not ignoring anything. Its great that the top picks have bypassed the AHL. And yes every team has guys they draft from college. 

 

I even don't think our development in Utica has been bad. I'd say its been pretty average.  But when your a rebuilding team, people look at Utica & expect it to be better than average because you need guys coming from somewhere than just your top picks, right.

 

They drafted 9 guys outside the top 3 rounds from '14-'16 that even didn't make it to Utica. And that's fine. But that's why its important to get as many prospects as possible, because not every guy is going to make it. So when you only have 7 picks or less per draft, your only going to get so many guys that actually workout. 

 

 

[canuck73_3]

3 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

I said they had no interest in stockpiling picks when they started. They wanted to be, and remain, a playoff team. They moved out picks for immediate help or guys that were 'further along' that could play/help the team ASAP. 

 

The NTC thing is overblown. Of course the Twins werent going anywhere, and that's fine. Garrison, Bieksa, Hansen, Burrows all had them & all were moved for good returns. Garrison & Bieksa got 2nd round picks, the problem is they turned around & traded them for more immediate help. 

 

I would agree we haven't been overflowing with expendable assets, especially recently. But part of it is just not trading away all they picks they have, and be pro-active on moving they guys that you might be able to move. 

 

For example, and I'm not saying all these were bad moves, but this is 11 picks traded:

2nd (Vey), 2nd (Beartschi), 2nd (Sutter), 2nd (Gudbranson), 3rd (Dorsett), 3rd (Pedan), 4th (Pouliot), 4th (Gudbranson), 5th (Prust), 5th (Larsen), 6th (Etem).  

 

So even if you had kept some of those picks, and tried to be pro-active with a few guys they could've potentially moved. Your talking about more kicks at the can, more guys coming through the system.

 

On Hamhuis; I think they weren't pro-active from the outset because they wanted him to help the team get into the playoffs. They ended up dragging it out to the wire & were left empty-handed. Plus they never made a firm decision on keeping him or trading him which complicated it. I think if they set out early in the year with a plan to move him they could have. I even think, while harder perhaps, that might have been a possibility with Edler too. Them aside, they definitely could have traded Tanev years ago when his value was really high, & got a great return.

 

Here's quotes from Benning talking to Sportsnet after trading for Gudbranson, just for an idea of the mindset before.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/benning-hemmed-hawed-trading-mccann/

 

"Where we're at right now, I think we owe it to our fans to try to field the most competitive team that we can right now" 

 

He then listed off Boeser, Demko & the upcoming 5th overall pick as pieces going forward. Then this, which seems contradictory to me. 

 

"Once we get the pieces in place from a team building perspective, we're gunna hold onto those draft picks." 

 

"But when we talked about giving up that second pick, we had 2 forwards & 2 defenseman that we were keying in on that we would take with that pick. Then you start talking about it & its 2 more years of junior, 2 years in the american league, maybe their 5th year they can come up & play some games, but they don't help your team win till 6-7 years down the line".

 

I don't get how it makes sense to wait to keep draft picks, when its going to take that long just to get the pieces in place?

 

Why wouldn't you draft so you have players coming up to supplement your top pieces you get high in the draft. And with a good scouting staff made you get another impact guy sooner than you think. Not all of the 2nd-7th rounders are going to hit so you gotta give yourself as many chances as possible when your a rebuilding team. Which is my point in all this.

They addressed this by putting focus on youth, whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant they put an emphasis on rebuilding while not being blown out and tanking. If we off loaded for only picks that is full on tank and I like Benning don't agree that is the ONLY way to rebuild. 

 

The thing with rebuilds especially in a fishbowl like Vancouver is you're never going to appease 100% of the fanbase, some like me are not a fan of the tank method and others believe stockpiling picks is the only way to go. 

 

Benning has long filled the target age gap via trade and now has a pipeline of picks underneath that and has now moved to acquiring picks with 2 extras to start this offseason. 

 

With his talk of the defense overhaul I see Tanev being moved for a pick or picks at the draft. Sutter and Schaller could move then or next deadline as well, and Spooner likely goes for picks at next deadline as well. 

 

No matter what route Benning took roughly half of the fanbase wasn't going to agree with it. 

[Smashian Kassian]

5 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

They addressed this by putting focus on youth, whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant they put an emphasis on rebuilding while not being blown out and tanking. If we off loaded for only picks that is full on tank and I like Benning don't agree that is the ONLY way to rebuild. 

 

The thing with rebuilds especially in a fishbowl like Vancouver is you're never going to appease 100% of the fanbase, some like me are not a fan of the tank method and others believe stockpiling picks is the only way to go. 

 

Benning has long filled the target age gap via trade and now has a pipeline of picks underneath that and has now moved to acquiring picks with 2 extras to start this offseason. 

 

With his talk of the defense overhaul I see Tanev being moved for a pick or picks at the draft. Sutter and Schaller could move then or next deadline as well, and Spooner likely goes for picks at next deadline as well. 

 

No matter what route Benning took roughly half of the fanbase wasn't going to agree with it. 

 

There's a segment that wants a scorched earth tank for sure. But I think alot of people, myself included, would've liked to see this regime be more pro-active & have the long game as the primary focus sooner.

 

Like I'm fine keeping Edler if the contract is right, I liked Baertschi, I'm not totally a scorched earth guy, but I think they have dropped the ball in some cases & let assets slip away.

 

As for moving forward, I have doubts about what the return will be for Tanev/Sutter. Sutter will probably be an asset-loss like Gudbranson, but hopefully not. Spooner & Schaller are probably going to be guys you just give away, if other teams will want them. I hope they trade Tanev at some point but the return won't be what it might have been, and honestly, I'm not even convinced they'll trade him. I could see them trying to extend him.

 

Seems like they are really banking on Hughes/Juolevi as the big changes for this overhaul, but it'll take more. Bowen Byram would be another nice add in that area. (fingers crossed)

[Baggins]

On ‎3‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 5:50 PM, Smashian Kassian said:

 

I said they had no interest in stockpiling picks when they started. They wanted to be, and remain, a playoff team. They moved out picks for immediate help or guys that were 'further along' that could play/help the team ASAP. 

 

The NTC thing is overblown. Of course the Twins werent going anywhere, and that's fine. Garrison, Bieksa, Hansen, Burrows all had them & all were moved for good returns. Garrison & Bieksa got 2nd round picks, the problem is they turned around & traded them for more immediate help. 

 

I would agree we haven't been overflowing with expendable assets, especially recently. But part of it is just not trading away all they picks they have, and be pro-active on moving they guys that you might be able to move. 

 

For example, and I'm not saying all these were bad moves, but this is 11 picks traded:

2nd (Vey), 2nd (Beartschi), 2nd (Sutter), 2nd (Gudbranson), 3rd (Dorsett), 3rd (Pedan), 4th (Pouliot), 4th (Gudbranson), 5th (Prust), 5th (Larsen), 6th (Etem).  

 

So even if you had kept some of those picks, and tried to be pro-active with a few guys they could've potentially moved. Your talking about more kicks at the can, more guys coming through the system.

 

On Hamhuis; I think they weren't pro-active from the outset because they wanted him to help the team get into the playoffs. They ended up dragging it out to the wire & were left empty-handed. Plus they never made a firm decision on keeping him or trading him which complicated it. I think if they set out early in the year with a plan to move him they could have. I even think, while harder perhaps, that might have been a possibility with Edler too. Them aside, they definitely could have traded Tanev years ago when his value was really high, & got a great return.

 

Here's quotes from Benning talking to Sportsnet after trading for Gudbranson, just for an idea of the mindset before.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/benning-hemmed-hawed-trading-mccann/

 

"Where we're at right now, I think we owe it to our fans to try to field the most competitive team that we can right now" 

 

He then listed off Boeser, Demko & the upcoming 5th overall pick as pieces going forward. Then this, which seems contradictory to me. 

 

"Once we get the pieces in place from a team building perspective, we're gunna hold onto those draft picks." 

 

"But when we talked about giving up that second pick, we had 2 forwards & 2 defenseman that we were keying in on that we would take with that pick. Then you start talking about it & its 2 more years of junior, 2 years in the american league, maybe their 5th year they can come up & play some games, but they don't help your team win till 6-7 years down the line".

 

I don't get how it makes sense to wait to keep draft picks, when its going to take that long just to get the pieces in place?

 

Why wouldn't you draft so you have players coming up to supplement your top pieces you get high in the draft. And with a good scouting staff made you get another impact guy sooner than you think. Not all of the 2nd-7th rounders are going to hit so you gotta give yourself as many chances as possible when your a rebuilding team. Which is my point in all this.

The answer is right there. You don't give up all your picks, but you can't put all your eggs in that waiting game either. Particularly when your completely lacking youth to rebuild with from the get go.

 

There's another quote you omitted: "We had depth at center and to add a top four defenseman that's young that's something we felt we needed to do". 

[vannuck59]

On 3/6/2019 at 1:53 PM, appleboy said:

You need to develop players that fit the style you play in the NHL. They decided that he didn't fit their style so they moved him for someone who does.  I still think that Utica needs to be looked at.

If Dahlen was so bad why would the sharks want him?

[canuck73_3]

6 hours ago, vannuck59 said:

If Dahlen was so bad why would the sharks want him?

We have too many perimeter players they have a lot of gritty players that battle in and around the crease. It’s more that he is a better fit there than not a good player, he can get shots to the net while the crashers do the dirty work. 

[alt kilgore]

On 3/13/2019 at 6:50 PM, Smashian Kassian said:

 

 

"Once we get the pieces in place from a team building perspective, we're gunna hold onto those draft picks." 

Seriously? This is a JB quote?

 

After that quote I don't see how anyone can say he had "rebuild" on the mind from the get go.  What the hell is "team building"? Was it really his plan to first"build" a team out of free agents and other teams rejects first, and then start stocking draft picks? (Knowing you'd have less picks to work with + by the time they were ready, the great team you theoretically built already would then themselves be passed their primes.)

 

Totally backwards and bizarre

[Juice-03]

“Top end draft picks”

 

1. Bo Horvat - little to no AHL time. Had the tools to be an effective bottom-6 guy with the luxury of developing his offence game in his early years. Didn’t really require much seasoning

 

2. Jake Virtanen - We ruined his first year of developement. In my eyes this is the only recent “top end” pick we could have managed differently and had a better outcome. Should have left him in the WHL for 1 more season. Travis Green took him from Zack Kassian 2.0 to where he is today. I feel he can be a consistent 20 goal, in your face power-forward that are rare to come by.

 

3. Brock Boeser - We managed this admirably. We let him season in North Dakota and arrive into the NHL with sky high confidence. Boeser says it himself that those first 9 games were instrumental in his . With him taking the NCAA route there was no time for the A. 

 

4. Olli Juolevi - looked great to start the year in the A. Injuries have led to an up and down couple of developement years. I still feel he is going to be a reliable top 4 defender with top 2 upside. 

 

5. Elias Petterson -  International developement route. He is a special case for sure. I remember watching him in developement camp and how apparent it was he was MILES ahead of the others. SHL to NHL lock and we all knew this. 

 

6. Quinn Hughes - I believe we are taking the same route as Brock Boeser with this one. He could have started the year here but went back to college got stronger and I feel it’s going to pay major dividends. I think Quinn is going to be a game changer for us on the back end. Much like Petterson up front. Again no AHL opportunity 

 

 

if you you are referring to picks from rounds 2-7, we really only started to accumulate these after 2014. So far we have Briesbois, Demko, Tryamkin,  Gaudette, Jasek, Lind, Gadjovich, Woo, Madden. 

 

Fact is these players take longer to develop. Look around the league these players don’t jump into the league after a few seasons. Picks from round 2-7 usually take 3-5 years. We saw Briesbois, Gaudette, Demko this year. They all look promising. Guys taking different paths NCAA , SHL etc are becoming more popular. 

 

Benning and Co. have a plan in place and let the man execute. The mans got a  good drafting track record. Realistically speaking this team is going to be competing for a playoff spot next year. Mark my words. 

[Hindustan Smyl]

Is there really a crisis or an issue?

 

Markstrom, Baertschi, Goldobin, Gaudette, and Demko all seemed to develop and transition just fine.  MacEwan, Brisebois, and Sautner all seem to be on the cusp as well.

 

Utica prides itself on having a competitive winning culture.  Kids will have to EARN their spots rather than having it gifted to them.

 

I’m not sure if I really see a problem here.