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

Seven years without a clear plan from Canucks brass.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, DSVII said:

I think the point here is to at least acknowledge that Benning didn't start with nothing. There was a path Benning could have taken but chose not to, for better or for worse.

Again, no he didn't start with nothing.

 

But it is important to note that had far less to work with than the teams frequently brought up as so called 'comparables'.

 

I think Benning largely took the path laid before him by both the situation and ownership. Particularly the first few years.

 

Quote

It's no small thing that Benning did inherit our captain, our MVP goalie, and the top pairing D that he, in my opinion because I know this is where we disagree, has not managed to fill in the past 7 years.

We disagree on what exactly here?

 

Quote

As well as the draft capital and moveable/signable assets when he started here, he just chose not to pursue those routes (Richardson, Mattias, Santorelli). Not to mention the best mentors you can ever have in HOFers in the Sedins for the youth.

I just don't see the 'loss' of those three players as much to get worked up about personally. Nor were they highly valued assets that would have gotten us rebuild, difference making, returns. Again, we're not short of 'B' and 'C' prospects.

 

2 hours ago, Marv-the-wet-bandit said:

Karlsson had a really nice season but he’s still a long shot to be an NHLer. Those returns were based on his player evaluations which makes it fair to judge him, no?

Nobody suggested he wasn't a long shot. This is exactly the type of return you get for players like Hansen/Burrows at the end of their careers. Long shots. That he got Dahlen and recognized he didn't project to have NHL chops and promptly moved him for a guy who's likewise, a long shot but trending well (for a long shot), should equal positive 'judgment', no?

 

Quote

I mentioned Hamhuis because he said there were no movable assets essentially. I’m not butthurt we didn’t get anything for Hamhuis all these years later, I was just clarifying he was wrong.

Fair enough. It's certainly arguable how 'moveable' Hamhuis was but you're correct that like above, he wasn't 'nothing'.

 

Quote

Benning went the re tool route and said we’d be in contention in a couple years when he took over, that would have been what he sold to ownership to get the job.

I don't recall that. He said he could turn it around quick, which he did giving the twins one more kick at the playoff can. But I'm fairly confident that Aqua, Linden and Benning all knew they needed to long-haul, bring youth in via the draft from the get go. They simply weren't going to ignore or tear down the NHL team to do so. And arguably couldn't really do so anyway (at least initially).

 

Quote

And we can both agree he failed miserably in that regard, no? The re tool was a failure and just pushed the rebuild back a few years.

I don't believe that's really/entirely what happened. I think some of you view it as a 'failure' because you misunderstand what the team has been doing/think they should have done something else the entire time and hence see the 'missed' tear down opportunities as failure...when that wasn't the plan to begin with.

 

Quote

I understand he’s drafted well and have said so. Unfortunately there’s more to just drafting so I think he needs to go. Also we can put a lot of successes in drafting in Brackett as everything outside of the first round he had final say on and also had a large input into the first rounders. JB was at the helm of a very successful drafting period for the Canucks, no doubt. It’s just too bad he was insufficient in other areas of team building 

I have zero desire to re-hash Brackett nonsense (and it is largely nonsense).

 

Drafting isn't the only thing he's done 'well' though. I have little issue with most of the literal stop gap players he brought in. They're completely inconsequential to the bigger picture, sheltered and acted as media/fan vitriol lightning rods for kids. And basically all gone prior to our core window opening. Much ado about nothing and far too much fretting in this market about inconsequential nothing burgers that were here to fill out an NHL roster.

 

I quite like trades he's made for Motte, Pearson, Schmidt, Miller, Toffoli, Leivo, Granlund, Dorsett and even poor, maligned Sutter. Sure, it's probably not as good as our drafting record but it's hardly the abysmal failure it's made out to be either. Particularly given the paltry assets he had to deal with as discussed above. And he and/or our asset base seems to be improving over time in that regard (and that asset base we largely have him to thank for).

 

I have very little issue with most of his FA signings as well given appropriate context. Again, not as good as our drafting but not some awful nightmare. I disagreed at the time with signing Miller (Ryan)  but that turned out surprisingly well. I have very little issue with most of the past extensions to guys like Tanev, Edler etc at the time. Our RFA's have all been fair to good value. Yes Sutter is overpaid about $1m, as is Beagle, but they play key positions/roles were you can easily see our team play fall apart when they're out of the lineup. Given our lack of high dollar core guys in that time frame to pay due to rebuilding, I quite understand the willingness to overpay in that context to keep/get key, hard minute C guys to stay/come here during a rebuild. They're not the reason for any of our woes. Cap or otherwise. Myers is a fine (if unexciting) contract. Largely the same with Pearson. Hamonic was a bargain, Roussel was full value for dollar before his knee injury (if likely a year longer than preferred)...

 

Speaking of injuries, that's were the majority of our so called cap woes come from. Baer, never the same after his blindside concussion. Roussel, never the same after his near career ending knee injury. Ferland, I'll grant was risky AF to sign and said as much when the rumours were swirling. He'd look damn good in our middle 6 though if he was healthy. Any of theses guys is either moveable or contributing if injuries hadn't derailed them. Unless Benning went Tonya Harding on them, I fail to see how he's responsible for injuries. Maybe the risky AF Ferland signing... The majority of this though falls under the normal, acceptable hit/miss, injuries, luck etc of literally any team/GM. It's a rough sport and you can see guys/contracts like these scattered throughout every team in the league. Certainly nothing to celebrate but hardly torch and pitchfork material either.

 

Which leaves us with the Swedish elephant in the room of Loui &^@#'ing Eriksson. The one, huge thing we can all agree looms over Benning like a foreboding storm cloud and the main (sole?) reason for our (thankfully short term) cap woes (as they are).

Edited by aGENT
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

In Gillis's time as a GM, this is the list of players that he drafted who played more than 100 games in the NHL:

Bo Horvat, 499

Ben Hutton 379

Brendan Gaunce 118

Kevin Connauton 321

Jordon Schroeder 164

Cody Hogson 328

 

The only one of those guys who you could really say has been an impact player in the NHL was Bo Horvat. The reason we got Horvat was because Gillis mishandled the whole Luongo / Schneider situation and wound up in a MUST TRADE our future goalie. That trade worked out well in the long run, but considering there were 29 teams who realistically viewed Schneider as a home run prospect and a franchise goalie, the return should have been more at the time, than just a single 1st round pick.

 

Compare that to what Benning has delivered, not just in 1st rounds, but past the 1st round.

I don't even remember Schroeder playing more then a handful of games.  But was excited about him.   Coho was too bad.   Still think if we didn't feed him to the wolves in Buffalo that maybe things would have worked out better for him.   Glad Kassian is still playing though.   

 

Sucks that we didn't really get anyone but Horvat, and yes not many folks were happy trading Schneider for a 9th overall, really lucky getting Horvat (who was developed under JB era)...

 

Ughs.   Next year the ascension will occur, and hope that a lot of posters relax a little.   The corner is well right around the corner. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Again, no he didn't start with nothing.

 

But it is important to note that had far less to work with than the teams frequently brought up as so called 'comparables'.

 

I think Benning largely took the path laid before him by both the situation and ownership. Particularly the first few years.

 

We disagree on what exactly here?

 

I just don't see the 'loss' of those three players as much to get worked up about personally. Nor were they highly valued assets that would have gotten us rebuild, difference making, returns. Again, we're not short of 'B' and 'C' prospects.

 

Nobody suggested he wasn't a long shot. This is exactly the type of return you get for players like Hansen/Burrows at the end of their careers. Long shots. That he got Dahlen and recognized he didn't project to have NHL chops and promptly moved him for a guy who's likewise, a long shot but trending well (for a long shot), should equal positive 'judgment', no?

 

Fair enough. It's certainly arguable how 'moveable' Hamhuis was but you're correct that like above, he wasn't 'nothing'.

 

I don't recall that. He said he could turn it around quick, which he did giving the twins one more kick at the playoff can. But I'm fairly confident that Aqua, Linden and Benning all knew they needed to long-haul, bring youth in via the draft from the get go. They simply weren't going to ignore or tear down the NHL team to do so. And arguably couldn't really do so anyway (at least initially).

 

I don't believe that's really/entirely what happened. I think some of you view it as a 'failure' because you misunderstand what the team has been doing/think they should have done something else the entire time and hence see the 'missed' tear down opportunities as failure...when that wasn't the plan to begin with.

 

I have zero desire to re-hash Brackett nonsense (and it is largely nonsense).

 

Drafting isn't the only thing he's done 'well' though. I have little issue with most of the literal stop gap players he brought in. They're completely inconsequential to the bigger picture, sheltered and acted as media/fan vitriol lightning rods for kids. And basically all gone prior to our core window opening. Much ado about nothing and far too much fretting in this market about inconsequential nothing burgers that were here to fill out an NHL roster.

 

I quite like trades he's made for Motte, Pearson, Schmidt, Miller, Toffoli, Leivo, Granlund, Dorsett and even poor, maligned Sutter. Sure, it's probably not as good as our drafting record but it's hardly the abysmal failure it's made out to be either. Particularly given the paltry assets he had to deal with as discussed above. And he and/or our asset base seems to be improving over time in that regard (and that asset base we largely have him to thank for).

 

I have very little issue with most of his FA signings as well given appropriate context. Again, not as good as our drafting but not some awful nightmare. I disagreed at the time with signing Miller (Ryan)  but that turned out surprisingly well. I have very little issue with most of the past extensions to guys like Tanev, Edler etc at the time. Our RFA's have all been fair to good value. Yes Sutter is overpaid about $1m, as is Beagle, but they play key positions/roles were you can easily see our team play fall apart when they're out of the lineup. Given our lack of high dollar core guys in that time frame to pay due to rebuilding, I quite understand the willingness to overpay in that context to keep/get key, hard minute C guys to stay/come here during a rebuild. They're not the reason for any of our woes. Cap or otherwise. Myers is a fine (if unexciting) contract. Largely the same with Pearson. Hamonic was a bargain, Roussel was full value for dollar before his knee injury (if likely a year longer than preferred)...

 

Speaking of injuries, that's were the majority of our so called cap woes come from. Baer, never the same after his blindside concussion. Roussel, never the same after his near career ending knee injury. Ferland, I'll grant was risky AF to sign and said as much when the rumours were swirling. He'd look damn good in our middle 6 though if he was healthy. Any of theses guys is either moveable or contributing if injuries hadn't derailed them. Unless Benning went Tonya Harding on them, I fail to see how he's responsible for injuries. Maybe the risky AF Ferland signing... The majority of this though falls under the normal, acceptable hit/miss, injuries, luck etc of literally any team/GM. It's a rough sport and you can see guys/contracts like these scattered throughout every team in the league. Certainly nothing to celebrate but hardly torch and pitchfork material either.

 

Which leaves us with the Swedish elephant in the room of Loui &^@#'ing Eriksson. The one, huge thing we can all agree looms over Benning like a foreboding storm cloud and the main (sole?) reason for our (thankfully short term) cap woes (as they are).

I’m not gonna continue arguing against Benning, I feel he will be replaced soon and that will make me very happy. I’m not going to say every move he made (outside of drafting) was terrible. I think he’s a C- GM, you don’t need to feel that way and I’m not trying to convince you otherwise. You listed some nice moves he made. You’re absolutely right on Miller, I felt the same way when signed and he was actually quite solid for us. I agree Baertschi had a rough go after the nasty concussion injury, not JBs fault he couldn’t return to his abilities though I still would not have made that trade. I also like the Pearson trade, thankfully he was able to get something for Gudbranson but I’d still rather have McCann. Not every move he’s made is bad, you pointed out some good ones but overall I feel he’s not done well in totality. I like Roussell but the contract he got didn’t make sense. I like what Tyler Myers can bring at times but I don’t like his contract either. Jay Beagle was another signing that doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t dislike Nate Schmidt at all but I’ll take Toffoli and Stetcher at the same cap hit over him, especially with the flat cap at the time though I do think Schmidt is the best player of the bunch, just not by a mile. I didn’t like the Holtby signing but I understand it, we need someone with experience behind Demko  because as good as he was last year, especially in the playoffs, it was a small sample size. So on the current roster I think the money between Roussell, Beagle, Myers and Holtby which is a little over 16 million could have been spent better. Then I would have saved the 3rd rounder and signed Toffoli and Stetcher for his cap hit, if you wouldn’t have I totally get that. Shutter makes a little

too much money but I’m fine with that. Virtanen contract looks bad right in this particular moment but I’m also fine with that because at the time he was coming off what I thought was a pretty good year and I haven’t been his biggest supporter since draft day but it was very encouraging. And even though no one saw LE doing as bad as he did it still falls on JB, we weren’t in a position to give that contract to a 31 year old. I’m not saying I’m right and you’re wrong. We just view things and would do things differently and that’s fine. In the end I hope we both get what we want and that’s a perennial winner. Benning has left this team in better shape then when he got it. He’s drafted well. I just wish he did more to give himself more opportunities to rebuild because he can clearly draft really well. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/26/2021 at 9:53 AM, appleboy said:

This is how I see Jim Benning's tenor.

 

Linden and Jim inherited an aging hockey club. One that had been on a win now agenda for several years in a row. Not only was the NHL product beginning to wane but their minor league system had been stripped to the bear bones . Most of the fan base expected them to announce a rebuild. To our surprise they instead went to the ufa market and continued with the win now agenda. After a decent season they were quickly and embarrassingly dispatched by the Flames. 

Season two fans were again prepared for the rebuild announcement. Even when asked directly about their plans they refused to even suggest the idea of a rebuild. Over the next few years they kept going back to the ufa market. Not once would they say the words rebuild. It was suggested that it would not be fair to put the twins through a rebuild. Not once did they come out and lay out a real plan. 

Once the twins retired you would think that would have triggered the club to use that opportunity to put forth a plan to rebuild the decimated organization. They sort of came out and hinted to a retool. LOL .  Yet they continued to go back to the ufa market. They made deals for other teams left overs to try and fill what Jim called the 22 to 25 year old players that were missing from our system. They were making moves to try to skip doing a proper rebuild. We began to see a conflict develop between Linden and Benning. Linden was starting to lean toward a proper rebuild and Jim wanted to continue on with the build on the fly motto. Management showed their true colors by siding with Jim.  Linden gets the boot.

Jim Benning's lack of planning and cap management has got the club into cap issues and restricted the clubs ability to add any talent for this year and next.       "That brings us to now".

 

So what is the plan? Be active at trade deadline? Playoffs at all cost? 

 

This club has been lacking a real plan of attack for years.

 

 

Maybe you see things differently. Please enlighten me.

 

 

Disagree with your premise about Benning and Linden, management did not side with Benning, ownership did and I think still does, JB has done everything this owner has asked and if he is  removed from the organization then ownership may as well hang out the for sale sign. Regardless of what happens JB is a good man who does not deserve this and we all need to be KIND

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fred65 said:

Good gracious there is a flaw with responder in that mixing literal with comment. JB offered a contract that include nothing that Brackett had asked for ie a raise !!!! that in MY books is firing a guy especially when he could have a pick of the teams in the league to go to. Brackett was unemployed for I believe 10-14 days. He did the same with Gilman and it looks like Clarke is heading out the door to say nothing of Taffoli ( I ran out of time, I have some swamp ln in Florida for sale ... are you interested ) there's one 

Brackett is a very good amateur scout, his specialty being the USHL. His contract was expiring and we have no idea whether he was asking for a raise but let’s suppose he was. He was also reported to be demanding more or complete control over amateur scouting. The team wasn’t willing to give him that and he moved on to Minnesota where I imagine he will do a good job.

 

He had a large influence in drafting guys like Boesser, Gaudette, Tyler Madden and Lockwood. He also played a smaller part in drafting Rathbone. He had very little to do with European scouting.

 

He will be missed but is not irreplaceable. He was most definitely not fired. He told the team what he wanted and the team said no.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, IBatch said:

I don't even remember Schroeder playing more then a handful of games.  But was excited about him.   Coho was too bad.   Still think if we didn't feed him to the wolves in Buffalo that maybe things would have worked out better for him.   Glad Kassian is still playing though.   

 

Sucks that we didn't really get anyone but Horvat, and yes not many folks were happy trading Schneider for a 9th overall, really lucky getting Horvat (who was developed under JB era)...

 

Ughs.   Next year the ascension will occur, and hope that a lot of posters relax a little.   The corner is well right around the corner. 

Most of the games that Schroeder played was with other teams after he failed to make the Canucks long term.

 

Coho, I don't hold against Gillis, same as I don't hold Juolevi against Benning. Players develop a different rates and you can't account for the fact that a guy suffers a major injury (or multiple major injuries), after you draft him. I'm not sure why fans hold Juolevi against Benning when he was taken exactly where it was expected. It's not like Benning pulled him aside after the draft and purposely injured his leg.

 

I just get tired of listening to people who don't seem to understand that, what Benning is doing, is exactly what he said he was going to do and exactly what ownership said that they wanted done. Build and develop through the draft. 

Edited by VegasCanuck
  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

Most of the games that Schroeder planed was with other teams after he failed to make the Canucks long term.

 

Coho, I don't hold against Gillis, same as I don't hold Juolevi against Benning. Players develop a different rates and you can't account for the fact that a guy suffers a major injury (or multiple major injuries), after you draft him. I'm not sure why fans hold Juolevi against Benning when he was taken exactly where it was expected. It's not like Benning pulled him aside after the draft and purposely injured his leg.

 

I just get tired of listening to people who don't seem to understand that, what Benning is doing, is exactly what he said he was going to do and exactly what ownership said that they wanted done. Build and develop through the draft. 

He is only building through the draft because his re-tools have consistently failed hard. Had hos moves even worked out as average instead of terrible, the team would have been a barely get in or barely miss the playoffs team most likely. No EP, no Hughes, no Podkolzin. No core.

 

If you look at his moves in total, its an accidental rebuild through drafting high, not a conscious decision to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

Most of the games that Schroeder planed was with other teams after he failed to make the Canucks long term.

 

Coho, I don't hold against Gillis, same as I don't hold Juolevi against Benning. Players develop a different rates and you can't account for the fact that a guy suffers a major injury (or multiple major injuries), after you draft him. I'm not sure why fans hold Juolevi against Benning when he was taken exactly where it was expected. It's not like Benning pulled him aside after the draft and purposely injured his leg.

 

I just get tired of listening to people who don't seem to understand that, what Benning is doing, is exactly what he said he was going to do and exactly what ownership said that they wanted done. Build and develop through the draft. 

I think the issue with Juolevi is who was still available. He wasn’t a big reach at all but he wasn’t ranked 5th OA heading into the draft. He went a few spots higher then expected. He was the 5th ranked NA prospect that year according to central scouting which would have put him 8th overall being the top 3 players played in Europe being Matthews, Laine and Puljujarvi. So I agree he essentially went where he was expected to go though maybe a hair early. At the time I really wanted Tkachuk but if I went with a Dman I would have gone Chychrun. Both players were rated higher. The injuries have absolutely slowed his development and I actually wish he got more playing time this year because I liked what I saw more often then not but it was still a little underwhelming. But as long as he turns into a regular, even if it’s a bottom pairing role in the future I don’t consider it a bust, just a bit of a disappointment. If he turns into a top 4 staple then it’s a solid pick even if he overpassed better players

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VegasCanuck said:

Most of the games that Schroeder planed was with other teams after he failed to make the Canucks long term.

 

Coho, I don't hold against Gillis, same as I don't hold Juolevi against Benning. Players develop a different rates and you can't account for the fact that a guy suffers a major injury (or multiple major injuries), after you draft him. I'm not sure why fans hold Juolevi against Benning when he was taken exactly where it was expected. It's not like Benning pulled him aside after the draft and purposely injured his leg.

 

I just get tired of listening to people who don't seem to understand that, what Benning is doing, is exactly what he said he was going to do and exactly what ownership said that they wanted done. Build and develop through the draft. 

Yep.   Part of me wishes we hired a real dummy or just kept MG on to finish out the Sedin era and really screw the pouch.  I'm sure eventually some of MG picks would be hits too.   What you really need we got - not perfect (drafting) but for sure better then par even with how high we picked since he got here.  How quickly people forget three calder runner up or winners in a row.   Ohlund was the last one i remember (runner up)...wasn't he drafted in like 1994 or something lol.   13th overall.  When did he "arrive" and how many games did he play in this league?  Takes time.   For him it wasn't so easy to break into the lineup - ours is pretty much an open ocean now with Edler...so OJ will get his turn.  And IF he followed his development path, a couple years into the NHL and he will be a good top four D.   Done it at each level so far.   "Bust" Puljajarvi is back.   Could happen to OJ as well. 

 

On the flip side we won't truly know how well JB has drafted for another decade or so.   Early returns are excellent compared to other teams, but just good once you take the lens of average draft position.    Something that would make an interesting study for Milford.   Because i have serious doubts we could take any four year time frame from JBs drafting and get 10,000 games from it any way you shake it.   That's an average of 2500 games a draft, simply remarkable.  

 

So i see him taking a second or maybe even third place in the long run.   Sure EP, BB and QHs will make the 1,000 game mark.   Podz maybe too.   JV maybe 500-600 depending on what's next in his career.    Demko's games won't count for as much as they should. But it is what it is.   

 

JB to come close to Quin has to do two things.   Make a blockbuster trade like he did with Butcher.   And a fleecing like he made with Naslund.   And one late pick (not AG!) coming in and becoming a star.   Even an Edler pick would help his cause.    None of these things have happened yet.   

 

JB really is a B+ rebuilding GM.   But a C  when it comes to the other stuff, not bad not good just average.   I still think we are rebuilding so keeping him around another year shouldn't hurt us much, plus he's getting better at the other stuff (don't care how many folks whine about TT, if Hogs didn't shut them up, Podz will for sure).  

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

He is only building through the draft because his re-tools have consistently failed hard. Had hos moves even worked out as average instead of terrible, the team would have been a barely get in or barely miss the playoffs team most likely. No EP, no Hughes, no Podkolzin. No core.

 

If you look at his moves in total, its an accidental rebuild through drafting high, not a conscious decision to do so.

He was asked to retool. When he got here, he wanted to go straight into rebuild, even openly contradicted Linden in an Interview about being willing to ask guys to trade their NTC's and NMC's so that we could go straight into the rebuild.

 

Benning has done exactly what he was asked to do. Keep the team competitive (UFA's), while drafting and developing. That has been the stated direction for a long time. 

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

He is only building through the draft because his re-tools have consistently failed hard. Had hos moves even worked out as average instead of terrible, the team would have been a barely get in or barely miss the playoffs team most likely. No EP, no Hughes, no Podkolzin. No core.

 

If you look at his moves in total, its an accidental rebuild through drafting high, not a conscious decision to do so.

How long have you been following this team?  How many "re-tools" have we been through with JB in your mind?  There was only one.   It stopped in 2017.  

 

Wilson would surely serve that definition.  He's constantly re-fooled since Marleau and Thornton were tops .... and now about to pay the piper so hard lol.   

 

Almost made it work too.  So close.  EK... sad.   Should have stayed in OTT really.  Speaking of which how much does Tierny cost and how does he compare to Sutter?   Dorian and Yzerman and Holland before him understand the value of vet support at a price.   Green, Gagne, Guddy... Stetcher lol. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Marv-the-wet-bandit said:

I think the issue with Juolevi is who was still available. He wasn’t a big reach at all but he wasn’t ranked 5th OA heading into the draft. He went a few spots higher then expected. He was the 5th ranked NA prospect that year according to central scouting which would have put him 8th overall being the top 3 players played in Europe being Matthews, Laine and Puljujarvi. So I agree he essentially went where he was expected to go though maybe a hair early. At the time I really wanted Tkachuk but if I went with a Dman I would have gone Chychrun. Both players were rated higher. The injuries have absolutely slowed his development and I actually wish he got more playing time this year because I liked what I saw more often then not but it was still a little underwhelming. But as long as he turns into a regular, even if it’s a bottom pairing role in the future I don’t consider it a bust, just a bit of a disappointment. If he turns into a top 4 staple then it’s a solid pick even if he overpassed better players

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Marv-the-wet-bandit said:

I think the issue with Juolevi is who was still available. He wasn’t a big reach at all but he wasn’t ranked 5th OA heading into the draft. He went a few spots higher then expected. He was the 5th ranked NA prospect that year according to central scouting which would have put him 8th overall being the top 3 players played in Europe being Matthews, Laine and Puljujarvi. So I agree he essentially went where he was expected to go though maybe a hair early. At the time I really wanted Tkachuk but if I went with a Dman I would have gone Chychrun. Both players were rated higher. The injuries have absolutely slowed his development and I actually wish he got more playing time this year because I liked what I saw more often then not but it was still a little underwhelming. But as long as he turns into a regular, even if it’s a bottom pairing role in the future I don’t consider it a bust, just a bit of a disappointment. If he turns into a top 4 staple then it’s a solid pick even if he overpassed better players

 

 

 

 

When they drafted Juolevi, there was about 5 or 6 D in the draft who were pretty much rated as interchangeable in draft position, depending on team needs. The Canucks went with a guy that they felt in the long-term, would be able to help them close out games and settle the defensive zone down. They never saw him as an offensive player.

 

If we had taken Tkachuk, Calgary would have taken Juolevi as Burke has stated very openly that they had Juolevi and Tkachuk ranked as equal in the draft.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

When they drafted Juolevi, there was about 5 or 6 D in the draft who were pretty much rated as interchangeable in draft position, depending on team needs. The Canucks went with a guy that they felt in the long-term, would be able to help them close out games and settle the defensive zone down. They never saw him as an offensive player.

 

If we had taken Tkachuk, Calgary would have taken Juolevi as Burke has stated very openly that they had Juolevi and Tkachuk ranked as equal in the draft.

I agree there were a lot of quality Dmen. I wish we did take Tkachuk and they took Juolevi as it probably makes us better and then weaker BUT Juolevi can still turn into what was hoped on draft day, no one has a crystal ball

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

 

I’ve seen that quote before, I wasn’t giving individual teams rankings which vary everywhere you go and no one knows what they are, I was giving the central scouting services list. And like I said, he was essentially taken where they had him ranked, just a few spots higher 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IBatch said:

How long have you been following this team?  How many "re-tools" have we been through with JB in your mind?  There was only one.   It stopped in 2017.  

 

Wilson would surely serve that definition.  He's constantly re-fooled since Marleau and Thornton were tops .... and now about to pay the piper so hard lol.   

 

Almost made it work too.  So close.  EK... sad.   Should have stayed in OTT really.  Speaking of which how much does Tierny cost and how does he compare to Sutter?   Dorian and Yzerman and Holland before him understand the value of vet support at a price.   Green, Gagne, Guddy... Stetcher lol. 

Look at what teams actually do during rebuilds.

 

Do they sign free agents? Of course.

 

But they also regularly trade expiring contracts for picks and prospects. They dont let top UFA guys walk for nothing. They develop their young guys in key roles. They dont trade 1st and 2nd round picks for good but compete now retool players.

 

The retool started when Benning arrived and its still a retool now. His spectacular failure in it has led to high picks. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, VegasCanuck said:

He was asked to retool. When he got here, he wanted to go straight into rebuild, even openly contradicted Linden in an Interview about being willing to ask guys to trade their NTC's and NMC's so that we could go straight into the rebuild.

 

Benning has done exactly what he was asked to do. Keep the team competitive (UFA's), while drafting and developing. That has been the stated direction for a long time. 

JB gets my defense mostly on last off-season.   Did exactly what i hoped he'd do after a really nice bubble.   Let them all go.   It would take a dummy to see what happened in Vegas and double down on that for 4-6 years at the expense of Demko, half our pool to fit them in etc.   Yet when we started to lose and CAL was doing ok at the start of the year right away the pitchforks came out and you know who you are if you were complaining about that.

 

One of JB best 12 months .... he drafted and developed Demko , and didn't  re-sign Markstrom, and fixing our ED this year so Myers doesn't need to be exposed.   Anyone who's still on the Myers bashing (move over Edler - we have a new Canuck D that can do everything pretty good but just not as good as we hope to bash!) bandwagon doesn't watch any other games or pay any attention to what else is out their on the R side.    Top sixty are the best RHDs correct, and where does he fit in? 

 

Just like a little bit younger Edler but at least he can throw a punch.   And plays the right side of which there are 50% less in the league (which makes zero sense time to let these R shot kids play their natural position, used to be the other way around).  

 

I don't mind any criticism over the contracts.   It's valid.  It adds up.   But it's also not going to be around for long. And IF JB was just an average drafter, we'd have a lot less to work with and that's a fact even now given the sample size is big enough.  If he was average, based on draft position alone, we should of never had a top 3 pool, but a top 8-9 one.   Not nearly enough.   And back to the bubble it showed.   First time out.  17 playoff type games or if you want to be a stickler, 13 playoff games.   The Sedins and Linden teams only managed more then that once.   Once. 

 

Personally i have enough patience to see it through.   And hope that ownership keeps their word too and let's them continue.   Wont be happy if TG takes the fall, he's going to Seattle or NYR right away.  And JB might join him to NYR as well. 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Marv-the-wet-bandit said:

I agree there were a lot of quality Dmen. I wish we did take Tkachuk and they took Juolevi as it probably makes us better and then weaker BUT Juolevi can still turn into what was hoped on draft day, no one has a crystal ball

Exactly, and SOOOO many fans forget that. You draft based on Best player available. If you have a number of players available who you rank evenly, then you go for who you feel will fill your greatest need. That's what we did in that draft year.

 

All things being equal, Dubois was supposed to fall to us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IBatch said:

How long have you been following this team?  How many "re-tools" have we been through with JB in your mind?  There was only one.   It stopped in 2017.  

 

Wilson would surely serve that definition.  He's constantly re-fooled since Marleau and Thornton were tops .... and now about to pay the piper so hard lol.   

 

Almost made it work too.  So close.  EK... sad.   Should have stayed in OTT really.  Speaking of which how much does Tierny cost and how does he compare to Sutter?   Dorian and Yzerman and Holland before him understand the value of vet support at a price.   Green, Gagne, Guddy... Stetcher lol. 

In fairness the guys Detroit has brought in are on short term contracts and don’t make 3+ million with a NMC. Detroit has added a ridiculous amount of picks since Yzerman took over, especially in the top 3 rounds. If Benning went about a rebuild like Stevey Y has been doing I’d say we should get ready to build him a statue in front of the arena, but he hasn’t gone that route at all

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VegasCanuck said:

Exactly, and SOOOO many fans forget that. You draft based on Best player available. If you have a number of players available who you rank evenly, then you go for who you feel will fill your greatest need. That's what we did in that draft year.

 

All things being equal, Dubois was supposed to fall to us.

That’s very true. There were a lot of rumours saying that we wanted him, and that would have been amazing. The thing is I think a lot of fans wanted a particular player, who was available so if he performs well and we are still waiting on Juolevi, who I’m hoping proves those people myself included wrong, then there will be disappointment. And that’s ok. When you pick 4 you really hope you hit a homerun with the pick especially in the position we were in at the time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...