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

The Defense of JB and co

Rate this topic


Arrow 1983
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Who does? That's what happens when your better prospects all graduate.

 

The majority of what we (currently) have left in the prospect pool are likely depth/support players, only some of which likely go on to meaningful NHL careers. 

 

That said Podkolzin is blue chip. Rathbone looks pretty much there as well. Woo while not likely as high of a ceiling (2nd pair... maybe?), is a pretty safe bet to be an NHL'er, even if 'only' 3rd pair. MDP looks like he has a good shot at being at least a decent backup in a couple years (with Silovs developing well behind him). Lind, Gadjovich, McDonagh, Jasek, Lockwood, Karlsson, Persson, Costmar, Utunen, Focht etc...all trending well with a solid shot at becoming depth/support players.

 

You don't need those guys to be home runs, they just need a few to work out and play.

 

We'll also be adding another top, blue chip guy (maybe two) with our 1st (and 2nd?) this year and we're likely still a couple years of picking in the 10-20 range after this and likely to add a couple more.

 

It's not like the pool today is static and doomed to stay frozen there.

Well said and well thought out.

 

Better than the other couple posters in here who must grasp at straws to fill the holes in their hearts.

  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2021 at 10:29 PM, wallstreetamigo said:

I dont know if Colorado's success can be attributed to luckily drafting high. They sucked for a good long awhile but they also recognized it was going to happen and extracted max value out of that.

Let's see the drafts in which the Canucks drafted top 10 since 2009 and see who else was available had they in fact owned picks within the top 4 spots like the Avs had.  Keeping in mind, the would have to have a total of 5 picks in the top 4 at any combination of a 1st overall pick, 2nd and 3rd overall picks and two 4th overall picks.  I use 2009 as that was the year the Avs picked Duchene at 3rd and 12 years is a good timeline

 

2013:  Horvat at 9 or Mackinnon, Barkov, Drouin, Jones

2014:  Virtanen at 6 or Ekblad, Reinhart, Drasiatl, Bennett

2016:  Juolevi at 5, or Matthews, Laine, Dubois, Puljujarvi

2017:  Pettersson at 5, or Hischier, Patrick, Heiskanen, Makar

2018: Hughes at 7 or, Dahlin, Svechnikov, Kotkaneimi, Tkachuk

2019:  Podkolzin at 10 or, Hughes, Kakko, Dach, Byram (2019 an add on because the Avs had 5 total top 4 picks and two more top 10 picks plus an 11th OA thrown in)

 

Pick any combination of those other players selected in the top of of those 5-6 drafts and tell me if the Canucks don't look better with a line up of

 

Jones, Draisatl, Matthews, Makar, Svechnikov vs Horvat, Virtanen, Juolevi, Pettersson, Hughes

 

A lot of that success is high drafting.  Mackinnon is an absolute stud, him and Rantanen are pure money, Makar is an absolute STUD and Landeskog is a beast of a winger.  SO yes no argument that they capitalized on assets like Duchene and O'Reilly (who weren't drafted without that top 3 selection at 3/33 respectively) and yes they have and are developing a ecent climate and culture but those high drafts were their roadmap to success and arring makar and byra, all in place before Sakic even showed up as gm

 

 

 

Edited by Warhippy
  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, iinatcc said:

Yes because tanking can not build a winning culture 

 

 

mario.jpg

8 of the last 12 first overall picks have gone to Edmonton, Jersey and Buffalo with each also getting other high picks in the top 10 over that time.

 

Tell me more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Let's see the drafts in which the Canucks drafted top 10 since 2009 and see who else was available had they in fact owned picks within the top 4 spots like the Avs had.  Keeping in mind, the would have to have a total of 5 picks in the top 4 at any combination of a 1st overall pick, 2nd and 3rd overall picks and two 4th overall picks.  I use 2009 as that was the year the Avs picked Duchene at 3rd and 12 years is a good timeline

 

2013:  Horvat at 9 or Mackinnon, Barkov, Drouin, Jones

2014:  Virtanen at 6 or Ekblad, Reinhart, Drasiatl, Bennett

2016:  Juolevi at 5, or Matthews, Laine, Dubois, Puljujarvi

2017:  Pettersson at 5, or Hischier, Patrick, Heiskanen, Makar

2018: Hughes at 7 or, Dahlin, Svechnikov, Kotkaneimi, Tkachuk

2019:  Podkolzin at 10 or, Hughes, Kakko, Dach, Byram (2019 an add on because the Avs had 5 total top 4 picks and two more top 10 picks plus an 11th OA thrown in)

 

Pick any combination of those other players selected in the top of of those 5-6 drafts and tell me if the Canucks don't look better with a line up of

 

Jones, Draisatl, Matthews, Makar, Svechnikov vs Horvat, Virtanen, Juolevi, Pettersson, Hughes

 

A lot of that success is high drafting.  Mackinnon is an absolute stud, him and Rantanen are pure money, Makar is an absolute STUD and Landeskog is a beast of a winger.  SO yes no argument that they capitalized on assets like Duchene and O'Reilly (who weren't drafted without that top 3 selection at 3/33 respectively) and yes they have and are developing a ecent climate and culture but those high drafts were their roadmap to success and arring makar and byra, all in place before Sakic even showed up as gm

 

 

 

They didnt "luckily" draft high. They drafted high because they recognized they were going to suck and didnt make knee jerk reactionary moves to try to just make the playoffs every year.

 

The Canucks had just as much chance to draft higher than they did in most Benning years. Many years they tanked their own draft odds by icing a veteran lineup to try to squeak out meaningless wins at the end of lost seasons. No one to blame for where they ended up drafting other than Benning.

 

The depths people here go to minimize other GM's accomplishments to try to shoehorn Benning in as somehow comparably good in apparently imposdible circumstances is astounding to me.

 

Benning has drafted high several times literally because almost every other move he has made has landed anywhere from not working as he expected to failing spectacularly. If some of his annual retool moves and his early misses of Virtanen and Juolevi - who you neglect to include as clear draft misses, not the product of not drafting high enough - had worked closer to what he expected, the Canucks would have likely drafted even lower than they did.

 

If Sakic was fired tomorrow I would want Aquilini to fire Benning and hire him 5 minutes later. He is EXACTLY the kind of GM this team needs. Anyone favorably comparing Benning to Sakic, or minimizing Sakic's accomplishments to somehow prop up Benning, is simply ignoring or blaming Benning's failures.

 

If you are going to give Benning credit for his good moves, you by default have to assign him responsibility for his bad ones. Too many people act like Benning, who blames uncontrollable outside forces for his mistakes.

 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget Team-Walmart likely has friends in lowww places.

 

So they rig the reffing..but we should BELIEVE things like a daft-lotto are authentic? Hmm, oh yeah, sure

 

Personally. wouldn't surprise me if the league plays a quiet hand in softball-trades, too.

 

PS- Highly doubt Van's ownership are in the 'favoured' side of the BOG cronies. Call it a suspicion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

8 of the last 12 first overall picks have gone to Edmonton, Jersey and Buffalo with each also getting other high picks in the top 10 over that time.

 

Tell me more

It's an interesting debate but I can only think of 1 cup champion without a top 2 pick in 10 years and most teams in those 10 years other than St Louis tanked?

Edited by Chris12345
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

They didnt "luckily" draft high. They drafted high because they recognized they were going to suck and didnt make knee jerk reactionary moves to try to just make the playoffs every year.

 

The Canucks had just as much chance to draft higher than they did in most Benning years. Many years they tanked their own draft odds by icing a veteran lineup to try to squeak out meaningless wins at the end of lost seasons. No one to blame for where they ended up drafting other than Benning.

 

The depths people here go to minimize other GM's accomplishments to try to shoehorn Benning in as somehow comparably good in apparently imposdible circumstances is astounding to me

 

No, they did get lucky.  They won the Mackinnon lottery.  You're also suggesting they intentionally did what they could to secure a better draft position, and if you're not suggesting that you're suggesting Benning failed by NOT doing everything to secure a better draft position which, is tantamount to literally just wanting to Buffalo a season.

 

I presented a clear and concise argument to you in which the Canucks over 6 years walk in to the NHL draft with a 1st, 2nd 3rd and two 4th overall picks and you ignore it in a rush to suggest something else.  

 

Dare you deny, for one moment that if the Canucks are icing THAT line up of players, 2 norris calibre defencemen in Jones and Makar, Wonder stud Draisatl; Matthews and Svechnikov, taken 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th/4th that this teams fortunes don't look incredibly different?

 

You can deny that draft position has or had little to do with it.  You can also suggest that somehow Sakic is the end all be all which is fine; but to ignore the fact that he HAD assets to work with, that he HAD draft luck is to arguably simply play ignorant and shove whataboutisms int he face of basic logic.

 

In fact let me go another route with you.

 

What if Sakic takes the helm and instead of having the players he had and has he had the following drafted comparably close.

 

2009:  Duchene/O'Reilly vs Kane/Klingberg

2011:  Landeskog/Siemens vs Larsson/Baertschi

2013:  Mackinnon vs Barkov

2015:  Rantanen vs Crouse

2016:  Jost vs Mcleod

2017:  Makar vs Glass

 

Dare you argue that Kane/Klingberg return the same deal that Duche or O'reilly did?

Dare you argue that they are the same team with Larsson over Landeskog?

How about Barkov over Mackinnon?

Crouse instead of Rantanen?

 

To claim that draft luck had nothing to do with the state of the team or that refusing to accept intentional failure as success is somehow a black mark is laughably foolish

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Chris12345 said:

It's an interesting argument but I can only think of 1 cup champion without a top 2 pick in 10 years and most teams in those 10 years other than St Louis tanked?

Which is entirely fair; but draft luck in selection is very important too.  Nobody can argue that picking the right player is essential as every top 3 has the potential for a drouin/yakupov as it does a McDavid/Ovechkin

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Which is entirely fair; but draft luck in selection is very important too.  Nobody can argue that picking the right player is essential as every top 3 has the potential for a drouin/yakupov as it does a McDavid/Ovechkin

 

 

Yea exactly Toews at 3rd or Yak at first?

 

The trick is to trade down in bad draft years but that takes guts.

 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

They didnt "luckily" draft high. They drafted high because they recognized they were going to suck and didnt make knee jerk reactionary moves to try to just make the playoffs every year.

 

The Canucks had just as much chance to draft higher than they did in most Benning years. Many years they tanked their own draft odds by icing a veteran lineup to try to squeak out meaningless wins at the end of lost seasons. No one to blame for where they ended up drafting other than Benning.

 

The depths people here go to minimize other GM's accomplishments to try to shoehorn Benning in as somehow comparably good in apparently imposdible circumstances is astounding to me.

 

Benning has drafted high several times literally because almost every other move he has made has landed anywhere from not working as he expected to failing spectacularly. If some of his annual retool moves and his early misses of Virtanen and Juolevi - who you neglect to include as clear draft misses, not the product of not drafting high enough - had worked closer to what he expected, the Canucks would have likely drafted even lower than they did.

 

If Sakic was fired tomorrow I would want Aquilini to fire Benning and hire him 5 minutes later. He is EXACTLY the kind of GM this team needs. Anyone favorably comparing Benning to Sakic, or minimizing Sakic's accomplishments to somehow prop up Benning, is simply ignoring or blaming Benning's failures.

 

If you are going to give Benning credit for his good moves, you by default have to assign him responsibility for his bad ones. Too many people act like Benning, who blames uncontrollable outside forces for his mistakes.

 

 

Colorado didn’t finish last in 2013. They won the lottery which gave them the opportunity to draft MacKinnon. So there WAS luck involved in that pick.  If they didn’t luck out and win the lottery their team without MacKinnon would be much different today. 
 

Sakic also picked Conner Bleackley at 23 overall the following year in 2014, two spots ahead of David Pastrnak. Benning also took Jared McCann ahead of Pastrnak but at least McCann is an NHL player. Bleackley failed to play even one game in the NHL. 
 

Sakic also took Tyson Jost in 2016, 4 spots ahead of Charlie McAvoy and 6 spots ahead of Jakob Chychrun. Benning took Juolevi ahead of all of them as well as Tkachuk and Sergachev. So they both failed to take the best players on the board at the time of their selection. 
 

Sakic is a great GM but his draft picks are hit and misses and he also lucked out on getting MacKinnon. He has still been able to build a great team regardless. Benning and the Canucks I think are two years away from having a really good team. Benning needs to step up his game on the free agent and trade fronts in order to take the next step. Let’s see what he does this summer. 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Colorado didn’t finish last in 2013. They won the lottery which gave them the opportunity to draft MacKinnon. So there WAS luck involved in that pick.  If they didn’t luck out and win the lottery their team without MacKinnon would be much different today. 
 

Sakic also picked Conner Bleackley at 23 overall the following year in 2014, two spots ahead of David Pastrnak. Benning also took Jared McCann ahead of Pastrnak but at least McCann is an NHL player. Bleackley failed to play even one game in the NHL. 
 

Sakic also took Tyson Jost in 2016, 4 spots ahead of Charlie McAvoy and 6 spots ahead of Jakob Chychrun. Benning took Juolevi ahead of all of them as well as Tkachuk and Sergachev. So they both failed to take the best players on the board at the time of their selection. 
 

Sakic is a great GM but his draft picks are hit and misses and he also lucked out on getting MacKinnon. He has still been able to build a great team regardless. Benning and the Canucks I think are two years away from having a really good team. Benning needs to step up his game on the free agent and trade fronts in order to take the next step. Let’s see what he does this summer. 

No GM hits on every pick. And there is a certain amount of luck involved in where you end up drafting. That much is true.

 

As I have said several times, Sakic didnt luck into the team he has. His free agent signings and some of his trades have been downright stellar. And his cap management has been very efficient. Thats the difference between Sakic and Benning. And its a pretty huge bunch of differences.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

No GM hits on every pick. And there is a certain amount of luck involved in where you end up drafting. That much is true.

 

As I have said several times, Sakic didnt luck into the team he has. His free agent signings and some of his trades have been downright stellar. And his cap management has been very efficient. Thats the difference between Sakic and Benning. And its a pretty huge bunch of differences.

Sakic has added the pieces necessary to win the Cup. Benning has yet to do that. I also believe Sakic had more to work with than Benning when he first started. I mean Sakic took over in May of 2013 and a month later MacKinnon falls into his lap. And Landeskog is already there. Benning had to take over a team with 2 ageing twins and players like Kesler who wanted out. Basically a team on the total decline with no young prospects in the pipeline. 
 

At the end of the day Sakic has proven to be really good at trades and free agency. Benning not so much. Benning is a much better drafter however. This summer will be critical for Benning. It will make or break his career in Vancouver. 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Sakic has added the pieces necessary to win the Cup. Benning has yet to do that. I also believe Sakic had more to work with than Benning when he first started. I mean Sakic took over in May of 2013 and a month later MacKinnon falls into his lap. And Landeskog is already there. Benning had to take over a team with 2 ageing twins and players like Kesler who wanted out. Basically a team on the total decline with no young prospects in the pipeline. 
 

At the end of the day Sakic has proven to be really good at trades and free agency. Benning not so much. Benning is a much better drafter however. This summer will be critical for Benning. It will make or break his career in Vancouver. 

I dont know how you can say Benning is a "much better" drafter. He has been good but so has Sakic.

 

The Canucks core was older for sure. It wasnt as useless as people remember though. They had the Sedins of course who were older. But they also had Edler, Hansen, Tanev, and Markstrom too who were 27, 27, 24, and 24. They had some decent pieces as well.

 

The Avs core wasnt even really yet their core when Sakic took over. They still needed to be developed into the core. And Sakic identified who should stay part of that and who he should sell high on. Those were critical decisions that shaped what we see from Colorado now.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I dont know how you can say Benning is a "much better" drafter. He has been good but so has Sakic.

 

The Canucks core was older for sure. It wasnt as useless as people remember though. They had the Sedins of course who were older. But they also had Edler, Hansen, Tanev, and Markstrom too who were 27, 27, 24, and 24. They had some decent pieces as well.

 

The Avs core wasnt even really yet their core when Sakic took over. They still needed to be developed into the core. And Sakic identified who should stay part of that and who he should sell high on. Those were critical decisions that shaped what we see from Colorado now.

 

 

Edler tanev, Hansen, Markstrom, Horvat and downturn sedins.

 

Vs

 

Duchene, O'Reilly, landeskog, MacKinnon, Rantanen, barrie

 

:ph34r:

  • Haha 1
  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I dont know how you can say Benning is a "much better" drafter. He has been good but so has Sakic.

 

The Canucks core was older for sure. It wasnt as useless as people remember though. They had the Sedins of course who were older. But they also had Edler, Hansen, Tanev, and Markstrom too who were 27, 27, 24, and 24. They had some decent pieces as well.

 

The Avs core wasnt even really yet their core when Sakic took over. They still needed to be developed into the core. And Sakic identified who should stay part of that and who he should sell high on. Those were critical decisions that shaped what we see from Colorado now.

 

 

Benning IS a better drafter. What evidence do you have to suggest otherwise?  Since 2014 when Benning took over the Canucks have had their draft picks play a total of 1,573 NHL games.  During that same time with Sakic Colorado have had their draft picks play a total of 913 NHL games.  It’s not even close actually.  Benning’s draft picks combined have played almost double the amount of NHL games as Sakic’s draft picks.  

 

As for Colorado when Sakic took over he had Landeskog, Duchene, Barrie, Erik Johnson, Ryan O’Reilly, Paul Stastny, Semyon Varlamov.  He was then gifted MacKinnon one month later.  That’s a much better core to deal with than Tanev, Markstrom, Edler and Hansen.

  • Cheers 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Benning IS a better drafter. What evidence do you have to suggest otherwise?  Since 2014 when Benning took over the Canucks have had their draft picks play a total of 1,573 NHL games.  During that same time with Sakic Colorado have had their draft picks play a total of 913 NHL games.  It’s not even close actually.  Benning’s draft picks combined have played almost double the amount of NHL games as Sakic’s draft picks.  

 

As for Colorado when Sakic took over he had Landeskog, Duchene, Barrie, Erik Johnson, Ryan O’Reilly, Paul Stastny, Semyon Varlamov.  He was then gifted MacKinnon one month later.  That’s a much better core to deal with than Tanev, Markstrom, Edler and Hansen.

How does how many games they have played prove who is the better drafter? Until their careers are over and we see what they actually accomplish thats just conjecture.

 

Benning's team has also been terrible almost that entire time and had a much bigger need to rush their young players. The Avs are much deeper and have several great prospects they have not rushed.

 

Benning and Sakic are both good drafters. Benning isnt significantly better. You make it sound like Benning is twice as good. He isn't.

 

We will truly see how much of the credit is actually owed to Benning in the next few years. Remember, Brackett was there for EP, Hughes, and Podkolzin. The drafts Benning ran before and since have been a bit sketchy, especially in the 1st round. The only exception is Boeser. But he was a consensus BPA pick at that spot too. Same as Hughes was actually. It will be interesting to see going forward.

 

Considering I would trade our core for theirs 100 times out of 100, at least one person would disagree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

How does how many games they have played prove who is the better drafter? Until their careers are over and we see what they actually accomplish thats just conjecture.

 

Benning's team has also been terrible almost that entire time and had a much bigger need to rush their young players. The Avs are much deeper and have several great prospects they have not rushed.

 

Benning and Sakic are both good drafters. Benning isnt significantly better. You make it sound like Benning is twice as good. He isn't.

 

We will truly see how much of the credit is actually owed to Benning in the next few years. Remember, Brackett was there for EP, Hughes, and Podkolzin. The drafts Benning ran before and since have been a bit sketchy, especially in the 1st round. The only exception is Boeser. But he was a consensus BPA pick at that spot too. Same as Hughes was actually. It will be interesting to see going forward.

 

Considering I would trade our core for theirs 100 times out of 100, at least one person would disagree with you.

Brackett was also there for Virtanen and Juolevi.  You can’t cherry pick here.

 

Number of games played makes a huge difference. How else do you determine who’s draft picks are better?  That’s the most objective way to do it in my opinion. 

 

Benning has had his 5th round picks play 160 games.  Sakic 58 games.  Sakic’s 2nd round picks have played a total of 71 games.  Benning 136 games.  Not sure anyone who looks at these numbers objectively will say Sakic is a better drafter.  You are not being objective here. I am simply providing you with facts and numbers. 

 

Yes I would trade their core for ours too.  But Sakic wasn’t directly responsible for their two best players so that is not a fair statement to make to be totally honest. 

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2021 at 6:36 AM, Elias Pettersson said:

Since 2003 Colorado has missed the playoffs 8 times. Since 2003 Vancouver has missed the playoffs 7 times. 
 

Since 2003 Colorado has won 8 playoff rounds including this year. Since 2003 Vancouver has also won 8 playoff rounds. 

Since 2009 Colorado has picked in the top 10 of the draft 7 times, with 1 player selected first overall and 1 player selected second overall. Since 2009 Vancouver has picked in the top 10 of the draft 6 times, with their highest pick being 5th overall. 

 

Obviously at this moment Colorado has a much more exciting team and has a chance at winning the Cup this year while Vancouver failed to make the playoffs. But if you go back 17 years the success of both teams up until this year is quite similar. Their draft trajectory is also quite similar with Colorado having the luxury of picking much higher in the draft on several occasions since 2009. 
 

I would say Vancouver is around 2 years behind Colorado. The make up of both teams looks similar if you look at the young core of players. MacKinnon makes Colorado a much better team but when he was Pettersson’s age he wasn’t dominating as he is right now. He won the Calder but so did Petey.  MacKinnon didn’t become dominant until his 5th year in the league. He also was a #1 overall pick.  Vancouver has never had the luxury of picking first overall. Nevertheless let’s see where Petey is at in his 5th year. I’m sure he will be a more exciting and better player than he is right now. 
 

At the end of the day the biggest difference for Colorado is they have been able to build a superior team around their young core. Benning hasn’t been able to do that yet. But he has been able to build his young core through the draft similar to Colorado. Let’s see what happens over the next two years. Maybe Benning will surprise us. 

 

vancouver is not 2 years behind colorado.. they are light years behind.. colorado defense: Byram Makar Girard Toews.. for their top 4 vancouver it's hughes schmidt and then??? unless we magically draft couple great defenseman in the next 2 years we are no where close to where colorado is.. and defenseman don't grow on trees

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

How does how many games they have played prove who is the better drafter? Until their careers are over and we see what they actually accomplish thats just conjecture.

 

Benning's team has also been terrible almost that entire time and had a much bigger need to rush their young players. The Avs are much deeper and have several great prospects they have not rushed.

 

Benning and Sakic are both good drafters. Benning isnt significantly better. You make it sound like Benning is twice as good. He isn't.

 

We will truly see how much of the credit is actually owed to Benning in the next few years. Remember, Brackett was there for EP, Hughes, and Podkolzin. The drafts Benning ran before and since have been a bit sketchy, especially in the 1st round. The only exception is Boeser. But he was a consensus BPA pick at that spot too. Same as Hughes was actually. It will be interesting to see going forward.

 

Considering I would trade our core for theirs 100 times out of 100, at least one person would disagree with you.

Brackett was in the Canucks organization for 5 years before being promoted to DOS, what gems did he discover before Benning?

Benning implemented a system for the scouts to identify players in age draft back in 2014.

I liked Brackett, and he was a valued part of the staff, but the 'Brackett made all the good picks' is a poor one.

  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

vancouver is not 2 years behind colorado.. they are light years behind.. colorado defense: Byram Makar Girard Toews.. for their top 4 vancouver it's hughes schmidt and then??? unless we magically draft couple great defenseman in the next 2 years we are no where close to where colorado is.. and defenseman don't grow on trees

Their defence is currently getting destroyed by Vegas…

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...