Why we are never in the conversation for big name trades in the Benning era?

[knucklehead91]

39 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Well, what I read from this is that the biggest problem was that guy named "Bench".  82 games played, no goals, no points, and 14 PIM?  What a bum.

 

i know right?? 

[knucklehead91]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

So the top D pair Benning has had for 90% of his tenure here did not benefit the future when he took the job? Or do the first 6 years not count?

 

You'd think, especially for a GM who obviously prioritizes quality veterans, Tanev and Edler have been two of the most important players under Benning.

 

Seemed as though they were not only vital on the ice, but also quality leaders especially for a guy like Hughes.

 

Add in Markstrom and you have three inherited "vets" that kept this dumpster fire from becoming a full blown forest wild fire.

 

I only scrolled through your post, 'cause nobody has time to read all that, but when I see completely asinine lines like the one I just quoted I'm glad I didn't waste my time.

I stopped reading when I saw “ @kanucks25 “

 

I knew after that It was just going to be nonsense

[kanucks25]

23 minutes ago, knucklehead91 said:

I stopped reading when I saw “ @kanucks25 “

 

I knew after that It was just going to be nonsense

Care to disagree with anything I said?

 

Thanks for coming out.

[knucklehead91]

8 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Care to disagree with anything I said?

 

Thanks for coming out.

Care to add substance? 

Thanks for trying.

[kanucks25]

3 minutes ago, knucklehead91 said:

Care to add substance? 

Thanks for trying.

So what this tells me is that you wrote on essay on something you know was wrong to push a certain narrative (for what reason, I have no idea) and you were not expecting anyone to call you out any of any the asinine statements made in there.

 

okay then lol

[knucklehead91]

11 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

So what this tells me is that you wrote on essay on something you know was wrong to push a certain narrative (for what reason, I have no idea) and you were not expecting anyone to call you out any of any the asinine statements made in there.

 

okay then lol

You still talking? Or you gunna actually add something with a bit of substance.

 

Edler, Tanev and Marky, what did they do exactly for the future, because I can tell you right now, they were not the future. Edler was the future in 2004, at the end of Gillis’s term, 10 years later, who was the future? Wheres your future dman? Tanev, wasnt “the future” he became the future, he wasnt drafted, he played 29 games in 2010-11, wasnt part of the playoffs until injury allowed him into the lineup for the final 5 games of the finals. The following year??? Tanev played 25 games. How our goalie of the future Schneider? He got shipped out. Then we wound up in the long run with a reclamation project in Markstrom who struggled to win the net and him and Nilsson looked hopeless. Markstrom was 28/29 when he actually proved to be a #1 goalie. Thats not the goalie of the future, hes just the goalie right now. The future is a guy like Demko or DiPietro, drafted and developing/already a #1 goalie.

 

So veteran presence and character are important, Tanev has experience in the cup finals, but not getting to the cup finals. Markstrom has been around a long time, been through ups and downs and Edler has been through it all, including the entire path to get to the finals and came within 1 win from achieving the ultimate goal.

 

Out goes Tanev, Markstrom and Edl…..no wait Edler didnt leave last season. Benning extended him for 2 years and gave him a NMC so that he would not have to worry about protecting him at the expansion draft and Edler would not have to worry about being traded or selected because he does not want to leave Vancouver at all. Okay so now that we have the respect for Edler sorted out. Lets talk about Tanev and Markstrom. Tell me, what has Markstrom accomplished that Holtby hasnt? Better yet, flip it around the other way. What has Holtby accomplished that MARKSTROM hasnt. A Jennings, a Vezina and a Stanley cup. Who do you want whispering sweet nothings into Demko’s ear, the guy who hasnt accomplished anything is his career and took forever to become a #1, or the guy who is the same age and as Markstrom and has won it all? Also one comes at a 6x6 and the other at 4.3x2

Who has more experience? Who is the starter and who is the back up? Demko or Markstrom? Holtby or Demko?

Tanev??? Injury prone, good character and blocks a lot of shots. Never travelled the road to the Stanley cup, but he’s been in the finals.
Nate  Schmidt is younger, healthier, travelled the road to the finals and his character was raved about by former teammates and they were pi$$ed when Schmidt was traded. 

 

So what is your issue with not resigning Markstrom at 6x6 or Tanev 4.5x5? We have room for them right? With the flat cap We can keep them and push ourselves even closer to the cap. Oh wait, whats that Pettersson and Hughes need to be resigned this year, Boeser the following and Horvat the one after that? Oh Petey is eligible for an offersheet and you dont have room to sign him? 

 

Bye Pettersson!! Thanks for everything, good luck with your new team!! Well got room next season to sign Boeser thankfully. Oh sh*t the cap hasnt gone up and Horvat is a UFA.. what do we do now?!

 

oh and you want to use that argument that Tanev, Marky and Edler helped the future by putting out fires with their veteran presence ??

Beagle and Roussel say hi!! Thats exactly what those signings were intended for, same with Holtby and I could even argue that Myers was signed to help stabilize these wildfires that have been burning since the Gillis era. Lol I just took your own narrative and beat you over the head with it lol

[IBatch]

On 7/5/2021 at 12:42 PM, NUCKER67 said:

Cupboard is pretty bare, because Benning's good prospects are all being brought into the team. Last year's Draft was a wash, no 1st or 2nd. 

 

Benning needed to acquire as many higher round picks as he could over the last 5+ years. He didn't do that. 

 

Yes poor us.  All his high end prospects worked out for the most part, secondary ones are coming in like Hogs, what a chump, Demko instead of Markstrom now (a second rounder) and all we have left to do is look forward to what Podz, this years 9th (or whatever trade might materialize for that) and guys like Rathbone and OJ.    Have people forgotten what it was like for 9 years before he came in already?   Last great draft outside of the JB era, was when Nonis drafted Edler. 

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Yes poor us.  All his high end prospects worked out for the most part, secondary ones are coming in like Hogs, what a chump, Demko instead of Markstrom now (a second rounder) and all we have left to do is look forward to what Podz, this years 9th (or whatever trade might materialize for that) and guys like Rathbone and OJ.    Have people forgotten what it was like for 9 years before he came in already?   Last great draft outside of the JB era, was when Nonis drafted Edler. 

Dont forget Hughes. Montreal sat the guy they picked over Quinn for the two most important games of the year.

[IBatch]

16 hours ago, GarthButcher5 said:

I'd rather have team depth overall. This takes patience to acquire and is the reason that all the prospects are graduating to the pro ranks.

Yes.   Last summer, not this one, JB commented on how the pool was almost ready and that they'd no longer be looking to free agency to fill - well pretty much the entire lineup.   Because that's what he has had to deal with.   Same thing Holland had too, and now Yzerman is going to have to do for a couple more years, same thing SJ Wilson has been doing for so long now and won't be able to stop for 5 years at least (worst pools in the league that's what happens to us - all three teams).   JB has done a good or even great job at creating our pool, but has yet to do a master trade (ok Miller was a good trade...but not a great one).   Like to see JB do the hard things now to push us over the top.   Going to mean we say good-bye to someone we like...but it's necessary.   Otherwise we risk spinning our wheels for the next 2-3 years.   

[IBatch]

24 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Dont forget Hughes. Montreal sat the guy they picked over Quinn for the two most important games of the year.

Never will...he's a high end prospect that for sure gets all of us excited because of how he's worked out so far.   Going to give him and the entire team a mulligan for last season.   However its time to see what they can do.   JB excuses are running out.  I'm aware of that.   Podz ... well if he's the best of the bunch i will start making the bronze statues for them next season. 

[IBatch]

On 7/7/2021 at 10:56 AM, NUCKER67 said:

I'm sure Benning will bring in a Dman or two, but who?  Jones? Parayko?  Cernak?  Nahh...  Benning has a tendency to trade for non-star players who are on the decline or about to. That's why VAN has Roussel, Beagle, Holtby, Eriksson, Ferland, etc.  Miller and Hamonic might be exceptions.

 

So, if you want to know who Jim will be bringing in, just take a look at the league D stats and see who's had their best years already. That's our guy. 

Miller and Vrbata were the exceptions.  Why?  Context.  Luongo was gone and he went after the best goalie available back then, Miller and the second best forward (also went after Iginla but he went to Boston) ... it worked for one year.   Really there wasn't much other choice.   Can't just show up and say sorry i won't honour any clauses.   Good luck with that straw man idea.  

 

 Most fans understand this and have patience.   Even most fans will eventually run out of patience, and that's what's starting to happen now, me included.   We all want a cup.   JB did better then average as far as drafting goes even with his draft position.   Given we drafted 8-10th over his tenure, but ended up with a top pool, he gets some slack.   That slack will turn into a noose soon if things don't start working out.    I'm willing to see how it plays out, he's earned that much given the good work in the draft.   And to see what he can do from a position of actual power, something so far he hasn't had. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by IBatch

[kanucks25]

1 hour ago, knucklehead91 said:

You still talking? Or you gunna actually add something with a bit of substance.

 

Edler, Tanev and Marky, what did they do exactly for the future, because I can tell you right now, they were not the future. Edler was the future in 2004, at the end of Gillis’s term, 10 years later, who was the future? Wheres your future dman? Tanev, wasnt “the future” he became the future, he wasnt drafted, he played 29 games in 2010-11, wasnt part of the playoffs until injury allowed him into the lineup for the final 5 games of the finals. The following year??? Tanev played 25 games. How our goalie of the future Schneider? He got shipped out. Then we wound up in the long run with a reclamation project in Markstrom who struggled to win the net and him and Nilsson looked hopeless. Markstrom was 28/29 when he actually proved to be a #1 goalie. Thats not the goalie of the future, hes just the goalie right now. The future is a guy like Demko or DiPietro, drafted and developing/already a #1 goalie.

 

So veteran presence and character are important, Tanev has experience in the cup finals, but not getting to the cup finals. Markstrom has been around a long time, been through ups and downs and Edler has been through it all, including the entire path to get to the finals and came within 1 win from achieving the ultimate goal.

 

Out goes Tanev, Markstrom and Edl…..no wait Edler didnt leave last season. Benning extended him for 2 years and gave him a NMC so that he would not have to worry about protecting him at the expansion draft and Edler would not have to worry about being traded or selected because he does not want to leave Vancouver at all. Okay so now that we have the respect for Edler sorted out. Lets talk about Tanev and Markstrom. Tell me, what has Markstrom accomplished that Holtby hasnt? Better yet, flip it around the other way. What has Holtby accomplished that MARKSTROM hasnt. A Jennings, a Vezina and a Stanley cup. Who do you want whispering sweet nothings into Demko’s ear, the guy who hasnt accomplished anything is his career and took forever to become a #1, or the guy who is the same age and as Markstrom and has won it all? Also one comes at a 6x6 and the other at 4.3x2

Who has more experience? Who is the starter and who is the back up? Demko or Markstrom? Holtby or Demko?

Tanev??? Injury prone, good character and blocks a lot of shots. Never travelled the road to the Stanley cup, but he’s been in the finals.
Nate  Schmidt is younger, healthier, travelled the road to the finals and his character was raved about by former teammates and they were pi$$ed when Schmidt was traded. 

 

So what is your issue with not resigning Markstrom at 6x6 or Tanev 4.5x5? We have room for them right? With the flat cap We can keep them and push ourselves even closer to the cap. Oh wait, whats that Pettersson and Hughes need to be resigned this year, Boeser the following and Horvat the one after that? Oh Petey is eligible for an offersheet and you dont have room to sign him? 

 

Bye Pettersson!! Thanks for everything, good luck with your new team!! Well got room next season to sign Boeser thankfully. Oh sh*t the cap hasnt gone up and Horvat is a UFA.. what do we do now?!

 

oh and you want to use that argument that Tanev, Marky and Edler helped the future by putting out fires with their veteran presence ??

Beagle and Roussel say hi!! Thats exactly what those signings were intended for, same with Holtby and I could even argue that Myers was signed to help stabilize these wildfires that have been burning since the Gillis era. Lol I just took your own narrative and beat you over the head with it lol

Honestly have no idea what you're rambling on about.

 

None of what you said has anything to do with my original reply to you. Go back and read if need be.

[Dazzle]

5 hours ago, Convincing John said:

In years 1-4 sure. He definitely F’d the team but Dazzle, players he drafted in his first year are in their mid 20’s. all of Gillis is nearly flushed out. One can even argue that Horvat almost makes whatever lingering effects neutral. 
 

i will never go back and criticize his misses at the draft table either. I loved JV and OJ in Jr. GM’s miss on draft picks, that’s just reality. There isn’t a single player that man has drafted that I’ve complained about. Why? Cause I trust him and he has proven himself in this area over and over. 
 

I will go back on him rolling the dice and throwing draft picks like they were covered in AIDS. It’s an absolute tragedy that he didn’t go all in years 1-4 instead of blowing picks for in a nothing time of transition. 
 

I clearly remember him explaining how he needed to fill this age gap and how picks in the later rounds take 5 years before they’re ready for the NHL. Well that 5 years is now. We don’t have the picks or the Linden Vey’s to show for. With his drafting ability, that man should be consistently filling his pockets with picks, not emptying them for instant gratification. 

https://canucksarmy.com/2017/02/01/time-has-made-mike-gillis-draft-record-look-better-but-it-s-still-bad/

 

2017 article. Some passages from this article for convenience. They might be taken out of context, but much care has been taken (and you can verify this) to maintain the intent of the article:

 

Well, that’s not really the case. Vancouver’s draft history over the last fifteen years has been so abysmal that anything looks good. Even with these new young players brightening the ranks, Gillis’ draft record is still not good. And I have evidence.

 

However, the line of reasoning that tells us we should expect so little draft picks in the name of being competitive doesn’t exactly stack up with the data. While there is a statistical relationship between the two, there are teams that were having as much or more success than the Canucks that were also accumulating more draft picks.

 

(Personal comment)

This picture says it all.

Boston and Pittsburgh have won at least a cup during this period (roughly). We haven't, although we were one game away from doing so. That being said, both Pittsburgh and Boston's futures were not harmed by their cup runs. Ours was bankrupt.

 

You just can't defend Gillis' tenure for drafting and development at all. Using the "competitive" excuse is easily invalidated, and actually shows bias in taking that logic.

 

(end of personal comment)

 

-----------------------------

Three of the top four players in terms of games played are no longer with the Canucks organization. Cody Hodgson is already retired, so he won’t be adding anything to his resume. Prior to that, he became Zack Kassian, who became Brandon Prust, who became a UFA.

Kevin Connauton never even played a single game for the Canucks, having been included in the Derek Roy deal before making his debut. Roy also left as a UFA. Jordan Schroeder wasn’t tendered by the new regime, while Frank Corrado was lost on waivers. Nicklas Jensen became Emerson Etem, who was also lost on waivers. So not only did the Canucks not get value out of their draft picks while they were here, they didn’t get much of anything in return for them either

Note that both regimes are responsible for this second point, as Jim Benning’s crew has shuttled off many assets without getting a return – of course that could also say something about the “assets” that Mike Gillis left him with.

 

In terms of Mike Gillis’ record, though, he went in the complete opposite direction. Not only did he not compile that many draft picks, he made poor selections with the ones he had. This is first illustrated in the following graphs which present numbers of draft picks against total games played.

 

Conclusion

Again, the point of this article is not to drag Mike Gillis’ reputation through the dirt. He presided over the most successful era in franchise history, building the teams that won the only two Presidents Trophies in franchise history, maximizing value by exploiting the Collective Bargaining Agreement and pushing the bounds of sports science in ways that have since been adopted by organizations like the Chicago Cubs.

 

But the man flat out could not draft hockey players. Or at least, the group he created and managed couldn’t.

[lmm]

17 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Sorry, I was just here for the game.
 

I have no interest in getting sucked into the discussion you guys are having in this thread. 

 

Ok

anyway you win the game

[Bure2Win]

Would sure like to know why Schmidt wants out, seemed so happy to be here 6 months ago?

 

[knucklehead91]

2 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Honestly have no idea what you're rambling on about.

 

None of what you said has anything to do with my original reply to you. Go back and read if need be.

It does and I did. 

 

7 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

So the top D pair Benning has had for 90% of his tenure here did not benefit the future when he took the job? Or do the first 6 years not count?

 

You'd think, especially for a GM who obviously prioritizes quality veterans, Tanev and Edler have been two of the most important players under Benning.

 

Seemed as though they were not only vital on the ice, but also quality leaders especially for a guy like Hughes.

 

Add in Markstrom and you have three inherited "vets" that kept this dumpster fire from becoming a full blown forest wild fire.

 

I only scrolled through your post, 'cause nobody has time to read all that, but when I see completely asinine lines like the one I just quoted I'm glad I didn't waste my time.

 

4 hours ago, knucklehead91 said:

You still talking? Or you gunna actually add something with a bit of substance.

 

Edler, Tanev and Marky, what did they do exactly for the future, because I can tell you right now, they were not the future. Edler was the future in 2004, at the end of Gillis’s term, 10 years later, who was the future? Wheres your future dman? Tanev, wasnt “the future” he became the future, he wasnt drafted, he played 29 games in 2010-11, wasnt part of the playoffs until injury allowed him into the lineup for the final 5 games of the finals. The following year??? Tanev played 25 games. How our goalie of the future Schneider? He got shipped out. Then we wound up in the long run with a reclamation project in Markstrom who struggled to win the net and him and Nilsson looked hopeless. Markstrom was 28/29 when he actually proved to be a #1 goalie. Thats not the goalie of the future, hes just the goalie right now. The future is a guy like Demko or DiPietro, drafted and developing/already a #1 goalie.

 

So veteran presence and character are important, Tanev has experience in the cup finals, but not getting to the cup finals. Markstrom has been around a long time, been through ups and downs and Edler has been through it all, including the entire path to get to the finals and came within 1 win from achieving the ultimate goal.

 

Out goes Tanev, Markstrom and Edl…..no wait Edler didnt leave last season. Benning extended him for 2 years and gave him a NMC so that he would not have to worry about protecting him at the expansion draft and Edler would not have to worry about being traded or selected because he does not want to leave Vancouver at all. Okay so now that we have the respect for Edler sorted out. Lets talk about Tanev and Markstrom. Tell me, what has Markstrom accomplished that Holtby hasnt? Better yet, flip it around the other way. What has Holtby accomplished that MARKSTROM hasnt. A Jennings, a Vezina and a Stanley cup. Who do you want whispering sweet nothings into Demko’s ear, the guy who hasnt accomplished anything is his career and took forever to become a #1, or the guy who is the same age and as Markstrom and has won it all? Also one comes at a 6x6 and the other at 4.3x2

Who has more experience? Who is the starter and who is the back up? Demko or Markstrom? Holtby or Demko?

Tanev??? Injury prone, good character and blocks a lot of shots. Never travelled the road to the Stanley cup, but he’s been in the finals.
Nate  Schmidt is younger, healthier, travelled the road to the finals and his character was raved about by former teammates and they were pi$$ed when Schmidt was traded. 

 

So what is your issue with not resigning Markstrom at 6x6 or Tanev 4.5x5? We have room for them right? With the flat cap We can keep them and push ourselves even closer to the cap. Oh wait, whats that Pettersson and Hughes need to be resigned this year, Boeser the following and Horvat the one after that? Oh Petey is eligible for an offersheet and you dont have room to sign him? 

 

Bye Pettersson!! Thanks for everything, good luck with your new team!! Well got room next season to sign Boeser thankfully. Oh sh*t the cap hasnt gone up and Horvat is a UFA.. what do we do now?!

 

oh and you want to use that argument that Tanev, Marky and Edler helped the future by putting out fires with their veteran presence ??

Beagle and Roussel say hi!! Thats exactly what those signings were intended for, same with Holtby and I could even argue that Myers was signed to help stabilize these wildfires that have been burning since the Gillis era. Lol I just took your own narrative and beat you over the head with it lol

Lol hows that for a memory refresher? Too bad you will forget by the time you read to this point. Lmao how's that for asinine lines?

 

[Bure2Win]

You guys should read the public comments about Schmidt at the bottom of this link,.....kind of depressing but to be expected for us Canucks fans .

https://russianmachineneverbreaks.com/2021/07/07/reports-surface-that-nate-schmidt-wants-out-of-vancouver/

[Dazzle]

59 minutes ago, Bure2Win said:

Would sure like to know why Schmidt wants out, seemed so happy to be here 6 months ago?

 

I think it's a nasty rumour made up by media members who want to "stir up" controversies to sell stories.

 

One of the biggest defenders of the media @wallstreetamigo said so himself that it would be "extremely boring" if they only reported 100 percent verifiable info. I haven't seen someone like him who went to bat for someone else (the media) just give up completely on defending them.

 

According to Benning, he claims to not have any trade requests. Of course, we don't know if this is true or not because he still has to maintain his leverage. So we can only 'know' what we have publicly heard.

Anyone can make up "rumours" in the journalism industry and pose it like it's a fact. The media does it all the time. I bring up the Hughes on IV story a lot because this was a story that never should've been run, at all. 

 

Funny how wallstreetamigo still doesn't address that aspect, even after being asked to do so many, many times.

[Convincing John]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

https://canucksarmy.com/2017/02/01/time-has-made-mike-gillis-draft-record-look-better-but-it-s-still-bad/

 

2017 article. Some passages from this article for convenience. They might be taken out of context, but much care has been taken (and you can verify this) to maintain the intent of the article:

 

Well, that’s not really the case. Vancouver’s draft history over the last fifteen years has been so abysmal that anything looks good. Even with these new young players brightening the ranks, Gillis’ draft record is still not good. And I have evidence.

 

However, the line of reasoning that tells us we should expect so little draft picks in the name of being competitive doesn’t exactly stack up with the data. While there is a statistical relationship between the two, there are teams that were having as much or more success than the Canucks that were also accumulating more draft picks.

 

(Personal comment)

This picture says it all.

Boston and Pittsburgh have won at least a cup during this period (roughly). We haven't, although we were one game away from doing so. That being said, both Pittsburgh and Boston's futures were not harmed by their cup runs. Ours was bankrupt.

 

You just can't defend Gillis' tenure for drafting and development at all. Using the "competitive" excuse is easily invalidated, and actually shows bias in taking that logic.

 

(end of personal comment)

 

-----------------------------

Three of the top four players in terms of games played are no longer with the Canucks organization. Cody Hodgson is already retired, so he won’t be adding anything to his resume. Prior to that, he became Zack Kassian, who became Brandon Prust, who became a UFA.

Kevin Connauton never even played a single game for the Canucks, having been included in the Derek Roy deal before making his debut. Roy also left as a UFA. Jordan Schroeder wasn’t tendered by the new regime, while Frank Corrado was lost on waivers. Nicklas Jensen became Emerson Etem, who was also lost on waivers. So not only did the Canucks not get value out of their draft picks while they were here, they didn’t get much of anything in return for them either

Note that both regimes are responsible for this second point, as Jim Benning’s crew has shuttled off many assets without getting a return – of course that could also say something about the “assets” that Mike Gillis left him with.

 

In terms of Mike Gillis’ record, though, he went in the complete opposite direction. Not only did he not compile that many draft picks, he made poor selections with the ones he had. This is first illustrated in the following graphs which present numbers of draft picks against total games played.

 

Conclusion

Again, the point of this article is not to drag Mike Gillis’ reputation through the dirt. He presided over the most successful era in franchise history, building the teams that won the only two Presidents Trophies in franchise history, maximizing value by exploiting the Collective Bargaining Agreement and pushing the bounds of sports science in ways that have since been adopted by organizations like the Chicago Cubs.

 

But the man flat out could not draft hockey players. Or at least, the group he created and managed couldn’t.

And Jim can’t manage a cap.

The article is from 2017, where do you keep this stuff? do you have a MG scrapbook or something? With the pages all bumpy from your dried up tears. Jesus man. This is getting uncomfortable.  

 

[wai_lai416]

19 hours ago, Dazzle said:

He did have a failed prospect pool. The proof is in the fact that no significant prospects, outside of Horvat and Hutton, were produced during his entire tenure. This is a span of several years of next to no prospect development.

 

Again, because you seem to be so blind to see this, Benning has done what Gillis could never do - draft players. Of course excuses are made about GIllis not having top 10 picks, but why was he not able to draft a goaltender LIKE Demko during his time? (2nd round pick). What about Hoglander? There is no excuse for the lack of depth that Gillis left behind.

 

Unlike you, most of us see the consequences of such poor drafting and development. Over time, this has huge implications. But again, you've proven me right that you ignore evidence that runs contrary to what you want to see.

ok so he drafted 2 good prospect outside of the 1st rounder so what about the failed top 6 picks? that should have ideally netted us a top 6 forward or a top 4 defense? he gets a pass because he got a demko and a hoglander in the 2nd round? you guys keep saying he's a good draft guy blah blah blah yet he only managed to produce 2 nhl regular outside of the first and failed on multiple top picks.. but you guys put him on a pedestal like he produced a train of nhler outside of the 1st round. 2 regular nhler on the team outside of the 1st rounder out of 6 draft that's on the team but you guys think he's the best GM at drafting in the last 7 years