Will Jim B's give-aways of 23 draft picks under his rule come back to haunt the Canucks ?

[Patel Bure]

On 8/3/2021 at 4:08 PM, kanucks25 said:

Only time will tell.

But I think it's fair to say by now that Benning would be much better off actually using his draft picks instead of trading them away in a package for roster players.

 

Amateur scouting is clearly ahead of pro scouting under this management team.

There is not a single rebuilding team in the league that successfully rebuilt by icing a line-up full of pubeless 18-21 year old kids.   
 

Unfortunately, this is what you and your “klan” over at HF Canucks don’t understand.  
 

1) Successful rebuilding teams looking to take the next step need a good combination of vets and youth, in which vets insulate the youth until the youth are ready to accept tougher roles and more responsibility.

 

2) Total number of picks do not matter.  What’s more important is how many of those picks actually convert into long term NHL assets.  Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes, Demko, Hoglander, Podkolzin, Rathbone, Juolevi, + “the departed” (Gaudette, Virtanen, and Tryamkin) were all assets for us.  

 

[cuporbust]

Jim Benning has been the Michael Jordan of drafting success here. I have zero issues with anything he has done in relation to it. 

[Patel Bure]

On 7/27/2021 at 11:16 AM, kanucks25 said:

If this core doesn't have it, we're in for another rebuild quite soon.

Sounds to me like you and your buddies at HF “Canucks” are busting at the chops in hopes of it.

 

MS is already pretending that the 2020 playoff run didn’t happen and is doing his best to tell people that we didn’t deserve it.

 

 

[IBatch]

On 8/3/2021 at 11:56 AM, Hairy Kneel said:

Miller was worth the first. 

I'd like to see Miller as our 3C

It would turn out to be a strong 2nd line type like a 2B line. We have the wingers for him

That's exactly what i'd do - and hoping TG does too.   Miller is our swiss army knife.   Use him that way.   Also would rather he play C on our top line and move EP to the wing IF we sign him long term.   Watch him explode in that case.   Linden took a big hit on his personal stats moving to C...the reverse would be something else.   BB and EP ... watch them score 40 each lol, teams wouldn't like to defend against that. 

 

Dickinson isn't very good on face offs.  He should be on the fourth line with Sutter and Motte.   Use him as an injury replacement.   Same with Sutter for that matter ... one of the few guys in our bottom six last year that scored any goals.  

 

??/Hogs  EP BB

Pearson Horvat Garland 

??/Hogs Miller Podz 

Motte Sutter Dickinson

 

Id like to see what Gadj can do with the ?? spot.   Either on the top line or third line.   Guys an animal infront of the net like Corey Perry - he's not an oppurtunistic player like TT - he's a dog without a bone and makes other goalies and D's lives miserable.  Give him a go.  

 

[kanucks25]

12 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

There is not a single rebuilding team in the league that successfully rebuilt by icing a line-up full of pubeless 18-21 year old kids.   
 

Unfortunately, this is what you and your “klan” over at HF Canucks don’t understand.  
 

1) Successful rebuilding teams looking to take the next step need a good combination of vets and youth, in which vets insulate the youth until the youth are ready to accept tougher roles and more responsibility.

 

2) Total number of picks do not matter.  What’s more important is how many of those picks actually convert into long term NHL assets.  Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes, Demko, Hoglander, Podkolzin, Rathbone, Juolevi, + “the departed” (Gaudette, Virtanen, and Tryamkin) were all assets for us.  

 

You can insulate your young players without trading picks for bad players.

[Patel Bure]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

You can insulate your young players without trading picks for bad players.

 

This is a LOT easier said than done for teams that are trending downwards.    

 

Perceived downtrending teams in certain markets will always have to overpay on term and money and/or take calculated risks with trades (with completely blowing up their farm) in order to achieve this 'insulation' for their upcoming youth.

 

Perhaps it's easy for downtrending teams to sign good UFA's/PTO's to good term and money on EA Sports but this is a difficult, if not impossible, task in real life:

 

More times than not, GM's of downtrending teams have to choose between one of the following two undesirable choices:

 

1) Push and rush the kids into roles that they are likely not ready for and place them in a 'sink or swim' environment (i.e. you keep a good short term cap structure but heavily risk destroying the development of the kids in your system).

 

2) Overpay UFA's on term and money (which expire just around the time when you think you will have approximately established a new young competitive core) which help insulate the youth, can take on tougher match-ups, and have past proven intangibles and/or success that can serve as mentorship for the incoming kids.  Trades (Sutter and Gudbranson) also fall under this category.  

 

Benning opted for #2.   

 

You can't just sign a bunch of PTO's/reclamation projects at league minimum to provide this insulation because PTO's/reclamation projects themselves are looking for "the correct environment" in which they can look good and revive their careers.  It really has to be a great fit for both sides in order for it to work (i.e. Thomas Vanek for instance).  

 

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by Patel Bure

[kanucks25]

4 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

 

This is a LOT easier said than done for teams that trending downwards.    

 

Perceived downtrending teams in certain markets will always have to overpay on term and money and/or take calculated risks with trades (with completely blowing up their farm) in order to achieve this 'insulation' for their upcoming youth.

 

Perhaps it's easy for downtrending teams to sign good UFA's/PTO's to good term and money on EA Sports but this is a difficult, if not impossible, task in real life:

 

More times than not, GM's of downtrending teams have to choose between one of the following two undesirable choices:

 

1) Push and rush the kids into roles that they are likely not ready for and place them in a 'sink or swim' environment (i.e. you keep a good short term cap structure but heavily risk destroying the development of the kids in your system).

 

2) Overpay UFA's on term and money (which expire just around the time when you think you will have approximately established a new young competitive core) which help insulate the youth, can take on tougher match-ups, and have past proven intangibles and/or success that can serve as mentorship for the incoming kids.  Trades (Sutter and Gudbranson) also fall under this category.  

 

Benning opted for #2.   

 

You can't just sign a bunch of PTO's/reclamation projects at league minimum to provide this insulation because PTO's/reclamation projects themselves are looking for "the correct environment" in which they can look good and revive their careers.  It really has to be a great fit for both sides in order for it to work (i.e. Thomas Vanek for instance).  

 

 

 

[JM_]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

 

Stevie had the easier path, his ownership was fully on board with an extended tank. It doesn't take a genius to take on crappy players for picks. 

 

[Patel Bure]

14 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

 

Is this a better strategy or just different?   How is this better?

[kanucks25]

15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Stevie had the easier path, his ownership was fully on board with an extended tank. It doesn't take a genius to take on crappy players for picks. 

 

 

Just now, Patel Bure said:

Is this a better strategy or just different?   How is this better?

Seems pretty straight forward to me?

 

One team paid a premium for their veteran leadership whereas the other acquires it with additional assets and (then, if desired) signs them to short, palatable deals that will never have to be cap-dump traded / bought-out / buried / get in the way of potential other deals. 

[JM_]

13 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

 

Seems pretty straight forward to me?

 

One team paid a premium for their veteran leadership whereas the other acquires it with additional assets and (then, if desired) signs them to short, palatable deals that will never have to be cap-dump traded / bought-out / buried / get in the way of potential other deals. 

thanks for at least not saying "7 year rebuild"

 

Different strategies, different outcomes. 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

34 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Stevie had the easier path, his ownership was fully on board with an extended tank. It doesn't take a genius to take on crappy players for picks. 

 

HF Boards take:  We just take on crappy players for big cap hits.

 

(sorry, I couldn't resist, I'll go to the "time out" room now for an hour).

[Curmudgeon]

On 8/1/2021 at 10:42 PM, Gollumpus said:

I see Hughes as  Pat Stapleton looking for a Bill White. 

 

                                            regards,  G.

Or a Pierre Pilote looking for a Moose Vasko.

[Patel Bure]

56 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

 

Seems pretty straight forward to me?

 

One team paid a premium for their veteran leadership whereas the other acquires it with additional assets and (then, if desired) signs them to short, palatable deals that will never have to be cap-dump traded / bought-out / buried / get in the way of potential other deals. 

I'll try and respond to this a little later when I have time and can go into more details, but I'll leave you with this:

 

1) Detroit has missed the playoffs for the past five years in a row.

2) Outside of Seider, Rasmussen, and Hronek, what kind of long term core prospects and draft picks have they successfully drafted, developed, and transitioned into the NHL over this time period that you can honestly say are potential long term foundational pieces?  (Zadina is still a question mark).   Does this compare to Pettersson, Hughes, Boeser, Demko, and Hoglander?  

3) If you believe in the concept of building an actual long term team culture, can this really be achieved if all of the vets that you've signed are here for 1-2 years tops?   How many of these vets that were brought in were a part of previous winning cultures, were former leaders themselves (assistants or captains), or were once former great players?

 

There's a LOT more to rebuilding than draft pick accumulation.    

 

How many drafted prospects or college recruits are actually converting to the NHL level?    Again, look at the Canucks:

 

-Pettersson

-Hughes

-Boeser

-Hoglander

-Demko

 

Former players:  Stecher, Virtanen, Gaudette, Tryamkin

Young picks that we directly developed:  Horvat, Markstrom

Prospects that look like they'll realistically play in the NHL for at least one full season minimum:  Podkolzin, Rathbone, Juolevi

 

Does Detroit, as of this writing, look even remotely close to having assembled this?..........after five years?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by Patel Bure

[IBatch]

5 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

 

Seems pretty straight forward to me?

 

One team paid a premium for their veteran leadership whereas the other acquires it with additional assets and (then, if desired) signs them to short, palatable deals that will never have to be cap-dump traded / bought-out / buried / get in the way of potential other deals. 

And the really really really funny thing about using Detroit as a comp, as with SJ and VAN no other teams won as much as they did for a 14 year period since 2000 started ... and guess what!   Holland was the cream of the crop for two decades and still couldn't rebuild them.  Way better then Stevie Y has even been considered.    Both teams started rebuilding at the same time although Detroit had a little head start.    Where are the two teams now?   Who's ahead of who?  And where is Holland now?  Stevie Y is going to find things a lot more difficult this time around.  They have state tax for one.   And didn't get a Hedman and a Stamkos to work with just a Larkin, Mantha and Bertuzzi really.