Draft edition: Benning vs the World

[4petesake]

31 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Wear Depends and you can 2 have them in public. 

 

 

46 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Wear Depends and you can 2 have them in public. 

Not sure Mrs. Alf would approve.

 

 

[Solinar]

1 hour ago, Patel Bure said:

Can you please show me a current NHL team that has drafted (consistently) “two NHL players per draft” that actually stuck with their teams beyond one season?  
 

Again, look at the Canucks:

 

Current:  Pettersson, Boeser, Hoglander, Horvat, Podkolzin, Hughes, Juolevi, Rathbone, Demko,

 

Incoming:  Dipietro

 

Former:  Virtanen, Gaudette, Tryamkin

 

Guys like Dickinson, Miller, Pearson, Garland, Highmore, and Motte were brought in from our picks (directly and indirectly).  
 

So again, I’m not sure if I’m understanding your argument.

 

Motte came in for Vrbata, Dickenson with a 3rd.  Pearson was for Gudbrandson.  Highmore was for Gaudette.  Miller and Garland were both gained with first round picks, the latter with the 9 oa.

 

But you have to look a little deeper.  Gudbranson and Sutter were both brought in with prospects/picks that could probably have garnered better players.  Forsling was traded for Clendening.  Vey was also the result of a 2nd.  So when I critique our pro scouting, it comes with an eye that the amateur scouting department has done a fabulous job establishing value and valuable players with the picks it has been allowed to use.  Whereas trading those picks has resulted in a bunch of meh players, most of which we usually have to walk away from in some form or another.  And we won't get into UFA signings that have handcuffed us and cost us in either cap space or assets to move.

  Our GM's major strength is his drafting, and he has a problem with trading his most valuable strength.  His major weaknesses is UFA and at the beginning of his tenure, trading for shortcuts in the teambuilding process.  All of these have been discussed ad nauseum.  And to ignore them on the basis of one thing is to not see the whole picture.  Our player pipeline is awesome, when you consider almost 50 years of futility to the point of Benning becoming GM.  So, yes, he's our best drafting GM in team history, but that's kind of sad considering how long it took to get someone to fix that.  And as we open a new window of competitiveness, we are constrained by the cap, once again, have to sign players to bridge contracts instead of locking them in long term, and still have questionable depth, which we could have had more of, if we had just ....drafted and stuck to the process.

  I hope we do well this year, but looking at the totality of the club, we've sacrificed the future once again, for the now, and although we have a bright now...it'll collapse if we don't keep drafting, and drafting well, and we can't afford to keep bleeding as many picks as we do, for what we do gain.

[Solinar]

One would also be wise to actually criticize our player development system, since most of our most successful additions to the club actually avoid our player development system, and the players that go thru it....name anyone in our top 9, or our top 4 on D that have gone thru our AHL development system in an impactful way.  That is very problematic.  Even Podkholzin, coming in this year, is the product of another teams development system.

[knucklehead91]

2 hours ago, Timråfan said:

Look at me as an objective person. 
That can give some hints. If you look at me as biased you miss the point of my post.

 

It’s indifferent if it’s hockey, medicine, science… I want credit to be given to the right person, at least an organisation that gives credit to the right people.

When Benning gave credit to Delorme it was a strategic choice of him wich in my view is very wrong.

Benning should be honest and not pad ”his” people as Inge was on his way to retirement.

Benning know Inge very well.

This is my objective view in any similar situation.

This is not because I dislike Benning.

There is a lot of men padding each others backs instead of being honest.

You can say I have high demands on every man who is GM.

 

Regarding communication it’s mostly his communication with media but there were also some bad communiction when Benning tried to get OEL last year and lost an all accounts. Didn’t all three of Stecher, Tanev and Toffoli say that they had to sign because Benning didn’t speak to them? Here it’s just memory so I can be mistaken. 

 

The troll bit from OP is that he choose to put Benning on a pidestal instead of recognice the whole organisation and value each part of it.

It’s not like Benning hasn’t been a heated discussion topic before.

That means the OP made a choice using title and direction of his post.

 

 

 You can call me a troll as much as you want, but you first of all missed the MASSIVE bold warning at the start of the topic in which I emphasized on "reading" and how there would be a lot of it.... In which you failed the 1st part, which was reading. You claim I did not give any credit to the entire organization???  Here, have a little shortened read.

20 hours ago, knucklehead91 said:

WARNING: THIS IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF READING...like...a lot...But it will be worth it

 

 

 

 

 

Now I know a lot of people might look at this chart and think "why the hell wouldn't we keep our pick?!?!"... At this point right now, we already have our core and its one hell of a core. So we can afford to actually move picks, so long as it returns a 1st round type of player and an impact player. We can sacrifice a year or two of high drafting due to the core we have and the trajectory it is on, its not like we are still in a full on rebuild. We have Wingers, we have Centres, Defensemen AND Goalies, all from our own organizations drafting. A lot of these teams that have drafted high and are producing a lot, dont have the other necessities like D or goaltending. Instead they are loaded up with offence. In a few years we can add a couple more 1st round selections into the roster while we are in the "win now mode" to help extend the window and add skill on a very cheap contract that may help give the team the edge in the playoffs in a best of 7. 

 

 

 

 

This is only considering draft picks from 2014 onward, there is no discussion about 2013 and prior. It is to compare Jim Benning and co. drafting, to the rest of the league over the last 7 years.

 

 

 

Part 3: Drafting: Benning's departure from Boston and his arrival in Vancouver

 

Benning departed Boston in mid Spring of 2014. He was hired in Vancouver and the announcement was made official in May 21st, 2014. 

 

Staff History

Jim Benning

 

Boston Bruins	Assistant General Manager	Jul 14, 2007 - May 20, 2014	44 - 51	6 Years, 10 Months, 6 Days
Vancouver Canucks	General Manager	May 21, 2014 - Present	51 -	7 Years, 2 Months, 13 Days

 

 

 

Important to note about a few dates and timelines

• May 20th 2014, Jim Benning departs Boston
• May 21st 2014, Jim Benning is hired by Vancouver
• June 27th 2014 the first round of the NHL Entry Draft takes place (This is 5 weeks after hiring Benning)
• 2008-2015 Eric Crawford was the head of scouting and Director of Player Personnel with the Vancouver Canucks

 

So just to touch on this quickly, the 2014 draft, known in Vancouver as the "Virtanen" and "McCann" draft was the Benning's 1st draft as we all know and that he had just joined the club in 2014. 

Benning's first draft was ultimately big letdown. But in the long run we found our #1 Goalie in Demko when we look back at it. But lets look at the events leading up to the draft and the eventual outcomes since that day.

 

Now prior to joining Vancouver, Jim Benning was working with Boston and the upcoming draft. Boston was drafting near the bottom of the first round and they had their eyes and expectations on players much later in the round. Benning jumped ship May 21st 2014 and joined Vancouver, where he and his team had 5 weeks to come up with a game plan for the draft. 5 weeks is not much time and after hiring Benning, no other changes were really made to the organization. Still.... intact was the scouting department and who they had their eyes and sights set on their guy. Virtanen was ranked in the top 10 by many experts in the final stretch, he had all the tools and had exceptional potential to be the player coaches dreamed about. A highly skilled power forward with speed, size, hands and shot..... Just not the IQ level. Even Craig Button had JV at #6 in his final draft rankings.

https://mapleleafshotstove.com/2014/06/24/tsn-2014-nhl-mock-draft-with-craig-button/

 

How much say did Benning have and how much studying was he able to do in 5 weeks, to say for certain Virtanen was the guy he wanted to draft? Benning had spent quite a significant amount of time debating on players much lower in the draft with Boston and now all of the sudden he goes from the bottom 10 to the top 10 of the draft and has 5 weeks to make a decision. That doesn't allow a lot of time for Benning to definitively say "this is our guy". Crawford and his scouting department had done their work and the influence to draft Virtanen and McCann was a decision made due to the amount of time invested in scouting from the Canucks organization prior to Benning's arrival. I do not believe this was a 100% Benning call, due to only being with Vancouver for 5 weeks and he was previously working with Boston and working with their scouts on different players around Boston's draft position.

 

Since Benning made changes to that department we have drafted quite well. Boeser, Hughes, Pettersson, Hoglander, Rathbone, Podkolzin etc. Demko was the best draft pick next to Horvat under Crawford's watch. 

 

Don't want to believe me? Look at how our drafting has changed for the better since Crawford was removed in 2015 and then look at how Montreal's drafting has been since Crawford joined them in 2016..... YIKES.

 

Staff History

Eric Crawford

 

TEAM	POSITION	DATE SPAN	AGE SPAN	DURATION
Vancouver Canucks	Director of Pro Scouting	2008 - 2013	34 - 39	5 Years
Vancouver Canucks	Director of Player Personnel	2013 - 2015	39 - 41	2 Years
Montreal Canadiens	Director of Pro Scouting	2016 - Present	42 -	5 Years

 

Just keep in mind, Crawford was also the guy who was feeding Gillis his influence on picks.... Which may explain why Gillis failed to produce anything more than Horvat... and Hutton..... I guess?

 

 

 

I think we can all say that our drafting was changed instantaneously after removing Crawford and I think Crawfords time in Montreal just goes to prove that he was a problem here. Sure we matched Boston in games played in that 2014 draft, but our point production was smashed by them. Judd Brackett had a huge part to play in our drafting after that, but I'm sure that the drafting we have done this past 6 years will be enough to not worry about our drafting too much for a couple years. I also have faith in the group of guys in place to keep our drafting a success along the way. We have a great looking core and a lot of exciting prospects in the works, our youth is beginning to take over and the league will be at our mercy in no time at all. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• So first off @Timråfan not even 2 paragraphs in, I mentioned the ORGANIZATION'S failure of drafting prior to Benning arriving.
• Pretty much right after that I stated "Benning and co. drafting" AKA Benning and company, his STAFF Incase you dont understand what co. means. It means I am talking about the entire group behind the scenes who provide the information that Benning then makes a decision on
• At another point in my OP I break down Benning's timeline of leaving Boston, joining Vancouver and the draft being shortly after him arriving. I also highlighted and added in Eric Crawford who was THE HEAD OF THE SCOUTING DEPARTMENT
• I also point out that it was Benning's choice to select Virtanen and McCann, as he is the man who has the final say. Albeit he did not have much time to study the guys he was choosing, he took the work of the Canucks scouting department and who they as scouts wanted to see us draft. Benning could have said no, but he went with the work that was done by Eric Crawford and his personnel.
• I clearly stated that Benning had joined Vancouver and when he arrived, that THE SCOUTING DEPARTMENT was still intact and no changes had been made at that point. I even mention that Benning was working with Boston's scouts which, I would assume you would understand that means he works with our scouts too and isn't just doing it all on his own.
• I EVEN SAID "BENNING AND HIS TEAM" had 5 weeks to come up with a decision... TEEEEEEEEEE....MMMMMMMUH. Not just Benning
• I then go to point out right after that, he made CHANGES TO THE SCOUTING DEPARTMENT AND HOW WE HAVE DONE VERY WELL AT DRAFTING SINCE THOSE CHANGES I even mention Crawford and his credit for helping influence the selection on Demko and Horvat. So no I am not biased.
• I then point out just how bad things were under Crawford and show his employment timeline and I urged people to read (Not that you did much of that) up on Crawford's timeline in Vancouver from 2008-2015 and then his timeline in Montreal of 2015-present to see just how poorly the drafting has been from 2008-present, under Crawfords watch. It is frightening for a Montreal fan to look at the lack of drafting the past 6 years and to see that they are about to lose a lot of pieces to this aged roster outside of a few players. Their team and organization is heading for a really depressing time. 
• I EVEN STATED THAT CRAWFORD WAS THE ONE INFLUENCING GILLIS AND THAT MAY EXPLAIN WHY GILLIS HAD NOTHING TO SHOW OUTSIDE OF HORVAT. THAT IS SHOWING ZERO BIAS TOWARDS ONE GM OR THE OTHER. I am pointing out a serious issue that was never addressed until Benning
• 2 paragraphs from the bottom of the post that you failed to read I clearly state that ever since Crawford was removed, OUR drafting has changed INSTANTANEOUSLY. In that very same paragraph I credited Judd Brackett for his work and then I confidently state I HAVE FAITH IN THE GUYS WE HAVE IN PLACE TO KEEP OUR DRAFTING A SUCCESS

 

 

Try this next time........READING.

 

Thats like 15 times I have given credit or eluded to the fact there are other people involved in the work leading up to the draft and you accuse me of giving zero credit? Lmao troll harder bud. Your despise for Benning is so blatantly obvious you couldnt read an entire article with his name in it and only focus on him. You are the one who made it solely about Benning and you couldnt even see the fact I had indeed mentioned the people in place that bring forth information. Benning has the final say. His choice of the recommended players around that pick number is the guy we walk away with and so far its been quite a few players that have turned into NHLers and are better than the guys drafted ahead of them.

Edited August 4, 2021 by knucklehead91

[Gurn]

1 hour ago, 4petesake said:

 

 

Not sure Mrs. Alf would approve.

 

 

Ttttthhhhaaaannnnnnnnk you.

[Patel Bure]

56 minutes ago, Solinar said:

 

Motte came in for Vrbata, Dickenson with a 3rd.  Pearson was for Gudbrandson.  Highmore was for Gaudette.  Miller and Garland were both gained with first round picks, the latter with the 9 oa.

 

But you have to look a little deeper.  Gudbranson and Sutter were both brought in with prospects/picks that could probably have garnered better players.  Forsling was traded for Clendening.  Vey was also the result of a 2nd.  So when I critique our pro scouting, it comes with an eye that the amateur scouting department has done a fabulous job establishing value and valuable players with the picks it has been allowed to use.  Whereas trading those picks has resulted in a bunch of meh players, most of which we usually have to walk away from in some form or another.  And we won't get into UFA signings that have handcuffed us and cost us in either cap space or assets to move.

  Our GM's major strength is his drafting, and he has a problem with trading his most valuable strength.  His major weaknesses is UFA and at the beginning of his tenure, trading for shortcuts in the teambuilding process.  All of these have been discussed ad nauseum.  And to ignore them on the basis of one thing is to not see the whole picture.  Our player pipeline is awesome, when you consider almost 50 years of futility to the point of Benning becoming GM.  So, yes, he's our best drafting GM in team history, but that's kind of sad considering how long it took to get someone to fix that.  And as we open a new window of competitiveness, we are constrained by the cap, once again, have to sign players to bridge contracts instead of locking them in long term, and still have questionable depth, which we could have had more of, if we had just ....drafted and stuck to the process.

  I hope we do well this year, but looking at the totality of the club, we've sacrificed the future once again, for the now, and although we have a bright now...it'll collapse if we don't keep drafting, and drafting well, and we can't afford to keep bleeding as many picks as we do, for what we do gain.

Motte came in from Vanek actually. but I had forgotten about that as well (figured he was acquired for a 3rd rounder).  

 

Pearson was straight up for Gudbranson, but Gudbranson was initially acquired for McCann (1st), 2nd, and a 4th.  Hence, my comments (i.e. Pearson, in an indirect way, was acquired through our draft picks).

 

You might be right about Sutter and Gudbranson, but what a lot of people forget is just how hard it is to acquire young RHD 'stay at home defensemen'.  Guys like that very rarely become available. Don't believe me?  Try and see what the cost would to acquire Carlo, Cernak, Dumba, Mayfield, or Pesce.  The Canucks took a calculated risk on Gudbranson because if Gudbranson would have been able to pan out, the Canucks would have been able to move Tanev for a 1st round pick AND not sink our defense in doing so (i.e. overexerting Hutton, Stecher, etc.) since Gudbranson would have been able to hold the fort (if he had panned out which he obviously didn't).

 

Sutter is a similar story.  The Canucks needed a '2B' center that could help take the defensive load of the team so that both Henrik and Horvat could focus more on their natural offensive roles.  Young RHD centres with face-off ability, PK ability, and ability to play 2nd line minutes are very rarely made available.  Benning took a gamble here and lost.  It happens, but it wasn't the end of the world.  

 

Also - you seem to be neglecting the fact that many of Benning's moves weren't made (between 2015-2019) because Benning was trying to "win the Stanley cup."  Benning brought in a lot of the guys that he did because.......

 

1) They were renowned locker room leaders

2) They came from winning environments

3) Their presence, even if they weren't as good as they once were, would prevent kids in our system from playing in roles that they weren't ready for.  

 

You talk about a lot of Benning's bad moves as a GM but fail to take into account guys like Miller, Pearson, Garland, Motte, and Highmore.  

 

Rebuilds are a common part of pro sports and I've yet to see Benning's Canucks do anything "out of the ordinary" in a negative way.  We went through something similar in the mid-late 90's.

 

2015: 1st round / 1996 = 1st round

2016: DNQ / 1997 = DNQ

2017: DNQ / 1998 = DNQ

2018: DNQ / 1999 = DNQ

2019: DNQ / 2000 = DNQ

2020: 2nd round / 2001 = 1st round

2021:  DNQ / 2002 = 1st round

 

And now the Canucks look like they will be trending upwards again as a playoff team.  4 years straight of missing the playoffs + non-linear progression is to be expected (i.e. remember how the Canucks made the 2nd round in 2007 and then missed the playoffs in 2008?.......what happened from 2008-2013?)

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser / acquired-draft-draft

Hoglander-Horvat-Garland / draft-draft-acquired

Pearson-Dickinson/Podkolzin / acquired-acquired-draft

Motte-Sutter-Highmore / acquired-acquired-acquired

 

OEL-Hamonic / acquired-signed

Hughes-Poolman / draft-signed

[JuoleviORRathbone]-Myers / draft-signed

 

Demko / draft

Halak / signed

 

To me, the above demonstrates that Benning has done well with both drafting and acquiring players.  

 

So, with respect to your post, I'm not entirely sure that I understand your criticism.  

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Patel Bure

[CanuckleHorse]

20 hours ago, iinatcc said:

Sorry I didn't read all that. But I think Drafting was never Benning's problem, he's actually a pretty good B+ drafter. Heck even in his inaugural year he drafted McCann, Forsling, and Demko. Of course the fact he traded 2 out of those 3 for basically nothing shows Benning's problem is more with asset management. 

 

Though the David Pastrnak thing is a headscratcher to me. He was drafted right after McCann and drafted by his former team. How did Benning miss out on this?

I’m thinking some sort of agreement was in place so the Canucks used their draft scouting and Benning was there for show.

[Devron]

Best part is there’s a few players drafted that not many people mention that I think will be serviceable players.

 

-Lockwood

-Woo

-Jasek might be a guy that comes over after a year in Europe

-Possibly Gadj?

-Kunz, interested to see how his year goes this year

-I can see a couple players coming out of this draft too. Klimovich and Gabrielson maybe. 
-Joulevi still could end up a top 4 I think. This year will be a telling sign of what we truly have there

 

Anyways great stuff. I had a disagreement with a fella here the other day and something that anti Benning people like to bring up and thats the who was in charge of the pick. It’s the most asinine argument.

 

What I care about is the results, the results don’t lie and Benning has been the GM for all of it. It’s a team effort, Benning is the face of it.

 

 

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Solinar said:

 

Motte came in for Vrbata, Dickenson with a 3rd.  Pearson was for Gudbrandson.  Highmore was for Gaudette.  Miller and Garland were both gained with first round picks, the latter with the 9 oa.

 

But you have to look a little deeper.  Gudbranson and Sutter were both brought in with prospects/picks that could probably have garnered better players.  Forsling was traded for Clendening.  Vey was also the result of a 2nd.  So when I critique our pro scouting, it comes with an eye that the amateur scouting department has done a fabulous job establishing value and valuable players with the picks it has been allowed to use.  Whereas trading those picks has resulted in a bunch of meh players, most of which we usually have to walk away from in some form or another.  And we won't get into UFA signings that have handcuffed us and cost us in either cap space or assets to move.

  Our GM's major strength is his drafting, and he has a problem with trading his most valuable strength.  His major weaknesses is UFA and at the beginning of his tenure, trading for shortcuts in the teambuilding process.  All of these have been discussed ad nauseum.  And to ignore them on the basis of one thing is to not see the whole picture.  Our player pipeline is awesome, when you consider almost 50 years of futility to the point of Benning becoming GM.  So, yes, he's our best drafting GM in team history, but that's kind of sad considering how long it took to get someone to fix that.  And as we open a new window of competitiveness, we are constrained by the cap, once again, have to sign players to bridge contracts instead of locking them in long term, and still have questionable depth, which we could have had more of, if we had just ....drafted and stuck to the process.

  I hope we do well this year, but looking at the totality of the club, we've sacrificed the future once again, for the now, and although we have a bright now...it'll collapse if we don't keep drafting, and drafting well, and we can't afford to keep bleeding as many picks as we do, for what we do gain.

Small little detail, but Motte came in for a different scoring winger (Vanek).  

 

You know when you lay out all the trades here I have to say that there has been a noticeable change in our pro scouting department.  

Some of the early moves were very questionable as you say.  Although I understood at the time why we had to move some picks to fill out the big hole in our organization that extended from 18 year olds all the way to 26-27 year olds, I can't argue that getting guys like Vey, Granlund, (Sven was actually worth it if not for his concussions), Gudbranson and Sutter didn't cost more then it was worth it.  

 

I did start seeing a positive uptick in our pro scouting though about three-four years ago, right around the time that we acquired guys like Motte, Nic Dowd (who went on to be a key bottom 6 guy for Capitals' cup team), Luke Schenn (2 cups with Tampa), JT Miller, and even Toffoli (let's leave it at that with Tofu haha). The only recent move that hasn't really worked out was Schmidt.  Getting Highmore for Gaudette last year is looking like a good deal for me so far.  I'm pretty hopeful that all the new acquisitions will work out well for us.  

 

On the subject of bridge deals, we really should have enough money to go mid-term with both Elias and Quinn.  These numbers that are being asked for and speculated are way higher then they should be signing for.  I don't believe that Elias deserves more then Barzal, and Quinn is more of a MacAvoy then a Heiskanen or Makar. 

 

I think that we have entered a very dangerous territory in terms of the amount of losing that we have gone through with this core.  Having more cap flexibility would be nice, but suffering another miserable season might've resulted in JT Miller and Horvat wanting out which would've been more damaging IMO.  

[Guest]

@Devron44 

 

Aiden McDonaugh is trending quite well.  

Zlodeyev and Costmar are still longshots to make it but had as good of a season as you could expect from 6th and 7th rounders.  

Focht came into the AHL and had a very strong first year.  He did as well as Lockwood despite being two years younger.  

[knucklehead91]

30 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

Motte came in from Vanek actually. but I had forgotten about that as well (figured he was acquired for a 3rd rounder).  

 

Pearson was straight up for Gudbranson, but Gudbranson was initially acquired for McCann (1st), 2nd, and a 4th.  Hence, my comments (i.e. Pearson, in an indirect way, was acquired through our draft picks).

 

You might be right about Sutter and Gudbranson, but what a lot of people forget is just how hard it is to acquire young RHD 'stay at home defensemen'.  Guys like that very rarely become available. Don't believe me?  Try and see what the cost would to acquire Carlo, Cernak, Dumba, Mayfield, or Pesce.  The Canucks took a calculated risk on Gudbranson because if Gudbranson would have been able to pan out, the Canucks would have been able to move Tanev for a 1st round pick AND not sink our defense in doing so (i.e. overexerting Hutton, Stecher, etc.) since Gudbranson would have been able to hold the fort (if he had panned out which he obviously didn't).

 

Sutter is a similar story.  The Canucks needed a '2B' center that could help take the defensive load of the team so that both Henrik and Horvat could focus more on their natural offensive roles.  Young RHD centres with face-off ability, PK ability, and ability to play 2nd line minutes are very rarely made available.  Benning took a gamble here and lost.  It happens, but it wasn't the end of the world.  

 

Also - you seem to be neglecting the fact that many of Benning's moves weren't made (between 2015-2019) because Benning was trying to "win the Stanley cup."  Benning brought in a lot of the guys that he did because.......

 

1) They were renowned locker room leaders

2) They came from winning environments

3) Their presence, even if they weren't as good as they once were, would prevent kids in our system from playing in roles that they weren't ready for.  

 

You talk about a lot of Benning's bad moves as a GM but fail to take into account guys like Miller, Pearson, Garland, Motte, and Highmore.  

 

Rebuilds are a common part of pro sports and I've yet to see Benning's Canucks do anything "out of the ordinary" in a negative way.  We went through something similar in the mid-late 90's.

 

2015: 1st round / 1996 = 1st round

2016: DNQ / 1997 = DNQ

2017: DNQ / 1998 = DNQ

2018: DNQ / 1999 = DNQ

2019: DNQ / 2000 = DNQ

2020: 2nd round / 2001 = 1st round

2021:  DNQ / 2002 = 1st round

 

And now the Canucks look like they will be trending upwards again as a playoff team.  4 years straight of missing the playoffs + non-linear progression is to be expected (i.e. remember how the Canucks made the 2nd round in 2007 and then missed the playoffs in 2008?.......what happened from 2008-2013?)

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser / acquired-draft-draft

Hoglander-Horvat-Garland / draft-draft-acquired

Pearson-Dickinson/Podkolzin / acquired-acquired-draft

Motte-Sutter-Highmore / acquired-acquired-acquired

 

OEL-Hamonic / acquired-signed

Hughes-Poolman / draft-signed

[JuoleviORRathbone]-Myers / draft-signed

 

Demko / draft

Halak / signed

 

To me, the above demonstrates that Benning has done well with both drafting and acquiring players.  

 

So, with respect to your post, I'm not entirely sure that I understand your criticism.  

 

Well f***in said my man.

Im relieved to see fans actually understand the logic behind some of Bennings moves that just didnt pan out, such as the Gudbranson move. My next project is going to be breaking down the big trades and signings since Benning arrived. And to illustrate the intentions/hopes of the choices made, unfortunately a lot didnt pan out and for many reasons, but the thought behind each move has been calculated and not just blindly made at will

 

Great post man

[Patel Bure]

1 hour ago, knucklehead91 said:

Well f***in said my man.

Im relieved to see fans actually understand the logic behind some of Bennings moves that just didnt pan out, such as the Gudbranson move. My next project is going to be breaking down the big trades and signings since Benning arrived. And to illustrate the intentions/hopes of the choices made, unfortunately a lot didnt pan out and for many reasons, but the thought behind each move has been calculated and not just blindly made at will

 

Great post man

Thanks homie.

 

My only advice to you would be to make your post with the right audience in mind.  Last thing you would want to do is post that on a place like HF Canucks where people would automatically dismiss your post.......or even accuse you of trolling.  But yes - posting your intended post on here would be great!

[Dumb Nuck]

Just curious, what is the record for the thread containing the most words? I have a feeling this thread will be vying for the record before next season starts.

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Dumb Nuck said:

Just curious, what is the record for the thread containing the most words? I have a feeling this thread will be vying for the record before next season starts.

 

I think it's somewhere around the 5,000 mark, which coincides with the amount of money that people wasted on the Fire Benning banner. 

[spook007]

6 hours ago, Timråfan said:

Look at me as an objective person. 
That can give some hints. If you look at me as biased you miss the point of my post.

 

It’s indifferent if it’s hockey, medicine, science… I want credit to be given to the right person, at least an organisation that gives credit to the right people.

When Benning gave credit to Delorme it was a strategic choice of him wich in my view is very wrong.

Benning should be honest and not pad ”his” people as Inge was on his way to retirement.

Benning know Inge very well.

This is my objective view in any similar situation.

This is not because I dislike Benning.

There is a lot of men padding each others backs instead of being honest.

You can say I have high demands on every man who is GM.

 

Regarding communication it’s mostly his communication with media but there were also some bad communiction when Benning tried to get OEL last year and lost an all accounts. Didn’t all three of Stecher, Tanev and Toffoli say that they had to sign because Benning didn’t speak to them? Here it’s just memory so I can be mistaken. 

 

The troll bit from OP is that he choose to put Benning on a pidestal instead of recognice the whole organisation and value each part of it.

It’s not like Benning hasn’t been a heated discussion topic before.

That means the OP made a choice using title and direction of his post.

 

 

Can we all agree Benning made the picks, regardless of which info he relied on, where or whom he got it from, is kind of irrelevant.

If not how do we compare anyone? Who advised Burke about the Sedins? Nobody cares, or discusses that. Did he go to Sweden to check them out or any of the others? 

The thing is, as a GM you are responsible and thus takes the accolades / beatings, which ever way it goes. 

 

As for the OP putting Benning on a pedestal, I think its fair to say, its more a reaction to a lot of the negativity coming from certain parts of CDC.

[spook007]

2 hours ago, Devron44 said:

Best part is there’s a few players drafted that not many people mention that I think will be serviceable players.

 

-Lockwood

-Woo

-Jasek might be a guy that comes over after a year in Europe

-Possibly Gadj?

-Kunz, interested to see how his year goes this year

-I can see a couple players coming out of this draft too. Klimovich and Gabrielson maybe. 
-Joulevi still could end up a top 4 I think. This year will be a telling sign of what we truly have there

 

Anyways great stuff. I had a disagreement with a fella here the other day and something that anti Benning people like to bring up and thats the who was in charge of the pick. It’s the most asinine argument.

 

What I care about is the results, the results don’t lie and Benning has been the GM for all of it. It’s a team effort, Benning is the face of it.

 

 

Bingo....

20 years from nobody will discuss, who saw X in Russia, Sweden or Idaho... Only whether it was a good or bad pick. And who was the GM making the pick...

Couldn't agree more if I tried. 

[lmm]

16 hours ago, Alflives said:

Thanks OP.  Excellent read.  Your clearly prove Benning is excellent at the draft.  And that the Leafs are LOSERS, which we all enjoy very much. 

actually I find Canuck fans obsession with the leafs a sign that we are a bunch of losers

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, lmm said:

actually I find Canuck fans obsession with the leafs a sign that we are a bunch of losers

Haha yeah I don't get it...  

 

I always cheer for Boston, Calgary, Chicago and Edmonton to lose.  Don't get the fascination with Toronto. 

[4petesake]

Just now, VancouverHabitant said:

Haha yeah I don't get it...  

 

I always cheer for Boston, Calgary, Chicago and Edmonton to lose.  Don't get the fascination with Toronto. 

I can’t speak for anyone else but my dislike comes from some obnoxious friends & co-workers in the past. I just grew to root for their failure after too many ridiculous boasts and cup-winning predictions. Media that feels the need to report on every burp or fart that emanates from there doesn’t help either.

[Timråfan]

1 hour ago, spook007 said:

As for the OP putting Benning on a pedestal, I think its fair to say, its more a reaction to a lot of the negativity coming from certain parts of CDC.

Do you really think it's better to put fuel to the fire?

Why not take a middle approach instead of instigate.

If he had chosen to be mature instead of a reaction, everyone had enjoyed his post.