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

Draft edition: Benning vs the World

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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.

  • Hydration 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

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

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

  • RoughGame 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hydration 3
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Wat 1
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...