Are the Canucks elite in terms of converting draft picks into long term roster players?

[Chris12345]

The other thing to remember is you can't cherry pick certain picks.

 

For example, does Edmonton have the best management group ever because they selected Connor? Of course not.

 

So when the Canucks picked Hughes it's not really a home run. They did what they should have done.

 

Boeser? Probably a steal. Petey? Steal. Podkolzin? Still early to tell but realistically they did what they were supposed to.

 

Juolevi- strike out. 

 

Drafting Nate McKinnon isn't good drafting, it's simply not being incompetent.

[Patel Bure]

9 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Tampa has won two cups. Colorado is a strong annual SC contender. The Canucks have barely been able to win two games in a row.

Did we begin our rebuild at the same time they did?  The point of my OP was not to say that we are their equals, but to rather point out that we appear to be on a similar path to them.

[King Heffy]

5 minutes ago, Chris12345 said:

Drafting Nate McKinnon isn't good drafting, it's simply not being incompetent.

There were a lot of people suggesting that Jones should have been the 1OA at the time; he was even the top NA skater according to Central Scouting.  I would argue MacKinnon would be a good pick rather than the no-brainer at the time.

Edited October 11, 2021 by King Heffy

[Chris12345]

3 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

There were a lot of people suggesting that Jones should have been the 1OA at the time; he was even the top NA skater according to Central Scouting.  I would argue MacKinnon would be a good pick rather than the no-brainer at the time.

Yea true but would it really matter? Sure Nate is probably better but you get a number 1 forward or dman. Either way you've got a home run.

[Patel Bure]

13 minutes ago, Chris12345 said:

The other thing to remember is you can't cherry pick certain picks.

 

For example, does Edmonton have the best management group ever because they selected Connor? Of course not.

 

So when the Canucks picked Hughes it's not really a home run. They did what they should have done.

 

Boeser? Probably a steal. Petey? Steal. Podkolzin? Still early to tell but realistically they did what they were supposed to.

 

Juolevi- strike out. 

 

Drafting Nate McKinnon isn't good drafting, it's simply not being incompetent.

Boeser was a MASSIVE steal at 23.  The guy easily goes 10 or Top 10 in a redraft.  Even Petey should be considered a significant steal since he was off the radar of most GM’s.  Petey is likely the #2 pick in a redraft.  
 

Detroit and many other teams completely $&!# the bed in passing on Quinn Hughes.  Think Yzerman takes Zadina over Hughes again?  
 

The point I’m trying to make is that the Canucks have shown some significant skills as well during these drafts.  Yes, we lost on Virtanen and Juolevi, but our drafting as a whole has been superb.  It’s not even drafting.....it’s been the developing.  Little things like signing Ryan Miller so that Markstrom could cook a little more in the AHL, is a great example of Developing (and yes, I know we didn’t draft Markstrom).

 

Not trading Tanev for a 1st in 2016 so that guys like Markstrom, Hutton, Stecher, etc., wouldn’t be over burdened and over exerted is another example of protecting and insulating the kids.  Bringing in Prust so that Gaunce could develop.  All of these little examples of excellence even if a lot of these moves didn’t pan out.  That’s my point.

 

Bringing in Sutter to take defensive pressure off of the twins and Horvat.  
 

From 2013 to the present, we have drafted and developed at an elite level in my opinion.

Edited October 11, 2021 by Patel Bure

[wallstreetamigo]

16 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

Yes, Benning screwed the pooch with Virtanen and Juolevi, but those 8 aforementioned picks all go in the first round in a redraft.  Even Klimovich probably goes #1 in a redraft (and yes, I’m admitting that it’s *way* too early to make this claim).

 

Guys like Demko, Rathbone, and Hoglander clearly make up for the Virtanen and Juolevi screw ups.

 

-Horvat goes #5 in a redraft (yes, not a Benning pick but developed by Benning’s regime)

-Demko goes top 20

-Boeser goes around #10 or slightly higher

-Pettersson goes 2nd or 3rd overall.

-Rathbone goes somewhere in the first 

-Hughes goes top 5.

-Hoglander goes between 15-20.

-Some have argued that Podkolzin would have gone top 5 had he not committed to playing in Russia for two years.

-And like I said, in a 2021 redraft, Klimovich probably sneaks into the first round at 30-32.

 

So based on all this, I would still argue that Benning and his regime should be considered very strong in the drafting and developing department despite the Virtanen and Juolevi gaffes, and despite all of these supposed bled picks.  
 

Our overall picks to roster player conversion still seems to be elite.

 

Even departed players that didn’t pan out such as Hutton, Tryamkin, Gaudette, and Virtanen all got Atleast 1+ season in with us (two or more excluding Tryamkin).

 

What difference does a subjective opinion about where you think players would go in a redraft make in regard to an actual analysis?

 

Those players were taken where they were taken. 
 

Pretty sure Juolevi and Virtanen would go a lot lower too lol.

 

 

[Chris12345]

9 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

Boeser was a MASSIVE steal at 23.  The guy easily goes 10 or Top 10 in a redraft.  Even Petey should be considered a significant steal since he was off the radar of most GM’s.  Petey is likely the #2 pick in a redraft.  
 

Detroit and many other teams completely $&!# the bed in passing on Quinn Hughes.  Think Yzerman takes Zadina over Hughes again?  
 

The point I’m trying to make is that the Canucks have shown some significant skills as well during these drafts.  Yes, we lost on Virtanen and Juolevi, but our drafting as a whole has been superb.  It’s not even drafting.....it’s been the developing.  Little things like signing Ryan Miller so that Markstrom could cook a little more in the AHL, is a great example of Developing (and yes, I know we didn’t draft Markstrom).

 

Not trading Tanev for a 1st in 2016 so that guys like Markstrom, Hutton, Stecher, etc., wouldn’t be over burdened and over exerted is another example of protecting and insulating the kids.  Bringing in Prust so that Gaunce could develop.  All of these little examples of excellence even if a lot of these moves didn’t pan out.  That’s my point.

 

Bringing in Sutter to take defensive pressure off of the twins and Horvat.  
 

From 2013 to the present, we have drafted and developed at an elite level in my opinion.

I disagree but that's ok!

 

The fact that Hughes falls has no reflection on the drafting skills of Vancouver.  Montreal being inept has no impact on Van's ability to draft.

 

I do agree Boeser and Petey were steals. Hughes is just doing your job.

Edited October 11, 2021 by Chris12345

[wallstreetamigo]

7 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

Boeser was a MASSIVE steal at 23.  The guy easily goes 10 or Top 10 in a redraft.  Even Petey should be considered a significant steal since he was off the radar of most GM’s.  Petey is likely the #2 pick in a redraft.  
 

Detroit and many other teams completely $&!# the bed in passing on Quinn Hughes.  Think Yzerman takes Zadina over Hughes again?  
 

The point I’m trying to make is that the Canucks have shown some significant skills as well during these drafts.  Yes, we lost on Virtanen and Juolevi, but our drafting as a whole has been superb.  It’s not even drafting.....it’s been the developing.  Little things like signing Ryan Miller so that Markstrom could cook a little more in the AHL, is a great example of Developing (and yes, I know we didn’t draft Markstrom).

 

Not trading Tanev for a 1st in 2016 so that guys like Markstrom, Hutton, Stecher, etc., wouldn’t be over burdened and over exerted is another example of protecting and insulating the kids.  Bringing in Prust so that Gaunce could develop.  All of these little examples of excellence even if a lot of these moves didn’t pan out.  That’s my point.

 

Bringing in Sutter to take defensive pressure off of the twins and Horvat.  
 

From 2013 to the present, we have drafted and developed at an elite level in my opinion.

So Benning taking players where they should be taken after other GMs made these mistakes is somehow proof Benning is a mastermind?

 

Every home run pick Benning has made in the first round was largely a consensus pick when it was his turn to go to the podium. 

[Chris12345]

2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

So Benning taking players where they should be taken after other GMs made these mistakes is somehow proof Benning is a mastermind?

 

Every home run pick Benning has made in the first round was largely a consensus pick when it was his turn to go to the podium. 

Bingo. Just phone Button for a quarter and be done with it.

Edited October 11, 2021 by Chris12345

[NewbieCanuckFan]

1 hour ago, Patel Bure said:

but whatever way you slice it, Benning’s management team was the one that developed Horvat

Did anybody seriously think either Sedin would win the Art Ross trophy at the end of Nonis' tenure?  Or Kesler the Selke?  But I sure as heck ain't going to give Gillis for the development of those players.  Some guys will develop in spite of the environment they're in.

[Patel Bure]

47 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

What difference does a subjective opinion about where you think players would go in a redraft make in regard to an actual analysis?

 

Those players were taken where they were taken. 
 

Pretty sure Juolevi and Virtanen would go a lot lower too lol.

 

 

Fair enough.  

 

The main point that I'm making however, is that despite the Juolevi and Virtanen gaffes, the Benning regime has drafted and developed quite well, and that we've pretty much averaged one roster player per year since 2013 (and yes, to your point, the jury is still out on guys like Podkolzin, Rathbone, and even Hoglander).   

 

People often criticize Benning for having brought in expensive and ineffective vets, but the presence of those vets helped our kids develop in roles that were suitable for them at the time (which ultimately aided the development of those kids).  Furthermore, the vets, for the most part, did create an actual culture here (See Sabres Buffalo for what happens when you don't bring in the right vets to establish the right culture).   

 

And still - even though guys like Hutton, Virtanen, Gaudette, and Tryamkin didn't pan out for us, they were given every opportunity to succeed here.  No one can ever accuse the Canucks of not developing these guys properly or not giving them ample opportunities to succeed.

 

 

Team #BledPicks?

 

Garland-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Hoglander

Petan-Miller-Podkolzin

Highmore-Dickinson-Dowing

 

MacEwen

 

OEL-Myers

Hughes-Poolman

Rathbone-Schenn

 

Hunt

 

Demko

Halak

 

Cliffnotes:

Bold = drafted and developed picks. 

Underlined = players brought in directly or indirectly through our draft picks (i.e. 5th = Gaudette = Highmore).

Edited October 11, 2021 by Patel Bure

[Patel Bure]

1 minute ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Did anybody seriously think either Sedin would win the Art Ross trophy at the end of Nonis' tenure?  Or Kesler the Selke?  But I sure as heck ain't going to give Gillis for the development of those players.  Some guys will develop in spite of the environment they're in.

Completely agree with you that some guys will develop in spite of the environment they're in.  Absolutely no doubt.  To answer your questions however:

 

1) The twins were basically becoming superstars during the 05/06 season and so it wasn't completely inconceivable to believe that the twins were headed in that direction.  Nonis was still the GM even in 06/07, and 07/08.  

 

2) Kesler didn't develop his offensive game until Sundin got here (I always credit Sundin for taking Kesler under his wing - which was during the Gillis era), but Kesler's defensive game had already become quite evident prior to the Gillis era.  

 

As far as Horvat goes, he started in the A, and was given bottom 6 minutes in order to s-l-o-w-l-y develop his game in 2014-2015 (which subsequently raised a hilarious debate on HF that a "political play" was unweaving before our very eyes as Benning was deliberately holding Horvat back since Horvat was a Gillis guy).  Even though Horvat developed his game a lot that year and was particularly good in the playoffs, management still had the foresight to try and protect Horvat's development by bringing in the defensive-minded Brandon Sutter.  The plan was for Sutter to take on the tougher defensive match-ups so that Horvat and Henrik could focus more on the offensive-side of things.  To your point though, Sutter kept getting injured while here and so Horvat did develop here in spite of the environment. 

 

Still - it was clearly evident that management was bringing in a lot of these vets to guard the development of their next core.   

[wallstreetamigo]

11 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

Fair enough.  

 

The main point that I'm making however, is that despite the Juolevi and Virtanen gaffes, the Benning regime has drafted and developed quite well, and that we've pretty much averaged one roster player per year since 2013 (and yes, to your point, the jury is still out on guys like Podkolzin, Rathbone, and even Hoglander).   

 

People often criticize Benning for having brought in expensive and ineffective vets, but the presence of those vets helped our kids develop in roles that were suitable for them at the time (which ultimately aided the development of those kids).  Furthermore, the vets, for the most part, did create an actual culture here (See Sabres Buffalo for what happens when you don't bring in the right vets to establish the right culture).   

 

And still - even though guys like Hutton, Virtanen, Gaudette, and Tryamkin didn't pan out for us, they were given every opportunity to succeed here.  No one can ever accuse the Canucks of not developing these guys properly or not giving them ample opportunities to succeed.

 

 

Team #BledPicks?

 

Garland-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Hoglander

Petan-Miller-Podkolzin

Highmore-Dickinson-Dowing

 

MacEwen

 

OEL-Myers

Hughes-Poolman

Rathbone-Schenn

 

Hunt

 

Demko

Halak

Those high price, ineffective veterans actually blocked young players from roster spots.

 

Virtanen, Gaudette, and Tryamkin were all botched to varying degrees in their development by the Canucks.

 

They rushed Virtanen and as the years went by they did next to nothing to put him in a position that would minimize his weaknesses and maximize his strengths. He bears responsibility for a lot of it but he is in the KHL and has significantly reported character problems. The Canucks ignored that for a long time which didn’t help him.

 

Gaudette was never a good fit as a 3rd line defensive center but the Canucks tried to shoehorn him into that role rather than put him with offensive players to better suit his style and strengths. He was massively mismanaged by Canucks player development.

 

The Canucks punished Tryamkin, held him back, and tried to force him to be Pronger ffs. Then they basically told him to F off when he wanted to come back. He would sure look good now wouldn’t he?

 

The Canucks are among the worst teams in the NHL at developing anything other than sure thing players.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, Patel Bure said:

Juolevi was moved largely in part because Rathbone outperformed him and earned that 3rd pairing spot by merit.  Personally?  I would have placed Rathbone in Abby so that he could have logged bigger minutes.  As of this writing though, that 3rd pairing spot is Rathbone’s and it doesn’t look like he’ll be going anywhere anytime soon.

 

Podkolzin also looks like he’ll be playing alongside Miller and Petan.  Could either Podz or Bones be demoted in the future?  Obviously yes.  But as of right now, both players have made this team based on merit.

So what?

 

They have proven exactly nothing at the NHL level yet so saying they are examples of Benning’s elite level player development skill is just a bit premature.

[AV.]

If Benning was elite at converting draft picks into long-term roster players, we wouldn't be having this conversation eight seasons after his tenure started.

Hope this helps.

[Lancaster]

To be fair, draft position plays a huge role in it... for TBL, Stamkos was draft #1 overall, Hedman was draft #2.  Two franchise players in subsequent years.

Colorado with MacKinnon going #1, Landeskog as #2.  Makar and Bryam #4, Ratannen and Jost being top-10 picks.  

 

The Canucks screwed up on Virtanen and Juolevi.... but Horvat at #9, Boeser #23, Hughes at #7.... and earliest pick with Petersson at #5.  The Canucks didn't have the same quality of draft order as the other two teams.

 

That being said, TBL has done better outside of the 1st round... but one can take more risks when you have less holes in your lineup to fill.  

[Patel Bure]

37 minutes ago, AV. said:

If Benning was elite at converting draft picks into long-term roster players, we wouldn't be having this conversation eight seasons after his tenure started.

Hope this helps.

You were likely born in 1999 and have never experienced a rebuild as a fan before.

 

It's ok kid.  Rebuilds are a natural part of being a sports fan, just like growing hairs in places where you may not have had hair before.  

[AV.]

4 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

You were likely born in 1999 and have never experienced a rebuild as a fan before.

 

It's ok kid.  Rebuilds are a natural part of being a sports fan, just like growing hairs in places where you may not have had hair before.  

Huge cope energy with this post.

[Patel Bure]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Those high price, ineffective veterans actually blocked young players from roster spots.

 

Virtanen, Gaudette, and Tryamkin were all botched to varying degrees in their development by the Canucks.

 

They rushed Virtanen and as the years went by they did next to nothing to put him in a position that would minimize his weaknesses and maximize his strengths. He bears responsibility for a lot of it but he is in the KHL and has significantly reported character problems. The Canucks ignored that for a long time which didn’t help him.

 

Gaudette was never a good fit as a 3rd line defensive center but the Canucks tried to shoehorn him into that role rather than put him with offensive players to better suit his style and strengths. He was massively mismanaged by Canucks player development.

 

The Canucks punished Tryamkin, held him back, and tried to force him to be Pronger ffs. Then they basically told him to F off when he wanted to come back. He would sure look good now wouldn’t he?

 

The Canucks are among the worst teams in the NHL at developing anything other than sure thing players.

Agreed that the Canucks made a mistake in initially rushing Virtanen.  In my opinion, ownership and management made an ill advised move to try and market both Virtanen and McCann to the fans due to the success that Horvat had a year prior (i.e. stepping in and having a terrific rookie year).  However, management smartened up quite quickly and sent Virtanen down almost immediately. I also do NOT agree with you that the Canucks ignored Virtanen's character problems.  They tried to make him pay his dues in the AHL, and made him earn his ice time while on the big club.  Virtanen was punished whenever appropriate, and saw very limited ice-time in the bubble due to showing up out of shape.  Ultimately, it's why "party boys" such as Hutton, Virtanen, and Gaudette are no longer here.  

 

Agreed with you that Gaudette was never a good 3rd line defensive center, but he apparently did not feel comfortable playing on the wing (although he might be more comfortable there now). Also - Gaudette's game was so bad defensively, that his presence on either of the top two lines would be able to be justified.  Gaudette needed more time to develop his defensive game so that he could take on those top 6 roles. Maybe we does better in Chicago who knows.  As far as Tryamkin goes, he was never told to "eff off" when he wanted to come back.  Where are you getting this from?  The truth is, that the term and money simply didn't work for both sides, and it's even likely that Tryamkin had no intention of returning to North America at all (and if he did, why wouldn't he just sign a one year deal in KHL?).  In all likelihood, Tryamkin was using the Canucks salary offer as a negotiating tool.    I agree with you that Tryamkin may have been mismanaged here (due to the coaching staff), but Gaudette and Virtanen were handled in the correct manner for the most part.

[Patel Bure]

5 minutes ago, AV. said:

Huge cope energy with this post.

I don't know what this means, sorry kid.   :|