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

[wallstreetamigo]

This whole topic is attempting to give full credit to Benning even for things he had nothing to do with (like drafting Horvat) while also making a bunch of apples and oranges comparisons with other teams.

 

A team making the playoffs or not does not exist in a vacuum as an example. It depends on a lot of factors like the strength of other teams in their division and their conference as a whole. Not making the playoffs in the weakest division in hockey is different than not making it in a stacked division. 
 

If picking a player at a certain spot is a drafting win for Benning based on other GM’s not picking that player, then that same logic has to apply to players picked after a Benning pick who were better than who he picked and used as a negative to his record.

 

I struggle identifying 1st or 2nd round players drafted by Benning who were a clear home run. They were pretty much in the consensus group of players for that draft position, especially after other teams passed on them. Still good picks but not where no one else would have taken them if they had that pick.
 

 

[Timråfan]

32 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

Hey, 

 

Sorry for my late response.  This is actually a legitimately good question by you and for that, I do not have an answer.  A lot of our guys that graduated to the NHL (Hoglander, Podkolzin, Rathbone, etc) did so without being in our farm.  
 

Outside of our goalies (Markstrom, Demko, and Dipietro) whom we developed, it only seems like some of our bottom guys are the ones breaking through to a certain extent (Gaudette, MacEwen).

 

Perhaps this is indicative of a poor AHL system, but it may also be indicative that we scout and draft these gems so well in the draft, that a lot of guys that are TRULY ready, simply develop their games rapidly in juniors, college, or European/Russian leagues abroad, and simply don’t need the AHL.

 

To answer your question however, I think the performance of Klimovich in Abottsford could be very revealing of what our system in Abby is actually like.  Perhaps the jury is still out with regards to the efficacy of our AHL system.

I think the jury is set to deliver the verdict and it’s not a good one for Cullen, Green and Beening et al.

It might be a difference with Abbotsford as it’s closer. But they have the same head coach that take the same instructions from Green and Benning.

 

Regarding the breaking… Gaudette were at his best when he was full of energy directly from Utica. Then he faded away when the battery slowed down.

MacEwan looks lost sometimes when he defends. His only advantage is fighting wich is just plain stupid. 
Save Klimovich by put him on roster instantly. 

[RU SERIOUS]

9 hours ago, IBatch said:

Not a star - above average compared to his peers when drafting.    Don't forget Adam Gaudette, McAan, JV, and others that played 100-300 games...they count despite whatever else occurred with them at least as far as drafting goes.   Calling him below average either puts you in the bracket of people that really don't understand the draft and how many actually make it (not much more then one a year per team) to 100-200 games depending on which round (second and beyond, the first), what constitutes as a bust based on where they were drafted (how many games should be expected from a 6th overall?), or in the bracket that just hates JB.   Or both? 

 

Edit:  Since JB started, we went the very bottom of the league - not just the bottom but significantly below the bottom, with only Horvat and Hutton in the stable ... MG tenure was a black hole for us worse then it should have been given not many picks were used, one first rounder for Ballard .... and within two short years we're middle of the pack ... a year later 13th...that Demko draft was very good.    Talking about best 21 and under groups here.   We ended up top three for a period of three years despite never drafting above 5....that's impossible to say below average.   

 

We have three players ranking in the top 25 and unders...that's 8 drafts ... you do the math.   Each team should have .75 of one guy or so.   Of course drafting around 10 on average over that time ... well maybe we should have 1.5 guys?   But we don't.   That's above average.   Quality and quantity count when it comes to these things.    But your probably the same guy who will complain if EP doesn't score more then a PGP this year.    Yes we've busted on OJ and JV...Yakupov...Glass, Patrick - well a bevy of others have so far too based on where they were drafted to varying degrees too.   JV never learned how to be a pro off the ice too.   That can be added to JB failures i'm fine with that.   JB might be gone after this year who knows, but his legacy as far as drafting goes will remain, and has decent odds of becoming the second best we've ever had.    Despite where we drafted.   

Well, despite what all the uncle Jim Supporters like to believe - the BOTTOM LINE is that we finished 24th overall last year and missed the playoffs for the umpteenth time under his rule.   Results Matter not who's the fanciest finesse player! Enough said!

[Fred65]

The best success by drafted players that arrived already developed ie EP, BB,NH, QH with the exception of Demko. I just don't see which youngster that were drafted and then developed in the farm team and become succesul NHL players. There' mus be some but  I just can't call them to mind

[lmm]

18 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

I don’t think Benning is the best at drafting in the NHL.  What I will say is that from 2013-2019, the Canucks have converted picks into roster players at similar levels of efficiency to Colorado and Tampa; two teams that are generally regarded as being elite in terms of drafting and developing.

 

Our drafting and developing period from 2013-2019 suggests that this whole notion of the Canucks having “bled picks” is an unfounded worry since we’ve averaged one roster player per year since 2013.

in the 6 years 2010-2015 Buffalo produced 12 players 

[Shirotashi]

18 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Also, Tampa in terms of drafting and player development kicks the $&!# out of Benning. It’s not even close.

You would not have said that back in the day when Tampa was just developing into a playoff caliber team.

We need to see what we have in guys like Demko and Miller and Petey etc. before we start making 

any comparisons between us and Tampa bay. It could be more than close.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, Shirotashi said:

You would not have said that back in the day when Tampa was just developing into a playoff caliber team.

We need to see what we have in guys like Demko and Miller and Petey etc. before we start making 

any comparisons between us and Tampa bay. It could be more than close.

Or it could be way worse. That’s my point. It’s not a realistic comparison at all at this point.

[wallstreetamigo]

When Benning gets a Brayden Point in the 3rd round and develops him into a top flight nhl star, then we can talk. 

[Patel Bure]

44 minutes ago, lmm said:

in the 6 years 2010-2015 Buffalo produced 12 players 

How many of those guys are still on the team?  

[lmm]

4 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

How many of those guys are still on the team?  

Jack Eichel, hahahaha

point is your methodology is substandard

bad teams play more picks that would not make a better team

[Patel Bure]

20 minutes ago, lmm said:

Jack Eichel, hahahaha

point is your methodology is substandard

bad teams play more picks that would not make a better team

Granted that inferior teams play more picks that would otherwise usually not make most teams, but have the Canucks really done that?

 

1) Outside of the ill-advised push of McCann and Virtanen into the line-up back in 2015 (I attribute this to management/ownership trying to increase fan interest), name another time where the Canucks pushed a kid into the line-up without merit or justification?  I would argue that since the Virtanen/McCann fiasco's, the Canucks have done a great job of keeping a merit-based system, be it Baertschi displacing Higgins, Motte displacing Gagner, moving on from Burrows, Bieksa, Hansen, etc.  When the Canucks have felt that their kids warranted certain roles and spots in the line-up based on demonstrated ability, they were granted these positions.......and this ties into my 'methodology' in this thread.

 

Teams like Buffalo and Edmonton (2006-2015) are great examples of teams that pushed their kids into the line-up prematurely, which then ultimately led to all/most of these kids leaving the team at some point (mainly due to not panning out).  That is why my 'methodology' in this exercise, involves asking as to how many picks actually convert into roster players, *and stick*.  

 

I agree with guys like @wallstreetamigothat it's *way* too premature to label guys like Rathbone and Podkolzin as "guys that have stuck," but we appear to be trending in the right direction.  Like I said - despite all of our supposed bled picks, we've managed to bring in new kids to the line-up almost each and every year.  Have they all panned out?  No.  Hutton, Virtanen, McCann, Tryamkin, and Gaudette are examples.  Still - guys like Horvat, Demko (2nd rounder), Boeser, Pettersson, Rathbone (still needs to prove), Hughes, Hoglander, and Podkolzin (still needs to prove) definitely appear to be trending into "long term fixtures."  

 

Zack MacEwen wasn't drafted, but he might end up being a guy that 'went through our farm' to become a mainstay here.  Lockwood may not be too far either.  And to your point, none of these guys are simply being gifted spots.  

 

I might be looking at things through rosy coloured glasses, but from where I sit, the Nucks seems to be converting picks into full-time and long term roster players in a legit way. All this talk of having "bled picks" seems to be unfounded when you consider this fact.  We don't have much in the pipeline because most of the guys in our pipeline graduated to the big club!

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, Patel Bure said:

Granted that inferior teams play more picks that would otherwise usually not make most teams, but have the Canucks really done that?

 

1) Outside of the ill-advised push of McCann and Virtanen into the line-up back in 2015 (I attribute this to management/ownership trying to increase fan interest), name another time where the Canucks pushed a kid into the line-up without merit or justification?  I would argue that since the Virtanen/McCann fiasco's, the Canucks have done a great job of keeping a merit-based system, be it Baertschi displacing Higgins, Motte displacing Gagner, moving on from Burrows, Bieksa, Hansen, etc.  When the Canucks have felt that their kids warranted certain roles and spots in the line-up based on demonstrated ability, they were granted these positions.......and this ties into my 'methodology' in this thread.

 

Teams like Buffalo and Edmonton (2006-2015) are great examples of teams that pushed their kids into the line-up prematurely, which then ultimately led to all/most of these kids leaving the team at some point (mainly due to not panning out).  That is why my 'methodology' in this exercise, involves asking as to how many picks actually convert into roster players, *and stick*.  

 

I agree with guys like @wallstreetamigothat it's *way* too premature to label guys like Rathbone and Podkolzin as "guys that have stuck," but we appear to be trending in the right direction.  Like I said - despite all of our supposed bled picks, we've managed to bring in new kids to the line-up almost each and every year.  Have they all panned out?  No.  Hutton, Virtanen, McCann, Tryamkin, and Gaudette are examples.  Still - guys like Horvat, Demko (2nd rounder), Boeser, Pettersson, Rathbone (still needs to prove), Hughes, Hoglander, and Podkolzin (still needs to prove) definitely appear to be trending into "long term fixtures."  

 

Zack MacEwen wasn't drafted, but he might end up being a guy that 'went through our farm' to become a mainstay here.  Lockwood may not be too far either.  And to your point, none of these guys are simply being gifted spots.  

 

I might be looking at things through rosy coloured glasses, but from where I sit, the Nucks seems to be converting picks into full-time and long term roster players in a legit way. All this talk of having "bled picks" seems to be unfounded when you consider this fact.  We don't have much in the pipeline because most of the guys in our pipeline graduated to the big club!

I don’t disagree that they are trending the right way. And I don’t ever blame anyone for being optimistic.

 

I like MacEwan but he didn’t deserve a roster spot after last year and this preseason. Highmore did nothing to earn a spot either. He was gifted one based on being traded for Gaudette.

 

Green gifts spots just like any other coach does. Tanner Pearson stapled in the top 6 and on the PP is a good example. With the additions to this team that is just being gifted a spot.

[Patel Bure]

6 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

This whole topic is attempting to give full credit to Benning even for things he had nothing to do with (like drafting Horvat) while also making a bunch of apples and oranges comparisons with other teams.

 

A team making the playoffs or not does not exist in a vacuum as an example. It depends on a lot of factors like the strength of other teams in their division and their conference as a whole. Not making the playoffs in the weakest division in hockey is different than not making it in a stacked division. 
 

If picking a player at a certain spot is a drafting win for Benning based on other GM’s not picking that player, then that same logic has to apply to players picked after a Benning pick who were better than who he picked and used as a negative to his record.

 

I struggle identifying 1st or 2nd round players drafted by Benning who were a clear home run. They were pretty much in the consensus group of players for that draft position, especially after other teams passed on them. Still good picks but not where no one else would have taken them if they had that pick.
 

 

Like I said, I was trying to give credit to Benning for drafting Horvat.  I'm simply comparing Vancouver to Tampa and Colorado.  I wasn't trying to compare individual GM's. Perhaps we can agree to disagree with regards to the extent that Benning's management had on the nurturing and development of Horvat's career.  Like I said stated earlier - Horvat had a moderately impressive 2015 playoffs and I believe that most other GM's would have given him far more responsibility in the following year.  Benning and WD however, still continued to push Horvat slowly, and specifically brought in Sutter so that Sutter could take on tougher defensive match-ups (which would allow Horvat to take on more offensive deployment while also getting an opportunity to slowly develop his raw defensive game).   

 

With regards to your other comment ("Not making the playoffs in the weakest division in hockey is different than not making it in a stacked division"), we will again have to respectfully disagree. I know that you are a huge fan of the way the Rangers have done their rebuild, but the NYR market as a whole is very different from Vancouver's.  NYR is American (lower taxes), is an original 6 team, has an easier travel schedule, and is generally regarded as one of the top cities in world (if not, the top).  In other words, NYR will never have a problem attracting big name UFA's. Vancouver may play in a much easier division, but NYR has other huge advantages that Vancouver and most other teams do not have.  I still think paying 11 million to any player is ill advised regardless of how good they are.  I think the Rangers will make the playoffs fairly shortly here, but that Panarin contract will prevent them from having any semblance of an internal cap structure.

 

To your Brayden Point comment, I can't argue with that.  But are you telling me that guys like Demko and Hoglander haven't look VERY good so far? (relative to what you'd expect most 2nd rounders to be).  Surely, you must see the promise and potential of Jack Rathbone eh? (although to your point, I do agree that we can't quite classify him as a *win* just yet).

[wai_lai416]

12 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

Like I said, I was trying to give credit to Benning for drafting Horvat.  I'm simply comparing Vancouver to Tampa and Colorado.  I wasn't trying to compare individual GM's. Perhaps we can agree to disagree with regards to the extent that Benning's management had on the nurturing and development of Horvat's career.  Like I said stated earlier - Horvat had a moderately impressive 2015 playoffs and I believe that most other GM's would have given him far more responsibility in the following year.  Benning and WD however, still continued to push Horvat slowly, and specifically brought in Sutter so that Sutter could take on tougher defensive match-ups (which would allow Horvat to take on more offensive deployment while also getting an opportunity to slowly develop his raw defensive game).   

 

With regards to your other comment ("Not making the playoffs in the weakest division in hockey is different than not making it in a stacked division"), we will again have to respectfully disagree. I know that you are a huge fan of the way the Rangers have done their rebuild, but the NYR market as a whole is very different from Vancouver's.  NYR is American (lower taxes), is an original 6 team, has an easier travel schedule, and is generally regarded as one of the top cities in world (if not, the top).  In other words, NYR will never have a problem attracting big name UFA's. Vancouver may play in a much easier division, but NYR has other huge advantages that Vancouver and most other teams do not have.  I still think paying 11 million to any player is ill advised regardless of how good they are.  I think the Rangers will make the playoffs fairly shortly here, but that Panarin contract will prevent them from having any semblance of an internal cap structure.

 

To your Brayden Point comment, I can't argue with that.  But are you telling me that guys like Demko and Hoglander haven't look VERY good so far? (relative to what you'd expect most 2nd rounders to be).  Surely, you must see the promise and potential of Jack Rathbone eh? (although to your point, I do agree that we can't quite classify him as a *win* just yet).

lol new york pays more tax than vancouver.. dunno what you are smoking players on new york pays almost 52% of the salary in tax while vancouver pays 47%.. 

[Patel Bure]

22 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

lol new york pays more tax than vancouver.. dunno what you are smoking players on new york pays almost 52% of the salary in tax while vancouver pays 47%.. 

I wasn't aware of the exact tax breakdowns but Canadians generally do pay more taxes than Americans.  You're right about NYC though and that was an oversight on my part.  My point remains though - NYC will always be a far sexier option for NHL'ers than Vancouver.  Nightlife, travel schedule, original 6 team, generally regarded as one of the greatest cities in the world, etc.  Vancouver may have the advantage over New York in terms of playing in an easier division, but NYC/Rangers have advantages that we don't have as well.  I am of the opinion that things balance out in the end.

Edited October 12, 2021 by Patel Bure

[wallstreetamigo]

58 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

Like I said, I was trying to give credit to Benning for drafting Horvat.  I'm simply comparing Vancouver to Tampa and Colorado.  I wasn't trying to compare individual GM's. Perhaps we can agree to disagree with regards to the extent that Benning's management had on the nurturing and development of Horvat's career.  Like I said stated earlier - Horvat had a moderately impressive 2015 playoffs and I believe that most other GM's would have given him far more responsibility in the following year.  Benning and WD however, still continued to push Horvat slowly, and specifically brought in Sutter so that Sutter could take on tougher defensive match-ups (which would allow Horvat to take on more offensive deployment while also getting an opportunity to slowly develop his raw defensive game).   

 

With regards to your other comment ("Not making the playoffs in the weakest division in hockey is different than not making it in a stacked division"), we will again have to respectfully disagree. I know that you are a huge fan of the way the Rangers have done their rebuild, but the NYR market as a whole is very different from Vancouver's.  NYR is American (lower taxes), is an original 6 team, has an easier travel schedule, and is generally regarded as one of the top cities in world (if not, the top).  In other words, NYR will never have a problem attracting big name UFA's. Vancouver may play in a much easier division, but NYR has other huge advantages that Vancouver and most other teams do not have.  I still think paying 11 million to any player is ill advised regardless of how good they are.  I think the Rangers will make the playoffs fairly shortly here, but that Panarin contract will prevent them from having any semblance of an internal cap structure.

 

To your Brayden Point comment, I can't argue with that.  But are you telling me that guys like Demko and Hoglander haven't look VERY good so far? (relative to what you'd expect most 2nd rounders to be).  Surely, you must see the promise and potential of Jack Rathbone eh? (although to your point, I do agree that we can't quite classify him as a *win* just yet).

I am not disputing the points you are making.

 

I am saying in your attempt to inflate Benning be teams like Tampa and Colorado you are factoring in things that you see as evidence of his success while not making those same connections for those other teams.

 

How many players did Tampa develop tremendously outside of their own drafted players? A $&!# ton actually. So to compare apples to apples those development successes have to also be factored in and in your analysis they aren’t.

 

Hoglander and Demko do look good. But when they were drafted that was about where they were projected to be drafted. So they aren’t massive home runs in terms of being off the radar and only Benning was considering them that early in the draft.

[EddieVedder]

10 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

I wasn't aware of the exact tax breakdowns but Canadians generally do pay more taxes than Americans.  You're right about NYC though and that was an oversight on my part.  My point remains though - NYC will always be a far sexier option for NHL'ers than Vancouver.  Nightlife, travel schedule, original 6 team, generally regarded as one of the greatest cities in the world, etc.  Vancouver may have the advantage over New York in terms of playing in an easier division, but NYC/Rangers have advantages that we don't have as well.  I am of the opinion that things balance out in the end.

You been to ny?  I lived there.  Its an absolute rat infested dump.  Dont let hollywood fool you.  

[steviewonder20]

1 hour ago, EddieVedder said:

You been to ny?  I lived there.  Its an absolute rat infested dump.  Dont let hollywood fool you.  

I lived there for 6 years (as an undergrad and grad student ). It’s a great place if you have money (which I didn’t).

[Patel Bure]

1 hour ago, EddieVedder said:

You been to ny?  I lived there.  Its an absolute rat infested dump.  Dont let hollywood fool you.  

Fair enough.  I visited NYC in both 1995 and 2004 and could easily see that there were tons of things to do there.  You name it you got it.  I noticed that the people over there were quite assertive, maybe even borderline rude?  Maybe that was just my impression though.  I had heard that NYC had a lot of crime at that time.  
 

NYC might be a rat infested dump as you say, but is that a perception shared by most players?  That I’m not so sure.  Seems like everyone just raves on and on about the wide variety of night life options available.

 

For example - remember when Mats Sundin was waiting for the Rangers to clear cap space so that he could play for them?  (they couldn’t and so Sundin ended up coming to us for 10 million).  Panarin also passed up New Jersey for the Rangers even though the Devils offered more money.  The point I’m trying to make is that NYC is often the number one choice for most free agents and they likely will never have a problem attracting free agents to play for them.

[The Lock]

I think if we were "elite" at turning draft picks into roster players, we'd have a lot more picks on the team at this point. We have our core of players, but those players were showing a lot of people before being on the team. Remember that Horvat was almost a shooin from day 1 due to his faceoff ability which we were sorely lacking at the time. Remember that Pettersson broke Forsberg's record for points in the Swedish Elite League before joining. Remember that Boeser and Hughes were lighting it up in college. While you can argue this doesn't guarentee a roster spot, it really showed that it was a rather easy decision to let these guys play when they show up wanting to play.

 

Personaly, I'd like to see more bottom 6 and defense successes before even considering the word "elite" and I think they fact that we have neither means we actually could use some work on this front.

 

I'm not saying we're bad at it by the way. We evidently do have draft picks playing for the team and have been able to develop them accordingly, so overall here's what I think: Elite? No. Middle of the pack? Probably.

 

Elite is such an overexaggeration of a word that most teams wouldn't even come close to "elite" in my opinion.

Edited October 12, 2021 by The Lock