Canucks record on drafting and developing talent

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I never said that. I just know the Juolevi pick was widely reporting as having been a Benning override. I don’t remember any other picks during Brackett’s tenure being reported as such.

 

Take a look at the players drafted from Brackett’s region of scouting responsibility throughout his time with the Canucks. It’s a pretty impressive list actually. 

Reported by whom?   I'd like to read that if you could provide - not some bloggers hunch but actual good data.   PLD was their pick,  OJ was their second up to bat from every source i can re-call. 

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Compared to whom exactly?   TB, OTT and a few other teams have exceeded the norm by far during JB tenure - but can you give us some examples of other teams that have drafted and developed players over the same period please?   And don't include first picks from the Miller or OEL/Garland drafts, not that it would matter much given how recent it is.    I spend too much time reviewing prospects each year ... you might surprise yourself.   Asset management is a different story.   

Why do people always try to make it a comparison to other teams? It’s irrelevant what other teams have done. Take a look again at how many teams actually have players on their roster that were actually brought along and developed in their system. That’s development. As opposed to drafting high 1st rounders who are already developed enough to step right into the NHL. 

Benning and the Canucks have developed no player other than Demko in their system to be a full time NHL player of any significance. That sort of says they are terrible at it.

 

Development and asset management also go hand in hand particularly when the GM gives so many prospects away for nothing.

[GB5]

17 hours ago, fanfor42 said:

No current forward or defensemen on the Canucks roster were developed by the Canucks minor league system.  Not a single one.

I still say that Benning has had one of the best success rates in the drat of any Canuck GM in history. Maybe that shows hiw futile this team has been at drafting over the years but this regime has been fairly decent.

 

The problem is with asset management. Too many developed players being let go too early to try to gain an older "more developed" player form another team or failing to recognize the potential of the players already in the fold.

[IBatch]

4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Why do people always try to make it a comparison to other teams? It’s irrelevant what other teams have done. Take a look again at how many teams actually have players on their roster that were actually brought along and developed in their system. That’s development. As opposed to drafting high 1st rounders who are already developed enough to step right into the NHL. 

Benning and the Canucks have developed no player other than Demko in their system to be a full time NHL player of any significance. That sort of says they are terrible at it.

 

Development and asset management also go hand in hand particularly when the GM gives so many prospects away for nothing.

It's 100% relevant to what other teams have done, it's who we are compared to is it not?   There is enough data available to understand what the averages are - going right back to 1990 anyways, the 80's hogged a lot of the best drafts all-time and since then and expansion it hasn't really been the same.   What other GMs have done also matter - it gives us a baseline to make proper judgement in his own peer group.   

[IBatch]

3 minutes ago, GB5 said:

I still say that Benning has had one of the best success rates in the drat of any Canuck GM in history. Maybe that shows hiw futile this team has been at drafting over the years but this regime has been fairly decent.

 

The problem is with asset management. Too many developed players being let go too early to try to gain an older "more developed" player form another team or failing to recognize the potential of the players already in the fold.

He's maybe going to be second to Milford.   Or third to Burke.   

[wallstreetamigo]

7 minutes ago, IBatch said:

He's maybe going to be second to Milford.   Or third to Burke.   

No one will ever beat Milford IMO. Different era but he was lights out.

[Ballisticsports.]

7 minutes ago, IBatch said:

He's maybe going to be second to Milford.   Or third to Burke.   

He has had a LOT more kicks at the can being a GM other than Quinn

% wise not great

No GM kept the Canucks down as long ever

[wallstreetamigo]

8 minutes ago, IBatch said:

It's 100% relevant to what other teams have done, it's who we are compared to is it not?   There is enough data available to understand what the averages are - going right back to 1990 anyways, the 80's hogged a lot of the best drafts all-time and since then and expansion it hasn't really been the same.   What other GMs have done also matter - it gives us a baseline to make proper judgement in his own peer group.   

So what is your criteria that you are comparing to suggest only TB and maybe Ottawa are better at player development than JB?

 

I mean can any team have less than 0 position players that they have developed in their system into full time roles?

[wallstreetamigo]

At this point I want Benning fired just so we can rid ourselves of his cult following. It’s like Trump around here when it comes to JB. I have never seen a GM more defended and praised while not having a clue what he is doing and building a perennial bottom feeder for 8 years. 

[Patel Bure]

17 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Anaheim and Detroit are showing what JB did was not that special.

 

6 bottom 10 finishes in his 8 years and he doesn’t have more to show for it than any other team that was that bad during those years.

 

Anaheim and Detroit have to Atleast make the 2nd round with their current core to prove that “what JB did was not that special.”   All the Canucks are proving right now is that we are no different than the Flames (2015) and the Oilers (2017) who had second round appearances before dipping again for a few years.

[MaxVerstappen33]

17 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Colorado, which apparently has a great record for drafting and developing talent under Joe Sakic, also have 7 players in their current lineup that have been drafted since 2011 not 2013:

 

MacKinnon, Landeskog, Makar, Byram, Jost, Newhook, Rantanen.  They have an 8th player, Kaut, who's been in and out of their lineup similar to Rathbone, so both of those players wash out.

 

The difference with Benning versus Sakic is that Benning was able to obtain top talent outside of the 1st round.  Demko and Hoglander are 2rd round picks.  Every one of Sakic's draft picks were drafted in the top 10 of the 1sr round except Newhook, who was drafted at 16.  Sakic doesn't have one single home grown player in his current lineup that was drafted outside of the 1st round.

Yeah. We have to compare to other teams before bashing our own. I wonder what Detroits number of players developed since 2013 is..

[Patel Bure]

6 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

At this point I want Benning fired just so we can rid ourselves of his cult following. It’s like Trump around here when it comes to JB. I have never seen a GM more defended and praised while not having a clue what he is doing and building a perennial bottom feeder for 8 years. 

My guess is that you were either born in the late 90’s or early 00’s and so you’ve never experienced a Canucks rebuild before (or a rebuild in general).   Rebuilds often take 5-7 years.....or more.  Don’t believe me?  Go have a look at all of the top teams in the league right now and see the journeys that they had to take before becoming a juggernaut.  Did you know that Colorado started rebuilding around 2008, but had a lottery pick in 2017 and drafted Cale Makar?  
 

Just because a team is rebuilding, doesn’t mean that they should automatically trade every Tom, Dick, and Harry over 25 for picks and prospects.  Benning spent to the cap during the rebuilding phase because he paid a premium for leadership, not because he was going for the cup.

 

The “Benning plan” worked and we ended up making the playoffs in 2020.  The 2020-2021 season was always going to be our version of the 2007-2008 season due to the transitional contracts that were still on the books (Beagle, Roussel, Player Name, to which Benning got rid of this off season since the core, in theory, was ready to compete).   
 

The anti-Benning crowd are standing there pretentiously trying to say, “we told you so,” due to the Canucks’ poor performance this season, but no one in the world could have predicted that Petey and Boeser would completely fall off a Cliff.  No.  The anti-Benning crowd predicted that...

 

1) OEL would continue to struggle

2) OEL-Myers would be a train wreck pairing

3) The Canucks would get caved in 5 on 5

4) Dickinson would be a decent upgrade over Besgle, Sutter, and Gaudette as the ‘advanced analytics’ had suggested 

5) The Canucks only redeeming qualities would be that our PP would be decent + Demko would save us most nights.

 

The *only* thing that the anti-Benning crowd got right, was that our PK this year would suck.  
 

If Pettersson and Boeser had been playing up to expectation, we’d likely be a #4 seed right now.   
 

Your New York Rangers by the way, have missed the playoff for four straight seasons themselves and so you might want to get down from the high horse that you are sitting on.

[Patel Bure]

41 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Why do people always try to make it a comparison to other teams? It’s irrelevant what other teams have done. Take a look again at how many teams actually have players on their roster that were actually brought along and developed in their system. That’s development. As opposed to drafting high 1st rounders who are already developed enough to step right into the NHL. 

Benning and the Canucks have developed no player other than Demko in their system to be a full time NHL player of any significance. That sort of says they are terrible at it.

 

Development and asset management also go hand in hand particularly when the GM gives so many prospects away for nothing.

So you don’t consider the success of Horvat and Markstrom to have anything to do with the way that Canucks choose to develop players?  Wow......

[MaxVerstappen33]

17 hours ago, fanfor42 said:

You are cherry picking by selecting Colorado.  Edm has 12 drafted players on their current roster and Tampa has 13.

 

 

Edmonton is a special case so it shouldn't be included. Unless we have an average from all the teams, its hard to know if 7 is a bad number.

 

If we include Virtanen and Mccan , we are up to 9. We are the ones who developed Markstrom into a #1 NHL goalie. So he should be included too.

[MaxVerstappen33]

17 hours ago, fanfor42 said:

What? How does drafting 1 and 3 mean Edm gets 12 drafted players on their roster and nux have only 7?

 

If you want to disagree at least make sense please

 

 

 

 

Anything in the top 3 should be a guaranteed NHL player without much effort.

[wallstreetamigo]

5 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

So you don’t consider the success of Horvat and Markstrom to have anything to do with the way that Canucks choose to develop players?  Wow......

Goalies are the only players this organization has developed. And that seems to be mostly Ian Clark related.

 

Horvat never played in the AHL and was not developed in the Canucks system. 

 

 

[Baggins]

4 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

No he wasn’t. Those were Benning picks. Not sure who was the official head of amateur scouting then but it wasn’t Brackett yet. 
 

He might have been in his first year for the Juolevi draft. 

Brackett was promoted in 2015. It was the Gillis scouting department wh It was the summer after the Virtanen draft that Benning had a meeting telling them what he wanted them looking for and started making personell changes. Not sure how much of the Virtanen choice was Benning as the Bruins scouts hadn't got together when Benning was hired and they weren't going to be drafting any where near top 10. It wouldn't surprise me if Benning went with our (Gillis') scouts on that first pick. He'd likely have had a bit more more information from Bruin scouts on prospects in the mid to bottom of the first round onwards. But even then the Bruin scouts were still in the field when Benning was hired. It may have even been Aquilini was high on the local boy. I don't think he gets very involved in the actual choices but you never know. I doubt Benning came in and outright ignored the teams scouting department in that particular draft though.

[wai_lai416]

5 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Maybe not in their top 10 but they did bust completely in the 1st round with Conner Bleackley.  

 

2014 Entry	23	1	Conner Bleackley	C	Red Deer Rebels [WHL]
2014 Entry	84	3	Kyle Wood	D	North Bay Battalion [OHL]
2014 Entry	93	4	Nick Magyar	R	Kitchener Rangers [OHL]
2014 Entry	114	4	Alexis Pepin	L	Gatineau Olympiques [QMJHL]
2014 Entry	144	5	Anton Lindholm	D	Skelleftea (Sweden Jrs.)	66	0	5	5	16

 

At least Benning knows how to pick talent at #23...

 

2015 Entry	23	1	Brock Boeser	R	Waterloo Black Hawks [USHL]	269	102	116	218	70
2015 Entry	66	3	Guillaume Brisebois	D	Acadie-Bathurst Titan [QMJHL]	9	0	0	0	0
2015 Entry	114	4	Dmitry Zhukenov	C	Omsk Jrs. (Russia)
2015 Entry	144	5	Carl Neill	D	Sherbrooke Phoenix [QMJHL]
2015 Entry	149	5	Adam Gaudette	C	Cedar Rapids RoughRiders [USHL]	168	23	35	58	71
2015 Entry	174	6	Lukas Jasek	R	Trinec Ocelari HC [Czech]
2015 Entry	210	7	Tate Olson	D	Prince George Cougars [WHL]

Lol you seriously picking on the 2014 draft where we busted on virtanen and then got rid of McCann? And then comparing it with the 2015 draft where it seems like 2/3 of the picks in the 1st round all turned out to be decent?

 

Busting on a 23rd pick is not even close to busting on a top 10 pick. Let alone busting on multiple that sets the organization back so many years. Wasting multiple years bottom feeding and got absolutely nothing for it

[Patel Bure]

3 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Goalies are the only players this organization has developed. And that seems to be mostly Ian Clark related.

 

Horvat never played in the AHL and was not developed in the Canucks system. 

 

 

Horvat never played in the AHL but his development was protected at the NHL level.  He wasn’t simply “gifted” the 2nd line C spot despite an impressive 2015 playoffs.  Brandon Sutter was brought in to help take defensive  pressure off of Bo so that Bo wouldn’t be over-exerted while he developed.  
 

Markstrom was developed in the AHL, but it was Benning’s decision to bring in Ryan Miller so that Markstrom would get more playing time in the A, while also insulating Eddie Lack as the #1.  
 

One reason why Tanev was never traded for a 1st in 2016 or 2017 (despite all the pundits screaming for it), was because Tanev’s presence allowed us to maximize the development of Hutton and Stecher while indirectly supporting the development of Markstrom.   Player development isn’t just related to who is or isn’t in the AHL.  
 

Quinn Hughes also benefitted greatly from Tanev’s presence.

[wallstreetamigo]

15 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

My guess is that you were either born in the late 90’s or early 00’s and so you’ve never experienced a Canucks rebuild before (or a rebuild in general).   Rebuilds often take 5-7 years.....or more.  Don’t believe me?  Go have a look at all of the top teams in the league right now and see the journeys that they had to take before becoming a juggernaut.  Did you know that Colorado started rebuilding around 2008, but had a lottery pick in 2017 and drafted Cale Makar?  
 

Just because a team is rebuilding, doesn’t mean that they should automatically trade every Tom, Dick, and Harry over 25 for picks and prospects.  Benning spent to the cap during the rebuilding phase because he paid a premium for leadership, not because he was going for the cup.

 

The “Benning plan” worked and we ended up making the playoffs in 2020.  The 2020-2021 season was always going to be our version of the 2007-2008 season due to the transitional contracts that were still on the books (Beagle, Roussel, Player Name, to which Benning got rid of this off season since the core, in theory, was ready to compete).   
 

The anti-Benning crowd are standing there pretentiously trying to say, “we told you so,” due to the Canucks’ poor performance this season, but no one in the world could have predicted that Petey and Boeser would completely fall off a Cliff.  No.  The anti-Benning crowd predicted that...

 

1) OEL would continue to struggle

2) OEL-Myers would be a train wreck pairing

3) The Canucks would get caved in 5 on 5

4) Dickinson would be a decent upgrade over Besgle, Sutter, and Gaudette as the ‘advanced analytics’ had suggested 

5) The Canucks only redeeming qualities would be that our PP would be decent + Demko would save us most nights.

 

The *only* thing that the anti-Benning crowd got right, was that our PK this year would suck.  
 

If Pettersson and Boeser had been playing up to expectation, we’d likely be a #4 seed right now.   
 

Your New York Rangers by the way, have missed the playoff for four straight seasons themselves and so you might want to get down from the high horse that you are sitting on.

Your guess is wrong. I was born in the early 70’s and have been a Canucks fan my whole life. 
 

The Benning led Canucks have actually never had a “rebuild”. They had an accidental mini rebuild based on a string of annual retool failures that led to them drafting high. Had even some of Benning’s retool moves worked out anywhere close to how he told us they would, no EP, no Hughes, no Podkolzin, etc. 
 

What anti Benning and anti Green people were right about is it would be another year of excuses and blaming outside factors when the team once again didn’t play well.

 

And I don’t consider a play in during a shortened year “making the playoffs”. They were not even in a playoff spot at the time actually and were sliding hard. They were gifted a playoff spot. Had even a handful of more games been played it’s very likely they would not have been in the playoffs.

 

Benning spent to the cap during rebuilding years because he believed all those overpaid players would help the team win. Don’t believe me? Look up what the man himself said every time.