Toggle sidebar

Canucks Management and Ownership Thread v30.0 (Post #186)

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
polarbearcub said:
Even if jake is a bust, our prospect pool is way better.

Juolevi
Demko
Tryamkin
Boeser
Lockwood
Gaudette

Nick Jensen was our best prospect at one point
Click to expand...
Can add Stecher.
Such a shame we moved McCann and Forsling and flushed 10 draft picks down the toilet trying to make marginal upgrades to 3rd and 4th liners and waiver fodder.
JB could still have a shred of credibility had he just amassed picks and made them.
 
sting101 said:
Can add Stecher.
Such a shame we moved McCann and Forsling and flushed 10 draft picks down the toilet trying to make marginal upgrades to 3rd and 4th liners and waiver fodder.
JB could still have a shred of credibility had he just amassed picks and made them.
Click to expand...

The pool or prospects prob would look rich with all those picks. You'd think a few would be hits
 
polarbearcub said:
Even if jake is a bust, our prospect pool is way better.

Juolevi
Demko
Tryamkin
Boeser
Lockwood
Gaudette

Nick Jensen was our best prospect at one point
Click to expand...

Yes at one point. But when Gillis was fired, the prospects pool acquired from the previous three years including draft picks, trades, and UFA signings was:

F - Horvat, Shinkaruk, Jensen, Gaunce, Cassels, Grenier, Fox, Labate
D - Hutton, Corrado, Subban, Tommernes
G - Markstrom, Eriksson

I don't really like giving Benning the 2014 draft, but for the sake of the argument I'll include it so now after 3 drafts of Benning our prospect pool from his draft+adds looks like:

F - Boeser, Virtanen, Lockwood, Gaudette
D - Juolevi, Stecher, Tryamkin, Pedan, Brisebois, Olson
G - Demko

Probably a little better on the bottom on the strength of the defense, but it's not a significant improvement.

Here's the kicker though, the natural draft position that Gillis was working with vs Benning: 29, 26, 24 vs 6, 23, 3. Based on the finishes our prospect pool right now should be significantly better than it was going into the 2014 draft, not just a marginal but not definite upgrade.
 
polarbearcub said:
Even if jake is a bust, our prospect pool is way better.

Juolevi
Demko
Tryamkin
Boeser
Lockwood
Gaudette

Nick Jensen was our best prospect at one point
Click to expand...

Yeah, and when Nik Jensen was our best prospect people here were saying our prospect pool is way better because they were high on Jensen at that time.

Your most recent draft will ALWAYS look good for awhile. Nobody has a draft where 6 months later all of their prospects have busted; that is almost impossible. Mind you when you pick guys like Abols it actually could be possible I guess.

If your best prospects are all pretty much guys from your latest draft, you know your prospect pool stinks.
 
RandV said:
Yes at one point. But when Gillis was fired, the prospects pool acquired from the previous three years including draft picks, trades, and UFA signings was:

F - Horvat, Shinkaruk, Jensen, Gaunce, Cassels, Grenier, Fox, Labate
D - Hutton, Corrado, Subban, Tommernes
G - Markstrom, Eriksson

I don't really like giving Benning the 2014 draft, but for the sake of the argument I'll include it so now after 3 drafts of Benning our prospect pool from his draft+adds looks like:

F - Boeser, Virtanen, Lockwood, Gaudette
D - Juolevi, Stecher, Tryamkin, Pedan, Brisebois, Olson
G - Demko

Probably a little better on the bottom on the strength of the defense, but it's not a significant improvement.

Here's the kicker though, the natural draft position that Gillis was working with vs Benning: 29, 26, 24 vs 6, 23, 3. Based on the finishes our prospect pool right now should be significantly better than it was going into the 2014 draft, not just a marginal but not definite upgrade.
Click to expand...
Good post. The JV pick especially actually should count as a negative considering the players drafted right after him. Pedan barely has value at this point, he cleared waivers and has regressed in the AHL according to Utica fans. Plus Benning traded a 3rd for him.

People are really reaching using the "our project pool is deeper under Benning" line. Of course it is, the team is finishing way lower in the standings and isn't contending like it was under Gillis so you'd expect higher draft positions, more draft picks and thus a deeper prospect pool. That should be the expectation, not some sort of a feather in Benning's cap.
 
Nucker101 said:
Good post. The JV pick especially actually should count as a negative considering the players drafted right after him. Pedan barely has value at this point, he cleared waivers and has regressed in the AHL according to Utica fans. Plus Benning traded a 3rd for him.

People are really reaching using the "our project pool is deeper under Benning" line. Of course it is, the team is finishing way lower in the standings and isn't contending like it was under Gillis so you'd expect higher draft positions, more draft picks and thus a deeper prospect pool. That should be the expectation, not some sort of a feather in Benning's cap.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it's not definitively better. It's arguably.

And that's pathetic
 
The Drop said:
The problem is that it's not definitively better. It's arguably.

And that's pathetic
Click to expand...

Look, if you all can't understand that Gillis is to blame for Benning's lack of drafting successes, then you're just not true Canuck fans. Get with the program!



:sarcasm:
 
It's mind bugging for me that some people actually believe those excuses made up by this incompetent management group.


"McCann has bad attitudes and it's causing problems in the locker room."
No, more like " I want Gudbranson so I'll do what ever I need to do to get him"

"Tryamkin is outta shape."
No, more like " We signed Larsen and Sbisa, we need to play them to justify the signings."

"Bo needs to learn how to be better defensively."
No, more like " We need to find a way to justify the Sutter trade, more offensive role him!"

"We called Virtanen up because he forgot about his stuffs."
No, more like " Oops, fans aren't happy that we are only gonna keep him down for 2 games. Better send him down again and make up an excuse so we don't look bad."
 
Nucker101 said:
Good post. The JV pick especially actually should count as a negative considering the players drafted right after him. Pedan barely has value at this point, he cleared waivers and has regressed in the AHL according to Utica fans. Plus Benning traded a 3rd for him.

People are really reaching using the "our project pool is deeper under Benning" line. Of course it is, the team is finishing way lower in the standings and isn't contending like it was under Gillis so you'd expect higher draft positions, more draft picks and thus a deeper prospect pool. That should be the expectation, not some sort of a feather in Benning's cap.
Click to expand...

Gillis had a 10 and 9th overall picks.
 
Jimson Hogarth said:
Gillis had a 10 and 9th overall picks.
Click to expand...


And Bo looks like a great pick.

Hodgson turned out to be a bust, but look at who went after him:

Kyle Beach(who a lot of people wanted and sucked more than CoHo)

Tyler Myers(definitely a great pick)

Colton Teubert(worse than CoHo)

Zach Boychuck(worse than CoHo)

Erik Karlsson(amazing steal, but was considered a reach)


Again, the fact we're even debating about who the better drafter was, is pretty sad. That was considered MG's weakness and downfall and Benning's greatest strength. Yet Benning looks to have ****ed up the 6th overall pick(at least so far) and we can only hope Juolevi at 5th overall turns out to be as valuable as Horvat is.
 
Jimson Hogarth said:
Gillis had a 10 and 9th overall picks.
Click to expand...

And further more, we'll have to compare JV's career with the guys drafted after him and Juolevi's career with the guys drafted after he was. Should be interesting to see how that turns out. Hoprfully Virtanan and/or Juolevi turn out to be as good or better than most of the guys taken after they were
 
More importantly, Gillis is irrelevant to this topic and persons who insist on deflecting to him on every god damn page and getting the discussion off-track should be ****ing banned already.
 
RJL said:
More importantly, Gillis is irrelevant to this topic and persons who insist on deflecting to him on every god damn page and getting the discussion off-track should be ****ing banned already.
Click to expand...

Its kind of making Benning look worse anyway, especially the more in-depth you look at things.
 
Nucker101 said:
Its kind of making Benning look worse anyway, especially the more in-depth you look at things.
Click to expand...

The further and further we get from that regime the more and more pathetic it is to hear about "oh but Benning was left with blah blah" style excuses. And it is absolutely Pathetic.

Jim Benning has had more than enough time and opportunity to build the team he wants. He has built the team he wanted to. And it sucks donkey balls. Blaming things on hid predecessor from 3 seasons ago is just absolutely pathetic beyond belief. How many other GM's need this kind of special pleading all the time?

The only reason to keep bringing up Gillis is to keep re-hashing the same arguments and trying to get under people's skin by posting ridiculous falsehoods.
 
RJL said:
Yeah, and when Nik Jensen was our best prospect people here were saying our prospect pool is way better because they were high on Jensen at that time.

Your most recent draft will ALWAYS look good for awhile. Nobody has a draft where 6 months later all of their prospects have busted; that is almost impossible. Mind you when you pick guys like Abols it actually could be possible I guess.

If your best prospects are all pretty much guys from your latest draft, you know your prospect pool stinks.
Click to expand...
Comparing nick Jensen to a guy like Stecher and Tryamkin :laugh: dude two are NHL players, one will be back in Europe soon.
 
It's hard to fault the Hodgson pick, at the time he looked to have a really solid future, he followed that season up with another great season, in all honesty he was the right pick there we just have bad luck with the 10th overall. Jake at 6 wasn't out of reach but he was in a mix of equals at the time, you could question this one a bit more as there were more options and it wasn't as clear as the Hodgson pick.
 
Hodgson was clearly still a good pick. There's no possible way to have expected them to have known, pre-draft, how badly he'd go off the rails like three years later. Dude is like 26, retired, and made like 30m from the NHL. It's a bizarre case all around.
 
Agreed. Hodgson was absolutely the right pick at the time with the information that was available. No one was calling for Karlsson so you can just can it.

It was a toss up between Hodgson/Beach for our management, with Boychuk and Myer's names thrown in the mix too.

He was a tremendous talent who had good early development, but inevitably the injury issues (misdiagnosed back injury), inability to round out his game, and a hard line politician as a father/advisor all contributed to a poor outcome.
 
timw33 said:
Agreed. Hodgson was absolutely the right pick at the time with the information that was available. No one was calling for Karlsson so you can just can it.

It was a toss up between Hodgson/Beach for our management, with Boychuk and Myer's names thrown in the mix too.

He was a tremendous talent who had good early development, but inevitably the injury issues (misdiagnosed back injury), inability to round out his game, and a hard line politician as a father/advisor all contributed to a poor outcome.
Click to expand...

Were people in Ottawa shouting or calling for Karlsson? Or did the GM make a bold move with information from his staff? Honest question. Maybe I'll dig for that original Karlsson thread...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom