Canucks Managerial Discussion | Part 18

[Hit the post]

No one is suggesting that the Sharks employed psychics to determine that Martin Jones would outperform Lack in this latest NHL season.

They are suggesting the Sharks employed scouts, who anticipated Jones had more potential and a higher upside.

Guess they also knew the Canes would have a goalie coach that would mess with Lack's technique in net.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

I think the 2014 draft, Benning picked Virtanen, and then he let each zone of scouts of a kick of the can to see what they would be picking. Benning probably stepped in if he wanted a different style of player, but thats about it. Just what I think at least.

Yea, Benning had no role in the selection of our first Russian in years... smh

 

[Ryp37]

I wouldn't be so quick to call it a failure.

Can you say for certainty that McKeown Andersson Sideroff Jensen Shinkaruk 3rd 5th 6th will have more value in a few years than Baertschi Granlund Pedan Etem Vey Larsen

Except it is a failure when only 1 of those players might turn out good. It's been mentioned time and time again by other posters that trading for players at this age just means they have been passed by other prospects from their current organization and are closer to waivers.

As was mentioned you left out Forsling and Clendening

If Benning was such a draft guru wouldn't it have been better for him to have those picks?

 

[fancouver]

Yea, Benning had no role in the selection of our first Russian in years... smh

Yeah, I seriously don't buy that.

We haven't drafted a single Russian from 2008-2013. You really don't need to look beyond that to realize Benning was a key facilitator in bringing Tryamkin on board.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Thank you.

It's beyond tiresome to actually put thought and logic into posts explaining why you don't agree with what's happening here and be constantly branded as a 'hater' who 'won't like anything this management team does'.

My viewpoints and hockey worldview have been internally consistent here for 15 years over 4 GMs and if anyone feels like bothering to look it up, there's a search function available.

This is unfortunately not true as much of the history has been wiped.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Except it is a failure when only 1 of those players might turn out good. It's been mentioned time and time again by other posters that trading for players at this age just means they have been passed by other prospects from their current organization and are closer to waivers.

As was mentioned you left out Forsling and Clendening

If Benning was such a draft guru wouldn't it have been better for him to have those picks?

You are ignoring the organizational pressure from the owners to speed up the process.

 

[Hit the post]

Yeah, I seriously don't buy that.

We haven't drafted a single Russian from 2008-2013. You really don't need to look beyond that to realize Benning was a key facilitator in bringing Tryamkin on board.

You can look at it another way....that Gillis was the roadblock in not having any such player drafted (where any other normal GM might have thought different - eg., didn't require Benning's specific expertise).

 

[Ryp37]

Yeah, I seriously don't buy that.

We haven't drafted a single Russian from 2008-2013. You really don't need to look beyond that to realize Benning was a key facilitator in bringing Tryamkin on board.

Just like any other GM couldn't see the ruble collapsing and more and more players wanting to go west than play at home?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Guess they also knew the Canes would have a goalie coach that would mess with Lack's technique in net.

See, if I said that, it would be characterized as "excuses".

I liked Eddie Lack a lot. In a fair world, in a JUST world, the Canucks would not have turned into a goaltender factory right around the time the league was stuffed with them and the position held very little value, but that's life as a Canucks fan. Me liking Eddie a lot doesn't mean we could move him for much of anything. We can speculate that Carolina's bungling positional coach turned a rising star into a middling lower tier starter if that makes us feel more secure in our irritation, but at the end of the day Eddie is a 28 year old NHL journeyman, and the league is full of one year wonder goaltenders who go on to do entirely nothing much. Odds are pretty high he's one of those, and odds are pretty low we accidentally traded the next Lundqvist. You never know, though.

If Benning was such a draft guru wouldn't it have been better for him to have those picks?

Whether Benning merits consideration as a "draft guru" or not (and nothing in history really suggests he does), it would have been better for him to have picks. Unfortunately, the team...either via mandate from Aquilini, Linden, or Benning himself, decided on a course of action that involved "filling an age gap" to remedy the very real problem of a huge gulf in upcoming talent due to a long sequence of underwhelming drafts. I imagine the intention of this strategy was to escalate the rebuild by magicking an early 20's draft class out of wishes and moonbeams. Having witnessed the fruits of those efforts, it's become abundantly evident that this was a fool's errand.

Whether they persist in chasing this dream will provide a lot of concrete evidence as to whether or not they're simply slow learners or actively incompetent.

 

[Hit the post]

Just like any other GM couldn't see the ruble collapsing and more and more players wanting to go west than play at home?

That as well.

Still that shouldn't take any credit away from Benning with this great pick.

See, if I said that, it would be characterized as "excuses".

I liked Eddie Lack a lot. In a fair world, in a JUST world, the Canucks would not have turned into a goaltender factory right around the time the league was stuffed with them and the position held very little value, but that's life as a Canucks fan. Me liking Eddie a lot doesn't mean we could move him for much of anything. We can speculate that Carolina's bungling positional coach turned a rising star into a middling lower tier starter if that makes us feel more secure in our irritation, but at the end of the day Eddie is a 28 year old NHL journeyman, and the league is full of one year wonder goaltenders who go on to do entirely nothing much. Odds are pretty high he's one of those, and odds are pretty low we accidentally traded the next Lundqvist. You never know, though.

As to speculation...isn't that what this board is for?

We'll find out the answer (maybe ) this upcoming season.

 

[sting101]

Let's say it is clear (I'm not convinced it has been except maybe the past few months and we'll see on July 1 if that is actually true. I suspect it isn't.).

However, to execute that strategy you really want additional draft picks so even if the message has been clear the execution, IMO, is again lacking.

Why July 1st? Are you against acquiring good players? Next years Lucic or Ladd or Eriksson could turn into a future 1st or young player if things don't work out down the road......happens all the time.

It does concern me when we go into drafts with less than 7 picks and especially top 100. If the players acquired out value the draft position then it's defensible but it starts to become really concerning when a Gallagher or Palat or Benn goes in the area of a lost lottery ticket.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Why July 1st? Are you against acquiring good players? Next years Lucic or Ladd or Eriksson could turn into a future 1st or young player if things don't work out down the road......happens all the time.

It does concern me when we go into drafts with less than 7 picks and especially top 100. If the players acquired out value the draft position then it's defensible but it starts to become really concerning when a Gallagher or Palat or Benn goes in the area of a lost lottery ticket.

Agreed. In the end you only draft the Gallagher's of the world if your team is looking for those traits and you're willing to select them.

 

[valkynax]

was reading a random article on VanSun saying three FA's Van should go after.

First one is Okposo: Ok doesn't seem completely out of reason.

Second one is Ladd: Uh no...I don't think so.

Third one is E.Staal: Are you out of your mind?

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

was reading a random article on VanSun saying three FA's Van should go after.

First one is Okposo: Ok doesn't seem completely out of reason.

Second one is Ladd: Uh no...I don't think so.

Third one is E.Staal: Are you out of your mind?

Would love to see the team add some bite by bringing Ladd home.

 

[tantalum]

Why July 1st? Are you against acquiring good players? Next years Lucic or Ladd or Eriksson could turn into a future 1st or young player if things don't work out down the road......happens all the time.

It does concern me when we go into drafts with less than 7 picks and especially top 100. If the players acquired out value the draft position then it's defensible but it starts to become really concerning when a Gallagher or Palat or Benn goes in the area of a lost lottery ticket.

I'm against acquiring players on bad contracts with bad term in an effort to prop up playoff hopes and continuing to have a team that has zero depth because they are up against the cap while at the bottom of the standings. I don't see the canucks being a destination of choice for the younger UFAs.

Now if this was a tema looking to augment to become a contender I'll take that bad deal and bad term for a shot at things. But this team is so far removed from that and beyond maybe Stamkos I don't see a "core" piece I'd pay the stupid money for. That isn't to say I don't think they shouldn't sign UFAs to get better but rather they need to be getting good value from such players at this point. People talk about the great drafting (no proof yet really) but if that's true the canucks have some big deals to hand out in the next few years. They don't want to be up near the cap with a bunch of long term deals.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I'm against acquiring good players on bad contracts with bad term in an effort to prop up playoff hopes and continuing to have a team that has zero depth because they are up against the cap while at the bottom of the standings. I don't see the canucks being a destination of choice for the younger UFAs.

That's good, because the Benning regime seems to be all for acquiring bad hockey players and giving them bad contracts.

 

[sting101]

Think it ain't looking good so far in the Forsling "age gap" move.

Fixed.

 

[tantalum]

That's good, because the Benning regime seems to be all for acquiring bad hockey players and giving them bad contracts.

I edited to remove the good part and went with just simply players.....and added some other stuff.

 

[coldsteel79]

Benning openly admits that he mostly let Eric Crawford and the scouting staff run that draft, but they get credit for zero picks? Ridiculous.

Benning did not say he "mostly" let the scouts run it, you're spinning stuff like usual. He said he overruled on some picks, that could be Jim being nice to his employees and throwing them a bone instead of saying I overruled all of them, which is more likely the case when you see Crawford fired.

 

[sting101]

I'm against acquiring players on bad contracts with bad term in an effort to prop up playoff hopes and continuing to have a team that has zero depth because they are up against the cap while at the bottom of the standings. I don't see the canucks being a destination of choice for the younger UFAs.

Now if this was a tema looking to augment to become a contender I'll take that bad deal and bad term for a shot at things. But this team is so far removed from that and beyond maybe Stamkos I don't see a "core" piece I'd pay the stupid money for. That isn't to say I don't think they shouldn't sign UFAs to get better but rather they need to be getting good value from such players.

That's a fair stance.
I'm a firm believer in acquiring as many value assets without question to age as long as the contracts don't restrict change, are moveable and the player signing understands the state of the franchise and direction.

 

[MS]

Benning did not say he "mostly" let the scouts run it, you're spinning stuff like usual. He said he overruled on some picks, that could be Jim being nice to his employees and throwing them a bone instead of saying I overruled all of them, which is more likely the case when you see Crawford fired.

He said he took the 2014 draft as an opportunity to sit back and watch our scouting process in order to evaluate what was happening, and let the existing guys do the work as they normally would. Said he interjected on 'some' players while compiling their draft list.

The notion that he came in, took charge of that draft, and waved a magic wand to make our drafting 'real good' is just total hogwash.

He had 'some' impact, sure. But clearly the existing guys did as well.

 

[Samzilla]

And despite publicly saying he mostly stood back and watched in 2014, he was actually waving a magic wand here to completely change how we draft!

Well we all know how clever Benning is with what he says versus what he does.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

He said he took the 2014 draft as an opportunity to sit back and watch our scouting process in order to evaluate what was happening, and let the existing guys do the work as they normally would. Said he interjected on 'some' players while compiling their draft list.

And.. Like.. I don't know what you guys do for a living, but, that is exactly what an executive does.. And should do. His first month or so he is just observing, seeing where the team is at, assessing things from a distance, identifying strengths and weaknesses. Taking inventory of his staff, basically. I could not imagine any execute doing g anything different their first few weeks, and I have worked under some pretty crazy aggressive execs.

It's just totally normal, makes sense, and is in line with what Benning himself said. Again I would implore anyone who thinks it's different to please provide some details on what they think Benning did instead.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Well we all know how clever Benning is with what he says versus what he does.

Benning, possibly more than anyone I've ever seen in hockey management, says exactly what he thinks, I believe. This was, in fact, one of the reasons people liked him when we hired him, because he was "transparent" unlike the "arrogant" Gillis.

But now, because what he says lines up perfectly with what he does, and because what he does (and says) is pretty dumb, we are supposed to pretend that actually he doesn't in fact say what he thinks, but actually does the opposite of what he says while somehow making it seem like he's doing what he says! The guy is a world class genius, clearly.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Still this nonsense with Lack?

Players, especially goaltenders, only have as much value as the GM trading for them decides they have. You act like the other 29 teams do not have scouts, or preferences, or targets. That they are 100% reliant on Jim Benning and his SALESMANSHIP when it comes to what goaltender to acquire. "Hey Jim, we heard you had a goaltender. We checked out his stat line on NHL.COM and he looks just as good as the other guys on the market. Oh, you say he's NOT as good? Oh never mind then."

As long as RJL is angrily calling out fantastical thinking, I wish he'd spare some umbrage for ridiculous nonsense like this.

I am honoured you want me to take umbrage with something for you .

Relax, I am kidding.

There is nothing fantastical about thinking Benning should have gotten a similar return for Lack as comparable goalies traded at the same time, particularly when it is buttressed by other trades where he similarly did not get good value back in transactions.

And yeah, negotiating does require salesmanship. Nobody said it was 100% but when you look around and we got the ********* return on our player than similar players moved at the same time why is that? Just bad luck I guess, as always.