Canucks Managerial Thread II

[pitseleh]

The obvious answer is… no. You can't take a good team… "bleed value"…. "make atrocious talent evaluations"… and end up with a good team. And if this team does happen to be good (I think it is)… it's not going to get worse anytime soon.

Of course you can, at least in the short term.

Even long term bad GMs of bad teams can have good teams at some point, despite bleeding value and making atrocious talent evaluations - Lowe with Edmonton, Milbury with the Islanders, etc.

So starting with a good team, clearly you can also bleed value and make atrocious talent evaluations still have a good team.

 

[Scurr]

One of those three is hardly comparable to the other two.

Of the posts you quoted - I even specifically put in the Sedins to show which vets I meant.

If the twins are the only players that really matter… that makes the guys I mentioned insignificant.

 

[Scurr]

Of course you can, at least in the short term.

Even long term bad GMs of bad teams can have good teams at some point, despite bleeding value and making atrocious talent evaluations - Lowe with Edmonton, Milbury with the Islanders, etc.

So starting with a good team, clearly you can also bleed value and make atrocious talent evaluations still have a good team.

How long is the short term? We're already a year in. IMO if this team is good, they aren't going to get worse anytime soon.

 

[Hit the post]

If the twins are the only players that really matter… that makes the guys I mentioned insignificant.

Yeah right.......why bother having any other players on the team.

 

[pitseleh]

How long is the short term? We're already a year in. IMO if this team is good, they aren't going to get worse anytime soon.

Last year's team wasn't good. It was an average-ish team carried by the Sedins and the top-3 on defence that had luck on its side.

 

[Scurr]

Last year's team wasn't good. It was an average-ish team carried by the Sedins and the top-3 on defence that had luck on its side.

Yeah that was supposed to be the "luck" season that we've seen from hacks like Nonis. The other shoe was gonna drop this year.

 

[pitseleh]

Yeah that was supposed to be the "luck" season that we've seen from hacks like Nonis. The other shoe was gonna drop this year.

That's not how luck works. Gambler's fallacy.

 

[Scurr]

That's not how luck works. Gambler's fallacy.

So either the team is bad or Benning is lucky? That's what I expected.

 

[pitseleh]

So either the team is bad or Benning is lucky? That's what I expected.

No. You can objectively look at the indicators of quality and luck, and determine which. These factors don't change depending on whether Benning is guiding the team.

 

[Pip]

How long is the short term? We're already a year in. IMO if this team is good, they aren't going to get worse anytime soon.

I have a hard time believing that this team is good enough to make the payoffs. Our backend is paper thin and we are rely go on a 35 year old goalie. Unless a couple teams in division that are projected to do well nose dive, then I simply don't see it.

 

[The Jesus*]

I have a hard time believing that this team is good enough to make the payoffs. Our backend is paper thin and we are rely go on a 35 year old goalie. Unless a couple teams in division that are projected to do well nose dive, then I simply don't see it.

Calgary is a fringe team. We'll see where we really stand when we play Anaheim and LA. If we can hang with them, I see us having a shot.

Miller is playing lights out, despite the 3on3 goal being on him. He was the only reason we got a point out of that game. If he keeps it up, Sedins continue to Sedin, and Willie grows a pair and gets Vrbata and Bae away from Horvat, we could compete for the 8th spot this year.

 

[Zaddy91]

No. You can objectively look at the indicators of quality and luck, and determine which. These factors don't change depending on whether Benning is guiding the team.

He drafted mccann

And got sutter.

Youre wrong

 

[mathonwy]

So this is what I think Gilman would have done and I think we could have fit Cody Franson under our salary cap with a Lack/Markstrom tandem in net.

Thoughts? Would we have had to retain more of Miller's salary? I dunno.

 

[me2]

He drafted mccann

And got sutter.

Youre wrong

Gillis likely drafts McCann anyway so it isn't as if we gained anything there.


Last year we had to hear about the amazing Baertschi and wonderful Clendening etc. Sutter, hasn't proved anything yet. He lost his 2C to Horvat before the mid point of the preseason, McCann is in his 3C spot. Might want to wait a bit.

 

[Pip]

Calgary is a fringe team. We'll see where we really stand when we play Anaheim and LA. If we can hang with them, I see us having a shot.

Miller is playing lights out, despite the 3on3 goal being on him. He was the only reason we got a point out of that game. If he keeps it up, Sedins continue to Sedin, and Willie grows a pair and gets Vrbata and Bae away from Horvat, we could compete for the 8th spot this year.

I very much doubt that Miller can keep a high level of play throughout the season at his age and given how much he declined in the past couple years. The Sedins are solid but I very much question the makeup of our second line and don't know if it can be relied on to consistently produce.

We have to have a lot of things go right again for us this year. I understand that Calgary also has a lot of question marks and a very young team but I like their chances better than ours.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

Gillis likely drafts McCann anyway so it isn't as if we gained anything there.

Well that's sure a far cry from all the claims Benning was trying to convince Gilman and co. that McCann was a good pick at 24, even though they thought he was a fool for wanting to draft him.

I guess when you only see 1 player in the NHL right now that was drafted in the next 80 picks after McCann this is gonna be a pretty popular stance to take right now.

 

[Pip]

I wouldn't have an issue swapping McCann for many players that went around or were projected to go around the 24th pick. He is showing to be a good pick, but hardly a steal IMO.

 

[Peen]

Wasn't Barbashev a popular player in the Gillis regime?

I think it would have come down to one of those two.

 

[BimJenning]

He drafted mccann

And got sutter.

Youre wrong

Quite frankly, McCann absolutely fits the definition of a Gillis pick (high hockey IQ player who dropped). Thought that doesn't matter anyways.

Our D looks putrid, and we only have 1 injury. If we have even a moderately bad luck season to follow up an extremely fortuitous one we just had (i.e. More than 1 defensive injury), we'll be in the running for a lottery pick.

 

[Drop the Sopel]

I wouldn't have an issue swapping McCann for many players that went around or were projected to go around the 24th pick. He is showing to be a good pick, but hardly a steal IMO.

When you can take a guy outside the top 20 and he shows good enough to slot in at 3C at 19 years of age, you should be absolutely beside yourself with that pick. Sign me up for less Schroeder/Jensen's and more Jared McCann's please. Love the 'Dinosaur puck ripping' methodology if this is what comes of it.

6 years under previous management and there still isn't a 30 point player to show for that was taken outside the top 10 - that spanned 35 selections.

Took Jim Benning a grand total of 1 pick outside the lottery to find what looks like a sure-fire NHL player - one with a tremendous upside to boot.

The Kesler trade is seen as a black mark on Benning, yet that deal could fill the 2nd and 3rd line centre ice positions for the better part of a decade. Not a bad haul for a 45 point player that was just locked up to a $7mil contract into his late 30's.

 

[Pip]

When you can take a guy outside the top 20 and he shows good enough to slot in at 3C at 19 years of age, you should be absolutely beside yourself with that pick. Sign me up for less Schroeder/Jensen's and more Jared McCann's please. Love the 'Dinosaur puck ripping' methodology if this is what comes of it.

6 years under previous management and there still isn't a 30 point player to show for that was taken outside the top 10 - that spanned 35 selections.

Took Jim Benning a grand total of 1 pick outside the lottery to find what looks like a sure-fire NHL player - one with a tremendous upside to boot.

The Kesler trade is seen as a black mark on Benning, yet that deal could fill the 2nd and 3rd line centre ice positions for the better part of a decade. Not a bad haul for a 45 point player that was just locked up to a $7mil contract into his late 30's.

I don't know if he's good enough to be a third line centre at 19 and I think on most teams he doesn't crack the lineup. I think it means more to compare McCann to his draft class rather than previous picks from a different regime. As of right now I would say he's a good pick, not an outstanding/marvelous/exceptional/tremendous (or whatever you want to say) pick as of right now.

 

[RandV]

Wasn't Barbashev a popular player in the Gillis regime?

I think it would have come down to one of those two.

At the time with the draft thread everyone following along wanted Barbashev, who was viewed as being bigger, more physical, and better offensively. Drop the Sopel mentioned Gillman but I don't recall him ever coming up in the discussion...

We don't need to get ahead of ourselves though. McCann hasn't stuck with the team full time just yet, and there's still plenty of good picks that went immediately after him. Say what you want about Gillis' drafting but the fanbase always came away happy with the 1st round pick, no Nathan Smith's or Patrick White's under his regime.

Point is this team is having an unexpected surge from recent draft picks, and regardless of who was running the team we're likely getting the #24 pick from Anaheim and even if it's not Virtanen & McCann whatever combination that was selected would look decent right now. And if one of them wasn't ready then Gaunce looked good enough to earn a spot instead.

From my perspective we have a team where Gillis' draft selections, young free agent signings, and youthful acquisitions: Tanev, Markstrom, Horvat, Hutton, Gaunce*, Kenins*, Lack**, Kassian** are our could be contributing to the immediate team with a prime core of: Henrik, Daniel, Edler, Hamhuis, Burrows, Hansen, Higgins still playing well and overall cost effective.

Bennings direct additions to the team are: Vrbata***, Miller, Sbisa, Sutter, Baertschi, Dorsett, Prust, Vey*, Pedan*, Clendening**. Apart from the odd bright spot primarily Vrbata who was likely signing here anyways (play with the Sedins), overall feels like a pretty big boat anchor. I'll give him credit for drafting McCann but I considering the 2014 picks as shared assets.

 

[me2]

Wasn't Barbashev a popular player in the Gillis regime?

Barbashev was choice of many fans, but I doubt Gillis drafts a Russian (khl risk avoidance strategy) over a McCann (top 15 ranked on many lists).

 

[thefeebster]

Wasn't Barbashev a popular player in the Gillis regime?

I think it would have come down to one of those two.

I don't think Barbashev would have been popular in Gillis' regime, which had a strict policy against Russian players and they had a big shift away from the Q after the 2013 shakeup in the scouting department (our head regional scout also took on a Q GM job in that season). So i feel safe in saying Barbashev would not have been an option for Gillis.

I think it would have been McCann for Gillis as well. He fits the mold that he has looked for previously with our 1sts. Palango pick, OHL player, two-way player. I don't think Gillis would have considered any Russians at this point, removing Scherbak and Goldobin, and no Ho-Sang because of his attitude issues, leaving Pastrnak and maybe Kempe as the other options. Both players played in Sweden, so it may have been supported by Gradin & Co. That's my speculation anyways.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

two hypotheses:

1. when kassian mysteriously sat out the rest of the year last spring, that was him entering the program right?

That's what I had thought, too, but Benning said that Kassian went through treatment prior to that. I had linked to the story a few posts back.

2. man oh man, if you had a young kid like that the last place you'd send him to is montreal right? one of the biggest party cities in north america

That's actually a pretty salient point. I'm sure that from Benning's perspective it was "I don't want this player on my team, let's see if anyone will take him off my hands." I'm sure that thought didn't occur to him (late night parties with Gilman, Bernstein et al. notwithstanding ), which highlights the general shortsightedness that has been a hallmark of the Benning regime.

When you can take a guy outside the top 20 and he shows good enough to slot in at 3C at 19 years of age, you should be absolutely beside yourself with that pick. Sign me up for less Schroeder/Jensen's and more Jared McCann's please. Love the 'Dinosaur puck ripping' methodology if this is what comes of it.

I think that this is more just indicative of how badly Vancouver's methodology has been, both before and after Gillis. I'm not sold on Benning being an expert at talent evaluation after a number of flubs/weird decisions, but it would appear that he knows how to run a draft table.

Gillis was trying to re-invent the wheel, when all that really needed to be done was to fit the Canucks with wheels. It wasn't effective, but at the very least, he wasn't being complacent (see: the reshuffling of the scouting department and putting Crawford in charge.)

That said, if Benning keeps landing gems consistently, well, he might just win me over.