F A N
Registered User
- Aug 12, 2005
- 19,777
- 6,523
F A N said it, so it must be true.
I'm pretty sure Robert's post wasn't directed at me.
F A N said it, so it must be true.
Hard to believe Benning ever had the rope to blow 3 of 5 top 10 picks, and trade another.
Instead of getting credit for Hughes and EP40, people should just be thankful he didn't blow or deal those picks too.
I have no idea what Brackett's role was with the pick, but Boldy seemed to be a name connected to the Canucks around that time. Maybe they liked him, maybe it was that he was forecasted to be selected near where they were picking. It was a major miss, though.I don't see why a GM wouldn't own his entire draft record with the exception of his first year where a new GM wouldn't typically get a chance to provide instructions and guidance to his scouts and change the personnell if needed. Ultimately it's his draft record.
Podkolzin was a reasonable pick. One that they got wrong (with Boldy sitting there). I don't blame them for not picking Caulfield if they had size concerns. There was and is zero indication that Brackett favoured or pushed for Boldy, a player that one would assume Brackett would be very familiar with given his MA roots.
In general ya you give the first year a pass as often a new GM hired at the start of the off season is forbidden from participating in that draft as a condition of the hire. Interestingly, Benning was not forbidden AND he was coming from a role where he was the guy putting together the draft stuff for the Bruins. It's a case where a GM does get to own that first draft as he was able to use his knowledge and prioritization from his previous job if he so wanted. And I think he did on the Virtanen pick.I don't see why a GM wouldn't own his entire draft record with the exception of his first year where a new GM wouldn't typically get a chance to provide instructions and guidance to his scouts and change the personnell if needed. Ultimately it's his draft record.
I think Boldy's name came up more in projections on this site (and possibly others) than from rumors of actual interest.I have no idea what Brackett's role was with the pick, but Boldy seemed to be a name connected to the Canucks around that time. Maybe they liked him, maybe it was that he was forecasted to be selected near where they were picking. It was a major miss, though.
I was impressed by the Podkolzin pick at the time, simply because of the KHL contract he was locked into. I expected Benning to go for a player he could force into the line-up immediately.I think Boldy's name came up more in projections on this site (and possibly others) than from rumors of actual interest.
Podkolzin, from what I understand, was a rare Brackett miss. I think he's been reported as pushing for him.
LOL there were definitely both major red flags and massively obvious better choices at the time.sometimes a player just doesn't work out. i don't think there were any major red flags with podz, and it's not like there were obvious choices instead of him at the time.
the year before, we had a major hit with quinn hughes because i don't think anybody expected his development curve to skyrocket like it did. and podz's didn't. whatever.
which were the red flags? both him and boldy were two-way wingers but podz had the size, skating, and physicality that boldy didn't have, but didn't produce as well. and for every cole caufield there are probably five zach boychuks.LOL there were definitely both major red flags and massively obvious better choices at the time.
He didn't work out because he was very clearly never very good, same reason he won't work out in Edmonton, khl quality player.
which were the red flags? both him and boldy were two-way wingers but podz had the size, skating, and physicality that boldy didn't have, but didn't produce as well. and for every cole caufield there are probably five zach boychuks.
i just don't think this is the massive reach that something like juolevi over tkachuk was. podz's floor was probably seen as higher than most other prospects. kakko is a similar prototype - produced insanely well in the finnish men's league as a 17 year old, was picked 2nd overall, and still got out developed by boldy. it's not an exact science.
Well Brackett was the Director of Amateur Scouting at the time. Like I said, I do think a GM's draft record is his draft record. Whether he overrules his scouts, trusts his scouts, keep or fire incompetent scouts etc. those are part of the job description.I have no idea what Brackett's role was with the pick, but Boldy seemed to be a name connected to the Canucks around that time. Maybe they liked him, maybe it was that he was forecasted to be selected near where they were picking. It was a major miss, though.
In general ya you give the first year a pass as often a new GM hired at the start of the off season is forbidden from participating in that draft as a condition of the hire. Interestingly, Benning was not forbidden AND he was coming from a role where he was the guy putting together the draft stuff for the Bruins. It's a case where a GM does get to own that first draft as he was able to use his knowledge and prioritization from his previous job if he so wanted. And I think he did on the Virtanen pick.
But that's completely an aside....
Was it rare? Brackett wanted to trade down if Woo was not available. There were quite a few NHL defensemen drafted in that second round including Romanov who was drafted right after. If you look at our draft record under Brackett there isn't much to praise him for. The results just weren't there.Podkolzin, from what I understand, was a rare Brackett miss. I think he's been reported as pushing for him.
In fairness to Jim Benning, the Canucks Canadian amateur scouts have sucked sh*t since....maybe going back as far as the Pat Quinn days. Virtanen wasn't the only blown pick (OJ was another blown fairly high 1st round pick. Both guys largely drafted as a result of them playing in the Canadian junior leagues. Not sure what the issue is/was for multiple decades. Various GM's didn't seem to "fix" it.As for Virtanen, some here think that the pick was pre-determined before Benning got here but I didn't come across reports supporting that. I wouldn't be surprised if the NA scouts were onboard. People talk about the Canucks liking Larkin before Gillis was fired and I believe they did but the Canucks' draft position drastically changed between the time they were looking at Larkin and at the time of the draft. IIRC, Eric Crawford was a big reason why we acquired David Booth. Gilman certainly spoke highly of Virtanen when he was first on S&P.