Jim Bennings Draft Record as Assistant GM in Boston

[banme*]

Please provide link.

http://canucksarmy.com/2014/5/27/ron-delorme-and-the-canucks-v-the-29-other-scouting-departments

I could follow that up by asking why are we comparing a head scout to a General Manager.

Wot.

 

[fancouver]

Why are we looking at his drafting numbers when he was an AGM? How about we look at his drafting numbers when he was a head scout? They are fantastic.

Bingo.

Buffalo draft is what you should be analyzing, not Boston. And besides, even if you wanted to judge Benning on his drafts in Boston, you should look at 2007-2014. He came on to the Canucks in the summer of 2014, but had already done all the scouting work for Bruins that year. David Pastmak is looking good.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Benning had more input on McCann instead of Virtanen. Virtanen looks like a guy Ron Delorme would suggest and we all know his track record. Whereas, Garth Snow offered a trade for the 24th pick, and Benning kept that pick because of McCann.

 

[arttk]

Bingo.

Buffalo draft is what you should be analyzing, not Boston. And besides, even if you wanted to judge Benning on his drafts in Boston, you should look at 2007-2014. He came on to the Canucks in the summer of 2014, but had already done all the scouting work for Bruins that year. David Pastmak is looking good.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Benning had more input on McCann instead of Virtanen. Virtanen looks like a guy Ron Delorme would suggest and we all know his track record. Whereas, Garth Snow offered a trade for the 24th pick, and Benning kept that pick because of McCann.

To suggest that he didn't have input in Virtanen is crazy. I don't even have to explain why that is.

 

[sting101]

Though I am one of the anti-Benning faction I wouldnt go that far. The problem with all that stuff is, that nobody can really figure out how much impact he had on any of of those picks. Maybe he was the major voice in getting Miller and Vanek or maybe he wanted to draft Jessiman instead of Vanek but got overturned by Regier. We will never know and never find out. All we can do is drawing some conclusions and mine dont look too good.

However what I found interesting while doing a bit of research for Bennings past jobs was that most reports/article got stuff wrong (like the Rask trade and the 2006 Bruins draft) and it seems like either people didnt do any real research or that they were caught in the hype and didnt bother to double check previous reports.

That's just it. No one knows the level of impact he had in regards of the ultimate selections.

Bennings draft team would look like this:

SEGUIN------VANEK-----------POMINVILLE-----SEKERA------HAMILTON------MILLER
SPOONER----MCARTHUR -----STAFFORD-------WEBER-------WIDEMAN-------ENROTH
MCCANN-----BAERTSCHI------COLBORNE------PEDAN-------TROTMAN-------HUTCHINSON
GAUSTAD----VIRTANEN-------GRIFFITH--------HEJDA--------BIEGA-----------SUBBAN
KHOKLACHEV- GERBE---------THORBURN------BRISEBOIS---TRYAMKIN -----DEMKO
VEY------------PAILLE----------BOESER
ROY-----------CARON----------CUNNINGHAM

Thats without a single UFA. I'm not sure if he had a big impact in scouting Torrey Krug.

Fitzgerald Randell Grzelcyk are good prospects in Boston's system on his watch also.

 

[Peter10]

http://canucksarmy.com/2014/5/27/ron-delorme-and-the-canucks-v-the-29-other-scouting-departments



Wot.

Ok so going from 1998-2004 lets compare the Sabres and the Canucks.

Sabres noteable draftees:
Vanek, Miller, Pominville, Wideman, Roy, Gaustad, Thorburn, Stafford, Hejda, Ballard, Paille, MacArthur, Kotalik, Kalinin, Sekera

Canucks noteable draftees:
Daniel + Henrik Sedin, Kesler, Umberger, Allen, Ruutu, Bieksa, Edler, Hansen, Schneider

The Sabres had a few more depth guys, the Canucks more impact players (Sedins, Kesler, Edler, Schneider).

Not sure where you get that "best in league" from. If you draft 10 4th liners who play a combined 4000 games is that better than drafting like 4 top 6 players/no 4 defenders who will combine for 2500 games?

 

[Jay Cee]

We don't know of his real impact with any drafting for any team besides where he was the head scout, and if people wanted to (which they probably will) they can even say that was the secret Buffalo super scout's doing.

It is all spitballing because we weren't there and it has been discussed every other day on this forum and it is all extremely tiresome.

 

[banme*]

Not sure where you get that "best in league" from. If you draft 10 4th liners who play a combined 4000 games is that better than drafting like 4 top 6 players/no 4 defenders who will combine for 2500 games?

He was the best in the league at finding NHL players, i.e. got the most NHL GP out of his draft picks. As seen in that article. You know your example's silly, I know you do.

 

[Peter10]

That's just it. No one knows the level of impact he had in regards of the ultimate selections.

Bennings draft team would look like this:

I dont get you, you agree that nobody knows what level of impact he had on the picks yet you post a "all star" team from the times when he was with certain teams? That would implicate that he pushed (successfully) for all the good picks and was overturned on all the bad picks.

 

[Pip]

I have a hard time believing that Benning was not involved with scouting in Boston.

 

[fancouver]

To suggest that he didn't have input in Virtanen is crazy. I don't even have to explain why that is.

I didn't suggest he had no input. I said it looks like he had more input on McCann than Virtanen.

We don't know of his real impact with any drafting for any team besides where he was the head scout, and if people wanted to (which they probably will) they can even say that was the secret Buffalo super scout's doing.

It is all spitballing because we weren't there and it has been discussed every other day on this forum and it is all extremely tiresome.

Basically everything is just assumptions. In fact, even as a GM, it doesn't necessarily mean he made all those picks. It still has to go through the whole management team. What we can come to a conclusion is that he was part of that management team when they made those picks and honestly, Buffalo draft years look good considering the positions they were drafted at.

He was the best in the league at finding NHL players, i.e. got the most NHL GP out of his draft picks. As seen in that article. You know your example's silly, I know you do.

And honestly, this thread makes Benning look bad because of all those prospects with 0 games played in the past 3 years in Boston. But what do you expect? Most of those players are either in Juniors or in the AHL and it's way too soon to gauge their NHL impact. Further, Boston was a good team and consistently drafted in the bottom half until last year. You're not going to get any impact players right away. You'll get the Jensens, the Schroeders if you've been a good team.

 

[sting101]

I dont get you, you agree that nobody knows what level of impact he had on the picks yet you post a "all star" team from the times when he was with certain teams? That would implicate that he pushed (successfully) for all the good picks and was overturned on all the bad picks.

Sorry to ruin the potential crap fest on Bennings scouting abilities?

I clearly stated that their was no way to know from the outset of my info.

I thought it might be useful as an understanding of the ridiculous notion that Buffalo and Boston was somehow a failure as to his resume as a scout. Which I believe was the OP's argument and basis for his smear attempt...no?

 

[Love]

Where did the myth about Benning being a genius drafter begin?

He goes to the rink to scout tho

 

[KeninsFan]

I didn't suggest he had no input. I said it looks like he had more input on McCann than Virtanen.

I think the speculation was that the Gillis staff were high on Ehlers and would've picked him.

Anyways it's probably more reasonable that a new GM would have more input with the 6th OV selection (everyone scouts the top prospects) than having much say over the next couple rounds.

 

[Jay Cee]

I think the speculation was that the Gillis staff were high on Ehlers and would've picked him.

Anyways it's probably more reasonable that a new GM would have more input with the 6th OV selection (everyone scouts the top prospects) than having much say over the next couple rounds.

We have absolutely no idea who Gillis' team would have drafted and it is irrelevant because he was gone by then. I do agree with your second point though, generally speaking as the norm would go. But again, we have no idea what our situation was.

 

[arttk]

I didn't suggest he had no input. I said it looks like he had more input on McCann than Virtanen.



Basically everything is just assumptions. In fact, even as a GM, it doesn't necessarily mean he made all those picks. It still has to go through the whole management team. What we can come to a conclusion is that he was part of that management team when they made those picks and honestly, Buffalo draft years look good considering the positions they were drafted at.



And honestly, this thread makes Benning look bad because of all those prospects with 0 games played in the past 3 years in Boston. But what do you expect? Most of those players are either in Juniors or in the AHL and it's way too soon to gauge their NHL impact. Further, Boston was a good team and consistently drafted in the bottom half until last year. You're not going to get any impact players right away. You'll get the Jensens, the Schroeders if you've been a good team.

That is still stupid. As a manager, you prioritize based on importance.

The importance of the #6 pick is going to be much higher than the pick that he didn't even get until like the week before the draft.

Most of the scouting is probably long done before then and if there is any extra time, it should and was probably spent analyzing who they should pick for #6.

McCann was most likely picked base on the list the scouts came up with. It's hard to imagine that Benning came in and threw away the list that the scouts have spent a year prepping. He was a scout himself, he probably has enough respect for other scouts to not scrap their work just because.

 

[fancouver]

I think the speculation was that the Gillis staff were high on Ehlers and would've picked him.

Anyways it's probably more reasonable that a new GM would have more input with the 6th OV selection (everyone scouts the top prospects) than having much say over the next couple rounds.

The reason I believe Benning had more input in McCann is because Boston was a great team that year and thus would only be picking from 20-30. We can see Boston held the 25th pick and Vancouver traded Kesler to get the 24th pick. I don't think this was a coincidence. Instead, Benning was scouting prospects that whole year looking for guys that will fall in that position.

Further, this position is strengthened when Garth Snow had an offer for the 24th pick, but Benning was incredibly reluctant to let it go. He knew what he wanted and seeing how McCann is doing pretty good, I think it was his main target.

 

[Peter10]

He was the best in the league at finding NHL players, i.e. got the most NHL GP out of his draft picks. As seen in that article. You know your example's silly, I know you do.

Well if thats your premise for a draft than good luck with a team full of tweener talent along with Vanek and Miller.

1998:
1st round #18 Kalinin...players drafter after: Regher, Gagne, Gomez
2nd round #34 Andrew Peters, players drafter after (Erskine, Vaananen, Fisher, Ribero
6th round #164 Kotalik - yup good pick at that spot

1998:
1st round #20 Barrett Heisten (a total of 10gp), players drafted after Boynton, McCarthy, Havlat
2nd round #35 Bartovic (50gp), players drafted after Semenov, Auld, Commodore, Leopold, Adam Hall
5th round #138 Ryan Miller - very good pick at that spot

2000:
None of the top 5 players drafted (#15, 48,111,149,213) have played a single NHL game
Paul Gaustad picked in the 7th round at 220 but you can hardly tell me this was more than a coincidence considering every single pick before that was screwed up

2001:
1st round #22 Novotny, players with more GP drafted after him: Gleason, Kraijeck (including him should show what bad pick that was), Woywitka, Steckel
2nd round # 32 Roy, player drafted after him: Jackman, Tyutin, Cammalleri
the other 2nd rounders in Thorburn and Pominville were pretty good considering what was left (well yeah Plekance, Ehrhoff, Bieksa and Sharp but most teams failed to look at them)

2002:
1st round #11 Ballard, drafted after that: Eminger, Semin, Higgins, Gordon
1st round #20 Paille, drafted after that: Babchuk, Bergenheim, Eager, Steen, Ward, Slater, Stool, Daley, Greene, G. Campbell
6 further picks from round 3-7 combined to 14 gp (all from Hecl)
In round 8 they got Wideman which is fantastic in a vacuum but looking that all 6 before bombed it looks like a "got lucky" pick

2003:
one of the best drafts ever in which the Sabres held the 5th overall pick, used on Thomas Vanek. Players drafted after that: Suter, Coburn, Phaneuf, Carter, Brown, Seabrook, Parise, Getzlaf, Burns, Kesler, Richards, Perry, Eriksson, Bergeron, Carle, Weber, Crawford, Howard
2nd round, #65 Fabry (zero NHL games played) picked after that Fraser and Carcillo
2nd round #74 MacArthur - good pick just like Hejda in the 3rd.

2004:
1st round #13 Stafford - drafted after that: Dubnyk, Radulov, Chipchura, Korpikoski, Zajac, Wolski, Meszaros, Schneider, Schultz, Fistric, Green, Bolland, Bickell
2nd round # 43 Mike Funk (9 NHL games played), players drafted after that: Comeau, Booth, Grossman, Dubinsky, Goligoski, Krejci, Prust
3rd round #71 Sekera - very solid pick (Van grabbed Edler at 91, DET took Franzen at 97)
6th round #176 Kaleta - played 348 games but "just" an enforcer and nothing to write home about.

As a conclusion I would say during Benning tenure as the Sabres head scout, Buffalo drafted 2 very good impact players in Vanek and Miller. Besides that he has been solid in finding some talent for the 2nd-4th line (mainly bottom 6) and some #3-4 defensemen. Dont get me wrong, this is far from being a bad result but I wouldnt call that outstanding drafting either.

Going only by games played is a bad way to judge draft success. If get a 4th liner in the 2nd round that is playing 400 games but in a trade would only get you a 5th or 6th rounder, is that still great drafting?

 

[Trelane]

GM is responsible for all picks made under his reign. Unless some insider cares to give insights from a draft war room where Benning was a participant the extent of his influence is just speculation. That includes the time he was head scout since we know nothing of club directives, methods of arriving at final lists, GM use of overrule privilege, etc. Even the heavily edited, made for hardcore fan consumption, club trade and draft conference clips are of little use. The important stuff gets decided elsewhere.

To take it further, we could have an ace scout who has been on the payroll a while, but if his voice isn't dominant... Even influential wouldn't necessarily be enough depending on the decision making process.

All I know and care enough to evaluate is what he did in Van.

 

[Wilch]

Before Benning went to Boston, he was a scout.

If he wasn't in charge of or at least coordinating the amateur scouting in Boston, what was he doing there? Sitting around with a bottle of lotion and a box Kleenex?

 

[VanJack]

People are debating Benning draft record, but should be more concerned about his 'trading record' imo.....I have a bad feeling the 'Nucks are going to linger around the playoff bar thanks to the incompetence of the Pacific Division, and they'll go over the clliff with UFA guys like Hamhuis, Vrbata, Weber and Bartkdowski rather than deal them for futures at the deadline.

 

[Peter10]

Sorry to ruin the potential crap fest on Bennings scouting abilities?

I clearly stated that their was no way to know from the outset of my info.

I thought it might be useful as an understanding of the ridiculous notion that Buffalo and Boston was somehow a failure as to his resume as a scout. Which I believe was the OP's argument and basis for his smear attempt...no?

Then why post the best possible list out of all those picks? It holds the same credibility as me posting a list of all the players (not playing game at all) that were picked by BUF and BOS while Benning was there. It has no purpose at all. It doesnt show whether Benning is good or bad at scouting.

 

[drax0s]

Ok so going from 1998-2004 lets compare the Sabres and the Canucks.

Sabres noteable draftees:
Vanek, Miller, Pominville, Wideman, Roy, Gaustad, Thorburn, Stafford, Hejda, Ballard, Paille, MacArthur, Kotalik, Kalinin, Sekera

Canucks noteable draftees:
Daniel + Henrik Sedin, Kesler, Umberger, Allen, Ruutu, Bieksa, Edler, Hansen, Schneider

Eh... Not really a fair comparison. Allen, Henrik and Daniel were 4th, 2nd and 3rd overall. The highest pick the Sabres ever received during that period was 5th overall. So there's a significant difference in pick quality. Besides that (because Excel is awesome and this is already in table format) let's total up the number of games and points for all draft picks.

• Canucks - 7924 Games Played, 3848 Points (0.48 PPG avg)
• Sabres - 11110 Games Played, 4503 Points (0.40 PPG avg)

So despite having significantly better pick quality and 2 HHOF (hopefully) players drafted 2nd and 3rd overall the Canucks still got significantly fewer games and points for our picks. Had our picks been near the position of the Sabres -- this wouldn't even be close.

 

[Alan Jackson]

This thread is exactly what the forum needed - another excuse to pile on/defend Benning.

Refreshing!

 

[Tobi Wan Kenobi]

He was the director of Amateur Scouting in Sept 98-2004(not sure which month it ended)

So he wasn't there in the 98 draft for them so it's from 99-2004

 

[fancouver]

As a conclusion I would say during Benning tenure as the Sabres head scout, Buffalo drafted 2 very good impact players in Vanek and Miller. Besides that he has been solid in finding some talent for the 2nd-4th line (mainly bottom 6) and some #3-4 defensemen. Dont get me wrong, this is far from being a bad result but I wouldnt call that outstanding drafting either.

Going only by games played is a bad way to judge draft success. If get a 4th liner in the 2nd round that is playing 400 games but in a trade would only get you a 5th or 6th rounder, is that still great drafting?

You're supposed to find "some" talent on the 2nd and 4th line. Being good at the draft means drafting NHLers, even depth players, in the later rounds. So yes, it's about the tweeners which makes it a good draft. And it looks like Benning was doing his job at the later rounds. It's not necessarily about getting a star player like Datsyuk in the 6th round. The 1st round is for drafting your core players.