Discussion About Management . Part 44. (#356)

[CanaFan]

Also the "drafting in the top 10 has been bad but he's drafted well in later rounds so it evens out" is a funny argument. Nylander, Ehlers, and Tkachuk are putting up top 6 points in the NHL right now. Do we have any of our "late round picks" even playing in the NHL? And assuming they get here, are they expected to put up similar points to those players?

It's strange to argue missing out on guys that are currently high level NHLers is ok because we've got some guys that look good on a prospect list.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

You didn't have to. If my rephrasing of your argument bothers you, ignore it. The jist of what you have said is that Linden is dominant in Hockey Ops decision making.

Here's what you have said (paraphrased):

1. You have said that this _team_ is Linden's vision.
2. Linden speaks in the authoritative about trades.
3. That if Benning is replaced, the organization will be run in pretty much the same manner because the mandate originates from ownership+Linden.
4. That Linden and Benning work closely together, unlike other President-GM structures around the league.
5. If Benning is fired, Linden is also fired/walks away.
6. That Linden does NOT defer to Benning.
7. Linden and Benning have a "dual vision".
8. Linden is directly involved in Hockey Ops.

And so, if Linden is involved in Hockey Ops and this current team is comprised of his vision, that suggests that Linden is the driver behind most of the moves made. That he is executing his vision through hockey operations. That this is not Benning's role. This is further confirmed by your assertions that firing Benning is effectively firing Linden. And your conclusion that firing Benning likely leads to a continuation of the execution we have seen. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

So in essence, you're saying Linden has been dominant in all hockey related decisions for the Canucks.

You're a selective reader (which I've noticed in your debates with other posters)
1.Linden hired Benning,and while interviewing GM's ..he was looking for a GM that aligned with his vision (and could draft..which was key because there was nothing coming up)....So in a round about way..you could say yes..It is Lindens initial vision.
I will say yes to 2,3,4,5,7,8
6...Of course Linden defers to Benning... on evaluation of players, at the amateur and pro level....Strategy,however..I believe is made by both GM and President (ties in with #7).

 

[MS]

Of course Lindens dumb

He was impressed by Bennings ability to recall certain goals prospects scored off the top of his head, as if anyone who pays attention to the draft couldn't do that

No kidding. That quote still boggles the mind.

I can still describe games and goals from prospects from 15 or 20 years ago, much less just last season. Anyone who follows junior hockey would be able to do this.

Also the "drafting in the top 10 has been bad but he's drafted well in later rounds so it evens out" is a funny argument. Nylander, Ehlers, and Tkachuk are putting up top 6 points in the NHL right now. Do we have any of our "late round picks" even playing in the NHL? And assuming they get here, are they expected to put up similar points to those players?

It's strange to argue missing out on guys that are currently high level NHLers is ok because we've got some guys that look good on a prospect list.

There are so many problems with this argument it's not even funny.

1) drafting with late picks isn't nearly as important as drafting with early picks.
2) all of the late picks that are 'good' haven't actually made the team yet, and most won't.
3) all of the late picks (and most of the early picks) that are 'good' are from the USHL and pretty clearly the work of head scout Judd Brackett.
4) the GM would have more influence on early picks and less influence on later picks in pretty much every instance, which is actually more evidence that what's happening is that a bad scout in Benning is just screwing up the good work of his staff.
5) BEING BAD AT DRAFTING EARLY AND GOOD AT DRAFTING LATE ISN'T A THING.

 

[CanaFan]

No kidding. That quote still boggles the mind.

I can still describe games and goals from prospects from 15 or 20 years ago, much less just last season. Anyone who follows junior hockey would be able to do this.




There are so many problems with this argument it's not even funny.

1) drafting with late picks isn't nearly as important as drafting with early picks.
2) all of the late picks that are 'good' haven't actually made the team yet, and most won't.
3) all of the late picks (and most of the early picks) that are 'good' are from the USHL and pretty clearly the work of head scout Judd Brackett.
4) the GM would have more influence on early picks and less influence on later picks in pretty much every instance, which is actually more evidence that what's happening is that a bad scout in Benning is just screwing up the good work of his staff.
5) BEING BAD AT DRAFTING EARLY AND GOOD AT DRAFTING LATE ISN'T A THING.

But Petrus Palmu is a better #11 prospect than Charles Antoine-Messier!!

 

[Toxic0n]

I come back to this forum, get bombarded with ads and now I have to read through the "cap space doesn't matter if you're rebuilding, it's not my money" BS again.

My ignore list has been wiped too!

 

[Wo Yorfat]

Pro tip, add me asap

 

[Toxic0n]

Pro tip, add me asap

I can't block bring myself to block that profile pic/avatar, guess I'm stuck reading your posts.

 

[Wo Yorfat]

Your funeral. Steady diet of GIF, Benning chirp, GIF, bad joke.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Nylander and Tkachuk are 19 and 21 years old. Their production at such a young age suggests they could potentially replace the Sedin’s production some day. Not the MVP-level production - we aren’t likely to replace that anywhere - but the regular 70-80 point production. Certainly better than anyone we currently have in the system. Missing on those players means the losing endured in 2014 and 2016 were wasted and we need to endure two more terrible seasons to replace those blown picks.

As for Gudbranson, Sutter, and Dorsett the problem is that they are role players that cost more than what role players should cost. McCann + 33rd is an outrageous price for a “role player” Dman. Meanwhile we had a better player in Bonino and sent him plus Clendenning, and a pick swap for a “role player”.

Those are premium prices for table scraps. Which is indicative of Benning’s time here.

It is a fallacy to assume that drafting Nylander would not change other variables such as subsequent draft positions in 2016 and 2017. If he is as good as you are saying then he was going to hurt the tank with his points before the 2016 and 2017 draft, therefore almost no chance of getting Tkachuk or Peterson. I would rather have Virtanen + Boeser + Juolevi + Peterson than Nylander + Boeser + 2 inferior players.

In a vacuum Gus Brandon is not worth McCann and a 33rd but Larsson was also not worth Hall. Doesn't matter if it made the team better which it did in both cases. Likewise is the case with Sutter. It's true we traded offensive skill for speed and defensive play in that trade and I like the way our team looks better long term with Sutter.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

The underlying stats say otherwise. Do you know what PDO is?

Please explain?


There's no subjectivity on how bad you are trying to inflate stats with excessive TOI and good deployment to justify bloated contracts because of other reasons than being good hockey players. These are four examples of overpayed players who simply are bad hockey players.

It has nothing to do with inflating stats or TOI. Sutter plays a lot because he's our best defensive centre. Grandlund plays a lot because he's legitimately good. Dorset brings an element that no other forward can. Gudbrabson is getting the ice time he deserves and he's not overpaid. Where do you get this stuff? Who told you this stuff?

There have been mostly so so trades and bad trades, with one exception.

Agree to disagree I believe there were 4 great trades off the top of my head, Granlund, Baertshi, Goldobin, Dahlen.

Let me get this straight: you miss two surefire top 6 wingers with 2 top 10 picks and since you get some good players outside the top 10, you think he is a great drafter? Do you read what you write? You know that if we got those two wingers, we could use the cap space for other team needs, and become a better destination for FA? Or even...



... get some bad contracts with 1st round picks to get even better prospect pool? You know that you are defending two antagonistic points of view? I hope there's not many "fans" like you because this means the Canucks deserve exactly this kind of management.

No this is 20-20 hindsight. Nyander and Tkachuk were not sure fire top 6. I happen to believe Virtanen and Juolevi will have a bigger impact than Nylander or Tkachuk would. Points are important but there's more to the game than points. I'd rather have a Tanev than an Eberle. I'd rather have someone like Virtanen who can change the momentum of games with big hits even if he doesn't score plus players like Peterson who I think is better than Nylander.

 

[CanaFan]

No this is 20-20 hindsight. Nyander and Tkachuk were not sure fire top 6. I happen to believe Virtanen and Juolevi will have a bigger impact than Nylander or Tkachuk would. Points are important but there's more to the game than points. I'd rather have a Tanev than an Eberle. I'd rather have someone like Virtanen who can change the momentum of games with big hits even if he doesn't score plus players like Peterson who I think is better than Nylander.

This is one of those rare times that an opinion is objectively wrong.

Throwing a “big hit” does not always change the momentum of a game and besides you can always draft guys that hit in the 5th round. Scoring goals or creating goals with offensive play is a much more effective way to “change the momentum” of a game. And scorers are the most highly valued commodities in the NHL. What you are arguing would make Derek Dorsett more valuable than prime Sedins.

It’s rare to hear an opinion as ridiculous as the one you have just put forward. Congrats!

 

[DL44]

Haven't been reading this thread... has anyone discussed Benning's top 10 draft selection yet?

 

[CanaFan]

It is a fallacy to assume that drafting Nylander would not change other variables such as subsequent draft positions in 2016 and 2017. If he is as good as you are saying then he was going to hurt the tank with his points before the 2016 and 2017 draft, therefore almost no chance of getting Tkachuk or Peterson. I would rather have Virtanen + Boeser + Juolevi + Peterson than Nylander + Boeser + 2 inferior players.

In a vacuum Gus Brandon is not worth McCann and a 33rd but Larsson was also not worth Hall. Doesn't matter if it made the team better which it did in both cases. Likewise is the case with Sutter. It's true we traded offensive skill for speed and defensive play in that trade and I like the way our team looks better long term with Sutter.

Nylander played 22 games in 2015-16 and didn’t stop the Leafs from finishing 30th. There’s no way to know if he even plays any games for us or whether he changes our place in the standings. Maybe we finish 7th and win the #2 lottery spot and draft Laine?

It’s all postulation as we don’t know how much Nylander would have played or what impact it would have had. Hell, maybe drafting Pettersson in 2017 means we don’t draft as high in 2020. Who cares? You aim for the best player out of every pick and failing to do so hurts your organization significantly. Otherwise why draft at all?

As for Larsson-Hall, the difference is obviously that the Oilers were finished building up their forwards and needed to stabilize their back end. That made Larsson more valuable to the Oilers than Hall. That situation didn’t apply here where we were (and still are) a hot mess at forward, possibly even more so than at D. Benning not only got the value wrong but also the organization need and even the timing of the deal in our rebuild. Just stunning incompetence at every turn.

 

[MadaCanuckle]

No this is 20-20 hindsight. Nyander and Tkachuk were not sure fire top 6. I happen to believe Virtanen and Juolevi will have a bigger impact than Nylander or Tkachuk would. Points are important but there's more to the game than points. I'd rather have a Tanev than an Eberle. I'd rather have someone like Virtanen who can change the momentum of games with big hits even if he doesn't score plus players like Peterson who I think is better than Nylander.

1) PDO is the sum of a team's 5v5 shooting percentage (the number of goals they score divided by the number of shots on goal they generate) and their 5v5 save percentage (the number of shots their goalies stop divided by the number of shots on goal they allow). It's a measure of luck. You usually defend that we were unlucky, but the reality is that in 2014 we were lucky (100.8, 8th most fortunate), and the next year, we were in the middle of the park with 99.8. 100 is the norm. This proves your assessement of lucky is simply false.

2) Granlund had one of the most favourable deployments not only on the Canucks but in the entire league. He played in situations to inflate his stats (go check them, since you are too lazy to back your "facts"). And yet he couldn't surpass the 40-point pace.

Well... about the defensive guru Sutter is, he was bad in Carolina, awful in Pittsburgh (that's why everyone says we gave the best player in that trade and payed a pick over that) and, surprise surprise, he still sucks here in Vancouver. There's a stat who measures that. Go use google to find it. You need to be proactive to learn something.

Dorsett brings an element that no other forward does... are you talking about stupid penalties? Because that's the only thing he brings to the table.

I love the impact Gudbranson brings to our game: a stupid penalty, and going from 1-0 to 1-4 in a matter of minutes. I don't even talk about his horrid defensive play...

3) Dahlen. And that's it. You didn't get any top 6 players, you just deploy most of them as top 6 because your top 6 is crap. Period.

4) This is not 20-20 hindsight. People saw them in juniors, saw what they produce at that level. The only problem with Nylander was his attitude but, as you can see, it took 2 years for JV to get his shit together. And there's not only the points. The impact the game in a positive way, they win games (go check the Jets, they are fun to watch, since you clearly are against the Canucks) and, contrary to Dorsett, Tkachuck brings that element and can play hockey. Those are two players (Nylander/Ehlers + Tkachuck) who play in the NHL, winning games for their teams, and impacting the game with their skill (for the first two) and grit (KT). Oh, do you know you could have on this team, right now, Tkachuck, Ehlers/Nylander and Pastrnak? But the so called guru of drafting is botching pick after pick after pick in the first round, when he doesn't trade them away for crap hockey players.

P.S.: No one told me nothing. I live 6000 km away from Vancouver, and I follow the team. Since I don't have that much people to talk about hockey, I read about them and learn a lot. Reading is wonderful for your brain, you should try it at least once. And next time you talk to Benning, give him the same advice.

 

[Nomobo]

1) PDO is the sum of a team's 5v5 shooting percentage (the number of goals they score divided by the number of shots on goal they generate) and their 5v5 save percentage (the number of shots their goalies stop divided by the number of shots on goal they allow). It's a measure of luck. You usually defend that we were unlucky, but the reality is that in 2014 we were lucky (100.8, 8th most fortunate), and the next year, we were in the middle of the park with 99.8. 100 is the norm. This proves your assessement of lucky is simply false.

2) Granlund had one of the most favourable deployments not only on the Canucks but in the entire league. He played in situations to inflate his stats (go check them, since you are too lazy to back your "facts"). And yet he couldn't surpass the 40-point pace.

Well... about the defensive guru Sutter is, he was bad in Carolina, awful in Pittsburgh (that's why everyone says we gave the best player in that trade and payed a pick over that) and, surprise surprise, he still sucks here in Vancouver. There's a stat who measures that. Go use google to find it. You need to be proactive to learn something.

Dorsett brings an element that no other forward does... are you talking about stupid penalties? Because that's the only thing he brings to the table.

I love the impact Gudbranson brings to our game: a stupid penalty, and going from 1-0 to 1-4 in a matter of minutes. I don't even talk about his horrid defensive play...

3) Dahlen. And that's it. You didn't get any top 6 players, you just deploy most of them as top 6 because your top 6 is crap. Period.

4) This is not 20-20 hindsight. People saw them in juniors, saw what they produce at that level. The only problem with Nylander was his attitude but, as you can see, it took 2 years for JV to get his **** together. And there's not only the points. The impact the game in a positive way, they win games (go check the Jets, they are fun to watch, since you clearly are against the Canucks) and, contrary to Dorsett, Tkachuck brings that element and can play hockey. Those are two players (Nylander/Ehlers + Tkachuck) who play in the NHL, winning games for their teams, and impacting the game with their skill (for the first two) and grit (KT). Oh, do you know you could have on this team, right now, Tkachuck, Ehlers/Nylander and Pastrnak? But the so called guru of drafting is botching pick after pick after pick in the first round, when he doesn't trade them away for crap hockey players.

P.S.: No one told me nothing. I live 6000 km away from Vancouver, and I follow the team. Since I don't have that much people to talk about hockey, I read about them and learn a lot. Reading is wonderful for your brain, you should try it at least once. And next time you talk to Benning, give him the same advice.

Maybe instead of writing long drawn out posts you should try watching the game, you might learn something that you missed while reading.

 

[MadaCanuckle]

Maybe instead of writing long drawn out posts you should try watching the game, you might learn something that you missed while reading.

When did I said that I read while the game is on?

If the game is so important, why did you quote and answer my post?

 

[Hollywood Burrows]

Maybe instead of writing long drawn out posts you should try watching the game, you might learn something that you missed while reading.

garbage post, get out of here

 

[F A N]

The lack of contributions from 1st round picks (save Boeser this season?) has certainly hurt the Canucks' rebuild. You have to compensate by drafting quality players in the later rounds to compensate.

Between making the absolute best choice with your first round pick and drafting busts with all later picks and missing on your first round pick but consistently turning out NHL players with later picks, I choose the former because it's harder to acquire these star players and I haven't really seen too many Cup winners without notable star players. But at the end of the day you got to manage the cap and build a team. Take Nashville. They didn't win the Cup but they went to the Finals not because they nailed their top 10 picks.

 

[geebaan]

Maybe instead of writing long drawn out posts you should try watching the game, you might learn something that you missed while reading.

I have no argument but you are wrong

Solid post

 

[y2kcanucks]

No this is 20-20 hindsight. Nyander and Tkachuk were not sure fire top 6. I happen to believe Virtanen and Juolevi will have a bigger impact than Nylander or Tkachuk would. Points are important but there's more to the game than points. I'd rather have a Tanev than an Eberle. I'd rather have someone like Virtanen who can change the momentum of games with big hits even if he doesn't score plus players like Peterson who I think is better than Nylander.

No, it's not 20-20 hindsight when the majority of the board wanted Ehlers/Nylander before the draft, and almost all of the board wanted Tkachuk. And they did project as top 6 forwards. Tkachuk, with his offensive production in the OHL, projected as a top line winger and had it not been a year with the "Big 3" he would have likely been in the conversation for first overall. For example, if he were in the 2017 draft he probably would have gone 1st overall.

You'd rather have Virtanen than Nylander? Wow.... I guess you're happier with Dorsett than McDavid? Because Dorsett can hit?

 

[y2kcanucks]

Maybe instead of writing long drawn out posts you should try watching the game, you might learn something that you missed while reading.

LOL nice response. So when someone tries explaining something in such a way that you can't argue against it, just resort to this garbage. Typical.

 

[y2kcanucks]

The lack of contributions from 1st round picks (save Boeser this season?) has certainly hurt the Canucks' rebuild. You have to compensate by drafting quality players in the later rounds to compensate.

Between making the absolute best choice with your first round pick and drafting busts with all later picks and missing on your first round pick but consistently turning out NHL players with later picks, I choose the former because it's harder to acquire these star players and I haven't really seen too many Cup winners without notable star players. But at the end of the day you got to manage the cap and build a team. Take Nashville. They didn't win the Cup but they went to the Finals not because they nailed their top 10 picks.

And Benning has not managed the cap well at all. But hey, you supported him so enjoy this mess.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Pro tip, add me asap

Don't tell me you're one of those people who (wrongly) think the cap doesn't matter.

 

[TruKnyte]

No, it's not 20-20 hindsight when the majority of the board wanted Ehlers/Nylander before the draft, and almost all of the board wanted Tkachuk. And they did project as top 6 forwards. Tkachuk, with his offensive production in the OHL, projected as a top line winger and had it not been a year with the "Big 3" he would have likely been in the conversation for first overall. For example, if he were in the 2017 draft he probably would have gone 1st overall.

You'd rather have Virtanen than Nylander? Wow.... I guess you're happier with Dorsett than McDavid? Because Dorsett can hit?

I honestly think that if the Canucks drafted the consensus first round picks from HFBoards we'd be a playoff team.

 

[The Drop]

garbage post, get out of here

It’s par for the course