Confirmed with Link: [VAN/VGK] Canucks acquire F Brendan Leipsic for D Philip Holm

[Superlative Soup]

Hahah - I just caught up on some of the responses to my posts. I might as well shout at the wall and expect it to move. Let me post 3 little points that will perfectly illustrate further what I've been saying.

1 Boeser - where does he go in a redraft? Was this an awesome pick by Benning or not?
2 Gaudette - where does he go in a redraft? Was this an awesome pick by Benning or not?
3 EP - where does he go in a redraft? Was this an awesome pick by Benning or not?

Where does Virtanen go in a redraft?
Where does Juolevi go in a redraft?

Sure he's made some good draft picks as you point out but he's also been incapable of acquiring extra draft picks to do the one thing he's been decent at. Meanwhile other bad teams like Montreal and NYR have boatloads of draft picks.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

hey now.

You're an all star.

 

[CanaFan]

1 Boeser - where does he go in a redraft?

Around 6-8 I'd guess. McDavid, Eichel, Barzal, Provorov, and Werenski stay ahead. Coin toss with Marner and Rantanen right now.

2 Gaudette - where does he go in a redraft?

Who knows? Hasn't played a game in NHL or AHL. Would just be guessing wildly, but definitely a good pick.

3 EP - where does he go in a redraft?

Anywhere from 2-5. Hischier stays ahead. In the mix with Tolvanen, Chytil, and Heiskanen probably. Vilardi and Mittelstadt also move up but probably not past Pettersson.


Playing the same game, I think Virtanen falls to the 20's at least, possibly more. Juolevi falls out of the top 10. Brisebois probably falls out of the 3rd round. Would also like re-do's on Gudbranson, Vey, Pouliot, Goldobin, Motte, Clendenning, Pedan, and the Kesler trade.

But yep, would definitely take Boeser higher.

 

[krutovsdonut]

LOL that's the reason? I think the reason is more to do with not being able to come up with a reasonable, fact based argument. I've read tons of arguments on here, reddit, CDC, Facebook and Twitter. All those pro-Benning arguments are stupid, ignore facts, appeal to authority, make zero sense, or are easily shot down with facts.

[madden] here's a guy who believes he is never wrong who is rating the quality of arguments he disagrees with.[/madden]

maybe kron can give us an analogy.

 

[VancouverJagger]

Boeser - who was pushed for by brackett would go higher

Gaudette- if benning was so high on him and predicted his explosion why did he risk him in the fifth round? Or is he expecting Carl Neil, Dmitri Zukhenov and briesbois to be better players than Gaudette? You can get lucky in late picks.

Pettersson - I love the kid he’s doing amazing but he’s not beating out Nico who has 50 points in the NHL, I don’t see Dallas and Colorado passing on the dmen the took as makar could have been an Olympian this year and heiskanen is at 0.66 points per game in Finland.

So it comes down to Patrick and Pettersson so he would be a top 5 pick still maybe 1 spot difference.


Your entire arguement for why to keep benning around is based on 2 players brackett pushed for (see the articles floating on this board) and Pettersson who would go one or two spots higher in his draft.

Thank you for pretty much PERFECTLY illustrating the reason why it's pointless to debate with the HATERS.

For the most part they have ZERO ability to give credit where credit is due. They would rather strangle a kitten then give Benning credit for anything.


1) Talking about Boeser "who was pushed for by brackett would go higher"

2) Talking about Gaudette "You can get lucky in late picks."

The Haters are literally LOATHE to give Benning credit. Maybe if you displayed any ability to have an objective (non-biased) argument then sure you would get more credit and people like myself would happily present our positions. Until then you are just white noise.......angry armchair GM's sitting on the couch revelling in your anger.......

 

[xtra]

Thank you for pretty much PERFECTLY illustrating the reason why it's pointless to debate with the HATERS.

For the most part they have ZERO ability to give credit where credit is due. They would rather strangle a kitten then give Benning credit for anything.


1) Talking about Boeser "who was pushed for by brackett would go higher"

2) Talking about Gaudette "You can get lucky in late picks."

The Haters are literally LOATHE to give Benning credit. Maybe if you displayed any ability to have an objective (non-biased) argument then sure you would get more credit and people like myself would happily present our positions. Until then you are just white noise.......angry armchair GM's sitting on the couch revelling in your anger.......

So am I wrong in what I said?

Boeser was pushed to be taken by brackett unless you have evidence he was Bennings guy. Even if he was I did say he would go higher.

As for Gaudette. Why didn’t he take him in the third round instead if he knew he was going to be so good ?

If a different 5th rounder becomes a superstar unexpectedly no one holds t against Benning as 5th rounders are lucky guesses

 

[VancouverJagger]

You are completely missing my point...........but thanks for further illustrating mine........you provided me an excellent example of what I was attempting to point out.

 

[krutovsdonut]

one last stojanov OT (where did that discussion come from?)

i was curious so i ran a quick catalogue search:

so yes, a very bad pick. but not nearly as gigantic of a reach as people have suggested over the years.

that is an impressive clipping search service you have there.

 

[y2kcanucks]

[madden] here's a guy who believes he is never wrong who is rating the quality of arguments he disagrees with.[/madden]

maybe kron can give us an analogy.

Typical. Resort to red herrings and just ignoring reality when reality doesn't suit your narrative.

 

[xtra]

You are completely missing my point...........but thanks for further illustrating mine........you provided me an excellent example of what I was attempting to point out.

No your proving our point here. You haven’t given us any actual facts that he’s done a good job overall. I think benning has done a good job in some
Areas but you posted items that literally has the canucks them selves saying was someone else’s reasoning.

Ted Thomson pushed for Boeser

31 Thoughts: Rogers wanted NHL trade deadline in primetime - Sportsnet.ca


Judd brackett on gaudette
For the Canucks’ Judd Brackett, scouting and drafting are a collaborative effort


So tell me again how benning is responsible for these picks but not the bad ones? Or is it a group effort For later round picks?

 

[tantalum]

he's got some drive on an off the ice that i like. i'd call him a ronning light for now. or maybe a bradley heavy. either way, if he sustains what he has brought he's miles ahead of motte, boucher and goldobin at being in the nhl.

Don't disagree...but to me it's more about how far away those other 3 are from being NHL players! Leipsic is a 14th forward type guy to me.

 

[2011 still hurts]

"you HATERZ are all so irrational!!!!! Why can't you just blindly support Lindenning and listen to my weak arguments!!!! Prospects!!!! Top 5 pickz!!"

y i k e s

 

[krutovsdonut]

Don't disagree...but to me it's more about how far away those other 3 are from being NHL players! Leipsic is a 14th forward type guy to me.

i might be overrating leipsic as i tend to miss the defensive issues coaches see

 

[Lindgren]

Who has made such an implication?

... If you bring facts to the table and support a well thought out argument, and some disagree then there is good dialogue. This does not exist from the pro-Benning side ... .

According to this post, rational, fact-based argument is entirely absent from the pro-Benning side. Also, the post above that lists the different kinds of pro-Benning posters does not include any who are rationally basing their position on evidence. When the claim is that the pro-Benning side has no posters offering rational, fact-based argument, the implication that the anti-side has a monopoly on such argument is entirely clear.

The evidence supporting the anti-Benning side is stronger, maybe overwhelmingly so. Much of the tone of the anti-Benning "discussion" is insulting, however, and much of the time it fails to meet its own standards of logic. It seems obvious that the goal, whatever it is, is not to convince those who disagree.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Typical. Resort to red herrings and just ignoring reality when reality doesn't suit your narrative.

but you and the way you post are part of my reality.

 

[krutovsdonut]

According to this post, rational, fact-based argument is entirely absent from the pro-Benning side. Also, the post above that lists the different kinds of pro-Benning posters does not include any who are rationally basing their position on evidence. When the claim is that the pro-Benning side has no posters offering rational, fact-based argument, the implication that the anti-side has a monopoly on such argument is entirely clear.

The evidence supporting the anti-Benning side is stronger, maybe overwhelmingly so. Much of the tone of the anti-Benning "discussion" is insulting, however, and much of the time it fails to meet its own standards of logic. It seems obvious that the goal, whatever it is, is not to convince those who disagree.

the goal is to help burn witches to show you are not a witch.

 

[y2kcanucks]

According to this post, rational, fact-based argument is entirely absent from the pro-Benning side. Also, the post above that lists the different kinds of pro-Benning posters does not include any who are rationally basing their position on evidence. When the claim is that the pro-Benning side has no posters offering rational, fact-based argument, the implication that the anti-side has a monopoly on such argument is entirely clear.

The evidence supporting the anti-Benning side is stronger, maybe overwhelmingly so. Much of the tone of the anti-Benning "discussion" is insulting, however, and much of the time it fails to meet its own standards of logic. It seems obvious that the goal, whatever it is, is not to convince those who disagree.

Perhaps the tone is insulting because we're sick of having our intelligence insulted by some of the pro-Benning arguments?

 

[y2kcanucks]

but you and the way you post are part of my reality.

LOL okay I'm done with this. Clearly what we have here is a situation where you and (actually it was FAN who we were initially talking to) have been proven wrong, and none of you want to admit it so you take the discussion off on a tangent.

 

[Lindgren]

Perhaps the tone is insulting because we're sick of having our intelligence insulted by some of the pro-Benning arguments?

I doubt that's the reason.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I doubt that's the reason.

Doubt it all you want, I don't really care. But like I said, I have not yet seen an argument that supports Benning using logic and facts. If you wish to provide one then go for it. But based on what I've seen, and based on the facts that are out there, I have concluded that such an argument does not exist.

 

[hellstick]

Hahah - I just caught up on some of the responses to my posts. I might as well shout at the wall and expect it to move. Let me post 3 little points that will perfectly illustrate further what I've been saying.

1 Boeser - where does he go in a redraft? Was this an awesome pick by Benning or not?
2 Gaudette - where does he go in a redraft? Was this an awesome pick by Benning or not?
3 EP - where does he go in a redraft? Was this an awesome pick by Benning or not?

So... you posted three draft picks and nothing else. I guess I should have expected that.

Look, I'm not going to discredit Benning here. Those three selections are great. You can say Brackett was the guy who actually pushed for the pick or whoever, but the fact is Benning had final say. Managers always get credit for managing people for results, after all.

But nailing a couple draft picks isn't exclusive to Benning. Every GM in the league has draft successes. Given where Benning was selecting from the team he assembled, he probably should have a few more successes in his pocket than he actually does. But I'm not here to rip on Virtanen or Juolevi. That's been done.

I'm not trying to discredit Benning's draft successes here, but what about the rest of the picture? Like the NHL holding our hands to get us cap compliant. Or the tampering fine? How about the standoffish approach to valid questions from the media or the mixed messages to fans? Or the awful contracts and trades that add nothing of reason to the roster, both present or future?

I wonder how this market would react if Benning and Linden pulled a Shanahan and held a press conference talking about how there would be pain, but also that there is a plan in motion to make things better. I think the market will respond positively.

 

[Lindgren]

Doubt it all you want, I don't really care. But like I said, I have not yet seen an argument that supports Benning using logic and facts. If you wish to provide one then go for it. But based on what I've seen, and based on the facts that are out there, I have concluded that such an argument does not exist.

I've seen them. They're not convincing arguments, they invite refutation, but there's a difference between not basing an argument on logic and facts, on the one hand, and attempting to do so and offering an unsuccessful analysis.

I don't care whether you care about my post. You should care about falling into hyperbole and constructing straw men arguments while criticizing the other side as illogical.

 

[krutovsdonut]

LOL okay I'm done with this. Clearly what we have here is a situation where you and (actually it was FAN who we were initially talking to) have been proven wrong, and none of you want to admit it so you take the discussion off on a tangent.

by all means go ahead and claim you win an argument against me that i was not even involved in. that's more or less the point i was making anyway.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Doubt it all you want, I don't really care. But like I said, I have not yet seen an argument that supports Benning using logic and facts. If you wish to provide one then go for it. But based on what I've seen, and based on the facts that are out there, I have concluded that such an argument does not exist.

I'm no Benning supporter, quite the opposite actually, but how is his drafting record not an argument that supports Benning by logic and facts? He's clearly been better than Gillis so far. Boeser is better than any Gillis pick (just edges out Horvat IMO, but he's younger and was a later draft pick so it's more impressive). Tryamkin was a great pick (just speaking on talent). And then at least one of Pettersson, Gaudette, Demko, Lind, etc. is likely to pan out. That's more than Gillis could say for his tenure drafting here.

I realize Gillis had less high draft picks than Benning, but he still flubbed the Hodgson pick which was high, and all of his 1st round picks outside of Horvat have pretty much busted (Shinkaruk, Jensen, Schroeder, Gaunce, etc.).

 

[me2]

Thank you for pretty much PERFECTLY illustrating the reason why it's pointless to debate with the HATERS.

For the most part they have ZERO ability to give credit where credit is due. They would rather strangle a kitten then give Benning credit for anything.


1) Talking about Boeser "who was pushed for by brackett would go higher"

2) Talking about Gaudette "You can get lucky in late picks."

The Haters are literally LOATHE to give Benning credit. Maybe if you displayed any ability to have an objective (non-biased) argument then sure you would get more credit and people like myself would happily present our positions. Until then you are just white noise.......angry armchair GM's sitting on the couch revelling in your anger.......

Show me where Benning is the brains behind those picks?

I doubt he could tell Gaudette from a bag of picks at the draft. But hey he's Jim, he scouts every minor hockey game in every junior league in the world......

2015 he wanted to trade for Lucic and was competitive (13th overall, Jones and Miller). You can bet he'd rather have had Lucic than Boeser. Smoking gun for firing the guy right there.

As for Pettersson, Jim tried to move up to grab a Dman, rumoured to have been Makar. Jim missed his guy and the canucks got Pettersson. Just be glad Jim failed.

Here is some food for thought, Jim has been obsessed with high end Dmen for the last two drafts. He tried to trade the 2016 5th overall for one. He passed on the consensus 2016 BPA at 5th overall to reach for one. He tried to trade the 2017 5th overall to move up for one. If there 2017 draft had another D rated in the next 5 or so picks, instead of all forwards, he'd probably have taken one over Pettersson.