Prospect Info: 2018 Prospects Thread

[Catamarca Livin]

Let's look at how Gillis did with his picks compared to what was actually there to be had. I'm only doing the first 4 rounds as, generously in the case of the 4th round, this is where one would expect to find players. Anything from the 5th round onward is gravy.

2008: Gillis was hired in April and wouldn't have done much if any of his own research going into the draft this season.

Pick 1: Cody Hodgson - We know this story, but it's difficult to fault Gillis for this particular pick. At the time there was no way of knowing that Hodgson had an undiagnosed medical condition hampering his play. TSN had Hodgson ranked 9th and we picked him 10th so it's hard to argue that we didn't take the perceived BPA at the time.

Pick 2: Yanne Sauve - This one sucks. There were three hits in the next ten picks and it would have been a great benefit to us to have picked Wiericoch or Stepan, Shultz would have been a good pick but we know that he didn't sign with the team who drafted him and rejected our offer when he became a free agent.

Picks 3 & 4: We didn't have any picks in the 3rd and 4th round in 2008.

2009: Gillis's first draft with a season under his belt as the Canuck's GM.

Pick 1: Jordan Schroeder - This was a pretty large swing and a pretty large miss. That said he was 15th on TSN's list that season. Some people will say that we should also have passed on him after he fell 7 spots to our pick but hindsight is 20/20. The biggest pain here is that within 10 spots of him two nice hits in Johansson and Palmieri then just one pick outside of that range a huge hit in ROR.

Pick 2: Anton Rodin - We went off the board entirely to take a stab at Rodin (who's signed another NHL deal with the Ducks this offseason) had we stayed on the board it's possible we end up with Gelinas, Tatar, or Pirri (Orlov is out as we were very against drafting from the KHL at this time) any of those picks is vastly better than what we got.

Pick 3: Kevin Connauton - This pick was actually a hit, just not for us. Compared to most of his peers K-Conn has done pretty well not a home run but a solid hit for our scouts.

Pick 4: Jeremy Price - Hard to complain too much as only two players drafted within the next 10 picks went on to play more than 100 NHL games. I guess Chiarot would have been a decent get, but when the next best player is Froese it's hard to say we really missed out on much.

2010: Gillis's second full year as GM.

Picks 1, 2 & 3: We had no picks in the first three rounds of this year's draft. Given where our team was at it's hard to fault Gillis for spending picks on NHL ready assets.

Pick 4: Patrick McNally - A pretty big bust, but at least we traded him for a pick later. Again there wasn't much quality within the next 10 picks but a Hyman or Wagner would still have been nice.

2011: The draft after a heartbreaking run.

Pick 1: Nicklas Jensen - Obviously a bust but he was ranked 24th and we picked him at 29th. Another faller that didn't pan out. We could have had Rakell, Jurco, Jenner, or Gibson that means 4 out of 10 teams just flat out beat us. Those other six teams ended up with pretty much the same level of player, so it feels a bit like we lost a coin flip.

Pick 2: Traded.

Pick 3: David Honzik - Another whiff, but at least this one was a goalie picked around where you'd like to see goalies picked. No goalie picked after Honzik amounted to anything and no player taken within 10 picks of him played over 200 games or reached 35 career points.

Pick 4: Alexandre Grenier - This wasn't that bad a pick even if his NHL upside was never there. He gave our AHL teams solid service and of those players picked after him only JG Pageau was something worth worrying over.

Pick 5: Joe Labate - Another AHL lifer who's a solid soldier at that level. It hurts that we missed Gaudreau but the other 9 players we let past us were exactly the same level as Labate.

Pick 6: Ludwig Blomstrand - A total whiff but there was nothing in the next 10. Closest thing to an asset was Claesson but 20 points in 113 games isn't anything I'm losing sleep over.

2012: Another year another draft.

Pick 1: Brendan Gaunce - We can rag on how little Gaunce does offensively but in the next ten spots he's competing with Skjei and Pearson. Pearson is the only player I'd lose sleep on but getting Gaunce still means we did better than 8 of the next 10 teams managed to do.

Pick 2: Alexandre Mallet - Not sure what the plan was here... Severson and too a far lesser extent Martinook would have been the home runs here, but really we did the worst we could have done with this pick.

Picks 3 and 4: Traded.

2013: Gillis's final draft.

Pick 1: Bo Horvat - We won this one. It's hard to argue that we didn't get the best player out of every player within 10 picks of Horvat. The only player who's close is Wennberg so I guess watch this space because Horvat could wind up being the second best player taken in the top 19.

Pick 2: Hunter Shinkaruk - He busted, but so has pretty well everybody taken in the next 10 picks. That said, there are players who are at least still playing in the NHL taken near him. Hard to fault trying for the small skilled player but this was a swing and a miss.

Pick 3: Cole Cassels - We know this story. Looked great in juniors but has struggled to be more than a 3rd liner at the AHL level and even that is being generous. The good news is there are only two players who would have been NHL players for us in Andrighetto and Bjorkstrand now that Slepyshev has gone back to the KHL.

Pick 4: Jordan Subban - Another small skilled pick who just couldn't overcome his lack of size. The only hit we could have landed is Butcher and that's the home run pick for the entire 4th round. We have the other player worth having from the next 10 spots having acquired Motte.

Those are all the picks in the first 4 rounds under Gillis. It honestly feels like he just got unlucky when you look at the players taken within the next 10 picks of what we actually took. It hurts looking at what we could have had in some cases, but in every case, there are at least 6 other teams feeling the same way. In many of the later rounds even if we got the biggest hit all we would have had was a few seasons of a replacement level NHLer.

It's easy to throw stones with 20/20 hindsight and we did do worse than average over that span but it really feels more like bad luck than bad methodology with most of our picks.

Bad luck maybe. That it is bad is not in doubt appreciate your work though it is apologetic for Gillis. Would have liked to have you do the same with Benning's drafts 2014 seeing the first 5 picks with Nhl games. But I imagine the focus would be on better players missed in first round. 2015 Boeser Gaudette is undeniably good 2016 seems like a failure or bad luck as we say. 2017 looks promising with Petterson. I would say overall'2 great drafts 2015, 2017 1 average 2014 and one bad 2016. 2018 is too early to judge. Gillis 4 bad 1 average 2012 1 good 2013(horvat).Horvat was not free either but still Gillis deserves credit. Gillis made many great trades and signings so I would not say Benning is better. However draft wise he has done much better but any standard or metric.

 

[Tables of Stats]

Bad luck maybe. That it is bad is not in doubt appreciate your work though it is apologetic for Gillis. Would have liked to have you do the same with Benning's drafts 2014 seeing the first 5 picks with Nhl games. But I imagine the focus would be on better players missed in first round. 2015 Boeser Gaudette is undeniably good 2016 seems like a failure or bad luck as we say. 2017 looks promising with Petterson. I would say overall'2 great drafts 2015, 2017 1 average 2014 and one bad 2016. 2018 is too early to judge. Gillis 4 bad 1 average 2012 1 good 2013(horvat).Horvat was not free either but still Gillis deserves credit. Gillis made many great trades and signings so I would not say Benning is better. However draft wise he has done much better but any standard or metric.

It would be tough to do any of Benning's drafts to the same degree because many of the picks, especially past the first round, haven't had time to stick in the NHL yet while the freshest of Gillis's picks have had 5 years to carve out a niche. It would make more sense to look at Benning's drafting five years after he's been replaced to get a true feel for how his picks panned out.

As for methodology, I didn't factor in what picks cost to acquire or what value they were traded for because it was outside of the scope of what we were looking at. At most I mentioned it in passing with regards to the 2010 draft but truthfully that was just to fill some space on the page. Drafting a useful player doesn't depend on what you gave up for the pick nor does it, at least on a pick by pick basis, matter how many picks you have in any given round.

As for having done better or worse at the draft table, that's yet to be seen. It certainly looks like we've pulled more useful players at this stage, but how much better is Virtanen going to look than Hodgson if he can't break out this season? What happens if Lind flames out like Cassels did? Obviously, I'm hoping these things don't happen and all of our picks hit we just don't know yet. It's simply too early to anoint even 2014 as anything amazing and that may get worse when you use the methodology of comparing what we actually took to the next 10 picks chosen in the fashion I did with Gillis's draft selections.

If you'd like, I could start a new thread and compare the drafting of Burke and Nonis to Gillis and see how that ends up looking. I'd use that new thread to go further in depth and do every pick of every round.

 

[ihaveyuidonttouchme]

another question i always wonder about is how relevant is to have your own prospects developing in the farm team?

if you go deep into each drafts, there are some serious gaps of how many complete busts of not being able to get even a sniff vs "hey at least he spent 3+ yrs in the ahl that';s something even though at the end of the day, we got nothing"

 

[Tables of Stats]

another question i always wonder about is how relevant is to have your own prospects developing in the farm team?

if you go deep into each drafts, there are some serious gaps of how many complete busts of not being able to get even a sniff vs "hey at least he spent 3+ yrs in the ahl that';s something even though at the end of the day, we got nothing"

It's pretty tough to say because there's just no possible way to set up a control group. You'd like to think that all the best players get a fair chance at the next level but we know that just isn't the case. Even if it's like 1% at each step, how many NHLers does the league lose to inefficiency in training and development?

 

[Bleach Clean]

well i think a lot of people here would be surprised if we made the playoffs with benning still here. or else they are liars.

regardless, it is going to be absolutely glorious reminding folks of all their hot takes for the next couple of years.

What hot takes would those be? I'm looking for your interpretation of what was said that was out of line?

Philly has much more prime age assets than the Canucks so are in much better shape as an organization with similar if not better young nhl players but yes Canucks have much higher level prospects outside nhl and will likely get more. Philly has good chance of being a really good team until their vets age out. Canucks need more high end drafts and a lot of other things to go well to be a good team. However if they are patient and stack a few more top end picks they may come out as a contender at the end similar to where Toronto is now.

PHI has the better prime aged assets, agreed.

I'm not sure VAN has "much higher level prospects outside the NHL", unless you mean just Pettersson and Hughes? Those two are kind of unmatched on the PHI side, IMO. The best comparisons for Pettersson in PHI's pool are probably Frost or Farabee. The best comparison for Hughes is Myers. In both cases, the VAN prospects are favoured. That said, PHI's prospect depth is a strength VAN does not replicate.

TOR is essentially 5 core forwards and 1 core dman. Their core is:

Tavares
Matthews
Nylander
Marner
Kadri
Reilly

If VAN gets a Turcotte/Kakko level prospect this year, they will have:

Pettersson
Boeser
Horvat
Turcotte
Hughes
Demko

Yeah maybe they can compare if Demko shows he's a level above Andersen and everything breaks right for the other skater prospects. Perhaps. A few more top end picks would increase the odds.

 

[krutovsdonut]

What hot takes would those be? I'm looking for your interpretation of what was said that was out of line?

you are disputing that many people here are predicting the canucks will suck until benning leaves and have been doing so for years? you want references for that? do you want evidence that water is wet also?

seriously, what is your problem? why are you always policing my comments with these snarky little posts demanding answers from me? i made a reasonable fair and obviously casual comment and here you are demanding footnotes. is it maybe because you perceive i am taking a shot at you and your buddies and you just cannot handle that? read it again. it's not a shot, just an observation.

here's the issue. if i actually answer your response will either indicate you do not understand and/or argue indefinitely some stupid hairsplitting point. it's not the first, or second or third time you've made this move. and it's not like there is any prospect of a reasonable dialogue if i provide you references. discussions with you always go in the same pointless reductionist direction because your posts never admit a mistake or concede a point or change on anything, and you will also bury me in straw man arguments misstating what i said.

bottom line, i am not interested in discussing anything with you. i don't agree with your view on hockey or this team, and i hate the stubborn pedantic arrogant posts and especially the terrible garbled straw man takes in your posts that seems to be intended to avoid acknowledging when i make valid points. i see no prospect of changing your mind or a constructive dialogue. there may occasionally be times when i agree with you, and i will say so, or where i have a specific narrow factual point to make, but overall you and i cannot discuss hockey so let's agree to disagree. the proof is in the pudding anyway, and within the next year we will know whether your take on the canucks has been wrong for years.

 

[Bleach Clean]

you are disputing that many people here are predicting the canucks will suck until benning leaves and have been doing so for years? you want references for that? do you want evidence that water is wet also?

seriously, what is your problem? why are you always policing my comments with these snarky little posts demanding answers from me? i made a reasonable fair and obviously casual comment and here you are demanding footnotes. is it maybe because you perceive i am taking a shot at you and your buddies and you just cannot handle that? read it again. it's not a shot, just an observation.

here's the issue. if i actually answer your response will either indicate you do not understand and/or argue indefinitely some stupid hairsplitting point. it's not the first, or second or third time you've made this move. and it's not like there is any prospect of a reasonable dialogue if i provide you references. discussions with you always go in the same pointless reductionist direction because your posts never admit a mistake or concede a point or change on anything, and you will also bury me in straw man arguments misstating what i said.

bottom line, i am not interested in discussing anything with you. i don't agree with your view on hockey or this team, and i hate the stubborn pedantic arrogant posts and especially the terrible garbled straw man takes in your posts that seems to be intended to avoid acknowledging when i make valid points. i see no prospect of changing your mind or a constructive dialogue. there may occasionally be times when i agree with you, and i will say so, or where i have a specific narrow factual point to make, but overall you and i cannot discuss hockey so let's agree to disagree. the proof is in the pudding anyway, and within the next year we will know whether your take on the canucks has been wrong for years.

First, you need to relax.

Second, I was legitimately asking you what criteria you had in mind? I didn't know.

Third, what you may consider policing, I consider valid questions to seemingly odd comments. Without knowing what you are referencing, it's akin to saying: I'll be able to call out some people in 1-2 years for saying things.

Fourth: Yes, yes, it's me that is misinterpreting and misstating your argument. Of course. Your arguments (a good selection, not all) are in no way illogical and have not been questioned by multiple posters already. It's of course just my interpretation. If you want, I can walk you through step by step on just how illogical some of your arguments have been, if you're game? I have no problem doing this. You don't even have to respond to it. I'll just show everyone how off your logic has been and they can judge for themselves. Just say the word.

Fifth, changing minds and constructive dialogue: Take your own advice, please.

Sixth, "We will know in the next year whether your take on the Canucks has been wrong for years"? What exactly is going to happen next year that will prove this? I'm curious. Detail it out. I won't create a dialogue over it. I just want to see what you have interpreted my position to be.

Seventh, take a breather Krutov.

 

[krutovsdonut]

thanks for the advice on taking a break, roe. with 7 posts in the last week i am really spinning out of control.


thanks again for your suggestion.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Take a breather, or breath, means try not to go overboard if someone questions your statement krutov. Nothing about the frequency of posts. I would encourage you to post more, actually. It’s fun reading very divergent takes.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I would encourage you to post more, actually. It’s fun reading very divergent takes.

you have my suggestion on how to make this a place where that is more likely to happen. it is edited out now as per your pm.

 

[nuck luck]

hmm Boeser and McCann were picked in the 20's along with Demko, Lind and Woo in the 30's. Compared to Shinkaruk, Gaunce, Jensen etc. it still looks good. Taking away picks 10 and better does not help your case at all. Many of Benning's prospects will fail but all of Gillis era picks outside Horvat are failing. Even judging by your faulty standards Benning is doing better Sauve and Mallet were not good picks even by 3rd round standards. Obviously that is a pretty easy standard to beat.

Judging by your poor comprehension skills, I'm sure this conversation won't last long.

Having two first rounders, an
early first and, basically, a late first, is a massive advantage that allows any GM to take higher risks, not all draft years are comparable and you are a fool if you believe benning is that informed on each and every player eligible for the draft after the first round. His first picks have been a bust so far, if you consider how many players are in the NHL after the quality of early picks he's had...fail.

You need to get off the crazy train and try to soak in whats happening around you. Nowhere did I say that MG was great at the draft, I just said he was slowly improving and his last draft was an improvement. My main point was that you cannot compare GM's draft picks when one's averaging picks around top 6 - 7 and the other averages 26 - 27. Only an idiot would try to make an argument saying otherwise... Btw, what was your point?

Hmmm...

McCann gone! Demko, Lind and Woo are NOT regulars in the Canucks lineup! Unproven!

Great argument you have using prospects as an example when Im belittling benning's draft history because of the lack of prospects who made it as NHL regulars. On top of this, you use one of benning's worst trade moves to cite a prospect that we basically gave away? Wtf are you trying to say? benning can't draft and he is even worse at trading, if so...I FULLY AGREE!

After 5 f'n draft picks avg top 6-7, and than near the top in every other round...you think we are in a great position??? You are bragging about this??? Wow... 1 top quality player and 1 third liner after 5 f'n years....woowee!!!

I would say there would be a couple, if any, GMs or hockey fans who could do worse with the picks benning had. I have no doubt that MG would have equaled benning at his worst and we would be much better off now had be continued to be our GM.

 

[Bleach Clean]

you have my suggestion on how to make this a place where that is more likely to happen. it is edited out now as per your pm.

The premise of your suggestion is based upon groundless speculation.

The onus is on the posters to make this place what it should be. This includes providing and accepting logical information. Some posters don't provide this. That's fine because not all opinions are grounded in fact. Some are shared on an anecdotal basis. I've done this many times here. All fair. It's when this type of opinion is pushed as having sound logic, or a basis in fact, that I take umbrage. As should anyone else, really. There are a few people who do provide logical discourse, with homework shown, and that's why I consider HF VAN the best place to talk about the Canucks on the net. Bar none.

Aside: I don't care about Benning. His days are numbered. I actually don't care to turn your opinion either krutov. Believe what you want to believe, no matter how inaccurate it may be sometimes. I will contest an obviously wrong opinion though. That's not going to change. The debate aspect of it will, the actual back and forth, but not the action of questioning spurious info. For my part, I will always show my homework when I do. I will provide my rationale as to why I contest said opinion. It's fair to expect it. That's why I offered to show you my homework regarding your opinion on a few things. That offer is still open BTW...

Anyway, back to the prospects:

----------------------------

One thing I noticed when comparing the pools of PHI and VAN: Lind had a comparable PPG to Frost, but Frost is considered the much better prospect. Frost put up 112 points in 67 games for a 1.67 ratio. Lind put up 95 points in 58 games for a 1.64 PPG. Frost torched the OHL playoffs getting 29 points in 24 games. Lind was also dominant, putting up 8 points in 4 games (much shorter sample). They were only 6 picks apart in the 2017 draft as well.

So what's the key difference? Probably the speed. Frost does everything at top speed. He has a higher gear. Lind is pedestrian when it comes to speed and/or size. He has to rely more on his hockey IQ. That's why Frost is expected to translate better to the NHL game. However, does this place Lind at a different level long-term? Or, is he close, but will have a harder time translating to pro?

 

[Bad Goalie]

The premise of your suggestion is based upon groundless speculation.

The onus is on the posters to make this place what it should be. This includes providing and accepting logical information. Some posters don't do this. That's fine because not all opinions are grounded in fact. Some are shared on an anecdotal basis. I've done this many times here. It's when this type of opinion is pushed as having sound logic, or a basis in fact, that I take umbrage. As should anyone else, really. There are a few people who do this, with homework shown, and that's why I consider HF VAN the best place to talk about the Canucks on the net. Bar none.

I don't care about Benning. His days are numbered. I actually don't care to turn your opinion either krutov. Believe what you want to believe, no matter how inaccurate it may be sometimes. I will contest an obviously wrong opinion though. That's not going to change. The debate aspect of it will, the back and forth, but not the action. For my part, I will always show my homework when I do. The reason why I contest said opinion. That's why I offered to show you my homework regarding your opinion on a few things. That offer is still open...

Anyway, back to the prospects:

----------------------------

One thing I noticed when comparing the pools of PHI and VAN: Lind had a comparable PPG to Frost, but Frost is considered the much better prospect. Frost put up 112 points in 67 games for a 1.67 ratio. Lind put up 95 points in 58 games for a 1.64 PPG. Frost torched the OHL playoffs getting 29 points in 24 games. Lind was also dominant, putting up 8 points in 4 games (much shorter sample). They were only 6 picks apart in the 2017 draft as well.

So what's the key difference? Probably the speed. Frost does everything at top speed. He has a higher gear. Lind is pedestrian when it comes to speed and/or size. He has to rely more on his hockey IQ. That's why Frost is expected to translate better to the NHL game. However, does this place Lind at a different level long-term? Or, is he close, but will have a harder time translating to pro?

I don't think anyone knows the answer to your specific debate between Frost and Lind. What I do know, which may begin to shed a little light on Lind, is that at the end of last season we saw MacMaster and Jasek light it up in Utica. Jasek 7 points in 6 GP and MacMaster 7 in 13 GP. However, in the short 5 game 1st round of the playoffs, MacMaster registered 4 points, tied for 2nd in Utica scoring in the playoffs finishing only behind Goldobin, and tops for the rookies. Jasek only played one playoff game and was pointless. We also saw Dahlen put up one point in 2 games played and only 1 point in 4 playoff games. Lind put up a mere 1 point in 6 GP and was a healthy scratch for all of the playoffs.

I would say that MacMaster was the best late season rookie addition. 5 of his regular season 7 points came playing with Jasek and Chaput. In the playoffs he skated with Chaput and MacEwen. Cull saw talent in this kid and put him in a position to succeed and he didn't disappoint. He should have received one of Benning's coveted 50 contracts this summer. He outplayed Carcone and Molino who were awarded such contracts without AHL proof. Now, he is on an AHL contract and with the surplus in wings, the lack of that NHL contract could see lesser players get ice time due to the difference in their contracts. Hopefully, Cull is only interested in playing the best players.

Jasek and MacMaster were split up near the end as Cull gave Mac's spot to Dahlen and put Mac with Lind looking to maybe stimulate Kole, but it didn't work. So, for the playoffs MacMaster was moved back with Chaput and MacEwen filled in for Jasek who suffered an injury.

Goldobin and Boucher were centered by Darcy. Bouch netted 3 goals, Goldy led the team with 6 points, Darcy had a goal and 2 assists, and the line combined for 13 points. Chaput had 2 goals and an assist, MacEwen 1 goal, and MacMaster a goal and 3 assists. The line combined for 8 points with MacEwen not exactly flying high.

Dahlen showed flashes of what we expected, but was inconsistent.

Lind looked lost for the most part in his 6 games. He was less than impressive and the scratch for the playoffs says Cull saw the same thing. Kole said the AHL was much faster than he expected, the players were bigger and more physical, therefore you had less time to think and plays had to me be made much quicker. Very intelligent analysis. Hopefully, he actually came up with that and didn't parrot what the coaches summed up for him. He was going to have to go home and better prepare for that coming into this season.

A side note is that Frost still has another year of Jrs in which he just may blow up those comparable numbers of last season and create a whole new train of thought in the comparison between the two.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I don't think anyone knows the answer to your specific debate between Frost and Lind. What I do know, which may begin to shed a little light on Lind, is that at the end of last season we saw MacMaster and Jasek light it up in Utica. Jasek 7 points in 6 GP and MacMaster 7 in 13 GP. However, in the short 5 game 1st round of the playoffs, MacMaster registered 4 points, tied for 2nd in Utica scoring in the playoffs finishing only behind Goldobin, and tops for the rookies. Jasek only played one playoff game and was pointless. We also saw Dahlen put up one point in 2 games played and only 1 point in 4 playoff games. Lind put up a mere 1 point in 6 GP and was a healthy scratch for all of the playoffs.

I would say that MacMaster was the best late season rookie addition. 5 of his regular season 7 points came playing with Jasek and Chaput. In the playoffs he skated with Chaput and MacEwen. Cull saw talent in this kid and put him in a position to succeed and he didn't disappoint. He should have received one of Benning's coveted 50 contracts this summer. He outplayed Carcone and Molino who were awarded such contracts without AHL proof. Now, he is on an AHL contract and with the surplus in wings, the lack of that NHL contract could see lesser players get ice time due to the difference in their contracts. Hopefully, Cull is only interested in playing the best players.

Jasek and MacMaster were split up near the end as Cull gave Mac's spot to Dahlen and put Mac with Lind looking to maybe stimulate Kole, but it didn't work. So, for the playoffs MacMaster was moved back with Chaput and MacEwen filled in for Jasek who suffered an injury.

Goldobin and Boucher were centered by Darcy. Bouch netted 3 goals, Goldy led the team with 6 points, Darcy had a goal and 2 assists, and the line combined for 13 points. Chaput had 2 goals and an assist, MacEwen 1 goal, and MacMaster a goal and 3 assists. The line combined for 8 points with MacEwen not exactly flying high.

Dahlen showed flashes of what we expected, but was inconsistent.

Lind looked lost for the most part in his 6 games. He was less than impressive and the scratch for the playoffs says Cull saw the same thing. Kole said the AHL was much faster than he expected, the players were bigger and more physical, therefore you had less time to think and plays had to me be made much quicker. Very intelligent analysis. Hopefully, he actually came up with that and didn't parrot what the coaches summed up for him. He was going to have to go home and better prepare for that coming into this season.

A side note is that Frost still has another year of Jrs in which he just may blow up those comparable numbers of last season and create a whole new train of thought in the comparison between the two.

That's true, Lind and Frost are 7 months apart in age. Frost has another year to put up some dizzying numbers in the OHL.

Lind has seemingly gotten bigger this past off season. I'm not sure if this has improved his speed, but I think he may have a chance in shielding the puck and gaining separation that way.

 

[Bad Goalie]

That's true, Lind and Frost are 7 months apart in age. Frost has another year to put up some dizzying numbers in the OHL.

Lind has seemingly gotten bigger this past off season. I'm not sure if this has improved his speed, but I think he may have a chance in shielding the puck and gaining separation that way.

Could be. I will watch him for you. Time will certainly tell.

 

[Shareefruck]

Playoffs are never going to be completely out of the question with guys like Boeser, Pettersson, and Horvat on the team. However, without solid asset management to support them, it wouldn't be a very meaningful or promising achievement, either. What you want is a well structured team that can actually sustain success.

 

[skyo]

It wasn't that long ago that Hunter Shinkaruk was considered one of our best prospects,some people have no ****ing clue...

And Jim Benning traded Shinkaruk asap - salute to JB.

 

[Horse McHindu]

And Jim Benning traded Shinkaruk asap - salute to JB.

Yep. And that's the funny thing. While people on here were praising Shinkaruk, Benning could smell the poo from a mile away.........and knew that while Shinkaruk's stats were impressive that year, the way he was scoring goals wouldn’t translate to the NHL level.

I expect Shinkaruk to be riding buses in Norway within the next few years.

 

[Bad Goalie]

Yep. And that's the funny thing. While people on here were praising Shinkaruk, Benning could smell the poo from a mile away.........and knew that while Shinkaruk's stats were impressive that year, the way he was scoring goals would translate to the NHL level.

I expect Shinkaruk to be riding buses in Norway over the next few years.

Doing what he loves and making money to do it. The Norwegian baked goods are phenomenal. Not to mention the Norwegian beauties in a breathtakingly beautiful country. You could do whole lot worse. He probably won't have time or interest in pooing on posters in a hockey blog.

 

[Hodgy]

Yep. And that's the funny thing. While people on here were praising Shinkaruk, Benning could smell the poo from a mile away.........and knew that while Shinkaruk's stats were impressive that year, the way he was scoring goals wouldn’t translate to the NHL level.

I expect Shinkaruk to be riding buses in Norway within the next few years.

Given Benning’s atrocious pro scouting record, it is most likely that he just got lucky with Shinkaruk

 

[CanaFan]

Given Benning’s atrocious pro scouting record, it is most likely that he just got lucky with Shinkaruk

Ya it seems unlikely that the same guy who thought it was worth trading for Vey, Pedan, Clendenning, Etem, Pouliot, Motte, etc has any real ability to project Shinkaruk. Probably didn’t think he had enough grit or sandpaper or whatever and got lucky.

 

[sting101]

Given Benning’s atrocious pro scouting record, it is most likely that he just got lucky with Shinkaruk

Are there a lot of players we moved on from you would like back because Benning was wrong about them?

 

[CanaFan]

Are there a lot of players we moved on from you would like back because Benning was wrong about them?

Definitely players I wish we’d never wasted assets acquiring.

 

[sting101]

Definitely players I wish we’d never wasted assets acquiring.

and what have those traded assets amounted to?

Outside the Gudbranson blunder

 

[CanaFan]

and what have those traded assets amounted to?

Outside the Gudbranson blunder

More than the trades have.