Around the League Thread | Post Free Agent Frenzy Edition

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

You don't seem to understand what 'execute the plan' means. Regardless of who formulated the plan, Jim Benning's job was to carry out (execute) that plan. He did, and he failed badly.



You've literally just stated he was in complete agreement with that plan. Again, this means that he does not escape blame for 'the root of the problem'.



He had two top young goalies, one of whom threw a .920 on the board the next year and the other who performed at a starter level beginning with Benning's 2nd season. Few teams in the NHL had a better long-term goaltending situation than what Benning inherited. Unfortunately Lack developed a degenerative hip condition.

Benning paid similarly for Gudbranson to what Saad or ROR went for soooo ... how about those assets for a start? Or the picks used on the Baertschis and Sutters of the world? Maybe don't target Sbisa in the Kesler trade? It isn't like he didn't find a bunch of quality assets to trade for crap.

Jim Bennings poor execution followed in the footsteps of the deeply flawed plan.....He doesnt escape the the blame..from the fans, or the media....The ownership has extended him, not once, but three times..Tells me that he's been absolved of those years , and they've been 'written off'..why is that?

Marky was a busting goaltender at the time of JB's arrival (you even said at the time , we should get rid of him)..

ROR was traded for 2 young D-men who were high picks .Zadorov (16 OA, 2013),Grigorenko (12OA, 2012) plus a 31OA....Thats significantly more than what was paid for Gudbranson....Saad was traded for young players..The Canucks did not have the young depth to make these deals

So ...has the bumbling, mumbling oaf, ...Forrest Gump-like figure.... 'worst GM in the modern history of the NHL' ...been pulling the wool over Aqualini's eyes, the last 7 years?

 

[Melvin]

This again? Seriously?

 

[F A N]

This again? Seriously?

Ya. Isn't it tiring to hear about what management did years ago?

 

[krutovsdonut]

Doug Wilson should go full OKC Thunder and send all four of their older stars to the highest bidder at full retention for a million picks. But it looks like he's doing the more drawn out version of the first couple Benning years, which is wasting the value on the assets he has while doing nothing to refurbish the pipeline other than make the picks the NHL automatically provides for losing. His only hope is to hit on lottery picks like Eklund.

wilson cannot do that. leaving aside all the nmc/ntc issues, they will have to replace him with a guy who is not tied to the promises wilson made when he signed those guys.

the sharks are almost better off enduring a season of utter misery so the vets in questions want out and then wilson walks in favour of a new guy with a new mandate.

 

[MS]

Jim Bennings poor execution followed in the footsteps of the deeply flawed plan.....He doesnt escape the the blame..from the fans, or the media....The ownership has extended him, not once, but three times..Tells me that he's been absolved of those years , and they've been 'written off'..why is that?

It doesn't tell you he's been absolved.

That is one option. The other options are that a) FA is like most casual fans and is dazzled by 3 STRAIGHT CALDER WINNERS and doesn't understand how poor of a job Benning has actually done or b) FA likes a weak GM he can push around and nobody wants to work here so they've just kept trundling along with what they have.

And again, nobody has ever made an argument that Benning isn't backed by ownership. It's just the fact that bad ownership is backing a bad GM doesn't say anything about Benning's quality as a GM. See my previous Edmonton example.

Marky was a busting goaltender at the time of JB's arrival (you even said at the time , we should get rid of him)..

Never said that.

I've been incredibly consistent in saying that waiver-eligible players should be waived if they aren't good enough to make the team and if they get claimed ... it is what it is. Not a big loss and you move forward. I was probably the biggest defender of Benning for waiving Corrado for the exact same reasons.

I was totally fine with rolling with Lack and Markstrom but once Miller was signed, dicking around with Markstrom as a 3rd goalie on the NHL roster had no endgame.

I underestimated Markstrom ... but the fact that I was wrong has nothing to do with anything.

ROR was traded for 2 young D-men who were high picks .Zadorov (16 OA, 2013),Grigorenko (12OA, 2012) plus a 31OA....Thats significantly more than what was paid for Gudbranson....Saad was traded for young players..The Canucks did not have the young depth to make these deals

The best young player traded for Saad was a Hunter Shinkaruk equivalent.

Jamie McGinn was traded with O'Reilly and was a 20-goal winger with significant value and cancels out at least one of those prospects. McCann + #33 isn't much different than what he was traded for. Add in one of the picks Benning squandered in other deals and you're there.

Benning absolutely had assets ... he just blew them.

So ...has the bumbling, mumbling oaf, ...Forrest Gump-like figure.... 'worst GM in the modern history of the NHL' ...been pulling the wool over Aqualini's eyes, the last 7 years?

See top.

I've said for years these guys are two stupid people who have a mutually beneficial relationship. FA gets to be a de-facto President and play toy with his hockey team which could never happen with strong management under him.

As others have said, we've had these arguments for years and it's a waste of time because you apparently don't understand them and then just invent strawmen to attack.

 

[RandV]

It's kind of amazing to me that people still dispute this. Year after year after year after year we watch guys like Juolevi or Puljujarvi or Michael Dal Colle or Alex Nylander or Nolan Patrick stumble out of the gate and never recover and people still cling to this myth that if a guy was drafted high enough he has some magic "upSidE" that he's going to hit 6 years after he was drafted. Yes it happens sometimes but chasing exceptions is a fool's errand.

Like 95% of the time if a high draft-pick has underwhelmed through their D+3 they will continue to underwhelm if not outright bust.

There's still a degree of separation here when it comes to Kotkaniemi. It's highly disappointing for a 3rd overall pick to not be making an impact in the NHL after 3 years. But for the development curve of a more typical prospect this is a point where they've hit the AHL, see if they can an impact player their, and then after D4/5 if they can make the jump to a regular in the NHL. Those that can do so are the minority, but it's not impossible and that's where your exceptions come from. Problem with guys like Kotkaniemi is probably because they were such high picks they get dumped in the NHL right away and are given no time to develop in lower leagues. But he does have some game time in the AHL/Finland showing he can be a top line player at that level.

Making a separation in this group of players listed within a 3-4 year time frame, Kotkaniemi joins Puljujarvi in doing well at the lower levels, Dal Colle, Nylander, Virtanen, and Juolevi did not, and Patrick never played an AHL game.

 

[Hammer79]

There's still a degree of separation here when it comes to Kotkaniemi. It's highly disappointing for a 3rd overall pick to not be making an impact in the NHL after 3 years. But for the development curve of a more typical prospect this is a point where they've hit the AHL, see if they can an impact player their, and then after D4/5 if they can make the jump to a regular in the NHL. Those that can do so are the minority, but it's not impossible and that's where your exceptions come from. Problem with guys like Kotkaniemi is probably because they were such high picks they get dumped in the NHL right away and are given no time to develop in lower leagues. But he does have some game time in the AHL/Finland showing he can be a top line player at that level.

Making a separation in this group of players listed within a 3-4 year time frame, Kotkaniemi joins Puljujarvi in doing well at the lower levels, Dal Colle, Nylander, Virtanen, and Juolevi did not, and Patrick never played an AHL game.

KK is just part of a league-wide trend I have noticed, where the C position is at an increasing premium. Look at how a team with C problems like Vegas flames out each year despite having an otherwise strong roster.

I would probably lean towards matching the offer sheet, since it's unlikely they will get someone who projects as a 2C with Carolina's 1st round pick, which ought to be in the high 20's. I'm sure KK still has room to grow, he's still young and hasn't hit his prime yet. Late first round is where you pick up 3rd liners and 3rd pairing D with lower bust potential than someone you pick up in the 2nd or 3rd rounds. This also makes me worry about EP, since I'm convinced that he could be seen as worth $10m using this new pay-scale for centers.

 

[Melvin]

There's still a degree of separation here when it comes to Kotkaniemi. It's highly disappointing for a 3rd overall pick to not be making an impact in the NHL after 3 years. But for the development curve of a more typical prospect this is a point where they've hit the AHL, see if they can an impact player their, and then after D4/5 if they can make the jump to a regular in the NHL. Those that can do so are the minority, but it's not impossible and that's where your exceptions come from. Problem with guys like Kotkaniemi is probably because they were such high picks they get dumped in the NHL right away and are given no time to develop in lower leagues. But he does have some game time in the AHL/Finland showing he can be a top line player at that level.

Making a separation in this group of players listed within a 3-4 year time frame, Kotkaniemi joins Puljujarvi in doing well at the lower levels, Dal Colle, Nylander, Virtanen, and Juolevi did not, and Patrick never played an AHL game.

That's just not true at all, and this is probably the most prevalent myth that exists on these forums. But I suppose it depends on what you're expecting him to be. As far as top-line talents, that is completely false and almost every top scoring forward in the NHL was a regular by this point in their career. Go through the top, I don't know, 60 scoring forwards in the NHL if you don't believe me and count how many of them follow the path that you describe. It's about 3 or 4, I imagine.

Alternatively, pull up some random draft and look at the forwards taken in round 1. You will find a bunch of guys that made an impact right away, a couple of guys who played in NCAA, and a bunch of guys who were busts or pretty much plateaued as Nick Ritchie level players by their D+3. There is like 1 guy in each draft who is the exception and plays like 3 seasons in the AHL before making an impact in their D+5 or whatever.

Most 1st round picks of forwards are pretty much known quantities by their D+3 or D+4 at latest. If they haven't become impact players yet then they usually never do. The players who take longer than that are the ones that are in the minority (and usually have some kind of injury reasons or coaches who hates them or something.)

 

[RobertKron]

It's kind of amazing to me that people still dispute this. Year after year after year after year we watch guys like Juolevi or Puljujarvi or Michael Dal Colle or Alex Nylander or Nolan Patrick stumble out of the gate and never recover and people still cling to this myth that if a guy was drafted high enough he has some magic "upSidE" that he's going to hit 6 years after he was drafted. Yes it happens sometimes but chasing exceptions is a fool's errand.

Like 95% of the time if a high draft-pick has underwhelmed through their D+3 they will continue to underwhelm if not outright bust.

Yes, but have you heard that Alex Burrows played ball hockey?

 

[Hit the post]

Yes, but have you heard that Alex Burrows played ball hockey?

 

[Melvin]

Yes, but have you heard that Alex Burrows played ball hockey?

I know you're being facetious, but I do want to emphasize that I am talking about players drafted in the first round. I think it's reasonable that players taken in the 4th round or undrafted players have a much different path. But players taken in the 1st round are expected to be near NHL ready and it's completely fair and supported by the data to more or less judge them if they haven't made an impact within their first 3 years or so.

With regards to players selected after Round 1 or undrafted players, I haven't done the research.

 

[rypper]

Jim Benning has signed his original contract in 2014 and an extension in 2019, where's the third time?

 

[Melvin]

Jim Benning has signed his original contract in 2014 and an extension in 2019, where's the third time?

He signed a two-year extension prior to the 2018-19 season and then (somehow) got a 3 year extension after that.

 

[Hit the post]

He signed a two-year extension prior to the 2018-19 season and then (somehow) got a 3 year extension after that.

So his next extension will be 4 years?

 

[rypper]

So his next extension will be 4 years?

 

[RandV]

That's just not true at all, and this is probably the most prevalent myth that exists on these forums. But I suppose it depends on what you're expecting him to be. As far as top-line talents, that is completely false and almost every top scoring forward in the NHL was a regular by this point in their career. Go through the top, I don't know, 60 scoring forwards in the NHL if you don't believe me and count how many of them follow the path that you describe. It's about 3 or 4, I imagine.

Alternatively, pull up some random draft and look at the forwards taken in round 1. You will find a bunch of guys that made an impact right away, a couple of guys who played in NCAA, and a bunch of guys who were busts or pretty much plateaued as Nick Ritchie level players by their D+3. There is like 1 guy in each draft who is the exception and plays like 3 seasons in the AHL before making an impact in their D+5 or whatever.

Most 1st round picks of forwards are pretty much known quantities by their D+3 or D+4 at latest. If they haven't become impact players yet then they usually never do. The players who take longer than that are the ones that are in the minority (and usually have some kind of injury reasons or coaches who hates them or something.)

Well well that brings to mind the question of how many years does it take to properly evaluate a draft? 2-3 years? Or 4-5? Making that post I was thinking a lot of LA as we ran through a trio of their players that fit the 4-5 year cycle on both sides well: Vey, Pearson, and Toffoli. And looking at them from that stretch they had a lot of other guys that more or less fit the mold: Voynov, Martinez, Simmonds, Forbot, and 5th overall Brayden Schenn.

So all I'm really saying that if a player fails to break in quickly in those first 2-3 year they move to the 4-5 year track. They tend to not make it because typically most players on the 4-5 year track don't, but it doesn't guarantee it won't. And the first sign you need to see from a 4-5 year track player is success in the lower leagues. Often with top picks you don't get to evaluate that because the team rushes them to the NHL, which is the case with Kotkaniemi but he does have a couple small sample sizes in Finland and the AHL where he was near or at a PPG pace. Because of this, and the fact that he should be going to a much better situation in Carolina, I would be cautiously optimistic that he could become something like Schenn is. Or at least a respectable turnaround like Puljujarvi seems to have done, after getting away from the Oilers and spending his D4 year in Finland.

Now when you have a Jake Virtanen in his D3 year scores 19 points in 65 games in the AHL, yeah a grinder maybe but no chance of being a top six player. And a lot of what I'm talking about here really speaks to the folly of rushing teenage players to the NHL. There's no real way to measure what kind of impact that has but it would be fascinating if you could say clone a promising 18 year old and put one straight into the lineup in Buffalo and another into the farm system in Tampa then see where each one ends up in 5 years.

 

[Melvin]

Well well that brings to mind the question of how many years does it take to properly evaluate a draft? 2-3 years? Or 4-5? Making that post I was thinking a lot of LA as we ran through a trio of their players that fit the 4-5 year cycle on both sides well: Vey, Pearson, and Toffoli. And looking at them from that stretch they had a lot of other guys that more or less fit the mold: Voynov, Martinez, Simmonds, Forbot, and 5th overall Brayden Schenn.

So all I'm really saying that if a player fails to break in quickly in those first 2-3 year they move to the 4-5 year track. They tend to not make it because typically most players on the 4-5 year track don't, but it doesn't guarantee it won't. And the first sign you need to see from a 4-5 year track player is success in the lower leagues. Often with top picks you don't get to evaluate that because the team rushes them to the NHL, which is the case with Kotkaniemi but he does have a couple small sample sizes in Finland and the AHL where he was near or at a PPG pace. Because of this, and the fact that he should be going to a much better situation in Carolina, I would be cautiously optimistic that he could become something like Schenn is. Or at least a respectable turnaround like Puljujarvi seems to have done, after getting away from the Oilers and spending his D4 year in Finland.

Now when you have a Jake Virtanen in his D3 year scores 19 points in 65 games in the AHL, yeah a grinder maybe but no chance of being a top six player. And a lot of what I'm talking about here really speaks to the folly of rushing teenage players to the NHL. There's no real way to measure what kind of impact that has but it would be fascinating if you could say clone a promising 18 year old and put one straight into the lineup in Buffalo and another into the farm system in Tampa then see where each one ends up in 5 years.

"Evaluating a draft" is a completely different discussion. In terms of discussing which teams made the right picks, whether player A is better than player B, etc, yes that takes about 5 years to have a good handle on it IMO.

But in terms of being able to judge certain players (i.e. "high-upside" forwards taken in the first round,) it takes much less time. You can basically do it if they have a bad D+1, frankly.

I was speaking specifically though to this quote:

this is a point where they've hit the AHL, see if they can an impact player their, and then after D4/5 if they can make the jump to a regular in the NHL. Those that can do so are the minority,

If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that at "this" point (after their D+3) most players are just hitting the AHL, and then after two more seasons there they will "make the jump" and those that are successful (in their D+6??) are "in the minority?" Implying that for most of them it's D+7 or longer? If I'm reading that wrong then I apologize, but if I'm understanding this sentence correctly it is completely insane. I doubt you could find 10 players that fit that description and still represent an optimistic analog for KK. Certainly not a majority! Both Toffoli and Pearson would represent "the minority" in terms of your statement, as they were able to make the jump in "only" their d4/5 and Vey absolutely sucks so I don't know why you'd bring him up. Then you mention some defensemen and Simmonds who played all 82 NHL games in his D+2. Schenn too was pretty much a 40pt/82gp player in his D+4. Minority?

I ran a query for the top 100 scoring forwards in last years NHL season. This is basically the top 1/3 of players who played 40+ games. Over half of them (53 of 96 drafted players) had already put up a 40+ point NHL season under their belt by their D+3, and then 32 did more it in their D+4 or D+5. KK could absolutely still be in that D+4 or D+5 class but that still runs counter to your statement.

Of the players who managed to make the top-100 last year (not all that impressive of a feat,) only 11 are players who had not put up a 40 point NHL season by their D+5. They are basically a mix of guys who played 4 years of NCAA post-draft, guys who were playing in Europe and some late rounders. And Niederreter, which is funny.

I don't object to the general point that Kotkaniemi could still break out and that doing so next year wouldn't be that unusual, but I just completely object to your description of what "normal" looks like. At least for successful prospects!

 

[F A N]

KK is just part of a league-wide trend I have noticed, where the C position is at an increasing premium. Look at how a team with C problems like Vegas flames out each year despite having an otherwise strong roster.

I would probably lean towards matching the offer sheet, since it's unlikely they will get someone who projects as a 2C with Carolina's 1st round pick, which ought to be in the high 20's. I'm sure KK still has room to grow, he's still young and hasn't hit his prime yet. Late first round is where you pick up 3rd liners and 3rd pairing D with lower bust potential than someone you pick up in the 2nd or 3rd rounds. This also makes me worry about EP, since I'm convinced that he could be seen as worth $10m using this new pay-scale for centers.

It's the concept of "Best Asset Available" vs "Best Player Available." All else being equal, it makes sense to pick the Best Asset Available, but obviously when you're bypassing a player you think is the BPA you often end up drafting a player who is everything but the BAA. But it doesn't have to be so. At their primes, is it easy to pick between Stamkos vs Doughty, Tavares vs Hedman, Ovi vs Malkin?

 

[4Twenty]

Botchford stated Jim sold them his plan.

Anything else is just agenda driven narrative. Guessing it’s the gun barrel…..90% sure.

 

[Hit the post]

....

(sorry wrong thread)

 

[F A N]

Botchford stated Jim sold them his plan.

Anything else is just agenda driven narrative. Guessing it’s the gun barrel…..90% sure.

So you're saying Linden went into the GM hiring process with no plan or a plan that was changed by the... you know... impressively convincing speaking skills... of... you know... Jim Benning?

 

[MS]

So you're saying Linden went into the GM hiring process with no plan or a plan that was changed by the... you know... impressively convincing speaking skills... of... you know... Jim Benning?

I mean, every GM candidate being interviewed anywhere will come into the interview with a plan for what they'll do with the team in question.

If I had to guess, I'd say that FA/Linden were obviously leaning one direction and then Benning came in as the guy spewing the sort of compete-now ideas selling himself as the guy to build a winner now that were absolute music to their ears.

 

[timw33]

NYI finalizes almost of their outstanding free agents

Sorokin 3 years 4MM
Beauvillier 3 years 4.1MM
Palmeri 4 years 5MM

And Cizikas is expected to get 6 years ~2.5MM

 

[Pip]

In Benning’s pitch was a plan to compete right away. Even if he “knew” that Linden and ownership were only going to hire someone looking to compete, Benning still sold them that he was the guy for the job. He was a highly sought after candidate at the time. If he believe that there was no way to accomplish a quick turnaround he shouldn’t have signed on to do it.

 

[F A N]

I mean, every GM candidate being interviewed anywhere will come into the interview with a plan for what they'll do with the team in question.

If I had to guess, I'd say that FA/Linden were obviously leaning one direction and then Benning came in as the guy spewing the sort of compete-now ideas selling himself as the guy to build a winner now that were absolute music to their ears.

I've said this many times in the past. If I was Benning I would have went into the interview with at least a Plan A and a Plan B. Unless there are red flags raised in the interview, I'm doing what I can to get the job.

But what I am saying is that the President of Hockey Operations in charge of hiring the GM should have a plan in place. If I'm looking to do a 5 year rebuild and I believe in rebuilding through the draft, I'm either looking for a guy with experience rebuilding teams, a guy with a scouting background, or a "computer boy" with great ideas. Whomever I interview, I don't bring in a guy I think is going to help the team rebuild through the draft only to have him convince me of his plan to turn around the team quickly. At least that's me.

It's one thing to have ears wide open and interview a bunch of people and get their views on what the team should do. It's another to have zero ideas and interview like 2 guys for the job and be sold on a plan.