Have the canucks quietly built up a solid prospect pool?

[Hoghandler]

If you want to make the case that he's some kind of drafting guru whose skill at drafting makes up for all his other deficiencies, then yes I expect pretty much 100%.

But that's just a story you've built up in your own mind and an argument that nobody has made. So based on that imagined scenario, you're now expecting 100% success at the draft.

His drafting doesn't need to make up for jack shit to be considered good. The drafting stands on it's own merits - completely independent of every 0ther area of management.

 

[The Drop]

Source for that?

Why didn’t you ask Hoghandler for a source?

 

[The Drop]

Not at all..but it is when you can pick the best player in the draft.....and even if the misses turn out to be solid NHL players with long careers, its not a miss.

An outright 'bust' though,is a big failure.

This solid NHL narrative to put some remote value on the likes of JV is nauseating. It was a bad pick and we’d be lucky if he has Hansen’s career.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

This solid NHL narrative to put some remote value on the likes of JV is nauseating. It was a bad pick and we’d be lucky if he has Hansen’s career.

Sounds like your pretty down on Jake Virtanen.

 

[The Drop]

Sounds like your pretty down on Jake Virtanen.

Or you’re really down on Janik Hansen

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Or you’re really down on Janik Hansen

I think if you can get a player that can play in the league for a decade..and have somewhat of an impact..its not a waste..

Check out the stats of some of the other players taken in the top 10 in 2014 (quite a few of them didn't live up to their draft billing).

 

[The Drop]

I think if you can get a player that can play in the league for a decade..and have somewhat of an impact..its not a waste..

Check out the stats of some of the other players taken in the top 10 in 2014 (quite a few of them didn't live up to their draft billing).

Doesn’t matter about other teams. I’m sure that can be done for previous GMs too.

It’s a waste of a pick for what he could have been. That’s the part that sucks.

 

[Hit the post]

Doesn’t matter about other teams. I’m sure that can be done for previous GMs too.

It’s a waste of a pick for what he could have been. That’s the part that sucks.

Should've picked McCann with the 5th overall pick.

 

[Diamonddog01]

If you want to make the case that he's some kind of drafting guru whose skill at drafting makes up for all his other deficiencies, then yes I expect pretty much 100%. At best you can say his results are in line with historical average.

If he could actually nail 100% of his first rounders, I would maybe be able to buy that he has some sort of special ability there. As it stands his results are no better than throwing darts.

A "difficult standard" is exactly the kind of standard a supposed drafting wizard should be held to.

Who exactly is making that case?

Instead of viewing things in extremes, or in black and white, I choose to see him as above average in drafting. I don't believe it makes up for his other deficiences, however that doesn't mean I can't give credit where it's due.

The only posters who use the terms guru or wizard are those who seem intent on mischaracterizing other poster's points of view.

 

[Melvin]

Who exactly is making that case?

Instead of viewing things in extremes, or in black and white, I choose to see him as above average in drafting. I don't believe it makes up for his other deficiences, however that doesn't mean I can't give credit where it's due.

The only posters who use the terms guru or wizard are those who seem intent on mischaracterizing other poster's points of view.

I'm not mischaracterizing anything. Benning was hired under this pretense. He is still gm, ostensibly under this pretense. I can quote many posts from various people claiming he has some kind of special ability in this regard.

Thus, his simply doing as well as you could do picking at random or picking by basic stats isn't good enough. He absolutely must be held to a much higher standard. It's like saying why are people so hard on Eriksson are you expecting him to score 50 goals lol that's so unreasonable. "

Benning has demonstrated zero ability to draft better than you or I could do just picking based on statistics. That is pathetic.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Yes, our scouting under Benning has done well. That's the whole point.

Yes, the pro scouting has been poor. How the organisation has done on the pro scouting end has no relevance to this discussion.

It might have.

It might be a clue on how Jim actually does as a scout, as one would hope he has his eyes on the NHL more than the VHL of Russia.

A bunch of people on this board didn't want Quinn Hughes...

Too soon to tell. He should be fine, but too soon to tell IMO.

EP and Boeser were not obvious picks...Virtanen is an NHL player, and the book isn't closed on Juolevi yet..Expecting the GM to hit home runs on every pick is unrealistic.

It's bizarre..other fanbases think the Canucks have drafted very well, but a lot the expertzz here would of course find a reason to complain about it.

Its not bizarre. People who just read the mainstream hockey news sources hear it repeated again and again that Jim is doing gods work building the future.

This narrative doesn't survive deeper scrutiny.

 

[RandV]

I believe Podkolzin can be bought out of his final year of his contract but said he wanted to finish out his contract though.

That's incorrect. I believe it's not that Podkolzin "can be bought out", but rather he can buy himself out. The Canucks can't help out here, as an 18/19 year old he would have to buy out his own 6(?) figure contract to come over to the Canucks on an ELC where on the first year he could easily be riding the bus in Utica making a 5 figure salary.

Could happen but I think the safest bet is he plays out his 2 year KHL contract. Unless maybe he has a major breakout and looks like a guarantee to walk right onto the Canucks, not to the same extent but similar to Pettersson.

 

[F A N]

That's incorrect. I believe it's not that Podkolzin "can be bought out", but rather he can buy himself out. The Canucks can't help out here, as an 18/19 year old he would have to buy out his own 6(?) figure contract to come over to the Canucks on an ELC where on the first year he could easily be riding the bus in Utica making a 5 figure salary.

Could happen but I think the safest bet is he plays out his 2 year KHL contract. Unless maybe he has a major breakout and looks like a guarantee to walk right onto the Canucks, not to the same extent but similar to Pettersson.

I agree. As much as I want to see him earlier, I have no issues with Podkolzin spending two years in Russia before coming over. He's considered one of Russia's most promising players of his generation and he's going to play for a good team. He's going to get opportunities. With that said, Podkolzin would likely get $92.5K in signing bonus upon signing an ELC.

 

[Nick1219]

Benning has demonstrated zero ability to draft better than you or I could do just picking based on statistics. That is pathetic.

Correct me if I’m wrong of course, but the potato had a pretty good track record for a few years. Especially the Pastrnak draft.

Could any GM have done better than that model?

 

[Melvin]

Correct me if I’m wrong of course, but the potato had a pretty good track record for a few years. Especially the Pastrnak draft.

Could any GM have done better than that model?

I would hope so.

 

[I am toxic]

Correct me if I’m wrong of course, but the potato had a pretty good track record for a few years. Especially the Pastrnak draft.

Could any GM have done better than that model?

Mittens would struggle.



Oh, who am I kidding. He would just take a nap.

 

[Jyrki21]

I would hope so.

I mean, if not, you should be monetizing the hell out of it and long since on an NHL payroll. Well, you probably should be anyway, since it is clearly doing at least as well as a number of well-paid scouts and executives.

 

[MS]

Interesting. Here is how MS did compared to Benning the moron.

2015- Merkley (Boeser)
2016- Juolevi (Juolevi)
2017- Villardi (Pettersson)
2018- Dobson (Hughes)
2019- Caufield (Podkolzin)

I like the Caufield pick. Not a fan of any of the other selections though.

These things are weird. I would have sworn I wanted Konecny in 2015 and made multiple posts to that effect in the months leading to the draft. Also 'Merkley or Boeser' doesn't mean 'Merkley'.

2016 I wanted Keller but came around on the Juolevi pick because of how badly we needed a puck-moving defender. Huge mistake. I got it completely wrong thinking that Tkachuk was more a product of Marner than he was and Juolevi was standing on his own feet more than he was rather than being floated by Marner/Tkachuk.

2017 I *repeatedly* stated both before and after the draft that Pettersson looked good on paper but that I hadn't seen him play and didn't have a good feel for his level of competition (and he also didn't play at the U-18s like most other top Euros) so there was no way I could sit here pushing for that pick or have a strong feeling on him one way or another outside of 'his production looks good'. Unfortunately, as fans we simply don't have the same resources and there are sometimes guys/leagues I don't see and don't have a read on. Of the guys I saw, Vilardi was easily the best and it's very unfortunate what's happened with his injury history. Guy was going to be a beast and was the best player in the CHL in 17-18 when healthy.

2018 I said at the time that a year down the road everyone will prefer Hughes to Dobson a year later because his skating would pop him up levels quicker. Again, Dobson projects as a Pietrangelo type and Hughes as a Krug/Barrie type and to me the former is far more valuable. We'll see what happens there and nothing is remotely settled on that one.

Regardless, Nylander-Kempe-Point with my first three picks in 2014 kinda nixes some of the other stuff.

 

[I in the Eye]

I think if you can get a player that can play in the league for a decade..and have somewhat of an impact..its not a waste..

Check out the stats of some of the other players taken in the top 10 in 2014 (quite a few of them didn't live up to their draft billing).

It's a world-class ballerina who runs a successful ballerina school in Ladysmith.

 

[I in the Eye]

I mean, if not, you should be monetizing the hell out of it and long since on an NHL payroll. Well, you probably should be anyway, since it is clearly doing at least as well as a number of well-paid scouts and executives.

Despite the results, it would be dismissed out of hand by those who consider drafting a science and an art... and by those who employ family, friends, and family and friends of family and friends as scouts.

If you want to make the case that he's some kind of drafting guru whose skill at drafting makes up for all his other deficiencies, then yes I expect pretty much 100%. At best you can say his results are in line with historical average.

If he could actually nail 100% of his first rounders, I would maybe be able to buy that he has some sort of special ability there. As it stands his results are no better than throwing darts.

A "difficult standard" is exactly the kind of standard a supposed drafting wizard should be held to.

I completely agree. A scouting guru must make the correct choice in situations that are both clear who the BPA is (like a Tkachuk over a Juolevi)... and unclear (like who to draft out of a Virtanen, Nylander, Ehlers, Ritcher). If a scouting guru can't, then he is not a scouting guru possessing a special talent.

...

And I absolutely expect the Canucks scouting staff to outperform posters here (let alone a bare minimum equation). If the Canucks scouting staff can't, then they are not justifying their paychecks. I don't know why any Canuck fan would deny this. The goal for a Canucks fan is for the Canucks to draft the best players they possibly can. The goal is not to protect the reputations of Benning and the scouting staff as best as a Canucks fan possibly can when presented with results that an equation or a given poster here produces.

The Canucks scouting staff run by Benning must do significantly better than anyone on this board, or a math equation (not comparable, not worse, clearly better) otherwise they are not utilizing their time and resources... and, otherwise, their entire existence as Canucks employees in the area of drafting should be questioned.

 

[F A N]

And I absolutely expect the Canucks scouting staff to outperform posters here (let alone a bare minimum equation). If the Canucks scouting staff can't, then they are not justifying their paychecks. I don't know why any Canuck fan would deny this. The goal for a Canucks fan is for the Canucks to draft the best players they possibly can. The goal is not to protect the reputations of Benning and the scouting staff as best as a Canucks fan possibly can when presented with results that an equation or a given poster here produces.

The Canucks scouting staff run by Benning must do significantly better than anyone on this board, or a math equation (not comparable, not worse, clearly better) otherwise they are not utilizing their time and resources... and, otherwise, their entire existence as Canucks employees in the area of drafting should be questioned.

I don't know why the bolded is a requirement. If someone here has actually watched the top prospects play and have proven that their drafting record would have beaten many NHL teams' drafting records then that person should be recruited to work for an NHL team. But most Canucks fans here, including me, simply play the game of "pick'em" where we rank players based mostly on what we have read. And at the end of the day we're dealing dealing with small sample size so one mistake comes at a great opportunity cost.

But I agree with the premise that the whole point of having a scouting staff is to try to gain an edge when it comes to evaluating and projecting players. It's kind of like buying stocks. Why stay with a fund manager who can't beat the market.

 

[I in the Eye]

I don't know why the bolded is a requirement. If someone here has actually watched the top prospects play and have proven that their drafting record would have beaten many NHL teams' drafting records then that person should be recruited to work for an NHL team

I think it has to do with perspective... You seem to be seeing it as the Canucks scouting staff led by Benning has done such a good job, that a comparable job done here (or by a potato) is worthy of employment. My view is that the Canucks scouting staff has done such a mediocre job that a comparable job done here (or by a potato) is not very worthy of employment. Like you say, many here just look at guides and make guesses... and many track records are probably just as good or comparable. The results are there to search up. Taken as a whole, while the prospect group drafted would be different... They'd be comparable in quality.

I don't see what the scouting staff led by Benning has done is anything noteworthy or special. They had picks, they made picks not venturing too far off of most draft guides. Some were great picks... Some were not great picks. It's about what I'd expect, from any moron with a draft guide.

 

[xtra]

Under the bridge Posters thinking:Let’s validate bennings picks....hmm how can I do that....I know I’ll compare him to a poster on this website who has a full time job to show he’s marginally better. I’ll ignore the fact that benning job is to make these picks.


But I ask the question again- was benning responsible for the virtanen draft or not? If he is why the heck take Jake over ehlers/nylander and of not removing the picks from that draft how do you defend his drafting record?

 

[PetterssonSimp]

Sounds like your pretty down on Jake Virtanen.

Um Jannik Hansen had a pretty solid career. At this point, if Jake could be the quality defensive player Hansen was while providing the similar 15/15 production he’s actually about where I’ve pegged his ceiling for the passed 2 years. 5 years ago I wanted V to being a 30/30 guy, but his game didn’t translate to scoring at that rate.
Then again Raffi Torres was also a 6th overall pick, his game never translated to scoring but was an effective NHL player for most of it. This could also be the top end of V’s development as well.

If realistic outlooks aren’t your thing, maybe commenting on others isn’t a great idea

 

[PetterssonSimp]

Who exactly is making that case?

Instead of viewing things in extremes, or in black and white, I choose to see him as above average in drafting. I don't believe it makes up for his other deficiences, however that doesn't mean I can't give credit where it's due.

The only posters who use the terms guru or wizard are those who seem intent on mischaracterizing other poster's points of view.

Above average to me is more than 1st round pick graduates. We’re 6 drafts in, at the very least 14/15 should be showing something past round 1 in developed draft picks. Hell, above average would dictate to me that he wouldn’t have a full draft class with ZERO from it.
If anything he’s below average in the draft. 2/4 inside the Top7 is not a good look, sure having a 23rd overall make a solid impact is nice, but if you compared to any of the other 9 teams who have been the bottom 10 of the league over the last 4 years. I’d be willing to bet they have similar success rate in draft pick graduates that Vancouver does.