Jim Benning Discussion -- Part II

[vanuck]

Gillis left us with a roster filled with third liners and not enough depth at too many positions.

I like what Benning is doing to stack up the prospects at every position. In the future, it is highly unlikely any player will be gifted a position on the Canucks. They will have battle it out with other prospects for a shot.

The big question I have is whether we have a top five in the making. Do we have three forwards who will be a top scoring first line? Do we have that defensive pairing that pushes play forward and locks down the defensive zone?

Right behind the big question is another one about Benning, and Linden, having patience. I don't think Gillis did. Burke and Nonis certainly didn't. Does Benning have the patience to stick with a plan? If the plan is to draft players and develop them, then he has to stop firing draft picks out the door to shore up the current roster.

I understand the need to fill the gap in twenty-somethings that Gillis left. But, the constant movement of second and third round picks has hurt the club over the long haul and has to stop. Does Benning have the patience to keep his mitts off the trade gun trigger?

Disagree with the bolded. Outside of the Sedins + Kesler, Burrows, Santorelli, Higgins, Hansen and Kassian are all top 6 forwards. There was lots of depth on D too - we had Bieksa playing on the 3rd pair with Stanton last season. Weber and Corrado as spares.

Also disagree about there being a real need to fill gaps with 22-24 year old projects. It's nice to have a continuity in terms of age for players but it seems a little arbitrary if those gap-fillers are, well, just gap-fillers. You could get actual NHL-calibre players in UFA for cheap or an equivalent cost to the picks we gave up too.

His worst move wasn't trading for Ballard, it was keeping Ballard over Ehrhoff a year later when it was obvious Ballard wasn't working out, but probably still had a bit of trade value.

The goalie situation ended up being a disaster, but it was a result of a change in the CBA pushed for by another GM with a vendetta against our organization. Very odd circumstance. If the CBA stays constant, Luongo is traded fairly easily and Schneider is still the starter here.

Outside of strictly player moves, Gillis' biggest failure was not restructuring our amateur scouting staff quickly enough and gutting dogs like Delorme, believing that simply giving them better direction could solve our scouting problems. Sadly, based on reports, it seems Benning is drinking that same Kool-Aid from the same scouts.

This pretty much sums up how I see it as well. 2012/2013 seemed to mark a change in direction but now the fear is that we're back to where we started in 2008 and that the dunderheads in our scouting problem are getting the same old 5-year leash they get every time a new GM comes in.

 

[Nucker101]

Disagree with the bolded. Outside of the Sedins + Kesler, Burrows, Santorelli, Higgins, Hansen and Kassian are all top 6 forwards. There was lots of depth on D too - we had Bieksa playing on the 3rd pair with Stanton last season. Weber and Corrado as spares.

Also disagree about there being a real need to fill gaps with 22-24 year old projects. It's nice to have a continuity in terms of age for players but it seems a little arbitrary if those gap-fillers are, well, just gap-fillers. You could get actual NHL-calibre players in UFA for cheap or an equivalent cost to the picks we gave up too.



This pretty much sums up how I see it as well. 2012/2013 seemed to mark a change in direction but now the fear is that we're back to where we started in 2008 and that the dunderheads in our scouting problem are getting the same old 5-year leash they get every time a new GM comes in.

On a playoff team? I disagree you could make a case for a couple of them but I don't buy that all of them are legit top 6 forwards on a playoff team. And I know some of them have solid PP/60 numbers, but to me PP production matters as well.


And for a retort, I'd prefer to see PPG used if you measure them up against other forwards league wide. And also to me someone who's 80th among NHL forwards isn't a legit 1st liner, that's a weak first liner and good 2nd liner. Similar to someone ranked 156th in PPG, that's not a legit op 6 forward to me.

 

[vanuck]

On a playoff team? I disagree you could make a case for a couple of them but I don't buy that all of them are legit top 6 forwards on a playoff team. And I know some of them have solid PP/60 numbers, but to me PP production matters as well.


And for a retort, I'd prefer to see PPG used if you measure them up against other forwards league wide. And also to me someone who's 80th among NHL forwards isn't a legit 1st liner, that's a weak first liner and good 2nd liner. Similar to someone ranked 156th in PPG, that's not a legit op 6 forward to me.

His post wasn't talking about the quality of top 6 forwards we had, it was that we had none of them outside of the Twins and Kesler.

And this "top 6 forward on a playoff team" is nonsense to me. On top of that, we were a perennial playoff team with these same guys not even 2 years ago.

Just look at Kesler this year for an example: 2nd line C last year with VAN when we missed the playoffs... 2nd line C with ANA who's leading the division and are heading to the playoffs this year.

 

[Jyrki21]

I feel like if anyone takes it to court, the NHL will lose on that one but nobody will want to do that because you will be blacklisted.

Heh, no. It is a freely negotiated agreement, you can negotiate whatever terms you want, provided they're not in violation of the law (like a heroin supply clause or something).

I assume the few owners with these contracts in their pocket (Luongo, Hossa, etc.) would have been against this clause, but it's a pretty clear case where the majority would be more than happy to impose it on them, so I doubt they could put up much of a fight.

 

[arttk]

Heh, no. It is a freely negotiated agreement, you can negotiate whatever terms you want, provided they're not in violation of the law (like a heroin supply clause or something).

I assume the few owners with these contracts in their pocket (Luongo, Hossa, etc.) would have been against this clause, but it's a pretty clear case where the majority would be more than happy to impose it on them, so I doubt they could put up much of a fight.

I thought something like that would have grounds, but well I have to admit I am no legal expert. The CBA for me is a weird ass concept anyway, probably he most not capitalist thing I our so called free market capitalist country.

Yeah I don't think the owners will want to fight that anyway, not worth the internal fighting.

 

[fancouver]

Disagree with the bolded. Outside of the Sedins + Kesler, Burrows, Santorelli, Higgins, Hansen and Kassian are all top 6 forwards. There was lots of depth on D too - we had Bieksa playing on the 3rd pair with Stanton last season. Weber and Corrado as spares.

Also disagree about there being a real need to fill gaps with 22-24 year old projects. It's nice to have a continuity in terms of age for players but it seems a little arbitrary if those gap-fillers are, well, just gap-fillers. You could get actual NHL-calibre players in UFA for cheap or an equivalent cost to the picks we gave up too.

Higgins (1 goal in the last 50 games or whatever), Hansen (3rd liner) and Kassian are not top 6 forwards on a contender. In fact, I wouldn't say Kassian is a legit top 6 forward at the moment after our musical chairs with 3 different coaches. He has shown flashes of it, but hasn't done enough to stay in the top 6 let alone stay in the lineup this year.

I also disagree with the notion that we don't need 22-24 year olds to fill in the gaps. Again, you're assuming Vey amounts to nothing when you say you can get 'actual' NHLers. That's the problem with some of the fanbase is the lack of patience. Vey hasn't even played a full year and people are writing him off already.

Plus, building a team through UFA is a last resort. You can't simply say replace those 22-24 year olds with UFAs. This isn't a video game. Any GM that waits for FAs to hit the market is not doing his job. There is absolutely no guarantee any FA would sign here (ie. Iginla).

 

[vanuck]

Higgins (1 goal in the last 50 games or whatever), Hansen (3rd liner) and Kassian are not top 6 forwards on a contender. In fact, I wouldn't say Kassian is a legit top 6 forward at the moment after our musical chairs with 3 different coaches. He has shown flashes of it, but hasn't done enough to stay in the top 6 let alone stay in the lineup this year.

I also disagree with the notion that we don't need 22-24 year olds to fill in the gaps. Again, you're assuming Vey amounts to nothing when you say you can get 'actual' NHLers. That's the problem with some of the fanbase is the lack of patience. Vey hasn't even played a full year and people are writing him off already.

Plus, building a team through UFA is a last resort. You can't simply say replace those 22-24 year olds with UFAs. This isn't a video game. Any GM that waits for FAs to hit the market is not doing his job. There is absolutely no guarantee any FA would sign here (ie. Iginla).

By the most arbitrary definition (top 180 forwards in ES point production), sure they are. No idea how you say ZK isn't one when he's produced like one over his last 2 seasons. The coach benching him for dumb reasons doesn't erase that.

Vey isn't very good for the ice time he gets spoonfed, to put it simply. Right now that 2nd round pick looks like it's gone to waste.

There are cheap 2nd/3rd liners available in free agency every year. Not saying you should build a team around them but then again you wouldn't want to build a team around the likes of Vey either...

 

[me2]

Higgins (1 goal in the last 50 games or whatever), Hansen (3rd liner) and Kassian are not top 6 forwards on a contender. In fact, I wouldn't say Kassian is a legit top 6 forward at the moment after our musical chairs with 3 different coaches. He has shown flashes of it, but hasn't done enough to stay in the top 6 let alone stay in the lineup this year.

I also disagree with the notion that we don't need 22-24 year olds to fill in the gaps. Again, you're assuming Vey amounts to nothing when you say you can get 'actual' NHLers. That's the problem with some of the fanbase is the lack of patience. Vey hasn't even played a full year and people are writing him off already.

Plus, building a team through UFA is a last resort. You can't simply say replace those 22-24 year olds with UFAs. This isn't a video game. Any GM that waits for FAs to hit the market is not doing his job. There is absolutely no guarantee any FA would sign here (ie. Iginla).

There are always good players for cheap on the UFA market and if you are not stupid you can find them. Santorelli, Richardson level players are not impossible to get, this off season Winnick only cost $1.5m and he's 3x the player Dorsett is. You are not wedded to these players forever, so what if they are 28, they come on short contracts which allows you to milk the remaining 2-4 good years out of them and move on. With the low age players turn UFA, 22-24 yos hit UFA status quickly.

 

[vanuck]

There are always good players for cheap on the UFA market and if you are not stupid you can find them. Santorelli, Richardson level players are not impossible to get, this off season Winnick only cost $1.5m and he's 3x the player Dorsett is. You are not wedded to these players forever, so what if they are 28, they come on short contracts which allows you to milk the remaining 2-4 good years out of them and move on. With the low age players turn UFA, 22-24 yos hit UFA status quickly.

Yeah, guys like Raymond, Winnik and Santorelli were available and they were only 28 or so. They all came on 1-year or short-term deals and still have anywhere from 4-6 years of utility still. It's not like you're getting washed up 34 year-olds. With the way recent years have gone mid-tier players are getting squeezed out of the cap pie and they're available every year at pretty low cost.

Give me a 28 year-old Raymond/Santorelli who cost 1/1.5M over a 23 year-old Vey who cost a 2nd round pick any day.

 

[F A N]

Winnick only cost $1.5m and he's 3x the player Dorsett is.

How did you arrive at this stupid conclusion?

 

[iceburg]

Yeah, guys like Raymond, Winnik and Santorelli were available and they were only 28 or so. They all came on 1-year or short-term deals and still have anywhere from 4-6 years of utility still. It's not like you're getting washed up 34 year-olds. With the way recent years have gone mid-tier players are getting squeezed out of the cap pie and they're available every year at pretty low cost.

Give me a 28 year-old Raymond/Santorelli who cost 1/1.5M over a 23 year-old Vey who cost a 2nd round pick any day.

The team made a strategic decision to get younger, presumably a decision led by Benning and supported by Linden. Absolutely Santorelli would be more effective than Vey. But, in three years when the Sedins are gone (or at least lower minute PP specialists) the team would be hooped.
It's not an isolated decision on this player is better than that player. It's a strategy to be competitive now and better in three years. One can agree with the overall strategy or not but to disagree with an individual component of the strategy isn't fair IMO.

 

[arttk]

It takes longer to evaluate picks who may or may not make it...

But it doesn't take long to spot the guys who will bust hard right after draft+1; and that's pretty much most of the players we spent our picks on.

I think it still takes time to fully evaluate each scout's overall success rate, home run rate, finding hidden gem rate. I come from a data driven background and you need data points to make those decisions. If every scout has a 100 or 200 player list, you need to wait a couple years to see. Maybe some lists are so bad where like the tip 30 busts so apparently you can fire the scout right away. Getzlaf and carter has meh draft +1 season, do you write that against the scout the year after or do you wait 2-3 years before concluding?

 

[Barney Gumble]

The team made a strategic decision to get younger

 

[racerjoe]

Just wanted to add Ballard was not kept instead of Erhoff. We offered Erhoff the same deal Bieksa was and he turned it down. We then traded him, and had the room to keep Ballard.

I don't mind the decision when it is looked at in a hole. We had a budget and one player wasn't going to except that. I understand if people feel we should have paid more, but I do think we should stop saying we kept Ballard instead of Erhoff. Ballard had little to do with Erhoff.

 

[tantalum]

In addition to the Ballard/Ehrhoff comment...people have to stop saying Santorelli at 1/1.5 vs Vey + a 2nd. Santorelli was offered that by the canucks and turned it down. Yes he settled for a one year deal in the end but at the time the canucks were looking to retain him he was clinging to the thought he was going to get a multi-year deal. Once that delusion was lifted the canucks had (rightfully) moved on. And I'm not convinced Vey was acquired to replace Santorelli to being with. I think the Vey was acquired because he was the right age and available. I'm not sure much more thought went into it.


btw Santorelli has 1 point in 14 games with the Preds and for the year is now a 35 or so point pace player. His career average is a 30 point pace.

 

[Pip]

We should have signed him to a multi-year deal. I'm not going to be swayed by a slow start with a new club. At the reported 1.5 mill, there's no risk if he regresses to his 30 point career average.

 

[arttk]

In addition to the Ballard/Ehrhoff comment...people have to stop saying Santorelli at 1/1.5 vs Vey + a 2nd. Santorelli was offered that by the canucks and turned it down. Yes he settled for a one year deal in the end but at the time the canucks were looking to retain him he was clinging to the thought he was going to get a multi-year deal. Once that delusion was lifted the canucks had (rightfully) moved on. And I'm not convinced Vey was acquired to replace Santorelli to being with. I think the Vey was acquired because he was the right age and available. I'm not sure much more thought went into it.


btw Santorelli has 1 point in 14 games with the Preds and for the year is now a 35 or so point pace player. His career average is a 30 point pace.

Seems like the worst case scenario is having a better Richardson and with Richardson's deal ending soon, not seeing the downside really.

 

[banme*]

His post wasn't talking about the quality of top 6 forwards we had, it was that we had none of them outside of the Twins and Kesler.

And this "top 6 forward on a playoff team" is nonsense to me. On top of that, we were a perennial playoff team with these same guys not even 2 years ago.

Just look at Kesler this year for an example: 2nd line C last year with VAN when we missed the playoffs... 2nd line C with ANA who's leading the division and are heading to the playoffs this year.

Saying that we don't have any top 6 forwards kind of lines up with saying that the quality of these players isn't good enough to be a top 6 forward, does it not?

Also, Kesler would be a top 6 forward on any team in the league, so that's not a particularly good argument. When we were in the prime of being a "perennial playoff team", Hansen was not in our top 6, Kassian wasn't even on the team, Higgins was 3-4 years younger, santorelli wasn't even on the team, so that leaves burrows, who I agree is a top 6 forward. When Gillis left, Kesler was as good as gone, Higgins was no longer a top 6 forward, Kassian wasn't a top 6 forward and still isn't unless he's with the sedins, Hansen still wasn't a top 6 forward, and burrows didn't look like one anymore (although it's great that he's bounced back this year). Santorelli should have been resigned, but it's not like he was an established top 6 forward either.

 

[RandV]

You throw the sarcasm in there but its a legitimate point. We have a pair of young goalies with the team, either of whom could be with the team for the next 10 years. But then the first thing Benning does is goes and signs a vet to just the right contract that could see both our young guys gone after two seasons, and Miller the season after that, leaving us with nothing but a goalie prospect who will likely be fresh out of college.

It's not very 'strategic' thinking. Not that there's anything wrong with it but I'm left with more the impression that these are more guys that Benning has scouted that have become available so he jumps on it. It isn't some grand strategy to accommodate the Sedins departure in 3 years, that angle is more likely just a fan invention. When the Sedins are gone it's our drafted prospects in the system that we'll sink or swim with, the guys Benning added are supplemental long shots.

I mean Vey is 24, in 3 years he'll be a UFA. If a player of 'that age' is needed to go along with the kids then he's basically a Mason Raymond UFA signing.

 

[vanuck]

The team made a strategic decision to get younger, presumably a decision led by Benning and supported by Linden. Absolutely Santorelli would be more effective than Vey. But, in three years when the Sedins are gone (or at least lower minute PP specialists) the team would be hooped.
It's not an isolated decision on this player is better than that player. It's a strategy to be competitive now and better in three years. One can agree with the overall strategy or not but to disagree with an individual component of the strategy isn't fair IMO.

If you don't want to be hooped when the Sedins retire you're better off keeping those picks. Generally the odds of drafting a 1st-line forward are higher than getting one who's played in the AHL for 3 years. tc23 posted some links to the work he did in the Baertschi thread too.

 

[Barney Gumble]

btw Santorelli has 1 point in 14 games with the Preds and for the year is now a 35 or so point pace player. His career average is a 30 point pace.

Santorelli - unlike Vey - isn't useless if he's not putting up points (eg., the former can play a far more effective role in the bottom six than a guy that needs to be spoon fed minutes/have sheltered minutes). Vey can't even match up well against J. Schroeder right now.

 

[vanuck]

Saying that we don't have any top 6 forwards kind of lines up with saying that the quality of these players isn't good enough to be a top 6 forward, does it not?

Also, Kesler would be a top 6 forward on any team in the league, so that's not a particularly good argument. When we were in the prime of being a "perennial playoff team", Hansen was not in our top 6, Kassian wasn't even on the team, Higgins was 3-4 years younger, santorelli wasn't even on the team, so that leaves burrows, who I agree is a top 6 forward. When Gillis left, Kesler was as good as gone, Higgins was no longer a top 6 forward, Kassian wasn't a top 6 forward and still isn't unless he's with the sedins, Hansen still wasn't a top 6 forward, and burrows didn't look like one anymore (although it's great that he's bounced back this year). Santorelli should have been resigned, but it's not like he was an established top 6 forward either.

Saying that stuff is subjective and a somewhat circular argument. Not to mention blatantly untrue anyhow. For example look at Higgins' production over the last 2 years combined. He still fits the metric which needs to be objective as it excludes biases. Saying whether someone's 'legit' or is 'a top 6 forward on any team' and that already introduces a whole whack of subjectivity into it.

Using Kesler as an example was just showing how completely arbitrary using a team's playoff status as a measure of how good someone is.

For the record, the original post only mentioned we had a team full of 3rd liners. Nothing about the quality of guys you want on a playoff team as that's something else.

But for the most basic of definitions, yes, you're a top 6'er if you produce 25+ pts/82 at ES. During those playoff years guys like Hansen produced at a top 6 rate despite generally being on the 3rd line. He's already hit that mark this year playing on the '4th' line. Check out those numbers for Santorelli and Kassian over the last 2 seasons and you'll see they fit the criteria too.

 

[banme*]

Saying that stuff is subjective and a somewhat circular argument. Not to mention blatantly untrue anyhow. For example look at Higgins' production over the last 2 years combined. He still fits the metric which needs to be objective as it excludes biases. Saying whether someone's 'legit' or is 'a top 6 forward on any team' and that already introduces a whole whack of subjectivity into it.

Using Kesler as an example was just showing how completely arbitrary using a team's playoff status as a measure of how good someone is.

For the record, the original post only mentioned we had a team full of 3rd liners. Nothing about the quality of guys you want on a playoff team as that's something else.

But for the most basic of definitions, yes, you're a top 6'er if you produce 25+ pts/82 at ES. During those playoff years guys like Hansen produced at a top 6 rate despite generally being on the 3rd line. He's already hit that mark this year playing on the '4th' line. Check out those numbers for Santorelli and Kassian over the last 2 seasons and you'll see they fit the criteria too.

I've always found it counterintuitive to measure whether a player is top 6 calibre based on points tbh, putting up 25 points in a bottom 6 role playing weaker competition shouldn't qualify as a top 6 forward imo (not saying that's what Hansen is necessarily doing this year, but he hasn't faced the same competition as, say, Bonino). By established, I meant doing it on a consistent basis btw. Also, sorry if my post came off as an attack, wasn't meant that way but now that I reread it it seemed a little harsh.

 

[iceburg]

If you don't want to be hooped when the Sedins retire you're better off keeping those picks. Generally the odds of drafting a 1st-line forward are higher than getting one who's played in the AHL for 3 years. tc23 posted some links to the work he did in the Baertschi thread too.

Don't disagree. But I've made the point before, as have others, that the strategy to bring in 23 year olds is all about filling a major hole in the organization. The chances of getting a serviceable NHL forward are better (I would argue much better) by acquiring a player farther along in his development. Less likely to hit a homerun, more likely to hit a double. It comes down to team needs at any given point. I think you'll see JB start holding on to picks more tightly once he feels he has filled the gap.

 

[iceburg]

It will be very interesting to see what happens in the summer with the goaltending if Lack keeps up his current performance level and carries it into the playoffs. I can't see Miller being satisfied as a back-up and it will be very difficult to get Lack on an extension as a pending free agent next year if he is the back-up.
JB has been very vocal about being willing to ask players to waive their NTCs. But that was for players he didn't sign. Will he be equally as willing to ask Miller to waive? If things continue the way they are with Lack, trading Miller is the most prudent thing to do, if not the most likely.