Discussion in 'Vancouver Canucks' started by FacepalmBenning, Jan 23, 2019.
Someone has to be blamed. It’s extremely difficult to screw up two top 6 picks in 3 years. Gross.
I agree but someone also nailed 2 first round picks in 3 years. It’s not like fans here were unanimous with their desire for Boeser and Pettersson.
These quotes have zero to do with Benning thinking outside of his scouts..and there's evidence that Benning just went along with the Virtanen pick..Either way, Benning is ultimately responsible for the good and the bad picks under his tenure.
"Some fans might assume that Elias Pettersson was a “Gradin pick,” as the Canucks reached slightly beyond the consensus, which placed Pettersson around 8-10 in the draft rankings, to take him at fifth overall.
Likewise, with Jim Benning’s reputation as a draft guru, some fans are quick to hand him all of the credit (or blame) for the Canucks’ drafting record. Others want to place that credit on another man’s shoulders, such as the Canucks’ Director of Amateur Scouting, Judd Brackett.
For Brackett, however, scouting and the draft is much more of a collaborative effort.
“It really is,” said Brackett. “It starts with an identification process early on, and then people come in from all over and put him against players from their region and vice versa. There’s a real process to it.”
In the case of Pettersson, it was far from a one-man show.
“Scouting is a group effort for us,” he said. “We have Inge Hammarstrom over there and Thomas [Gradin] traveled there, but Elias played in the U20 tournament in"
.and we had plenty of guys that cross over to Sweden. So, there’s no one person that drafts. If there’s a player we like, we have long discussions about that player. It’s definitely a group effort when we find someone special like Pettersson.”
Garbage..you just have a bunch of flimsy conspiracy theories, that you want us to connect the dots with...Which won't fly anywhere outside of a few threads (and the 20 or so negative posters) on this board.
Instead of screaming SOURCE? or CONSPIRACY!!! maybe try to present some evidence or argument that what I’m saying isn’t the case?
I’ve repeatedly listed a ton of evidence that Benning wasn’t sold on Pettersson but rubber-stamped a scout pick. Where is your evidence to the contrary?
If you're going to make blatant against the grain comments..you better come up with some hard evidence on the contrary..
Your heresay, rumour mongering, connect the dots conspiracy theories won't cut it...
He's "nailed" 2/5 first round picks in his tenure. Ooh, ahh. Outside the first round...well...
Total regular season and playoff stats for all players drafted by the Canucks from rounds 2-7 from 2014 to 2018:
Skaters: 193 games played, 13 goals, 30 assists, 116 penalty minutes, -13 cumulative +/-. Without Forsling (you know, the guy we don't have anymore) it becomes: 92 games played, 6 goals, 12 assists, 84 penalty minutes, -10 cumulative +/-.
Goalies: 2 wins, 121 minutes played, 3.47 gaa.
You know there will never be a bit of absolute proof unless someone leaks something years down the line.
But when :
1) Linden specifically credited Brackett for the work that went into the pick and didn’t mention Benning.
2) The 3 top scouts in the organization have all been credited by reliable media sources as driving or being seriously supportive of the pick.
3) Despite there being a scouting consensus, Benning said there was ‘major debate’ about the pick. If the GM and all the head scouts were on the same page, how would there be major debate? Compare with the Hughes pick when Benning and the head scouts were clearly on the same page.
4) Benning TRIED TO TRADE DOWN with Pettersson on the table. Again, he was basically sprinting for the podium when Hughes - a player he obviously wanted - was available for them to pick.
5) Benning’s is the most transparent person ever and his mannerisms and comments about the pick were just completely different from his comments about ‘Lidstrom’ Juolevi and Hughes.
6) In a media filled with hacks and shills where puff pieces are written for everything management does, there has never been a report that Benning was a driving force behind the pick.
... that’s pretty compelling. Again, no, there isn’t a smoking gun. But when there’s that much circumstantial evidence and nothing to the contrary, it’s pretty obvious what probably happened. Unless you want to stick your head in the sand and go LALALALALALALA.
Show me the quote where Benning says there was a 'major debate' about the pick.
Benning tried to acquire a 2nd round pick from LVGK (who wanted Cody Glass)..What does this have to do with Quinn Hughes falling to them?
5) We're going off Bennings mannerisms..?.right.....lol
6) Read post #253
Again, that quote has been posted here before multiple times. I’m not making it up.
Benning had no idea who Vegas wanted. He was willing to trade down.
"The GM also wondered if he could hit the daily double on opening night of the draft. Could he get a quality centre by swapping first-round picks and adding a second- or third-rounder by changing places?
The Vegas Golden Knights suggested swapping No. 5 and No. 6 picks to ensure they landed Glass because the Canucks also had a level of interest.
The Golden Knights also dangled a second-round pick to move up one spot because they owned three second-rounders. But they backed off when the buzz was the Canucks were going to select Pettersson.
In theory, the Canucks could have picked Pettersson sixth overall and had another second-round pick, but the Golden Knights could have also changed their minds and snagged Pettersson.
“We talked to three or four teams about moving down, but as we were doing it and going through the process, I made the decision that we didn’t want to risk losing him,” said Benning.
There's a video of the draft day that suggests that neither of the bolded above is true:
Right at the beginning Benning asks McPhee if he wants to move up a spot. McPhee comes back and tells him what pick they would give up to do so. Vegas clearly didn't suggest the swap. At 1:11, McPhee comes back to Benning to tell him they wouldn't do the deal, so clearly Benning didn't make the decision not to do the deal with Vegas, at least.
Your quote itself also suggests there was debate about the pick as the Canucks "also had a level of interest" in Glass.
Ehhh I think they knew that Vegas wasn't going to take Pettersson.
You can also see him talking to Botterill and alluding to the fact that he was afraid of what the Rangers were going to do.
At the .50 second mark Benning explains what the deal is ..and even says Pete ( "their guy")..There was a deal in place ,but Vegas caught on to who the Canucks were taking..and declined..But yes..according to the video, it appears that Benning approached McPhee (unless it was pre discussed via phone).
The Canucks flew in EP and Glass for meetings in Vancouver before the draft..According to Linden,once they met EP,it just confirmed what they already knew.
This has no relevance to MS's post claiming there was a "major debate" over picking Pettersson..In fact, quite the opposite.
1) If your post about Benning's recollection of the draft is relevant, then so is my post suggesting his recollection is mistaken. You can't have it both ways.
2) You carving MS all afternoon for relying on unsourced quotes and conjecture, then immediately respond to me by giving an unsourced Linden quote and extrapolating that Benning wanted Pettersson because he referred to him as "our guy" in the draft video is pretty rich.
That video never gets old.
- Discusses a trade with McPhee.
- Points directly at the player they want.
- McPhee realizing he doesn't need to make the trade to get the guy he wants, tells Jim they aren't going to make the deal.
You don’t think he nailed the Hughes pick? I guess time will tell.
Those stats you posted regarding rounds 2-7 only look bad now because a few of the prospects aren’t ready yet. Demko and Dipietro will likely increase the goalie stats
I was responding to a post that states "result is the only thing that matters" since we don't know the inner working of the management team. If thats true, then the process doesn't matter and how JB end up with Petterson/Joulevi also doesn't matter.
The approach to judging Benning has to be consistent and fair. Ultimately he signs off on all the picks, so is it fair to bash him for JV and OJ but not giving him credit for signing off on EP and BB? I feel that would be unfair.
It is very, very rare for any trial to contain a "smoking gun." That only happens in the movies. Instead each side presents their best evidence and a neutral party determines which side has presented the strongest case.
My post is a direct quote from a credible source (Kuzma..I actually emailed him out of my own curiosity on the question)...
“But at the end of the day, our guys led by Judd, and the guys who had seen him the most, were adamant that he be our guy.”..Linden
One of the 5 is in college (but is considered one of the best prospects not in the NHL)...2 out of the remaining 4 are finalists or winners of the Calder Trophy.
So I don't have a dog in this fight, because I don't think it really matters whether Benning or someone else pushed the Pettersson pick.
But... your ace in the hole is a quote where Linden pretty much outright refers to a conflict within management where Judd and other scouts were "adamant" that Pettersson would be the pick? You do realize this is essentially direct evidence of MS' suggestion that Benning rubber stamped the Pettersson pick, right?
How could he be absolutely clueless when assessing pro talent and at the same time some great mastermind when doing the same thing while projecting children as hockeyplayers in 2-3 years..?
A healthy debate between the scouts is the context that is referred in the quote (would you expect anything less)...not 'management'.
I've yet to see a reliable source that claims there was interference on this pick from the GM.
I think a lot of the questions you posted can be answered.
3) I think there's little doubt that the Canucks had Pettersson as their best forward available. Using your logic, Linden said so himself. I think the debate comes from who to draft if their top Dman available was available at their slot. Just because there is a major debate doesn't mean that a scouting consensus isn't arrived at and certainly at 5 with the top 2 Dmen gone, there probably was a clear consensus as to who to pick at that spot. Scouts can have a 100% accurate read of 2 players and choose one over the other based on what the criteria is.
4) That's a reflection of where they expected EP40 to land (i.e. not Las Vegas). They were trying to trade down thinking they can do so and still select the player they want but they were only willing to trade down one spot. The same couldn't be said for Hughes. Clearly, the next team down was looking for a similar type of Dman. It's no different from Gillis when he made the Schneider trade. He was pretty sure he would get Horvat, otherwise he was stupid not to have taken the Oilers' deal.
6) I agree. While I think a GM should be responsible for his drafting record, you can't blame Benning for the Juolevi pick and not give credit to Benning for the Pettersson pick. If the behind the scenes draft videos aren't just for show, Benning clearly lets Brackett run the draft. It's the scouts' drafts and he respects it, even when it comes time to trading down in the draft. The time he does step in is whether to select a goaltender or if he wants to take a flyer on a particular player on the list.
Separate names with a comma.