Jim Elmer Benning on Sportsnet 650 Today (Jan. 23) around 4 PM

[Michael Dal Swolle]

You seem to be viewing this black or white. The quote never implied or suggested that Benning had to be won over. It's not that hard to understand. A group of friends can argue about where to go and what to do and be able to arrive at a consensus. Benning appears to trust his staff, especially Judd Brackett. If I was to read into everything that was shown and or reported, it appears the real debate may have centered around Makar vs Petersson. Benning himself have spoken about the need for a playmaking C and PP QB so you know that's the type of skillset/player he was looking for. When asked the specific question, he honestly said it would have been a hard one. When asked about other players who were available at 5, Benning didn't really pay it any mind. That's not to say there weren't other scouts who argue in favour of say Glass or Mittelstadt. At the end of the day, there's strong evidence to suggest that the Canucks' list had Petersson near the top of the list if not the top.

Your last comment is also a curious one. Jim Benning is ultimately the GM and is responsible for his draft record. If he simply let his scouts pick and without his input and his drafts produce nothing that's on him. If he actually wanted to draft someone else but ultimately listened to his scouts and the guy he wanted to draft was a whole lot better, that's on him. In the same token, if he chose to listen to his scouts and the guy they ultimately drafted was a whole lot better than the guy Benning initially wanted to draft then he deserves as much credit as any other GM for having drafted a good player.

So you're saying the quote doesn't imply Benning had to be won over. Fine. But you also say you think there was a real debate around Makar and Pettersson. We know Brackkett was "adamant" about Pettersson... so why is it such an unbelievable stretch to suggest Benning was in favour of picking another player (whether it be Makar or someone else)?

Again, the question was NEVER about whether it was right or wrong for Benning to defer to his scouts on the Pettersson pick. The question was whether there is evidence to suggest that was actually what happened. This isn't that hard to understand either if you actually read the context of the discussion.

Your second point conflates Benning being generally responsible for his administration's draft record and Benning himself being some sort of amateur scouting guru with an "eye for talent" hand picking top amateur talent. If he (wisely) deferred on the Pettersson pick, I'm fine with him been seen favourably regarding the former, but I also don't think he deserves the accolades of the latter.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

So you're saying the quote doesn't imply Benning had to be won over. Fine. But you also say you think there was a real debate around Makar and Pettersson. We know Brackkett was "adamant" about Pettersson... so why is it such an unbelievable stretch to suggest Benning was in favour of picking another player (whether it be Makar or someone else)?

Again, the question was NEVER about whether it was right or wrong for Benning to defer to his scouts on the Pettersson pick. The question was whether there is evidence to suggest that was actually what happened. This isn't that hard to understand either if you actually read the context of the discussion.

Your second point conflates Benning being generally responsible for his administration's draft record and Benning himself being some sort of amateur scouting guru with an "eye for talent" hand picking top amateur talent. If he (wisely) deferred on the Pettersson pick, I'm fine with him been seen favourably regarding the former, but I also don't think he deserves the accolades of the latter.

I never believe Benning is a scouting guru. He seems to be living off his Buffalo days from over a decade ago. His drafts here are average (considering the positions they drafted in). Seems like there are other people that "push hard" for Boeser and Petterson, while he seems to be the one behind the Virtanen and Joulevi picks. These are based on various videos and stories I've seen.
For me, Benning gets credit for promoting competent people in the scouting dept, and then listening to their advises. He gets blame for missing big time on Joulevi and a disappointing result for Virtanen. His post 1st round picks are fairly decent overall, although I feel that he deferred to his scouts there as well (he doesn't know where some of the players played in their draft year, I really doubt he scouted those ones, like Tryamkin).

 

[Michael Dal Swolle]

I never believe Benning is a scouting guru. He seems to be living off his Buffalo days from over a decade ago. His drafts here are average (considering the positions they drafted in). Seems like there are other people that "push hard" for Boeser and Petterson, while he seems to be the one behind the Virtanen and Joulevi picks. These are based on various videos and stories I've seen.
For me, Benning gets credit for promoting competent people in the scouting dept, and then listening to their advises. He gets blame for missing big time on Joulevi and a disappointing result for Virtanen. His post 1st round picks are fairly decent overall, although I feel that he deferred to his scouts there as well (he doesn't know where some of the players played in their draft year, I really doubt he scouted those ones, like Tryamkin).

I think this is a totally fair take. The evidence suggests - but doesn't absolutely prove- that others pushed hard for Pettersson. Benning can be credited for promoting the right people...but if the best results are coming from circumstances where he defers to Brackett and others, I'd prefer a GM who does that same thing while not getting wrecked in every significant trade or contract negotiation.

 

[me2]

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.

Judd Brackett,

"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.”

It is mostly useless to use scouting to rate a GM. Rate him on the things he's directly responsible for (trades, ufa signings, contracts, analysing the team and setting out a plan).

 

[F A N]

So you're saying the quote doesn't imply Benning had to be won over. Fine. But you also say you think there was a real debate around Makar and Pettersson. We know Brackkett was "adamant" about Pettersson... so why is it such an unbelievable stretch to suggest Benning was in favour of picking another player (whether it be Makar or someone else)?

I never said that it's an "unbelievable stretch" to suggest that Benning was in favour of picking another player. Let's say Benning was in favour of picking another player (e.g. Makar). That doesn't mean he had to be "won over." That's the point you're missing. Teams need to compile their draft list somehow. There can be a real debate but that doesn't mean a consensus couldn't be arrived at. Whether it's Brackett or Benning, they may like a certain player but that doesn't mean they will veto the consensus choice their team of scouts arrived at.

Again, the question was NEVER about whether it was right or wrong for Benning to defer to his scouts on the Pettersson pick. The question was whether there is evidence to suggest that was actually what happened. This isn't that hard to understand either if you actually read the context of the discussion.

Okay. Does it make much of a difference if Pettersson was Benning's preferred pick vs. he deferred to his scouts? Either way, the Canucks' pick was Pettersson.

Your second point conflates Benning being generally responsible for his administration's draft record and Benning himself being some sort of amateur scouting guru with an "eye for talent" hand picking top amateur talent. If he (wisely) deferred on the Pettersson pick, I'm fine with him been seen favourably regarding the former, but I also don't think he deserves the accolades of the latter.

The only people who called Benning a "scouting guru" were a select few local media personnel. Which posters here that you would classify as a Benning supporter ever called him a "scouting guru with an eye for talent?" Scouting takes a lot of work. A GM with amateur scouting background simply can't spend the same amount of time scouting amateur players when he is an NHL GM vs an amateur scout. What you do expect from Benning's background as an amateur scout is that he would know how to work with his amateur scouts and be able to properly evaluate his amateur scouting staff and make the necessary changes. That's what Benning did.

 

[Michael Dal Swolle]

I never said that it's an "unbelievable stretch" to suggest that Benning was in favour of picking another player. Let's say Benning was in favour of picking another player (e.g. Makar). That doesn't mean he had to be "won over." That's the point you're missing. Teams need to compile their draft list somehow. There can be a real debate but that doesn't mean a consensus couldn't be arrived at. Whether it's Brackett or Benning, they may like a certain player but that doesn't mean they will veto the consensus choice their team of scouts arrived at.



Okay. Does it make much of a difference if Pettersson was Benning's preferred pick vs. he deferred to his scouts? Either way, the Canucks' pick was Pettersson.



The only people who called Benning a "scouting guru" were a select few local media personnel. Which posters here that you would classify as a Benning supporter ever called him a "scouting guru with an eye for talent?" Scouting takes a lot of work. A GM with amateur scouting background simply can't spend the same amount of time scouting amateur players when he is an NHL GM vs an amateur scout. What you do expect from Benning's background as an amateur scout is that he would know how to work with his amateur scouts and be able to properly evaluate his amateur scouting staff and make the necessary changes. That's what Benning did.

I don't know why you are insisting that I don't understand or don't agree with the concept of teams compiling a draft list through debate. I've explicitly stated in the thread that I am aware this is the process and don't have a problem with it.

As I've said previously in the thread, if the most Benning can say about the only positive aspect of his administration is that he didn't veto the good draft selections others made, I don't see why he shouldn't be replaced by someone who does that same thing who isn't a disaster at signing contracts and making trades.

As I said in my post, if you want to credit Benning for making changes to the scouting staff, I don't have a problem with that, although I think the improvement we're seeing is largely due to a difference in draft position. I'm curious as to what the changes Benning made are as my recollection was that Judd Brackett and others were already in the organization when he arrived.

I don't know how someone who's been around here as long as you can say that Benning hasn't been getting direct credit for the Pettersson pick, but I'll assume that you have of course only ever given Benning credit for his relatively minor role in re-configuring the scouting staff and will only do so going forward.

 

[F A N]

As I've said previously in the thread, if the most Benning can say about the only positive aspect of his administration is that he didn't veto the good draft selections others made, I don't see why he shouldn't be replaced by someone who does that same thing who isn't a disaster at signing contracts and making trades.

You may be right. A new GM could probably come in and simply let Brackett and the staff make the picks and that would likely work for a couple of years. But I wouldn't underestimate the impact a GM can make to the team's drafting. Part of the GM's job is to anticipate the changes in the game and instruct his amateur scouts to draft accordingly. A GM's thinking and preferences can directly impact the draft. Take the drafting of Schneider. If Burke was still the GM, Schneider wouldn't have been drafted and we wouldn't have had Luongo. If you look at Gillis' drafts, he went from drafting speed and skill to size in 2011 and 2012. It's not a coincidence that the Canucks drafted Mallet and Hutton. That was a draft where the directive was that it's okay to draft older prospects who have been on a steeper development curve of late. The Canucks have drafted out of the US high school leagues every year since Benning had time to instruct his scouts as to what to look for. This isn't a coincidence. A new GM is very likely going to change the way the Canucks draft and it may or may not produce better results.

As I said in my post, if you want to credit Benning for making changes to the scouting staff, I don't have a problem with that, although I think the improvement we're seeing is largely due to a difference in draft position. I'm curious as to what the changes Benning made are as my recollection was that Judd Brackett and others were already in the organization when he arrived.

This has been said many times. Brackett went from a part-time scout to the Director of Amateur Scouting. Ya Brackett was "in the organization" but he clearly wasn't highly valued under the previous regime. Don't get me wrong, I give credit to Gillis for making quite a few changes to the scouting staff as well. There has actually been quite a few changes since summer of 2017 on the amateur scouting front.

I talked about this before, Doug Gasper was the Director of Amateur Scouting for Moosejaw before joining the Canucks. The Canucks then drafted Jett Woo. Coincidence? Montalbano worked/works as a scout/the Director of Player Personnel for the Tri-City Storms. The Canucks then drafted Tyler Madden. Coincidence? ultimately the scouts are the ones who have the most impact on who gets selected so I don't think it's as simple as "ya well he hired the guy but he just let the guy he hired pick."

I don't know how someone who's been around here as long as you can say that Benning hasn't been getting direct credit for the Pettersson pick, but I'll assume that you have of course only ever given Benning credit for his relatively minor role in re-configuring the scouting staff and will only do so going forward.

You're putting words into my mouth. All I said was that Benning is the GM and he's ultimately responsible for the Canucks' drafting record during the time he is the GM. It doesn't matter if he picks whomever he wants to pick or he just lets his scouts pick. If the consensus among his scouts was to pick Juolevi and Benning "vetoed" and picked Tkachuk, would you give him credit? What if the consensus among his scouts was to pick Glass instead of Pettersson, would you give him the same criticism as you would give him credit for in the prior hypothetical?

 

[me2]

You may be right. A new GM could probably come in and simply let Brackett and the staff make the picks and that would likely work for a couple of years. But I wouldn't underestimate the impact a GM can make to the team's drafting. Part of the GM's job is to anticipate the changes in the game and instruct his amateur scouts to draft accordingly. A GM's thinking and preferences can directly impact the draft. Take the drafting of Schneider. If Burke was still the GM, Schneider wouldn't have been drafted and we wouldn't have had Luongo. If you look at Gillis' drafts, he went from drafting speed and skill to size in 2011 and 2012. It's not a coincidence that the Canucks drafted Mallet and Hutton. That was a draft where the directive was that it's okay to draft older prospects who have been on a steeper development curve of late. The Canucks have drafted out of the US high school leagues every year since Benning had time to instruct his scouts as to what to look for. This isn't a coincidence. A new GM is very likely going to change the way the Canucks draft and it may or may not produce better results.



This has been said many times. Brackett went from a part-time scout to the Director of Amateur Scouting. Ya Brackett was "in the organization" but he clearly wasn't highly valued under the previous regime. Don't get me wrong, I give credit to Gillis for making quite a few changes to the scouting staff as well. There has actually been quite a few changes since summer of 2017 on the amateur scouting front.

I talked about this before, Doug Gasper was the Director of Amateur Scouting for Moosejaw before joining the Canucks. The Canucks then drafted Jett Woo. Coincidence? Montalbano worked/works as a scout/the Director of Player Personnel for the Tri-City Storms. The Canucks then drafted Tyler Madden. Coincidence? ultimately the scouts are the ones who have the most impact on who gets selected so I don't think it's as simple as "ya well he hired the guy but he just let the guy he hired pick."



You're putting words into my mouth. All I said was that Benning is the GM and he's ultimately responsible for the Canucks' drafting record during the time he is the GM. It doesn't matter if he picks whomever he wants to pick or he just lets his scouts pick. If the consensus among his scouts was to pick Juolevi and Benning "vetoed" and picked Tkachuk, would you give him credit? What if the consensus among his scouts was to pick Glass instead of Pettersson, would you give him the same criticism as you would give him credit for in the prior hypothetical?

Even if you believe Benning turned the scouting around, any changes he's made will be there. Firing Benning will have no effect on the Canucks scouting but will improve trades, ufa signings, running of the team, planning and execution.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Even if you believe Benning turned the scouting around, any changes he's made will be there. Firing Benning will have no effect on the Canucks scouting but will improve trades, ufa signings, running of the team, planning and execution.

Unfortunately,..it doesn't work that way, and the more his his picks translate into the NHL,the more secure his job is....He's obviously not getting fired after this season....This off season, he will have full licence to sign UFA's,make trades and plot the teams future...If there's another progression next season (which I think there will be),brace yourself, because he will get a 5 year extension next time around.

If he screws it up, he will be replaced in 2020.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Even if you believe Benning turned the scouting around, any changes he's made will be there. Firing Benning will have no effect on the Canucks scouting but will improve trades, ufa signings, running of the team, planning and execution.

Exactly. If there is persistence to the alleged scouting changes that Benning has implemented, replacing him keeps that benefit static while there is at least a chance for improvement in other areas. Logical.

This team is currently 8th in points percentage. It finished 5th in points percentage last year. They probably finish in the 6-7 range this year. Is that really progression? No, not really.

Alternatively, if Benning's job actually hinges on translating draft prospects and nothing else, then he's working under a unique rule set. Normally, a GM is expected to improve his team incrementally. Just on points percentage and underlying numbers, they will need a massive shift next year to be in the playoffs.

That's the likeliest time that we will see Benning walk off into the sunset. Let's hope it comes to fruition.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Imagine Burke negotiating with Benning. With his slow monotone dragged out voice vs Burkies aggressive ranting voice.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Playoffs,no playoffs..whatever..this teams on the right track this season...I think they will make the playoffs next season..There.I've said it....You can hold me to it, .

 

[F A N]

Even if you believe Benning turned the scouting around, any changes he's made will be there. Firing Benning will have no effect on the Canucks scouting but will improve trades, ufa signings, running of the team, planning and execution.

It's naive to thing that a GM change would have no effect on the Canucks scouting/drafting. As I explained in my post, there's no guarantee that that is the case. A GM can certainly impact the draft. Like I said, I wouldn't underestimate the impact a GM can make to the team's drafting. It's illogical to assume that there would be no effect.

 

[geebaan]

Playoffs,no playoffs..whatever..this teams on the right track this season...I think they will make the playoffs next season..There.I've said it....You can hold me to it, .

So if they take a step back next year, what then?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

So if they take a step back next year, what then?

Then..I'm completely wrong....But why would they take a step back.?....why would they regress?..Are they old?.(while numerous teams in the Western Conference are on a 'down' cycle).Do they have a shitty coach..?..Are there internal problems within the team?...At this point.they are adding layer upon layer of young talent...Sorry,but not seeing this go backwards...They are on the ascendant.

Of course you can be like' Melvin' who truly believes the Canucks are missing the playoffs (and becoming the Oilers) for the next 5 years....Your call?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

nm

 

[Bleach Clean]

So if they take a step back next year, what then?

Steps forward and steps back are meaningless when talking about 2-3 spots in the relative standings. In the absolute standings they are still well shy of a 95 point pace. (What they will probably need next year to make it).

Their underlying metrics suck. So far, they have relied heavily on conversion to stay around their pace of the prior 3 years.... To repeat: At the 50 game mark their points pace was the same/similar to what had happened before.

A regression will take place. Conversion will again follow shot rates. For them and for the teams around them.

 

[Peter10]

Then..I'm completely wrong....But why would they take a step back.?....why would they regress?..Are they old?.(while numerous teams in the Western Conference are on a 'down' cycle).Do they have a ****ty coach..?..Are there internal problems within the team?...At this point.they are adding layer upon layer of young talent...Sorry,but not seeing this go backwards...They are on the ascendant.

Of course you can be like' Melvin' who truly believes the Canucks are missing the playoffs (and becoming the Oilers) for the next 5 years....Your call?

Whom do you expect to become significantly better than this year to make a difference? Pettersson will likely take another step, Gaudette will get regular time and Hughes will be better than whoever he replaces. However, you still have Gudbranson bleeding goals. You have Edler and Tanev a year older who will have similar injury problems. Eriksson, Beagle, Sutter will be worse. The Western Conference is unlikely to be this terrible again.

Unless there are some major UFA coups (like Stone and/or Karlsson) and honestly dont see them that much better than this year (if at all) and that wont be enough for the 2020 playoffs. And this isnt even considering the risk a long term injury to one of the big 3 on offense (Pettersson, Horvat, Boeser).

 

[4Twenty]

Playoffs,no playoffs..whatever..this teams on the right track this season...I think they will make the playoffs next season..There.I've said it....You can hold me to it, .

The team is 3-6-1 in their last 10. If they play out the remained of the season at that pace, would you still think the team is on the right track?

What would have to happen for you to consider that this team isn't on the right track?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Whom do you expect to become significantly better than this year to make a difference? Pettersson will likely take another step, Gaudette will get regular time and Hughes will be better than whoever he replaces. However, you still have Gudbranson bleeding goals. You have Edler and Tanev a year older who will have similar injury problems. Eriksson, Beagle, Sutter will be worse. The Western Conference is unlikely to be this terrible again.

Unless there are some major UFA coups (like Stone and/or Karlsson) and honestly dont see them that much better than this year (if at all) and that wont be enough for the 2020 playoffs. And this isnt even considering the risk a long term injury to one of the big 3 on offense (Pettersson, Horvat, Boeser).

The top 3 (Petterrsson,Horvat,Boeser) will improve..EP should be stronger and more experienced, Boeser won't be coming off a brutal injury, and Horvat will be Horvat....A trade or UFA signing will have to be made for a top 6 winger.

Sutter,I believe will be traded in the off season..Why would Beagle be worse ?..He wiped the floor with the rest of the players as far as fitness was concerned...Other solid bottom 6 players like Motte,Leivo,Roussel,Gaudette will continue where they left off..Granlund,I dont think will be re-signed.

On D,..Hughes will push players down the depth chart, and help the PP (that should be a treat to watch)..Edler still has a few more years in him,and Tanev is 30 (not ancient)..A UFA d-man will have to be signed (Myers..?,Gardiner.?)..Along with Hutton and Stecher,Gudbranson..and young players Juolevi,Woo,Brisbois,Sautner,Rathbone all knocking at the door.

We now have an established #1 goalie, and hopefully Demko has an injury free season.

I beg to differ on the WC teams not regressing..All of the California teams have older cores, and LA and Anaheim in particular are due for rebuilds..Same goes for the Hawks and the Wild...The Canucks are a scrappy team that does not give up, and are well coached....They will make the playoffs next year.

 

[Pip]

I’d honestly be surprised if all 3 of EP, Boeser, and Horvat improve next year. They’re all performing close to their realistic ceilings.

 

[tantalum]

I’d honestly be surprised if all 3 of EP, Boeser, and Horvat improve next year. They’re all performing close to their realistic ceilings.

Yes and no. Scoring is going up...I think we're going to start to see a lot of 100+ point players again. You have 7-10 guys who could reach that level this year. Pettersson is on a 90 point pace in his rookie year. If things remain I expect that 120 point pace isn't out of the question. Likely not next year though.

On Horvat I agree...he's at a 60+ pace right now this year and I struggle to see much more than a 60-70 point two-way beast.

Boeser is the curious one. He's a 37 goal pace scorer through his first 100 some odd games. I don't think a consistent 45-50 goal scorer is out of the question. That's prrety significant offense wise...raising team output 0.1 G/G on his own. That said his biggest impat will be if he figures out the defensive side of the puck (or puts in the effort). That could be huge with a 100+ point center with Datsyuk Selke abilities.

But in the end 3 players up front isn't enough to propel a team to, well, anything. It's all the other mess that needs to be sorted out if the team is truly going to take steps forward. They need a complete revamp of the blueline. I love Tanev and Edler but honestly the team needs a more dynamic top pairing. Stecher-Hutton is actually a good pair to move forward with as a second pairing. You bring Hughes in but you need really good #5 and #7 guys to really help him along. Neither one of those guys exists. Essentially, over the next 18 months I think the blueline has to change from:

Edler-Tanev
Hutton-Stecher
Gudbranson-Pouliot
Biega

To:
?????-?????
Hutton-Stecher
?????-Hughes
?????

That's a lot of heavy lifting and doesn't include needing two more actual top 6 wingers (I'm assuming Baertschi could be done as player and Goldobin just isn't it). Half the bottom 6 needs to be addressed. And then of course the organizational depth needs to be vastly improved.

Rebuild isn't close to being over. I wish they'd start it sometime...

 

[xtra]

The top 3 (Petterrsson,Horvat,Boeser) will improve..

EP should be stronger and more experienced, Boeser won't be coming off a brutal injury, and Horvat will be Horvat....
Many rookies including Bazral who had an incredible rookie season regressed in year 2, even Brock has regressed. Pettersson and his 25% shooting will regress as well; there’s as much precedent for him to regress as there is to improve.

A trade or UFA signing will have to be made for a top 6 winger.and if we don’t get this? We haven’t signed one in a few years

Sutter,I believe will be traded in the off season..Why would Beagle be worse ?..He wiped the floor with the rest of the players as far as fitness was concerned..
That’s great that he’s a beast in the gym however his on ice production is more important and we’ve have to agree to disagree on his worth.

Other solid bottom 6 players like Motte,Leivo,Roussel,Gaudette will continue where they left off..Granlund,I dont think will be re-signed.
Rousell is going to be 30 next year and leivo isn’t really a bottom 6type player but sure

On D,..Hughes will push players down the depth chart, and help the PP..Edler still has a few more years in him,and Tanev is 30 (not ancient)..A UFA d-man will have to be signed (Myers..?,Gardiner.?)..Along with Hutton and Stecher,Gudbranson..and young players -
Hughes is going to be sheltered big time next year at even strength, what history of pro scouting gives you confidence that benning can sign a good dman?
If you said gudbrandson was traded as a reason to improve the defense I’d agree but the fact that you think the worst dman in the league is a positive (or you wouldn’t have mentioned him) is mind numbing

Juolevi,Woo,Brisbois,Sautner,Rathbone all knocking at the door.juloevi, woo Rathbone are no where near ready and won’t be of help next year; briesbois and saunter if your expecting to come in as more than 6/7 is crazy talk.

We now have an established #1 goalie, and hopefully Demko has an injury free season.

I beg to differ on the WC teams not regressing..All of the California teams have older cores, and LA and Anaheim in particular are due for rebuilds..Same goes for the Hawks and the Wild...The Canucks are a scrappy team that does not give up, and are well coached....They will make the playoffs next year.

You also ignored the fact that they have all been historically bad this year and the canucks are barely keeping pace. As well all those teams also have young guys that can come in and improve or get a bounce back season from their stars. Writing them off is crazy.

 

[tantalum]

You also ignored the fact that they have all been historically bad this year and the canucks are barely keeping pace. As well all those teams also have young guys that can come in and improve or get a bounce back season from their stars. Writing them off is crazy.

No no no...only the canucks have youth that will step in. Also, only the canucks have a prospect pool where EVERY prospect will reach their ceiling and do so faster than any other prospects.

Honest.

 

[4Twenty]

How is it that Leivo is considered a solid bottom 6 player. He only performs next to Pettersson, just the same as Goldobin.