Management Thread III (MOD Warning Post # 67)

[Bojack Horvatman]

Has any GM ever drafted a bonafide #1C and #1D in back to back drafts without a top 5 pick?

Winnipeg drafted Morrissey, Trouba, and Scheifele in consecutive drafts.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

"I 'like' Numba9's post about Horvat being a 3C and Marky a backup."

"Well, actually, Melvin shows us that in fact Benning was left with a fully stocked cupboard, Horvat is a 1C/2C, Marky is playing Vezina caliber hockey, and several players were lost for nothing and are still playing in the NHL a half decade later. Why don't you 'like' that post?"

"You're toxic."

Horvat and Markstrom weren’t core players until Benning and Weisbrod brought in quality veteran mentors like Ryan Miller to show them the ropes. Pettersson, Hughes, Boeser were elite right out of the gates.

To claim that the Canucks had fully stocked cupboards in 2014 when Benning took over because they had a 25 year old AHL goalie who cleared waivers and a good young prospect whose future as a top 6 guy was a huge question mark is so incredibly wrong that it’s hard to fathom how something could be so fractally wrong.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Winnipeg drafted Morrissey, Trouba, and Scheifele in consecutive drafts.

Close but Trouba and Morrisey are #2 guys.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Benning's inherited captain was considered a third liner up until recently. Benning's inherited goaltending was considered backup quality until recently. Kesler only wanted to be traded to one team. Not sure how much "quality" you have in veterans that are no longer in the NHL only 2-3 years after Benning inherited the team.

It’s funny how the narrative has shifted from “ZOMG Benning dumped these great players like Jason Garrison, Eddie Lack, Mike Santorelli, Shawn Matthias, and Chris Higgins therefore his asset management is bad!!” to “look 2 of Gillis’ acquisitions exceeded their projected potential therefore the cupboards were stacked full of premium assets so the credit for building this team belongs to Gillis”

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Close but Trouba and Morrisey are #2 guys.

Trouba was 13th in points by defencemen last year that didn't need to be sheltered to get those points. He is absolutely a #1.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Trouba was 13th in points by defencemen last year that didn't need to be sheltered to get those points. He is absolutely a #1.

So what? We don’t call guys a #1 defense man JUST because they put up points. Jeff Petry was 15th in scoring by a defense man. Is Jeff Petry a #1 guy? LOL. Yandle was top 5. Also not a #1 guy.

Meanwhile a guy like Jacob Slavin was 51st in scoring by a defense man and he is a #1. Same with Miro Heiskanen. Wasn’t even top 30 but he is another bonafide #1. Ivan Provorov was #73 in Dman scoring but he’s also a #1. The list goes on and on. Points don’t dictate a defenseman’s worth as much as you think they do.

 

[Jyrki21]

Except it is. Our drafting has achieved something remarkable. Drafting a bonafide #1c and #1d in consecutive drafts without a top 4 pick is something that seems unprecedented to me and LO AND BEHOLD the only comparable that we found so far was the freaking 80s Oilers who were like one of the most dominant dynasties in the history of hockey. So yes the drafting has achieved something on par with the 80s Oilers that’s just an objective fact.

Yes, I'm sure all sorts of exhaustive research was performed before one throwaway example was highlighted to point out that you're wrong. Not to mention excluding star wingers or goaltenders here in a manner that makes this a pretty arbitrary metric, even if you ignore the fact that GMs don't control who is still available when they go up to the podium.

 

[4Twenty]

This place is going to get really shitty if but Gillis comes up every time the team wins.

Can’t believe the stupidity in doubling down on Horvat was a 3rd liner either at this point. Only doofuses thought that at the time and it went out the window in his 2nd year when he was a bring utilized in the toughest minutes in the league (his cohorts were Toews/kopitar/Couturier/Staal/ Bergeron on usage).

He clearly wasn’t ready for that but it was obvious to anyone that his floor was 3rd liner And putting up 3rd line numbers as a rookie in 4th line usage should’ve been enough to convince everyone.

Not surprised at the revisionism though.

But Gillis!

 

[4Twenty]

So points aren’t everything for a 1D but projecting a kid with 8 NHL games as a 1D is based on what exactly?

Right....his points.

He looks closer to a Yandle-type than a 1D to me and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that and there is still a ton to be excited about with the kid.

Love the top 5 cherry pick too.

 

[RandV]

Saying 'Gillis left Benning with nothing' today is a lot like saying 'Gillis messed up the goaltending situation'. Top picks aside it takes 2/3-5 years to develop draft picks and prospects to the pro team, so at the time Benning took over the immediate youth available for the pro team was from his earlier drafting years, which everyone knew wasn't very good and Gillis himself took measures to correct it.

That's what a lot of people were judging on, giving no benefit of the doubt of a 'wait and see' approach. So when the wait and see turns out later that he didn't do to bad why bother updating your opinion and admitting you were wrong?

 

[xtr3m]

Whatever Gillis left Benning with Benning let go and quite often for nothing. It wouldn't be so terrible if he moneyballed the replacements, but as it stands the bottom six is costing what, 18 million?

 

[Hoghandler]

That's what a lot of people were judging on, giving no benefit of the doubt of a 'wait and see' approach. So when the wait and see turns out later that he didn't do to bad why bother updating your opinion and admitting you were wrong?

If not for the perfect storm of Nonis handing over 2 elite net-minders, Gillis would have left this organisation without drafting a single above replacement level player in 6 drafts. Gillis had his strength's, drafting was not one of them.

Didn't do too bad? Make a list of Gillis' top 5 draft picks and see it it holds up to scrutiny...

 

[Pip]

But Gillis!

 

[The Drop]

Yes, I'm sure all sorts of exhaustive research was performed before one throwaway example was highlighted to point out that you're wrong. Not to mention excluding star wingers or goaltenders here in a manner that makes this a pretty arbitrary metric, even if you ignore the fact that GMs don't control who is still available when they go up to the podium.

Another question is “has any other GM in history of the league been this lost in building a team?”

1 year it’s bridge guys, then speed, then depth guys, then heavy guys. Lol

 

[The Drop]

But Gillis!

That guy is so pathetic lol

 

[elitepete]

Quinn Hughes is a bonafide #1 D?

 

[Javaman]

Quinn Hughes is a bonafide #1 D?

Now, now, let's not lose sight of the real issue...

It's too early to write off Juolevi.

 

[Javaman]

So points aren’t everything for a 1D but projecting a kid with 8 NHL games as a 1D is based on what exactly?

Right....his points.

He looks closer to a Yandle-type than a 1D to me and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that and there is still a ton to be excited about with the kid.

Love the top 5 cherry pick too.

I came to the realization long ago that there is absolutely zero value in engaging with RMB. The "top 4 vs top 5" distinction convinces me I made the right decision.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Now, now, let's not lose sight of the real issue...

It's too early to write off Juolevi.

That's ironically the only sensible thing anyone here has said.

 

[Hit the post]

Bah, there's been a tremendous number of sensible things said round here. Don't try to rope me into your roundabout defense of the Benning regime.

The point was, even though you are pretending not to acknowledge it, is that if it's too soon to label Juolevi as a bust, it's even more premature to label Hughes as a #1D.

Really, this shouldn't have to be explained.

Oh please you can't possibly be this obtuse. Hughes is CLEARLY already a #1D.

BTW, we currently have THREE #1Ds (two other D have had more icetime per game than Hughes).

 

[bandwagonesque]

Bah, there's been a tremendous number of sensible things said round here. Don't try to rope me into your roundabout defense of the Benning regime.

The point was, even though you are pretending not to acknowledge it, is that if it's too soon to label Juolevi as a bust, it's even more premature to label Hughes as a #1D.

Really, this shouldn't have to be explained.

Edit: I refuse to believe you don't understand the difference between sarcasm and irony, despite what you posted. I believe in you, bandwagonesque!

I was agreeing with you, and pointing out the irony that is in this thread a sarcastic comment is as likely to be a coherent and true statement as an earnest one. I'd have thought this was obvious. I agree it's obviously premature to call Hughes a top pairing defenseman and I've never defended Benning and have said numerous times he should be fired.

 

[Javaman]

I was agreeing with you, and pointing out the irony that is in this thread a sarcastic comment is as likely to be a coherent and true statement as an earnest one. I'd have thought this was obvious. I agree it's obviously premature to call Hughes a top pairing defenseman and I've never defended Benning and have said numerous times he should be fired.

Alright. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

But surely you can understand that when you say things like "the only sensible thing anyone here has said" in a thread full of legitimate critiques of Benning that some posters may be inclined to view you as disingenuous, to say the least.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Quinn Hughes IS a #1 damn. He’s a superstar. If it takes you more than 8 NHL games in a row to conclude that then you must not have been paying attention to his development arc. He dominated NCAA hockey as a draft eligible. That doesn’t ever happen except for when Eichel did it.

His vision, creativity, execution, and hockey sense aren’t head and shoulders above 99% of the league but they are elite level.
But Hughes’ skating is absolutely head and shoulders above 99% of the rest of the NHL. His speed increases the effectiveness of the rest of his game across the board. There aren’t any other defensemen with the same combination of speed and skill outside of maybe Karlsson, Makar, Dahlin, and Heiskanen. And they aren’t #1D’s they are super elite #1D’s. So it’s actually quite conservative to only label Hughes as a 1D.

 

[Peen]

Okay. Glad this means we can also label Juolevi and Virtanen as busts.

Can we also label Jack Hughes as a bust?

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Okay. Glad this means we can also label Juolevi and Virtanen as busts.

Can we also label Jack Hughes as a bust?

The word bust is useless at best and can also be very deceiving.

When a 1st round pick of the previous management “busted” they ended up as waiver fodder or fizzled out of the league entirely. See: every 1st rounder of the previous management outside of Horvat

When one of Jim Benning’s 1st round picks “bust” they end up as contributing NHL roster players. See: Jake Virtanen and Olli Juolevi at some point

Ignoring the clearly improved success:bust ratio, That’s a tremendous improvement in the last 6 drafts compared to the 6 previous drafts and also compared to all the other Canuck drafts combined.

Wait, if Benning made demonstrable and significant improvements in the single most important area of NHL team building (which everyone should agree is drafting) then doesn’t it stand to reason that he’s better at managing an NHL team than the previous management who failed to improve the most important part of the organization?