Management V

[vanuck]

I don't have the Athletic, but has Drance been shilling for management lately since he came back? Or is that just a guess?

 

[Intangibos]

Unless I missed someone, it's only Demko (2nd), Gaudette (5th), MacEwan (UDFA), and Stetcher (UDFA) among non 1st rounders that Benning has drafted or signed as a prospect.

I believe the Gaudette pick was acquired when we still had a GM interested in acquiring picks. Long long ago.

 

[Melvin]

I don't have the Athletic, but has Drance been shilling for management lately since he came back? Or is that just a guess?

Yes. I don't know who he is but he's been Iain macIntyre redux this year.

 

[y2kcanucks]

No the facts are he's been good. 5 positive development picks vs draft position in the key selections as opposed to 2 poor selections and 2 late round gems in Gaudette and Tryamkin.

7 and soon to be 8 NHL players in 5 drafts and from 2016 to current is not really fair to assess 2nd round and later selections yet due to the ages of these picks.

Hughes at 7 is already the 3rd or 4th best player in that draft. 5th in scoring and closing on Kotkaniemi fast
Pettersson is top2 from 5 2nd in scoring and a franchise player.............that is massive
Juolevi looks to be a bust but only 20 players have made any sort of impact to date so there is some time but it looks like that one could turn his record if he completely busts. its not done yet
Boeser is 10th. 13 spots above his draft at 23
Gaudette is at 38 from the 5th round. Looks like a gem
Virtanen is 26th from 6 so thats minus 20
McCann is 14 from 24 thats plus 10
Demko looks like a future starter from 36 and its hard to categorize gaolies but being a solid roster player at this point puts him roughly 30th which is enough with McCann to negate the Virtanen selection
Tryamkin will be in the equation soon if he comes back

These are the facts and you are wrong

LOL you like to say I'm wrong a lot even though you're the one who is clearly wrong.

It's expected that you're going to get good players when you draft high every year. Benning has blown 2 of those picks taking Virtanen and Juolevi over better players. Especially when many wanted others drafted the day those picks were made. It's not hindsight, it's Benning isn't that good of a drafter.

Now, if you're one of those types who likes to act like Benning is good at drafting, ignoring that GM's almost never draft beyond the first round, let's look at his track record: 2 players drafted outside the first round that are on the active roster out of 6 drafts. That's not very good. You can try to spin it all you like, but 2 players drafted outside of the first round are on the active roster after 6 drafts. That's a fact.

Tryamkin left a few years ago and there's no gurantee he ever comes back. You're really grasping at straws here to suit your bUt BEnnInG iz a gUUd drAFteR!!!111! narrative. It's been debunked. It's pure nonsense. Find some other straw to grasp. One where the facts might actually support your narrative next time.

 

[sting101]

LOL you like to say I'm wrong a lot even though you're the one who is clearly wrong.

It's expected that you're going to get good players when you draft high every year. Benning has blown 2 of those picks taking Virtanen and Juolevi over better players. Especially when many wanted others drafted the day those picks were made. It's not hindsight, it's Benning isn't that good of a drafter.

Now, if you're one of those types who likes to act like Benning is good at drafting, ignoring that GM's almost never draft beyond the first round, let's look at his track record: 2 players drafted outside the first round that are on the active roster out of 6 drafts. That's not very good. You can try to spin it all you like, but 2 players drafted outside of the first round are on the active roster after 6 drafts. That's a fact.

Tryamkin left a few years ago and there's no gurantee he ever comes back. You're really grasping at straws here to suit your bUt BEnnInG iz a gUUd drAFteR!!!111! narrative. It's been debunked. It's pure nonsense. Find some other straw to grasp. One where the facts might actually support your narrative next time.

ohh man this is rich. New levels of delusion and spin

"Benning drafting is shit" your words

Do you seriously expect 18/19 and 20 yr old 2nd rounders and later picks to be roster players at this point and thats part of your argument?

Once again 5 picks of 7 are all significantly better players than their draft positions and 2 picks 3rd round (Tryamkin) and 5th (Gaudette) appear to be on track to be good roster players.

Oh well not suprised you would look for a way to marginalize the facts while telling others they dont understand aspects of hockey. Never stop being you Y2k

 

[y2kcanucks]

ohh man this is rich. New levels of delusion and spin

"Benning drafting is ****" your words

Do you seriously expect 18/19 and 20 yr old 2nd rounders and later picks to be roster players at this point and thats part of your argument?

Once again 5 picks of 7 are all significantly better players than their draft positions and 2 picks 3rd round (Tryamkin) and 5th (Gaudette) appear to be on track to be good roster players.

Oh well not suprised you would look for a way to marginalize the facts while telling others they dont understand aspects of hockey. Never stop being you Y2k

A lot of drivel but no substance.

I’ll make it easy for you: is it a fact that only 2 of Benning’s draft picks outside of the first round, during his entire tenure, are in the NHL? Simple yes or no answer. Are you going to accept reality or not?


Now let’s spot check a couple other teams and see how many non-first rounders they have in the NHL since Benning got here:

Boston: 5
Tampa: 4
Calgary: 4
Arizona: 3
Anaheim: 6
Buffalo: 3
Ottawa: 4
Nashville: 3
Carolina: 3
San Jose: 4
St. Louis: 3
LA: 4
Columbus: 4

That’s 13 teams that have drafted more players in the NHL this season from rounds 2-7 since Benning took over GM in Vancouver. That’s not even factoring in expected return on your pick value.

But you know, herppp derpppp you do you. BenNInG iz ReAl gUiuuuuD drAfting!!!11!oneone11! And all that kinda thing. Am I doing it right?

The reason I tell people they don’t understand hockey is because many people live in a bubble where Vancouver hockey is all they know. They literally have no clue about anything hockey related outside of Vancouver. That’s why when Benning does another one of his dumbass trades or signings, some of us who actually follow hockey can say that he targeted a shitty player, while others who don’t follow hockey outside of Vancouver resort to the “wait and see, we don’t know what this player is yet until he puts on jersey”

Another example is you suggesting Benning is good at drafting because he’s picked 2 players outside the first round who are currently in the NHL, because you have no clue that at least HALF THE LEAGUE has a better drafting record over the same time period.

 

[sting101]

Drafting is relative to picks you have where they are and how you do relative to expectation/position.

Demko Gaudette and Tryamkin make 3 2 -7 rounders same as 5 of your examples. Which actually puts them in a tie for 9th best in the NHL which is exactly what i said..... that they are good. Not elite, not amongst the best , but good.

So perhaps you can try a 3rd time to re frame your assertion that "Bennings drafting is shit"

 

[4Twenty]

No the facts are he's been good. 5 positive development picks vs draft position in the key selections as opposed to 2 poor selections and 2 late round gems in Gaudette and Tryamkin.

7 and soon to be 8 NHL players in 5 drafts and from 2016 to current is not really fair to assess 2nd round and later selections yet due to the ages of these picks.

Hughes at 7 is already the 3rd or 4th best player in that draft. 5th in scoring and closing on Kotkaniemi fast
Pettersson is top2 from 5 2nd in scoring and a franchise player.............that is massive
Juolevi looks to be a bust but only 20 players have made any sort of impact to date so there is some time but it looks like that one could turn his record if he completely busts. its not done yet
Boeser is 10th. 13 spots above his draft at 23
Gaudette is at 38 from the 5th round. Looks like a gem
Virtanen is 26th from 6 so thats minus 20
McCann is 14 from 24 thats plus 10
Demko looks like a future starter from 36 and its hard to categorize gaolies but being a solid roster player at this point puts him roughly 30th which is enough with McCann to negate the Virtanen selection
Tryamkin will be in the equation soon if he comes back

These are the facts and you are wrong

20 games as a back up has Demko a top 30 player in his class? And that’s a fact?

 

[4Twenty]

Drafting is relative to picks you have where they are and how you do relative to expectation/position.

Demko Gaudette and Tryamkin make 3 2 -7 rounders same as 5 of your examples. Which actually puts them in a tie for 9th best in the NHL which is exactly what i said..... that they are good. Not elite, not amongst the best , but good.

So perhaps you can try a 3rd time to re frame your assertion that "Bennings drafting is ****"

It looks like you’re learning with your first sentence.

Why are you listing Tryamkin? Does that make Frank Corrado a hit for Gillis?
I think I’d side with Corrado. Cracked a much tougher roster. Played playoff games. Fact.

 

[MadaCanuckle]

You said I’m wrong but you didn’t offer a single thing that contradicts what I said. Of course we can account for many variables but anyone who tells you they’ve accounted for every single variable is a charlatan. The more variables you add the more messy it gets and there are always more variables to add because drafting is about evaluating human performance - and humans are very complicated.

So my point was not to dismiss the idea of a statistically informed analysis but to attack Melvin’s completely sophistic appeal to a lack of data and his bogus claim that we can’t draw conclusions about drafting from the data we have available. Even though I’ve been polite to him I know he won’t answer to any of my criticisms. He doesn’t seem to be as willing to withstand the level of rigorous criticism that he’s otherwise willing to levy at our management.



Benning compares favourably to other GMs too but I’m talking about comparing him to Gillis because it’s more relevant. If we eliminate top 10 picks, In 6 drafts the previous drafting regime produced less than 200 NHL points. In his first 3 drafts Benning’s drafting has produced over 300 NHL points. Per draft, Benning is outperforming Gillis in converting drafts to NHL points by over 300% when you disregard top 10 picks. He must be really lucky, you know, losing all of those draft lotteries in a row and sustaining a league leading level of injuries long term.

I offer you two methods that you didn't search or get any kind of information about that directly contradict your statement. And you just called a charlatan to every single person who study and reserach on this Mathematics field of study, simply because you're ignorant.

By the way, it only gets messy if the problem is not well posed (google it, ....), which is not the present case. In this particular case, every model used in human behavioural modeling account the unpredictability related to it. But if you had studied something about this topic, you wouldn't write something that is so far from the truth that could compare you a monkey trying to knit a sweater... and the monkey would still be in the lead.

About Melvin's assumption, first, you assume something that he didn't state, and second, you didn't present an argument (like with the mathematical problem) to rebuff his true statement. It is not only ignorance, it's also you have a huge deficiency in reading comprehension.

To really compare Benning draft record, you can't compare to Gillis (previous regime had most of late first round picks, current regime has a lot of top 10 picks because they are incompetent) but you should compare his draft record with a GM with the same number of top 10 picks. How difficult is to grasp this concept? How difficult is to grasp that a 29th and a 27th can't be a good comparison with a 6th and a 5th? But we can look at this, for example:
Elite Prospects - NHL Entry Draft 2016

A draft savant wouldn't be the guy who nail a top 10 good draft with a top 5 pick, right? Oh wait...

 

[y2kcanucks]

Drafting is relative to picks you have where they are and how you do relative to expectation/position.

Demko Gaudette and Tryamkin make 3 2 -7 rounders same as 5 of your examples. Which actually puts them in a tie for 9th best in the NHL which is exactly what i said..... that they are good. Not elite, not amongst the best , but good.

So perhaps you can try a 3rd time to re frame your assertion that "Bennings drafting is ****"

Oh I’m sorry, I must have missed when Tryamkin signed with an NHL team this season. What team does he play for?

It’s interesting that you have to use a KHL player to support Benning’s draft record. Could that be because his record really isn’t that good and you’re doing everything you can to get blood from a stone here?

 

[Melvin]

Unless I missed someone, it's only Demko (2nd), Gaudette (5th), MacEwan (UDFA), and Stetcher (UDFA) among non 1st rounders that Benning has drafted or signed as a prospect.

To tie this back to what we were talking about yesterday, as Benning is the general manager, one would expect this to improve over time, as he puts his people in place and gets everyone rowing in the same direction. Crawford, Gilman etc were fired after the 2015 draft, so with Benning setting the direction you would expect them to get better and better at getting players from the draft.

But the evidence just doesn't support this. The 2016 draft is better not being talked about, and the 2017 draft is similarly not looking like much outside of the 5th overall pick and a very young goalie (I'll get to this in a second.) Too early to say anything about the 2018 draft, but the evidence that the Canucks have improved as Benning has solidified his present isn't there, at least not yet.

If you were to zoom out and look at the Canucks over the last 20 or so years, some patterns do emerge, but they have little to do with who is the GM. The Canucks have done an outstanding job with the US system, from Kevin Bieksa to Ryan Kesler to Kevin Connauton to Adam Gaudette and (looks like) Tyler Madden. They have also done a pretty great job with goalies, although I would argue that is seemingly more of a development strength than a drafting strength. The Canucks have done a poor job in Canada, and in Western Canada in particular, dating all the way back to Brian Burke and possibly earlier, and continuing to the present day with whiffs on Jake Virtanen and (looks like) Kole Lind. Europe has been hit and miss, no real clear pattern one way or the other.

Point being, as you would expect from looking at how a team actually operates, the strengths and weaknesses appear to be more directly related to those who have been in scouting positions for some time, and entrenched in sort of an organizational memory that has transcended any particular GM. Neither Gillis nor Benning appear to have had much influence one way or another in terms of changing these areas of strengths and weaknesses. Jim Benning's "hits" have followed these same lines as his predecessors: strong drafting in the US and good development of goalies, with one top Euro picked at the top of the draft. The evidence that he's created any shift here is difficult to find.

 

[4Twenty]

To tie this back to what we were talking about yesterday, as Benning is the general manager, one would expect this to improve over time, as he puts his people in place and gets everyone rowing in the same direction. Crawford, Gilman etc were fired after the 2015 draft, so with Benning setting the direction you would expect them to get better and better at getting players from the draft.

But the evidence just doesn't support this. The 2016 draft is better not being talked about, and the 2017 draft is similarly not looking like much outside of the 5th overall pick and a very young goalie (I'll get to this in a second.) Too early to say anything about the 2018 draft, but the evidence that the Canucks have improved as Benning has solidified his present isn't there, at least not yet.

If you were to zoom out and look at the Canucks over the last 20 or so years, some patterns do emerge, but they have little to do with who is the GM. The Canucks have done an outstanding job with the US system, from Kevin Bieksa to Ryan Kesler to Kevin Connauton to Adam Gaudette and (looks like) Tyler Madden. They have also done a pretty great job with goalies, although I would argue that is seemingly more of a development strength than a drafting strength. The Canucks have done a poor job in Canada, and in Western Canada in particular, dating all the way back to Brian Burke and possibly earlier, and continuing to the present day with whiffs on Jake Virtanen and (looks like) Kole Lind. Europe has been hit and miss, no real clear pattern one way or the other.

Point being, as you would expect from looking at how a team actually operates, the strengths and weaknesses appear to be more directly related to those who have been in scouting positions for some time, and entrenched in sort of an organizational memory that has transcended any particular GM. Neither Gillis nor Benning appear to have had much influence one way or another in terms of changing these areas of strengths and weaknesses. Jim Benning's "hits" have followed these same lines as his predecessors: strong drafting in the US and good development of goalies, with one top Euro picked at the top of the draft. The evidence that he's created any shift here is difficult to find.

Well he's certainly created teams that end up picking higher than his predecessors, which is all the evidence Sting needs.

 

[MS]

Unmasked? Pointing out a limitation is not akin to calling him a fraud. So he doesn’t get 56 points because of a lack of PP time? Quelle surpris. I would not have guessed? Were you expecting him to produce 50+ without top unit PP time?

It doesn’t matter how you categorize him. A “3rd pairing PP specialist” that produces a 56 point average over 5 years is a highly skilled, unique asset. Period. Perhaps a handful of defenders produce that number each year. As a result, his acquisition cost or AAV will reflect that uniqueness.

As an aside: If I recall correctly, you projected Hughes to be the same. A PP specialist that is a 2nd/3rd pairing defender. Still feel this way?

That’s #1 Dman production. How the contract comes out is a matter of debate, but that production will command dollars on its own.

Edit: In the last 5 years, Barrie ranks 6th overall among Dmen for P/GP. That’s not just #1 Dman production. That’s the upper end of elite production.

He’s not a fraud. He is not now something different than he was. Barrie needs #1 PP time to produce his gaudy totals. The context and his utility has changed, and so his game has understandably suffered. It’s not a mystery as to why it has suffered.

As soon as you talk about '#1 defender production' you've gone off the rails. Production for defenders is based on PP time, and PP skills have nothing to do with whether you're a #1 or #6 defender. You can be a #1 defender with 30 points or a 3rd pairing guy with 50 points.

I don't care how many points Barrie scores. The point of hockey is to score more goals than you allow. A player who gets lots of points while his team scores 50 goals with him on the ice and concedes 65 is a far worse player than a boring unproductive player whose team scores 35 for and 35 against in the same minutes.

Barrie is very good on the PP. That has value. Unfortunately, he's a bad ES defender who consistently causes more goals than he creates despite playing very soft minutes. Result is a depth player whose hockey card stats greatly overstate his actual value to his team. And yes, once he isn't getting floated by 50 points from heaps of PP time next to MacKinnon and Rantanen, his actual weakness as a player gets exposed pretty quickly. If you can't provide value to your team if that team happens to have another good PP defender, then you probably aren't that good.

And Barrie isn't alone. Everyone here wanted Colin Miller and Gostisbehere last summer because points and both guys are now healthy scratches. Because they're kinda bad players who picked up hockey card stats in excess of their actual value because of their PP usage.

On Hughes, he's been better defensively than I expected so am hopeful that he will exceed the value provided by Barrie types, which was my initial projection.

 

[4Twenty]

As soon as you talk about '#1 defender production' you've gone off the rails. Production for defenders is based on PP time, and PP skills have nothing to do with whether you're a #1 or #6 defender. You can be a #1 defender with 30 points or a 3rd pairing guy with 50 points.

I don't care how many points Barrie scores. The point of hockey is to score more goals than you allow. A player who gets lots of points while his team scores 50 goals with him on the ice and concedes 65 is a far worse player than a boring unproductive player whose team scores 35 for and 35 against in the same minutes.

Barrie is very good on the PP. That has value. Unfortunately, he's a bad ES defender who consistently causes more goals than he creates despite playing very soft minutes. Result is a depth player whose hockey card stats greatly overstate his actual value to his team. And yes, once he isn't getting floated by 50 points from heaps of PP time next to MacKinnon and Rantanen, his actual weakness as a player gets exposed pretty quickly. If you can't provide value to your team if that team happens to have another good PP defender, then you probably

And Barrie isn't alone. Everyone here wanted Colin Miller and Gostisbehere last summer because points and both guys are now healthy scratches. Because they're kinda bad players who picked up hockey card stats in excess of their actual value because of their PP usage.

On Hughes, he's been better defensively than I expected so am hopeful that he will exceed the value provided by Barrie types, which was my initial projection.

These players have value, but once these guys are on big tickets they become bad deals.

Look at the cup champs, they just moved a reasonable bottom pair defensman for a player like this in Justin Faulk and then gave him a big extension prior to lacing up his skates in St Louis. He has 6 assists in 26 games.

Like if you had Barrie at Tanev's hit that's fine IMO, maybe even a little north, but look what Faulk's addition is going to do to the Blues. It's going to cost them their captain and one of the best defensman in the NHL.

 

[MS]

These players have value, but once these guys are on big tickets they become bad deals.

Look at the cup champs, they just moved a reasonable bottom pair defensman for a player like this in Justin Faulk and then gave him a big extension prior to lacing up his skates in St Louis. He has 6 assists in 26 games.

Like if you had Barrie at Tanev's hit that's fine IMO, maybe even a little north, but look what Faulk's addition is going to do to the Blues. It's going to cost them their captain and one of the best defensman in the NHL.

Yup.

At the right price, a Tyson Barrie can have value for a team that needs a PP specialist.

But giving them huge-ticket deals is a mistake, and acquiring more than one of this type of player given the massive diminishing returns is a mistake.

On a team with Quinn Hughes, we shouldn't be touching another one of these guys on a big ticket with a 10-foot pole.

 

[Hit the post]

On a team with Quinn Hughes, we shouldn't be touching another one of these guys on a big ticket with a 10-foot pole.

Heck, if Joulevi can stay healthy, he could develop into a PP specialist.

 

[Melvin]

Figuring out what to do with PP data and how best to value PP production is going to be the next breakthrough in hockey analytics, IMO

 

[Bleach Clean]

Uh yeah. The fact that he's not that different from what he was is the point. He was overvalued before and is now being exposed as the not very good player that he's been all along.

Please do tell how an elite producer for over 5 years is a “not a very good player”? I find that position to be absurd.

I believe he’s also top7 in ES production over than span as well, but will have to verify.

Is not very good an average NHLer? Is it a bad player? Poor? Are you dropping him due to his shot differential at ES?

 

[timw33]

I'm enjoying the constant use of Tryamkin of a successful pick right now as one, our board overwhelmingly wanted Brayden Point, two, a Potato draft picked Brayden Point, and three, we completely mishandled his NA stint (gave him wrong ELC, didn't play him on bottom feeder roster until our players got injured). I'll believe that he's coming back when I see it, but until then it's Kiril Koltsov 2.0.

 

[Melvin]

Please do tell how an elite producer for over 5 years is a “not a very good player”? I find that position to be absurd.

I believe he’s also top7 in ES production over than span as well, but will have to verify.

Is not very good an average NHLer? Is it a bad player? Poor? Are you dropping him due to his shot differential at ES?

I believe MS already answered this. I just found your retort of him being the "same player he always was" to be non-responsive.

I am not taking a position on how good of a player Barrie is, specifically, but I find it entirely plausible that a player, especially a defender, could be not very good despite putting up a lot of points. These players are like the Ryan Howard type players in baseball that were hugely overvalued 10-15 years ago because nobody could get their head around the idea that a player could hit 40 HR's and have 100 RBI's and still not be especially valuable. It's the same sort of thing. Whether it applies to Barrie or not I'm not sure but dismissing the idea out of hand because points seems specious. Barrie was -63 over those 5 years, and was pretty consistently at the bottom of the Avs in terms of goals allowed at ES. While that doesn't necessarily mean much in and of itself, it does lend credence to the idea.

 

[Jyrki21]

I have a lot of catch-up to do in this thread. In the meantime, enjoy issue 110... as always, click through twice to enlarge:

 

[Waveburner]

These players are like the Ryan Howard type players in baseball that were hugely overvalued 10-15 years ago because nobody could get their head around the idea that a player could hit 40 HR's and have 100 RBI's and still not be especially valuable.

Not a baseball fan I take it? Ryan Howard in his prime was a monster hitter. Hit for huge power and posted excellent OBP. I believe the hitters you are talking about are guys like Trumbo who belt 30-40 HRs but give all that value back by making too many outs.

The mistake with Howard was signing a 31 y/o 1B/DH to a 5 year contract.

 

[timw33]

I have a lot of catch-up to do in this thread. In the meantime, enjoy issue 110... as always, click through twice to enlarge:

The IMAC on speed dial is incredible.

 

[MS]

Not a baseball fan I take it? Ryan Howard in his prime was a monster hitter. Hit for huge power and posted excellent OBP. I believe the hitters you are talking about are guys like Trumbo who belt 30-40 HRs but give all that value back by making too many outs.

The mistake with Howard was signing a 31 y/o 1B/DH to a 5 year contract.

Ryan Howard was worth 15 WAR in his career and once finished 2nd in MVP voting in a year where he had 1.8 WAR. He's one of the most colossally overrated players ever.