Prospect Info: The 2020 - 2021 Prospects Thread

[theguardianII]

This is completely false. even accounting for draft position, the team's drafting has been measurably better under Benning. As I've said before, this doesn't mean Benning isn't a poor GM or that he's even responsible for whatever drafting success the team has had.

Pick any 7 years period, no wait, pick seven other years that the Canucks had similar draft positions, regardless of GM and compare the selections and success.
IMO a GM that trades away the pick/prospect that later flourishes is a double failure.
I do count Neely in that category.

 

[theguardianII]

Please read my post you responded to. Boeser, Demko, McCann, Rathbone, Hoglander vs Guance, Schoeder, Jensen White, Sauve and that 2013 first we traded. Or picks approx 23,38,24,91,40 vs 25, 26,27,25,40,24. There was Hutton Corrado. Connaughton etc that all went thru waivers. Also Lind Woo may fail but when you compare picks between 20 and 45 the current drafting has been multiple times better. There is no sane person that can claim Canuck drafting was has not improved from previous year period.

You missed a couple, Schneider, Grabner, Hodgson, Bourdon, ...
The problem I have is that Benning has had better draft positions and more of them than ANY GM before him.
How many drafts has Benning had and how many effective players has he garnered?
No Canuck GM in team history has had as many top ten picks, early 30's second rounders or traded away as many picks.
Pat Quinn may have the best record for drafting because he hit many winners while still winning more games than losing. Bure, Linden, Nedved, Odjick, Slegr, Cullimore, Aucion, Peca.
No GM ever lasted through 8 to 9 years of failure in Vancouver. If not for covid and the NHL expanding the number of teams to try for the playoffs the team would not have made the playin/playoffs.
Even with a payroll that was over the cap by 12 million dollars the NHL allowed the Canucks to play what was supposed to be regular season rules playin round.
If comparing Benning's tenure drafting year to year, then most of the improvement is speculation as most have not made a difference or even made it to the NHL.
I just don't like crowning Benning the best at anything when he has had the easiest or best draft positions of all GM prior to him.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

You missed a couple, Schneider, Grabner, Hodgson, Bourdon, ...
The problem I have is that Benning has had better draft positions and more of them than ANY GM before him.
How many drafts has Benning had and how many effective players has he garnered?
No Canuck GM in team history has had as many top ten picks, early 30's second rounders or traded away as many picks.
Pat Quinn may have the best record for drafting because he hit many winners while still winning more games than losing. Bure, Linden, Nedved, Odjick, Slegr, Cullimore, Aucion, Peca.
No GM ever lasted through 8 to 9 years of failure in Vancouver. If not for covid and the NHL expanding the number of teams to try for the playoffs the team would not have made the playin/playoffs.
Even with a payroll that was over the cap by 12 million dollars the NHL allowed the Canucks to play what was supposed to be regular season rules playin round.
If comparing Benning's tenure drafting year to year, then most of the improvement is speculation as most have not made a difference or even made it to the NHL.
I just don't like crowning Benning the best at anything when he has had the easiest or best draft positions of all GM prior to him.

My post was 2007 to 2013 Grabner and Hodgson went through waivers and Hodson was 10th overall. Bourdon was 2006 and a top 10 pick So I did not miss them. Schneider was 2004. My response was very simple The last 7 years were better than the previous 7 years even when ignoring top 20 picks. You argued it was not obvious. So I went thru naming the picks then you moved to different eras. I am saying one simple thing drafting improved under Benning. Yes largely because it was terrible before but yes it is obvious by any measure that it improved. There are so many legit complaints to have about this management.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Pick any 7 years period, no wait, pick seven other years that the Canucks had similar draft positions, regardless of GM and compare the selections and success.
IMO a GM that trades away the pick/prospect that later flourishes is a double failure.
I do count Neely in that category.

Draft picks can be assigned values based on their position for comparative purposes. Based on this, the team has drafted significantly better under Benning than Gillis and appears to have drafted reasonably well by any standard, even including two or three well-known mistakes. This is a fact. It can't be falsified. It still exists if you don't acknowledge it or if you divert discussion of it elsewhere. Admitting it is true doesn't mean you like Benning, give any credit to him for the team's drafting, or can no longer argue convincingly that he is a poor GM.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Draft picks can be assigned values based on their position for comparative purposes. Based on this, the team has drafted significantly better under Benning than Gillis and appears to have drafted reasonably well by any standard, even including two or three well-known mistakes. This is a fact. It can't be falsified. It still exists if you don't acknowledge it or if you divert discussion of it elsewhere. Admitting it is true doesn't mean you like Benning, give any credit to him for the team's drafting, or can no longer argue convincingly that he is a poor GM.

Except while Gillis was not great at drafting, pick positions were 10, 22, 115, 29, 26, 9 + 24. 10 was Cody Hodgson, deemed to be the best prospect in the world at one point. 9 was by trade, and is Horvat. The rest basically did very little.

Compare that to Benning. 6 + 24, 23, 5, 5, 7, 10, 82. Misses on Virtanen and probably Juolevi, home runs on Boeser, EP, Hughes and Podkolzin (probably). Also credit for Demko. But that is a far better drafting position due to the fact the Canucks have been dismal under DimJIm.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Except while Gillis was not great at drafting, pick positions were 10, 22, 115, 29, 26, 9 + 24. 10 was Cody Hodgson, deemed to be the best prospect in the world at one point. 9 was by trade, and is Horvat. The rest basically did very little.

Compare that to Benning. 6 + 24, 23, 5, 5, 7, 10, 82. Misses on Virtanen and probably Juolevi, home runs on Boeser, EP, Hughes and Podkolzin (probably). Also credit for Demko. But that is a far better drafting position due to the fact the Canucks have been dismal under DimJIm.

Again — even accounting for draft position, the team has drafted better under Benning. And again, that’s okay. It doesn’t mean Benning is responsible for that success or undermine any other conclusion you reach about the team’s management.

 

[iceburg]

Thinking Woo is going to push for a spot in October. Probably the biggest thing that will be working against him is the fact that Rathbone will likely get a slot and the org wants Juolevi to take one of the 7 slots. With Hughes that's way too much youth on the back end.

 

[theguardianII]

My post was 2007 to 2013 Grabner and Hodgson went through waivers and Hodson was 10th overall. Bourdon was 2006 and a top 10 pick So I did not miss them. Schneider was 2004. My response was very simple The last 7 years were better than the previous 7 years even when ignoring top 20 picks. You argued it was not obvious. So I went thru naming the picks then you moved to different eras. I am saying one simple thing drafting improved under Benning. Yes largely because it was terrible before but yes it is obvious by any measure that it improved. There are so many legit complaints to have about this management.

There is a simpler reason too, 6 of the previous 8 years the team made the playoffs and 6 of the previous 8 years the team had almost twice as many wins/points

 

[theguardianII]

Draft picks can be assigned values based on their position for comparative purposes. Based on this, the team has drafted significantly better under Benning than Gillis and appears to have drafted reasonably well by any standard, even including two or three well-known mistakes. This is a fact. It can't be falsified. It still exists if you don't acknowledge it or if you divert discussion of it elsewhere. Admitting it is true doesn't mean you like Benning, give any credit to him for the team's drafting, or can no longer argue convincingly that he is a poor GM.

How can 8 top ten picks be the same as 1? No, JB hasn't had 8 but he has had 6 so how is it possible? Really, out of curiosity now.
Who, or what position did Gillis have to draft for? He did have the best team in the league to 2 years in a row, most points. The only rookie that made an impact was his sole #10 pick Hodgson.
Gillis did revamp the scouts just before he was canned too, Linden/Benning inherited that draft year, 2014, that year was Gillis's scouting department the only change was they wanted Larkin instead of Virtanen.

Draft positions, first three each round;

Benning; 2014 6 - 24 - 36, 2015 23 - 66 - 114, 2016 5 - 64 - 140, 2017 5 - 33 - 55, 2018 7 - 37 - 68, 2019 10 - 40 - 122

Gillis - 2008 10 - 41 - 131, 2009 22 - 53 - 83, 2010 115 - 145 - 152, 2011 21 - 79 - 90, 2012 26 - 57 - 147, 2013 9 - 24 - 85

Both had traded picks

From 2015 on Benning has had two players play more than 30 games that was not a 1rst round pick, Gillis, three

 

[MS]

Again — even accounting for draft position, the team has drafted better under Benning. And again, that’s okay. It doesn’t mean Benning is responsible for that success or undermine any other conclusion you reach about the team’s management.

Technically, in a vacuum, yes it has been better.

However, if Benning hadn't been prevented by the team President from taking Cody Glass in 2017 it would unequivocally be worse. And when you have an asterisk that big on that point/argument, that point/argument isn't really one worth making.

 

[Blue and Green]

From 2015 on Benning has had two players play more than 30 games that was not a 1rst round pick, Gillis, three

Guys from the 2017 draft onward are still developing. Rathbone and DiPietro are definitely good prospects (Madden from 2018, too, although he was traded), Woo has a chance, there are a few intriguing recent late-round picks who seem at least to be better than typical for their draft positions and Hoglander as a D+2 2nd-round pick is already a better player than any Canuck draftee outside the top 10 from 2006-13.

If you need to rag on Benning, complain about the UFA's because you can have a field day with that one. The drafting has been alright, Virtanen and Juolevi notwithstanding.

 

[NuxFan09]

Thought I'd check in for the first time in awhile but we're STILL finding ways to bitch about Benning in every thread.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Technically, in a vacuum, yes it has been better.

However, if Benning hadn't been prevented by the team President from taking Cody Glass in 2017 it would unequivocally be worse. And when you have an asterisk that big on that point/argument, that point/argument isn't really one worth making.

Maybe you've noticed that I'm only making it because other people are repeatedly saying the opposite, which is unequivocally wrong, and that I constantly qualify the point by saying it isn't evidence Benning deserves any credit or is a competent manager. And yet they keep disputing it. I'd be happy to never have to discuss this again.

 

[MS]

Maybe you've noticed that I'm only making it because other people are repeatedly saying the opposite, which is unequivocally wrong, and that I constantly qualify the point by saying it isn't evidence Benning deserves any credit or is a competent manager. And yet they keep disputing it. I'd be happy to never have to discuss this again.

Yes. Everyone is wrong.

People who bring up 'improved drafting record' as a defense of Benning (which is where this started) are wrong.

People saying our drafting isn't better under Benning are also wrong.

It's been slightly better but only because of a massive *asterisk where an unusual set of circumstances saved Benning from making a horrible blunder.

 

[Steamer]

If you look at the draft position, draft number, Benning is no better at all. It is only because he has had the team record most top ten picks in it's 50 year history that he has had this success. Every GM with a top ten pick has outshone him if going by a percentage selecting in the top ten for the Canucks.
And as far as the other 50 some odd picks in those later rounds he is just as much or more a failure

That's a complete falsehood made by someone who hasn't followed the team for 40 plus years, but looks a stats only. Who are these GM's you are referring to, Jake Milford? Jack Gordon?LMAO Pat Quinn? Brian Burke? What First Rounders did they all pick that were so great outside of the Sedins? Quinn picked Nedved when he could have picked Primeau. Milford picked Vaive, then traded him away. It's fine to attack Benning where he deserves it, but his drafting is the only bright spot. How many games did Herter or Woodley play in the NHL? How many stars were actually drafted by the Canucks in the first round ever? Neely, Sedins and I don't know does Cory Schneider qualify as a star? Horvath was Mike Gillis' only good first round pick.

 

[alternate]

Yes. Everyone is wrong.

People who bring up 'improved drafting record' as a defense of Benning (which is where this started) are wrong.

People saying our drafting isn't better under Benning are also wrong.

It's been slightly better but only because of a massive *asterisk where an unusual set of circumstances saved Benning from making a horrible blunder.

Every GM has these asterisks beside their work. Seems silly to judge a GM on things that didn't happen.

I mean what if the Sedins were wired differently and were insulted by the way Gillis disrespected them when they were UFAs and signed in Toronto, or Gillis had taken the Luongo for Schrivens and 2 2nds (meaning no Horvat), or Salo hadn't played a game of ball hockey in the off-season, resulting in Bieksa getting dealt for pennies on the dollar prior to the Cup run...a couple things go a little differently and Gillis has a legacy that is much different.

There's enough valid criticisms on the job Benning has done. Cherry picking which draft picks Benning gets credit for, which go to others is just driving an agenda. When it comes to drafting, Benning for all his faults, is the best drafting GM we've had since at least Burke. And it's not even really close. We've never had a young core like the one Benning has assembled. Even the Sedins, Kesler etc were all late bloomers. Open question whether Benning has the chops to build a team around the young studs, but Benning's tenur has been the "golden years" at the draft table for this franchise, as low as that bar is.

 

[mriswith]

Every GM has these asterisks beside their work. Seems silly to judge a GM on things that didn't happen.

I mean what if the Sedins were wired differently and were insulted by the way Gillis disrespected them when they were UFAs and signed in Toronto, or Gillis had taken the Luongo for Schrivens and 2 2nds (meaning no Horvat), or Salo hadn't played a game of ball hockey in the off-season, resulting in Bieksa getting dealt for pennies on the dollar prior to the Cup run...a couple things go a little differently and Gillis has a legacy that is much different.

There's enough valid criticisms on the job Benning has done. Cherry picking which draft picks Benning gets credit for, which go to others is just driving an agenda. When it comes to drafting, Benning for all his faults, is the best drafting GM we've had since at least Burke. And it's not even really close. We've never had a young core like the one Benning has assembled. Even the Sedins, Kesler etc were all late bloomers. Open question whether Benning has the chops to build a team around the young studs, but Benning's tenur has been the "golden years" at the draft table for this franchise, as low as that bar is.

It's truly amazing how sucking so bad for so long and being the worst team in the league over a 6 year stretch, and therefore having incredible draft position for so many years...... gets interpreted as as a strength (not just by you, by some of the talking heads as well). You're literally calling someone who was outperformed by a copy of Bob Mackenzie's draft list, other than one single pick which he did not want and got overruled on, the best drafting GM we've had since Burke. We have what we have due to the power of high lottery picks gifted by the league for sucking for so long.

It's not cherry picking when the entire argument about him being a great drafting GM rests on a single draft pick that he did not want and was overruled on. Cherry pick Gillis all you want even without the knowledge of any overruling happening and there is no single transaction that significantly changes his strengths.

 

[tradervik]

[pages of arguments over the Canucks draft record in the Prospects thread]

Never change, HF Canucks, never change.

 

[theguardianII]

I thought you were trying to improve the team? Laine is not good, much worse than Boeser. He has negative on-ice value, other than shooting talent. Can't create chances on his own and is terrible defensively. Jones is soooooo overrated by the MSM. He's not really an improvement on Schmidt.

Laine is faster, bigger and with Pettersson and bigger PP threat and the PP might be the only thing better than the Kraken or difference maker. Also more durable.

Jones over rated? On this team who is close? Remember Schmidt's best years came when he was with cup contenders and at that he is a high 30 pt defenceman, he is also 3 yrs younger, closer to the "new" core of Pettersson and bigger avg 25 min a game, something Schmidt has never done.

That's a complete falsehood made by someone who hasn't followed the team for 40 plus years, but looks a stats only. Who are these GM's you are referring to, Jake Milford? Jack Gordon?LMAO Pat Quinn? Brian Burke? What First Rounders did they all pick that were so great outside of the Sedins? Quinn picked Nedved when he could have picked Primeau. Milford picked Vaive, then traded him away. It's fine to attack Benning where he deserves it, but his drafting is the only bright spot. How many games did Herter or Woodley play in the NHL? How many stars were actually drafted by the Canucks in the first round ever? Neely, Sedins and I don't know does Cory Schneider qualify as a star? Horvath was Mike Gillis' only good first round pick.

MY how a troll can try to rewrite history.

LINDEN? Bourdon, Kesler,

Nedved did end up with almost 1000 games, so did Ohlund, Neely

While time has yet to pass for Benning, no other GM in Vancouver history has had as many top ten picks and no other GM in Vancouver history has missed on a top ten pick nor had so many misses in the following drafts.

Benning has now had 10 first round picks, he traded away one of them for a short term gain, traded away another on a bad trade, blew 2 and hit on 2 of ten so far.
Of his later round picks Hoglander and Gillis' 5th, Gaudette are about it for the other 50 selections

Clearly I am giving you a history lesson here.

 

[bossram]

Laine is faster, bigger and with Pettersson and bigger PP threat and the PP might be the only thing better than the Kraken or difference maker. Also more durable.

Jones over rated? On this team who is close? Remember Schmidt's best years came when he was with cup contenders and at that he is a high 30 pt defenceman, he is also 3 yrs younger, closer to the "new" core of Pettersson and bigger avg 25 min a game, something Schmidt has never done.

So Laine is good on the PP and....that's it. Back up the brinks truck for a PP specialist. Uh, no thanks.

Jones is overrated. Half the people here and the MSM thinks he's an elite defenseman. Elite defensemen don't concede chances at the rate he does. Elite defensemen can actually defend the rush. The acquisition cost will be way too high for what he actually provides, not to mention the bloated contract he'll have to sign.

 

[theguardianII]

So Laine is good on the PP and....that's it. Back up the brinks truck for a PP specialist. Uh, no thanks.

Jones is overrated. Half the people here and the MSM thinks he's an elite defenseman. Elite defensemen don't concede chances at the rate he does. Elite defensemen can actually defend the rush. The acquisition cost will be way too high for what he actually provides, not to mention the bloated contract he'll have to sign.

If they make that deal they have one year to evaluate, but he was the #1 guy from a young age, Vancouver has no player like him on defence.
Of course there is Dahlin they could go all in for.
Boeser and Hughes for Dahlin

 

[VanJack]

Thinking Woo is going to push for a spot in October. Probably the biggest thing that will be working against him is the fact that Rathbone will likely get a slot and the org wants Juolevi to take one of the 7 slots. With Hughes that's way too much youth on the back end.

Nothing against Woo, who looks like a solid prospect. But if the Canucks are forced to go with two raw rookies on the blueline for next season (Rathbone and Woo), then they're headed back to lottery land for sure.

 

[MS]

Nothing against Woo, who looks like a solid prospect. But if the Canucks are forced to go with two raw rookies on the blueline for next season (Rathbone and Woo), then they're headed back to lottery land for sure.

Even top young defensive defenders like Alex Romanov get hugely sheltered as rookies learning the NHL. But good luck sheltering Woo on a defense that already has Rathbone and Hughes.

 

[VanJack]

It's only a small victory....but I'm actually glad the Kraken picked Lind instead of Gadjovich.

If Gadjovich can somehow pick up an extra step, he's closer to what the Canucks need in their bottom six. The Canucks need to get bigger, and tougher to play against.

 

[iceburg]

Nothing against Woo, who looks like a solid prospect. But if the Canucks are forced to go with two raw rookies on the blueline for next season (Rathbone and Woo), then they're headed back to lottery land for sure.

Agree. That said, Woo might quickly show that he's a better option than any bottom pairing guy they can acquire. He might even be a better option than Juolevi now.