Offseason grades so far

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Mickey107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 18820
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:27 am
Location: Richmond, B.C.

Re: Offseason grades so far

Post by Mickey107 »

Hey, Dan,

Is someone in need of a little attention?

Image
"evolution"
Nuckertuzzi
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 488
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:52 pm

Re: Offseason grades so far

Post by Nuckertuzzi »

Mëds wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:55 pm
Nuckertuzzi wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:25 pm
Uncle dans leg wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:25 am I think whats lost here is that Miller isnt just you run of the mill 2nd/3rd scrub. He is a dynamic offensive asset that was stuck behind some future hall of famers and other terrific players in tampa.

With all due respect it's not lost on me, he is a good player. Just questioning if good enough at such a cost and risk.

Anyway, I appreciate all the responses. Many excellent points today without getting into mudslinging, the way I like it here, kudos!
Jake Virtanen was selected 6th overall and has yet to score at even a 30 point pace.

JT Miller has cracked the 50 point pace in each of his past 4 seasons.

He is only 3 years older than the guy we drafted.

So had we kept the pick, we might have ended up with a 30 point player who wouldn't even see NHL action for 2 or 3 years. In fact most draft analytics would support that outside of the top 10 the majority of players have a better chance of capping out at 40 points per year or less.

Bo? Brock? Elias? Quinn?

Might I add if you're going to use someone who hasn't quite worked out, Jake is only 22 who's NHL story has yet to be fully written. Right around the same age as Miller's first chapter of note, and much like Jake, he did very little his first 3 years.

Mëds wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:55 pm I fail to see how the cost and risk were so high? Can you explain that part of your thought process?

Bo? Brock? Elias? Quinn?

But yeah, I did explain it multiple times in previous posts.

Generally speaking, pretty sure anybody in hockey (and in any of the major sports really) will tell you draft picks, particularly 1st rndrs, are extremely valuable and risky to part with in any trade.
User avatar
rikster
MVP
MVP
Posts: 658
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:41 am

Re: Offseason grades so far

Post by rikster »

Uncle dans leg wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:31 pm Thank fuck Blob doesnt load a mountain of rational statistical drivel on here. This isnt the place for logic and reason...

If it was half of us would be gone. This is a comedy club with some fringe facts and pseudo-logic directing the line of humour to remain somewhat relevant.
Or you could argue that with more actual hockey talk more fans would contribute...

The drive by posts remind me of those posts you see on Facebook;

"My life is over"

No explanation why or is the person in trouble, just silence....

Anyways, as a part time poster who enjoys getting into the odd dust up I wouldn't want to disrupt the spirit of the site...

Take care...
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
MVP
MVP
Posts: 31126
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: Offseason grades so far

Post by Blob Mckenzie »

rikster wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 5:24 pm

There you go again....Just make s*it up for the sake of making s*it up...

Reality be damned...

Later...
What exactly did I make up Methuselah?


Intelligence be damned...
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
User avatar
Meds
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13355
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Offseason grades so far

Post by Meds »

Nuckertuzzi wrote: Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:39 am
Mëds wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:55 pm
Nuckertuzzi wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:25 pm
Uncle dans leg wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:25 am I think whats lost here is that Miller isnt just you run of the mill 2nd/3rd scrub. He is a dynamic offensive asset that was stuck behind some future hall of famers and other terrific players in tampa.

With all due respect it's not lost on me, he is a good player. Just questioning if good enough at such a cost and risk.

Anyway, I appreciate all the responses. Many excellent points today without getting into mudslinging, the way I like it here, kudos!
Jake Virtanen was selected 6th overall and has yet to score at even a 30 point pace.

JT Miller has cracked the 50 point pace in each of his past 4 seasons.

He is only 3 years older than the guy we drafted.

So had we kept the pick, we might have ended up with a 30 point player who wouldn't even see NHL action for 2 or 3 years. In fact most draft analytics would support that outside of the top 10 the majority of players have a better chance of capping out at 40 points per year or less.

Bo? Brock? Elias? Quinn?

Might I add if you're going to use someone who hasn't quite worked out, Jake is only 22 who's NHL story has yet to be fully written. Right around the same age as Miller's first chapter of note, and much like Jake, he did very little his first 3 years.
With the exception of Boeser you just named top 10 picks. The entire point is to make the playoffs this year, which would mean we are drafting 16th or later.

But OK, I'll play the game, and I'll start in 2014 so that nobody listed hasn't had 5 years to develop at this point.....

2014: Sam Bennett (4), Michael Dal Colle (5), Jake Virtanen (6), Haydn Fleury (7), Nick Ritchie (10)

2013: Valeri Nichushkin (10)

2012: Nail Yakupov (1), Griffin Reinhart (4), Hampus Lindholm (6), Derrick Pouliot (8), Slater Koekkoek (10)

2011: Adam Larsson (4), Ryan Strome (5), Jonas Brodin (10)

2010: Erik Gudbranson (3), Brett Connolly (6), Alexander Burmistrov (8), Dylan McIlrath (10)

2009: Scott Glennie (8), Jared Cowen (9), Magnus Paajarvi (10)

2008: Zach Bogosian (3), Luke Schenn (5), Nikita Filatov (6), Colin Wilson (7), Mikkel Boedker (8), Cody Hodgson (10)

2007: Thomas Hickey (4), Karl Alzner (5), Sam Gagner (6), Zach Hamill (8), Keaton Ellerby (10)


That's 8 drafts just looking at the players selected in the top 10. You have a 40% chance of selecting someone who will produce at a bottom-6, or bottom pairing, player. Expand that to the top 15 picks in each year and you are looking at a 48% chance of that.

Since we are talking about the risk in a trade that brought in JT Miller, there are a few other names that could be added to that list who fall below his talent level.

If the Canucks make the playoffs and that pick becomes say the 20th overall.....now the risk drops even further.
Nuckertuzzi wrote:
Mëds wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:55 pm I fail to see how the cost and risk were so high? Can you explain that part of your thought process?
Bo? Brock? Elias? Quinn?

But yeah, I did explain it multiple times in previous posts.

Generally speaking, pretty sure anybody in hockey (and in any of the major sports really) will tell you draft picks, particularly 1st rndrs, are extremely valuable and risky to part with in any trade.
Yeah, you said those guys already.

1st rounders are NOT risky to part with when you are getting a player back who was selected in the 1st round AND has already turned into the type of productive player you are looking for.....this is especially true when they are still in their mid-20's and realistically should have 3-5 years of consistent production ahead of them.....although that kind of forecasting is really only a bit more predictive than drafting, but I digress.

So thank you for explaining your thought process, now can you explain the logic in it?
ESQ
MVP
MVP
Posts: 4477
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Offseason grades so far

Post by ESQ »

Uncle dans leg wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:40 pm U W is like yoda riding in ESQs backpack while he does flips and shit.

Later You-Dubya will raise reefers corolla from the ditch out in ditchmond
UW is definitely Yoda, but I'm more Jar Jar than Skywalker.

Seriously, did you ever see the time where he proved adding overtime in the regular season had virtually no impact on 3rd period offence? That was some head-office voodoo shit.
User avatar
2Fingers
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7674
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:47 am

Re: Offseason grades so far

Post by 2Fingers »

UWSaint wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:34 pm
ESQ wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:58 pm


At first blush, I wouldn't agree with (1) - IMO, Benning gave up minimal assets (no 1st, no top-tier prospects) to acquire depth veterans. For all the hand-wringing over cap space, he has yet to make a move that has held him back due to cap space. He can extend Brock, he added a top-4d, a top-6 winger, and a great middle-6 winger.

Even though the assets given up for mediocre players are marginal, I suppose it was foolish to the extent his moves prevented a full tank. Given the performance of full-tank teams, I haven't believed aiming for #1 has been a good strategy under the new lottery rules.

Point 2, I totally agree with.

But I look forward to your post, because I always find your posts persuasive...and definitive!
Your points on # 1 are correct, but you are conflating points 1 and 2. JB’s initial strategy was foolish because it was extremely unlikely to accomplish the goal it sought to fulfill. Adding vets isn’t a goal; and that’s not quite what JB did.... stay tuned, will post something tomorrow.
I was between meetings and had people in my office, I thought I had the wrong Aho but when you click on the name it took you to the other dude. That is why i said the numbers were off, it did not make sense. I know that JB would not of/have/had/been picked all those players but my point was if he did not trade those picks he had the chance of picking those dudes.

Where I assume (yes Doc I used that word again) Blob is going is that in a rebuilding team a GM normally does not trade picks but accumulates them so he can find that diamond in the rough using his new obtained 2nd or 5th round pick. I do not agree 100% because some trades are worth the gamble.
conflating - con·flate (kən-flāt′)
tr.v. con·flat·ed, con·flat·ing, con·flates
1. To bring together; meld or fuse: "The problems [with the biopic] include ... dates moved around, lovers deleted, many characters conflated into one" (Ty Burr).
2. To combine (two variant texts, for example) into one whole.
3. To fail to distinguish between; confuse. See Usage Note below.
Just for Doc
User avatar
2Fingers
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7674
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:47 am

Re: Offseason grades so far

Post by 2Fingers »

Blob Mckenzie wrote: Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:12 am
rikster wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 5:24 pm

There you go again....Just make s*it up for the sake of making s*it up...

Reality be damned...

Later...
What exactly did I make up Methuselah?


Intelligence be damned...
Methuselah (Hebrew: מְתוּשֶׁלַח Məṯūšélaḥ, in pausa מְתוּשָׁלַח Məṯūšā́laḥ, "Man of the javelin" or "Man of Selah"; Greek: Μαθουσαλά Mathousalá)[1] was a biblical patriarch and a figure in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Said to have died at the age of 969, he lived the longest of all figures mentioned in the Bible.[2] According to the Book of Genesis, Methuselah was the son of Enoch, the father of Lamech, and the grandfather of Noah. Elsewhere in the Bible, Methuselah is mentioned in genealogies in 1st Chronicles and the Gospel of Luke.
User avatar
Mickey107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 18820
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:27 am
Location: Richmond, B.C.

Re: Offseason grades so far

Post by Mickey107 »

RE: Arrogance grades so far

..Well in my opinion, too close to call. Let us use holistics as a "tool", to further break down and categorize the candidates, shall we.
I, of course, will eradicate myself from the enumeration as I am simply a scrub that enjoys talking Canucks as well as NHL hockey.
Conversations
................can
....................be
................,......twisted
............................,..manipulatively
................................................sometimes
..............................................................Image

Get Brock signed!
The additions are interesting to the fans, (in particular, the ones that pay big bucks and flip for season's tickets).
Hardly wait till camp :evil:
"evolution"
User avatar
Puck
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:40 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Re: Offseason grades so far

Post by Puck »

Uncle dans leg wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:40 pm U W is like yoda riding in ESQs backpack while he does flips and shit.

Later You-Dubya will raise reefers corolla from the ditch out in ditchmond
:lol:
User avatar
Puck
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 1:40 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Re: Offseason grades so far

Post by Puck »

It has already been mentioned that you can't go back and make selections in hindsight. In addition, you also can not simply state "if he had not given up the picks". At the the time, it was the cost of doing business. Sure, it would have been nice to retain a couple of those picks, but it's not like JB threw them in to be nice.
User avatar
UWSaint
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Offseason grades so far

Post by UWSaint »

ESQ wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 8:58 pm
UWSaint wrote: Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:40 pm
I am going to put together something on this when I have time
. But I know the bottom line because I’ve done the analysis before (1) Benning’s initial strategy was foolish and yet (2) it is Not likely to have materially mattered when it comes to the timing of the rebuild and the strength of the team moving forward.
Can't wait for that.
Here you go ESQ. Warning ... 9000 words to follow....

***

One of the most facially appealing arguments in the Benning wars to this Swiss observer is that the proof JB isn't a good GM is by looking at decisions make during the first couple years. And certainly they didn’t work – that’s what makes it a facially appealing argument. But let’s dig deeper into whether they might have worked and what, at the end of the day, it really cost. My conclusion Is that (1) JB’s initial strategy was an exercise in near certain futility and (2) it is unlikely to have affected the rebuild. Basically, the company men and the perpetually grieved both overstate their case.

To evaluate JB's first years, I think you have to start by understanding to goals his strategy was trying to accomplish. What was the goal? To seed the team with good complimentary players while the Sedins were around and who would then become good complementary players to the next core, should one emerge. A good complementary player is someone who is more that easily replaceable – someone who plays in the middle 6 or a 3-5 role on defense. Sometimes these players make another jump to “core,” but that would be candy to the plan.

The plan, if it worked, would have kept the Canucks a playoff bubble team (with Vrbata type free agents here and there) as hopefully a new core emerged from Horvat and 2014 and beyond draft picks, and then those players complement the Horvat and beyond players.

What did Benning have to work with? Benning arrived to a team with a limited number of aging declining assets and a crap prospect pipeline. I think that Benning did an okay job getting rid of those declining assets given the limitations – this post is not about whether he got the right players or assets, but about the theory behind what he did with his own assets – the draft picks and proceeds from getting rid of GMMG's assets. Put differently, its not a post about picking the right or wrong horses, but by going to that track in the first place.

Benning’s plan required him to focus on players who had some development arc that would hit faster than draft picks. Think of the plan this way: can the 2009-12 drafts be recreated so as to approximate what the Canucks could have had had the Canucks not traded away picks and drafted poorly? So Benning targeted players this age range, players who were bottled up in another system, players who other teams weren’t so high on anymore but where you see their arc much differently than their clubs see them. This, by definition, means not-surefire prospects/new NHLers who almost certainly had not yet achieved the status of very good complimentary players.

Baertschi. Vey. Granlund. Clendening. Etem. Even Gudbrandson and Sbisa fell into this category. Guddy was a young defensemen with upside, primed to reach his peak in a couple years and with some indications this former 4th overall could get there. Sbisa was 24 yo, a first rounder rushed to the NHL too early (he spent his Age 18 year playing for the Flyers); maybe all of that overexposure would pay off when he finally reached the age and maturity where he would have been expected to contribute as a top 4 if slow played, as mid to late first round defensemen generally are.

And even Sutter fit this strategy -- through he was never a bet for upside; at 26, Sutter was bet on to immediately supplement the Sedins and still be young enough to matter when they were gone.

The assets to be used in deploying this plan were unimpressive: the Kesler return, the Bieksa return, the Garrison return, some the cream of a crap prospect pool (the cream of crap is still crap), and draft picks -- but not the team's entitled first round picks. ESQ pointed this fact out last night, and its an important point.

[Digression: Eriksson’s addition to the team is, I think, not tied to this strategy. Eriksson makes sense as a “give the Sedins someone” story and give the fans better value – not a strategy at all.].

To deploy the plan and acquire Baerstchi, Vey, Guddy, Sbisa, Etem, Granlund, and Clendenning, JB *mostly* used Kesler (Sbisa) and the proceeds of Kesler, Bieksa, and Garrison trades. (Bieksa and Garrison each brought back 2d round picks). Traded out were Bonino (who wouldn't have fit the strategy of complimenting the next core), the 2014 first rounder from the Kesler trade (McCann), a 2016 2d rounder, a 2016 4th rounder, Shinkaurk, Jensen, a 2014 2d rounder, a 2015 2d rounder, a 2015 6th rounder, and Benning-draft pick Forsling. In those transactions, the Canucks acquired a 2016 3rd and a 2016 5th.

From the draft pick perspective, Benning's initial plan was a net zero for first round picks (acquired one, traded it within a year), added 2 seconds while using 3 (net loss of 1), added a third (net gain of one), used a 4th rounder, acquired and used (Forsling within a year of drafting) a 5th, used a 6th. That means Benning added a 2d rounder, a 4th rounder, and a 6th rounder to the Kesler proceeds + Bieksa proceeds, plus Garrison proceeds, GMMG's crap prospects to execute this plan. And he brought back a third; for simplicity, we might value a 3rd at a 4th + a 6th; meaning all JB used to execute his plan was GMMG's toxic assets and was a second.

While this post isn’t about the horses, we might as well look at how it worked out. 3 of the 7 potential upside guys didn't really belong in the NHL (Vey, Etem, Clendening). 3 are marginal NHLers – easily replaceable (Granlund, Sbisa, and Guddy). Only one (Baertschi) met the goal of the strategy well enough if he could have found a way to stay healthy. And the one sure thing in the strategy – Brandon Sutter – a 26 YO 7 year veteran who had missed exactly 3 games in the past 5 seasons – couldn’t stay healthy.

That’s water under the bridge. But could this strategy work? To work, two of the D needed to be reliable to supplement the two quality D in the system by the time Hamhuis’ contract expired (Tanev, Edler). 2 of the upcoming forwards would need to be reliable middle 6 players that nearly all playoff contenders would theoretically have some interest in. Sutter just needed to be Sutter.

We know it didn't happen, how likely is it that COULD have happened if you are using the limited NTC-hampered assets of Kesler, Garrison, Bieksa, the crap prospect pool, and *only* adding the value of the second?

Let me put those assets in perspective: Kesler was a better player than the target player you need to accomplish the goal, but Bieksa and Garrison were already at the bottom end of the target quality that you are hoping to get for several years starting a year or two after the transaction. A *good* outcome of a second round pick is the kind of player you are hoping to add -- and yet there is a far less than even chance that a second round player turns out that well, which I will get into in a moment. I'd say the likelihood that you could get 2 3-6 defensemen and 2 4-9 forwards and a 3C from those assets while the Sedins were still relevant was exceedingly small.

So the plan was doomed from the beginning. To continue as competitive, JB would have had to have sacrificed first rounders (because those were the only valuable assets he had outside of Kesler); to sacrifice first rounders with an aging core that already wasn't good enough to be a contender would sacrifice you best chance at finding the next core (first round picks). The strategy *requires* you to keep Burrows and Hansen (or else you have to add to the # of good complimentary forwards) and your existing core (Sedins, Tanev, Edler), and selling a first seriously frustrates your ability to find the next core.

Note that the trade-for-emerging-players-not-picks strategy is not always flawed. If the players to spin off are better, you can build a core from the direct proceeds because you acquire prospects/NHL caliber players that the trading teams actually still really believe in. Linden = Bertuzzi, Mogilny = Morrison, Bure = Jovo. Add good development and one sheer dumb luck trade (Naslund – I mean, Naslund hitting huge wasn’t all that different than if Baerstchi had hit huge) and a decent first round defensemen drafted (Ohlund), and you have a great core. But what’s the difference? The assets the Canucks moved in the late 90s were far less encumbered and were better players.

(The Sedin era, though, was built though the draft (Sedin, Sedin, Kesler, Edler, Bieksa, Burrows wasn’t even drafted) and supplemented with trades – note that these drafts are occurring during the WCE’s best days (well, the Sedins before), not after it was clear it had run its course, which is why there wasn’t a huge transition period. One hockey trade (Bertuzzi & Allen for Luongo) gave the team a core with a ++ goalie, which the WCE team never had).

Returning from the digression: Benning’s approach was predictably foolish given the more or less bare cupboards and the inherent difficulties of turning water into wine.

But JB detractors seriously overstate what this plan cost and the likelihood it delayed the rebuild or that the Canucks are likely materially worse off. I agree that spending any assets on a hopeless endeavor is a bad move. But what would the alternative have been? A true rebuild would have kept picks and new picks, would have converted Kesler proceed player assets into picks, and iced a team with bargain bin free agents for a couple seasons. I’m not going to introduce the counterfactual of trading Hansen and Burrows sooner – something that a true tear down would have done – because they returned optimal value as deadline deals. [Tanev was the only remaining valuable player without a NTC; I’m going to assume below he’s not dealt because even an egg-sucking team needs a couple of NHL defensemen].

So what is the asset difference between what happened and what would have happened if the aging vets Benning moved had not been used to acquire the types of players targeted and instead were just used to get more prospects?

McCann stays.

Forsling stays.

Sutter isn’t here.

Baertschi isn’t here.

Pearson isn’t here.

Lockwood isn’t in the system.

The Canucks lose a 5th.

The Canucks get and use another 2d in 2014, 2015, and 2016

The Canucks get and use a 4th in 2016

The Canucks get and use a 6th in 2015.

Let’s evaluate this in terms of where are the Canucks now – did JB’s moves slow down the rebuild and if so by how much.

Pearson/McCann is a basically a wash. Pearson is slightly more effective, but is more expensive. McCann has slightly more potential, but if he gets there, the salary will go up and he’s not going to be much cheaper to keep around than Pearson – who is only 3 years older.

Forsling is a marginal NHL player. Might become slightly better than marginal. Guys almost as good can be picked up from the waiver wire; guys like that are similar in value to Fatenburg (and are available for cheap every offseason), though Forsling carried with him a 5% chance of being something more. Value to this rebuild? Zero.

Sutter’s value to this rebuild is basically a wash. If he’s healthy, he is going to be a player the Canucks are glad to have for playoff depth. But his health is a question mark, and most would prefer having the salary available to use elsewhere. We’ll consider him now a zero asset.

As for the 4th or 6th round picks, there is exactly one 2016 fourth rounder who has played more than a game in the NHL (Victor Mete). For reference, the best 4th rounder from the 2015 draft is Dennis Malgin…. Mathieu Joseph and Austin Wagner were also NHL regulars last season. That’s about 60 picks worth of guy, one, maybe 2 (Mete I believe in; Malgin less certain) who now intrigues as a potential impact player. Its still early to judge those drafts, but more likely than not that list will contain a handful of Tyler Mottes and Alex Biegas, maybe one or two that will be more than what’s cheaply available. I’ll take Lockwood and the acquired 5th over two random samples from that field – but not by a lot. For simplicity, we’ll call it a wash.

So to compare what JB gave away in pursuit of his hopeless strategy, we can look only at the value of 3 2d round draft picks used (2014 2d, 2015 2d, 2016 2d) and impute a draft value to Bonino (let’s call is a 2014 2d – flipped right away) and Sbisa (let’s call it a 2014 3d, flipped right away). [I won’t extend the what ifs, like the Canucks don’t make the playoffs that first year, draft sooner, miss out on Boeser, etc.].

And let’s compare those to having Sven Baerstchi, the last remaining not washed out asset from Benning's initial plan.

4 players of the 26 skaters from the 2d round of the 2014 draft have played 100 games. For simplicity, let's presume that all are quality NHL players and that there will be no net-add of “quality” this upcoming season and beyond. (The list is Pettersson (Pit), Dvorak, Montour, and Barbashev. calling all 4 quality (i.e., more than readily available) is a stretch, but maybe another one or two will emerge). Chance Canucks go into 2019 with a quality player from a 2014 second round pick? About 15% per pick.

The third round from that draft featured 26 players – one of who is a superstar (Point) and one of whom has a realistic chance of being more than “readily available” – if he’s available at all (Tryamkin). 7% chance – but Benning got one. So 3.5%.

5 of 30 skaters from the 2d round of 2015 have played 100 games. For, simplicity, let's presume all are quality NHL players and that, due to age, 3 more will become quality players this upcoming season (we know, for example, that Andersson looks to be quality). Let’s presume another 2 will become quality players after this upcoming season. Chance Canucks go into 2019 with a quality player from this pick. About 27%. Chance that asset would contribute to the Canuck further rebuild? About 33%.

2016 is more difficult; its more recent and so games played data is worthless. While one would expect a 2014 2d round draft pick to be playing in the NHL and contributing by now if that player is going to have a more-than-readily-replaceable career, that’s absolutely not the case with a perfectly well developing 2016 2d round pick. 2 of 27 skaters have already had a big impact (DeBrincat and Girard). I'm sure more will, but I don't know the prospects well enough on other teams to base it on examining the list. But if the 2014 and 15 drafts were any indication, one might expect 2 to 4 more to emerge this upcoming season. Chance Canucks go into 2019 with a quality players from their 2016 second round selection? Maybe 18%. Let’s peg the longer term prospects of success at 33%, like 2015. (If anything, this is generous. 44% of 2001-2010 2d round picks became NHL players (https://www.tsn.ca/playing-the-percenta ... t-1.206144); a safe assumption here is that at least a third of them were easily replaceable).

A few players from the 2d round of 2014-16 are more than quality, but are difference makers – core guys. These are the guys that really make or break a team. Aho (2015), Debrincat (2016) fit that mold. There is some chance that Girard (2016) will earn that moniker, a smaller chance for Dunn (2015). Add Point from the 3rd round in 2014, and we will say (charitably) there was 4% chance of homerun payoff in 2014 round 3, a 5% chance of a homerun payoff in 2015, and a 7% chance of a homerun payoff in 2016.

Let’s add up the numbers:

If JB were no better than average at drafting, the chance the Canucks would have at least one more quality player heading into this season if JB hadn’t tried operation hopeless: About 60%. Approximate chance of hitting on 2 or more? About 20%

Chance that eventually one of those draft picks would eventually become a quality player: About 70%.

Chance that the Canucks would have drafted at least one core-level using those picks: About 15%.

Baertschi is a quality player under these definitions, but one who clearly is damaged goods. His chance of having his career as an NHL player (or an effective NHL player) come to an end is greater than a random player. But I think its fair to say that Baerstchi vs. the alternative is a wash more often than it is not; and that for JB’s Plan A to have bit the Canucks, the team would have needed to score big with a core player or get two better-than-readily-available players – which in itself isn’t a big difference to a team with cap space. Because these players are available every offseason without using assets other than cap space (and the owner’s cash).

There are some assumptions made in this analysis that are questionable, of course. One, JB drafting is like a random drafter. If he’s better than random, the odds of getting value increase. Two, not all quality players are alike. Some prospects project as lower ceiling but higher likelihood of getting there. Three, maybe Bonino or Sbisa would have brought back different returns. Four, anyone could quibble with my methodology for identifying quality players or putting them into pretty big buckets

But I’d be very surprised if any of these factors move the needle much. If any do, its probably factor #1 (JB’s relative quality as a drafter). But while Benning gets conventional kudos for his drafting, its hard to know where Benning lies relatively speaking as you move down the draft. With the last two drafts (Hoglander, Woo) we are doing little more than speculating on whether those guys will turn into something more than other teams’ 2d rounders. From 2017, Lind and Gadjovich are probably less likely than they were on draft day to become more than readily replaceable NHLers, but there’s still a lot of time. He didn’t have seconds in 2015 or 16 – in 14 he got a winner in Demko. Benning was hired as assistant GM in 2006 in Boston – let’s say he was responsible for their picks. Boston produced one player who for a *brief* time more than an easily replaceable player from the 2007-1013 draft: Ryan Spooner. Ryan Spooner! He directed amateur scouting for the Sabres between 1998 and 2004 – let’s call him responsible for the Sabres’ drafts between 1999 and 2004. In those years the Sabres had 9 second round picks. 2 were better than readily available, and for a decent chunk of time: Pominville and Derek Roy. One other had a long NHL career (Chris Thorburn), but its hard to say that Thornburn was ever more than an easily replaceable asset. Benning’s recent draft reputation is that in 2015, 2017, and 2018 he picked the highest ceiling guys available – all of whom had potential warts that are often warning signs for busts (Boeser, skating; Petterson, build; Hughes, size) – and all look really good 4, 2, and 1 year removed. But none of that is from down the draft. From the second round, Benning’s picked up few quality NHLers and hit only one home run (Pominville), with TBD stamps on Demko (who will likely be quality, but unknown as home run), Hoglander, Woo, Lind, and Gadjovich.

Every GM has a limited sample size, dumb luck happens. As does bad luck (e.g., Bourdon). But from that sample, acknowledging its limited utility, JB does not stand out as being special.

Bottom line: 2d round picks pay off (in terms of being materially better than readily available players) less often than they don’t pay out. And the numbers only go downhill through the draft. Maybe a few NHL execs are better at getting better quantity or quality (see https://medium.com/@george.mckeown1/whi ... 04fdf1dda3), but at the end of the day, its really hard to pin the Canucks’ current position coming out of this rebuild as a result of JB’s initial pipe dream strategy. That 15% or so chance of having a core-type player from the forsaken picks is really the only outcome that would have made a material difference. Other than that, the team was probably as likely to be worse than it is than better than it is. It would probably have a bit more cap space. But that’s all folks. I would also note that there was a similar chance that Baertschi wouldn’t have been the only better than easily replaceable guy from the initial plan. Granlund flirted with the part for awhile, before settling into the axiomatic definition of an NHL-caliber player who is easily replaceable. Sutter should be a 3C on a playoff team caliber guy. The reason why JB’s initial plan wasn’t a good strategy, though, is that there was really little to no chance from that plan to get a a volume of good complementary players or a core-type (outside of how the Anaheim 1st was used. Gudbrandson was the wrong player, obviously in hindsight – but that trade had the potential to add a core player as well as (I’d say better than) 3 2d round picks and a 3rd).

And that brings me to the next point: to successfully rebuild, you need to hit a couple of homeruns in draft picks or trades or reclamation projects. No matter the strategy, if JB doesn’t draft Pettersson and Boeser (or similar good players – of which there have been quite a few in the first rounds of drafts since 2014), the Canucks aren’t talking about transitioning from a rebuild. Stockpiling 2ds *barely* increases a team’s chance at a home run. It also shows just how valuable the first round pick is. A single first is better than many seconds when it comes to producing a core-type player. Not all first round picks are the same, of course – there’s always a couple players that seem to be can’t miss and another set of players where being a core-type player is more likely than not, and then there’s the rest of the first round. But the bottom line is – no rebuild strategy is foolproof, but unless aging assets can be turned into very talented young players or first rounders from the past draft where the bloom is not off the rose --- the only thing inconsistent with a rebuild strategy is giving up your firsts. JB’s initial plan, as doomed as it was, didn’t interfere with this critical aspect of a rebuild.

Last point – the decision not to trade Tanev is in and of itself more impactful than all of the gesticulations to get the Sedins support before they retired. This is because I think Tanev might have returned a 1st round pick and a little more. But it wasn’t at all unreasonable to think that Tanev – only 24 years old when Benning arrived – might also be around as the next core emerged. (And he is). Veteran quality D are hard to acquire – if Tanev’s not around when the next core emerged, then the Canucks would need to add another. And it was known that defensemen take time to develop, and that when JB took over, the Canucks best defensive prospects were Frankie Corrado and Ben Hutton (in that order) Frankie Corrado! And Hutton was still in college and that he emerged from camp in 2015 was shocking. Two fifth round picks. A totally barren pool. And it wasn’t unreasonable in 2014 to think that Tanev could be an effective player for 10 more seasons. And it wasn’t knowable when he was 24 that at 30, Tanev would be the walking wounded.

So I don’t know that Benning should be criticized for not trading a 24 year old defensemen in a tear down rebuild strategy. Its usually guys older than 24 that go in such a strategy (though I think the Oilers should consider moving McDavid….) The logic behind a keep decision doesn’t change from year to year because the payoff for keeping doesn't arrive until the new core does [chicken/egg if Tanev proceeds would have been necessary for that core]. The fact that he’s not healthy means that there’s far less payoff – and trade value.

For another post is what JB’s done the past few seasons….
Hono_rary Canadian
User avatar
Carl Yagro
MVP
MVP
Posts: 11963
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:33 pm
Location: On wide shoulders...

Re: Offseason grades so far

Post by Carl Yagro »

UWSaint wrote: Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:38 am UW's post
Dood... got digestion problems after reading all that :wink:

Nice job :thumbs:
The Best GD Canucks Hockey Talk Forum in the World... With Only 18 People!
User avatar
Cousin Strawberry
MVP
MVP
Posts: 26183
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: Offseason grades so far

Post by Cousin Strawberry »

Ha! So UWs post proves everyone was right...

Well...most everyone.

It proves that alot of hands were needlessly and repetitively wrung over things that weren't wring-worthy.

Wring-worthy! Haha fuck thats a good one there
If you need air...call it in
User avatar
Mickey107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 18820
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:27 am
Location: Richmond, B.C.

Re: Offseason grades so far

Post by Mickey107 »

Really good article on how and why Guds f**ked-up in Van;
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/erik-gu ... ucks-wrong

Too bad! I initially had hopes but he was a slug. Damn
"evolution"
Post Reply