Page 46 of 103
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 11:19 am
by Blob Mckenzie
Yes Gillis didn't draft well and yes he made a few blunders most notably the Ballard trade. This however is a Benning thread so maybe we ( well most of us ) can get back on track and discuss Elmer. I hope to god the hemorrhaging of draft picks has finally stopped. Three 2nds and a third that were handed away could have put four more good prospects in the pipeline. Have a look at some of the youngsters taken in the 2nd round of the last three drafts it will make you puke. More lottery tickets = more chances at an impact player.
We all know the cupboard was pretty bare when Elmer got here but the bottom line is that he is on his way to no playoffs in 3 /4 seasons and a dearth of high end young talent. He is coming up to his fourth draft and badly needs a homerun or three.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 11:50 am
by ESQ
Blob Mckenzie wrote:
We all know the cupboard was pretty bare when Elmer got here but the bottom line is that he is on his way to no playoffs in 3 /4 seasons and a dearth of high end young talent. He is coming up to his fourth draft and badly needs a homerun or three.
Well, what did you expect in a rebuild?
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 11:58 am
by ESQ
And sorry Blob, but three 2nds and one 3rd wouldn't have changed anything.
From 6 years of Gillis, the team got 11 NHL games out of his 2nd round picks - 8 from Sauve, 3 from Rodin.
Other than May Ray, the only other 2nd round pick of the Canucks to have had an impact in the past 20 years was Artem Chubarov.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 11:58 am
by Blob Mckenzie
ESQ wrote:Blob Mckenzie wrote:
We all know the cupboard was pretty bare when Elmer got here but the bottom line is that he is on his way to no playoffs in 3 /4 seasons and a dearth of high end young talent. He is coming up to his fourth draft and badly needs a homerun or three.
Well, what did you expect in a rebuild?
I expected it and I have no problem with it. The Aquilinis on the other hand ...........
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 11:59 am
by Blob Mckenzie
ESQ wrote:And sorry Blob, but three 2nds and one 3rd wouldn't have changed anything.
From 6 years of Gillis, the team got 11 NHL games out of his 2nd round picks - 8 from Sauve, 3 from Rodin.
Other than May Ray, the only other 2nd round pick of the Canucks to have had an impact in the past 20 years was Artem Chubarov.
Go back and have a look at the last three drafts and see some high prospects picked in round 2
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 12:05 pm
by Mickey107
ESQ wrote:Blob Mckenzie wrote:
We all know the cupboard was pretty bare when Elmer got here but the bottom line is that he is on his way to no playoffs in 3 /4 seasons and a dearth of high end young talent. He is coming up to his fourth draft and badly needs a homerun or three.
Well, what did you expect in a rebuild?
Guess it depends what you want.
Just get it running on all eight cylinders again. or
Do a frame-off restoration where there is no chance of any rust anywhere for many years and the engine is brand new with twice the horse power.
Just a stupid car joke but it's just that you can rebuild or you can REBUILD.

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 1:18 pm
by ESQ
Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Go back and have a look at the last three drafts and see some high prospects picked in round 2
2015 - 2 2nd rounders have become NHLers - Aho and Carlo
2014 - 1 (Dvorak)
2013 - 2 (Lehkonnen and Petan)
2012 - 5 (McCabe, Sisssons, Tierney, Martinook, Severson)
2011 - 6 (Gibson, Jenner, Saad, Nieto, Granlund, Kucherov, Rask)
Except for Kucherov and maybe Aho, I wouldn't consider any of those first-line players, or even potential first-liners. I'd say that's pretty fair approximation of the value of 2nd rounders - a 1/3 chance to get a decent 3rd line player.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 1:30 pm
by Blob Mckenzie
Sigh.... these guys have been taken in the last three years and there are a dozen more guys I could name that will be damn good NHLers like Montour, Greenway, Chlapik, Point and a host of others. They are still organizational assets and should absolutely not be thrown in as overpayment for 3rd liners (Sutter) , bottom pairing d men ( Gudbranson) , or just given away for AHL talent like Pedan or Vey.
By your rationale maybe the team should just decline picking in the 2nd and 3rd rounds
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 2:56 pm
by ESQ
Blob Mckenzie wrote:
By your rationale maybe the team should just decline picking in the 2nd and 3rd rounds
Nah, I'm just saying we shouldn't act like trading away 3 2nd rounders in 3 years means that we're not in the middle of a re-build and/or that Benning has fucked up the re-build.
2nd rounders are nice, but only 1 in 100 will turn a franchise around (e.g. PK Subban).
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 3:31 pm
by Lancer
2nd rounders for prospects that can help is not a bad thing IMHO. The fact that Vey shit the bed is a bit of a boner but GM's will make those mistakes. Baerstchi has turned out okay and Granlund - well jury's out until next season but he showed well until his season was ended with surgery. We'll see how he does next year either on the 2nd or 3rd line.
Both players fit the mold of players who were further along in development. Benning deserves some patience with both players until they hit UFA.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 4:14 pm
by Island Nucklehead
ESQ wrote:Blob Mckenzie wrote:
By your rationale maybe the team should just decline picking in the 2nd and 3rd rounds
Nah, I'm just saying we shouldn't act like trading away 3 2nd rounders in 3 years means that we're not in the middle of a re-build and/or that Benning has fucked up the re-build.
2nd rounders are nice, but only 1 in 100 will turn a franchise around (e.g. PK Subban).
The guys we've traded draft picks for aren't likely to turn a franchise around, either. Not sure what the point is.
Lancer wrote:2nd rounders for prospects that can help is not a bad thing IMHO. The fact that Vey shit the bed is a bit of a boner but GM's will make those mistakes. Baerstchi has turned out okay and Granlund - well jury's out until next season but he showed well until his season was ended with surgery. We'll see how he does next year either on the 2nd or 3rd line.
Both players fit the mold of players who were further along in development. Benning deserves some patience with both players until they hit UFA.
I think the unnerving thing isn't any of these deals in islolation, but the trend to throw draft picks around freely in so many deals. It's not just Baertschi/Vey/Granlund, but adding picks to Kassian for Prust, adding a pick to Jensen for Etem, trading down for Sutter, packaging essentially two top-35 picks for Gudbranson. The trend is the guy doesn't mind throwing picks away, precisely at a time when the Canucks need the picks.
Yeah yeah, none of those picks alone make a difference, but this team could easily have 8-10 more prospects right now, and the on-ice performance would be no different.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 4:47 pm
by Blob Mckenzie
ESQ wrote:Blob Mckenzie wrote:
By your rationale maybe the team should just decline picking in the 2nd and 3rd rounds
Nah, I'm just saying we shouldn't act like trading away 3 2nd rounders in 3 years means that we're not in the middle of a re-build and/or that Benning has fucked up the re-build.
2nd rounders are nice, but only 1 in 100 will turn a franchise around (e.g. PK Subban).
So two of say Montour, Raddysh, Point or Dvorak wouldn't greatly assist this rebuild at all ?
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 5:26 pm
by Meds
ESQ wrote:Blob Mckenzie wrote:
By your rationale maybe the team should just decline picking in the 2nd and 3rd rounds
Nah, I'm just saying we shouldn't act like trading away 3 2nd rounders in 3 years means that we're not in the middle of a re-build and/or that Benning has fucked up the re-build.
2nd rounders are nice, but only 1 in 100 will turn a franchise around (e.g. PK Subban).
What franchise did PK Subban turn around?

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 5:27 pm
by Hockey Widow
Benning year one screwed us. Management walked away after a 100+ point season thinking all we needed was a couple of upgrades to compete. Thinking our vets had more in the tank than they did. It dictated what happened year two which was in part excused due to a tremendous amount of injuries. By mid year three reality set in.
I'm not sure Benning could have gotten anything more for the vets he did trade with perhaps the exception of the two he couldn't trade, Vrbata and Hamhuis. But if year one was handled like now then we wouldn't have had a Vey, or Etem, or Clendenning or Granlund or Baertschi or Gudbranson, or Miller or Sutter or Eriksson or......but to delete all of that is throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's not all bad.
Two ways of looking at the entire body or work, some bad, some good, but none of it happens in isolation.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Mon May 15, 2017 5:33 pm
by SKYO
Word Benning traded a shitload of picks, but to be fair he also accumulated picks as well.
traded 12 picks away
acquired 10 picks.
