Canucks' Benning looking to improve on impressive draft resume [MacIntyre]
sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/canucks-benning-looki...
sportsnet.caPosted Jun 20, 2018, 8:19 PM UTC
3593
sportsnet.caa Classic iMac Management Pump Up
27
The legendary battle between MGMT hater Jason Botchford and MGMT Ball fondler Ian MacIntyre
17
You know hockey season is just around the corner when the IMAC fluff pieces start rolling out.
9
Get u a girl that bigs you up like IMac to JimBo
9
But is that for you or for her?
2
Both. I get someone like IMac and she gets to look at my sexy mug
1
Any dick feels big when you’ve been getting butt fugged by a micro penis for the last forty years.
14
ThisGuyButtFuggs
8
Phucs
2
I hear the grass is looking to be green
13
[touchable]
4
Gona touch dat grass
3
Hard hitting journalism!
8
I'd definitely want a defenceman preferably, but if the BPA at #7 is a forward like Zadina, Wahlstrom or Kotkaniemi, I don't see how we don't pick them (remember that if those 3 are available the dmen must've been taken already).
5
Zadina ain't falling to 7 unless he gets hit by a a car tomorrow
4
Kravtsov could be a huge steal if the d man we want aren’t available
3
Bennings draft resume is fine, it's his trading, signing, and team-building resumes he should be working on improving instead.
0†
Thanks for chiming in on this post to complain about Benning for things completely unrelated to this post.
12
It wasn't entirely unrelated. The article touches on how Bennings excellent drafting record is marred by less than spectacular trades. And his weakness at signing contracts can be related to Tryamkin, again touched on in the article, not just things like the Eriksson contract.
11
Barely touches on it, and is entirely in reference to his drafting prowess leading to those trades. *in fact, it doesn't even say anything positive or negative about the trades, just that they were made, and they are NHL players on other teams. Hence the drafting prowess. But hey, let's zero in on what you've mentioned. I don't think I've seen it discussed anywhere in other threads...
Benning in a positive light? I better shit all over THAT on draft week, in a thread about an article specifically on drafting. I notice you didn't mention at all the vast, vast bulk of the article and instead go to the less-than-one paragraph on his mistakes. Kudos.
We get it.
-1†
I must have missed the memo on positive and optimistic replies only.
13
Head over to hfboards if you want to be sadistic fuck. Honestly if you need to vent or be negative in general that place is heaven for you.
-1†
"If you disagree with me you should leave"
7
Don't think he disagrees with benning drafting though. 🤔
1
And if his drafting was compared to other GM's in similar situations I really don't think he would stand out.
-2†
Do it then and get back to us.
4†
What would be the point? The Benning crowd doesn't compare him to his competitors they compare him to his predecessors.
-4†
The point would be you'd be using facts to prove your hypothesis. I'd be interested to learn how true this is.
11
Then don't make claims you can't and won't back up.
That's a pretty weak answer bud, run run away now.
2†
His trading has been average at worst. He has had successful ones and bad ones.
-2
Realistically there is only one Benning draft pick that has made a significant impact to this team in his 4 years of drafting. (And the number that are trending to make an impact is very low) However two years from now he could have 10 draft picks in the lineup on opening night which would be pretty damn impressive. Don't we have to wait and see how many picks become NHL players before declaring he has an impressive draft resume?
I think if Lind, Gadjovich, Jasek, Gaudette and Demko all become impact players it would be impressive but if he only gets wins on his first rounders he didn't really do anything any other GM could've done.
-1†
Still miles better than Gillis, that guy couldn’t even nail 1st round picks.
3
horvat, larkin
0
I don't know if we can really say Bennings draft resume is impressive or not. He has hit on a high percentage of picks, but it gets negated by the fact we've had a less than league average number of picks during his tenure.
The only draft where we've had an extra draft pick was last years draft (which we got for CBJ hiring Tortorella). Relative to the teams performance since Benning has taken over, I actually think our drafting has been pretty average. For a team finishing at the bottom of the league, we should have more to show for our futility.
-2†
Yup. It is pretty much exactly average. Which considering draft position, isn't all that impressive. I think the Canucks had such poor drafting for so long that an run of average drafts has people excited. A team like Winnipeg, that has actually drafted very well, has added the following list of players over the same time period (not including 2017): Patrik Laine, Logan Stanley, Luke Green, Jacob Cederholm, Jordy Stallard, Kyle Connor, Jack Roslovic, Jansen Harkins, Erik Foley, Sam Niku, Nikolaj Ehlers, Jack Glover, Chase De Leo, Nelson Nogier, Josh Morrissey, Nic Petan, Eric Comrie, JC Lipon, Andrew Copp and Tucker Poolman. The truth is the Canucks fit somewhere in the middle league-wide, people are just excited and WAY overrate the results. Which I get. I would actually say the draft performance is something that still needs improvement. For this to turn around we need to nail every single top end pick. Cannot afford to miss any or have any more drafts similar to 2016. To have a draft that poor right in the middle of a re-build is a huge set-back. Cannot afford to not get the right player with our top pick either. Otherwise the re-build will continue indefinitely.
6
I think the Canucks had such poor drafting for so long that an run of average drafts has people excited.
I think you nailed it. We're not used to having nice things, so having a few new shiny toys seems like the world to us. Fully agree our cuboards are not as stocked as other teams who've drafted well for years.
3
Fair point, but wouldn't the fact that he's had fewer picks mean the ability to hit on the number of players he has is more impressive? A higher hit-miss ratio? I too would love to see him get more picks though, of course.
2
Well we have to ask, are we evaluating Jim Benning based on his efficiency or his effectiveness? From an efficiency standpoint, he seems to be doing well and getting good value out of the picks he is making. From an effectiveness standpoint, I would say our drafting/prospect pool relative to team performance is actually below average.
I believe individual scouts should be evaluated based on efficiency, but the GM should be evaluated based on effectiveness.
3
Good points. I'd only add that when looking at picks used vs. picks traded, you need to also factor in the value of the return on those picks. If you add someone like Pouliot to our list of NHL-caliber players received for draft picks (a 4th - which Pouliot has already proven to be worth well above the average value of that pick - and yes, I know many would prefer the swing-for-the-fences approach but that is a different argument) you'll get a better idea of the value gained/lost. But I don't want to dive into that whole discussion again. But if others want to take the baton and run with it, by all means fill your boots.
2
I won't dive too far into this topic. I can support the Pouliot move, but would moreso classify that as a trade (and not drafting).
2
2014 - #6 overall Virtanen - 25th best pick
2014 - #24 overall McCann - 18th best pick
2015 - #23 overall Boeser - 12th best pick
2016 - #5 Overall Joulevi - Hard to compare because he hasn't played in the NHL. Interesting that only 21 players drafted in 2016 have played an NHL game 4 of which are defenseman that were taken after Joulevi and realistically only Tkachuck and Keller look to be better picks if we took a forward. I'd leave 2016 out for now.
1
He looks to be 2 for 4 on first round picks. 3 for 4 if Joulevi turns into a 2-3.
2
He has hit on a high percentage of draft picks
How is his drafting average then? He drafted 5 nhl'ers in his first draft which is insane. In 2015 he picked Boeser and Gaudette. 2016 was a bad year for sure, but early looks at the 2017 draft show another excellent draft.
So that's 2 excellent drafts, an above average draft for getting a 40 goal scorer at 23 and a probable 3C in the 5th round, and one below average draft. Even without adding more picks we are having better overall drafts than lots of teams that have added picks.
1†
I know we're all excited about Boeser, but lets not call him a 40 goal scorer until he actually hits 40 goals. Tremendous rookie season, Calder Nominee, All-Star (but he has not put 40 pucks past opposing goalies). Im going to paste the next portion because it explains the rationale behind my assessment in more detail.
Well we have to ask, are we evaluating Jim Benning based on his efficiency or his effectiveness? From an efficiency standpoint, he seems to be doing well and getting good value out of the picks he is making. From an effectiveness standpoint, I would say our drafting/prospect pool relative to team performance is actually below average.
I believe individual scouts should be evaluated based on efficiency, but the GM should be evaluated based on effectiveness.
2†
I don't know if we can really say Bennings draft resume is impressive or not. He has hit on a high percentage of picks, but it gets negated by the fact we've had a less than league average number of picks during his tenure.
We can't really say anything for sure yet. Every prospect could bust, but the number of picks a GM owns says nothing about his drafting ability.
It's a fair criticism, but it's not really fair to use it to criticize his scouting. Seems kind of like a ham fisted attempt to skew his one big bright spot into a negative.
Relative to the teams performance since Benning has taken over, I actually think our drafting has been pretty average. For a team finishing at the bottom of the league, we should have more to show for our futility.
Again, we don't know yet,but this seems like a very misinformed take. Even if we ignore high picks, Benning's drafting is still tracking to be outstanding.
Demko, Gaudette, Forsling, and Tryamkin (who seems like he'll be back now) all seem likely to at least be regular NHLers. That's 1 player per draft outside the first round!
By any measure, that's outstanding, and by no means average.
Considering any of Lind, Gadjovic, Palmu, Jasek, Lockwood, Brisbois, and DiPietro could make the NHL, and it's very possible at least a couple do, his late round drafting looks really good.
If even 2 of them become NHLers, that's an average of 1.5 players per draft outside the first round. That's exceptional.
There are a lot things you can criticize Benning for, but drafting isn't really one of them, especially in later rounds.
Suggesting his drafting has been average is either an extremely biased take, or a misinformed one. And suggesting his drafting success can be attributed to the team being bad isn't supported by the number of promising late round picks.
1
Are we evaluating Jim Benning based on his efficiency or his effectiveness? From an efficiency standpoint, he seems to be doing well and getting good value out of the picks he is making. From an effectiveness standpoint, I would say our drafting/prospect pool relative to team performance is actually below average.
I believe individual scouts should be evaluated based on efficiency, but the GM should be evaluated based on effectiveness.
-2†
Copy-paste?
3
I 100% shouldn't be on reddit right now and this is the worst possible use of my time right now lol... I had to give the efficient response opposed to the effective response haha....
6
Are we evaluating Jim Benning based on his efficiency or his effectiveness?
Are we evaluating his drafting effectiveness or his trading effectiveness?
Sounds like you're clumping the two together. It's obvious what people mean by good drafting. They aren't talking about the number of picks. That would be trading.
From an effectiveness standpoint, I would say our drafting/prospect pool relative to team performance is actually below average.
What are you basing this on?
I'm genuinely curious. Could you give direct comparison to back what seems like an arbitrary standard?
There's no metric I can think of where drafting this many probable and possible NHLers in later rounds in 4 years can be viewed as below average. Even if he had more picks, averaging at least 1 NHLer per draft in later rounds could not reasonably be considered anything but outstanding. And his first round drafting is at least good(2 superstars(hopefully), and, we can assume, at least 2 more NHLers in 4 years), even when taking draft position into consideration(if you disagree, look up past 5th and 6th overall picks for comparison).
I believe individual scouts should be evaluated based on efficiency, but the GM should be evaluated based on effectiveness.
I don't understand what you're saying. We can't judge specific aspects of a GMs performance?
Can we not look at his contract negotiating ability without considering his drafting?
Can we not look at his trading ability without considering his contract negotiations?
I hope you don't have opinions on his trading or contract negotiating skills if that's you're view.
This reads like lawyerish mental gymnastics to diminish what is a very clear strength of Benning.
Edit: clarity
2
When I compare efficiency and effectiveness I am trying to establish the criteria we're going to evaluate his drafting resume on and I think it's an important distinction to make. When I say efficiency, we're talking about the ability to hit on a higher percentage of picks than the average GM. I think we're on the same page that Jim has been an efficient drafter.
When I talk about effectiveness this is evaluating the ability to build your prospect pool through the draft, and needs to be bench marked externally to the rest of the league (not internally). We've had a below average number of draft picks (except the year where we got the pick for Torts) which puts us at a disadvantage against the rest of the league. We're competing with the Edmonton/Toronto/Buffalo's of the league and should be benchmarking the talent we've drafted to those teams (not Vancouvers prospect pool 5 years ago).
The question we need to ask is: Has Bennings ability to hit on a higher than average number of picks allowed us to draft better than other rebuilding teams (who have taken the conventional approach of accumulating draft picks), or are other rebuilding teams performing better on the draft floor than us because they have a higher volume of picks (but maybe not as efficient with those picks).
2
Well this topic is about his ability to draft so im discussing the picks he has made.
Dont they say if you draft 2 nhlers a year then you are doing a good job? Well from my count we will be above that number even with below average number of picks.
2
Dont they say if you draft 2 nhlers a year then you are doing a good job?
I'd say that's better than good, that's outstanding. Even the best drafting team rarely average 2 NHLers per year.
3
If Jim Benning is able to hit on 10% more draft picks than the average GM, but Rebuilding Team B accumulates 25% more draft picks during their rebuild, which team was more successful at drafting during their rebuild?
This is where I think the distinction between efficiency and effectiveness is important.
0
I don't know if we can really say Bennings draft resume is impressive or not. He has hit on a high percentage of picks, but it gets negated by the fact we've had a less than league average number of picks during his tenure.
uh, having fewer picks than average and still hitting a high percentage of them is actually good lol
1
As a fan of a rebuilding team, don't you want management to accomplish both of those goals (hit on a a higher than average number of picks, and make more than an average amount of selections at the draft)? It's not a mutually exclusive concept, we should be leveraging the efficiency by stockpiling draft picks. Otherwise we're wasting a competitive advantage we have on other teams.
1
I will be most impressed if he manages to draft dahlin
and then play it off like it wasn't a big deal. Just, you know, day to day stuff.