Benning was the worst GM in team history...so far.
- Marwood

In the cap era no doubt but cannot lump him into the entire history. He’s far from being alone.

It's simple and I've explained this in the past. It comes down to drafting "the best player available" instead of need sometimes. If you don't waver from this strategy for years, you end up with a bunch of smaller/light offensive skilled players that fell in the draft. Too many. I used the term "it ends up defining you in the end".

The amount of people on here who constantly press for the best player available based on skill don't understand that sometimes the best player available should be based on need. Player X is best available because we are lacking size. Who cares if the small player you passed on goes on to score more goals than your selection.... there's a good chance he is on a team with a good mix of size and skill and would suffer on the midget team.
- boonerbuck

Correct.

This is so narrow/specific. I'm sure the teams in front of us were happy they passed on Hughes, or all the teams were glad they passed over DeBrincat. Good thing we have the excellent trade piece of Virtanen all these years later.

Sometimes small skilled players don't pan out, sometimes big skilled players don't pan out. It's a crap shoot either way, with very few guaranteed players. Best to choose the BPA that fits the team's scouts/GM definition of what "best" is.
- NewYorkNuck

That all sounds fine other than BPA says squat without your own definition. I hear no mention of character work ethic leadership etc.

Draft small top 6/top 4 player in the 1st round. Develop small player 2-5 years. Small player struggles or underachieves. Trade small player. From a position of weakness. Get bottom 6 player player with size.

This happens all too often with small skilled players in the first round.

Point I was making before, BPA shouldn't be so analytically narrow minded. Look for the BPA that fits you needs sometimes. Just because you drafted a small/light 18yo thinking he is BPA doesn't mean in 5 years you will have a great trade piece. There is a reason they fall so often... they are a gamble more so than skill with size. Better teams have passed on our midgets. Yet these teams are expected to trade size with skill when the Canucks come calling.... nope.
- boonerbuck

Tkachuk was easily bpa at 5th, but we went need with Juolevi. JV was a need instead of BPA. How did those work? EP was BPA, Boeser was BPA, Hughes was BPA. Looks like BPA is the way to go so far...

Intangibles usually separate prospects before talent ever could. Laine for example. Kaako so far. Mining prospects is an art & requires a ton of luck. Interviewing them & talking to their coaches goes further than video & stats.

Tkachuk was easily bpa at 5th, but we went need with Juolevi. JV was a need instead of BPA. How did those work? EP was BPA, Boeser was BPA, Hughes was BPA. Looks like BPA is the way to go so far...
- Retinalz

OJ a LHD was a huge reach. Idk what need he filled. Horrible pick.

JV was a hometown stupid pick. Speed size & scoring & nothing else translates into an NHL failure.

EP they overlooked his size & picked on elite upside.

Boeser a late pick sniper. Skating his issue results were not.

Hughes was BPA that fell to us with strange picks before him. Gotta be lucky sometimes & less pressure not picking top 5 & feed off mistakes.

That all sounds fine other than BPA says squat without your own definition. I hear no mention of character work ethic leadership etc.
- Nighthawk

It doesn't matter how I define BPA, I'm not a scout or picking any of these players

Maybe if you shared your spreadsheet with us on how you rank and categorize all their skills and list all the attributes you rank them on, what interview questions you ask them and how you qualify that, how long you've tracked each prospect and quantify their career arc to date, and all your projection models/analytics into how they're going to develop, maybe some of us on here would be able to give you more insightful answers on how we define BPA

Gaunce Shinkaruk Jensen McNally Schroeder Hodgson White all excellent choices

This is so narrow/specific. I'm sure the teams in front of us were happy they passed on Hughes, or all the teams were glad they passed over DeBrincat. Good thing we have the excellent trade piece of Virtanen all these years later.

Sometimes small skilled players don't pan out, sometimes big skilled players don't pan out. It's a crap shoot either way, with very few guaranteed players. Best to choose the BPA that fits the team's scouts/GM definition of what "best" is.
- NewYorkNuck

Same thing can be said about your post... I mean you cherry picked Jake of all things. He was a great combination of size and red flags but local boy BS is what landed him on the Canucks.. Hughes was a no brainer. Doesn't mean you cant go for size and skill in another draft...

Gaunce Shinkaruk Jensen McNally Schroeder Hodgson White all excellent choices
- VANTEL

Tkachuk was easily bpa at 5th, but we went need with Juolevi. JV was a need instead of BPA. How did those work? EP was BPA, Boeser was BPA, Hughes was BPA. Looks like BPA is the way to go so far...
- Retinalz

I'm not sure Jake was a need pick at all. A lot was put on him being local... something FA has been obsessed with for way too many years.

Same thing can be said about your post... I mean you cherry picked Jake of all things. He was a great combination of size and red flags but local boy BS is what landed him on the Canucks.. Hughes was a no brainer. Doesn't mean you cant go for size and skill in another draft...

- boonerbuck

Hughes fell to the Canucks – other teams picked "bigger" or "for need" players over him. So, against your narrative, it was a no brainer because he was the best player, better than players taken above him.

And your whole theory is based on a false belief that anyone here said draft only small players, or that the BPA was exclusively small. The BPA might be a large defenseman, or it might be an average sized goalie. Sometimes it may be that they're small. But you're saying that drafting BPA = smaller players = a team full of underachieving bad small players with no value.

There are lots of "big" prospects that don't pan out. Hell, most prospects don't pan out.

What do you get if a prospect LACKS 1 part of his make up…

Size…has to be a top scorer & not a liability. If not then a career AHLer. Dime a dozen & overrated.

Scoring…destined for bottom 6 maybe 4th liner at best. Role player on min contracts.

Skating…goes nowhere if isn’t a sniper or great as a 3rd wheel.

Every one of the above changes when a player adds intangibles. Martin St Louis,Marchand us Garland
Most difficult for examples.
Bossy,Robitaille us Boeser

D if not mobile better be a stay at home & mean or have a canon.

Idk but add your opinions as you like

It doesn't matter how I define BPA, I'm not a scout or picking any of these players

Maybe if you shared your spreadsheet with us on how you rank and categorize all their skills and list all the attributes you rank them on, what interview questions you ask them and how you qualify that, how long you've tracked each prospect and quantify their career arc to date, and all your projection models/analytics into how they're going to develop, maybe some of us on here would be able to give you more insightful answers on how we define BPA
- NewYorkNuck

Interview process is my big start. I don’t want scripted hockey agent coached speak. I want to hear character shine through & talk of what they do to improve all they can. Last question I ask is who inspired them.

As for the scouting process anyone can accumulate data & do analytics. We can use the same info & call BPA.

As for my BPA I start with skating & the key positions being C & D. I favour play drivers & playmaking. Imo it translates well. Going ti the dirty areas & protecting the dirty areas wins my blue collar mentality.

Gaunce Shinkaruk Jensen McNally Schroeder Hodgson White all excellent choices
- VANTEL

None excelled in one single category I’d call WOW lol

Gaunce Shinkaruk Jensen McNally Schroeder Hodgson White all excellent choices
- VANTEL

Why stop there….Jim Sandlak, Dan Woolley, Jason Herter, Shawn Antoski, Petr Nedved, Alek Stojanov, Josh Holden, Brad Ference.

All first round picks off the top of my head, the organization just hasn’t drafted well for the majority of their history.

It’s easy to draft safe in the 1st round. Never a bad idea but the home run is always a game changer.

2nd round & beyond are where teams can make up big ground. A huge list of unknown gems have been there waiting. Here is where I side with more picks the better just not acquiring 1sts. Far too costly & big risk. 2nds & 3rds multiples show where scouting is good or not. Yes I concur trading them away has held us back.

Why stop there….Jim Sandlak, Dan Woolley, Jason Herter, Shawn Antoski, Petr Nedved, Alek Stojanov, Josh Holden, Brad Ference.

All first round picks off the top of my head, the organization just hasn’t drafted well for the majority of their history.
- LeftCoaster

Hence these 50yrs & counting lol

Why stop there….Jim Sandlak, Dan Woolley, Jason Herter, Shawn Antoski, Petr Nedved, Alek Stojanov, Josh Holden, Brad Ference.

All first round picks off the top of my head, the organization just hasn’t drafted well for the majority of their history.
- LeftCoaster

You forgot my all time favourite dud, Libor Polasek, but yes, I 100%agree with the bolded.

Outta smokes so gonna go fire up the snow blower & get my cancer sticks bbl 👋

Hence these 50yrs & counting lol
- Nighthawk

Only Henrik & Daniel have been absolute home runs from their draft year, other than that the organization passed on many opportunities to land a franchise player.

Linden being a prime example, he had a decent career but three HHOF’ers were taken shortly after him.

It’s common with every team, just a little more so with the Canucks.

Only Henrik & Daniel have been absolute home runs from their draft year, other than that the organization passed on many opportunities to land a franchise player.

Linden being a prime example, he had a decent career but three HHOF’ers were taken shortly after him.

It’s common with every team, just a little more so with the Canucks.
- LeftCoaster

That Pavel Bure guy was a pretty damn good hockey player.

This was from Iain McIntyre

New General Manager Patrik Allvin is not going to have an easy time of it the next couple months. Vancouver is a team that is not constructed well salary cap wise. One of the first players is Jaroslav Halak. Can he be convinced to waive his NMC to go to a contender?

There are some ‘the time is now’ type of deals that can be made. J.T. Miller is one such player who could fetch a nice return now as opposed to next season. Brock Boeser is another because of his $7.5 million qualifying offer. Could Conor Garland be dealt now while his value is decent? Even Tyler Motte may be on the move as depth forwards are hard to find.

Vancouver has seven weeks to set up their analytics department and assess needs and wants going forward. It is going to be a chaotic time.

That Pavel Bure guy was a pretty damn good hockey player.
- Reubenkincade

Yes, yes he was, however, there was a bit of trickery with that whole situation so I don’t usually throw him in the pile.

Yes, yes he was, however, there was a bit of trickery with that whole situation so I don’t usually throw him in the pile.
- LeftCoaster