25

Jim Benning reportedly won’t look to move up from No. 10 at the draft

It would have been nice if the Hughes brothers could have been a thing in Vancouver, but I think we’ve all accepted that it isn’t happening.

Beyond the obvious reality that Jim Benning won’t be paying what would be an astronomical price to acquire the New Jersey Devils’ No. 1 overall pick, Ben Kuzma of The Province reports that Benning isn’t planning to move up from No. 10 overall in any capacity. 

“Coming out of the combine, I felt even better and excited about the player we’re going to get at No. 10. The kids were excellent in the interviews because they can get into a room with adults and sell themselves on what they can do and what they can get better at.

I’m super excited about the pick.

If we have to (in addition to the 10th pick) give up a second-round pick, that’s too much because we feel the draft is deep enough,” added Benning. “And you just don’t know how the draft is going to fall. We could have a player rated in the top six falling to us at 10.” – Jim Benning.

As Stephen Roget explored a few weeks ago, the cost to move up in the draft would be fairly substantial. Even sliding up from No. 10 to one of the other picks in the top-10 would easily cost the Canucks their second-round pick. As Benning said, the draft is deep enough and the quality of players available to the Canucks at No. 10 make it not worthwhile to sell off their quantity at the draft.

Last year, there were some surprises in the draft, as the Montreal Canadiens selected Jesperi Kotkaniemi with the third-overall pick and the Coyotes took Barrett Hayton with the fifth-overall pick. As a result, the Red Wings snagged Filip Zadina, who was widely considered the third best player in the draft at No. 6. That also left the Canucks with a great pick at No. 7, Quinn Hughes.

After the top two prospects, Jack Hughes and Kappo Kakko, the draft is a bit of crapshoot. As Jeremy Davis’ most recent consolidated rankings show, players like Vasali Podkolzin are ranked as high as No. 2 and as low as No. 17 in the draft. Given the expected randomness and the depth of this draft, the Canucks are best just to sit still and let the best player available fall into their lap.

CanucksArmy Prospect profiles of the options at 10:

Mathew Boldy

Cole Caufield

Victor Soderstrom

  • Bud Poile

    The interview on 650 this morning was informative in that Benning seemed hopeful and even upbeat upon the return of Tryamkin after this year’s contract of his in the KHL is up.
    Also ,the fact that Juolevi has completed his rehab in Vancouver and will now start skating again and Benning said he’d be excited to see his progress at training camp.
    That’s two decent d that are Canucks and can further strengthen the back end with the arrival of Hughes and Stetcher’s growth.
    The thought that Zaitsev could play with Tryamkin also came to mind.

    • Green Bastard

      Season is way over Bud and Juolevi and Tryamkin are totally yesteryears news so maybe go outside on your walker and get some sun on your wrinkled old face yeah?

      • Bud Poile

        Tanev will be 30 this year,averages 50 games (due to endless injury) and 10 points per season.
        Zaitsev is two years younger,plays full seasons and doubles Tanev’s production every year.

        • Green Bastard

          Will you be calling into 650 every day to discuss this Bud? You seem to have a lot of time to kill on your arthritic old hands this off season. October is such a long way off eh.

          Will you also be at the draft with your i heart Jimbo banner? lol.

          • MattyT's Mom

            Oh PQW the Bud fan stalker. You find odd ways to spend your recess and lunch breaks pup. I guess if you’ve got no friends at school, you’d know all about no life, time to kill hey?

          • MM

            I agree, but the way Elliott was talking yesterday, Zaitsev is the next coming, and Toronto expects to get a young dman in return. Probably cost Van Chatfield and a second for the next coming of Guddy. Guddy 2.0 here we go!

        • Alex G

          Their gap in production is nearly as much as you stated, especially considering that the Leafs are one of the highest scoring teams, while the Canucks are one of the lowest. As well, Zaitsev is not anywhere nearly as good as Tanev in defending. IMO as NHL defencemen, they are even in the same league overall.

          Consider the results of the last 3 seasons combined:

          Tanev: 150 gms * 20.07 TOI/G * .22 P/G * +13 * doesn’t play PP, 1st unit PK
          Zaitsev: 233 gms * 21:31 TOI/G * .28 P/G * -12 * 2nd unit PP, 2nd unit PK

          Offensively, Zaitsev’s .06 P/G edge is very small, and means little considering his PP time and offensive supporting cast. Tanev could easily make up that gap if he played 2nd unit PP time, and the Canucks a decent PP like the Leafs. Zaitsev has a whopping 12 pts in 3 years on the 2nd unit PP.

          Defensively, while +/- isn’t the only measuring stick, Tanev’s team high +13 (Hutton had a team low -54) vs Zaitsev’s team low -12 (Gardiner had a team high +52) in this case it says a lot. Both face top six forwards the majority of the time 5on 5. Once again, considering the 5on5 goal differential between these teams, the optics aren’t good for Zaitsev and quite remarkable for Tanev.

          Even factoring in injuries, I would rather have Tanev plus a Beiga/Schenn/Sautner than Zaitsev. Age and cost certainty is really is the only advantage Zaitsev has over Tanev. Comparatively, I’d rather extend Tanev to 4 more years to match Zaitsev’s remaining term than trade for Zaitsev (even though 4 years is way too ling for Tanev).

          Ideally, Tanev is moved for a prospect, pick and/or part of a trade better than Zaitsev by the next trade deadline. If he stays and remains completely healthy until the TDL, I would be open to an extension for another 2-3 years at a reasonable rate, depending on what happens to Edler. Keeping both beyond 2 years is not a good idea.

          • Bud Poile

            According to Shannon,teams were offering a fourth for Tanev.
            Tanev has never played a full season and he’s 6 months away from the other side of 30.
            Keeping Tanev as a second pair D is acceptable if the market isn’t there now.
            Re-sign him without an NTC and see if he can remain healthy at the TDL.

        • Goon

          I was referring to Tryamkin, who isn’t coming back and isn’t good.

          Zaitsev is okay offensively, and is god-awful defensively. He had a negative even-strength goal differential this year on a team that was +35 at even-strength. He is not a replacement for Tanev, even old-and-broken Tanev.

          Also, you’ve argued endlessly in the past that Tanev is *not* declining due to age and injury and now you’ve changed your tune?

  • I’d like to know if Benning would be willing to trade down a spot for a 3rd round pick. That seems to be the going cost of swap picks and move up in the first round:

    2018: St. Louis (#29, #70) – Toronto (#25)
    2017: Dallas (#29, #70) – Chicago (#26)
    2016: NJ (#12, #80) – Ottawa (#11)
    2014: Chicago (#27, #62) – SJ (#20, #179) – Upgraded SJ’s 6th to a 3rd.

    • North Van Halen

      The only one of those deals thats comparable is 2016 and NJ moving up 1 spot for a mid 3rd. So a 3rd might get you one maaaaaybe 2 spots in the draft.
      Someone they are convinced is a clear step better than all the other options would have to be available to make that deal because there will still be several similarly ranked players at that points and I’m sure Benning & co would be convinced they’ll get a pretty good prospect with our 3rd as well..

  • Kanuckhotep

    Indeed it would be far too costly to move up in the draft and only Jack Hughes, Kakko and Bowram would be worth any kind of risk. Unfortunately the Canucks are not deep enough to deal up to those guys and Benning should get a decent player at #10 regardless. And Tryamkin? It wouldn’t hurt if the guy could actually work out here but that ship has in all likelihood sailed, comrade. And no smurfs JB.