Canucks Pro Scouting

[F A N]

I keep hearing some posters say that the Canucks have the worst pro scouting in the league. These same posters place all the blame on Benning. But let's take a closer look at the Canucks' pro scouting staff.

The Canucks' officially list their pro scouts as Lou Crawford, Brett Henning, Neil Komadowski, and Lars Lindgren. Lars Lindgren appears to be the Canucks' European pro scout. Until June 2015, the director of pro scouting was Eric Crawford. Lucien Deblois used to be a pro scout but has since moved to the amateur side under Benning since last season?

Unofficially, Benning and Weisbrod likely do a lot of pro scouting themselves.

What we don't know is how much influence our pro scouts have after Benning and Weisbrod took over. Prior to that, we know that Eric Crawford was the man under Gillis, but he was instrumental in the two big trades with Florida (Ballard and Booth) and the Hodgson trade (with Wayne Simmonds being the only decent target). We also know that up to June 2015, Eric Crawford was the head pro scout, which meant he might have played a role in the Forsling trade etc.

Should the Canucks clean house? Eric Crawford is gone, but Lou Crawford and Brett Henning remain as scouts who were seemingly hired due to their connection with then Canucks coach or executive.

Click to read more...

 

[Free Edler]

In an ideal world, the Canucks should clean house, especially in their pro scouting department, but we all know nothing much will change, especially among the senior employees. Look at Ron Delorme in amateur scouting. He's still in the organization nearly 20 years after people starting calling for his head.

 

[absolute garbage]

Canucks pro scouting has been all Benning (and Weisbrod) since Benning took over. That's what he identifies as, a scout. He's been doing that for decades, so he gets the players he likes and thinks he can win with. And now for the first time in his career he is in a position to do that. That's been obvious considering the players coming in and the arrogance he has displayed. I would be extremely surprised if there was some sort of meaningful dialogue going on there (excluding Europe based scouts, I'm sure he listens those, for example regarding Larsen and Rodin).

Gillis came more from a business background and wasn't really "a scout" so there were probably more voices in the process of identifying players to target. But this is just Benning's vision, his voice and those that parrot it.

 

[banme*]

Canucks pro scouting has been all Benning (and Weisbrod) since Benning took over. That's what he identifies as, a scout. He's been doing that for decades, so he gets the players he likes and thinks he can win with. And now for the first time in his career he is in a position to do that. That's been obvious considering the players coming in and the arrogance he has displayed. I would be extremely surprised if there was some sort of meaningful dialogue going on there (excluding Europe based scouts, I'm sure he listens those, for example regarding Larsen and Rodin).

Gillis came more from a business background and wasn't really "a scout" so there were probably more voices in the process of identifying players to target. But this is just Benning's vision, his voice and those that parrot it.

Lol what a hack job.

 

[beachcomber]

Every bad move made is Bennings fault. Any good move or draft was somebody else's doing.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Canucks pro scouting has been all Benning (and Weisbrod) since Benning took over. That's what he identifies as, a scout. He's been doing that for decades, so he gets the players he likes and thinks he can win with. And now for the first time in his career he is in a position to do that. That's been obvious considering the players coming in and the arrogance he has displayed. I would be extremely surprised if there was some sort of meaningful dialogue going on there (excluding Europe based scouts, I'm sure he listens those, for example regarding Larsen and Rodin).

Gillis came more from a business background and wasn't really "a scout" so there were probably more voices in the process of identifying players to target. But this is just Benning's vision, his voice and those that parrot it.

Not a scrap of evidence to back up your assertions, typical

 

[opendoor]

I'd think the fact that management or the coaching staff have personal experience with a huge portion of the team's pro acquisitions should give a pretty good idea of who is behind these moves.

Do people really think the Canucks' scouts had to twist Willie's arm to want to get Dorsett, Vey, or Etem? Or explain to Weisbrod why Baertschi and Granlund were players they needed to target? Or plead their case to Benning why he needed to get Miller, Bartkowski, Eriksson, or go for Lucic?

 

[Hollywood Burrows]

Gillis regime made many savvy pro-scouting moves (Samuelsson contract, Higgins/Lapierre, Erhoff, Torres, etc) to go along with their mistakes. Benning so far has been basically 100% mistakes? I don't think there's been a successful pro acquisition yet. Vrbata is closest, but the terrible way they handled him after signing him kinda mitigates any success.

My point is, the scouting staff is largely the same, so I put a lot of responsibility on the guys at the top. Benning's pro scouting has been an utter and indisputable failure, and it's mostly on him. The fact that they keep acquiring players who have some personal connection to the coach or GM is pretty good evidence that these are Benning's moves and not coming on the advice of pro scouts.

 

[MadaCanuckle]

Not a scrap of evidence to back up your assertions, typical

Well...

http://thehockeywriters.com/canucks-gm-benning-talks-prospects-scouting/

... maybe, just maybe the Sabres are not that pro, but the Lightning are something similar to cup contenders, or I'm not seeing this right?


Edit: A simple google search finds a simple link. In the second page, you have a link which details some of the pro scouting trips Benning has done. But I'll leave that you. Because, really, there's no evidence of "that", whatever "that" fact is against your saviour.

 

[VanJack]

According to my calculations, the Canucks surrendered draft picks to acquire pro players: Vey, Pedan, Baertschi, Etem, Prust and Gudbranson; and included drafted prospects like Shinkaruk, McCann and Forsling for Granlund, Gudbranson and Clendening...I guess the jury's still out on Baertschi, Granlund and Gudbranson....but you have to admit, that's pretty alarming record for the pro scouts.

 

[Hit the post]

Not a scrap of evidence to back up your assertions, typical

Think abcdefg was actually paying a compliment to you.

You know...imitation is the......

 

[WTG]

Every bad move made is Bennings fault. Any good move or draft was somebody else's doing.

Pro scouting =/= amateur scouting

 

[F A N]

Canucks pro scouting has been all Benning (and Weisbrod) since Benning took over. That's what he identifies as, a scout. He's been doing that for decades.

Benning's background is that of an amateur scout. Weisbrod is more on the pro side. Gillis' background is that of a player agent, which meant his livelihood depended on being able to identify NHL talents early (his own admission).

I'd think the fact that management or the coaching staff have personal experience with a huge portion of the team's pro acquisitions should give a pretty good idea of who is behind these moves.

Do people really think the Canucks' scouts had to twist Willie's arm to want to get Dorsett, Vey, or Etem? Or explain to Weisbrod why Baertschi and Granlund were players they needed to target? Or plead their case to Benning why he needed to get Miller, Bartkowski, Eriksson, or go for Lucic?

So you're saying Benning shouldn't talk to Willie or his assistant GM? There are like 4 official pro scouts on the team.

Benning so far has been basically 100% mistakes? I don't think there's been a successful pro acquisition yet. Vrbata is closest, but the terrible way they handled him after signing him kinda mitigates any success.

Baertschi, Vrbata, Bonino, Sutter, Bartkowski, Miller, and Dorsett have come pretty close to advertised. Most of Benning's acquisitions have not proven to be big disappointments. In fact, Baertschi may prove to be a gem, Vrbata was certainly a good signing for what they were trying to accomplish, Bartkowski and Dorsett actually put up career numbers the year after being acquired. Some people think that good pro scouting involves acquiring players that outperform expectations or acquire stars for next to nothing like Naslund. That's simply not the case. The biggest thing is to be in the ball park of what you expect out of the player. Avoid the Ballards, the Sturms, the Veys, and the Sbisas (not the acquisition but the re-signing).

 

[geebaan]

Benning's background is that of an amateur scout. Weisbrod is more on the pro side. Gillis' background is that of a player agent, which meant his livelihood depended on being able to identify NHL talents early (his own admission).



So you're saying Benning shouldn't talk to Willie or his assistant GM? There are like 4 official pro scouts on the team.



Baertschi, Vrbata, Bonino, Sutter, Bartkowski, Miller, and Dorsett have come pretty close to advertised. Most of Benning's acquisitions have not proven to be big disappointments. In fact, Baertschi may prove to be a gem, Vrbata was certainly a good signing for what they were trying to accomplish, Bartkowski and Dorsett actually put up career numbers the year after being acquired. Some people think that good pro scouting involves acquiring players that outperform expectations or acquire stars for next to nothing like Naslund. That's simply not the case. The biggest thing is to be in the ball park of what you expect out of the player. Avoid the Ballards, the Sturms, the Veys, and the Sbisas (not the acquisition but the re-signing).

Baertschi=totally worth the gamble, little high on the price, but I'd say solid overall, even if he didn't/doesn't work out.

Vrbata=great first year, then we screwed it up the second season. All those arguments have been hashed and re-hashed so we know the drill on this.

Bonino-really liked, then proceeded to get traded. All in all a succes/failure

Sutter-too little games to make a judgement yet, but that contract is heinous....

Bartkowski-was garbage, start to finish for us that year. Clear failure.

Dorsett-fine first season, aquistition price iffy, but given just another terrible contract.

Miller-my own personal bias, but I am on the eddie lack train of thought with this still, so agree to disagree probably on this one.

I'd say the pro scouting with these examples, is mixed to bad at BEST. Wouldn't you want your GM to be even half good? We can't even seem to get that.

 

[F A N]

Baertschi=totally worth the gamble, little high on the price, but I'd say solid overall, even if he didn't/doesn't work out.

Vrbata=great first year, then we screwed it up the second season. All those arguments have been hashed and re-hashed so we know the drill on this.

Bonino-really liked, then proceeded to get traded. All in all a succes/failure

Sutter-too little games to make a judgement yet, but that contract is heinous....

Bartkowski-was garbage, start to finish for us that year. Clear failure.

Dorsett-fine first season, aquistition price iffy, but given just another terrible contract.

Miller-my own personal bias, but I am on the eddie lack train of thought with this still, so agree to disagree probably on this one.

I'd say the pro scouting with these examples, is mixed to bad at BEST. Wouldn't you want your GM to be even half good? We can't even seem to get that.

Signing guys to contracts that are slightly overpaid or a year or more too long isn't quite evidence of bad pro scouting. The thing with contracts for UFA years is that rarely do you have players performing to expectations until the very end. It's always at least a year too long and usually an overpayment. Look at the contracts Gillis handed out. Bieksa good until the end? Nope. Burrows good until the end? Nope. Higgins good until the end? Nope. Samuelsson good until the end? Nope. But that's the price of admission. The important thing is that the player the Canucks thought were getting is pretty close to the player that the Canucks got at least initially.

Bonino wasn't quite the player Benning thought he was getting but at his best he was exactly the player Benning envisioned him to be.

Sutter, despite the small sample, has shown to be exactly the type of player Benning envisioned. He improved his possession and faceoff stats and looked like a 20+ goal scorer. The contract he signed is not heinous. We've been through that.

Bartkowski was pretty bad, but there was a risk that he would be as bad as he was in his last year in Boston. He didn't show better but he wasn't exactly worse than the Dman he was in his last year of Boston.

Dorsett is overpaid. But he's a legitimate 4th line winger in the NHL.

Miller is aging, declining, and overpaid, but he has been a #1 calibre goaltender the past two years. It's in no way a disaster.

There's a difference between a great signing and great scouting. Was Torres a great signing? Yes. Was it great scouting? Not exactly. Torres actually produced less offensively than the previous year. But it's not poor scouting because Torres pretty much came close to advertised.

There are bound to be hits and misses. Projecting a player's development is almost as hard as projecting 18 year olds.