2018 Management Discussion, Pt. II

[I in the Eye]

I like the fact that Brackett seems to have an appreciation advanced stats.

This is where the red flag comes to me... Last year seemed "smart", based on more substance. This year seemed to get away from that. For example, was Woo really the best option based on what the advanced stats suggest... a hidden gem found through looking at patterns below the surface? This year seemed more Eye for Talent and intangibles-based... The video and interviews haven't squashed my suspisions. What analysis would have Brackett wanting Hughes over Zadina? We know what the Benning / Weisbrod analysis would look like... but what about Brackett's? Maybe Hughes will end up better... but was it based on position and need and intangibles and gut feelings, like the rest of them?

This year, Brackett seemed to fit with what Benning and weisbrod were saying... and not be a differing voice or an added voice of reason. He seemed to be on the same page with Benning and Weisbrod... and fit in... which is concerning, imo. Brackett may not be relying on science as much as I thought, or hoped. This is a religious organization, so I shouldn't be surprised if belief and faith and gut feelings trump science. I may have jumped the gun on Brackett's approach based on the 2017 draft... and assuming how the decisions to pick the players in his region came to be since in the organization. If it's not based on science at its core... and it's based on belief at its core, then his results will likely be very average at best, in the end. He'll probably have difficulty outperforming the potato. He seemed and sounded and made recommendations like a Benning Bro... which is a red flag. Brainwashed by the cult? I.e. when in stupid Rome... do what stupid Romans do?

 

[PuckMunchkin]

This is where the red flag comes to me... Last year seemed "smart", based on more substance. This year seemed to get away from that. For example, was Woo really the best option based on what the advanced stats suggest... a hidden gem found through looking at patterns below the surface? This year seemed more Eye for Talent and intangibles-based... The video and interviews haven't squashed my suspisions. What analysis would have Brackett wanting Hughes over Zadina? We know what the Benning / Weisbrod analysis would look like... but what about Brackett's? Maybe Hughes will end up better... but was it based on position and need and intangibles and gut feelings, like the rest of them?

This year, Brackett seemed to fit with what Benning and weisbrod were saying... and not be a differing voice or an added voice of reason. He seemed to be on the same page with Benning and Weisbrod... and fit in... which is concerning, imo. Brackett may not be relying on science as much as I thought, or hoped. This is a religious organization, so I shouldn't be surprised if belief and faith and gut feelings trump science. I may have jumped the gun on Brackett's approach based on the 2017 draft... and assuming how the decisions to pick the players in his region came to be since in the organization. If it's not based on science at its core... and it's based on belief at its core, then his results will likely be very average at best, in the end. He'll probably have difficulty outperforming the potato. He seemed and sounded and made recommendations like a Benning Bro... which is a red flag. Brainwashed by the cult? I.e. when in stupid Rome... do what stupid Romans do?

Just some points in no particular order;

Would not read too much in to how or what he says or what they are willing to show on these videos. To me it seems like he has plenty of leverage over how the draft goes for Canucks.

Something fishy with Zadina falling. The teams know something we dont?

Hughes did more in his freshman season than Zach Werenski did in his draft year.

I know that stats get a bad rep on these forums but according to Canucks Army Woo’s pGPS matches, we can see that he has an expected likelihood of success of 30.9%. That’s very good value at the 37th overall slot and roughly commensurate with what would be expected of a late first-round pick.

I have no issue taking a flyer on Manukyan at 186th.

 

[mossey3535]

Neither Benning or Weisbrod seemed to do much in that video. Was that Delorme at the top of the table? Also didn't seem to have much input.

Trevor is definitely tainted for me but I'm not sure why anyone expected him to have input into this process.

 

[mossey3535]

Also, why are we even talking about some perceived ability of this or any group to scout? I think the stats have long shown that you have to make an obvious pick if you have a top-5/10 depending on the depth of the draft, then not terrible late 1st/2nd round picks. After that it's a crapshoot.

Nothing "works" except consistent pick stockpiling and sheer numbers game, which is something we've just as consistently refused to do.

 

[sting101]

This is where the red flag comes to me... Last year seemed "smart", based on more substance. This year seemed to get away from that. For example, was Woo really the best option based on what the advanced stats suggest... a hidden gem found through looking at patterns below the surface? This year seemed more Eye for Talent and intangibles-based... The video and interviews haven't squashed my suspisions. What analysis would have Brackett wanting Hughes over Zadina? We know what the Benning / Weisbrod analysis would look like... but what about Brackett's? Maybe Hughes will end up better... but was it based on position and need and intangibles and gut feelings, like the rest of them?

This year, Brackett seemed to fit with what Benning and weisbrod were saying... and not be a differing voice or an added voice of reason. He seemed to be on the same page with Benning and Weisbrod... and fit in... which is concerning, imo. Brackett may not be relying on science as much as I thought, or hoped. This is a religious organization, so I shouldn't be surprised if belief and faith and gut feelings trump science. I may have jumped the gun on Brackett's approach based on the 2017 draft... and assuming how the decisions to pick the players in his region came to be since in the organization. If it's not based on science at its core... and it's based on belief at its core, then his results will likely be very average at best, in the end. He'll probably have difficulty outperforming the potato. He seemed and sounded and made recommendations like a Benning Bro... which is a red flag. Brainwashed by the cult? I.e. when in stupid Rome... do what stupid Romans do?

yes it would be nice to have the former scouting staffs running the show. Gillis and Gillman explaining why they drafted the worst skater at their draft position possible sounded so intellectually pleasing.

 

[Hit the post]

yes it would be nice to have the former scouting staffs running the show. Gillis and Gillman explaining why they drafted the worst skater at their draft position possible sounded so intellectually pleasing.

Or just look for somebody with neither of those weaknesses.

 

[Hodgy]

Or just look for somebody with neither of those weaknesses.

No. All management must be compared to Mike Gillis.

 

[sting101]

Neither Benning or Weisbrod seemed to do much in that video. Was that Delorme at the top of the table? Also didn't seem to have much input.

Trevor is definitely tainted for me but I'm not sure why anyone expected him to have input into this process.

i dont think Linden was even there on day 1.

Do you guys know that they actually make lists before the draft? What input would be needed unless something changes like Zadina dropping to 7 which obviously had them at least contemplating a change.

 

[CanaFan]

i dont think Linden was even there on day 1.

Do you guys know that they actually make lists before the draft? What input would be needed unless something changes like Zadina dropping to 7 which obviously had them at least contemplating a change.

Probably input like the conversation about taking a goalie in Round 3? Clearly lists exist but they are used for reference, not strict adherence, as the draft unfolds.

 

[The Drop]

lol that's some pathetic responses from F A N

 

[PuckMunchkin]

lol that's some pathetic responses from F A N

I thought it was reasonable, even if I don't agree a lot of it.

 

[sting101]

Probably input like the conversation about taking a goalie in Round 3? Clearly lists exist but they are used for reference, not strict adherence, as the draft unfolds.

Positional depth should have some consideration and these are discussions that they need to have at certain points of course.

I'm not advocating they just sit like deaf mutes and scroll down a list but people that are concerned with draft day discussions like they have to be making logical argumnts for players live when it was already done shows a lack of understanding for the process.

 

[Jay Cee]

Probably input like the conversation about taking a goalie in Round 3? Clearly lists exist but they are used for reference, not strict adherence, as the draft unfolds.

Yup and what GM doesn't talk to their AGM and head scout constantly during the draft? It's a fluid thing. Just because for instance Jim Benning was asking about Kole Lind at last year's draft it wasn't like OMG that is a Benning pick. He was more likely curious why a guy they all had pegged so high in the draft was still there.

 

[CanaFan]

Positional depth should have some consideration and these are discussions that they need to have at certain points of course.

I'm not advocating they just sit like deaf mutes and scroll down a list but people that are concerned with draft day discussions like they have to be making logical argumnts for players live when it was already done shows a lack of understanding for the process.

Sure, I’ve not really been following all the nuances of the discussion to-date, was just speaking to the role that lists play and whether they preclude having discussions or spontaneous deviations during the draft.

 

[JT Milker]

This is where the red flag comes to me... Last year seemed "smart", based on more substance. This year seemed to get away from that. For example, was Woo really the best option based on what the advanced stats suggest... a hidden gem found through looking at patterns below the surface? This year seemed more Eye for Talent and intangibles-based... The video and interviews haven't squashed my suspisions. What analysis would have Brackett wanting Hughes over Zadina? We know what the Benning / Weisbrod analysis would look like... but what about Brackett's? Maybe Hughes will end up better... but was it based on position and need and intangibles and gut feelings, like the rest of them?

This year, Brackett seemed to fit with what Benning and weisbrod were saying... and not be a differing voice or an added voice of reason. He seemed to be on the same page with Benning and Weisbrod... and fit in... which is concerning, imo. Brackett may not be relying on science as much as I thought, or hoped. This is a religious organization, so I shouldn't be surprised if belief and faith and gut feelings trump science. I may have jumped the gun on Brackett's approach based on the 2017 draft... and assuming how the decisions to pick the players in his region came to be since in the organization. If it's not based on science at its core... and it's based on belief at its core, then his results will likely be very average at best, in the end. He'll probably have difficulty outperforming the potato. He seemed and sounded and made recommendations like a Benning Bro... which is a red flag. Brainwashed by the cult? I.e. when in stupid Rome... do what stupid Romans do?

I thought Hughes actually had a better adjusted ppg than Zadina this past year (ie NHLe or whatever)

Full disclosure: I’m not going to look it up

 

[Melvin]

I thought Hughes actually had a better adjusted ppg than Zadina this past year (ie NHLe or whatever)

Full disclosure: I’m not going to look it up

Doubtful. Big 10 is the weakest conference and rated similarly to OHL.

Re: 2018 draft. The trend over the last few years has been smaller players, and the Canucks have jumped on the bandwagon with fervor, drafting possibly the smallest class in history. Your opinion of this depends on in how much you believe this trend, or if you think, as I do, that this is the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction, where something that was previously undervalued is now overvalued.

 

[racerjoe]

Doubtful. Big 10 is the weakest conference and rated similarly to OHL.

Re: 2018 draft. The trend over the last few years has been smaller players, and the Canucks have jumped on the bandwagon with fervor, drafting possibly the smallest class in history. Your opinion of this depends on in how much you believe this trend, or if you think, as I do, that this is the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction, where something that was previously undervalued is now overvalued.

I think it is very important to draft skill first. The NHL is trying to move towards a skill game. Having said that you do need a mix. There is no question in the past we swung to far the other way. I think it is something that maybe can't be just looked at over a 2 draft period of time.

 

[CanaFan]

I think it is very important to draft skill first. The NHL is trying to move towards a skill game. Having said that you do need a mix. There is no question in the past we swung to far the other way. I think it is something that maybe can't be just looked at over a 2 draft period of time.

Agree and I’m not sure we’ve actually “gone overboard” on size/skill either.

Other than Hughes, in the top 2 rounds we’ve taken a 6’0 200lb physical defenseman (Woo), a 6’2 but very skinny skilled forward (Pettersson), a 6’1 forward with a mix of skill and pestiness (Lind), a 6’2 power forward (Gadjovich), and a 6’3 skilled but slight defenseman (Juolevi).

Sure we’ve taken some swings on smaller players in later rounds (Rathbone, Manukyan, Palmu) but that’s what you get in the late rounds. Other than Hughes, we haven’t spent any picks of high value on undersized players.

 

[JT Milker]

Doubtful. Big 10 is the weakest conference and rated similarly to OHL.

That may be true historically (which would be the factor used in adjusted ppg I guess) but it certainly wasn't true this past season, the Big 10 was possibly the strongest in the NCAA.

I looked at the canucks army rankings and the plethora of stats they use, Hughes and Zadina were very comparable, both strong. Probably a case where choosing based on need isn't unreasonable.

 

[Melvin]

That may be true historically (which would be the factor used in adjusted ppg I guess) but it certainly wasn't true this past season, the Big 10 was possibly the strongest in the NCAA.

I looked at the canucks army rankings and the plethora of stats they use, Hughes and Zadina were very comparable, both strong. Probably a case where choosing based on need isn't unreasonable.

I don't believe in single season samples for league equivalencies.

 

[JT Milker]

I don't believe in single season samples for league equivalencies.

Maybe not, but it should be an asterisk when discussing Hughes’ performance.

 

[Consistencee]

I went to the Ottawa boards to see what life is like and it should at least give some measure of comfort that even THEIR franchise has do or die management supporters. Not as many as ours but still...

They even going as far to disparage Stevie Y because he (paraphrased) 'hasn't won anything yet and if he doesn't then he will have failed'. I feel a kinship with those having to even bother to argue as to why PD/management is awful.

I view him as bad if not worse than Benning in many ways. At least he has an excuse somewhat due to having one of the worst owners in league history. What's our excuse again?

 

[bossram]

Just some points in no particular order;

Would not read too much in to how or what he says or what they are willing to show on these videos. To me it seems like he has plenty of leverage over how the draft goes for Canucks.

Something fishy with Zadina falling. The teams know something we dont?

Hughes did more in his freshman season than Zach Werenski did in his draft year.

I know that stats get a bad rep on these forums but according to Canucks Army Woo’s pGPS matches, we can see that he has an expected likelihood of success of 30.9%. That’s very good value at the 37th overall slot and roughly commensurate with what would be expected of a late first-round pick.

I have no issue taking a flyer on Manukyan at 186th.

Mostly agree. I don't think their rationales were "bad", and I wouldn't read too much from their clips anyway. I'm more just mad they passed on Wise twice, who through an more analytically inclined lens was clearly a 1st round talent.

On the Hughes thing though, I wouldn't really say if this is true or not. I definitely wanted Hughes in that spot, but the Werenski comparison isn't great because Zach was nearly a full year younger than Hughes was at the same level in their freshman years. He accelerated his schooling to get to Michigan faster.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Brackett is doing great.

Retired H.Sedin D.Sedin Dorsett will be replaced by Pettersson Leipsic/Goldobin Roussel.

Dowd Gaunce replaced by Beagle Schaller

1yr deals:
Granlund-Gaudette Goldobin/Leipsic-Dahlen Hutton-Juolevi Pouliot-Hughes Del Zotto-??? Edler-??? Nilsson-Demko
2yrs:
Gagner-Lind Schaller-Gadjovich

Where is this lack of opportunity or blockage that many speak of?

We are harder to play against physically and have some really nice prospects that are now in the pro stages with opportunity.

Why so negative?

There is no lack of opportunity or blockage that the JD Burke crew speaks of.

It’s just like a few years ago when people on here got upset that we acquired Brandon Prust because Prust was “holding back” Brendan Gaunce (the reality was that Gaunce wasn’t quite NHL ready at the time).

 

[CanaFan]

There is no lack of opportunity or blockage that the JD Burke crew speaks of.

It’s just like a few years ago when people on here got upset that we acquired Brandon Prust because Prust was “holding back” Brendan Gaunce (the reality was that Gaunce wasn’t quite NHL ready at the time).

People thought Prust was going to hold back Gaunce? Musta missed that one. All I remember besides how badly he played was him whining to Willie about not playing in NYR resulting in Virtanen getting scratched instead.