Former Canucks and Management

[arttk]

Well Benning promoted Judd Brackett this past summer. I'm not saying Gillis didn't make changes. He did in the form of promoting Gradin (in title at least) and adding scouts. But there wasn't a big change in leadership as Delorme was still running things up to and including the 2012 draft and that's on Gillis good or bad.


That scouting department Gillis inherited was almost exactly the same scouting department he left Benning with. The biggest change was promoting Crawford who was a guy Gillis inherited. Eric Crawford's scouting has been hit and miss. I wouldn't say the scouting department was fixed by Gillis.



Right, but that new CEO should be held responsible for having taken so long when he came in criticizing the scouting department and then kind of kept the status quo for a few years and only started trending upwards when me made bigger changes.

Well it seems like Brackett is a MG hire, just so that he wasn't the top guy.

I am not sure it matters if in the end the scouting department "looked" the same. Sometimes all you need is better process and injection of some key personnel to make it work better, it's not like firing everyone is the only way to improve things.

You keep repeating that he kept the status quo but the fact is he has been changing things in the background and it takes time for those changes to surface. Scouting was trending up, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. All these drafts are heavily influenced by MG's changes.
Even 2009 might not look that bad if Rodin can make a come back and Connauton seems like a NHL regular too and if McNally can make it as a player, that will make 2010 look pretty impressive considering there were only 3-4 picks in the lower rounds.

One of the key things you have to recognize is that MG not only improved scouting over the years, he also improved development. Look at Utica, that is all MG.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

If a guy like McNally is considered "on the bubble" that's one big ****ing bubble

Still waiting on you to tell me which Canucks GM had their first 2 picks play in the NHL at age 19.

 

[MS]

Still waiting on you to tell me which Canucks GM had their first 2 picks play in the NHL at age 19.

Harry Neale's first 3 #1 picks played in the NHL at age 19, and he was probably the worst GM in franchise history.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

Harry Neale's first 3 #1 picks played in the NHL at age 19, and he was probably the worst GM in franchise history.

Nah, he was implying it was Burke. Most people forget that he ran the '98 draft, and neither of his first 2 picks (Allen and Chubarov) played in the NHL at 19.

 

[MS]

Nah, he was implying it was Burke. Most people forget that he ran the '98 draft, and neither of his first 2 picks (Allen and Chubarov) played in the NHL at 19.

Ah.

Burke had nothing to do with the 1998 draft, in any case. He was hired from the NHL head office a few days before the draft and hadn't scouted anyone in years.

That draft was the last draft of the Penney/Quinn era, even though Quinn was gone. Penney followed later that summer and Delorme took over for 1999.

Also Jarkko Ruutu was a 100% Mike Keenan selection - had gone to the WCs at the end of the season and seen him there, and pushed for the pick.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

I learned something today.

 

[Reign Nateo]

Neale became GM after getting suspended and Nielsen took over coaching in '82... Neely drafted in '83, J.J. Daigneault in '84, then Sandlak I think? For Neale's first 3 drafts? Amazed I remembered that... Was Sandlak in the NHL at 19? Was definitely a promising start for Neale!

 

[MS]

Neale became GM after getting suspended and Nielsen took over coaching in '82... Neely drafted in '83, J.J. Daigneault in '84, then Sandlak I think? For Neale's first 3 drafts? Amazed I remembered that... Was Sandlak in the NHL at 19? Was definitely a promising start for Neale!

Michel Petit, Neely, and Daigneault 1982-84.

Decent picks, brutal GM.

 

[GJB]

'That's Hockey' last night had on the ticker:

"Vancouver Canucks return D Martin Grenier to Utica"

Quite random!

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=35715

Same height as Alex too!

 

[F A N]

Well it seems like Brackett is a MG hire, just so that he wasn't the top guy.

I am not sure it matters if in the end the scouting department "looked" the same. Sometimes all you need is better process and injection of some key personnel to make it work better, it's not like firing everyone is the only way to improve things.

What I wrote was in the context of you essentially suggesting that it was unrealistic to make sweeping changes to the scouting department upon taking the job and that Gillis somehow inherited a terrible scouting department and somehow fixed it. So in the latter context, it certainly matters that the scouting department "looked" similar. But that's not my main point. My main point is that it's entirely realistic to make sweeping changes to the scouting department. In fact, I have constantly given credit for being the one to finally demote Delorme! It's just that I disagree with the notion Gillis should be excused (and if it's good not given credit) for his earlier drafts just because he was working with scouts he inherited.

You keep repeating that he kept the status quo but the fact is he has been changing things in the background and it takes time for those changes to surface. Scouting was trending up, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. All these drafts are heavily influenced by MG's changes.

There's a difference between "scouting department" and "scouting criterias." You keep saying Gillis fixed the scouting department but it took Gillis removing Delorme from his seat of power (which you argued was unrealistic to do when Gillis first took his job). Every GM have players they want their scouts to look for. Gillis beefed up the team's scouting but kept the same scouting leadership for years (Delorme). I wish Gillis didn't keep chasing goal posts. You can see it in his drafts. There were certain themes that existed.

One of the key things you have to recognize is that MG not only improved scouting over the years, he also improved development. Look at Utica, that is all MG.

He did. Full credit to Gillis for convincing Aquilini to buy an AHL team.

Look. I was big supporter of Gillis. I loved the fact that he tried to gain every edge that might exist. But when it came to scouting, he relied a lot on Eric Crawford and the results are hit and miss. I don't think the Canucks drafting would ever be among the better teams with Delorme or Eric Crawford at the helm. So for me, I don't mind the personnel change at all. I think it's about time. Let's see what Benning and the guys he put into place can do.

 

[arttk]

What I wrote was in the context of you essentially suggesting that it was unrealistic to make sweeping changes to the scouting department upon taking the job and that Gillis somehow inherited a terrible scouting department and somehow fixed it. So in the latter context, it certainly matters that the scouting department "looked" similar. But that's not my main point. My main point is that it's entirely realistic to make sweeping changes to the scouting department. In fact, I have constantly given credit for being the one to finally demote Delorme! It's just that I disagree with the notion Gillis should be excused (and if it's good not given credit) for his earlier drafts just because he was working with scouts he inherited.



There's a difference between "scouting department" and "scouting criterias." You keep saying Gillis fixed the scouting department but it took Gillis removing Delorme from his seat of power (which you argued was unrealistic to do when Gillis first took his job). Every GM have players they want their scouts to look for. Gillis beefed up the team's scouting but kept the same scouting leadership for years (Delorme). I wish Gillis didn't keep chasing goal posts. You can see it in his drafts. There were certain themes that existed.



He did. Full credit to Gillis for convincing Aquilini to buy an AHL team.

Look. I was big supporter of Gillis. I loved the fact that he tried to gain every edge that might exist. But when it came to scouting, he relied a lot on Eric Crawford and the results are hit and miss. I don't think the Canucks drafting would ever be among the better teams with Delorme or Eric Crawford at the helm. So for me, I don't mind the personnel change at all. I think it's about time. Let's see what Benning and the guys he put into place can do.

Is it possible to revamp the scouting department right away? Yeah sure l, is it wise when you are new to the organization and has no prior knowledge of anyone there? No. Removing Delrome is good, but what good can be done if you replace him with an equally ****** scout.

I would argue that the scouting improved not just because Delrome was removed, but also because he found a guy who is good to replace him and finding a guy who is good is not as easy as you make it to be.
You walk into a room of scouts, if you want to evaluate all of them quantatively, it will take years. Ask for a list and it takes at least 3-4 years to know if the list is good or not, just the nature of it.

 

[F A N]

Is it possible to revamp the scouting department right away? Yeah sure l, is it wise when you are new to the organization and has no prior knowledge of anyone there? No. Removing Delrome is good, but what good can be done if you replace him with an equally ****** scout.

So you agree that it is realistic to revamp the scouting department right away or within a year then?

Who said anything about replacing Delorme with a worse or equally bad replacement? The object is to get better. But if you have a group that has underperformed for years is it any big loss to tear it down?

I'm not saying Gillis was wrong to take a year to evaluate his staff. He shouldn't need to take 3-4 years to come to the conclusion that he needed someone else to be in charge of the amateur draft.

I would argue that the scouting improved not just because Delrome was removed, but also because he found a guy who is good to replace him and finding a guy who is good is not as easy as you make it to be.
You walk into a room of scouts, if you want to evaluate all of them quantatively, it will take years. Ask for a list and it takes at least 3-4 years to know if the list is good or not, just the nature of it.

Exactly. Find a guy to replace Delorme. I don't think it's that hard to do. I have given you examples of where directors of scouting have been replaced within a years's time. Delorme has been at the head of the Canucks draft table for years. His record, whether he was directly responsible or not, was there to see. When Gillis came onboard, he immediately promoted Eric Crawford. Should it take years for him to decide that Crawford is the guy? I'm not so sure about that.