Former Canucks and Management

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Actually, if worded differently, both positions are true:

1) Benning's deal isn't up to spec (the majority already think this, apart from how it relates to Gillis).

2) Ownership blocked Gillis from acting at the deadline (Vetted by Gallagher)

Both of these things can be true without having to give Gillis credit for the hypothetical deal he would have executed, but didn't.

I think problems arise when people try to tie Gillis into analyzing the poor moves by Benning. He doesn't need to be. Benning's porous moves can be judged on their own, and have been. Both by the fans of this board and from those across the rest.

Then you have no reference point for criticisms. Without Gillis' rumoured fairytale trade, all you have is pie in the sky stuff about what Kesler would have or could have garnered if only ...

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

It all sounds lovely, however the results were absolutely dreadful.

I'm not in disagreement with you on that. What I am in disagreement on, if you bothered to read the post, was that Gillis was standing pat and just letting the Canucks drafting crater while doing nothing.

But Nonis' drafting wasn't that bad -

Ahaha, wow. People wanted to tar and feather Nonis over his drafting. The Virtanen/Ehlers/Nylander debate paled in comparison to Bourdon/Kopitar and people were ******** themselves over the Patrick White selection.

As it stands, the drafting records of Nonis and Gillis are going to be about the same. The only difference is that Gillis managed to make the Canucks a contending team, while they floundered under Nonis.

so basically Gillis spent/wasted 4 years on rhetoric in order to get the Canucks drafting...back up to average as it was under Nonis.

I'd argue the Canucks drafting was comparable to Nonis under the same timespan. Particularly if you be charitable and credit the 2004 draft to Nonis. Given the timeframe of Burke's firing and Nonis' hiring, Nonis didn't have a lot of time to prepare for the draft and was probably working off of Burke's drafting list given that he was an internal hire.

But, Nonis managed to produce 6 NHL players in 3 drafts (Schneider, Edler, Mike Brown, Hansen, Raymond and Grabner.) If we want to include Bourdon as someone who would have likely made it, that bumps it up to 7. If you aren't charitable (like many people were towards him) the only guys he managed to find were Raymond, Burrows (but following the recent logic on here, he shouldn't get credit for that because Craig Heisinger was the one who was making him out to be a big deal) and Grabner.

We're still determining who is going to be making it, but Gillis managed to draft 3 players that are going to play 100+ games and there's still several players that look promising (Rodin, McNally and Friesen) while supplementing that with undrafted players in Lack and Tanev. There's also 1 "maybe" that everyone loves getting upset about (Corrado.)

Nor does it change much in regards to 4 years of the worst drafting in the NHL, and 2 mediocre / average drafts after that - if Shinkaruk even turns into an NHL regular.

No, but again, I was challenging the suggestion that it took 4 years to start trying to do something about the Canucks garbage draft record. I explained that and why Gillis "it took Gillis so long." He applied his process, it didn't work, so he started shuffling people in the scouting department around and things started looking a lot better.

 

[Bleach Clean]

What's the impetus for completely detaching Gillis from responsibility in a thorough evaluation though?

Because ownership is mean and didn't let Gillis fly? If we're buying into this idea that ownership is at fault here, then why is it all trickling down on Benning, but not raining down on Gillis...the guy who presumably lost the vote of confidence that owernship provides to a franchise spending their money?

Because by your own admission it's an unfair argument. Last time I checked, a 'thorough evaluation' did not include hypothetical reference points that are bolstered when negative, and diminished when positive. It's fallacious, and speaks to diversion instead of method/rationale.

Benning can be judged for his own trade. Every GM faces a certain set of circumstances when trading an asset. This is no different. I'm pretty certain that a remaining 2 year contract for a very good asset didn't completely kill its value, but you're welcome to believe otherwise.

Edit: I think the 2nd biggest problem in your analysis, aside from including Gillis in it, is that you are treating Benning and Gillis as two parallel entities with the same skill level. Positing that if Gillis was going to get X, then surely Benning would get "X - 1" based upon elapsed time. When you know full well that Gillis and Benning are not interchangeable constants --> Which makes arguing about expected levels of returns by the latter utterly absurd.

Then you have no frame of reference for criticisms. Without Gillis rumoured fairytale trade, all you have is pie in the sky stuff about what Kesler would have or could have garnered.

Why not work off of precedent?

 

[biturbo19]

Because by your own admission it's an unfair argument. Last time I checked, a 'thorough evaluation' did not include hypothetical reference points that are bolstered when negative, and diminished when positive. It's fallacious, and speaks to diversion instead of method/rationale.

Benning can be judged for his own trade. Every GM faces a certain set of circumstances when trading an asset. This is no different. I'm pretty certain that a remaining 2 year contract for a very good asset didn't completely kill its value, but you're welcome to believe otherwise.

Edit: I think the 2nd biggest problem in your analysis, aside from including Gillis in it, is that you are treating Benning and Gillis as two parallel entities with the same skill level. Positing that if Gillis was going to get X, then surely Benning would get "X - 1" based upon elapsed time. When you know full well that Gillis and Benning are not interchangeable constants --> Which makes arguing about expected levels of returns by the latter utterly absurd.

Okay. So why then, is Benning's return of Bonino, Sbisa, McCann, so frequently judged (and deemed poor) vs this hypothetical value people have in mind of what Kesler should have returned, in their own fantastical estimations?


The reality is, Benning and Gillis are always going to be compared. And the reality is also, that Gillis was the man in charge when Kesler made it known that he wanted out (and entirely possibly, that wanting out is part of his own doing as well). The guy who had every single advantage in trading that piece (age, contract years remaining, time, flexibility) didn't accomplish any trade at all with Kesler. Gillis straight up, had the better trade chip there...and turned it into...a disgruntled and untraded Kesler, with lesser value. That's bleeding asset value.


Now, if we want to absolve Gillis of all wrongdoing here, sure...maybe ownership vetoed that. But why? Because they had lost confidence in the direction Gillis was taking with the team. That is, like it or not...part of "management" in the national hockey league. And any way you slice it, Gillis does not pass muster here. He either botched things by failing to pull the trigger, or he botched things by losing the confidence of ownership with moves that didn't seem to be moving the team closer to the goal. Either way...not great.


Yet time and again, this comes up.


As for the last part...i honestly don't understand what you're trying to suggest there. I'm doing the exact opposite of treating Gillis and Benning as parallel entities...i'm actually acknowledging the difference a year makes. Acknowledging the timeline in a way that reflects events at the time and the accompanying needs. Piecing things together in a way that follows a realized chronology, with deference to the needs of various teams at specific points in the timeline, rather than some arbitrary "end state tally" as seems en vogue here.

 

[Verviticus]

losing the confidence of a stupid person is not a failing

 

[Wilch]

Okay. So why then, is Benning's return of Bonino, Sbisa, McCann, so frequently judged (and deemed poor) vs this hypothetical value people have in mind of what Kesler should have returned, in their own fantastical estimations?

When someone sells their perfectly functional 5 year old Mercedes SL65 for $1,000, it is perfectly reasonable to ponder what that person could have sold the car for if he hadn't been an imbecile.

 

[biturbo19]

When someone sells their perfectly functional 5 year old Mercedes SL65 for $1,000, it is perfectly reasonable to ponder what that person could have sold the car for if he hadn't been an imbecile.

Back to selling used cars i guess.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Okay. So why then, is Benning's return of Bonino, Sbisa, McCann, so frequently judged (and deemed poor) vs this hypothetical value people have in mind of what Kesler should have returned, in their own fantastical estimations?

Because that reference point is based on leaked information from hockey people. Rossi, Botchford, LeBrun and more. This isn't fabricated out of thin air. There are rumours citing these as the _offers_, and with Gillis pushing for more (Pouliot). Hell, certain sources even said that Shero acquiesced in the end (thehockeywriters.com). So the initial 'offers' were already in hand, waiting on acceptance. That's why people feel Benning should have gotten equivalent value, or more (which Gillis himself tried to push for).

The reality is, Benning and Gillis are always going to be compared.

Only if you _choose_ to compare them. It's not necessary.

I'm also not going to address the 'lesser asset/bleeding value' drivel. You're welcome to your own opinion on that front. It's not shared.

Now, if we want to absolve Gillis of all wrongdoing here, sure...maybe ownership vetoed that. But why? ...botched things by losing the confidence of ownership

Highly amusing. Now ownership is above reproach? Do tell.

As for the last part...i honestly don't understand what you're trying to suggest there. I'm doing the exact opposite of treating Gillis and Benning as parallel entities...i'm actually acknowledging the difference a year makes.

You're only acknowledging the time difference and not the difference in the ability of each GM. It's not the only factor in the eventual disparity we see in value. Against the Gillis hypothetical or by the trade precedents involving this calibre of player.

losing the confidence of a stupid person is not a failing

Exactly. Surprised this had to be said.

 

[F A N]

Gillis inherited a crap ass scouting department and the first couple years in charge shows that. The thing that you continue to ignore is that he improved it by quite a lot. It's easy to say, duh Gillis can't draft when you ignore all context.

JB inherited the scouting department that Gillis fixed and his first draft looks good, partly due to that.
I think it's safe to assume that this is JB's scouting department now 100% since he fired the guy who turned it around. If scouting starts to fall off, it will be pretty telling.

Putting things into context, Gillis' first press conference had him criticizing the Canucks' drafting and player development. When he traded his first round pick in 2010, he alluded to the fact that he felt the Canucks have drafted very well the past two years (2008 and 2009). Full credit goes to Gillis for actually putting someone other than Delorme in charge of the amateur draft and the changes implemented in the 2013 draft seems to have been for the better but Gillis shouldn't be excused for what, in hindsight, isn't bad drafting and player development but merely average among Canucks' GMs.

Benning has put his own stamp on the scouting department and it's amazing that he doesn't get credit for this. For years, everyone wanted Delorme fired or demoted. Under Benning, Delorme is pretty much where Gillis left him: a WHL scout with a fancy title. If you discount Linden, the hierarchy is Benning, Weisbrod, and Brackett before Delorme. Delorme essentially has been demoted a further rung down from where he was under Gillis. It's also important to note that Benning has instituted a system of cross-scouting where most of the scouts would have watched any particular player the Canucks convet. Additionally, Benning is an active scout who undoubtedly plays a big role in the Canucks' amateur scouting.

Personally, I don't think Eric Crawford is anything special as his record is hit and miss. He was able to work his way up as Gillis' main scout and is probably better than Delorme.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Under Benning, Delorme is pretty much where Gillis left him: a WHL scout with a fancy title. If you discount Linden, the hierarchy is Benning, Weisbrod, and Brackett before Delorme. Delorme essentially has been demoted a further rung down from where he was under Gillis. It's also important to note that Benning has instituted a system of cross-scouting where most of the scouts would have watched any particular player the Canucks convet. Additionally, Benning is an active scout who undoubtedly plays a big role in the Canucks' amateur scouting

The hierarchy under Gillis was also 4 levels deep, maybe more. It went Gillis - Gilman - Crawford - Delorme. And often times they would defer to Palango ahead of Delorme as the next most trusted scout. His power was greatly diminished.

"Cross-scouting" or traversing regions was also in place with Gillis. They had certain head scouts travel across regions, giving particular interest to the WHL, OHL and USHL.

It's not much different, only now Benning's own activity sets it apart. We don't know what Benning has 'undone' behind the scenes, but it appears that the restructuring in 2012 helped the organization. I'm wondering if now Benning's own influence and veto power hurts that framework, or enhances it? Time will tell.

 

[arttk]

Putting things into context, Gillis' first press conference had him criticizing the Canucks' drafting and player development. When he traded his first round pick in 2010, he alluded to the fact that he felt the Canucks have drafted very well the past two years (2008 and 2009). Full credit goes to Gillis for actually putting someone other than Delorme in charge of the amateur draft and the changes implemented in the 2013 draft seems to have been for the better but Gillis shouldn't be excused for what, in hindsight, isn't bad drafting and player development but merely average among Canucks' GMs.

Benning has put his own stamp on the scouting department and it's amazing that he doesn't get credit for this. For years, everyone wanted Delorme fired or demoted. Under Benning, Delorme is pretty much where Gillis left him: a WHL scout with a fancy title. If you discount Linden, the hierarchy is Benning, Weisbrod, and Brackett before Delorme. Delorme essentially has been demoted a further rung down from where he was under Gillis. It's also important to note that Benning has instituted a system of cross-scouting where most of the scouts would have watched any particular player the Canucks convet. Additionally, Benning is an active scout who undoubtedly plays a big role in the Canucks' amateur scouting.

Personally, I don't think Eric Crawford is anything special as his record is hit and miss. He was able to work his way up as Gillis' main scout and is probably better than Delorme.

I have said this many times, it's not realistic to come into an organization and completely remake the scouting department. You can't just fire the whole department and hire new scouts, good scouts are already working for other organizations and they aren't very poachable.

It takes time to 1) find who is actually good that is already in the system 2) re-evaluate processes to make things work better. Thing with scouting is that it takes time to find out who is good. Whoever a scout scouts now will take 2-3 years for the results to be validated. It's not a coincidence that it took MG 3-4 years before results started to show.

Difference between Nonis and MG is that Nonis had his best draft in his 1st year and it got progressively worse and worse. MG had his worst draft when he came on in 08 (surprise surprise) and it got progressively better with his last draft being the best. Sure we can average out the results and say, well Nonis and MG got the same haul, but that is just a simple way of looking at things. Drafting was trending down with Nonis, drafting was trending up with MG, that is a big difference.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

I have said this many times, it's not realistic to come into an organization and completely remake the scouting department. You can't just fire the whole department and hire new scouts, good scouts are already working for other organizations and they aren't very poachable.

It takes time to 1) find who is actually good that is already in the system 2) re-evaluate processes to make things work better. Thing with scouting is that it takes time to find out who is good. Whoever a scout scouts now will take 2-3 years for the results to be validated. It's not a coincidence that it took MG 3-4 years before results started to show.

Difference between Nonis and MG is that Nonis had his best draft in his 1st year and it got progressively worse and worse. MG had his worst draft when he came on in 08 (surprise surprise) and it got progressively better with his last draft being the best. Sure we can average out the results and say, well Nonis and MG got the same haul, but that is just a simple way of looking at things. Drafting was trending down with Nonis, drafting was trending up with MG, that is a big difference.

I would say drafting fell off a cliff under Nonis' watch and that it is clear he was operating off of Burke's draft lists and priorities. Burke didn't have his contract renewed after the Canucks lost to the Flames in '04.

That would have left Nonis with maybe a month to come up with his own draft list. I'm skeptical as all hell he had much input in the 2004 draft, based on subsequent drafts.

Thus, Nonis could be credited with 2 players out of the drafts he oversaw. Gillis is looking to have produced as much, if not more within the same timespan (first three years), a record which gets better if you include undrafted players he sought out.

I also don't give a lot of credit to the 2008 draft to Gillis...they picked up the goalie coach's son, for pete's sake, but there's enough on the record for the Cody Hodgson selection to show that he had some input.

 

[RandV]

I would say drafting fell off a cliff under Nonis' watch and that it is clear he was operating off of Burke's draft lists and priorities. Burke didn't have his contract renewed after the Canucks lost to the Flames in '04.

That would have left Nonis with maybe a month to come up with his own draft list. I'm skeptical as all hell he had much input in the 2004 draft, based on subsequent drafts.

Thus, Nonis could be credited with 2 players out of the drafts he oversaw. Gillis is looking to have produced as much, if not more within the same timespan (first three years), a record which gets better if you include undrafted players he sought out.

I also don't give a lot of credit to the 2008 draft to Gillis...they picked up the goalie coach's son, for pete's sake, but there's enough on the record for the Cody Hodgson selection to show that he had some input.

Nonis also deserves extra criticism because unlike Gillis he wasn't the new guy in the room, he had spent a few years with the team already as Burks assistant GM. He was familiar with what he had in place and chose not to make any changes. Also the Burke & Nonis combo were about equally bad at drafting while employed in Toronto.

 

[Diamonddog01]

I'm not in disagreement with you on that. What I am in disagreement on, if you bothered to read the post, was that Gillis was standing pat and just letting the Canucks drafting crater while doing nothing.

Well I never said he was standing pat or doing nothing. Regardless of what he was doing, or how lovely it sounded on paper, it didn't amount to much - if anything. Again we got our drafting back to the average / mediocre spot it was previously. So all of Gillis' hard work behind the scenes waste a colossal waste of time and resources.

Ahaha, wow. People wanted to tar and feather Nonis over his drafting. The Virtanen/Ehlers/Nylander debate paled in comparison to Bourdon/Kopitar and people were ******** themselves over the Patrick White selection.

As it stands, the drafting records of Nonis and Gillis are going to be about the same. The only difference is that Gillis managed to make the Canucks a contending team, while they floundered under Nonis.

I'd argue the Canucks drafting was comparable to Nonis under the same timespan. Particularly if you be charitable and credit the 2004 draft to Nonis. Given the timeframe of Burke's firing and Nonis' hiring, Nonis didn't have a lot of time to prepare for the draft and was probably working off of Burke's drafting list given that he was an internal hire.

But, Nonis managed to produce 6 NHL players in 3 drafts (Schneider, Edler, Mike Brown, Hansen, Raymond and Grabner.) If we want to include Bourdon as someone who would have likely made it, that bumps it up to 7. If you aren't charitable (like many people were towards him) the only guys he managed to find were Raymond, Burrows (but following the recent logic on here, he shouldn't get credit for that because Craig Heisinger was the one who was making him out to be a big deal) and Grabner.

We're still determining who is going to be making it, but Gillis managed to draft 3 players that are going to play 100+ games and there's still several players that look promising (Rodin, McNally and Friesen) while supplementing that with undrafted players in Lack and Tanev. There's also 1 "maybe" that everyone loves getting upset about (Corrado.)

Uhh not quite. 7 players (and yeah I'll include Bourdon there as I'm pretty sure if was tracking to become an NHL player, but I accept those who don't) in 3 drafts is better than 3 players in 6 years. Sure, supplementing with the undrafted players still does not make them very close. 7 players in 3 years vs 5 players in 6 years...clear advantage to Nonis.

And again, I think Nonis' drafting was mediocre. I think the standards are so low here due to 2008 - 2011 that even getting one or two NHL'ers out of a draft somehow makes that draft 'excellent' for us. I'm certainly not trying to defend Nonis - the Kopitar pick was obviously a huge mistake and the White pick was inexcusable. A complete joke really.

 

[The Jesus*]

The hierarchy under Gillis was also 4 levels deep, maybe more. It went Gillis - Gilman - Crawford - Delorme. And often times they would defer to Palango ahead of Delorme as the next most trusted scout. His power was greatly diminished.

"Cross-scouting" or traversing regions was also in place with Gillis. They had certain head scouts travel across regions, giving particular interest to the WHL, OHL and USHL.

It's not much different, only now Benning's own activity sets it apart. We don't know what Benning has 'undone' behind the scenes, but it appears that the restructuring in 2012 helped the organization. I'm wondering if now Benning's own influence and veto power hurts that framework, or enhances it? Time will tell.

From what I can tell, Benning seems to take a lot of it on his shoulders, beyond a veto thing. From an outside vantage point, it looks like he has a 'I'll see for myself' sort of attitude about scouting. Delorme could come up to him and say player x is this and this and that. And Benning would say 'ok', and then go watch the kid himself. Either on video or in person, and then make the judgement call based on what he saw more than what the scout said.

It really does seem like our GM is our head scout at the moment.

 

[F A N]

I have said this many times, it's not realistic to come into an organization and completely remake the scouting department. You can't just fire the whole department and hire new scouts, good scouts are already working for other organizations and they aren't very poachable.

It takes time to 1) find who is actually good that is already in the system 2) re-evaluate processes to make things work better. Thing with scouting is that it takes time to find out who is good. Whoever a scout scouts now will take 2-3 years for the results to be validated. It's not a coincidence that it took MG 3-4 years before results started to show.

It's completely realistic to have new directors of scouting within a year of joining the organization. Benning and Lombardi did so. Crawford was already reporting to Weisbrod by the time the 2015 draft rolled around. Shanahan cleaned house after a year. Yzerman and Shero hired new directors and Jim Nill, John Davisson, and Tim Murray poached their previous organizations right away. I don't think it's that hard to find out which players the scouts pushed for in previous years and their rankings.

Difference between Nonis and MG is that Nonis had his best draft in his 1st year and it got progressively worse and worse. MG had his worst draft when he came on in 08 (surprise surprise) and it got progressively better with his last draft being the best.

I would argue 2008 isn't worse or that much worse than 2009 and 2009, depending on whether or not Rodin comes back and redeems himself, is better than 2010 and 2011. In 2012, Gillis drafted Mallet with his 2nd round pick. The 2013 draft looks good now and like you said that was probably due to the changes Gillis FINALLY made.

Sure we can average out the results and say, well Nonis and MG got the same haul, but that is just a simple way of looking at things. Drafting was trending down with Nonis, drafting was trending up with MG, that is a big difference.

My point is that while Gillis may not be responsible for 2008, he's responsible for 2009 on. It's his choice if he didn't make significant changes to the scouting staff until 2013.

 

[F A N]

The hierarchy under Gillis was also 4 levels deep, maybe more. It went Gillis - Gilman - Crawford - Delorme. And often times they would defer to Palango ahead of Delorme as the next most trusted scout. His power was greatly diminished.

At the end of his tenure yes. But I don't think Gillis and Gilman influenced the draft that greatly beyond setting directives for the scouts.

It's not much different, only now Benning's own activity sets it apart. We don't know what Benning has 'undone' behind the scenes, but it appears that the restructuring in 2012 helped the organization. I'm wondering if now Benning's own influence and veto power hurts that framework, or enhances it? Time will tell.

The point of my reply was that Gillis shouldn't be excused for not having made drastic changes to the leadership of the scouting staff in his early years. In the same way, I would give Benning even less excuse or more credit because of his heavy involvement in amateur scouting.

From what I can tell, Benning seems to take a lot of it on his shoulders, beyond a veto thing. From an outside vantage point, it looks like he has a 'I'll see for myself' sort of attitude about scouting. Delorme could come up to him and say player x is this and this and that. And Benning would say 'ok', and then go watch the kid himself. Either on video or in person, and then make the judgement call based on what he saw more than what the scout said.

It really does seem like our GM is our head scout at the moment.

I think things will be different with Benning having installed guys he trusts in leadership positions. But it is what we want right? Benning's strength is suppose to be scouting and we want him cross checking the work of our scouts.

 

[arttk]

It's completely realistic to have new directors of scouting within a year of joining the organization. Benning and Lombardi did so. Crawford was already reporting to Weisbrod by the time the 2015 draft rolled around. Shanahan cleaned house after a year. Yzerman and Shero hired new directors and Jim Nill, John Davisson, and Tim Murray poached their previous organizations right away. I don't think it's that hard to find out which players the scouts pushed for in previous years and their rankings.


I would argue 2008 isn't worse or that much worse than 2009 and 2009, depending on whether or not Rodin comes back and redeems himself, is better than 2010 and 2011. In 2012, Gillis drafted Mallet with his 2nd round pick. The 2013 draft looks good now and like you said that was probably due to the changes Gillis FINALLY made.



My point is that while Gillis may not be responsible for 2008, he's responsible for 2009 on. It's his choice if he didn't make significant changes to the scouting staff until 2013.

Want to respond with more thought but really exhausted from work.

All your examples are guys poaching scouts from their previous organizations. Not sure if that option is available for MG. I mean coming from an org, you probably know everyone and know who is good, not good and have enough of a relationship with them to poach them over. It's not MG didn't add more scouts, he did over the years.

MG did made changes over he course of his regime and we are staring to see the fruits of his changes. It looks like we are getting players out of his 11,12 and 13 drafts. As more players graduate from those drafts, we can see that the idea he can't draft is just a shallow observation.

Did he inherit a ****** scouting department? Yes
Did he fix it by the end? Yes

If you have a new CEO come into a company and it takes him a few years to ramp up the results, would people say that CEO is terrible because it took too long? No? Because what matters is if he can turn it around and make things trend upward.

Honestly having Weisbord in charge is frightening.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

Uhh not quite. 7 players (and yeah I'll include Bourdon there as I'm pretty sure if was tracking to become an NHL player, but I accept those who don't) in 3 drafts is better than 3 players in 6 years. Sure, supplementing with the undrafted players still does not make them very close. 7 players in 3 years vs 5 players in 6 years...clear advantage to Nonis.

Well, first of all, we have to discount the Edler pick, because everyone knows it was Thomas Gradin who made the suggestion. Nonis didn't really "do" anything.

Secondly, you did say,

Huh? Is waiting 4 years to fix what was a huge issue somehow a good thing?

"Waiting" to me implies that he was standing pat or doing nothing. I tried to explain why it would appear that Gillis was "waiting" to fix the drafting.

Finally, if we're going to concede Bourdon, do we concede for other players in similar situations?

Players that are pretty much guaranteed to hit 100+ NHL GP that were Gillis selections: Horvat, Connauton, Schroeder, Hutton and Hodgson.

Players that are on the bubble: Shinkaruk, Rodin, McNally, Grenier, Friesen, Corrado and Gaunce.

Players where it is still way too early to tell: Cassels, Subban and Cederholm

If we look just at Gillis first three draft years, those players that are gonna hit 100+ NHL GP are Connauton, Schroeder and Hodgson. Rodin, Friesen and McNally are still up in the air. Assume one of them makes it, that leaves Gillis with 4 players in his first three drafts, one of which didn't have any picks for the first 3 rounds.

And again, context is quite important. The Nonis-era Canucks were very much one that was in a forced transition -- the WCE was dead, our goaltending was at a dead end and we had very little available. Drafting should have been of paramount importance at that time.

Conversely, the Gillis-era Canucks was one that was peaking and priorities were much different. The lack of a 1st, 2nd or 3rd rounder in the 2010 draft certainly hampers his performance, but when taken in with the rest of the season, it is a forgivable mistake. Nonis gets no such luxury because both the team and his drafting stunk.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Well, first of all, we have to discount the Edler pick, because everyone knows it was Thomas Gradin who made the suggestion. Nonis didn't really "do" anything.

Secondly, you did say,

There is a difference between a scout recommending a player, who actually, you know, found that player through scouting, and a new hire recommending a player he's known since childhood.

In any case I have repeatedly given credit for Tanev. You can keep brining it up over and over, along with other posters, but it's a different situation. And it doesn't really change how awful Gillis was at drafting so matter how often it's brought up.

"Waiting" to me implies that he was standing pat or doing nothing. I tried to explain why it would appear that Gillis was "waiting" to fix the drafting.

Finally, if we're going to concede Bourdon, do we concede for other players in similar situations?

Players that are pretty much guaranteed to hit 100+ NHL GP that were Gillis selections: Horvat, Connauton, Schroeder, Hutton and Hodgson.

Players that are on the bubble: Shinkaruk, Rodin, McNally, Grenier, Friesen, Corrado and Gaunce.

Players where it is still way too early to tell: Cassels, Subban and Cederholm

If we look just at Gillis first three draft years, those players that are gonna hit 100+ NHL GP are Connauton, Schroeder and Hodgson. Rodin, Friesen and McNally are still up in the air. Assume one of them makes it, that leaves Gillis with 4 players in his first three drafts, one of which didn't have any picks for the first 3 rounds.

And again, context is quite important. The Nonis-era Canucks were very much one that was in a forced transition -- the WCE was dead, our goaltending was at a dead end and we had very little available. Drafting should have been of paramount importance at that time.

Conversely, the Gillis-era Canucks was one that was peaking and priorities were much different. The lack of a 1st, 2nd or 3rd rounder in the 2010 draft certainly hampers his performance, but when taken in with the rest of the season, it is a forgivable mistake. Nonis gets no such luxury because both the team and his drafting stunk.

Not super interested in semantics games. Whatever he was doing, however we describe it - our drafting licked ass during those four years - plain & simple. The end result was to get our drafting back to the mediocre / average position it was in prior to those changes. Again - colossal waste of time and effort.

Highly doubt any of those players hit 100 games in the NHL. I wouldn't say they are on the bubble, I would say they are extreme long shots. Edit: except for Gaunce.

In regards to Schroeder, Connauton and Hodgson - they are all pretty crappy players who may hit 100 games played.

Schneider, Edler, Hansen are miles ahead of those players. Raymond and Grabner as well imo, perhaps not as much.

And again, there is a difference between 3 years and 6 years. Nonis has more NHL players (and will have imo) than Gillis will in 6. That's is atrocious. And don't mistake this as some sort of wistful nostalgia for a crappy GM in Nonis, it's more to prove just how bad Gillis was. You say that we should forgive or give leeway, I disagree. Drafting is still a priority and a huge part of GM's job regardless of where you are in the rebuilding - contending cycle.

Don't forget - the fact that Gillis didn't have a lot of 2nd or 3rd rounders was entirely of his own doing. He traded a lot of 2nds and 3rds for garbage. And yes, some good players too.

 

[B-rock]

From what I can tell, Benning seems to take a lot of it on his shoulders, beyond a veto thing. From an outside vantage point, it looks like he has a 'I'll see for myself' sort of attitude about scouting. Delorme could come up to him and say player x is this and this and that. And Benning would say 'ok', and then go watch the kid himself. Either on video or in person, and then make the judgement call based on what he saw more than what the scout said.

It really does seem like our GM is our head scout at the moment.

Which is clearly the reason he is so abominably terrible at making any kind of trade that doesn't bleed value. He's too busy being Mr. Head Scout instead of delegating those responsibilities like 99.9% of decent managers or any person in charge does. Instead Benning spends his time micro managing his scouts while neglecting the rest of the very important tasks required to run a successful hockey team.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

There is a difference between a scout recommending a player, who actually, you know, found that player through scouting, and a new hire recommending a player he's known since childhood.

It was a joke.

But, okay. I think we've both made our points entirely clear, and we both have different criteria on how to evaluate Gillis.

 

[F A N]

All your examples are guys poaching scouts from their previous organizations.

No they're not. I was pretty clear on who poached from their previous organizations vs guys who didn't. Yzerman hired Al Murray right away. He was not part of the Red Wings. Shanahan put Mark Hunter in charge of the draft right away and fired a bunch of scouts within a year of taking over the job. Shero hired Castron although they worked together over a decade ago.

Not sure if that option is available for MG. I mean coming from an org, you probably know everyone and know who is good, not good and have enough of a relationship with them to poach them over. It's not MG didn't add more scouts, he did over the years.

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.

Did he inherit a ****** scouting department? Yes
Did he fix it by the end? Yes

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.

If you have a new CEO come into a company and it takes him a few years to ramp up the results, would people say that CEO is terrible because it took too long? No? Because what matters is if he can turn it around and make things trend upward.

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.

 

[F A N]

And again, there is a difference between 3 years and 6 years. Nonis has more NHL players (and will have imo) than Gillis will in 6. That's is atrocious. And don't mistake this as some sort of wistful nostalgia for a crappy GM in Nonis, it's more to prove just how bad Gillis was. You say that we should forgive or give leeway, I disagree. Drafting is still a priority and a huge part of GM's job regardless of where you are in the rebuilding - contending cycle.

Don't forget - the fact that Gillis didn't have a lot of 2nd or 3rd rounders was entirely of his own doing. He traded a lot of 2nds and 3rds for garbage. And yes, some good players too.

That's why I said that it will help a lot if Benning just nails his first round picks. Drafting can be a crap shoot but the best drafting teams either consistently find players in later rounds or gets their first round or even second round picks correctly. Remember in 2010, Gillis' draft targets were Tinordi and Bennett. Nonis' biggest failing in terms of the draft was 2007. At on time he had a first round pick and three 2nds.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

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