Speculation: Next Canucks GM

[Rotting Corpse*]

A good gm does smart things and should be judged on what he does or does not do. It's irrelevant to look at what he inherited or act like he needs to be responsible for bringing in outside players to be a good gm.

 

[mathonwy]

A huge part of it is development. That credit goes to Gillis, credit also goes to Gillis for assembling the best TEAM around them. The support players of that team were excellent. Also as you mentioned a few of those huge contributors were also hurt.

Re: development

I give mad credz to Gilly for bringing in Sundin to help in Kesler's development. Looking back, this was actually a genius move. Hank and Dank are unique players with a unique playing style which is great for providing offense but poor for providing the type of mentorship Kes needed. Gilly brought in .. of all players.. legendary Mats Sundin who is a tad better than Brandon Prust.

Re: support staff

By playoff point production Gilly's acquisitions lags behind Nonis but that's just crap luck. A healthy Manny and a healthy Sammy would have hugely pulled Gilly ahead.

Very good support staff acquisitions but Gilly's forte was his contract wizardry. Burr's 4Y/8M contract was a thing of beauty as was Edler's 4Y/13M contract. Luo's frontloaded 12Y/64M contract was also awesome until the NHL changed the rules on us.

Burkie never had to deal with a salary cap so its impossible to know how he would have done on this end.

 

[lawrence]

Give me a break, Gillis built a team that was one win away from the cup.

Benning built a team that is, and will likely remain, the laughing stock of the league.

Besides, what if anything have these players done in NHL aside from BB?

ohhh boy if you give me the chance, I will bring Mike Gillis back. No joke, I think he is the best gm we ever had.

 

[PM]

Technically Burke (how can anyone call him Burkie without puking?) only got us one Sedin through wheeling and dealing. The other pick (#3) was ours to begin with because we sucked. Burke was such a jackass though, made it really hard to like him. Just look at him this past week in Calgary. Still far better than Benning though, but who isn't?

 

[mathonwy]

Technically Burke (how can anyone call him Burkie without puking?) only got us one Sedin through wheeling and dealing. The other pick (#3) was ours to begin with because we sucked. Burke was such a jackass though, made it really hard to like him. Just look at him this past week in Calgary. Still far better than Benning though, but who isn't?

Team 1​

| Assets || Team 2 | | Assets | GM

VAN sends |

Bryan McCabe, 2000 #11​

| to |

CHI​

| for |

1999 #4​

|

Bob Murray​

VAN sends|

1999 #4, 1999 #75, 1999 #88​

| to |

TBL​

| for |

1999 #1​

|

Jacque Demers​

VAN sends|

1999 #1​

| to |

ATL​

| for |

1999 #2, 2000 #67​

|

Don Waddell​

That right there is sheer brilliance and I can't think of another player acquisition since (ever?) that is remotely close to it.

Burkie had to navigate through three different general managers to get Dank. Impressive as ****.

And I sure as hell didn't say I liked him. He's a blowhard and he's a bully at heart and both personality traits are repulsive to me.

I don't like him but I sure respect the heck outta him and ... yep, I would take him over Gilly to be our general manager.

Gilly's contractual and financial technicals were world class for sure but Gilly also had ZERO political cred in the NHL which made the Canucks an island during his reign while Burkie on the other hand is one of the most connected senior executives in the league. Total cluster in Toronto though.

 

[F A N]

Brian Burke is a very good seller. Every time he has an asset to trade he will get a significant long-term asset back. Schaefer for Salo, Mogilny for Morrison, even the crappy Bure trade gave us Jovo. His ability to acquire Dmen through trade was also very good. He is however terrible at fixing a team's goaltending. He won a Cup because he inherited Giguere. Everywhere else he has gone the goaltending has been a disaster.

I am a big fan of Gillis' early years before he started chasing goal posts. I like the way he does things. But his drafting sucks and he seems to think that every prospect is capable of developing and reaching their potential.

I believe in Benning's drafting abilities. I think the team will benefit from his drafting years after he leaves here. He's not good at extracting value from trades. Hate those draft pick flips he likes to accept.

 

[Peter10]

I am a big fan of Gillis' early years before he started chasing goal posts. I like the way he does things. But his drafting sucks and he seems to think that every prospect is capable of developing and reaching their potential.

I believe in Benning's drafting abilities. I think the team will benefit from his drafting years after he leaves here. He's not good at extracting value from trades. Hate those draft pick flips he likes to accept.

I think thats more of a Benning problem than any other GM.

Benning on Baertschi affecting Shinkaruk: I think that's a fair comment. And we've got Anton Rodin. So it's one of those things

— TSN Radio Vancouver (@TSN1040) February 22, 2016

He said multiple times he wanted to move a defenseman because they got great depth on their young D with Hutton, Tryamkin and Stecher. And that defense was already aweful before Tryamkin left.

He said one of the reasons to go for a D with their #5 last year because there was no C available and they already have a scoring winger in Boeser.

He said right after the 2015 draft that he thinks he drafted about 3-4 NHLers in this very draft.

On another occassion he said he believes he can draft a NHLer with every pick.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

We also apparently passed on Tkachuk because we already have Virtanen.

That is one of the core Benning things that makes him Benning. To try to apply it to another gm is cute.

 

[racerjoe]

Re: development

I give mad credz to Gilly for bringing in Sundin to help in Kesler's development. Looking back, this was actually a genius move. Hank and Dank are unique players with a unique playing style which is great for providing offense but poor for providing the type of mentorship Kes needed. Gilly brought in .. of all players.. legendary Mats Sundin who is a tad better than Brandon Prust.

Re: support staff

By playoff point production Gilly's acquisitions lags behind Nonis but that's just crap luck. A healthy Manny and a healthy Sammy would have hugely pulled Gilly ahead.

Very good support staff acquisitions but Gilly's forte was his contract wizardry. Burr's 4Y/8M contract was a thing of beauty as was Edler's 4Y/13M contract. Luo's frontloaded 12Y/64M contract was also awesome until the NHL changed the rules on us.

Burkie never had to deal with a salary cap so its impossible to know how he would have done on this end.

Never had to here, but we can look at other contracts he gave out. I would skip the Ducks in this convo, cause all GM's were finding their way then. He gave Komisarek a terrible deal that needed to be bought out. Schenn a bad deal, and if I am not mistaken Beauchemin I think was bought out too wasn't it? I can't remember. Anyone there wasn't a lot of good contracts there.

 

[mathonwy]

Never had to here, but we can look at other contracts he gave out. I would skip the Ducks in this convo, cause all GM's were finding their way then. He gave Komisarek a terrible deal that needed to be bought out. Schenn a bad deal, and if I am not mistaken Beauchemin I think was bought out too wasn't it? I can't remember. Anyone there wasn't a lot of good contracts there.

Is it safe to assume you would prefer Gillis over Burke as our GM?

 

[racerjoe]

Is it safe to assume you would prefer Gillis over Burke as our GM?

Yes. But I do give Burke more credit here than most. I just think of the two Gillis was better. Neither was perfect.

 

[Virtanen2Horvat]

Mike Futa would be nice. Apparently he is a important piece in LA.

 

[F A N]

I think thats more of a Benning problem than any other GM.

I disagree. Even in Gillis' letter to the season ticket holders, he named Fox and Jensen as part of the team's talented group of prospects. The others were Horvat, Corrado, Gaunce, and Shinkaruk. How many of his drafted prospects has Gillis actually traded? Benning has traded Forsling and McCann. Do you seriously feel that Gillis is more likely to give up on his prospects early?

The fact is that every GM tries to "project" what their roster is going to look like in the near future and years down the line. I would argue that's what you're suppose to try to correctly do. One of the stated reasons for the Ballard trade was that Gillis felt the team had drafted well in the last two seasons. GMs do this and think like this so I am not overly critical of such comments. The point I made about Gillis is that he should have been quicker to identify prospects that simply didn't have an NHL future. I feel that Benning is quicker to reevaluate than Gillis. As for Benning's Shinkaruk comment, even if you ignore the fact that Benning wanted to trade Shinkaruk from the start, this is what teams do. San Jose traded Goldobin instead of others because of perceived depth. If you need to trade a prospect for an asset you trade the guy you feel is further down on the depth chart.

He said multiple times he wanted to move a defenseman because they got great depth on their young D with Hutton, Tryamkin and Stecher. And that defense was already aweful before Tryamkin left.

I don't think he ever said he "wants" to move a defenseman. He just thinks that's the likely scenario because teams usually ask about their Dmen. But we're dealing with players who are no longer prospects here. These are young NHL players with potential to improve. Did you/ do you think Stecher and Tryamkin would be better next season? I surely do / did. Hutton I don't know, and he is the one who has been mentioned as a possible trade chip. I think there's a difference between projecting young NHL Dmen who has shown some promise in the NHL and prospects who have failed to make the NHL thus far.

He said one of the reasons to go for a D with their #5 last year because there was no C available and they already have a scoring winger in Boeser.

I don't have recollection of him saying that. Can you link me? Regardless, I do think that Benning's drafts are influenced a bit by team building philosophies. He believes in building from the net out. And personally all else equal, I do believe in that philosophy.

I said this many times before, a teams' BPA is influenced by many factors including team need. For what it's worth, Benning thought drafting a forward at 5 was realistic until he met with his scouts. I think the idea that Benning was bent on selecting a Dman even if he had to bypass the BPA is wrong.

He said right after the 2015 draft that he thinks he drafted about 3-4 NHLers in this very draft.

On another occassion he said he believes he can draft a NHLer with every pick.

I think that was a bit optimistic but I don't see anything wrong with this. Keep in mind that in 2015, the Canucks had Brisebois in the 2nd round. I think most GMs expect players drafted in the first 2 rounds to develop into NHL players. I have said this before, if you picked a player that you don't think is going to be an NHLer, why do you pick him? The goal should be to draft an NHLer with every pick and a scout should feel that the guy they like is going to be an NHLer. Whether that's realistic is a different matter. Realistically, most draft picks don't develop into NHLers.

 

[Peter10]

I disagree. Even in Gillis' letter to the season ticket holders, he named Fox and Jensen as part of the team's talented group of prospects. The others were Horvat, Corrado, Gaunce, and Shinkaruk. How many of his drafted prospects has Gillis actually traded? Benning has traded Forsling and McCann. Do you seriously feel that Gillis is more likely to give up on his prospects early?

Gillis traded Hodgson and Connauton and lets be honest most of the other picks werent much worth anyway. However he also dealt Nonis picks Grabner, White and Rahimi and at least got Ehrhoff out of it while Ballard was obviously the wrong target but at least he deal Grabner before he lost all value.

The point I made about Gillis is that he should have been quicker to identify prospects that simply didn't have an NHL future. I feel that Benning is quicker to reevaluate than Gillis.

Benning has turned 2 solid prospects in Forsling and McCann into Gudbranson whom i consider and overpaid 3rd pairing defenseman. So while Gillis is far from good in that regard, Benning royaly screwed up.

San Jose traded Goldobin instead of others because of perceived depth. If you need to trade a prospect for an asset you trade the guy you feel is further down on the depth chart.

San Jose traded Goldobin because they actually have solid depth, were going for the cup and because Goldobin was stuck on their farm team. The Canucks are nowhere near that kind of depth to make such a trade and the fact that Goldobin who was redundant on the competing Sharks turns into one of the Canucks top prospects after 3 Benning drafts should tell you something.

I don't think he ever said he "wants" to move a defenseman. He just thinks that's the likely scenario because teams usually ask about their Dmen. But we're dealing with players who are no longer prospects here. These are young NHL players with potential to improve. Did you/ do you think Stecher and Tryamkin would be better next season? I surely do / did. Hutton I don't know, and he is the one who has been mentioned as a possible trade chip. I think there's a difference between projecting young NHL Dmen who has shown some promise in the NHL and prospects who have failed to make the NHL thus far.

https://www.fanragsports.com/news/canucks-benning-trades-teams-ask-defensemen/

“I think that’s the one area where we have some depth now,” agreed Benning when asked about the topic on Vancouver’s TSN 1040 Thursday morning. “With Olli Juolevi coming now too, I think we have some players now – I like our defense going forward. Troy Stetcher, for a first-year player, he’s been excellent this year.

“So if we decide we’re going to do something – teams, when they call us, they look at our depth on defense and they ask about our defensemen. So if we are going to make a move to try to improve up front, it would be maybe with one of our defensemen.”

I don't have recollection of him saying that. Can you link me? Regardless, I do think that Benning's drafts are influenced a bit by team building philosophies. He believes in building from the net out. And personally all else equal, I do believe in that philosophy.

Just went by memory, could be wrong. Just seem to remember he said something along this lines.

I said this many times before, a teams' BPA is influenced by many factors including team need. For what it's worth, Benning thought drafting a forward at 5 was realistic until he met with his scouts. I think the idea that Benning was bent on selecting a Dman even if he had to bypass the BPA is wrong.

I do think he at least leaned towards getting a D even if the was a slightly better winger available, at least several of his comments hint to that:

I think that was a bit optimistic but I don't see anything wrong with this. Keep in mind that in 2015, the Canucks had Brisebois in the 2nd round. I think most GMs expect players drafted in the first 2 rounds to develop into NHL players. I have said this before, if you picked a player that you don't think is going to be an NHLer, why do you pick him? The goal should be to draft an NHLer with every pick and a scout should feel that the guy they like is going to be an NHLer. Whether that's realistic is a different matter. Realistically, most draft picks don't develop into NHLers.

I know there was already a bigger discussion on that and it might be semantics. In my opinion the way Benning and Linden articulate themselves in this sounds to me that they think they can indeed get NHLers with every pick (or 3-4 in 2015) and not that every guy the draft has the chance to be a NHLer. And also from the sounds of it Benning and Linden do overrate their prospects dramatically, maybe its just for the good looks but they still do.









Now look back to March 2015 (!!!) he said this:



What is left from then? Horvat and Hutton as NHLers, Demko as a prospect and Virtanen as a work in progress

Then this


Even before they drafted Boeser, Gaudette, Juolevi and Lookwood and trading for Dahlen and Goldobin they felt they had a good prospect pool that will be the future of the team. Move two years forward and only few back then are still around and two drafts later they havent really improved their prospect depth at all.

 

[Kryten]

Would love to have Gilman back but most likely will never happen now. Brisebois would be my next choice.