NYR have named John Lilley Director of Player Personnel and Director of Amateur Scouting.

[Ola]

The draft record doesn’t look great post 2016 either. But a lot of things play in here, it’s a team work. The guys doing most of the foot work will still be the same.

 

[nyr2k2]

I dunno, that's a pretty long stretch to just wash away anything outside the top 10.

Especially after some of the insane debates we've seen on these boards in recent years.

Well we should probably at least try to keep it to the last five years, then, given that's when he assumed a leadership role. It's hard to hold someone accountable for a team's drafting when he's just one scout of many in the organization.

From what I can see there's nothing specific that would provide him a lifetime job in the Leaf's organization, and yet he has survived through, what, four, five GMs? That doesn't necessarily mean he's good at his job, but it does show that several different people with the authority to fire him have seen fit to keep him around.

I don't really have an opinion on him, not knowing much about him, what his role on Toronto truly entailed, how the dynamics worked in that draft room, etc.

 

[Clark Kellogg]

The Leafs have drafted one player since 2007, outside of the top 10, who has played more than 400 NHL games.

Sounds about right.
Our third jersey should have a logo of a gun shooting a foot.

 

[Kodiak]

Why did they phrase it like that? Wouldn't "Director of Player Personnel and Amateur Scouting" be a better way to say it?

 

[Off Sides]

Think he meant the city. Can find no evidence of Lilley being in a band.

Was in the Hooters.

 

[Thirty One]

Was in the Hooters.

Underrated.

 

[Clark Kellogg]

From wiki:

"John E. Lilley (born August 3, 1972 in Wakefield, Massachusetts) is a retired American professional ice hockey player. After graduating from Cushing Academy, where he set a new scoring record, he played college hockey for Boston University.[1]"

This is starting to get annoying tbh.

Did they all pledge the same fraternity?

 

[Thirty One]

Wow, can't believe I didn't catch this the first time.

New York Rangers hire Gerard Gallant as head coach

"Gallant, who will be taking summer courses at Boston College as a condition of the hiring, has coached parts of nine seasons with Columbus, Florida and Vegas."

 

[Edge]

Well we should probably at least try to keep it to the last five years, then, given that's when he assumed a leadership role. It's hard to hold someone accountable for a team's drafting when he's just one scout of many in the organization.

From what I can see there's nothing specific that would provide him a lifetime job in the Leaf's organization, and yet he has survived through, what, four, five GMs? That doesn't necessarily mean he's good at his job, but it does show that several different people with the authority to fire him have seen fit to keep him around.

I don't really have an opinion on him, not knowing much about him, what his role on Toronto truly entailed, how the dynamics worked in that draft room, etc.

And that’s fine, but for all the bitching and moaning we’ve seen about this teams drafting and our scouts, I think it deserves some scrutiny.

I think for years we held Clark to such a weird standard. If every outing wasn’t a 20 strikeout performance we’d have pages upon pages devoted to his stupidity.

Meanwhile, his time with the team coincided with one of the most successful sustained stretches in recent memory and was followed up by helping to build a prospect and young talent pipeline that was widely seen as one of the best in the league, if not the best.

And we continued that even as he was phased back in 2019 and 2020. And so right now it really feels like we’re downgrading here. I mean, if our guys had Lilley’s track record we really wouldn’t be like “yeah, but he’s doing some exciting new things!”

I definitely feel like our guys never quite got the credit they deserved. And now we has someone coming in who have arguably accomplished far less.

Okay we can’t judge the last few years. It’s too soon. Okay we can’t judge the preceding years because he’s only one man. So what exactly are we judging him on as he takes an important seat at the table?

Yes, we don’t know how things will turn out. But we’re also doing a lot of “well, maybe this is better than it looks” lately.

In the end, maybe it’s cranky fans. Maybe it’s reporters missing the bigger picture. Maybe the other teams scratching their heads should really go scratch their asses instead. But maybe there is a reason we should be more than a little skeptical as well.

 

[Off Sides]

There was no use talking, there was nothing to say

 

[Lays]

This was probably brought up already haven’t looked through the thread but Lilley was the scout who almost fought Yakupov and told him to answer a question made by the GM when Yakupov refused to

 

[nyr2k2]

And that’s fine, but for all the bitching and moaning we’ve seen about this teams drafting and our scouts, I think it deserves some scrutiny.

I think for years we held Clark to such a weird standard. If every outing wasn’t a 20 strikeout performance we’d have pages upon pages devoted to his stupidity.

Meanwhile, his time with the team coincided with one of the most successful sustained stretches in recent memory and was followed up by helping to build a prospect and young talent pipeline that was widely seen as one of the best in the league, if not the best.

And we continued that even as he was phased back in 2019 and 2020. And so right now it really feels like we’re downgrading here. I mean, if our guys had Lilley’s track record we really wouldn’t be like “yeah, but he’s doing some exciting new things!”

I definitely feel like our guys never quite got the credit they deserved. And now we has someone coming in who have arguably accomplished far less.

Okay we can’t judge the last few years. It’s too soon. Okay we can’t judge the preceding years because he’s only one man. So what exactly are we judging him on as he takes an important seat at the table?

Yes, we don’t know how things will turn out. But we’re also doing a lot of “well, maybe this is better than it looks” lately.

In the end, maybe it’s cranky fans. Maybe it’s reporters missing the bigger picture. Maybe the other teams scratching their heads should really go scratch their asses instead. But maybe there is a reason we should be more than a little skeptical as well.

I guess my issue is that you're talking about "we" as some monolithic entity when in fact, opinions on Clark were all over the map his entire time here. Same for Bobrov and our former GM. Some people see things with rose-tinted glasses and focus on all the great things Clark accomplished and some will forever associate him with McIlrath and Gropp and Andersson. So when the discussion turns to what level of skepticism "we" should treat this hire with, who are you really addressing? I was lukewarm on Clark but recognize his successes. I also remember when, due to various reasons, Danny Kristo and Christian Thomas were top prospects here in Clark's tenure. The ebbs and flows of our prospect depth were, in my opinion, due as much to shifts in organizational philosophy as the successes and failures of the various scouting functions.

Which brings me back to Lilley. I do believe it's bordering on absurd to judge his ability to succeed in these positions by looking at what an entire organization did when he was an amateur scout for a decade; unless someone has actual insight into the job he did, the reports he filed on specific players, the guys he advocated for and against, there's really not a lot to glean from that. I do think it's appropriate to evaluate his brief tenure as Director of US Scouting and then as Director of Amateur Scouting. I don't really see any red flags. I don't see much to form an opinion on, period.

But, I get that "we" are generally displeased with the recent turn the organization has taken and are inherently skeptical. For me, though, I see no reason to think this is a poor move--or a great one. It's just...a move. I feel like "we" were thrown into an ice bath when the hammer dropped on Gorton and JD and some are thrashing about, some don't know what to do, and some are f***ing polar bears and have adjusted and like it. Seems like the vast majority are flailing around scared of what's happening around them.

I'm just kind of figuring it all out. My objective opinion of this move is that I really don't have enough information to have an objective opinion of this move. I don't really care about Clark or any of the other guys and whether they got enough or too much credit. To me, that has nothing to do with this.

To each their own, I suppose.

 

[Irishguy42]

This was probably brought up already haven’t looked through the thread but Lilley was the scout who almost fought Yakupov and told him to answer a question made by the GM when Yakupov refused to

For those uninitiated (interview with Brian Burke who was PoHO/GM for Leafs back in 2012):

 

[Off Sides]

To be fair, there have been many bad interviews over the years.

"I threw my silver medal into the stands, is that not good enough for you people?"

"I started skating like 5 years ago, and I can beat people up"

"I like movie stars. ... no, like the other type of movie stars"

"Donuts are life"

"It's Hugh, sorry I thought you called me Huge for a second there"

 

[Edge]

I guess my issue is that you're talking about "we" as some monolithic entity when in fact, opinions on Clark were all over the map his entire time here. Same for Bobrov and our former GM. Some people see things with rose-tinted glasses and focus on all the great things Clark accomplished and some will forever associate him with McIlrath and Gropp and Andersson. So when the discussion turns to what level of skepticism "we" should treat this hire with, who are you really addressing? I was lukewarm on Clark but recognize his successes. I also remember when, due to various reasons, Danny Kristo and Christian Thomas were top prospects here in Clark's tenure. The ebbs and flows of our prospect depth were, in my opinion, due as much to shifts in organizational philosophy as the successes and failures of the various scouting functions.

Which brings me back to Lilley. I do believe it's bordering on absurd to judge his ability to succeed in these positions by looking at what an entire organization did when he was an amateur scout for a decade; unless someone has actual insight into the job he did, the reports he filed on specific players, the guys he advocated for and against, there's really not a lot to glean from that. I do think it's appropriate to evaluate his brief tenure as Director of US Scouting and then as Director of Amateur Scouting. I don't really see any red flags. I don't see much to form an opinion on, period.

But, I get that "we" are generally displeased with the recent turn the organization has taken and are inherently skeptical. For me, though, I see no reason to think this is a poor move--or a great one. It's just...a move. I feel like "we" were thrown into an ice bath when the hammer dropped on Gorton and JD and some are thrashing about, some don't know what to do, and some are f***ing polar bears and have adjusted and like it. Seems like the vast majority are flailing around scared of what's happening around them.

I'm just kind of figuring it all out. My objective opinion of this move is that I really don't have enough information to have an objective opinion of this move. I don't really care about Clark or any of the other guys and whether they got enough or too much credit. To me, that has nothing to do with this.

To each their own, I suppose.

Were they though? I mean when we look at the opinions and who was behind them, there was a pretty clear divide as to which posters were on which side. And even then, I think the polls we did showed that the majority were favorable to what was going on. The minority just tended to be more…shall we say, vocal?

But let’s even go beyond that, we also routinely generated favorable opinions from pundits, observers and those around the league. So I tend to think it’s a little more than just rose colored glasses. I think there’s an element of belief at work there.

So yeah, Clark had his misses. But if we’re gonna do that, then let’s talk about what Toronto has done. That cuts both ways. We can talk about Gropp and we can talk about Bracco. But we can’t talk about Buch and a comparable from Toronto, because it doesn’t exist.

And that, right there, is part of why there’s a debate.

It’s not about polar bears and adjusting to cold water. It’s about whether the iceberg you’re swimming to is as good to better than the one you just left. And in that case, there’s more than enough to question right now.

Definitively determine? No, not yet. Debate? Passionately? Oh yeah, you betcha.

 

[Kane One]

Yes, that's obviously wrong.


This makes it sound like he's two people. He's only one people.

It’s saying he’s the director of two departments. They are two separate titles that he concurrently shares.

 

[Riche16]

Chris Drury is incapable of working with anyone who doesn’t have some sort of ties to Boston

Makes sense because I know Sam Adams was involved in that Buch trade! *rimshot*

 

[Riche16]

Underrated.

Saw them at 'The Chance' in Poughkeepsie

They were not.

 

[NYR94]

That Yakupov story, damn

 

[nyr2k2]

Were they though? I mean when we look at the opinions and who was behind them, there was a pretty clear divide as to which posters were on which side. And even then, I think the polls we did showed that the majority were favorable to what was going on. The minority just tended to be more…shall we say, vocal?

But let’s even go beyond that, we also routinely generated favorable opinions from pundits, observers and those around the league. So I tend to think it’s a little more than just rose colored glasses. I think there’s an element of belief at work there.

So yeah, Clark had his misses. But if we’re gonna do that, then let’s talk about what Toronto has done. That cuts both ways. We can talk about Gropp and we can talk about Bracco. But we can’t talk about Buch and a comparable from Toronto, because it doesn’t exist.

And that, right there, is part of why there’s a debate.

It’s not about polar bears and adjusting to cold water. It’s about whether the iceberg you’re swimming to is as good to better than the one you just left. And in that case, there’s more than enough to question right now.

Definitively determine? No, not yet. Debate? Passionately? Oh yeah, you betcha.

See, when you throw in the "We can look at a Buchnevich for Clark but there's no comp on Toronto's bill!" that seems really disingenuous. You're comparing fifteen years of leading a team's draft outfit for Clark to five years of a lesser role for Lilley. Lilley has never been the guy mainly responsible for making a pick. To compare Clark in his role with the Rangers to Lilley in his role with Toronto, it's just not an accurate or fair comparison. You'd have to go back to the early 90s when he was with the Bruins or when he very first joined the Rangers to look at Clark working in an equal capacity to what Lilley has been doing.

You lose me with the "passionate debate" part because, again, I don't see nearly enough of a track record with Lilley to be passionate about anything regarding him. I feel like if we had also gotten a first back for Buchnevich, or signed Goodrow for four years, people would probably be optimistic about this move, because they'd be feeling better about the organization in general. That's using a pretty subjective lens to evaluate the move.

I'm not one to tell people what they should or shouldn't be passionate about, though. So, I guess be passionate about this. To me, it seems like an interesting move that can't be fully evaluated given the amount we don't know about the person in question.

That's really all I have. Like I said, not passionate about this.

 

[Edge]

See, when you throw in the "We can look at a Buchnevich for Clark but there's no comp on Toronto's bill!" that seems really disingenuous. You're comparing fifteen years of leading a team's draft outfit for Clark to five years of a lesser role for Lilley. Lilley has never been the guy mainly responsible for making a pick. To compare Clark in his role with the Rangers to Lilley in his role with Toronto, it's just not an accurate or fair comparison. You'd have to go back to the early 90s when he was with the Bruins or when he very first joined the Rangers to look at Clark working in an equal capacity to what Lilley has been doing.

You lose me with the "passionate debate" part because, again, I don't see nearly enough of a track record with Lilley to be passionate about anything regarding him. I feel like if we had also gotten a first back for Buchnevich, or signed Goodrow for four years, people would probably be optimistic about this move, because they'd be feeling better about the organization in general. That's using a pretty subjective lens to evaluate the move.

I'm not one to tell people what they should or shouldn't be passionate about, though. So, I guess be passionate about this. To me, it seems like an interesting move that can't be fully evaluated given the amount we don't know about the person in question.

That's really all I have. Like I said, not passionate about this.

Hell, I’ll meet you half way. Let’s take the head of the table discussions off the table. I’ll ignore that our comparative drafts over the last few years not only look better, but we’re widely seen as being better.

Let’s just look at this work as a scout. He spent a long time in a vital role scouting the US. So what have we got there? Cutting edge? Consistent? High ceilings? High floors? What pattern am I looking at for a decade of work? Yeah, not entirely his decision. But what results are we looking at? Bingo.

I’ll meet half way again. Let’s take Buch off the table. Ditto for Goodrow’s contract. We’ll take Reaves, and the subsequent extension off the table. Let’s look at this move in isolation and you tell me what has you excited - especially based on concerns about the previous approach. I’m perfectly happy to discuss that and that alone.

As I previously said, it can’t be evaluated yet. But it can surely be scrutinized and rightfully so. This isn’t a guy who just came off the turnip truck, he’s got 15 years under his belt. Let’s talk about what he’s done in that time. We’ve got plenty there to talk about there alone.

Whether you’re passionate about this or not, at some point not everything is a blank slate that is beyond questioning either. We’re not entirely dealing with unknown quantities here. And if you’re not questioning some of these things, you might want to consider it.

 

[Kocur Dill]

Saw them at 'The Chance' in Poughkeepsie

They were not.

Howdy neighbor.

Also, what a loveable shithole that place is. Once in a blue moon we get major label bands there and it's very intimate being so close to the band and being nuts to butts packed into such a small venue.

 

[nyr2k2]

Hell, I’ll meet you half way. Let’s take the head of the table discussions off the table. I’ll ignore that our comparative drafts over the last few years not only look better, but we’re widely seen as being better.

Let’s just look at this work as a scout. He spent a long time in a vital role scouting the US. So what have we got there? Cutting edge? Consistent? High ceilings? High floors? What pattern am I looking at for a decade of work? Yeah, not entirely his decision. But what results are we looking at? Bingo.

I’ll meet half way again. Let’s take Buch off the table. Ditto for Goodrow’s contract. We’ll take Reaves, and the subsequent extension off the table. Let’s look at this move in isolation and you tell me what has you excited - especially based on concerns about the previous approach. I’m perfectly happy to discuss that and that alone.

As I previously said, it can’t be evaluated yet. But it can surely be scrutinized and rightfully so. This isn’t a guy who just came off the turnip truck, he’s got 15 years under his belt. Let’s talk about what he’s done in that time. We’ve got plenty there to talk about there alone.

Whether you’re passionate about this or not, at some point not everything is a blank slate that is beyond questioning either. We’re not entirely dealing with unknown quantities here. And if you’re not questioning some of these things, you might want to consider it.

1. His work as a scout, to me, is a complete unknown. I previously stated that unless someone was familiar with the reports he filed or the work he did scouting American kids for an organization that doesn't draft a lot of them, it's a question mark. Maybe he did terrible work. I don't know. Six separate GMs liked him enough to keep him in some capacity.

2. I didn't say I was excited about it. I said I didn't feel I could form an objective opinion. Really not sure how much more clear I can be about this point.

3. Developing trend--as I said before, I'm game to evaluate his work for two years as Toronto's US guy and then his three years as their head amateur guy. But I won't try to compare that to Clark as DoPP or anything because that's silly.

I don't really feel like you're meeting me halfway here, at all. I feel like you're agitated, don't like the move, and are just ignoring everything I say. So, moving on.

 

[Tob]

Didn't we say NYR would turn into an old and fat BU frat house before the summer is over?

 

[Off Sides]

I feel what really hurt the Hooters was both the restaurant with the same name, and Darius Rucker going country... and probably Owls in general which have not been popular since the Tootsie pop.