The Greatest General Managers in Canucks History (#1)

[CpatainCanuck]

Sticking with Vigneault, both initially and then later during the big losing streak, is absolutely a notable move by Gillis. As was convincing Vigneault to get on board with a new way that they wanted the team to play.

All of those core players aside from Luongo took absolutely unexpected, enormous, transcendent leaps as players under Gillis.

And many of them took transcendent leaps before Gillis too...Burrows making it from the ECHL to the nhl for example, and the Sedins establishing themselves as PPG players. That's kind of how it goes for most players. Actually all players. They get better on a curve or in leaps and jumps before they peak and then start getting worse again.

 

[4Twenty]

So what are you saying then? It seems you have no interest in looking any deeper than the Standings sheet and playoff finishes when looking at how a General Manager actually impacted the team. So you'll vote Gillis here. And if a future canucks team ever beats its records and wins the Stanley Cup, you'll change your vote to the GM in charge during that season, even if he happens to inherit 10 future hall of famers.

I think he had an impeccable plan and nobody expected that group he inherited to blossom like they did. Nobody expected a cup contender. He was one win short.

Team went from boring count on Luongo bottom 10 scoring team to the best team in the league, with the most goals for, least against.

It seems to me in hindsight people are just glossing over the changes and the immediate impact he had and serving it up as he inherited it. I repeat no nhl pundit or Canucks fan thought Gillis inherited anything close to what he managed it to.

 

[4Twenty]

And many of them took transcendent leaps before Gillis too...Burrows making it from the ECHL to the nhl for example, and the Sedins establishing themselves as PPG players. That's kind of how it goes for most players. Actually all players. They get better on a curve or in leaps and jumps before they peak and then start getting worse again.

Wow that’s some riveting analysis. Gosh.

 

[RobertKron]

And many of them took transcendent leaps before Gillis too...Burrows making it from the ECHL to the nhl for example, and the Sedins establishing themselves as PPG players. That's kind of how it goes for most players. Actually all players. They get better on a curve or in leaps and jumps before they peak and then start getting worse again.

Yes, they were obviously talented players, but the vast majority of talented players don't become what that core did. That a whole bunch of players took pretty huge, unforeseen developmental leaps after or around the typical "you get what you see" age under a GM whose whole thing was ferreting out outside-the-box ways to get more out of players isn't something that you can ignore. Was he singularly responsible for - for example - Kesler turning from the solid 3C that he'd always been forecast to become into a top end 1/2C? Obviously not, but you also can't pretend it didn't happen on his watch.

Like, I don't think I can even think of a player on that 2011 team that didn't outperform their general expectations.

 

[wreckless]

a lot of ideas / innovations Gillis and his team came up with are league standards to this day.

just imagine where he'd / we'd be had he still been here and allowed to start (his requested/demanded) proper rebuild.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

In 2006-07...The Sedins had the 3rd highest point totals of their career that year..Pretty much debunks the whole 'Gillis made the Sedins' debate.

 

[4Twenty]

Nobody said Gillis made the Sedins. But the moves he made and the change in style saw them go for sub ppg to 113pts. That’s huge.

Ask the Sedins.

 

[RobertKron]

In 2006-07...The Sedins had the 3rd highest point totals of their career that year..Pretty much debunks the whole 'Gillis made the Sedins' debate.

Where's that debate going on?

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Nobody said Gillis made the Sedins. But the moves he made and the change in style saw them go for sub ppg to 113pts. That’s huge.

Ask the Sedins.

This is an accurate read on it, IMO. The Sedins were clearly top flight talents (despite Gillis’ initial cringe worthy remarks on them, which he was able to salvage), and Vigneault was a top flight coach. But Gillis’ decision to change from a defensive puck possession strategy to an offensive one, and getting all the key stakeholders on board, was one of his bigger and better moves.

 

[4Twenty]

It’s too bad there is only stats to 2007-8 on natural stat trick but seeing one season of Vigneault usage of the Twins pre Gillis and post is night and day. Their attempts, shots, goals, scoring chances all went up considerably.

You can tell by looking at it exactly when Gillis took over. The changes in results were drastic.

Same with Kesler.

No surprise Kesler’s selke year came when he wasn’t even at his best defensively and had someone on his team doing even more defensively than he was. Great addition by Gillis. So good he’s face off prowess can be seen through our current captain.

 

[4Twenty]

This is an accurate read on it, IMO. The Sedins were clearly top flight talents (despite Gillis’ initial cringe worthy remarks on them, which he was able to salvage), and Vigneault was a top flight coach. But Gillis’ decision to change from a defensive puck possession strategy to an offensive one, and getting all the key stakeholders on board, was one of his bigger and better moves.

I don’t think they were that cringe at the time. They look cringe now. But that’s not what the general sentiment was at the time. The hockey world including the Canucks market had huge doubts on them.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I don’t think they were that cringe at the time. They look cringe now. But that’s not what the general sentiment was at the time. The hockey world including the Canucks market had huge doubts on them.

I’d disagree with that. I recall those comments sending shockwaves through the hockey community at the time. Maybe they look significantly worse now, but I thought they were in pretty poor taste at the time, as well.

 

[rypper]

I think it was a little of both. The Sedins had clearly emerged as the successor to the WCE as the offensive leaders on the team.

But they still had their doubters. They didn't have the respect around the league or even within the fan base they do now, that they were the guys to carry the team moving forward.

When Mike took over and gave the luke warm assessment of the twins, the true believers were shocked, while the doubters were open to the harder look. Most people expected the new GM to come in and laud the twins without second thought.

It ended up being very very silly and whoever the rumored alternative was, would not have lived up. (Wasn't it some combination of gaborik, demitra, Hossa?)

 

[RussianRacket]

jesus f***ing christ you people

Pat Quinn is easily number one.

Mike Gillis inherited almost everything, made like 4 good moves, and then oversaw the total descent into catastrophe.

The fact that Gillis is getting votes is a shame.

 

[RobertKron]

Knowing the Sedins, I wouldn't be surprised if all of that also sent them into training overdrive.

 

[kaiser matias]

Didn't he?

EDIT: yes, he did.

I think the argument here is that while Quinn was GM, it was a directive from ownership, and not his call. Similar to Gretzky being traded: Sather had little to do with the trade (I think he had some input on the players the Kings sent back), it was all Pocklington.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

Pat Quinn AINEC

Burke would be my number#2

oh.. yea. because you put "AINEC" i'm convinced.

 

[sting101]

So what are you saying then? It seems you have no interest in looking any deeper than the Standings sheet and playoff finishes when looking at how a General Manager actually impacted the team. So you'll vote Gillis here. And if a future canucks team ever beats its records and wins the Stanley Cup, you'll change your vote to the GM in charge during that season, even if he happens to inherit 10 future hall of famers.

yep Peter Chiarelli greatest GM in Bruins history according to his theory. It was his system that made Bergeron Krecji Lucic Marchand Thomas and Chara into the players they were?

 

[CpatainCanuck]

I think he had an impeccable plan and nobody expected that group he inherited to blossom like they did. Nobody expected a cup contender. He was one win short.

Team went from boring count on Luongo bottom 10 scoring team to the best team in the league, with the most goals for, least against.

It seems to me in hindsight people are just glossing over the changes and the immediate impact he had and serving it up as he inherited it. I repeat no nhl pundit or Canucks fan thought Gillis inherited anything close to what he managed it to.

Yes, they were obviously talented players, but the vast majority of talented players don't become what that core did. That a whole bunch of players took pretty huge, unforeseen developmental leaps after or around the typical "you get what you see" age under a GM whose whole thing was ferreting out outside-the-box ways to get more out of players isn't something that you can ignore. Was he singularly responsible for - for example - Kesler turning from the solid 3C that he'd always been forecast to become into a top end 1/2C? Obviously not, but you also can't pretend it didn't happen on his watch.

Like, I don't think I can even think of a player on that 2011 team that didn't outperform their general expectations.

You guys are still acting like Gillis was some kind of Shaman who somehow did a magic and made all these players better. Or that he coached Vigneault on how to coach the Sedins into being top-5 players in the league.

That's just nonsense.

These are the ages of the Canucks significant young skaters at the start of the season before Gillis joined the team:

Vancouver Canucks 2007-08 roster and scoring statistics at hockeydb.com

D. Sedin: 26
H. Sedin: 26
Burrows: 26
Bieksa: 26
Kesler: 23
Hansen: 21
Raymond: 21
Edler: 21

It has been well documented that the Sedins, Burrows and Bieksa were late bloomers. The fact is all of these players just got better after Gillis joined the team. He didn't nurture some un-tapped potential: in fact he stated outright shortly after being hired that he didn't even know if he would build the team around the Sedins. He didn't "coach" Vigneault on how to properly coach the team: Vigneault adopted a more offensive system when the roster was good enough to benefit from such a system. That said, Gillis certainly had a hand in bringing about that cup-contending roster. He did a great job of adding players (Ehrhoff, Hamhuis, Malhotra, Samuelsson, Higgins, Ballard, Alberts...the list goes on). This is worthy of praise and is what you can legitimately talk about in regards to Gillis. When you spend all your time talking about how the good young players Gillis inherited got better it makes it seem like you have no good arguments in his favour.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

Was a tough call but I had to go with Jim Benning in the end.

Recency bias maybe but I cannot overlook that outstanding draft record.

 

[JAK]

Making Trades - Quinn
Hockey Operations - Gillis
Drafting - Benning
Press Conference - Burke

 

[yabanjin]

Pat Quinn had some great trades, that allowed the Canucks to make it to game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals, but he wasn't a great people manager. He completely mismanaged Pavel Bure, Igor Larionov, Vlad Krutov, Petr Nedved and so on. they all despised Pat Quinn. Plus he signed Mark Messier. Unforgiveable. And his record from 94-97 speaks for itself.

GMMG is the only real choice here.

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

So in writing that post and thinking back on the period a bit, I'm really struck by the amount of weird, shady, or absurd backroom stuff that went on in the Quinn era.

Like, even his hiring was a circus. Then you've got the circumstances surrounding the Bure draft, and then all of the subsequent Bure related bullshit where they inexplicably kept dicking him around for basically his entire time as a Canuck. There's the midnight Gretzky ultimatum. Bringing Anatoli Tarasov over for an apparently risky surgery and then sending Troy Gamble to Russian hockey boot camp as a bargaining tactic to bring over Krutov and Larionov. The Nedved saga. It was the wild west.

It was like Moscow in the 90s

 

[likash]

I've been watching the Canucks since february of 2008 and been lurking around here since 2012, so i can only speak about Jimbo and Gillis.

I'll give my opinion on the drafting

I've seen people here give Benning absurd praise about his drafting record. He deserves praise for his picks(no matter who's ideea it was to pick those players) but people should take in cosnideration that, unlike Gillis he had much more TOP 10 picks . Let's take a look at the top 10 picks for both GM.

Mike Gillis had Cody Hodgson 10th overall in 2008 and Bo Horvat who was 9th overall(via Cory Schneider trade) in 2013. The other picks were late first round, who had no chance to develop at that time because the team was a contender. Cody was used in a sheltered role and managed to play quite well. Outside of the first round his draft sucked. There is no doubt here. That was his biggest weakness and he should have addressed it sooner. Bo at number 9 was his " home run ". I remember that he targeted Horvat despite the fact that 90% of the people here wanted Valeri Nichskin.

Jim Benning: 2014 nr 6 pick- Jake Virtanen who is a disappointment/ nr 24 pick Jared McCann who is no longer here
2015 nr 23pick- Brock Bosser - great pick considering that it was a late first round
2016 nr 5 pick- Olli Juolevi - this one is bust if you consider that it was top5 and he still is not a top 4 defender on a weak defence after 5 years
2017 nr 5 pick - Ellias Pettersson - along with Bo Horvat the best player on the team - franchise center
2018 nr 7 pick - Quinn Hughes - great offensive instincts but suspect on defence and needs a reliable partner(like Tanev) to cover up for him
2019 nr 10 pick - Vasily Podkolzin - work in progress.
2020 no 1 st round picks

Gillis: 2 top 10 picks-- 1 great pick / 1 decent pick
Benning: 5 top 10 picks-- 2 great picks/2busts/ 1 work in progress

People should take in consideration at what position each GM drafted. All i see on this forum from the shills, is that Benning is a great drafter and Gillis is the worst drafting GM and destroyed the team.

There are a lot of shills ( some of them are payed) that after the team wins a few games come here and remind us what a great GM Benning is compared to Gillis. When the team starts to lose most of them dissapear and those who remain here start talking about drafting. Truth is that Benning had 7 years and still has not shown he can build a team that can contend for the next 4-5 years. The fact that he had no capspace kind of saved him from himself. He is a very lucky GM and has good relations with other teams and this helped him in landing Miller and Schmidt.

Jim Benning would be a great director for the scouting departament but should never be a GM. I think he is Aqua's puppet, a yes man and that is why he was not fired.He should have been fired in 2017 or 2018, but somehow he survived. You can't try to compete and finish bottom of the league 4 years in a row and say you are a competent GM.
I'm from Eastern Europe and the fact that an uneducated individual is the GM of hundred millions franchise is kind of strange. It reminds me of the comunist era when people with only highschool diploma were put in important positions just because they were party members and loyal to the regime.

I would keep Jimbo untill the end of the season and then fire him . Talking about Gillis returning is pointless because he is not coming back here . No manager with a spine would work with Aqua.
I see 2 options: Aqua smartens up and hires a competent GM and stops the interference or someone buys the team from him.


I'm sorry for the grammar mistakes. English is my second language.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Yeah, but that didn't stop them from trades.

Like Neely.

And Vaive