The Greatest General Managers in Canucks History (#1)

[I am toxic]

yeah, him and Ballard.

Oops, I forgot Ballard. Which is kinda an indictment, given pedigree (not that should matter) and what was given up to get him.

 

[Jyrki21]

I placed my vote behind Gillis, but it’s definitely a tough call with Quinn. Most of the considerations have been outlined here, and I think it really can’t be understated how much the cap era and younger free agency, plus the Internet and new sources of information, have changed the nature of the job. It makes it very hard to compare across era.

Quinn absolutely was the first manager to make the Canucks relevant, which is crazy for a team that was 20 years old. The Canucks were a total afterthought before him. Never on TV, never a star player worth documenting, never a destination (part of that is Vancouver was still in its pre-90s-boom period of course). And he mostly did it through trades, which is quite remarkable.

The reason why Gillis gets an edge for me is (for whatever micro-reasons you choose to focus on) he vaulted the Canucks into a tier they had never been in. They became dominant in a way they weren’t even when they won their division titles under Quinn, and they did it under a salary cap constraint and unprecedented parity. The Canucks were more than relevant at this time, they were odds-on favorites, doing things we could only other envy other franchises for. To think their management (Gillis and Gilman both) did nothing but inherit a core is silly.

I always note there is far too much emphasis on playoff results as being more meaningful than they are, and it leads people to distill the Canucks’ two highest peaks to “1994 and 2011”. It’s more than that. Take a moment to think how being a Canucks fan felt from 2008-09 onward. It was different. It was suddenly “why not us?” in a way it wasn’t even in the early ‘90s.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

It’s weird to me that Gillis essentially gets blamed for how the next guy handled his inheritance but the same thing doesn’t happen to Quinn.

The trades to get Horvat and Markstrom seem to count for nothing to certain folks. It’s wild. They’re the best and clearest rebuilding moves the organization has made in 8-10 years. Nothing the guy who gets credit for rebuilding the group comes close.

IMO - this seems to be a phenomenon exclusively pertaining to Gillis and Benning. I find that those that seem to favour Benning typically go out of there way to dismiss achievements made by Gillis. I also find that those that tend to favour Gillis typically go out of their way to dismiss achievements by Benning. It’s a big part of the cyclical nature of the debates that have been occurring on HFVan since the time Gillis was fired and Benning was hired.

I try to give everyone a fair shake. Gillis did a lot of things well (including the astute moves you mentioned, although I’d caveat that there was a human component to our goaltending fiasco that he badly mismanaged, even if the end result worked in our favour). He also did some things not so well. But to me, he’s still the #2 GM in team history - and clearly the #1 for a lot of folks here.

Benning has made his share of errors, but he’s got some wins to his credit, too. And just as he deserves his fair criticism for his mistakes, he deserves credit for the things he and his regime have gotten right, too.

Personally, I think voting Benning anywhere in the Top 3 is an outrageous stretch, and he wouldn’t yet crack my top 5; but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[4Twenty]

I placed my vote behind Gillis, but it’s definitely a tough call with Quinn. Most of the considerations have been outlined here, and I think it really can’t be understated how much the cap era and younger free agency, plus the Internet and new sources of information, have changed the nature of the job. It makes it very hard to compare across era.

Quinn absolutely was the first manager to make the Canucks relevant, which is crazy for a team that was 20 years old. The Canucks were a total afterthought before him. Never on TV, never a star player worth documenting, never a destination (part of that is Vancouver was still in its pre-90s-boom period of course). And he mostly did it through trades, which is quite remarkable.

The reason why Gillis gets an edge for me is (for whatever micro-reasons you choose to focus on) he vaulted the Canucks into a tier they had never been in. They became dominant in a way they weren’t even when they won their division titles under Quinn, and they did it under a salary cap constraint and unprecedented parity. The Canucks were more than relevant at this time, they were odds-on favorites, doing things we could only other envy other franchises for. To think their management (Gillis and Gilman both) did nothing but inherit a core is silly.

I always note there is far too much emphasis on playoff results as being more meaningful than they are, and it leads people to distill the Canucks’ two highest peaks to “1994 and 2011”. It’s more than that. Take a moment to think how being a Canucks fan felt from 2008-09 onward. It was different. It was suddenly “why not us?” in a way it wasn’t even in the early ‘90s.

Best post in thread.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

The revisionist history BS can't go unchecked.

After the finals, the Canucks were the President's trophy team while missing Daniel for the latter part of the season and first 3 games (all losses) against the Kings, who waltzed to the Cup.

But you keep doing you, that's what I love about HFCanucks, picking apart dishonest posts.

At that time , teams played an inordinate number of games in their own division....Feasting on teams like the Oilers enabled the Canucks to get the Presidents Trophy...

Even with Daniel out, getting outed by the Kings (in 5 games) in the first round was just the start of the 'downward spiral'..They would continue to get swept in embarrassing fashion in the first round ,for the next several years after that...and thats the truth..no revisionist history here.

The SC window was firmly shut by 2013.

 

[4Twenty]

IMO - this seems to be a phenomenon exclusively pertaining to Gillis and Benning. I find that those that seem to favour Benning typically go out of there way to dismiss achievements made by Gillis. I also find that those that tend to favour Gillis typically go out of their way to dismiss achievements by Benning. It’s a big part of the cyclical nature of the debates that have been occurring on HFVan since the time Gillis was fired and Benning was hired.

I try to give everyone a fair shake. Gillis did a lot of things well (including the astute moves you mentioned, although I’d caveat that there was a human component to our goaltending fiasco that he badly mismanaged, even if the end result worked in our favour). He also did some things not so well. But to me, he’s still the #2 GM in team history - and clearly the #1 for a lot of folks here.

Benning has made his share of errors, but he’s got some wins to his credit, too. And just as he deserves his fair criticism for his mistakes, he deserves credit for the things he and his regime have gotten right, too.

Personally, I think voting Benning anywhere in the Top 3 is an outrageous stretch, and he wouldn’t yet crack my top 5; but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Imo GM’s depend on others for Benning’s only redeeming quality (which is largely driven by pick location) more than any other aspect of the job.

GM’s wear responsibility but the “credit”is based on the work of others.


Gillis’ staff also were huge parts of the two drafts after he was relieved.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Imo GM’s depend on others for Benning’s only redeeming quality (which is largely driven by pick location) more than any other aspect of the job.

GM’s wear responsibility but the “credit”is based on the work of others.


Gillis’ staff also were huge parts of the two drafts after he was relieved.

By Gillis’ own admission, though, he feels he should have changed the scouting department sooner and he accepts responsibility for that himself, because the buck stops with the manager.

Benning has had a different set of picks to work with than Gillis did, but he’s hit on a number of high picks and some lower ones, too; something other GMs in our history have failed to do. Yes, it’s a whole department of people, but again, the buck stops with him. I don’t think it makes any sense to try to discredit this part of his management regime any more than it makes sense to discredit any of Gillis’ good moves; that’s kind of the point I’ve been rambling about.

 

[4Twenty]

At that time , teams played an inordinate number of games in their own division....Feasting on teams like the Oilers enabled the Canucks to get the Presidents Trophy...

Even with Daniel out, getting outed by the Kings (in 5 games) in the first round was just the start of the 'downward spiral'..They would continue to get swept in embarrassing fashion in the first round ,for the next several years after that...and thats the truth..no revisionist history here.

The SC window was firmly shut by 2013.

Why do you hate the best period in franchise history so much.

They got 101 points 2 years after this.

Benning, a man you support at every turn, thought he could better that 101 point team and sank them to being the cumulative 2nd worst team over 4 years all while trying to compete and thinking he had more depth and a better team annually. They were also capped out over this period and 7 seasons later watched their MVP, top shutdown D, and perfect fit in the top 6 list for nothing while $11m is on the press box or Utica.

 

[Javaman]

The "But Gillis" is strong in this thread.

I voted for Gillis but I completely understand why someone would vote for Quinn instead. But if a poster spends more time denigrating and diminishing Gillis than listing reasons to vote for Quinn, that's a pretty big tell.

Despite this sort of posting, this poll is currently unfolding as it should: Quinn and Gillis will finish 1-2 when it's all said and done.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

we're discussing the #1 and #2 best manager of all time..and Benning isnt one of them.

Every team in our division is going to feast on the Senators.

The fact that you cant differentiate from what either inherited indicates that you dont have a clue what you're even talking about..They were both brought in to distinctly different things.

 

[4Twenty]

Your in the wrong thread for a start...we're discussing the #1 and #2 best manager of all time..and Benning isnt one of them.

Every team in our division is going to feast on the Senators.

The fact that you cant differentiate from what either inherited indicates that you dont have a clue what you're even talking about..They were both brought in to distinctly different things.

One elevated a group. One took it to the bottom.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

One elevated a group. One took it to the bottom.

One inherited a group, elevated it, and squandered it...The other had to clean up the mess.

 

[Javaman]

At that time , teams played an inordinate number of games in their own division....Feasting on teams like the Oilers enabled the Canucks to get the Presidents Trophy...

Even with Daniel out, getting outed by the Kings (in 5 games) in the first round was just the start of the 'downward spiral'..They would continue to get swept in embarrassing fashion in the first round ,for the next several years after that...and thats the truth..no revisionist history here.

The SC window was firmly shut by 2013.

The Canucks record against the other divisions was good enough that the Canucks would still have won the President's trophy even if they had played all 82 games against teams outside their division.

The "weak division = President's trophy" is pure nonsense. Playing in the NW division only changed the margin of victory, not the outcome itself

 

[4Twenty]

One inherited a group, elevated it, and squandered it...The other had to clean up the mess.

The others moves tanked it to the bottom of the league based on their own moves.

Wouldn’t say squandered either. Was a 101 point team the following season. Bottomed out once new guys moves and vision for improved for the playoffs took shape.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

The others moves tanked it to the bottom of the league based on their own moves.

Wouldn’t say squandered either. Was a 101 point team the following season. Bottomed out once new guys moves and vision for improved for the playoffs took shape.

Aged core, no prospect pool...Team was going to the bottom regardless..

Anyway...this thread is dissolving into the usual management thread BS about Benning...Its about Quinn vs Gillis.

and I made my point about Gillis being the #2 in post #76..

 

[Hit the post]

The Canucks record against the other divisions was good enough that the Canucks would still have won the President's trophy even if they had played all 82 games against teams outside their division.

The "weak division = President's trophy" is pure nonsense. Playing in the NW division only changed the margin of victory, not the outcome itself

Lots of travel as well..which adds wear & tear to the body over the course of a season. Won't be as much as issue when Seattle enters the league.

 

[ghostingtaro]

How does Benning get any votes? His job started with drafting Jake Virtanen and trading away Jared Mccann

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

How does Benning get any votes? His job started with drafting Jake Virtanen and trading away Jared Mccann

Everyone’s got their opinion. Mike freaking Keenan has 2 votes and that blows my mind. But it is what it is.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Bit before my time.. but why was the #3 manager (Maloney) fired..?..He got the team in the playoffs twice, and missed one year, and was canned..?

Maybe some of the folks who followed the team back then could answer that.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Bit before my time.. but why was the #3 manager (Maloney) fired..?..He got the team in the playoffs twice, and missed one year, and was canned..?

Maybe some of the folks who followed the team back then could answer that.

@MS is a good resource on Maloney and the early history of the team. I think Maloney is one of the critically underrated figures in franchise history - both for his accomplishments with the WHL Canucks, and for his stints with the pro franchise in his off ice roles.

 

[Bubbles]

Everyone’s got their opinion. Mike freaking Keenan has 2 votes and that blows my mind. But it is what it is.

Other than being troll votes, he did have a few key moves. He shipped Linden out of here (which was coincidentally when I stopped watching) but it did set them up for the WCE era. And McCabe was eventually used to get the Sedins.

 

[MS]

@MS is a good resource on Maloney and the early history of the team. I think Maloney is one of the critically underrated figures in franchise history - both for his accomplishments with the WHL Canucks, and for his stints with the pro franchise in his off ice roles.

Yeah, like I've said a few times, he should be in the Ring of Honour. Only died last year and it's a shame he wasn't honoured previous to that.

923 points in a 16-years stretch for the WHL Vancouver Canucks, 3x league MVP as a Canuck. Retired the year the Canucks joined the NHL and joined the organization. Coached our minor-league team in Seattle for a few years before being promoted to NHL head coach. Was both GM and head coach for the only two winning seasons in the first two decades of franchise history.

Was basically the face of hockey in Vancouver from the mid-1950s through the mid-1970s, but has been almost completely forgotten.

 

[I am toxic]

At that time , teams played an inordinate number of games in their own division....Feasting on teams like the Oilers enabled the Canucks to get the Presidents Trophy...

Even with Daniel out, getting outed by the Kings (in 5 games) in the first round was just the start of the 'downward spiral'..They would continue to get swept in embarrassing fashion in the first round ,for the next several years after that...and thats the truth..no revisionist history here.

The SC window was firmly shut by 2013.

Exactly, after 2012 playoffs the spiral began, not after the 2011 finals.

Good to see you correct your revisionist history BS. Baby steps.

 

[Dab]

I think Burke Quinn and Gillis are pretty far and beyond the rest. On a tier of their own.

 

[I am toxic]

I placed my vote behind Gillis, but it’s definitely a tough call with Quinn. Most of the considerations have been outlined here, and I think it really can’t be understated how much the cap era and younger free agency, plus the Internet and new sources of information, have changed the nature of the job. It makes it very hard to compare across era.

Quinn absolutely was the first manager to make the Canucks relevant, which is crazy for a team that was 20 years old. The Canucks were a total afterthought before him. Never on TV, never a star player worth documenting, never a destination (part of that is Vancouver was still in its pre-90s-boom period of course). And he mostly did it through trades, which is quite remarkable.

The reason why Gillis gets an edge for me is (for whatever micro-reasons you choose to focus on) he vaulted the Canucks into a tier they had never been in. They became dominant in a way they weren’t even when they won their division titles under Quinn, and they did it under a salary cap constraint and unprecedented parity. The Canucks were more than relevant at this time, they were odds-on favorites, doing things we could only other envy other franchises for. To think their management (Gillis and Gilman both) did nothing but inherit a core is silly.

I always note there is far too much emphasis on playoff results as being more meaningful than they are, and it leads people to distill the Canucks’ two highest peaks to “1994 and 2011”. It’s more than that. Take a moment to think how being a Canucks fan felt from 2008-09 onward. It was different. It was suddenly “why not us?” in a way it wasn’t even in the early ‘90s.

Don't make me reconsider my position.