The Greatest General Managers in Canucks History (#1)

[Mr. Canucklehead]

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.

He made a good trade, yes. But he turned the team and the culture here so toxic (and before you come roaring in, @I am toxic, not everything is about you!) that the team and franchise was a bloody shambles. The sense of relationship with the community, the pride in being a Canuck, the value of the franchise as a whole - all dropped to historic lows during his reign. For me, worst “manager” the team ever had.

 

[RandV]

I have fondness for those moments but it wasn’t exactly a juggernaut nor were they a sustained period.

Nostalgia is what gets Quinn votes. I have him easily #3.

Burke #2

I do think the “who cares” and the excuses of “it was complicated” while skewering others for random things and complicated situations really funny.

I'd say they had a pretty decent stretch there. They won the division in '92 and '93, and while they only finished 7th in the West with 85 points in '94 the 9th place team was the Ducks way back 71 points so it's not like they were closing to missing the playoffs. A 3 year stretch like that capped off with a Stanley Cup finals is a damn good run.

As far as the pre/post cap era goes, it's hard to remember the details but the crazyness that lead to the cap hadn't quite started yet. The Rangers were there with a much bigger payroll, but league-wide team salary wasn't as big a factor. It was the CBA signed after the 94-95 season that set that snowball rolling. Probably helped speed the Canucks decline under Quinn but there were a lot of other factors going into it as well.

 

[I am toxic]

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

When history is flat out against you . . . there is nothing left but revisionist history.

And whataboutism. Never forget to use whataboutism.

 

[I am toxic]

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

Some posters were shit faced when they voted.

It happens.

 

[I am toxic]

He made a good trade, yes. But he turned the team and the culture here so toxic (and before you come roaring in, @I am toxic, not everything is about you!) that the team and franchise was a bloody shambles. The sense of relationship with the community, the pride in being a Canuck, the value of the franchise as a whole - all dropped to historic lows during his reign. For me, worst “manager” the team ever had.

I'm hurt.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I had like 4 paragraphs typed out before my browser refreshed and it disappeared but I’ll just say this. The 5 year period where the Canucks were one point behind the Chicago Blackhawks for best team over that period. Where Chicago’s core was 8 years younger and in their primes basically the modern day NHL dynasty with 3 cups is a bit more high level excellence and sustained level.

i agree with that. i was just arguing against the somewhat common presumption that the 94 canucks were just some average team with a superstar scorer and hot goalie that fluked its way to the finals.

i still believe that 93 was the best version of that team, incidentally, and that if gretzky hadn’t found the fountain of youth that spring the subsequent series against toronto and montreal would have been tossups.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

a couple other random thoughts though,

two months after burke brought linden back, bert and naslund proceeded to hit an unimaginable level and destroy the league for the next 1.5 years. should we think about that acquisition as an epic culture-defining move the way some of us think about the sundin signing?

and re: the 80s, was rick vaive really that much better than tony tanti? i’m not old enough to have been there but from where i sit, they made those two trades on opposite ends of the 82 run. one gave up a guy who became a bad team scorer to gain a complementary character vet who made everyone play bigger and had a scoring touch (tiger), the other traded one away (the great curt fraser) for a new bad team scoring winger.

but the real win was getting that brief overlap when we had both fraser and tiger.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

He made a good trade, yes. But he turned the team and the culture here so toxic (and before you come roaring in, @I am toxic, not everything is about you!) that the team and franchise was a bloody shambles. The sense of relationship with the community, the pride in being a Canuck, the value of the franchise as a whole - all dropped to historic lows during his reign. For me, worst “manager” the team ever had.

when you bring in a guy whose entire career is short stints where his success comes from destabilization and radical disruption, you get what you ask for.

and yeah, of course he was going to take a giant dump on the longterm sustainable relationship btw the team and the city. he knew he wouldn’t be there in two years. keenan was the hedge fund bro of GMs.

 

[Bubbles]

He made a good trade, yes. But he turned the team and the culture here so toxic (and before you come roaring in, @I am toxic, not everything is about you!) that the team and franchise was a bloody shambles. The sense of relationship with the community, the pride in being a Canuck, the value of the franchise as a whole - all dropped to historic lows during his reign. For me, worst “manager” the team ever had.

I agree. He tried to turn the 97-98 Canucks into the 94 Rangers. But he did some necessary evils, as in trading that aging 94 core. It was definitely the lowest point of the franchise.

 

[racerjoe]

a couple other random thoughts though,

two months after burke brought linden back, bert and naslund proceeded to hit an unimaginable level and destroy the league for the next 1.5 years. should we think about that acquisition as an epic culture-defining move the way some of us think about the sundin signing?

I don't remember the answer, but I would say ask the players how Linden helped them. That is the one thing about Sundin, and his time here, to a tee all the players talked about how much he helped them.

 

[4Twenty]

i agree with that. i was just arguing against the somewhat common presumption that the 94 canucks were just some average team with a superstar scorer and hot goalie that fluked its way to the finals.

i still believe that 93 was the best version of that team, incidentally, and that if gretzky hadn’t found the fountain of youth that spring the subsequent series against toronto and montreal would have been tossups.

I feel the same way about Burke’s 02-03 team. Beat the wild and it’s Anaheim and New Jersey.

Brodeur sucked against us over his career. That 03’ team was very good just didn’t get the Cinderella run.

 

[Hit the post]

I feel the same way about Burke’s 02-03 team. Beat the wild and it’s Anaheim and New Jersey.

Brodeur sucked against us over his career. That 03’ team was very good just didn’t get the Cinderella run.

With Cloutier in net? Not a chance.

Burke's biggest Achilles heel. Never could find/draft a goalie (the Cup he DID win as a NHL GM, he inherited that solid NHL starting goalie). Granted, in the regular season, Cloutier was OK.

 

[4Twenty]

a couple other random thoughts though,

two months after burke brought linden back, bert and naslund proceeded to hit an unimaginable level and destroy the league for the next 1.5 years. should we think about that acquisition as an epic culture-defining move the way some of us think about the sundin signing?

and re: the 80s, was rick vaive really that much better than tony tanti? i’m not old enough to have been there but from where i sit, they made those two trades on opposite ends of the 82 run. one gave up a guy who became a bad team scorer to gain a complementary character vet who made everyone play bigger and had a scoring touch (tiger), the other traded one away (the great curt fraser) for a new bad team scoring winger.

but the real win was getting that brief overlap when we had both fraser and tiger.

Yes the Linden return was imperative. It should absolutely get culture defining status.

Burke started the epic sell out streak and the return to hockey as entertainment. All on a shoe string.

My number 2.

 

[4Twenty]

With Cloutier in net? Not a chance.

Burke's biggest Achilles heel. Never could find/draft a goalie (the Cup he DID win as a NHL GM, he inherited that solid NHL starting goalie).

Cloutier imploded in the 3rd in game 7 but they could’ve won with him.

Bertuzzi’s goal to put us up 2-0 made me feel similar to Adams in 94 or the stanchion.

 

[sting101]

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.

Bennings development process and play style made them the players they are though

 

[I am toxic]

Cloutier imploded in the 3rd in game 7 but they could’ve won with him.

Bertuzzi’s goal to put us up 2-0 made me feel similar to Adams in 94 or the stanchion.

You guys are giving me the sadz . . .


. . . until I remember that prior to Quinn, those heart-breaks would have been luxuries.

 

[Javaman]

Bennings development process and play style made them the players they are though

I'd be curious to see how you can justify or prove this claim is true. I'm not being snarky here, I just feel it's one of those statements that would be really difficult to prove one way or the other.

And even if it can be proved, it simply leads to other questions for me:

Why wouldn't they have become the players they are under the Gillis regime? After all, he identified and acquired them in the first place. Gillis also has a history players achieving becoming their best through his "development process and play style": Sedins, Kesler, Burrows, Bieksa, Tanev, etc. What's so special about Benning's process and style?

Why didn't his development process and play style work for Virtanen and Juolevi?

 

[sting101]

I'd be curious to see how you can justify or prove this claim is true. I'm not being snarky here, I just feel it's one of those statements that would be really difficult to prove one way or the other.

And even it can be proved, it simply leads to other questions for me:

Why wouldn't they have become the players they are under the Gillis regime? After all, he identified and acquired them in the first place. Gillis also has a history players achieving becoming their best through his development process and play style": Sedins, Kesler, Burrows, Bieksa, Tanev, etc. What's so special about Benning's process and style?

Why didn't his development process and play style work for Virtanen and Juolevi?

It's in response to his claim that the core Gillis inherited were made who they were by his favorite GM.

 

[Javaman]

It's in response to his claim that the core Gillis inherited were made who they were by his favorite GM.

Ahh I see.

 

[Canucks1096]

I think you're selling Gillis short when you fail to mention that he brought in Malhotra, Samuelsson, Sundin, Demitra, Torres, etc. (I see you mention Ehrhoff and Hamhuis but then downplay them, even though they were significant additions to the roster). Samuelsson was a 30 goal scorer (signed at $2.5 million) and Sundin/Demitra were still good top 6 forwards when they played here. Samuelsson was still a pretty good top 6 winger in 2011 (50 points in 75 games); Raymond at 39 points in 70 games isn't that bad either (coming off a 25 goal, 53 point season as well. The Hansen - Malhotra - Torres line was one of the best 3rd lines in the league that year.

Gillis also was great at getting our star players to take significant discounts to help remain competitive (both Sedins at $6.1 mill during their Hart/Art Ross seasons, Burrows at $2 mill, Kesler @ $5 mill, etc.). His only top 10 draft picks were Horvat and Hodgson, which are better than some of Benning's top 10 picks (Virtanen and Juolevi; Podkolzin remains to be seen).




Ah, I see that you're qualifying the good moves that Gillis made (Ehrhoff, Hamhuis) in an effort to minimize them, lol sad. I guess we should discount the Schmidt trade since it was pretty much identical circumstances as the Ehrhoff deal (Vegas wanted Pietro, San Jose wanted Heatley - both dumped players to make room for them). You can qualify pretty much any trade if you provide the right excuse (I could do the same for JT Miller - Tampa was cap strapped and still won a Cup without him).



Who cares? What was Gillis supposed to do to appease you, trade away Kesler, the Sedins, and Luongo, and then acquire similar level players to show he was able to develop a core? We can only judge the GMs based on the hands they were dealt. Gillis' core still missed the playoffs 2 out of the 3 preceding seasons before he was hired as GM. He was able to round out the roster, sign great UFAs, and maintain an impressive cap structure to not lose key players. Benning, on the other hand, trades away assets for 10 games of Toffoli and then loses the player for nothing because he mismanaged the cap.



Cool agenda you got there, at least you're transparent about it. Your posting history already made that pretty obvious, though.



Burke was good and deserves to be near the top of this list. His main issue was not finding a #1 goalie and failing to provide scoring depth to the WCE era. I suspect he'll finish 3rd behind Gillis. Both Gillis and Burke are light years ahead of Benning, without a doubt.

Not sure why every discussion, you have to drive away some where and start talking about Benning. I think you need to make him stop living rent free.

Anyway, your long post, you didn't say anything to defend my two main points on why I think Gillis is overrated, the draft and he failed to put the Canucks over the top.

You were focus so much on regular season in your argument because you don't have an argument for the playoffs. Here is a recap, 2011 to 2013 playoffs Canucks average about 2 goals a game. Forwards, 2011 playoffs they only got 11 goals from Gillis player, LaPierre 3 Higgins 4 Torres 3 Sam 1. 2012 playoffs. 2012 playoffs 1 goal from Phaulsson, 2013 playoffs 0 goals.
When Gillis got hired, the foundation was there already, he failed to bring more quality pieces to put Canucks over the top. 2011 to 2013 playoffs there was nothing behind Sedins? Kesler and Burrows in term of offence. Yet I can't say he failed to the Canucks over the top?

Ask yourself if Gillis did such a great job in filling out the roster? How come the Gillis players didn't produce more in the 2011 to 2013 playoffs.

2009 and 2010 playoffs, offence wasn't the problem, but defense was brutal and couldn't keep handle Hawks speed and big forwards.

Any Gm job regardless on what stage they are require to get NHL players from the draft, no matter how you try spin this saying some of Gillis top 10 picks was better than Benning top 10 pick. You can't defend his horrible draft record outside of the top 10. Jensen Shinkaruk Schroeder Gaunce all were busts.

Okay so you're giving credit to Gillis on the players he didn't get. Hmm, I am pretty sure you didn't give credit to Benning on Horvat/Markstrom, you need to debate is good faith.

Erhoff trade and Miller/schmidt trade are not the same. Benning didn't had to take an extra cap dump for the owners to pay. Gillis did. Not the same

You don't think highly of Benning because all the bad transactions so you're judging based on his player movement. To be fair, we need do that with Gillis as well.

I do put Burke ahead of Gillis because when he took over. His primary job was to rebuild the team and get the Canucks back in the playoffs. He did that, his drafting was better as well, Burke did get the Sedins and Kesler. He got better quality players.

Gillis drafting was record and he failed to put the Canucks over top. If Gillis is trying to win a cup. You need get quality players. Look at Hawks signing Hossa, Pits getting Kessel, Kings getting Richards, Carter, Gaborik.

If Gillis more impact forward and some depth scoring in the bottom 6. Canucks win cup.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Not sure why every discussion, you have to drive away some where and start talking about Benning. I think you need to make him stop living rent free.

Anyway, your long post, you didn't say anything to defend my two main points on why I think Gillis is overrated, the draft and he failed to put the Canucks over the top.

You were focus so much on regular season in your argument because you don't have an argument for the playoffs. Here is a recap, 2011 to 2013 playoffs Canucks average about 2 goals a game. Forwards, 2011 playoffs they only got 11 goals from Gillis player, LaPierre 3 Higgins 4 Torres 3 Sam 1. 2012 playoffs. 2012 playoffs 1 goal from Phaulsson, 2013 playoffs 0 goals.
When Gillis got hired, the foundation was there already, he failed to bring more quality pieces to put Canucks over the top. 2011 to 2013 playoffs there was nothing behind Sedins? Kesler and Burrows in term of offence. Yet I can't say he failed to the Canucks over the top?

Ask yourself if Gillis did such a great job in filling out the roster? How come the Gillis didn't produce in the 2011 to 2013 playoffs.

2009 and 2010 playoffs, offence wasn't the problem, but defense was brutal and couldn't keep handle Hawks speed and big forwards.

Any Gm job regardless on what stage they are require to get NHL players from the draft, no matter how you try spin this saying some of Gillis top 10 picks was better than Benning top 10 pick. You can't defend his horrible draft record outside of the top 10. Jensen Shinkaruk Schroeder Gaunce all were busts.

Okay so you're giving credit to Gillis on the players he didn't get. Hmm, I am pretty sure you didn't give credit to Benning on Horvat/Markstrom, you need to debate is good faith.

Erhoff trade and Miller/schmidt trade are not the same. Benning didn't had to take an extra cap dump for the owners to pay. Gillis did. Not the same

You don't think highly of Benning because all the bad transactions so you're judging based on his player movement. To be fair, we need do that with Gillis as well.

I do put Burke ahead of Gillis because when he took over. His primary job was to rebuild the team and get the Canucks back in the playoffs. He did that, his drafting was better as well, Burke did get the Sedins and Kesler. He got better quality players.

Gillis drafting was record and he failed out the Canucks over top. If Gillis is trying to win a cup. You need get quality players. Look at Hawks signing Hossa, Pits getting Kessel, Kings getting Richards, Carter, Gaborik.

If Gillis more impact forward and some depth scoring in the bottom 6. Canucks win cup.

Tl;dr - look at the poll results

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Again, folks - debate is fine and differences of opinion and discussing them is fine. Just keep it civil. Try not to personally attack, make blanket statements about opposing viewpoints, or otherwise inflame what should be a civil conversation.

 

[Javaman]

Not sure why every discussion, you have to drive away some where and start talking about Benning. I think you need to make him stop living rent free.

Anyway, your long post, you didn't say anything to defend my two main points on why I think Gillis is overrated, the draft and he failed to put the Canucks over the top.

You were focus so much on regular season in your argument because you don't have an argument for the playoffs. Here is a recap, 2011 to 2013 playoffs Canucks average about 2 goals a game. Forwards, 2011 playoffs they only got 11 goals from Gillis player, LaPierre 3 Higgins 4 Torres 3 Sam 1. 2012 playoffs. 2012 playoffs 1 goal from Phaulsson, 2013 playoffs 0 goals.
When Gillis got hired, the foundation was there already, he failed to bring more quality pieces to put Canucks over the top. 2011 to 2013 playoffs there was nothing behind Sedins? Kesler and Burrows in term of offence. Yet I can't say he failed to the Canucks over the top?

Ask yourself if Gillis did such a great job in filling out the roster? How come the Gillis players didn't produce more in the 2011 to 2013 playoffs.

2009 and 2010 playoffs, offence wasn't the problem, but defense was brutal and couldn't keep handle Hawks speed and big forwards.

Any Gm job regardless on what stage they are require to get NHL players from the draft, no matter how you try spin this saying some of Gillis top 10 picks was better than Benning top 10 pick. You can't defend his horrible draft record outside of the top 10. Jensen Shinkaruk Schroeder Gaunce all were busts.

Okay so you're giving credit to Gillis on the players he didn't get. Hmm, I am pretty sure you didn't give credit to Benning on Horvat/Markstrom, you need to debate is good faith.

Erhoff trade and Miller/schmidt trade are not the same. Benning didn't had to take an extra cap dump for the owners to pay. Gillis did. Not the same

You don't think highly of Benning because all the bad transactions so you're judging based on his player movement. To be fair, we need do that with Gillis as well.

I do put Burke ahead of Gillis because when he took over. His primary job was to rebuild the team and get the Canucks back in the playoffs. He did that, his drafting was better as well, Burke did get the Sedins and Kesler. He got better quality players.

Gillis drafting was record and he failed to put the Canucks over top. If Gillis is trying to win a cup. You need get quality players. Look at Hawks signing Hossa, Pits getting Kessel, Kings getting Richards, Carter, Gaborik.

If Gillis more impact forward and some depth scoring in the bottom 6. Canucks win cup.

Wow. So much wrong to respond to here. I'll try to focus on the highlights.

You start by criticizing a poster for talking about a GM's performance in a thread explicitly about the performance of GMs.

Next, no other GM has come closer to bringing a Cup to Vancouver than Gillis, but you argue at length that Gillis should be criticized for the Canucks' playoff record during his regime.

You then put Burke ahead of Gillis, even though the Canucks made the playoffs more frequently under Gillis than Burke.

You also chastise Gillis for taking on a cap dump to acquire Erhoff without acknowledging that Gillis skillfully put the Canucks into a position where they could afford a cap dump to acquire a player who was a key component to their success.

Sure, the Canucks drafting wasn't very good under Gillis, but you can't compare top ten picks to late first rounders. Like... you just can't.

You set a low bar for Burke (making the playoffs) while glossing over the fact that Gillis successfully achieved a more difficult standard by assembling an elite team that won consecutive President's trophies and were a game away from winning the Cup.

The Canucks didn't lose the Cup because Gillis failed to acquire enough depth. They lost because their roster was ravaged by injuries while the Bruins were relatively healthy.

Sorry if this is tl;dr

 

[Canucks1096]

Tl;dr - look at the poll results

Burke had 3 NHL GM or/and president jobs after leaving Van

Gillis 0

Can it be because in the NHL world, they think a lot more highly of Burke than Gillis. Maybe and just maybe they think he is a better GM as well.

Have a great day

 

[EpochLink]

Burke had 3 NHL GM or/and president jobs after leaving Van

Gillis 0

Can it be because in the NHL world, they think a lot more highly of Burke than Gillis. Maybe and just maybe they think he is a better GM as well.

Have a great day

Gillis will not land another GM job after Vancouver, no matter how many interviews he has.

It’s all about the old boys club in the NHL, he doesn’t have much connections in the GM/ownership field.

Most of us thought he would land a job with the Seattle franchise but they went with old boys club member Ron Francis.

Mike Gillis has been pushed to the Mike Nolan field if NHL blacklist