Who should the Canucks target as their next GM?

[RandV]

When people are looking for new management they usually look for areas the previous regime had weakness and try to find someone to counter that. Gillis' tenure here ended due to his weakness at the draft, Benning was hired in part due to his draft credentials. Benning's weakness here has been poor analysis and shortsighted moves so is it any surprise people are looking to an analyst and someone who was fired for pushing for a longer term plan in their previous market?

I never bought this line of thinking. No that's how you see things done in the league, usually a GM gets fired due to poor performance and the next guy gets hired from the top of the pile with the organization hoping he can do a better job.

But in Vancouver after the the 2011 loss ownership seemed to be obsessed with the 'Boston model' and started meddling to steer the team in that direction. It's likely not coincidence that when Gillis was fired, without doing much interview work we almost immediately hired the top guy available from the Boston organization.

I doubt Aquilini really put any thought into the drafting angle, he just wanted his 'Boston model' guy. Rather the whole 'hire Benning who can draft because Gillis couldn't' thing always felt to me like a fan-based 'fill in the blanks' theory, which has been pretty common the past 5 years.

Even if you were going to hire for this reason, was Benning really the best guy? Buffalo had good results when he was head scout there, but at the time that was like 8 (?) years ago. In more recent history Boston's drafting with Benning as AGM overlooking it was just as bad as ours. If we specifically wanted to hire a 'scout' GM there were probably better options.

 

[member 290103]

I hope they think a little bit outside the box whoever they end up hiring, don't keep recycling all these donkeys who somehow keep getting hired despite horrendous track records.

Watch Frankie hire Chiarelli lol

I could see Benning hire him: “like we like how he has won a cup before and like he will be good for Petey, and we like how he can mentor our other staff.”

 

[ErrantShepherd]

I never bought this line of thinking. No that's how you see things done in the league, usually a GM gets fired due to poor performance and the next guy gets hired from the top of the pile with the organization hoping he can do a better job.

But in Vancouver after the the 2011 loss ownership seemed to be obsessed with the 'Boston model' and started meddling to steer the team in that direction. It's likely not coincidence that when Gillis was fired, without doing much interview work we almost immediately hired the top guy available from the Boston organization.

I doubt Aquilini really put any thought into the drafting angle, he just wanted his 'Boston model' guy. Rather the whole 'hire Benning who can draft because Gillis couldn't' thing always felt to me like a fan-based 'fill in the blanks' theory, which has been pretty common the past 5 years.

Even if you were going to hire for this reason, was Benning really the best guy? Buffalo had good results when he was head scout there, but at the time that was like 8 (?) years ago. In more recent history Boston's drafting with Benning as AGM overlooking it was just as bad as ours. If we specifically wanted to hire a 'scout' GM there were probably better options.

I wouldn't say that idea of Benning as "master drafter" was the only reason, just one of the factors. Also that the story or appearance of previous scouting success would be more important to the hire, rather than the recent actual lackluster drafts done during the Bruins tenure. But hiring the someone who beat you, wanting their success to somehow come to your organization is definitely a major factor here too.

We even saw it in earlier Canucks owners hiring the Captain and Coach of the '94 Finals.

...I mean ultimately it all just speculation what led to the decision, but it's interesting to think about.

Also yeah, there have definitely been better options hired by other organizations during Benning's tenure here. His record just isn't good enough. These are not good results for a team 5 years into his tenure.

 

[Horse McHindu]

My bad.

Had completely forgotten that Gillis had hired Brackett.

Quite honestly, I’d be on the Gillis train if was ever interested in coming back if it wins back the faith of people. While Gillis did make some serious mistakes when he was here last time (just as Benning has done) his interview on Team 1040 late last year seems to suggest that Gillis has learned from his mistakes. With Brackett at the helm, I don’t think drafting will be nearly as big an issue as it was during Gillis’ last tenure.

 

[MadaCanuckle]

My bad.

Had completely forgotten that Gillis had hired Brackett.

Quite honestly, I’d be on the Gillis train if was ever interested in coming back if it wins back the faith of people. While Gillis did make some serious mistakes when he was here last time (just as Benning has done) his interview on Team 1040 late last year seems to suggest that Gillis has learned from his mistakes. With Brackett at the helm, I don’t think drafting will be nearly as big an issue as it was during Gillis’ last tenure.

Why would you want a GM who did serious mistakes (according to you) and you bash for the past 5 years whenever you could to defend an incompetent idiot?

 

[Horse McHindu]

Why would you want a GM who did serious mistakes (according to you) and you bash for the past 5 years whenever you could to defend an incompetent idiot?

I never said that. You’re putting words in my mouth and I don’t appreciate that at all.

I’ve always said that Gillis was a good GM......just not a great one. I argued that while Gillis made many good decisions, his amateur scouting was absolutely brutal. I was also not a fan of a lot of the moves that he made post 2011 (ie Luongo/Schneider situation, Hodgson-Kassian, Derek Roy, etc.).

My previous argument about “going back to the good ol’ days,” was that there would be a zero sum game in terms of whether we had Gillis or Benning as our GM. I believe that both men are good GM’s, but have some significant weak areas that prevent them from being great (ie Gillis/Amateur Scouting, Benning/Pro Scouting).

However - Gillis DID hire Brackett towards the end of his tenure and so perhaps Gillis this time around wouldn’t be so bad.......since drafting would likely be significantly better this time around.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Why would you want a GM who did serious mistakes (according to you) and you bash for the past 5 years whenever you could to defend an incompetent idiot?

As to your last point, I always try and support whoever is in charge. I did the same thing with Pat Quinn, Mike Keenan, Brian Burke, Dave Nonis, and Mike Gillis.

Nonis was the only guy I had difficulty showing support to while he was at the helm, because I didn’t think he was doing a good job at all. The only reason why he got Luongo, is because Mike Keenan is a spiteful jerk that wanted to trade Luongo to the exact opposite end of the continent.

All other Canuck GM’s however......I support while they are in power, and only lobby heavier criticisms once their times have passed.

 

[vancityluongo]

Definitely getting a little ahead of myself here, but if Columbus misses the playoffs and Jarmo is canned as some are expecting, I'd happily bring him here as President and make Zito the GM.

 

[Horse McHindu]

One of the examples: about the Gudbranson trade, on 24 May 2016, when to defend that horrific trade, the "but Gillis" and reference to Ballard trade came along. So there's an example, from a random search. Do you really remember everything that well? Maybe your memory is similar to the quality of your proposals...

Let's get more:

"On the flip side, it was Gillis’ drafting team (2008-2013) that pretty much left our current regime with ZERO defensive prospects outside of Hutton. Benning had to adjust as a result." Feb,2 2019

"One of the reasons why Mike Gillis no longer has a job, and why the Canucks fell off a cliff at 2013, was because of horrid drafting and developing." Oct 9 , 2018

"The success that the Gillis era had was a direct result of previous regimes' efforts." Jul 16,2018

If this isn't bashing, you don't know what bashing his. Add that to the things you don't know list, who is pretty big.

Everything I said there is true:

1) The Canucks needed to trade for a RHD at that time (May 24 2016?) because we had absolutely NOTHING in our pipeline in terms of defensive prospects on the right side......thanks to the Gillis regime. The motivation for Benning behind making McCann trade was very justified. Unfortunately - as history has shown, Gudbranson was the wrong guy to target. Benning and Pro Scouting effed up here.

All of those other quotes I said were true. Gillis left zero in the pipeline for Benning (other than Horvat whom he had to give up Schneider for), which is a big reason why he hasn’t been a offered a GM job since he was fired.

To that last quote - I did at admit that Gillis did a good job of bringing in some major complementary pieces (“complementary” being the key word here) such as Hamhuis, Torres, Malhottra, Erhoff, and Lapierre, but the main core of those Presidents Trophy winning teams were drafted by previous regimes (Burke and Nonis). The twins, Kesler, Luongo, Schneider, etc.,

Those are all valid criticisms of Mike Gillis......and are true criticisms.

Gillis also did many good things while he was here as well (ie sleep schedule, meal plans, encouraging a progressive style of hockey, getting players to accept cap friendly deals which was great for the PRESENT, very good Pro Scouting, etc.).

These are all reasons why I believe that Gillis was a “good” GM, but not a great one at that time. However - based on his late hiring of Brackett, and based on his Team 1040 interview, I do feel like he has learned from his mistakes. Re-Hiring Gillis might be a good PR move if the toxicity surrounding Benning increases around the city.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Definitely getting a little ahead of myself here, but if Columbus misses the playoffs and Jarmo is canned as some are expecting, I'd happily bring him here as President and make Zito the GM.

Jarmo is someone that I’d strongly consider if ownership wanted to go in a different direction. Jarmo’s not afraid to go against the grain and he also shows good judgement. For example - he selected Pierre Luc Dubois over Jesse Puljiujarvi when the Puljiujarvi was the consensus #3 pick at the time.

I also like a lot of the trades that he has made (ie bringing in Seth Jones), along with high risk tolerance (ie loading up on players at the trade deadline even if his team isn’t quite a contender leading up to said deadline).

 

[PuckMunchkin]

What Toronto did with Dubas was smart. They identified someone who had potential but was also young and very inexperienced. They brought in a mentor in Lamerello and let Dubas learn the ropes for a few years before handing him the keys.

I would have no problem making an off the board hire but it would be a mistake to just make him the GM right off the bat like the Coyotes did with Chyka

Chyka would be an improvement on what we have.

Not only did Shanahan get Dubas a mentor, they had a plan B in Mark Hunter if Dubas didnt work out.

 

[The Extrapolater]

1) The Canucks needed to trade for a RHD at that time (May 24 2016?) because we had absolutely NOTHING in our pipeline in terms of defensive prospects on the right side......thanks to the Gillis regime. The motivation for Benning behind making McCann trade was very justified. Unfortunately - as history has shown, Gudbranson was the wrong guy to target. Benning and Pro Scouting effed up here.

Unless it's a trade for an all-star, it's probably better to stay out of trading for core d-pieces. Gillis made two trades for top four quality d-men; one worked out (Erhoff), and the other bombed (Ballard). He tended to stay away from the trade market for d-men after that, unless he needed depth for the playoffs (Alberts) or to cover for injuries (Diaz).

The right call would've been to try to find a player in the draft or college players free agent market. The likelihood of finding an impact player through either of those routes is higher than trading for one, unless the team is trading for a proven all-star.

All of those other quotes I said were true. Gillis left zero in the pipeline for Benning (other than Horvat whom he had to give up Schneider for), which is a big reason why he hasn’t been a offered a GM job since he was fired.

Gillis left a team in decent enough shape. Had Benning worked at it, he probably could've traded away vets for picks and prospects. However, the mandate was playoffs, and so Benning made moves to satisfy this. There was still a playoff calibre team that Gillis left behind (but had identified as needing a rebuild as early as 2012's off-season). Benning made the playoffs with that still intact team, but after the Canucks flailed out of the playoffs, he promptly dismantled the team's depth due to some mad plan that only he understood.

As for why Gillis hasn't taken any jobs since being released by the Canucks from his duties, he's semi-retired. He's 60ish years old. He was still being paid by the Canucks up until recently, so there probably wasn't much of a rush for him to find another job anywhere. There were rumblings in regards to his being offered a position in the Islanders organization, but little came of that. My guess is he wasn't made the right sort of offer to convince him to relocate to the East coast. There currently are rumours there's mutual interest between him and Seattle, but who knows what's going to happen with that. My guess is the position is his if Seattle makes the right sort of offer: i.e. ownership is excluded from making hockey decisions.

To that last quote - I did at admit that Gillis did a good job of bringing in some major complementary pieces (“complementary” being the key word here) such as Hamhuis, Torres, Malhottra, Erhoff, and Lapierre, but the main core of those Presidents Trophy winning teams were drafted by previous regimes (Burke and Nonis). The twins, Kesler, Luongo, Schneider, etc.,

You're both underselling the value of players Gillis brought in, and underselling the value good role players can make on a team.

Hamhuis, Erhoff, and Samuelson were all-star calibre players. And the role players such as Higgins, Lapierre, and Hansen all had multiple traits that allowed them to function in differing roles, contributing in differing ways as needed throughout the lineup.

 

[Bettman Returnz]

How about this... who don’t you want as our next GM? This will include the current regime (Benning and weisbrod).

 

[MadaCanuckle]

Everything I said there is true:

1) The Canucks needed to trade for a RHD at that time (May 24 2016?) because we had absolutely NOTHING in our pipeline in terms of defensive prospects on the right side......thanks to the Gillis regime. The motivation for Benning behind making McCann trade was very justified. Unfortunately - as history has shown, Gudbranson was the wrong guy to target. Benning and Pro Scouting effed up here.

All of those other quotes I said were true. Gillis left zero in the pipeline for Benning (other than Horvat whom he had to give up Schneider for), which is a big reason why he hasn’t been a offered a GM job since he was fired.

To that last quote - I did at admit that Gillis did a good job of bringing in some major complementary pieces (“complementary” being the key word here) such as Hamhuis, Torres, Malhottra, Erhoff, and Lapierre, but the main core of those Presidents Trophy winning teams were drafted by previous regimes (Burke and Nonis). The twins, Kesler, Luongo, Schneider, etc.,

Those are all valid criticisms of Mike Gillis......and are true criticisms.

Gillis also did many good things while he was here as well (ie sleep schedule, meal plans, encouraging a progressive style of hockey, getting players to accept cap friendly deals which was great for the PRESENT, very good Pro Scouting, etc.).

These are all reasons why I believe that Gillis was a “good” GM, but not a great one at that time. However - based on his late hiring of Brackett, and based on his Team 1040 interview, I do feel like he has learned from his mistakes. Re-Hiring Gillis might be a good PR move if the toxicity surrounding Benning increases around the city.

1) When you traded Kesler, a very good asset left by previous regime, to get that RHD. Who did you targeted? Sbisa. So Benning f***ed it up twice.

2) Funny thing you say Gillis left nothing and you waste those assets in horrendous trades and, FIVE YEARS LATER, you need to rely on Edler and... Hutton (when he was healthy), a 5th round pick by ... yep, Gillis, to be playing over 25 minutes a night.

Let me get this straight: you think Gillis is a "good" GM and yet blame him for almost everyone of Bennings mistakes or blame him for the fact we suck 5 years into a new regime?

 

[Cupless44]

Chyka would be an improvement on what we have.

Not only did Shanahan get Dubas a mentor, they had a plan B in Mark Hunter if Dubas didnt work out.

Not the least bit impressed with Chayka. He is actually behaving a lot like Benning. He has made two brutal trades giving up Domi and Strome who have Both flourished, in attempt to win now. I also think he reached on Barret Hayton with a high draft pick.

 

[VanJack]

My two favorite candidates are Kenny Holland (who doesn't yet have a contract from Detroit) and Steve Yzerman from Tampa. But Aquilini would have to offer up a couple of his condo buildings for free to get either one here.

There's virtually zero chance that Gilman would ever be rehired by the current owners; and apparently Dean Lombardi has already turned down the Canucks once.

A guy who still might be on shaky ground in Dallas is Jim Nill...former Canuck and the Aquilini's might hire him just to poke a stick in the eye of Tom Gaglardi.

 

[SillyRabbit]

Things I think are important to have in our next GM:

- Youth. Someone under 50 who understands how the current NHL works and isn’t living in the past.

- Education. While education alone is not an indicator of intelligence, I’d like someone who understands the CBA, knows how to read contracts etc. A lawyer or former businessman, agent, etc.

- Progressive. Someone who doesn’t just react to what is happening in the league but plans and prepares for things ahead of time. Gillis was valuing health, nutrition and sleep right at the forefront of when that became extremely mainstream in sports.

- Self-aware. Knows what they know, and also knows what they don’t know. Surrounds themselves with people who compliment their weaknesses and offer dissenting yet valuable opinions and viewpoints. Is willing to consider other voices especially on topics they aren’t very well versed in.

- Bonus: Well spoken. Being well spoken isn’t just a benefit for the media, it also means they will likely be good at forming relationships and communicating with staff and players.

 

[member 290103]

Things I think are important to have in our next GM:

- Youth. Someone under 50 who understands how the current NHL works and isn’t living in the past.

- Education. While education alone is not an indicator of intelligence, I’d like someone who understands the CBA, knows how to read contracts etc. A lawyer or former businessman, agent, etc.

- Progressive. Someone who doesn’t just react to what is happening in the league but plans and prepares for things ahead of time. Gillis was valuing health, nutrition and sleep right at the forefront of when that became extremely mainstream in sports.

- Self-aware. Knows what they know, and also knows what they don’t know. Surrounds themselves with people who compliment their weaknesses and offer dissenting yet valuable opinions and viewpoints. Is willing to consider other voices especially on topics they aren’t very well versed in.

- Bonus: Well spoken. Being well spoken isn’t just a benefit for the media, it also means they will likely be good at forming relationships and communicating with staff and players.

Gilman. He’d probably come back as he resides here. He was once asked outright if he’d work for the Aqualinis again and he said he would.

Gilman checks all th above boxes...though he could be over 50....and he knows the market. Gilman and Ferraro.

 

[Zombotron]

Several teams have already come calling. They include the Vancouver Canucks, the Buffalo Sabres, the Toronto Maple Leafs and, more recently (and assertively, as Sportsnet, TSN and “Hockey Night in Canada” extensively reported in March), the Carolina Hurricanes. Bets are on that Futa will soon hold sway over his own hockey universe.

Vancouver called L.A. about Mike Futa at some point?

EDIT: oh

 

[CpatainCanuck]

My two favorite candidates are Kenny Holland (who doesn't yet have a contract from Detroit) and Steve Yzerman from Tampa. But Aquilini would have to offer up a couple of his condo buildings for free to get either one here.

There's virtually zero chance that Gilman would ever be rehired by the current owners; and apparently Dean Lombardi has already turned down the Canucks once.

A guy who still might be on shaky ground in Dallas is Jim Nill...former Canuck and the Aquilini's might hire him just to poke a stick in the eye of Tom Gaglardi.

Ken Holland might be the most overrated GM in the league. He inherited a President Trophy calibre team in 1997, and also inherited his European Scouting Guru Hakan Andersson who was responsible for the Wings drafting Tomas Holmström, Valtteri Filppula, Jiri Hudler, Henrik Zetterberg, Pavel Datsyuk, Johan Franzén, Niklas Kronwall, Jonathan Ericsson, Gustav Nyquist, and Tomáš Tatar amongst others.

The stars aligned for Ken Holland. There is no reason to think that they would again if he was hired by the Canucks.

 

[TruKnyte]

Ken Holland might be the most overrated GM in the league. He inherited a President Trophy calibre team in 1997, and also inherited his European Scouting Guru Hakan Andersson who was responsible for the Wings drafting Tomas Holmström, Valtteri Filppula, Jiri Hudler, Henrik Zetterberg, Pavel Datsyuk, Johan Franzén, Niklas Kronwall, Jonathan Ericsson, Gustav Nyquist, and Tomáš Tatar amongst others.

The stars aligned for Ken Holland. There is no reason to think that they would again if he was hired by the Canucks.

So what you're saying then is we should spend an extraordinary about of money to hire Hakan Andersson......

 

[CpatainCanuck]

So what you're saying then is we should spend an extraordinary about of money to hire Hakan Andersson......

Yes, although that's a pretty unlikely scenario.

 

[Zombotron]

Let me get this straight: you think Gillis is a "good" GM and yet blame him for almost everyone of Bennings mistakes or blame him for the fact we suck 5 years into a new regime?

Aaaaand nothing but silence

 

[Horse McHindu]

My two favorite candidates are Kenny Holland (who doesn't yet have a contract from Detroit) and Steve Yzerman from Tampa. But Aquilini would have to offer up a couple of his condo buildings for free to get either one here.
.

I would do that for Yzerman.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Aaaaand nothing but silence

Will respond later. 10:19 am here in Beijing.

At work!! :angry: