Mike Gillis TSN 1040 Interview

[oldnews]

26 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

My favorite tweet was

 

 silly JD.

 

 

this is the kind of moronic commentary you'd expect from canucksmarmy.

 

Gillis had an entirely different task ahead of him than any other GM in the franchise's history.

 

He was exceptional in some areas and woefully inadequate in others.

 

In any event, these kind of one-liner 'analyses' are worthless.   The Canucks have had a few very good GMs in their time - and some pretty weak ones.

 

Jake MIlford, Harry Neale, Pat Quinn, Brian Burke, and Gillis all played their roles in successful seasons.

Gillis in particular is a succession that can't be separated from key Burke moves, picks, etc.

Few of them had a base to build upon like that Gillis stepped into - which is not to minimize what he added to that, but there is no clear 'best GM in Canucks' history' - and sandbagging Benning prematurely is assinine under the circumstances, who came in after a fn hurricane hit this franchise, leaving many of it's key assets relatively unmoveable.

[Rush17]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

this is the kind of moronic commentary you'd expect from canucksmarmy.

 

Gillis had an entirely different task ahead of him than any other GM in the franchise's history.

 

He was exceptional in some areas and woefully inadequate in others.

 

It's premature to sandbag someone like Benning, who came in after a fn hurricane hit this franchise, leaving most of it's assets relatively unmoveable.

 

In any event, these kind of one-liner 'analyses' are worthless.   The Canucks have had a few very good GMs in their time - and some pretty weak ones.

 

Jake MIlford, Harry Neale, Pat Quinn, Brian Burke, and Gillis all played their roles in successful seasons.

Gillis in particular is a succession that can't be separated from key Burke moves, picks, etc.

Few of them had a base to build upon like that Gillis stepped into - which is not to minimize what he added to that, but there is no clear 'best GM in Canucks' history' - and sandbagging Benning prematurely is assinine under the circumstances.

Depending how the next few years unfold I think Benning could enter the conversation as the best GM. If he can build the core right like it looks like he's doing and gets us deep into the playoffs on a regular bssis.

[oldnews]

2 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

Depending how the next few years unfold I think Benning could enter the conversation as the best GM. If he can build the core right like it looks like he's doing and gets us deep into the playoffs on a regular bssis.

My opinion is that Benning should not even be in the conversation yet - one way or the other - he can't be judged relative to these GMs of the past.

 

The smarmy conclusion that Gillis is/was hands down the best GM ever - is the usual overplaying of their hand to the point that it's borderline absurd and deserves to be dismissed out of hand.  These guys clearly have no idea of the differences of context that the history of GMs faced - fluffing Gillis like this may be understandable (from kidz who grew up watching a contender) but has no real credibiility.

[oldnews]

Gillis makes a fair point about moving goalposts - clearly they moved a great deal right in the heart of his window - (Colin Campbell made a joke of NHL 'goalposts' imo) - but I also appreciate Gillis reflecting on having allowed that to alter their approach....

 

Whatever - that was a great team to watch.

Best offensive team and best defensive team in the NHL - at the same time.   Most goals, fewest allowed, and elite pp and pk special teams.

That was one of the NHL's best teams - ever - as only the dynasty Habs ever managed a feat like that.

Those Canucks Redwings games of that era (for example) was some of the best hockey you will ever see.

 

To be fair to Gillis - it wasn't only the moving goalposts that he had to contend with - aside from that factor he couldn't control, he also did not have much luck in the process, losing Hamhuis, Malhotra, etc..... You're not going to beat a great team like Boston when you're firing at fractions of all cylinders.

 

The retroactive goalpost move - to make the Luongo-rule punish teams for deals that were appproved by the NHL at the time - is absolutely absurd.

[oldnews]

39 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yeah OK JD  

no kidding eh.

 

"Anybody who tries to argue to the contrary is is woefully ill-informed at best, but most likely operating in bad faith at worst, and probably shouldn’t bear regarding accordingly."

 

what a mouthful of gobbledygook.

[Caboose]

12 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Too bad he discovered too late the scouting staff needed an overhaul. Giving away NTC's like candy was bad. 

Would have been far better to give Luongo a larger salary and a 5 year deal. 

Not every goalie plays for 8+ years. In fact it's more the exception not the rule. 

 

I still think that Luongo deal was one of this best moves. 

 

Yes, the backdiving style of deal was punished retroactively by the league, but at the time it seemed like a total no brainer to have one of the best, if not the best goaltender in the league locked up for 5.3 million. 

[WonderTwinPowers]

I read the Athletic is going to be releasing an article about Gillis today that should hopefully open a lot of eyes. He was a great GM arguably the best we've had. Was he perfect no, but no GM is, hopefully a lot of Canuck fans realize that someday. Him and Benning working together With Laurence Gillman would have made such an excellent management team. 

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

no kidding eh.

 

"Anybody who tries to argue to the contrary is is woefully ill-informed at best, but most likely operating in bad faith at worst, and probably shouldn’t bear regarding accordingly."

 

what a mouthful of gobbledygook.

I think the worst part of that rant is "JD" not giving credit to all the good work that came before Gillis, it wasn't like he stepped into a blank slate. 

 

Whats happening now -should- be more sustainable, as long as some team doesn't steal Judd Brackett out from under us. 

[189lb enforcers?]

30 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

Depending how the next few years unfold I think Benning could enter the conversation as the best GM. If he can build the core right like it looks like he's doing and gets us deep into the playoffs on a regular bssis.

The process he failed at which led to picking high enough to select that prospect pool with are separate issues and I can give him shared credit for his drafting, but he wears all the blunders, alone.

Best GM ever, it’s going to take some more EP40s to cover up his trail, IMO.

I hope he can. 

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, AlwaysACanuckFan said:

 

 

 

A few problems with FA's comments imo.

 

First, Gillis made rumblings long before being fired about needing to shift their focus to transition to the future.   And beyond rumblings, there was action - like dealing Schneider for a draft pick (Horvat) that clearly indicated a forward looking imperative.

 

Second - the Tortorella hiring never had a whiff of Gillis fingerprints on it.  Incredibly difficult to imagine that was Gillis' coach of choice - he may have acquiesced as a ghost-GM at the time, but nothing about Tortorella spells a MIke Gillis brand of hockey from a player-personnel position, or a systems standpoint.  

Granted Gillis referred to bending to the moving goalposts, but it's hard to see this wrecking ball being of his choice, particularly when Tortorella's public comments also indicated a clear rift between himself and Gillis.

 

Third - the overcompensation that took place when Linden was hired - to the effect of 'Trevor has full autonomy'....which ended in Linden walking away and a rapid-fire of odd tweets from FA that don't really add up.

 

Whatever - it's all water under the bridge - but the idea that there was some kind of seemless nature to the Gillis tenure - is untenable.   I find Gillis' comments that "things intervened" to mean at least in part that there were some fundamental differences of opinion that influenced key decisions - and what transpired pretty clearly indicates there was something to that - which is not to put this solely in the hands of ownership, but there's clearly accountability to go around.

[Maddogy]

12 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think the worst part of that rant is "JD" not giving credit to all the good work that came before Gillis, it wasn't like he stepped into a blank slate. 

 

Whats happening now -should- be more sustainable, as long as some team doesn't steal Judd Brackett out from under us. 

Let's ask this question, which job is harder?

 

(1) The team sucks, lacks elite talents, fans and the toxic media are on your case every day and night asking you why you are useless. The owner is losing money and is nervous. You are now the new GM to mop up the mess and preach patience for many seasons to come, you don't have many worthwhile assets to trade and lack depth in every position. 

 

(2) Your team has an elite core of forwards and goalies, needs more depth on D and the team as well as its coach need more wins to build confidence. You have lots of draft picks to trade away and you don't give a damn about the future. 

 

Greatest Canuck GM in history? My ass!

[oldnews]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think the worst part of that rant is "JD" not giving credit to all the good work that came before Gillis, it wasn't like he stepped into a blank slate. 

 

Whats happening now -should- be more sustainable, as long as some team doesn't steal Judd Brackett out from under us. 

I like Brackett, but he's only one part of a scouting staff whose reputation is exceeding the evidence of how much credit is owed specifically to him.

Clearly picks like Pettersson revolved around guys like the much maligned Delorme and Gradin.

Who knows who's input lead to drafting Boeser.

Picks like Hughes are relatively impossible to credit to anyone as a virtual no-brainer.

And who it was that pushed for Demko, Gaudette, Tryamkin etc are relatively unknown.

Clearly Brackett is a good director of amateur scouting, but we're talking about a staff of over 20 people - so I think that while there's a tendency of some folks to want to guru Brackett and credit all Benning's picks to him, particularly among people who want to sandbag Benning.

It's also worth noting that Steamer is the director of collegiate scouting - where the Canucks have signed players like Stecher, drafted Hughes, Demko, and a number of USHLers in Boeser, Gaudette, Lockwood, Rathbone, Madden...

 

Not a 'comparison' - but I also recall the status of Lawrence Gilman inflating to the point where the assumption was that he was an integral and irreplaceable actor - and in the end was there much more to it than urban legend?

 

[oldnews]

9 minutes ago, Maddogy said:

Let's ask this question, which job is harder?

 

(1) The team sucks, lacks elite talents, fans and the toxic media are on your case every day and night asking you why you are useless. The owner is losing money and is nervous. You are now the new GM to mop up the mess and preach patience for many seasons to come, you don't have many worthwhile assets to trade and lack depth in every position. 

 

(2) Your team has an elite core of forwards and goalies, needs more depth on D and the team as well as its coach need more wins to build confidence. You have lots of draft picks to trade away and you don't give a damn about the future. 

 

Greatest Canuck GM in history? My ass!

Add to #1 and imperative to remain competitive in the process (which is routinely misrepresented) - a handful of very limiting clauses to all your key veterans - and an entire roster coming off the worst seasons of their careers under the Tortorella gongshow - that went further and publicly devalued the 'stale, declining' core.....

 

People love to ride contradictions though - as if Benning 'should have' come in and 'tore it down' - which was a distinct impossibility on multiple counts.

 

The biggest cost that 'tank nation' can realistically attribute to Benning - was the 'loss' of a higher pick in 2015 - as a result of making the playoffs - which ironically resulted in having to 'settle' for Brock Boeser.

None of this is worth the noise when extracted from the real context he was hired in the midst of.

 

 

[Maddogy]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I like Brackett, but he's only one part of a scouting staff whose reputation is exceeding the evidence of how much credit is owed specifically to him.

Clearly picks like Pettersson revolved around guys like the much maligned Delorme and Gradin.

Who knows who's input lead to drafting Boeser.

Picks like Hughes are relatively impossible to credit to anyone as a virtual no-brainer.

And who it was that pushed for Demko, Gaudette, Tryamkin etc are relatively unknown.

Clearly Brackett is a good director of amateur scouting, but we're talking about a staff of over 20 people - so I think that while there's a tendency of some folks to want to guru Brackett and credit all Benning's picks to him, particularly among people who want to sandbag Benning.

It's also worth noting that Steamer is the director of collegiate scouting - where the Canucks have signed players like Stecher, drafted Hughes, Demko, and a number of USHLers in Boeser, Gaudette, Lockwood, Rathbone, Madden...

 

Not a 'comparison' - but I also recall the status of Lawrence Gilman inflating to the point where the assumption was that he was an integral and irreplaceable actor - and in the end was there much more to it than urban legend?

 

I heard on the radio sometimes ago that after the Canucks missed David Pastrnak during the draft, an internal assessment was performed and new staff as well as an uniform procedure/criteria was instituted for future drafts. Does anyone know the source for this story and whether this is credible?

[Tre Mac]

1 hour ago, Rush17 said:

My favorite tweet was

 

 silly JD.

 

 

What a dick comment.

[Darius]

9 minutes ago, Tre Mac said:

What a dick comment.

i think being a dick comes easy for JD.  

[Qwags]

1 hour ago, Rush17 said:

My favorite tweet was

 

 silly JD.

 

 

It's amazing how the Canucks media continuously misses context when it comes to praise or scorn.

[oldnews]

4 minutes ago, Maddogy said:

I heard on the radio sometimes ago that after the Canucks missed David Pastrnak during the draft, an internal assessment was performed and new staff as well as an uniform procedure/criteria was instituted for future drafts. Does anyone know the source for this story and whether this is credible?

I don't know but there are players like Pastrnak that are missed by many teams in every draft.

 

I think that was a window of time where teams/scouts were starting to realize the tendency to undervalue Europeans in the draft in general, particularly players that hadn't yet excelled in the top European pro leagues - and probably focusing more attention there (and in the USHL, college ranks as well).

 

In fairness to every team, Pastrnak was playing in Swe-1 - not the SweHL - and scoring 24 pts in 36 games in the 2nd tier of Swedish hockey didn't necessarily telegraph a player that would then breakout like a player that 'could' have gone 10 or more spots higher.  He was good at the international level, but again, not producing at a level that would vault him a lot higher than 25th - and guys like McCann, Kempe, Goldobin taken in that range are certainly talented, understandable picks. 

 

It's pretty easy to hindsight Pastrnak - or Ryan Hartman, or Shea Theodore, Sebastian Aho, Anthony Beauvillier, DeBrinkat etc - but really, these are players that still went top 40 to top 20s - a lot of teams chose to go another direction, but no one knows at the time that they're particular standouts.

 

 

 

[mephnick]

4 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

In a 7 game series, I’d take the 94 team, thanks. 

Good thing it would be a 4 game series because that's all it would take.

[JM_]

23 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I like Brackett, but he's only one part of a scouting staff whose reputation is exceeding the evidence of how much credit is owed specifically to him.

Clearly picks like Pettersson revolved around guys like the much maligned Delorme and Gradin.

Who knows who's input lead to drafting Boeser.

Picks like Hughes are relatively impossible to credit to anyone as a virtual no-brainer.

And who it was that pushed for Demko, Gaudette, Tryamkin etc are relatively unknown.

Clearly Brackett is a good director of amateur scouting, but we're talking about a staff of over 20 people - so I think that while there's a tendency of some folks to want to guru Brackett and credit all Benning's picks to him, particularly among people who want to sandbag Benning.

It's also worth noting that Steamer is the director of collegiate scouting - where the Canucks have signed players like Stecher, drafted Hughes, Demko, and a number of USHLers in Boeser, Gaudette, Lockwood, Rathbone, Madden...

 

Not a 'comparison' - but I also recall the status of Lawrence Gilman inflating to the point where the assumption was that he was an integral and irreplaceable actor - and in the end was there much more to it than urban legend?

 

Thats true, but I am a big believer in leadership setting the table for the right things to happen (or not). What imo Benning and Brackett have done is get that 20 or so staff members on the same page and clearly finding quality and good character people in multiple rounds at various points in each draft. I recall early on Benning talking about things like just getting scouts to use the same terms for scouting reports. Of course both guys are not irreplaceable but we've also never had a scouting group this successful and thats a credit to the leadership group. 

 

But for sure you want to avoid things like thinking guys are guru's, Gillman was fine but there wasn't any magic there.