Lets open this to discussion Mike Gillis returning President

[Rob_Zepp]

11 hours ago, aqua59 said:

Lets open this to discussion Mike Gillis returning President

Let's not.   

[Cup2022]

2 hours ago, Shinkaruk_9 said:

Well what did you prefer; contracts such as borderline #1 defenceman Hamhuis for 4.6 mil/yr and Art-ross winners for 6 mil/yr (I can go on and on for days about Gillis' shrewd signings) or 4 mil/yr for #6/#7 defenceman Gudbranson or 6 mil/yr for 3rd/4th line winger Eriksson? Gillis and Gilman were masters of the salary cap and never did we run into cap issues despite being the best team in hockey over a 2-year stretch.

We don't have cap issues

[Grape]

I think Gillis is much of a business mind. He's all about finding new ways to foster better relationships, build better communication, connecting the team from top to bottom and having everyone on the same page. I think he'd be a horrible GM as his draft resume would show, but he can definitely run as the president. I think a lot of people are adamantly against it because they don't like how things ended. But hey, you gotta look towards the future in an unbiased way that takes into consideration the past but not let it define what you think.

 

Benning on the other had is 100% more a hockey mind. I'm not sure he has much expertise at all in any other area other than making hockey related moves and transactions. If Gillis were to take any of that away from Benning I'd balk.

 

That being said I do not see Gillis and Benning working together. Benning is very loose for an executive (if that makes sense it probably doesn't lol), and I don't think Gillis would like that.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Grape

[Angry Goose]

Id be happy to see Gillis returtn, but only as president. He would be the perfect blend of a new school approach to JB's old school ways.  Let JB  focus on his strengths.

 

Plus besides TG the media would have another prick to deal with

[JeremyCuddles]

I am down for it. He had the president and GM job before, nobody should have that much power. Although, I wonder how much Gillis would hamstring Benning. Can the president control which moves Benning can and can't make? The position is a bit screwy for my tiny brain.

[DrJockitch]

10 hours ago, IBatch said:

How?  Teach Benning how to sign decent cap hitched with clauses all over the place?  He’s doing just fine so far on his own (see the majority of his RFA contracts).  Nonis would have looked good too if he kept his job, Gillis never got another job....why should we bring him back?.    This thread was click bait at best.

I don't want him back, in fact was fairly clearly saying that bringing him in doesn't actually fill in for the deficits that we have seen in Benning's management.

I am not, however, conceding to the general argument that he was terrible because we lost in game 7 while playing 5 on 7 the whole series.  Yes he used a lot of NMC/NTCs, that is how he held a great team together in the salary cap world.  He led this team to be the best it has ever been and his short sightedness led is into the hole we are digging ourselves out of now.

He wasn't a great GM but he wasn't terrible either.  

[aqua59]

I don't think gillis would miss curtain things Benning misses. 

[Alflives]

9 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Let's not.   

From a child’s perspective (like mine) we could add Mr. Tomato Head to Mr. Potato Head.  

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

I don't want him back, in fact was fairly clearly saying that bringing him in doesn't actually fill in for the deficits that we have seen in Benning's management.

I am not, however, conceding to the general argument that he was terrible because we lost in game 7 while playing 5 on 7 the whole series.  Yes he used a lot of NMC/NTCs, that is how he held a great team together in the salary cap world.  He led this team to be the best it has ever been and his short sightedness led is into the hole we are digging ourselves out of now.

He wasn't a great GM but he wasn't terrible either.  

Absolutely.  It’s the few on this site that don’t understand he was gifted the lineup and think he was great because the team was great that get on my nerves.  Milbury would have undoubtedly unravelled it before we had our shot, Gillis did add some great pieces along the way, Erhoff and Hamhuis especially.  In other words he wasn’t bad and did a decent job on some things.   At one point we had Ballard, a former 40 plus point guy that couldn’t even get into the lineup, and he played with some grit too.   Some kind of defense we had.   And the famous Raymond, Ballard and a third (for Weber, or Crosby etc) would never gained traction in the CDC proposal section without him either ha ha.

 

I also dont blame anything on him, other than making a mess of the possibility of a rebuild in the future and how he handled the goaltending fiasco (which actually turned out to be one of his best moves).  Sorry for pigeonholing you into the Gillis was great bracket, sometimes I read signing Sundin was why the Sedins turned out so good and how Gillis was the best GM we’ve ever had and shake my head, it’s annoying.  

 

Something was lost in translation and my prejudices must have come out, this post seems very reasonable, actually agree with it all.

[brownky]

20 hours ago, Provost said:

The facscination is that we are one of the richest teams in the league and have one of the smallest management organizations.

 

President, Senior advisor, more scouts, more player development, etc.  More minds and more hands to get a handle on things is better.  Benning was too busy to go to Utica even once this season.  That is unforgivable for a team that is in our staff of rebuilding... especially considering players were leaving there due to how they felt they were being treated.

What's wrong with being small and efficient? If the team is working well, why add more 'managers'? Ending up like the government, where nothing happens because the management overhead is expensive in both money and time is not what we should be aiming for.

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[CaptKirk888]

20 hours ago, Provost said:

The facscination is that we are one of the richest teams in the league and have one of the smallest management organizations.

 

President, Senior advisor, more scouts, more player development, etc.  More minds and more hands to get a handle on things is better.  Benning was too busy to go to Utica even once this season.  That is unforgivable for a team that is in our staff of rebuilding... especially considering players were leaving there due to how they felt they were being treated.

I have been in business for over 30 years and have been in management. A good GM has to rely on a good group under him, he simply will not have the time to be everywhere or micro manage every aspect. The players leaving (Dahlin, Palmu) expected to jump to the NHL quickly. Management did not see that level of development yet. Placing the blame solely on Canucks management is biased and unfair. At least some, if not half, of the onus should be placed on the player and/or his agent.

[IBatch]

7 hours ago, N7Nucks said:

I am down for it. He had the president and GM job before, nobody should have that much power. Although, I wonder how much Gillis would hamstring Benning. Can the president control which moves Benning can and can't make? The position is a bit screwy for my tiny brain.

It didn’t work with Linden, I think a lot of that had to do with both of them getting on the job training and the lines were a little blurred at who’s job it was to do what (Linden seemed to be used as a buffer more than anything ).   The Presidents main job is to hire and fire the GM, and not to be involved at all with the day to day stuff.  That’s the GMs job.  If the GM is also the president, it’s not adding much of any additional responsibility, and it definitely brings alignment in as nobody else is voicing their opinions.  For now at least I don’t mind it, remember three hat Pat also coached the team, and did a pretty fine job too, with 1/4 of the staff compared to now. 

[Provost]

24 minutes ago, brownky said:

What's wrong with being small and efficient? If the team is working well, why add more 'managers'? Ending up like the government, where nothing happens because the management overhead is expensive in both money and time is not what we should be aiming for.

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I don’t know if you have noticed... we have been the very worst team in the league over the last three seasons.

 

It is broken.  Benning is missing some elements to his skill set, and doesn’t have anyone to fill that gap.  He literally didn’t have the opportunity to even visit our farm team the entire season... never mind getting out to dink’s and watching some future draft prospects.

 

Basicslly every executive now now says that running both GM and President is too much for one person.

[Provost]

21 minutes ago, CaptKirk888 said:

I have been in business for over 30 years and have been in management. A good GM has to rely on a good group under him, he simply will not have the time to be everywhere or micro manage every aspect. The players leaving (Dahlin, Palmu) expected to jump to the NHL quickly. Management did not see that level of development yet. Placing the blame solely on Canucks management is biased and unfair. At least some, if not half, of the onus should be placed on the player and/or his agent.

I have also been a senior executive responsible for hundreds of employees under my umbrella.

 

You can’t do it all yourself and having a tiny team and lots of work means things don’t get done properly. 

 

The idea that we... as the very worst team in the league... have it all figured out and all the successful teams who do it differently are wrong... that is just mind numbingly dumb.

 

If we had success developing some significant players on our farm system, then maybe you can point a finger to some individual players, pretty much everyone on the farm took a step back.  You are inventing the suggestion that Palms and Dahlen wanted to be in the NHL right away out of your imagination... they never said that.  The comments were that there was concern over how they were being developed.  

Edited April 27, 2019 by Provost

[189lb enforcers?]

Never! 

[CaptKirk888]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

I have also been a senior executive responsible for hundreds of employees under my umbrella.

 

You can’t do it all yourself and having a tiny team and lots of work means things don’t get done properly. 

 

The idea that we... as the very worst team in the league... have it all figured out and all the successful teams who do it differently are wrong... that is just mind numbingly dumb.

I had to do a little research before I responded. Your assumption that the Canucks have a ‘tiny’ team is unmerited. I compared our team management size (front office execs, coaching, medical, scouting etc) to a few others in the league and found that we are comparable in all aspects. In fact in some cases we had a larger team. We also have 22 scouts, which is above the league average. Washington, for example, has 6 less scouts.

At no time have I personally ever heard anyone in Canucks management claim to ‘have it all figured out’. Also, I don’t understand how you rate the team ‘the very worst in the league’? This is clearly not based on points standings. Are Edmonton, Buffalo, Ottawa etc, so much further ahead?

 

As per your edit regarding Dahlen and Pulmu, this is not 'out of my imagination'. I am only going on what local media reported as that is all I can do. I am not privy to the actual conversations that transpired between these players, their agents and Canucks management. To say that everyone in Utica regressed is a blanket statement that also holds no merit. 

Edited April 27, 2019 by CaptKirk888

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, brownky said:

What's wrong with being small and efficient? If the team is working well, why add more 'managers'? Ending up like the government, where nothing happens because the management overhead is expensive in both money and time is not what we should be aiming for.

 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The size of the management group and scouting departments have doubled since the nineties.  From many perspectives this makes sense, more teams more players, more revenue more managers.  That said I completely agree with you.   More body’s doesn’t necessarily mean growth especially once it reaches government level.   Nothing wrong with efficiency at all.   TO has a billion dollar empire to oversee and that makes some sense, especially given they have more than enough money to hire the best minds in hockey and as many of them as they want.  Yet they still can’t get past the first round.  CAR on the other hand, is actively playing spoiler and has done an admirable job with a skeleton crew in comparison in engaging a low interest market (damn them I had high hopes they’d move to Quebec).  

 

Vancouver is still a big  hockey market that requires some good hockey people, they hired a guy that’s learned on the job and is close to turning our fortunes around.  Until there is something that deters that or it starts going the other way no need to shake the boat right?

Edited April 27, 2019 by IBatch

[Provost]

1 hour ago, CaptKirk888 said:

I had to do a little research before I responded. Your assumption that the Canucks have a ‘tiny’ team is unmerited. I compared our team management size (front office execs, coaching, medical, scouting etc) to a few others in the league and found that we are comparable in all aspects. In fact in some cases we had a larger team. We also have 22 scouts, which is above the league average. Washington, for example, has 6 less scouts.

At no time have I personally ever heard anyone in Canucks management claim to ‘have it all figured out’. Also, I don’t understand how you rate the team ‘the very worst in the league’? This is clearly not based on points standings. Are Edmonton, Buffalo, Ottawa etc, so much further ahead?

 

As per your edit regarding Dahlen and Pulmu, this is not 'out of my imagination'. I am only going on what local media reported as that is all I can do. I am not privy to the actual conversations that transpired between these players, their agents and Canucks management. To say that everyone in Utica regressed is a blanket statement that also holds no merit. 

Well your research doesn’t jive with others.

 

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/ed-willes-canucks-skeleton-staff-makeup-saves-bones-for-owners-but-is-it-ok

 

Also, count up the point totals from the last three seasons and we come up badly.

[nuckin_futz]

19 hours ago, ruilin96 said:

Speaking of Gillis, does anyone know which city he lives in currently? Because about a week ago, I think I saw him (if not him, it must be someone like his doupleganger) at a bakery in downtown Victoria. I didn’t went up and ask if he is Mike Gillis, but I am confident that it was him. I know he took a teaching job at Uvic a few years ago, but don’t think he kept on teaching there, but it is possible that he now lives in Victoria after his year of teaching at Uvic. 

Was the guy you saw sweating profusely?

[Rob_Zepp]

3 hours ago, aqua59 said:

I don't think gillis would miss curtain things Benning misses.