Judd Brackett

[Toews]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

sure but the problem is we have imperfect knowledge and also no one bats 1000. McCann may have had a terrific combine and came across in the interviews as a great kid. People can fake it for short periods. Or maybe when he was 17 he was good, and soured when things didn't go perfectly. Its hard to draft teenagers for character.

 

I still believe that something weird went on behind the scenes with Tkachuk, I suspect Keith is behind it as he's never been shy about his hate for Vancouver. They may have viewed him as a potential problem if Keith was making noises about not signing, etc. I have ZERO to back up my theory btw, its just a feeling based off Keith's history. People were highly shocked when Jim passed over BPA and if it wasn't something odd behind the scenes I can't understand it. Juoleivi at the time was certainly a top 8 in most rankings so it wasn't a major drop but it was pretty shocking at the time. 

Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is probably the right one. We hadn't drafted a defenseman in the first round in years. Our D pipeline was looking rather underwhelming at the time. Benning thought Juolevi had traits to his game that would translate to an effective NHL defenseman. I have always said that I have never seen fault with the Juolevi pick, I think he was well on track to becoming a top 6 defenseman until he suffered multiple injuries which has caused him to miss crucial development time. I won't speak on his future, I think that will be determined by him.

 

I find that honest discussion is hard to be had when people intentionally buy into narratives in order to put management in the worst possible light or the best possible light.

I have followed the OHL for a long time, especially the Knights because they are by far the most popular team. Rumours of character concerns leak pretty quickly. The Hunters also run a tight ship from the top down. Dale Hunter is not an easy coach to play for, so character concerns, I never heard of any.

 

You don't want nor need a team full of choir boys to win, only Kyle Dubas believes you can win that way. The London Knights have had some of those on their teams like Horvat, Marner, Gagner, Tavares just like they have had some questionable characters in Kadri, Perry, Tkachuk and Kane. History tells us that all you need is a group of guys to buy into the culture and system. I get it that people don't like Tkachuk, and deservedly so but to say that he would not have fallen in line here or that he would not be an effective player is unsupported by the facts. Its imho just people trying to cast Benning/management in the best possible light as possible. After all Benning is an infallible draft guru who would never have missed on a player.

 

I suppose now that I am looking at it critically I find it ironic that people like to decry media speculation when it puts management in a negative light all the while buying into their own personal speculation to put management in the best possible light as possible. The same people that believe Benning is some sort of "draft guru" are now scoffing when the media says that Brackett is the "draft guru". Personally I don't really believe in "draft gurus". Funnily enough it kind of reminds me of politics in how entrenched people are in their beliefs.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Toews

[spook007]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

sure but the problem is we have imperfect knowledge and also no one bats 1000. McCann may have had a terrific combine and came across in the interviews as a great kid. People can fake it for short periods. Or maybe when he was 17 he was good, and soured when things didn't go perfectly. Its hard to draft teenagers for character.

 

I still believe that something weird went on behind the scenes with Tkachuk, I suspect Keith is behind it as he's never been shy about his hate for Vancouver. They may have viewed him as a potential problem if Keith was making noises about not signing, etc. I have ZERO to back up my theory btw, its just a feeling based off Keith's history. People were highly shocked when Jim passed over BPA and if it wasn't something odd behind the scenes I can't understand it. Juoleivi at the time was certainly a top 8 in most rankings so it wasn't a major drop but it was pretty shocking at the time. 

Imagine if Tkachuk said to the Canucks brass, he didn't not welcome the idea of playing in Vancouver?

Benning wanted a D-man, and so did a lot of fans... I remember there being a lot of talk leading up to the draft, that we had zero D-prospects, and that they were more valuable than forwards... 

Don't think Juolevi was such a long reach as some makes it out to be. The fact the boy has gone through hell with injuries is just really bad luck.... 

[JM_]

3 hours ago, spook007 said:

Imagine if Tkachuk said to the Canucks brass, he didn't not welcome the idea of playing in Vancouver?

Benning wanted a D-man, and so did a lot of fans... I remember there being a lot of talk leading up to the draft, that we had zero D-prospects, and that they were more valuable than forwards... 

Don't think Juolevi was such a long reach as some makes it out to be. The fact the boy has gone through hell with injuries is just really bad luck.... 

I do think something must have happened at the combine interview.

 

I also still think Juolevi can end up being a top 4 player for us, he just turned 22 a couple of weeks ago, its not time to give up yet, he's not even in "tweener" status 

[Nuxfanabroad]

Haven't paid attn to this. Media need to drum up interest/hearsay right now, to justify their daily bread.

 

Simplicity: JB has been head-honcho, presiding over the past 6 drafts. It's been our best 6 yr run of drafting in franch-history.

 

Must be top-5 in the league over that time period. Don't think I'd trade those 6 yrs of picks with any other franchise's 6 yr stash(2014-2019 selections). Not only do I love the talent; but they seem winning personalities with plenty character.

 

Whoever was responsible( 1 guy, 2 or 3, whole FO-team) for this run, hopefully we can pay up & keep it running. No egos boys..just keep this draft batting % for at least 5 more yrs, eh?!

[Baggins]

10 hours ago, spook007 said:

Imagine if Tkachuk said to the Canucks brass, he didn't not welcome the idea of playing in Vancouver?

Benning wanted a D-man, and so did a lot of fans... I remember there being a lot of talk leading up to the draft, that we had zero D-prospects, and that they were more valuable than forwards... 

Don't think Juolevi was such a long reach as some makes it out to be. The fact the boy has gone through hell with injuries is just really bad luck.... 

I don't think it had anything to do with Tkachuk's interview or his character. I do believe Benning wanted a D with that pick and the only way that would change is if one of the top 3 fell into his lap. His highest D picks to that point were both in the third round. Plus the highest D drafted the four years before he took over was in the 4th round. There was nothing resembling a top pair d-man coming up. Sadly no amount of interviewing or testing will tell you prospect will be plagued by injuries after being drafted. So yes, I believe Benning was firmly set on taking a d-man that year. 

 

I do find it annoying that some seem to go with - if it's bad it's Benning, if it's good it's somebody else. In this case Brackett. Gillis hired Brackett in 2008. How was the Canucks drafting from then until Benning took over? Abysmal. After Benning's first draft he made changes to the scouting and had a meeting about what traits he wanted them looking for. Drafting has vastly improved since Benning took over and revamped the scouting department including how he wanted them scouting. You have to give credit to Benning as well as the people he put in place. It's never just one man alone including Brackett. It does come down to the GM making the call, but only a fool doesn't listen at all to those he's entrusted. Just as Brackett needs the scouts under him. 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Baggins

[theo5789]

11 hours ago, Toews said:

Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is probably the right one. We hadn't drafted a defenseman in the first round in years. Our D pipeline was looking rather underwhelming at the time. Benning thought Juolevi had traits to his game that would translate to an effective NHL defenseman. I have always said that I have never seen fault with the Juolevi pick, I think he was well on track to becoming a top 6 defenseman until he suffered multiple injuries which has caused him to miss crucial development time. I won't speak on his future, I think that will be determined by him.

 

I find that honest discussion is hard to be had when people intentionally buy into narratives in order to put management in the worst possible light or the best possible light.

I have followed the OHL for a long time, especially the Knights because they are by far the most popular team. Rumours of character concerns leak pretty quickly. The Hunters also run a tight ship from the top down. Dale Hunter is not an easy coach to play for, so character concerns, I never heard of any.

 

You don't want nor need a team full of choir boys to win, only Kyle Dubas believes you can win that way. The London Knights have had some of those on their teams like Horvat, Marner, Gagner, Tavares just like they have had some questionable characters in Kadri, Perry, Tkachuk and Kane. History tells us that all you need is a group of guys to buy into the culture and system. I get it that people don't like Tkachuk, and deservedly so but to say that he would not have fallen in line here or that he would not be an effective player is unsupported by the facts. Its imho just people trying to cast Benning/management in the best possible light as possible. After all Benning is an infallible draft guru who would never have missed on a player.

 

I suppose now that I am looking at it critically I find it ironic that people like to decry media speculation when it puts management in a negative light all the while buying into their own personal speculation to put management in the best possible light as possible. The same people that believe Benning is some sort of "draft guru" are now scoffing when the media says that Brackett is the "draft guru". Personally I don't really believe in "draft gurus". Funnily enough it kind of reminds me of politics in how entrenched people are in their beliefs.

While I agree with mostly what you've said here, I'd like to point out that many of us aren't so much in the "Benning is a draft guru" category, but rather we are simply pointing out that Brackett isn't a draft guru alone. Not many have suggested that Benning alone is a draft master, but instead have suggested that he has implemented the systems in place that have been successful during some of this franchise's best drafting (Brackett himself has said so). Many of us give credit to the scouting team (which includes Brackett and Benning, and also what Benning himself has praised as a whole) unlike the media (and the sheep) who parrot the idea that it's solely on Brackett.

[spook007]

4 hours ago, Baggins said:

I don't think it had anything to do with Tkachuk's interview or his character. I do believe Benning wanted a D with that pick and the only way that would change is if one of the top 3 fell into his lap. His highest D picks to that point were both in the third round. Plus the highest D drafted the four years before he took over was in the 4th round. There was nothing resembling a top pair d-man coming up. Sadly no amount of interviewing or testing will tell you prospect will be plagued by injuries after being drafted. So yes, I believe Benning was firmly set on taking a d-man that year. 

 

I do find it annoying that some seem to go with - if it's bad it's Benning, if it's good it's somebody else. In this case Brackett. Gillis hired Brackett in 2008. How was the Canucks drafting from then until Benning took over? Abysmal. After Benning's first draft he made changes to the scouting and had a meeting about what traits he wanted them looking for. Drafting has vastly improved since Benning took over and revamped the scouting department including how he wanted them scouting. You have to give credit to Benning as well as the people he put in place. It's never just one man alone including Brackett. It does come down to the GM making the call, but only a fool doesn't listen at all to those he's entrusted. Just as Brackett needs the scouts under him. 

You're probably right with regards to Tkachuk's interview...

Merely suggesting, that nobody really knows for sure, if there was something about Tkachuk that put Benning off...

Seem to recall the fans thought it was going to be a choice between Pierre-Luc Dubois and a D-man (most fans thought OJ would be the one) if Matthews and Laine was off the board.

As you rightly said, if they couldn't get one of the players drafted top 3, They probably had their mind set on a D-man instead...

 

As for OJ's injury, there seems to be a few (fortunately only a few), who continues to moan about Benning drafting OJ....

Real question is probably, would OJ have been a better choice than Tkachuk, if injuries hadn't struck? It can definitely be debated, but looking at our D-core, then you could definitely understand the choice, despite us also being in dire need of some nastiness up front.

Regardless, neither would have been a bad choice...

 

With regards to the bolded part... Spot on, agree 100%.

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by spook007

[Ballisticsports.]

On 5/17/2020 at 8:53 PM, aGENT said:

Your reading comprehension seems off again Fred. 

 

Nobody is denying there's a likely disconnect between Judd and the Canucks. Likewise nobody is suggesting he's a poor scout. We're taking issue with the overly melodramatic spin.

 

Could it be because Benning enjoys the scouting side more in his job, and promoted Chris Gear to help him do it?

Two moves that may upset Judd?

Maybe if Judds been doing the job, and doing it well, he doesn't want to have less say if Benning truly wants to get more involved, Also promoting Gear who was in charge of  signing Sutter, Ericksson, Beagle, Roussel, Sven and Ferland  to contracts that now hurt the team, It is hard for anyone to take seeing someone promoted, when you wondering why  (Like i was), while you are getting your authority diminished?

Unsure if this is the issue, but like any other ideas, it seems like it could be one

[Fred65]

1 hour ago, ba;;isticsports said:

Could it be because Benning enjoys the scouting side more in his job, and promoted Chris Gear to help him do it?

Two moves that may upset Judd?

Maybe if Judds been doing the job, and doing it well, he doesn't want to have less say if Benning truly wants to get more involved, Also promoting Gear who was in charge of  signing Sutter, Ericksson, Beagle, Roussel, Sven and Ferland  to contracts that now hurt the team, It is hard for anyone to take seeing someone promoted, when you wondering why  (Like i was), while you are getting your authority diminished?

Unsure if this is the issue, but like any other ideas, it seems like it could be one

Seems like a logical assumption. the one fact that is missing is the contract negotiating has not been a strong suit for Vcr, the FA signings either. The amateur draft on the other hand has been exemplary.  So JB thinks I'm having a better time with the scouting than I am with the contracts/FA so I'll hand that off to Gear and get rid of Brackett and get out on the road more. The Problem is Gear was not hired as the GM, Jim boy was and Brackett was hired as director of scouting. Gears record is not great, Brackett's record is 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Fred65

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, ba;;isticsports said:

Could it be because Benning enjoys the scouting side more in his job, and promoted Chris Gear to help him do it?

Two moves that may upset Judd?

Maybe if Judds been doing the job, and doing it well, he doesn't want to have less say if Benning truly wants to get more involved, Also promoting Gear who was in charge of  signing Sutter, Ericksson, Beagle, Roussel, Sven and Ferland  to contracts that now hurt the team, It is hard for anyone to take seeing someone promoted, when you wondering why  (Like i was), while you are getting your authority diminished?

Unsure if this is the issue, but like any other ideas, it seems like it could be one

Gear's job is plan out the cap and let the GM know what numbers we can work with to get a team under the cap. We are currently within the cap and haven't yet lost anyone due to cap reasons, so technically he is doing his job (our RFA contracts have been excellent). He's not directly in charge of choosing the players which is more on Benning and the pro scouts.

 

We can debate over the value of some of those players, but that's not the point here.

[Fred65]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

Gear's job is plan out the cap and let the GM know what numbers we can work with to get a team under the cap. We are currently within the cap and haven't yet lost anyone due to cap reasons, so technically he is doing his job (our RFA contracts have been excellent). He's not directly in charge of choosing the players which is more on Benning and the pro scouts.

 

We can debate over the value of some of those players, but that's not the point here.

When it comes to the Cap one phrase stands out to me " forward planning" yeah we can all see it's OK today. It's like a cash flow chart …… checking for the future and obligations to come. I don't doubt in their plans they've reached some pretty heavy decissions, because some big choices are on the horizon

[theo5789]

19 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

When it comes to the Cap one phrase stands out to me " forward planning" yeah we can all see it's OK today. It's like a cash flow chart …… checking for the future and obligations to come. I don't doubt in their plans they've reached some pretty heavy decissions, because some big choices are on the horizon

Yes and looking ahead beyond next year, our cap issues don't seem to be that big of a problem especially with the prospect pipeline filling in as the higher cap hits start dropping out. The planning hits a snag if the cap doesn't continue to rise as they had originally hoped, but that will be a problem across the NHL as it's doubtful anyone has planned for this. If we are okay today, things are looking much brighter down the road in terms of cap relief.

[lmm]

5 hours ago, ba;;isticsports said:

Could it be because Benning enjoys the scouting side more in his job, and promoted Chris Gear to help him do it?

Two moves that may upset Judd?

Maybe if Judds been doing the job, and doing it well, he doesn't want to have less say if Benning truly wants to get more involved, Also promoting Gear who was in charge of  signing Sutter, Ericksson, Beagle, Roussel, Sven and Ferland  to contracts that now hurt the team, It is hard for anyone to take seeing someone promoted, when you wondering why  (Like i was), while you are getting your authority diminished?

Unsure if this is the issue, but like any other ideas, it seems like it could be one

THis not so much Brackett as Benning.

Brackett seem like he likes his job, wants to succced and grow in his job.

Benning is starting to remind me of Pat Quinn when he was here.

Quinn, if he was not the best coach ever in Vancouver was the best coach during his time here, better than Ley or Renney.

But Pat wanted out of coaching and wanted to boot himself upstairs. The problem was every time he replaced himself as coach, the team faltered

After Pat left Vancouver, he went on the be a successful coach in Toronto, where GM and President were never offered.

Jim seems similar, itn that he does not seem to want to be GM, and would rather be scout.

The question is will Gear/Wiesbrod fill his shoes adiquately, or will they do as Ley/Renney did when they replaced Quinn?

The difference is Pat was moving up the food chain, while Jim wishes he could slide down. the problem is Jim probably does not want a pay/status cut

 

[Fred65]

18 hours ago, lmm said:

THis not so much Brackett as Benning.

Brackett seem like he likes his job, wants to succced and grow in his job.

Benning is starting to remind me of Pat Quinn when he was here.

Quinn, if he was not the best coach ever in Vancouver was the best coach during his time here, better than Ley or Renney.

But Pat wanted out of coaching and wanted to boot himself upstairs. The problem was every time he replaced himself as coach, the team faltered

After Pat left Vancouver, he went on the be a successful coach in Toronto, where GM and President were never offered.

Jim seems similar, itn that he does not seem to want to be GM, and would rather be scout.

The question is will Gear/Wiesbrod fill his shoes adiquately, or will they do as Ley/Renney did when they replaced Quinn?

The difference is Pat was moving up the food chain, while Jim wishes he could slide down. the problem is Jim probably does not want a pay/status cut

 

Right on!! You've capsulated the problem very well. Chris Gear has been doing the same job with a different title for years and he's not IMO a beacon of success. Bennings title when hired was General Manager,  Bracketts position is Director of Amateur scouting. What's the confusion. The confusion is Benning wants to be Director of scouting. Is Brackett up for his role ?  well it seems so, is Gear up for his role I'd say 50-50 and who will be the general manager

[lmm]

GM of the Vancouver Canucks- the job that no one wants

[Fred65]

28 minutes ago, lmm said:

GM of the Vancouver Canucks- the job that no one wants

I have to admit for many years I was a full time officer walla.  And  I enjoyed getting out of the office confines on business. I guess you'd say refreshing. I don't blame JB for wishing to do the same. Drifting around North America and Europe rubbing shoulders with friends and like minded people, the odd beer I'm sure helped. Better than looking at cash flows, and merchandizing products. If that's what he wishes to do I guess that's OK for me but heck hire a General Manager to attend to the everyday running of an organization and firing the current Director of Amateur Scouting for no good reason doesn't seem fitting when he's done every thing he could to make the team better.

[Mackcanuck]

Nice read here if you are a boomer and pro Benning (and overlook a couple of spelling errors)

 

Why do the statistics nerds hate Jim Benning?

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by Mackcanuck

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

42 minutes ago, Mackcanuck said:

Nice read here if you are a boomer and pro Benning (and overlook a couple of spelling errors)

 

Why do the statistics nerds hate Jim Benning?

 

At first glance, I actually suspected “Marc Edge” was a parody account set up by some “statistics nerd” using a random boomer pic from google images and writing Benning fan fiction as some sort of joke for Canucks twitter.

 

But he appears to be a real guy.

 

And it appears that he’s writing his real opinions.
 

Although after reading the first couple paragraphs of that piece, I’m still not 100% sure whether or not this is all an elaborate joke. 

[spook007]

11 hours ago, Mackcanuck said:

Nice read here if you are a boomer and pro Benning (and overlook a couple of spelling errors)

 

Why do the statistics nerds hate Jim Benning?

 

Thanks for posting...

Good write up...kind of like how a lot of us feels, when it comes to the endless attacks on Benning from the minority on these pages.

 

Although painting all posters using statistics with one brush, is over the top.

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2020 by spook007

[BlastPast]

3 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

At first glance, I actually suspected “Marc Edge” was a parody account set up by some “statistics nerd” using a random boomer pic from google images and writing Benning fan fiction as some sort of joke for Canucks twitter.

 

But he appears to be a real guy.

 

And it appears that he’s writing his real opinions.
 

Although after reading the first couple paragraphs of that piece, I’m still not 100% sure whether or not this is all an elaborate joke. 

I glanced over it and it seems sincere to me. The heavy handed dismissal of "stats nerds" is a little over the top and the whole message seems to be tinged with a bit of anger which isn't really necessary. I do think there is something to be said for thinking critically about some of the public analysis of the team; I just think it could be done more intelligently and dispassionately.

Edited May 24, 2020 by BlastPast