[Report] Canucks to part ways with Judd Bracket

[RonMexico]

24 minutes ago, stawns said:

Though its not surprising given they have nothing else to yak about, the media is being so ridiculous about this.  There's no power struggle because Brackett has no power, he's a scout, an advisor.  Benning makes the call not judd Brackett.

Bingo. This seems like a cut and dry case where everyone thinks Brackett found all these players himself. He has to trust his scouting team. The scouts in the trenches find these players and they just report up the chain. He doesn't have some secret ability anymore than anyone else does. What makes you look good? Surround yourself with smart people to do the work for you. I'm not saying Brackett was completely devoid talent scouting ability as he was a scout himself, but he certainly gets a lot of credit for it. And by declaring him a lame duck, it pretty much indicates he wanted too much money or an increased role that the management team wasn't prepared to pony up. Benning will have another protege in no time; probably already does.

[zimmy]

1 hour ago, DeNiro said:

Source?

I appreciate your going through the motions. If there's a weariness in your request, I totally get it.

[Tre Mac]

1 hour ago, RonMexico said:

 

Hahaha. What world do you live in where you can throw ultimatums in your boss' face and still expect to have a job??

The world of the Canucks Front Office, just ask Linden.  

[spook007]

2 hours ago, stawns said:

Though its not surprising given they have nothing else to yak about, the media is being so ridiculous about this.  There's no power struggle because Brackett has no power, he's a scout, an advisor.  Benning makes the call not judd Brackett.

Bingo.... end off 

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

Just some thoughts today about the whole Brackett affair.

 

I think I’ve been pretty strong in my earlier arguments for why “autonomy” in the scouting department would be an unreasonable ask, and unprecedented within NHL organizations. 
 

But today, just wanted to consider what level of autonomy Brackett may have been seeking. Was he demanding full control on hiring/firing decisions within his department, or was he just asking for Benning to take the training wheels off, and let him build the department he wants to run, while knowing that ultimately he reports to his GM and understanding that he can be overruled? Because that would have been a reasonable ask, and one that Benning should have granted.

 

The Canucks have made three significant changes to the scouting department, under Benning. The first was just after the 2015 draft, when Eric Crawford was fired, and Brackett was promoted. The second was about a month after the 2017 draft, when several scouts were fired, and several replacements were hired. And the most recent was 2019, again just following the draft, and again a handful of scouts fired and hired.

 

Common to each of these changes in personnel is the fact that they were actions taken by management, and not internal changes made by the scouting department (and its director, Brackett). And I would say that that is a little unusual, perhaps more than a little unusual.

 

We’ll never really know how much input Brackett had in these personnel decisions. Maybe he was consulted, maybe he was closely involved, or maybe he was excluded and forced to just accept dictates from management.

 

What the reality is, is important to understanding who’s “on the right side” in this argument.

 

I’ve said that it’s not unusual, in fact it’s the norm, for GMs to feel that they have the right to hire and fire any subordinate. And certainly they have the right to make personnel decisions within a scouting department. But it is unusual to see a management group making every personnel decision in a scouting department. Especially if the scouting director is being excluded from this process.

 

That would also be nearly unprecedented.
 

Especially when we’re taking about changes being made in the summer following the most successful draft in recent memory (2017). And again in the summer (2019) following what’s arguable the best three years of drafting we’ve seen in this era of the team (2017-2019).

 

At some point, Judd Brackett would have rightly felt that he’d proven himself worthy of being consulted on these decisions, and being “in the room” when they were taking place. We probably won’t ever know for sure, but if the 2017 and 2019 changes were made without Brackett’s involvement, then he’s more than right to have a beef.

 

It’s highly unusual for a scouting director to have full autonomy (in fact, I’ve never heard of such a thing), but it’s also highly unusual for a scouting director to be excluded from the personnel decisions in his department, especially when that department is enjoying great success. Normally, when a scouting department is humming along, and producing drafts like 2017-2019, it’s left alone, and the director is allowed to run things, or at the very minimum, he’s directly involved in the decision making processes. GMs generally step in and exert themselves when there’s a clear issue, because the GM takes the heat for major failures, and if the scouts aren’t producing results, then the GM steps in an does a major “reshuffle,” and the scouting director is often sidelined in such a process.

 

But that’s not what we had in Vancouver. We had one of the most successful drafting periods in team history. And while it may be true that a big part of that success was the decisions made by Benning, including the personnel changes in 2015, 2017, and 2019, there’s also a point where a guy like Brackett is eventually going to think “if they don’t trust me with these decisions now, they’re never going to.”

 

If Judd Brackett wanted “autonomy” to makes some of the hirings/firings in his department independently (although ultimately with management approval), and to at least be part of the discussion when management wanted to direct changes, then he was definitely within his rights. And if all the personnel decisions in amateur scouting, from 2015-2020, have been coming from Benning, and with Brackett sidelined, then Brackett is right to want to demand a change or move on. Under that scenario, Brackett would rightly feel that there was little opportunity for him to advance his career in Vancouver, and that, compared to his peers, he was enduring a lack of “autonomy” that would be considered fairly unusual.

 

I don’t know if this was the case. But I’ve written some posts that might be considered “defences” of Benning, through this whole affair, and I figured Brackett at least deserved some “devil’s advocate” consideration as well.

 

 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Just some thoughts today about the whole Brackett affair.

 

I think I’ve been pretty strong in my earlier arguments for why “autonomy” in the scouting department would be an unreasonable ask, and unprecedented within NHL organizations. 
 

But today, just wanted to consider what level of autonomy Brackett may have been seeking. Was he demanding full control on hiring/firing decisions within his department, or was he just asking for Benning to take the training wheels off, and let him build the department he wants to run, while knowing that ultimately he reports to his GM and understanding that he can be overruled? Because that would have been a reasonable ask, and one that Benning should have granted.

 

The Canucks have made three significant changes to the scouting department, under Benning. The first was just after the 2015 draft, when Eric Crawford was fired, and Brackett was promoted. The second was about a month after the 2017 draft, when several scouts were fired, and several replacements were hired. And the most recent was 2019, again just following the draft, and again a handful of scouts fired and hired.

 

Common to each of these changes in personnel is the fact that they were actions taken by management, and not internal changes made by the scouting department (and its director, Brackett). And I would say that that is a little unusual, perhaps more than a little unusual.

 

We’ll never really know how much input Brackett had in these personnel decisions. Maybe he was consulted, maybe he was closely involved, or maybe he was excluded and forced to just accept dictates from management.

 

What the reality is, is important to understanding who’s “on the right side” in this argument.

 

I’ve said that it’s not unusual, in fact it’s the norm, for GMs to feel that they have the right to hire and fire any subordinate. And certainly they have the right to make personnel decisions within a scouting department. But it is unusual to see a management group making every personnel decision in a scouting department. Especially if the scouting director is being excluded from this process.

 

That would also be nearly unprecedented.
 

Especially when we’re taking about changes being made in the summer following the most successful draft in recent memory (2017). And again in the summer (2019) following what’s arguable the best three years of drafting we’ve seen in this era of the team (2017-2019).

 

At some point, Judd Brackett would have rightly felt that he’d proven himself worthy of being consulted on these decisions, and being “in the room” when they were taking place. We probably won’t ever know for sure, but if the 2017 and 2019 changes were made without Brackett’s involvement, then he’s more than right to have a beef.

 

It’s highly unusual for a scouting director to have full autonomy (in fact, I’ve never heard of such a thing), but it’s also highly unusual for a scouting director to be excluded from the personnel decisions in his department, especially when that department is enjoying great success. Normally, when a scouting department is humming along, and producing drafts like 2017-2019, it’s left alone, and the director is allowed to run things, or at the very minimum, he’s directly involved in the decision making processes. GMs generally step in and exert themselves when there’s a clear issue, because the GM takes the heat for major failures, and if the scouts aren’t producing results, then the GM steps in an does a major “reshuffle,” and the scouting director is often sidelined in such a process.

 

But that’s not what we had in Vancouver. We had one of the most successful drafting periods in team history. And while it may be true that a big part of that success was the decisions made by Benning, including the personnel changes in 2015, 2017, and 2019, there’s also a point where a guy like Brackett is eventually going to think “if they don’t trust me with these decisions now, they’re never going to.”

 

If Judd Brackett wanted “autonomy” to makes some of the hirings/firings in his department independently (although ultimately with management approval), and to at least be part of the discussion when management wanted to direct changes, then he was definitely within his rights. And if all the personnel decisions in amateur scouting, from 2015-2020, have been coming from Benning, and with Brackett sidelined, then Brackett is right to want to demand a change or move on. Under that scenario, Brackett would rightly feel that there was little opportunity for him to advance his career in Vancouver, and that, compared to his peers, he was enduring a lack of “autonomy” that would be considered fairly unusual.

 

I don’t know if this was the case. But I’ve written some posts that might be considered “defences” of Benning, through this whole affair, and I figured Brackett at least deserved some “devil’s advocate” consideration as well.

 

 

Listening to Benning on 650 on Friday, he did say that Judd was involved in interviewing and selecting the new hires. So he wasn't excluded (taking Jim at his word).

 

But there was clearly a line that Jim wasn't comfortable crossing here, and if it wasn't autonomy in the picks I don't know what really it would be. Jim spoke about the direct involvement he likes to have in the 1st and 2nd round picks, and how scouting is a big part of his 28 years in the business. 

 

I really think it came down to that. Benning doesn't strike me as a game player or a particularly deep thinker when it comes to office politics. 

 

 

[Fred65]

Sid is me, that the best summary I've read and very plausible. Very similar from another publication :-

 

Quote

For those unaware of Brackett’s pedigree, he’s the man believed to be behind the team’s selection of young stars Elias Pettersson and Quinn Hughes. 

Canucks GM Jim Benning reportedly handed over the reigns of the team’s scouting to Brackett after swinging and missing badly on 5th overall pick Olli Juolevi back in 2016. Since then Brackett has convinced the Canucks to select Elias Pettersson over Benning’s preferred choice Cody Glass in 2017 and Quinn Hughes in 2018. It’s believed that Brackett was behind the Canucks’ controversial selection of Russian Vasili Podkolzin in last year’s draft, as well.

Canucks insider Iain MacIntyre of Sportsnet reports that Brackett is out over an apparent power struggle between himself and Benning, along with Benning’s right hand man Jon Weisbrod.

Quote

From MacIntyre:

in sports organizations and guys move on, but what makes this issue exceptional is the level of detail being reported regarding Brackett’s unhappiness – right down to the contract that Benning offered him — and that it’s all occurring during what appears to be a golden era for Canucks scouting and drafting.

I suspect details will filter out eventually and  then we'll see. Here's the gamble by Benning if we can't find the diamonds in the rough that Brackett has found, especally late in the draft then his management is in jepordy, I hope you sure Jimbo

[zimmy]

26 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

Sid is me, that the best summary I've read and very plausible. Very similar from another publication :-

 

I suspect details will filter out eventually and  then we'll see. Here's the gamble by Benning if we can't find the diamonds in the rough that Brackett has found, especally late in the draft then his management is in jepordy, I hope you sure Jimbo

Can't say I find much of a parallel between Sid's balanced take on the autonomy JBrack might have been seeking within the organization and Ian MacIntyre's scathing rebuke of JBenn's recent draft record (while posing as an overly eager fanboy falling at the feet of the Prospect Whisperer) that you have quoted here.

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

7 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Listening to Benning on 650 on Friday, he did say that Judd was involved in interviewing and selecting the new hires. So he wasn't excluded (taking Jim at his word).

 

But there was clearly a line that Jim wasn't comfortable crossing here, and if it wasn't autonomy in the picks I don't know what really it would be. Jim spoke about the direct involvement he likes to have in the 1st and 2nd round picks, and how scouting is a big part of his 28 years in the business. 

 

I really think it came down to that. Benning doesn't strike me as a game player or a particularly deep thinker when it comes to office politics. 

 

 

I think when JB talks about first and second round picks, he’s probably speaking more the rumours flying around on places like Canucks Twitter than to the real disagreement.

 

I highly doubt Brackett was asking for full autonomy over the draft, in addition to his department. If he was asking a guy with Benning’s CV to just zip it and sit on his hands, and let Brackett run the whole show as “Uber-scout,” then there’s probably a padded room somewhere waiting for Judd.

 

I think it’s more likely that Brackett simply outgrew his role. When he was promoted, he went from a little known USHL scout, working part-time for much of his career, to being elevated to the director of amateur scouting. At that time, he must’ve felt he was being handed his dream job. And he probably didn’t care much about issues of “autonomy.”
 

But five years in, and after the successes he’d enjoyed, I’m sure Brackett was looking to expand his role. If for no other reason than to prove he wasn’t merely a good judge of talent (and a good company man), but a guy who can really manage a department, on his own. I think he probably wanted the training wheels taken off. And for management to trust him, when it comes to decisions on personnel and process.
 

I agree that Benning likely involved Judd in new hirings. To what extent, we can’t really know. But it also seems clear that the firings in 2019, and the moves in 2017 and 2015, were mostly (if not entirely) coming from the top, and there hadn’t ever been much in the way of letting Brackett independently pick and choose his own scouts, or for him to really take the lead the process, before making a final group decision, in consultation with upper management, on the scouting staff. 
 

I believe Brackett felt he was ready for a larger role, and probably felt that it was necessary for him to take on more responsibility and control, to prove that he’s not just a good scout, but a guy with real management potential and a candidate for advancement, whether within the Canucks organization, or moving on to join the front office of another team.

 

It’s quite possible this was always heading toward Brackett having to move on, if he wished to continue to advance his career.

 

A guy like Benning, with scouting running in his veins, from a multigenerational family of NHL scouts, with 28 years in the business, and who’s advanced to the highest position possible, on the strength of his record as a scout, this isn’t the type of GM who’s going to just completely hand off a scouting department to his director, and take a backseat role in all decisions involving scouting and the draft. I just can’t imagine JB ever doing that. Scouting and drafting are two of the things he loves most about his job.

 

(And, probably rightly, I could see JB believing that he just knew better than Brackett. It’s not outrageous to think than a guy with JB’s bona fides would be a better director of scouting than any guy working under him. And as GM, it’s Benning prerogative to be as active as he wants in any department within hockey operations, to make any decisions he wants regarding the running of the team, and to expect loyalty and respect for the chain of command. This isn’t to say that I believe JB acted as a dictator or tyrant—or that Brackett was somehow acting improperly or insubordinate—but just that Benning probably felt, and still feels, that it would be a little ridiculous for a guy with his record to not to play a very active role in the Canucks’ amateur scouting).
 

But for Brackett, I would imagine that he was quickly realizing that he was starting to rub against the ceiling of his role within the Vancouver Canucks organization. And Benning either needed to somehow create more space for Brackett to grow, or Judd needed to move on and find somewhere else where he can actually break through.

 

EDIT: small clarification, and probably no one cares about this but me, but when I refer to Judd Brackett as having been a “part-time scout,” I’m not throwing shade, just saying he was scouting part-time, while doing other things with his life. He’s a successful restauranteur, with his brother, owning two restaurants in Harwich Port, Cape Cod, The Port (est 2004) and Ember (est 2008). So even before he started earning a wage from scouting, Judd was doing quite well with his life. Pretty impressive to co-own two successful restaurants by age 31, and then pursue an NHL scouting job in your spare time.

Edited June 2, 2020 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME
Just me being crazy and thinking I need to add to a post.

[alt kilgore]

If folks believe that Brackett as head of scouting would actually even think of demanding ultimate final say in top round picks you are dreaming. I call BS on Bennings insinuation. (Benning never actually claimed that, only reiterated the chain of command) But it sure helped Benning smell better. 

It set up a great straw man for the Benning Bros to come to his defense.

No organization, especially this skeleton, top heavy organization, and especially one with such an experienced scout/ GM, would not let the GM have final say on major drafting decisions.

No way would Brackett have asked for that. I suspect Brackett did want more authority and to hire his own people and probably deserved it.  

 

I think it was more a power struggle between him and Weisbrod. And Weisbrod, was the more compliant yes man, doesn't matter how much he made a mess of Calgary. I agree with MacIntyre, this smells like an old hockey bag.

 

Gilman, Trevor, Brackett and other good people hit the road. Meanwhile even Delorme, the architect of one of the worst team draft histories in the league, is hanging on. I don't know why more aren't more concerned with the lack of talented hockey voices in this executive. And the way alternate opinions are not tolerated

 

"Only the best people" 

[stawns]

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

Just some thoughts today about the whole Brackett affair.

 

I think I’ve been pretty strong in my earlier arguments for why “autonomy” in the scouting department would be an unreasonable ask, and unprecedented within NHL organizations. 
 

But today, just wanted to consider what level of autonomy Brackett may have been seeking. Was he demanding full control on hiring/firing decisions within his department, or was he just asking for Benning to take the training wheels off, and let him build the department he wants to run, while knowing that ultimately he reports to his GM and understanding that he can be overruled? Because that would have been a reasonable ask, and one that Benning should have granted.

 

The Canucks have made three significant changes to the scouting department, under Benning. The first was just after the 2015 draft, when Eric Crawford was fired, and Brackett was promoted. The second was about a month after the 2017 draft, when several scouts were fired, and several replacements were hired. And the most recent was 2019, again just following the draft, and again a handful of scouts fired and hired.

 

Common to each of these changes in personnel is the fact that they were actions taken by management, and not internal changes made by the scouting department (and its director, Brackett). And I would say that that is a little unusual, perhaps more than a little unusual.

 

We’ll never really know how much input Brackett had in these personnel decisions. Maybe he was consulted, maybe he was closely involved, or maybe he was excluded and forced to just accept dictates from management.

 

What the reality is, is important to understanding who’s “on the right side” in this argument.

 

I’ve said that it’s not unusual, in fact it’s the norm, for GMs to feel that they have the right to hire and fire any subordinate. And certainly they have the right to make personnel decisions within a scouting department. But it is unusual to see a management group making every personnel decision in a scouting department. Especially if the scouting director is being excluded from this process.

 

That would also be nearly unprecedented.
 

Especially when we’re taking about changes being made in the summer following the most successful draft in recent memory (2017). And again in the summer (2019) following what’s arguable the best three years of drafting we’ve seen in this era of the team (2017-2019).

 

At some point, Judd Brackett would have rightly felt that he’d proven himself worthy of being consulted on these decisions, and being “in the room” when they were taking place. We probably won’t ever know for sure, but if the 2017 and 2019 changes were made without Brackett’s involvement, then he’s more than right to have a beef.

 

It’s highly unusual for a scouting director to have full autonomy (in fact, I’ve never heard of such a thing), but it’s also highly unusual for a scouting director to be excluded from the personnel decisions in his department, especially when that department is enjoying great success. Normally, when a scouting department is humming along, and producing drafts like 2017-2019, it’s left alone, and the director is allowed to run things, or at the very minimum, he’s directly involved in the decision making processes. GMs generally step in and exert themselves when there’s a clear issue, because the GM takes the heat for major failures, and if the scouts aren’t producing results, then the GM steps in an does a major “reshuffle,” and the scouting director is often sidelined in such a process.

 

But that’s not what we had in Vancouver. We had one of the most successful drafting periods in team history. And while it may be true that a big part of that success was the decisions made by Benning, including the personnel changes in 2015, 2017, and 2019, there’s also a point where a guy like Brackett is eventually going to think “if they don’t trust me with these decisions now, they’re never going to.”

 

If Judd Brackett wanted “autonomy” to makes some of the hirings/firings in his department independently (although ultimately with management approval), and to at least be part of the discussion when management wanted to direct changes, then he was definitely within his rights. And if all the personnel decisions in amateur scouting, from 2015-2020, have been coming from Benning, and with Brackett sidelined, then Brackett is right to want to demand a change or move on. Under that scenario, Brackett would rightly feel that there was little opportunity for him to advance his career in Vancouver, and that, compared to his peers, he was enduring a lack of “autonomy” that would be considered fairly unusual.

 

I don’t know if this was the case. But I’ve written some posts that might be considered “defences” of Benning, through this whole affair, and I figured Brackett at least deserved some “devil’s advocate” consideration as well.

 

 

It's my thought that if Brackett was this genius many want to think he is, JB wouldn't have hesitated to give him that autonomy.  JB has proven to be pretty smart and pretty good about surrounding himself with smart, capable people.

 

If JB didn't want to give him that autonomy, he obviously had a good reason.

[Maddogy]

1 hour ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I think when JB talks about first and second round picks, he’s probably speaking more the rumours flying around on places like Canucks Twitter than to the real disagreement.

 

I highly doubt Brackett was asking for full autonomy over the draft, in addition to his department. If he was asking a guy with Benning’s CV to just zip it and sit on his hands, and let Brackett run the whole show as “Uber-scout,” then there’s probably a padded room somewhere waiting for Judd.

 

I think it’s more likely that Brackett simply outgrew his role. When he was promoted, he went from a little known USHL scout, working part-time for much of his career, to being elevated to the director of amateur scouting. At that time, he must’ve felt he was being handed his dream job. And he probably didn’t care much about issues of “autonomy.”
 

But five years in, and after the successes he’d enjoyed, I’m sure Brackett was looking to expand his role. If for no other reason than to prove he wasn’t merely a good judge of talent (and a good company man), but a guy who can really manage a department, on his own. I think he probably wanted the training wheels taken off. And for management to trust him, when it comes to decisions on personnel and process.
 

I agree that Benning likely involved Judd in new hirings. To what extent, we can’t really know. But it also seems clear that the firings in 2019, and the moves in 2017 and 2015, were mostly (if not entirely) coming from the top, and there hadn’t ever been much in the way of letting Brackett independently pick and choose his own scouts, or for him to really take the lead the process, before making a final group decision, in consultation with upper management, on the scouting staff. 
 

I believe Brackett felt he was ready for a larger role, and probably felt that it was necessary for him to take on more responsibility and control, to prove that he’s not just a good scout, but a guy with real management potential and a candidate for advancement, whether within the Canucks organization, or moving on to join the front office of another team.

 

It’s quite possible this was always heading toward Brackett having to move on, if he wished to continue to advance his career.

 

A guy like Benning, with scouting running in his veins, from a multigenerational family of NHL scouts, with 28 years in the business, and who’s advanced to the highest position possible, on the strength of his record as a scout, this isn’t the type of GM who’s going to just completely hand off a scouting department to his director, and take a backseat role in all decisions involving scouting and the draft. I just can’t imagine JB ever doing that. Scouting and drafting are two of the things he loves most about his job.

 

(And, probably rightly, I could see JB believing that he just knew better than Brackett. It’s not outrageous to think than a guy with JB’s bona fides would be a better director of scouting than any guy working under him. And as GM, it’s Benning prerogative to be as active as he wants in any department within hockey operations, to make any decisions he wants regarding the running of the team, and to expect loyalty and respect for the chain of command. This isn’t to say that I believe JB acted as a dictator or tyrant—or that Brackett was somehow acting improperly or insubordinate—but just that Benning probably felt, and still feels, that it would be a little ridiculous for a guy with his record to not to play a very active role in the Canucks’ amateur scouting).
 

But for Brackett, I would imagine that he was quickly realizing that he was starting to rub against the ceiling of his role within the Vancouver Canucks organization. And Benning either needed to somehow create more space for Brackett to grow, or Judd needed to move on and find somewhere else where he can actually break through.

 

 

Very reasonable conjecture. 

 

Personal relationship and chemistry are also important. There are lots of people who are not very effective with communicating their emotions and parsing their thoughts. Some people are not very good at listening or conveying respect and empathy. This builds misunderstanding and resentment over a stretch of years. 

 

For instance, some people are fine with doing a disproportionate amount of work and yet getting paid less. However, their ego entail validation and respect in this scenario. Is the big shot regularly praising him? Is the boss letting him having the final say or take up more time during the meeting than others? Is the boss cutting him off or brushing aside his ideas in front of his colleagues? 

 

I like J.B.'s personality a lot. However, he is too much of an old timer. He does not strike me as a guy who invests time (nor have the time) to make everyone feel appreciated and important. He is not a charismatic leader like Bill Clinton. This is where I think Trevor Linden should have excelled at. Perhaps the Canucks organization needs to have a new President who is the cheerleader and glue to minimize dispute and hold the management team together. He can listen to gripes and complaints and remind everyone why together they are gonna achieve great things in the near future. 

 

Although these folks are professionals, they are clearly making decisions based on emotions and ego. The old timers like J.B. may be difficient in this regard. 

Edited June 2, 2020 by Maddogy

[hammertime]

Judd not lest ye be Judd!......

[Maddogy]

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

Just some thoughts today about the whole Brackett affair.

 

I think I’ve been pretty strong in my earlier arguments for why “autonomy” in the scouting department would be an unreasonable ask, and unprecedented within NHL organizations. 
 

But today, just wanted to consider what level of autonomy Brackett may have been seeking. Was he demanding full control on hiring/firing decisions within his department, or was he just asking for Benning to take the training wheels off, and let him build the department he wants to run, while knowing that ultimately he reports to his GM and understanding that he can be overruled? Because that would have been a reasonable ask, and one that Benning should have granted.

 

The Canucks have made three significant changes to the scouting department, under Benning. The first was just after the 2015 draft, when Eric Crawford was fired, and Brackett was promoted. The second was about a month after the 2017 draft, when several scouts were fired, and several replacements were hired. And the most recent was 2019, again just following the draft, and again a handful of scouts fired and hired.

 

Common to each of these changes in personnel is the fact that they were actions taken by management, and not internal changes made by the scouting department (and its director, Brackett). And I would say that that is a little unusual, perhaps more than a little unusual.

 

We’ll never really know how much input Brackett had in these personnel decisions. Maybe he was consulted, maybe he was closely involved, or maybe he was excluded and forced to just accept dictates from management.

 

What the reality is, is important to understanding who’s “on the right side” in this argument.

 

I’ve said that it’s not unusual, in fact it’s the norm, for GMs to feel that they have the right to hire and fire any subordinate. And certainly they have the right to make personnel decisions within a scouting department. But it is unusual to see a management group making every personnel decision in a scouting department. Especially if the scouting director is being excluded from this process.

 

That would also be nearly unprecedented.
 

Especially when we’re taking about changes being made in the summer following the most successful draft in recent memory (2017). And again in the summer (2019) following what’s arguable the best three years of drafting we’ve seen in this era of the team (2017-2019).

 

At some point, Judd Brackett would have rightly felt that he’d proven himself worthy of being consulted on these decisions, and being “in the room” when they were taking place. We probably won’t ever know for sure, but if the 2017 and 2019 changes were made without Brackett’s involvement, then he’s more than right to have a beef.

 

It’s highly unusual for a scouting director to have full autonomy (in fact, I’ve never heard of such a thing), but it’s also highly unusual for a scouting director to be excluded from the personnel decisions in his department, especially when that department is enjoying great success. Normally, when a scouting department is humming along, and producing drafts like 2017-2019, it’s left alone, and the director is allowed to run things, or at the very minimum, he’s directly involved in the decision making processes. GMs generally step in and exert themselves when there’s a clear issue, because the GM takes the heat for major failures, and if the scouts aren’t producing results, then the GM steps in an does a major “reshuffle,” and the scouting director is often sidelined in such a process.

 

But that’s not what we had in Vancouver. We had one of the most successful drafting periods in team history. And while it may be true that a big part of that success was the decisions made by Benning, including the personnel changes in 2015, 2017, and 2019, there’s also a point where a guy like Brackett is eventually going to think “if they don’t trust me with these decisions now, they’re never going to.”

 

If Judd Brackett wanted “autonomy” to makes some of the hirings/firings in his department independently (although ultimately with management approval), and to at least be part of the discussion when management wanted to direct changes, then he was definitely within his rights. And if all the personnel decisions in amateur scouting, from 2015-2020, have been coming from Benning, and with Brackett sidelined, then Brackett is right to want to demand a change or move on. Under that scenario, Brackett would rightly feel that there was little opportunity for him to advance his career in Vancouver, and that, compared to his peers, he was enduring a lack of “autonomy” that would be considered fairly unusual.

 

I don’t know if this was the case. But I’ve written some posts that might be considered “defences” of Benning, through this whole affair, and I figured Brackett at least deserved some “devil’s advocate” consideration as well.

 

 

It sounds like a tough gig in Vancouver when the boss was a former director of amateur scouting himself. 

 

However, it would not surprise me that the new director to be named would have a better relationship with J.B.

[Ballisticsports.]

I just wonder if they draft by consensus as JB says, and we have had good drafts, then why are so many scouts being Fired our team, and making an offer to the head one that you know will be rejected?

It sounds like the person who blames all the exes for all the breakups and never looks at themselves as being the problem

 

It does seem odd to fire, when you think your draft picks have been good ones

There is more to this, than we will know, but hopefully things  won't go south

With lesser picks available, we won't know for several years now how the new staff does now

That is why who we pick now are very important, so why mess up the team, that was doing well drafting?

[luckylager]

Riiight, but what's saying the reason we saw such movement in the scouting department during a successful draft era isn't because JB had to keep stepping in?

 

Maybe the Gaudettes, Rathbones etc were actually guys the scouting staff had overlooked and JB was like "I can't believe I have to hold your &^@#ing hands, you're all fired".

 

It's funny when you really look critically at situations like this and smile because if you can find the middle ground between the two extremes, there's comfort in knowing the truth exists there. 

So most likely - Judd wanted more money and control. Doesn't have to be "full control", but he wanted it. JB didn't want to give him either of those things because he had to fire a bunch of scouts and he's stubborn.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by luckylager

[MoneypuckOverlord]

no team will be giving him Autonmy. not to mention Judd Brackets scouting style changed because of what Jim Benning told his scouts to look for, so no, Bracket wasn't a guy that was born with the scouting talents, he was actually lead by Jim Benning and in fact he should be grateful and shouldn't be asking for Autonomy

 

that being said best of luck Judd. 

[theo5789]

19 hours ago, ba;;isticsports said:

I just wonder if they draft by consensus as JB says, and we have had good drafts, then why are so many scouts being Fired our team, and making an offer to the head one that you know will be rejected?

It sounds like the person who blames all the exes for all the breakups and never looks at themselves as being the problem

 

It does seem odd to fire, when you think your draft picks have been good ones

There is more to this, than we will know, but hopefully things  won't go south

With lesser picks available, we won't know for several years now how the new staff does now

That is why who we pick now are very important, so why mess up the team, that was doing well drafting?

They're not overhauling the entire scouting staff every time. Scouts that aren't doing their job will get fired. If they want to upgrade an area they feel is weak, unfortunately there will have to be changes. Despite us having good results in our drafts the last few seasons (which helps to have top end picks), the later rounds haven't uncovered any gems yet, so there is always room for improvement.

 

Benning extended an offer to try and retain him. Brackett wanted to negotiate his terms (and rightfully so). Unfortunately it was terms that couldn't be met. Perhaps if he wanted more money, then that could've been achievable. He wasn't making the offer knowing it would be rejected and Brackett was still part of the draft talks while this was trying to get resolved (which you don't do with someone that you know is leaving and will bring this information to a new team).

 

Benning has always credited the scouting team for the success of the drafting. We are not seeing guys like Hammarstrom getting fired (despite those suggesting we are dumping all the key figures involved in drafting EP). Even a good scouting group has room for improvement and the ones that want to be part of the success here will be the ones that continue to find the gems for us.

Edited June 2, 2020 by theo5789

[lmm]

13 hours ago, theo5789 said:

They're not overhauling the entire scouting staff every time. Scouts that aren't doing their job will get fired. If they want to upgrade an area they feel is weak, unfortunately there will have to be changes. Despite us having good results in our drafts the last few seasons (which helps to have top end picks), the later rounds haven't uncovered any gems yet, so there is always room for improvement.

 

Benning extended an offer to try and retain him. Brackett wanted to negotiate his terms (and rightfully so). Unfortunately it was terms that couldn't be met. Perhaps if he wanted more money, then that could've been achievable. He wasn't making the offer knowing it would be rejected and Brackett was still part of the draft talks while this was trying to get resolved (which you don't do with someone that you know is leaving and will bring this information to a new team).

 

Benning has always credited the scouting team for the success of the drafting. We are seeing guys like Hammarstrom getting fired (despite those suggesting we are dumping all the key figures involved in drafting EP). Even a good scouting group has room for improvement and the ones that want to be part of the success here will be the ones that continue to find the gems for us.

Hammarstrom got fired?

link?

18 hours ago, stawns said:

It's my thought that if Brackett was this genius many want to think he is, JB wouldn't have hesitated to give him that autonomy.  JB has proven to be pretty smart and pretty good about surrounding himself with smart, capable people.

 

If JB didn't want to give him that autonomy, he obviously had a good reason.

this statement assumes that Jim is both accutely aware and confident in his roll.

1 If Judd is a genius he might scare Jim

2 How has Jim proven that he is smart?

2a Who has he surrounded himself withthat are smart and capable?

3 what is the "obvious " reason Jim didn't give Judd Autonomy?

 

18 hours ago, Maddogy said:

Very reasonable conjecture. 

 

Personal relationship and chemistry are also important. There are lots of people who are not very effective with communicating their emotions and parsing their thoughts. Some people are not very good at listening or conveying respect and empathy. This builds misunderstanding and resentment over a stretch of years. 

 

For instance, some people are fine with doing a disproportionate amount of work and yet getting paid less. However, their ego entail validation and respect in this scenario. Is the big shot regularly praising him? Is the boss letting him having the final say or take up more time during the meeting than others? Is the boss cutting him off or brushing aside his ideas in front of his colleagues? 

 

I like J.B.'s personality a lot. However, he is too much of an old timer. He does not strike me as a guy who invests time (nor have the time) to make everyone feel appreciated and important. He is not a charismatic leader like Bill Clinton. This is where I think Trevor Linden should have excelled at. Perhaps the Canucks organization needs to have a new President who is the cheerleader and glue to minimize dispute and hold the management team together. He can listen to gripes and complaints and remind everyone why together they are gonna achieve great things in the near future. 

 

Although these folks are professionals, they are clearly making decisions based on emotions and ego. The old timers like J.B. may be difficient in this regard. 

 

Maddogy, I put this here because I think you get it

but some on this site believe that the top graphic is true.

Now I do not think the second graph is 100% true 100% of the time, but it is close enough

If as someone suggested above, Jim is overrulling his scouts every draft, it would suggest  he is a better scout than manager

[lmm]

22 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Listening to Benning on 650 on Friday, he did say that Judd was involved in interviewing and selecting the new hires. So he wasn't excluded (taking Jim at his word).

 

But there was clearly a line that Jim wasn't comfortable crossing here, and if it wasn't autonomy in the picks I don't know what really it would be. Jim spoke about the direct involvement he likes to have in the 1st and 2nd round picks, and how scouting is a big part of his 28 years in the business. 

 

I really think it came down to that. Benning doesn't strike me as a game player or a particularly deep thinker when it comes to office politics. 

 

 

 

Dealing only with your last statement

I agree that Jim is not a deep thinker, but I get the feeling he has some knowledge of the below graphic, but possibly not a full understanding.

He talks of character (integrity) and he praises his team, but there is sonmething in his delivery that leads me to believe that he is trying to keep up with current trends but is not fully bought in.

For those who wish to believe that all is rosy, Jim and Judd both say all the right things, but this split does not seem amicable.

The same could be said about Trevor's leaving.

 

I have never heard the details about Jim leaving Boston, but I wonder if he left the same way Judd is leaving Vancouver?

Jim could have stayed, and maybe been next in line for Chirelli's job, but maybe the writing was on the wall and Jim knew he would not get that opportunity.

I am totally guessing, so I expect to gett flamed for this.

None the less, Boston lost their top 2 hockey ops guys and landed on their feet.

I am also guessing the prospect of losing Benning did not cause this much of a stir in Boston.

 

Back to the graph below,

I feel Jim is caught  somewhere betwenn the two graphs, trying his best to sound like #2 while hiding his desire to maintain control like #1.

 

Dealing