[Report] Canucks to part ways with Judd Bracket

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

2 hours ago, kilgore said:

Yeah well, you can outright call Brackett a liar I guess.  But other teams seemed to value his integrity enough to want him.

 

I'm sure there were arguments both within and without the amateur scouting department. Then they had to convince the GM and AGM and the owner. I'm sure that those under Brackett, once consensus had been reached, were instrumental in also backing Brackett's choices when the time came.  So Benning, simply fired three key talented players in Bracketts department.

 

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/canucks-lose-three-from-amateur-scouting-staff

 

Despite earning plaudits for the work of their scouts in recent drafts, Vancouver Canucks management is nonetheless making changes to their scouting staff.

Three scouts, Chris MacDonald, Dan Palango and Paul Gallagher, have all been removed from the Canucks’ website in recent days.

Canucks general manager Jim Benning confirmed the departure of the trio on Thursday but wouldn’t go into details.

The last time the Canucks made significant changes to their scouting department was in 2017.

“We’re going to restructure the amateur scouting staff,” Benning said. “We’re going to have new people take on more responsibilities, some guys that have worked for us, that have been in charge of different areas.”

 

This happened about a year ago.  I can see how this is probably when the rift began to develop. Brackett simply wanted to not have this happen again. To be sideswiped by his GM like this with his own staff. He just wanted to be able to hire and fire people in his own department. Like every other CAS in the NHL.  Don't you think he at least earned that?

On the other hand, when it comes to the 2019 personnel changes in the scouting department, sometimes turnover is just turnover.

 

Chris MacDonald left because he was offered a better job with another team. He’s now the Director of European Scouting for Arizona. He wasn’t so much fired as allowed to leave to pursue a better opportunity.

 

Similar for Doug Gasper, who went back to his first love, joining the front office of a WHL team (he’s now the AGM in Brandon).

 

Dan Palango looks to have been fired, but not really a surprise there. He was as much a Gillis guy as you can get. Worked for 13 years as a player agent for M.D. Gillis and Associates. Then joined Gillis when MG became the GM in Vancouver. Benning kept him on, but he was probably on borrowed time and it’s more surprising that he wasn’t fired in one of the earlier purges.

 

Paul Gallagher is a highly respected guy, but I think he’s also pushing around 70 years of age. Not sure if he retired, but I don’t believe he’s worked in scouting since being let go in 2019.

Edited July 12, 2020 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

[RWMc1]

2 hours ago, mll said:

Some alternative explanations here:

https://thehockeynews.com/news/article/this-seasons-best-free-agent-might-end-up-being-vancouvers-judd-brackett

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/ed-willes-bracketts-power-play-for-autonomy-costs-canucks-star-scout-his-job

 

Incidentally the new scout Troy Ward was coach of the Abbotsford Heat when Weisbrod was overseeing them as AGM of the Flames.

 

For whatever reason the relationship was no longer functioning for both sides.   The Canucks seem confident they will do just fine without him.  The Wild are thrilled to have hired him.

Guerin said that it didn't happen over night and that they did their homework.  There were rumours of tensions earlier this year so teams were probably aware that Brackett could be available.  The Wild are highly unlikely to hire anyone in a key position without doing a very thorough review of character and credentials given what happened with Fenton.  He wasn't fired for his moves as GM. He didn't fit their culture where they didn't like the way he collaborated (or rather didn't) with others.  Brackett talks of how the draft is a collaborative effort.  

 

This is from the province article that you posted.

 

 

" Benning was asked if, ultimately, the split with Brackett was over the question of autonomy.
“That’s fair,” he said. “I come from a scouting background. I believe in collaboration and the chain of command. The director of amateur scouting either reports to the director of player personnel, the assistant GM or the GM.
“I’ve been in the business for 28 years. I don’t know too many places where the team is going to give a head scout total autonomy to make all the picks without collaborating with people higher up in the chain of command.”
But sources familiar with the situation say Brackett didn’t want complete autonomy. He wanted a voice at the table and, once Linden was removed, his voice wasn’t as important. "

 

There's some conflicting narratives going on here. Brackett picked and lobbied for all the best picks and had to convince Benning on all of them. If his voice wasn't important, how did he convince everyone of all those great picks?  Edit Also if he already had enough say to convince Benning on who to take, what extra autonomy did he want above and beyond what he already had?

"Brackett talks of how the draft is a collaborative effort."  Okay, how does that translate to him being the guru that recognized all of the talent on his own?

 

SID pretty much debunked the firing without collaboration narrative as well.

 

 

Edited July 12, 2020 by RWMc1

[alt kilgore]

1 hour ago, RWMc1 said:

 

This is from the province article that you posted.

 

 

" Benning was asked if, ultimately, the split with Brackett was over the question of autonomy.
“That’s fair,” he said. “I come from a scouting background. I believe in collaboration and the chain of command. The director of amateur scouting either reports to the director of player personnel, the assistant GM or the GM.
“I’ve been in the business for 28 years. I don’t know too many places where the team is going to give a head scout total autonomy to make all the picks without collaborating with people higher up in the chain of command.”
But sources familiar with the situation say Brackett didn’t want complete autonomy. He wanted a voice at the table and, once Linden was removed, his voice wasn’t as important. "

 

There's some conflicting narratives going on here. Brackett picked and lobbied for all the best picks and had to convince Benning on all of them. If his voice wasn't important, how did he convince everyone of all those great picks?  Edit Also if he already had enough say to convince Benning on who to take, what extra autonomy did he want above and beyond what he already had?

"Brackett talks of how the draft is a collaborative effort."  Okay, how does that translate to him being the guru that recognized all of the talent on his own?

 

SID pretty much debunked the firing without collaboration narrative as well.

 

 

You know that one thing doesn't eliminate the other right?   He may still have had to work hard to convince Benning of picks like Pettersson, as was also reported. But that doesn't mean Benning and Weisbro didn't in the end agree with him, and his staff.  If enough scouts are backing up their boss, Brackett, including Delorme, why would Benning not eventually agree too?  He's not stupid. Bracketts staff that Benning then began to cull without Bracketts say, reducing his influence further, so next time, he wouldn't have so many on his side presumably. After Linden was fired, he only had so much rope left. Screw the team, he was a Gillis hire.

 

What gives Benning away is that ridiculous insinuation that Brackett as Chief of Amateur Scouting wanted "total autonomy to make all the picks without collaborating with people higher up in the chain of command.”  lol.  That's quite the reach.  Especially when Brackett was praising the collaboration in the org.  No CAS would ever make such an overreaching demand.  All he wanted was to run his own department in the way he saw fit. That is the only "autonomy" he was asking for.

[alt kilgore]

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

On the other hand, when it comes to the 2019 personnel changes in the scouting department, sometimes turnover is just turnover.

 

Chris MacDonald left because he was offered a better job with another team. He’s now the Director of European Scouting for Arizona. He wasn’t so much fired as allowed to leave to pursue a better opportunity.

 

Similar for Doug Gasper, who went back to his first love, joining the front office of a WHL team (he’s now the AGM in Brandon).

 

Dan Palango looks to have been fired, but not really a surprise there. He was as much a Gillis guy as you can get. Worked for 13 years as a player agent for M.D. Gillis and Associates. Then joined Gillis when MG became the GM in Vancouver. Benning kept him on, but he was probably on borrowed time and it’s more surprising that he wasn’t fired in one of the earlier purges.

 

Paul Gallagher is a highly respected guy, but I think he’s also pushing around 70 years of age. Not sure if he retired, but I don’t believe he’s worked in scouting since being let go in 2019.

Yes, I'm sure all of them leaving at once was a complete coincidence, and Benning saying nothing about them leaving for better offers or retiring, only reason given “We’re going to restructure the amateur scouting staff,”  was not how it sounded,  and after that Brackett then making the demand that he have a say in who is on his staff for his next contract, is all one big coincidence.

[RWMc1]

From the same article as above.

 

 

"

As a precondition to extending his contract with the Canucks, Brackett wanted certain conditions met. While the specifics of those conditions aren’t known, they fall under the general umbrella of autonomy.

Benning, for his part, wasn’t willing to grant those conditions which is why he’s parted ways with Brackett, the Canucks’ director of amateur scouting.

“He was offered a two-year extension,” Benning, the Canucks’ general manager, said of Brackett. “He rejected it. In rejecting it he wanted certain conditions. He has total autonomy within his role, but he was asking for things I wanted to be involved in and I wasn’t willing to give up.”

And maybe it’s that simple. Maybe there’s nothing to see here and everyone should just go about their business."

 

 

 

 

 

 

[alt kilgore]

5 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

From the same article as above.

 

 

"

As a precondition to extending his contract with the Canucks, Brackett wanted certain conditions met. While the specifics of those conditions aren’t known, they fall under the general umbrella of autonomy.

Benning, for his part, wasn’t willing to grant those conditions which is why he’s parted ways with Brackett, the Canucks’ director of amateur scouting.

“He was offered a two-year extension,” Benning, the Canucks’ general manager, said of Brackett. “He rejected it. In rejecting it he wanted certain conditions. He has total autonomy within his role, but he was asking for things I wanted to be involved in and I wasn’t willing to give up.”

And maybe it’s that simple. Maybe there’s nothing to see here and everyone should just go about their business."

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol   Except for who he hires and fires in his own department.  Notice the "within his role" (as defined by Jim) as opposed to "within his department"? 

.

.

Edited July 13, 2020 by kilgore

[RWMc1]

Did Brackett actually say that all he wanted was to hire and fire the scouts at his discretion or is that a fabricated narrative?

 

I've worked in a few organizations and the hiring and firing was usually done by the top dog with input from people heading up departments. I guess that's different in the NHL.

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

1 hour ago, kilgore said:

Yes, I'm sure all of them leaving at once was a complete coincidence, and Benning saying nothing about them leaving for better offers or retiring, only reason given “We’re going to restructure the amateur scouting staff,”  was not how it sounded,  and after that Brackett then making the demand that he have a say in who is on his staff for his next contract, is all one big coincidence.

As far as MacDonald and Gasper, Benning did acknowledge that they were moving on to better offers. He just wasn’t willing to comment directly, as the new hirings hadn’t been formerly announced by the respective teams yet, so he was basically just honouring those teams’ wishes to issue their own press releases, rather than them getting inadvertently scooped by Benning having loose lips during an interview with the Vancouver press.

 

In the cases of Palango and Gallagher, I think direct comments on the reasons they were let go would be pretty unprofessional of Benning.
 

I do suspect that Palango was never a favourite of JB’s, just because of his strong association with the previous regime (and Benning is hardly unique among NHL GM’s for clearing house on guys that have tight ties to the previous GM). Also, it may have been the Benning felt Palango was had performed poorly, was becoming redundant, or possibly he just wanted to put somebody in place that he trusted more (Palango was a “cross checker”—which is basically a scout who offers a second opinion on the work of primary scouts). Whatever the case, it would be pretty crappy of JB to directly comment on the reasons why he fired a guy (unless rumours and leaks to the press made it absolutely necessary to issue a statement). Better for everyone to keep those details in-house.

 

Similar for Gallagher, who’s an old-timer and widely respected. Maybe he retired. Maybe Benning forced him to retire. Either way, it would be crappy of Benning to say the guy is retiring, unless Gallagher was sure he was retiring and he wanted to make that public. Maybe he wanted to step back, take time off, look for a part-time gig, etc. Or maybe he was getting old, had lost a step, wasn’t performing well, and it was just time for him to go. Either way, not really the type of thing JB needs to be sharing with the press.

 

Whatever the case, neither Palango nor Gallagher have worked in pro scouting since they were let go (at least to my knowledge). Maybe they will again. But for what it’s worth, it doesn’t seem like any teams were chasing after them.

 

None of this changes that fact that Brackett probably deserved a larger say in these personnel decisions. I’m with you there. I’ve said so in other posts. It is unusual for a GM to sideline their director of scouting to the extent it appears Brackett was, when it comes to hirings and firings within their own department. Especially when that scouting director is enjoying great success. However, it’s also a bit unusual to have a GM with the type of scouting background that Benning has. And it would be unusual to expect that kind of GM to be completely hands off, when it comes to scouting personnel decisions.

 

I’d like to think that a happy medium could have been found, but it seems neither Brackett nor Benning were willing to bend enough for that to happen. The failure here probably lies on both of them, although I do think JB probably bears more of the  weight of this failure. I highly doubt Brackett expected Benning to be completely hands off. More likely Judd just wanted more of a seat at the table, when it came to personnel decisions in his own department, and that’s not an unreasonable ask. He earned it, IMO.

 

For Benning’s part, I do believe JB really thought he was giving Brackett autonomy to run the scouting department. However that autonomy started and ended wherever Benning saw fit (so was it really “autonomy?”—seems Brackett and Benning has differing definitions). If Benning wanted to shuffle personnel, he felt that was his right, and that he didn’t need (or even really care about) Judd’s approval. As far as chain of command goes, Benning was entirely correct to claim such authority, but he probably would have been better served by throwing Brackett a bone, and letting his scouting director feel like he had an important role in the process, and a real say in these kinds of decisions.

 

In my previous post, I think what I was really responding to was what you seemed to be insinuating here:

 

“I'm sure there were arguments both within and without the amateur scouting department. Then they had to convince the GM and AGM and the owner. I'm sure that those under Brackett, once consensus had been reached, were instrumental in also backing Brackett's choices when the time came.  So Benning, simply fired three key talented players in Bracketts department.”

 

I really don’t think the 2019 firings were about Benning intentionally undercutting Brackett’s authority or strategically purging the scouts that Judd relied on to back him. Two of the guys that were let go were legitimately leaving to pursue better jobs with other organizations. The third was a longtime Gillis associate. The fourth was of retirement age. And those last two haven’t worked again. Seems more like Benning was just making personnel changes that he felt were necessary, and for the good of the team. I didn’t get the sense he was making some play to cut off Brackett at the knees. 
 

Nonetheless, it would have been better management practice for Benning to have avoided making Brackett feel sidelined in the process. The Canucks have had three major personnel shuffles in the scouting department under Benning, and in all three, it seems Brackett had little to no say in who was getting fired. That’s Benning’s right, and quite possibly, he’s even the best person in the organization to be making those kinds of decisions. However, I do think JB has a slight blind spot as to how his hiring/firings practices might impact his subordinate (especially one tasked with running the department being affected).

 

Benning seems alternately wounded/hurt by Judd’s “betrayal” and baffled by Brackett’s desire for more autonomy. And Jim doesn’t have all that good a poker face, so I think that what he gives off in the interviews is legitimately how he feels about the situation. He doesn’t really seem to understand why Brackett would have any issue with the way things were being run. And Benning doesn’t seem to see anything wrong with how he wanted the scouting department to continue operating (when it comes to “autonomy”). 
 

I don’t think Brackett was asking for anything more than he deserved. And I think he’ll probably have the level of “autonomy” he wants in his new job with the Wild. But I also don’t think he was ever going to get it in Vancouver. I don’t think any Canucks scouting director ever will, under Benning as a GM. And ultimately, that’s probably ok. I don’t think Benning really can be expected to step back to that degree, when it comes to scouting, and I don’t actually believe it’s really best for the team for Benning to take a completely backseat role in the scouting department.
 

I do, however, think that Benning could have handled this situation better than he did. He could (and probably should) have delegated more of his role and granted Brackett greater authority over personnel decisions. He could have easily made his young, star scouting director feel like he had the “autonomy” he desired, while still ultimately holding onto the final say, as GM. Plenty of GMs around the league have no issues with this balancing act (even some with pretty similar backgrounds to Benning).

 

Anyway, it’s Sunday, I have better things to do, yet here’s another essay length post by me on Brackett. 

 

[alt kilgore]

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

 

 

 

None of this changes that fact that Brackett probably deserved a larger say in these personnel decisions. I’m with you there. I’ve said so in other posts. It is unusual for a GM to sideline their director of scouting to the extent it appears Brackett was, when it comes to hirings and firings within their own department. Especially when that scouting director is enjoying great success. However, it’s also a bit unusual to have a GM with the type of scouting background that Benning has. And it would be unusual to expect that kind of GM to be completely hands off, when it comes to scouting personnel decisions.

 

I’d like to think that a happy medium could have been found, but it seems neither Brackett nor Benning were willing to bend enough for that to happen. The failure here probably lies on both of them, although I do think JB probably bears more of the  weight of this failure. I highly doubt Brackett expected Benning to be completely hands off. More likely Judd just wanted more of a seat at the table, when it came to personnel decisions in his own department, and that’s not an unreasonable ask. He earned it, IMO.

 

For Benning’s part, I do believe JB really thought he was giving Brackett autonomy to run the scouting department. However that autonomy started and ended wherever Benning saw fit (so was it really “autonomy?”—seems Brackett and Benning has differing definitions). If Benning wanted to shuffle personnel, he felt that was his right, and that he didn’t need (or even really care about) Judd’s approval. As far as chain of command goes, Benning was entirely correct to claim such authority, but he probably would have been better served by throwing Brackett a bone, and letting his scouting director feel like he had an important role in the process, and a real say in these kinds of decisions.

 

In my previous post, I think what I was really responding to was what you seemed to be insinuating here:

 

“I'm sure there were arguments both within and without the amateur scouting department. Then they had to convince the GM and AGM and the owner. I'm sure that those under Brackett, once consensus had been reached, were instrumental in also backing Brackett's choices when the time came.  So Benning, simply fired three key talented players in Bracketts department.”

 

I really don’t think the 2019 firings were about Benning intentionally undercutting Brackett’s authority or strategically purging the scouts that Judd relied on to back him. Two of the guys that were let go were legitimately leaving to pursue better jobs with other organizations. The third was a longtime Gillis associate. The fourth was of retirement age. And those last two haven’t worked again. Seems more like Benning was just making personnel changes that he felt were necessary, and for the good of the team. I didn’t get the sense he was making some play to cut off Brackett at the knees. 
 

Nonetheless, it would have been better management practice for Benning to have avoided making Brackett feel sidelined in the process. The Canucks have had three major personnel shuffles in the scouting department under Benning, and in all three, it seems Brackett had little to no say in who was getting fired. That’s Benning’s right, and quite possibly, he’s even the best person in the organization to be making those kinds of decisions. However, I do think JB has a slight blind spot as to how his hiring/firings practices might impact his subordinate (especially one tasked with running the department being affected).

 

Benning seems alternately wounded/hurt by Judd’s “betrayal” and baffled by Brackett’s desire for more autonomy. And Jim doesn’t have all that good a poker face, so I think that what he gives off in the interviews is legitimately how he feels about the situation. He doesn’t really seem to understand why Brackett would have any issue with the way things were being run. And Benning doesn’t seem to see anything wrong with how he wanted the scouting department to continue operating (when it comes to “autonomy”). 
 

I don’t think Brackett was asking for anything more than he deserved. And I think he’ll probably have the level of “autonomy” he wants in his new job with the Wild. But I also don’t think he was ever going to get it in Vancouver. I don’t think any Canucks scouting director ever will, under Benning as a GM. And ultimately, that’s probably ok. I don’t think Benning really can be expected to step back to that degree, when it comes to scouting, and I don’t actually believe it’s really best for the team for Benning to take a completely backseat role in the scouting department.
 

I do, however, think that Benning could have handled this situation better than he did. He could (and probably should) have delegated more of his role and granted Brackett greater authority over personnel decisions. He could have easily made his young, star scouting director feel like he had the “autonomy” he desired, while still ultimately holding onto the final say, as GM. Plenty of GMs around the league have no issues with this balancing act (even some with pretty similar backgrounds to Benning).

 

Anyway, it’s Sunday, I have better things to do, yet here’s another essay length post by me on Brackett. 

 

 

 

 

And furthermore......yeah I have better things to do too, but #$%$ it

 

I think you are right about JB. One could almost forgive him as he was trained as an executive by the old school boys,  He's surprised by new ideas and isn't as prepared to sacrifice any amount of power hold he has in order to facilitate it. He overplays his hand and by doing so misses out on opportunities that require new ways of thinking, as well as talented people that fall into his lap. Now because of both of their stubbornness, I agree with that, one of our best and connected amateur scouts is working for a rival team, and taking everything he has in his head with him. And its not that we found someone better to fill the role. Surely two heads are better than one anyways eh?  I hope it was worth it JB, just you and John now to cuddle together over the team's future gambles. Not to leave out the Aquamen who seem to blithely accept all this muckery from Linden's departure on.

 

I don't want a GM that has no authority. Led around by his owner or upstaged by his subordinates, but I also want one that knows how to work well with others. Especially those who are smart and talented, (maybe more than him), like Gilman, Linden, and Brackett. We should have been re-building our management team at the same time we were and are rebuilding the team itself. Those exec players would have been good foundational stones.  Instead we've reduced voices  and condensed power into two old hockey pals that think the same. One who did such a bang up job with Calgary Flames picks. 

 

Hmmm an ex Flame exec and and ex Bruin exec, who's first big contract was LE from Boston, a paid provecature......but no, can't be an conspiracy. Ima check my QAnon feed.

But Buono was ruthless too and it usually paid off. JB's been lucky so far. And instrumental in having in postion the right person at the right moment in time to force his hand to the best possible outcome. I wish him nothing but good luck and good fortune, as a fan of the team he holds in his big ole hands.

[theo5789]

9 hours ago, kilgore said:

JB's been lucky so far.

They saying goes, you need to be good to be lucky. So you must admit JB has been good despite being "lucky".

 

With that said, calling someone lucky means nothing, but it's obvious you meant it as a slight. But I have to say this, any successful GM needs to be lucky. Teams that win the Stanley Cup need everything to align right at the same time and hope the moves made work out that season. So if JB has simply been lucky, I just hope it continues as things have been working out regardless of how things got that way.

[Toews]

57 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

They saying goes, you need to be good to be lucky. So you must admit JB has been good despite being "lucky".

 

With that said, calling someone lucky means nothing, but it's obvious you meant it as a slight. But I have to say this, any successful GM needs to be lucky. Teams that win the Stanley Cup need everything to align right at the same time and hope the moves made work out that season. So if JB has simply been lucky, I just hope it continues as things have been working out regardless of how things got that way.

Thing with luck is, eventually it runs out. A pandemic comes along and the cap stays flat. Now you have got ~5M in dead cap (Baerstchi, Spooner, Luongo), and bonus overage on rookie contracts to deal with. A few key players need to be signed to new contracts with limited cap space and there are a few contracts on the payroll that are difficult to move without retention. I don't envy Chris Gear as he tries to navigate through this mine field. I think it will be skill not luck that gets out of this unscathed (ie. Not losing a core player ala Brock)

Edited July 13, 2020 by Toews

[theo5789]

4 minutes ago, Toews said:

Thing with luck is, eventually it runs out. A pandemic comes along and the cap stays flat. Now you have got ~5M in dead cap (Baerstchi, Spooner, Luongo), and bonus overage on rookie contracts to deal with. A few key players need to be signed to new contracts with limited cap space and there are a few contracts on the payroll that are difficult to move without retention. I don't envy Chris Gear as he tries to navigate through this mine field. I think it will be skill not luck that gets out of this unscathed (ie. Not losing a core player ala Brock)

Well I disagree with the statement that it's all luck anyway. I give them more credit than that and they will sort it out. Worst case scenario for me is they simply lose out on say a Toffoli. The situation does not seem as dire. Could it be better? Of course, every team will have contracts they rather not have, but you simply make do with what you have and we have yet to lose anyone due to cap, so we will see when that happens, if it does.

 

This is why Gear was promoted. If his job was easy, he wouldn't be needed. If we lose a "core player" like Brock, it's because we are adding a core piece elsewhere in the lineup, we aren't dumping him. If management isn't always trying to improve the team, then they aren't doing their jobs and planning out different scenarios is where the skill comes in and that's simply them doing their jobs. To bring it back to Brackett/Benning and the draft, that's why the scout team creates a draft list of their own and try to predict others rather than picking out a singular player they must have, so they are ready for whatever comes their way no matter how it plays out. Luck plays a part, but skill is done in the preparation.

[FairPM]

11 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

 

 

 

And furthermore......yeah I have better things to do too, but #$%$ it

 

I think you are right about JB. One could almost forgive him as he was trained as an executive by the old school boys,  He's surprised by new ideas and isn't as prepared to sacrifice any amount of power hold he has in order to facilitate it. He overplays his hand and by doing so misses out on opportunities that require new ways of thinking, as well as talented people that fall into his lap. Now because of both of their stubbornness, I agree with that, one of our best and connected amateur scouts is working for a rival team, and taking everything he has in his head with him. And its not that we found someone better to fill the role. Surely two heads are better than one anyways eh?  I hope it was worth it JB, just you and John now to cuddle together over the team's future gambles. Not to leave out the Aquamen who seem to blithely accept all this muckery from Linden's departure on.

 

I don't want a GM that has no authority. Led around by his owner or upstaged by his subordinates, but I also want one that knows how to work well with others. Especially those who are smart and talented, (maybe more than him), like Gilman, Linden, and Brackett. We should have been re-building our management team at the same time we were and are rebuilding the team itself. Those exec players would have been good foundational stones.  Instead we've reduced voices  and condensed power into two old hockey pals that think the same. One who did such a bang up job with Calgary Flames picks. 

 

Hmmm an ex Flame exec and and ex Bruin exec, who's first big contract was LE from Boston, a paid provecature......but no, can't be an conspiracy. Ima check my QAnon feed.

But Buono was ruthless too and it usually paid off. JB's been lucky so far. And instrumental in having in postion the right person at the right moment in time to force his hand to the best possible outcome. I wish him nothing but good luck and good fortune, as a fan of the team he holds in his big ole hands.

This is classic Anti-Benning mentality. Benning gets 0% credit for the positive moves and 100% for the negative moves. Not only was he 'lucky', but he was forced into it by another person.  

 

If that is the case... who gets the credit for trades for Dahlen and Goldobin?  I'm sure there are other trades for minor leaguers/prospects/rookies but the bigger point is the allocation of credit/blame for each of the moves.

 

 

 

 

[Fred65]

They say the best coaches are ones that can adapt thier system to suit the roster/skills they have. The same holds true of GM's wehn  you have good staff available you try to accomodate your plans to include the quality staff you have. In particular Gilman and Brackett both good examples of quality people that brought a lot to the table. I hate to say it but both these people were to smart for JB liking. The people you fire are those that show incompetence or disregard for the team 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Fred65

[Ballisticsports.]

2 hours ago, Toews said:

Thing with luck is, eventually it runs out. A pandemic comes along and the cap stays flat. Now you have got ~5M in dead cap (Baerstchi, Spooner, Luongo), and bonus overage on rookie contracts to deal with. A few key players need to be signed to new contracts with limited cap space and there are a few contracts on the payroll that are difficult to move without retention. I don't envy Chris Gear as he tries to navigate through this mine field. I think it will be skill not luck that gets out of this unscathed (ie. Not losing a core player ala Brock)

The pandemic hurts every team though, Canucks being bottom dwellers for so long, never should have been in the position of being tight against the cap, we could have come out of this in a beautiful position without having players we don't play or even play on the team while overpaying them

 

I think when someone said  he was lucky they meant that Quinn fell  to us, that Boeser who was rated at our draft pick, turned out as well as he did, that Markstrom improved over the lame weak goals he surrendered and of course EP turning out as well as he did

 

Don't envy Chris Gear?- He helped create the mess, he was in charge of salary cap management, player transactions and contracts before being  promoted, and looking from ,the outside, I never understood his promotion

[alt kilgore]

2 hours ago, FairPM said:

This is classic Anti-Benning mentality. Benning gets 0% credit for the positive moves and 100% for the negative moves. Not only was he 'lucky', but he was forced into it by another person.  

 

If that is the case... who gets the credit for trades for Dahlen and Goldobin?  I'm sure there are other trades for minor leaguers/prospects/rookies but the bigger point is the allocation of credit/blame for each of the moves.

 

 

 

 

You’re using Goldobin and Dahlen as your examples to show JBs management prowess? One a player he gave an untradable contract to, and the other with an entitled attitude and is now out of the organization? Okay.

 

i thought this was about the scouting/drafting department, ie Brackett. BTW Bennings last big player push at the draft when he pulled rank to” make it so “ was for Juolevi. 
 

And yes luck is involved in the mix of any successful GM.  On one hand, so far at least, Juolevi and Virtanen have not lived up to their draft position. But Boeser Pettersson, Quinn, Gaudette and a few more in the minors have exceeded expectations. Part of it is scouting talent, from both Brackett and Benning, part of it is luck. No one can guarantee a pick will live up to expectations. Pettersson was taken BEFORE he joined the Swedish men’s League, and won the national championship and named the golden boy.

[FairPM]

24 minutes ago, kilgore said:

You’re using Goldobin and Dahlen as your examples to show JBs management prowess? One a player he gave an untradable contract to, and the other with an entitled attitude and is now out of the organization? Okay.

 

i thought this was about the scouting/drafting department, ie Brackett. BTW Bennings last big player push at the draft when he pulled rank to” make it so “ was for Juolevi. 
 

And yes luck is involved in the mix of any successful GM.  On one hand, so far at least, Juolevi and Virtanen have not lived up to their draft position. But Boeser Pettersson, Quinn, Gaudette and a few more in the minors have exceeded expectations. Part of it is scouting talent, from both Brackett and Benning, part of it is luck. No one can guarantee a pick will live up to expectations. Pettersson was taken BEFORE he joined the Swedish men’s League, and won the national championship and named the golden boy.

you missed the point on goldobin and dahlen. They were weak trades, but they were trades for prospects.  Is the credit for that on Benning, Brackett, or whom?  Those were prospects afterall, and a GM refers to his DAS (Brackett) for assessments on prospects.  And, NO, I am not saying those trades are Brackett's responsibility.  

 

imo, Benning being GM is responsible/credited for all the trades and transactions. He is the GM. We can't just pick and choose which trades/picks/transactions we attribute to Brackett and not.  

 

Benning is not perfect, far from it. He has room to improve. We all have room to improve. 

Edited July 13, 2020 by FairPM

[JeremyCuddles]

2 hours ago, Fred65 said:

They say the best coaches are ones that can adapt thier system to suit the roster/skills they have. The same holds true of GM's wehn  you have good staff available you try to accomodate your plans to include the quality staff you have. In particular Gilman and Brackett both good examples of quality people that brought a lot to the table. I hate to say it but both these people were to smart for JB liking. The people you fire are those that show incompetence or disregard for the team 

He didn't fire Brackett, he offered him a contract that Brackett refused. Brackett was power tripping, and Benning rightfully wants to be apart of those discussions/conversations. Brackett made his demands known and Benning said "see ya". Yeah Benning should just "accommodate" his plans by giving most/all of the drafting power to Brackett.

[alt kilgore]

1 hour ago, N7Nucks said:

He didn't fire Brackett, he offered him a contract that Brackett refused. Brackett was power tripping, and Benning rightfully wants to be apart of those discussions/conversations. Brackett made his demands known and Benning said "see ya". Yeah Benning should just "accommodate" his plans by giving most/all of the drafting power to Brackett.

Fake news

 

 it had nothing to do with giving up most/all of drafting power. It was about being allowed to have final say in who he works with, fires and hires, in the department he runs.

 And after what he’d done even without that, IMO, and also other teams like Minnesota’s, he deserved At least that much. 

Edited July 13, 2020 by kilgore

[Fred65]

2 hours ago, N7Nucks said:

He didn't fire Brackett, he offered him a contract that Brackett refused. Brackett was power tripping, and Benning rightfully wants to be apart of those discussions/conversations. Brackett made his demands known and Benning said "see ya". Yeah Benning should just "accommodate" his plans by giving most/all of the drafting power to Brackett.

He made it plain to Brackett he didn't want him around and Brackett as I understand had a number of opportunities with other more rational teams. No skin off Bracketts nose. I believe he may well be an Asst GM in the near future. Jimbo, ( and Weisbrod ) not so much I don't think he'll be a quick hire if he finishes with Vcr. Brackett ends up I speculate with a better job position and I'd think a better salary