[Report] Wild name Judd Brackett as new Director of Amateur Scouting

[Cromeslab]

7 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

CONDENSED GAME  Brackett | Canucks

 

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Cromeslab
JPEG fail

[Coconuts]

[Patel Bure]

1 hour ago, GoCanucks16 said:

It was a play-in series. Now it's war.

Most HF “Canucks” fans will very likely cheer on the Minnesota Wild now that Brackett has joined them.

[Pears]

1 hour ago, Squamfan said:

Minnesota about to have the best prospect pool in the league in coming years meanwhile the Canucks are back to crappy drafting 

[theo5789]

1 minute ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Most HF “Canucks” fans will very likely cheer on the Minnesota Wild now that Brackett has joined them.

Many "Canucks fans" here on CDC were already cheering on the Wild prior to this news so we could get a 12.5% chance at the 1st overall.

[BertaNuck]

 

wild lose play in series against Canucks. 

The Minnesota Wild would like to select with the first overall pick in the 2020 entry draft ......

 

[KoreanHockeyFan]

1 hour ago, DeNiro said:

With the first overall selection the Wild select Alexis Lafreniere...

 

OMG Brackett is a genius!!!

WhAt A sTeAL. ITs aLl BeNinGs fAulT. OuR drAftInG iS tRaSh cOmPaRed tO MinEnsoTa'S nOw OmGGGgGgggggg 

 

 

 

 

 

[luckylager]

Good for Judd. 

I hope he fails miserably.

[nergish]

Man, Judd really knocked it out of the park with those Kaprizov and Kahkonen picks!

Congratulations on being solely responsible for everything good the Wild does going forward! Any bad pick is just Benning’s lingering influence of course.

[HKSR]

So from what I understand, Brackett was involved heavily in the NCAA/USHS area of scouting.  He likely helped pickup these guys:

 

Brock Boeser, Thatcher Demko, Will Lockwood, Tyler Madden, Jack Rathbone, Adam Gaudette, Aidan Mcdonough

 

It'll hurt us for sure not having him around unless someone else has a keen eye for prospects and takes over that region of scouting.

 

Minny will love the fact they'll be adding US-based prospects to their pool in the near future.

[Patel Bure]

55 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Many "Canucks fans" here on CDC were already cheering on the Wild prior to this news so we could get a 12.5% chance at the 1st overall.

Which is so sad in my opinion.

[theo5789]

39 minutes ago, HKSR said:

So from what I understand, Brackett was involved heavily in the NCAA/USHS area of scouting.  He likely helped pickup these guys:

 

Brock Boeser, Thatcher Demko, Will Lockwood, Tyler Madden, Jack Rathbone, Adam Gaudette, Aidan Mcdonough

 

It'll hurt us for sure not having him around unless someone else has a keen eye for prospects and takes over that region of scouting.

 

Minny will love the fact they'll be adding US-based prospects to their pool in the near future.

Weisbrod has connections in those areas as well, so hard to pinpoint exactly.

[theo5789]

51 minutes ago, nergish said:

Man, Judd really knocked it out of the park with those Kaprizov and Kahkonen picks!

Congratulations on being solely responsible for everything good the Wild does going forward! Any bad pick is just Benning’s lingering influence of course.

If Minni makes a bad pick, surely it's simply Benning's stench that hasn't rubbed off of Brackett yet.

[DeNiro]

1 hour ago, nergish said:

Man, Judd really knocked it out of the park with those Kaprizov and Kahkonen picks!

Congratulations on being solely responsible for everything good the Wild does going forward! Any bad pick is just Benning’s lingering influence of course.

The funny thing is the Wild already had good drafting. 
 

If that trend continues I’m sure people will be praising Brackett. But the pressure is on now. He wanted to be the guy so he better deliver. Any drop off in their drafting should be noticeable.

 

That being said I wish him luck. If he is as responsible for all our good picks like many fans think, at least he set us up nicely for the next decade.  
 

I’m sure Benning, Weisbrod, and whoever they promote can at least find a few gems themselves though.

[Ghostsof1915]

2 hours ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Most HF “Canucks” fans will very likely cheer on the Minnesota Wild now that Brackett has joined them.

Double bonus if they are Pro-Tank. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Ghostsof1915

[Dazzle]

3 hours ago, Provost said:

...and that is the only lens that matters since we don't know enough information and can't take away our "homer" glasses enough to be completely neutral.

The league valued Brackett, he got the first job at his level that came open.  Do we think that Benning and Weisbrod will get jobs right away when they eventually get fired? (that isn't a slight on them, every GM gets fired eventually).  I don't think anyone can give Benning more than an average or below average rating rating at this point, he has presided over 5 years of the most futile results in the entire league. 

This summer/fall is what will make or break him.  If we make it a couple rounds in the playoffs and he manages to get us out from the cap hell he put us in... then he gets a lot of kudos for that.  If we get washed out by the Wild and don't make the playoffs and take a step back next season (with an unprotected 1st round pick sitting out there), then he needs to get fired next year.

And here's the problem about your so-called "unbiased" or 'neutral' analysis.

 

"I don't think anyone can give Benning more than an average or below average rating rating at this point, he has presided over 5 years of the most futile results in the entire league."

 

This is a very curious statement. First off, how are you measuring your average? Are you looking at playoff appearances? The lack of playoff appearances was generally expected given the fact that the Canucks as a whole were generally older and didn't have a good prospect cupboard. With Benning at the helm, this was supposed to change.

 

So to look at this draft success, I chose this particular page because it is closest to the current time period (~6 months ago)

 

https://thecanuckway.com/2019/12/13/canucks-jim-benning-success-draft/

 

From the article:
While Benning and the Canucks have had a rough ride  during his tenure, he didn’t have much to work with when he got here. All we really know is where we are now. They came in preaching a fast rebuild, but the Canucks had core rebuild pieces they didn’t move, and it kept the legacy of the players alive in Vancouver. That’s something that is fairly underrated in the eyes of the fans.

 

Overall, aside from a few missteps and general bad luck with injuries, the Canucks have a very solid pool of players thanks to Benning. And while I know that Brackett also has a lot to do with that, we still have to credit his boss — and hopefully his boss credits him.

 

 

 

What I got from this article is:

While Benning is far from perfect at his job, looking at the results of his picks, specifically Hughes, Pettersson, Boeser, Virtanen (to some extent) alone, these are pretty good picks. This article actually credits Benning for having the foresight to pick Hughes.

 

Most people DID NOT expect Pettersson to be picked (a lot of people including myself also did not know at the time who Pettersson ACTUALLY was). Yet a lot of these people are now the ones that are rewriting history. They now think that Pettersson was a no brainer pick (it wasn't). In this specific instance, Benning DOES deserve credit for making the decision as recommended by his scouts, specifically Delorme (yes, the guy that everyone likes to crap on).

 

Did people even know who Brock Boeser was? Look back at the thread and most people were more worried about Boeser jumping ship. Many fans had PTSD from the previous pick from Minnesota by Nonis. People were overanalyzing his draft day reactions - i.e. he didn't look too happy.

 

Were all people happy about the Hughes pick? Certainly not, some people thought he was too small. And there seemingly were other players that could have been picked at the time (i.e Midelstadt)

 

So, if we were to be neutral, we can't simply deny Benning's success and highlight his failures. However, you are not actually neutral. You are part of the group that has been pointing out Benning's flaws specifically and coming to the conclusion of "average" or "below average". Any success that Benning did have is dubiously attributed to "luck". Yet this makes no sense because Pettersson was an above average pick. Fact. Boeser also was an above average pick. Fact. So is the Hughes pick. And I haven't gotten into the latter round picks like Gaudette.

 

So are you saying that Benning selected well because he was only lucky? Using that kind of logic, any bad decisions he made was unlucky, wouldn't you say? If everything was based on luck, that means a person's decisions will have almost no bearing on reality. We can theoretically put a monkey at the GM position and any success he gets will be based on luck. But this is not reality. Decisions have to be made IN REAL TIME, without necessarily the benefit of hindsight like most of you posters get.

 

We also haven't talked about the UFA signings/trades. Eriksson is generally considered to be a failure in hindsight. Yet the trade that people crap on about Miller turned out to be excellent for the Canucks. There have also been other "minor" trades like Motte that have proven to be very instrumental to constructing the identity of this team. The fact is, most Benning bashers have been proven wrong about the Miller trade. Some critics say Miller simply outperformed expectations while other observers think Miller performed exactly as predicted. Why is there such a difference in opinion?

 

Biasness is surely one reason for this difference, but there are other reasons too. My point I am trying to get at is that the biasness of all posters have sometimes led to wrong judgements. Yet the people who complained about the Miller trade have either been silenced/disappeared, or they will wait for an opportunity to pounce on something that fits "their" narrative.

So here we are: the biasness of posters. @Tre Mac in particular made a point about Benning being equivalent (more or less) to Milbury. After his point was easily invalidated, he never bothered to reply again. Yet I've already seen him re-appear to bash Benning now. This is what I mean. Some people have no intention of changing their entrenched opinions.

 

My advice is: don't claim to be neutral and speak for people who try to be unbiased, when you're in fact not unbiased. This is my issue with your post.

It's obvious Benning doesn't fit your statement of "the most futile results of the entire league". So much for your 'unbiasness'. By saying this, you have written off the successes of Benning, while highlight his failures. You therefore belong in the so-called anti-Benning crowd.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Dazzle

[PhillipBlunt]

10 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

And here's the problem about your so-called "unbiased" or 'neutral' analysis.

 

"I don't think anyone can give Benning more than an average or below average rating rating at this point, he has presided over 5 years of the most futile results in the entire league."

 

This is a very curious statement. First off, how are you measuring your average? Are you looking at playoff appearances? The lack of playoff appearances was generally expected given the fact that the Canucks as a whole were generally older and didn't have a good prospect cupboard. With Benning at the helm, this was supposed to change.

 

So to look at this draft success, I chose this particular page because it is closest to the current time period (~6 months ago)

 

https://thecanuckway.com/2019/12/13/canucks-jim-benning-success-draft/

 

From the article:
While Benning and the Canucks have had a rough ride  during his tenure, he didn’t have much to work with when he got here. All we really know is where we are now. They came in preaching a fast rebuild, but the Canucks had core rebuild pieces they didn’t move, and it kept the legacy of the players alive in Vancouver. That’s something that is fairly underrated in the eyes of the fans.

 

Overall, aside from a few missteps and general bad luck with injuries, the Canucks have a very solid pool of players thanks to Benning. And while I know that Brackett also has a lot to do with that, we still have to credit his boss — and hopefully his boss credits him.

 

 

 

What I got from this article is:

While Benning is far from perfect at his job, looking at the results of his picks, specifically Hughes, Pettersson, Boeser, Virtanen (to some extent) alone, these are pretty good picks. This article actually credits Benning for having the foresight to pick Hughes.

 

Most people DID NOT expect Pettersson to be picked (a lot of people including myself also did not know at the time who Pettersson ACTUALLY was). Yet a lot of these people are now the ones that are rewriting history. They now think that Pettersson was a no brainer pick (it wasn't). In this specific instance, Benning DOES deserve credit for making the decision as recommended by his scouts, specifically Delorme (yes, the guy that everyone likes to crap on).

 

Did people even know who Brock Boeser was? Look back at the thread and most people were more worried about Boeser jumping ship. Many fans had PTSD from the previous pick from Minnesota by Nonis. People were overanalyzing his draft day reactions - i.e. he didn't look too happy.

 

Were all people happy about the Hughes pick? Certainly not, some people thought he was too small. And there seemingly were other players that could have been picked at the time (i.e Midelstadt)

 

So, if we were to be neutral, we can't simply deny Benning's success and highlight his failures. However, you are not actually neutral. You are part of the group that has been pointing out Benning's flaws specifically and coming to the conclusion of "average" or "below average". Any success that Benning did have is dubiously attributed to "luck". Yet this makes no sense because Pettersson was an above average pick. Fact. Boeser also was an above average pick. Fact. So is the Hughes pick. And I haven't gotten into the latter round picks like Gaudette.

 

So are you saying that Benning selected well because he was only lucky? Using that kind of logic, any bad decisions he made was unlucky, wouldn't you say? If everything was based on luck, that means a person's decisions will have almost no bearing on reality. We can theoretically put a monkey at the GM position and any success he gets will be based on luck. But this is not reality. Decisions have to be made IN REAL TIME, without necessarily the benefit of hindsight like most of you posters get.

 

We also haven't talked about the UFA signings/trades. Eriksson is generally considered to be a failure in hindsight. Yet the trade that people crap on about Miller turned out to be excellent for the Canucks. There have also been other "minor" trades like Motte that have proven to be very instrumental to constructing the identity of this team. The fact is, most Benning bashers have been proven wrong about the Miller trade. Some critics say Miller simply outperformed expectations while other observers think Miller performed exactly as predicted. Why is there such a difference in opinion?

 

Biasness is surely one reason for this difference, but there are other reasons too. My point I am trying to get at is that the biasness of all posters have sometimes led to wrong judgements. Yet the people who complained about the Miller trade have either been silenced/disappeared, or they will wait for an opportunity to pounce on something that fits "their" narrative.

So here we are: the biasness of posters. @Tre Mac in particular made a point about Benning being equivalent (more or less) to Milbury. After his point was easily invalidated, he never bothered to reply again. Yet I've already seen him re-appear to bash Benning now. This is what I mean. Some people have no intention of changing their entrenched opinions.

 

My advice is: don't claim to be neutral and speak for people who try to be unbiased, when you're in fact not unbiased. This is my issue with your post.

It's obvious Benning doesn't fit your statement of "the most futile results of the entire league". So much for your 'unbiasness'.

Solid post. 

[Tre Mac]

5 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

And here's the problem about your so-called "unbiased" or 'neutral' analysis.

 

"I don't think anyone can give Benning more than an average or below average rating rating at this point, he has presided over 5 years of the most futile results in the entire league."

 

This is a very curious statement. First off, how are you measuring your average? Are you looking at playoff appearances? The lack of playoff appearances was generally expected given the fact that the Canucks as a whole were generally older and didn't have a good prospect cupboard. With Benning at the helm, this was supposed to change.

 

So to look at this draft success, I chose this particular page because it is closest to the current time period (~6 months ago)

 

https://thecanuckway.com/2019/12/13/canucks-jim-benning-success-draft/

 

From the article:
While Benning and the Canucks have had a rough ride  during his tenure, he didn’t have much to work with when he got here. All we really know is where we are now. They came in preaching a fast rebuild, but the Canucks had core rebuild pieces they didn’t move, and it kept the legacy of the players alive in Vancouver. That’s something that is fairly underrated in the eyes of the fans.

 

Overall, aside from a few missteps and general bad luck with injuries, the Canucks have a very solid pool of players thanks to Benning. And while I know that Brackett also has a lot to do with that, we still have to credit his boss — and hopefully his boss credits him.

 

 

 

What I got from this article is:

While Benning is far from perfect at his job, looking at the results of his picks, specifically Hughes, Pettersson, Boeser, Virtanen (to some extent) alone, these are pretty good picks. This article actually credits Benning for having the foresight to pick Hughes.

 

Most people DID NOT expect Pettersson to be picked (a lot of people including myself also did not know at the time who Pettersson ACTUALLY was). Yet a lot of these people are now the ones that are rewriting history. They now think that Pettersson was a no brainer pick (it wasn't). In this specific instance, Benning DOES deserve credit for making the decision as recommended by his scouts, specifically Delorme (yes, the guy that everyone likes to crap on).

 

Did people even know who Brock Boeser was? Look back at the thread and most people were more worried about Boeser jumping ship. Many fans had PTSD from the previous pick from Minnesota by Nonis. People were overanalyzing his draft day reactions - i.e. he didn't look too happy.

 

Were all people happy about the Hughes pick? Certainly not, some people thought he was too small. And there seemingly were other players that could have been picked at the time (i.e Midelstadt)

 

So, if we were to be neutral, we can't simply deny Benning's success and highlight his failures. However, you are not actually neutral. You are part of the group that has been pointing out Benning's flaws specifically and coming to the conclusion of "average" or "below average". Any success that Benning did have is dubiously attributed to "luck". Yet this makes no sense because Pettersson was an above average pick. Fact. Boeser also was an above average pick. Fact. So is the Hughes pick. And I haven't gotten into the latter round picks like Gaudette.

 

So are you saying that Benning selected well because he was only lucky? Using that kind of logic, any bad decisions he made was unlucky, wouldn't you say? If everything was based on luck, that means a person's decisions will have almost no bearing on reality. We can theoretically put a monkey at the GM position and any success he gets will be based on luck. But this is not reality. Decisions have to be made IN REAL TIME, without necessarily the benefit of hindsight like most of you posters get.

 

We also haven't talked about the UFA signings/trades. Eriksson is generally considered to be a failure in hindsight. Yet the trade that people crap on about Miller turned out to be excellent for the Canucks. There have also been other "minor" trades like Motte that have proven to be very instrumental to constructing the identity of this team. The fact is, most Benning bashers have been proven wrong about the Miller trade. Some critics say Miller simply outperformed expectations while other observers think Miller performed exactly as predicted. Why is there such a difference in opinion?

 

Biasness is surely one reason for this difference, but there are other reasons too. My point I am trying to get at is that the biasness of all posters have sometimes led to wrong judgements. Yet the people who complained about the Miller trade have either been silenced/disappeared, or they will wait for an opportunity to pounce on something that fits "their" narrative.

So here we are: the biasness of posters. @Tre Mac in particular made a point about Benning being equivalent (more or less) to Milbury. After his point was easily invalidated, he never bothered to reply again. Yet I've already seen him re-appear to bash Benning now. This is what I mean. Some people have no intention of changing their entrenched opinions.

 

My advice is: don't claim to be neutral and speak for people who try to be unbiased, when you're in fact not unbiased. This is my issue with your post.

You spent way too much time typing out nonsense.  We are all fans of the Nucks so no one is unbias.

 

Again all you guys got is Petey and Hughes and the prospect pool overlooking the fact that you need to actually make the playoffs and win - that's the point.  Not building up a prospect pool by being the GM with the longest playoff drought in franchise history.  And btw you need cap space  to re-sign these players, where is it?  Going to ask Loui nicely to walk away? 

 

I said Benning was a poor man's Milbury and I stand by that statement.  Notice how both GM's strength was at the drafting table - My point has always been there is a lot more to being a successful GM than drafting, yet that's all you Benning supporters got.  For the last 5 years Benning has been learning on the job and I am sick of it - he has to go.  And like I always said - all I need is time and I'll be proven right.  This isn't an argument that's going to resolve itself over night.    

 

You have an opinion and I have mine so you can go ahead and kept up with the confused emoji's every time someone speaks ill about Benning.

 

[Dazzle]

2 minutes ago, Tre Mac said:

You spent way too much time typing out nonsense.  We are all fans of the Nucks so no one is unbias.

 

Again all you guys got is Petey and Hughes and the prospect pool overlooking the fact that you need to actually make the playoffs and win - that's the point.  Not building up a prospect pool by being the GM with the longest playoff drought in franchise history.  And btw you need cap space  to re-sign these players, where is it?  Going to ask Loui nicely to walk away? 

 

I said Benning was a poor man's Milbury and I stand by that statement.  Notice how both GM's strength was at the drafting table - My point has always been there is a lot more to being a successful GM than drafting, yet that's all you Benning supporters got.  For the last 5 years Benning has been learning on the job and I am sick of it - he has to go.  And like I always said - all I need is time and I'll be proven right.  This isn't an argument that's going to resolve itself over night.    

 

You have an opinion and I have mine so you can go ahead and kept up with the confused emoji's every time someone speaks ill about Benning.

 

I said that your comparison was SO BAD that your point just basically became junk. Benning didn't get fleeced in any trade like Milbury did. Benning didn't sign Yashin for 10 years at 9 M each. (He signed Eriksson for 6M). Milbury drafted but gave players away before they could flourish. Benning did not do that.

 

You claim to talk about the success that is needed for a GM. We have talked about drafting, trading and construction of this team. I see that you've made no mention about Motte, trading for Miller, and acquiring other such players. Instead, you are SIMPLY highlighting the failures. Maybe this is your way of balancing the narrative, but this doesn't make you unbiased or objective. And you've already said your opinion. There is no need to repeat it in your sentences. That is circular logic.

I said it in the other post. Some people are just looking for the opportunity to re-hash their points. They have no intention of changing their opinions. Looks like you've proven my point right here.

[Whorvat]

8 minutes ago, Tre Mac said:

You spent way too much time typing out nonsense.  We are all fans of the Nucks so no one is unbias.

 

Again all you guys got is Petey and Hughes and the prospect pool overlooking the fact that you need to actually make the playoffs and win - that's the point.  Not building up a prospect pool by being the GM with the longest playoff drought in franchise history.  And btw you need cap space  to re-sign these players, where is it?  Going to ask Loui nicely to walk away? 

 

I said Benning was a poor man's Milbury and I stand by that statement.  Notice how both GM's strength was at the drafting table - My point has always been there is a lot more to being a successful GM than drafting, yet that's all you Benning supporters got.  For the last 5 years Benning has been learning on the job and I am sick of it - he has to go.  And like I always said - all I need is time and I'll be proven right.  This isn't an argument that's going to resolve itself over night.    

 

You have an opinion and I have mine so you can go ahead and kept up with the confused emoji's every time someone speaks ill about Benning.

 

That's the thing, you people (Benning Bashers) can only ever point out flaws, so you're only speaking ill. Of course a rookie GM is going to make mistakes along the way, you'd be foolish to think otherwise. 

 

I think I'll take expert analysts opinions on the state of the Canucks franchise over CDC armchair GM's, and that general consensus is that the Canucks have one of the deepest pools of not only prospects in the league, but impact young players already on the roster. That is directly related to Benning's management of the team, top to bottom