FairPM

I would say you would need BOTH Vcr's drafting to tank AND Brackett's drafting to astound to confirm that. i.e. 3 calder candidates or something similar to come to that conclusion. It's easy to look one way and draw a biased conclusion.

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.

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.

I'm not calling him a liar. I'm just asking where the truth is. You cant have it both ways I. E saying he wanted more autonomy in the picks and then taking credit for the picks that were made in spite of his objections. I. E he didn't get the players he wanted, and so wanted more autonomy.

Which is all fine and dandy. However, wasn't he upset and wanting more say in the drafting, especially in the first 2 rounds? Isn't this part of what benning wasn't willing to give up? Quotes are fine, but where is the truth? He obviously isn't going to say he didn't want Podz and hogs after they were just drafted... Which leads me to what is the truth and reasoning behind the rift and departure exactly? If he got the picks he wanted, why is he saying he wanted more saying in the selection process? I believe it is agreed that brackett wanted more control and say in the drafting process, and benning wasn't willing to give that up, at least not in the early rounds... If that were not the case, he'd still be with canucks. I. E there was alignment in the drafting order/picks.

yep. Apparently he didn't want Podz or Hogs (he didn't have his say in the first couple of rounds, so the rumour goes). I'd say those are two very good picks the Canucks made. Is the drafting suffering that much? If the current Brackett narrative carries through, Brackett will get credit for those 2 picks but not for the later picks that don't turn out. (yeah, i'm a bit of cynic when it comes to Brackett and his draft guru status).

he was DOS for 5 years and a part timer for much of his tenure. It wasn't him that overhauled the drafting system, it was Benning. I'd say he just got some great mentorship. He would probably have been in line for AGM had he renewed and played nice (office politics, etc...). If 5 years as DoS is all you need to be an AGM, then there'd be way more AGMs. FWIW, here's the link to Martin Madden. DoS since 2008. He earned his way to his position. https://www.eliteprospects.com/staff/6288/martin-madden

Yes... But notice the 'we talked about it for a few years' part? One person was patient and built his way up. the other tried a power grab move. Leaked stuff to the media, etc...

True. At the same time, the draft performance under Gilis was atrocious. Gillis defenders will say that they didn't have many high first rounders, but Gillis' performance with post 1st round picks were terrible as well.

If the 'Canucks of old' knew what they were doing with their 5th-7th round picks, they would have been able to replicate that in their earlier round picks. Likewise, comparing Benning's performance to 20+ years of Canucks drafting is kind weird when his draft picks haven't completed their careers yet. Finally, I hope Benning's drafting doesn't catch up to the 'Canucks of old' drafting...

so... you're saying a realistic rebuild should take less than 6 years? I've love to see how that has *consistently* proven to be the case. more often, we have teams like EDM, BUF, ARI, etc... that take many, many years to build. in some cases 10+ years. also, I don't believe I (or many that have responded here) have said we are 'over the top'. Where did you get that from? We have a good young core. I believe we will be able to attract UFAs here soon, but that's about it. I'm certainly not thinking we will be perennial contenders. and # of posts has nothing to do with it. The thought that # of "posts = quality" reminds me of the dinosaur union seniority mentality. i.e. I've posted more than you so I know more than you.

To bring it back to brackett, you're assuming that he was the difference. He was not, as he was with the organization long before benning. Top talents reveal themselves early on. They're hungry, motivated, and have the smarts for their business. If brackett was the drafting prodigy he is made out to be, Gillis or other higher up's would have identified him as such. They did not. The fact is that the drafting improved with benning. Benning may not be the most articulate, but he clearly knows his stuff. At the end of the day, brackett chose to walk away from the contract offer. Yes, A strong organization works to keep its ppl, but a strong organization knows its strength goes beyond one person. The fact that benning has rebuilt the drafting quantiifers is proof that drafting (and organization) will be stronger after benning leaves.

Realistic Rebuilds should take 6+ years. It takes about 3 years before a drafted player is nhl ready. Then another 3 years to establish themselves as NHLers. To build a solid core, this would mean 6-8 yrs. I'd say we're on track. Vancouver has been spoiled with the quality of draft picks that have graduated and this probably distorts the assessment by many fans.

Yep, experience matters. There's a reason why there are perennial champion contenders and repeat winners. Winning breeds winning and losing breeds losing.

Hindsight is great but who knew we would have a play in round? No one did. I see it as a win win. Even if we lose, the team got more experience. Plus, the lotto odds are better than what we would have gotten had we just missed the playoffs. It's just too bad it's a 5 game series and not 7. I think our edge would be better with a 7 game series.