Dazzle

Small samples don't mean squat. We also thought Martin was the goaltender of the future for Vancouver for his first 10 games...

McDavid was on the Oilers for a while lol.

Not even close to being the best.

Bad ideas - both of them.

Terrible call by Toronto. Clearly a high stick. On the bright side, this helps the tank

Meh. Not much of an impact.

Forsling hadn't proved anything up until that point. He had a lot of potential, but Clendenning at the time, was an AHL allstar (later, that was all he was). It's easy to use hindsight like you're doing to make an opinion. But it wasn't that long ago when we remembered Forsling being drafted. He was a 5th rounder. He COULD'VE ended up being a nothing player. However, the one thing about Benning's tenure was that his trades often backfired on him. Forsling is probably the worst trade that Benning ever did. OEL/Garland isn't even really bad.

Gillis should always be in the discussion because he's only the other recent GM besides Benning. Gillis did a very terrible job setting the foundation for this team. Anyone who can't draft at all is a very bad candidate to rebuild. You can see that the only four players he ever had any successes with throughout his entire tenure were: Hodgson, Horvat, Hutton, and Connauton (never played with the Canucks). People will make excuses that Gillis was trying to compete, but when you can't hit any picks with your 2nd (Gillis often traded these), 3rd and 4th round picks for depth, that's going to hurt long term. Gillis busted with Schroeder, Jensen, AND Gaunce as first rounders. He also didn't have a goaltender in the pipeline, nor a defenseman. It's a lot worse than people want to note down.

Since you've opened the possibility to be asked, do you have any idea about what you're talking about?

I don't think this management knows how to do this. I don't think they have the gall to rip other GMs off.

Gillis absolutely sucked at drafting. I'm not sure why you're running away from that fact. Evidence shows that throughout his entire tenure, he only had four drafted picks that panned out. FOUR. That's a terrible look for any GM, but we have lots of people willing to white knight this GM because of playoff successes.

Certainly rules out Gillis, but I don't see you saying that either. He was the worst drafter in recent memory.

I agree and disagree with parts of this post. Boeser - I think the dad's condition really did play a huge toll on him. Now that his dad has passed, Boeser's play hasn't changed much. I just don't think we can properly assess the impact on him. Another thing is the injuries part. We have no idea how much pain he goes through (physically). One thing he really needs to work on is foot speed/skating. His shot also needs some work again. I truly believe he'll work on these this offseason. I would hope he does. I honestly think Pettersson is supporting him as a pal and Boeser appreciates that. I do think that management initially wanted to see the market on Boeser, which they notified their camp. And I think that's where it is now. The offers aren't going to be very good, so it makes no sense for the Canucks to let him go. I do think Boeser can still be a pretty good player.

I respect any player that says his game isn't good when it isn't good. Raty is someone I'll cheer for.

Forsling was a hell of a pick as a 5th rounder. Gillis, however, never could draft anyone remotely as good on defense at any point of his tenure. That makes him very bad for a rebuild. A rebuilding team HAS to have draft picks AND a good GM that can use them properly.

I don't tend to reply to you because you never seem to have any desire to discuss anything or engage on evidence. I don't have a blind spot for Benning. The man has made plenty of mistakes. It's the stuff about the defense of Gillis that is hilarious and hypocritical. The stuff that people criticize about Benning isn't carried over with Gillis because people make excuses.

The narratives really changed quickly. It was terrible to watch.

@AnthonyG It should be obvious to neutral people reading these last few posts that the posters defending Gillis on drafting will willingly ignore evidence, or, as one poster calls it, "shift the goal posts". This is a good example of how bias, if left unchecked, will shape wrong opinions. Why are people making excuses for Gillis' poor drafting? For example, one of the above posters said, "Gillis' drafting is bad... but..." Why the "but"? The amount of excuses for his bad drafting is laughable. Note how those "excuses" don't translate for other people.

Let's not get carried away. I'm definitely impressed by Beauvillier. He's done a lot better than I thought he would. On the other hand, Beauvillier was a polarizing player with the Isles. He'd have these stretch of great games and then he'd cool down and make head-scratching Miller-esque games. We haven't seen the latter yet.

It's a shame people forgot it was Jay Feaster...

You've got to be out of your mind. Gillis only had 3 drafted players throughout his entire tenure that did anything at all. Those were: Hodgson Hutton Horvat If you include Connauton, that's four. The rest absolutely busted, regardless if it was a first round pick or otherwise. Yikes.

Yeah, they don't have a choice anymore. Their protection is for 1-12.

Freaking terrible move. Hands down.

What a silly idea. Of course you have the freedom to say or do whatever you want. That does not mean there is a freedom from consequences.

This is the problem with your assumptions. I'm not upset at all. I'm really not. I actually understand your point, even agree with the fact that I don't think it's homophobic. Yet I'm easily not someone on the right. That's how stupid your point is about "left" and "right".