[Report] Benning: Judd Brackett in negotiations for 2-year extension

[Jester13]

8 hours ago, Provost said:

As much as I appreciate the massive compliments from FakeNews about being able to magically tell the future and post about reports a week before they actually came out (and just happen to turn out to be right on the money).  I just listen and pay attention to the various news outlets who have been talking about it for some time.  They haven’t just been filling time, but have mentioned team sources actually telling them, which is a different ball game than normal speculation.  There are reports as far back as last week about the subject.

 

Wanting assurances about having autonomy seems reasonable in light of Benning saying he wants to get more involved in scouting.

 

As usual, FakeNews goes on a rant,  deciding that he knows better than the various beat writers.... regardless of ample historical evidence to the contrary.

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/patrick-johnston-are-the-canucks-judd-brackett-headed-in-different-directions/amp

The two sides are in the midst of negotiations and you take all these "reports" of him being unhappy as gospel, when it's still all conjecture. He wants a better deal, JB foresees no problems signing him, they may or may not reach a deal. But to say it's because he's unhappy is presumptuous. 

 

Personally, I think this is merely a classic negotiation process.

[Provost]

2 hours ago, Jester13 said:

The two sides are in the midst of negotiations and you take all these "reports" of him being unhappy as gospel, when it's still all conjecture. He wants a better deal, JB foresees no problems signing him, they may or may not reach a deal. But to say it's because he's unhappy is presumptuous. 

 

Personally, I think this is merely a classic negotiation process.

So you are both inventing a strawman argument that no one is making, and also moving the goalposts from your previous position.

1.  First you didn't believe that there were reports about it and that it was only fan speculation. I posted links and even said I knew your response would be "well, I don't believe those reports."  You putting quotations around "reports" suggests you don't think they exist, yet the links are there and if you feel those aren't enough, you can go listen to the two radio station streams from the last week and hear them talk about it even more.  I have done 90% of your work for you, if you want to be intransigent then you go go do the rest yourself.
2.  Saying that reports are that he is concerned about his role and autonomy as the main part of his contract negotiations aren't taking them as gospel.  You invented that argument because you were wrong in your previous one. It is saying that there are reports to that effect, and that is a fact.  The reports exist.
3.  The hockey reporters and writers have to fill hours of time with content and they speculate and talk about ideas all the time.  There are times though when they say "I have spoken with sources on the team who say XX".  They don't make those things up, they aren't speculation.  The reporters have long term relationships with the team and if they started lying about quoting things, they would lose those relationships and their jobs shortly after.  In this case they have said they have heard from sources on the team that the issue is around role and his influence in decision making.
4.  It is fact that Brackett has been offered a two year contract and he didn't take it right away.  Benning said that publicly.  It is also a fact that Benning said he and Weisbrod want to become more involved in scouting directly, because he said that publicly as one of the reasons for promoting Gear.  Anyone reasonable can take those stated public facts and add them with the directly reported sources saying that it isn't sitting well with Brackett... and connect the two.
5.  You only require a high standard of absolute proof when it is something you don't agree with.  We talk about reports and discussions all the time here, it is literally the point of most of the forum.  As much as you want to denigrate all the professional reporters who cover the team, they know a ton more than you or I do.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Provost

[Jester13]

On 1/29/2020 at 11:19 PM, Provost said:

Well, we can see how it turns out.  Reports say he isn’t really happy with his  role, maybe not happy that Gear got promoted to assistant GM?

 

Hard to turn down a contract offer, there aren’t that many front office  jobs in the league and it is risky to go out as UFA with no guarantee of a job.

First, nowhere besides your post does anything say he "isn't really happy with his role". Maybe I missed this, but to me it's still just hearsay during a negotiation process.

 

2 hours ago, Provost said:

So you are both inventing a strawman argument that no one is making, and also moving the goalposts from your previous position.

1.  First you didn't believe that there were reports about it and that it was only fan speculation. I posted links and even said I knew your response would be "well, I don't believe those reports."  You putting quotations around "reports" suggests you don't think they exist, yet the links are there and if you feel those aren't enough, you can go listen to the two radio station streams from the last week and hear them talk about it even more.  I have done 90% of your work for you, if you want to be intransigent then you go go do the rest yourself.
2.  Saying that reports are that he is concerned about his role and autonomy as the main part of his contract negotiations aren't taking them as gospel.  You invented that argument because you were wrong in your previous one. It is saying that there are reports to that effect, and that is a fact.  The reports exist.
3.  The hockey reporters and writers have to fill hours of time with content and they speculate and talk about ideas all the time.  There are times though when they say "I have spoken with sources on the team who say XX".  They don't make those things up, they aren't speculation.  The reporters have long term relationships with the team and if they started lying about quoting things, they would lose those relationships and their jobs shortly after.  In this case they have said they have heard from sources on the team that the issue is around role and his influence in decision making.
4.  It is fact that Brackett has been offered a two year contract and he didn't take it right away.  Benning said that publicly.  It is also a fact that Benning said he and Weisbrod want to become more involved in scouting directly, because he said that publicly as one of the reasons for promoting Gear.  Anyone reasonable can take those stated public facts and add them with the directly reported sources saying that it isn't sitting well with Brackett... and connect the two.
5.  You only require a high standard of absolute proof when it is something you don't agree with.  We talk about reports and discussions all the time here, it is literally the point of most of the forum.  As much as you want to denigrate all the professional reporters who cover the team, they know a ton more than you or I do.

Second, you took my original post in this thread, where I asked if there were actual reports or "reports" that some sensationalist fans like to "report" as real, and for some reason seem to get really defensive, and you then subsequently turned my question into a debate that simply was not the intention of me asking in the first place. The fact that myself and others didn't hear the reports you spoke of, I think, shows that many have missed these reports. After further inspection of your sources, it appears as though the reports came out only a couple of hours before you made the comments and I made my post, so it was fair to ask for sources. I personally don't think your reaction to the request was warranted, but, hey, to each their own. 

 

Having said this, I'm not even going to address your strawman this, or moving goalposts that, as I didn't even have a goal post to begin with. However, you are entitled to your opinion and decision to connect your own dots, and we can agree to disagree. Regardless, thanks for providing the sources for the rest of us, even tho they were presented in a hostile nature. 

[oldnews]

Quote

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/patrick-johnston-are-the-canucks-judd-brackett-headed-in-different-directions/amp

This really couldn't get any better imo.

 

The ironing oozing out of that article is priceless.

 

Quote

How does the Canucks’ pathway, both in terms of on-ice performance and the revenue stream, look over the past two years if we’re living in a Glass universe?

“The thing to remember is that, in a general sense, it’s very rare for a pick at the NHL draft to be the result of one amateur scout’s analysis. It’s a collaborative effort,” said J.D. Burke, lead draft analyst for EliteProspects.com

 

So....the genius beat-writers in Vancouver - who know so much more than everyone else - wonder how differently the team would look if Benning had not taken Pettersson?

 

 

From J.D. Burke - the draft guru - at the time....

 

 

Quote

3 Players the Vancouver Canucks Could Select 5th Overall

April 29, 2017, 9:08 PM | J.D. Burke

 

 

After falling three spots in the NHL Entry Draft Lottery, the Vancouver Canucks are in the exact same spot they found themselves in after last year’s draw. For the second consecutive season, the Canucks hold the fifth overall selection.

"With the 5th overall pick…. the Vancouver #Canucks "#NHLDraftLottery pic.twitter.com/qZe9CFdLXd

— Ryan Biech (@ryanbiech) April 30, 2017

 

That’s a bitter pill for Canucks fans to swallow. Suffering through a 69 point season is bad enough — it hurts almost twice as much when another team swoops in and snags the reward for sticking through it. That happened three straight times, as the New Jersey Devils, Dallas Stars and Philadelphia Flyers won each of the first three lotteries.

 

Canucks' Linden: "We're excited. We think there's going to be a great player for us at five."

— Mark Masters (@markhmasters) April 30, 2017

 

Enough about the lottery, though. Let’s shift gears and focus on the selection at hand. To start, I’ve handicapped a list of three players the Canucks are likely to give consideration for when they’re on the clock at the NHL Entry Draft in June.

Casey Mittelstadt

NHL Draft Lottery day gifs – #Canucks

Casey Mittelstadt wires it past the goalie pic.twitter.com/gKNTahCEhE

— Ryan Biech (@ryanbiech) April 29, 2017

 

Barring a significant change in the Canucks plans, I get the sense that if Casey Mittelstadt is available to them, they’ll call his name. The Canucks have a habit of telegraphing their decisions months ahead of time, and this has been especially true of their first round draft picks. Jason Botchford singled out Green Bay Gamblers centre Casey Mittelstadt in a March edition of The Provies, and the Canucks have been scouting him consistently since.

 

The Canucks realize they have an organizational need at centre, and finding one who can make plays in the draft will be one of the focuses.

They’d like a distributor to get pucks to some of wingers who they believe will be able to score goals on the main stage.

One they have their eye on for sure is Casey Mittelstadt, a gifted playmaker, and a scorer too, who has big NHL upside.

He’s prominent in the debate over the best centre after Hischier and Patrick, and right now I’d bet he’s the third centre taken and probably in the top 5/6.

The Canucks have every right to be interested in Mittelstadt, too. Mittelstadt has a dynamic skill set built on speed and a strong shot that he’s not shy about using. The only real catch is that the American centre showcased these skills for much of the year with his high school team in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Ryan Biech touched on that contentious issue when he profiled Mittelstadt in response to Botchford’s report.

In this, his draft season, Mittelstadt started with the Green Bay Gamblers, before returning to high school, only to rejoin the Gamblers again. It’s important to find out why he returned in his draft year. Luckily Mike Morreale on NHL.com spoke to Mittelstadt in November:

“I’ve played with a lot of those guys [on Eden Prairie] since I was 5 or 6 years old, and my youngest hockey memories are all with the same guys that will be part of our team this year,” said Mittelstadt, 17. “I owe it to myself and to them to go back and play one more year.”

Three days later, he played his final game in the USHL and headed back to Eden Prairie. Unfortunately, they finished third.

I tend to think that the concerns about Mittelstadt’s time in high school are overstated, though it’s worthwhile context, to be sure. Even in the USHL, Mittelstadt was dominant offensively and finished the season with the highest points per game pace among qualifying forwards. In 24 games with the Gamblers, Mittelstadt put up 30 points (13 goals and 17 assists).

Mittelstadt is committed to playing for the University of Minnesota next season. One scout I spoke with today suggested Mittelstadt will be an exercise in patience, as the pivot is likely two years of college and one in the American Hockey League away from the show. Mittelstadt just might be worth the wait.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

 

Timothy Liljegren

NHL Draft Lottery day gifs – #Canucks

Timothy Liljegren blasts it! pic.twitter.com/HOBG8mm4u6

— Ryan Biech (@ryanbiech) April 29, 2017

 

While much of the scouting community is sending Timothy Liljegren plummeting down their rankings, the Canucks appear steadfast in their conviction about the Swedish defenceman. The circulating rumour is that the Canucks still view the divisive prospect as the premier defenceman in this year’s class and as someone who can quarterback an NHL power play.

Benning says #Canucks targeting true power-play #1 defencemen and playmaking, 1st or 2nd line, centres. #CanucksOn1040

— Matthew Sekeres (@mattsekeres) March 16, 2017

 

 

Liljegren’s suffered through a trying season. Once considered a lock as the second best prospect in this year’s class, a battle with mononucleosis and the struggles that visited on his game have played a significant role in his plummeting stock.

Still, the same qualities that made Liljegren a blue chip prospect before this season are ever present. He still makes an excellent first pass, has great vision and can carry the puck exceptionally well from his own zone. Best of all, Liljegren meets Canucks general manager Jim Benning’s criteria as a power play quarterback. In 19 games with the Swedish Hockey League’s Rogle, Liljegren has five points (one goal and four assists) which is an impressive mark for a 17-year-old.

Cody Glass

NHL Draft Lottery gifs – #Canucks

Cody Glass with the nice wrister – part of a 5 point night! pic.twitter.com/CN19ZpOwCV

— Ryan Biech (@ryanbiech) April 29, 2017

 

Another centre the Canucks have been keeping tabs on is Portland Winterhawks pivot Cody Glass. The dynamic, rangy centre has been steadily climbing draft boards, to the point where a player once considered by many a mid-to-late first round prospect could realistically have the Canucks call his name at five.

Glass is a skilled centre, with excellent vision, hands and anticipation. In 69 games with the Winterhawks, Glass scored 94 points (32 goals and 62 assists), and 63 of those points came at five-on-five, which is second to only Kailer Yamamoto among first-time draft-eligible skaters.

If the Canucks are looking for a centre to build around, they’re not likely to do better than Glass at their current draft spot. He’s the complete package. At 6’2″, Glass has the height to hold his own in the Western Conference and his two-way game is well developed for someone at his age.

Anyone need Cody Glass to be bolded there?  (or Liljegren, or Mittelstadt?  Evidently, Burke knew as little as the rest of us.

 

Sources of these insider "reports" are unquestionable, for sure.  Thanks for the lesson on the Alien, JD.

Edited February 6, 2020 by oldnews

[PhillipBlunt]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

This really couldn't get any better imo.

 

The ironing oozing out of that article is priceless.

 

 

So....the genius beat-writers in Vancouver - who know so much more than everyone else - wonder how differently the team would look if Benning had not taken Pettersson?

 

 

From J.D. Burke - the draft guru - at the time....

 

 

 

If only we (or Benning for that matter) knew what JD Burke - the insider and draft genius - knew....

 

Sources of these "reports" are unquestionable, for sure.

I tell you, oldnews, the amount of BS that clowns like STD Burke, Grady's Ass, and other chuckleheads spew about the team is insane. They're propped up by fellow twerps who quote their writing, who are equally biased and out to lunch.

 

It's amazing how these stains have any readership.

[oldnews]

3 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

I tell you, oldnews, the amount of BS that clowns like STD Burke, Grady's Ass, and other chuckleheads spew about the team is insane. They're propped up by fellow twerps who quote their writing, who are equally biased and out to lunch.

 

It's amazing how these stains have any readership.

 

Fun fact:

 

That curious piece of 'journalism', propping up the genius and source-credibility of JD Burke - says not a word about the "unhappiness" of Judd Brackett - makes no such claim, not even remotely - basically attempts to underline what a 'collaborative' effort drafting is, ironically.

 

Evidently numerous people inside the organization...pushed to take Pettersson.  Some 'sources' point to the Swedish scouts, and to Delorme - whose opinions made their way through to prevail in the debate and the eventual draft floor decision - with little evidence that the decision originated on this continent, from either Brackett or Benning (who credits others, not himself).  

The endless politicking, public jockeying for 'credit' - and attempts to play team members off each other - is akin to what we see constantly from this smarmy "base" regarding 'kids' vs their favorite targets (veterans and/or defensive players).  It also reminds me of Florida, where the owner's ear was caught, that old school idiot Dale Talon was fired (as was his coach) to be replaced with a smarmy group of genius 'analytics' people who proceeded to 'fix' that team - a failed experiment btw - a team that was rightly imo handed back to Talon after a setback for that franchise.  Perhaps just a coincidence, the trail of canucksmarmy to the Panthers...? .I understand the competition to make decisions, but the irony, as I see it, is that decisions like the one to take EP, or Hughes, or whomever, prevailed under Benning - in other words, he listened to those people wanting that pick - while people who didn't know what they wanted (ie JD Burke) - got what they 'wanted' in the end.  Imagine living in a Glass universe!

 

So what's the point of the essential sleight of hand here, attempting to credit Brackett with all things successful regarding Canuck drafting, at the same time as ironically conceding that it is a collaborative effort.

 

What's truly priceless though - is to listen to JD Burke close out their (the Province geniuses and that article's) argument for having drafted the Alien.....

 

 

"People who live in glass houses"....

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2020 by oldnews

[CanuckleHorse]

It would be awesome to have him here till they achieve the ultimate goal this next wave of young players look to be filled with many good pieces.

Edited February 8, 2020 by CanuckleHorse

[Provost]

For what it’s worth, this report says Brackett isn’t even at the Canucks trade war room this year.

 

When Linden was interviewed for Sedin week, he went out of his way to praise Brackett while avoiding mentioning Benning and Weisbrod.  That gives extra credence to the reports that Brackett was a Linden guy and lost a lot of influence and has been increasingly sidelined since Benning won that power struggle.

 

That, and the fact an extension hasn’t been announced make it pretty clear that his time here is probably coming to and end.

 

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/canucks-extra-rev-up-the-rumour-machine?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1582445485

Edited February 23, 2020 by Provost

[JM_]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

For what it’s worth, this report says Brackett isn’t even at the Canucks trade war room this year.

 

That, and the fact an extension hasn’t been announced make it pretty clear that his time here is probably coming to and end.

 

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/canucks-extra-rev-up-the-rumour-machine?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1582445485

well, if it is true, thank you Mr. Brackett it was a great run. Good luck wherever you end up (I'm guessing Seattle). I hope not but very few people work their entire sports careers with one organization. 

 

I'm also not worried. Lets not forget Benning is the guy who put together the entire scouting team, so I'm sure he's got a plan in place. 

[Lazurus]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

well, if it is true, thank you Mr. Brackett it was a great run. Good luck wherever you end up (I'm guessing Seattle). I hope not but very few people work their entire sports careers with one organization. 

 

I'm also not worried. Lets not forget Benning is the guy who put together the entire scouting team, so I'm sure he's got a plan in place. 

He is still under contract. Maybe he is being distanced from decisions right now in case there is failure, Benning gets canned and he is promoted to GM in the interim or after the TDL and Benning maybe trades away even more of the future which compromises the cap even more he will be the scape goat for what will need to happen.

 

Hey just spit balling and being positive for Brackett and remembering some of what was said last year and early this year. Even with a contract renewed it is no guarantee of staying, Gillis, Gilman and a host of others were paid for 5 years just after signing new deals even firing Torts Benning cost the team 2 mil a year. Pretty sure the entire cost was upwards of 6 mil a season for those firings.

[aqua59]

Gotta sign him.

[JM_]

2 hours ago, Lazurus said:

He is still under contract. Maybe he is being distanced from decisions right now in case there is failure, Benning gets canned and he is promoted to GM in the interim or after the TDL and Benning maybe trades away even more of the future which compromises the cap even more he will be the scape goat for what will need to happen.

 

Hey just spit balling and being positive for Brackett and remembering some of what was said last year and early this year. Even with a contract renewed it is no guarantee of staying, Gillis, Gilman and a host of others were paid for 5 years just after signing new deals even firing Torts Benning cost the team 2 mil a year. Pretty sure the entire cost was upwards of 6 mil a season for those firings.

 

I think people are worrying to much. People had their hair on fire when we lost Rolie Melanson, but Jim went out and got Ian Clarke. My guess is there's a bright young scout in our system already, or one that would love to take Judd's place. 

 

Brackets has been great, but he's not the only scout on the planet. 

[Grape]

If I remember correctly, Brackett was big on Madden and wanted him over Jake Wise, which everyone thought was stupid. Madden was a Brackett guy and not a Benning guy.

 

If that's the case, I don't think Jim dealing Madden for what could be a rental would sit very well with Brackett.

[Maddogy]

53 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

I think people are worrying to much. People had their hair on fire when we lost Rolie Melanson, but Jim went out and got Ian Clarke. My guess is there's a bright young scout in our system already, or one that would love to take Judd's place. 

 

Brackets has been great, but he's not the only scout on the planet. 

My speculations:

 

- A system has already been set in place since Judd arrived here. The risk is that some of the staff including American scouts may leave with Judd. 

 

- Most high productivity executives wish to keep climbing the corporate ladder. J.B. was not satisfied in Boston as assistant G.M. He wants to be a G.M. and nothing was going to stop him. 

 

- Having a conflicting voice in the organization that differs significantly from J.B. is a plus, this keeps J.B. sharp and objective. The risk is that once Judd leaves J.B. may hire a sycophant.

 

- The central concern can be demonstrated by the 2018 draft. Vancouver purportedly had Quinn Hughes in their top 3. Other teams however did not. Is this variance the consequence of differing quality/philosophy in scouts, head of the scouting department or the G.M.? It is difficult to say without having the opportunity to sit in during those internal scout meetings.

[CanadianRugby]

[Dazzle]

On 2/6/2020 at 9:51 AM, Provost said:

So you are both inventing a strawman argument that no one is making, and also moving the goalposts from your previous position.

1.  First you didn't believe that there were reports about it and that it was only fan speculation. I posted links and even said I knew your response would be "well, I don't believe those reports."  You putting quotations around "reports" suggests you don't think they exist, yet the links are there and if you feel those aren't enough, you can go listen to the two radio station streams from the last week and hear them talk about it even more.  I have done 90% of your work for you, if you want to be intransigent then you go go do the rest yourself.
2.  Saying that reports are that he is concerned about his role and autonomy as the main part of his contract negotiations aren't taking them as gospel.  You invented that argument because you were wrong in your previous one. It is saying that there are reports to that effect, and that is a fact.  The reports exist.
3.  The hockey reporters and writers have to fill hours of time with content and they speculate and talk about ideas all the time.  There are times though when they say "I have spoken with sources on the team who say XX".  They don't make those things up, they aren't speculation.  The reporters have long term relationships with the team and if they started lying about quoting things, they would lose those relationships and their jobs shortly after.  In this case they have said they have heard from sources on the team that the issue is around role and his influence in decision making.
4.  It is fact that Brackett has been offered a two year contract and he didn't take it right away.  Benning said that publicly.  It is also a fact that Benning said he and Weisbrod want to become more involved in scouting directly, because he said that publicly as one of the reasons for promoting Gear.  Anyone reasonable can take those stated public facts and add them with the directly reported sources saying that it isn't sitting well with Brackett... and connect the two.
5.  You only require a high standard of absolute proof when it is something you don't agree with.  We talk about reports and discussions all the time here, it is literally the point of most of the forum.  As much as you want to denigrate all the professional reporters who cover the team, they know a ton more than you or I do.

The fact that you bring this up suggests that you've never been involved in any kind of negotiation. In reality, this is how a negotiation works. You sit around on the offer to think about it, perhaps entertain other offers from other people. Sometimes taking the first offer at first glance demonstrates you are 'desperate', which will weaken your position (as well as limit your choices). What I'm talking about is beyond hockey. This applies to anything - real estate, as well as any type of sales.

 

The promotion of Gear can be interpreted that the Canucks:

1) promote those who deserve it

2) demonstrate that the organization (whatever it is) isn't desperate for any particular individual (in this case, this is Brackett)

3) If you've done something good for the organization, you COULD get promoted too.

How do YOU know if Brackett wants to take another offer if there are other choices out there? Why should he take the offer so quickly? There's other factors to consider besides money. This doesn't mean that the Canucks can't give him a better offer than two years, nor does it mean that Brackett is somehow disloyal to the organization, or "unhappy". It's the duty for both sides to get the best offer possible.

 

Quit reading too much into what the media wants you to think. We've seen stories about how Boeser's agent used the media to try and make Benning look bad - only for the tables to be turned on Boeser's camp (i.e. Benning stated to the media that they offered 7M but the agent turned down the offer). The agent almost made Boeser look unreasonable (Did Boeser want 7+++ even though Boeser didn't have leverage? etc etc). All of what I've described reflects the level of 'bluffing'/posturing and the game-within-a-game mentality of a negotiation. It's not for everyone.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Dazzle

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, CanadianRugby said:

Who exactly are they reminding?

 

Are they reminding audiences of this? Or are they reminding Benning that he's alienating people?

 

Just think about it. If Benning NEEDS to be reminded of something as silly as this, he wouldn't have been a GM in the first place.

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, Maddogy said:

My speculations:

 

- A system has already been set in place since Judd arrived here. The risk is that some of the staff including American scouts may leave with Judd. 

 

- Most high productivity executives wish to keep climbing the corporate ladder. J.B. was not satisfied in Boston as assistant G.M. He wants to be a G.M. and nothing was going to stop him. 

 

- Having a conflicting voice in the organization that differs significantly from J.B. is a plus, this keeps J.B. sharp and objective. The risk is that once Judd leaves J.B. may hire a sycophant.

 

- The central concern can be demonstrated by the 2018 draft. Vancouver purportedly had Quinn Hughes in their top 3. Other teams however did not. Is this variance the consequence of differing quality/philosophy in scouts, head of the scouting department or the G.M.? It is difficult to say without having the opportunity to sit in during those internal scout meetings.

This is absolutely a possibility, given how relationships are made with other people, but not necessarily to the organization they are associated with.

 

If JB wanted different opinions on a subject, he wouldn't hire a 'yes man'. Rather, he would want to hear something that he doesn't already know about a particular topic/subject. If the scout sees a player that no one else has heard of, you can bet Benning will put resources into looking into that player.

 

I think the last point is too complicated for any of us to comprehend on a forum. We can basically summarize it to: team needs, philosophy (as you mentioned), or just simply how much emphasis a trusted scout has on a particular player. It is baffling in hindsight how Detroit can seemingly overlook Hughes (playing at University of Michigan) and take Zadina instead. Perhaps Detroit was concerned about size - or the fact that they had other players who they thought could be better than Hughes. I don't think one person will have all the answers. That's why a team hires so many people to make sense of it all.

[Provost]

26 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

The fact that you bring this up suggests that you've never been involved in any kind of negotiation. In reality, this is how a negotiation works. You sit around on the offer to think about it, perhaps entertain other offers from other people. Sometimes taking the first offer at first glance demonstrates you are 'desperate', which will weaken your position (as well as limit your choices). What I'm talking about is beyond hockey. This applies to anything - real estate, as well as any type of sales.

 

The promotion of Gear can be interpreted that the Canucks:

1) promote those who deserve it

2) demonstrate that the organization (whatever it is) isn't desperate for any particular individual (in this case, this is Brackett)

3) If you've done something good for the organization, you COULD get promoted too.

How do YOU know if Brackett wants to take another offer if there are other choices out there? Why should he take the offer so quickly? There's other factors to consider besides money. This doesn't mean that the Canucks can't give him a better offer than two years, nor does it mean that Brackett is somehow disloyal to the organization, or "unhappy". It's the duty for both sides to get the best offer possible.

 

Quit reading too much into what the media wants you to think. We've seen stories about how Boeser's agent used the media to try and make Benning look bad - only for the tables to be turned on Boeser. The agent almost made Boeser look unreasonable. All of what I've described reflects the level of 'bluffing'/posturing and the game-within-a-game mentality of a negotiation. It's not for everyone.

I have literally spent more than a decade as an HR Director on the management side of labour relations negotiating CBA's for some of the largest unions in the country... so your simplistic take from a place of complete ignorance is ridiculous nonsense.  Virtually everything in your post is just you making things up that aren't what I said and are entirely irrelevant to the topic.  It is you inventing a strawman argument so that you can beat yourself in arguing against yourself.

It isn't a matter of taking a first offer, it is a matter of it not resolving after a long time and leaking out in public.

There have been a number of reports that you can add to the public statements made and anyone with a modicum of sense can determine that all isn't well with that relationship.  Every piece of information including this latest bit, continues to add to the pile of evidence of Brackett getting sidelined and not liking it.

You have clearly never been involved in any sort of contract negotiation.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by Provost

[Dazzle]

18 minutes ago, Provost said:

I have literally spent more than a decade as an HR Director on the management side of labour relations negotiating CBA's for some of the largest unions in the country... so your simplistic take from a place of complete ignorance is ridiculous nonsense.  Virtually everything in your post is just you making things up that aren't what I said and are entirely irrelevant to the topic.  It is you inventing a strawman argument so that you can beat yourself in arguing against yourself.

It isn't a matter of taking a first offer, it is a matter of it not resolving after a long time and leaking out in public.

There have been a number of reports that you can add to the public statements made and anyone with a modicum of sense can determine that all isn't well with that relationship.  Every piece of information including this latest bit, continues to add to the pile of evidence of Brackett getting sidelined and not liking it.

You have clearly never been involved in any sort of contract negotiation.

 

 

You can basically say whatever you want on the internet because we'll likely never have to see your credentials. Unless you actually want to defend your 'reputation', I challenge you right now to see if you have the balls to do it.

As you claim to be an HR director on the management side from blah blah blah, you likely wouldn't have the time that you do to post as much as you do on here. You're likely making in excess of 6 figures and you'll have no time to argue with people who make much less than you.

Furthermore, for someone of your background, what the heck are you talking about here?

 

"...so your simplistic take from a place of complete ignorance is ridiculous nonsense."

 

My simplistic take... from a place of complete ignorance...

 

is ridiculous nonsense.

 

This is extremely wordy nonsense coming from someone with a supposed educational background. I'm not picking out grammar here to be a dick. I'm pointing out the fact that you've not cool and collected. As Burke says, you have to be "cool as a cucumber".

 

Why would you be so riled up over a nobody poster like me?

Yeah, I said it before and I'll say it again. Point number 4 actually suggests you've never done negotiations before - ever. Real estate runs along similar lines, so this stuff isn't really that surprising to me. Why should it be a surprise to someone like you? Because clearly you should've seen it all.

 

You know who you remind me of? Wetcoaster. The self-proclaimed lawyer that basically lost his head arguing with posters on here. Many people thought he was just a copy and paste fanatic, rather than an actual lawyer. I wouldn't be surprised.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Dazzle