Judd Brackett

[spook007]

I think @smithers joe said it perfectly earlier...

Who know's, why Brackett hasn't signed is extension? Fairly sure its all ifs, buts and maybes...

 

If Brackett does decide not to sign, so be it... There could be loads of reasons, and with the Canucks having done well in the drafting department recently, there will be a lot of lifted eye brows around the league... and it wouldn't be a surprise, if a big offer came in from a franchise hoping he could bring some of the star drafting to their club.

 

In saying this, find it slightly odd that almost total lack of support and belief in Benning, who after all was a scout prior to becoming assistant GM in Boston.

I am also sure they have a plan leading up to the draft, where they have placed the majority of the players in order, thus despite them discussing, who to draft at the table, the plan has already more or less been laid beforehand.

Anyone participating in the decision making on draft day and through out the year deserve a pat on the back for the vast improved drafting. And as head of Amateur Scouting Brackett in particular deserves great credit, but for me, that's where it ends.

 

Like our management team a lot, and if anyone should leave so be it.

Until we can see drafting going backwards again, I think saying Brackett is a messiah is a bit premature.... good drafting or not.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by spook007

[shiznak]

19 hours ago, WeneedLumme said:

The Delorme who lobbied hard for the Canucks to take Petey? Canucks fans should appreciate that. I know I do. But I am guessing that you don't.

 

He also pick guys like Nathan Smith, RJ Umberger (who refuse to sign), Patrick White, Michael Grabner, Jordan Schroeder, etc. When he was the head scout from 2000-2012.

 

During that time frame, the Canucks had the second worst draft record in producing players who played more than 50 NHL games. 

[BarnBurner]

26 minutes ago, spook007 said:

I think @smithers joe said it perfectly earlier...

Who know's, why Brackett hasn't signed is extension? Fairly sure its all ifs, buts and maybes...

 

If Brackett does decide not to sign, so be it... There could be loads of reasons, and with the Canucks having done well in the drafting department recently, there will be a lot of lifted eye lids around the league... and it wouldn't be a surprise, if a big offer came in from a franchise hoping he could bring some of the star drafting to their club.

 

In saying this, find it slightly odd that almost total lack of support and belief in Benning, who after all was a scout prior to becoming assistant GM in Boston.

I am also sure they have a plan leading up to the draft, where they have placed the majority of the players in order, thus despite them discussing, who to draft at the table, the plan has already more or less been laid beforehand.

Anyone participating in the decision making on draft day and through out the year deserve a pat on the back for the vast improved drafting. And as head of Amateur Scouting Brackett in particular deserves great credit, but for me, that's where it ends.

 

Like our management team a lot, and if anyone should leave so be it.

Until we can see drafting going backwards again, I think saying Brackett is a messiah is a bit premature.... good drafting or not.

 

 

Like you implied, Brackett my have an offer on the table that's too good to refuse.

 

But, as menitioned in this thread, he has scouted for the Canucks since 2008-2009. The reason why I bring this up is, if Brackett is this "drafting guru" some say he is, why weren't we seeing great picks up until Horvat was chosen in the 2013 draft? Some will argue because we weren't getting high picks. But even still, Boeser and Kesler were both drafted 23. And what about the later rounds? Zilch. 

 

I'm not putting him down and I believe he's gotten better over the years. However, as you mention, I don't believe some people give Benning enough credit. 

 

As you also pointed out, anyone part of Benco, deserves a pat on the back.

 

But don't you find it curious that the drafting has improved leaps and bounds ever since Benning took over, and put his team and ideas together? 

 

 

[shiznak]

22 minutes ago, BarnBurner said:

Like you implied, Brackett my have an offer on the table that's too good to refuse.

 

But, as menitioned in this thread, he has scouted for the Canucks since 2008-2009. The reason why I bring this up is, if Brackett is this "drafting guru" some say he is, why weren't we seeing great picks up until Horvat was chosen in the 2013 draft? Some will argue because we weren't getting high picks. But even still, Boeser and Kesler were both drafted 23. And what about the later rounds? Zilch. 

 

 

Because he was just an amateur scout between 2008-2015. Not until 2016 he was promoted to director of scouting. 

Edited April 2, 2020 by shiznak

[spook007]

1 hour ago, BarnBurner said:

Like you implied, Brackett my have an offer on the table that's too good to refuse.

 

But, as menitioned in this thread, he has scouted for the Canucks since 2008-2009. The reason why I bring this up is, if Brackett is this "drafting guru" some say he is, why weren't we seeing great picks up until Horvat was chosen in the 2013 draft? Some will argue because we weren't getting high picks. But even still, Boeser and Kesler were both drafted 23. And what about the later rounds? Zilch. 

 

I'm not putting him down and I believe he's gotten better over the years. However, as you mention, I don't believe some people give Benning enough credit. 

 

As you also pointed out, anyone part of Benco, deserves a pat on the back.

 

But don't you find it curious that the drafting has improved leaps and bounds ever since Benning took over, and put his team and ideas together? 

 

 

I agree. Things have for whatever reason improved immensely under Benning in the drafting department, and its been a joy to see us finally being able to play our own players, with the benefits of having a conveyor belt of talent coming through (ok, maybe slightly over optimistic, but nevertheless massive improvement over the previous 10 years).

 

And yes Benning deserves immense credit for that. People say its because Brackett was promoted to director of Scouting, but who promoted him? 

I don't for a second believe, a GM, who worked for donkeys years as a scout, suddenly sits back and just rely on Information from everyone else.

I think people are short selling Benning, and I honestly don't get it. 

 

But as with everything else, time will tell. If Brackett leaves and Canucks fail miserably in the next 2-3 drafts, we have our answer. However if they don't fail, I just wonder how many will find something else Benning does, to be unhappy about.

 

For now, I honestly don't know how much Brackett means to this franchise, but I do know, that a GM, who made changes to the drafting staff set up, which resulted in a this kind of improvement draft wise, should be credited a bit more. No matter whether Bracket leaves or stays.

 

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by spook007

[Fred65]

I believe that Brackett was hired as an Eastern scout ie his input was one voice in 20. JB promoted him to the head of amateur scouting later, and the results followed the promotion

[Squamfan]

On 3/30/2020 at 1:25 PM, King Heffy said:

If he leaves for anything less than a GM position I'm going to be very disappointed if we didn't match the offer.

rumor is he wants to become Assisted General Manager

[DeNiro]

8 minutes ago, Squamfan said:

rumor is he wants to become Assisted General Manager

With Benning and Weisbrod already having scouting backgrounds it’s unlikely they were going to promote another scout.

 

They need a numbers guy which is why Gear was promoted.

[ruilin96]

7 hours ago, shiznak said:

He also pick guys like Nathan Smith, RJ Umberger (who refuse to sign), Patrick White, Michael Grabner, Jordan Schroeder, etc. When he was the head scout from 2000-2012.

 

During that time frame, the Canucks had the second worst draft record in producing players who played more than 50 NHL games. 

Wondering who is worst? I am actually surprised we are not the worst for that stretch of time.

[shiznak]

1 hour ago, ruilin96 said:

Wondering who is worst? I am actually surprised we are not the worst for that stretch of time.

Surprisingly, Tampa Bay. Albeit they had a lot more picks/later round pick than the Canucks.

[DeNiro]

9 hours ago, shiznak said:

He also pick guys like Nathan Smith, RJ Umberger (who refuse to sign), Patrick White, Michael Grabner, Jordan Schroeder, etc. When he was the head scout from 2000-2012.

 

During that time frame, the Canucks had the second worst draft record in producing players who played more than 50 NHL games. 

Well a lot of that was Nonis making the calls.

 

A scout can only give their thoughts on players and provide intel. It’s up to the GM to have a vision and a direction for the team who makes the ultimate pick.

 

It seems under Benning they have a much clearer idea of what they value in players. With that direction Delmorme pushed for Pettersson.

[-Vintage Canuck-]

”We're going to continue to talk to Judd and see where it ends up. Right now, he's part of our group. We're going to start doing zoom videos with draft picks, and he's going to be part of the process. And that's about all we have right now.” - Benning on Judd Brackett

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

On 4/2/2020 at 3:50 PM, DeNiro said:

Well a lot of that was Nonis making the calls.

 

A scout can only give their thoughts on players and provide intel. It’s up to the GM to have a vision and a direction for the team who makes the ultimate pick.

 

It seems under Benning they have a much clearer idea of what they value in players. With that direction Delmorme pushed for Pettersson.

Teams can also draft poorly, despite having a good process. Let’s say from each draft, only 50 players (out of all seven rounds) become full time (200 GP) NHLers. If a team has 40-45 of those 50 ranked in their top-60, but ends up very unlucky and misses with their first two picks, do they have a bad process, or did they just fall victim to bad luck? 

 

It’s quite possible, statistically speaking, to have one of the best scouting departments, from the process side, and still miss on most of your picks, year after year. It’s not the most likely outcome, but it’s definitely a possible outcome and is bound to happen.

 

This isn’t to say that the Canucks had a good process and just got unlucky for a decade, but just that it’s tough to really know how bad their draft was, without seeing their full lists for each draft, and how well their “bulk scouting” performed, as far as predicting those 50 or so full time players that come out of each draft.

Edited April 29, 2020 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

[Fred65]

If you recall Gillis put his hand up for not addressing the amateur scouting. He had plans in  place but fired before he could implement them, but he had already hired Brackett. Over a longer period the luck tends to level out although you have to say when others are ahead of you it's not always within your control. Vcr has had luck with EP & QH. Maybe to early to say but the later ;picks seem to suggest the process is right

[lmm]

Its funny, this tem that seemed short of quality scouting for so many years, now has a scout as GM and a scout as assistant GM and a scout as assitant GM - in - waiting, but no President or any one with the desire to fill that role.

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

Teams can also draft poorly, despite having a good process. Let’s say from each draft, only 50 players (out of all seven rounds) become full time (200 GP) NHLers. If a team has 40-45 of those 50 ranked in their top-60, but ends up very unlucky and misses with their first two picks, do they have a bad process, or did they just fall victim to bad luck? 

 

It’s quite possible, statistically speaking, to have one of the best scouting departments, from the process side, and still miss on most of your picks, year after year. It’s not the most likely outcome, but it’s definitely a possible outcome and is bound to happen.

 

This isn’t to say that the Canucks had a good process and just got unlucky for a decade, but just that it’s tough to really know how bad their draft was, without seeing their full lists for each draft, and how well their “bulk scouting” performed, as far as predicting those 50 or so full time players that come out of each draft.

Absolutely, the Flyers took Nolan Patrick who has missed the whole season with Migraines, and they have a player with Cancer, the Canucks took Hodgson and he ended up with a rare disease that probably not one NHL team tests for.

Then there is also bad developement, it must be rough to draft a guy then watch him flounder under poor developement, but you are only a scout.

 

edit, that was meant to be 2 separate posts, the top part was not meant for you Sid, it was a response to DeNiro and the Benning/Wiesbrod/Brackett/ Gear comment

Edited April 29, 2020 by lmm

[ruilin96]

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

Teams can also draft poorly, despite having a good process. Let’s say from each draft, only 50 players (out of all seven rounds) become full time (200 GP) NHLers. If a team has 40-45 of those 50 ranked in their top-60, but ends up very unlucky and misses with their first two picks, do they have a bad process, or did they just fall victim to bad luck? 

 

It’s quite possible, statistically speaking, to have one of the best scouting departments, from the process side, and still miss on most of your picks, year after year. It’s not the most likely outcome, but it’s definitely a possible outcome and is bound to happen.

 

This isn’t to say that the Canucks had a good process and just got unlucky for a decade, but just that it’s tough to really know how bad their draft was, without seeing their full lists for each draft, and how well their “bulk scouting” performed, as far as predicting those 50 or so full time players that come out of each draft.

That would happen, but if you miss year after year after year like we did with Nonis and Gillis, then something is wrong with the process. JB's worst draft is 2016 (not talking about picking Juolevi too high) I am talking about overall, the later round picks just don't seem to have much of a chance of making the NHL even when they got drafted initially. Unlike the 2017, 2018 and 2019 draft, you can see where some of these later round picks could end up as NHLers at the time they got drafted, but you never get that sense with the later round picks in 2016. For later round picks, I am referring to picks after the 3rd round.

[Provost]

It still doesn’t sound promising on the Brackett front.

 

 

[Lazurus]

Soon to be named interim GM

[Lazurus]

On 4/29/2020 at 8:36 PM, Fred65 said:

If you recall Gillis put his hand up for not addressing the amateur scouting. He had plans in  place but fired before he could implement them, but he had already hired Brackett. Over a longer period the luck tends to level out although you have to say when others are ahead of you it's not always within your control. Vcr has had luck with EP & QH. Maybe to early to say but the later ;picks seem to suggest the process is right

There was a retool plan.

A stealth tank for one year.

He traded both Schnides and Luongo, the team would have lost mucho with no goal starting goaltenders without striping it down too much.

 

Oh well, that was two hockey generations ago. Used to be one generation was 5 years, now it is 3.5 years.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Lazurus

[NexusRift]

On 4/29/2020 at 10:58 PM, Provost said:

It still doesn’t sound promising on the Brackett front.

 

 

We're on a roll with regards to the success of our drafting of late. The Judd man is integral to that.

So..........What's the hold up JB......get 'er done already!