Judd Brackett

[Ralph.]

I am so glad I wandered into this thread. 

[ruilin96]

On 4/29/2020 at 3:48 PM, ruilin96 said:

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.

 

On 5/3/2020 at 1:15 AM, lmm said:

other than maybe Rathbone, who do you see in 17-18-19 that you think can make the NHL?

 

On 5/3/2020 at 3:09 AM, Provost said:

The error I think I he used making is that the newest toys are always the shiniest.

 

We have great hopes for lots of players, and almost all of them prove why they were drafted late.  The most recent ones just haven’t had the time to prove that yet so they seem better in comparison.

"The newest toys are always the shiniest" argument is fair. As it is always easy for someone like me to have higher hope on newer prospect who just got drafted. However, for the 2016 draft class, there was never the "newest toys are the shiniest moment" for me. I had no excitement or hope of any of the guys taken after Lockwood making it to the NHL after their D+1 year. My point of 2016 being the weakest draft class is base on the fact that a year after the draft, there are already no hype around most of the guys who gotten drafted. They didn't even give me the sense of the "newest toy are shiniest."

 

I am go back and take a look at each of the drafts under Jim Beninng, and I am going to list out who got drafted after the 3rd round that I saw the possibility of them making it to the NHL just a year after they were being drafted. And I am going to be very honest about my evaluations of those players after their D+1 year.

 

2014: Gustav Forsling

A year after the 2014 draft (at that point he is no longer a Canucks prospect), Gustav Forsling was a guy I think will make it to the NHL. I thought he will be a regular top 4 NHL defenseman in his prime. He did make it eventually, although he isn't a regular and is likely more of a fringe NHLer bounce between NHL and AHL. I definitely had higher hopes on him than what he currently shown. 

 

2015: Carl Neil, Adam Gaudette and Lukas Jasek

After their D+1 year, I thought both Neil and Gaudette shown good progression which leads me to believe they should make it to the NHL. I was horribly wrong for Car Neil as he was not even offered a contract. I was just being too optimistic and and hope we could get an offensive puck-moving defenseman out of a 5th round pick. Lukas Jasek was a guy I think could potentially make it base on the fact that he was already playing against men a young age. Right now, Jasek is with Utica and we will see if eventually makes the transition into the NHL. Adam Gaudette had a bad start to his rookie NCAA season, but finished off the season very strong. After his first NCAA season, I thought Gaudette would probably be in the NHL one day. I wasn't sure if he will be in the top 6 or bottom 6, but I think he had a very good chance to make it. Very glad to see Gaudette as a regular with the big boys now.

 

2016: None

By 2017, none of Cole Candella, Jakub Stukel, Rodrigo Abols nor Brett McKenzie gave me the sense that they are going to make it. Although looking at their stats and where they are now, I wasn't too far off. Though, Abols may make it as a bottom 6 energy player at some point base on where he is now. At the time, I wasn't excited for any of them.

 

2017: Petrus Palmu and Jack Rathbone

A year after the 2017 draft, I thought Petrus Palmu was a steal in the later rounds for us. I thought he was definitely going to make it to the NHL with his high energy style of play. Jack Rathbone is base on the report that if he had chosen to play in the NCAA immediately after his draft, he would've been a 2nd round pick. I think I am way off with Palmu, but Rathbone does seem very promising.

 

2018: Toni Utunen

He is definitely a long shot. The style he plays does not generate much offense, but as of a year ago, I thought he could make it as a defensive defenseman playing on the 3rd pairing in the league. It is still too early to determine whether or not he is going to make it or not.

 

2019: Aidan McDonough, Karel Plasek, Arvid Costmar

We are right about 1 year after they got drafted. However, among the later round picks, I think these 3 have the highest chance of making it to the NHL.And I am aware all 3 are a long shot. McDonough had great NCAA numbers (even as an overager for his draft). Costmar is doing very well in Sweden and have gotten some SHL pro-games under his belt. Karel Plasek is also base on the fact that he is already playing against men and hopefully he can potentially be a bottom 6 player in the NHL.

 

I am here to prove that, yes, like most people, I do have the "newest toy is the shiniest" moment among our prospects. However, for the 2016 draft, there just wasn't even one after their D+1 year. That was the point I was trying to make. For every other draft class, there was atleast a sense of excitement, although a lot of the excitement didn't really end up anywhere. But for 2016, the excitement was never there.

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by ruilin96

[Captain Canuck #12]

GAA is simply a statistical prediction of how many goals a goalie would be expected to let in in each game he plays.  If he only plays a few minutes and lets in essentially anything more than 1 goal, his GAA is going to look really bad, just like Thiessen's.

[lmm]

39 minutes ago, Captain Canuck #12 said:

GAA is simply a statistical prediction of how many goals a goalie would be expected to let in in each game he plays.  If he only plays a few minutes and lets in essentially anything more than 1 goal, his GAA is going to look really bad, just like Thiessen's.

you gotta be famous for something

[Squamfan]

he is good has gone. thanks benning, should have kept him instead of weisbro

[lmm]

1 hour ago, ruilin96 said:

 

 

"The newest toys are always the shiniest" argument is fair. As it is always easy for someone like me to have higher hope on newer prospect who just got drafted. However, for the 2016 draft class, there was never the "newest toys are the shiniest moment" for me. I had no excitement or hope of any of the guys taken after Lockwood making it to the NHL after their D+1 year. My point of 2016 being the weakest draft class is base on the fact that a year after the draft, there are already no hype around most of the guys who gotten drafted. They didn't even give me the sense of the "newest toy are shiniest."

 

I am go back and take a look at each of the drafts under Jim Beninng, and I am going to list out who got drafted after the 3rd round that I saw the possibility of them making it to the NHL just a year after they were being drafted. And I am going to be very honest about my evaluations of those players after their D+1 year.

 

2014: Gustav Forsling

A year after the 2014 draft (at that point he is no longer a Canucks prospect), Gustav Forsling was a guy I think will make it to the NHL. I thought he will be a regular top 4 NHL defenseman in his prime. He did make it eventually, although he isn't a regular and is likely more of a fringe NHLer bounce between NHL and AHL. I definitely had higher hopes on him than what he currently shown. 

 

2015: Carl Neil, Adam Gaudette and Lukas Jasek

After their D+1 year, I thought both Neil and Gaudette shown good progression which leads me to believe they should make it to the NHL. I was horribly wrong for Car Neil as he was not even offered a contract. I was just being too optimistic and and hope we could get an offensive puck-moving defenseman out of a 5th round pick. Lukas Jasek was a guy I think could potentially make it base on the fact that he was already playing against men a young age. Right now, Jasek is with Utica and we will see if eventually makes the transition into the NHL. Adam Gaudette had a bad start to his rookie NCAA season, but finished off the season very strong. After his first NCAA season, I thought Gaudette would probably be in the NHL one day. I wasn't sure if he will be in the top 6 or bottom 6, but I think he had a very good chance to make it. Very glad to see Gaudette as a regular with the big boys now.

 

2016: None

By 2017, none of Cole Candella, Jakub Stukel, Rodrigo Abols nor Brett McKenzie gave me the sense that they are going to make it. Although looking at their stats and where they are now, I wasn't too far off. Though, Abols may make it as a bottom 6 energy player at some point base on where he is now. At the time, I wasn't excited for any of them.

 

2017: Petrus Palmu and Jack Rathbone

A year after the 2017 draft, I thought Petrus Palmu was a steal in the later rounds for us. I thought he was definitely going to make it to the NHL with his high energy style of play. Jack Rathbone is base on the report that if he had chosen to play in the NCAA immediately after his draft, he would've been a 2nd round pick. I think I am way off with Palmu, but Rathbone does seem very promising.

 

2018: Toni Utunen

He is definitely a long shot. The style he plays does not generate much offense, but as of a year ago, I thought he could make it as a defensive defenseman playing on the 3rd pairing in the league. It is still too early to determine whether or not he is going to make it or not.

 

2019: Aidan McDonough, Karel Plasek, Arvid Costmar

We are right about 1 year after they got drafted. However, among the later round picks, I think these 3 have the highest chance of making it to the NHL.And I am aware all 3 are a long shot. McDonough had great NCAA numbers (even as an overager for his draft). Costmar is doing very well in Sweden and have gotten some SHL pro-games under his belt. Karel Plasek is also base on the fact that he is already playing against men and hopefully he can potentially be a bottom 6 player in the NHL.

 

I am here to prove that, yes, like most people, I do have the "newest toy is the shiniest" moment among our prospects. However, for the 2016 draft, there just wasn't even one after their D+1 year. That was the point I was trying to make. For every other draft class, there was atleast a sense of excitement, although a lot of the excitement didn't really end up anywhere. But for 2016, the excitement was never there.

 

I guess I am the opposite of you

Its good you recognize you are looking for the shiny now toy.

But for me I have witnessed far to many draft failures followed by lotto failures to get inspired by any Canuck draft pick.

TBH I watched the World Juniors final when Juolevi played outstanding and so was satisfied with that pick. Shows what basing projections on a small sample size will get you.

And who knows, if not for injury he might have been good/ better than Tkachuk.

 For me though its, get to camp and show us what you got before I get excited about any one.

 

Jim has made some good picks, but probably not as many as I'd hoped.

There are just so many that leave me shaking my head, Madden/Utonen/Manyukin were a combined 457 #s on draft day

Hoglannder, 5'8"/Plasek 154#

Gunnarson 8 career points/ Palmu 5'6"

 

It seems like there is hope for the guys that are tiny but all the big guys get cut loose early

The thing about 2016 is that IF those late picks made it they would have the size to play bottom 6

Arbols is signed by FLA, 23 pt in 36 games in the AHL, sounds like Utica could use him

McKenzie and Stukel are AHL/ECHL guys about where you might expect to find 5-7 round picks, but not Canuck property

 

So is the tiny shiny 

[ruilin96]

34 minutes ago, lmm said:

I guess I am the opposite of you

Its good you recognize you are looking for the shiny now toy.

But for me I have witnessed far to many draft failures followed by lotto failures to get inspired by any Canuck draft pick.

TBH I watched the World Juniors final when Juolevi played outstanding and so was satisfied with that pick. Shows what basing projections on a small sample size will get you.

And who knows, if not for injury he might have been good/ better than Tkachuk.

 For me though its, get to camp and show us what you got before I get excited about any one.

 

Jim has made some good picks, but probably not as many as I'd hoped.

There are just so many that leave me shaking my head, Madden/Utonen/Manyukin were a combined 457 #s on draft day

Hoglannder, 5'8"/Plasek 154#

Gunnarson 8 career points/ Palmu 5'6"

 

It seems like there is hope for the guys that are tiny but all the big guys get cut loose early

The thing about 2016 is that IF those late picks made it they would have the size to play bottom 6

Arbols is signed by FLA, 23 pt in 36 games in the AHL, sounds like Utica could use him

McKenzie and Stukel are AHL/ECHL guys about where you might expect to find 5-7 round picks, but not Canuck property

 

So is the tiny shiny 

I completely understand when it comes to this until you show anything at the NHL level, I am not excited about you approach. 100% down with it. Still doesn't prevent me from looking at their stats and projecting whether or not they can make it. I definitely am more optimistic on some prospect than others when it comes to their NHL career trajectory. JB has been pretty good when picking in the top 3 rounds since he took over. I do wish he would've had more draft picks in both 2015 and 2016 when clearly we need more picks to rebuild the team. All you can ask for a GM is he hit on his early round picks and hope for some steals in the later rounds. As for OJ, he is a very smart player and injury definitely pegged him. Also I would not want Tkachuk as a Canuck even in a redraft. This guy is turtle, coward and cheapshot. He fits the Calgary Flames organization perfectly. Classless.

[Squamfan]

Please reopen my trend @Roger Neilsons Towel @-Vintage Canuck- @debluvscanucks @StealthNuck More information is coming out

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Provost]

I don’t know why people were arguing this for the last few months.

 

Benning promoted Gear and said publicly that it will allow him and Weisbrod to be out and more heavily involved on the scouting side.

 

If you couldn’t read between the lines there, I don’t know what more could be said.  Brackett was not promoted, and the GM said that Brackett was going to have less say and responsibility in things.

 

Add to that there were the rumours they Brackett was a Linden guy and had been increasingly sidelined... and no contract extension was in in place.

 

I think Seattle might get a really good head scout or AGM from us.

[I.Am.Ironman]

I'd be interested to see who Bracket wanted instead of Podkolzin

[Crabcakes]

On 4/2/2020 at 6:45 AM, 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. 

Delorme is a great scout but a poor administrator (ie head scout).  This is why Benning retained him but and he is now under Brackett as Chief Amateur Scout.  

Edited May 5, 2020 by Crabcakes

[Squamfan]

1 hour ago, I.Am.Ironman said:

I'd be interested to see who Bracket wanted instead of Podkolzin

bracket wanted him benning and weisbrouh did not

[I.Am.Ironman]

6 minutes ago, Squamfan said:

bracket wanted him benning and weisbrouh did not

but we still picked him so there has to be something more than that. I remember Bennings interview as well about drafting podkolzin and he seemed pretty on board with it. I remember his answer to the russia question and how Podz can't play in NHL for 2 years etc... his answer was that all other players would need 2 years of development anyway so he wasn't concerned about it and felt they got good value in the pick. I know it's a media interview but at this point everything else is hearsay.

 

"The second day is where things get muddy" is a vague assertion and is journalism speak for I actually don't know. Bottom line is we aren't privy to these things so it's all just speculation. I'd be surprised if it was a draft table power struggle leading to this.

 

There seems to be this narrative that Benning never wanted any of our good picks lol. Didn't want Pettersson, didn't want podkolzin. At this point we will just have to see what happens. One would think that if Judd is as good of a scout as people claim, we as an organization would want him around. I could do without weisbrod tbh.

[BlastPast]

19 minutes ago, I.Am.Ironman said:

but we still picked him so there has to be something more than that. I remember Bennings interview as well about drafting podkolzin and he seemed pretty on board with it. I remember his answer to the russia question and how Podz can't play in NHL for 2 years etc... his answer was that all other players would need 2 years of development anyway so he wasn't concerned about it and felt they got good value in the pick. I know it's a media interview but at this point everything else is hearsay.

 

"The second day is where things get muddy" is a vague assertion and is journalism speak for I actually don't know. Bottom line is we aren't privy to these things so it's all just speculation. I'd be surprised if it was a draft table power struggle leading to this.

 

There seems to be this narrative that Benning never wanted any of our good picks lol. Didn't want Pettersson, didn't want podkolzin. At this point we will just have to see what happens. One would think that if Judd is as good of a scout as people claim, we as an organization would want him around. I could do without weisbrod tbh.

I know, right? I remember after the Hughes pick...the man was absolutely crestfallen!

[Squamfan]

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

The idea that Benning “didn’t want” any of our draft picks is ridiculous. He’s the GM. He doesn’t get overruled by anyone at the draft table. However, it’s highly likely that Benning has gone into draft meetings with some “favourites” on his personal list that may not have ended up being players we chose. That’s nothing special. There’s a reason teams have scouting departments and multiple planning sessions and meetings before drafts. Any good GM will listen to his staff and rely on their expertise. So it’s entirely possible that, at some point in the process, Jim really liked Glass or Bleackley or whoever else people like to talk about. But it’s silly to think that Jim was ever sitting there pouting while Brackett picked guys that Benning didn’t want. Every name that’s been called at the draft during Benning’s tenure is a pick he has approved. He may not have been the driving force behind the selection. He may not have even liked the player much initially. But by the time the pick was made, Benning trusted that it was the best choice, based on the team process that led up to making that selection.

[Canucks Curse]

Who knows the truth?
JB, JD, Weiser abd AQ

 

 

 

lets review some facts - Judd Bracket - I like him 

 

been around as scout for nucks since 2008-2009 season 

 

promoted to scout director for 2016 draft 

 

from 2008-2013 our drafting was among the worst in the nhl 

now my opinion 

 

our “best” draft in the benning era ?

 

2014- Benning’s first draft 

hard to define best but in 5 years since 

5/7 players he drafted have played in the nhl and are regular nhl caliber players 

but yes- should have drafted pastransk- I remember JB blew a gasket a few yrs later at his staff for that... did he want Patsy then get out voted or something ?

 

2015- Benning seemed super high on Boeser “he was our guy, if he was not there we would have traded down”

 

 

I think Gaudette was a smyl identification- I think he was US scout then and a Judd pick- Judd spoke highly of him and used the gussets template to pick madden and McDonough 

 

brisebois abd Jasek- JB picks, he spoke at length about their play at the U18s

 

2016- no one gets a passing grade there 

OJ- def a JB pick, he has defended him to the hilt. Yes JB and TL said they wanted that Dubois kid- so it not like they can’t identify talent, but no one on the staff I guess saw the Tkachuck thing coming- not even our previous Juddy

 

Leading up to the draft, TL, who I love was saying the stupidest thing ever “you know it’s been a really long time since we drafted a d man in the first round”

I heard that sound bite over and over on 1040- who the F cares if you haven’t drafted a d man in the last 100 yrs, take the best player available - which by composite rankings should have been Tkachuk but OJ was not an off the board pick 

a lot of talk about macovoy abd how JB loved him just not at the 5 spot - so JB can pick out talent 

 

 

2017

Petersson- a Delorme pick, koodos to JB for listening to him, I woulda fired that dudes ass a long time ago. At least we didn’t pick Lias Anderson - I wonder if anyone on the staff wanted that kid- woulda been good to know what Judd thought 
 

lotta rumors JB also like Makar- so good eye Jim 

 

Lind - a JB pick - Jury is still out 

 

2018

hughes- total JB abd wiser pick they were creaming themselves they were elated- the makar of the 2018 draft 

 

woo- seemed like a JB pick- JB pretty excited about him, Judy is out 

 

 

Madden- Judd pick 

great pick but not a star , may be a good top 6 player- maybe 
 

 

2019

podkolzin -JD seemed higher on him than JB- but JB said many times that they had Podz as the last guy on their list that they wanted before they would trade down, so this means they had him ranked at ...no 10

you know who traded down immediately after we drafted podz?

the no 11 seat- Philly. They felt the same way we did...

 

hogz- JB spoke really highly of him and said they had him rated late first round...JB did not sound Like he needed to be  convinced to select him and not did weiser who seemed to love the kid.

 

 

 

so overall this is what I see

 

Judd studies all players all year long 

JB abd Weiser love scouting too

JB and Weiser scout the top players at the big tournaments like most GMs do, but bc these guys love scouting 

when it comes to 1st and 2nd round picks JB abd DW prob just do their own thing and pick who they want and leave JD the scraps and he’s probably sick of not having enough say as the director of scouting 

but what’s JB best at ? Scouting 

...although the Miller abd toffoli trades are looking pretty good... maybe he’s getting his trading balls finally... which brings up my last point... what did we give up for those guys? ... picks... abd a JD guy, madden... this makes JD look pretty useless for the near future....

 

[JM_]

11 hours ago, Provost said:

I don’t know why people were arguing this for the last few months.

 

Benning promoted Gear and said publicly that it will allow him and Weisbrod to be out and more heavily involved on the scouting side.

 

If you couldn’t read between the lines there, I don’t know what more could be said.  Brackett was not promoted, and the GM said that Brackett was going to have less say and responsibility in things.

 

Add to that there were the rumours they Brackett was a Linden guy and had been increasingly sidelined... and no contract extension was in in place.

 

I think Seattle might get a really good head scout or AGM from us.

Brackett predates both Linden and Benning actually.

 

Most of the media discussion and a lot of it in here is the "hunt for the bad guy" in all this. Bracketts a genius. Bracket wasn't good before Benning. Benning isn't collaborative. Benning built the new scouting system. Pick whatever theory you like someone's make the case for it.

 

But what about this - what if there isn't a bad guy? What if its simply a matter of managerial style? Some guys run things top-down, and it works. Some guys run things flat, and it works. Sometimes good smart people prefer one style over another. It happens. No one needs to be some "someones guy" or a bad person. 

 

Whatever happens I'm fine with Benning as the main scouting decision maker, he's done just fine on that front and oh yeah, he's the GM. If Brackett stays thats  great too. But its not the end of days if he wants to move to an organization with a different style. 

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by Jimmy McGill

[Provost]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Brackett predates both Linden and Benning actually.

 

Actually, Brackett was a part time scout and got promoted to Director of Amateur Scouting in the Linden era to replace Eric Crawford.

 

So, ya... a Linden guy exactly like I said and has been reported by a number of guys who actually talk to the folks involved.

 

It is an important thing to discuss because amateur scouting is the main bright spot for this team which has overall had terrible pro scouting and trades.  Changing out a key figure in it is just bad for the team.

 

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by Provost

[JM_]

Just now, Provost said:

Actually, Brackett was a part time scout and got promoted to Director of Amateur Scouting by Linden to replace Eric Crawford.

 

So, ya... a Linden guy exactly like I said.

 

 

OK well he was in the organization earlier than both, but sure in your mind "promotion" makes him "Linden's guy" for whatever that label is worth. 

 

These guys are professionals, they're not in clique camps in high school. If Brackett is the type of person hanging on to some sort of grudge over Linden then he should move on, because thats a totally useless waste of energy for your head of amateur scouting.