Canucks Managerial Thread II

[WTG]

Palango deserves more hype

Corrado, Hutton, Horvat, McCann

Guy was a really good hire by Gillis.

 

[canuckking1]

Palango deserves more hype

Corrado, Hutton, Horvat, McCann

Guy was a really good hire by Gillis.

What I thought McCan was a Benning Pick

 

[me2]

I don't think Barbashev would have been popular in Gillis' regime, which had a strict policy against Russian players and they had a big shift away from the Q after the 2013 shakeup in the scouting department (our head regional scout also took on a Q GM job in that season). So i feel safe in saying Barbashev would not have been an option for Gillis.

I think it would have been McCann for Gillis as well. He fits the mold that he has looked for previously with our 1sts. Palango pick, OHL player, two-way player. I don't think Gillis would have considered any Russians at this point, removing Scherbak and Goldobin, and no Ho-Sang because of his attitude issues, leaving Pastrnak and maybe Kempe as the other options. Both players played in Sweden, so it may have been supported by Gradin & Co. That's my speculation anyways.

Those are the three options as I see it. It may have come down to who Gillis drafted at 6, he might have taken a winger and centre combo of two centres but I doubt he takes two wingers. McCann fits no matter who he takes at #6, mostly likely anyway OHL guy who meets his rebuild in the mold of 2010 Nucks. McCann, Kempe or Pasternak all look good.

 

[WTG]

What I thought McCan was a Benning Pick

Benning was involved but Palango probably was on the forefront of scouting the guy.

Just speculation. Palango is the head regional scout in the OHL IIRC so he deserves some credit for the pick.

 

[vanuck]

The obvious answer is… no. You can't take a good team… "bleed value"…. "make atrocious talent evaluations"… and end up with a good team. And if this team does happen to be good (I think it is)… it's not going to get worse anytime soon.

Yeah… but Benning has been "bleeding assets" and "making atrocious talent evaluations" since then. Team should be much, much worse than those "powerhouses".

You do realize that a hockey team involves more than just the players on the ice right?

Proper behavior would be the kind that Lucic would bring.

Oh yeah, definitely.

 

[vanuck]

Mccann is basically proof benning is a superior gm than gillis ever was.

5 drafts at 22-29 and he couldnt get one mccann

But then why couldn't he do that in Boston? Drafting is never the be-all end-all.

 

[Hit the post]

Mccann is basically proof benning is a superior gm than gillis ever was.

 

[canuckking1]

LOL Gills did draft a McCan a better one too and his Names is Bo horvat

 

[KeninsFan]

But then why couldn't he do that in Boston? Drafting is never the be-all end-all.

It's a little odd to give GMs credit for their first draft when they get hired over the summer.

When GMs come in they typically instruct scouts to rank players based on their preferences (two way, size, def IQ, etc) but that process takes a full season for scouts, not the one summer pre-draft meeting.

I could see an argument that Benning had major influence on the #6 pick but I doubt he came in and redid our entire draft board.

 

[Verviticus]

It's a little odd to give GMs credit for their first draft when they get hired over the summer.

When GMs come in they typically instruct scouts to rank players based on their preferences (two way, size, def IQ, etc) but that process takes a full season for scouts, not the one summer pre-draft meeting.

I could see an argument that Benning had major influence on the #6 pick but I doubt he came in and redid our entire draft board.

why? he had all that info from Boston. gillis in 2008 is a diff story

 

[DFAC]

you can make an argument that gillis was one of the best GMs this team has ever had, but you can probably never make that argument for benning

 

[KeninsFan]

why? he had all that info from Boston. gillis in 2008 is a diff story

I wish all the teams had the same info from scouts.

 

[Tim McCracken]

So this is what I think Gilman would have done and I think we could have fit Cody Franson under our salary cap with a Lack/Markstrom tandem in net.

Thoughts? Would we have had to retain more of Miller's salary? I dunno.

Agree on Sbisa
Half agree on Kassian...he had to go, Prust at his price isn't completely necessary
Agree on Miller
Kind of agree on Lack

And they shouldn't have even signed Weber and kept Corrado.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

why? he had all that info from Boston. gillis in 2008 is a diff story

Yeah, that draft was a little weird. Drafting our goaltending coach's son, even as a 7th round flyer, seemed off.

Say whatever you want about Hodgson, but he's at least a marginal NHLer, unlike the other hot pick, Kyle Beach, who is playing somewhere in Europe these days.

 

[me2]

So this is what I think Gilman would have done and I think we could have fit Cody Franson under our salary cap with a Lack/Markstrom tandem in net.

Thoughts? Would we have had to retain more of Miller's salary? I dunno.

Replace that with a buyout for Kassian at $290k or there abouts.

 

[Tim McCracken]

Replace that with a buyout for Kassian at $290k or there abouts.

Yep...and don't bother with Franson. I'd rather have Bartkowski's mobility that should ultimately help the forwards generate offense at his cost than an overpriced, over extended Franson.

I also would have kept Clendenning or not made that trade at all, given Sanguinetti at least the more than well earned shot last year, signed McNally, and, as noted, kept Corrado over Weber.

They need to pray that Hutton's for real and one of Pedan, Subban, Brisebois, or Tryamkin emerge almost as quickly as Hutton.

The D situation could look pretty grim real quick here.

 

[NuxFan09]

Yep...and don't bother with Franson. I'd rather have Bartkowski's mobility that should ultimately help the forwards generate offense at his cost than an overpriced, over extended Franson.

I also would have kept Clendenning or not made that trade at all, given Sanguinetti at least the more than well earned shot last year, signed McNally, and, as noted, kept Corrado over Weber.

They need to pray that Hutton's for real and one of Pedan, Subban, Brisebois, or Tryamkin emerge almost as quickly as Hutton.

The D situation could look pretty grim real quick here.

I agree. I mean, it's grim in the system and it's also grim on the NHL roster, and it will become even more so as Hamhuis gradually regresses or he's not re-signed at all.

I know you don't necessarily draft on need but I think this is a circumstance where Benning and Co. should be loading up on defensemen at the draft, and not just projects in late rounds.

 

[Hit the post]

Yep...and don't bother with Franson. I'd rather have Bartkowski's mobility that should ultimately help the forwards generate offense at his cost than an overpriced, over extended Franson.

I also would have kept Clendenning or not made that trade at all, given Sanguinetti at least the more than well earned shot last year, signed McNally, and, as noted, kept Corrado over Weber.

They need to pray that Hutton's for real and one of Pedan, Subban, Brisebois, or Tryamkin emerge almost as quickly as Hutton.

The D situation could look pretty grim real quick here.

Thought that was decent acquisition (guess Benning learned how much a #6 D should be paid at this point )

Agree with your thoughts on Franson.

 

[F A N]

Gillis was an excellent manager and negotiator. One thing about Gillis is that he was VERY COMFORTABLE in re-signing his free agents. He knows who is serious about re-signing and who isn't. Consequently, he's been willing to let his players play out their contracts and talk contract at the end of the season. As he admitted, he was guilty of chasing some goal posts and he relied a lot on analytics (money puck philosophies). The drafting of Horvat etc. was likely in large part due to a study that showed that more players came out of the OHL. He shifted the team's focus on drafting certain leagues instead of purely watching players play (good or bad). Gillis seemed to have relied a lot on Eric Crawford and I think in hindsight that has been to Gillis' detriment.

As for Benning, I am one of those who is giving him the benefit of the doubt because he needs time to settle in. Gillis needed to settle in and you saw that some of his early moves weren't the best. Heck, when he came in, he made a big deal about not being sure of the Sedins and was close to trading them. He didn't anticipate at all that Schneider might one day surpass Luongo, and he too emphasized the 4th line by signing Hordichuk and Johnson. Remember Gillis signing Sundin and everyone was up in arms about Gillis screwing the cap? Gillis felt the team needed a 2nd line centre because Kesler wasn't it. Benning needed to settle in. He's seems to be getting a firmer grasp of just what he has in his system. The fact that he was willing to let go of players like Bonino, Clendenning, and Vey is comforting because it seems Benning is not above correcting his mistakes. He's not going to wait to correct make moves that he feels will make the team better.

People forget that Benning was touted mostly for his amateur scouting background. Since he took the job, he has made moves to the scouting department. Gillis started it off by decreasing Delorme's influence and Benning has continued this by promoting someone he feels to be an up and coming scout and firing Eric Crawford who supposedly pushed for the likes of Ballard, Oreskovich, Booth, and Kassian. Benning has also pushed for more cross scouting. More of our scouts will see any particular player the Canucks are interested in. Most importantly, Benning is out there looking at guys himself.

Maybe Benning would the Canucks' Alex Anthopoulos. If you look at Anthopoulous' trade history, most of his trades didn't work out in hindsight. He even traded the farm twice. But the belief among Jays fans now is that Anthopoulous rebuilt the farm once he can do it again. This is the point I have been trying to put across. Benning is a guy whose strength is suppose to be scouting. If he nails his first round picks and finds a few gems later in the draft or in trades then he would effectively be the best drafting GM in Canucks history.

It helps a lot when you draft and develop well. People criticize Benning for things like Sutter playing wing and over in Montreal Galchenyuk just got moved to centre in his 4th year and Lars Eller (a very good centre) got moved to wing. So far, his drafts look good enough. Forsling was a 5th round pick and people are saying he will regret trading him. In the same draft, Virtanen and McCann are on the Canucks opening day roster. Time will tell, but Benning's drafts look very promising.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Of course you can, at least in the short term.

Even long term bad GMs of bad teams can have good teams at some point, despite bleeding value and making atrocious talent evaluations - Lowe with Edmonton, Milbury with the Islanders, etc.

So starting with a good team, clearly you can also bleed value and make atrocious talent evaluations still have a good team.

Yes, this.

I'm surprised that people always associate good management with good performance. Or bad management with bad performance. It need not be the case.

There are good managers making good moves that will have their team struggle this year.

Over the long haul, when bad moves mount past a threshold though, the team crumbles. It breaks at a certain point. But short term, depending upon what is already in place, the team's performance can belie the performance of the GM.

 

[F A N]

Yes, this.

I'm surprised that people always associate good management with good performance. Or bad management with bad performance. It need not be the case.

It need not be the case. But in professional sports it's about the results (i.e. championships). You can make good management decisions, make the playoffs every year, and if you don't win a championship, you can still get fired for "not getting the team over the hump."

Because championships mean everything, managers are judged by how many championships they win. You can make terrible deals and mortgage the team's future, but if it leads to a Cup victory it's usually considered worth it. How many Avs fans complained about the Mats Sundin trade? Essentially very few because Sylvain Lefebvre was a big part of the Avs' first Cup. The Richards trade was a terrible trade in hindsight but you don't hear any Kings fans complaining about it?

Again, take Anthopoulos, there were many Jays fans who wanted him fired until the Jays made the playoffs. There were rumors that Lombardi was about to be fired before he swung the Richards and Carter trades that led to the Kings first Cup. Being a manager in professional sports isn't just about getting value out of every deal. It's about the moves you do make and the moves you don't make. It's all about the championships. People criticize Benning for "bleeding value" in trades. But on the opposite end, Darcy Regier only made good deals and one of the reasons he was let go was because he didn't make the deals that he needed to make.

 

[vanuck]

It's a little odd to give GMs credit for their first draft when they get hired over the summer.

When GMs come in they typically instruct scouts to rank players based on their preferences (two way, size, def IQ, etc) but that process takes a full season for scouts, not the one summer pre-draft meeting.

I could see an argument that Benning had major influence on the #6 pick but I doubt he came in and redid our entire draft board.

Yeah, as far as I remember (per Botchford) Gillis made the call on the 2008 1st round pick (Hodgson) and left the rest of the draft to the scouts. It seems likely that Benning would've had final say on who they took at 6th OA, though it's hard to say for McCann. Did the Canucks ever say who made the call on Shinkaruk?

 

[Intangibos]

Yeah, as far as I remember (per Botchford) Gillis made the call on the 2008 1st round pick (Hodgson) and left the rest of the draft to the scouts. It seems likely that Benning would've had final say on who they took at 6th OA, though it's hard to say for McCann. Did the Canucks ever say who made the call on Shinkaruk?

Probably just going by the list. Though I think Gillis was hands on with his scouting staff and discussed the players with them. Whether or not he succeeds or busts falls on both Gillis and the scouting staff. Just like Hodgson is on Gillis (although the alternative, Beech, is worse), Virtanen will probably be on Benning for better or for worse. McCann is probably a combination of Benning and the scouts, though I think Benning makes more decisions himself when it comes to scouting than Gillis who largely defers to his staff.

 

[Jyrki21]

It need not be the case. But in professional sports it's about the results (i.e. championships). You can make good management decisions, make the playoffs every year, and if you don't win a championship, you can still get fired for "not getting the team over the hump."

Though this definitely happens, it's also a terrible way to judge performance since it throws away years of evidence to the whims of tiny playoff sample sizes. 29 out of 30 teams don't win the championship every single year. They're not all equal. Not to mention all GMs don't have the same starting point.

If a goalie comes in second for the Vezina for like 10 straight years without ever winning, he's probably one of the top couple of goaltenders of all time.

How many Avs fans complained about the Mats Sundin trade? Essentially very few because Sylvain Lefebvre was a big part of the Avs' first Cup.

There were no Av fans. Their fans were handed a Stanley Cup before they had ever heard of Mats Sundin, let alone knew he had an association with their team. They're not going to have a negative opinion of a move that preceded that Cup before they had any vested interest in the fortune of the Nordiques franchise, even though it was pretty obviously bad at the time (and was very Benning-style, because they wanted Clark's "grit and character" and all that).

It's like asking a lottery winner if he regrets being late for the birth of his child because he stopped to buy the ticket. Still a poor decision even if everything worked out in the end.

 

[F A N]

Though this definitely happens, it's also a terrible way to judge performance since it throws away years of evidence to the whims of tiny playoff sample sizes. 29 out of 30 teams don't win the championship every single year. They're not all equal. Not to mention all GMs don't have the same starting point.

If a goalie comes in second for the Vezina for like 10 straight years without ever winning, he's probably one of the top couple of goaltenders of all time.

Well there's a difference between coming in 2nd and losing in the 1st round in 10 straight years.