[Waivers] October 7

[Maniwaki Canuck]

1 hour ago, Mr Wrong said:

Have the Canucks ever picked up someone on waivers that had an impact in the organization? 

Martin Gelinas, from the Oilers.  He scored 30+ for us one year and became a top 6 forward in our organization.

[Alflives]

Just now, Maniwaki Canuck said:

Martin Gelinas, from the Oilers.  He scored 30+ for us one year and became a top 6 forward in our organization.

He was great for us. And then we let him go. Was that Pat Quinn? 

[lionized27]

8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

He was great for us. And then we let him go. Was that Pat Quinn? 

Part of the deal to bring Sanderson over from Carolina...and it was Keenan at the time. 

[Dizzle]

56 minutes ago, Provost said:

I had said become a significant player, and most in the top half of your roster.  That was my definition.

 

There are absolutely too ten picks who end up as 3rd liners or role players but are significant players for a team… a guy like Raffe Torres was a good example.

I can agree with that to a point for sure.
 

I think that it’s going to be a little subjective though as to whether a player fits into that kind of a definition or not. I would maintain the 65% hit list would be in the ballpark based on the names brought up. Specifically if you’re looking at picks 3-10.

[Maniwaki Canuck]

10 minutes ago, Alflives said:

He was great for us. And then we let him go. Was that Pat Quinn? 

Can't remember for sure but I wouldn't be surprised if he was part of the Keenan purge.  It was about that time.

[WSAcanuck]

5 hours ago, PureQuickness said:

 

Yes, you're right. My point out of this is that Benning didn't keep the people who could've helped him, but kept the ones that didn't (Green). In this aspect, he wasn't a very good talent evaluator. His scouting though was decent, but was it enough to save his job? Of course not. He made too many mistakes that basically undermined whatever good things that he did.

 

Trading picks away seems to be a habit that is true for all the regimes, whether that be Gillis or even Allvin. I am still reserved about the Hronek player. It is a high price to give up a 1st and a 2nd as a bottom feeding team, even if that 1st rounder was acquired by trading Horvat. The 2nd round pick was a HIGH one. It was our own.

 

At the same time, Brackett has often been overly romanticized. People often forget the good Benning picks (Pettersson and Hughes), by making excuses such as "they're no brainer picks" while criticizing him for the Juolevi pick, for example. There's no standard when it comes to criticism. It just seems that people cherry pick on things like that. Rathbone was a longshot pick, sure, but the inabilty for the Canucks to get gems in the middle to late rounds is what can screw us over, especially considering our tendency to trade high picks away. We lacked depth and this was an issue starting with Gillis.

 

People often talk about Gillis like he's the greatest GM ever, but he really isn't when taking into consideration other factors. His drafting was ATROCIOUS. The amount of lost draft picks and the ACTUAL drafted players were both not good. This inability to draft good players regardless of the rounds (people will make excuses as to why he was not drafting well) has cost us dearly in terms of the prospects. The only 1st rounders we were successful with were: Hodgson and Horvat. The only player worth mentioning is Hutton.  That's absolutely a terrible draft record.

 

Here’s the thing though. Hughes was absolutely a no brainer at that spot. Petterssen was not as much a no brainer we pre draft but was in the conversation at that spot for sure. And it seems very credibly reported by numerous sources that Benning had to be convinced to pick EP but didn’t want him as much as another option.

 

Juolevi was at no time the best dman available in that draft. Even ahead of time. He was the lower floor consensus option but certainly not the highest potential ceiling option. Virtanen was just a complete boneheaded puck. Podkolzin is looking like maybe a mistake too. All the tools but no toolbox yet. Hopefully I turn out wrong on that. 
 

Rathbone was a decent selection. I think a huge part of the problem with the Canucks spanning several management groups now is effective prospect development. 
 

Gillis was horrible at drafting but overall was a great GM. Him trading picks was a very different environment than Benning trading picks. Winning teams being at the cap and trading picks is kind of expected. Losing teams doing both those things is kind of stupid. 

[lionized27]

13 minutes ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

Can't remember for sure but I wouldn't be surprised if he was part of the Keenan purge.  It was about that time.

Purge indeed. 

Sanderson was only here for a cup of coffee then promptly flipped for MayDay and a 3rd in '99.

[PureQuickness]

41 minutes ago, WSAcanuck said:

 

Here’s the thing though. Hughes was absolutely a no brainer at that spot. Petterssen was not as much a no brainer we pre draft but was in the conversation at that spot for sure. And it seems very credibly reported by numerous sources that Benning had to be convinced to pick EP but didn’t want him as much as another option.

 

Juolevi was at no time the best dman available in that draft. Even ahead of time. He was the lower floor consensus option but certainly not the highest potential ceiling option. Virtanen was just a complete boneheaded puck. Podkolzin is looking like maybe a mistake too. All the tools but no toolbox yet. Hopefully I turn out wrong on that. 
 

Rathbone was a decent selection. I think a huge part of the problem with the Canucks spanning several management groups now is effective prospect development. 
 

Gillis was horrible at drafting but overall was a great GM. Him trading picks was a very different environment than Benning trading picks. Winning teams being at the cap and trading picks is kind of expected. Losing teams doing both those things is kind of stupid. 

 

No, it wasn't. It was the same mindless strategy. This is part of the reason why we're making excuses for bad decisions. Without fail, he was throwing away 2nd round picks, if he didn't trade 1st rounders. Yes, he was pushing for playoff success, which he did have, yet our depth was watered down because of the bad picks he kept making with the picks he did have.

 

No one will ever dispute that Gillis had an important role in icing playoff contending teams. My issue with him was that he was mortgaging our future for THAT success. We had absolutely NOTHING in the pipeline after Gillis got fired. That wasn't on Benning that first year. It was Gillis.

 

Benning made some good picks, but everything would be balanced out with questionable signings and trades.

 

Both GMs made some major mistakes. People are just remembering only the playoff successes of Gillis. There's a reason why he's not employed by any other team if he was so good. There was actually a leaked proposal from Gillis to apply for Pittsburgh a few years ago. He didn't end up making the final cut.

Edited October 8, 2023 by PureQuickness

[PureQuickness]

42 minutes ago, WSAcanuck said:

 

Here’s the thing though. Hughes was absolutely a no brainer at that spot. Petterssen was not as much a no brainer we pre draft but was in the conversation at that spot for sure. And it seems very credibly reported by numerous sources that Benning had to be convinced to pick EP but didn’t want him as much as another option.

 

Juolevi was at no time the best dman available in that draft. Even ahead of time. He was the lower floor consensus option but certainly not the highest potential ceiling option. Virtanen was just a complete boneheaded puck. Podkolzin is looking like maybe a mistake too. All the tools but no toolbox yet. Hopefully I turn out wrong on that. 
 

Rathbone was a decent selection. I think a huge part of the problem with the Canucks spanning several management groups now is effective prospect development. 
 

Gillis was horrible at drafting but overall was a great GM. Him trading picks was a very different environment than Benning trading picks. Winning teams being at the cap and trading picks is kind of expected. Losing teams doing both those things is kind of stupid. 

 

If he was a no brainer, why did Detroit pass him up? Stop saying these decisions are "no brainers". In hindsight, Detroit made a mistake, but they probably had some reservations about Hughes, which turned out to be a very bad decision. The Canucks made the right decision to draft Hughes. I mean he could've busted and we'd have the Juolevi argument.

 

Juolevi WAS a top 10 draft pick option at the time. He was listed on nearly every draft fantasy list, including scouting reports. Chychurin was another option.

Edited October 8, 2023 by PureQuickness

[WSAcanuck]

4 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

If he was a no brainer, why did Detroit pass him up? Stop saying these decisions are "no brainers". In hindsight, Detroit made a mistake, but they probably had some reservations about Hughes, which turned out to be a very bad decision. The Canucks made the right decision to draft Hughes. I mean he could've busted and we'd have the Juolevi argument.

 

Juolevi WAS a top 10 draft pick option at the time. He was listed on nearly every draft fantasy list, including scouting reports. Chychurin was another option.

Detroit passing on Hughes doesn’t make him any less of a no brainer. That was. Just a straight up mistake on their part.

 

The chance of Hughes busting were between nil and none. His offensive skill and skating alone pretty much assured him of an nhl career. 

 

Juolevi was not considered the best dman in that draft. And he absolutely was not seen by many as a top 5 quality pick. He was supposedly a low risk low reward pick who ultimately turned into a high risk no return player. 

[Alflives]

11 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

If he was a no brainer, why did Detroit pass him up? Stop saying these decisions are "no brainers". In hindsight, Detroit made a mistake, but they probably had some reservations about Hughes, which turned out to be a very bad decision. The Canucks made the right decision to draft Hughes. I mean he could've busted and we'd have the Juolevi argument.

 

Juolevi WAS a top 10 draft pick option at the time. He was listed on nearly every draft fantasy list, including scouting reports. Chychurin was another option.

Detroit made a huge mistake passing on Hughes. They also made a huge mistake putting their faith in Slo Mo. And who’s that loser goalie they drafted? 

[WSAcanuck]

13 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

No, it wasn't. It was the same mindless strategy. This is part of the reason why we're making excuses for bad decisions. Without fail, he was throwing away 2nd round picks, if he didn't trade 1st rounders. Yes, he was pushing for playoff success, which he did have, yet our depth was watered down because of the bad picks he kept making with the picks he did have.

 

No one will ever dispute that Gillis had an important role in icing playoff contending teams. My issue with him was that he was mortgaging our future for THAT success. We had absolutely NOTHING in the pipeline after Gillis got fired. That wasn't on Benning that first year. It was Gillis.

 

Benning made some good picks, but everything would be balanced out with questionable signings and trades.

 

Both GMs made some major mistakes. People are just remembering only the playoff successes of Gillis. There's a reason why he's not employed by any other team if he was so good. There was actually a leaked proposal from Gillis to apply for Pittsburgh a few years ago. He didn't end up making the final cut.

you do know that pretty much every top of the league team mortgages their future for playoff success right?

 

Bottom of the league teams like Benning had really should not do that. The combination of Benning’s drafting and pro scouting failures, disastrous trade valuations, bleeding picks, etc. along with limited team success during his tenure strongly puts him in contention for the worst GM in Canucks history. 

[Hammertime]

6 minutes ago, WSAcanuck said:

Detroit passing on Hughes doesn’t make him any less of a no brainer. That was. Just a straight up mistake on their part.

 

The chance of Hughes busting were between nil and none. His offensive skill and skating alone pretty much assured him of an nhl career. 

 

Juolevi was not considered the best dman in that draft. And he absolutely was not seen by many as a top 5 quality pick. He was supposedly a low risk low reward pick who ultimately turned into a high risk no return player. 

Boqvist says hi. 

 

[Provost]

24 minutes ago, WSAcanuck said:

you do know that pretty much every top of the league team mortgages their future for playoff success right?

 

Bottom of the league teams like Benning had really should not do that. The combination of Benning’s drafting and pro scouting failures, disastrous trade valuations, bleeding picks, etc. along with limited team success during his tenure strongly puts him in contention for the worst GM in Canucks history. 

This.

 

No one argues with these decisions if we win one more series.

 

There is a time to go for it, and a time not to.

 

Gillis drafted poorly, but he (and I also

gicr a lot of credit to Gilman) basically did everything else right.

 

Gillis even tried to start a rebuild to turn some of those high value veterans with playoff experience into futures, and was stymied by ownership.  There was a Kesler trade to Pittsburgh that fell through because ownership nixed it.

 

Instead he got fired because he was right and Benning’s ill-fated “turn it around quickly” plan was instituted. 

Edited October 8, 2023 by Provost

[PeteyBOI]

4 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Didn’t we have interest in Boqvist at one point? Or am I thinking of someone else?

i imagine yes, because the name rings a bell... a player from a team like boston last years, must have some good intangibles

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Dankmemes187 said:

i imagine yes, because the name rings a bell... a player from a team like boston last years, must have some good intangibles

Wrong Boquist. In the Hughes’ draft some of us liked Adam Boquist. Who is a puck sucker bustaroo mental midget. 

[WSAcanuck]

19 minutes ago, Provost said:

This.

 

No one argues with these decisions if we win one more series.

 

There is a time to go for it, and a time not to.

 

Gillis drafted poorly, but he (and I also

gicr a lot of credit to Gilman) basically did everything else right.

 

Gillis even tried to start a rebuild to turn some of those high value veterans with playoff experience into futures, and was stymied by ownership.  There was a Kesler trade to Pittsburgh that fell through because ownership nixed it.

 

Instead he got fired because he was right and Benning’s ill-fated “turn it around quickly” plan was instituted. 

Had we won the cup no one would be calling Gillis anything based on drafting.

It’s ludicrous to call down a gm who won two presidents trophies and came within one win of a cup. It doesn’t happen unless he did a lot of things right particularly early. 

 

[Mike Vanderhoek]

3 hours ago, Mr Wrong said:

Have the Canucks ever picked up someone on waivers that had an impact in the organization? 

Martin Gelinas was a great pick up!

[King Heffy]

45 minutes ago, WSAcanuck said:

Had we won the cup no one would be calling Gillis anything based on drafting.

It’s ludicrous to call down a gm who won two presidents trophies and came within one win of a cup. It doesn’t happen unless he did a lot of things right particularly early. 

 

He was gifted the core by the competent management he replaced.  He then proceeded to destroy that core with a combination of terrible trades and drafting due to not being qualified for a job in hockey ops.  He was easily the worst job in franchise history and we likely win a Cup if we'd had a GM with a functioning brain instead of that idiot.

[DeNiro]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Wrong Boquist. In the Hughes’ draft some of us liked Adam Boquist. Who is a puck sucker bustaroo mental midget. 

No I believe the Canucks had interest in Jesper at some point.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

He was gifted the core by the competent management he replaced.  He then proceeded to destroy that core with a combination of terrible trades and drafting due to not being qualified for a job in hockey ops.  He was easily the worst job in franchise history and we likely win a Cup if we'd had a GM with a functioning brain instead of that idiot.

Yes, Benning was the worst. But arguing against Gillis as GM and POHO during our best results ever is a losers game. Two President's trophies. Two games to wi the Cup,. No other Canuck team had this success. Argue about trivial things like the draft, but accept reality that Gillis was the best. It’s inarguable fact. 

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

No I believe the Canucks had interest in Jesper at some point.

 

[Screw]

4 hours ago, Mr Wrong said:

Have the Canucks ever picked up someone on waivers that had an impact in the organization? 

martin gelinas

[King Heffy]

Just now, Alflives said:

Yes, Benning was the worst. But arguing against Gillis as GM and POHO during our best results ever is a losers game. Two President's trophies. Two games to wi the Cup,. No other Canuck team had this success. Argue about trivial things like the draft, but accept reality that Gillis was the best. It’s inarguable fact. 

It's clearly an opinion, given the fact that no other team has been stupid enough to hire Gillis.  He made numerous terrible trades, crippled the franchise for a decade because he was too stupid to use a compliance buyout for its intended purpose, and was absolutely atrocious in the draft.  He did not perform a single aspect of his job at anywhere approaching an acceptable standard and frankly should be working at a McDonalds under adult supervision.  Sadly, we still haven't had decent management since Burke annd Nonis were here.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

It's clearly an opinion, given the fact that no other team has been stupid enough to hire Gillis.  He made numerous terrible trades, crippled the franchise for a decade because he was too stupid to use a compliance buyout for its intended purpose, and was absolutely atrocious in the draft.  He did not perform a single aspect of his job at anywhere approaching an acceptable standard and frankly should be working at a McDonalds under adult supervision.  Sadly, we still haven't had decent management since Burke annd Nonis were here.

Sorry King(and you’re the best) but it’s not opinion. It’s fact that Gillis was our GM and POHO while out team had its most success era.