Read on Twitter
(1/7) Came across this tweet and I thought it would be an interesting topic to explore.
What level of autonomy are head scouts given? Should a GM be making the picks themselves? What have the Canucks been doing recently and has that worked out for them? https://twitter.com/CodPahul/status/1281347206134415361
What level of autonomy are head scouts given? Should a GM be making the picks themselves? What have the Canucks been doing recently and has that worked out for them? https://twitter.com/CodPahul/status/1281347206134415361
(2/7) In 2014, Vancouver held the 6th overall pick. Management shifted focus from Dylan Larkin to Jake Virtanen per @JDylanBurke and @Hockey_Robinson. Jake was considered a questionable pick at the time.
(3/7) Management diverged from the scout's draft board by taking McCann instead of Pastrnak per @Hockey_Robinson's guest appearance on @Area51Hockey. After taking Boeser in 2015, Benning set his targets on Juolevi. Benning reportedly went with Judd's picks ever since.
(4/7) Straying away from your draft list and drafting for need over BPA both carry huge risk. This cost the Canucks both Pastrnak and Tkachuk.
(5/7) Finally in 2017 it appeared Benning had ceded some degree of control to Judd Brackett. It's a good thing too since Pettersson wasn't on Benning's radar.
(6/7) Jarmo Kekäläinen, John Chayka, Steve Yzerman, and Doug Armstrong are just a few GMs that understand how important it is to delegate the draft to the scouts and head scout. The pitfalls for making a selection based on limited viewings can't be ignored.
(7/7) It's a management style that's been in place for decades and quite common. Given Benning's flawed process with Virtanen, McCann, and Juolevi, it's a strategy Benning should follow. For someone as experienced as Jim, it's unfortunate he didn't get the memo.
