[PGT] Chicago Blackhawks at Vancouver Canucks | Feb. 12, 2020

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

That, combined with Linden's warm kudos for Green, does amount to a telling data point about what happened.  Not the whole story, but very suggestive.

What did Linden say about Green?

[oldnews]

11 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

I think that Benning and Linden presented very different development paths for the team, with Linden objecting to the idea of adding too many UFA's, and that Aqua sided with Benning on bringing in help to compete faster.

 

Personally, I think that Benning was correct in his approach and that he's done a good job and that Linden (love the guy) should have stuck to the higher management functions of President and trusted Benning to do what he was hired to do and what he's done. Create a fast, competitive team with youth developing under the guidance of selectively acquired veterans. 

If that were at the core of it - I'd agree that the Benning moves made sense - that on that particular issue, I'd agree with depth signings like Beagle as opposed to marching out kids into those roles prematurely.

 

But I don't buy that underlying story - I don't believe that would be substantive enough to drive Linden to walk / or bring that decision to an either/or head.

 

That's why I'd lean towards betting on the 'rift' originating outside the two....and 'history' might qualify that 'bet' somewhat.....as someone that never believed Tortorella to be a Gillis hire, for example.  If I were betting, I'd source this higher than either of them - that their relationship was the casualty.  Of course that could be wrong - because I'm not a fly  on their wall, and I can't speak for Linden, Benning or Aquilini - but we've seen a rift driven in this management group in the very recent past, and that did not appear to originate between Gillis and Tortorella - if anything it may have been a foreseeable natural consequence of putting those two together?

[VegasCanuck]

5 minutes ago, oldnews said:

or it makes you someone that forms assumptions prematurely.

 

Did Linden mention Aquilini?

 

There are still too many blanks to fill in before concluding something like Benning maneouvred to steal Linden's job - and that's coming from someone that credits Linden, not Benning, with the majority of the heavy lifting where the present organizatiion/management group/supporting cast  is concerned.

 

I think there are more than one distinct possibility.

 

1)  Aquilini valued Benning's hockey intelligence more than Benning and made a move to trim his management costs - thereby the source of a 'rift' coming from outside those two (Benning and Linden).  Perhaps Benning wasn't prepared to leverage enough loyalty to Linden?

2)  Benning and Linden may not have disagreed - as perceived - regarding what to do with the rething at that stage - it's possible that Aquilini was growing impatient relative to them, and Linden backed him off/toftt.

3) the most common assumption - the possibility that this was primarily between Linden and Benning - that Benning moved to take his job - something I don't find any more convincing given the lack of information - than the other possibilities.

There has been times where Benning and Linden have disagreed publicly. The most obvious one, was early in their tenure, when they were each asked about willingness to ask veterans to waive NTC's. Linden said "NO", Benning emphatically said, "YES", would do whatever was needed.

 

I think they saw eye to eye on the type of team that they wanted the Canucks to be, but that they differed substantially on the path to get there.

 

Linden was committed to playing youth only.

Benning wanted youth sprinkled in with established veterans.

 

I think Aqualini agreed with Benning's approach and might have done that too many times and Linden left as a result.

 

That is just my take on it at least, but the math generally adds up.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

1 hour ago, WeneedLumme said:

Yeah, nothing at all great about the kid clearly winning his first NHL fight against an opponent who was 3 years older, 3 inches taller and 40 pounds heavier. I can see that you are a "realistic fan".

Man I had flashes of Rypien fighting Hal Gill.

 

[Maniwaki Canuck]

Just now, PhillipBlunt said:

What did Linden say about Green?

Can't recall exactly:  I was shuttling back and forth between various streamings of the game and ceremony which are not available now.  But he did single out Green and Brackett for praise and was silent about everyone else. 

[bree2]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

Absolutely.  His enthusiasm is a helluvan intangible.  There are the odd times where I wonder if the best move might be to Kotkaniemi him, but then he pulls off a backcheck, or scores another goal - and last night, getting that lopsided decision vs a guy who has 25+lbs on him - that was a thing of beauty.   He has the heart of a player that will get better / can see why Green is sticking with him even through some young struggles, in a playoff race.

I have to admit I have never been  keen on Gaudette, but last night he scored a goal and I was so proud of him for stepping up, I think I am changing my mind

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, oldnews said:

or it makes you someone that forms assumptions prematurely.

 

Did Linden mention Aquilini?

 

There are still too many blanks to fill in before concluding something like Benning maneouvred to steal Linden's job - and that's coming from someone that credits Linden, not Benning, with the majority of the heavy lifting where the present organizatiion/management group/supporting cast  is concerned.

 

I think there are more than one distinct possibility.

 

1)  Aquilini valued Benning's hockey intelligence more than Benning and made a move to trim his management costs - thereby the source of a 'rift' coming from outside those two (Benning and Linden).  Perhaps Benning wasn't prepared to leverage enough loyalty to Linden?

2)  Benning and Linden may not have disagreed - as perceived - regarding what to do with the rething at that stage - it's possible that Aquilini was growing impatient relative to them, and Linden backed him off/toftt.

3) the most common assumption - the possibility that this was primarily between Linden and Benning - that Benning moved to take his job - something I don't find any more convincing given the lack of information - than the other possibilities.

I don't think we have to go into grand theories. Aqulini runs a business, lower bowl seat sales and probably more importantly luxury box sales were down, we had a dud coach, and Linden was preaching more patience (the "Winnipeg model") and clearly didn't have an answer for increased attendance. Benning was capable of taking over.

 

If Linden is mad about Benning not being loyal or something along those lines, well, thats his problem frankly. He had enough of his own record and I don't think its fair to blame others, own your own record imo. I love what Linden did as a player but I do think it was a mistake to hire him as president.  

[Canuck Surfer]

14 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Hey Phil.

 

You have been critical of the pushback lately. Was that better?

 

1st Gaudette.  Did Pearson get in a fight? Or was that last game.  Who I came here to talk about is Benn!

 

I understand Green is more qualified than I, and likes Fantenurg. I like Benn! A goal and several shots last game. The 2knd goal enjoyed some nice passing afterwards. Benn absolutely LEVELLED Caguila. And took the puck off him at the line. Started the passing with Roussel & Suteer in what became a tap in goal for Gaudette. I also saw Benn bear hug and face wash Kobalik. For poking at the puck under Marky's glove.  Dude was not going to challenge him. And near put Smith through the boards.

 

Fantenburg hits.  But Benn hurts people.

[oldnews]

16 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Perhaps. This is just my thought on it, which could be changed at any time.

 

Here's the thing: 90's night. Linden doesn't show up to that event. HOW? (Bure also didn't bother showing up either). Linden showed up for the Sedins is how I interpreted this. NOT for Benning/Aquilini.

 

I think the first one is possible, that Benning wasn't prepared to go to bat for Linden. Either way, he took Linden's job.

 

The second is less convincing. Why would Linden be 'turfed' then (as perceived)? If Linden was a 'yes man' to Benning, Benning certainly would've kept him. I think Brackett is a smart man too, but there are seemingly issues with what he wants versus what Benning wants. Of course, Benning is the expert here on all fronts - scouting and GMing. Brackett may very well have good ideas, but him and Benning may or may not get along in the long run. Time will tell.

I'm not sure you're reading what I'm saying there.  It's not that Linden was a 'yes man'.  Benning was in no position to 'keep' Linden - Benning's job was below Linden's in the heirarchy.

What I'm saying is that it's possible that neither Benning nor Linden wanted to go that hard prematurely - with the possibility that ownership may not have shared that patience....in which case, when leveraged to 'speed it up' Linden stood between ownership and managment decisions - and became the fall guy.

 

Linden was given full autonomy over hockey decisions - and that was taken from him - by Aquilini.  That is simply the primary point here.  Now - for what reason we do not really know.  Linden allegedly walking amounts to the same thing imo, would result from renegging on his deal.

 

But here's the additional thing - I don't buy the story that Linden is the lesser hockey mind involved here.  He hired Benning - he hired Green - he hired Brackett - he hired Ryan Johnson, hired Henning, hired Scott Walker and Manny Malhotra.....I'm suggesting the Linden absolutely knew what tf he was doing - and did one hell of a job of it.  Which is also why I don't believe he would have put his job at stake over a few Beagle signings.  That to me sounds like the ignorance of smarmyouth stories - not necessarily Linden ( the attempts to speak for him, with little evidence) = that story does not sell imo.  And the bottom line = there is more to it than simply a Benning/Linden relationship - the reality is that this was an Aquilini decision in the end.  I find it as plausible that the compromise wound up being the move to sign a few depth veterans, as opposed to go guns blazing more prematurely.    For me there are still far too many missing pieces to form any hard assumptions/conclusions - and some of the pieces some people accept as part and parcel - don't make very much sense wadr.

Edited February 13, 2020 by oldnews

[ruilin96]

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

While the game wasn't pretty from a possession perspective, I wonder if Green saw it as an opportunity to recalibrate the physicality/unity/pushback approach. I think part of the reason (outside of Markstrom being incredible) that the team won the game, was that they weren't being intimidated by the Hawks at all.

Tbh, if you look at the Hawks current line up, they don’t have anybody that is intimidating and the Canucks just take runs at their players without much fear for pushback from them.

[oldnews]

15 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

There has been times where Benning and Linden have disagreed publicly. The most obvious one, was early in their tenure, when they were each asked about willingness to ask veterans to waive NTC's. Linden said "NO", Benning emphatically said, "YES", would do whatever was needed.

 

I think they saw eye to eye on the type of team that they wanted the Canucks to be, but that they differed substantially on the path to get there.

 

Linden was committed to playing youth only.

Benning wanted youth sprinkled in with established veterans.

 

I think Aqualini agreed with Benning's approach and might have done that too many times and Linden left as a result.

 

That is just my take on it at least, but the math generally adds up.

That's oversimplified math imo.  The assumption that Linden would want to play youth only - are words you can't put in his mouth - and imo sound more like the aspirations of a youth-culture tanknation, teardown cult in the market than it speaks for Linden. 

It's a convenient narrative rift that coincides with the armchair market, but I'm not buying it.

 

I think there's likely far more to it than that - that story, imo, ironically underplays Linden's intelligence - a storyline that is often sold, but I find his actual performance higher standard than that.

It's possible there were far more heated internal debates over things that never actuallly transpired - than simply a disagreement on signing a Beagle or Roussel - and that  much only the people in the room (or those close to them) would know.

 

[oldnews]

17 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I don't think we have to go into grand theories. Aqulini runs a business, lower bowl seat sales and probably more importantly luxury box sales were down, we had a dud coach, and Linden was preaching more patience (the "Winnipeg model") and clearly didn't have an answer for increased attendance. Benning was capable of taking over.

 

If Linden is mad about Benning not being loyal or something along those lines, well, thats his problem frankly. He had enough of his own record and I don't think its fair to blame others, own your own record imo. I love what Linden did as a player but I do think it was a mistake to hire him as president.  

That, ironically - is another 'grand theory' with a story to follow - and the problem with your story - is that it entirely contradicts the prevailing narrative - so you'll have to qualify it better than your counterparts if you hope to sell it.

I find that grand theory more plausible - it's basically what I have been saying - what I'd lean towards betting on - not having hard information.  But the bottom line is that all the grand theories - this included - lack qualification in the end.

 

If Linden was a mistake - then the rest of it is all a 'mistake' - because you simply cannot separate him from the hirings of Benning, Green, Brackett, Johnson - etc = the entire list of rething management that has delivered the team you have today.   That's no 'mistake' - it did not happen by 'mistake' - there were countless other options out there that Linden could have hired for all those positions.  He deserves far more credit than he generally receives in this market - the proof is literally in the pudding.

[JM_]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

That, ironically - is another 'grand theory' with a story to follow - and the problem with your story - is that it entirely contradicts the prevailing narrative - so you'll have to qualify it better than your counterparts if you hope to sell it.

I find that grand theory more plausible - it's basically what I have been saying - what I'd lean towards betting on - not having hard information.  But the bottom line is that all the grand theories - this included - lack qualification in the end.

 

If Linden was a mistake - then the rest of it is all a 'mistake' - because you simply cannot separate him from the hirings of Benning, Green, Brackett, Johnson - etc = the entire list of rething management that has delivered the team you have today.   That's no 'mistake' - it did not happen by 'mistake' - there were countless other options out there that Linden could have hired for all those positions.  He deserves far more credit than he generally receives in this market - the proof is literally in the pudding.

I don't think everything Linden did was a bust. But his team had a poor record, seat sales were down, the re-thingy was a bust, Willie was a bad hire, and the part where I'm guessing is he didn't have a satisfactory answer for the timeline to turn it around. He was asking other GMs what their process was, and that was public info. Doesn't fill one with confidence. 

 

I really doubt Aquilini was thrilled with the idea of having to move on from Linden, he know the pile of $&!# he'd eat, probably for years, over it. That tells me he lost confidence in Linden's leadership and ability to right the ship. 

[Tre Mac]

1 hour ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

This is another area where Miller has been a great influence on the team. 

For a second I thought you were reffering to Ryan Miller after he stood up for Stetcher in TO.

 

29 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

Not to cause controversy or anything, but did anyone else notice that during Linden's interview in the intermission, when he was talking about people in and around the team and his exit etc, the one person he completely didn't mention, was Benning. Seemed kind of weird since he hand picked Benning for GM to oversee the rebuild.

Yeah because Benning absolutely sewered Linden.  

 

39 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

Personally, I think that Benning was correct in his approach and that he's done a good job and that Linden (love the guy) should have stuck to the higher management functions of President and trusted Benning to do what he was hired to do and what he's done.

I disagree and you'll see why in the offseason. The team is very well coached(Linden hire), well scouted led by Brackett(Gillis hire, Linden's friend) - as said by Smyle Linden has his stamp on the team.  I doubt Brackett will re-sign and Benning has his work cut out for him thanks to the Free Agent signings that Linden was against.  

 

34 minutes ago, bree2 said:

well sorry but Linden needs to get over it.  Naslund would not do that on purpose.

Well Naslund did do that on purpose.  Naslund and Linden, such pricks right?  

[oldnews]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I don't think everything Linden did was a bust. But his team had a poor record, seat sales were down, the re-thingy was a bust, Willie was a bad hire, and the part where I'm guessing is he didn't have a satisfactory answer for the timeline to turn it around. He was asking other GMs what their process was, and that was public info. Doesn't fill one with confidence. 

 

I really doubt Aquilini was thrilled with the idea of having to move on from Linden, he know the pile of $&!# he'd eat, probably for years, over it. That tells me he lost confidence in Linden's leadership and ability to right the ship. 

If he lost confidence in Linden - the irony would be that all of Linden's hires have delivered a pretty damn good result, on a very reasonable time line.

The only evident incompetence I've witnessed in recent history - was the Tortorella misfit hire - and that doesn't and never did look like a Gillis hire....so I'm not prepared to accept the storyline of Linden not commanding confidence in his performance.....the reality is that, even in his absence, Benning has not cleared out any of his 'mistakes'.  

That was also part of the smarm narrative - Benning allegedly steered himself into position to take over - the anxiety was that heads would roll so that he could bring in 'his guys' and wadr to that story - that isn't and hasn't been his style - at any point.  Further, even where 'his players' are concerned - he's moved a number of 'his' acquisitions, while holding onto guys that he inherited, to the ire of many folks.   If there was this alleged philophical rift between Linden and Benning it simpy hasn't really played out on the ground to any degree reflective of the narratives - which lead me to consider the narratives in the same vein as most of the narratives in this market.

[PhillipBlunt]

32 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Hey Phil.

 

You have been critical of the pushback lately. Was that better?

 

1st Gaudette.  Did Pearson get in a fight? Or was that last game.  Who I came here to talk about is Benn!

 

I understand Green is more qualified than I, and likes Fantenurg. I like Benn! A goal and several shots last game. The 2knd goal enjoyed some nice passing afterwards. Benn absolutely LEVELLED Caguila. And took the puck off him at the line. Started the passing with Roussel & Suteer in what became a tap in goal for Gaudette. I also saw Benn bear hug and face wash Kobalik. For poking at the puck under Marky's glove.  Dude was not going to challenge him. And near put Smith through the boards.

 

Fantenburg hits.  But Benn hurts people.

Last night was a welcome turn. Great to see so many players ready to stand up for themselves and for each other. It was awesome. If they can keep that aspect of their game and suppress shots more while increasing puck possession, I like their odds.

 

Was a great, strong team game yesterday.

[Kakanucks]

Are people seriously suggesting Naslund walked past Benning and ignored him on purpose just for Linden?  

Naslund was long gone by the time JB came in, and they both has no ties to each other.

 

This isn't highschool, where you ignore someone because they made your friend cry.

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, oldnews said:

If he lost confidence in Linden - the irony would be that all of Linden's hires have delivered a pretty damn good result, on a very reasonable time line.

The only evident incompetence I've witnessed in recent history - was the Tortorella misfit hire - and that doesn't and never did look like a Gillis hire....so I'm not prepared to accept the storyline of Linden not commanding confidence in his performance.....the reality is that, even in his absence, Benning has not cleared out any of his 'mistakes'.  

That was also part of the smarm narrative - Benning allegedly steered himself into position to take over - the anxiety was that heads would roll so that he could bring in 'his guys' and wadr to that story - that isn't and hasn't been his style - at any point.  Further, even where 'his players' are concerned - he's moved a number of 'his' acquisitions, while holding onto guys that he inherited, to the ire of many folks.   If there was this alleged philophical rift between Linden and Benning it simpy hasn't really played out on the ground to any degree reflective of the narratives - which lead me to consider the narratives in the same vein as most of the narratives in this market.

I don't think Benning did that. But he's not going to turn down the top job either. 

 

Dunno, until someone comes out with the "it" we can all dance around and guess. To me there was enough performance issues to warrant Aqulini losing confidence, without Benning twisting his moustache and plotting a takeover. 

[IBatch]

8 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Posters whining about Canuck coaching?

 

 

Get a life...    

Remember how  it went from Gallant to Tochett for the all-star game?  I do.  The "fire Green" crowd will be quick to show how close it still is - and they are right. 

 

He's learning on the job as is our young core.  Boston is only leading the East because of their loser points - maybe they should fire their coach too.  Something's like 12 loser points!

 

TG should have been the guy representing the All-Star game.  That's pretty clear.  We are beating SJ - they were supposed to be near the top.   Ha ha guess not just as I preditcted.    Lots of games left, until we have 92ish points I will be nervous.   23 more to go... that requires a pretty decent record down the stretch- let's not jinx it.   Next up ANA - another has- been Cali team ... ahhhh life is good.  Thank you Markstrom for finding your inner Luongo.   We haven't had the best goaltending over the past 50 years ... a few more games like last night plus a playoff berth and both Markstrom and Green will be up with Hughes for some hardware at the end of the year.    If TG wins the Adams heads will explode ha ha - no I'm not jinxing it - just stating a fact.  V for Virtanen - might as well start laying the foundation for his expansion with his Church.   I'm already all for a wing for Markstrom, I'd be over the moon if we had to add one for Green too.  

 

Also inside joke and this is for you Alf - Babcock is a "Needle dick flee f!cker".   Anyone who speaks to themselves in the third person is in my books. 

[awalk]

14 hours ago, IrishCanuck5 said:

Ive been around a long time. Don’t post much. If I live to be alfs age and can still handle a drink without my doctor (or spouse) backhanding me. I’d post irrational stuff all the time aswell. I’m gonna give him the benefit of the doubt tonight. If people watched from 6 and weren’t toasty by game time then they were missing out!

Well you are Irish. And Alf isnt from this planet even.