Judd Brackett

[Gurn]

On 5/23/2020 at 2:57 PM, Fred65 said:

I have to admit for many years I was a full time officer walla.  And  I enjoyed getting out of the office confines on business. I guess you'd say refreshing. I don't blame JB for wishing to do the same. Drifting around North America and Europe rubbing shoulders with friends and like minded people, the odd beer I'm sure helped. Better than looking at cash flows, and merchandizing products. If that's what he wishes to do I guess that's OK for me but heck hire a General Manager to attend to the everyday running of an organization and firing the current Director of Amateur Scouting for no good reason doesn't seem fitting when he's done every thing he could to make the team better.

'firing the current Director of Amateur Scouting for no good reason doesn't seem fitting "

 

Who got fired?

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

26 minutes ago, gurn said:

'firing the current Director of Amateur Scouting for no good reason doesn't seem fitting "

 

Who got fired?

Eric Crawford?  

[Toews]

Dismissing statistics as a whole because J.D. Burke is the one interpreting them seems like a puzzling decision to say the least. Its like the people who cite Chayka being a mediocre GM in Arizona as a failure of analytics, despite the evidence that every team in the NHL now has an analytics department. I would caution against a mentality of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Edited May 25, 2020 by Toews

[spook007]

5 hours ago, Toews said:

 

 

.

Edited May 25, 2020 by spook007

[Fred65]

17 hours ago, gurn said:

'firing the current Director of Amateur Scouting for no good reason doesn't seem fitting "

 

Who got fired?

Technically speaking you're correct, but offering a short term with no raise in salary contract and then promoting Gear to AGM kind of spells it out. I think this falls under the heading of splitting hairs 

[spook007]

1 hour ago, Fred65 said:

Technically speaking you're correct, but offering a short term with no raise in salary contract and then promoting Gear to AGM kind of spells it out. I think this falls under the heading of splitting hairs 

This is how you interprets it... Other disagree. 

He has not been fired. 

[Fred65]

9 minutes ago, spook007 said:

This is how you interprets it... Other disagree. 

He has not been fired. 

Absolutely correct, he just been passed over and called to heel. It's been orchestrated so he shoulders the blame, well done Jim

[spook007]

9 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

Absolutely correct, he just been passed over and called to heel. It's been orchestrated so he shoulders the blame, well done Jim

What blame?

[Tre Mac]

On 5/24/2020 at 12:47 PM, Mackcanuck said:

Nice read here if you are a boomer and pro Benning (and overlook a couple of spelling errors)

 

Why do the statistics nerds hate Jim Benning?

 

Why do old crispy dinosaurs support Benning?  Maybe because he's also one of them?  Anywho couldn't make it past the second paragraph

 

Quote

Jay-D Burke was on with Halford and The Brough on Friday and gave him a D. Luckily I was just getting into the shower when the cigar-smoking poseur came on and I got out just as he was finishing up. It was perfect timing. I did listen to his rant later online, however, in order to write this reply after I heard he gave Benning a D. He admitted that Benning got the best player out of the 2017 and 2018 draft classes despite picking fifth and seventh, respectively, but somehow he couldn’t even give him a passing grade. Unbelievable. His hatred for Benning knows no depths.

That would be fine and dandy if Benning was a head scout but he's the GM and there is more to being a GM than drafting and those other areas is where Benning is failing.  

Quote

he reason why DiPietro got the start is simple: the Canucks ran out of goaltenders. AHL veteran Richard Bachman suffered a season-ending injury in December and wasn’t replaced with a goaltender on an NHL contract. Canucks general manager Jim Benning traded backup Anders Nilsson to the Ottawa Senators in order to call up Thatcher Demko to the NHL, but the goaltender that came back in the trade, Mike McKenna, was claimed off waivers by the Philadelphia Flyers.

That left just three goaltenders on an NHL contract: Markstrom, Demko, and DiPietro. Demko suffered an injury a week before the game against the Sharks, Markstrom was pulled out for a lower-body injury, and DiPietro was the only one left.

This was inexcusable and Benning got caught.  

 

Quote

Demko was hit in the head with a puck during a practice in Vancouver. He suffered a head injury, a concussion.

Things progressed well at first. In fact, the day before he flew east he felt well enough to go out and was seen downtown in busy Vancouver.

That’s no small thing for a player recovering from a concussion. With the way he was progressing, Demko was close to practicing again.

This next part is important. Demko was then medically cleared to fly back to Utica where he would re-join the Comets.

But still in concussion protocol, he didn’t feel entirely comfortable with flying. Also, he wanted to do right by the team.

Several people around the Canucks know this story. Demko talked to Jim and expressed ambivalence about the flight. It’s believed he asked if he could stay in Vancouver, even just for a few days and put off the flight.

The Canucks didn’t see a reason for him to stay in Vancouver because the player had been cleared for the long flight.

Demko did what the team had asked.

The post-concussion symptoms worsened when he landed. Demko couldn’t even get to Utica. He would spend the next few days unable to do much at all, the Canucks said.

The Canucks advised him to stay away from the rink.

The flight had set his recovery back weeks and I don’t think that part of it is disputed by anyone.

Then Jim decides he's the doctor in charge....

 

 

Then there's the brass tax.  6 years of no playoffs and despite that this team is in a cap crunch, didn't even have a playoff spot locked on despite and absolute MVP season from the starting goalie(not a Benning p/u btw).  But what do I know I am just a statistic nerd.  So glad he picked Hughes though, no one wanted us to draft him.

 

 

[Gurn]

6 hours ago, Fred65 said:

Technically speaking you're correct, but offering a short term with no raise in salary contract and then promoting Gear to AGM kind of spells it out. I think this falls under the heading of splitting hairs 

"but offering a short term with no raise in salary contract "

Who says, have you talked to Judd or Jim?

 

[Fred65]

34 minutes ago, gurn said:

"but offering a short term with no raise in salary contract "

Who says, have you talked to Judd or Jim?

 

It was mentioned in the media a while back, sorry I can't remember who but definitely not Burke, I've only ever heard him once. I suppose you may scorn but that's your privilege  Really I'm not into splitting hairs or school yard rants

[Gurn]

So no quotes from JB or Judd, just media speculation, again.

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

1 hour ago, Fred65 said:

It was mentioned in the media a while back, sorry I can't remember who but definitely not Burke, I've only ever heard him once. I suppose you may scorn but that's your privilege  Really I'm not into splitting hairs or school yard rants

I think it was Sat Shah. Reported that Brackett was offered two years and basically the same salary.

Edited May 26, 2020 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

[Provost]

19 hours ago, gurn said:

So no quotes from JB or Judd, just media speculation, again.

You only demand hard concrete, 1st hand evidence when it is something you don’t want to believe... but you are fine randomly speculating things based on nothing but your own wild imaginings.

 

Quite the logical dissonance you have there.
 

I take a dozen different independent reporters form different outlets and a number of them from outside  the market (stating they have different sources telling them)  as much more likely true than the opposing evidence of “What Gurn feels like believing”.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Provost

[zimmy]

58 minutes ago, Provost said:

You only demand hard concrete, 1st hand evidence when it is something you don’t want to believe... but you are fine randomly speculating things based on nothing but your own wild imaginings.

 

Quite the logical dissonance you have there.
 

I take a dozen different independent reporters form different outlets and a number of them from outside  the market (stating they have different sources telling them)  as much more likely true than the opposing evidence of “What Gurn feels like believing”.

What has and what continues to puzzle me is, with this collection of independent sources in mind, why we haven't moved past the "there's disconnect/mistrust/acrimony between the parties" reporting stage? Have I missed something?

 

I'm sure that the timing of any type of clarification or indeed official announcement is tied to new timelines moving us through and to the end of this season and that is why the story seems to have stalled. I can infer that but its not based in fact so I'm hesitant.

 

What is stopping all these sources (who seem to know so much about the inner workings of Canucks hockey ops) from reporting that JBRACK is categorically done? That either he or the team or both are moving on? Why start this $%##storm without reporting further to give this whole episode proper context? Why the silence, the lack of further detail, why the gag order? Who is the puppet master? Is there a puppet master?

 

[The Lock]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

You only demand hard concrete, 1st hand evidence when it is something you don’t want to believe... but you are fine randomly speculating things based on nothing but your own wild imaginings.

 

Quite the logical dissonance you have there.
 

I take a dozen different independent reporters form different outlets and a number of them from outside  the market (stating they have different sources telling them)  as much more likely true than the opposing evidence of “What Gurn feels like believing”.

Personally, I don't really see the point in believing things until they actually happen. So many times we are lead into believing things until they proven wrong in a "guilty until proven innocent" sort of fashion. It's like all of the speculation from last year when people though Benning was close to losing his job... then he suddenly got an extension. Or when the media takes a player's comment, that was meant to be harmless, too far.

 

At the end of the day, we're all like vultures trying to prey on information, and sometimes that lack of food makes us think up hallucinations that simply turn out to not be true.

 

I'm not saying nothing is happening as there might certainly well be, but there's nothing wrong with gurn's stance whatsoever. If gurn doesn't have the right to not believe it then why should you have the right to believe it? It's kind of a silly narrative is it not? Instead, I say believe what you want. You have every right to it, but just because someone else wants more evidence, how is that a bad thing? Let them wait for more evidence.

 

And to show I'm just as guilty of this, I've come at you before for thinking certain things about trades, etc. Now I obviously have every right to disagree with you can show you why: that's the point of a forum after all: but does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to have that opinion in the first place?

Edited May 26, 2020 by The Lock

[Baggins]

On 5/23/2020 at 2:57 PM, Fred65 said:

I have to admit for many years I was a full time officer walla.  And  I enjoyed getting out of the office confines on business. I guess you'd say refreshing. I don't blame JB for wishing to do the same. Drifting around North America and Europe rubbing shoulders with friends and like minded people, the odd beer I'm sure helped. Better than looking at cash flows, and merchandizing products. If that's what he wishes to do I guess that's OK for me but heck hire a General Manager to attend to the everyday running of an organization and firing the current Director of Amateur Scouting for no good reason doesn't seem fitting when he's done every thing he could to make the team better.

Negotiations are a two way street. One could just as easily say Brackett quit (refusing Benning's offer) rather than being fired (Benning not caving to his demands). I don't view it either of those ways. It's just two parties unable to come to an agreement acceptable to both sides. It happens.

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[Fred65]

15 hours ago, Baggins said:

Negotiations are a two way street. One could just as easily say Brackett quit (refusing Benning's offer) rather than being fired (Benning not caving to his demands). I don't view it either of those ways. It's just two parties unable to come to an agreement acceptable to both sides. It happens.

Absolutely, however it has been reported that Brackett was neither asking for a raise or complain about the length. What he wants is a better defined role, as I understand. Success does warrant some recognition, for mort employees in what ever job they have. Some times it's promotion, some times it's a bonus system some time it's just acknowledgement.

[Fred65]

19 hours ago, The Lock said:

Personally, I don't really see the point in believing things until they actually happen. So many times we are lead into believing things until they proven wrong in a "guilty until proven innocent" sort of fashion. It's like all of the speculation from last year when people though Benning was close to losing his job... then he suddenly got an extension. Or when the media takes a player's comment, that was meant to be harmless, too far.

 

At the end of the day, we're all like vultures trying to prey on information, and sometimes that lack of food makes us think up hallucinations that simply turn out to not be true.

 

I'm not saying nothing is happening as there might certainly well be, but there's nothing wrong with gurn's stance whatsoever. If gurn doesn't have the right to not believe it then why should you have the right to believe it? It's kind of a silly narrative is it not? Instead, I say believe what you want. You have every right to it, but just because someone else wants more evidence, how is that a bad thing? Let them wait for more evidence.

 

And to show I'm just as guilty of this, I've come at you before for thinking certain things about trades, etc. Now I obviously have every right to disagree with you can show you why: that's the point of a forum after all: but does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to have that opinion in the first place?

Very PC