Dazzle

Green, you have failed this city!

An argument could be made to keep Benning. There was no real argument to be made to extend Green though. This is on Benning for keeping such a lame duck coach.

Arizona is 0-9-1.

Look no further than the fact that Gillis, in all his years as GM, could not develop a SINGLE NHL defenseman, minus Hutton. And then when you look at how bad our prospect pool was - it took YEARS to get to this point, and we are still haunted by Gillis' poor, poor draft choices/development. Gillis' legacy still lives on, even today. Simply burying it as "it's been 8 years" absolves Gillis of his inept management. Benning tried to restock the cabinet, while fielding an exciting roster. It's not really much of a debate that the experiment had mixed results. That being said, Benning has drafted far more players than what Gillis ever did, in all rounds. You can't just use the 1st round excuse for Benning. He has drafted our starting goalie, for crying out loud, in the 2nd round. What has Gillis done for development? All he's done was to spend what Burke + Nonis had achieved.

Actually, your take is very bad. Gillis left a huge mess for someone else to clean up. Next to no prospect pool. Yes, he squandered the treasure chest for the cup runs. He didn't develop anything for the future generation. No defenseman to replace Edler. No goalie to replace Schneider. And yeah, he might have had Horvat, but he traded his only asset in goal for that. Gillis was captain of a sinking ship because he didn't really know how to navigate the seas. Do you see him GMing in the future? He's been passed over many, many times, for good reason. He had a negative reputation around the league with GMs, so trades were often rip-offs for the Canucks. Remember the 1st round pick (25th overall) + Grabner for Ballard? Yet another example of him bleeding assets. So yeah, Benning has his own problems, but if you're gonna paint Gillis as some kind of 'better' alternative, you are fooling yourself.

He hasn't made the playoffs once for the Canucks, except in the bubble. Even with the Bubble, his win percentage barely surpasses WD. That is flat out sad because WD's rosters were garbage. Green has had much better players.

Of course he clears waivers... It feels like Green doesn't have the spine to add anyone else onto his roster. We are losing four straight and there's no major shakeup. A very poor preseason set up and a poor start to this season. This is on him. How could this team underachieve so much year after year with him behind the bench?

It's funny though. @wallstreetamigostill hasn't called out Sekeres for the poor reporting. Malicious or not, he got it wrong, and he also had the name leaked out. Apparently the media runs on a different set of rules, according to wallsteetamigo, so this is the hypocrisy I have been pointing out. No one said Benning's word is gospel, but given his reputation for being honest to a fault, I believe he should get the benefit of the doubt. Reputation means something, no? You should agree with this wallsteetamigo. Or should we continue to rely on Sekeres 'stellar' record as a reporter? If you leak a bad story, your reputation takes a hit. The issue is that the media's main interest is to sell papers. You have this obsession to defend the media as some information gatherer. Unfortunately, that is a very biased perspective of the media. Again, check your bias again.

I am still not sure if he is cheap or not, but I can understand why you said the above. I also agree with you that hiring incompetent coaches (when they've proven to be the case) is fireable.

You've been misrepresenting your stance on this. By putting a stance that it wasn't malicious, that is your feeling on it. Bias is very much influencing this feeling, whether you like it or not. Bieksa said "if you can't get the story right, don't report it". Obviously, this was not really a concern for that certain media member. Now, the Hughes story was an isolated incident, but it reflects how a story is pushed for the 'clicks'. Moreover, if it wasn't malicious, why did they identify who was on IV? That is a big no-no with respect to confidentiality. Now, I believe it was Sekeres who broke the story, andi don't believe any other member of the media engaged in anything unethical with regards to COVID. But to state that the media has less of a reason to be biased is inaccurate and illogical. You keep trying to spin this as the media is only reporting what they heard, but you never address the fact that the media makes its living from sensationalizing a story. You actually discredited the media a while back when you said that stories would be boring if the truth wasn't stretched.

What kind of strawman are you making there? No one, including myself in this thread, said that 'disagreement' equals bias. That is a totally different argument you're introducing. I'm not surprised that you're creating these new arguments to 'push back' against the media's lack of accountability in reporting the Hughes story.

Actually, they are very much connected. A bias influences how something is articulated, whether it is written or otherwise. An agenda is weaponizing a bias. As for having a 'clear answer', bias, as you said, is inherent among all of us, so the explanation behind such bias is not so straightforward; there may be many reasons for why a story is reported a certain way: it could be due to homerism/loyalty, or bitterness due to being a fan. As for the media falsely reporting that Hughes was on IV, what was your response on that again? Oh yeah, you never addressed it. It was a very shameful conduct of the media. The fact that they "got it wrong" is unacceptable. How could they get it wrong? If Hughes said he wasn't, and players like Bieksa called out the media for reporting the wrong story, then what gives? It's hilarious that you point the fingers at other people than the media themselves. This is why you are biased FOR the media. Check your bias before telling others they are more biased.

That's not what people are complaining about at all. If you actually paid attention to the comments, rather than constructing some strawman argument, the people are complaining that the punishment for Chicago was extremely lenient for a major scandal. 2 million dollars is NOTHING. Moreover, not a single draft pick was lost as additional punishment. Compare this to how the Houston Astros had cheated their way into a championship; they lost draft picks and faced a heavier fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Astros_sign_stealing_scandal As a result, Astros general manager Jeff Luhnow and field manager A. J. Hinch were suspended for the entire 2020 season for failing to prevent the rule violations. The Astros were fined the maximum allowable $5 million and forfeited their first- and second-round picks in the 2020 and 2021 drafts. Is cheating worse than sexual assault? The so-called investigation had uncovered proof that Chicago's 'handling' of the sexual assault was negligent at best. And at worst, Chicago completely disregarded Beach's claims. There's even some argument that Chicago tried to DISCREDIT Beach as well. Meanwhile, they knowingly removed Aldrich from the organization, while giving him a glowing review. Chicago clearly covered up this case. On the point of the players claiming not to know about it, why did some players like Brent Sopel state that most people in the room knew? There's clearly a contradiction. On top of this, meetings took place ABOUT Aldrich involving the coach and other staff members. Is it really that believable that nobody from the players' side knew? It's complete crap. Beach obviously could not trust a single person in that room - and for good reason - they ignored him for their own interests. Perhaps Sopel was saving his own ass by saying that the locker room knew about it. And if so, why should Toews be "annoyed" about the story? There is A LOT of crap that isn't answered. As for the police, not all sexual victims go to them, for many different reasons. However, I do find it curious that you said you'd think the victim should go to the police, if you were a player. Obviously the players in the CHI locker room weren't very nice, considering they called Beach a 'faggot'.

See, that's the problem with this post here; it addresses nothing about what the media is guilty of - having an agenda. It's hypocritical to think that the media has less of an agenda to push a story (knowing that their reporting could influence viewership, and thus profit). Yes, everyone has a bias of some kind, but to say that the media has LESS of a bias is extremely concerning. This is propaganda at its finest. What makes the media less vulnerable to bias than any other entity or person? Therefore, your defense of the media is a bias in itself, which you didn't underscore at all in your post.

Well, he's gonna have to spend money to fire these coaches if he wants to see results. Green's coaching has been questionable, and I'm glad he's under the scrutiny..

I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to wallstreetamigo because he has been a heavy defender of the media. I like his posts sometimes, but not when he's being a hypocrite

Contrary to what one specific person on this board thinks, the media absolutely has an agenda for running the stories that it does. That poster is likely one of the media members, but has shown the incapacity to call out his own ilk for accountability.

WD + Green = cheap coaches But the whole cheapness factor of Aquilini doesn't make sense because he's spending so much money on the players. Why wouldn't you get a high powered coach to unlock their potential? Green has shown very little so far to deserve his current contract. The extension in my mind was a huge misstep.

I'm not a 'tough guy' supporter by any means, but this team's roster needs a shakeup, which starts with the coach. Green (and Benning to a smaller extent) has been icing rosters that generally lack pushback. Myers is a very good addition to this team, but he should not be viewed as the 'star', nor should he be relied upon to do everything. Green's systems are so generic and they do not seem to work in boosting a player's abilities.

Thank goodness for sending Rathbone down. Rathbone is a wizard in the offensive zone, but it was clear from day 1 that his game still needed work, specifically in the defensive zone. There is no shame about it, since he is such a young defenseman, playing such a hard to play position. We regularly see how good he can hem the opposition in the zone because of how well he pushes the offense. I am very excited to see him come back once he is more polished. The Canucks cannot afford to have him play here right now because our defensive strategies are crap. Rathbone's getting exposed so much under it. I thoroughly dislike the amount of leash he was given by Green, yet this treatment was not at all extended to other players. Green is known for playing favourites. And if the team is playing bad, Green needs to change it up - or be fired.

Nonis was no genius, but considering that Gillis' core players were also from Burke + Nonis, it is rather dishonest to ignore the contributions of Burke and Nonis. Edler survived all three of these GMs, and yet Gillis did not produce a single defenseman to replace Edler, nor did Gillis draft an NHL worthy goaltender. All we see with Gillis is that he bleeds assets. Let's not give Gillis too much credit. He had some good picks, but he had a tremendous amount of 'busts' too. He gave way too many NTCs for starters, some of which ended up tying up Gillis, in the same way that Benning handcuffed himself in some transactions.

I often criticize your viewpoints, but this one is something I can agree on. No one should be on tank nation. This team probably had a lot of promise to start the year, but honestly, the execution has been subpar. It's hard to defend Green as a coach when he's been given an overhauled roster. Yet somehow the Canucks can't score, nor has there been a significant improvement on the PK, which was a weakness last season. Then when you see how the preseason went down, we see a coach that has introduced very little change from last season (minus Covid). This is a team that struggles to keep the puck out of its net, and a coach that consistently fails to adapt to the teams he plays. Moreover, you do not see a winning record under Green. Our preseason was bad, and the start of this season has been just as bad. The Canucks need to get rid of Green and should not cheap out on unproven coaches.

Because with the first round picks he's had, he has hit with many of them - Brock Boeser, Pettersson and Hughes. If we were to ignore the first round picks, Benning has outdrafted Gillis significantly. Therefore your argument of 'mortgaging the future' is weak, especially when Gillis is by far the bigger offender. Gillis had a successful team - which consisted of his core from his predecessors. Did Gillis' picks ever pan out on the Canucks, or hell, even the NHL? Few. We had Hodgson, Horvat, and Hutton. That's a lot of missed picks. A lot of them. And because of this poor prospect pool, he left Benning with this bag of nothing. Blaming Benning for his failures SHOULD include what Gillis left him with. There's really not much. Considering Gillis only had a few good seasons under his name, Gillis paid a heavy price, at the Canucks expense.

How many other picks did Gillis actually hit on besides that? Hodgson was a high first round pick. Schroeder was basically a failed version of Brock Boeser. Connauton never played for the Canucks at all. And Hutton was a decent pick. But who else did Gillis draft? What about goalies? You're telling me that Gillis throughout his tenure never drafted a goalie, or at least one that made an impact? AND he traded the ONLY goalie asset he had for an unknown HIGH first rounder (Horvat)? Terrible mismanagement of assets.

WD's record. And WD had terrible rosters. Both WD and Green are awful.