Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

We need a GM that can stand up to ownership


Matt_T83

Recommended Posts

Too bad Arthur Griffiths had to sell. 

 

When you have 100's of millions, the ego tends to dominate. 

 

Gillis wanted a rebuild after 2011 but he had to hire Torts then was fired. Also if you look at his health deteriorate over his time spent here, doesnt seem like a great work environment. No wonder no big names want to come here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that our ownership is in large part, the problem with this team.  But the job of the GM is not to stand up to ownership.  The owners are the boss and if they want something done a certain way it's the GM's job to do that to the best of his ability.  I'm sure Benning (and everyone that was interviewed for the job) were asked what they thought the best coarse of action for this team is.  I'm sure anyone that said (if anyone said it) a full rebuild was needed wasn't going to get hired.  Benning deserves all the blame that he's getting, he was on board with going for it instead of rebuilding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are losing, this is part of the rebuild that you want OP.  

I don't know how much worst you think it can get, and I'm happy with most of the trades that Benning has done.  
 

 

I'd rather have a GM that can draft well then one who will be standing up to management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JV77 said:

Then the owners will tell the GM "stfu you work for us b***h!''

Exactly, and this won't change with the Italians wanting to have their greasy mitts on the operations side of things. Until there is new ownership or someone manages to convince the Aquillinis to sit on their hands I can't see anything changing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, robvp said:

Exactly, and this won't change with the Italians wanting to have their greasy mitts on the operations side of things. Until there is new ownership or someone manages to convince the Aquillinis to sit on their hands I can't see anything changing. 

Nobody really knows for sure whether there is meddling....but even if Aqualini fired Linden,Benning,Weisbrod..the new guys they bring in will be under the same owners mandate as the previous team......"Meet the new boss...same as the old boss"..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Honky Cat said:

Nobody really knows for sure whether there is meddling....but even if Aqualini fired Linden,Benning,Weisbrod..the new guys they bring in will be under the same owners mandate as the previous team......"Meet the new boss...same as the old boss"..

I think it's been talked about quite a bit over the years that the Aquillinis have a definite say in "certain operations".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

Nobody really knows for sure whether there is meddling....but even if Aqualini fired Linden,Benning,Weisbrod..the new guys they bring in will be under the same owners mandate as the previous team......"Meet the new boss...same as the old boss"..

 

Yea pretty much explains why certain big names do not want to work here. Elite management and coaching talent would probably hang up the phone knowing they would never have full control over hockey ops. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Matt_T83 said:

For all the people complaining about WD or GM Benning, the real problem with this team is the owners.

 

The Aquilini's have consistently interfered with the management of the team. For a while it wasn't that big of an issue. However, once Alain Vingeault was fired, the real problems began. Mike Gillis wanted nothing to do with John Tortorella, but was forced to hire him by ownership. We all know how well that turned out. So they fire everyone and hire new people. But instead of accepting the inevitable decline the team, ownership doubled down on trying to stay competitive. They have forced Benning to make trades, giving away multiple 2nd round draft picks. This was obviously doomed to fail, since we didn't really have anywhere near the prospect pool we needed to do this. 

 

We had a decent prospect in Jared McCann that we just let go for an average 2nd pairing defenseman in Gudbranson, who is now -7. I didn't expect Gudbranson to score goals, we knew that coming in. But I did expect him to be a dependable shut down defenseman and keep an even +/-.  And all of this was done for a declining team that clearly isn't going to make the playoffs. Maybe ownership thinks we just need to trade away our 1st + 2nd round picks next year, and that will get us the last piece we need to complete this team.

 

The only two ways this team is ever going to be competitive again is 1) sucking so badly for 5-10 years that we eventually get a few first overall picks or 2) firing Benning and hiring a GM that is willing to stand up to ownership and make tough decisions. Either way we are going to suck for a while. The question is, do we suck for 4-5 years and then become competitive? Or do we keep trying in vain to 'win now' and end up sucking for 10 more years?

Don't like it...buy the team yourself and you can run it anyway you want. At least the Aquilini's haven't threatened to relocate the team like the McCaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, khay said:

Let's say Kassian is traded away because his alcohol problems would have been the same whether MG/AV or god was managing the team. But do any of you think that Gillis would trade Kassian + 5th for Prust? Gillis wasn't the greatest manager. He had his weaknesses and made mistakes but I just don't see us giving up a young player + 5th for 30 something years old grinder especially as he knows the team has to get younger

 

Kassian had no value. Nobody would have given us a pick or prospect for a problem player coming out of substance abuse rehab. Montreal was looking to move Prusts contract. Prust was still useful but expensive. Which is why a low pick had to be included. Believe me they didn't want Kassian in return. First thing their GM said to him was "You get one chance here. You're on a short leash". Kassian quickly screwed the pooch and cleared waivers after returning from stage 2 substance abuse rehab. Any team could have had him for free and passed. Again - no value. With Price done for the season Montreal needed a goalie and offers Edmonton Kassian for a buried NHL contract in the AHL. It would be fair to say Edmonton didn't want Kassian at the time either (they could have claimed him for free) but didn't want to pay an NHL salary in the AHL even more.

 

People keep saying we got screwed on the Kassian trade but the truth is he had no value at all at the time. Nobody wants a problem child who hasn't even managed to perform and Kassian hadn't. Most look to move problem children even if they do perform.

 

That said, I'm glad Kassian appears to have turned it around. All it took was two stints in rehab, two trades, an auto accident, and clearing waivers. Best of luck to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robvp said:

Exactly, and this won't change with the Italians wanting to have their greasy mitts on the operations side of things. Until there is new ownership or someone manages to convince the Aquillinis to sit on their hands I can't see anything changing. 

What makes you think a new owner won't be involved? An NHL team is a huge investment. You don't get rich sitting on your hands while othera make all your business decisions. I highly doubt the Aquilini's are as heavily involved as some seem to think. But you're kidding yourself if you think any owner is just going to sit on their hands and stay away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the deal with ownership: they own it. It is theirs. They can do what they want to do with it because they pay the bills. They enter into a transaction with the paying customers; they provide as attractive an entertainment product as they can in exchange for money. If the product isn't entertaining enough, ownership loses. If they want to tell the GM what to do, who is going to stop them? And what employee is his right mind, and in such a precarious job, will tell his employer to butt out? People on this board need to get two important rules through their heads: Rule 1 is that ownership exists for the benefit of ownership, Rule 2 is that there are no other rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Baggins said:

 

Kassian had no value. Nobody would have given us a pick or prospect for a problem player coming out of substance abuse rehab. Montreal was looking to move Prusts contract. Prust was still useful but expensive. Which is why a low pick had to be included. Believe me they didn't want Kassian in return. First thing their GM said to him was "You get one chance here. You're on a short leash". Kassian quickly screwed the pooch and cleared waivers after returning from stage 2 substance abuse rehab. Any team could have had him for free and passed. Again - no value. With Price done for the season Montreal needed a goalie and offers Edmonton Kassian for a buried NHL contract in the AHL. It would be fair to say Edmonton didn't want Kassian at the time either (they could have claimed him for free) but didn't want to pay an NHL salary in the AHL even more.

 

People keep saying we got screwed on the Kassian trade but the truth is he had no value at all at the time. Nobody wants a problem child who hasn't even managed to perform and Kassian hadn't. Most look to move problem children even if they do perform.

 

That said, I'm glad Kassian appears to have turned it around. All it took was two stints in rehab, two trades, an auto accident, and clearing waivers. Best of luck to him.

No where do I say that he had value. 

 

I said he would have had the alcohol problem anyways and let's assume that he is traded away. But we would not have traded him + 5th for Prust because I still don't think Gillis would make that trade. Prust is the the very definition of the type of players that we wanted to get rid of at the time (i.e., Higgins, Booth, etc).

 

If Kassian had 0 value like you say, then it would have been either

 

i) waive him

ii) keep him (work with him through his rehab)

 

And yes, we got screwed. We got a player that turned out to have had 0 value for 5th rounder plus a player (0 value or not, a player). Montreal wanted to get rid of him and got a 5th back for him. I think that's being screwed, not Alek Stojanov-Markus Naslund level, but it is being screwed.

 

Anyhow, that part about Kassian is a very small part of my post so whatever.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No ownership will tolerate a losing environment, regardless if a team is rebuilding or not the goal is to be competitive. I may be in the minority but I don't think ownership is as involved as many claim they are. They are definitely involved as all ownership is but I highly doubt Aquillini is dictating moves. He owns the Canucks, they are his product and he is the one losing out when the team is bad and the canuck fan base has proven that they will not tolerate and pay to watch a losing team which is why he wants to win. a rebuild will happen and is happening it's just going to be a very slow process so we had better get used to losing for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK let's see...Prust and Higgins were buried in the minors last year receiving an NHL salary while the Canucks were close to the cap meaning he ended up shelling more money than he had to which basically takes away from profits so that McCann and Virtanen can learn the NHL game. No playoff game revenue. Benning and Linden were the ones who publicly stated they wanted to rebuild on the fly, the owners said nothing. In fact I think the last time he went public was when Linden hired Benning. (Although I can be wrong) So how is it we should stand up to ownership? The trades that were made were Benning's. I'm pretty sure Franceso did not go to Benning and say, "Go trade for Gudbranson and spend more of my money." THe fans have got to stop using the guy as a scapegoat like they do to everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, khay said:

No where do I say that he had value. 

 

I said he would have had the alcohol problem anyways and let's assume that he is traded away. But we would not have traded him + 5th for Prust because I still don't think Gillis would make that trade. Prust is the the very definition of the type of players that we wanted to get rid of at the time (i.e., Higgins, Booth, etc).

 

If Kassian had 0 value like you say, then it would have been either

 

i) waive him

ii) keep him (work with him through his rehab)

 

And yes, we got screwed. We got a player that turned out to have had 0 value for 5th rounder plus a player (0 value or not, a player). Montreal wanted to get rid of him and got a 5th back for him. I think that's being screwed, not Alek Stojanov-Markus Naslund level, but it is being screwed.

 

Anyhow, that part about Kassian is a very small part of my post so whatever.

 

 

The move for Prust did make some sense. Added veteran toughness and just a fill in to bridge one year. As I said he had some use even if overpaid. The salary didn't really matter as we had the cap space. He did start of pretty good. After the ankle injury not so much. I didn't mind the trade. We were lacking in so many areas. And a fifth would be no help for years if at all.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Salacious Crumb said:

Can people please stop whingeing about ownership being involved?

 

Steinbrenner in NY and Jerry Jones say 'Hello'.

 

You are telling us that if you owned a near Billion $ company you wouldn't show up at board meetings?

well the difference is those leagues have a luxury tax system where the ultra rich could overpay and outbid everyone and buy their way to competitive level.. something u can't do in the nba.. and Jerry Jones is lucky he had Romo and lucked out on 2 rookies this year.. otherwise cowboy is a joke.. Cowboys have proven year in year out.. they are nothing without Romo.. it has nothing to do with any decision Jones made.. 

 

yes u want to be at the board meeting.. you'd want to have some inputs.. but when it's clearly not working.. then maybe it's time to rethink about your approach.. it's like that saying.. u can't make chicken salad out of chicken $&!#.. no matter how much ingredient you toss at it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...