Jester13 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 1 hour ago, Nuxfanabroad said: Which begs the question whenever any rich bloke tips their hand. One could have 4 contrasting stock answers for 4 audiences, that can be blended in 3 directions. At the end of the day... - Do they spend near max? - Do players appear to want to stay? - Do they meddle & force trades? Up to this point(on balance), I think this ownership has been alright. Except one of the most important parts of being an owner is to let the professionals like Benning do their jobs, as they are the hockey professionals and not just fans. Deepak Chopra should never talk about quantum physics like he does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 10 minutes ago, Jam126 said: People who say that wr should've started rebuilding in 2012 or 2013 are delusional, we we're still contenders and the Sedins were still producing and other core players were still in their prime. As for the OP, I don't even know what the definition of a rebuild is anymore. What more do you people want? It's insane how this fanbase along with the media here want to jump at every opportunity to spin any story from the Canucks into a negative, it's embarrassing really. Three going on four years and we have: -Massive roster turnover. -Overflowing (and growing) prospect pool. -Far younger NHL roster. If it walks like a rebuild and it quack's like a rebuild... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 7 minutes ago, Jester13 said: Except one of the most important parts of being an owner is to let the professionals like Benning do their jobs, as they are the hockey professionals and not just fans. Deepak Chopra should never talk about quantum physics like he does So if you owned a multi hundred million dollar business with a (just player mind you) payroll of +/-$80m (plus all the ancillary staff, minors staff/players etc), you'd be COMPLETELY hands off? Call me skeptical There's also a BIG difference between 'involved' and 'interfering/meddling'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Soldier Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 5 hours ago, Dungass said: What I see since the departure of Gillis, is a consistent refusal of ownership to start from scratch and take a patient approach to rebuilding this team. They seem to want to cut corners with short term fixes every chance they get, and Benning is apparently saying "yes" to this approach. I don't totally begrudge them, they are businessmen after all, and who wants to take a bigger loss than they have to? Regardless, it is short sighted. Have you not actually been paying attention to what we've been doing? Signing free agents to shore up the team is not a 'band aid'. No blue chippers have been moved for veterans, no high picks have been traded for veterans and we've amassed what is easily the most exciting prospect pool in history. The people failing this team are the media figures who fall back on 'when there's smoke, there's fire' despite the fact that it's a useless saying designed to serve their interests and not yours. A narrative has been crafted, believed by many that Gillis was some martyr who was chopped down by greedy Aquilini and had only our best interests at heart despite the fact that he left a roster crippled with no trade clauses to guys who didn't deserve them. People think he wanted to rebuild but I would surprised at how exactly he would have done that with a roster locked into place for YEARS. BUT THAT MEDDLING AQUILINI. Never mind the fact that Mike Gillis has never even been considered for another GM job despite the success we had in 2011 and 2012. I really don't know how you define 'short sighted'. But clearly it differs from what is actually being shown here. 'What you see' is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 1 minute ago, aGENT said: So if you owned a multi hundred million dollar business with a (just player mind you) payroll of $80m (plus all the ancillary staff, minors staff/players etc), you'd be COMPLETELY hands off? Call me skeptical There's also a BIG difference between 'involved' and 'interfering/meddling'. I appreciate your skepticism, for sure - I would be too. But, when it comes to making player decisions, yes, I would be 100% hands off and let my management group make the decisions, because that is their realm of expertise, not mine. If the results do not pan out like I was told they would, then I would look to possibly replace them. It's great to have an owner involved, but not one that meddles like FA has/is (and he has meddled 100%, in more ways than just hockey operations). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 I just saw this thread and read the OP. All I can say is this: Pettersson ranked number 1 best prospect in the world, yes that is after this draft, sorry Dahlin. OJ ranked 23 Demko 26 Dahlen 45 Gaudette 72 This is from a panel of scouts that works with THN to evaluate the prospects against each other and considers how NHL ready they are comparative to each other and postulating what their careers will look like. Far from an exact science but they do a very good job. Next issue I'd expect Hughes will be there (if he doesn't make the leap this year), Dahlin won't be because he will already be in the NHL. Benning isn't perfect but he's made lemonade out of the draft lottery so far and the s$&t sandwich he was given when he took over. Definitely lucky we have him and I can see things being much, much worse than they are. Imagine if we had Mad Mike Milbury running the show or owners like OTT. Look at how horrible things are in DET with Holland, a perrenial GM of the year candidate for years, all that winning catches up to you and guys like Larkin and Anthoswhatver are not exactly inspired like Boeser and Pettersson. Both clubs are similar in the fact they mortgaged their future with trading picks to keep on top, had a crappy pool and aging vets as a result, Holland hasn't fixed anything yet but Benning has. The best pools usually turn into the best teams, we've got lots to look forward too, Detroit has Zadina and not much else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jester13 said: I appreciate your skepticism, for sure - I would be too. But, when it comes to making player decisions, yes, I would be 100% hands off and let my management group make the decisions, because that is their realm of expertise, not mine. If the results do not pan out like I was told they would, then I would look to possibly replace them. It's great to have an owner involved, but not one that meddles like FA has/is (and he has meddled 100%, in more ways than just hockey operations). Well quite frankly, I don't think that's realistic. I doubt FA's scouting players or making suggestions on who to sign, trade etc but I think it's naive to think that Benning and Co don't formulate a plan, targets, or let the owner know 'we have a chance to sign/trade for X player and I think we should do it' without consulting the guy who signs the tens of millions of dollars in cheques for those moves. I'm largely free to manage my department as I see fit and make suggestions for purchases etc but I still need to get approval for any of my ideas and explain why I want to spend that money. I don't see how it would be any different for Benning (albeit a much larger scale), nor should it be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 5 hours ago, VanGnome said: The answer is no. This fanbase is failing this team. What's with the love in here with Linden? Re-tool on the fly, not fair to Sedins etc. These were words uttered by Benning, but crafted by Linden. Linden set the direction and focus of player personnel decisions and hockey operations and Benning had to execute his plan. If anything it was Linden abstaining from recognizing that this is now a young mans game, with speed and skill. Willie D was Linden's hiring, an old school real gud hockey guy who coveted veteran leadership. Benning and Green are more aligned in the youth movement than Linden ever was. This is now Benning's show, and if his draft record thus far is any indication, I suspect we'll see a lot more good decisions being made than bad.IMO Linden was the problem, not ownership, Benning or Green. 4 hours ago, NUCKER67 said: I agree with a lot of what VanGnome had to say. We need to separate Linden: the Canucks player/hero who took the team to the SCF in the 90s, and Linden: the inexperienced executive who seemed to learn on the fly and was out of his element. I believe Linden was hired as a ploy to engage Canucks fans and entice us to support the team through the rebuild. Not for his great wisdom on how to run an NHL hockey team. Canucks fans can now see the finish line, we're excited with our prospects and the future, Linden's job is done. I am surprised to see people turning against Linden. We do not know the exact cause of his departure. We do know the following: 1. The primary problem was some disagreement or conflict between Aquilini (FA) and Linden. 2. We don't know exactly what the conflict was. I suspect that Green and especially Benning know more than they are saying about the conflict, but I believe their claim that they do not know everything and were surprised by what happened. 3. In his public statements Linden always emphasized draft and patience -- much more than anyone else in the organization. So I am inclined to believe the widely reported assessment that Linden favoured patience and FA was more inclined to go for a quick fix (or quick injection to box office success). 4. It has also been widely and credibly reported that Linden was a key voice in the early decisions -- that he acted on behalf of the owners, could veto moves, and often got involved in details including trade negotiations, signing or re-signing players, etc. However, apparently there was a change in the recent past with Benning talking directly to FA much more. Possibly Linden did not like being dropped out of the loop or being pushing into more of a "figurehead" role. 5. Possibly Linden's departure will put FA on the defensive for a while and make him less likely to interfere or to push Benning in the direction of "win now" instead "rebuild properly". Or maybe it has the opposite effect. Anyway, I have always the highest regard for Linden. He was a great player and was and is a great person. If the Canucks do go on to develop a successful team two or three years down the road, I think a lot of the credit should go to Linden. I am very sorry to see him out of the picture for now. He pulled FA's chestnuts out of the fire when he agreed to become President after the Torts disaster. I would have expected a bit more loyalty from FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 Linden did some good things and smaller number of not so good things, but on whole there's a future to be really excited about. But ownership leaving Jim in full charge is hard to paint as a mistake whatever the reasons for Linden's departure. I don't see Linden's departure veering things way off course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 28 minutes ago, JamesB said: I would have expected a bit more loyalty from FA. we don't know that he didn't, it may have been Linden's decision in the end, or mutual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 37 minutes ago, JamesB said: I am surprised to see people turning against Linden. We do not know the exact cause of his departure. We do know the following: 1. The primary problem was some disagreement or conflict between Aquilini (FA) and Linden. 2. We don't know exactly what the conflict was. I suspect that Green and especially Benning know more than they are saying about the conflict, but I believe their claim that they do not know everything and were surprised by what happened. 3. In his public statements Linden always emphasized draft and patience -- much more than anyone else in the organization. So I am inclined to believe the widely reported assessment that Linden favoured patience and FA was more inclined to go for a quick fix (or quick injection to box office success). 4. It has also been widely and credibly reported that Linden was a key voice in the early decisions -- that he acted on behalf of the owners, could veto moves, and often got involved in details including trade negotiations, signing or re-signing players, etc. However, apparently there was a change in the recent past with Benning talking directly to FA much more. Possibly Linden did not like being dropped out of the loop or being pushing into more of a "figurehead" role. 5. Possibly Linden's departure will put FA on the defensive for a while and make him less likely to interfere or to push Benning in the direction of "win now" instead "rebuild properly". Or maybe it has the opposite effect. Anyway, I have always the highest regard for Linden. He was a great player and was and is a great person. If the Canucks do go on to develop a successful team two or three years down the road, I think a lot of the credit should go to Linden. I am very sorry to see him out of the picture for now. He pulled FA's chestnuts out of the fire when he agreed to become President after the Torts disaster. I would have expected a bit more loyalty from FA. whatever his role was before 2018 it changed with benning's re-signing pretty hard to be president of hockey operations when the gm of hockey operations no longer reports to you so you become a figure head.. a public relations puppet whatever differences between linden and the organization were they were present before 2018 i am unclear of linden's pre-2018 role or his power or influence within the organization i am not clear whether the organization is better off without him but he had not much influence since the beginning of 2018 and i think that is what motivated him to move on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyman109 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 I think Trevor was hired for his PR skills and not for his Hockey Operations skills. As a player you don't have the experience/ knowledge to be a GM until you work your way up. See Garth Snow bad example. Stevie Y good example.. Benning is doing exactly what he was hired to do. Rebuild this team's sorry draft cupboard. He has done that and will continue to do that. That is his strength. he isnt the trade master that Quinn was. He isnt the contract and cap guru of the Burker/Nonis era. But he does know hockey talent. As for ownership, they run close to the cap every year. The keep the team in Vancouver. How can you complain about them? They pay the money. They get to choose what the team does or who they hire or fire.At least they care. Mc Caw never seemed to give a rats a$$ Lastly There are three sides in this rebuild debate. 1, the ones that think Benning can do no right. They will cut down whatever he does and Hold other teams and their GMs up as the example of what JB is not.They want success this year, make a trade, trade one of our young players, sign players who wont come here. dont give out big money or long term as we cant afford it even though players wont come cheap to a losing team. 2, those that get that rebuilds take time and patience, they dont happen in 2 years, they take time and sometimes we go backwards for a bit. that see the young prospects coming and hope for a better result next season knowing we probably draft top 7 again but can see the improvement over where we have been 3, then there's the third group who just watch those two camps battle and belittle each other for their opinion every week. The ownership group spends their money, Lots of it. They are entitled to get involved. From what i see they dont overly get involved in hockey operations but I like many or all of the other posters here are not in the room when the Aqua team talks. Speculation runs rampant in this town , it is a fire well fed from our media. They like to pour gas on a fire like no one else.They think it makes them successful. I'm not going to criticize some one that spends the kind of money the Aqualinis do on this team. They are not Eugene Melnyk, they are not Jerry Jones, or any other owner. From what I have seen they have let the GM build the team but like any other owner I'm sure they want to see success for their investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 Last few seasons to me it has more looked like.... Current Team has failed ownership......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 Whatever the cause of TL leaving the organization I would like to know because not having a loyal soldier like him in the organization is a major letdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewGM Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 I feel like ownership has failed ME.. whoever is running the team. Some decent prospects, but not the type of rebuild and smart contract structure I wanted to see to build a real quality team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyman109 Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 58 minutes ago, TheNewGM said: I feel like ownership has failed ME.. whoever is running the team. Some decent prospects, but not the type of rebuild and smart contract structure I wanted to see to build a real quality team. Can you give examples of what you would have had them do different? the team has been on the decline since 2011. What would you have done differently. Other than Not sign LE which we all agree was a bad signing. Contracts were offered and signed based on the market value at the time. Ok if you don't like the Beagle Rousell signings but who would you have signed instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6string Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 6 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said: Is there actual verifiable proof that the Aquilinis were involved in any of that in a micromanaging level? All of those moves were done by Gillis and Benning respectively. I'm not taking up a "defend ownership" mantle, by the way, I just want to know if there is any proof or if the bolded being the work of ownership is more rampant speculation by the local media. Agreed! Some of these fans need a couple of years with Melnyk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grape Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 I posted this in the Hughes thread in response to something but I think it’s more appropriate here. Too lazy to dig up the reports but they did indicate that Trevor was against the recent FA signings and was more on the side of ‘let’s not rush things.’ And it created a rift with the ownership as they believe that with young talent like Hughes and Pettersson and the recent FAs and the vets we have like Edler, that we can push for the playoffs and win this season. Not saying at all that the ownership’s view is shared by Benning, but his plans to go about things next season align much more with the Aquilinis than Trevor’s plans do. My thinking in short would be that TL came to Vancouver having literally no experience and was obviously brought in to appease the fans by the ownership. And originally he deferred pretty much all decisions to Benning because he knew it was the right thing to do as he wasn’t qualified, but as he started learning and gaining experience, hearing the displeasure from the fans, and seeing how rebuilding had been done by others, he wanted to do the same. And as he started voicing himself more it obviously didn’t go too well with the Aquiinis who love Benning and had originally hired Trevor as really just a marketing figurehead (you can’t really argue otherwise). Eventually differing opinions became too apparent and I believe Trevor stepped down himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zimmy Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Grape said: I posted this in the Hughes thread in response to something but I think it’s more appropriate here. Too lazy to dig up the reports but they did indicate that Trevor was against the recent FA signings and was more on the side of ‘let’s not rush things.’ And it created a rift with the ownership as they believe that with young talent like Hughes and Pettersson and the recent FAs and the vets we have like Edler, that we can push for the playoffs and win this season. Not saying at all that the ownership’s view is shared by Benning, but his plans to go about things next season align much more with the Aquilinis than Trevor’s plans do. My thinking in short would be that TL came to Vancouver having literally no experience and was obviously brought in to appease the fans by the ownership. And originally he deferred pretty much all decisions to Benning because he knew it was the right thing to do as he wasn’t qualified, but as he started learning and gaining experience, hearing the displeasure from the fans, and seeing how rebuilding had been done by others, he wanted to do the same. And as he started voicing himself more it obviously didn’t go too well with the Aquiinis who love Benning and had originally hired Trevor as really just a marketing figurehead (you can’t really argue otherwise). Eventually differing opinions became too apparent and I believe Trevor stepped down himself. So … imagine the FA signings don't happen, who does Green ice for our squad? Without an established and credible 3 and 4th lines does that not expose our young talent ? Does it not serve to "rush things" along for our young talent? It would seem that Trevor would be 100% behind the type of signings that occurred, particularly this past month, as they were to meant to impact the culture of this team from one which had little push back to one that would allow everyone to play a braver more belligerent style of hockey. A game, by the way, that Trevor understood explicitly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 The team is moving in the right direction. Just let Benning and Green do their thing. We are lucky to have ownership willing to buy a farm team. Not so long ago, a relocation wasn't unthinkable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.