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

[Report] Benning: Judd Brackett in negotiations for 2-year extension

Rate this topic


Where's Wellwood

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Except it's not pointless at all. It's very important to make these analytical points because it has to do with trends and patterns. Looking at these stats, you can prepare yourself for expectations because often times evaluating the team in every aspect can lessen disappointment, temper expectations and also make the game predictable. And if you're in the position of say, a GM or a coach, you can use this train of thought to help the team become better. So it's not pointless, it's important. If you had the opportunity to improve the team but don't because you're currently winning (albeit in a lucky fashion), then it'd be neglectful from a GM or coaching position to improve the team to win but not from a position that requires luck, but rather skill. 

And it's not that fans aren't happy with winning, it's being a hockey fan and identifying that there's luck involved. If this team were to go to a post season right now, even though we're the number 1 team in the pacific, we'd get absolutely slaughtered. There's no way we'd make it out of round 1 with our current level of play. If we played the way we did against St. Louis in the first 2 periods consistently, then we'd make it likely past the 2nd round. The thing is though, is that this team rarely plays that style of hockey. 

Now sure, our message board posts and comments are completely irrelevant to everything, but they're also completely irrelevant all of the time regardless of whether the team wins or loses anyways so whether you're a blind homer or a hockey fan who likes to critique on the sport, in the end it's all pointless so whether a comment is positive or negative, none of it really matters anyways so your post is also pointless and stupid, is it not? 

The only team that would “slaughter” the Canucks in the first round is Vegas (ie a team that seema eerily similar to the modern day version of the 2012-2014 Kings).   The Canucks would hold their own against the Oilers, Flames, or Yotes, and those series’ would go either way.   
 

But again though - no one is saying that the Canucks are a contender right now.   We are still a work in progress.   Our “elite window” will start in 2021-2022.   This season will be considered a success if we make the playoffs.   Anything beyond that is gravy.
 

Sounds to me like you belong with the HF Canuck tank crowd.    There’s nothing wrong with that, but I do not consider you to be an objective fan despite what you might be thinking.

Edited by DarkIndianRises
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

The only team that would “slaughter” the Canucks in the first round is Vegas (ie a team that seema eerily similar to the modern day version of the 2012-2014 Kings).   The Canucks would hold their own against the Oilers, Flames, or Yotes, and those series’ would go either way.   
 

Sounds to me like you belong with the HF Canuck tank crowd.    There’s nothing wrong with that, but I do not consider you to be an objective fan despite what you might be thinking.

Flames have the ability to play tough, Edmonton has the ability to play tough, the Yotes you're right about, and Vegas would murder us. We'd need a whole bunch of players to really step it up. Bo doesn't even throw hits anymore, Roussel looks like a born-again Christian, Ferland will probably have a concussion, etc. Our team toughness will rely on Miller, Edler and Myers. Two of those guys is gonna be on the receiving end of every hit in every game. 

 

Not to mention how predictable this team is every single night. You saw it against Boston and they play us twice a year. They had the play book on literally every breakout and powerplay strategy we had. That's how all games are played in the playoffs. That's what happens when your team doesn't forecheck properly and worst of all, when your team refuses to throw any checks. 

 

I'm not on team tank, I'm just realistic in how the team plays and we can either show up like we did against St. Louis, or we can do the opposite like tonight. This team at the end of the day doesn't have half the heart the team did when we were successful in all of the years. We get glimmers of it, but Miller and Motte are really the only consistent forwards that brings what you need every night to a forecheck. Back in the day we had Burrows, Hansen, Rypien, Kesler, Torres, Lapierre, Malhotra, and even Glass, Oreskovich and Volpatti were always throwing hits. That's 7-10 absolute dogs on the forecheck. That's absolutely hugeeeee for possession. 

 

When the team is applying a forecheck, we kill teams. Problem is that we do it so rarely. If we're lucky guys like Bo will step up and somehow find a way to start hitting again, maybe Roussel might want to earn his paycheck this year and if we're lucky Ferland won't have a concussion. Other than that, relying on 2 guys to go and get the puck is asking a hell of a lot when you want the puck back. 

Edited by MikeyD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Flames have the ability to play tough, Edmonton has the ability to play tough, the Yotes you're right about, and Vegas would murder us. We'd need a whole bunch of players to really step it up. Bo doesn't even throw hits anymore, Roussel looks like a born-again Christian, Ferland will probably have a concussion, etc. Our team toughness will rely on Miller, Edler and Myers. Two of those guys is gonna be on the receiving end of every hit in every game. 

 

Not to mention how predictable this team is every single night. You saw it against Boston and they play us twice a year. They had the play book on literally every breakout and powerplay strategy we had. That's how all games are played in the playoffs. That's what happens when your team doesn't forecheck properly and worst of all, when your team refuses to throw any checks. 

 

I'm not on team tank, I'm just realistic in how the team plays and we can either show up like we did against St. Louis, or we can do the opposite like tonight. This team at the end of the day doesn't have half the heart the team did when we were successful in all of the years. We get glimmers of it, but Miller and Motte are really the only consistent forwards that brings what you need every night to a forecheck. Back in the day we had Burrows, Hansen, Rypien, Kesler, Torres, Lapierre, Malhotra, and even Glass, Oreskovich and Volpatti were always throwing hits. That's 7-10 absolute dogs on the forecheck. That's absolutely hugeeeee for possession. 

 

When the team is applying a forecheck, we kill teams. Problem is that we do it so rarely. If we're lucky guys like Bo will step up and somehow find a way to start hitting again, maybe Roussel might want to earn his paycheck this year and if we're lucky Ferland won't have a concussion. Other than that, relying on 2 guys to go and get the puck is asking a hell of a lot when you want the puck back. 

I don’t know.....

 

I mean, there are a number of points that I agree with you on, but it also sounds to me like you’re making apologies for the Canucks having great goaltending, and having great goaltending contributing to many of their wins.

 

A win is a win.   I wonder how many Oiler fans out there are making apologies for riding McDavid and Draisaitl.   
 

I would be more critical of the Canucks if they were in their “cup window” right now, but they aren’t.   The Canucks, as an organization, are in a similar spot to where they were in 2000-2001 and 2006-2007 (ie a work in progress team that still has holes, but has seemingly left the dark days behind them).

 

The Canucks likely won’t get past the 2nd round, and may not even get past the 1st round if they do make the playoffs, but they are far better than you are giving credit.   Outside of Vegas, St.Louis, and perhaps Colorado, all of the teams in the Western Conference and the Pacific division have significant holes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2020 at 7:23 AM, Jester13 said:

For real, or "reports" as in sensationalist fans?

Lots of real reports.

 

It is fairly specific even, he wants to know what sort of autonomy he will have running his show and how much weight his voice has within the organization.  There is a feeling that he has a reduced say since Linden left.

 

Every report is about role.  Promoting Gear and not promoting him (instead or as well) is a good clue as to where he sits.  Gear isn’t taking on different roles, he is being promoted but keeping his same role.

Brackett has led the biggest successes the organization has had over the entire Benning tenure.  Our drafting since Brackett took the lead has been excellent.

There is also a great clue in Benning’s public comment.  Some low key shade saying that they promoted Brackett from part time and gave him a full time job (...inferring he should be happy with that, there was no other reason to say that part aside from to set the fan’s expectation that Judd was being unreasonable if they actually part ways).

 

 

  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2020 at 7:23 AM, Jester13 said:

For real, or "reports" as in sensationalist fans?

 

On 2/4/2020 at 9:20 AM, Jimmy McGill said:

unless there's a credible report people shouldn't spread that bs 

Stories about alleged "reports"....but no actual references to / sources of / quotes from / "reports". 

A shell game.

 

Until someone posts a "report" - this is nothing but a weak/lame whisper campaign - with the pretense to be speaking for Brackett's interests. 

It's amateurish.   Brackett is a professional - an adult -  capable of speaking for - representing  - and negotiating for - himself. 

Until he actually says something - or a source "reports" something - this is just smarmy-styled conjecture.

 

 

Edited by oldnews
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Provost said:

Lots of real reports.

 

It is fairly specific even, he wants to know what sort of autonomy he will have running his show and how much weight his voice has within the organization.  There is a feeling that he has a reduced say since Linden left.

 

Every report is about role.  Promoting Gear and not promoting him (instead or as well) is a good clue as to where he sits.  Gear isn’t taking on different roles, he is being promoted but keeping his same role.

Brackett has led the biggest successes the organization has had over the entire Benning tenure.  Our drafting since Brackett took the lead has been excellent.

There is also a great clue in Benning’s public comment.  Some low key shade saying that they promoted Brackett from part time and gave him a full time job (...inferring he should be happy with that, there was no other reason to say that part aside from to set the fan’s expectation that Judd was being unreasonable if they actually part ways).

 

 

can you post one? 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Any word on what’s going on with Clarke’s extension? His contract is up after this season no?

 

He may be just as crucial to this teams development as Brackett.

No worries. Although sounds like they're only extended to the end of Green's contract which ends after the end of next season. I guess we will see how they perform over the next couple of seasons and see a full group extension beyond next season.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The strange part of this whole 'underlying' story' of alleged unhappiness, to me, is that Gear's job description sounds like an utter bore/snore - the business operations side of things, negotiating contracts, w.h.y....no indication that there is any overlap between what he does and what Brackett does. 

 

Is the assumption that Brackett wants to expand his role into areas that aren't currently his expertise?  Do the people fueling this 'story' have any idea what the differences in their roles are / the relevance of and to the organizational structure?

 

Is the assumption that there is some kind of pecking order envy - as a result of not having a comparable title -  that a title for a person like Gear has something to do with Brackett's role?

 

None of it really adds up imo.  Who really cares about that? 

What matters to fans is primarily the players that wind up on the ice - and there isn't really any position of greater reverence, aside from a GM or head coach -  than that of a chief scout - as illustrated by the cult status Brackett seems to have earned among the youth culture in the fanbase.

The drama at this point smells like the usual premature hysterics that surround virtually every contract negotiation that does not pan out in the first week of 'reporting'.  Sometimes sides reach an agreement, sometimes they part, sometimes they need more time to work it out one way or another.  Until then, there's not much to see here imo.

 

 

Edited by oldnews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Provost said:

Lots of real reports.

 

It is fairly specific even, he wants to know what sort of autonomy he will have running his show and how much weight his voice has within the organization.  There is a feeling that he has a reduced say since Linden left.

 

Every report is about role.  Promoting Gear and not promoting him (instead or as well) is a good clue as to where he sits.  Gear isn’t taking on different roles, he is being promoted but keeping his same role.

Brackett has led the biggest successes the organization has had over the entire Benning tenure.  Our drafting since Brackett took the lead has been excellent.

There is also a great clue in Benning’s public comment.  Some low key shade saying that they promoted Brackett from part time and gave him a full time job (...inferring he should be happy with that, there was no other reason to say that part aside from to set the fan’s expectation that Judd was being unreasonable if they actually part ways).

 

 

Ok, now I think is the time you provide these specific reports. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Ok, now I think is the time you provide these specific reports. 


When Gear was promoted, Benning said publicly to Johnston from The Province that it would free him and Weisbrod up for more scouting.
https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/patrick-johnston-benning-believes-canucks-now-headed-in-right-direction-despite-lapses

There have since been reports (like this one below from Friedman) that Brackett wants assurances that he is going to have the same autonomy and say with the scouting department before signing an extension (with Benning publicly stating that he is going to get more involved in that side, it certainly makes sense).  It was also discussed on both 1040 and 650 today with them saying that they have directly heard the same thing from folks on the team.  They added that Brackett was one of Trevor Linden's guys, and his voice has carried less weight in the organization since Trevor left.  It has been long reported that Brackett (along with Inge Hammarstrom) as the one to argue very forcefully for picking Petterson over Cody Glass and that there was a lot of heated internal debate on it.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/31-thoughts-dustin-byfuglien-winnipeg-jets-contract/

I now await you changing your goalposts to "Well, so what if those reports exist... the writers are stupid and know less about hockey than I do!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

 

Quote

Reports say he isn’t really happy with his  role, maybe not happy that Gear got promoted to assistant GM?

Nowhere in any 'source/report' posted does it pretend to claim that Brackett isn't happy with his role. 

 

Moreover, no one here really knows the extent of his role, nor how the implications of organizational changes will effect him, if they efffect him. 

All they indicate is that there is a question of how things will work.

See the bolded, ironically, from the source quoted below.  It sounds like Brackett wants to know if he will have the same say - no implication he isn't happy - in fact that suggests he wants a commitment to the status quo.

 

Assumptions about "happiness" are premature drama,  unsubstantiated, and misrepresent what those 'reports' say.

 

It's one thing to suggest that a person is not happy with their role - and quite another to suggest that another team Iie Seattle) may be able to offer a more significant role.

The first is a presumption of someone else's mindset - the second is simply a matter of relative opportunity.  A person can be 'happy' in their job and yet move to a 'better' one.

 

It also sounds like the opposite of what has been suggested above, regarding Gear, might actually be the case - what is suggested is not that Brackett is unhappy with Gear being promoted - but uncertain with Gear taking on some of the administrative/business parts of Benning and/or Weisbrod's role.   What that suggests is that Brackett has no interest in Gear's position, nor is he envious of a promotion - but concerned with more time on the hands of management and how that would effect his existing job.

 

The reality is that no person is a scouting staff - and any person can only be in one place at any given time - if having more hockey people / scouts and experience on task, and less time tied up in what Gear will handle, means more eyes on the prize, if that were to pose a threat to Brackett, you have to wonder how realistically the interests of the organization are perceived.  If Brackett is as responsible for as much volume of their draft decisions as some of his fans perceive, his work ought to stand on it's merits. 

 

Quote

20. As for Brackett, from what I understand, this is purely about structure, and how things will work. The Canucks have made several staff changes since Trevor Linden left, and, according to several sources, Brackett wants to know if he will have the same say in running the department he used to have. If not, he’ll move on when his contract ends on June 30.

 

The story about Brackett/Hammarstrom pushing for Pettersson -- is another unsourced claim - that should be sourced  if it's going to attempt to be finessed. 

There is a very clear source - from the horse's mouth - on the matter, that has been posted many times on these boards.  The irony as I see it is an ongoing debate amongst outsiders - whether it was a Gradin or Hammarstrom pick.....In the end Benning made that call - and he did so, according to his own words, on the basis of a push from Ron Delorme. 

 

What we do have, however, are direct videos where we can witness their interactions, and some calls being made - that were not determined prior to the record button being hit on the draft floor (better than "reports" with all due respect).   Weisbrod is fairly clearly a secondary influence relative to Brackett.   Benning allows Brackett to make some calls, others he makes.  Would the Gear promotion really change that dynamic?    In any event, I don't see any 'reports' that suggest that Brackett is 'unhappy' as a result of that promotion - quite the opposite - that he wants his role/influence to remain.  Is there any evidence his role has changed?   Meh - all we hear is that Benning enjoys having more time to get out and watch hockey.

 

Sounds like "old news" wadr.

 

Quote

”Obviously as a scout and from Massachusetts myself, I had a great respect for Jim and heard a lot about his ability to scout, so as soon as he came here, I’ve been all ears. He’s got a tremendous wealth of knowledge and he shares it with me and we talk players. I know he enjoys getting on the road and seeing them as well.”

The above is a Brackett quote - from two years ago, btw.

Still not much to see here.

 

Edited by oldnews
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to recall some "reports" ie rumours - that Linden left because of a fundamental disagreement in rething philosophy vs Benning....

 

The narrative went like this:

 

Benning was abandoning the 'rething' in favour of winning now!

 

Linden on the other hand was allegedly vehemently opposed to signing veterans like Jay Beagle...or Antoine Roussel.

Apparently, he wanted them to "let the kids play!"

 

Something I don't buy a word of - that sounds more like a smarmy story put in the mouth of Trevor Linden, reflecting the youth culture in the Van media.

 

I had and have a hard time believing that a rift over depth signings would prompt such a definitive, fatal split.

 

I wasn't and never have been in any of those rooms - but if I were headed to the casino to gamble on uncontrollable odds (without real information)  - my money would have been on a split between Linden and ownership - who had given him autonomy where hockey decisions were concerned, and seemed to reneg on that.

 

Is it possible that what was Linden's was given to Benning?  Did that cause a rift, or was it produced from between the two?

Is it possible, on the other hand, that Benning and Linden relatively agreed on the general direction of the franchise - and that Linden put his foot down vis a vis ownership (perhaps regarding it not being the time to chase bigger fish?) and  that the appetite in the market fairly clearly backed the measured, continued 'rething'?   Who knows - that would take a fair amount of information and subtlety to decipher - but the "reports" that were never quite convincing - in the least - were the stories over a departure due to mere Beagle/Roussel signings - that smelled like projected smarm from the get go.

 

And regardless of who stood where on that particular side issue - if it was Benning's impetus to bring in a few veteran depth foundation players via UFA  - the proof would seem to be in the pudding - that he had a good idea how to ingredient, mix, and bake that pudding.  The 'kids' weren't ready for those roles, and further, the 'kids' have benefitted significantly from the presence of team-mates like Beagle.   It hardly boils down to the conclusion that folks 'should have' been 'unhappy' with the GM making calls that were the GM's to make.  The trajectory of Benning's build is turning out about as well as anyone could have hoped imo.

Edited by oldnews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Provost said:


When Gear was promoted, Benning said publicly to Johnston from The Province that it would free him and Weisbrod up for more scouting.
https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/patrick-johnston-benning-believes-canucks-now-headed-in-right-direction-despite-lapses

There have since been reports (like this one below from Friedman) that Brackett wants assurances that he is going to have the same autonomy and say with the scouting department before signing an extension (with Benning publicly stating that he is going to get more involved in that side, it certainly makes sense).  It was also discussed on both 1040 and 650 today with them saying that they have directly heard the same thing from folks on the team.  They added that Brackett was one of Trevor Linden's guys, and his voice has carried less weight in the organization since Trevor left.  It has been long reported that Brackett (along with Inge Hammarstrom) as the one to argue very forcefully for picking Petterson over Cody Glass and that there was a lot of heated internal debate on it.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/31-thoughts-dustin-byfuglien-winnipeg-jets-contract/

I now await you changing your goalposts to "Well, so what if those reports exist... the writers are stupid and know less about hockey than I do!"

Recent reports as in today? Gotcha. I apologize for missing these recent reports as soon as they came out.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Recent reports as in today? Gotcha. I apologize for missing these recent reports as soon as they came out.

It has been out there about a week.

 

This was just what came up as a quick Google search.  I didn’t feel like re-listening to all the radio hits from the last week to figure out that various original sources.

 

It all started leaking out following the Gear promotion.

  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Recent reports as in today? Gotcha. I apologize for missing these recent reports as soon as they came out.

good pickup.

 

Claims he made a week ago.......based on 'reports' sourced today 

 

- that don't substantiate the claims, regardless......'Brackett izn't happy'... because....of the liberties he takes inserting his unqualified speculation/assumption into the material.

 

Inb4  the 'but but I posted the reportz, and you guys are wrong, wrong, wrong'......

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I appreciate the massive compliments from FakeNews about being able to magically tell the future and post about reports a week before they actually came out (and just happen to turn out to be right on the money).  I just listen and pay attention to the various news outlets who have been talking about it for some time.  They haven’t just been filling time, but have mentioned team sources actually telling them, which is a different ball game than normal speculation.  There are reports as far back as last week about the subject.

 

Wanting assurances about having autonomy seems reasonable in light of Benning saying he wants to get more involved in scouting.

 

As usual, FakeNews goes on a rant,  deciding that he knows better than the various beat writers.... regardless of ample historical evidence to the contrary.

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/patrick-johnston-are-the-canucks-judd-brackett-headed-in-different-directions/amp

Edited by Provost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DarkIndianRises said:

I don’t know.....

 

I mean, there are a number of points that I agree with you on, but it also sounds to me like you’re making apologies for the Canucks having great goaltending, and having great goaltending contributing to many of their wins.

 

A win is a win.   I wonder how many Oiler fans out there are making apologies for riding McDavid and Draisaitl.   
 

I would be more critical of the Canucks if they were in their “cup window” right now, but they aren’t.   The Canucks, as an organization, are in a similar spot to where they were in 2000-2001 and 2006-2007 (ie a work in progress team that still has holes, but has seemingly left the dark days behind them).

 

The Canucks likely won’t get past the 2nd round, and may not even get past the 1st round if they do make the playoffs, but they are far better than you are giving credit.   Outside of Vegas, St.Louis, and perhaps Colorado, all of the teams in the Western Conference and the Pacific division have significant holes.

Yeah that's true for sure. I think a lot of it stems from people not appreciating Markstrom the way we should and they're taking for granted how pivotal he's been to the season and the record we have. 

 

We're not a bad team, we're decent, but there's a huge huge gap from where we are now to where we need to be. I think we need more than just a top 6 winger at this point. I think a huge change is needed in the heart and character of the group. But you never know, teams turn on a switch in the post season so hopefully that's the case with this one. I expect Bo to revert back to the Calgary series, I expect Roussel to become a pest again and hopefully we won't have as many passengers because when this team gets sucked into a dog fight we play our best hockey. 

 

I look at teams like St. Louis and I'm not having to pick my jaw up with the amount of talent they have, they too have a decent team. But what they have in abundance is character and heart. They play the right way. I think this team definitely can be as good as St. Louis if we want to be, but there isn't that fire yet to do the right things and I think a lot of that is brought about by some coaching changes needing to be made. Small things like changing the structure of the powerplay (I was saying this even when they were posting great numbers), the implementation of the forecheck and all of those small details that make a huge difference to me are easy adjustments that will win more games. Meanwhile things like our breakouts 5 on 5 have been coached very well this year. I just think we need to stylize this team to become a possession team (as we do when we play really well) more consistently and then I'll be over the moon. Right now it's looking at my child going, "You can do better you just need to go out there and do it!" 

 

We have an absolute luxery in goaltending this year and I just don't want us to spoil that opportunity before it fades. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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