[Article] Canucks: Trevor Linden slams former GM Jim Benning in Sportsnet 650 interview

[chaoticmonkey]

12 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Sure, and that's his prerogative to disclose or not.  Chances are (and I don't know enough of the back history of this) that this was most likely in response to someone else recently looking to drive narrative in a direction that was not truthful.

 

As for timing, people seem to take issue with this being a "negative" news story in the "positivity" that the team is enjoying, but there will never be a good time (team-wise) for this kind of discussion, because if you do it when things are good, people say you have an ulterior motive, but if you do it when things are bad for the team, then people will say you're kicking the team when it's down.  That's why I'm more inclined to think that he's trying to straighten the record and provide some of the missing context that those of us outside the room won't have.

Well it's 6 years after the fact and Benning made the right decision by drafting Pettersson.

[conquestofbaguettes]

6 hours ago, iinatcc said:

 

He didn't call BS on the organizational problems after Linden left. 

 

I never doubted Benning's response and it's irrelevant on my point whether he personally prefered Glass or Pettersson 

 

"Organizational problems" are speculation too, dude.  And wouldn't be surprising to hear such talk from disgruntled and/or fired employees.

[conquestofbaguettes]

4 hours ago, spook007 said:

Well put....

This sounds pretty much as it was... hits and misses...

When your owner want to stay competitive, and you have limited resources to deal with, its a tough job.

 

I sometimes wonder whether JR/PA would have accepted the challenge, had we been in the same situation, when they took over, as Benning was, and being told by the owners they couldn't tank for a better draft position.... Maybe they could do better team building wise and maybe they could do better around the cap, but they'd likely also struggle to make a quick transition, rebuilding a new contender....

 

Nevertheless it's water under the bridge now....Lets rock n'roll and enjoy the good times instead.

 

100% believe it didn't even matter that much who the GM was at that time. Even Stevie Y would have been dealt the same cards with the same demands on the table.

 

And I'm with you. All water under the bridge. The important part is the "rebuild" is finally over. Finishing touches for JR and PA to do, and yeah a few holes in the roster left and some depth to work on, but the majority of the work is done and finally looking good. Thank fuck

[nivlek604]

.

Edited November 12, 2023 by nivlek604

[iinatcc]

13 hours ago, filthy animal said:

Im noticing the Benning Bros in this thread have either

 

a) jumped off the Benning bandwagon and finally stepped into reality (thank gawd)

 

b) wanting this thread to end

 

c) are in complete denial

I think the problem with Benning bros is that they think all a GM has to do is draft never mind that a GM requires doing a lot more than making a draft list and trading players.

 

I guess it's also PTSD from the poor drafting of Gillis and Nonis. 

 

Heck the fact that Benning was able to get at least two NHL players from the draft was enough for them to think he's a good GM 

[iinatcc]

31 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

"Organizational problems" are speculation too, dude.  And wouldn't be surprising to hear such talk from disgruntled and/or fired employees.

 

We can all accept that we will never know the fully story but there was just too many coming out that time for the reports to not have any merit.

 

But you seem to hang on what Benning responded with how do you know what he said was what really happened?

 

20 minutes ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

100% believe it didn't even matter that much who the GM was at that time. Even Stevie Y would have been dealt the same cards with the same demands on the table.

 

 

Yzerman could have done a better job. Staying competitive or retooling has been done, very recently in fact, Bruins, Kings, Blues, and Rangers all stayed competitive despite having some down seasons. 

 

Heck Rangers sent that letter to the fans in 2018 and 4 years later were back to being a near elite team.

 

Point is it can be done so Benning had no excuse for not getting the job done when other teams did. 

 

[conquestofbaguettes]

5 hours ago, iinatcc said:

But you seem to hang on what Benning responded with how do you know what he said was what really happened?

 

Benning has always been forthright and honest. So honest in fact he was once fined by the league for it.

 

I'll take his word over an old disgruntled employee who was hired to be a PR front and then quit when he found out they weren't gonna follow his idealistic plans. I like Linden, but his job as President was a front. Nothing more.

 

And it doesn't matter anyway. Benning signed the dotted line on all the picks. Good AND bad.

 

5 hours ago, iinatcc said:

Yzerman could have done a better job. Staying competitive or retooling has been done, very recently in fact, Bruins, Kings, Blues, and Rangers all stayed competitive despite having some down seasons. 

 

Heck Rangers sent that letter to the fans in 2018 and 4 years later were back to being a near elite team.

 

Point is it can be done so Benning had no excuse for not getting the job done when other teams did. 

 You missed what I'm saying.

 

Ownerships decision was to stay competitive the entire time.  The GM was tasked with keeping the team competitive and money rolling in while  at the same time also building for the future.

 

And the Rangers, Bruins, Kings, Blues, are simply not fair comparisons. The Canucks didn't start at the same starting locations in terms of assets, picks, prospects. Canucks were in a far deeper hole. Nobody that would fetch firsts... and then the demands of ownership on top.

 

Did you listen to the Chris Gear interview I posted? He explains it all top to bottom in perfect English why they did what they did and how they HAD to do it.

 (I skipped to the relevant part) Listen closely.

 

 

Yzerman or any other GM would look like shit the same way if he had that job with those demands on the table. Without question. No excuse? No excuse needed. It's just the reality of the situation.

 

Of course this or that trade could have even better, this or that pick could have been better. But it's not some all or nothing affair. And if we don't keep in mind the DUAL goals, we won't have a clear picture of the why of it all.

 

The problem I've always seen from people slagging on the previous regime is this idea that "you do a rebuild like X. And if you don't do X exactly like this then you're doing it wrong. And it completely ignores the reality of the situation with this team at that time.

 

Edited November 12, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[Jeremy Hronek]

5 hours ago, iinatcc said:

 

 

Heck the fact that Benning was able to get at least two NHL players from the draft was enough for them to think he's a good GM 

 

Huh?

 

2014:  Demko (Virtanen, 100 NHL points, probably the equivalent of a mid 3rd round pick when all is said and done)

2015:  Boeser

2017: Pettersson (for the sake of your argument, lets say JB wasn't responsible for Pettersson)

2018: Hughes

2019:  Hoglander (jury is still out on Podkolzin)

2020: JT Miller (trade)

2021: Conor Garland (trade)

 

Seven of the above players are currently playing for the Canucks - 8 if you include the Myers signing.  

 

Yes, Benning ultimately failed as a GM but that doesn't negate a lot of the positives that he brought.  Up until the 2020 bubble 2nd round appearance, Benning surrounded our developing core with strong veteran leadership even if they were overpaid (i.e. Beagle, Sutter, Roussel, Pearson, Myers, Miller, etc.).  Those players, combined with Edler, Tanev, and Markstrom, helped cultivate a very strong locker room which greatly aided us during the bubble (in which we qualified for the playoffs against Minnesota, defeated a superior Blues team in Round 1, and took a far superior Vegas team to 7 games in round 2).   While our outstanding goaltending was a big reason for this, our tight knit lockerrom was a very close 2nd.

 

Now - what happened during the 2020 post bubble off-season, that's a different story (and why I ultimately parted ways with being a 'BenningBro'), but what we experienced from 2015-2020 was a classic rebuild that was done correctly in my opinion.   We transitioned from the Sedin core to a new core while bringing in strong veteran leadership to help bring them up.   

Edited November 12, 2023 by Jeremy Hronek

[conquestofbaguettes]

4 minutes ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

Benning ultimately failed as a GM

 

Which is even debatable.

Define "fail." Benning lasted 8 years, afterall. Was clearly doing a lot of things ownership liked.

 

And what's the average tenure of a GM in the NHL anyway. ?

 

7 minutes ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

but what we experienced from 2015-2020 was a classic rebuild that was done correctly in my opinion.   We transitioned from the Sedin core to a new core while bringing in strong veteran leadership to help bring them up. 

 

Pretty much.

[Jeremy Hronek]

7 hours ago, chaoticmonkey said:

Well it's 6 years after the fact and Benning made the right decision by drafting Pettersson.

 

You know what makes me upset?    

 

The media, not Benning (or even Linden), are the only ones that have said that Benning wanted Cody Glass over Elias Pettersson.  

 

Thinking back to that time, Benning did say that he absolutely loved Cale Makar (and even Heiskanen) since Benning specifically mentioned how he liked some of the defensemen in that draft but that they would probably get selected by the time it was our turn.   

 

It was more conceivable that Benning had suggested ideas about trying to move up in the draft (with 5OA at play) rather than wanting Cody Glass.

 

The media in Vancouver, along with a large majority of Canucks Twitter (X) and HF Canucks are flat out toxic.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Jeremy Hronek

[iinatcc]

38 minutes ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

 

Huh?

 

2014:  Demko (Virtanen, 100 NHL points, probably the equivalent of a mid 3rd round pick when all is said and done)

2015:  Boeser

2017: Pettersson (for the sake of your argument, lets say JB wasn't responsible for Pettersson)

2018: Hughes

2019:  Hoglander (jury is still out on Podkolzin)

2020: JT Miller (trade)

2021: Conor Garland (trade)

 

.   

 

My point is that even if Benning even got 2 players from the draft, Benning bros will think he's an amazing drafter and GM. 

[Jeremy Hronek]

2 hours ago, iinatcc said:

 

My point is that even if Benning even got 2 players from the draft, Benning bros will think he's an amazing drafter and GM. 

 

Perhaps it's fair to say that there's idiocy on both sides?

 

Back in 2019/2020 for instance, a lot of "Canucks fans" (at HFCanucks, Twitter, media, etc.) were actually angry that the Canucks qualified for the post-season that year because their precious little 'advanced analytics' were off the mark (hint - the advanced analytics actually weren't......their ability to evaluate things comprehensively was ;-)).  What was happening that year if I recall correctly, is that the Canucks had a very high winning percentage throughout much of December and January.  They would often race out to leads and then play an ill-advised shut down game in which they were "playing not to lose," instead of "playing to win".........which often resulted in the Canucks bleeding high danger chances and Markstrom needing to play out of his mind.  What the pundits were conveniently ignoring at the time, was that the Canucks were constantly racing out to those leads when they were playing "normal" hockey. They are/were experts at knowing what the advanced analytics were saying but struggled mightily with the why.

Edited November 12, 2023 by Jeremy Hronek

[filthy animal]

3 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

Benning has always been forthright and honest. So honest in fact he was once fined by the league for it.

 

I'll take his word over an old disgruntled employee who was hired to be a PR front and then quit when he found out they weren't gonna follow his idealistic plans. I like Linden, but his job as President was a front. Nothing more.

 

And it doesn't matter anyway. Benning signed the dotted line on all the picks. Good AND bad.

 

 You missed what I'm saying.

 

Ownerships decision was to stay competitive the entire time.  The GM was tasked with keeping the team competitive and money rolling in while  at the same time also building for the future.

 

And the Rangers, Bruins, Kings, Blues, are simply not fair comparisons. The Canucks didn't start at the same starting locations in terms of assets, picks, prospects. Canucks were in a far deeper hole. Nobody that would fetch firsts... and then the demands of ownership on top.

 

Did you listen to the Chris Gear interview I posted? He explains it all top to bottom in perfect English why they did what they did and how they HAD to do it.

 (I skipped to the relevant part) Listen closely.

 

 

Yzerman or any other GM would look like shit the same way if he had that job with those demands on the table. Without question. No excuse? No excuse needed. It's just the reality of the situation.

 

Of course this or that trade could have even better, this or that pick could have been better. But it's not some all or nothing affair. And if we don't keep in mind the DUAL goals, we won't have a clear picture of the why of it all.

 

The problem I've always seen from people slagging on the previous regime is this idea that "you do a rebuild like X. And if you don't do X exactly like this then you're doing it wrong. And it completely ignores the reality of the situation with this team at that time.

 

 

Really now?

 

Benning said he'd love to acquire draft picks, and they are like gold to him (something like that) - proceeded to trade more picks than any of his predecessors

 

Benning said that he wanted to sign Tanev and Markstrom - had no contact with their agents at all

 

Benning said he "ran out of time" to sign Toffoli - he didn't contact his agent once. There was the bubble offseason and what, 10 days when FA started. Thats a long ass time. Oh thats right, he was too busy trying to get a backup on the downside of his career (Holtby) who trashed this franchise on his way out, had an obsession with OEL who he chased relentlessly and settled for Nate Schidt who in the end, couldnt wait to get to Winnipeg rather than stay here.

 

Real honest

 

As for Linden being disgruntled. Imagine working for a company that you absolutely love and would like to see them succeed in every way possible and the guy that YOU hired went behind your back and got you fired. Would you or would you not be pissed off?

 

Thats what I thought

[Jeremy Hronek]

8 minutes ago, filthy animal said:

 

the guy that YOU hired went behind your back and got you fired. 

 

 

 

What evidence do you have that supports this?  Even in Linden's most recent interview, all he said was that him and Ownership/Benning had diverging philosophies.  While all parties agreed that attempting to do a full blown rebuild here with the twins was impossible, Linden wanted to be more aggressive with the rebuild once the twins retired.  Other than the "rats" in the Canucks' media, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Benning "stabbed Linden in the back" or "went behind his back."

[filthy animal]

3 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

Which is even debatable.

Define "fail." Benning lasted 8 years, afterall. Was clearly doing a lot of things ownership liked.

 

And what's the average tenure of a GM in the NHL anyway. ?

 

 

Pretty much.

 

So what you're saying is Mike Milbury isn't as bad of a GM considering he lasted just as long if not longer than Jimbo

[filthy animal]

4 minutes ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

 

What evidence do you have that supports this?  Even in Linden's most recent interview, all he said was that him and Ownership/Benning had diverging philosophies.  While all parties agreed that attempting to do a full blown rebuild here with the twins was impossible, Linden wanted to be more aggressive with the rebuild once the twins retired.  Other than the "rats" in the Canucks' media, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Benning "stabbed Linden in the back" or "went behind his back."

 

Then why would he vouch for Benning in the first place? Im pretty sure Linden would want to hire a guy that has the same vision he had. Benning spoke to what the owner wanted to hear which led to Trevor being ousted

 

 

[filthy animal]

8 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

"Organizational problems" are speculation too, dude.  And wouldn't be surprising to hear such talk from disgruntled and/or fired employees.

 

And yet Linden being hired as just a PR stunt is fact just because you said it right?

 

Guess what? Linden wasn't just an employee, hes a HUGE fan of this team and this city, and was sick of the embaressment  this franchise has gone through during the Benning years. He's deeply invested emotionally everything Canucks related, just like any fan (most fans at least) are frustrated during the 8 painful years of Benning and now theres something to cheer for finally. Remember Stan Smyls presser when he was GM for a few days? The Alumni is very passionate about this team and would love nothing more than this team to succeed. They aren't just run of the mill cashiers

[Jeremy Hronek]

31 minutes ago, filthy animal said:

 

Then why would he vouch for Benning in the first place? Im pretty sure Linden would want to hire a guy that has the same vision he had. Benning spoke to what the owner wanted to hear which led to Trevor being ousted

 

 

 

My personal take is that all three men had similar visions when they first started (i.e. can't do a full blown rebuild since the twins and Edler have unmovable contracts + little to nothing in the prospect pool) and so they should try and strive to make the playoffs while simultaneously transitioning to a new core (i.e. rebuild, but not in the traditional sense).  As time went on however, they simply grew apart (i.e. Linden wanted to be more aggressive with the rebuild) and then this philosophical difference reached its peak in 2018 when the twins retired.  I don't see any evidence of backstabbing whatsoever.  

[filthy animal]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

 

My personal take is that all three men had similar visions when they first started (i.e. can't do a full blown rebuild since the twins and Edler have unmovable contracts + little to nothing in the prospect pool) and so they should try and strive to make the playoffs while simultaneously transitioning to a new core (i.e. rebuild, but not in the traditional sense).  As time went on however, they simply grew apart (i.e. Linden wanted to be more aggressive with the rebuild) and then this philosophical difference reached its peak in 2018 when the twins retired.  I don't see any evidence of backstabbing whatsoever.  

 

Agree to disagree its all good, but imo theres a reason why Benning lasted as long as he did (brown nosing IMO). Its very very hard to transition to a new core in an instant, a few teams have pulled it off (Bruins, Blues, Rangers). Every team thats been on the mountain top, theres going to be a lull, look no further than the blackhawks. It took almost 10 years to fully get them over the Toews and Kane era, and it wasn't for lack of trying too. They've were trying to load on the fly for the next guys after Kane and toews (Hartman, DeBrincat, Saad just to name a few) and it didn't pan out

Edited November 12, 2023 by filthy animal

[filthy animal]

On 11/10/2023 at 9:26 PM, conquestofbaguettes said:

Ie. Gillis sold picks to go on the cup run, and their drafting was poop too.  Didn't leave the next regime much to build with. 

 

Not that I blame Gillis. Strike while the iron is hot. But... that is what it looks like when you take your shot and miss.

 

Well, the next guy Benning barely did anything and somehow got the team to the playoffs which by the way was his best season and only 100 plus pt season. Clearly somehing was still there, not a lot but theres something

 

I will never understand how people will support a guy whos had 98 percent ownership of the team who lost A LOT of games, than a guy who (2011) owned about 40 percent of the roster but won a lot. That to me is mind boggling. Are we in the market to win games or who gets credit to have the most players in the team?

[filthy animal]

18 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

Gillis left the next regime with zero prospects in the pipeline to build around due to shit drafting, and virtually zero assets that would fetch 1st round picks. Gillis left a mess.

 

Also, you're wrong. It was never "playoffs of else."

 

Listen to the interview with former Canucks AGM Chris Gear. He explained all of it like 9 months ago in perfect English.

 

 

 

Gillis didn't even build the bulk of that 2011 team.  That team was by and large the work of Dave Nonis and Brian Burke.  Gillis just got to take the credit of others work.

 

Also, Benning's core, the core Rutherford and Allvin chose to continue building around, will also "have a shot" soon enough. So not sure what you're trying to say there.

 

 

Newsflash! nobody cares. Whether he ( Gillis)or Rutherford makes 1 move, or 1000, if this team is made up of 20 yr old 1st 2nd rounders or a bunch of geriatric 40 year olds , nobody cares how its done. You get to the finals, hell even make a long run in the playoffs, people will be forking their money to watch games, fill up bars, party in the streets, francesco making a fistful of bucks, doesn't matter. Only an idiot would be bitching and whining on the team success simply because we aren't giving the other guy credit. Who really cares? Do you want to win or not?

[Boudrias]

3 hours ago, filthy animal said:

 

And yet Linden being hired as just a PR stunt is fact just because you said it right?

 

Guess what? Linden wasn't just an employee, hes a HUGE fan of this team and this city, and was sick of the embaressment  this franchise has gone through during the Benning years. He's deeply invested emotionally everything Canucks related, just like any fan (most fans at least) are frustrated during the 8 painful years of Benning and now theres something to cheer for finally. Remember Stan Smyls presser when he was GM for a few days? The Alumni is very passionate about this team and would love nothing more than this team to succeed. They aren't just run of the mill cashiers

IMHO Trevor Linden can say whatever he wants whenever he wants. No other player for the Canucks has done more for this team. He is still the Captain. 

[iinatcc]

7 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

Benning has always been forthright and honest. So honest in fact he was once fined by the league for it.

 

I'll take his word over an old disgruntled employee who was hired to be a PR front and then quit when he found out they weren't gonna follow his idealistic plans. I like Linden, but his job as President was a front. Nothing more.

 

And it doesn't matter anyway. Benning signed the dotted line on all the picks. Good AND bad.

 

 

I disagree on Benning being honest. The 2021 covid outbreak within the team felt like there was something he was trying to hide especially after Miller stepped forward. 

 

And I seriously doubt if any of this topic comes up Benning is ever going to say "yeah I screwed up the organization", nost executives don't.

 

7 hours ago, conquestofbaguettes said:

 

 You missed what I'm saying.

 

Ownerships decision was to stay competitive the entire time.  The GM was tasked with keeping the team competitive and money rolling in while  at the same time also building for the future.

 

And the Rangers, Bruins, Kings, Blues, are simply not fair comparisons. The Canucks didn't start at the same starting locations in terms of assets, picks, prospects. Canucks were in a far deeper hole. Nobody that would fetch firsts... and then the demands of ownership on top.

 

Did you listen to the Chris Gear interview I posted? He explains it all top to bottom in perfect English why they did what they did and how they HAD to do it.

 (I skipped to the relevant part) Listen closely.

 

 

Yzerman or any other GM would look like shit the same way if he had that job with those demands on the table. Without question. No excuse? No excuse needed. It's just the reality of the situation.

 

Of course this or that trade could have even better, this or that pick could have been better. But it's not some all or nothing affair. And if we don't keep in mind the DUAL goals, we won't have a clear picture of the why of it all.

 

The problem I've always seen from people slagging on the previous regime is this idea that "you do a rebuild like X. And if you don't do X exactly like this then you're doing it wrong. And it completely ignores the reality of the situation with this team at that time.

 

 

I don't know why you had to say perfect English that was a bit condensing. I did see the video and it part of it Linden said years back about the Sedins. 

 

Having said that Gear did say stay competitive and not necessarily make the playoffs. I think many here interpreted ownerships demands of competitiveness as always making the playoffs.

 

If it's not then, even if circumstances were different between LA, NY and elsewhere, it doesn't excuse for poor execution. 

 

I forgot but someone mentioned it here some years back, yes ownership had a mandate but I doubt Ownership didn't point a gun to Benning's head to sign Eriksson to a 6 x 6 contract nor was he forced to sign Beagle & Roussel to a 3 x 4 contact as well.

 

The Problem is more on Benning's recklessness of over paying for free agents and giving up picks and not the mandate. 

 

Fully thing is that Benning has been disciplined before Vrbata's contract was a good one, it's too bad he didn't follow through that approach in subsequent free agent signings. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[conquestofbaguettes]

8 hours ago, filthy animal said:

So what you're saying is Mike Milbury isn't as bad of a GM considering he lasted just as long if not longer than Jimbo

 

Funny you mention Milbury.

 

Mike was a GM even before there was a salary cap and The Islanders made less money than the vast majority of teams in the league. Ergo couldn't afford to keep many of their best players. Have to find other ways to ice a team.

 

There was a documentary film series by CBC called "the new ice age: a year in the life of the NHL" back in the late 90s where it follows Mike discussing the financial realities and the business that is NHL Hockey.

 

There's simply often more going on than what it says on paper. And yes, Milbury lasted a long time.

 

But sure. Judge away.

Edited November 12, 2023 by conquestofbaguettes

[chaoticmonkey]

12 hours ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

 

You know what makes me upset?    

 

The media, not Benning (or even Linden), are the only ones that have said that Benning wanted Cody Glass over Elias Pettersson.  

 

Thinking back to that time, Benning did say that he absolutely loved Cale Makar (and even Heiskanen) since Benning specifically mentioned how he liked some of the defensemen in that draft but that they would probably get selected by the time it was our turn.   

 

It was more conceivable that Benning had suggested ideas about trying to move up in the draft (with 5OA at play) rather than wanting Cody Glass.

 

The media in Vancouver, along with a large majority of Canucks Twitter (X) and HF Canucks are flat out toxic.

I remember the comments about the defensemen in that draft as well. I wish we were able to move up one or 2 spots at any point during his tenure as opposed to moving down every single year.