The Management Thread | We live Page to Page here

[RobertKron]

Even more reason for him to leave because the payday was much bigger then what vancouver offered. Like you are making a issue out of a non issue

Again, wondering where you saw the details of Vancouver's offer.

 

[mathonwy]

Read what you said you said it was a good offer something his agent never said. His agent said it wasnt offensive not that it was a good offer. He left obviously because he got a better offer and for some reason people cant believe that he went to pad his retirement fund

Edler was never your friend.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Words don't mean what they mean.

 

[I Hart Conor Garland]

There are two things going on here. One is roles and responsibilities and the other is interpretation of the CBA.

On 1: Different AGM's have different roles. There has never been anything to indicate that Weisbrod was in charge of legal interpretations of the CBA. With the Canucks, that is Chris Gear's job. With the Flames, I don't know very much but since Feaster is literally a lawyer, I would more or less expect him to have that covered.

On 2: I am not going to Google to find the exact wording again but essentially the CBA is often ambiguous and open to interpretation until tested, and in this case it had to do with whether an unsigned RFA counted as being on the team's "Reserve List" according to that particular CBA's wording. This is unclear and I think Calgary was reasonable to interpret it the way they did. Most people choose not to interpret it that way because, well, because it's funny, and thinking about the worse case scenario makes a lot of people happy, but Bill Daly declined to comment on it and the rules/wording has been changed in subsequent CBA's so we will literally never know.

I personally believe that the NHL would have never allowed that to happen, and "hur dur Weisbrod almost signed a player he would have had to put on waivers" is a bottom take with zero critical analysis, but at this point it, like most myths (such as Burke saying he "didn't know what Weisbrod did," another myth,) is a runaway freight train because people just copy/paste it everywhere and sources become self-referential.

Thanks for this. I definitely can get behind the nhl not ever letting that offer sheet fiasco unfold. Like at registry level, they would point out like “hey, uhhhh…” if that scenario actually could have unfolded.

 

[vanuck]

Interesting. To me, the path of a hard reset is the only real path forward.

If the team wins, owner and manager stay in place, more future earth is scorched to try and make it the next year.

If the team loses, owner and manager are potentially ousted, and a firm grasp toward the future is made. Not fake hope, but actually hope. What they're doing now is the fake hope.

I've never been a tankist. Will not cheer for my team to lose, but I understand that losing, and losing a lot is the only way toward real change in management. Undesirable as it may be.

There is plenty room on #teamtank for those who - like me - only want the team to lose enough so that there is actual change in ownership/management for the better. You are of course more than welcome in the relevant thread once the losing inevitably starts next season.

 

[Bleach Clean]

There is plenty room on #teamtank for those who - like me - only want the team to lose enough so that there is actual change in ownership/management for the better. You are of course more than welcome in the relevant thread once the losing inevitably starts next season.

Lol, why thank you. I've frequented previous iterations of that thread. While I cannot cheer for my team to lose, I understand that short-term losing would be for the greater good. Benning must be deposed. There's no other way.

 

[F A N]

One has to wonder if a poster is cheering for a team to lose are those of us cheering for the team to win suppose to interpret that poster's post in an opposite way? So if the poster cheering for the team to lose thinks it's a bad move it's a bad move because it helps the team win?

 

[Intangibos]

One has to wonder if a poster is cheering for a team to lose are those of us cheering for the team to win suppose to interpret that poster's post in an opposite way? So if the poster cheering for the team to lose thinks it's a bad move it's a bad move because it helps the team win?

One really doesn't.

People are pretty straight forward about this stuff. Miller trade and Garland (for the 9th OA) are examples. People are okay with the value, aren't convinced this team should be trading draft picks right now, and they say that straight up.

 

[F A N]

One really doesn't.

People are pretty straight forward about this stuff. Miller trade and Garland (for the 9th OA) are examples. People are okay with the value, aren't convinced this team should be trading draft picks right now, and they say that straight up.

Everyone has implicit biases though. If you're cheering for the team to lose it changes your perception. A Canucks fan cheering for the team to win would naturally be more excited about a good move than someone cheering for the team to lose.

 

[Hit the post]

Haha you love Riker clips. The one from my avatar is borg universe Riker...as in "We are all Borg universe Riker."

Now for a really random clip of Riker sitting in chair in his own unique way:

 

[krutovsdonut]

On what exactly? I mean kudos to the people finally recognizing Benning for what he is, but we're 7 years in, lest we forget.

this is sort of correct. my view is that the problem with the team is the owner interfering with the team like a spoiled 8 year old playing with toys. i have not really changed that view, although i also ran out of patience with benning some years ago. i see benning as a symptom not the disease. i also think benning's actual competence is a lot higher than you guys do, but i still think he has made key mistakes and has long ago exceeded the rope any gm should have to make good even if he has achieved some success. he should be fired for seven years of meh, and also for being associated with the brutal mishandling of the offseason last year when tanev and marky went. i believe the reason he has a job is that so many of the team's mistakes were not his mistakes such that aquaman cannot hold him accountable, and also the fact that aquaman cannot hire the "name" his ego requires to replace him because nobody with a reputation will accept his interference.

i think you guys waste vast amounts of energy criticizing benning when most of the time it is the ownership direction you are criticizing. you lose perspective by failing to keep distinct the team direction that drives a decision and the decision. you lose the plot completely by trying so hard to make benning look bad, which in my view just provides cover for aquaman. if you were looking at this thing as i do, you would see patterns emerge independent of benning, such as the compulsive need to spend to the cap every year, which predates benning, and the related equally compulsive need to always chase the ufa market to find new toys, preferably with reputations. nonis was fired for trying to retain autonomy and not chase a player aquaman wanted. gillis was prevented from changing the team direction or making trades, and forced to accept torts in a fruitless effort to squeeze more out of a finished core and then fired as a scapegoat.

an example would be poolman. poolman for 4 years at that salary is a reckless gamble for the team that a gm with autonomy and a realistic mandate to take his time to build this team would not make. but if you assume, as i do, that, benning was ordered to field a team as competitive as possible this year and to fix the d this year and to sign free agents to do it, poolman is not a bad gamble compared to the alternatives. ditto for oel. obviously a dangerous unnecessary gamble if you as a gm have autonomy, but if you assume the mandate i assume, actually a pretty resourceful way for benning to take his best shot to immediately improve the team, and he extracted a lot out of arizona to do it.

does that make benning a bad gm? it does in the sense that he has compromised his autonomy and integrity to hang onto his dream job. but i actually think the canucks front office he has built is pretty competent and does lots of things right. so i will always wonder what benning would do if aquaman just went fishing. not that benning deserves that chance at this stage, but i still think he is not the caricature of a bad gm so many people irrationally cling to here as an explanation for all the canuck's woes.

one last issue. i am first and foremast a fan. if benning's gambles pay off this year, it will secure aquaman's role and ownership style for another decade, which i think by and large is toxic for the team. this offseason is the first time i have seen signs aquaman may lose his grip on the team and the instance of his family, and it may be the last chance for his brothers to oust him with luigi getting older. that would be huge if it happened, and would give the team a chance to be run on a proper professional footing instead of as some rich spoiled kid's toy. but as a fan i will still cheer and celebrate if aquaman's pigheaded gambles pay off and even give the guy credit.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

I’m fully convinced people connected to the Canucks are now posting on HF Boards.

 

[MS]

the bolded, in particular, hasn’t gotten nearly enough attention IMO.

like Edler basically saying he will sign anywhere but here is absolutely SHOCKING. That’s crazy. For years, all anyone would say was that he would never waive and refused to leave Vancouver. I can’t believe more people aren’t making a thing out of this.

I have been. The fact that he hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) been mentioned at all from management is disrespectful and the fact that he wasn't Cup chasing but willing to sign with a team that is in a comparable position or worse than Vancouver also says something.

I think there was one article from iMac summing up his time in Vancouver and that's been it.

I'm sure there'll be a nice ceremony when Edler comes back December 6, but the fact no one is really wanting to talk about Edler at all is really weird (again, unless I've completely missed something.)

This really can't get said enough. It's actually kind of astonishing. Based on previous events I assumed that Edler would play until he was no longer wanted in Vancouver and then retire even if there was other interest around the league.

That he would reject a fair offer to stay here because he wanted out, and took going to a rebuilding team in LA over this, is incredible. This isn't 'chasing a Cup in TB'. This is 'I don't believe in this team, I'm unhappy, and I want out'. And it lines up with what we've seen from virtually every other core player on this team over the last two years (save Hughes, who is family friends with Weisbrod).

And the media silence is nuts. This is a 17-year Canuck, the best defender in franchise history, pretty much guaranteed to go into the ROH. That there is no team tribute, no glowing media articles etc. is telling.

 

[Peen]

the repeated answer to what you’re saying @krutovsdonut is that ownership will never change even if no one likes that ugly clown aqua and recognizes that - if we have to make a gm change in the next 12 months - the likelihood of it being a brisebois level candidate who can alter the course of the franchise for the next decade is virtually null

so we either just keep complaining about the symptom and hope the new one will be good or.. stop following the team

i’ll go with the former

 

[krutovsdonut]

the repeated answer to what you’re saying @krutovsdonut is that ownership will never change even if no one likes that ugly clown aqua and recognizes that - if we have to make a gm change in the next 12 months - the likelihood of it being a brisebois level candidate who can alter the course of the franchise for the next decade is virtually null

so we either just keep complaining about the symptom and hope the new one will be good or.. stop following the team

i’ll go with the former

i think there are signs aquaman very nearly got ousted this offseason. if the extreme urgent gambles taken this year do not pay off, i believe there is a good chance he will be ousted. if the family puts in a consigliore to look after the canucks instead then there is light at the end of the tunnel.

prior to this year, i had the same fatalist viewpoint as you but just dealt with it differently. i judged benning based on the constraints he was under, and also paid attention to the owner as a player in the team's fortunes.

i also firmly believe that if the canucks fanbase stopped scapegoating benning and focussed more closely on aquaman's role, the media would report on that, and the family would react to the reputational damage to their brand by forcing aquaman to step back. at least i think that will happen so long as luigi is in the mix. once luigi is gone a ballard/melnyk type catastrophe is possible.

 

[racerjoe]

i think there are signs aquaman very nearly got ousted this offseason. if the extreme urgent gambles taken this year do not pay off, i believe there is a good chance he will be ousted. if the family puts in a consigliore to look after the canucks instead then there is light at the end of the tunnel.

prior to this year, i had the same fatalist viewpoint as you but just dealt with it differently. i judged benning based on the constraints he was under, and also paid attention to the owner as a player in the team's fortunes.

i also firmly believe that if the canucks fanbase stopped scapegoating benning and focussed more closely on aquaman's role, the media would report on that, and the family would react to the reputational damage to their brand by forcing aquaman to step back. at least i think that will happen so long as luigi is in the mix. once luigi is gone a ballard/melnyk type catastrophe is possible.

I don’t know FA being a meddlesome owner has been going on since Gillis was forced to change in 2012. It’s been in the media for a long time.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

This really can't get said enough. It's actually kind of astonishing. Based on previous events I assumed that Edler would play until he was no longer wanted in Vancouver and then retire even if there was other interest around the league.

That he would reject a fair offer to stay here because he wanted out, and took going to a rebuilding team in LA over this, is incredible. This isn't 'chasing a Cup in TB'. This is 'I don't believe in this team, I'm unhappy, and I want out'. And it lines up with what we've seen from virtually every other core player on this team over the last two years (save Hughes, who is family friends with Weisbrod).

And the media silence is nuts. This is a 17-year Canuck, the best defender in franchise history, pretty much guaranteed to go into the ROH. That there is no team tribute, no glowing media articles etc. is telling.

Edler had 15 years with the Canucks, which is 1 year back from Linden's total tenure with the club and 2 back from the Sedins.

I think he's the longest tenured defenseman for the Canucks. Snepsts and Ohlund are the only 2 that are coming to mind that come close.

That his time in Vancouver is being treated like he was a playoff rental or something is just really weird.

Maybe Edler is being the professional and choosing not to speak out on it or any potential frustrations he might have, which would make generating a story harder. Maybe his teammates respect him and his position as a senior member of the team and aren't comfortable speaking out on it. Who knows.

This is the only thing I've seen from the Canucks re: Edler:



Which is fine. But compare to how Markus Naslund's departure was treated when he signed in New York:

Vancouver Canucks Statement Regarding Markus Naslund

 

[F A N]

Wild beat reporter

It’s a good source

I went to the Wild board to see what fans there thought of him. Seems like he is credible in his published articles but the podcast speculations he spews out one should take it with a grain of salt.

Either way, I just find it kind of weird that posters here are quoting a nobody quoting a Wild reporter spewing off about the Canucks as fact.

 

[MS]

the repeated answer to what you’re saying @krutovsdonut is that ownership will never change even if no one likes that ugly clown aqua and recognizes that - if we have to make a gm change in the next 12 months - the likelihood of it being a brisebois level candidate who can alter the course of the franchise for the next decade is virtually null

so we either just keep complaining about the symptom and hope the new one will be good or.. stop following the team

i’ll go with the former

We apparently had a progressive new regime virtually signed and in place (right down to the new AGMs) before bad advice from out-of-touch idiots like Courtnall and Griffiths caused ownership to change course and go with this stupid Sedin solution and keep Benning. So change is possible in the current system.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

We apparently had a progressive new regime virtually signed and in place (right down to the new AGMs)

Wait, what?

 

[racerjoe]

Edler had 15 years with the Canucks, which is 1 year back from Linden's total tenure with the club and 2 back from the Sedins.

I think he's the longest tenured defenseman for the Canucks. Snepsts and Ohlund are the only 2 that are coming to mind that come close.

That his time in Vancouver is being treated like he was a playoff rental or something is just really weird.

Maybe Edler is being the professional and choosing not to speak out on it or any potential frustrations he might have, which would make generating a story harder. Maybe his teammates respect him and his position as a senior member of the team and aren't comfortable speaking out on it. Who knows.

This is the only thing I've seen from the Canucks re: Edler:



Which is fine. But compare to how Markus Naslund's departure was treated when he signed in New York:

Vancouver Canucks Statement Regarding Markus Naslund

I don’t expect Edler to say much more because that’s who he has been.

I totally agree that him leaving like he did after losing tanev stetch and tofu like we did, then having Schmidt decide to go to a team on his NTC says a lot.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

I don’t expect Edler to say much more because that’s who he has been.

I totally agree that him leaving like he did after losing tanev stetch and tofu like we did, then having Schmidt decide to go to a team on his NTC says a lot.

Yeah, the things to talk about are:

- Edler's agent going from 'we'd like to explore free agency' to 'the intent is to leave' like a week later.
- Edler choosing to sign with a garbage team rather than 'chasing a Cup'
- The lukewarm response from the Canucks regarding Edler, particularly when compared to other tenured/respected Canucks. Like, you have a statement from the literal head of the team vs the social media guy putting together a Tweet replete with Emojis. Very respect. Much love.
- The general pattern of shittiness Canucks management has engaged in with players they no longer are interested in

It would be great if the guys who have connections to players, agents and execs could explore this a little bit and see if there's anything to be said. But I guess you can't really bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[Dab]

The owner? The owners got soft. They fired a GM for not making the playoffs **one time**.
What happened to that Frank? The one that said not making the playoffs was unacceptable? That Frank was just as maniacal but at least he had mother f***ing standards!

 

[Vector]

We apparently had a progressive new regime virtually signed and in place (right down to the new AGMs) before bad advice from out-of-touch idiots like Courtnall and Griffiths caused ownership to change course and go with this stupid Sedin solution and keep Benning. So change is possible in the current system.

I don’t have any recollection of this and my knowledge of the situation doesn’t reflect this at all.

 

[MS]

I don’t have any recollection of this and my knowledge of the situation doesn’t reflect this at all.

Isn't my information to give in detail but I wouldn't be repeating it if I didn't totally trust the source and if it didn't line up with some other (seemingly unrelated) subsequent events. Make of it what you will, I guess.

What I can say is that it was very obvious that they were close to making a change. The Courtnall and Griffiths consults should tell us that pretty unequivocally. That they'd gone pretty far on other options shouldn't be a huge leap.