Confirmed with Link: Trevor Linden steps down

[Zombotron]

Okay, we're gonna have to wind this down because we're at the post limit (I know, sorry). Get your final thoughts out, and anything after that can go in the management thread.

 

[krutovsdonut]

simmons' interview was embarrassing. hasn't talked to any of the parties. doesn't know what was said. won't identify his sources beyond "nhl guys" and has no specifics at all. but he stands by his story. what an ass. he's pedalling rumours and supposition.

i will bet you simmons wrote that story as a favour so the local vancouver sports guys could talk about those kind of allegations without actually making them. one of the oldest journalism tricks in the book.

 

[CanaFan]

simmons' interview was embarrassing. hasn't talked to any of the parties. doesn't know what was said. won't identify his sources beyond "nhl guys" and has no specifics at all. but he stands by his story. what an ass. he's pedalling rumours and supposition.

i will bet you simmons wrote that story as a favour so the local vancouver sports guys could talk about those kind of allegations without actually making them. one of the oldest journalism tricks in the book.

Do most sports writers name their sources? I wasn’t aware this was common practice.

 

[Peen]

Do most sports writers name their sources? I wasn’t aware this was common practice.

It isn't.

Simmons is a dick. I wouldn't believe this story had he reported it by himself and no one else claimed it as valid.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Do most sports writers name their sources? I wasn’t aware this was common practice.

sorry let me connect the dots for you. his sources are not in the canucks and they are not cited as connected to the people involved. he also said about three time he has no idea what was actually said or done and he also said he had not spoken to any of the people involved. he also backpedalled and said it wasn't an in depth piece, just a lead in. he also admitted it did not fit benning at all from what he knew.

i am sure many "nhl guys" out there that have theories about what happened but those are about as authoritative as the speculation in this thread.

let me connect the dots further for you.

-the supposed rumour/story is that linden wanted a change in direction and had a showdown with the owner and got fired. by definition that change in direction is contradicting benning so linden should have gone to benning to get him onside.

-but nobody has reported that linden went to benning and tried to get them onside and he refused. that would actually be a story instead of the factless innuendo we are dealing with.

-and nobody has explained how weisbrod is even in this conversation except for the fact it is implausible that benning would do this and weisbrod is a necessary cut out villain. he is not factually linked in any way to these events. he has not historically been linked to these kinds of discussions at the owner level.

-even if they did refuse to support linden and back him, is that disloyalty, when linden is trying to promote a strategy that contradicts the one they like and that they do not agree with? aren't they supposed to speak their minds?

let me give you an example of where benning was roasted for not being disloyal. think way back to the boston seguin trade and benning's failure to loudly object. wouldn't it have been disloyal of benning to object to a direction his boss was taking?

i am constantly amazed at how people here give credibility to journalists here who are just blatantly stirring the pot.

 

[CanaFan]

sorry let me connect the dots for you. his sources are not in the canucks and they are not cited as connected to the people involved. he also said about three time he has no idea what was actually said or done and he also said he had not spoken to any of the people involved. he also backpedalled and said it wasn't an in depth piece, just a lead in. he also admitted it did not fit benning at all from what he knew.

i am sure many "nhl guys" out there that have theories about what happened but those are about as authoritative as the speculation in this thread.

let me connect the dots further for you.

-the supposed rumour/story is that linden wanted a change in direction and had a showdown with the owner and got fired. by definition that change in direction is contradicting benning so linden should have gone to benning to get him onside.

-but nobody has reported that linden went to benning and tried to get them onside and he refused. that would actually be a story instead of the factless innuendo we are dealing with.

-and nobody has explained how weisbrod is even in this conversation except for the fact it is implausible that benning would do this and weisbrod is a necessary cut out villain. he is not factually linked in any way to these events. he has not historically been linked to these kinds of discussions at the owner level.

-even if they did refuse to support linden and back him, is that disloyalty, when linden is trying to promote a strategy that contradicts the one they like and that they do not agree with? aren't they supposed to speak their minds?

let me give you an example of where benning was roasted for not being disloyal. think way back to the boston seguin trade and benning's failure to loudly object. wouldn't it have been disloyal of benning to object to a direction his boss was taking?

i am constantly amazed at how people here give credibility to journalists here who are just blatantly stirring the pot.

So it’s not common to name sources after all?

 

[valkynax]

Final thoughts:

The team is attached to another object by an incline plane wrapped helically around an axis

aka "screwed"

 

[F A N]

I sincerely believe that Benning is an honest guy who doesn't know how to play politics. Since we are placing reliance on media, Botch is of the view that Benning is as open and honest as they come. He even goes further and says that Benning's plan has never changed. Do you see Benning as a guy who is going to back up everything that Linden says to ownership? I don't. I see Benning giving his opinion when asked. Benning strikes me as a guy who likes the work and does the work. He doesn't get into the workplace politics. Linden is his boss and the owners are his boss who has higher authority. Some people latch on to their immediate supervisor/boss and will leave when he or she leaves. Some aren't like that.

I think Linden was pushed out because he had lost the autonomy that he was supposedly given. He's the President of Operations and not allowed to execute his vision. Then again, in the past, Linden has said publicly that Benning supplies the blueprint. My point is that I don't think there was any backstabbing involved on the part of Benning.

 

[member 290103]

So it’s not common to name sources after all?

No for sure it's not. It's inappropriate to criticize him for not naming his sources. No reporters do. I should not have implied that.

I did listen to the interview though and I honestly thought that Simmons had very little idea what he was talking about. He seems completely disconnected from the Vancouver Canucks sports scene and talked like a guy that had just been reading a few things here and there about their situation.

It does sound like what he has reported is accurate though as it has now been more or less confirmed by Ed Willies, and Jason Brough. Odd that iMac does not have the big Linden scoop? Linden owes him for the PR work he has put in for him over the past 4 years.

 

[brokenhole]

sorry let me connect the dots for you. his sources are not in the canucks and they are not cited as connected to the people involved. he also said about three time he has no idea what was actually said or done and he also said he had not spoken to any of the people involved. he also backpedalled and said it wasn't an in depth piece, just a lead in. he also admitted it did not fit benning at all from what he knew.

i am sure many "nhl guys" out there that have theories about what happened but those are about as authoritative as the speculation in this thread.

let me connect the dots further for you.

-the supposed rumour/story is that linden wanted a change in direction and had a showdown with the owner and got fired. by definition that change in direction is contradicting benning so linden should have gone to benning to get him onside.

-but nobody has reported that linden went to benning and tried to get them onside and he refused. that would actually be a story instead of the factless innuendo we are dealing with.

-and nobody has explained how weisbrod is even in this conversation except for the fact it is implausible that benning would do this and weisbrod is a necessary cut out villain. he is not factually linked in any way to these events. he has not historically been linked to these kinds of discussions at the owner level.

-even if they did refuse to support linden and back him, is that disloyalty, when linden is trying to promote a strategy that contradicts the one they like and that they do not agree with? aren't they supposed to speak their minds?

let me give you an example of where benning was roasted for not being disloyal. think way back to the boston seguin trade and benning's failure to loudly object. wouldn't it have been disloyal of benning to object to a direction his boss was taking?

i am constantly amazed at how people here give credibility to journalists here who are just blatantly stirring the pot.

You know as much as the next guy as a fan but to shade all journalists as stirring the pot is a bit much. I know one thing painting Benning,Weisbrod, as lilly white in this drama is wrong.

 

[tantalum]

Simmons was on with Sekeres and Price this afternoon talking about his theory with not one ounce of evidence except unnamed sources. Crap "journalism".

I won't defend Simmons because well Simmons is who he is.

However, "unnamed source" in journalism doesn't mean fake news or crap journalism. It means they aren't at liberty to divulge the source or sources. It's to protect the source who would likely get fired (or worse) if they were found out. It's sad that in general people no longer understand how journalism works (a couple links below). Again not defending Simmons or even every journalist because there are certainly hacks and ones who do create stories but like most other people that work the majority follow the rules of their trade.

When To Trust A Story That Uses Unnamed Sources

What Americans know, and don't, about how journalism works - American Press Institute

 

[krutovsdonut]

So it’s not common to name sources after all?

did i say it is uncommon not to name unnamed sources or was that your little strawman that completely misrepresented what my post said?

[MOD]

 

[krutovsdonut]

I won't defend Simmons because well Simmons is who he is.

However, "unnamed source" in journalism doesn't mean fake news or crap journalism. It means they aren't at liberty to divulge the source or sources. It's to protect the source who would likely get fired (or worse) if they were found out. It's sad that in general people no longer understand how journalism works (a couple links below). Again not defending Simmons or even every journalist because there are certainly hacks and ones who do create stories but like most other people that work the majority follow the rules of their trade.

When To Trust A Story That Uses Unnamed Sources

What Americans know, and don't, about how journalism works - American Press Institute

again, i didn't say anonymous sources are not allowed, i listed multiple deficiencies in his reporting including the fact he failed to connect his sources to the actual events or people and made multiple defensive remarks including "i don't know what was actually said" more than once.

 

[CanaFan]

did i say it is uncommon not to name unnamed sources or was that your little strawman that completely misrepresented what my post said?

[MOD]

Well you said his interview was embarrassing then went on to list several critiques, one of which was that he wouldn’t identify his sources beyond “NHL guys”. The clear implication of this critique is that it is uncommon to not name your sources. And rather than simply address my question, you fly off on multiple tangents and finish with a disparaging comment. All standard operating procedure for you of course.

But ya, I’m the bad poster around here lol

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Tony Gallagher stomps on David Pratts 'conspiracy theories'....

https://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-...view-being-different-than-benning-s-1.1151567

 

[Archangel]

Tony Gallagher stomps on David Pratts 'conspiracy theories'....

https://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-...view-being-different-than-benning-s-1.1151567

Fun time in Canookville again. This is going to be a fun year as we both the team and the fans need to get to grip over the twins leaving

 

[CanaFan]

Tony Gallagher stomps on David Pratts 'conspiracy theories'....

https://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-...view-being-different-than-benning-s-1.1151567

Did he stomp on it? As in had heard to the contrary? Or just disputes that it was “a knife in the back”? I caught the end of it earlier and just sounded like Tony didn’t think it was as egregious as was being made out, which he is certainly entitled to think.

Didn’t hear anything that “stomped” the rumours though.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Closing this down. Please continue talk about Linden's firing in the management thread, if need be.