‘I KNEW WHAT I WAS GETTING INTO’
Canucks president Trevor Linden responds to reports that management is ‘under siege’
For someone who had just been attacked by a pack of wild dogs, Trevor Linden looked pretty good.
There was no blood on his white shirt. His face was curiously devoid of scratches. All his internal organs were in place.
True, something resembling a bite mark appeared just under his hairline, but, really, that could have been anything.
This was also odd because Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman had reported, among other blinding revelations, that Linden, the Canucks’ president, and Jim Benning, the team’s GM, feel like “they’re getting torn apart by wild dogs.”
We will return to Friedman in a minute. In the meantime, we can all be thankful Linden is a fast healer and I now understand my newfound desire for raw meat.
“I mean I’ve been here since 1988 as a player,” Linden said. “I’ve been scrutinized as a player. I’ve been scrutinized in this role (as president). It’s a Canadian market. People care. They’re passionate. I knew what I was getting into.
“Every time we do something, there’s a reaction. It’s more times bad than good. But, hey, it is what it is.”
Yes, always best to turn to the great existential philosopher Todd Bertuzzi at moments such as these.
Friedman, as you must know by now, performed a great public service for talk-radio hosts and opinion makers all over the province Tuesday night when he appeared on Sportsnet 650 and revealed the brutal truth about this market.
The atmosphere around the Canucks — most of which is generated by the media — is so “toxic,” so “edgy,” so “nasty,” it has a detrimental effect on the way the organization does business.
That is an incredible statement, one that says more about Benning and Linden than the braying horde, but it was also just the beginning.
There was the wild dogs analogy. There was Benning, the prize fighter, trapped in a corner getting “pounded.” There was Benning looking haggard and “beat down.”
At one point, Friedman was asked
about the market for Thomas Vanek, the central figure in the Canucks’ deadline drama. The broadcaster started down that road before executing a perfect pirouette and returning to the real subject.
“I see a situation where (Linden and Benning) think they’re totally under siege. I think the players see it and the coaches see it.”
And, evidently, they can see it all the way from Toronto.
So why would Elliotte Frickin’ Friedman care so passionately about the Vancouver market and why would he launch such an impassioned defence of Linden and Benning from The Big Smoke?
Fair questions, yes? As for the answers, we’d suggest they lie somewhere in the towering arrogance of Toronto’s media titans and the uncomfortable relationship that exists between “insiders” and their sources.
Friedman is a made man in that world, but his information sometimes
comes at a cost. Consider his radio diatribe a down payment on his next scoop.
His relationship with Benning, however, is of little consequence to the faithful. The only relevant point in his screed is Linden and Benning can’t function in this environment, that their performance has been compromised by the suffocating negativity in Van City and somehow, someway that wall of noise is part of the reason the Canucks never win.
To you, Mr. Blogger, I can only say welcome to the club.
Look, I know it’s not easy when every move you make is placed under an electron microscope and analyzed to within an inch of its life. I know it’s uncomfortable when you’ve got thousands of unpaid assistants who are all fully confident they know more about hockey than you do.
But that’s the job and if Linden and Benning start listening to the choir, they are truly lost.
But how do you measure that? How do you know if it has any impact? If Benning was really spooked about the court of public opinion, why didn’t he flip Vanek for a fifth-rounder?
Come to think of it, wouldn’t he have done a lot of things differently if he was playing to the grandstand?
“At the end of the day, one of the things I give Jim credit for is making some tough decisions, doing what he feels is right even though it might be unpopular,” said Linden. “But you can’t let what outside people say affect what you’re doing. I give Jim credit. He hasn’t done that.”
Linden was asked if he found the timing of Friedman’s comments quizzical.
“I have no idea,” he said. “It’s his comments. It’s his opinion. It certainly didn’t come from us. We understand we’re going to get criticized. That’s the nature of the business. We can’t control what people say. We just go about our business.”
So back to our main point: Does this market impair the manner in which the Canucks’ front office operates? Hate to answer a question with another question, but how can it?
The atmosphere Friedman railed about is the reaction to three NHL seasons in which the Canucks finished 28th, 29th and are looking at 28th again. It’s the reaction to a series of moves and trades that invite criticism.
More to the point, it’s the result of 48 years that have been characterized by inept management and poor drafting.
If the Canucks want to alter that atmosphere, there’s an easy solution: Win more games. At least don’t lose as many. As it happens, there are pieces coming that might change things here.
But until that change arrives, this is our pain, not yours.