The Great 麻豆传媒映画Sports Talk Radio Wars of 2017 began in earnest on Monday, as Sportsnet 650 launched their new station with a host of big-name guests befitting the new home of the 麻豆传媒映画Canucks.
Daniel Sedin, Sam Gagner, Michael Del Zotto, Kirk McLean, and more braved the heat at the PNE as Sportsnet 650 broadcast live on location, while others, like Travis Green, smartly stayed indoors where there鈥檚 air conditioning and phoned in their appearance.
One of the first guests was , who spoke about contract negotiations with Bo Horvat, how he has no intention of trading the Sedins, and the Canucks鈥� goaltending situation going into the season. But when he spoke about the opportunities available to young players, he invoked the name of Troy Stecher in a way that just didn鈥檛 add up.
James Cybulski challenged Benning particularly on the Thomas Vanek signing, questioning whether adding another veteran would prevent a young player from earning a spot on the roster. Benning was quick to say that the team鈥檚 youth would have a chance to earn their way onto the team.
鈥淟ike with Troy Stecher last year,鈥� he said, 鈥渋f they come into camp and they deserve to be on the team, I鈥檒l find a spot for them.鈥�
That sounds great, but there鈥檚 just one problem: Benning and the Canucks didn鈥檛 find a spot for Stecher last year. Despite a that showed he was better than, at the very least, Philip Larsen and Alex Biega, heading into the regular season last year. He started the season with the Utica Comets.
That wasn鈥檛 necessarily a bad decision: from a development perspective, playing on the top pairing in Utica was a better option than bouncing in and out of the lineup with the Canucks. The top-four was set with Alex Edler, Chris Tanev, Ben Hutton, and Erik Gudbranson, so Stecher would have likely rotated in on the third pairing if he started the season in Vancouver.
What is absolutely false, however, is that Benning found a spot for Stecher on the Canucks. Instead, it took an injury to Chris Tanev in late October for Stecher to get called up. The only way that Benning is responsible for finding a spot for Stecher is if he intentionally injured Tanev. I鈥檓 not saying he did that, but it certainly gives 鈥淚鈥檒l find a spot for them鈥� a sinister edge.
In fact, on November 2nd once Tanev was healthy enough to play again. Certainly, that didn鈥檛 last long, as Tanev played just the one game, then was out again until mid-December, but it was clear that Stecher鈥檚 spot on the Canucks only came by dint of Tanev鈥檚 injury.
Stecher might have once again been sent to Utica after Tanev returned to the lineup, but Gudbranson elected to undergo season-ending wrist surgery. Gudbranson鈥檚 final game was December 13th, the game before Tanev returned.
Those two injuries to fellow right-side defencemen are what opened up a spot for Stecher, who, to his credit, grabbed hold of that spot and wouldn鈥檛 let go.
What鈥檚 baffling is that it was completely unnecessary for Benning to mention Stecher. Benning has several other names he could drop to prove that he and his management team are willing to find a spot for good young players. He would just have to go back one more season, to when Jake Virtanen, Jared McCann, and Ben Hutton all made the Canucks out of camp.
Perhaps Benning would want to skip past Virtanen and McCann, who aren鈥檛 exactly success stories when it comes to young players making the Canucks鈥� lineup. Hutton, however, demonstrates exactly what Stecher supposedly did: the Canucks will find a spot for a young player who earns it.
Hutton had an excellent pre-season, proving he was NHL ready, and the Canucks found a spot for him, to the point that they and he was claimed by the Toronto Maple Leafs. Not to re-open up the Corrado-brand can of worms, but it demonstrates that the Canucks were willing to lose assets (however needlessly) to open up a spot for a young player who earned it.
Hutton鈥檚 story should encourage the Canucks鈥� young prospects aiming to make the opening night roster; Stecher鈥檚 story would instead leave them hoping for an injury to a veteran ahead of them on the depth chart.
Citing Stecher in this way isn鈥檛 that big a deal 鈥� it鈥檚 not even the first time 鈥� but it is odd how this management team continually tries to revise its own history.
听
