Article content continued

As the story goes, it’s the owners who won’t let the front office say rebuild.

And if those who buy into this historical recount find inconsistencies they can’t reconcile, generally the owners are blamed for impatience.

And that is where things get interesting.

Because — and on this I think everyone with knowledge of the situation agrees — the Canucks’ owners are not fond of being labelled impatient.

This brings us to the centre point of this tug-of-war.

Because on the other side of this universe is another story entirely.

To hear some tell it, Benning was hired after pitching the idea he could turn the team around quickly; that with the right goalie and the right depth supporting the twins, there was a path to the Canucks being an annual playoff contender.

Now, if you were the owner and were pitched a quick turnaround and three years later people are suggesting your impatience is one of the road blocks to a true rebuild, how would you react?

How would you feel about that?

If you follow this arc, you end up at the 2016 summer during which the Canucks signed one of the top free agents available who was about to turn 31.

They traded a young goal-scoring prospect along with a really good draft pick for a youngish veteran defenceman.

And they vowed they wouldn’t trade 30-year-old Jannik Hansen, who was coming off a career year. Oh, and they continued to say they were in the market for an established goal-scoring winger with grit, which don’t come cheap.

Those who believe this timeline think the Canucks really did believe this would be a playoff team, or close to it, and that’s why they were chasing a proven scorer early in the season (including Kane, btw).

And of course this fits into Benning’s “Tuesday Jim,” a press conference following his two big rebuild-like trades, during which he told everyone he had lost patience in the Sedin core.

Now which is the real news and which is the fake news?