Jim Ignitowski Benning

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
Posts: 14179
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: Jim Ignitowski Benning

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:15 pm

Go fuck yourself
“SUTTER IS AS GOOD AS COUTURIER”

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 20012
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Jim Ignitowski Benning

Post by Strangelove » Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:23 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:15 pm
Go fuck yourself
Translation: You win Strangelove!

Saaay aren't you the guy who just bitched about ad hominem and off-topic derailment?

I was just trying to get you explain your position on UFAs.

See, you were completely contradicting yourself there old friend. :D
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8306
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: Jim Ignitowski Benning

Post by Island Nucklehead » Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:37 pm

ESQ wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:55 pm
If we need a top-4D, and one is available in UFA, then I think we need to go for it. $7mil will seem like an overpayment, but look at Brian Campbell at the end of his Hawks contract - still moveable, and was a key player in getting them to their first Cup.
Reality is there are 7 UFA Dmen playing more than 20mins/night this season. We already have one of them. Safe to say Bouwmeester and/or Hainsey don't interest too many here. So we're looking at EK, Gardiner, Strahlman, and Myers. That's an incredibly thin group, and aside from EK, I don't think any of those players is worth $7M, nor are they the caliber of player Brian Campbell was when he signed his big-time deal at 29 (coming off a 62 point season and averaging 50 for the previous couple seasons).

If EK is off the board, I'd rather extend Edler for 2 years and $12M, wait and see who hits the market next summer (Barrie, Pietrangelo, Faulk, Brodie, Spurgeon etc).

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 14803
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Jim Ignitowski Benning

Post by Hockey Widow » Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:24 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:37 pm
ESQ wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:55 pm
If we need a top-4D, and one is available in UFA, then I think we need to go for it. $7mil will seem like an overpayment, but look at Brian Campbell at the end of his Hawks contract - still moveable, and was a key player in getting them to their first Cup.
Reality is there are 7 UFA Dmen playing more than 20mins/night this season. We already have one of them. Safe to say Bouwmeester and/or Hainsey don't interest too many here. So we're looking at EK, Gardiner, Strahlman, and Myers. That's an incredibly thin group, and aside from EK, I don't think any of those players is worth $7M, nor are they the caliber of player Brian Campbell was when he signed his big-time deal at 29 (coming off a 62 point season and averaging 50 for the previous couple seasons).

If EK is off the board, I'd rather extend Edler for 2 years and $12M, wait and see who hits the market next summer (Barrie, Pietrangelo, Faulk, Brodie, Spurgeon etc).
Extending for 2 years isn't the problem. The problem is his camp wants a 3-4 year deal with a full NMC. Money won't be an issue either. Benning already asked him to waive this past TDD I doubt he wants to be hampered with a full NMC any longer than he has to but the big issue is protection for the expansion draft. The Canucks absolutely don't want to have to protect him at the expense of potentially losing a younger Dman.

The best move for Edler, if he wants to play out his career in Vancouver is to sign a two year deal then let the chips fall where they may. If we sign him longer than two years we could only give a one year full NMC because the contract is from July-July. So in a 3 year deal, his 2nd year expires July which means if he had a full NMC it would still be in effect at the expansion draft, thus requiring us to protect him.

This has been explained to his camp. The Canucks do not want to put themselves in that position. So they'd do a 3 year but year 2-3 would have to have a modified NTC. They would also do a 2 year full NMC.

Im sure Edler can get a 3-4 year deal elsewhere and perhaps get the trade protection he wants. But I'm not sure if it will be a destination that is high on his list. I think his agent is overplaying his hand but Benning is a stubborn SOB. Id be happy to see him back on a 2 year deal and in that case I don't care what type of trade protection we have to give him.
The only HW the Canucks need

Hank
CC Legend
Posts: 3314
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:33 pm

Re: Jim Ignitowski Benning

Post by Hank » Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:34 pm

Good on Benning for standing his ground. He doesn't need to cave like Dubas.

I'm sure JB has been more than irritated on having to deal with the NMCs he's inherited. Either guys putting the gun to his head to move them to a single team or guys who won't waive no matter what.

It really wouldn't pain me all that much to say, see ya Elderberry! Come back for the Ring of Honor. Your franchise record for goals will still be here.
Try to focus on 1 year from now...

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 14803
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Jim Ignitowski Benning

Post by Hockey Widow » Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:59 pm

Hank wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:34 pm
Good on Benning for standing his ground. He doesn't need to cave like Dubas.

I'm sure JB has been more than irritated on having to deal with the NMCs he's inherited. Either guys putting the gun to his head to move them to a single team or guys who won't waive no matter what.

It really wouldn't pain me all that much to say, see ya Elderberry! Come back for the Ring of Honor. Your franchise record for goals will still be here.
I don't get mad at him for refusing to waive. Sure it would have been nice to get something but he earned his contract and he has been a warrior for us. I don't even mind keeping him for two more years. But I'd be upset if Benning caved and gave him 3-4 years with a full NMC. If Linden was here Edler would have his new deal. It was a point of disagreement between Linden and Benning.
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
micky107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7164
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: Jim Ignitowski Benning

Post by micky107 » Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:01 am

Hockey Widow wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:59 pm
Hank wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:34 pm
Good on Benning for standing his ground. He doesn't need to cave like Dubas.

I'm sure JB has been more than irritated on having to deal with the NMCs he's inherited. Either guys putting the gun to his head to move them to a single team or guys who won't waive no matter what.

It really wouldn't pain me all that much to say, see ya Elderberry! Come back for the Ring of Honor. Your franchise record for goals will still be here.
I don't get mad at him for refusing to waive. Sure it would have been nice to get something but he earned his contract and he has been a warrior for us. I don't even mind keeping him for two more years. But I'd be upset if Benning caved and gave him 3-4 years with a full NMC. If Linden was here Edler would have his new deal. It was a point of disagreement between Linden and Benning.
My guess is he will only get two, or maybe he only takes an offer of two which is fully protected and real big.
I seriously do not believe he will move his family to another North American city, ever. Don't think he'll do the long distant relationship thing
either.
When recently interviewed and asked if he and his family would be staying in Van after he retires, he wasn't sure. :?:
It's not beyond the realm of thinking that after 2 years, he could retire from the NHL and play a couple more years in Sweden.
So: If he signs for 2 years here with all the goodies, is the amount important;

Image

Ya, it kind of is!!! (sorry about the fine print). Perspective is necessary but ugly sometimes.
"evolution"

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 14144
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Jim Ignitowski Benning

Post by RoyalDude » Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:10 am

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:15 pm
Strangelove wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:02 pm
Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Tue Mar 26, 2019 12:17 pm

If they strike out on Karlsson, I hope to fuck the cheque book is taken away from Elmer regarding spending on the D.
Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:13 pm
Edler Karlsson/ Strahlman
:crazy:
So I made a typo. Who cares? Again, hanging on every word instead of addressing the rest of the post.

I don’t want Myers or Gardiner at 7+ for seven years.

Strahlman on a short term deal makes sense if they don’t land Karlsson
Blob, short terms deals are as rare as the dodo bird unless we are talking about players around the 35 year old mark and older, or journeyman AHL/NHL tweeners. Players in their early 30’s who have a leg to stand on (NHL established) are not chasing short term 2 year deals. Every player wants long term security especially in their early 30’s. But hey keep on keepin on with your narrative
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 14144
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Jim Ignitowski Benning

Post by RoyalDude » Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:14 am

Hockey Widow wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:59 pm
Hank wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:34 pm
Good on Benning for standing his ground. He doesn't need to cave like Dubas.

I'm sure JB has been more than irritated on having to deal with the NMCs he's inherited. Either guys putting the gun to his head to move them to a single team or guys who won't waive no matter what.

It really wouldn't pain me all that much to say, see ya Elderberry! Come back for the Ring of Honor. Your franchise record for goals will still be here.
I don't get mad at him for refusing to waive. Sure it would have been nice to get something but he earned his contract and he has been a warrior for us. I don't even mind keeping him for two more years. But I'd be upset if Benning caved and gave him 3-4 years with a full NMC. If Linden was here Edler would have his new deal. It was a point of disagreement between Linden and Benning.
Edler does not want a short term deal. People please wake up, he’s not an idiot. Again, Benning hamstrung by a Gillis NTC. Jim asked Edler to waive - “nope, sorry, not waiving”. For some reason Gillis never figured out how to modify contracts on the back half of the term. But hey the idiot BenningHate brigade will again throw shade at Jim over this.

Two things will happen - Benning caves and gives him the 3-4 years he wants or he lets him walk. A no win situation for Jim. Of course some team out there will sign him to a long term, Edler knows this, everybody knows this.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
rikster
MVP
MVP
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:41 am

Re: Jim Ignitowski Benning

Post by rikster » Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:27 am

Hockey Widow wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:24 pm
Island Nucklehead wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:37 pm
ESQ wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:55 pm
If we need a top-4D, and one is available in UFA, then I think we need to go for it. $7mil will seem like an overpayment, but look at Brian Campbell at the end of his Hawks contract - still moveable, and was a key player in getting them to their first Cup.
Reality is there are 7 UFA Dmen playing more than 20mins/night this season. We already have one of them. Safe to say Bouwmeester and/or Hainsey don't interest too many here. So we're looking at EK, Gardiner, Strahlman, and Myers. That's an incredibly thin group, and aside from EK, I don't think any of those players is worth $7M, nor are they the caliber of player Brian Campbell was when he signed his big-time deal at 29 (coming off a 62 point season and averaging 50 for the previous couple seasons).

If EK is off the board, I'd rather extend Edler for 2 years and $12M, wait and see who hits the market next summer (Barrie, Pietrangelo, Faulk, Brodie, Spurgeon etc).
Extending for 2 years isn't the problem. The problem is his camp wants a 3-4 year deal with a full NMC. Money won't be an issue either. Benning already asked him to waive this past TDD I doubt he wants to be hampered with a full NMC any longer than he has to but the big issue is protection for the expansion draft. The Canucks absolutely don't want to have to protect him at the expense of potentially losing a younger Dman.

The best move for Edler, if he wants to play out his career in Vancouver is to sign a two year deal then let the chips fall where they may. If we sign him longer than two years we could only give a one year full NMC because the contract is from July-July. So in a 3 year deal, his 2nd year expires July which means if he had a full NMC it would still be in effect at the expansion draft, thus requiring us to protect him.

This has been explained to his camp. The Canucks do not want to put themselves in that position. So they'd do a 3 year but year 2-3 would have to have a modified NTC. They would also do a 2 year full NMC.

Im sure Edler can get a 3-4 year deal elsewhere and perhaps get the trade protection he wants. But I'm not sure if it will be a destination that is high on his list. I think his agent is overplaying his hand but Benning is a stubborn SOB. Id be happy to see him back on a 2 year deal and in that case I don't care what type of trade protection we have to give him.
The delay is on the team side...

Benning will circle back to the Edler camp after the draft and after free agency when it has a clearer understanding of where the team will be to start next season...

Is he playing chicken and risk Edler signing somewhere else? Maybe but they have a backup with Tanev still on the books and Edler is open that he doesn’t want to move....

Why sign him before? What if they do go after an EK and land him?

If Joe Thornton is willing to sign back to back 1 year deals because he didn’t want to leave San Jose, why wouldn’t Edler with a simile desire to stay in Vancouver sign a 1 or 2 year deal, especially given expansion is on the horizons?

Just my opinion...

Take care

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 14144
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Jim Ignitowski Benning

Post by RoyalDude » Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:42 am

Hey Rikster, Thornton is 39 years old and with only one good knee. Didn’t have much of a leg to stand on so to speak when it came to signing his last contract

Edler is 32 years old and having an excellent season not too mention looking like he can play the game at a high level for another 5 seasons. It will be a near impossibility getting him to sign a short term deal. Some team out there will give 4 years, maybe even 5. Benning is in a tough spot.
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

ESQ
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2155
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:34 pm

Re: Jim Ignitowski Benning

Post by ESQ » Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:11 am

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:37 pm
So we're looking at EK, Gardiner, Strahlman, and Myers. That's an incredibly thin group, and aside from EK, I don't think any of those players is worth $7M, nor are they the caliber of player Brian Campbell was when he signed his big-time deal at 29 (coming off a 62 point season and averaging 50 for the previous couple seasons).
The Campbell $7.142mil contract was 12.5% of the cap at the time, and would be a $10+mil cap hit today.

A $7mil contract today was a $4.5 million cap hit in 2008. So Myers for $7mil is roughly comparable to Hamhuis' signing, and that's all you need to expect from a $7 mil ufa Dman.

Campbell was signed when Keith, Seabrook, Kane, Toews, Byfuglien were all making under a million each. He was key to their first Cup, then was traded to make room and subsequent cup runs. I really don't think any of the UFA d this year would ever be immovable /boat anchors - hell, Phaneuf has been traded twice!

User avatar
rikster
MVP
MVP
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:41 am

Re: Jim Ignitowski Benning

Post by rikster » Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:11 am

RoyalDude wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:42 am
Hey Rikster, Thornton is 39 years old and with only one good knee. Didn’t have much of a leg to stand on so to speak when it came to signing his last contract

Edler is 32 years old and having an excellent season not too mention looking like he can play the game at a high level for another 5 seasons. It will be a near impossibility getting him to sign a short term deal. Some team out there will give 4 years, maybe even 5. Benning is in a tough spot.
You might be right Dude, but I think if it’s a long term deal or bust Benning should walk away...

If he can effectively play another 4 or 5 years, then it should be over 2 or more contracts...

Between Tanev and Edler, I’d prefer Edler but not if he has to be protected in expansion...

Take care...

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 14144
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Jim Ignitowski Benning

Post by RoyalDude » Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:22 am

rikster wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:11 am

but not if he has to be protected in expansion...

Take care...
And that’s the pickle. Nobody wins. I think it’s Bye Edler unless they do two and then another 2 but that isn’t a smart move by Edler financially. This next contract of his is setting up the rest of his life, it will be his last big contract
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 14803
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Jim Ignitowski Benning

Post by Hockey Widow » Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:31 am

RoyalDude wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:22 am
rikster wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:11 am

but not if he has to be protected in expansion...

Take care...
And that’s the pickle. Nobody wins. I think it’s Bye Edler unless they do two and then another 2 but that isn’t a smart move by Edler financially. This next contract of his is setting up the rest of his life, it will be his last big contract
And he can have it with a full NTC, just not a full NMC. does he really fear getting waived? But Dude is right. This is the pickle for Benning. If he lets him walk he will get roasted in some quarters. If he caves and gives him his NMC he will get roasted in some corners,especially if it costs us in the expansion draft. True we will still have a lot of garbage at that time but we will also have a lot of decent prospects who will be draft eligible. We can’t protect them all and fortunately we can only lose one. I don’t think we will have to expose any top guys though.
The only HW the Canucks need

Post Reply