The Great Jim Benning Debate!

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: 10036
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:15 am

Lol Brandon Sutter just raking in the ice time.
TELL ME HOW MY ASS TASTES

User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Legend
Posts: 3375
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by ukcanuck » Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:51 am

nuckster wrote:How about that Erikson tonight eh? Jim got us a 6 million dollar man right there - beauty. Then there's Tkachuk playing his second season in the NHL - scored 2 goals in yesterday's game. But Jim opted for a scrawny Finn instead who wasn't good enough to compete in the NHL this year. I guess seeing Ehlers flying along in his second season in tonight's game, kind of gets my ire re: Jim's so-called 'greatness'. Great at what?? Contracts? First round selections? Acquiring reclamation projects?

(Sigh). Me thinks this could be another long year. Attendance is likely going to take a major shit-kicking - again. The Aqualinis may well have had enough of the 'greatness' by season's end.
Nuckster meet Blob Mackenzie

Blob - Nuckster

Nuckster - Blob

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
Posts: 10036
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:13 am

Well we know you know Doc and Dude up close and personal. :lol:
TELL ME HOW MY ASS TASTES

User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
Posts: 8946
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by SKYO » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:19 am

nuckster wrote:
SKYO wrote:It's game 3 nuckster chill :lol:
ok
atta boy. :thumbs:
A long time ago, a baseball player remarked: "If I owned a ballclub, I'd hire a $5,000 coach and a $15,000 scout."

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
Posts: 10036
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:43 pm

FWIW someone said they heard Gary Mason say on am650 that Elmer’s situation will likely not be resolved until seasons end. The owners are pissed about the empty seats and the loss of revenue. Mason is as plugged in as anyone concerning the Canucks. Funny to hear Geoff Courtnall has been seen with Aquilini a few times recently
TELL ME HOW MY ASS TASTES

User avatar
micky107
CC Legend
Posts: 3715
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by micky107 » Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:54 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:43 pm
FWIW someone said they heard Gary Mason say on am650 that Elmer’s situation will likely not be resolved until seasons end. The owners are pissed about the empty seats and the loss of revenue. Mason is as plugged in as anyone concerning the Canucks. Funny to hear Geoff Courtnall has been seen with Aquilini a few times recently
I don't see many ads anymore, anywhere.
Isn't that Trevor's job?
Has his budget been cut?
Going on bike trips? :lol:
"evolution"

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7846
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Island Nucklehead » Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:35 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:43 pm
FWIW someone said they heard Gary Mason say on am650 that Elmer’s situation will likely not be resolved until seasons end. The owners are pissed about the empty seats and the loss of revenue. Mason is as plugged in as anyone concerning the Canucks. Funny to hear Geoff Courtnall has been seen with Aquilini a few times recently
I'm not really sure what the Aquaboys want. Benning tried it their way. The "rebuild on the fly" was an unmitigated disaster. You can't force people to pay hundreds of dollars to watch a shitty team. Vancouver's an expensive city, and you can watch them lose at home for free.

Nobody is turning this thing around quick. One way to save some money through the lean years: Don't be a cap team. Think we'd miss Loui Eriksson in the standings? There's $5M/year saved.

User avatar
Reefer2
MVP
MVP
Posts: 3506
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:47 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Reefer2 » Sat Jan 06, 2018 6:09 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:35 pm
Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:43 pm
FWIW someone said they heard Gary Mason say on am650 that Elmer’s situation will likely not be resolved until seasons end. The owners are pissed about the empty seats and the loss of revenue. Mason is as plugged in as anyone concerning the Canucks. Funny to hear Geoff Courtnall has been seen with Aquilini a few times recently
I'm not really sure what the Aquaboys want. Benning tried it their way. The "rebuild on the fly" was an unmitigated disaster. You can't force people to pay hundreds of dollars to watch a shitty team. Vancouver's an expensive city, and you can watch them lose at home for free.

Nobody is turning this thing around quick. One way to save some money through the lean years: Don't be a cap team. Think we'd miss Loui Eriksson in the standings? There's $5M/year saved.
Agreed IN.

Aqua boys interfere in the team and then wonder why they haven’t won.

Ronning's Ghost
MVP
MVP
Posts: 802
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:25 pm
Location: New Westminster

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Ronning's Ghost » Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:11 pm

Reefer2 wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 6:09 pm
Aqua boys interfere in the team and then wonder why they haven’t won.
Just heard an interview with Doug Maclean on Sportsnet 650 in which he strongly implied, more than once, that the Canucks have an unusually active and interventionist ownership group. If that's true, then IMHO, this thread is largely moot, in as much as any move made by the ownership/management group to which posters here object, or which they heartily endorse, could have just as easily been made through implementation of the Golden Rule as on the basis of JB's hockey analysis. In such a scenario, Canucks fans have to hope that Trevor Linden is developing a talent at keeping the Little Eagles chill, but it would be long time before we'd know about that on this board -- unless maybe Hockey Widow has learned more about the current decision-making process.

User avatar
micky107
CC Legend
Posts: 3715
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by micky107 » Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:32 pm

Ronning's Ghost wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:11 pm
Reefer2 wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 6:09 pm
Aqua boys interfere in the team and then wonder why they haven’t won.
Just heard an interview with Doug Maclean on Sportsnet 650 in which he strongly implied, more than once, that the Canucks have an unusually active and interventionist ownership group. If that's true, then IMHO, this thread is largely moot, in as much as any move made by the ownership/management group to which posters here object, or which they heartily endorse, could have just as easily been made through implementation of the Golden Rule as on the basis of JB's hockey analysis. In such a scenario, Canucks fans have to hope that Trevor Linden is developing a talent at keeping the Little Eagles chill, but it would be long time before we'd know about that on this board -- unless maybe Hockey Widow has learned more about the current decision-making process.
Well, that's fine but Doug Maclean may be talking about what he knew to be a fact 10+ years ago too. He does that sort of thing.
Or maybe he is saying a leopard cannot change it's spots.
"evolution"

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 12629
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Hockey Widow » Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:52 pm

Why is this even current news? It has always been known that we have a very active and controlling ownership group. And we have water boy who in Trumpian fashion talked/talks behind the backs of those he has hired and gone to outside sources for advice. Again, this was the exact scenario when both Gillis and subsequently Linden where brought on board. He went to both of them respectively to talk about the current GM and sought their counsel. Eventually both were hired as replacements in an underhanded way.

This is not new news. But it does get recycled on slow news days.

We have an owner, who each year, invests cap plus into this organization. He's not cheap. He has no real restrictive internal budget. All he wants is to fill the seats and go deep into the playoffs and eventually win a Cup. The worst thing that could happen to Benning did, his team got 100+ points and made the playoffs year one. That set the stage for delusional thinking and set the rebuild back several years, IMHO.

All I have heard was Linden was pushing hard at the start of the year for a Benning extension but ownership wanted to take a slower approach to it and by January ownership put on the brakes. Is the water boy up to his old tricks? Is he seeking outside opinions? Is he courting anyone? I don't know. But it wouldn't surprise me if he was.

What are the issues? Mainly empty sets and no playoffs. Revenue!! What are the complaints? TDD fiascos, poor UFA signings, inability to maintain when injuries hit. As I said earlier, Benning cannot be blamed for all the injuries but he can be held accountable for the team seemingly to be so reliant on the same players who get hurt year after year. For them holding such critical roles to us being competitive. Or at least those are the optics some espouse.

Does current ownership medle? Yes. Any more than other owners? I'd say they are in that group of owners who have a large say it what goes on. They are not unusual. But they have a voice. Our last owner was an absentee owner. Our current owner is not. Our last owner gave GM/President wide latitude but even then there were limits. Remember the Burtuzzi renegotiated contract mid contract, when such things were allowed. Burke was very clear he had to take the deal to McCaw for approval.

I believe there are clear goals/objectives set each season. Within a season Linden/Benning are given a wide berth to accompolish those goals. Does that mean complete control? I don't think so. I think certain transactions need to be run by ownership. If there are players ownership want or don't want they will be clear. They are not involved in day to day minutiae but would certainly be spoken to in say a major transaction/trade/contract/player acquisition. Would they veto moves, ya I've heard they have but only during Gillis's last season. I've also heard they were pretty insistent that Nonis should have done whatever was necessary to trade for two specific players, and he refused due to the cost. One was Richards. I don't know who the other was. That coupled with missing the playoffs, and with Gillis's behind the scenes interference, brought an end to Dave Nonis.

This is all historical fact that continues to get brought up as a new revelation. The MO of our owner is clear. He won't change and hell it's his money. Is he is own worse enemy at times? History will have to judge that. But the fact remains that we are still a bottom feeder and still several years away, if the majority of our prospects live up to expectations, from being a threat. So while I have reservations about the quality of ownership I also think it's too convenient to blame meddling owners to cover up for poor manegment decisions. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

Is it, if management did their job owners wouldn't have to meddle or is it, if owners didn't meddle management could do their job?
The only HW the Canucks need

Ronning's Ghost
MVP
MVP
Posts: 802
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:25 pm
Location: New Westminster

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Ronning's Ghost » Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:25 pm

Thank you, that was, for me, a very informative and useful post.

To answer your question
Hockey Widow wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:52 pm
Why is this even current news?
It was the first time I had heard it from what sounded to be a creditable 3rd party. It does seem it was very old news to you.

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
Posts: 10036
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:38 pm

Hopefully a couple of posters who’ve been bombing the board with bird shit Benning propaganda for the last few years just read that well written post by HW.
TELL ME HOW MY ASS TASTES

User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
Posts: 11189
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by RoyalDude » Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:35 pm

Pure unadulterated Hdub sensationalism, Bubble Tea. Pure as pure can be
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
Posts: 10036
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Blob Mckenzie » Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:43 pm

RoyalDude wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:35 pm
Pure unadulterated Hdub sensationalism, Bubble Tea. Pure as pure can be
I guess if you cover your eyes and plug your ears nothing gets through eh boss ? :)
TELL ME HOW MY ASS TASTES

Post Reply