The Great Jim Benning Debate! (And personal insult thread)

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
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 18164
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Topper »

gave up watching because he can't handle a rebuild
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
2Fingers
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7672
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:47 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by 2Fingers »

Good post Blob, RD has a limited reading capability. You acknowledge the bare cupboards and he ignored that.

You also indicated that after several years of drafting JB results have not been on genius level and he ignored that.

Accept it, RD will never acknowledge when he is wrong, or God forbid, JB is not as good as a few here think he is.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
MVP
MVP
Posts: 31125
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Blob Mckenzie »

Topper wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:08 am gave up watching because he can't handle a rebuild
Or didn’t watch because the team was using slugs like Dowd, Jokinnen, Motte etc. They have developed one player in three seasons. You only watch all 82 because you live in a village of 150 people and you guys make an event out the NHL games and have a community potluck. :lol:
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 42928
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Strangelove »

Reefer2 wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:10 am Good post Blob
Image
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
Cousin Strawberry
MVP
MVP
Posts: 26169
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Cousin Strawberry »

Strangelove wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:26 am
Reefer2 wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:10 am Good post Blob
Image
Bwahahaha!
If you need air...call it in
User avatar
Carl Yagro
MVP
MVP
Posts: 11954
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:33 pm
Location: On wide shoulders...

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Carl Yagro »

The Best GD Canucks Hockey Talk Forum in the World... With Only 18 People!
User avatar
Cousin Strawberry
MVP
MVP
Posts: 26169
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: in the shed with a fresh packed bowl

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Cousin Strawberry »

Reef now to be known as Old Gary


If you need air...call it in
User avatar
Chef Boi RD
MVP
MVP
Posts: 28935
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Chef Boi RD »

Reefer2 wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:10 am Good post Blob, RD has a limited reading capability. You acknowledge the bare cupboards and he ignored that.

You also indicated that after several years of drafting JB results have not been on genius level and he ignored that.

Accept it, RD will never acknowledge when he is wrong, or God forbid, JB is not as good as a few here think he is.
Still “tunneling” Trump I see
“Tyler Myers is my guy... I was taking to Scotty Bowman last night and he was bringing up his name, and saying he’s a big guy and big guy need big minutes to play, he is playing great for ya… and I agree with him… He’s been exceptional” - Bruce Boudreau
Ronning's Ghost
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:25 pm
Location: New Westminster

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Ronning's Ghost »

An insult to avoid the question. I submit that you should be setting a higher standard, Doc.

I have conceded for the sake of argument that Benning inherited an absolute black hole of a team, worse than any expansion team, with no prospects in the pipeline, and (in spite of having won the President's Trophy two years in a row just two seasons before that) no veteran talent that would return anything in trade. Maybe under a gypsy curse, too. However bad you want to say it was, I will make no argument.

Having said that, there is now only one player contract on the Canucks not signed by the current ownership/management group (Edler), and it is by no means the worst contract on the team. For better or worse, the Canucks are now Benning's team.

Strangelove was willing to boldly offer us a (now infamous) timeline for the Canucks return to the playoffs. I'm sure posters here would read any revisions to the forecast with interest. Heck, we don't know what any new free agents and/or the kids could do; it might still come true. My question, though -- and I think Blob's, too -- is what is the minimum standard for improvement before an objective observer would concede that this rebuild path has been unsuccessful?

I interpret UDL's post as 3 more years -- "another 2 years of high drafting" -- and, presumably, then a successful season. So, the playoffs (at least) by 2021? Is that the standard of the "Benning is a Genius" faction? But then they win at least 3 Stanley Cups in the next 6 years after that, right?
User avatar
DonCherry4PM
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1441
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:27 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by DonCherry4PM »

Blob Mckenzie wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:08 am The old party line about not being able to handle a rebuild. In case you forget I’m the guy who wants the GM to acquire more picks in order to rebuild and develop a deep organization similar to what the Jets and Predators have done. You and your crew want to fastrack the rebuild by trading picks and kids for mid 20 something players like Sutter, Gudbranson, Baertschi, Vey, Pedan, Pouliott etc. You guys can’t wait for future draft picks to develop and want instant gratification. But it’s me that can’t handle a rebuild.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :sly: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
This point continues to evade the apologists*. They keep preaching their false narrative notwithstanding direct evidence to the contrary. But then how could they continue to be apologists if they actually responded with something other than ad hominens when presented with reasoned analysis?

*Replace "cultist(s)" with "apologist(s)" at your discretion.
Invincibility lies in oneself.
Vincibility lies in the enemy.

- Sun Tzu
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 42928
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Strangelove »

Ronning's Ghost wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:59 pm An insult to avoid the question.
What question?

I wasn't involved in the conversation, I was merely underscoring the fact the guy always agrees with Blob.
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
MVP
MVP
Posts: 31125
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Blob Mckenzie »

Strangelove wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:32 pm
Ronning's Ghost wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:59 pm An insult to avoid the question.
What question?

I wasn't involved in the conversation, I was merely underscoring the fact the guy always agrees with Blob.
Yeah you can’t handle a rebuild.,

Gotta solve that age gap.... eh wot :roll:
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 42928
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Strangelove »

DonCherry4PM wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:31 pm
Blob Mckenzie wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:08 am The old party line about not being able to handle a rebuild. In case you forget I’m the guy who wants the GM to acquire more picks in order to rebuild and develop a deep organization similar to what the Jets and Predators have done. You and your crew want to fastrack the rebuild by trading picks and kids for mid 20 something players like Sutter, Gudbranson, Baertschi, Vey, Pedan, Pouliott etc. You guys can’t wait for future draft picks to develop and want instant gratification. But it’s me that can’t handle a rebuild.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :sly: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
This point continues to evade the apologists*. They keep preaching their false narrative notwithstanding direct evidence to the contrary. But then how could they continue to be apologists if they actually responded with something other than ad hominens when presented with reasoned analysis?

*Replace "cultist(s)" with "apologist(s)" at your discretion.
"The point" has been addressed by "the apologists" many, many times.

All those players were young when they were brought in.

(it's not "instant gratification" when you bring in young developing players while retaining the standard number of picks)

(and for the billionth time no kid/prospect was given up in the Sutter trade) :roll:

Lord knows folks like Blob and Reef have responded with their share of ad hominens.

(not that I mind, humour is good too... but you are pretty silent on those ones)

These folks ignore "reasoned analysis"... so eventually one tires of wasting one's time.
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
MVP
MVP
Posts: 31125
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Blob Mckenzie »

Lol Sutter and Gudbranson were 5 and 6 year vets when brought in, they weren’t developing. Vey stunk and so did Pedan.

“The standard number of picks”. Like we can’t acquire extra ones... just choose the “standard number of picks”. What a crock of shit. I would venture to say the Canucks are slightly below “the standard number of picks” during Elmer’s tenure

Yes no extra picks went out in the deal for Sutter. An extra pick should have come back considering he was making a lot more money than the equal guy we traded for him. Bonino is equal to Sutter at worst and made half the money Birdbones did.
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 42928
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Strangelove »

Blob Mckenzie wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:55 pm Lol Sutter and Gudbranson were 5 and 6 year vets when brought in, they weren’t developing.
Sutter doesn't count in this conversation because no kid/pick was given up.

That's one-billion-and-one times for those keeping track. :scowl:

The Guds was 24.

Blob Mckenzie wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:55 pm Vey stunk and so did Pedan.
Ahh but they were YOUNG when they were brought in (Pedan 21, Vey 22).

So it's not "instant gratification"... as you called it.

Yes those 2 didn't turn out well, but that doesn't mean the philosophy is unsound (it's done all the time).

Pedan was ruined by concussions and Vey was ruined by attempted murder.

Who knew.

Blob Mckenzie wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:55 pm I would venture to say the Canucks are slightly below “the standard number of picks” during Elmer’s tenure
Not if you count 2019.
____
Try to focus on someday.
Post Reply