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
Carl Yagro
MVP
MVP
Posts: 11955
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:33 pm
Location: On wide shoulders...

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Carl Yagro »

Barney Bentall & the Legendary Hearts, 54-40, The Odds... I've always liked some of these local bands that made it (somewhat) big.
The Best GD Canucks Hockey Talk Forum in the World... With Only 18 People!
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 »

Hockey Widow wrote: Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:52 pm You win Blob. I bow to your wisdom and managerial abilities. I think I’ll step back from the whole Benning debate. Hopefully that debate can be kept in one thread from now on. Makes it much easier to ignore.
And he does it without watching the games! :lol:
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
Meds
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13355
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Meds »

Blob Mckenzie wrote: Sun Jul 01, 2018 6:01 pm Here’s a question for you. Would you rather have two of Pat Maroon, James Neal or David Perron? Not saying it was possible but they are vets and two of them would be similar to the combined cost of the 4th line brigade Elmer signed up
Didn't James Neal leave Vegas because he wanted more than the $5M he was making last year? He probably also wants more term than they were willing to give. Neal only scored 44 points, some big goals at times, but 44 points is not worth that kind of cash and term.

Perron just got $4M for 4 years.

Neal and Perron would probably have cost us $10M combined for the same term. Both would be welcome additions to the team, but in the case of Perron I don't know that you get the tenacious compete level and leadership that Benning is looking for. I would personally prefer him to Roussel though.
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 »

Hank wrote: Sun Jul 01, 2018 7:23 pm If Roussel wasn't available, maybe Komarov would have been a good pickup? 19 pts last year, same term and money. Market value.

And Beagle getting more than Riley Nash? Simply pedigree. Plus Nash has only had one proven good year.
Vancouver is not the most desirable place to play right now, one time it was, that’s no more, the weather, its a rebuild, playing under a microscope, Canadian dollar, media attention and a frenzied fan base, expensive city to live in, etc.

We have no idea what went on behind the scenes, players will take less to play where they want to. The Canucks aren’t exactly Shangrila right now. I believe the premium we paid priced that.

It’s July 1st, crazy money season, you want to play? Buck up or shut up
“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
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 19129
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Hockey Widow »

Blob Mckenzie wrote: Sun Jul 01, 2018 6:01 pm Wids it isn’t that I need to win. Fact is myself and a few others, usually you as well debate the moves one by one. Some we like , some we don’t. There is a crew here with a massive agenda that thinks EVERY move Jet Black makes is amazing. I’m ok with the signings as long as some driftwood is swiftly cleaned up. You can’t wait for very long to move out those slugs because a few teams have the same issue.

Today was ok. It isn’t as bad as hfboards makes it out to be and it isn’t as good as Doc and his puppets make it out to be. It’s somewhere in the middle. They still have to purge.

Here’s a question for you. Would you rather have two of Pat Maroon, James Neal or David Perron? Not saying it was possible but they are vets and two of them would be similar to the combined cost of the 4th line brigade Elmer signed up
See that’s the point. Would you rather have “x” does imply “x” was possible. And the players you mention would take top six roles, except Maroon, which goes against let the kids play.

Yes, they still have to purge and I’m hoping Benning can grab some picks.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
sagebrush
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: around the bend

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by sagebrush »

An interesting article that summarizes & investigates what many have been thinking ...

Barring trades, there won’t be much competition at Canucks training camp.
"We do have to be careful with what we do this summer,” said Trevor Linden a few months ago. “We're okay with being young next year. We're going to be extremely young, we know that.”
The Canucks’ actions on July 1st seemed to bely his words, as they added three older veterans that will prevent the team from getting “extremely” young.
Jim Benning claimed that the message his players were meant to get from these signings is that the competition is on.
Some might argue that Beagle, Roussel, and Schaller will play in the bottom-six, where the Canucks’ youth won’t play. It’s a baffling argument; who says that young players can’t play on the third and fourth lines?
Unless the Canucks make some trades this summer, there won’t really be any spots to battle for in training camp, as roster decisions could come down to who’s waiver eligible and who isn’t, rather than merit.
Sure, there will be injuries, and players will get called up, but for players hoping to make the team out of training camp, the Canucks’ free agent signings didn’t say “We want competition at camp,” but “You can’t make these roster spots out of camp.”
Are these moves (Beagel, Roussel, Schaller) the mark of a genius, as some here would say?

Is Trevor Linden more than a shill, purchased for the value of his good will with the fans?
Less Canucks embarrassment please.
User avatar
2Fingers
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7672
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:47 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by 2Fingers »

IMO - these 3 new guys are not barring young guys from playing on the team on any line. I do not assume young guys will be brought in to be piss and vinegar, very few can do that. Right now I do not see any prospect that would fit that role.
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: Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:09 pm IMO - these 3 new guys are not barring young guys from playing on the team on any line. I do not assume young guys will be brought in to be piss and vinegar, very few can do that. Right now I do not see any prospect that would fit that role.
Good call Reef, obviously you understand Canucks' present situation a lot better than that schmuck eastern writer.

I like where he assumes in July that "roster decisions could come down to who’s waiver eligible and who isn’t, rather than merit."

Wot a schmuck amirite?
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
sagebrush
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: around the bend

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by sagebrush »

Strangelove wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:19 pm
Reefer2 wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:09 pm IMO - these 3 new guys are not barring young guys from playing on the team on any line. I do not assume young guys will be brought in to be piss and vinegar, very few can do that. Right now I do not see any prospect that would fit that role.
Good call Reef, obviously you understand Canucks' present situation a lot better than that schmuck eastern writer.

I like where he assumes in July that "roster decisions could come down to who’s waiver eligible and who isn’t, rather than merit."

Wot a schmuck amirite?
The writer (Daniel Wagner, of the Vancouver Courier) lists his residence in ... of all places, ... Vancouver. Not someplace to the East ..
like .. Abbotsford. :P
Less Canucks embarrassment please.
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 »

sagebrush wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:22 pm
Strangelove wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 5:19 pm
Reefer2 wrote: Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:09 pm IMO - these 3 new guys are not barring young guys from playing on the team on any line. I do not assume young guys will be brought in to be piss and vinegar, very few can do that. Right now I do not see any prospect that would fit that role.
Good call Reef, obviously you understand Canucks' present situation a lot better than that schmuck eastern writer.

I like where he assumes in July that "roster decisions could come down to who’s waiver eligible and who isn’t, rather than merit."

Wot a schmuck amirite?
The writer (Daniel Wagner, of the Vancouver Courier) lists his residence in ... of all places, ... Vancouver. Not someplace to the East ..
like .. Abbotsford. :P
Oopsie... I should have checked instead of making an assumption.

They have schmucks in Vancouver too?... who knew. :)
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
MVP
MVP
Posts: 31126
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Blob Mckenzie »

Rocky Dennis wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:34 pm
Blob Mckenzie wrote: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:12 am
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:

Image
Someone say potluck?
I have a feeling that THINKER was a fat fuck like that guy. Probably had a jammer and died
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
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 »

That's some beer shelf
“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
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 »

So with the promising start this year and the gems uncovered via the drafts...i wonder how many "pundits" are still calling JB the worst GM in the league.

I'll gladly throw credit where its due and the canucks are definitely on an excellent trajectory for a rapid rebuild.

If Jimmy brings home a cup I'll gladly dub thee thy GMing Genius
If you need air...call it in
User avatar
2Fingers
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7672
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:47 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by 2Fingers »

Uncle dans leg wrote: Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:55 am So with the promising start this year and the gems uncovered via the drafts...i wonder how many "pundits" are still calling JB the worst GM in the league.

I'll gladly throw credit where its due and the canucks are definitely on an excellent trajectory for a rapid rebuild.

If Jimmy brings home a cup I'll gladly dub thee thy GMing Genius
Cup = genius

But if the rumours are true on EP and they would of selected him #1, this place would of gone crazy at the time, now we know what we got.

Although only 1 point in 2 games ......
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
MVP
MVP
Posts: 31126
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Blob Mckenzie »

The team has three decent d men.

It’s kinda the wheel of a team.

Elmer hasn’t brought in a decent defenceman in five years.

Edler- Cheeseburgular

Tanev- Eye Bags

Hutton- Eye Bags

The rest of the losers are all Elmer’s
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
Post Reply