Page 56 of 103
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:28 am
by Strangelove
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:19 am
Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:13 am
"BTW Blob, I think you lapped up the speculation part of that well written post because you want to believe it's true.
I find it silly that you expect your alleged spreaders of Benning propaganda would do the same."
Whatever helps you sleep at night. If you honestly think that everyone in the organization is thrilled with the job Elmer is doing , who am I to convince you ?
Well you're not going to convince anyone with "speculation".
It's shocking you were so sure you could!
One wouldn't be more shocked if you pried a piece of gum from under your seat and popped it in your gaping pie hole.
Again.
BTW I do believe the basic gist of my argument was that this kind of "speculation" seems to help
you sleep at night...
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:58 pm
by Ronning's Ghost
I just got paid to take a survey that asked, amongst other things, how satisfied i was with the Canucks' performance, and how well I thought their management was doing. This means somebody paid somebody else to conduct this survey.
Infer what you will.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:09 pm
by Chef Boi RD
The Aqualinis are the problem. Gagliardi would have been better here
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:15 pm
by Ronning's Ghost
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:09 pm
The Aqualinis are the problem. Gagliardi would have been better here
Maybe ! But what would be the effect of a "Fire Aquilini !" chant ?
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:34 am
by Meds
If the speculation regarding the Aquaboys unwillingness to accept a rebuild during Jimbo’s first couple of seasons a here is true, and they are now on board with it, then they would be foolish to let Benning go without a 2 year extension. If you give a guy 4 years to do a job but then tie his hands for the first 2 years, and then see that there is obvious improvement and consistency of direction over the latter half of the contract where restraints were removed, well then really the smart move is to give the guy another 2 years so that he he gets the full 4 you originally promised. At this point replacing Benning with yet another GM would run the risk of being counterproductive.
The Eriksson contract is a blemish on his record, as is Sutter’s. Remove those pair of deals and Benning’s first couple of seasons have much better optics as your only looking at some things like blowing a 2nd rounder on Vey.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:13 am
by Island Nucklehead
Mëds wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:34 am
If you give a guy 4 years to do a job but then tie his hands for the first 2 years, and then see that there is obvious improvement and consistency of direction over the latter half of the contract where restraints were removed, well then really the smart move is to give the guy another 2 years so that he he gets the full 4 you originally promised.
That would mean ownership accepts some responsibility.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:16 am
by Chef Boi RD
Mëds wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:34 am
If the speculation regarding the Aquaboys unwillingness to accept a rebuild during Jimbo’s first couple of seasons a here is true, and they are now on board with it, then they would be foolish to let Benning go without a 2 year extension. If you give a guy 4 years to do a job but then tie his hands for the first 2 years, and then see that there is obvious improvement and consistency of direction over the latter half of the contract where restraints were removed, well then really the smart move is to give the guy another 2 years so that he he gets the full 4 you originally promised. At this point replacing Benning with yet another GM would run the risk of being counterproductive.
The Eriksson contract is a blemish on his record, as is Sutter’s. Remove those pair of deals and Benning’s first couple of seasons have much better optics as your only looking at some things like blowing a 2nd rounder on Vey.
Good post Manute Bol. I agree with the 1st paragraph
Every GM has an Eriksson blemish, but is he really hurting a team in rebuild? No. I refuse to call Sutter a blemish. What? You want Bonino and his $4 million back?
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:18 am
by Blob Mckenzie
Just because Sutter is an ugly blemish doesn’t mean he wants Bonino back.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:26 am
by Chef Boi RD
Sutter isn't a blemish
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:28 am
by Blob Mckenzie
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:26 am
Sutter isn't a blemish
He’s like a big oily mole with a clump of hair growing out of it.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:35 am
by SKYO
Sutter and Eriksson will probably be the most vet players here!
SEDINS RETIRE FOR FUCK SAKES!!!!! like beating a deadhorse.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:36 am
by Chef Boi RD
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:28 am
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:26 am
Sutter isn't a blemish
He’s like a big oily mole with a clump of hair growing out of it.
Would you trade him for Andrew Ladd?
Ladd is 32 years old his $5.5 million Cap Hit NTC contract carries him til the end of the 2022-23 season. He will be 38 years old when his contract ends
In 42 games Ladd has 9 goals 9 assists
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:42 am
by Blob Mckenzie
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:36 am
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:28 am
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:26 am
Sutter isn't a blemish
He’s like a big oily mole with a clump of hair growing out of it.
Would you trade him for Andrew Ladd?
Ladd is 32 years old his $5.5 million Cap Hit NTC contract carries him til the end of the 2022-23 season. He will be 38 years old when his contract ends
No I just would have never traded or signed for him in the first place. Not my type of player for the dollars he’s earning. Oh well he isn’t going anywhere and neither is Louis.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:45 am
by Chef Boi RD
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:42 am
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:36 am
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:28 am
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:26 am
Sutter isn't a blemish
He’s like a big oily mole with a clump of hair growing out of it.
Would you trade him for Andrew Ladd?
Ladd is 32 years old his $5.5 million Cap Hit NTC contract carries him til the end of the 2022-23 season. He will be 38 years old when his contract ends
No I just would have never traded or signed for him in the first place. Not my type of player for the dollars he’s earning. Oh well he isn’t going anywhere and neither is Louis.
Do you agree that every team and GM has a bad contract or two under their belt, current and past?
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:47 am
by Chef Boi RD
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:42 am
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:36 am
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:28 am
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:26 am
Sutter isn't a blemish
He’s like a big oily mole with a clump of hair growing out of it.
Would you trade him for Andrew Ladd?
Ladd is 32 years old his $5.5 million Cap Hit NTC contract carries him til the end of the 2022-23 season. He will be 38 years old when his contract ends
No I just would have never traded or signed for him in the first place. Not my type of player for the dollars he’s earning. Oh well he isn’t going anywhere and neither is Louis.
I believe you had posted on a few occasions your desire for this team to go after the UFA Andrew Ladd
Do you agree that every team and GM has a bad contract or two under their belt, current and past?