Page 58 of 103
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:34 pm
by DonCherry4PM
Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:33 pm
I've always found it curious Benning going out and targetting specific players, cost be damned, when the team is full of holes throughout the lineup.
I wonder if this is a function of his being a scout at heart. Most of us agree that his drafting is one of the better aspects (I would argue best) of his skillset. Perhaps the targeting you reference is just his application of that strength in an area where it, at times, may not be as effective (i.e. when the targets require trading assets rather then expending draft picks).
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:46 pm
by Island Nucklehead
lol ESQ. Is Mantha (on pace for 55 points) not a top-6 forward, or are you referring to Larkin?
With such a terrible GM, it's amazing they managed to luck their way into three cups and 18 straight playoff appearances under his watch. You'd think after such a multi-generational run they'd be forgiven if they needed to rebuild. Their worst finish in the last 25 years is 25th. The Canucks, under Jim Benning, have finished better than 25th once.
If Holland isn't a good GM, there's no way you can have a good opinion of Jim Benning.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:58 pm
by Island Nucklehead
DonCherry4PM wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:34 pm
Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:33 pm
I've always found it curious Benning going out and targetting specific players, cost be damned, when the team is full of holes throughout the lineup.
I wonder if this is a function of his being a scout at heart. Most of us agree that his drafting is one of the better aspects (I would argue best) of his skillset. Perhaps the targeting you reference is just his application of that strength in an area where it, at times, may not be as effective (i.e. when the targets require trading assets rather then expending draft picks).
I think you're absolutely correct, and it may be that he loved what he saw of these players (Sutter, Gudbranson) as amateurs, overlooking what they are as pros.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:04 pm
by Chef Boi RD
[quote="Island Nucklehead" post_id=296242 time=1516498387 user_id=385]
Not sure that you can look at them in isolation. The Pens traded Sutter because they didn't want to pay him. The Canucks acquired him knowing they had to (and did in a matter of days).
I didn't like the trade or the contract. Bonino was a cost-effective tweener C that was fine here in the role. The perfect placeholder, if you will.
I've always found it curious Benning going out and targetting specific players, cost be damned, when the team is full of holes throughout the lineup. It's not like we were a Brandon Sutter or Erik Gudbranson away from competing. When the team needs first line wingers, top-pairing dman, and the picks/prospects to acquire them, it's odd he'd go out and blow multiple picks/prospects/players for two depth guys, even if they are "high character" and full of "intangibles". To me, these kind of moves that epitomize the failed "rebuild on the fly" strategy.
[/quote]
Bonino was a cost affective tweener at the time.... yeah sure I guess (he did absolutely, embarrassingly SFA in the playoffs against the Flames) but hey let's leave out those good parts like how he is now making $4 million on a 4 year in Nashville after two seasons in Pittsburgh. Should we have kept him? Signed him to something similar or lost him to the market for zilch. Won't know and to you that doesn't matter
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:16 pm
by Island Nucklehead
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:04 pm
Bonino was a cost affective tweener at the time.... yeah sure I guess (he did absolutely, embarrassingly SFA in the playoffs against the Flames) but hey let's leave out those good parts like how he is now making $4 million on a 4 year in Nashville after two seasons in Pittsburgh. Should we have kept him? Signed him to something similar or lost him to the market for zilch. Won't know and to you that doesn't matter
I don't think the Canucks needed either guy long-term. Like I said, Bonino was the ideal placeholder. He should've been used to buy the kids some time for another year and a half and traded as a valuable (and cheap) depth piece to team loading up.
It's always funny to hear people talk about Sutter "upping his game when it matters", how many meaningful games has the guy played in? Certainly none for this franchise.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:07 am
by Blob Mckenzie
Jason Botchford said in the Provies that Elmer had a choice between Vatanen and Sbisa and picked Sbisa. Gesus Christ.
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:19 am
by SKYO
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:07 am
Jason Botchford said in the Provies that Elmer had a choice between Vatanen and Sbisa and picked Sbisa. Gesus Christ.
everyone hates botchford, he imitates his god................
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:50 am
by Chef Boi RD
SKYO wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:19 am
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:07 am
Jason Botchford said in the Provies that Elmer had a choice between Vatanen and Sbisa and picked Sbisa. Gesus Christ.
everyone hates botchford, he imitates his god................
It's Bitchfotd the bitch. So legit
Vatanen traded to New Jersey for that bum Henriqur
Vatanen 2 goals 12 assists in 36 games
Sbisa 1 goal 9 assists in 24 games
Vatanen 5'-10" 185 lbs
Sbisa 6'-2" 210 lbs
The golden knights are raving about Sbisa. Shrimp Vatanen gets traded
Both are 27 years of age
Bubbles quoting Bitchford. Gold Jerry
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:51 am
by Chef Boi RD
Sutter 2 goals in 2 games since coming back from his injury
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:57 am
by Chef Boi RD
Chiarellis top 5
1. Trading Barzal and Beauvellier for Reinhart
2. Trading Hall for Larsson
3. Trading Eberle for Strome
4. Signing Russell to 4 years $4 milllion pet
5. Signing Lucic long term to massive bucks or drafting Puljiatvi 4th overall or not getting a legitimate no. 1 goalie?
Island Nucklehead is campaigning for the Oilers to be respected for the rebuild Chiarelli is doing. They sit with the 8th worst record in the league and most likely will not make the playoffs
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:05 am
by Island Nucklehead
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:57 am
Island Nucklehead is campaigning for the Oilers to be respected for the rebuild Chiarelli is doing.
When in doubt, make it up!
They sit with the 8th worst record in the league and most likely will not make the playoffs
*Checks Standings*
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:08 am
by Blob Mckenzie
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:50 am
SKYO wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:19 am
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:07 am
Jason Botchford said in the Provies that Elmer had a choice between Vatanen and Sbisa and picked Sbisa. Gesus Christ.
everyone hates botchford, he imitates his god................
It's Bitchfotd the bitch. So legit
Vatanen traded to New Jersey for that bum Henriqur
Vatanen 2 goals 12 assists in 36 games
Sbisa 1 goal 9 assists in 24 games
Vatanen 5'-10" 185 lbs
Sbisa 6'-2" 210 lbs
The golden knights are raving about Sbisa. Shrimp Vatanen gets traded
Both are 27 years of age
Bubbles quoting Bitchford. Gold Jerry
Lol Vatanen is twice the player Sbisa is
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:13 am
by Chef Boi RD
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:08 am
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:50 am
SKYO wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:19 am
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:07 am
Jason Botchford said in the Provies that Elmer had a choice between Vatanen and Sbisa and picked Sbisa. Gesus Christ.
everyone hates botchford, he imitates his god................
It's Bitchfotd the bitch. So legit
Vatanen traded to New Jersey for that bum Henriqur
Vatanen 2 goals 12 assists in 36 games
Sbisa 1 goal 9 assists in 24 games
Vatanen 5'-10" 185 lbs
Sbisa 6'-2" 210 lbs
The golden knights are raving about Sbisa. Shrimp Vatanen gets traded
Both are 27 years of age
Bubbles quoting Bitchford. Gold Jerry
Lol Vatanen is twice the player Sbisa is
Yeah K. The Ducks feel the same
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:16 am
by Chef Boi RD
Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:05 am
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:57 am
Island Nucklehead is campaigning for the Oilers to be respected for the rebuild Chiarelli is doing.
When in doubt, make it up!
They sit with the 8th worst record in the league and most likely will not make the playoffs
*Checks Standings*
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nope, wrong, earlier this season or prior to, you raved about the Oiler rebuild as some kind of amazing piece of work
Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:17 am
by Blob Mckenzie
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:13 am
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:08 am
RoyalDude wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:50 am
SKYO wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:19 am
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:07 am
Jason Botchford said in the Provies that Elmer had a choice between Vatanen and Sbisa and picked Sbisa. Gesus Christ.
everyone hates botchford, he imitates his god................
It's Bitchfotd the bitch. So legit
Vatanen traded to New Jersey for that bum Henriqur
Vatanen 2 goals 12 assists in 36 games
Sbisa 1 goal 9 assists in 24 games
Vatanen 5'-10" 185 lbs
Sbisa 6'-2" 210 lbs
The golden knights are raving about Sbisa. Shrimp Vatanen gets traded
Both are 27 years of age
Bubbles quoting Bitchford. Gold Jerry
Lol Vatanen is twice the player Sbisa is
Yeah K. The Ducks feel the same
[/quo
Yeah I’m surethey do. They are loaded with young D with Vatanen, Montour, Manson, Lindholm and Fowler so they could afford to deal one for a centre because both Kesler and Getzlaf were injured. It was a win win trade for both clubs.