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
micky107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9509
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by micky107 » Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:20 am

Just to clarify my point on Edler;
I thought I said it right but maybe my computer skills aren't that great.
In the 2 years leading up to our run for the cup and in 2011 and 2012, I saw Edler as a potentially top 10 D-man.
I don't, however think it's fair to say that a super team around him made him look that good.
We all hope he'll have a good comeback year but it depends on that back.
During the Torts year, 13/14 it was obvious something was wrong.
When the play went back the other way and he would take the 2 or 3 forward strides, then flip around to skate backwards, he was falling. It's not as if he'd forgotten how to skate. That means he was having back problems sending numbness or pain down his leg. I've seen it. I've felt it. I know what it is.
Seems to have it somewhat under control now.

Tanev is going to the worlds and maybe it might be great for him as he might be given different roles and some powerplay time.

In regards to Miller, well we had our choice of Miller for 6 or Hiller for 4. I'm not too upset about what we did.
I'm more worried about possibly losing Roly as our goalie coach.....thanks ;)
"evolution"

User avatar
Zamboni Driver
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:24 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Zamboni Driver » Mon Apr 18, 2016 8:16 am

Strangelove wrote:
Yes we do know we couldn't have signed a #1 dee for $6M. :hmmm:
No, but add in Sbisa's $3.6 and you have more than 6.
Strangelove wrote:
Zamboni Driver wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
You suggest we should not have a proven #1 goaltender during a rebuild

... but feel we should have a #1 dee during a rebuild.
I don't see a 38 year old Miller in the Canucks goal in 2 or 3 years when the kids have developed.
A younger blue chip D would still be playing in 2 or 3 years.
Oh, now it's a younger #1 dee! :lol:

Yeah, you're right, Canucks could have acquired a younger #1 dee just as easily as they acquired Miller. :sly:
I never said they could, I said they could have tried.
I think I made my point clear earlier, I don't believe that breaking NTC's helps our credibility for future UFA's, and a (supposedly) elite #1 goaltender getting $6 is unnecessary for a rebuilding team, especially when his numbers are far from spectacular
Do you perchance move goalposts for a living? :D
I dunno, do you twist words for a living? :|

SKYO wrote:
Zamboni Driver wrote: I didn't like the Miller deal or the Sbisa one, that's just my opinion.
Money would have been better spent elsewhere IMO, as mentioned earlier.
I don't see a 38 year old Miller in the Canucks goal in 2 or 3 years when the kids have developed.
A younger blue chip D would still be playing in 2 or 3 years.
Miller is great for transitioning to the new core while not blowing the confidence of the team entirely, .
So would have other options.

User avatar
Aaronp18
MVP
MVP
Posts: 2922
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:36 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Aaronp18 » Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:29 am

Zamboni Driver wrote: No, but add in Sbisa's $3.6 and you have more than 6.
Who? Seriously, what #1 Dman has signed with a new team in the past 2 years? Oh and BTW, you can't just lump Miller's $6M and Sbisa's $3.6 together considering they weren't signed at the same time. Miller signed in 2014 and Sbisa signed his extension in 2015. So you still only has $6M.

So who would it be for $6M?
Zamboni Driver wrote: I never said they could, I said they could have tried.
How exactly do you know they didn't try? You've already stated we don't know the whole story!
Zamboni Driver wrote: So would have other options.
Seriously, what other options?

You have Miller's $6M, who would you have spent that on instead of him? And it would have left us with Lack and Markstrom (who played like shit in FLA and only regained form after some great goalie coaching in Utica, something he never received in FLA).

We would've been a complete disaster in net without Miller last year!

JMoose
CC Rookie
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:15 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by JMoose » Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:44 pm

Aaronp18 wrote:
Zamboni Driver wrote: No, but add in Sbisa's $3.6 and you have more than 6.
Who? Seriously, what #1 Dman has signed with a new team in the past 2 years? Oh and BTW, you can't just lump Miller's $6M and Sbisa's $3.6 together considering they weren't signed at the same time. Miller signed in 2014 and Sbisa signed his extension in 2015. So you still only has $6M.

So who would it be for $6M?
Zamboni Driver wrote: I never said they could, I said they could have tried.
How exactly do you know they didn't try? You've already stated we don't know the whole story!
Zamboni Driver wrote: So would have other options.
Seriously, what other options?

You have Miller's $6M, who would you have spent that on instead of him? And it would have left us with Lack and Markstrom (who played like shit in FLA and only regained form after some great goalie coaching in Utica, something he never received in FLA).

We would've been a complete disaster in net without Miller last year!
I have a few friends who were irate that we dealt Lack at the draft and went with Miller and Markstrom. They knew nothing about Markstrom which was funny given their strong opinions, but they were all about Eddie and how he was the guy to go with.

I suspect that any possibility of Lack being our goalie of the future evaporated when Benning took over and drafted Demko at 36. Lack played well when Miller went down last year, he kept us in it, stole a couple of games, and got us into the playoffs. Miller should have been given the net in the last game of the season and the start of the playoffs. Lack had boosted his value in the regular season and if the plan was to deal him and keep Markstrom then protect his value and only put him in if Miller falters, that way he is not the guy holding the bag and coming out of a game or series like he was, and if he comes in in relief and gets the team through then his value goes up further.

I am not a crazy Benning fan, nor am I a hater, but that was definitely an error in asset management. I am not sold on his player/cap management -I don't think he's screwed the pooch entirely there either- but his asset management regarding traded players not named Kesler or Bieksa has not been even remotely what I think it should have been.

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 15107
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Hockey Widow » Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:13 pm

I was all set for a Lack/Markstrom tandem when Benning took over. And dreaded it. I was happy and surprised that we got Miller. I was pleased it was only for three years.

I was thrilled that Markstrom got to spend the year in Utica finding his game, something that would not have happened had he stayed in Vancouver.

I was sad to see Eddie go but wanted to keep Markstrom more. I was disappointed we didn't get at least a 2nd for Eddie but happy we got two picks for him in any event.

I remember the dark days of goaltending before Luongo got to Vancouver. I am in no hurry to return there. Our goaltending has not been one of our problems. In fact it is one of our strengths. Hopefully Markstrom gets a pretty even split of games next season. Hopefully Demko turns pro this year and enjoys a solid year developing in Utica. There are a lot of teams that would love to have our problems in net.

The only argument it seems for not signing Miller is so we can lose more and draft better. Well we are going to draft pretty good this year, with Miller. His cap hit hasn't hurt us yet and it won't next season. Then the following year we free up his 6 million? Hopefully Markstrom is ready for the number 1 role. Demko may or may not need more time in Utica, the great unknown.

As for getting rid of players with NTC, it happens all the time, every team does it. It won't impact at all where FA choose to go. All a NTC does is give the player some control in whether they agree to move and/or where they go. Players themselves talk about this. They want the NTC to give themselves options. It maybe distasteful but it is the reality of business. And is it anymore distasteful than buying a player out who has a NTC, that same player who signed for less to sign with you, allegedly?
The only HW the Canucks need

Kowch
CC Veteran
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:11 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Kowch » Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:25 pm

I think Benning has done a decent job since getting here. While everyone brings up some great points, one that hasn't been mentioned directly is the effect that this particular market has on attracting NHL players (or in some cases, pushing them elsewhere).

The National Post has an interesting series of articles on the subject and is worth a read. This has a direct connection to the Canucks (and other Canadian teams) needing to pay a slight premium on locking up elite talent. Just look at the wonderful list of Free Agents Canadian NHL Teams signed over the last decade.

User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2484
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Todd Bersnoozi » Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:36 pm

micky107 wrote:Just to clarify my point on Edler;

In the 2 years leading up to our run for the cup and in 2011 and 2012, I saw Edler as a potentially top 10 D-man.
Yeah, when Edler was younger, I thought he was going to be better than Ohlund and maybe become our first Norris trophy candidate and beome a Lidstrom type. Unfortunately, he never reached that lvl. I'd rate Ohlund a little better than him; Ohlie was more physical, a better shut down guy and had more leadership. Edler is still a good player, probably a #2-#3 D-man on most teams, but a notch below elite calibre. KInd of like Hammer, when he's put in those #1 situations, his game starts to breakdown. I still remember when he dumped the puck up the middle vs Calgary in game #6, totally destroyed us and our playoffs was over.

User avatar
rats19
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 9358
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:21 am
Location: over here.....

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by rats19 » Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:37 pm

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:
micky107 wrote:Just to clarify my point on Edler;

In the 2 years leading up to our run for the cup and in 2011 and 2012, I saw Edler as a potentially top 10 D-man.
Yeah, when Edler was younger, I thought he was going to be better than Ohlund and maybe become our first Norris trophy candidate and beome a Lidstrom type. Unfortunately, he never reached that lvl. I'd rate Ohlund a little better than him; Ohlie was more physical, a better shut down guy and had more leadership. Edler is still a good player, probably a #2-#3 D-man on most teams, but a notch below elite calibre. KInd of like Hammer, when he's put in those #1 situations, his game starts to breakdown. I still remember when he dumped the puck up the middle vs Calgary in game #6, totally destroyed us and our playoffs was over.
Did it not all change with his back issues?
Getting old is not for the young...

User avatar
micky107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9509
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by micky107 » Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:41 pm

For sure it did, big time.
I remember listening to the doctor that did the procedure and there was never a guarantee for 10 years
"evolution"

User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2484
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Todd Bersnoozi » Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:55 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:I was all set for a Lack/Markstrom tandem when Benning took over. And dreaded it. I was happy and surprised that we got Miller. I was pleased it was only for three years.
I thought this @ the time and I still think it, I think Benning should not have bothered signing Miller and Verby when he first came in. Just go with Lack Attack and Marky Mark, sign a cheap veteran backup to help them if necesscary.
The year to tank it was last year (McJesus Sweepstakes). Instead, it took for things to fall apart this year for us to go into full tank mode. I guess a bright spot is we got Boeser last year and we have a good chance at a top 3 pick this year, but boy oh boy, would still luved to have a crack @ a generational franchise player like McJesus. I know nothing is guaranteed, but just knowing that we tried would have been satisfactory. Better late than never I guess, but the "genius" was basically 1 year late for the tank.

User avatar
Cornuck
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 8193
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Everywhere

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Cornuck » Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:14 pm

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:...Just go with Lack Attack and Marky Mark, sign a cheap veteran backup to help them if necesscary...
There's no reason to throw young players into the deep end just to aid a 'tank' - that's the Edmonton model and it sucks.

I've had no problem with Miller taking the #1 and grooming Markstrom (and hopefully Demko) until they become confident, true starters with this team. Unless your goal is to open up the graveyard again, you need a strong #1 like Miller.
2019-20 - Playoff Bound

JMoose
CC Rookie
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:15 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by JMoose » Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:20 pm

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:I was all set for a Lack/Markstrom tandem when Benning took over. And dreaded it. I was happy and surprised that we got Miller. I was pleased it was only for three years.
I thought this @ the time and I still think it, I think Benning should not have bothered signing Miller and Verby when he first came in. Just go with Lack Attack and Marky Mark, sign a cheap veteran backup to help them if necesscary.
The year to tank it was last year (McJesus Sweepstakes). Instead, it took for things to fall apart this year for us to go into full tank mode. I guess a bright spot is we got Boeser last year and we have a good chance at a top 3 pick this year, but boy oh boy, would still luved to have a crack @ a generational franchise player like McJesus. I know nothing is guaranteed, but just knowing that we tried would have been satisfactory. Better late than never I guess, but the "genius" was basically 1 year late for the tank.
To top that off, just getting McDavid or Eichel last season would have had little effect on this one if we were still running with Markstrom and Lack. So we would likely have had draft picks in the top 5 range in back-to-back seasons.

While we likely would not have Boeser now, who is looking like he could turn into a really good top line sniper, we would probably at least be looking at having 1 of Hanafin/Provorov/McDavid/Eichel/Strome and 1 of Matthews/Laine/Puljarvi/Chychrun/Juolevi.

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8351
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Island Nucklehead » Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:30 pm

Cornuck wrote:
Todd Bersnoozi wrote:...Just go with Lack Attack and Marky Mark, sign a cheap veteran backup to help them if necesscary...
There's no reason to throw young players into the deep end just to aid a 'tank' - that's the Edmonton model and it sucks.

I've had no problem with Miller taking the #1 and grooming Markstrom (and hopefully Demko) until they become confident, true starters with this team. Unless your goal is to open up the graveyard again, you need a strong #1 like Miller.
Yeah, I can understand why Benning went out and got Miller. I guess the problem is that he was pretty much outplayed by Lack last season, and was no better than Markstrom this year. Who knows how that Lack/Markstrom combo would've done, but we know that Miller wasn't much better than either of his backups in the two seasons he's been here. That's mostly on Miller, but also a bit on the pro-scouting department thinking he was still in the 55+ game workhorse category that Luongo is.

We also got extremely lucky that Markstrom wasn't claimed on waivers.

User avatar
Cornuck
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 8193
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Everywhere

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Cornuck » Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:51 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:
Cornuck wrote:
Todd Bersnoozi wrote:...Just go with Lack Attack and Marky Mark, sign a cheap veteran backup to help them if necesscary...
There's no reason to throw young players into the deep end just to aid a 'tank' - that's the Edmonton model and it sucks.

I've had no problem with Miller taking the #1 and grooming Markstrom (and hopefully Demko) until they become confident, true starters with this team. Unless your goal is to open up the graveyard again, you need a strong #1 like Miller.
Yeah, I can understand why Benning went out and got Miller. I guess the problem is that he was pretty much outplayed by Lack last season, and was no better than Markstrom this year.
What a problem to have, eh? Of course hindsight is 20/20 and we ended up with good goaltending, but it's hard to say how a Lack / Markstrom tandem would have worked out. I wasn't wanting to find out, and neither was Benning.
2019-20 - Playoff Bound

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 15107
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Hockey Widow » Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:56 pm

But none of that answers the question: who could we not sign because we signed Miller to 6 million?

On one hand people are saying we should not have signed Miller and we should have gone with Markstom and Lack so we could have sucked last year and gotten a higher pick.

Then, we shouldn't have signed Miller because Lack was just as good and we could have won with him, but you would not get a higher pick if Lack and Markstrom would have been just as good.

On one hand Miller sucks and it was a bad signing, on the other hand it was a bad signing because he won and prevented us from getting a better pick. Which is it?

Then we should not sign FA now because we are still rebuilding but then signing Miller prevented us from signing better FAs.

It would be much easier if there was one clear position. For example, let's not sign any FA at all for 2-4 years. Who cares if we are 10-20 million below the cap. Let's just play lesser players, miss the playoffs for 2-4 years, then when our kids are ready lets go crazy in FA and become a contender. Who cares if there are no decent FA available. Like Stamkos. He won't be available in 2-4 years. He is available now.

Disagree with signing Miller because Lack and Markstrom were good enough but not because he prevented us from signing someone else. He didn't. If Miller is that bad tankers should be thrilled with the signing.
The only HW the Canucks need

Post Reply