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

[Blob Mckenzie]

I would think a person should have interpreted that there are some in the organization who are not fond of some of the contracts and some of the moves that Elmer has made during his tenure. Not EVERYBODY is stoked to re-sign him to a long term extension at the moment. Specifically noted was the lack of depth and the trade deadline fiasco.

[Strangelove]

I would think a person should have interpreted that there are some in the organization who are not fond of some of the contracts and some of the moves that Elmer has made during his tenure. Not EVERYBODY is stoked to re-sign him to a long term extension at the moment. Specifically noted was the lack of depth and the trade deadline fiasco.

Ahh but why would that affect "alleged spreaders of Benning propaganda"?

Wouldn't spreaders of Benning propaganda (real or imaginary) respond that IF that speculation was true

... that those folks "in the organization" (in fact the owners) can't recognize a "genius" when they see one?

And btw that part of her post is speculation.

She said of that particular part: "those are the optics some espouse".

She also speculated as to how much damage the owners "meddling" may have done

... and that the owners may be their “own worst enemy at times”.

Wouldn't your alleged spreaders of Benning propaganda suggest that IF the owners are in fact doubting GMJB

... they are indeed their “own worst enemy"?

Aside from that bit of speculation, she stated that what is proven fact

... is that the owners are "controlling" and "underhanded". ("this is not news")

IF the speculation part of her post turned out to be true

... wouldn't your alleged spreaders of Benning propaganda seize upon that "proven fact"?

Wouldn't they turn on those "controlling and underhanded, own worst enemy" owners?

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.

To put it in your terms, silly in a short-bus-window-licking kind of way?

[Puck]

It's generally better to have more continuity at the GM level than less. Teams that are constantly turning over their front office are rarely successful. JB has done well enough to get an extension. Offer 2, maybe 3 years and get on with it.

[Blob Mckenzie]

Doc I could give two fucks what you and the Dud think to be quite honest. I enjoy the banter for the most part. The reality is the truth about the quality of the job Elmer has done is somewhere between good and shitty. I have given him props for his work for the last 12 months. However he deserves a boot in the teeth for his work in his first 2 1/2 seasons. We will see if he gets re upped or not. If it’s longer than two seasons it’s a mistake. If they can get a guy like Brisebois or Fenton here, give him the boot. If you’re replacing him with Holland , I’m not sure that’s the right move. I’m on the fence regarding Dean Lombardi.

[Strangelove]

"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."

[Blob Mckenzie]

"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 ? We will know soon enough. As I said I’m generally ok with a maximum 2 year extension. That said if Fenton or Brisebois turn up somewhere else as a GM next season I’ll be fucking pissed off if they weren’t even approached by the Aquilinis.

Now get back on your bus and apply your tongue to the window

[Strangelove]

"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...

[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.

[Chef Boi RD]

The Aqualinis are the problem. Gagliardi would have been better here

[Ronning's Ghost]

The Aqualinis are the problem. Gagliardi would have been better here

Maybe ! But what would be the effect of a "Fire Aquilini !" chant ?

[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.

[Island Nucklehead]

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.

[Chef Boi RD]

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?

[Blob Mckenzie]

Just because Sutter is an ugly blemish doesn’t mean he wants Bonino back.

[Chef Boi RD]

Sutter isn't a blemish