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

dbr
CC Legend
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by dbr »

Gonna go ahead and repeat the request that you two get a room.

(Be sure to get one with a bathtub Doc, but don't worry about tracking down an enamel tub.. the lye won't melt through plastic)
Zedlee
CC 2nd Team All-Star
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:52 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Zedlee »

Arachnid wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
Topper wrote:
Strangelove wrote:El Toddo can't touch his toes any more! :lol:
So he was the man about it.

strange love indeed
Sure glad La Todda got her response in before you did.

Thanks for the forced beaner language lesson! :mrgreen:

Speaking of forced...

Todd, I know you couldn't see much from your position

... but I brought along my dog Chico for a reason!

THINK ABOOT IT
*Smacks Chico with a rolled up newspaper*

8-)
WTF are you guys on about?
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 28122
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Strangelove »

Zedlee wrote: WTF are you guys on about?
Looong story and

... you don't wanna know.

Back on topic, IMESHO Mr Benning is making the NHL his bitch! :mex:
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 12270
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Topper »

Zedlee wrote:WTF are you guys on about?
Well Zed, lets just say he brought out the gimp.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Zamboni Driver
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 716
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:24 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Zamboni Driver »

SKYO wrote:5ga, good thing we got Miller one more season to help Markstrom, one more year should be good.
And you think we will be a top 8 playoff contender next year?
Benning overpaid for Miller on the downside of his career, it's a waste to tie up $6 mil in a (supposedly) blue chip goalie if you are rebuilding during those 3 years.
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 16113
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Hockey Widow »

Zamboni Driver wrote:
SKYO wrote:5ga, good thing we got Miller one more season to help Markstrom, one more year should be good.
And you think we will be a top 8 playoff contender next year?
Benning overpaid for Miller on the downside of his career, it's a waste to tie up $6 mil in a (supposedly) blue chip goalie if you are rebuilding during those 3 years.

Exactly who did the Miller signing prevent us from signing? How would having his 6 million cap available have helped us over the last two years and this up coming season? Who exactly would you have as a number one while Markstrom is developing his NHL game?

Just curious as to how Benning could have better used that 6 million to help us.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Zamboni Driver
CC 1st Team All-Star
Posts: 716
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:24 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Zamboni Driver »

Hockey Widow wrote:
Exactly who did the Miller signing prevent us from signing? How would having his 6 million cap available have helped us over the last two years and this up coming season? Who exactly would you have as a number one while Markstrom is developing his NHL game?

Just curious as to how Benning could have better used that 6 million to help us.
Perhaps landing that elusive #1 D that we've never had

Question is, are we sure we see Markstrom being a top 10 goalie in the future?
If Benning is right and it does work out - great.
If he's wrong and we need to start thinking about developing a #1 goalie it may be way too late.
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 28122
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Strangelove »

She said "who exactly".

(careful, it's a trick question)
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 28122
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Strangelove »

Zamboni Driver wrote: Benning overpaid for Miller on the downside of his career, it's a waste to tie up $6 mil in a (supposedly) blue chip goalie if you are rebuilding during those 3 years.
Miller is an average #1 goaltender on an average #1 goaltender salary:

http://www.canuckscorner.com/forums/vie ... 80#p251580

(the numbers are slightly dated now, but you get the picture)

BTW are you one of those "Must Leave Lotsa Capspace to Ensure Suckage Guys"?

Because, we've been through this a gazillion times and

Not. Gonna. Happen.
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 28122
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Strangelove »

Zamboni Driver wrote: Question is, are we sure we see Markstrom being a top 10 goalie in the future?
If Benning is right and it does work out - great.
If he's wrong and we need to start thinking about developing a #1 goalie it may be way too late.
Well now, maybe Markstrom will become a Top 10 goalie in the future... and maybe he won't. (shrug)

BTW ever hear-tell of a guy who goes by the name of Thatcher Demko? :D
____
Try to focus on someday.
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 16113
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Hockey Widow »

Zamboni Driver wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:
Exactly who did the Miller signing prevent us from signing? How would having his 6 million cap available have helped us over the last two years and this up coming season? Who exactly would you have as a number one while Markstrom is developing his NHL game?

Just curious as to how Benning could have better used that 6 million to help us.
Perhaps landing that elusive #1 D that we've never had

Question is, are we sure we see Markstrom being a top 10 goalie in the future?
If Benning is right and it does work out - great.
If he's wrong and we need to start thinking about developing a #1 goalie it may be way too late.
And how exactly did signing Miller effect the Markstrom decision? Oh I get it, we could have kept Lack because we're sure he is gonna be a number one. It's exactly because Benning didn't know if Lack or Markstron could be a number one that he felt he had to sign one.

And as Doc says we do have Thatcher Demko and hopefully we get him signed. Not sure how signing Miller impacts that though.

Landing what number one D? Who was available that he could not sign because we had Miller? Ehrhoff, Franson?? What FA D did we miss out on? Or was there a trade we couldn't do because we didn't have the cap? Why do you assume signing Miller means Benning doesn't know we need a number one on D. In fact he has repeatedly said he believes you do need a true number one on D to be a contender. The real problem is he thinks we have that in Edler but that's another debate :mrgreen:
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Mickey107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13536
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:27 am
Location: Richmond, B.C.

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Mickey107 »

We do have that in Edler but only if he's in top form.
Recovering from a fractured leg,
Has an artificial piece in his back, which takes maintaining so you hope for the best.
Tanev did not really go forward or back this year so you gotta really hope Hutton keeps improving at the same pace next year because just keep looking at that UFA D-man list, there's not much there.
You can make a hockey trade but we're not exactly rich in assets yet.
The only saving grace is that we are not the only team crying for a top D.
S. Webers don't grow on trees, big shortage of quality puck moving, PP specialist D-men.
"evolution"
User avatar
2Fingers
MVP
MVP
Posts: 5614
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:47 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by 2Fingers »

Edler was never a #1 D - Man, he is above average but played on a great team that made him look good.

A true #1 D Man has the ability to make others better not benefit from a great team.
User avatar
Mickey107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13536
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:27 am
Location: Richmond, B.C.

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Mickey107 »

Reefer2 wrote:Edler was never a #1 D - Man, he is above average but played on a great team that made him look good.

A true #1 D Man has the ability to make others better not benefit from a great team.
Maybe not right away but at the point he had to have that back surgery, I feel he was on his way to be top 10 in the NHL.
The talent and knowledge in the game is there...so I'll agree to disagree :hmmm:
"evolution"
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 16113
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Hockey Widow »

I agree with Reef. The great D men can take over a game, elevate those around them, are consistent regardless of their teammates. Edler is a very good 2-4 guy. I just can't see him as that guy that can carry the team, break it open, turn it up a notch when we need a goal or play 30+ minutes shutting down the other team. Every team would love one of those but there are only a handful in the league at any given time. There are a lot more 1a and 1b types than true number one.

They are hard to find, are seldom traded and often don't reach FA.
The only HW the Canucks need
Post Reply