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
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 8:43 pm

SKYO wrote: Benning and Linden have done a fine job of delicately moving vets out with respect.
I don't know how you can look at the Hamhuis deadline move and think that dick-around was respectful.

Benning has been completely business-like in his handling of players. I'm fine with that, but let's not call it player-friendly.

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 15089
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Hockey Widow » Mon Apr 18, 2016 8:53 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:
SKYO wrote: Benning and Linden have done a fine job of delicately moving vets out with respect.
I don't know how you can look at the Hamhuis deadline move and think that dick-around was respectful.

Benning has been completely business-like in his handling of players. I'm fine with that, but let's not call it player-friendly.

Ya I don't know about respect. Ask Garrison his opinion. Bieksa was handled with respect as was Higgins. But that aside, it is a business, as stated. Screw respect. Kesler showed no respect. Why is it a one way street.

Benning was brought in to rebuild transition the team. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Overall he has done well. Don't like all his moves/signings but overall the body of work is strong.
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
Posts: 10944
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by SKYO » Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:00 pm

Island Nucklehead wrote:
SKYO wrote: Benning and Linden have done a fine job of delicately moving vets out with respect.
I don't know how you can look at the Hamhuis deadline move and think that dick-around was respectful.

Benning has been completely business-like in his handling of players. I'm fine with that, but let's not call it player-friendly.
Where are you creating this dick-around story from?

Seems Benning had the utmost respect towards Hamhuis and his NTC, working with agent/Ham so well in fact that Hamhuis still wants to re-sign.
Hamhuis explained Monday that, although he and his wife, Sarah, needed time last week to consider a trade, he told the Canucks last Wednesday that he would go to Chicago, then doubled his trade list on Thursday to include Dallas.

The timing of this is significant because it has been reported that Hamhuis’s indecision turned off the Blackhawks. Instead, it appears Chicago made a hockey decision and decided simply that their resources were better spent on a winger like Ladd than a defenceman like Hamhuis.

Just as the Stars chose Russell over Hamhuis.
Hoping for a last-minute bargain after acquiring Russell, the Stars’ deadline offer for Hamhuis of a late draft pick and a minor-leaguer with little chance of playing in the NHL was rejected by Benning.

The Los Angeles Kings never materialized as the serious bidders for Hamhuis that they were expected to be, and a late push Monday by the Boston Bruins was doomed because Hamhuis said he wasn’t waiving his NTC to move to the Eastern Conference, far from his wife and three children.
http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/nhl ... on-the-job

--
http://blogs.theprovince.com/2016/03/28 ... on-trophy/

The resolve to ramp up his conditioning and skating with an intense and cutting-edge program brought him to this point. He not only turned back the clock with a remarkable return on Feb.4, he expects to extend his career and his first choice is to remain in Vancouver, where he took a pay cut to join the club six years ago.

Dallas and Chicago showed interest at the trade deadline and Hamhuis could command both market value and a long-term contract in free agency to increase his expiring $4.5 million US salary cap hit. But he’s not wired that way.

“If you look at it from a pure hockey aspect — if I was chasing the money — leaving would be the best option to have the most exposure, if I was traded to a top-end team,” he said prior to the deadline. “But there’s more to it than that in my decision. I look at it that it’s a great situation in Vancouver for me and for my family. I certainly would consider what that would do to the family, too.

“I want to be a part of this team and I feel privileged to be part of a rebuilding situation and possibly mentor and help develop younger players.”
Quit making stuff up.
A long time ago, a baseball player remarked: "If I owned a ballclub, I'd hire a $5,000 coach and a $15,000 scout."

User avatar
micky107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9454
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by micky107 » Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:08 am

Hamhuis could be offered a 2 or 3 year deal for maybe 3 mill per. If that's an insult then try the market.
That's business and the fact is his body just can't do what his mind wants it to anymore. He's not the biggest guy so his age hurts him more.
Sbisa was never anything other than "Well if that's all we can get off them, I guess we better take it". O.K., forced issue! Enough, time to move on, dump him, he's a terrible example. See kids, this is how to collect a pay check but only have to try every 6 games. F.F.S.

Honestly I did not see as much development as I'd hoped this year. Hutton made great strides, that was very notable but I'm not willing to give WD much credit at all and I think most of the guys, Horvat in particular, just started figuring it out on their own. Sorry, not a WD fan, maybe bad on me but that's what I saw.
No system, confusion, bench minors, just not a clear enough picture to follow.
"evolution"

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 15089
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Hockey Widow » Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:47 am

I don't see Benning as the type to low ball a player. I don't think he low balls Hamhuis. Term is what will be at issue if they want him back. 4-4.5 for three years, maybe two years, is what I see them offering, if they offer anything. I don't know that they have decided yet.
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
dangler
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1239
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: Commercial Drive Coffee shop

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by dangler » Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:26 am

micky107 wrote:
Honestly I did not see as much development as I'd hoped this year. Hutton made great strides, that was very notable but I'm not willing to give WD much credit at all and I think most of the guys, Horvat in particular, just started figuring it out on their own. Sorry, not a WD fan, maybe bad on me but that's what I saw.
No system, confusion, bench minors, just not a clear enough picture to follow.
The vet's and assistant coaches probably have more influence than the head coach. Horvat sited Daniel's help recently when commenting on working his way out of the slump he had this season, also recall him expressing gratitude towards Burrows last season for helping him along. With the vet's they have now they have a pretty good group of mentors there for the next generation of players.
Loui is tougher to get rid of than ear hair

User avatar
micky107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9454
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by micky107 » Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:33 am

dangler wrote:
micky107 wrote:
Honestly I did not see as much development as I'd hoped this year. Hutton made great strides, that was very notable but I'm not willing to give WD much credit at all and I think most of the guys, Horvat in particular, just started figuring it out on their own. Sorry, not a WD fan, maybe bad on me but that's what I saw.
No system, confusion, bench minors, just not a clear enough picture to follow.
The vet's and assistant coaches probably have more influence than the head coach. Horvat sited Daniel's help recently when commenting on working his way out of the slump he had this season, also recall him expressing gratitude towards Burrows last season for helping him along. With the vet's they have now they have a pretty good group of mentors there for the next generation of players.
I would agree with that...
"evolution"

User avatar
micky107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9454
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by micky107 » Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:38 am

micky107 wrote:
dangler wrote:
micky107 wrote:
Honestly I did not see as much development as I'd hoped this year. Hutton made great strides, that was very notable but I'm not willing to give WD much credit at all and I think most of the guys, Horvat in particular, just started figuring it out on their own. Sorry, not a WD fan, maybe bad on me but that's what I saw.
No system, confusion, bench minors, just not a clear enough picture to follow.
The vet's and assistant coaches probably have more influence than the head coach. Horvat sited Daniel's help recently when commenting on working his way out of the slump he had this season, also recall him expressing gratitude towards Burrows last season for helping him along. With the vet's they have now they have a pretty good group of mentors there for the next generation of players.
I would agree with that...
Actually, I'll go one step further and say that when his career is over, Burrows has an unbelievable hockey IQ and would probably be a stupendous teacher...
"evolution"

User avatar
Tciso
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1825
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:44 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Tciso » Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:44 am

Hockey Widow wrote:I don't see Benning as the type to low ball a player. I don't think he low balls Hamhuis. Term is what will be at issue if they want him back. 4-4.5 for three years, maybe two years, is what I see them offering, if they offer anything. I don't know that they have decided yet.
I don't think $ 3 million is severely low balling Hammer. His play has dropped off. Yes, his last 25 games were OK, but they were not $4.5. $4.5 is top 60 in the league (general fanager), and Hammer is not a top pair Dman. As a 3/4 man, he should be in the $3 to $3.75 range. I'm comfortabe with $4 for 2 years.

His leverage is pretty simple though. If he goes somewhere else, who the heck do we get to replace him???
The Cup is soooooo ours!!!!!!!

User avatar
Hank
CC Legend
Posts: 3815
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:33 pm

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Hank » Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:18 am

So if Miller, Sutter, Dorsett etal hinders high-caliber UFA signings, why the heck do we want to re-sign a clearly diminished Hamhuis for another 2-3 years at that cap to be a bottom-pairing D?

It couldn't be the non-performing old core with their expensive contracts, NTCs and their right of refusal that's keeping the already quick rebuild from being even faster, could it? Let's keep Burrows and Higgins as top 6 to finish out their careers here cause they're good guys. Let's honor the shit contracts of the previous regime. Damn the business side, it's about respect!

Hey, there might be a #1 Dman out there we could sign if it weren't for Miller! Marky is clearly ready to handle the load of 60+ games with Bachman as the backup. His limited numbers as an NHL backup proves that he is just as good as a vet with years of #1 experience. Cause he's never shown his PTSD and had to be sent to the minors for an entire year.

If the goaltending implodes, no biggie. We've seen that this town and the "fans" can totally handle an Oiler-type rebuild!
Try to focus on THIS year...

User avatar
micky107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9454
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by micky107 » Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:21 am

Tciso wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:I don't see Benning as the type to low ball a player. I don't think he low balls Hamhuis. Term is what will be at issue if they want him back. 4-4.5 for three years, maybe two years, is what I see them offering, if they offer anything. I don't know that they have decided yet.
I don't think $ 3 million is severely low balling Hammer. His play has dropped off. Yes, his last 25 games were OK, but they were not $4.5. $4.5 is top 60 in the league (general fanager), and Hammer is not a top pair Dman. As a 3/4 man, he should be in the $3 to $3.75 range. I'm comfortabe with $4 for 2 years.

His leverage is pretty simple though. If he goes somewhere else, who the heck do we get to replace him???
Something we're all forgetting, that world turney at the end of this summer and I can potentially see a few moves by teams after said event, you never know....
"evolution"

User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 11022
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Topper » Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:26 am

Blob Mckenzie wrote:I honestly don't care at this point. I was throwing in my two cents
More over priced than the contracts you dislike.
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
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 11022
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Topper » Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:28 am

Benning make a business decision and goes with it.

Niceties may occur, but players and management know it is business.
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
micky107
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9454
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by micky107 » Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:44 am

Hank wrote:So if Miller, Sutter, Dorsett etal hinders high-caliber UFA signings, why the heck do we want to re-sign a clearly diminished Hamhuis for another 2-3 years at that cap to be a bottom-pairing D?

It couldn't be the non-performing old core with their expensive contracts, NTCs and their right of refusal that's keeping the already quick rebuild from being even faster, could it? Let's keep Burrows and Higgins as top 6 to finish out their careers here cause they're good guys. Let's honor the shit contracts of the previous regime. Damn the business side, it's about respect!

Hey, there might be a #1 Dman out there we could sign if it weren't for Miller! Marky is clearly ready to handle the load of 60+ games with Bachman as the backup. His limited numbers as an NHL backup proves that he is just as good as a vet with years of #1 experience. Cause he's never shown his PTSD and had to be sent to the minors for an entire year.

If the goaltending implodes, no biggie. We've seen that this town and the "fans" can totally handle an Oiler-type rebuild!
Personally, I haven't met any fans that could handle an Oiler type rebuild but if you know of any, send them over to my place and I'll put them straight, or somewhere else........... :twisted:
"evolution"

User avatar
Tciso
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1825
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:44 am

Re: The Great Jim Benning Debate!

Post by Tciso » Tue Apr 19, 2016 11:19 am

micky107 wrote: Personally, I haven't met any fans that could handle an Oiler type rebuild but if you know of any, send them over to my place and I'll put them straight, or somewhere else........... :twisted:

WTF exactly is an "Oiler type rebuild"? Picking #1 overall. Bringing in 18 year olds to start on the #1 line. Not even bothering to find a good goalie, or defencemen. Soft vets to mentor, and protect the young stars. Lots of years of bad management and coaching. Building a culture of losing.

An Oiler type rebuild ranks up with a Maple Leaves type rebuild in the "How Not To Build a Team for Dummies NHL Edition". So, no. I couldn't handle 10 years of ineptitude and stupidity from the Canucks. We have our mistakes, but nothing like what those 2 teams seem to have chosen as their broken model to rebuild.

BTW, I predict the Oilers will compete for #1 in the conference. And by that, I mean finish 3rd last overall. While the Canucks will struggle to stay competitive and finish about 20th overall in the standings, and just out of the playoffs.
The Cup is soooooo ours!!!!!!!

Post Reply