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

[Ronning's Ghost]

In the opinion of any (or all) of his supporters, how much longer do we need to run the Benning experiment to draw definitive conclusions ?

"we"?

I've already drawn my conclusions Cliffy, let me know you draw yours.

Even before The Dude's suggestion that would should judge a genius by the quality of his Masterpiece, I think I had agreed to reserve judgement until the Season That We Should Try to Think About, which I believe works out to 2018/2019. I have long maintained that the outcome was the only thing subject to objective tests.

If you have already seen enough to draw your own conclusions, I infer you are judging the process. That is your right, of course, but it's not clear to me how we move that from the realm of opinion.

"we"?

Sorry, I should be careful of my colloquialisms when discussing things with you.

It is not clear to me how, in the absence of sufficient data about the results, an assessment of the process could be moved from the realm of opinion.

[Strangelove]

Not enough sufficient data for whom?

[DonCherry4PM]

Not enough sufficient data for whom?

Any "reasonable person".

[Strangelove]

Not enough sufficient data for whom?

Any "reasonable person".

"reasonable person" as defined by whom?

[DonCherry4PM]

Not enough sufficient data for whom?

Any "reasonable person".

"reasonable person" as defined by whom?

How about this: https://thelawdictionary.org/reasonable-person/

[Strangelove]

Not enough sufficient data for whom?

Any "reasonable person".

"reasonable person" as defined by whom?

How about this: https://thelawdictionary.org/reasonable-person/

Okaaay...

"REASONABLE PERSON refers to an ordinary person who exercises care while avoiding extremes of boldness and carefulness."

I submit then that YOU sir are not "avoiding extremes of carefulness" (you refuse to put any faith in this rebuild).

Therefore, by the definition you have so kindly provided, YOU SIR are not a "reasonable person".

Thank you and good day.

EDIT: btw I have been accused by more than a few here of not being bold enough in my predictions

... therefore it is fair to say that I am "avoiding extremes of boldness" and am a "reasonable person" by your definition.

[DonCherry4PM]

Not enough sufficient data for whom?

Any "reasonable person".

"reasonable person" as defined by whom?

How about this: https://thelawdictionary.org/reasonable-person/

Okaaay...

"REASONABLE PERSON refers to an ordinary person who exercises care while avoiding extremes of boldness and carefulness."

I submit then that YOU sir are not "avoiding extremes of carefulness".

Therefore, by the definition you have so kindly provided, YOU are not a "reasonable person".

Thank you and good day sir.

EDIT: btw I have been accused by more than a few here of not being bold enough in my predictions

... therefore it is fair to say that I am "avoiding extremes of boldness" and am a "reasonable person" by your definition.

Lol.

For your submission to hold any water, I would suggest that you exercise care and provide some form or supporting evidence.

That being said, whether or not I am a reasonable person is immaterial as to whether my argument is valid, unless of course you believe in the logical validity of ad hominem arguments.

The supporting evidence you provide (i.e. providing nebulous predictions) to uphold the statement that you are "avoiding extremes of boldness" is relevant but easily countered by your insistence on proclaiming JB a "Genius" without showing evidence that he is above (or even equal to) the level of the average NHL GM. I would submit that such proclamation is indeed evidence taking an "extreme of boldness".

[Ronning's Ghost]

Not enough sufficient data for whom?

Any "reasonable person".

More particular to this argument, not enough data about the results of his work for someone who wants to show that Jim Benning is a hockey management genius.

The objective data we have are team wins, and the trajectory thereof, since he assumed the General Manager position. Those data do not support a genius hypothesis. The only hope for the genius hypothesis are new data indicating a different trend.

[Strangelove]

For your submission to hold any water, I would suggest that you exercise care and provide some form or supporting evidence.

The many reasons to believe have been posted many times in this forum.

That being said, whether or not I am a reasonable person is immaterial as to whether my argument is valid, unless of course you believe in the logical validity of ad hominem arguments.

Whether or not you are reasonable in this matter has everything to do with this.

See, you were trying to set yourself up as some kind of impartial judge of reasonableness.

Were you attempting to set up a kangaroo court there Captain Kangaroo?

BTW if it is an “ad hominem argument” to question an opponent’s reasonableness in a debate

… then I must point out those four fingers of yours pointing directly back at yourself sir.

YOU are the one who started us down this road with "A reasonable person would believe..."

The supporting evidence you provide (i.e. providing nebulous predictions) to uphold the statement that you are "avoiding extremes of boldness" is relevant but easily countered by your insistence on proclaiming JB a "Genius" without showing evidence that he is above (or even equal to) the level of the average NHL GM. I would submit that such proclamation is indeed evidence taking an "extreme of boldness".

So you agree that my predictions are reasonable. Good.

But you claim my lable of “genius” is unreasonable??

Interesting, considering my predictions pretty much reflect the work of a genius.

But moving on…

The “evidence” of Lord Benning’s genius has been posted many times in this forum.

This evidence makes my conclusion reasonable.

Meanwhile we have already established that YOU are unreasonable in this matter...

(you refuse to put any faith in the rebuild, you are "not avoiding extremes of carefulness")

So it... A P P E A R S... that reasonable people believe that Lord Benning is a genius.

[Strangelove]

Not enough sufficient data for whom?

Any "reasonable person".

More particular to this argument, not enough data about the results of his work for someone who wants to show that Jim Benning is a hockey management genius.

The objective data we have are team wins, and the trajectory thereof, since he assumed the General Manager position. Those data do not support a genius hypothesis. The only hope for the genius hypothesis are new data indicating a different trend.

LMAO... if only it were so simple Cliffy!

Wins = Genius.

You just can't stop with all your "we" stuff, so hilarious...

[Ronning's Ghost]

Not enough sufficient data for whom?

Any "reasonable person".

More particular to this argument, not enough data about the results of his work for someone who wants to show that Jim Benning is a hockey management genius.

The objective data we have are team wins, and the trajectory thereof, since he assumed the General Manager position. Those data do not support a genius hypothesis. The only hope for the genius hypothesis are new data indicating a different trend.

LMAO... if only it were so simple Cliffy!

Wins = Genius.

You just can't stop with all your "we" stuff, so hilarious...

If genius from a hockey manager is not reflected in wins -- and ultimately, championships -- how else would it manifest ?

The only data useful to a discussion are the data we both possess. If you have some inside knowledge that reflects on Benning's alleged genius, please share.

[Chef Boi RD]

JimBro's Genius drafting was on full display today coming via the Price/Sekeras Team 1040 show when their Special Guest Adam Gaudette layed to rest any notion of him possibly entertaining the idea of going back to college next year to become a free agent. Mentioning honourng the Canucks for drafting him, giving him a chance, while the other 29 teams passed over him for 5 rounds. The leading scorer of the NCAA and Hobey Baker Nominee also mentioned that him and Boeser (2015 draft class mate) are good friends and talk all the time. This guy is s beaut, JimBro's drafting is pure genius! What a steal. After 6 years of shite embarrassing drafting under the Gillis regime, JimBro Benning is da shit!

[Ronning's Ghost]

JimBro's Genius drafting was on full display today coming via the Price/Sekeras Team 1040 show when their Special Guest Adam Gaudette layed to rest any notion of him possibly entertaining the idea of going back to college next year to become a free agent. Mentioning honourng the Canucks for drafting him, giving him a chance, while the other 29 teams passed over him for 5 rounds. The leading scorer of the NCAA and Hobey Baker Nominee also mentioned that him and Boeser (2015 draft class mate) are good friends and talk all the time. This guy is s beaut, JimBro's drafting is pure genius! What a steal. After 6 years of shite embarrassing drafting under the Gillis regime, JimBro Benning is da shit!

I thought you were of the outcome, rather than the process, school of genius assessment ("wait for the Masterpiece, there will be stumbles along the way, etc.").

Perhaps I am overly cautious, but I'd like to see Gaudette play at least half an NHL season before I agree that he was a brilliant draft pick.

[Chef Boi RD]

Ya gotta admit, he's one helluva promising looking prospect!!!!' Him and Petterson SLAYED the rookie camp! Slayed it!!!!

[DonCherry4PM]

For your submission to hold any water, I would suggest that you exercise care and provide some form or supporting evidence.

The many reasons to believe have been posted many times in this forum.

Ah, so this is our methodology for presenting supportive evidence. Well then, the many reasons to believe you do not “avoid extremes of boldness” have also been posted many times in this forum. With that level of evidence being the standard, it would appear that neither of us is a “reasonable person”. Sadly, that does not equate to JB being a Genius nor the alternative.

That being said, whether or not I am a reasonable person is immaterial as to whether my argument is valid, unless of course you believe in the logical validity of ad hominem arguments.

Whether or not you are reasonable in this matter has everything to do with this.

See, you were trying to set yourself up as some kind of impartial judge of reasonableness.

Contrary to your misunderstanding, my argument is that a “reasonable person” would require more evidence than what has been presented thus far in order to agree that JB is, in fact, a Genius.

BTW if it is an “ad hominem argument” to question an opponent’s reasonableness in a debate

… then I must point out those four fingers of yours pointing directly back at yourself sir.

YOU are the one who started us down this road with "A reasonable person would believe..."

My argument is that that a “reasonable person” would require more evidence than what has been presented thus far in order to agree that JB is, in fact, a Genius. Hence, the mirror image of my argument is that a person who, based on the evidence presented thus far, proclaims JB to be a Genius is an “unreasonable person” (in this matter). I can’t help it if, by default, that makes you an “unreasonable person” (in this matter). Now if I were to say, “you are an unreasonable person and therefore your argument is wrong”, that would be an ad hominem (and invalid) argument.

Your being an “unreasonable person” (or not) doesn’t make your arguments wrong or right. Evidence is what makes your arguments right or wrong. And as noted above, our current standard of evidence (i.e. “many reasons to believe have been posted many times in this forum “) would seem to allow for both sides to be right and wrong at the same time.

The supporting evidence you provide (i.e. providing nebulous predictions) to uphold the statement that you are "avoiding extremes of boldness" is relevant but easily countered by your insistence on proclaiming JB a "Genius" without showing evidence that he is above (or even equal to) the level of the average NHL GM. I would submit that such proclamation is indeed evidence taking an "extreme of boldness".

So you agree that my predictions are reasonable. Good.

Nope. Being relevant is one thing. Saying they are reasonable is quite another.

But moving on…

The “evidence” of Lord Benning’s genius has been posted many times in this forum.

This evidence makes my conclusion reasonable.

Just as the evidence against such premise has also “been posted many times in this forum”. It appears that with such a low standard of evidence, we shall not make any headway in this argument. Perhaps instead, we should try to find some common ground as to what we each believe a “reasonable person” would require to proclaim JB a Genius?

Dispensing with our standard of evidence for the moment, would you agree that for a “reasonable person” to proclaim JB a Genius, such “reasonable person” would need to see evidence indicating that JB was doing a significantly better job than an average NHL GM?

Meanwhile we have already established that YOU are unreasonable in this matter...

(you refuse to put any faith in the rebuild, you are "not avoiding extremes of carefulness")

So it... A P P E A R S... that reasonable people believe that Lord Benning is a genius.

Only established, if our flimsy standard of evidence remains. Or perhaps I should just argue that evidence of my own reasonableness in this matter has “been posted many times in this forum”.

With respect to your argument that I “refuse to put any faith in the rebuild”, I have actually been on record quite a few times in stating that I am a fan of JB’s work from last year’s trade deadline coming forward and with a fair amount of his other drafting. My criticism of other portions of his tenure does not equate to having no faith in the rebuild, it just means I don’t interpret JB’s overall tenure as being evidence of a “Genius”.

Please ensure you are in an upright seated position for this……………… but I would actually be okay (and would even prefer) extending JB’s contract given (what I consider to be) improvement as evidenced by his body of work over the past year, subject to the extension’s terms of course.