Pears Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 These two, young, BC Boys are currently RFA's without a new contract yet. So in a hypothetical situation if you had the opportunity to pick one of them, and the GM's of both teams wouldn't match an offer sheet, which one would you take, and how long would you sign him for and how much per year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 benn 5.25 per for 4-5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topbananas Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I think Kane is the better player but Benn would be a better fit with the Canucks and I would say 4 years @ $4.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Benn at 5.5 for 5 years has more leadership qualities than Kane. I like Kane but he seems immature at this point in his career but that said he is still verry young. Benn has captain written all over him and i cant see that in Kane yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksFanMike Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Really tough question.... Can i answer both?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonny_Bohonos_14 Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 I would say Benn. Skill wise they are both awesome players, and will likely grow into stars. I choose Benn simply because of the off ice antics - or lack there of. While I don't believe everything that has been said of Kane, where there's smoke, there's usually fire, and the way the team has been built - that kind of attitude won't fit in (see SOB). Benn seems quite (possibly due to lack of media coverage) and the fact that he was a late bloom should give him some more humility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwarrior Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 that is such a tough call, seeing as how both would look good here. but im going to have to go with benn, he would probably fit better in our line up. id offer him $4.5 for 6 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 OP, the question should be how much to offer sheet and have a realistic shot at being succesful A couple of ppl have said $4.5 mill on a long term deal. This is not going to happen. So there is no point discussing this scenario. Otherwise I say Benn for league minimum. Approx $600 k per year for 15 years. So a realistic offer that has a chance to succeed would be a heavily front loaded bonus laden contract. AAS would be at least $6+ mill with a first year bonus of $10 million or so. With DAL struggling financially it might be tough for them to match a guaranteed $20+ million in a calebdar year with a possible lockout season. When you look at who owns the Stars now and their history with the Canucks they would pbbly match a realistic offer from VAN. So the only offer sheet that works might be for Kane, therefore I would target him. 6 years 40 million with $13 mill per year the first 2 years out of which $10 mill per year would be signing bonus. So Kane gets $20 million in one calendar year before he is eligible to be traded according to CBA, lockout or no lockout. WPG might not match that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gally Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Benn but it wouldn't happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I think I'd go with Benn too. Kane is great but big centres are a rare find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveracanuck37 Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I haven't looked at it but benn looks bigger than kane on tv, I think benn is better but that's my opinion.. I would rather have been he would be a good fit with kesler I'd often him 4 years 21 million 4 million the first 2 years than 6.5 million the following 2 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Garrison Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I rather have Kane. More potential and goes to the dirty areas. JG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strawberries Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Kane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Not a question in my mind Benn over Kane. If Benn was 5 mil a year and Kane was 4 I'd still take Benn. Benn is a better and more versatile player who just keeps improving. Kane is...very good. I've got nothing really bad to say about him in terms of the on ice product. Benn quite simply imo is just a better hockey player with way less exposure and way more smarts. Having said that any team is lucky to have either one of them...on the ice. Benn at 5 mil for 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombieksa Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Send an offer sheet to Benn at 6.1M for 3 years. Send Booth, Edler, and 1st from Luongo trade to Winnipeg for Kane. Money!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButterBean Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 I rather have Kane. More potential and goes to the dirty areas. JG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted August 25, 2012 Author Share Posted August 25, 2012 Send an offer sheet to Benn at 6.1M for 3 years. Send Booth, Edler, and 1st from Luongo trade to Winnipeg for Kane. Money!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinB Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Benn in a heartbeat. Watched the guy develop with the Rockets first hand. I live in Kelowna and had season tickets for one of the seasons Benn was in Kelowna. He's the next Iginla in my opinion. A tough and skilled leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted August 25, 2012 Share Posted August 25, 2012 Why do people refer to Kane as a power forward? The guy isn't big at all. A couple guys I know got their picture with Kane in Vancouver not too long ago and if you showed this picture to someone that had no clue about hockey and asked who is the dominant physical specimen here, it would be a complete crap shoot. You know, that's what a power forward is suppose to be after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted August 25, 2012 Author Share Posted August 25, 2012 Why do people refer to Kane as a power forward? The guy isn't big at all. A couple guys I know got their picture with Kane in Vancouver not too long ago and if you showed this picture to someone that had no clue about hockey and asked who is the dominant physical specimen here, it would be a complete crap shoot. You know, that's what a power forward is suppose to be after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.