Sign in to follow this  
FijianCanuck

When can we extend Jim Bennings contract?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 11/11/2017 at 8:41 PM, fanfor42 said:

Benning gets re-signed 6 minutes after the Sedins retire. Please please do not re-sign the Sedins.  Please let us all move on. Please. 

So what you're saying is that if Benning re-signs the Sedins then he works for free for the next 3 or so years.

 

I like that type of commitment in a GM.

 

                                                                         regards,  G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2017 at 8:41 PM, fanfor42 said:

Benning gets re-signed 6 minutes after the Sedins retire. Please please do not re-sign the Sedins.  Please let us all move on. Please. 

Sedins are likely back for another year, but probably at a lot lower rate.

 

Anything that I've heard is, they aren't currently thinking retirement and they are looking okay with their minutes rolled back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

It is irrelevant.  There was no salary cap back then.  Comparing team building strategies when ELC were different, draft rules were different, salaries were different, makes no sense.  If you have to go back to that time period to find something that supports your argument you should realize your argument is flawed.

Toronto tanked for 1 year and got Matthews

You remind me of a guy who's been unemployed for 10 years..wins $5M in the lottery..and then starts up a company giving 'business advice'.

  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

It is irrelevant.  There was no salary cap back then.  Comparing team building strategies when ELC were different, draft rules were different, salaries were different, makes no sense.  If you have to go back to that time period to find something that supports your argument you should realize your argument is flawed.

Toronto tanked for 1 year and got Matthews. 

Coilers had to tank for umpteen years to get McDavid.

 

Laffs got lucky.  Or perhaps it wasn't luck (****put on tin foil hat****) considering who they have as general manager (Lou gave Bettman an offer he couldn't refuse...):

 

hqdefault.jpg

Edited by NewbieCanuckFan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, The Lock said:

We've been through this before, Toronto has had a number of years of rebuild and many of their players are from before Matthews. If you can't see how your argument is flawed in that I can't help you. We don't even know whether or not Toronto will become some sort of dynasty or if they'll never win the cup with who they have now.

And?  We were talking if tanking worked to get a top pick, not if that team will become a dynasty. 

 

 

20 hours ago, The Lock said:

Actually, let's even talk about another team who, by your definition, "tanked" and got number 1 overall: Colorado. They got MacKinnon. Great. Where are they now again? Great rebuild. Good to know that the 1st overall pick means you get out of "rebuild mode". Colorado totally must have tanked for 1 year and are now looking great! Right?..... :rolleyes: 

There's a big difference to a rebuild if you're tanking or just plain terrible.  Colorado got the 1st pick and sucks.  What does that prove?  Nobody ever claimed that tanking guarantees anything other than getting a better shot at having a really good rebuild.  This is because it's so hard to get stars.  LA, Chicago, Pens all drafted great players outside of the top of the draft, Benning has done that with Boeser.  However, that's not enough.  Most teams get lucky and find a star later in the draft.  In the cap era the dynasties also drafted superstars at the top of the draft on top of the Keiths, Kopitars and Murrays. 

 

Most of the good teams that haven't tanked, and also haven't won the cup.  Most of the crappy teams that got top picks, also haven't won the cup.  They don't matter.  Naming one example like Colorado doesn't matter. 

 

The examples that matter are the ones that are winning cups, the teams that built dynasties.  How did they manage to do it in a cap era with so much parity?  In the cap era they're doing it big part with young players that were taken at the top of the draft.  Those top player's don't win by themselves.  You still need good drafting, trades, contracts and luck.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Coilers had to tank for umpteen years to get McDavid.

I think it was more of terrible management than tanking, but you're right in that a lot of their top picks were meh.  They weren't given much of a chance to succeed though.  No defence or goaltending.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Honky Cat said:

You remind me of a guy who's been unemployed for 10 years..wins $5M in the lottery..and then starts up a company giving 'business advice'.

You remind me of a guy that doesn't have anything hockey related to add to this discussion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

And?  We were talking if tanking worked to get a top pick, not if that team will become a dynasty. 

 

 

There's a big difference to a rebuild if you're tanking or just plain terrible.  Colorado got the 1st pick and sucks.  What does that prove?  Nobody ever claimed that tanking guarantees anything other than getting a better shot at having a really good rebuild.  This is because it's so hard to get stars.  LA, Chicago, Pens all drafted great players outside of the top of the draft, Benning has done that with Boeser.  However, that's not enough.  Most teams get lucky and find a star later in the draft.  In the cap era the dynasties also drafted superstars at the top of the draft on top of the Keiths, Kopitars and Murrays. 

 

Most of the good teams that haven't tanked, and also haven't won the cup.  Most of the crappy teams that got top picks, also haven't won the cup.  They don't matter.  Naming one example like Colorado doesn't matter. 

 

The examples that matter are the ones that are winning cups, the teams that built dynasties.  How did they manage to do it in a cap era with so much parity?  In the cap era they're doing it big part with young players that were taken at the top of the draft.  Those top player's don't win by themselves.  You still need good drafting, trades, contracts and luck.  

So basically the conversation goes from us talking about a full on rebuild regarding Benning, then you bring up Toronto only taking one year so I say why it didn't.... now we're magically just talking about Toronto getting a top pick. No. We are not just talking about getting a top pick. We're talking about a rebuild.

 

I've used the exact same argument you just made about being terrible with Chicago and LA, funny how people for tanking claim those teams somehow tanked while teams like Colorado are just terrible somehow. There's no consistency there in terms of an argument. Even Toronto could be said to be just bad that one year.

 

As far as I'm concerned, there are 31 teams in this league and the data from ALL of them matter. Ruling 1 team out without a good reason or in an inconsistent way as to why you are not ruling out other teams is just skewed data in the end. It's not a clear picture at all and that's what bugs me about conversations about tanking with a few people on this forum. People are not looking at the full picture. People just see what they want to see and that's it.

 

And we will get more good players. Pettersson for example is 4th in the SweHL against adults.... as an 18 year old. How well that will translate into the NHL, we obviously don't know, but it's kind of rare to see an 18 year old player like that in that league without them becoming something rather significant in the NHL. Boeser was drafted in the late 1st round, so who knows if we get (or even have) more gems like that in the end.

 

I'm glad you are at least acknowledging that there is luck involved and that it's more than just getting 1 or 2 players.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/11/2017 at 5:06 PM, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Wasn't Aquilini quoted recently saying that JB's extension is coming soon?

 

Thought I heard something this past week.

No. He said he wouldn't discuss it in public (on radio). 

Edited by cuporbust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2017 at 6:45 PM, kanucks25 said:

As for Benning, I wouldn't be surprised if he was extended and at this point I don't really think it matters. We're finally on the right path and it doesn't really matter who steers the ship over the next couple years 'cause it's not like we're going to contend anyway. IMO, he should have already been fired for past transgressions but as long as he doesn't do something stupid again like sign Gudbranson to a crippling Eriksson-like deal, I wouldn't be horrified if he stays. Just don't start trading picks and prospects for older players like he did in his first 2.5 years and it's all good.

 

Yup if anyone else was at the helm we'd definitely have Gudbranson, Dorsett, Sutter, Baertschi, Granlund, Boeser, Virtanen, Del Zotto, Pouliot, Stecher, Demko, Dahlen, Juolevi, Goldobin, MacEwan, Gadjovich, Brisebois, Chatfield, Pettersson, Gaudette and Lind (I'm sure I'm missing some) all in our line up or in our system. Benning had nothing to do with that of course. Haters will never give Benning any credit, best to ignore them. :rolleyes:

Edited by Mattrek
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cuporbust said:

No. He said he wouldn't discuss it in public (on radio). 

but he also said he has liked what JB has done

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be in favor of resigning him for 3 years to fit in 7 years that any rebuilding GM needs to see this vision becoming a reality.  3-4 years are not enough of a rebuild so 6 to 7 years fits in a timeframe for a 31-team league assuming that your picks from each draft producing 3-4 NHLers plus trading to get assets.   So far, from what he gave away picks or a draft picks, he has produced almost half of it already.   I'm talking, traded away picks/veterans/prosects for Baertschi, Granlund, Pouliot, Sutter, Gudbrasen, and Dorsett and that's almost 1/4 of the team, not to mention a NHL potential in Goldobin, Dahllin.  If they do pan out, and that count will only go up to almost 1/3 of the roster turnovers.  He also drafted Virtenan, Trymakin, Demko, Boeser and that's 3/4 of them that is playing with this team from his pick. so that's almost 1/2 of turnover in term of roster plus 5 UFA that is a placeholder and that's goes up to 3/4 of the roster turnover to go along with college free agent: Stecher.   Plus too many potentials picks that has yet to play in AHL  

 

The Canucks do have a potential to complete their rebuild as soon as next season or even ended it already with their play so far but Benning knows that is not enough and he will do diligent to find more players through the drafts that is in his control.   He cannot control where they would finish at the end of the season.   If he target a certain players he wants, he will do it without hesitation.  If he felt that he needs more picks to round up, he will.  If there are more injures, they should be able to withstand a few injures as proven by their absence.  Also more UFA pool this coming summer with Sedin's contract coming off the book, higher prized UFA to be found to maintain their internal competition until one of our prospects is able to beat them at their own game, that's when we will skyrocketing higher in the standing once our prospects beat out veterans in a training camp.  If they can beat out the veterans, they can beat other NHL teams without any help from the vets.  It should be a main goal here.   

Edited by coolboarder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/11/2017 at 12:07 AM, The Lock said:

What are you even going on about? You asked for a team that hadn't been rebuilding and won a cup and claimed I wouldn't be able to find one. I told you one and now you're dodging that fact entirely by claiming that somehow winning a cup over 10 years ago is irrelevant. Also, somehow they were riding Lindstrom? That has to be some of the biggest nonsense I've actually heard on these forums. Yzerman, Federov, etc say hi. 

 

Meanwhile, the draft is harder to win the lottery through tanking, some players drafted beyond the start of the first round are becoming superstars, our prospect pool looks better than it has in the past decade, and the world is somehow still spinning around despite the fact that we haven't officially tanked.

 

Would I like the next Matthews or McDavid? Sure. Who wouldn't? But I'm not going to watch a team tank for 5 to 10 years just to get that one player that will get us to the cup finals in the year 2030 and beyond, especially when there's even a good chance of that NOT happening if we tank.

This.... +10

That will MAYBE get us to a cup final.....

Sure thing the resent cup winner has had high draft picks in their ranks, but there are far more team with high draft picks in their ranks that still ends up going nowhere... 

Why is it so hard to understand... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/11/2017 at 12:40 AM, CanadianRugby said:

It is irrelevant.  There was no salary cap back then.  Comparing team building strategies when ELC were different, draft rules were different, salaries were different, makes no sense.  If you have to go back to that time period to find something that supports your argument you should realize your argument is flawed.

Toronto tanked for 1 year and got Matthews. 

Tell that to Colorado, who picked 4th last season

or us who ended up picking 5th....again...

Or Buffalo who was crying because they only got Eichel.

 

After seeing how we fared in the last couple of drafts, you would have though that the word 'luck' would have vanished.

Edited by spook007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say after the TDL ,a day after . The extension in the 3 + year range based on where , what an how is team trending based on JB current quality assurance assessment of his Management review.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if we build up the pool and hit on most the rookies we shouldn't be hasty. If a cup winning GM is available after the "rebuild" we should weigh our options. 

 

Just like players we shouldn't get overly attached, we want a cup.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, TimberWolf said:

Even if we build up the pool and hit on most the rookies we shouldn't be hasty. If a cup winning GM is available after the "rebuild" we should weigh our options. 

 

Just like players we shouldn't get overly attached, we want a cup.

We should immediately give him a 6 year, 6 mil extension with a modified no firing clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Raymond Luxury Yacht said:

We should immediately give him a 6 year, 6 mil extension with a modified no firing clause.

 

He can car pool with Eriksson 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.