Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

When can we extend Jim Bennings contract?


FijianCanuck

Recommended Posts

On ‎2017‎-‎11‎-‎15 at 10:39 PM, The Lock said:

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.

Look at Chicago's and LA's draft history and tell me they didn't tank and rebuild by amassing a ton of draft picks.  Plain sucking, is when you try to make the playoffs but fail badly while not acquiring any extra picks.  

 

On ‎2017‎-‎11‎-‎15 at 10:39 PM, The Lock said:

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.

I've said this from the start.  It's the anti-tank crowd that points to a team like Colorado and says look at them, getting top picks does nothing.  Meanwhile ignoring quality of management, number of draft picks amassed, quality of the draft while the team was bad and a ton of other things that go into a rebuild.  Then the anti-tank crowd bends over backwards in trying to spin the success of LA, Chicago and the Pens into not being heavily reliant on picking in the top 3, and loading up on draft picks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, spook007 said:

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.

OK, hey Colorado.. Toronto tanked and it worked for them.  They also hired a hall of fame GM to run their team that loaded up on picks, instead of a rookie GM that doesn't know what he's doing.  I wonder why those teams are going in opposite directions.  It's not just because of Matthews.  

 

Not sure what point you're trying to make.  If something doesn't work 100% of the time in sports, there's no point in doing it?  Or that Vancouver being a middle of the pack team would have been better for the future rather than drafting Virtanen, Juolevi and Pettersson?  You don't like high picks? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

OK, hey Colorado.. Toronto tanked and it worked for them.  They also hired a hall of fame GM to run their team that loaded up on picks, instead of a rookie GM that doesn't know what he's doing.  I wonder why those teams are going in opposite directions.  It's not just because of Matthews.  

 

Not sure what point you're trying to make.  If something doesn't work 100% of the time in sports, there's no point in doing it?  Or that Vancouver being a middle of the pack team would have been better for the future rather than drafting Virtanen, Juolevi and Pettersson?  You don't like high picks? 

Point being -

it didn't work for Colorado to tank. 

It didn't work for Buffalo

and with us ending up 2nd last it didn't work for us.

 

Its about luck, and I haven't seen us have any of that draft position wise... And even if you end up being lucky enough to get the top picks, there is no guarantees they'll become big enough stars to lead you to the promised land. Look at at Oilers pre McD.

 

Come to think of it, Oilers seems to have vanished as an example of tanking, as the season has progressed....

 

We're discussing tanking, not GM's after tanking...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

Look at Chicago's and LA's draft history and tell me they didn't tank and rebuild by amassing a ton of draft picks.  Plain sucking, is when you try to make the playoffs but fail badly while not acquiring any extra picks.  

 

I've said this from the start.  It's the anti-tank crowd that points to a team like Colorado and says look at them, getting top picks does nothing.  Meanwhile ignoring quality of management, number of draft picks amassed, quality of the draft while the team was bad and a ton of other things that go into a rebuild.  Then the anti-tank crowd bends over backwards in trying to spin the success of LA, Chicago and the Pens into not being heavily reliant on picking in the top 3, and loading up on draft picks. 

So the difference between a "planned rebuild" and just plain sucking is what then? Colorado and LA and Chicago accumulated top picks. Chicago and LA could have easily been what Colorado is now and vice versa. Chicago could have drafted Turris or Van Riemsdyk instead of Kane. They also could have drafted Backstrom or Kessel instead of Toews. Imagine if they did. They got the right players at the right time while they were a bad team. LA could have drafted Bogosian instead of Doughty. In fact, most of LA's good players are not 2nd overall picks but picks drafted 11th overall and later. That's hardly much of a rebuild by your definition in the first place.

 

If Colorado was successful and Chicago and LA were not, I am pretty sure you would be saying Colordao was an example of a "rebuild" and that Chicago and LA were just "bad teams." They all sucked at their respective times.

 

And I'm just going to be blunt. Your 2nd paragraph is nothing more than hypocritical. Accusing whoever is "opposed" to your beliefs as "ignoring facts" while you just do the exact same thing you're accusing them of doing. I have seen you yourself spinning facts throughout this conversation and dodging around, ignoring anything you don't like to hear and then saying something else entirely. If you are going to accuse, then don't be a hypocrite and do those things yourself. Don't start talking about rebuilds, get an argument against you, and then say"oh we're not talking about a rebuild with Toronto, we're talking about them getting a top pick." As someone mentioned earlier, you sound like a used car salesman trying to sell a rebuild, dodging what's important and fabricating what you can to sound legit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im just looking at Tampa's roster.  I picked on Tampa because they look like the team to beat this year.

 

Anyhow, they got lucky and drafted Stamkos at #1 and Hedman at #2.  Those two players are dynamite.  But the remainder of their roster - the guys that are driving a lot of their success - are basically picks outside the top 10 and are the product of scouting.

 

In my opinion "Tanking" is not a wise strategy for two reasons

 

1) The draft lottery rules have changed, finishing bottom 3 guarantees nothing

 

2) This market will not support/tolerate a prolonged rebuild that includes enduring a bottom of the barrel team for multiple years.  There is a financial angle to all of this that some posters do not consider.  If the team cant compete and the stands are 1/4 empty every night this has financial implications with ownership.  Ownership influences the direction management takes.

 

Anyhow here are some of Tampa's top players and the spot they were taken in the draft

 

1. Stamkos 1st overall

2. Kucherov 88th overall

3 Namestnikov 27th overall

4. Point 79th overall

5 Hedman #2 overall

6. Sergachev - the result of a trade

7. Killorn 77th overall

8. Gourde - undrafted

9. Palat 208th overall

10. Johnson - undrafted

 

Technically Tampa only had to suck 2 years - they got lucky with franchise level players.  Point is finishing bottom of the barrel does not guarantee anything with these revised lottery rules.  Good teams should rely on their drafting and subsequent development strategies - no matter where they finish - to build a winning team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Darius71 said:

Im just looking at Tampa's roster.  I picked on Tampa because they look like the team to beat this year.

 

Anyhow, they got lucky and drafted Stamkos at #1 and Hedman at #2.  Those two players are dynamite.  But the remainder of their roster - the guys that are driving a lot of their success - are basically picks outside the top 10 and are the product of scouting.

 

In my opinion "Tanking" is not a wise strategy for two reasons

 

1) The draft lottery rules have changed, finishing bottom 3 guarantees nothing

 

2) This market will not support/tolerate a prolonged rebuild that includes enduring a bottom of the barrel team for multiple years.  There is a financial angle to all of this that some posters do not consider.  If the team cant compete and the stands are 1/4 empty every night this has financial implications with ownership.  Ownership influences the direction management takes.

 

Anyhow here are some of Tampa's top players and the spot they were taken in the draft

 

1. Stamkos 1st overall

2. Kucherov 88th overall

3 Namestnikov 27th overall

4. Point 79th overall

5 Hedman #2 overall

6. Sergachev - the result of a trade

7. Killorn 77th overall

8. Gourde - undrafted

9. Palat 208th overall

10. Johnson - undrafted

 

Technically Tampa only had to suck 2 years - they got lucky with franchise level players.  Point is finishing bottom of the barrel does not guarantee anything with these revised lottery rules.  Good teams should rely on their drafting and subsequent development strategies - no matter where they finish - to build a winning team.

Bingo... give that man a cigar.... +1

Very few of the tankers are going to the games, and in particularly buy season tickets to watch a team lose night after night.... 

In particularly with idea that maybe just maybe you will win the lottery.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, spook007 said:

Point being -

it didn't work for Colorado to tank. 

It did work for Buffalo

and with us ending up 2nd last it didn't work for us.

 

Come to think of it, Oilers seems to have vanished as an example of tanking, as the season has progressed....

It worked for LA, Hawks and Pens.  What's your point.  There's only one winner every year, let's concentrate on how they won.  Not on the 30 losers.  I don't point to one of the many teams that didn't tank and hasn't won a cup as if it would prove something.

 

5 hours ago, The Lock said:

So the difference between a "planned rebuild" and just plain sucking is what then? Colorado and LA and Chicago accumulated top picks.

Planned rebuild is when you sell off assets for draft picks & prospects and ice a lineup that you know will stink.  Just play sucking is when you trade assets to ice a good team but stink anyways.  Last 5 years Colorado has had less picks in the top rounds than they started with.  Not sure how that is accumulating picks in your world.  

 

5 hours ago, The Lock said:

Chicago and LA could have easily been what Colorado is now and vice versa. Chicago could have drafted Turris or Van Riemsdyk instead of Kane. They also could have drafted Backstrom or Kessel instead of Toews. Imagine if they did.

Vancouver could easily have tanked instead of making the playoffs and drafted McDavid then next year draft Matthews.  Imagine if they did.  Is that how this argument works?

 

 

5 hours ago, The Lock said:

 

If Colorado was successful and Chicago and LA were not, I am pretty sure you would be saying Colordao was an example of a "rebuild" and that Chicago and LA were just "bad teams." They all sucked at their respective times.

Yeah if Colorado had a great GM instead of Joe Sakic and they won multiple cups I would say they were an example of a good rebuild.  No argument there.  

 

 

5 hours ago, The Lock said:

And I'm just going to be blunt. Your 2nd paragraph is nothing more than hypocritical.

"Chicago and LA could have easily been what Colorado is now and vice versa. Chicago could have drafted Turris or Van Riemsdyk instead of Kane. They also could have drafted Backstrom or Kessel instead of Toews."    

 

Kind of like that?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CanadianRugby said:

 

It worked for LA, Hawks and Pens.  What's your point.  There's only one winner every year, let's concentrate on how they won.  Not on the 30 losers.  I don't point to one of the many teams that didn't tank and hasn't won a cup as if it would prove something.

Point being that if you are prepared to watch a team lose for years on end, hoping to get to the holy grail, good for you.

Odds are not good enough to do so....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, spook007 said:

Point being that if you are prepared to watch a team lose for years on end, hoping to get to the holy grail, good for you.

Odds are not good enough to do so....

If you don't like the odds that's fine, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.  My only issue was with people saying tanking doesn't work.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2017 at 6:56 PM, iceman64 said:

The usual suspects aren't really fans anyway...  cough cough "bandwagon" cough cough.... 

I don't think I have posted in like 5 years, but I had no choice.

 

This is the worst damn post I have Ever seen on these or any boards.

 

1 - If they are USUAL suspects that means they follow the team consistently poor and good, which makes them the complete and utter OPPOSITE of a bandwagon fan.

2 - Just because they hate jim benning, which they have EVERY right too, does not mean they are wrong in any form of the sense. CDC loves him mostly, reddit likes him and  hates him, hf boards hates him. ALL 3 are allowed to like or hate him, because it's their opinion and just because it's different does not make it wrong.

3 - What gives you the right to call people out just because they do not agree with you, what a joke, you absolutely pissed me off and you should look up the word bandwagon before you type something so utterly dumb.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2017 at 9:00 PM, CanadianRugby said:

If you don't like the odds that's fine, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.  My only issue was with people saying tanking doesn't work.  

Wasn't Buffalo the obvious tank team in the McDavid year...a whole lot of good that did them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like what Benning has done up until Tryamkin I had nothing to complain about and even after I didn't really blame him so much as WD....

 

Losing Rodin is going come back and bite him in the butt ...before this season is over...

 

I predict Rodin beating us the next time we see him ....this is such a mistake...I can hardly believe the way Rodin has been treated here ...so I can't blame him for asking to be waived but Benning saying something like "oh well...we were happy with his effort, yada, yada...."

 

Give me a break...he sure didn't get one...just got screwed over big time!

 

You go show JB what he missed Anton...!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Benning. He either hits a homer on the draft floor or pulls down his trousers and takes a crap on it. With how Quickly 1st Rnd picks are making an impact in this league. He pretty much blew it on Virtanen and Juolevi which are critical mistakes. Anyone who can look you in the eye and tell you this team wouldn’t Any better than it is today if we didn’t just listen to like Bob McKenzie or whoever for at least 1 of those 2 picks is frozen in a state of denial. I’ll give Jim credit where credit is due but for a guy who has finished at the bottom of the leaugue with a full cap hit and 2 franchise defining draft picks farts that will probably set us back another 5 years. He sure has a loyal following. 

 

Ya, we are better off today than we were before he came but how can one honestly hail him as a god when it’s impossible to know what someone else would have done under the exact same circumstances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Snidely Whiplash said:

Jim Benning. He either hits a homer on the draft floor or pulls down his trousers and takes a crap on it. With how Quickly 1st Rnd picks are making an impact in this league. He pretty much blew it on Virtanen and Juolevi which are critical mistakes. Anyone who can look you in the eye and tell you this team wouldn’t Any better than it is today if we didn’t just listen to like Bob McKenzie or whoever for at least 1 of those 2 picks is frozen in a state of denial. I’ll give Jim credit where credit is due but for a guy who has finished at the bottom of the leaugue with a full cap hit and 2 franchise defining draft picks farts that will probably set us back another 5 years. He sure has a loyal following. 

 

Ya, we are better off today than we were before he came but how can one honestly hail him as a god when it’s impossible to know what someone else would have done under the exact same circumstances. 

Too much truth in your post for the choir. Amen !   Post of the week! 

P.S.: Next time try not to put so much fact in one single post so don't overload "the Benning Lemming's".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...