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

Mr. James Bennington the Third on 1040 Nov. 18th


Ossi Vaananen

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

You're not representing Benning's thinking however - you really have no ability to speak for what he's thinking -  what you've propped up instead is a straw Jim - and anyone can one up a strawman wadr.

 

What a young player "could be" is all any  team has to hang their hat on where their young players are concerned - so I'll expect you likewise poopoo the idea that Toronto, Edmonton, etc and the 'analytical' empires in Phoenix or Florida have done anything at all, other than line up some "could bes".    6 of one.

 

That worst GM in the NHL has done what he has however without lottery wins - something folks like yourself might have to reckon with in the future if his "could bes" become anything.

serious question, 

can you define "strawman"?

you use it a lot and I am unclear what is your point.

It sounds condesending, but what does it mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cred to Bro Jake (:P) for opening with the question everybody wanted to know the answer to.  Why was Jake sent down for 2 games, brought back to sit in the press box for a game, then sent back to Utica?  

 

It certainly had nothing to do with STUFF did it?

 

Here's my take.  The first 2 games were for fitness/confidence.  When Jake was back in Van, Willie sat him.  This tells me there was a difference of opinion on how Jake was doing and who was giving the Canucks the best chance to win.  So they(Benning, Linden, Dejardins and other coaches, maybe even TG by conference call) all sat down and hashed it out.  The result, Jake has been sent back to Utica. 

 

This is the right call.  His long term development is the most important thing.  This winning now crap is not something they should be doing at the expense of bringing along the young players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Cred to Bro Jake (:P) for opening with the question everybody wanted to know the answer to.  Why was Jake sent down for 2 games, brought back to sit in the press box for a game, then sent back to Utica?  

 

It certainly had nothing to do with STUFF did it?

 

Here's my take.  The first 2 games were for fitness/confidence.  When Jake was back in Van, Willie sat him.  This tells me there was a difference of opinion on how Jake was doing and who was giving the Canucks the best chance to win.  So they(Benning, Linden, Dejardins and other coaches, maybe even TG by conference call) all sat down and hashed it out.  The result, Jake has been sent back to Utica. 

 

This is the right call.  His long term development is the most important thing.  This winning now crap is not something they should be doing at the expense of bringing along the young players.

If that's the case (and I agree, he should be there for 10 games) then there is an obvious disconnect between coach and GM. We all know who wins that battle in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Four Sport Guru said:

If that's the case (and I agree, he should be there for 10 games) then there is an obvious disconnect between coach and GM. We all know who wins that battle in the end.

Was a difference of opinion.  Past tense.  They discussed, and agreed to send Jake down.  It sounds like Willie convinced Jim on this one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Four Sport Guru said:

Could be, I didn't listen, I was judt going off the summary. Does he get recalled if Dorsett is hurt for a stretch?

Don't know.  Benning said he'd be recalled when they need him.  Which is kind of vague.

 

Benning was also asked it he would consider players on waivers, but, there are several players who are in the system already who they want to get a look at first.  Grenier, Labate, LaPlante haven't been looked at in the regular season.  They also have Megna, Chaput and Zalewski who can step up.

 

Decisions seem so fluid with this group.  They don't make them until the day.  I think that Jake will be back when he responds the way they want him to.  These kids have to understand that they will never "arrive" they have to work their hardest always.  Even the Sedins.  Especially the Sedins.  They aren't the fittest guys on the team by accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Cred to Bro Jake (:P) for opening with the question everybody wanted to know the answer to.  Why was Jake sent down for 2 games, brought back to sit in the press box for a game, then sent back to Utica?  

 

It certainly had nothing to do with STUFF did it?

 

Here's my take.  The first 2 games were for fitness/confidence.  When Jake was back in Van, Willie sat him.  This tells me there was a difference of opinion on how Jake was doing and who was giving the Canucks the best chance to win.  So they(Benning, Linden, Dejardins and other coaches, maybe even TG by conference call) all sat down and hashed it out.  The result, Jake has been sent back to Utica. 

 

This is the right call.  His long term development is the most important thing.  This winning now crap is not something they should be doing at the expense of bringing along the young players.

Do people really think there is a big issue here?  He needed to come back and get his stuff if he is having an extended stay in Utica.  Do you think a trainer is going to go into his place and pack all his clothes and personal items for a long stay in Utica and courier them to him? It's the NHL folks. He gets a flight home to have a practice, pack his $&!# and head back.  No real mystery here.  That's where he should be playing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lmm said:

serious question, 

can you define "strawman"?

you use it a lot and I am unclear what is your point.

It sounds condesending, but what does it mean?

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."

 

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

 

Ie. 

"I think Benning is going to trade Tanev or Hutton for Kane."

"That's just dumb, Benning is dumb.  It's for reasons like this that some people think he's the worst GM in the NHL."

 

Question:  did Benning say he was going to trade Tanev (or Hutton) for Kane?

No, he did not.

The position represented is that of an (imaginary) strawman (a hollow man) - not Benning.

 

It's not "condescending" - it is pointing out a misrepresentation of a person, or assumption of what their position would be as opposed to an actual representation of something a person actually said or argued.

 

Another example:

 

"You say that WD's systems suck.  Could you describe or define what those systems are, and why they suck?"

"So you're saying that you think his systems are great?"

 

Answer:  no, that's not what I said.  That is a strawman.  I asked you to elaborate on why you think those systems suck.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, J.R. said:

 

I think management was well aware that this season could be anywhere from bubble playoff to top 10 pick team before it started. People pinning it all on WD are just looking for an easy scapegoat and can't be bothered with things like context or critical thinking.

 

Do I agree with every decision WD's made? No. Do I think he's the sole difference between our current place in the standings and being closer to a ~15th place team? No. At best a better, world class coach might have us a few spots better. And comically, that's actually the opposite of what most people clamoring for him to be fired actually want, as they're largely 'tankers' :lol:

 

 

JR. Always the voice of reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, oldnews said:

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."

 

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

 

Ie. 

"I think Benning is going to trade Tanev or Hutton for Kane."

"That's just dumb, Benning is dumb.  It's for reasons like this that some people think he's the worst GM in the NHL."

 

Question:  did Benning say he was going to trade Tanev (or Hutton) for Kane?

No, he did not.

The position represented is that of an (imaginary) strawman (a hollow man) - not Benning.

 

It's not "condescending" - it is pointing out a misrepresentation of a person, or assumption of what their position would be as opposed to an actual representation of something a person actually said or argued.

 

Another example:

 

"You say that WD's systems suck.  Could you describe or define what those systems are, and why they suck?"

"So you're saying that you think his systems are great?"

 

Answer:  no, that's not what I said.  That is a strawman.  I asked you to elaborate on why you think those systems suck.

 

"If I only had a brain" 

Thats the straw-man from my generation.  :o I actually auditioned for that part.  I still don't see why I didn't get that role - stupid Ray Bolger and his fancy footwork.  I dance on his grave. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

"If I only had a brain" 

Thats the straw-man from my generation.  :o I actually auditioned for that part.  I still don't see why I didn't get that role - stupid Ray Bolger and his fancy footwork.  I dance on his grave. :lol:

Alf, you'd send hearts all a'twitter

& surely you'd be fitter

If ya only had that partttt

 

But I would troll ya endless

Acting like my posts are spotless

If I only hadda hearrrttt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Canucks Curse said:

Please Do not trade Hutton for Kane and for sure, please do not trade Hutton and CBJ 2nd for Kane.

 

I'm pro Benning as of right now. Even though I hated the Eriksson signing... But my faith in JB will be extinguished if they trade for Kane. Unless it's a fleecing I'm 100% against trading for him.

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...