Jim Bennings Sportsnet 650 Interview Jan 26th, 2018 (Trade deadline, twins, and extension talk)

[Canuck Surfer]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Nobody 'wants' their business to drop in value but that's not the same thing is being willfully obtuse about external realities out of your control.

 

Sure, if the results aren't what was sold as realistic expectation (even on the possible 'bad' end of whatever scale was being sold) don't match up, they're certainly going to review.

 

Heck, I'd say a good business would review even if they were met/exceeded. Just because you're doing well, doesn't mean you can't do 'better'. Conversely, just because expectations have been poor or on the 'bad' end, doesn't mean you couldn't do worse either.

 

But expecting chicken salad out of chicken #@$% isn't a productive process. 

You would be in for a shock if you ever sat in a board meeting explaining your business plan to an owner. Wrote an annual, 3 or 4 year plan? Guarantee you Benning does not use chicken #@$% as a barometer. Nor an excuse. Or he would have been out the door a long time ago. 

 

Look, ownership clearly does take all into consideration. Obtuse or otherwise?  He's not been fired. They signed on for Benning bringing in help to tide us over, MDZ, Vanek, etc.. The club, begrudgingly mind you, admitted they had to go into a rebuild mode. There are reports they are talking with Benning. Which means he is presenting his next plan to ownership. They are considering how he performed. But also rumours they are exploring other options. 

 

 

[brownky]

4 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

Do people honestly believe that Aqualini is stupid enough to believe that a rebuilding franchise isn't going to drop in attendance, profitability, value etc? Or that none of the highly intelligent and qualified people working for him would have advised him/confirmed that likelihood?

 

I don't buy it. None of these people are morons.

Donald Trump is president.

 

Never assume people are smarter than they are "because they should be". I would argue that most people of that club fall into spectacularly lucky circumstances and make a real good roll with it. They aren't particularly smarter or better than the next guy on the street. They had an opportunity that exceeded what the vast majority will be offered, and they took it.

 

So he might very well have the fan blinders on. Much like watching a stock price tumble from its peak - "no, it's going to come back, definitely not going to keep falling". A lot of 'smart people' lose a lot of money on such ventures.

[thrago]

20 hours ago, chilliwiggins said:

I pretty much agree.   My point is that he is poor on the micro - management I guess.

Because he is setting his standard, and its , in my opinion higher than the avg. I guess, that being said , when you multiply that times 23, of his own signings by say however long it takes.  I think he is going to be overall paying a good 10 mill over on 23 players combined.   that 10 mill could be the deal breaker for a cup in hand.  Parity is the game now, so every angle taken is an advantage.

Boeser is maybe a 7 or 8 million based on a single season, but I see many on here claiming generational,  careful with that as generational for Edmonton costs 12.5 per season

Just want to address the Generational thing there.  This is just my understanding so take it for what its worth.  To my knowledge a generation in sports is roughly 10 years and rarely is there more then 2 generational talents in the league at 1 time.  Since I've been watching hockey we have had Gretzky, Lemieux, Lidstrom and maybe Crosby and potentially McDavid.

 

To me to be Generational you need to basically be 50% better then pretty much every other player in the league unless there are 2 generational talents in the league like there was with Gretzky and Lemieux.  I know a lot of people call Crosby generational but I'm not so sure.  The definitions have loosened up a lot I think.  It used to be that in order to be a superstar in the NHL you had to score 50 goals in a single season.  But now Superstar, Elite and generational get thrown around so much they really have no meaning anymore.

 

So to get back to my point Boeser may one day be a Superstar in my books, I honestly don't even know what people mean by Elite as it seems everyone is Elite these days, but I am almost 100% certain that Brock is not a Generational talent but man would I love to be wrong on that if he can start putting up 130-140 point seasons which is about what I'd consider generational these days or win the Art Ross half a dozen times or more I will change my answer.