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

[Discussion] Moving on from Jim Benning


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

They made a Stanley Cup finals in 94.  Fairly simple.

That would be Quinn's seventh year, so once in ten years.

Isn't Benning in his sixth year?

5 more teams in the league since Quinn's time as well, harder to get to the finals.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

It's really not that outrageous to suggest that Burke, Quinn, Gillis are better than Benning.

 

Nonis wasn't that good so maybe Benning is better than him.

You know you are really desperate when you use Quinn's tenure to try and make Benning look bad. LOL. No one here, including myself, has said that Benning is better than Quinn. I only brought up the other GMs to highlight how bad Nonis was, which actually is comparable to Gillis because they BOTH threw away draft picks and neglected the prospect pool.

Did either of them (Nonis + Gillis) have as deep of a prospect pool as Benning does right now? Yeah, didn't think so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

They made a Stanley Cup finals in 94.  Fairly simple.

Here we have another example of revisionist history.

 

The Canucks 93-94 Stanley Cup run was a complete surprise. This is not unlike this past playoff. NO ONE envisioned that 94 team to go as far as they did. The Canucks had some great seasons before this, and I had to look it up, but no one remembers how they did except the 94 run. For the most part, they were early round exits. This is with all due respect to Quinn. Benning has yet to bring the team to the Finals, but Quinn has consistently constructed a good team for the most part. The same can't be said about Gillis, and Benning too, to some extent.

 

Comparing Quinn to Benning is asinine, which is why we don't do it. The fact that you felt the need to do it to make Benning look bad just makes your arguments weak. You might as well compare a Lamborghini to a Toyota and say Lamborghini is a better car.

Edited by Dazzle
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

it has been said before.............. you dont win cups with free agents, you win throught the draft. benning has done great through the draft, and were starting to win things look good, no? looking at our cap situation next year we will be good and in great shape in 2022.  we had the space to sign these players, so why not spend to the cap? what was he supposed to do wait and save it up? until comes the point of us not being able to resign our rfa, we are not in trouble                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

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

Sure.

 

All but arguably Nonis were better than Benning, despite getting equal or less time in the job.  Quinn may had the most time out of all GMs in the last 30 years but I wasn't around for those days to analyze how he did.

Both Nonis and JB were first time GMs: one was internal and JB an external hire.   Nonis seemed conservative (imo) compared to JB or his mentor & predeccessor Brian Burke, when it comes to trades and FA but he did leave Gillis alot of pieces to work with (you can search for it yourself).  He was a Canuck GM for three years and missed the playoffs twice, then got fired and quickly joined Brian Burke in Toronto afterwards.

 

As a long time fan, Nonis' most memorable move was the Loungo trade and Mitchell signing.  Personally, Iam more excited about the JB era cause of the young core & propects he was able to accumulate and develope - alot more to be excited about with JB or (in your case) complain about.

Edited by ShawnAntoski
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Petey_BOI said:

it has been said before.............. you dont win cups with free agents, you win throught the draft. benning has done great through the draft, and were starting to win things look good, no? looking at our cap situation next year we will be good and in great shape in 2022.  we had the space to sign these players, so why not spend to the cap? what was he supposed to do wait and save it up? until comes the point of us not being able to resign our rfa, we are not in trouble                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

1) Expansion draft

2) RFA raises for Pettersson/Quinn, both of which could be A LOT

3) Flat salary cap next year

4) Offer sheet risks against Pettersson/Hughes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ShawnAntoski said:

Both Nonis and JB were first time GMs: one was internal and JB an external hire.   Nonis seemed conservative (imo) compared to JB or his mentor & predeccessor Brian Burke, when it comes to trades and FA but he did leave Gillis alot of pieces to work with (you can search for it yourself).  He was a Canuck GM for three years and missed the playoffs twice, then got fired and quickly joined Brian Burke in Toronto afterwards.

 

As a long time fan, Nonis' most memorable move is the Loungo trade and Mitchell signing.

old no nuts nonis, i remember him

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

1) Expansion draft

2) RFA raises for Pettersson/Quinn, both of which could be A LOT

3) Flat salary cap next year

4) Offer sheet risks against Pettersson/Hughes.

we will have 27 million in cap space thats already enough to sign those players plus demko. dont you think we might be able to make a trade or two in the mean time?

Edited by Petey_BOI
27 million
Link to post
Share on other sites

Formula for Benning complainers:

 

1) Ignore pre-existing evidence against a desired GM, and revise it to censor/understate any of the negative aspects of past GMs. You can't talk about the past without talking about the present.

2) Overemphasize/repeat Benning's deficiencies

3) Make false claims about a team's circumstances, depending on if it's about Benning or Gillis.

4) Leave your own thread when you get roasted.

Bye @Alain Vigneault

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Petey_BOI said:

we will have 20 million in cap space thats already enough to sign those players plus demko. dont you think we might be able to make a trade or two in the mean time?

If a trade could be done as easy as you say, it would've been done already. Yes? This isn't NHL 21.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

You know you are really desperate when you use Quinn's tenure to try and make Benning look bad. LOL. No one here, including myself, has said that Benning is better than Quinn. I only brought up the other GMs to highlight how bad Nonis was, which actually is comparable to Gillis because they BOTH threw away draft picks and neglected the prospect pool.

Did either of them (Nonis + Gillis) have as deep of a prospect pool as Benning does right now? Yeah, didn't think so.

I don't really care to prove if Quinn is better than Benning.  I stated that he was because he made a final and Benning has not.  It's really not that deep.

 

Nonis has been the worst in all facets and it remains to be seen if Benning will be as bad because he's still on the job and can improve his performance.  Gillis didn't really throw away picks at the time of his dealings (again, its only hindsight) unless you believe that Higgins/Lapierre were not integral additions or that getting Pahlsson/Roy for cup runs were foolish.  But if that's the case, isn't dumping Madden and a 2nd for 10 games of Toffoli just as much of a waste then?

 

I can actually remember in 2009 and 2010 that people were upset Gillis didn't move his picks for rentals.  Gaborik/Kovalchuk/B.Richards/Zidlicky were all names this board wanted.  Gillis may be a lot of things, a waster of assets he was not, at least not until after he was gone.

--

How do we know have a deep pool?  We all thought Jensen/Schroeder/Hodgson/Cassels/Shinkaruk/Subban were going to be good but then?

 

Right now, I count Podkolzin and Hoglander as good bets for NHLers and even then, that's mostly because we'll have no choice but to play them with how bad our cap situation is going to be.  Maybe DiPietro, Lind, and Woo will sniff the NHL also.  So, we have 2 surefire prospects in there?  One top 10 pick and one 2nd rounder?  Wow, very deep.

 

I won't discount the graduations of Boeser/Gaudette/Virtanen/Demko/Pettersson/Hughes but they were introduced at a time when we sucked.  Easier conditions to play when they're not expected to win every night.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

If a trade could be done as easy as you say, it would've been done already. Yes? This isn't NHL 21.

what are you talking about, even? we have made many trades, what makes you think we cant do more?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

I don't really care to prove if Quinn is better than Benning.  I stated that he was because he made a final and Benning has not.  It's really not that deep.

 

Nonis has been the worst in all facets and it remains to be seen if Benning will be as bad because he's still on the job and can improve his performance.  Gillis didn't really throw away picks at the time of his dealings (again, its only hindsight) unless you believe that Higgins/Lapierre were not integral additions or that getting Pahlsson/Roy for cup runs were foolish.  But if that's the case, isn't dumping Madden and a 2nd for 10 games of Toffoli just as much of a waste then?

 

I can actually remember in 2009 and 2010 that people were upset Gillis didn't move his picks for rentals.  Gaborik/Kovalchuk/B.Richards/Zidlicky were all names this board wanted.  Gillis may be a lot of things, a waster of assets he was not, at least not until after he was gone.

--

How do we know have a deep pool?  We all thought Jensen/Schroeder/Hodgson/Cassels/Shinkaruk/Subban were going to be good but then?

 

Right now, I count Podkolzin and Hoglander as good bets for NHLers and even then, that's mostly because we'll have no choice but to play them with how bad our cap situation is going to be.  Maybe DiPietro, Lind, and Woo will sniff the NHL also.  So, we have 2 surefire prospects in there?  One top 10 pick and one 2nd rounder?  Wow, very deep.

 

I won't discount the graduations of Boeser/Gaudette/Virtanen/Demko/Pettersson/Hughes but they were introduced at a time when we sucked.  Easier conditions to play when they're not expected to win every night.

so your complaining about jims free agent signings, because we dont have room to make more free agent signings? that's pretty wierd man

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

I don't really care to prove if Quinn is better than Benning.  I stated that he was because he made a final and Benning has not.  It's really not that deep.

 

Nonis has been the worst in all facets and it remains to be seen if Benning will be as bad because he's still on the job and can improve his performance.  Gillis didn't really throw away picks at the time of his dealings (again, its only hindsight) unless you believe that Higgins/Lapierre were not integral additions or that getting Pahlsson/Roy for cup runs were foolish.  But if that's the case, isn't dumping Madden and a 2nd for 10 games of Toffoli just as much of a waste then?

 

I can actually remember in 2009 and 2010 that people were upset Gillis didn't move his picks for rentals.  Gaborik/Kovalchuk/B.Richards/Zidlicky were all names this board wanted.  Gillis may be a lot of things, a waster of assets he was not, at least not until after he was gone.

--

How do we know have a deep pool?  We all thought Jensen/Schroeder/Hodgson/Cassels/Shinkaruk/Subban were going to be good but then?

 

Right now, I count Podkolzin and Hoglander as good bets for NHLers and even then, that's mostly because we'll have no choice but to play them with how bad our cap situation is going to be.  Maybe DiPietro, Lind, and Woo will sniff the NHL also.  So, we have 2 surefire prospects in there?  One top 10 pick and one 2nd rounder?  Wow, very deep.

 

I won't discount the graduations of Boeser/Gaudette/Virtanen/Demko/Pettersson/Hughes but they were introduced at a time when we sucked.  Easier conditions to play when they're not expected to win every night.

You cared enough to bring him up, when no one else did. I ONLY brought up the rest of the GMs to highlight how bad/average Nonis was. And I just love how you said "maybe Benning is better than Nonis". No one ever said Benning was better than Quinn.

 

The fact that you still can't tell the difference between Nonis and Benning will show everyone how biased you are.

 

Pahlsson - 4th round pick.

Roy - 2nd round pick.

 

Madden - Benning's 3rd round pick and the 2nd round pick for this year. Toffoli had a pretty good run for the Canucks. What did Roy do? Furthermore, Madden, as I stated, was a Benning/Brackett pick. Did Gillis produce any player of value during this time to use as an asset?

 

How come you are so quick to judge the Toffoli trade as 'wasteful', but see it differently when it came to the Schneider trade? In both scenarios, we dealt from supposedly a position of strength, which is what you said in our status update discussions. For Benning, we had center depth, and Schneider was apparently one we could afford to trade away because we had Luongo. (For the purpose of this argument, we are going to completely ignore how badly handled the goalie situation was under Gillis)

 

Now you're questioning the prospect pool of Benning - WOW, just wow. So who drafted Pettersson and Hughes again? What about Gaudette? What about Demko? :rolleyes:

You're so desperate to bash Benning at all costs, it's hilarious.

 

"Easier conditions to play when they're not expected to win every night" - So why didn't Jensen, Schroeder, Kassian make it then? Keep revising your history, bud.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Formula for Benning complainers:

 

1) Ignore pre-existing evidence against a desired GM, and revise it to censor/understate any of the negative aspects of past GMs. You can't talk about the past without talking about the present.

2) Overemphasize/repeat Benning's deficiencies

3) Make false claims about a team's circumstances, depending on if it's about Benning or Gillis.

4) Leave your own thread when you get roasted.

Bye @Alain Vigneault

Posts like these are funny.

 

I don't care to win whatever this dialogue is.  I've entertained this as long as I have because its funny to watch how much you and the rest of the Benning bros go all out to protect a man who really isn't that good at his job in comparison to both his GM peers and the men he has succeeded in the role of Canucks GM.  

 

If you bring up Benning's lack of winning, the excuse is that he was rebuilding.

When you ask why his rebuild wasn't as good as other teams and took so long, the excuse is that he had "immovable" contracts (which is funny because he found a way to move on from Garrison, Burrows, Higgins, Hansen, etc within two seasons and can't find a way to get out of Sutter/Beagle/Roussel/Myers/Ferland/Baertschi/Eriksson - the guys he signed)

 

Every criticism of Benning is met with some excuse about why he isn't able to do his job.  More than that, every good thing Benning does is treated like as if it exonerates all these bad moves.  No winning/no plethora of assets/cap problems?  That's okay, Thatcher Demko panned out as NHLer..hurr durr development.  No other GM in the NHL has been given this much leeway from fans.

 

I made a case for why Benning is subpar and why we should probably move on, given that our other, better GMs didn't have this long of a leash, and that other candidates probably wouldn't be as incompetent to make the types of mistakes he made.

 

You come in here with the intention of white-knighting Benning in the name of "no negativity bro/write something different bro" while never actually answering the main question of the thread:  What does Benning offer that other candidates won't/can't?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alain Vigneault said:

Posts like these are funny.

 

I don't care to win whatever this dialogue is.  I've entertained this as long as I have because its funny to watch how much you and the rest of the Benning bros go all out to protect a man who really isn't that good at his job in comparison to both his GM peers and the men he has succeeded in the role of Canucks GM.  

 

If you bring up Benning's lack of winning, the excuse is that he was rebuilding.

When you ask why his rebuild wasn't as good as other teams and took so long, the excuse is that he had "immovable" contracts (which is funny because he found a way to move on from Garrison, Burrows, Higgins, Hansen, etc within two seasons and can't find a way to get out of Sutter/Beagle/Roussel/Myers/Ferland/Baertschi/Eriksson - the guys he signed)

 

Every criticism of Benning is met with some excuse about why he isn't able to do his job.  More than that, every good thing Benning does is treated like as if it exonerates all these bad moves.  No winning/no plethora of assets/cap problems?  That's okay, Thatcher Demko panned out as NHLer..hurr durr development.  No other GM in the NHL has been given this much leeway from fans.

 

I made a case for why Benning is subpar and why we should probably move on, given that our other, better GMs didn't have this long of a leash, and that other candidates probably wouldn't be as incompetent to make the types of mistakes he made.

 

You come in here with the intention of white-knighting Benning in the name of "no negativity bro/write something different bro" while never actually answering the main question of the thread:  What does Benning offer that other candidates won't/can't?

And there you have it, folks. When you have no response to logical responses, the other person is obviously white knighting. Obviously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alain Vigneault said:

Except the text above the bolded is the response?

You didn't address any of the above points. I looked through them. You're just restating your points, and glossing over what I said. Should I pull out my highlighter? Nothing you've added below talks about what we talked about. I've actually added arguments why your example of an ideal GM (Gillis) is bad, but you weren't even able to sufficiently defend him, especially without making Benning look better in the process.

 

Where did you talk about PLAYER DEVELOPMENT in this post? That was the big subject. Keep restating your points. It's clear that you are so biased that you can't even logically discuss a team. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "white knight".

 

Childish.

 

Posts like these are funny.

 

I don't care to win whatever this dialogue is.  I've entertained this as long as I have because its funny to watch how much you and the rest of the Benning bros go all out to protect a man who really isn't that good at his job in comparison to both his GM peers and the men he has succeeded in the role of Canucks GM.   - Restating point

 

If you bring up Benning's lack of winning, the excuse is that he was rebuilding.

When you ask why his rebuild wasn't as good as other teams and took so long, the excuse is that he had "immovable" contracts (which is funny because he found a way to move on from Garrison, Burrows, Higgins, Hansen, etc within two seasons and can't find a way to get out of Sutter/Beagle/Roussel/Myers/Ferland/Baertschi/Eriksson - the guys he signed)

 

Every criticism of Benning is met with some excuse about why he isn't able to do his job.  More than that, every good thing Benning does is treated like as if it exonerates all these bad moves.  No winning/no plethora of assets/cap problems?  That's okay, Thatcher Demko panned out as NHLer..hurr durr development.  No other GM in the NHL has been given this much leeway from fans.

 

I made a case for why Benning is subpar and why we should probably move on, given that our other, better GMs didn't have this long of a leash, and that other candidates probably wouldn't be as incompetent to make the types of mistakes he made.

 

You come in here with the intention of white-knighting Benning in the name of "no negativity bro/write something different bro" while never actually answering the main question of the thread:  What does Benning offer that other candidates won't/can't?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...