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

Jim Benning's mid-season press conference

Rate this topic


-Vintage Canuck-

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, billabong said:

Uhh what?

 

hes 100% referencing all the money he has tide up in his bottom 6 and dead money cause he needs that money to help build around the core. 
 

Go crunch the numbers on capfriendly and try to make this team a contender before summer of 2022 Without trading any salary or buyouts. It’s impossible 

That year Boeser needs to get resigned.  And the year after 2022 Miller and Horvat need to get resigned.  We have a one year window of cap flexibility.  We should have it now, but we have the most useless expensive 4th liners and taxi squad around.  And Benning blames the flst cap and covid, as if it only exists for Vancouver.  7 years of ineptitude.

  • Cheers 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alain Vigneault said:

So why didn't they?

 

Why did Benning trade a 2nd and a prospect last year if the team was allegedly more than 2 years away from competing?

 

Seems like no plan and pretty short-sighted to me (and everybody else).

1) Getting playoff experience for the kids is good for the kids’ development.   Since the Canucks were within striking distance of the playoffs at the deadline, they acquired Toffoli. If I recall correctly, Boeser had just gotten hurt and so Benning didn’t want to see the teams’ hard efforts not be realized.    
 

2) JT Miller was brought in earlier in the off season for a variety of purposes other than just “competing for 19-20.”   Miller was brought in to help Pettersson in a few areas while also being a key component (at a very good cap hit) when the Canucks’ real windo begins in 22-23.

 

3) Benning wants the Canucks to be a competitive team for the long haul and not just 2 seasons.  Hence - guys like Tanev and Markstrom were let go.   The Canucks fielded offers for Boeser (picks and prospects to clear cap space) so that they could keep Toffoli but the Nucks received low balls offers for Boeser.

Edited by DarkIndianRises
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DarkIndianRises said:

1) Getting playoff experience for the kids is good for the kids’ development.   Since the Canucks were within striking distance of the playoffs at the deadline, they acquired Toffoli. If I recall correctly, Boeser had just gotten hurt and so Benning didn’t want to see the teams’ hard efforts not be realized.    
 

2) JT Miller was brought in earlier in the off season for a variety of purposes other than just “competing for 19-20.”   Miller was brought into help Pettersson in a few areas while also being a key component (at a very good cap hit) when the Canucks’ real windo begins in 22-23.

 

3) Benning wants the Canucks to be a competitive team for the long haul and not just 2 seasons.  Hence - guys like Tanev and Markstrom were let go.   The Canucks fielded offers for Boeser (picks and prospects to clear cap space) so that they could keep Toffoli but the Nucks received low balls offers for Boeser.

Lol.  Again, a lot of reaches and excuses to justify short-sighted moves.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Lol.  Again, a lot of reaches and excuses to justify short-sighted moves.  

Lol. Again, a lot of reaches and excuses to justify bashing Benning for everything.

  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Lol.  Again, a lot of reaches and excuses to justify short-sighted moves.  

Sorry AV, they're only shortsighted moves in your head, most of us understand the whys and hows.

  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DarkIndianRises said:

The Canucks could very easily clear cap space by ridding themselves of a bad contract with a high sweetener if they truly wanted to.  They could have done that this past off season as well.  
 

That’s why I find it funny when critics of Jim Benning accuse Benning of being short sighted and not caring about the future.  
 

Morons like Satiar Shah then accuse Benning of not having a consistent plan.

“Very easily”? Its far from easy. Absolutely no one is taking on money right now and benning stated last year he has no interest in doing that. 

 

I would add a 1st to trade eriksson if that money went directly towards an immediate upgrade. It only makes sense if you have a legit top 6 winger or top 4 defenseman on their way. 
 

aquaman nixed any buyouts in the summer and I doubt that changes this summer. I don’t blame him, I wouldn’t want to be paying anymore players to not play for you especially in this financial climate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, billabong said:

“Very easily”? Its far from easy. Absolutely no one is taking on money right now and benning stated last year he has no interest in doing that. 

 

I would add a 1st to trade eriksson if that money went directly towards an immediate upgrade. It only makes sense if you have a legit top 6 winger or top 4 defenseman on their way. 
 

aquaman nixed any buyouts in the summer and I doubt that changes this summer. I don’t blame him, I wouldn’t want to be paying anymore players to not play for you especially in this financial climate. 

Benning could.....but he won’t because he’s thinking long term.   Teams are still taking on money if the situation calls for it.  Detroit for example, took on one year of Marc Staal with a sweetener attached.    Pre-Marc Staal trade, they would have easily jumped at the idea of taking on Eriksson + 1st + whatever........IF Benning had TRULY wanted to keep Markstrom, Tanev, and Toffoli.  
 

He could have....::but he didn’t, because he’s thinking long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Lol.  Again, a lot of reaches and excuses to justify short-sighted moves.  

Using a sweetener to move Eriksson in order to resign Toffoli, Tanev, and Markstrom is what would have been short sighted.   
 

You are critical of Benning’s plan because you do not understand Benning’s plan.  Period.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Using a sweetener to move Eriksson in order to resign Toffoli, Tanev, and Markstrom is what would have been short sighted.   
 

You are critical of Benning’s plan because you do not understand Benning’s plan.  Period.

Cut him some slack. It is not like Benning is great at communicating his plan to everyone and some just need it to be spelled out to them word for word. 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Using a sweetener to move Eriksson in order to resign Toffoli, Tanev, and Markstrom is what would have been short sighted.   
 

You are critical of Benning’s plan because you do not understand Benning’s plan.  Period.

If a plan to be competitive takes nearly a decade, then it's not a good plan.

 

Hope this helps.

  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alain Vigneault said:

If people are happy wasting assets for 4-5 extra games a season because of "experience", by all means.  One thing is for certain though, that doesn't make them smart moves.

Your post is like a Dr Seuss book. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Benning fan, even still I can't see how the Toffoli situation was anything but poor asset management.

 

This season the Canucks should've seen progress, not regression.  Feels like some big steps back were taken, and it's not just assets, it's coaching and systems. 

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

If a plan to be competitive takes nearly a decade, then it's not a good plan.

 

Hope this helps.

All teams go through this.   
 

It’s inevitable.    
 

We were “competitive” last season so I’m not sure where you’re getting this “decade” from.
 

Or like Sportsnet 650 and HF Canucks, are you pretending that our 2nd round appearance last season didn’t happen? 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

All teams go through this.   
 

It’s inevitable.    
 

We were “competitive” last season so I’m not sure where you’re getting this “decade” from.
 

Or like Sportsnet 650 and HF Canucks, are you pretending that our 2nd round appearance last season didn’t happen? 

Do they?  Do you have examples of these successful teams that took 7 years+ to become competitive?  What was their plan?

 

I agree we were.  Then what happened?  We couldn't afford to re-sign our long-time #2, our starting goalie, our very reliable bottom-pair defenceman, and our winger who the GM said wouldn't be a rental.  Was letting all 4 of them leave as a free-agent all part of this Benning plan?  Was reverting back to a bottom 5 team part of the plan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Do they?  Do you have examples of these successful teams that took 7 years+ to become competitive?  What was their plan?

 

I agree we were.  Then what happened?  We couldn't afford to re-sign our long-time #2, our starting goalie, our very reliable bottom-pair defenceman, and our winger who the GM said wouldn't be a rental.  Was letting all 4 of them leave as a free-agent all part of this Benning plan?  Was reverting back to a bottom 5 team part of the plan?

I thought adding Schmidt and Hamonic was a D upgrade, and knew losing Marky did weaken us in net, but Demko needs more opportunity and Marky had (finally) earned being a starter with a payraise, so something had to give. Demko showed in the playoffs what he's capable of, so I was ok with Marky moving...moving to Calgary fuxkin suxk, but oh well.

 

Letting Toffoli go tho...big mistake. Huge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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