Rick Rocket
Regetstred User
- May 22, 2008
- 1,399
- 342
It proves that management failed to assess the ability of Hughes and the importance of Tanev, and proceeded a to give him a big #1D-level ticket.
Rumor: Elias Pettersson - No Deal Imminent (Aug 3)
- Thread starter Zombotron
- Start date
- Status
It proves that management failed to assess the ability of Hughes and the importance of Tanev, and proceeded a to give him a big #1D-level ticket.
rypper
21-12-05 it's finally over.
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,315
- 20,150
Easily would have given Tanev the Calgary deal. Heck he probably would have taken less to stay. Oh well Jim got his man in the long run.
nowhereman
Registered User
He hasn't been signed yet, so that's not true. And I would imagine it's this very debate that's holding things up.
Yes, it was a mistake to let Tanev go. But let's not let Hughes off the hook, just because it's so tempting to take extra shots at management. Hughes' failure to play even halfway competent defense is on him and him alone.
Can you imagine if J.P Barry tried this tactic in negotiations? "The reason Quinn was so poor at his primary role as a defender was because you screwed up in letting his babysitter walk. Now he has to do all the dirty work himself and you know he can't be trusted with that, Jim. Now give this young man his money!"
Now, it's perfectly reasonable to make this argument that he wasn't put in the optimal situation to draw on his offensive talents. But if you're going to do that, you have to acknowledge that it hurts Quinn's case as much as it helps it. We can't forget that he's, you know, a defenseman.
Last edited:
Rick Rocket
Regetstred User
- May 22, 2008
- 1,399
- 342
Peen
Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
- Oct 6, 2013
- 30,017
- 25,413
100% would have taken less. I was wrong about letting go of Tanev being the right move. I thought even a three year deal posed far too much risk with his injury history.
Melvin
21/12/05
I also was opposed to signing tanev again, but it is a bit of a false dichotomy. Given the choice between bringing tanev back on the contract he ultimately signed for, and doing what Jim has done, the tanev deal is a no brainer.
Because Jesus Christ
Well Jim did offer Tanev less money to stay. It was reportedly a 2 year deal for around $4M.
A lot of us were hesitant to give Tanev a 4 year deal. Heck, if it wasn't for Tanev's relatively good health in 19-20, most of us wouldn't even think about giving him a 4 year deal.
But ya the right move was to keep Tanev.
mathonwy
Positively #toxic
- Jan 21, 2008
- 19,073
- 9,999
Last time I checked, it's the general manager's responsibility to understand why his superstars are successful and to not piss them off.
Also. Generally speaking. The general manager is supposed to ADD value and not SUBTRACT value which is what they did last off season.
FO really gimped the line up when they let Tanev walk and pissed off a lot of players including Quinn who responded by taking the season off.
This ain't new. FO pissed off the 2011 core after the 1-2-3-4 loss to Hartley and CHiggs responded by getting waived and Vrbata responded by pouting.
When your managers f*** you over, there's usually a response and that response usually isn't oh-boy-im-going-to-work-so-hard-now.
I think Benning should be wise to make it a 2 year show me deal, to give Hughes two years to figure out playing D.
Agent side should jump all over this as well, because if Hughes can't up his game in just one season, negotiating power shifts a lot.
nowhereman
Registered User
Well, the last time I checked, it's a player's responsibility to be a professional and not allow higher-level business decisions (even mistakes) to impact their on-ice performance. If Quinn did, in fact, "take the season off" because his defense partner was let go, that says a hell of a lot more about his character than it does management. Personally, I don't think that's the reason his play fell off but, if it is true, it's pathetic. That said, if that is the case, I'm willing to excuse this behavior because he's young and, likely, a bit full of himself. In the real world, you can't just give up because you disagree with managerial decisions.
Above all else, a true "superstar" talent is not reliant on other players to succeed. When a Sidney Crosby has to play with a revolving door of 3rd/4th liners and AHLers, he has a right to be pissed off at his management team (see the Penguins from 2010-2016). But when Quinn Hughes requires another defenseman to babysit his mistakes, so he doesn't fail miserably at his primary role of defending, that's not an excuse to pout to management. And it certainly isn't a reason to write said player a blank cheque.
Hughes has weaknesses and his contract should reflect that.
Last edited:
RoyalRed
Registered User
- Apr 8, 2013
- 475
- 497
You don't get to do that. "Oh I agreed with what Jim did but then he did something else I didn't like so he should have done the former!!"
God you're insufferable.
xtra
Registered User
Melvin
21/12/05
It's pretty reasonable?
If you decide not to spend your entire salary at the casino I can say, yeah, that's probably a good idea. But then instead you collect your salary in cash and light it on fire, I think I can safely say the casino was a better idea.
When you're a grown-up you'll understand basic logic like this.
RoyalRed
Registered User
- Apr 8, 2013
- 475
- 497
Why is everything about Benning with you freaks lol? Not everyone is either a Benning bro or Benning hater.
The man lives in your guys heads that's for sure.
You just going to ignore who Barrie plays with? Put Hughes with McDavid and Draisaitl and see how many points he gets.
RoyalRed
Registered User
- Apr 8, 2013
- 475
- 497
What if one of the scenarios isn't a bad thing? Your analogy is ridiculous because you're picking two bad scenarios right off the hop, which is kinda the point here: you always assume the worst, which means you can always dump on Benning and the team. Anything he does is bad and then anything he does instead is bad.
AwesomeInTheory
A Christmas miracle
- Aug 21, 2015
- 4,240
- 4,439
"I agreed that it was wise to do X. I do not agree with what he did to replace X."
How is that unreasonable?
RobertKron
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2007
- 15,477
- 8,570
Both EP and QH are overvalued by the Vancouver fan base. QH has amazing skills but right now he is one dimensional and is not Cale Makar.
Likewise, EP is a number one centre but he isn’t yet in the elite offensive player category. He has potential to be top 10 but he has to prove that.
pay them accordingly
Likewise, EP is a number one centre but he isn’t yet in the elite offensive player category. He has potential to be top 10 but he has to prove that.
pay them accordingly
Melvin
21/12/05
I am picking the scenarios that have happened. In reality.
when I say “yeah, not resigning tanev is reasonable” it’s not because I’m thinking he’s going to sign a cheap deal in Calgary and then we are going to trade for the OEL contract and commit 4 years to Tucker Poolman.
Like, in a vacuum letting Tanev go at his age and injuries makes sense. But compared to what we’ve ACTUALLY DONE it’s mind bogglingly stupid. I don’t know why this is hard to understand.
Its about Benning on the CANUCKS board cause he is the GM…
this is the I lost an argument throw it at a wall reply.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
Years that European players would have won NHL accolades- Latest: Michael Farkas
-
When was the last time you cried because of a playoff loss?- Latest: NeelyWasAWarrior
-
-
