Crabe
Registered User
- Jul 28, 2011
- 29
- 11
Apparently after the OEL deal collapsed, Benning hastily doubled back on both Tanev and Stecher. But by then, they both basically told him to take a hike.
Evidence? Or is this just what it looks like to you? Stecher I can understand, as has been explained already. Plus in Detroit he will have a bigger role and maybe earn a bigger payday eventually. He didn't believe that this was the case here. Tanev on the other hand was never going to be given by the Canucks what he signed for in Calgary. Both situations are unfortunate IMO but I don't know that it makes sense to blame Benning for this.
Plus, we have no idea how long Benning knew that Schmidt might be available. Nor do we know what other potential deals he might have made had that one not presented itself. Benning has shown himself to be a shrewd trader...of all his recent deals, only the Toffoli one looks questionable, and only because we weren't able to re-sign him. And we don't know where this team would have gone if that trade hadn't been made. The playoff run that the team had is a big part of why players want to come here, and I think that trade did a lot to show the guys that management believes in them.
I was also not at all dis-satisfied that the team appeared to be abstaining from early UFA signings or from giving players like Tanev the extra dollars to stick around. Or from giving up the future to acquire OEL. It certainly doesn't follow from being willing to accept a short-term regression, to secure the long-term future of the team, that there is no plan. Our window is not even really open yet. Hughes and Petterson are not yet anywhere near as good as they are going to end up being.
Benning can be faulted for the outrageous extra dollars he has given to certain UFAs, but that's about it. Nobody knew two years ago that Petterson and Hughes would be this good, this early. The team is ahead of schedule so the schedule had to be altered, and you can't say that Benning hasn't made great trades to make that happen. But, of course, he gets no credit for that from certain Canucks fans, because they can be attributed to the other GMs' stupidity or poor bargaining position. As though this somehow diminishes it! As though recognizing when another GM can be taken for a ride, and getting there before anybody else, isn't an important part of being a GM!
Edit: None of this has to do with Tryamkin which is what this thread is supposed to be about I guess. I'd welcome him back at the right price as he does bring an element that we could use more of, but I can't say I disagree with the decision to refuse to give him a one-way deal.
Last edited: