Bravo Benning. The D is pretty much rebuilt.

[iceburg]

Agreed, it's the textbook definition of 'weasel words', i.e. believing you are more reasonable/objective because you don't take a hard position on something.

How can forming an opinion on something based on objective truth rather than preconceived biases be that?

 

[iceburg]

My point is that being pro or anti-Benning does not require that one make judgments about every move based on their preconceived biases about him. It is merely a position that describes whether or not you've assessed that he's done a good or bad job as GM.

I'm not necessarily accusing you of standing in the middle, per say, but I do think that choosing to correct the idea of being pro or anti-Benning by stating that you're pro-objective truth instead implies that you think they aren't compatible. The only way they wouldn't be is if you stood in the middle, which I do not think is any more or less credible/sensible.

That's my point. I'm not putting words in your mouth.

Well we agree then it's fair to assess the job of managment. But it's hard to argue that the labels pro- and anti-Benning never devolve into biased statements...
anyway, it's the reason I stay away from the management threads and only got pulled into this because my 3 year old post was quoted

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

How can forming an opinion on something based on objective truth rather than preconceived biases be that?

As @Shareefruck already pointed out, taking a neutral position (neither being pro nor anti Benning) does not make your opinion more/less objective. Being pro/anti Benning isn't always based on "preconceived biases" but rather based on the decisions that the Benning regime has made, i.e. rooted in the facts. Just in case any of this is unclear, an extreme example would be being anti-Hitler. I think that's based on "objective truth" rather than "preconceived bias."

 

[Mergatroidskittle]

Jesus @y2kcanucks if i was to pull out half the crap you spew around here we could go around in circles for days.

Ripping me for liking Juolevi post draft and at least thinking that he had the talent and look of a Hamhuis or Suter comp i used Initially is beyond laughable.

To think that you have some jedi mind powers to see the future of 17/18 yr old kids beyond pro scouts is embarrassing for you. I was a Tkachuk guy at the time but unlike yourself rather than mire in a world of anger and disdain i moved on and tried to digest and disect the reasoning and positives than back into a corner of right or wrong.

How is Vilardi vs Pettersson working out for ya

Guy has made so many stupid posts it’s hilarious seeing him try calling others out

 

[M2Beezy]

Gotta say im feeling a lil suprised and good about are d now. And everyone keeps saying Gubranson IS a top 4 guy so.... maybe not so bad. Imagine in 3 years

Juol
Tanman
Edler
Hutty
Goober
Sbisa Man
Trammer
Briesbois

Those are all good dmen. Even if not all around or made it by then thats kinda impressive

Nicely played Benning

WRONG

 

[iceburg]

As @Shareefruck already pointed out, taking a neutral position (neither being pro nor anti Benning) does not make your opinion more/less objective. Being pro/anti Benning isn't always based on "preconceived biases" but rather based on the decisions that the Benning regime has made, i.e. rooted in the facts. Just in case any of this is unclear, an extreme example would be being anti-Hitler. I think that's based on "objective truth" rather than "preconceived bias."

And my point is that the labels pro- and anti- Benning have become, and by their nature kinda are, highly charged words that can result in conversations that move away from objective truth..

 

[y2kcanucks]

Jesus @y2kcanucks if i was to pull out half the crap you spew around here we could go around in circles for days.

Ripping me for liking Juolevi post draft and at least thinking that he had the talent and look of a Hamhuis or Suter comp i used Initially is beyond laughable.

To think that you have some jedi mind powers to see the future of 17/18 yr old kids beyond pro scouts is embarrassing for you. I was a Tkachuk guy at the time but unlike yourself rather than mire in a world of anger and disdain i moved on and tried to digest and disect the reasoning and positives than back into a corner of right or wrong.

How is Vilardi vs Pettersson working out for ya

Vilardi suffered a very serious back injury after the draft that couldn't have been reasonably predicted. I'll own that one. It's been a landslide for Pettersson, but I still believe it would have been much closer had Vilardi not gotten hurt.

All good. Thing is I'm not pro-or anti-Benning. I'm more objective truth driven
Glad you're having fun.

Sure.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

And my point is that the labels pro- and anti- Benning, have become, and by their nature kinda are, highly charged words that can result in conversations that move away from objective truth..

I agree. I take the view that pigeon-holing people into one or the other is an oversimplified view on things. I consider myself "anti-Benning" but not to the extent where I can't give him credit where credit is due (Pettersson, Boeser, Baertschi, Leivo, etc.). I take this view because, overall when you look at ALL of his work (drafting, contract extensions, free agency signings, trades, etc.), he's been worse than the average GM.

This doesn't mean that you need to take some middle-of-the-ground position to be objective. Rather, you only need to qualify your criticism/support with reasoning.

 

[Shareefruck]

Well we agree then it's fair to assess the job of managment. But it's hard to argue that the labels pro- and anti-Benning never devolve into biased statements...
anyway, it's the reason I stay away from the management threads and only got pulled into this because my 3 year old post was quoted

It's a possible danger, but not a defining characteristic like you implied. However, the same is true of any possible position you take on the job he's done. Neutral positions risk a further neutral bias, and having no opinion risks continuing to have no opinion.

 

[iceburg]

I agree. I take the view that pigeon-holing people into one or the other is an oversimplified view on things. I consider myself "anti-Benning" but not to the extent where I can't give him credit where credit is due (Pettersson, Boeser, Baertschi, Leivo, etc.). I take this view because, overall when you look at ALL of his work (drafting, contract extensions, free agency signings, trades, etc.), he's been worse than the average GM.

This doesn't mean that you need to take some middle-of-the-ground position to be objective. Rather, you only need to qualify your criticism/support with reasoning.

Let's seek to reason together not to win every conversation. That way we can learn from each other and the world will be a better place.

...but that statement strikes me as odd in this forum...

 

[DarrenX]

Benning hasn't been perfect and i haven't cosigned all of his moves but he has done a stellar job at rebuilding this D in less than 2 years with limited assets.

This did not age well.

 

[RobertKron]

This did not age well.

It didn’t exist well in the first place.

 

[y2kcanucks]

This did not age well.

What's funny is people today still use that same line.

"I haven't agreed with everything Benning has done but he's done a lot of good"

The one liner the Benning Bro's use is hilarious. It was stupid then, it's stupid today.

 

[iceburg]

It's a possible danger, but not a defining characteristic like you implied. However, the same is true of any possible position you take on the job he's done. Neutral positions risk a further neutral bias, and having no opinion risks continuing to have no opinion.

I would argue that assigning bias to an position/label solely because it's positive or negative would be as problematic as anything else we're talking about.

Actually, I have taken strongs position in both directions. If I take a wait and see approach, it's usually because I don't know enough about the player. And, if I were asked to choose one way or the other, I would say Benning's negative moves outweigh his positive moves. And he should go nowhere near a cheque book or a contract negotiation. That's kinda the irony of this conversation. The only thing I'm saying is I wouldn't label myself pro- or anti- Benning. Just pro-good moves and anti-bad moves.
I see them as bias labels because of the responses they generate among posters. There are words that generate such emotional responses that lack of reason is often the result.

 

[Shareefruck]

Actually, I have taken strongs position in both directions. If I take a wait and see approach, it's usually because I don't know enough about the player. And, if I were asked to choose one way or the other, I would say Benning's negative moves outweigh his positive moves. And he should go nowhere near a cheque book or a contract negotiation. That's kinda the irony of this conversation. The only thing I'm saying is I wouldn't label myself pro- or anti- Benning. Just pro-good moves and anti-bad moves.
I see them as bias labels because of the responses they generate among posters. There are words that generate such emotional responses that lack of reason is often the result.

I guess what bothers me in principle is that labels that are appropriate for describing perfectly reasonable and potentially objective-truth-driven view-points tend to get stigmatized as necessarily bad words that suggest something more ignorant/sinister, simply by association, when there's really no need to feed into that already unfair perception.

You may not have been intending that and that's fine. The choice of phrasing just raised those alarm bells for me.

 

[Jay Cee]

I remember this post! LOL.

For some reason I thought the OP was hindustan though.

 

[Javaman]

Actually, I have taken strongs position in both directions. If I take a wait and see approach, it's usually because I don't know enough about the player. And, if I were asked to choose one way or the other, I would say Benning's negative moves outweigh his positive moves. And he should go nowhere near a cheque book or a contract negotiation. That's kinda the irony of this conversation. The only thing I'm saying is I wouldn't label myself pro- or anti- Benning. Just pro-good moves and anti-bad moves.
I see them as bias labels because of the responses they generate among posters. There are words that generate such emotional responses that lack of reason is often the result.

I realize I'm jumping in here, but you seemingly have no reservations about describing Benning as a bad GM overall. A preponderance of bad moves surely justifies that label.

Why the reluctance to publicly acknowledge that he's a bad GM? Why worry other posters will label you as "anti-Benning"? Why dance this semantic tightrope?

I'm not trying to call you out... just trying to understand your mindset.

 

[ErrantShepherd]

I realize I'm jumping in here, but you seemingly have no reservations about describing Benning as a bad GM overall. A preponderance of bad moves surely justifies that label.

Why the reluctance to publicly acknowledge that he's a bad GM? Why worry other posters will label you as "anti-Benning"? Why dance this semantic tightrope?

I'm not trying to call you out... just trying to understand your mindset.

Maybe they're worried about needing to get gang colors?

You know? You got the Crips and the Bloods... then you got the Anti-Bennings and the Benning Bros, then you've got Tank Nation... and apparently somewhere there's Playoff Pushers. (That's the rumor, I don't know if anyone has actually seen one.)


It's scary, man. Getting pigeonholed online. I like to try to actually address others' points, or ask for more info generally in a some kind of discussion though rather than just label them Benning-Bro/Tanker or whatever else. I don't really see how name calling and dismissal helps generally.

(Unless they're a troll or I feel like trying to make a joke.)

 

[Ainec]

Vilardi suffered a very serious back injury after the draft that couldn't have been reasonably predicted. I'll own that one. It's been a landslide for Pettersson, but I still believe it would have been much closer had Vilardi not gotten hurt.



Sure.

had vilardi not been hurt he is still nowhere close to Pettersson

this is more due to Pettersson being an elite superstar than Vilardi not being worthy of a 5th overall selection

 

[Javaman]

Maybe they're worried about needing to get gang colors?

You know? You got the Crips and the Bloods... then you got the Anti-Bennings and the Benning Bros, then you've got Tank Nation... and apparently somewhere there's Playoff Pushers. (That's the rumor, I don't know if anyone has actually seen one.)


It's scary, man. Getting pigeonholed online. I like to try to actually address others' points, or ask for more info generally in a some kind of discussion though rather than just label them Benning-Bro/Tanker or whatever else. I don't really see how name calling and dismissal helps generally.

(Unless they're a troll or I feel like trying to make a joke.)

I'm not a fan of strawmen. Try again.

 

[iceburg]

I realize I'm jumping in here, but you seemingly have no reservations about describing Benning as a bad GM overall. A preponderance of bad moves surely justifies that label.

Why the reluctance to publicly acknowledge that he's a bad GM? Why worry other posters will label you as "anti-Benning"? Why dance this semantic tightrope?

I'm not trying to call you out... just trying to understand your mindset.

Not worried at all. I think it’s best explained by the fact that my original post was in response to y2k (see below). Using specific highly charged words can make conversations unproductive IMO.

“With all the crap I, and others, put up with from the rah rah pro-Benning side, I get a lot of enjoyment out of this.” y2k, 2019

 

[Javaman]

Not worried at all. I think it’s best explained by the fact that my original post was in response to y2k (see below). Using specific highly charged words can make conversations unproductive IMO.

“With all the crap I, and others, put up with from the rah rah pro-Benning side, I get a lot of enjoyment out of this.” y2k, 2019

Okay thanks.

My next question is, since you feel that Benning's bad moves outweigh his good moves, doesn't it make sense to be anti-Benning if you wish good things to happen for the Canucks?

 

[iceburg]

Okay thanks.

My next question is, since you feel that Benning's bad moves outweigh his good moves, doesn't it make sense to be anti-Benning if you wish good things to happen for the Canucks?

Again, I choose to use different words than anti or pro Benning. I find conversations much better if the transaction(s) is being discussed rather than the individual. If, by the weight of all transactions and other circumstances, ownership decides to move on to a different GM then I’ll quite happily discuss the moves that that GM makes, trying not to personalize the comments, though on some particularly frustrating occasions I might be unsuccessful.

 

[Javaman]

Again, I choose to use different words than anti or pro Benning. I find conversations much better if the transaction(s) is being discussed rather than the individual. If, by the weight of all transactions and other circumstances, ownership decides to move on to a different GM then I’ll quite happily discuss the moves that that GM makes, trying not to personalize the comments, though on some particularly frustrating occasions I might be unsuccessful.

Well, alrighty then. But don't be shocked when your self-proclaimed neutrality is met with raised eyebrows. Please understand that the raised eyebrows are not some simple, unthinking response on the part of those Canucks fans who strongly feel that Benning needs to go.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

you must be thinking of a 20 game NHL callup in Connor's D+2 yea

Yes, I was recalling opinion during recalling his AHL stint that season.