Rss

Elliotte Friedman dropped a bombshell on Friday morning, reporting that the Canucks were working on extending general manager Jim Benning. The organization made it official yesterday, announcing Benning had inked a three-year contract extension.

I won’t go to the trouble of re-litigating Benning’s 5+ years with the organization- at this point, most fans know where they stand- but many had speculated that this season would be Benning’s last at the helm if the Canucks failed to qualify for the playoffs. Benning may have been taken off life support, but the extension doesn’t necessarily mean his job is secure.

Would you have extended Jim Benning? Do you think he will remain with the organization following the 2019-20 season? 

Last week I asked: Would you retire Roberto Luongo’s number?

Defenceman Factory:

No need to retire his number. Put him in the ring of honour.

J-Canuck:

Teams get in trouble retiring jerseys of players that aren’t HOF caliber, but Lou is! There are a lot of players from 2011 that deserve to have their jerseys hung in the rafters, but The Twins and Lou are at the top

TheRealPB:

The fact that this is even a question is ludicrous. 8 years, 367 wins, 2.36 GAA and a .919 SV% with the Canucks. Top ten in most all-time goalie stats. He’s not Sundin or Messier jetting in for a few games or a season. The only other Canuck goalie who comes even close in team service is McLean. And for this Luongo deserves Ring of Honour? Please. A Stanley Cup cannot possibly be the standard on which a number retirement is based, simply because many marginal players have a ring (some multiples) and many outstanding players have never had a Cup (Perreault, Stastny, Sittler, Dionne, Gartner, list goes on and on). And we’re going to rag on the cap recapture? Bure and Naslund didn’t exactly leave in a blaze of glory. This shouldn’t be a debate. We’re spoiled brats to even consider NOT retiring this number.

Kanuckhotep:

We have four retired #s presently with the twins to be added to this in February. And unofficially Wayne Maki’s #11 and Luc Bourdon’s #28 are out of circulation. (And maybe Rick Rypien’s #37?) Luongo should not have his number retired and it’s not like the Canucks are MONT, BOS or even EDM with numerous Stanley Cups. Luongo was a good goalie but let’s put a halt on retired #s until this franchise brings home the Big Prize.

Robby-D:

I agree with everyone saying put Luongo in the ROH but don’t retire his jersey #. When you look at who’s already had their numbers retired (and will be soon), 5 out of 6 are solidly in that “forever a Canuck” mold. Bure was a dynamic player who made a big difference to the team while he was here, but he left after 8 years and never looked back, hasn’t done anything for the city since, etc. But at least he was drafted by the Canucks, was a really storied “rookie” etc. (For the record, I believe Bure should be ROH and 10 should not be retired either).

Luongo maybe belongs in similar company when compared to Bure, but but not when compared to the rest. Although the best Canuck goalie to date, he is not “forever a Canuck.” He has fond memories of this city, but doesn’t seem to consider hit “his” city.

Finally, retiring a player’s number is an honour that says what they contributed could never be replaced. It is bestowed upon those who had highly-memorable careers. My problem with doing it for Luongo is that a significant portion of his highly-memorable career was not with the Canucks.


Important
This site makes use of cookies which may contain tracking information about visitors. By continuing to browse this site you agree to our use of cookies.