Sam Bennett

[travel_dude]

11 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

For a small  5% fee I would be willing to advise

 

He could have been traded to Buffalo and not be able to dig them out.

Or a playoff team where his role was defined by what he was in CGY.

 

If we had a definite plan of what core players were on the way out and what was coming back, then Bennett might have been slated to be protected in the draft.

Criticize BT all you want, but he made the best of a bad situation for both Bennett and the team, and does not need to lose him for nothing.

I can only speculate that Lucic was talking about Bennett when he said playing for individual stats.

It matches what Bennett talked about, being moved to RW or C, or 4th line or no PP time.

If true, it shows how frustrated a player can get by being yanked around.

The other side of the coin is that a player has to fit the vision and not just complain about it.

You don't like your role - do something about it to make yourself indispensable.

 

I'm talking out of my butt.  No idea if any of that is true or not.  The player didn't work out here.

He's doing well in a limited viewing so far and could see a new lease on his career.

Or return to the normal.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

He could have been traded to Buffalo and not be able to dig them out.

Or a playoff team where his role was defined by what he was in CGY.

 

If we had a definite plan of what core players were on the way out and what was coming back, then Bennett might have been slated to be protected in the draft.

Criticize BT all you want, but he made the best of a bad situation for both Bennett and the team, and does not need to lose him for nothing.

I can only speculate that Lucic was talking about Bennett when he said playing for individual stats.

It matches what Bennett talked about, being moved to RW or C, or 4th line or no PP time.

If true, it shows how frustrated a player can get by being yanked around.

The other side of the coin is that a player has to fit the vision and not just complain about it.

You don't like your role - do something about it to make yourself indispensable.

 

I'm talking out of my butt.  No idea if any of that is true or not.  The player didn't work out here.

He's doing well in a limited viewing so far and could see a new lease on his career.

Or return to the normal.

 

I intend to yes.  lol

 

BT can't ever be criticized for in-the-moment decisions.    If you completely ignore the past, and you completely ignore the future, his decisions are always sound.

 

There was nothing wrong with the trade itself for what Bennett was worth at that time.  ok that's not true.  they should have packaged him.   But the trade was ok in that moment.

 

That is, if you choose to ignore the enormous mis-management of Bennett, and others, that got us here.   And the fan favorites who were kept (Gaudreau etc) which meant Bennett had to play a minimal role.

 

Bennett DID work out here in previous years and he was pushed out of key roles in favor of short-sighted win now visions.    We can't even say he didn't work out here.    We can say there was never a long term vision or plan or investment in our prospects.    

 

And we can assume that there are more in our organization like him because we do not have the expertise to identify or develop such players even if they show up to work every day.

[travel_dude]

2 hours ago, jjgallow said:

There was nothing wrong with the trade itself for what Bennett was worth at that time.  ok that's not true.  they should have packaged him.   But the trade was ok in that moment.

 

Ok, so there was some kind of offer on the table for Bennett + Gaudreau was there?

Sure there were other deals Bennett was packaged in that fell through.

And there was probably some belief that his value was higher than what any of the offers were.

Probably two years ago we get primo from Anaheim.

 

I certainly don't absolve BT for any of the huge mistakes he made.

I do give credit where due.

If you can find examples of where Bennett showed he should be a #1C on this team, I would be happy to talk about them.

No, he wasn't shoved under a rock becuase of Gaudreau.

All he needed to do was take that next step.

Which he didn't.

Was the playoffs enough reason to promote him to #1C because we needed one?

 

 

[robrob74]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Ok, so there was some kind of offer on the table for Bennett + Gaudreau was there?

Sure there were other deals Bennett was packaged in that fell through.

And there was probably some belief that his value was higher than what any of the offers were.

Probably two years ago we get primo from Anaheim.

 

I certainly don't absolve BT for any of the huge mistakes he made.

I do give credit where due.

If you can find examples of where Bennett showed he should be a #1C on this team, I would be happy to talk about them.

No, he wasn't shoved under a rock becuase of Gaudreau.

All he needed to do was take that next step.

Which he didn't.

Was the playoffs enough reason to promote him to #1C because we needed one?

 

 

 

i said it for years that if he was given what Monahan was as a C from the start that he’d have a similar trajectory. He was put aside for Tkachuk and then never given anyone remotely close to a Gaudreau as a C in Calgary, or for an extended period of time. He also had similar numbers to monahan in their respective rookie seasons. 
 

we always say that he had all the chances in the world or that he didn’t run with it, well, he was never given a real chance because he wasn’t put in a spot for long enough to grow in it, as a C, which is what he is.

[conundrumed]

10 hours ago, robrob74 said:

 

i said it for years that if he was given what Monahan was as a C from the start that he’d have a similar trajectory. He was put aside for Tkachuk and then never given anyone remotely close to a Gaudreau as a C in Calgary, or for an extended period of time. He also had similar numbers to monahan in their respective rookie seasons. 
 

we always say that he had all the chances in the world or that he didn’t run with it, well, he was never given a real chance because he wasn’t put in a spot for long enough to grow in it, as a C, which is what he is.

It would be nice to get away from where Calgary went wrong with Bennett.

Calgary isn't a good team, on paper or on the ice. They really haven't been for quite some time. They had no one for Bennett to play with or learn from. They're too busy being D-centric to have real quality forwards. Fla is all about pace so Bennett is free to skate, not the skating in mud Flames game. Then he has Barkov to watch and talk to.

Fla was more than ready to play to, and help, Bennett's strengths, the Flames never really were. They just don't have a very good forward roster, that's why they can't score much. It will always haunt them. Too much mishmash of big & small, no in between. And deathly slow.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

It would be nice to get away from where Calgary went wrong with Bennett.

Calgary isn't a good team, on paper or on the ice. They really haven't been for quite some time. They had no one for Bennett to play with or learn from. They're too busy being D-centric to have real quality forwards. Fla is all about pace so Bennett is free to skate, not the skating in mud Flames game. Then he has Barkov to watch and talk to.

Fla was more than ready to play to, and help, Bennett's strengths, the Flames never really were. They just don't have a very good forward roster, that's why they can't score much. It will always haunt them. Too much mishmash of big & small, no in between. And deathly slow.

 

ONe of the best players for the ypung to learn from was Hudler.  He was a decent role model for Monahan and Gaudreau.

But I tend to agree there was little else.  Stajan?  Brouwer?  Bollig?  I don't know, you tell me.

 

It took us years to provide a top 6 RW.  And trading away a top D to do it.

Tkachuk was given a shutdown role.  How does that make any sense?

It's n surprise that we tried Bennett on the wing.  And kept him there.

As it is, we can't even line up two top 6 RW's now, with all the changes over the last 5 years.

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

ONe of the best players for the ypung to learn from was Hudler.  He was a decent role model for Monahan and Gaudreau.

But I tend to agree there was little else.  Stajan?  Brouwer?  Bollig?  I don't know, you tell me.

 

It took us years to provide a top 6 RW.  And trading away a top D to do it.

Tkachuk was given a shutdown role.  How does that make any sense?

It's n surprise that we tried Bennett on the wing.  And kept him there.

As it is, we can't even line up two top 6 RW's now, with all the changes over the last 5 years.

It's a conundrum, pardon the expression. The adds to O never match the adds to D.

Big spends on Hamilton, Hamonic...then big adds on O are lumbering fwds like Brouwer and Neal.

I agree it's a d-first and puck-moving d game. But it becomes pretty onerous when your fwd roster is too unskilled to move it fwd adequately.

Where they done good things to move fwd, they've done enough negative things to keep it the same.

Just looking at the players in and out of the top 6 this year. It's cheap alternatives you always hope work out when they never do.

Rinse and repeat. Always the same angle. "No risk, no reward" should be the team motto.

And yes, I'm very down on them. I hope they have some solutions, but history doesn't bode well for that.

[travel_dude]

22 minutes ago, conundrumed said:

It's a conundrum, pardon the expression. The adds to O never match the adds to D.

Big spends on Hamilton, Hamonic...then big adds on O are lumbering fwds like Brouwer and Neal.

I agree it's a d-first and puck-moving d game. But it becomes pretty onerous when your fwd roster is too unskilled to move it fwd adequately.

Where they done good things to move fwd, they've done enough negative things to keep it the same.

Just looking at the players in and out of the top 6 this year. It's cheap alternatives you always hope work out when they never do.

Rinse and repeat. Always the same angle. "No risk, no reward" should be the team motto.

And yes, I'm very down on them. I hope they have some solutions, but history doesn't bode well for that.

 

The past mistakes are good learnings I guess.

As much as I have enjoyed Lucic's play and "team" game, he is part of the problem.

For close to $6m, we should have a top 4 RW, not a 3LW.  We have guys that could do that.

Backlund is a waste of $5m.  

Our best RW and we have to use Lindholm as a C.

 

To me, it does appear as if we just looked through a list of players and just picked them at random for their salary fit.

I don't really see any line that was built to succeed.

Gaudreau-Lindholm-Tkachuk played well, well because they are the three best players on the team.

Fine, build a bottom 9 with that in mind.

Secondary scoring line that can fly.

Shutdown line that can score on transition.

4th line that ends up even at worst against whomever they play, but has guys that can actually score a goal.

 

What bothers me is that players like Mangiapane rarely make it on this team.

He got promoted to 3M, and then does everything you want, so we drop him to Lucic's line.

He still scores there.

I don't know if a Ruzicka will ever be a top 6 player, but I have no idea how he even gets the chance to show his skill.

Garbage games and he still plays on a 4th line with Ritchie.

He's actually got a decent shot and isn't slow.

[Sarasti]

28 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

The past mistakes are good learnings I guess.

As much as I have enjoyed Lucic's play and "team" game, he is part of the problem.

For close to $6m, we should have a top 4 RW, not a 3LW.  We have guys that could do that.

Backlund is a waste of $5m.  

Our best RW and we have to use Lindholm as a C.

 

To me, it does appear as if we just looked through a list of players and just picked them at random for their salary fit.

I don't really see any line that was built to succeed.

Gaudreau-Lindholm-Tkachuk played well, well because they are the three best players on the team.

Fine, build a bottom 9 with that in mind.

Secondary scoring line that can fly.

Shutdown line that can score on transition.

4th line that ends up even at worst against whomever they play, but has guys that can actually score a goal.

 

What bothers me is that players like Mangiapane rarely make it on this team.

He got promoted to 3M, and then does everything you want, so we drop him to Lucic's line.

He still scores there.

I don't know if a Ruzicka will ever be a top 6 player, but I have no idea how he even gets the chance to show his skill.

Garbage games and he still plays on a 4th line with Ritchie.

He's actually got a decent shot and isn't slow.

 

The development of prospects has always been an issue with this club unfortunately.

 

For every Brodie and Gaudreau we have 10 other failed prospects.

 

It worries me because a lot of the guys we have in the system have pretty respectable ceiling potential.

[travel_dude]

16 minutes ago, Sarasti said:

 

The development of prospects has always been an issue with this club unfortunately.

 

For every Brodie and Gaudreau we have 10 other failed prospects.

 

It worries me because a lot of the guys we have in the system have pretty respectable ceiling potential.

 

If we weren't able to maximize Bennett, I think we might have a problem with a guy like Ruzicka.

Zary may work out because he is already built on a 2-way game.

Pelletier might be an issue, since he's probably the same type of player as Mangiapane.

The way we are built, we simply don't have room in the top 9 for him.

Maybe a crazy line like Pelletier-Ruzicka-Dube would be able to succeed, but I don't see the opportunity to use a line like that.

Not here.  Anywhere else, probably.

 

Seems to me that for every Pelletier, we have to have a Lucic or Ritchie. 

[jjgallow]

4 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

ONe of the best players for the ypung to learn from was Hudler.  He was a decent role model for Monahan and Gaudreau.

But I tend to agree there was little else.  Stajan?  Brouwer?  Bollig?  I don't know, you tell me.

 

It took us years to provide a top 6 RW.  And trading away a top D to do it.

Tkachuk was given a shutdown role.  How does that make any sense?

It's n surprise that we tried Bennett on the wing.  And kept him there.

As it is, we can't even line up two top 6 RW's now, with all the changes over the last 5 years.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nhl/news/airline-nhls-jiri-hudler-demanded-cocaine-and-tried-to-pee-on-foot-cart-on-flight/

 

Wondering aloud how well we Really had our finger on the pulse.

[jjgallow]

18 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Ok, so there was some kind of offer on the table for Bennett + Gaudreau was there?

Sure there were other deals Bennett was packaged in that fell through.

And there was probably some belief that his value was higher than what any of the offers were.

Probably two years ago we get primo from Anaheim.

 

I certainly don't absolve BT for any of the huge mistakes he made.

I do give credit where due.

If you can find examples of where Bennett showed he should be a #1C on this team, I would be happy to talk about them.

No, he wasn't shoved under a rock becuase of Gaudreau.

All he needed to do was take that next step.

Which he didn't.

Was the playoffs enough reason to promote him to #1C because we needed one?

 

I would not have packaged Bennett and Gaudreau together for a number of reasons.     One, again, now you're down to a very limited number of ways to get return on that.      More importantly I think you're better off making one major move at a time and then assessing. 

 

Realistically, if you're asking "was there a better way", it was to let Bennett have another year in junior to recover and then give him a significant role with the Flames and develop him in that role.

 

And if you're asking "was there a better way other than that", it was to trade Gaudreau.   Assess.   And then likely trade Backlund.  And assess.

 

By package, I mean maybe throw in a role player here or there.   Or throw in a pick so that we get a first round pick back instead of a 2nd.

 

In my own world of sensible things Gaudreau+Bennett probably wouldn't be in the same trade because we would have traded Gaudreau back when he had value and then we would have discovered what Bennett really was, and not traded him at all.

[Sarasti]

39 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I would not have packaged Bennett and Gaudreau together for a number of reasons.     One, again, now you're down to a very limited number of ways to get return on that.      More importantly I think you're better off making one major move at a time and then assessing. 

 

Realistically, if you're asking "was there a better way", it was to let Bennett have another year in junior to recover and then give him a significant role with the Flames and develop him in that role.

 

And if you're asking "was there a better way other than that", it was to trade Gaudreau.   Assess.   And then likely trade Backlund.  And assess.

 

By package, I mean maybe throw in a role player here or there.   Or throw in a pick so that we get a first round pick back instead of a 2nd.

 

In my own world of sensible things Gaudreau+Bennett probably wouldn't be in the same trade because we would have traded Gaudreau back when he had value and then we would have discovered what Bennett really was, and not traded him at all.

 

Realistically I think Bennett was too good for Junior after he was drafted. Much like Monahan and Tkachuk.

 

Where we went wrong IMO is not giving him responsibility right away like we did Monahan and Tkachuk and allowing him to grow into the role.

 

He had a solid rookie year with Backlund, but after that we should have been developing him as a top 6 center.

Had it worked out close to or better than how it did with Monahan, we'd have a pretty good 1-2 punch down the middle.

Which I think might have been the original plan before the 2015 season fooled management into thinking our rebuild had succeeded just 2 years in and we were suddenly contenders.

[travel_dude]

36 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

I would not have packaged Bennett and Gaudreau together for a number of reasons.     One, again, now you're down to a very limited number of ways to get return on that.      More importantly I think you're better off making one major move at a time and then assessing. 

 

Realistically, if you're asking "was there a better way", it was to let Bennett have another year in junior to recover and then give him a significant role with the Flames and develop him in that role.

 

And if you're asking "was there a better way other than that", it was to trade Gaudreau.   Assess.   And then likely trade Backlund.  And assess.

 

By package, I mean maybe throw in a role player here or there.   Or throw in a pick so that we get a first round pick back instead of a 2nd.

 

In my own world of sensible things Gaudreau+Bennett probably wouldn't be in the same trade because we would have traded Gaudreau back when he had value and then we would have discovered what Bennett really was, and not traded him at all.

 

Yeah that wasn't happening.  A 1st for Bennett + something.

3 years ago Bennett might have commanded a 1st from a contender.

Doubtful, considering he wasn't a Blake Coleman at the time.

 

Woulda, shoulda, coulda.

No real insight into whether Bennett would have made it here.

I see one situation where he is thriving, and can't come up with a series of moves that gets him to that magical player.

We trade Gaudreau, perhaps we don't get Tkachuk because we have picked up assets and futures.

 

The only given is that he didn't thrive here.

Trade and assess might have worked by using about 6 years of his career to see what you had.

Would it be any better than trading him for a 2nd + prospect?

Jury is still out, isn't it.

  

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, travel_dude said:

 

Yeah that wasn't happening.  A 1st for Bennett + something.

3 years ago Bennett might have commanded a 1st from a contender.

Doubtful, considering he wasn't a Blake Coleman at the time.

 

Woulda, shoulda, coulda.

No real insight into whether Bennett would have made it here.

I see one situation where he is thriving, and can't come up with a series of moves that gets him to that magical player.

We trade Gaudreau, perhaps we don't get Tkachuk because we have picked up assets and futures.

 

The only given is that he didn't thrive here.

Trade and assess might have worked by using about 6 years of his career to see what you had.

Would it be any better than trading him for a 2nd + prospect?

Jury is still out, isn't it.

  

 

No, the jury is not out.  At all.

 

Even before he showed us what he could do in Florida it was extremely obvious and clear that we should have

 

1.  Invested in him and his development more

 

2.  Traded him sooner if it didn't work out.

 

Period.

 

It's not a mystery, sorry.

 

I do not know how this can even be suggested as the least bit confusing.

 

And yeah.  You're right.  We should've.   And we could've.    Exactly that.

 

Just like right now we can  clean house starting with Treliving or higher.  

[travel_dude]

15 minutes ago, jjgallow said:

 

No, the jury is not out.  At all.

 

Even before he showed us what he could do in Florida it was extremely obvious and clear that we should have

 

1.  Invested in him and his development more

 

2.  Traded him sooner if it didn't work out.

 

Period.

 

It's not a mystery, sorry.

 

I do not know how this can even be suggested as the least bit confusing.

 

And yeah.  You're right.  We should've.   And we could've.    Exactly that.

 

Just like right now we can  clean house starting with Treliving or higher.  

 

You are basing it on expectations of a top 4 rafted player in what many saw as a strong draft.

The only proof he is close to those expectations is a short stretch with a playoff bound team.

A player doing well in the East and not in the West.

It's a limited proof so far.

What happens if he regresses back to his usual output next season?

I'm not hoping for it, just suggesting that it's as possible as what you've seen.

Playoff Sam Bennett was always going to produce.

 

I blame the GM for not building up a player, regardless of what he ever would become.

Clean house if you like, but there are others making important decisions and recommendations that are not the GM.

Make sure you get those.

 

 

[jjgallow]

18 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

You are basing it on expectations of a top 4 rafted player in what many saw as a strong draft.

The only proof he is close to those expectations is a short stretch with a playoff bound team.

A player doing well in the East and not in the West.

It's a limited proof so far.

What happens if he regresses back to his usual output next season?

I'm not hoping for it, just suggesting that it's as possible as what you've seen.

Playoff Sam Bennett was always going to produce.

 

Then we draw the exact same conclusion that we should have invested more in his development and if it still didn't work out, traded him sooner when he had more value.

 

Florida doesn't change this we knew this very well beforehand.  We knew he had one of the highest ceilings on the team, we knew he had one of the best shot percentages, some of the highest production per minute played, was one of the hardest workers, and one of the best playoff performers (had another gear).

 

Florida isn't changing what we already knew, they're just making it impossible to ignore.

 

Quote

I blame the GM for not building up a player, regardless of what he ever would become.

Clean house if you like, but there are others making important decisions and recommendations that are not the GM.

Make sure you get those.

 

Agreed, and if I have had such powers I would go out and do exactly as you've instructed here lol.

[conundrumed]

Let's go Panthers! Keep it fun!!

[LouCifer]

Let’s go cats! Get on the board! 

[LouCifer]

Bennett took a dumb penalty - marginal call but he pulled a defenders helmet off - and Tbag cashes in to make it 2-0 after FLA had all the momentum. However, coach Q puts Benny right back out there. Now FLA is going on the power play on that same shift. Here’s hoping they can make it a 1 goal game again. 🤞🏻 

[LouCifer]

2 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Let's go Panthers! Keep it fun!!

They were fun to watch. All the credit to them. That was a good series. I hate TBag but Vaselinesky was incredible. Here’s hoping someone eliminates the cheaters. 

[conundrumed]

6 hours ago, lou44291 said:

They were fun to watch. All the credit to them. That was a good series. I hate TBag but Vaselinesky was incredible. Here’s hoping someone eliminates the cheaters. 

Didn't mind TBag before the Cap "negotiating" crap but I do Love Vasilevsky. When he decides your not scoring, your not scoring. The totally sketch reffing in games 1 & 2 is my only gripe.

And the year we wasted trading down for Jankowski...yeah...Stevie Y took Vasilevsky...hands down the best 18yr old goalie on the planet. Now the best goalie on the planet.

[robrob74]

6 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Didn't mind TBag before the Cap "negotiating" crap but I do Love Vasilevsky. When he decides your not scoring, your not scoring. The totally sketch reffing in games 1 & 2 is my only gripe.

And the year we wasted trading down for Jankowski...yeah...Stevie Y took Vasilevsky...hands down the best 18yr old goalie on the planet. Now the best goalie on the planet.

 

need was #1 C and #1G. We weren’t getting that in Jankowski, I mean Niewendyk.... yup, I wish I was a scout. But I am more of a surface watcher than the finer details, which is where my points I try to make weaken. I wasn’t lucky enough to play organized hockey as a kid... I played the streets and BBall. But I know where to be. 
 

I like to think I scouted Kipper 🤣

the first time I ever saw him in a San Jose game he was a goalie I wanted for the Flames, in a 5-2 or 3 loss to Vancouver. 
 

If JJ is right, and that this is a deep on D and a few good Goalies, it could be good to stock up on those this year, build the net out.

 

TB looks really good and probably have a repeat on their hands.  They have a few top picks and studs on their team. Stamkos is a top pick, Hedman is top of the draft, Kucherov would have been but was a great find in his draft, the #1G was taken at the right time too. They drafted well and right. A part of that seems like the Detroit model with Yzerman being there to create a culture. 
 

I think Looch is right in one thing, the expectations and culture aren’t aligning in Calgary the way it has in places like Boston and Tampa...

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, robrob74 said:

 

need was #1 C and #1G. We weren’t getting that in Jankowski, I mean Niewendyk.... yup, I wish I was a scout. But I am more of a surface watcher than the finer details, which is where my points I try to make weaken. I wasn’t lucky enough to play organized hockey as a kid... I played the streets and BBall. But I know where to be. 
 

I like to think I scouted Kipper 🤣

the first time I ever saw him in a San Jose game he was a goalie I wanted for the Flames, in a 5-2 or 3 loss to Vancouver. 
 

If JJ is right, and that this is a deep on D and a few good Goalies, it could be good to stock up on those this year, build the net out.

 

TB looks really good and probably have a repeat on their hands.  They have a few top picks and studs on their team. Stamkos is a top pick, Hedman is top of the draft, Kucherov would have been but was a great find in his draft, the #1G was taken at the right time too. They drafted well and right. A part of that seems like the Detroit model with Yzerman being there to create a culture. 
 

I think Looch is right in one thing, the expectations and culture aren’t aligning in Calgary the way it has in places like Boston and Tampa...

 

Maybe Lucic is right about what BOS was when he played there.

But he was 26 the last time he played there.

 

I will throw this out here.  If Lucic was talking about Bennett, would you still have the same opinion of him?  It's just a question, no judgement.

Can't say how likely that is, but Lucic wasn't just talking about the end of the season.

That's not an indictment of Bennett either.

He wasn't put in a position to improve his next contract.

He did well in limited time with a new club, where he seemed to enjoy playing hockey again.

 

I won't talk about Tampa and culture in the same breath.

Cap circumvention?

Sure.

I like some of their players because they are just that good.

Not a long list. 

[robrob74]

10 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Maybe Lucic is right about what BOS was when he played there.

But he was 26 the last time he played there.

 

I will throw this out here.  If Lucic was talking about Bennett, would you still have the same opinion of him?  It's just a question, no judgement.

Can't say how likely that is, but Lucic wasn't just talking about the end of the season.

That's not an indictment of Bennett either.

He wasn't put in a position to improve his next contract.

He did well in limited time with a new club, where he seemed to enjoy playing hockey again.

 

I won't talk about Tampa and culture in the same breath.

Cap circumvention?

Sure.

I like some of their players because they are just that good.

Not a long list. 

perception of Bennett? Nope, my perception doesn’t change. I think he was very patient in his time with the Flames and we’ve seen other players with similar draft pedigree whine a lot sooner than Bennett did. If he did complain, I think it was coming. I actually think he kind of just gave up, and like you said, wasn’t enjoying hockey anymore. He has some of the most success in times when the games are the hardest and then you don’t put him in those positions to succeed. I get all of the rhetoric that he was given a ton of chances, but never a full chance at C  with good quality players. You could be right that he goes quiet next year. 
 

I hope not.