Dazzle

Members
  • Content Count

    6,180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Dazzle last won the day on June 25 2018

Dazzle had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,857 Gaming the system

1 Follower

About Dazzle

  • Rank
    The Snazzle Wristshot
  • Birthday 11/25/1987

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Victoria
  • Interests
    Hockey

Recent Profile Visitors

34,121 profile views
  1. I don't see how this picture helps those who don't even know him in the first place...
  2. The fanbase in general for all sports is irrational. They are conflicted with emotion (ranging from fear, panic, disappointment, anger, urges/desires) and reality. Of course in every proposal, it is almost always lopsided for the home fans. Yet they are stingy when it comes to trade offers from another team (example: Much of this fanbase was unwilling to part with a potentially low 1st round pick for a proven NHL player with a reasonable contract in Miller). Posters like Squamfan are not helping because they are just posting whatever they feel like, instead of thinking about what they post. Also, I suggest people should take a basic economics course at school. They really should introduce it at the high school level. You definitely start understanding things are more complex than what it seems. You start to understand what DRIVES supply and what DRIVES demand. We can see that the Canucks demand was lower when they were a losing team, but the DEMAND for Canucks were at an all-time high in 2011. We didn't see too many complaints when the team was 1st in the league and dominating. Then the fans turned against the team. It's pretty sad really, but this is reality. I like to lay one more final comment. For those who say we have a 'bad' owner, are really out of touch with reality. Pegula right now is arguably the worst owner at the moment, but you could argue that Melnyk is pretty close. Buffalo has missed the playoffs for 9 straight years. They have just a big of a hockey market as a typical Canadian city. Charles Wang was arguably pretty bad as well (NYI, until he passed away). There are many "bad" owners before it actually gets to Aquilini. It just comes to show you that many Canuck fans are so self-absorbed that they don't see what's around them. The Canucks actually have something promising to look forward to. Buffalo? Not so much. Pegula has arguably been too handsy. Melnyk almost seems like he's not even confident in his own team, hence he refuses to spend anymore money on a failing team. He's already a notorious cheap man.
  3. A decision made at the time is a decision revisited in hindsight. It is possible that Bonino and Sbisa could have helped the Canucks. Bonino was on a very good contract - and Sbisa could have been this physical defencemen that might have rounded his game nicely here. No one could have foreseen they would have been 'meh' type players, otherwise the decisions wouldn't have been made in the first place. In other words, Aquilini was HOPING to extend the shelf life of the Sedins, or perhaps try to give them more supporting pieces. But guess what? 29 other teams (this is before Vegas) are trying to the do the same thing. Only 16 teams are technically "successful" at least from the playoff point of view. But then much of those teams in that category 'fail', and some may have given up huge pieces to make that 'push'. It's easier to criticize a decision after the fact - much like many fans here have done than it is to criticize a decision at the moment. This has always been a theme for all hockey boards, but this is particularly true for CDC. Here's reality: Rarely is an owner "hands off". They have a DIRECT interest in what happens on the team. They paid for the team. They EXPECT profit. However, if people aren't doing the job that he wants (realistic or not), he may feel the need to interject. Perhaps Aquilini interjected by forcing the hiring of Tortorella. Since then, Aquilini has noticeably been less handsy. He sees a confidence, perhaps. He realizes maybe he has to wait. What you see is that he is human and he is learning. There are so many moving parts to running a business. Posters have almost no liabilities to worry about. They make a dumb post and they get called out. Big deal. You screw up a team, you have a difficult time turning it around. The recovery may happen (NYI for example were a really bad team for many many years) - or they may not (Atlanta Thrashers). I think people need more perspective before they go around putting in value-based statements like "Omg owner is so bad".
  4. Everyone has the ability to criticize. But criticizing for the sake of criticizing is not productive, nor is it persuasive. Ownership - bad. Why? In what way are you measuring bad? These value statements don't provide much value without a proper explanation. This is no different than squamfan saying "FIRE BENNING!!!". Aquilini has spent a lot of money over the years to keep this team competitive. Now competitive can mean many things, but for the sake of simplicity, I am referring to the fact he is/was willing to spend money to TRY and improve the team. We can all agree that Eriksson's presence on the team is a failure, but it isn't a complete failure. Eriksson is still contributing to the team, although he is overpaid at what he does. Keep in mind Lucic and Neal are the other two 'bad' contracts that were signed in the same year, for the exact same amount. It was just a deal that didn't work out for all three Pacific Division Teams. By that token, bad ownership would be like Ottawa Senator's owner, Eugene Melynk. If Aquilini is considered 'bad' to you, where does Melynk stand? He is heavily despised by the fanbase for not spending enough. Do you see the problem with your overly simplistic value-based statements? Management. Bad. Why? We've already talked about this aspect in quite a lot of detail in the other post. Simply put, Benning isn't the worst GM, nor is he the perfect GM. He has made mistakes, but he's done several good things too, one of which you named was drafting and this transfers into the concept of player development as well. As Benning is the architect of this team, he deserves credit for the team going in this direction, surely. Yet that also contradicts your current position. You say you have now abandoned the "wait and see" approach. What is the proof that he is doing worse than what you originally thought about Benning? It's difficult to argue that Benning has done WORSE than what he was originally given. That Canucks team was at the bottom of the league. These past two years, the Canucks have improved substantially. Surely, Benning's efforts have paid off, yes? Green is not a generational coach. Give me a break. Your value on Green is clearly over the top. What has he done to earn this title? Mind you, I am not saying he is a bad coach, but these value-based statements MAKE NO SENSE. Your liberal use of it basically questions what it means to be a generational coach. What does this make Scotty Bowman or Quenneville or the other legendary coaches with multiple Stanley Cups? Also, the concept of "level 99" is absurd in the real world. No one is a "level 99". The fact that you think such a concept exists tells me your expectations are not realistic. People DO NOT perform like robots. That is a fantasy. There are many factors that can make someone look good, as well as factors that make them look bad. Nonis could have been a level 99 GM but when picks don't go your way (i.e. injuries, and other factors you cannot control), it really doesn't matter what your "level" is. That is why the GM position is so hard. And why so many posters like you think it's so easy. Your thesis is not done - you still need a lot of revision. I give your grade a D because you don't put up a very persuasive case for your points.
  5. Well, I thought we were going somewhere with this but it looks like you're more interested in restarting the conversation between you and him. You can take issue with what he said, but it honestly doesn't (and shouldn't) affect you at all because you're not Markstrom. So, I'm not sure why this controversy exists in the first place because of what shayster said. If you think what he said was offensive or rule breaking, report it. Why bother trying to be a mini-mod when it's not your place to be one? I assume you didn't actually report because you used our opportunity to try and "get back" at someone else. This is pretty manipulative behaviour there, lmm.
  6. I think loss affects people very differently. The coping mechanisms are also not well understood sometimes. Some people can "play through it". Others can't. It's neither good nor bad. I suppose rewarding a trophy is kind of rewarding people who can "play through it". That being said, I think a trophy can still be a nice way to recognize an athlete's sacrifice/dedication to the game. If a person talks about another player's loss, it can be seen as respectful/disrespectful. I think that's a different issue altogether.
  7. I actually don't know much about Bill Masterton at all. I just know he must have been an important person to have a trophy named after him. I also know that the trophy is given to people who show perseverance in light of the challenging circumstances they faced. I initially thought you weren't interested in talking about this subject. But as long as we have a healthy discussion about a subject without a hidden agenda, I will participate and learn stuff. I have no intention in starting or continuing a controversy, especially since there was no initial desire to talk about something that wasn't going to lead to anything productive.
  8. That's why fan talk has been utterly disappointing. There are posters that are just clinging onto an oversimplified point of view and refuse to consider anything else that doesn't match their opinion on something. You can have an opinion about something, but you also have to consider the arguments about the other side, and you must be prepared to change your point of view when new stuff happen. What I'm seeing is people rehashing points over and over. How can anyone take these people seriously? There has to be acknowledgement from BOTH SIDES. I believe Benning has made plenty of mistakes, but he's also made good choices too. Sometimes he's been lucky. Sometimes he's been unlucky. Guess what? He's human. People like @Tre Mac disappointingly refuse to acknowledge anything positive that he did, as if it would erode his own convictions about an issue. You can't have a rational discussion like that. For the record, I don't equate Tre Mac to Squamfan, but he's slowly heading in that direction. Just because you say Benning did something good doesn't mean you have to like everything he does. Somehow people don't understand this distinction.
  9. So the usual suspects are back from the anti-Benning crowd, rehashing their points over and over. @Squamfan @Tre Mac It's like those people who post after losses and start yammering at people to fire coaches. I prefer a wait and see approach. It doesn't mean I support Benning, but I'm also not quick to say "fire XX" based on incomplete information. Squamfan looks for something that fits his narrative specifically and comes back everytime. I'm kind of disappointed in you though Tre Mac. I didn't expect you to be so irrational.
  10. Did you see the post where Sekeres is clarifying himself? "I'm not saying Boeser's being shopped or on the block..."
  11. From the way this narrative has been re-told, I believe that Brackett was asking for too much power that Benning/Weisbrod was willing to give up. If there was a third voice on the matter, this could have problems with the player choices they had in mind. But this is a normal situation. We have no idea how annoying Brackett must have been to Benning/Weisbrod. This issue could revolve around him. We will have to judge Minnesota's successes from this point to revisit what Brackett actually meant to the Canucks.
  12. It just seems like people have a bone to pick with Benning, and don't mind how they do it. It's obvious that losing Brackett is a huge blow to the organization, since he has been a big reason for why the team has turned around in the drafting department. But Benning feels comfortable to move forward without him. This is confidence (or perhaps overconfidence) on his part. Time will tell whether this will be a good decision or not.
  13. So logically speaking, if those three are responsible for drafting Pettersson, and yet all three are gone despite Benning looking good for selecting Pettersson, why are they gone?
  14. So you have no source to back this claim up, meanwhile nowhere on the internet does it say that Pettersson was scouted by this Hammarstrom guy. Are you just going to keep rehashing what you think you know?
  15. He made Brackett director of Amateur scouting. How much more praise are you looking for? If you're ignoring blatant evidence from a journalist's article, what are you relying on? Guesswork? Biasness?