The Lock

Members
  • Content count

    3,142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

The Lock last won the day on December 7 2015

The Lock had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,238 Revered

About The Lock

  • Rank
    Canucks Third-Line

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,968 profile views
  1. In my opinion, transparency is an option and only an option. We see this a lot in business where some companies prove to be more transparent than others. Some companies have good reasons to not be transparent (ie. Google and their browser patents). Other companies could stand to be more transparent; however, keep in mind such transparency creates new risks. For example, our own GM has been fined in the past for being transparent regarding another team's (Toronto's) transactions. While this obviously involved another team and potential "tampering", we can still look at it from our own perspective within our own team and compare it with the rest of the NHL. My question would be how many teams in the NHL are actually transparent in terms of ownership? Personally, I would question if there is a transparent ownership. We can even look at this with other sports. If we become transparent would we be setting a new standard or going against the NHL standard or even the standard of sports teams in general? There would have to be a pretty good reason why there is a lack of transparency considering the lack of transparency is virtually everywhere. Personally, I think this: unlike a regular business involving shareholders, each team is in "competition" with each other. Too much transparency could put us at a disadvantage over the other 29 (I guess 30 now) teams. So, while it would be nice if we were transparent, I wouldn't want that transparency if it meant risking our ability to transact with other teams among other things. That's my 2 cents anyway.
  2. Here's the thing: it's not a miss if there's no deal to hit. If you're playing baseball and you have no ball, you cannot miss the ball as the ball was never thrown. Even if there is a pitcher ready to throw the ball, if he doesn't throw the ball, there is no miss. Stakeholders care about end results, yes. But stakeholders also generally know what a good business deal is and what a bad business deal is. If another team doesn't want to play ball, the stakeholders know forcing a game would not be in their favour.
  3. It was pretty apparent that Benning had a deal in place with Dallas at the deadline last year in terms of Hamhuis, but Dallas decided to go with Russell instead. What exactly is Benning supposed to do about that. Overpay to get rid of Hamhuis? Magically find some other suitor at the last minute and overpay there? If there wasn't a good deal, then why pull a trigger for the sake of pulling a trigger? And then with the argument that he could have traded Hamhuis at the beginning of the year: well.... by that logic, Hamhuis could have been traded right after the SCF, but clearly that wouldn't make sense because we'd want to go on another run. So then, after a 100 point season, wouldn't it make sense to keep Hamhuis if things are going well? Not only that, but it goes back to the original question as well: what if there were no good offers on Hamhuis at the beginning of the season? You can't just pull rabbits out of hats. To be honest Fors, I think you have some rather unrealistic expectations this time. Everything is relative to the time period and it doesn't really seem like you're accounting for that. I know you're a better person than to treat this whole thing like it's an EA game, but it seems like you're doing just that this time. If someone gives you a tiperope that you're supposed to cross that thins out as you cross, is it reasonable for that person to expect you to still cross that rope even though it could break any time?
  4. All you are doing in your request is to request things that cannot be put into facts, yet wanting it to be "factual". You might as well be asking for facts on the meaning of life. All you've done is state your opinion. You yourself haven't presented any facts, just your interpretation on what's happened, which are not facts. So to somehow use this to make yourself "self-righteous" in an discussion like this is just showing your lack of debate skills. Mind you, I've said this elsewhere, but I'm pretty sure you're trolling more than anything, because no one in their right mind could be as naive as what you're showing in my opinion without at least thinking of some logic that goes against what you're saying.
  5. I'm honestly all for whatever Benning decides. Call me a homer if you'd like, but I'm actually more interested in who he picks in the later rounds just because of how well our later round picks have been performing the past couple of years. I'm waiting for a bunch of people to be like "who?" and then a year down the road going "Zomg! This kid's dope!"
  6. Brett Connolly was taken 4th overall a few years back in 2010 and had a very high ceiling. He was also plagued with injuries and never really has become what he was "supposed to become." I think taking Patrick will depend on how management feels about him, his injury history, his work ethic, etc. His ceiling might be high, but if the risk is too great then it might be better to look elsewhere.
  7. "Patrick, do we really need him?"
  8. I say relax. We're still in April. No sense in thinking we won't still sign some of those RFA's as a lot can happen between now and September. It's not like we're over 50 contracts at the moment. Perhaps there just won't be a lot of signings in free agency, we trade away a player or 2, loose a couple of contracts to free agency, and end up around the same. I think too much focus is sometimes on how many contracts we have; yet, I'm pretty sure management's aware of it. Just saying.
  9. Sounds at least like he wants to stay here. He's one who I'm sure could get a job in the KHL but has chosen not to. I think that deserves respect.
  10. The Grabner trade's kind of hard to analyze as there's a lot of "what if's". Ballard looked like he was going to be a good defender for us, but he got a concussion in his 4th game here and never seemed to fully recover from it. Grabner was having trouble over here getting into the lineup and even got placed on waivers by Florida who, of course, lost Grabner to the Islanders. Basically there's: 1) No telling if Grabner would have made it here 2) No telling what Ballard would have been like without a concussion 3) No telling what Grabner would have been like in Florida had they not placed him on waivers or lost him 4) No telling who we would have pick with the draft pick or if they've even be successful There's probably other "what if's" there too, but hopefully the picture's set. That whole trade turned into a bunch of messed up even though it did look good at the time. lol
  11. I remember watching TSN after Willie D was fired and the guy doing the commenting was stating how it may be a "matter of time" before Linden and Benning were out too. All I could do on that comment was facepalm. Then I realized it was Botchford and just facepalmed even more. Why does that guy even have a job in the media let alone a job with TSN?
  12. Well, when it comes to Bertuzzi, that trade pales in comparison to the grand scheme of things of what Mike Milbury did. He traded away not only Bertuzzi, but also Chara, Jokinen, Luongo, McCabe, Osgood, Berard, Torres, etc. He literally traded away what could have arguably been a Stanley Cup contender of a team.
  13. To be fair, he's had more than a "last straw" in this league. He's been incredibly lucky to have this chance given his history. I'm actually glad to see he's making an impact, even if it's still a small sample size and it's on Edmonton and not here. I think if he shows he can be consistent and stay in this league, it'll be a great story in the end.
  14. I think the answer to "is it worth it anymore?" should come from the players themselves and how much they are learning. The thing is, we'll likely see Boeser back next year along with other rookies. This will likely happen for a while. The players coming in next year will at least get the chance to learn from the Sedins next year. One comparison I've generally made is with Edmonton. They had players like Hall, etc, but not a whole lot in terms of leadership. At times, that locker room was reportedly a mess. No leadership. I don't want to see that happen here and I don't think Sutter and Edler alone would fix that. We need a transition from our previous best players to our new best players and, if we let go of the last of our old squad too early, who knows what can happen at that point. At least, unlike Edmonton, we have Horvat, but I think we still need to see the Sedins here at least another season, if not longer with less money later on. That's my opinion actually. I want to see a smooth transition and the passing of the torch in gradual stages rather than throwing the torch at the youngsters and risking that torch burning out.
  15. Like I said, who knows what happened behind the bench. Interesting quote though.