The Lock

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


The Lock last won the day on November 24 2015

The Lock had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,661 Revered

About The Lock

  • Rank
    Canucks Third-Line

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Prince George

Recent Profile Visitors

6,515 profile views
  1. Huh? So basically, if you don't know what goes behind head office but you don't like Benning, this somehow translates to Benning doing some rather slanderous things in a professional environment? Okay then....
  2. I've had a lot of respect for you as I thought you were one who could look at 2 different sides. Instead all I'm seeing here is you just dismissing whatever I say if it goes against your believes. No willingness to consider what I've said at all. I'm actually a little surprised by your post. The fact that you are starting to tell me things like "oh you must be smoking something" suggests that perhaps you're feeling a little frustrated from this conversation? This entire post you have made, I'm mostly reading frustration rather than consideration. Clearly, you gave me what you thought was a rhetorical question regarding Gudbranson. I gave you an answer other than what you wanted to hear and gave you my reasoning. I've responded to your challenges of my view in what I think is an overall solid view. Clearly, I've challenged what you've asked to the point where you are now blue in the face and showing these frustrations. I've explained why I don't think the question is constructive in the first place and even gave examples of how such a question could be better asked. This isn't about what a forum is about and it baffles me as to why you even are bringing that up (I'm assuming frustrations again). Unfortunately, you've proven here that you are unwilling to listen and even respect my view so I don't see the point in having a conversation anymore if you choose to mock rather than to provide an intellectual conversation. I was hoping for better from you and I must say that I'm a little disappointed. I don't really care if you agree with me or not; forums are about conversations of similar and differing opinions; but I didn't expect you to be this disrespectful.
  3. [Rumour] Canucks shopping Alexander Burmistrov

    No, that's the definition of you overreacting and not being able to accept that someone disagrees with what you have said.
  4. [Rumour] Canucks shopping Alexander Burmistrov

    I'm only going to type this once, and this is nothing against you, nor is it to troll. It's my honest opinion; perhaps more to help so please take it as that.... Other people are going to have opinions of your opinion. Accept that. It's called a forum for a reason.
  5. Jonathan Dahlén | C/LW

    If we get both Dahlin and Dahlen, is that close enough to having Swedish Twins?....
  6. COACHES in VANCOUVER - I don't get it . . .

    Let's play living in the past!... Oh look! No cups! That was wonderful.... Now can we think about the future rather than going shoulda woulda coulda?
  7. "We know he won't" or in "your opinion he won't?" Anyway, one thing I want to point out is Dowd was a 7th round pick. There were pretty much no expectations on him even playing a single NHL game. So we "knew he wouldn't play an NHL game" back when he was drafted to be fair.
  8. Jonathan Dahlén | C/LW

    Don't forget Yakupov! He might put an extra variable into that equation that tilts everything on its axis! (And with this response I think I can officially say I've been studying physics too much the past couple of days...)
  9. Brock Boeser | #6 | RW

    Quick! Let's make an impromptu argument! Erm... umm.... Boeser sucks! Konechy! We should have drafted Konechy! Who cares about what I don't know about?! I only care about what I know about! Pettersson next perhaps? lol
  10. This was his "do or don't" season for us in my opinion. So far he "didn't". Good trade in my opinion.
  11. I've been focused on school so much for the first time and just saw the title not a few minutes ago and was like "oh nice, Subban was unlikely to make it while Dowd's already in the NHL! Something for practically nothing!" Then I saw the first page expecting people to be happy about the trade. Now I'm just wondering how I'm going to restore my sense of pride in posting on CDC....
  12. To be honest, if we did get Kane, he would have a lot of prove to me to be a better assets for us than Baer or Hutton, mostly with the locker room issues. (because the world totally revolves around me and he'd after to prove it exclusively to me, of course! ) If he was our ONLY option then fine. Trade for him. However, there has to be better we can do than take potentially expensive risks like this in my opinion.
  13. Blah. Exam time sucks. Not a lot of time to be on these boards. Anyway.... You can think of a team almost like a composition. The GM is the composer. The players are the instruments. The coaching staff could be the effects on the players. What the players do are the notes. The notes determine whether a composition is good or bad; thus, the players on a team determine whether a team is good or bad. It's really not that far off if you think about it. Managing a team is an art, much like managing a song. Also, If we are not allowed to make such comparisons, then what's the point in even having discussions and being constructive? What's even the point then of you asking questions like "Would losing Guddy to FA be a failure"? It's the same sort of ideal. In the end, we are all musing over concepts and comparing them to other concepts. It's what we do well as human beings: theorizing. If we didn't, we wouldn't be here discussing the Canucks. We would be mere cavemen unable to comprehend what fire even is (other than it's hot! ouch!). I also want to point out that I have not said that I don't think anything bad ever happens. It clearly does, but why focus on it when everything else is also a possibility? We could win the stanley cup this year. Is this a statement that is profound and unlikely. Of course it is. Yet, it is a possibility. Yet, almost no one here focuses on it. The thing is, we don't even know the chance of this happening. We don't know the chance of Guddy walking. We don't even know if it's more like Guddy walks than Guddy stays. We could literally argue until we're blue in the face over this and it would be all for not, because no one knows the answer to this. So, I'm not ignoring that there's the possibility. That couldn't even be farther from the truth. I'm just not focused on it because I don't see the point in that particular theory much like how I wouldn't see the point in the theory that we could win the stanley cup in the spring. Instead, I prefer asking more constructive questions, like should (although I hate the word should) Guddy stay or go? Would injuries affect his trade value? If Guddy got injured for the rest of the season and we can't even get a good deal, should Guddy stay or leave? Those questions are great to theorize about. Would Guddy leaving be considered a failure? That's more implying that it is rather than even being a constructive question to begin with, especially since then we would have to define the very meaning of "failure" which kinda of runs away from hockey, which then goes against your argument that my comparison to music isn't hockey, and then we could end up in this non-constructive discussion on things other than hockey all because the initial question of "Would Guddy leaving be considered a failure?" was never asked from a neutral perspective to begin with. Let's not even forget that even you thought the answer was "common sense" which there really is no such thing. To answer the next paragraphs, If what I'm doing is way too overly sensitive, then talking about a "failure" would be kind of the same thing, no? Also, if we, as fans, expect anyone here to be able to decisively judge and not have an opinion-based argument, the only thing we can then be decisive about is the fact that we are all indecisive. It's impossible for this to happen. People lie to themselves all the time by calling themselves "realists". They are not as that's an impossible statement unless if they are boring fact-spewing robots talking about what the scores were with no context whatsoever. Realists: they don't exist. If one has an opinion, they cannot be a realist. To answer your final paragraph. If you are going to say it's not about "positive" or "negative", then I suggest wording your question in a way that's not negative. "Failure" is a negative word. I hope I don't need to pull out a dictionary to demonstrate why this is. Instead, ask more neutral questions, such as "Should Guddy walk? Could Guddy be traded?" or even asking one's opinion in a neutral way such as "What would you think about Guddy walking at Free Agency?" Then we can start talking about the conversation not being put in a positive or negative spin, so long as the question does not do the same. EDIT: I am going to restate what I've already said. All of the small pieces make up the big picture as I've stated, but if you focus on the small pieces too much, the overall vision gets clouded. We could focus on every possible negative scenario: What if Boeser gets a serious concussion? What if we don't make the playoffs until 2030? What if they made the other teams nets smaller while making ours bigger? What if I fail my Physics exam tomorrow? (which I'm unfortunately putting off studying for thus this long response) Would these be considered "failures"? But really, in the end, my response to all of this is a question in itself: "Why?" What is even the point in looking at all the negative that could happen in the future when we don't even know what the future holds? It would be the ultimate pessimistic outlook if you ask me, and there's a reason why chicken little was never taken seriously when something negative did happen at the end of that story. So to summarize: it is good to theorize, but ask constructive questions when doing it in order to get constructive results. Also, do not focus too much on one question when it's only one question out of 10231093721 and more inconsequential then you may think.
  14. Well, I'll never say never when it comes to how I want to analyze. Otherwise it would make me a hypocrite. I guess the best way to describe the way I think is back to that "creativity analysis". The small details are important in that they add up to the bigger picture; however, dwell on those small details too much and it's easy to lose sight of that big picture. I write music and I can say I've had many times when I'm made such mistakes. As a result of not dwelling, I find it easier to finish projects more efficiently. Also, as a result of not dwelling, I tend to not see the point of labeling those details as "failures". If something isn't sounding right, I just take it out. If I looked at even a couple of small details and started calling them "failures", it wouldn't exactly help my production of the overall composition. Obviously, it's a little more complicated with teams, but I think a fair comparison can be established. There's a number of small transactions in hockey. While there are clearly bigger pieces (like Boeser), 1 Boeser can only get you so far. You need support from all of your small pieces; thus, still not one big piece will single handedly win you cups. (although I realise the arguments for this, but hopefully you get the gist). EDIT: As far as Gillis goes, the team clearly went downhill and the moves Gillis made to "fix" this were kind of.... weird?... I hate the term "failure" in general, but it's rather evident he wasn't working out for us in the end if you look at the overall picture. With your second question. The team overall is not always the easiest to determine. Wins and losses obviously helps, but if they were the end all, we could say that Edmonton is a horrible team even though they made the playoffs and gave other teams a hard time not 8 months ago. Therefore, are win and losses really fair as an end all? I guess my response would be how a team competes over time, whether they make the playoffs or not, how do they play in the playoffs, etc. For example, right now, while I think we have an alright team, I wouldn't call our team good just yet if that makes sense. We are however heading in the right direction and it's amazing how much better good drafting can get you in a short amount of time of a couple of years or so. As far as judged picks and trades go, I will look at them; however, I don't usually like to make sudden assumptions on whether or not it's good or bad. Although there are definitely some lop-sided trades out there when we look at hindsight in the end. Unfortunately, we don't really have hindsight when those trades happen. For the record too, I do tend to prefer to be positive rather than negative if I can help it. I don't like everything but I also don't like ulcers. They hurt. Life's too short in the end.
  15. Nikita Tryamkin | D

    Huh? Again, assumptions much? I never said any of those things; yet, you want to force your own spin on what I said in order to come up with an argument. A little hypocritical then to start calling one arrogant when you start making assumptions in an arrogant manner. Anyway, this isn't a conversation anymore for this thread. If you actually have a problem with me, then take it up with me in private messages. I hate spamming threads with blabber like this.