RUPERTKBD Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Gillis said on Thats Hockey that if Luongo came to him and changed his mind and asked to stay, that he would of course consider it. That means that Luongo asked for a trade. Which means it wasn't management that ran him out of town. But alas, he didn't say those EXACT words "Luongo asked for a trade" so go ahead and say what you will, but any logically thinking person knows that 2+2=4, the sun rises every morning, and Luongo asked for a trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I think we all have to bear in mind that there are writers who report and writers who offer opinion. Botch is technically a reporter, but like Tony G, he sells most of his papers by offering his opinion. The unfortunate truth is, negative opinion is what sells. Nobody ever made it big by cheerleading (except Tom Larscheid) Personally, I take what most sportswriters and TV personalities write and say, with a grain of salt. When I do listen, I listen to guys who stick with reporting and keep the opinion to a minimum. There is virtually no-one in the Toronto area that I take seriously, unless you consider Ottawa's Bruce Garrioch to be close enough. For me, there are two guys who make me want to hear what they have to say: Pierre LeBrun and Eric Duhatschek. There's a good reason we don't hear from these two guys all that often and it's because they don't "report" on non-stories like so many of their peers. True enough, but I wish the guys supposedly on "our side" would keep it in check and not make negativity their recurring theme. Or save some of it for the bad guys or those outside the organization. Mind you, I come from a homer perspective to some degree, but do you know what also sells? Humour. People like to read things with some humour infused in and I think that's what he's going for, but he's missed the mark. It's overkill and inflammatory because, with any kind of comedic relief, it's all about the timing. The timing of this is bad...the whole goaltender controversy has been beaten to death and, quite frankly, "it is what it is". There's nothing new here - each goaltender will have moments of glory and those not so great moments. Show me a goaltender who's on all the time. So must we document each and every win/loss like it makes or breaks our team? Until something does transpire, must we keep picking sides? It's like everyone and their dog wants to have some influence with their spin on things but, ultimately, it's all for not as only management and the players involved will make the final decisions. Until then, must we keep throwing our own under the bus? Enough already, find a new "story" because this one's been bookmarked for now. Opinion pieces or not, he has a regular spot reporting in Vancouver about the Canucks and it does persuade those who may not follow closely in their embrace of (or turning on) the team. People who don't know may count on his "opinion" to be truth/fact. So he at least should remember that goaltenders have bad games and let bad goals in and look at the overall picture in presenting his opinion. When we had momentum there were 3 fights and 6 penalties against us in one period that sort of changed that....to not consider that is short sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Gillis actually flat out said before the season started that "every player coming to camp is competing for their job". Luongo and Schneider were not omitted from this statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VancouverCanucksRock Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 His conception was a Botch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Yes, I know Mike's history and in my post I did not specifically say "GM" Because MG had no experience as a GM previous to his present job does not automatically indicate he is a bust or not fit for the position as nuck twit may have you believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Blame the refs like good Canucks fans and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thema Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 There's a rule in journalism that Botchford doesn't follow: When you write an opinion down, ask yourself, would you feel confident stating that opinion to the player's face? I doubt Botchford would have the balls to talk about Cory's 'McSchofties' in person with him present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 As a professional journalist (i.e. one that actually gets paid to write opinion pieces) I can safely say that I have never ever heard of that "rule". However one that can be carved in stone on any pro journalists tombstone goes "if you get read you get fed" and ol' Botch sure does get read apparently. Therefore he gets fed and well apparently. CDC's reaction to the media as a whole is amusing. A quick perusal of this board finds posters complaining about the CBC, TSN, Botchford, Gallagher, Don Cherry and just about any journalist who doesn't proclaim that the sun shines out of the collective Canucks' ringpieces. Strangely I have never EVER read a criticism of John Garrett on this board. I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bd71 Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 As a professional journalist (i.e. one that actually gets paid to write opinion pieces) I can safely say that I have never ever heard of that "rule". However one that can be carved in stone on any pro journalists tombstone goes "if you get read you get fed" and ol' Botch sure does get read apparently. Therefore he gets fed and well apparently. CDC's reaction to the media as a whole is amusing. A quick perusal of this board finds posters complaining about the CBC, TSN, Botchford, Gallagher, Don Cherry and just about any journalist who doesn't proclaim that the sun shines out of the collective Canucks' ringpieces. Strangely I have never EVER read a criticism of John Garrett on this board. I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Best post I've seen in a long time. And the ironic thing is I firmly believe the Canucks media are probably the biggest cheerleaders in the league. I can't watch Garrett and Shorthouse. I almost always watch the other feed if I can. Horrible homers. Almost as bad as Chicago White Sox man Hawk Harrelson, the undisputed biggest homer is sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinch16 Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 As a professional journalist (i.e. one that actually gets paid to write opinion pieces) I can safely say that I have never ever heard of that "rule". However one that can be carved in stone on any pro journalists tombstone goes "if you get read you get fed" and ol' Botch sure does get read apparently. Therefore he gets fed and well apparently. CDC's reaction to the media as a whole is amusing. A quick perusal of this board finds posters complaining about the CBC, TSN, Botchford, Gallagher, Don Cherry and just about any journalist who doesn't proclaim that the sun shines out of the collective Canucks' ringpieces. Strangely I have never EVER read a criticism of John Garrett on this board. I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watermelons Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 TBH I don't think Schneider or Luongo (or the entire Canucks team for that matter) give a $hit about what Botchford writes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watermelons Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Best post I've seen in a long time. And the ironic thing is I firmly believe the Canucks media are probably the biggest cheerleaders in the league. I can't watch Garrett and Shorthouse. I almost always watch the other feed if I can. Horrible homers. Almost as bad as Chicago White Sox man Hawk Harrelson, the undisputed biggest homer is sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobopan Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Schneider has had three bad games this year. Luongo has had half of one. I agree with Botchford. 48 games sched, every single game is important and you can't be blowing a 3-1 lead. I know you shouldn't blame the goalie but those were two of the softest goals I've seen. But wait guys, we start playing Luongo again and Schneider might start tearing up and his agent will tell the media he "deserves" to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 A great hockey team, a great market that is rabid over hockey, and a bunch of nitwits in the print media. Why not try the hockey writer approach? We have a cheap bottomfeeding approach to journalism in this town that hasn't bothered to truly educate itself about the game, and yet purports to report on it to us... Here's an interesting question that I'd love to hear AV asked - as opposed to the endless pathetic, small-minded jabs of halfwits who can't hold a candle to his hockey knowledge... (I'm sure AV would have a very solid reason, and I'd be interested to hear it): Jason Garrison spent a lot of time both 5 on 5 and on the pp playing the right side to Campbell in Florida - he did play the left side to his other partners, and that is how we are using him here. Wondering why AV has decided to move Edler to the right side as opposed to Garrison? Also, what motivated AV to match up Edler and Hamhius and move Bieksa to play with Garrison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEMAN91 Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Well...here's the thing about Botchford. He's an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcr1970 Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Perhaps not but there is ample evidence to support the notion that he has not been exactly the messiah that he is often portrayed as on this board. IMHO he has screwed up just enough to cost us a Cup. I'm about 50/50 on his moves so far and his whole "thinking outside the box" nonsense is just smoke and mirrors. Neither the best GM in the NHL nor the worst but somewhere in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Schneider was beat for two brutal goals — a couple of McSchofties — and was one of the reasons the Canucks blew a 3-1 lead and spoiled Henrik's night Did Botch not take his anti depressants pre game? So dramatic. It was a loss - a tough one in a game that we should have won, but I get so tired of focusing on the goaltenders like they're the only players on the ice in the goaltender graveyard here. Look at the big picture, Botch....as a sports journalist, it's a disservice not to. If he'd just reported what happened, it would be different. But he tries to get all cute and apply a label, as well as going further to villainize Schneids by placing him in a spoiler role. What happened to "no I in team?". There were many reasons and, yes, he has said "one of" but why single him out then? So he didn't just report what happened, he turned it into more than that. This type of stir the pot "journalism" and reporting is a little McSchoft. McBotched. "Brutal". "McSchoft". "Spoiled". Sounds like Jason didn't get a Valentine and needs a hug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Someone states the facts (Schneider blew us that game), throws a corny word like "McSchofties" in an article and you guys are willing to defend him? Meanwhile Luongo gets crap left-right-and-center, more unjust criticism than I've seen any other professional sports player had to deal with and no one defends him. They're two guys playing in the hottest seat in pro sports so they better be able to deal with it. Luongo has proven and is proving right now that he can shrug off the pressure and still play well - now this is Schneider's first ever real sign of weakness and criticism so we'll see how he handles it. So far he's not doing a great job but there's still time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 Here's an interesting question that I'd love to hear AV asked - as opposed to the endless pathetic, small-minded jabs of halfwits who can't hold a candle to his hockey knowledge... (I'm sure AV would have a very solid reason, and I'd be interested to hear it): Jason Garrison spent a lot of time both 5 on 5 and on the pp playing the right side to Campbell in Florida - he did play the left side to his other partners, and that is how we are using him here. Wondering why AV has decided to move Edler to the right side as opposed to Garrison? Also, what motivated AV to match up Edler and Hamhius and move Bieksa to play with Garrison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.