On acceptance...

[Nuxfanabroad]

Whenever I come to this site, usually meander over to 'Prospects' section, to soak up the(mostly) good news.

 

When one prospect trends downwards, often seems arguments follow, & a number of told-you-so's with comparative prospects pop up. Feel tired just reading this stuff.

Personal feelings & skater-metrics/data from Hell. Do such obsessions compensate for other things that people may desire, regret, etc. in their lives?

Makes ya wonder?

 

Here's an idea: (Acceptance #1)

Bo, Jake, Brock, OJ, EP

How 'bout we accept this as our half-decade of fine 1st R youth, to get this rebuild rolling? Let's stop looking over the ****ing fence at the neighbours shiny new Porsche.

I'd be fine never hearing, "We shoulda' picked so & so", ever again. We missed Jags(yeah)..but we pilfered Bure. Hell with it, man. Accept, or forever whine & whinge.

 

Have said it before..historically(in general) drafting has burned our a$*, but trades have often helped to salvage seasons. Perhaps we're finally hitting on the draft %,

as we long needed?

 

**Acceptance #2***

Why not simply ACCEPT we had 3 GREAT runs, but have yet to reach the summit? See it as three separate teams of solid young guys who lauch assaults on 3 separate Himalayan summits.

Whether it's equipment, accidents, Avalanche(!)..whatever? The guys gave all they had(each time), & just came up short. Even still, they entertained the whole Prov of BC, with each attempt, & I'm proud of every group.

 

When this team finally reaches the pinnacle, it'll be wonderful, but I'll also spare a thought for the other great players who first set out, giving their best.

Call it foolish, but I love this team(good & bad memories alike).

 

I see trolls(media/fans) trying to get digs in on point #2. To me, this is one of the lowest levels humans can stoop to. So petty & childish. Why stop there? Why not call random 3rd W inhabitants, & trot out national gdp & food production data, for comparisons' sake?

 

Suggest to all true fans of the Canucks..don't get lulled into this divisive bs. Cheer your team on unconditionally. Toss the revisionist(oh, we shoulda' drafted...) into the freeken g can.

 

Acceptance baby.. GCG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rubik]

Amen.

[smithers joe]

most of us people, centre our opinions around what as a fan, would make us happy. we'll like to put a team on the ice that will win the cup every year. wouldn't it be great if we could say we want an elite scorer, a playmaker, a tough guy and a number one defenseman, then snap our fingers and walla, their here. 

in  the real world it takes time to acquire those players. even years. our fanbase has already shown that we have no patience for waiting. 

there is an old saying, "what wound, did ever heal, but by degrees. our team is in the process of healing.  

 

[Nuxfanabroad]

7 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

Sadly, in this day and age of "duh internetz", everyone wants everyone else to inhale their opinion and say how good it smells.  Nobody likes being wrong, because that'd be the equivalent of accepting that someone else went home with the prom queen / prince charming.

 

So until the next generation can get some sense and humility slapped into their heads, you're unfortunately going to be stuck with us whiny little ignorant &^@#s.  

Heard the first person we lie to(easiest to fool?) is ourselves. There's 7.6 billion of us nasty lil' agendas roaming the globe..& when it becomes too much to sort, we'll likely just cast stones at whole generations, or tribes that ain't ours.

 

Can only speak for myself. When this gig gets to be too much, I focus on a game of speed-chess(you'll forget an Apocalypse occurring..so engrossed), or watch the beloved 'Nuckers hack away at the biscuit.

 

This team has been helping BC-dwellers forget their trubs, since 1970. I just figure we gotta declare appreciation for this simple fact.

[189lb enforcers?]

We all hope our prospects turn into stars. 

 

I think the main confusion and fan frustration has been largely due to speculative conjecture about the team management being overridden by ownership. 

 

The rebuild is wanted by everybody that I’ve heard express any opinion or interest in the Canucks.

 

I’ve never met an impatient Canucks fan expecting the rebuild to be over by now. Heck, some even think it’s only just begun. 

 

I think there is a fake news boogyman out there when it comes to labelling fans as impatient to get back to winning. 

 

The main cause of the Bipolar fanbase has been the rebuild effort, thus far. Some wanted it started sooner and more aggressive than others.

 

In my experience, Canucks fans want to support a successfully rebuilt core, well before they want to see the team start climbing the standings and away from repeat top draft picks in successive rounds. The idea that a typical Canucks fan is not patient is silly. This last few years of pain... it’s nothing, not even a little bit like what it often was for Canucks fans, well accustomed to losing seasons. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by 189lb enforcers?

[chon derry]

[The Lock]

I just said this in another post elsewhere, but I'll say it here again:

 

One thing I've noticed happen here often is people mistaken emotions for logic. This happens on both sides: whether it be someone cheering for the Canucks and willing to defend them to the end or looking to duke it out because one has an anti-Benning philosiphy and is convinced their opinion could never be wrong.

 

However, none of that should be mistaken with optimism. It is possible to look at things logically and have an optimistic approach. It's what I try to do at the very least. Truth be told, I don't actually understand the people who give up on our prospects halfway through their development for example. Is there logic behind their argument? Sometimes, but there's also logic against their arguments. In those cases, it's literally a 50/50 choice on whether or not they want to think positively about it or think negatively about it and live in the past; yet, for whatever reason, they choose the negative approach.

 

Part of this really I think is partially why I'll sometimes take long breaks from this site. I enjoy having discussions with people of differing opinions, but if that person is more looking to argue for the sake of arguing rather than having a discussions (ie. no listening skills) then what's the point in discussing with them in the first place?

 

[oldnews]

Believe it or not, fanbases make a difference.

 

If you don't believe that, you don't realize the impact of a bunch of rabid, lunatic homerz like the ones that populate the seats and streets of Boston.

if you don't believe that, try taking in a Winnipeg Jets game, listen to their crowds abuse their oppoenents, and try to tell yourself that has no effect on their team on the ice.

 

The question is - do we want to remain a general collective of whingey, insufferable Province B-otches?  Snivelling cryptkeepers.  Douche-'army' brats.  Boring suits on cellphones.

Tear away at your team - or back it up.  Not that complicated, really.

 

I remember games in the past - humans attended, actually got excited, had a fn pulse.  The team wasn't the best, not usually even close, but nothing like the prevailing loser mentality the city now suffers under.

 

I'm not talking about pompoming anything the franchise does or ignoring obstacles to building a great team - but the tone of the city, like it or not, remains that of a losing 'culture' regardless of some years of contending.

 

Is that the inevitable result of losing for so long?  Who knows. In the end however, is it worth looking at as self-fulfilling?

 

Fans can wait for the team to set the tone for them, or it can embrace it's mediocre Winnipeg Jets (I'm talking about a few years ago), while they're still not that good, and be a place/building that opponents hate to play in.  Do you control the moves the team makes, the development of prospects, etc - no of course not.  But what do you control? 

 

I heard some NHLers take shots at Winnipeg recently - whiney drivel about not wanting to play there - the city being too cold for them, or not glitzy enough.  Wankers to the core those players are.  But why do they really not want to play there?

 

Here's why:

 

"Best trade ever."

"Who's your captain?"

"Laine's better."

"Silver medal"

"Rollie, Rollie, Rollie"

 

Winnipeg's team / on-ice product is not the only thing about that city that is better than Vancouver.   The on-ice thing might change in a few years, but off the ice - they have some team spirit to that city (not just present when they're winning/contending) that this place fundamentally lacks - and needs to get its act together, that is unless we're satisfied with out loser contributions.  Not sure if its in the culture out here, but some of that really wouldn't hurt Vancouver's (general) 'poor-me' disposition. 

That, pretty much in a nutshell, is why I'm such a gd crusty bastard in general when it comes to this mopey, snivelling, self-hating/loathing dynamic.

 

Don't settle for it. It's not good enough. 

And then maybe there will be grounds to complain about a losing team - at which point, you probably won't be complaining in any event, because that isn't good enough.  It's pointless.  And if the criticisms aren't informed or constructive enough to improve on what is - absolutely pointless.

I think people who have been through enough losing, ironically, get this.  People who delude themselves into believing they are somehow entitled to a winner - don't.

 

Of course, it's not that simple - there are all types, positive, negative, pompoms and critics and everything in between (and in the end, no individual is even that simple) - but the basic point - the general tendencies, hold water imo.  But perhaps the point is this: maybe Winnipeg actually 'deserves' a winner.

Edited January 31, 2018 by oldnews

[bloodycanuckleheads]

I love how the entire point of this thread is apparently that complaining about all the boneheaded things Canucks' managment do - somehow shows that there's something wrong with you (and not Canucks' management)!...

[oldnews]

48 minutes ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

I love how the entire point of this thread is apparently that complaining about all the boneheaded things Canucks' managment do - somehow shows that there's something wrong with you (and not Canucks' management)!...

 

I don't think you've captured the entire point, at all.  Your take seems more concerned with defending your complaining....

I think the OP was posing a counterpoint - acceptance.

 

As long as it's not acceptance of losing, and/or acceptance of being a losing culture - then I think it's a pretty reasonable point.

 

[kingofsurrey]

58 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Believe it or not, fanbases make a difference.

 

If you don't believe that, you don't realize the impact of a bunch of rabid, lunatic homerz like the ones that populate the seats and streets of Boston.

if you don't believe that, try taking in a Winnipeg Jets game, listen to their crowds abuse their oppoenents, and try to tell yourself that has no effect on their team on the ice.

 

The question is - do we want to remain a general collective of whingey, insufferable Province B-otches?  Snivelling cryptkeepers.  Douche-'army' brats.  Boring suits on cellphones.

Tear away at your team - or back it up.  Not that complicated, really.

 

I remember games in the past - humans attended, actually got excited, had a fn pulse.  The team wasn't the best, not usually even close, but nothing like the prevailing loser mentality the city now suffers under.

 

I'm not talking about pompoming anything the franchise does or ignoring obstacles to building a great team - but the tone of the city, like it or not, remains that of a losing 'culture' regardless of some years of contending.

 

Is that the inevitable result of losing for so long?  Who knows. In the end however, is it worth looking at as self-fulfilling?

 

Fans can wait for the team to set the tone for them, or it can embrace it's mediocre Winnipeg Jets (I'm talking about a few years ago), while they're still not that good, and be a place/building that opponents hate to play in.  Do you control the moves the team makes, the development of prospects, etc - no of course not.  But what do you control? 

 

I heard some NHLers take shots at Winnipeg recently - whiney drivel about not wanting to play there - the city being too cold for them, or not glitzy enough.  Wankers to the core those players are.  But why do they really not want to play there?

 

Here's why:

 

"Best trade ever."

"Who's your captain?"

"Laine's better."

"Silver medal"

"Rollie, Rollie, Rollie"

 

Winnipeg's team / on-ice product is not the only thing about that city that is better than Vancouver.   The on-ice thing might change in a few years, but off the ice - they have some team spirit to that city (not just present when they're winning/contending) that this place fundamentally lacks - and needs to get its act together, that is unless we're satisfied with out loser contributions.  Not sure if its in the culture out here, but some of that really wouldn't hurt Vancouver's (general) 'poor-me' disposition. 

That, pretty much in a nutshell, is why I'm such a gd crusty bastard in general when it comes to this mopey, snivelling, self-hating/loathing dynamic.

 

Don't settle for it. It's not good enough. 

And then maybe there will be grounds to complain about a losing team - at which point, you probably won't be complaining in any event, because that isn't good enough.  It's pointless.  And if the criticisms aren't informed or constructive enough to improve on what is - absolutely pointless.

I think people who have been through enough losing, ironically, get this.  People who delude themselves into believing they are somehow entitled to a winner - don't.

 

Of course, it's not that simple - there are all types, positive, negative, pompoms and critics and everything in between (and in the end, no individual is even that simple) - but the basic point - the general tendencies, hold water imo.  But perhaps the point is this: maybe Winnipeg actually 'deserves' a winner.

Do you think moving the team to a New Arena in Surrey Central would solve alot of problems with our fan base at games... ?

Would it bring back more real fans to the games..... ?

 

I am very excited about the  constant  rumors of the Canucks moving to Surrey.  Where there is smoke .... there is fire...

 

 

[oldnews]

4 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Do you think moving the team to a New Arena in Surrey Central would solve alot of problems with our fan base at games... ?

Would it bring back more real fans to the games..... ?

 

I am very excited about the  constant  rumors of the Canucks moving to Surrey.  Where there is smoke .... there is fire...

 

 

I don't know - it's an interesting question.

 

I definitely think there is a very different demographic at games than there was in the past - and I think that's unfortunate to a certain extent.

 

If tickets weren't so expensive for the average person, that might help as well - but being a bad team tends to make it more affordable, while being a winning team might create more of an exclusive demographic, so it seems like a bit of a catch 22 - and none of us really want a losing team just to enhance the arena atmosphere.

 

Maybe we just a bit more cowbell Crazy George?

[kingofsurrey]

15 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I don't know - it's an interesting question.

 

I definitely think there is a very different demographic at games than there was in the past - and I think that's unfortunate to a certain extent.

 

If tickets weren't so expensive for the average person, that might help as well - but being a bad team tends to make it more affordable, while being a winning team might create more of an exclusive demographic, so it seems like a bit of a catch 22 - and none of us really want a losing team just to enhance the arena atmosphere.

 

Maybe we just a bit more cowbell Crazy George?

I sure remember George at Empire Stadium Lions games when i was a kid.  Good times.

 

I do think the if the Canucks moved the arena to the  Burnaby / Surrey  sky trainable ....   It may create less of the Corporate smooze that has become.

Of course the ticket price has also priced out families and many young adults...    

 

I wonder back in the 1970 and 1980's were the tickets expensive to the average working person... ?

I don't remember.....  My dad had 1/4  season tickets through his job so we were pretty spoiled....  

We were row 4  in one of the corners... in the old rink pac c     loved being at ice level.....

 

I always got the habs visit pretty much every year.   My dumb brother chose his crappy team the Leafs......  

Edited January 31, 2018 by kingofsurrey

[oldnews]

26 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

I sure remember George at Empire Stadium Lions games when i was a kid.  Good times.

 

I do think the if the Canucks moved the arena to the  Burnaby / Surrey  sky trainable ....   It may create less of the Corporate smooze that has become.

Of course the ticket price has also priced out families and many young adults...    

 

I wonder back in the 1970 and 1980's were the tickets expensive to the average working person... ?

I don't remember.....  My dad had 1/4  season tickets through his job so we were pretty spoiled....  

We were row 4  in one of the corners... in the old rink pac c     loved being at ice level.....

 

I always got the habs visit pretty much every year.   My dumb brother chose his crappy team the Leafs......  

They were 'expensive' but no relative to what they are now.

Ticket prices have risen considerably more than wages have.

In the 80s you could buy a good ticket for $30, or you could go to Safeway and get one for a fraction of that - $10/12.

Average wages on the other hand have not increased by 400 or 800%.

 

It's not quite as extreme as housing, but similarly, in the housing market you could buy houses for 50,000 to 100,000  that now sell for 500,000 to a million.

For young people hoping to own a home, the barriers are relatively extreme - a down payment alone now will cost you could buy a house outright for in those times.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by oldnews

[kingofsurrey]

5 minutes ago, oldnews said:

They were 'expensive' but no relative to what they are now.

Ticket prices have risen considerably more than wages have.

In the 80s you could buy a good ticket for $30, or you could go to Safeway and get one for a fraction of that - $10/12.

Average wages on the other hand have not increased by 400 or 800%.

 

It's not quite as extreme as housing, but similarly, in the housing market you could buy houses for 50,000 to 100,000  that now sell for 500,000 to a million.

 

 

I remember in 1981  /  82    getting a  construction labouring job for 17  bucks and hour....    It was roadbuilding and pipefitting most water lines....

 

I talk to kids now days  starting construction labour jobs at   16-17 per hour....

 

Blows my mind....   35 years later and  thats  how wages  haven't barely gone up....

Edited January 31, 2018 by kingofsurrey

[oldnews]

4 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

I remember in 1981  getting a  construction labouring job for 17  bucks and hour....    It was roadbuilding and pipefitting most water lines....

 

I talk to kids now days  starting construction labour jobs at   16-17 per hour....

 

Blows my mind....  how wages have not gone up more. 

Exactly.  And at that wage, you could put a down payment on a house by saving 300 hours of wages.

Now, it's 10x that - and at the same time, everything else also costs considerably more - in other words, the average wage nowadays will never enable you to own a home.  You inherit, you rent forever, or  maybe you go with the mini-home trend.

 

Edited January 31, 2018 by oldnews

[IBatch]

15 hours ago, smithers joe said:

most of us people, centre our opinions around what as a fan, would make us happy. we'll like to put a team on the ice that will win the cup every year. wouldn't it be great if we could say we want an elite scorer, a playmaker, a tough guy and a number one defenseman, then snap our fingers and walla, their here. 

in  the real world it takes time to acquire those players. even years. our fanbase has already shown that we have no patience for waiting. 

there is an old saying, "what wound, did ever heal, but by degrees. our team is in the process of healing.  

 

I think your right on the money with the no patience thing, and it is possible that includes upper management/ownership.  This team was bound to fall of a cliff with no parachute or little returns available from the old core aside from Horvat, Tanev and Hutton ( Ok Sutter too).  

 

We've made it to the bottom and help is on the way.  Good help too, the best prospect pools turn into the best teams with regularity....

 

I understand it must be difficult for the generations of fans that have only known the Sedin and maybe Naslund era, that sample size came with a lot of winning and the best team we've ever assembled.  I'm pretty sure us older guys are better equipped for getting through the bottom dwelling.  

[IBatch]

It's sickening what's happened, and it wasn't too easy to get in the market in the ninetees either.  Back in the 50-60s it used to be a mechanic could buy a house and afford the mortgage as a single wage family of four, with an annual salary that was a quarter of the value of the home.

 

Think about it for a minute.  That would mean mechanic in Burnaby would be earning 350,000 today, and his tax bracket would be around 25%.

 

This economy is broken.  The rich are only getting richer, and the middle class is now forced to have two highly educated professionals working at what used to be high end jobs, just to buy a bungalow in North Vancouver.

 

 

[oldnews]

On 1/30/2018 at 3:57 PM, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

So until the next generation can get some sense and humility slapped into their heads, you're unfortunately going to be stuck with us whiny little ignorant &^@#s.  

 

 

I almost think the next generation has too much humility tbh

 

But if I could accept Tortorella.....and I did....(at least, until the bridge was on fire lol).... then.....maybe some folks can accept JB.

 

If I'm honest though, I can't deny - I never really accepted the Keenan era.  Couldn't wait for it to end from the day it started - but I don't think it's quite the same.

[Kevin Biestra]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

 

 

I almost think the next generation has too much humility tbh

 

But if I could accept Tortorella.....and I did....(at least, until the bridge was on fire lol).... then.....maybe some folks can accept JB.

 

If I'm honest though, I can't deny - I never really accepted the Keenan era.  Couldn't wait for it to end from the day it started - but I don't think it's quite the same.

I was disgusted with Keenan from shortly after he arrived until the day he left.  I gave him a chance from the start, but it didn't take long at all to see what a disaster it was.  This isn't anything like that.  Even Tortorella wasn't nearly as bad - there was only so much damage he could do as a coach and, unlike Iron Mike, not unofficial co-GMs with his favorite player in the lineup.  Ugh.  Keenan and Messier.  What a putrid time that was.  Never forget.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Kevin Biestra