Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Dazzle

Members
  • Content Count

    8,834
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by Dazzle

  1. Remember this game and this moment? 1817808937_MichaelDiPietroSavePromptsChantsfromVancouverCrowd(J.mp4
  2. Reminds me Dahlen too. Swedes are self-entitled and bolt when given the chance. /sar - These stereotypes were similarly made about Russians.
  3. Tkachuk takes out Juolevi's legs, Juolevi takes revenge.mp4
  4. If by 'controversial' you mean misleading, sure. You seem to think that it's everyone's fault for reacting to your posts.
  5. So in other words, Benning actually made some sensible, responsible GM decisions? oh my god, is it true? AV praising Benning?
  6. So what if these signings turn out to be good? It seems like you're finding reasons for these signings to criticize, and excusing ones that didn't work out before (i.e. Schmidt) Makes me wonder why he takes this approach for Schmidt 'rebounding', but not taking this approach for other signings..
  7. You're just ignoring aspects of arguments, which is part of the reason why you get a ton of heat on here. Think of it. What can you do with 500,000 in Vancouver? Renting is your most likely option (barring options like living with family etc), unless you move AWAY from the city. So clearly you can't spend some of the money to buy a Lamborghini (roughly 200-300 k). You COULD rent and drive a Lamborghini, but that would be wasteful. Why not break up that 200,000 and spend it on something else? Maybe put it in investments? The point is: Schmidt as a single entity is was
  8. That's totally fair. The only problem is there's no 'wait and see' with these people, the people bashing the GM relentlessly. Then there's the group who according to AV, "support Benning", implying that he doesn't. The criticism is just automatic regardless of what he does. I think it's hilarious that AV out of all people suggested bringing back Rafferty and Chatfield. So no changes? Both are unproven RD players. Cheap, sure. But why? Benning hasn't been great with his FA, but he's clearly taken a different approach. We've seen cheaper contracts - with Poolman being an
  9. No, Vancouver was cutting its losses. Losing Schmidt gave Vancouver the flexibility to add depth - something you already confirmed to be the case. Would it really be insane if you brought back Rafferty and Chatfield?
  10. No doubt it did. AV can't explain why WInnipeg still offered their 3rd when Schmidt probably dropped in value in all likelihood. There's something called GM relations.
  11. Of course they did, why else did Schmidt have to waive his NTC to facilitate this trade? It just so happens that the teams that could offer the third (that weren't on his NTC) were ignored, so Vancouver chose one of the teams on his list? Man, you need to think your posts through. It's obvious the market for Schmidt wasn't great, and Winnipeg couldn't have known the EXTENT of Vancouver's struggles, and really could've just offered Vancouver a 4th. Why didn't they? Answer it.
  12. We're not just talking about less depth. We were clearly MISSING an extra piece for RD depth. If you even bothered to pay attention to what I said, I basically said it was baffling that some GMs get better treatment than others. I didn't say it was right across the board. I'm just saying that Winnipeg really could've pushed Vancouver to get a 4th (essentially emphasizing the loss), but they didn't do that. I am citing the fact that GMs want to establish good relations with others. Something that apparently *cough* Gillis couldn't seem to do without getting royally bent
  13. There is a risk to drafting prospects. Just because you twist my post to insane extremes doesn't mean I said what you think I said. Oh wait, you called this PROJECTION, as in people projecting what they THINK they read, rather than what I actually intended to say. Wait, are the rules different for you? Hope this helps.
  14. 1. Yes you did. You ignored it. By mentioning a player's name, that implies you had a good reason to bring him up. Clearly you didn't. Now you're backtracking. 2. Sure you did. You mentioned a comparable player that was signed cheaper. Your words. In other words, you made the comparison of the two players there, thus implying that GM Benning made a bad choice. 3. Wasn't talking about a 4 year contract. Was talking about the 2.5 number. Are you changing shifting goal posts again? Upon reflection: I don't know what person would bring up a player like Hankapaa li
  15. So you're looking for attention then, is what you're saying?
  16. This is your problem: you look at extremes. I didn't say that the situation was always the case - I'm just saying that the collusion factor seems to be apparent for CERTAIN GMs. And you've already CONFIRMED in this post that Benning made a great trade to Vegas - got a 3rd/2023. Why is it that Benning got a 3rd back from Winnipeg, despite the poor year? Yes, you didn't answer that. I have no clue what you're talking about with regards to Yakupov. What does drafting Yakupov have to do with other teams being jealous? I never once said this at all. Your memory is flawed
  17. How much have you actually talked about the Halak/Sutter signings? You've made summary compliments about these signings, though in the Poolman signing, you were more than quick to spend the bulk of your time on. What gives?
  18. You've actually missed my point - the point being that there are more things than just a simple 1 to 1 comparison. YOUR logic was that "we could've signed this guy", but you're ignoring the underlying factors, namely that Poolman is said to be a better skater/more mobile. And given the fact that Poolman actually had a good playoff with WIN, you're just nitpicking.
  19. Really? The guy who defended Dahlen tooth and nail is calling ME biased? Reading the comments of people here, some think this is going to be PK 2.0. I'm not convinced it's a great signing, but it's definitely a splash.
  20. Never mind about Martinez. I erred in mixing him up with Voynov.
  21. And this is really funny because I was, at one point, a Gillis supporter. Most of us were at one point or another. I am sure many of us appreciate his contributions to the teams he had helped construct. I will be a fan of the next GM who comes in, provided they make positive contributions to the team I'm cheering. I am not necessarily latched onto Benning, unlike some people who think Gillis was a "Good GM", which I now reflect on in a more negative light. Opinions change over time.
  22. There is nothing wrong with being critical about a situation, and having concerns, especially based on the past. However, I find it hilarious that you say the bolded, given how you've spent ALMOST ALL OF THE FA PERIOD in the poolman signing, which you have previously admitted was something you "didn't mind". HMMM. The fact that you said that "if the other side were to understand this", implies your 'side' is superior. At the same time, you've grouped everyone who disagrees with you as being in a category that supports Benning I think your post ha
×
×
  • Create New...