Dazzle
Members-
Posts
11,843 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Dazzle
-
[Signing] Jordan Weal signs with Ak Bars Kazan (KHL)
Dazzle replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
https://www.tsn.ca/jordan-weal-khl-two-year-deal-1.1667273 Former NHL forward has agreed to a two-year deal in the Kontinental Hockey League with Ak Bars Kazan, it was announced Tuesday. I'm surprised that the Canucks couldn't get him for cheap. He is an ok faceoff guy, 29 years old though and 5'9. -
This is exactly what tabloid journalism is. Here's what it is, and how your definition has undermined your own point about the media "reporting what they hear". Just hilarious, @wallstreetamigo Please keep talking because you are discrediting the media with your words. Also, your point that the public doesn't want facts is total nonsense. You are stating that people don't want to hear the truth, and only the lies, thus the lying by the media is morally acceptable? Get this guys... he thinks people want to be fooled, therefore the media gives what the public wants. He has thus confirmed that the media is driving the news, not the news being reported accurately.
-
Sure the media cares. You just said it yourself here that "being critical sells". Therefore, it IS in their interest to write knee-jerking responses to Canuck stories. After all, they're not here to "tow the company line". So now you say that the media's "job" is to evolve with the times, which is to use tabloid journalism (aka sensationalist reporting). We knew that already, but thanks for confirming yet again. And they're not to blame, huh? LOL, who are you to say that the public doesn't actually want facts? And you're telling people to step back from their bias? This is next level hypocrisy, @wallstreetamigo
-
You've been restating your whole 'point' over and over. It's hilariously contradictory for you to say they are ethical, and "reporting what they hear". But at the same time, they can "stir up controversies" to sell papers. That is a direct contradiction. It means they have ulterior motives than reporting "facts". We have no idea what is fact and fiction. That has always been my point, which you've obviously glossed over many many times. What about Sekeres? He reported that Hughes was on IV. Why would he go out to deny this? Why would Bieksa come out and bash the report as getting it "wrong"? You have never addressed this. Instead, you go on this longwinded excuse driven post defending the media. You are biased, amigo. That is my overall point which you've helped support my point. Just because you restate points such as "you don't know how the media works", or "I know people in the media", doesn't prove crap. I could tell you that I know someone on the team too, and there would be zero way for you to verify this.
-
I never picked out one side over the other. LMFAO. What a total lie. Notice how you shy away from the media stirring up the controversies now. "Gets it wrong"? Or did they make it up? Your legit media sources were wrong about Hughes - and even more unethical to mention his name at all, let alone get it wrong. Bieksa called out the media on that. I never said Benning was ethical or honest. Ever. I love how you're misrepresenting my points to shield your earlier claims. Enough of the strawman.
-
It's safe to say that the sports section falls under tabloid journalism though.
-
No he didn't. He said that "maybe" the marriage didn't work out for the both of them, and there's an understanding that both sides want a break from the deal. However, Elliot was very clear that a deal might not happen at all. All of this just sounds like speculation, mixed in with some reality that Schmidt didn't play well and there's cap space. The reports from the media should be taken with a grain of salt. They're here to sell papers, so at times, that will mean stretching the news to get people reading. Tabloids for celebrities do something similar. Also, the Province is a tabloid.
-
I love how you are literally restating your points, such as reiterating that the media is not as unethical as I have pointed out. You aren't presenting evidence though. How can we take your words as truth? Meanwhile, your earlier contradictions about the media are "crystal clear" lol. No one said it was their job to pump up Benning. You've mentioned this several times, and I clearly never said that. I know you have reading comprehension; I just think you are hiding your contradictions through denial. I also never said a thing about Benning being perfect or what not. In fact, the bulk of my posts have been that the media has something to gain from selling stories. You've helped me made that clear. You do realize that I've used your words against you. The evidence is there. You just chose not to address them. I've also asked you about Sekeres specifically about seven times in a row. Nothing. Is he a hack? You've failed to identify a single person who isn't a reputable media guy. Therefore, you are so biased. Enough said.
-
1. I know what a contradiction is. I posted a definition for YOUR reference, not mine. A contradiction is saying that the media is ethical, while saying this: Yes, this is akin to "cooking up stories". You say that the media has no benefit to making up stories, yet you also said that "being critical sells". Something's gotta give. If you stir up controversies, you will inevitably lose some sources due to how you exploit the situation. This is common sense and runs contrary to your claimss. I don't struggle to follow your arguments at all. You just seem to have difficult figuring out what you said about the media earlier because you contradict yourself.
-
This post will break down to you (again) why you are contradicting yourself. Don't tell me I don't know what a contradiction is. You are just denying, denying and denying. I have presented my evidence (your posts) below. 1) You say the media has less of a reason to craft a narrative than GM Benning/Canucks. This is actually a biased opinion, and easily disproven by your own words. More on this later. Do not call this a "fact". A fact is that you are lying through your teeth when you say you are not contradicting yourself. I have the evidence to back this up, so it's more than just an opinion or a baseless accusation. 2) Sports reporting would be "extremely boring" if they didn't cook up stories is what you basically said. -> Motive: to sell papers. In other words, you cannot rule out the media's intent to sell papers, in favour of well-versed journalism. Saying you know the people behind the scenes just doesn't cut it as evidence. Meanwhile, all the evidence that points to the media manipulating stories for profit is confirmed by none other than you. 3). Wait, so reporters report what they hear? And they also make up stuff? I thought you said that reporters have to make up stories to sell papers. So which is it? Do they have accountability when it comes to journalism? or are they in it for the money? or both? Either way, the media is far from as objective as you claim they are. 4) Again, you confirmed again that the job of the media is to sell papers (see pictures below). You condoned that being critical sells. Therefore, the motive is clear: journalists need to cook up stories to sell papers, or else it would be "extremely boring". And yet they "report what they hear", according to you. There is zero accountability is what you confirmed. Conclusion: Saying you are misrepresented is a lazy way of excusing your own contradictions (yes, contradictions) of what you think the media does. Do they report "what they hear"? or do they make up stories? Something in these posts are off. And if you claim that all the posts mean the same thing, you have unwittingly acknowledged that you have flip-flopping on your perspectives on the media. You say the media should be taken with a grain of salt, but you'd take their word(s) on stuff, even if it was purely speculative garbage, over an actual mouth source. You are biased and you are also a liar.
-
Who knows nowadays.... I can't even be sure what is real and fiction anymore. But as a certain 'amigo' says, if the rumour is being floated, it probably has legs. Therefore, the media has to be right, and we have no right to criticize it. It's just doing its job, and does so ethically!
-
[Discussion] Selling protection spots
Dazzle replied to goblix's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Very interesting... hypothetically, you could waive the player and the other team COULD re-claim him back, but this is of course a huge gamble. -
It doesn't take away from your point, but Schmidt was on Vegas when the Caps won the one cup.
-
You are so dishonest. I actually liked your posts prior to you spewing this manipulation. I guess your true colours came through. It's just really annoying when everyone else points out your contradictions, and you just make excuses, or try to outright lie about it. I know you know you got caught in a hole. You just don't want to admit it. How a media can be ethical and, and in your words, try to cook up a story to sell papers. It is a contradiction. It means they have motives, equal to what a GM might have too. So don't say a media has less of a role in lying. That is total horsecrap.
-
Really dude? This here is an example of a CONTRADICTION. "They [Canucks/Benning] have their own reasons to craft a narrative too. More so than the media tbh" and "Sports reporting would be extremely boring if it was only 100% provable and verified news..." Somehow you managed to contradict yourself several times over a span of 1 or 2 days. Not even 24 hrs for the first instance, I just looked. LOL.
-
I MISREPRESENTED YOU? Look at your own contradictions, dude. Saying you were misrepresented is absolutely a cop-out without having to explain yourself, @wallstreetamigo (Source: https://forum.canucks.com/topic/397220-speculation-is-schmidt-on-the-move/page/43/) My whole point was about media accountability. You're not only defending media's antics that go against accountability, you yourself are engaging in this campaign of misinformation.
-
I think it's a nasty rumour made up by media members who want to "stir up" controversies to sell stories. One of the biggest defenders of the media @wallstreetamigo said so himself that it would be "extremely boring" if they only reported 100 percent verifiable info. I haven't seen someone like him who went to bat for someone else (the media) just give up completely on defending them. According to Benning, he claims to not have any trade requests. Of course, we don't know if this is true or not because he still has to maintain his leverage. So we can only 'know' what we have publicly heard. Anyone can make up "rumours" in the journalism industry and pose it like it's a fact. The media does it all the time. I bring up the Hughes on IV story a lot because this was a story that never should've been run, at all. Funny how wallstreetamigo still doesn't address that aspect, even after being asked to do so many, many times.
-
https://canucksarmy.com/2017/02/01/time-has-made-mike-gillis-draft-record-look-better-but-it-s-still-bad/ 2017 article. Some passages from this article for convenience. They might be taken out of context, but much care has been taken (and you can verify this) to maintain the intent of the article: Well, that’s not really the case. Vancouver’s draft history over the last fifteen years has been so abysmal that anything looks good. Even with these new young players brightening the ranks, Gillis’ draft record is still not good. And I have evidence. However, the line of reasoning that tells us we should expect so little draft picks in the name of being competitive doesn’t exactly stack up with the data. While there is a statistical relationship between the two, there are teams that were having as much or more success than the Canucks that were also accumulating more draft picks. (Personal comment) This picture says it all. Boston and Pittsburgh have won at least a cup during this period (roughly). We haven't, although we were one game away from doing so. That being said, both Pittsburgh and Boston's futures were not harmed by their cup runs. Ours was bankrupt. You just can't defend Gillis' tenure for drafting and development at all. Using the "competitive" excuse is easily invalidated, and actually shows bias in taking that logic. (end of personal comment) ----------------------------- Three of the top four players in terms of games played are no longer with the Canucks organization. Cody Hodgson is already retired, so he won’t be adding anything to his resume. Prior to that, he became Zack Kassian, who became Brandon Prust, who became a UFA. Kevin Connauton never even played a single game for the Canucks, having been included in the Derek Roy deal before making his debut. Roy also left as a UFA. Jordan Schroeder wasn’t tendered by the new regime, while Frank Corrado was lost on waivers. Nicklas Jensen became Emerson Etem, who was also lost on waivers. So not only did the Canucks not get value out of their draft picks while they were here, they didn’t get much of anything in return for them either Note that both regimes are responsible for this second point, as Jim Benning’s crew has shuttled off many assets without getting a return – of course that could also say something about the “assets” that Mike Gillis left him with. In terms of Mike Gillis’ record, though, he went in the complete opposite direction. Not only did he not compile that many draft picks, he made poor selections with the ones he had. This is first illustrated in the following graphs which present numbers of draft picks against total games played. Conclusion Again, the point of this article is not to drag Mike Gillis’ reputation through the dirt. He presided over the most successful era in franchise history, building the teams that won the only two Presidents Trophies in franchise history, maximizing value by exploiting the Collective Bargaining Agreement and pushing the bounds of sports science in ways that have since been adopted by organizations like the Chicago Cubs. But the man flat out could not draft hockey players. Or at least, the group he created and managed couldn’t.
-
You've made really fair points that takes into account both perspectives of Gillis and Benning. I am aware that Gillis went on record to say he regretted not boosting the scouting/development part, so at least there's that. Gillis, as you said, was responsible for laying the groundwork for an AHL team, because the Chicago Wolves certainly was a poor set up.
-
This is a super debatable point, considering that Gillis inherited most of his pieces, which is what was said by @knucklehead91 in his long, detailed posts. Furthermore, to disregard things as "it was 7 years ago" is a logical fallacy because it ignores what he did or didn't do, which would've impacted the future events. Imagine you spending all your money using your credit card, except you have no means of paying it back immediately. 7 years later, you are still having to pay it back because of interest. If you can imagine this situation, you'll realize that "7 years ago" can't be ignored. What Gillis did or didn't do influenced the incoming GM. If Gillis had put Canucks in a better spot, maybe the new GM wouldn't have to "retool on the fly" or get Eriksson. Imagine having money coming in normally, and getting paid extra because you had a profitable side business. It would certainly help pay off credit debt, yes? The same thing applies. Poor decisions 7 years ago will impact what happens later. Therefore, no one should say "it was 7 years ago. Time to stop blaming Gillis".