Dazzle
Members-
Posts
11,843 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Dazzle
-
He did have a failed prospect pool. The proof is in the fact that no significant prospects, outside of Horvat and Hutton, were produced during his entire tenure. This is a span of several years of next to no prospect development. Again, because you seem to be so blind to see this, Benning has done what Gillis could never do - draft players. Of course excuses are made about GIllis not having top 10 picks, but why was he not able to draft a goaltender LIKE Demko during his time? (2nd round pick). What about Hoglander? There is no excuse for the lack of depth that Gillis left behind. Unlike you, most of us see the consequences of such poor drafting and development. Over time, this has huge implications. But again, you've proven me right that you ignore evidence that runs contrary to what you want to see.
-
Right, like Gillis trading off his last good asset (Schneider) for an unproven quantity, just so he could say he never had a first round pick until now... Remember how he mishandled the Luongo/Schneider situation? Seems like you forgot. As you look back, Gillis was paying more than he was receiving. No wonder why our prospect pool was garbage. It's kinda funny that you use the Miller thing to slander a GM which probably had nothing to do with the situation. Put Gillis there, what's he going to do? Yell at the NHL? Lmfao... He's not likely to come back in any capacity of the NHL, fyi. As mentioned earlier, he is blackballed. Pittsburgh had a chance to hire him, but he didn't even make their final cuts.
-
Benning tried to retool on the fly. Sedins were declining, but selling them off was blasphemy, so Benning had to come up with a way to stay competitive, while trying to recoup prospects. That's why he tried to get Eriksson, hoping that he'll rekindle the magic with the Sedins. Nothing that you say is contradictory to what he tried to do - stay competitive. We all know the experiment didn't end well however. At least we stopped trading first round picks for duds. Gillis remarkably had some pretty poor trades that people like you have refused to acknowledge. Few will say the Ballard trade was a good one. This was Gillis trying to buy his way out of a problem he knew he had - drafting/developing. Funny how you didn't post a rebuttal for that abomination of a trade on behalf of Gillis.
-
Garrison was actually one of several players that Gillis handed NTCs with. So one could argue that Gillis actually handcuffed himself. Oh and the Ballard trade was awful. Just awful. Anyone who justifies that trade is clearly out to lunch @kanucks25 is one such poster. As if healthy scratching that player in the playoffs meant he had good value to this team. Might have been an AV problem tbh. He never trusted Ballard. Anyway, Ballard was a poor fit on this team, and Gillis was silly enough to free up FLA's cap space in the process, while throwing away essentially two first round picks (Grabner was a former first round pick) + 25th pick. It's almost like Gillis just rushed the trade on NHL 2015 just to push the trade through. It should also be mentioned that Gillis bought out Ballard later on. Just terrible. We joke about asset management, and Gillis barely demonstrated that he had it. If you're bleeding draft picks and not recouping them, OR making use of the ones you have, it's no surprise that you decline and decline. Any player of any consequence, aside from Tanev, was largely inherited. The players he signed for cheap were good, but not all of them hit, of course. Gillis is given a lot of credit for the cup run, when really most of that should've gone to Burke + Nonis. By the end of Gillis' tenure, you could finally see just how much Gillis sucked at developing players. We had to acquire lots of scrap bodies during the Benning period to fill the rosters.
-
Not an entirely fair comparison, but the Lightning's current roster is almost entirely their draft picks. Name a line and there's a lightning pick. They are clearly a winning team for many years. What's Gillis' excuse for not drafting one player from the 2nd round and later? I'll tell you why. He traded the draft picks away. The ones he did keep, he never capitalized on them. Meanwhile, Benning drafted Demko and Hoglander. Everyone likes to make the excuse that Gillis didn't have high draft picks to work with. Well, he could've, if he traded his assets, but he didn't. With no replacements, our prospect pool was piss poor. That's on Gillis. Being blackballed, which I acknowledge is in fact the case, should not have had any bearing on drafting players. This was such a huge oversight on his part.
-
This is a ton of revisionism and historical inaccuracy. Scouting is a major factor for Gillis' downfall. It's the reason why Gillis never could replace his roster and had to rely on trades. A lot of those trades he got screwed on. And if you notice, he only had a select group of teams that he could trade with. He was blackballed essentially with his trading partners. Gillis wasn't that good, aside from cheap contracts that paid off. He left no replacement for the Sedins. No replacement for Edler. He had no plan to replace the lost draft picks. The result? A stale core. What Benning inherited was a bunch of C-level prospects, and a mediocre/declining roster. Bonino was likely the most valuable asset out of Gillis' tenure. Sedins were clearly on the decline + untradable. As for Hamhuis, there were reports that he exercised his NTC to nix the trade to Dallas, only for him to sign to Dallas later on as a free agent.
-
Gillis didn't draft a single worthy draft pick, except Horvat. Hutton is a pretty minor piece. And hilariously, Horvat was only obtained by trading an asset that he could never draft - GOALTENDING. Gillis was a massive failure at drafting and player development. This has to be acknowledged if you're going to be taken seriously. As it stands, you are a Gillis loyalist, completely blind to the fact that he nearly wrecked this team with his awful trades. Grabner + 1st for Ballard was godawful. I knew it was going to be bad the day it happened. You don't throw away assets when the regime was not adept at drafting/developing. That's how your core gets stale.
-
I've seen your posts enough times to know that you'll ignore anything that counters your points, and you'll just circle back to your own point. I think it's obvious that a certain group of posters will always bow towards Gillis like he's some kind of infallible god. While he did good things, the bad is really, really difficult to ignore. And what you're doing right now is painful to read. Gillis wrecked this team so hard. As @knucklehead91 wrote in his super detailed post, which you'll probably never read because you won't have anything to come back with, a lot of the pieces o this team had little to do with Gillis. Tanev is one of the players he acquired, but aside from Horvat (who was acquired by trading Schneider - a goalie that gillis didn't draft), his drafting is piss poor. In pursuit of the cup, he basically bankrupted the team. Look no further than the time period between the end of his tenure and Benning's. People are quick to say 7 years had passed. Well, anytime during Gillis' regime, he could've drafted an Edler replacement. Guess who's still on the team? Edler. And it had nothing to do with Gillis. There's a reason why Gillis isn't seemingly welcome back in the NHL. He's been blackballed. Part of this reason was that he burned a lot of bridges with GMs, so the only trades he did were the ones where he got blatantly ripped off. And for all the praise that Gillis gets for signing players, you have to wonder how much he lucked out on the ones he signed for cheap. In general, Gillis inherited his core, and nearly destroyed this team in the process.
-
I find it hard to believe that it's even a suggestion from Seattle. I would think they'd claim Holtby AND get Schmidt for a cheap price.
-
I think it's pretty hilarious the Schmidt thread got locked.
- Show previous comments 13 more
-
-
People say Schmidt didn’t have a good season. I disagree, the entire team had playing issues and then when it seemed to be corrected. Bam Covid. We need to add to this team but everyone just needs a fresh healthy start for the most part
-
I'm not knocking Nate, I like him. But it was an awful year for him to experience with the trade, covid, new coaching, etc.
-
Is that how you arrive at conclusions? Laughable. I never once stated nor suggested that I had inside knowledge of the Hughes incident, or anything else that the media reported on. What I can do is be skeptical when Hughes refuted the story. Moreover, Bieksa said (and I'm paraphrasing) "If you can't get it right, don't report it." There are other incidents historically that suggest that the media is either incompetent at verifying their sources, or according to wallstreetamigo himself who initially defended the media, has said that the media has to "stir up" controversy to sell papers. It's not that I am determining that the media is bad from my sources. I am determining them to be bad because other more reputable sources say they are doing a terrible job at reporting. Moreover, I have debunked wallstreetamigo's claim that the media is ethical. No they're not. If they were, they wouldn't have leaked Hughes' name out, even if he was *really* on IV. So much for privacy. And seriously, wallstreetamigo says it best himself, it would be "extremely boring" (his words) if the media reported everything as 100 percent verifiable. :rolleyes:
-
No one in this thread has claimed to "know more than any of them [insiderzzz]". What a strawman you created there! Except logically, the media has no role when it comes to trade talks. The discussions that a GM has with another GM are not likely to be shared. Why would they share about a potential trade that the two GMs are working on? To 'pressure' the other GM? Of course not. Sports journalists are essentially excluded out of the process. Yet logically, we can guess that multiple trade scenarios involving all players are discussed to ensure they do a proper market evaluation, which in turn prepares them for future trades. How will you know if you're being ripped off or not if you don't even know your own player? I suspect that journalists are given some info in exchange for 'good behavior'. The ones who don't exercise good behaviour are gonna be either given bad info, or they'll be forced to make it up. It's not hard to figure out who the bad ones are: Sekeres, for example, claimed that Hughes was on IV, only to be proven wrong. I know wallstreetamigo will still claim that Hughes or the Canucks might be lying, but keep in mind, he is also the one that thinks that rumours are an indication of real activity. Preposterous.
-
@wallstreetamigo This is the consequence that you get when you "sell" news. You claim to think the news was BS, but your other comments say otherwise. You're complicit with the poor reporting, in favour of entertainment.
-
Hmm... On one hand, you said they report what they hear, not "tow the company line". On the other hand, you said it would be "extremely boring" if they reported stuff that was 100 percent accurate. Then you said that stirring up controversy sells papers (something we all suspected), while you claim that Vancouver media has ethics. Ok buddy. You've thoroughly contradicted yourself. Why are you so offended by the media being criticized? Millennials.... Why is there a zero sum approach to reporting? Why is it that "being a homer" can't sell a paper? The fact that people buy a controversial story is exploiting people's psychology. In other words, this demonstrates, and you've confirmed this, that the media doesn't care about having ethics, so long as they sell papers. Also, what is it about reporting accurately that makes you somehow "a homer"? So many questions.... @wallstreetamigo
-
-
Thanks for confirming to us that the media has an interest in selling papers. Here here, this is coming from the horse's mouth. Stirring up controversy means making a story up to sell. You can't "stir up" a controversy that is formed by itself. So much for 'ethical practices', huh?
-
@wallstreetamigo Are you going to invalidate his claim that local media literally sit around and make stuff up? If you're going to be consistent about defending the media, you'd say something about this post because this reflects what the rest of us have concluded; that the media is not as credible as what you make them out to be.
-
Why can't it be BS as it's being discussed by the media? This is an assumption on your part that the media is always telling the truth. It doesn't matter if you don't flat out say it. This post by itself is proof that you already given credence to the media because they reported a story. You are not considering what they're reporting because, quite frankly, they are not reporting anything new. In other words, you're more biased than you are saying. You are NOT objective.
-
How ironic because that isn't what I said at all. I'm questioning your tendency to defend the media as being ethical, and the fact that you didn't criticize Sekeres (again, you deliberately ignored him) for his unethical behaviour with regards to Hughes. Your continued silence on the above speaks volumes about where you stand, or at least how you want to portray your stance to be. If anything, I'm using your line of logic; why aren't you talking about how the media deals with stories, especially ones that are poorly verified? You've clearly avoided the Sekeres topic many times. Here is yet another example. I guess you're excusing his behaviour then?
-
The word, "I think" changes the meaning of that sentence significantly. That clearly distinguishes this tweet as speculation. So @wallstreetamigo, Sportsnet 650 sure did something ethical by omitting words
-
Know the difference. "Fact" is not whatever you want something to be true. "News" is not retelling something that was said back in May, and repackaging it today in a tweet.
-
Cool. Ignoring logic and other points to maintain your own stance.
-
But if multiple reporters are reporting it, it probably is true! The media can't be lying about this. They are all honest people. But Benning has a reason to lie! Why don't the players and agents say something then? Until we hear from them, we won't know, but it's not like we should trust them anyway! The media is almost like gospel! - @wallstreetamigo The above is what wallstreetamigo has basically been saying all this time. Not word for word mind you, but the spirit of it is faithfully there. For someone I recalled as not backing down from an honest discussion without insults, you sure have avoided multiple conversations about how dishonest your media friends have been. I'm including Sekeres AGAIN. Why did he leak out Hughes name if he was so ethical? Maybe, just maybe your media friends don't follow all that conduct, in favour of selling papers. You know, because they *all* get paid when the company sells papers As to your point, gurn, there was that 'rumour' circulating that Aquilini wasn't willing to spend money. I thought the media was pretty cutthroat when they went at that angle. Aquilini has demonstrated that he's more than willing to flex his financial muscles, given how he has supported the team financially in the past. Funny how that Aquilini going cheap angle disappears after re-signing the coaches, and adding a new one from Columbus...