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

Dazzle

Members
  • Posts

    11,843
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Dazzle

  1. No, it's not a "fact". This ASSUMES that Drance is telling the truth, which we honestly cannot establish is the case. Likewise, you can't discount that Drance is perpetuating this rumour for his own agenda, even if you don't like it. Postmedia owns BOTH the Vancouver Sun AND the Province. Drance works for the Province. The media is reaching for a connection. It is the GM's duty to explore ALL trade options, so if you replace Schmidt's name with Myers, you'd produce the same effect. I am reposting what I typed above here: Using logic: Why would an agent (or someone close to the deal) disclose right away the details of Benning's conversation? Why would Benning make this conversation open? "Doing what it takes" is a poor way to navigate through a trade process. You'd get less value - something that Benning wouldn't want. Therefore, he couldn't be the one 'leaking' this story. The agent also would not have any interest in disclosing the fact that his player is supposedly not wanted by Vancouver. The only people who should know about this are the other GMs. That's it. The media virtually has no role in this.
  2. Here is a summary. Amigo insists that his media friends (he has disclosed that he knows them, and presumably has a sense of loyalty in defending them) are ethical people. Others, including myself, pushed back and said this is not true. We cited the fact that Hughes' name came up in the rumour mill. This concerns the privacy angle. Assuming Hughes did in fact contract COVID, he should've been entitled to as much privacy as he could've been afforded. As a result, amigo did not have an answer to that, despite me bringing it up again and again. In short, amigo is far more biased than he is letting on, or he's willing to admit. It's no surprise that he's continued to ghost when asked about how the media exercises ethical behaviour when the above example is presented.
  3. This isn't your fault for posting this, but this is such a useless take from Drance. Here's an example of garbage reporting. Re-hash a name that is floating in the universe, and make assertions that the Canucks will do whatever it takes to improve the club. Yet if you re-insert another name, you'd realize that it could apply to ANYONE. The media seems to be interested in two things primarily: Sell papers, and/or speculate or add to each other's rumours. It's pretty rare to hear a story being disproven by another media member nowadays, so I think there's a lot of collusion going on. Using logic: Why would an agent (or someone close to the deal) disclose right away the details of Benning's conversation? Why would Benning make this conversation open? "Doing what it takes" is a poor way to navigate through a trade process. You'd get less value - something that Benning wouldn't want. Therefore, he couldn't be the one 'leaking' this story. The agent also would not have any interest in disclosing the fact that his player is supposedly not wanted by Vancouver. The only people who should know about this are the other GMs. That's it. The media virtually has no role in this. Sorry @wallstreetamigo Your media friends are not as honest as you say they are. You have not been able to rule out their conflict-of-interest in this reporting, in which they are also the benefactors of telling the report... Don't be biased, amigo. There's a reason why the Province is called a "tabloid"
  4. So, you think Benning lying to the media is not really a once in a lifetime, but you are very quick to defend the media for lying about their stories, or at the very least not exercising due diligence at all times. Totally not suspicious at all... I get that you are biased; you have friends in the media, and you "work with them". The problem is that you ARE applying double standards for these two groups, so you are NOT as objective as you claim to be. And again, not a peep about Sekeres, and how he leaked out Hughes' name. Because you haven't addressed the Sekeres component, you are an apologist. You have no interest in obtaining "facts", just the stuff you want to believe in. You claim the media has ethics, and your silence about Sekeres' blatant misconduct speaks volumes about your inability to resolve his (and the media's) guilt.
  5. https://www.sportsnet.ca/650/canucks-central-at-noon/iain-macintyre-canucks-goaltending-situation-organizations-reluctance-spend/ Take this recording for example. This is chock full of speculation, which was that the "organization wasn't willing to spend" narrative. We NOW know that this was a total speculation crapfest. We have some extensions, plus new coaches, INCLUDING the keeping of Ian Clark. I think it was Iain Mac who speculated somewhere else that Ian Clark was on his way out? I actually refrained from speculating that maybe you knew the media and/or you worked with them in an earlier post, so it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you side with them. You are not actually practicing what you preach, unfortunately. How or why should the media be taken with a grain of salt (assuming we ONLY include the reputable ones), if you believe them to be reporting honestly? On the same coin, why wouldn't the media have an agenda when reporting? The two major papers are: The Vancouver Sun and The Province - both of which are owned by the same company.
  6. This is all fine and dandy, but you're the same guy that thinks we can know about something from hearing it. And you're also the same guy who thinks we should take everything with a grain of salt. This is a contradiction that you haven't resolved. It's kind of surprising that you are dodging questions. As for the media, you're also the guy who is taking into account a rumour floating around long enough might mean it has legs. You've also largely defended his the media has done things. Not a peep has been said from you about how and why Hughes name could get identified, despite your claim that the media has ethics.
  7. My jaw dropped and a chill flushed over me. This guy was gonna be good. He shut out Canada recently at the IIHF. Latvia lost a really good young talent.
  8. What insults are you seeing here? All that's going on is someone's opinions being challenged.
  9. Well, he'll just say we won't know until someone says it. Yet if they say it, we can't truly believe it. And if the media reports it enough times, there's probably a reason for it, according to him. It's just so funny.
  10. Just because it's a rumour doesn't mean it has legs. Assuming that it gets reported by a number of sources, yet there's a chance that they all heard it from the one source who told everyone about it, then you'd probably think it must be real - everyone's reporting it! Remember this? All because Gaborik bought a house... https://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/Gaborik-and-Hossa-Komisarek-Lightning-Matt-Barry-sits-w-Lombardi/1/21695 "It is looking more and more like Gaborik to Vancouver is a strong possibility. VERY strong. Also, there is word tonight that if Gaborik signs and the Sedins bolt, the Canucks could very much be in on Hossa" and then this rumour keeps coming back....
  11. If you get bad news, that's how you LOSE credibility. There's also a reason why some reporters are disregarded for being 'hacks'. Sekeres is firmly in that territory, especially with Hughes outright rejecting the story. Remember Eklund, the rumour reporter? He made up a ton of crap for many years. Finally, his credibility did him in, and I haven't seen an Eklund rumour float around on these boards in years. Wanna know why? Because he's not credible. He showed up on Sportsnet for about 100,000, and he absolutely MISSED all his reports. It was such a joke. There's also the thing about PJ Stock and how he fed Eklund fake rumours, which Eklund reported it as FACT. The point is, you're supposed to do your due diligence, especially since that is your job. As for 100 percent perfect, the media has to nail some stories right. Dhaliwal did hear about the Sedin thing before anyone else, but that was such a good story, so it doesn't matter so much if it gets leaked a little earlier. The so-called big story, like Hughes on IV, or Schmidt being traded, when are one of these suspiciously catchy stories going to be proven real? It's not up to us to prove the reporters wrong. It's up to the reporters to prove themselves right. Right now, that's not happening.
  12. I feel like I know what you are trying to say, but in saying it, you are contradicting yourself. So to 'know' something, for this context, is to hear it from a source, according to you. Yet you are ALSO choosing to pick which source to listen to. For example, If Benning says it, you suggested that maybe he's lying. This could be true, but then you say (and I'm paraphrasing here): "Well, there's a reason why the rumour keeps floating around" . Of course you said, "but not always", so what's the point in adding value to something that may or may not be true? Regarding the quote about media and being 'must be true': this is what I've been trying to highlight for you. Why are you putting more weight on the media reports? I can read between the lines that you ARE subscribing to the reports more so than what anyone else says. You've also defended the media for trying to report. And yet you have nothing to say about their lack of ethics on revealing Hughes name. True or not, that is the kind of crap that gets you no sources. You lose trust. Maybe that's why Sekeres did it. He was reaching and got his hand caught. This guy by itself is all the proof you need that the media doesn't have ethics, contrary to what you think. If you don't engage in the media, you don't have to play their games. So why is it necessary to clear the air? If they say something, "well, they might be lying". If they don't say something, you're probably wondering, "what do they have to hide?". Basically you've already made up your mind regardless of what they say or do. That is illogical and not evidence based.
  13. I have a serious problem with this post. How do you justify that Vancouver media has ethics when they reported something that a) was nobody's business, except the player involved b) NAMING the player (Sekeres did), only to have it blow back on him? Regardless of what you think about the Hughes/IV story, your point about Vancouver media having ethics is super weak. So you're suggesting that because, for example, they didn't report Virtanen's escapades in Vancouver (which were apparently well known), the media must have ethics? Vancouver's media is just another tabloid generator. Without any news, there's nothing to talk about. Nothing to talk about, no revenue. No revenue? People get laid off. It's simple economics. Ethics is a nice, neat concept, but it's abundantly clear that the media here has no qualms selling papers if it's got a big story. Hughes was one such example. Boeser was another.
  14. Are you sure? You put a lot of stock on this Schmidt rumour. What about the Hughes/IV story that was propagated for so long? So many reports of it, therefore it must be true. This is illogical of you to think this way.
  15. No, I didn't misunderstand what you said. What you've been saying is that a player or an agent should come out and shoot down the rumours, but there are numerous reasons why they don't do this. 1) Answering to the rumours would mean you are paying attention to the media - a player should not give off the impression that they "care". The media would eat you alive. 2) There's no need to answer the rumours. You are not accountable to the media. 3) Maybe you don't care if you get traded. Either way, answering the media will not do you any good. That's just the top of my head. There's next to no reason to answer to the media. I mean Boeser did shoot down rumours about being shopped, and talked about how it was distracting. So there's that. ...but waitttt, a rumour pushed out by the media is proven wrong by a player? Doesn't that go against your belief that a media's report must be true? I still can't figure out how you could come to this conclusion. If anything, the media makes up a lot of crap and you can't seem to figure this out.
  16. Why would he do this? You do realize that going public with trades often lowers the price that a GM could get, which in turn influences HIS decision not to trade you? That's a good way to stay on the team by publicly announcing your intentions to leave. You'd ONLY go the route of asking out if you're really fed up with the team. I highly doubt Schmidt feels the same way about Vancouver, as Eichel does about Buffalo. I respect your opinions, but you are completely out to lunch on this topic. I love the logic that you're running, that because no one addresses the trade rumour, therefore it must be true. PUHLEEZE. I'll make a rumour right now and see if Benning will answer it. A non-response must mean it's true . I heard that Hughes wants to go to New Jersey. That's why he is holding out on this deal. For someone as reasonable as you, I'm truly shocked at how illogical you're going about this.
  17. So you don't believe a GM because he might have an agenda, but you believe the media because they might be right? L-O-L. I'm sorry, but this gave me a big laugh. I can't believe you're totally serious about this post too. You're biased and you don't even realize it.
  18. How do you know he is not one of these people piggybacking off another? Unless you know Dhali personally, you (and I) cannot verify how he obtains his sources. Furthermore, you did not address how Dhaliwal had risen to prominence as a proven insider, and how he is 'not perfect' now, as you have claimed. Or are you giving Dhaliwal a free pass? There is a significant difference to how accurate he was initially as an emerging reporter, but he is clearly not that same guy anymore. It doesn't mean he doesn't have sources, far from it. But the Schmidt rumour, for example, is being passed around, despite Benning's claims that no one has asked for a trade. The media, including Dhaliwal, has interests in keeping a rumour, baseless or not, afloat.
  19. You're not wrong. The Schneider trade was regarded as being unnecessarily risky, especially given how the situation was handled very poorly by the Gillis management. They couldn't decide whether to trade Luongo (ultimately, it was hard to move the contract) and Schneider. Realistically, Gillis should've let go Luongo sooner, but perhaps the market wasn't there. Regardless, trading Schneider AFTER telling Luongo he'll be traded is poor GMing. The risky part about the Schneider thing was that he was a known entity that was traded for an unknown entity with known skating issues (Horvat). If Horvat did not work on his skating and elevate his game like he did, you can't imagine how much poorer this team would be. Ultimately, Gillis would not be around to see Horvat succeed. It was just too little too late. Gillis did do some good things, but I feel people tend to overlook (willingly) his flaws because we were one game away from a Stanley Cup.
  20. You don't know that. Would it be fair to say it's not white people taking down statues too? Or are we missing something here with these random guesses?
  21. Guess Trader Jim really can extract full value of his redundant players after all... I think Benning softened a little bit on his prices after that... this would make him a more palatable trading partner. maybe? I dunno.
  22. You do realize that from 7 years ago, you would've now had a 25 year old or younger player emerging under Benning (or any other GM)? Yes, Gillis left the pieces for someone else to fix. It's hard to talk about Benning's failures without also including Gillis. Had Gillis set up the team for success, like Burke and Nonis did, we could've maybe had a cup or two. Certainly we wouldn't have had an empty prospect pool.
  23. When you start missing after missing after missing... Then at what point does accountability come into play? When there's no news, journalists like him speculate based on stuff. And often that speculation gets confused as fact. I remember Dhaliwal's rise when he was that insider who actually announced news before they were news. He is a far cry from that version now. A journalist should have ethics, and a lot of journalists in this city have none, especially with the proven false "news" about Hughes on IV. Serekes supposedly reported it. It's not unfair to say that our media is no different than a tabloid magazine. Engineered stories sell papers and clicks.
  24. Our NCAA free agency hasn't been that great, aside from Tanev, and he's been on the job for about a decade, in actuality. I'm not sure if Stecher was found by this guy, but Tanev was for sure credited to him. There have been a ton of misses over the years. Remember when we kept saying "free prospects, they can't hurt"? They don't hurt, but you really have to start hitting on some of these otherwise having these players don't do anything.
  25. Regarding the report that @Squamfan linked, it was from 1996 and I have to commend his 'research' skills; the article had to be deliberately searched for because looking up the name and hockey in the search boxes do not produce the result. I am not condoning whatever Harvey did or didn't do. There was no evidence, and the man was allowed to carry on with his life. Accusations =/= conviction And conviction doesn't necessarily mean "he did it" either. We all know how imperfect the system is. In short, Squam tried really hard to dig up dirt on someone, but not necessarily in a positive way. His post, given his reputation here, is arguably consistent with a troll. I nominate this guy to be banned. He is not actually here to promote a genuine discussion at all, and serves only to antagonize Canuck fans. At no point have I ever witnessed him to post a message that suggests him to be a fan.
×
×
  • Create New...