Dazzle
Members-
Posts
11,843 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Dazzle
-
The I Have Mixed Feelings About Travis Green ChoasThread 3000
Dazzle replied to BertaNuck's topic in Canucks Talk
NJ has a lot of young players, yet a lower ranked team has more energy than what Vancouver brings. Really sad. -
The I Have Mixed Feelings About Travis Green ChoasThread 3000
Dazzle replied to BertaNuck's topic in Canucks Talk
Take notes Green - a pivotal moment and a timeout is called. -
The I Have Mixed Feelings About Travis Green ChoasThread 3000
Dazzle replied to BertaNuck's topic in Canucks Talk
Green's system of dumping and chasing is so bleeding boring. I'm watching the Boston/NJ game and neither of these teams abuse the crap out of this "neanderthal" system (your favourite word). NJ reminds me a bit of Green's team, with the terrible defensive breakdowns. If you watch other teams, our systems are so boring and predictable. Is it overly simplistic? One thing for sure is that our style of play hasn't changed from season to season. -
Author of Captain Underpants Pulls (Racist) Book
Dazzle replied to -DLC-'s topic in Off-Topic General
I agree with what you said. Things that contribute to racism should be removed, whether that be about ethnic jokes or what not. Education is important. THAT BEING SAID... cancelling this is also not a guarantee that asian racism will go away. People hate them not because of what they saw in a book. They have longstanding grievances (misplaced as they might be) over a number of reasons - whether it be their presence, their alleged 'role' in the coronavirus, or them taking jobs. The reason doesn't actually matter. The hate will always be there. It's been well over 100 years since outward anti-Asian sentiment was expressed in North America in 1908, and the TikTok video I saw recently that showed a black man punching out an Asian guy over and over and over tells me that racism is here to stay for a while. -
Seven years without a clear plan from Canucks brass.
Dazzle replied to appleboy's topic in Canucks Talk
Exactly this. The path that COL took was pretty uninspiring for the most part. Rebuilding takes a lot of time and a lot of 'boring', meaningless games. One thing for certain is that you NEED drafting to sustain a team. Simply getting 1st overall every year (similar to what BUF/EDM) took isn't the answer. -
Calgary/Vancouver Evaluation - updated 3/29/21 - CAL TIED WITH VAN
Dazzle replied to Dazzle's topic in Canucks Talk
-
Lucic's hit was really bad. I'm surprised/not surprised that the NHL fumbled that call, much like they've fumbled other ones. The refereeing standards in the NHL are so embarrassingly bad because the wrong ref from center ice calls a penalty that the closer one doesn't call because he has a better line of sight. Or they both don't call it at all because they're blind. Having so many penalties called isn't an issue when there's an actual penalty happening. It's when you pull this inconsistent stunt that makes the NHL look like they're picking and choosing who's going on the powerplay. Get this &^@#ing thing straightened out next season, NHL.
-
Author of Captain Underpants Pulls (Racist) Book
Dazzle replied to -DLC-'s topic in Off-Topic General
I haven't followed the books, but really? Using kung fu as part of the plot is considered racist? What about kung fu panda which obviously doesn't take itself seriously? Edit: Saw the images of the problematic book. Yeah, it's not great in this political climate. The 'wong' thing has been used as a joke a lot. It's not very funny actually, so people who use it aren't being clever. It mocks the Chinese stereotype of speaking English. I think it's wise that he took these books back because this 'joke' was both potentially offensive and unfunny. -
Canucks have more NTC and NMC than any other NHL team
Dazzle replied to steviewonder20's topic in Canucks Talk
I think some people actually have normalized the state of the team that GIllis left behind (no prospects, no future), under the guise that the team was 'winning'. -
what did we gain by not re-signing any of Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli?
Dazzle replied to grouse747's topic in Canucks Talk
DiPietro is 21 years old. Are you serious dude? An NHL goalie should not be rushed. Demko did not see NHL time until recently. The fact that Dipietro saw time in one NHL game doesn't mean he should have been there, not should he blamed for letting in 8 goals from the number 1 NHL team at the time (Sharks). Your assessment of DiPietro is hilarious because it is based on very limited and skewed information. With time, he's going to be real good. -
what did we gain by not re-signing any of Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli?
Dazzle replied to grouse747's topic in Canucks Talk
Without going into specific details about the players you mentioned, it is true that we don't have these quality players on the bargain, aside from the players we drafted (like Hoglander). At best, we paid market price. That is a much more persuasive argument. I don't have an answer to that. I think you're right on that. I think part of this was the previous cheap player model (chasing reclamation projects). Yes, Bonino was decent, but not a high end center. They probably didn't have to trade him, especially after one season. I don't know if there was something that happened behind the scenes that caused this. I remember clendenning. He was a very proven AHL player with high offensive numbers. How can one be blamed for him not translating this into the NHL? I remember being excited about this acquisition. I will say that most of those other acquisitions ended up as a trade for pieces that we do have, namely Pearson. I'm not saying that Benning is a winner. Far from that, but I think it shows that players don't always work like it does in NHL20, and other related games. If you actually look around the league, players don't work out for lots of reasons. Coaching has been a huge question mark for me. Neither WD and TG (and their assistants) have shown they are willing to give younger players more of a shot. Rather, the players you mentioned, namely Pouliot and Baertschi were acquired due to coaching familiarity and favourites. Honestly, I don't know what happened with Baertschi and TG behind the scenes either for things to sour. Green is a big question mark as a coach. His assistants should not be extended, except maybe Higgins and Clark. -
what did we gain by not re-signing any of Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli?
Dazzle replied to grouse747's topic in Canucks Talk
Oh no, I fully agree with you. WD/Green has not been working. It's sad that Green's roster is so much more experienced than WD, and yet it feels like he's not getting the most out of this roster. -
what did we gain by not re-signing any of Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli?
Dazzle replied to grouse747's topic in Canucks Talk
Because the very same logic that you're using is being misused to fit an angle you're trying to push. Both of those players, Thornton and Spezza, are PROVEN players, yet they are older ones. Would they have actually signed with Vancouver? I doubt it. They chose their destinations for a reason - most likely because they are close to home. They are also aware of their age being a factor, so they presumably took the best offers that they received. Therefore, using the logic that they are 'cheap and unproven', is fallacious. The only thing correct you mentioned was cheap, but they are FAR from unproven. Just because some players work out being cheap doesn't mean that they would've worked on other teams. That is cherry picking logic. Look at Motte who was underutilized in CBJ, and went on to do better things with Vancouver. Funny how you don't mention this in your argument though... these projects don't always work out. We've seen this with Granlund. We've seen this with Vey (to an extent). Look at Kassian. He's a project as well, but has he really elevated beyond his draft picking? That's a no. Ok, so if you think having near 60 percent faceoffs is basically the same as 40 percent (you used the word inconsequential of a difference), I don't know what else to tell you. That is quite a laughable statement you made there. Faceoffs also aren't the only traits that Beagle brought to the table. He was widely used as a PKer as well. Funny how you've underrepresented statistics in order to push an argument. Do you see the theme with this? What Beagle does shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone. He's never been an offensive player. The only criticism that Benning should get is why he can't generate more offense from his bottom six, which is really difficult to do. Michael Chaput didn't do anything, even with his minutes that he was given. At least he was cheap though, right? Did you know that WD overplayed players like him that have led to a mediocre team? Some players just aren't that good, no matter how many minutes you play them. That was a big criticism of WD playing certain favourites (or maybe he didn't have a choice BUT to play them, because there weren't better options). Either way, your argument is incomplete and fallacious if you don't include evidence that doesn't support your perspective. Not to mention, having mediocre players take up minutes mean less development for players. WD didn't really develop that many young players, although he has somewhat helped Horvat. And you've just admitted - some players just don't work that well, no matter how cheap they are, namely Granlund. So I don't see how you can justify that a player being cheaper would be necessarily more effective than a player who was paid more (and has proven more). You're basically going around in a circle, chasing a tail that is in front of you. You've underrepresented the significance of statistics and experience, in favour of chasing this cheap player narrative that doesn't necessarily support your argument. The problem is, we've already tried the cheap/unproven player model. It doesn't work if your roster is not structured. I would also like to point out that any GM would've been under criticism no matter what he does. If he spends too much, like Benning has, people like you would point this angle out. If he spends too little (ala Ottawa), a bunch of people would've pounced on that too. There's no winning to this. The fans here are so reactionary. -
what did we gain by not re-signing any of Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli?
Dazzle replied to grouse747's topic in Canucks Talk
Let's assume that this will be the parameter set then on the definition of "reasonable". By your logic, you wouldn't have been able to say that Eriksson was an "unreasonable" signing. He's had multiple years of 30+ goals, so he was very much an established player. Furthermore, he was arguably the best signing of the three at the time (Lucic and James Neal being the other UFAs). Given the competition for these three players, 6M is pretty standard for a highly sought after UFA, particularly if there aren't other comparable players, outside of these three. Your logic that Beagle and Roussel can be replaced by 1 million players, thus unproven ones, has problems. If you lowball an established player, that player doesn't sign with you, simple as that. You can absolutely roll the dices with unproven players, but that in itself will open a new set of problems, namely, how do we know they can handle that position effectively? We have had a number of 'cheap' centres play for the Canucks, namely Granlund and Bonino. I don't think either of these have shown they were the answer for the Canucks, otherwise they would've kept them, yes? Here's the next question: when slotting in unproven players (ala the WD days of overplaying plugs), do fans here suddenly accuse Aquilini of being a cheap owner? Because that's what Ottawa seemed to have done. Where has it gotten them? Moreover, if you think faceoffs aren't important, why was there so much emphasis on having Malhotra around (who most people will agree was a valuable part of this team), as well as having so many faceoff winning centers in the roster? People seem to forget that we had a number of centres that weren't actually great at faceoffs (Granlund comes to mind). Once you lose those faceoffs, you lose possession most of the time. We've also seen a number of games where once a faceoff is lost, the puck goes to the point and it ends up in the back of the net. Faceoffs ARE important - there is little room to argue otherwise. You can't simply water down the importance of faceoffs like you did to try and make up a new point. There's no 'one way' to constructing a roster, and as we can see, there are many wrong ways to make one. Slotting in cheap, unproven players was what happened to teams under WD. We had a lot of 'cheap' players there, but did we go anywhere with them? NO. The team was obviously very interested to develop an environment that would be helpful for the new players, namely having the established players around to mentor from. This is the result of that experiment. -
what did we gain by not re-signing any of Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli?
Dazzle replied to grouse747's topic in Canucks Talk
This is a really subjective term, even though we think we know what the term means. What is reasonable? If someone underperforms on a 'reasonable' deal, would our understanding of the word change? Take for example Jay Beagle's deal. His contract isn't that bad, considering he arrived from Washington, right after winning a Stanley Cup. His contract is pretty reasonable, but for some reason, people expected him to score 20+ goals, which he has never done. However, he is a mainstay player, one who eats a lot of minutes and takes important faceoffs, while bringing leadership. Is he exciting? No. -
what did we gain by not re-signing any of Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli?
Dazzle replied to grouse747's topic in Canucks Talk
Some problems in your analysis that I wish to elaborate from the previous post I made. 1) Other teams' "rejects" - this is a label you have put in hindsight, and not something that indicates you knew anything about the player before the trade. Vey was absolutely a proven AHL player, therefore he wasn't a reject. If you recall, we lacked AHL/NHL (aka tweeners) in our roster, thanks to our terrible drafting/development before Benning. We also do not know what kind of impact the criminal proceedings have had in his professional life. Maybe he could've been a homerun. Given how Vey had played several seasons with the Canucks, producing at times, and not helping at others, at what point does the 2nd round become 'worth it'? Does Vey have to score 30 goals? Furthermore, all draft picks are gambles. You never know what you can get with a pick, but the scouting department can basically analyze what kind of player Vey is, since there is a sample. We can extend this point to other professional players like Eriksson and Baertschi. Without knowing what happened afterwards, your point couldn't possibly have existed. For all we know, Eriksson could have been a 50+ goal scorer with the Sedins, in an alternate world. 2) You claim "experience" as a fake way to analyze a player, but then you criticize players like Vey who had no proven experience in the NHL (prior to the Canucks). Why are you flipflopping? You aren't consistent on the very argument that you're trying to make. Does experience matter or not? If not, what is the price to pay for experience, and furthermore, how much would it actually cost to get it? You do not get proven players (I would say Holtby, Beagle, Pearson are proven players) for a lowball price. Holtby's price wasn't prohibitive, but his performance so far has been lackluster unfortunately. 3) Again, the point you've been making with this has been inconsistent. With regards to the Myers transaction, you are acknowledging he is doing well for his contract, but you are assuming (perhaps rightfully so) that he will decline. How is this any different than the Toffoli contract? Just because a player is doing well, it doesn't mean that his contract wouldn't become crap at the end of it. For all we know, as soon as we re-signed Toffoli, he could have ended up being a dud. (Pretty unlikely, but the risk is still there. Furthermore, injuries could play a factor, much like it did for Roussel). There's a lot of labelling from the benefit of hindsight. And yet, there are some inconsistencies in how you are defining parameters on who is a good player or not. If players worked out, would you say the deal was good then, even with a huge cap hit? If you look around the NHL, you'll see A LOT of missed draft picks, even though they might have been highly touted players. You'll also see a lot of players who have declined significantly from what they used to be (Eriksson). Then there's players like Eric Staal that people seem to sleep on, even though he's 36 years old and producing well above average of the players his age. -
what did we gain by not re-signing any of Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli?
Dazzle replied to grouse747's topic in Canucks Talk
I've expanded my original post from here. Please see the other post instead. -
what did we gain by not re-signing any of Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli?
Dazzle replied to grouse747's topic in Canucks Talk
Squamfan doesn't believe in evidence that argues against his perspective, which is to bash Benning at all costs. Honestly that is not low balling. Furthermore, do you not know how a negotiation works? It starts off low... and then the demands are hopefully met in the middle. -
what did we gain by not re-signing any of Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli?
Dazzle replied to grouse747's topic in Canucks Talk
I don't think this has already been mentioned, but Calgary sits exactly the same spot as we are, with only just a game in hand. Markstrom and Tanev wasn't that much of a loss in hindsight. -
@knucklehead91 Hey dude. It's pretty obvious that both of them have no grasp of statistics, so they rely on people who do. In other words, kanucks25 and silky are looking for confirmation biases to support their claims, which is nothing new. Both of them are notable Benning bashers and regularly ignore evidence that doesn't support their viewpoints.
-
Is he really a 'depth' piece? I get that he's 36 years old, but... These are outstanding numbers for being simply a depth piece. 2016-17 32 MIN NHL 82 28 37 65 17 34 23 4 1 8 24 12 1 211 13.3 361 1526 18:36 577 597 49.1 39 42 51 24 Selke-40 2017-18 33 MIN NHL 82 42 34 76 8 42 29 11 2 4 27 6 1 241 17.4 396 1461 17:49 571 544 51.2 49 42 48 26 Byng-49,Hart-17 2018-19 34 MIN NHL 81 22 30 52 -7 34 15 7 0 6 21 8 1 215 10.2 350 1468 18:08 642 615 51.1 28 41 49 39 Byng-49 2019-20 35 MIN NHL 66 19 28 47 -9 28 14 5 0 5 19 9 0 113 16.8 232 1131 17:08 495 504 49.5 22 24 25 46
-
How the hell does this ship make this kind of mistake?