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

Dazzle

Members
  • Content Count

    9,254
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by Dazzle

  1. 2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

    yes, most of the time. You have to realize "consensus" can mean +/- a couple of players for any spot. Just look at this years draft, consensus had us with a shot at McTavish but he went quite a bit higher, and we were not in the running for Clarke but he went at 8. But both were in everyone's top 10.

     

    Even the much whined about Juolevi-Tkachuk saga, they were not ranked that far apart in the top 10. 

     

    So getting this back around to OEL. I'm totally fine with using this years 9th to get OEL and Garland. Home run use of the 9th oa imo. Garland has a chance to be worth the 9th on his own for the next few years, and I really like what OEL has the potential to bring. Shedding that dead cap was nice too.

     

    I personally saw too much risk and not enough benefit in picking Guenther at 9th, vs the benefit of the OEL deal. 

     

     

    That's what I absolutely hate in these discussions. The same group of people out to 'prove' something are just blatantly ignoring this fact. Juolevi isn't a bad defenseman. He was just injured so much that he didn't turn out to be the best pick in hindsight.

     

    Of course, we COULDA drafted Sergachev or Chychrun, but there were enough question marks on them to make them be drafted later. Why else were they drafted well after Juolevi?

     

     

    • Thanks 1
    • Hydration 2
  2. 5 minutes ago, Timråfan said:

    Well, go back and check what I said back then you might realise something about logic :bigblush:

    "Logic" is out of reach for you. The guy blindly defending Dahlen, even accusing others of lying to save face, because you want to save Dahlen's face.:rolleyes:

     

    image.thumb.png.8f489c7ea6b209a99fd9c2df97bc1f4b.png

     

    A pair of writers for Sharks blog Fear the Fin, including Canucks writer Lachlan Irvine, caught up with Dahlen after his first game with the San Jose Barracuda. In that interview, however, Dahlen denied requesting a trade, which just raises further questions. Dahlen’s agent, J.P. Barry, confirmed that he did request a trade, so why did Dahlen deny it?

     

    https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/canucks-hockey/jonathan-dahlen-denies-demanding-trade-dials-in-on-development-2228145

     

    Different players and agents have their own reasons why they do things,” said Benning, suggesting he didn’t really know Dahlen’s specific reasons. That in itself is troubling, but then he continued.

     

    “I find young players now, sometimes they don’t want to pay their dues in development time, they just want to be given an NHL opportunity right off the start,” he said. “We just felt that there was some development left in his game before he’s ready to be given an NHL opportunity and we felt he wasn’t there yet and I guess that’s kind of where the discrepancy on what they thought and what we thought where he was happened.”

     

     

  3. Just now, Alflives said:

    To be honest I’d never heard of Schmidt before we got him.  Then, after I saw him play, and learned of his 20 game PED suspension, I thought he was a bad pick up.  Glad he’s gone and replaced by a really good player, who doesn’t need PEDs, to play well.  

    To be fair, Schmidt denied the use of PEDs, but he still got suspended anyway.

     

    https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/27687452/knights-schmidt-seeking-revision-ped-testing

     

    "No one in the world can say that they don't care that people think they're a cheater," Schmidt told ESPN after a Knights preseason game last week.

    "If I'm the last guy it ever happens to, I'm OK with that."

     

    It was also notable for the pushback it received from the Golden Knights, who emphatically stood by their player and signed him to a six-year contract extension, and from Schmidt himself, who released a detailed statement vehemently denying PED use. Among the memorable defenses: an expert testifying that the substance in Schmidt's system was at levels so minuscule that it was "the equivalent of a pinch of salt in an Olympic-sized swimming pool."

     

    Schmidt also had a decent season prior to the trade

     

  4. On 8/11/2021 at 5:13 PM, Smashian Kassian said:

    Was looking at some numbers, OEL's total career stats;

     

    - 23:26 average TOI

    - 0.50 PPG (41 pts)

     

    Pretty damn impressive for an entire career.

     

    Outside of Hughes I don't think we've had a 40 point caliber defenseman since Edler's peak in 2011-12, 10 year ago. Now we could have 2 defenseman at that level.

    And this is with a team that has this kind of record:

     

    image.png.52f64517a90f1a2ee9a70bfb4ffcc3e7.png

     

    I've forgotten just how good Phoenix was for two years, and the rest has largely been bad. Can you imagine missing the playoffs 7 seasons in a row? Or missing 8 playoffs in 9 seasons?

     

    Arizona has been Buffalo bad. In hindsight, Arizona REALISTICALLY should've started rebuilding after 2014-2015.

     

    But in that awful year.... a 23 year old OEL did this: A freaking defenseman had more points than anyone else.

     

     image.png.84422ac4e7c0ec0e7045b4d4ce835e5f.png

     

      

    • Thanks 2
  5. 2 hours ago, DeNiro said:

    I’ve been demanding a better class of sports media in Vancouver forever.

     

    All we get is Leafs castoffs who spin negative BS to stir up the fan base. So many people in this fan base form their opinion from these shows.

    Fully agreed.


    I'm fairly certain we have some media members posing as 'Canuck fans' that have nothing good to contribute to this team. *cough* Squamfan/combover, among many others.

  6. 1 minute ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

    I had jury duty a couple of years ago. A guy murdered his Mom for the inheritance. Crown had rock solid case. Yet the asshat defence lawyer instead of pleading guilty for 2nd degree murder. Pushed to trial. After on and off for a few weeks. Found guilty. I didn't know the Jury was allowed to recommend sentencing. I wanted to ask for the max, but I chose let the judge decide. He got 12 years no parole. What a waste of taxpayer dollars. Defence lawyer should have gone for a plea bargain. 

    The criminal didn't want to admit his crime, and that was likely the reason for it. What a weird choice for the defendant to make though. The lawyer must have tried to convince the guy to take the bargain, but he didn't budge.

    • Hydration 1
  7. 43 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

    Not at all. I get it though. You have no more runway for your argument so you go for the strawman excuse. I’ve seen you do it in other threads. 

    Who asked? And frankly who cares if you’re done here? Why not just leave? You seem to need to declare such unnecessary details quite a lot one here. It’s as if you think it matters. 

    And I believe you take yourself way too seriously on here to the point where you are routinely attempting to flaccidly dress down posters who disagree with you. Someone doesn’t agree with you, and somehow it’s them who lost their sense of reasoning. 

    And you seem to forget that you drew the correlation between the war on drugs (your words not mine) and the subject being brought up here. 
     

    You didn’t like what I said and so instead of just leaving it at that, you choose to throw our thinly veiled insults. Instead of staying on topic you attack the poster instead of their point. You’re disingenuous to say the least. Maybe eventually you’ll grow up and learn how to have an actual discussion.  

    No, I said the war on drugs is treating the symptom, but not fixing the problem. Likewise, punishing the criminals achieves the same result. What is your end goal? Discouraging further criminal behaviour on the basis of fear and "tough on crime" approach? Guess what? It's not working.

     

    Saying that I was comparing drug addicts with serial killers/rapists is clearly an example of a strawman argument. I NEVER said it. I didn't get a chance to explain at all.

    image.thumb.png.e6c59538c1fdd5364cd8d1e51703eb30.png

     

    I guess since you apparently had the great wisdom to know exactly what I was going to say, you said it for me. :rolleyes: What's the point in me continuing this discussion if it's just you talking and not listening/reading?

     

    Re-read my goddamn post again. I never said a damn thing about drug addicts or serial killers. You did, hence, strawman.

     

    5 hours ago, Dazzle said:

    You are free to hold this opinion. I respectfully disagree though. I don't feel this approach is helpful, except to spite the convicted. If they cared about 'consequences', maybe they wouldn't have done it, would they?

     

    IF the goal is to prevent crime, especially violent ones, we must seek to understand as best as possible why it happens. We don't have to empathize with them. Far from it. We are UNDERSTANDING the roots of crime.

     

    Do you realize we still do not fully understand why crimse happen? Instead, we are burying our heads in the sand about how we should 'punish' prisoners, but it has little to no effect on fixing society. There is no guarantee that future criminals aren't born.

    The approach to punish is like the war on drugs. You are only treating the symptom, not the disease.

    3 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

    Thanks for that.

    So if they didn't care about the consequences of their actions, why should society care about their rights? You seem to put the onus on society to maintain civility with individuals who don't hold any value in either that or human life itself.

    Yet the Justice system and society has done little to prevent these types of crimes. At all.

     

    How many serial killers have been thwarted before they committed their crimes? 

     

    Certainly helping to alleviate poverty helps to stem crimes like theft as the more opportunity an individual has, the less they need to take from others, unless they have a predilection towards lording power over others, or they're a kleptomaniac. But you can't lump theft and public nuisance in with murder and serial murder, even if it's convenient to do so for an argument.

     

    Yeah.

    Punishing a person who raped and murdered two girls is a good thing. It needs to happen, not to prevent more crime because a demented and dangerous individual will do what their going to do regardless of what anyone else thinks, and no one will be able to predetermine that without actual access to the person's thoughts. It needs to happen to remove the person from harming others again. 

     

    Fixing society? That's a tall order, and figuring out how to deal with violent criminals and serial killers won't really cure all of societies ills.

     

    Fascinating. It's almost as if there are constantly new ones being born with each generation. 

    How is a drug addict like a serial killer? One is seeking to numb pain and mainly causes themselves physical and emotional decay and distress, with their families also suffering pain from watching the person suffer. The other is a predatory act that is always subjecting other individuals to unspeakable horror and eventual and equally horrible death. 

     

    To correlate the two is a joke. 

    • Haha 1
  8. 1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

    Thanks for that.

    So if they didn't care about the consequences of their actions, why should society care about their rights? You seem to put the onus on society to maintain civility with individuals who don't hold any value in either that or human life itself.

    Yet the Justice system and society has done little to prevent these types of crimes. At all.

     

    How many serial killers have been thwarted before they committed their crimes? 

     

    Certainly helping to alleviate poverty helps to stem crimes like theft as the more opportunity an individual has, the less they need to take from others, unless they have a predilection towards lording power over others, or they're a kleptomaniac. But you can't lump theft and public nuisance in with murder and serial murder, even if it's convenient to do so for an argument.

     

    Yeah.

    Punishing a person who raped and murdered two girls is a good thing. It needs to happen, not to prevent more crime because a demented and dangerous individual will do what their going to do regardless of what anyone else thinks, and no one will be able to predetermine that without actual access to the person's thoughts. It needs to happen to remove the person from harming others again. 

     

    Fixing society? That's a tall order, and figuring out how to deal with violent criminals and serial killers won't really cure all of societies ills.

     

    Fascinating. It's almost as if there are constantly new ones being born with each generation. 

    How is a drug addict like a serial killer? One is seeking to numb pain and mainly causes themselves physical and emotional decay and distress, with their families also suffering pain from watching the person suffer. The other is a predatory act that is always subjecting other individuals to unspeakable horror and eventual and equally horrible death. 

     

    To correlate the two is a joke. 

    Did you seriously just strawman my post?

     

    Re-reads your comment. Yes, you did. I'm done here.

     

    Edit: I believe you have good intentions. I really do, but the bolded illustrates just how entrenched you are in your viewpoints, to the point you have lost your sense of reasoning.

    If you have to make up what the other person said (drug addiction was NOT mentioned at all), chances are, your position isn't all that solid.

    • Haha 1
  9. 7 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

    Yet monsters do get out and walk free amongst us. So that line gets pushed when they go free, just as it recedes when people like Milgard spend time in prison. And Milgard never murdered anyone, he was wrongly convicted. 

     

    You murder, you take away another's life. Their rights, their choices, their privacy, and everything else they've ever had or will ever have. That should forfeit any rights. 

    You are free to hold this opinion. I respectfully disagree though. I don't feel this approach is helpful, except to spite the convicted. If they cared about 'consequences', maybe they wouldn't have done it, would they?

     

    IF the goal is to prevent crime, especially violent ones, we must seek to understand as best as possible why it happens. We don't have to empathize with them. Far from it. We are UNDERSTANDING the roots of crime.

     

    Do you realize we still do not fully understand why crimse happen? Instead, we are burying our heads in the sand about how we should 'punish' prisoners, but it has little to no effect on fixing society. There is no guarantee that future criminals aren't born.

    The approach to punish is like the war on drugs. You are only treating the symptom, not the disease.

  10. 11 minutes ago, 4petesake said:


    I would argue that so far our parole boards are not being very intelligent about these cases. Nor are the courts when they hold a convicted individual’s rights as more sacred than the victim’s and their families. The convicted felon of course has rights but they should never supersede those of society. 

    That's not true at all.

     

    Being in jail and having the chance to redeem themselves (whether or not this is warranted) is not like having more rights than of the society. They did something wrong. They can get that chance - or not.

    There are no rights 'gained' from being a convicted felon. The loss of the victims may never be recompensated, but lowering the bar on rights is why prisoners may never get better, or if we throw the wrong person in, there are no checks and balances.

  11. 28 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

    Where was the "whole lot of grey" when Bernardo, Olsen, and Munro decided to take the lives of innocent people?

     

    The line is drawn when one person willingly takes the live of another person. It should stay there. You kill when not defending your own life, you lose all rights and your life becomes forfeit. 

    These people are sick. It sucks to say it, but they are sick. Maybe they are beyond help, but acknowledging that they are sick people (whether that is good or bad) is the first step. What do we do with these people, and how do we prevent more of these people from coming up? No, sterilizing the convicted doesn't stop a serial killer who is completely unknown to society.

    This is not me saying that what they did was right, nor am I saying that serial killers/rapists/criminalists should be coddled by the society. But there may very well be a lot of circumstances behind WHY they do things.

     

    In order to prevent crimes from happening, we have to seek to understand (as best as possible) why criminality happens. Unless we install thought crime software/surveillance, we have NO WAY of preventing crime unless we address the roots behind it. We can only reduce it.

     

     

    • Like 1
  12. 35 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

    Families of murder victims are whining? There's no reason for them to be involved in a murderer's parole hearing?

     

    These people have to live every day of their lives with the loss of their children. Their lives are consumed by it. They deserve to be involved to whatever degree they want to be involved, and these pieces of human excrement deserve no right to privacy. They lost that the moment they decided to take those lives. 

    And it's because of this context that they SHOULDN'T be involved in this process, for that would tamper how the process is handled. This should be handled by someone else was the whole point of what I said.

  13. Privacy should be maintained unless people waive it.

     

    Lawyers for the government argued the families weren’t pursuing public interest litigation but a personal pursuit: “Their personal motivation is to use the information sought to make statements to the parole board,” the government argued.

    McVeigh told the families to pay the government $4,000.

    “I was very surprised the government asked for costs — my clients have suffered enough,” Danson said.

    Even so, they will appeal the decision.

    “I think it’s going to end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.”

     

    I really have to agree with this. This isn't about 'justice'. This is about whining about a decision they don't like.

     

    Parole boards have oversight. If more is needed, then push for it and explain why. There's no reason for families to be involved in this process.

    • Vintage 1
  14. 46 minutes ago, CBH1926 said:

    Wars like the one in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam etc. can’t be won militarily because their is no clear goal.

    Democratization, containment, preventing the spread of etc. are just semantics.

    Liberation of Europe and defeat of Germany and Japan had end goals that could be achieved militarily.

    And yet, did any of these events really solve anything?

     

    Communism may appear dead, but Cuba's still around. China/North Korea pretend that they're communists, when they're closer to being totalitarian capitalistic countries.

     

    Can we actually save the world? I don't think so.

    • Hydration 1
  15. 9 minutes ago, Kurgom said:

    Do you speak to any Iraqi or Afghani people? Why do people always equate the wars when they were completely different and you'd know if you talk to people from each country. :)

     

    This reeks of white liberal with no actual knowledge taking a stupidly idealistic stance ignoring the history of the region and the mess the UK made. It's not "American propaganda" that the current regime falling will result in tragedy.

     

    Afghanistan isn't the middle east. It's in Central Asia. Get some basic &^@#ing understanding before grouping together two giant nations because "brown muslim people" holy $&!#.

     

    Hilarious. I didn't actually say the country is in the Middle East, if you actually read closely. Looks like you need to learn how to read, not just the American newspapers.

     

    The entirely Middle East crisis, including Afghanistan and all surrounding areas was largely aggravated by the Americans.

  16. 2 hours ago, Kurgom said:

    The US has been under pressure to leave Afghanistan for a decade now, for monetary reasons and humanitarian reasons. You can't blame this on one administration. This was the expected outcome without US intervention. People in Kabul had good lives, women could drive cars and had some independence, despite the pain and suffering caused by the war it did some good things. I hope everyone can get out, but Pakistan is the closest border and they'll probably send the people back to be slaughtered.

    George W. Bush?


    I have no idea who's the real owner of this throwaway account because this take from you is so utterly embarrassing. Truly American propaganda behind this.

    Fact: The Americans were "pressured" by the UN not to invade the Middle East. Guess what they did?

     

    Fact: Contrary to American propaganda, the Middle East was stable under dictators (not great lives, mind you), but stable. The actual presence of terrorists actually happened when US funded a bunch of rebels to help their cause. Guess what those guys turned into?

     

    History has shown that the Americans have continued to do damage with their world police act. Worst of all, these atrocities are paid up by the American population, and fooled into thinking they are doing the "right thing".

     

    The ones who profited are the arms manufacturers, and maybe some key military people, BUT not the soldiers.

    • Thanks 1
    • Hydration 3
    • Wat 1
  17. 5 hours ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

     

    I still have him pegged to come back next year and likely earn a spot in the bottom six as the Canucks look to flesh out cheaper options in the bottom six in a years time.

     

    Still a big Jasek believer.

    Jasek and Utunen are ours.

     

    It's awesome to see them together.

    • Hydration 1
×
×
  • Create New...