Dazzle
-
Posts
11,843 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Dazzle
-
-
1 hour ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:
I might be mistaken but I think McCann was just a casualty of expansion rules with the Pens. It's kind of irrelevant that Benning traded him for dog manure to be honest. Unlike home run hit prospects like Hughes, most prospects need proper development. McCann like Forsling would've NEVER received that here under the Benning crew. Jet Woo is just one example of that if you follow his progression.
As I've said many times, amateur drafting is but one important skill. Player development is equally as important imho. Boeser is another example of that.
I think that's not exactly accurate. Woo was a solid pick at the time under Benning, who actually improved somewhat the next year. Is he a bluechip defenseman in the 2nd round? Nah, but it was a decent pick, given the other prospects that we missed under Gillis.
We also have Demko and Hoglander. We sure got our fair share of decent 2nd rounders. Woo has, by all accounts, taken more steps forward. Benning's influence is negligible because he's been in the AHL the entire time. It's kind of funny. If a prospect fails, it's on Benning. If the prospect succeeds, it's not Benning; it's the scouts. This is the type of hypocrisy and nonsense that I wanted to point out. We've already seen these 'excuses' in this thread alone.
Nobody has talked about Klimovich, a prospect that Benning personally scouted and picked with the 2nd round. We have to give credit where it's due. Benning's obviously a much better scouter than he is a GM. The pro scouting team he had let him down, evidently, so that may speak more about his ability to assess his own staff.
Juolevi was just poor management from Green. A complete waste of a prospect. Gadjovich and Lind also didn't do very well once they were in the NHL.
As for NHL development, if you look at the amount of prospects that came in, I blame that squarely on Green. He sucks at coaching/developing, imo. A coach that can't produce winning records anywhere, regardless of AHL or NHL, isn't coaching material. That was on Benning for staying with this dude.
- 1
-
Just now, canucklehead44 said:
GMs have very little to do with drafting. They have far too many other responsibilities. Scouting departments are massive. GMs can allocate budget and personnel but other than that outside of the top 10 they don't get involved. Benning did a good job promoting Brackett. But Gillis hired him. Delorme/Gradin have been around a long time. Benning also had much better drafts.
Benning for example threw his scouts under the bus for drafting McCann, and traded him away shortly for Gudbranson. "He can move the puck, and he kind of came into his own this year in Florida… He can make a good first pass, he has a really hard shot, he can hammer it from the back end,”. That is not at all what we saw from Gudbranson. Gillis said the team was taking Larkin in 2014 and then Benning pushed to take Virtanen instead.
Gradin, who has been money for us, finds Forsling and Benning trades him for Clendening who had serious skating issues.
Gillis had a lot of whiffs, and missed out on players like Kyle Palmieri, Brandon Saad, Marcus Johnasson, Boone Jenner, Tanner Pearson, Tyler Myers, and Brady Skjei but other than Jensen picked the BPA. The drafts kinda sucked.
Benning missed out on Larkin, Ehlers, Nylander, Fiala, Pastrnak, Tkachuk, Keller, Sergachev, Boldy - there was a tonne of legit talent taken soon after our draft choices. So the combination of better draft years, higher picks, and worse teams (easier for drafted players to get ice time) I think both regimes had pretty bad drafting because they were more or less, the same.
David Nonis was GM during our best draft year (2004) and our worst (2007). It is a bit of a crapshoot.Fans evaluate a GM like drafting is 50% or 1/3 of their value but it is more along the lines of 5%. I was much more concerned with losing Brackett and our drafting going downthill than losing Benning and hiring Rutherford (who has a bad track record himself).
One thing Allvin has done a fanstastic job at is acquiring good young players & prospects without giving up anything. His work restocking the cupboards has been incredible .
That's the thing though... McCann was not that mature. He was actually passed up by one additional team before flourishing with Seattle. McCann wasn't a bad pick, but he was not a great character pick (too immature).
We also drafted Virtanen (also immature)
Benning had some good moves (good draft picks for instance and promoting Brackett, as you said), but then would somehow shoot himself in the foot.
The UFA seasons have always been a disaster for Benning, which is weird because this management did a really solid job, despite starting off their tenure here with a big car crash.
-
1 minute ago, Alflives said:
Gillis won two Ptesident’s trophies, got his club two shots at the Cup and was voted by his peers as top GM.
Then we got Benning.
Gillis didn't win entirely due to his own doing. A lot of his core came from the predecessors. By the time Gillis got booted out, we had an empty prospect pool, prior to JB.
That should tell you a lot about Gillis' success in managing the team. Stop focussing on the playoff runs that he had. We all know he contributed. It's the aftermath that you keep ignoring.
-
7 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:
Given the fact we didn't make the playoffs 5/7 years Benning was in charge, you've named 9 draftees who have made the NHL - I would include Podkolzin in there. So after 7 years, you only have nine NHL-level players? Only seven if you take out Podkolzin/Hoglander, who are still not major leaguers.
He did a lot better than his predecessor in the drafting department, whether that was 1st round or the 6th. Still doesn't mean Benning was a great GM in hindsight. We just have to call a spade when it's a spade. Gillis was awful at drafting, regardless if he had a 1st round pick or not. You can't use the excuse that he tried to win to excuse the poor drafting.
Gillis and JB probably would've been a decent combination together because they each lacked respective skills to be a good GM. Gillis would've been awful for a rebuild, period. JB was definitely a much better drafter.
-
13 hours ago, AnthonyG said:
Lmao how many job offers did the almight Gillass get?
Its the stupidity and ignorance of you “fans” that baffles me. Praising a guy who ran a team into the ground in under 5 years and did nothing for the future, then sh*tting all over the next guy who has to pick up the pieces and start all over with nothing of significant value outside of Kesler who held the keys to his own destination. All those NMC and NTCs sure must have been easy to work around, especially aged out declining guys who have very little left in the tank hence all the early retirements. Yea blame the guy who made playoffs twice, survived the flat cap and only lost a dman whos been injured most of the time, a goalie who appears to clearly be overrated and toffoli. Woopty f***ing-doo. All guys headed down hill and would have done nothing to help our cause. Clearly they couldnt do it in Calgary, I highly doubt they would have done any different here.
See, that's the thing about this fanbase... they just keep going back to this Benning period, over and over. All the while ignoring (over and over Gillis' mistakes, particularly drafting. The guy only grabbed two players in the first round, and busted the rest of them, except Hutton. That's awful for 6 years of work.
This fanbase is absolutely stuck in the past with almost no ability to see things in the present or in the future.
- 1
-
5 hours ago, Crabcakes said:
You're right, he could have defined the boundaries of his talk because they are pretty strict. The boundaries are limited to what the Reform of Section 5 dealt with. Insults alone. Not hate speech or racist speech. And I assume that the audience would have known this in 2012 UK. Most people don't have issues with most insults and people shouldn't be arrested for them. Section 5 was a poor law.
I understand that the part of the issue that you are more concerned about is hate and racist speech and Atkinson didn't even go there. But this is where all the real problems occur.
I did a search and that in 2013 that they removed the word "insulting" from this section 5, so it's no longer there. So the campaign worked for that.
Still, insults can be racist. I don't know if the law was written poorly, or if it's covered under a different section - I don't know UK law at all.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5
- 1
-
10 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:
I agree.........
I mean, if a person wants to say...........all politicians are idiots...........I am fine with that, but if he says all white politicians are idiots, that is racist
To me, there is a caveat..........
It seems to me, when a dark skinned person says he is dark skinned, that is racist, as it differentiates his skin color from someone else......as I suggest in my speech, skin color is only the covering.........the blood is the same color. The same can be said for every other color of the rainbow. we need to stop, Identifying ourselves by color, we all do it, and it is wrong.
B ut as to your statement.............lines and boundaries, need to be established...........which like I said earlier......they already have been......we just have forgot decentcy, and what is right and what is wrong.
You simply can not just say what you think or feel. It is not a god given right. There are boundaries, but unfortunately, some parents have stopped teaching them, and there are no consequences, and then it esculates more and more, until we simply forget what they were..............to me that is the sad part!
I mean, look at the Evangelists down in the states......they used to be god fearing, and now they are self serving.......along way from where they started. It all connects!
Fully agreed with this and the rest of your post as well. It doesn't matter if someone is white or black; once you start targetting their skin colour, or religion, or sexual orientation, it becomes hateful rhetoric.
I do believe that a lot of people will understand the boundaries of what a joke is, but there are still others who do not. Some people make sexual jokes thinking that it's funny, but it would be harassment or just plain inappropriate.
- 1
-
11 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:
This is what I was getting at in my speech.........it is not....I repeat "NOT" about if one person is offended, but rather, does society think one should be offended. Sorry, but for those that find everything insulting.....not everything is! Sometimes it is the god darn truth!
Under no circumstances should police be involved, except in the cases where a person feels threatened. Rowan doesn't establish the boundaries of where free speech is. He only talks about the dangers of censorship and the removed 'right' to insult someone.
However, there is a huge missed opportunity to talk about hate speech which is targeting a person's race/religion/gender/sexual orientation etc etc, and how it should not be included in this so-called freedom of speech. He has actually made it more ambiguous about what an insult is. Does it include hateful speech? Because it sure sounds like it.
If someone says this black politician is a giant monkey, that is both an insult and probably a racist comment. Rowan SHOULD have drawn the line on this. I get that he wants society to be able to insult politicians without fear of government reprisal, but we all understand that everyone is going to be different. We cannot leave stuff like this open to interpretation.
- 1
-
15 hours ago, Crabcakes said:
I've read on in the thread and have discovered that our opinions on the matter are not that different.
This video is from 2012 when in the UK, there was a Reform Section 5 campaign which, as it was written, allowed the police to arrest people for using insulting language which amounted to censorship. The campaign was about removing one word from the law, "insulting". It is not about racist language or hate speech at all. As a fan of Rowan Atkinson he is a master of the insult which is why he used his high profile as a celebrity to speak out on this matter. Atkinson prefers dialogue rather than censorship to deal with the matter and having the police arrest people is authoritarian and controlling. He goes on to say that dialogue is more useful at maintaining acceptable social norms than the heavy hand of the law.
I am in general agreement with Atkinson as far as he goes, but he doesn't discuss more extreme cases of hate speech. I can only assume, since he only wants to allow "insults", that he is in favour of allowing the arrest of people engaging in hate speech.
So when you criticize this video, and say he missed the mark, I think that maybe you hadn't seen the whole video at that point.
See, that's the thing, I did watch the video. These are my takeaways from that video:
He quickly pointed out the dangers of censorship from the government that he himself would largely be immune to, given his public profile.
He said there's a lot of interpretation to what "insulting" means, which I agree with him entirely. His examples included some incidents involving a horse being called gay, among other ridiculous situations, all of which I agree are ridiculous.
The problem is that he doesn't distinguish hate speech and its effects on people. He has emphasized that an insult should be allowed (I have no issues with this), but he goes on to talk about "intolerance" and how it's trying to be controlled. THIS is the section where he gets himself into trouble, in my opinion. Just as the logic is that "insulting" is too broad of a category to describe something, racist/hateful language is definitely offensive and insulting (depending on what is said), but Rowan talks NOTHING about this.
He makes some good points about "free speech" and mentions that we should take responsibility for what we say. Sure, that's a great message, but in this video specifically, the people who use racist language will not care about that so-called responsibility. I'm not saying the law should intervene either. It's worth noting that his speech which was originally intended for 'mild' insults is open to interpretation, just as his claim that "insult" is too broad. What is mild to one person may not be mild to another.
When you think deeper as to how he expressed himself, there are more problems than there are solutions to his talk here. So let's just say someone said something racist, which another person took offense to. The first person could easily claim "it's just a joke bro". In my opinion, that situation is absolutely garbage and we don't want to see that. Rowan should've defined the boundaries on what constitutes free speech, but he didn't. Are we to assume that racist language should be allowed? The fact that he was silent on that front is crappy.
- 1
- 1
-
17 minutes ago, J.I.A.H.N said:
I think this whole issue is really about the mis-understanding of our charter of Canadian rights and freedoms..........
They are not rights and freedoms! They never were. They are privileges , which if not followed to the letter of the law, can be taken away from you.
Well, who makes these Laws? Well society does in general. It is the masses who write the laws, by way of our elections and our Judicial system
This is IMO, where it has eroded, and where we need a re-boot! Not to change them, but get back on the straight in narrow, sort of speak.
We the people have to get our politicians back in line doing our work.......... not the fringe right, or the fringe left, but the middle, who ever they/we are
It really comes down to rights and wrongs.........
- You can not have a fringe element (Freedom fighters) blocking streets
- You can not have homeless shooting up in our parks
- You can not have Companies not putting in safety/environmental or financial safe guards in place when operating in Canada
- You can not pick on/alienate/bully anyone regardless of color, age, sexual preference, or beliefs
It is not to say, we do not listen, it is not to say, we do not help, but it is to say there are rules, which everyone has to abide by. We do not need to be Liberal or conservative, we need to be just: conforming to the standard of correctness
It should apply to every and all Canadians regardless if they are the Prime Minister or they are the homeless
I know it sounds like a speech, but we need a correction, before it is too late! We need to stop dividing ourselves.....one people indivisible by God(s), and etched in law!
I could feel you were inspired by George Carlin for most of this.
-
18 hours ago, StrayDog said:
To be fair though, have you ever tried to throw a glass house at stones?
On a more topical note, it seems people fail to understand what can constitute hate speech. Calling (for example) a black man a n****r in an aggressive tone is no different than taking a swing at him. You are deliberately being antagonistic, and have gone beyond being insulting.
I re-read your post and your other posts. I don't know if it's 'assault', per se, but I can understand if someone would feel threatened by it. (I'm not black and I cannot presume to know what I'd feel in that context)
It's crazy to me that there are posters in here that agree with Rowan who talk about enabling the racist talk to flourish openly because it is "free speech", all the while claiming that the lack of this said free speech would be terrible for society. It's a ridiculous position to take.
- 1
-
22 minutes ago, The Lock said:
I think part of the problem is the notion that "free speech" is supposed to be about there being "no fear of retaliation". If we are to look at being critical of others as being potentially retaliatory, suddenly that whole notion falls flat on its face.
If 1 person says something that offends a 2nd person and the 2nd person becomes critical about it and an argument ensues. They're both enacting their free speech; yet, there's retaliatory action taking place and suddenly we're at an impass on what free speech even is.
Yes, you're absolutely right. It's a shame that in one of the most educated parts of the world, the very principle that we take for granted - free speech - is misunderstood by people who clearly have no intention of educating themselves on the matter.
I'd like to add that some people lack critical thinking skills. By that, I am referring to the fact that those people readily agree with a celebrity figure without questioning him in any way. When his arguments are challenged, those people can't form a defense to those criticisms. That should make you question whether or not his arguments are any good. Personally, I think Rowan is wrong with his approach, which I explained above.
Being unable to use racist or hateful language is not censorship. People can still say it. It's not like it is banned from use. However, don't expect not to have consequences, whether that is angry confrontation from others (again, not condoning violence), or consequences when an employer finds out. Freedom of speech means that you can criticize government, whether that is the one in power or not, without being jailed or arrested, so long as you are not inciting violence on any one person.
- 1
-
1 hour ago, bishopshodan said:
Hate speech might be the wrong term but...
Why is it an insult? why is calling someone a sister an insult? because they are physically weaker 'certain group 'of people?
Sorry havn't had enough coffee this morn and I am interested in this convo.
Edit: just to follow up on my thought process...
"Media coverage has always been problematic with the twins. That “sisters” line, as horribly misogynistic.."
Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women. It is a form of sexism that is used to keep women at a lower social status than men, thus maintaining the social roles of patriarchy.
It still isn't hate speech, per se, because hate speech is reserved for a general group of people (i.e. ethnic/religious group). The Twins are people, but they are not a GROUP of people. At the bare minimum, calling the Sedins "sisters" is worthy of that person being criticized for using misogynistic and sexist language, but it's still not hate speech. Now if you were to say that the Swedish people are <insult remark> then that could qualify as hate speech. When someone incites violence on a group, there should not be any doubt that it is hate speech.
Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences. Abusing that freedom of speech to express hateful language should get some people in trouble, whether that is a physical confrontation from someone else (I'm not condoning vigilante justice), or employer consequence. Inciting violence on someone is never ok under free speech.
- 1
- 1
-
17 minutes ago, The Lock said:
Anyway my thought on this stuff is this. If we are to go with what "free speech" is supposed to mean. Full disclaimer, I can't say I watched the whole video.
1. Everyone has the right to be critical of everything.
2. Everyone also has the right to be offended by anything.
3. Everyone also has the right to be offended by people who are offended.
4. Everyone also has the right to be offended by the people who are offended at the people who are offended.
Might seem silly what I just stated, but my point is that it's a double-edged sword and it's easy to forget that there's more to free speech than just making simple statements.
Is someone allowed to say racist things? Yes.
Are people allowed to cancel the person who said that racist thing; thus, creating a consequence for that person's action? Also yes.
Complaining about people being cancelled, you are using your free speech. The people who are trying to cancel are also using free speech.
Some people just want things both ways. Not to be criticized because they are just "exercising their opinion to free speech", all the while being a douchebag (racist or otherwise) while hiding under the guise of said free speech.
It makes one wonder whether the ones who truly have fragile skin are the ones who talk about racist language being acceptable. They are the ones who want to throw rocks at glass houses, but not the other way around.
- 2
-
4 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:
Sorry but my mind is now spinning to some obvious resrictions of freedoms and accepted usages of hate speech.
We are on a site that views a women's reproductive right as a political issue...so was cant talk about it.
We support a team that had its legendary twins referred to sisters by some for years. This is one of the accepted hate speeches I talk of. If someone is insulting you and wanting to call you weak. They call you a b*tch or a p*ssy, you punch/throw 'like a girl'.
My mum is the toughest human I have ever known.
We have so far to still go.
No, the Twins being called "sisters" is not hate speech. Jesus Christ. This is an insult as Rowan talks about. However, the disagreement is on the extent of free speech. I do not believe we should allow hate as part of free speech. Hate will likely breed violence. This is not a logical fallacy.
Hate speech is saying that a <certain group of people> are subhuman.
- 1
- 2
-
22 minutes ago, Bissurnette said:
It aligns with common sense and logic.
Pretty arrogant of you to think that. Then again, I don't think you are even thinking about anything else except your own little bubble.
It's ok to have an opinion. However, don't expect that opinion to not be challenged. There are problems with his position, but once again, there is a lot of deflection to the criticisms rather than any real answers to them.
"Common sense and logic" is a weak defense, which is nothing more than saying God told me the answer. Logic requires you to support your evidence. You have shown no shred of that here.
- 2
-
1 minute ago, Bissurnette said:
Incredibly well said.
You mean it aligns with what you think, right?
- 1
-
58 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:
His position is NOT bad. Are you missing the point of the speech? He is arguing against a law that allows censorship. It is far more dangerous to restrict freedom of expression than for people to hear offensive language. We really don't need to muzzle hate speech because people on the whole are intelligent enough to recognize racist language when they hear it and will speak out against it. I for one, have no desire to live in a police state where I need to fear offending someone.
We all understand censorship to be shutting down opinions that contradict a government's position. It is dangerous to allow censorship because it results in a one-way narrative (i.e. propaganda). However, this definition appears to ignore some elements, such as deliberate misinformation, especially when someone talks about COVID cures that have no scientific basis. Many websites (social media apps) have the ability to report that.
People say this is "censorship", but that is a very broad interpretation of that.Being unable to use racist language is not censorship, buddy. What a crock position to take lol.
- 1
- 1
-
1 minute ago, Jam126 said:
Quite a few authoritarians in this thread.
Who?
- 1
-
1 hour ago, VancouverHabitant said:
What's racist though? I'm sure that you have a very easy and straight forward example in your head, but you can make anything out to be racist. Talking about food, the way someone dresses, etc, etc.
The point is to let people say what they need to say and then deal with it with more dialogue. You're perfectly fine to tell them to F off or tell them they're racist for saying something you think is such.
People are being criminalized for words, and it's spreading pretty quickly around the world. It's not a good thing at all. We are trying to prevent people from being offended?
I addressed this already, which you conveniently ignored. If you think my point was that you can "make anything out to be racist", that is an example of a strawman argument.
Racist language is what he would call "free speech". He said that we should have more of this so that we could criticize it when it happens. The problem is that he's only talking about theoretical. He doesn't talk about how other people would FEEL about racist language. There's a reason why you don't get arrested for saying racist words - and you shouldn't - but if you threaten someone with it, it's no longer free speech.
Free speech is severely misunderstood by you and by others. I highly suggest you learn what it is and its limitations. The scary part is that you think free speech is the ability to say whatever you want.
- 1
- 1
- 1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
17 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:I haven't seen anyone summarize so well what has been happening with the public discourse in the last 10 years, and what has really accelerated at a breakneck pace in the last 3 years.
I believe he spent some time deliberating how he should put these ideas into words; however, he missed the mark on some things.
Free speech does NOT mean racist language is acceptable. Racist rhetoric could potentially encourage violence and that is absolutely not acceptable. I seriously hate to use the word privilege, but he is out of touch because he is not one of the non-whites affected by racism.Racist language, by itself, should not be tolerated by society. There is no benefit to bringing about racist language in a daily life. He might think this is a form of 'censorship', but that is absolutely a ludicrous position to take.
As for arresting someone for using racist language, that is obviously not justifiable, but arresting someone for foul language is not the same as intimidating someone with racist language.
Rowan Atkinson is an intelligent person, objectively speaking, but his position here is quite bad. Yes, he has the right to express himself, as he did here, but I thoroughly disagree with his lines of reasoning.
- 1
- 4
- 4
-
There it is - that extension.
- 1
-
Idk... the Hronek trade just seemed like a desperation trade. They could've signed some players for free without giving up draft picks.
The jury is still out on Hronek, but this management has been suspect with cap management, even if they are good at evaluating pro players. Certainly much better than Benning.
-
6 hours ago, JamesB said:
It was a terrible trade. But Benning's worst? That bar is way too high (or too low, depending on your point of view). What about the OEL trade--certainly the NHL's worst trade of the year when it happened and one of the worst in team history..
And I hated the Sutter-Bonino trade with Pittsburgh -- not so much for the exchange of players but Canucks also traded away a second round pick and Clendening (the guy they traded away Forsling for). But the worst part was that Sutter had only a year left on his contract and Benning promptly re-signed the "foundational" Sutter long term at a cap hit that was much too high. (Bonino turned around and was a critical component in two Cups for Pittsburgh.) To me, this trade encapsulated a lot of what was wrong with Benning.
I think you overstated Bonino's importance. Bonino was traded away after one season and he played pretty average to the rest of his career. We don't know why he was traded after one season. Perhaps he asked to be traded.
15 goals and 24 assists for 39 points was not bad at all during Vancouver. However, after the trade, he produced at about the same rate in Pittsburgh. In fact, he is/was a 40 point player (and never exceeded that number again).
The trade was/is a wash for both sides in hindsight. Bonino's playoff numbers during one season give Pittsburgh an edge. On the other hand, the Forsling trade hurt the Canucks in more ways than one. We NEEDED an offensive D man like him. He also tended to score a lot with the Canucks around. And now, we see him skating in the finals.
The Canucks did not sink because of Bonino and/or Sutter.
Jim Bennings legacy without the OEL trade. Grade him out of 10.
in Canucks Talk
Posted
Sure we can. OJ scores his first NHL goal. Guess what happens next? He's benched.
This is the type of Green nonsense that has been holding back our prospects. Tell me, name one prospect on Green's lineups aside from Pettersson and Hughes, that was successfully developed under this guy.
This is on Benning as much as it is on Green. Green is a lousy coach.