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

Dazzle

Members
  • Posts

    9,311
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Dazzle

  1. Yeah, unfortunately. Those who stick with a party are prone to downplay the inadequacies and/or contradictions of the party. Trudeau won very handily against Harper, and while he has done some good things, he has had several very public missteps. Canada probably mishandled the Meng case too in hindsight, even though she's probably associated with some corrupt businessmen/transactions. She's not innocent, that's for sure. And we can see from how China kidnapped two Canadian people with false charges with no due process, they were dirty and resorted to dirty tactics to maintain their cover. I think Trudeau's in a position that nobody wants to be in. He has to appease China for Michael, but at the same time, calling China out for genocides is not only hypocritical, but counterproductive to retrieving those two Michaels.
  2. I think his opinion is beyond stupid. @Wayne Glensky If you hate it under Trudeau so much, go live somewhere else. Of course, this is in no way saying that your different opinion isn't welcome here. My true point I am trying to make is: you have no idea how good you have it here if you think Trudeau is anywhere near Putin. Go check out the Latin American countries like Honduras or Mexico, then we talk.
  3. I would have zero issues letting them in. Canada needs to be a leader as a human rights country. That being said, there will surely be objections (some of them rightfully so) about what we'll do with these refugees, and what about the indigenous people, as well as other marginalized people?
  4. Because genocide is always brought up whenever it's convenient, and not used when it isn't. Example: US/SaudiArabia on Yemen. At what point does genocide mean anything? It seems to be used whenever you want to cast outrage at a particular group. Genocide can also be used to name anything and everything under the sun. Where are we drawing the lines on what is genocide and what isn't genocide? According to the UN standards, Yemenis are being targeted/treated in the same way as Ugihurs. After doing some research: there isn't mass sterilization, yet there are mass rapes/murders on civilians. I'm sure Yemeni rebels probably engaged in crimes against humanity too. Perhaps my position should be revised to: yes, genocide is happening. Now what? What is the difference with what's happening with Yemenis vs Ugihurs?
  5. The UN says a lot of things. There are human rights things going on around the world. Genocide, I feel, is going to be overused word for anything going on with human rights violations. The Armenians suffered genocide, for example. Yet that in itself is not recognized by Turkey for various reasons. Calling everything a genocide will distort the significance of the word. But like I said in a previous post, China is heading in that direction. It should be noted that the Trump administration called it a genocide already. Politically convenient to do so. Yet nothing was said about Saudi Arabia/Yemen. In fact, Trump supports Saudi Arabia. My point being is that genocide is often used as a catch all word. The fact that Trump did not denounce UAE for genocide shows how it is used as a political tool, rather than accurately labelling a situation. This is what we're seeing here in Canada. Political posturing.
  6. It's just intellectually dishonest to make any comparisons of that extreme. Trudeau didn't (or hasn't) tried to kill his political opponent(s) through his government agents. Trudeau's also not living in a 1.5 billion dollar estate while political and social freedoms are under crackdown. Harper's actually silenced climate scientists - but even then he didn't try to murder people. That's why these comparisons of Canadian politicians to Putin are just inappropriate. It's hilarious that people use terms like fascism/communism on politicians they don't like. Yet the usage of these terms are rarely correctly used. Life in Canada thankfully is not Russia. Putin is on a whole different spectrum.
  7. I'm glad we all can agree on China (the government) being an enemy, despite any political differences all of us as CDC users, may have. I'm honestly disappointed that Trudeau didn't take a harder stance on the Uighur issue(s). But he also has to worry about the two Michaels that are held in captivity. It's been years now.
  8. I think we know where your bias lies here. I'm not trying to defend Trudeau on this one. I think he should absolutely take a stance against China. That being said, it seems like he's Harper 2.0 on China.
  9. I don't think using the word 'genocide' is helpful or entirely accurate. What China is doing to Uighurs is not exactly genocide by the very definitions of the word, but definitely violations of human rights. They're not the same thing. China absolutely needs to be held accountable though. There are lots of reports of mass rapes and other unspeakable things going on in their concentration camps.
  10. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/18/clues-to-scale-of-xinjiang-labour-operation-emerge-as-china-defends-camps "Since 2014" https://thenarwhal.ca/harper-government-ratifies-controversial-canada-china-foreign-investment-deal/ https://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/conservatives-spike-facebook-comments-critical-of-china-deal "The deal with China has caused some internal dissent within the party, with some arguing it is unbalanced and concedes too much to the Asian superpower. The agreement was ratified by the Conservative government last week, with little fanfare. “You sold us out to China, you will be remembered by Canadians and this treaty if passed will come up at every federal election for the next 30 years, you have made us a serfdom, time for the Cons to retire,” wrote Facebook user Paula Moffatt, before administrators deleted her remarks from a page with a photo of the prime minister." Seems like whatever issues against the China deal were scrubbed by the Harper government. It's not at all a stretch to imagine Harper would not condemn the genocide because of this deal that he had worked so hard on since 2012.
  11. I just think that with anything, there is always a risk. For example, Miller has not been the same this year. He seems like he has regressed a little bit and we start to see his flaws as a player, particularly with regards to his defensive awareness. So just because Toffoli did well last year doesn't necessarily mean he would perform at that same standard after the contract. If he falters with that new contract, you can bet the same people ragging on Benning for signing Eriksson will say that Benning erred in signing Toffoli. In summary, it seems the criticism on Benning will always exist regardless of what he does. Even the trade for Miller was heavily criticized, yet those people who complained have since been silenced after Miller's performance last season.
  12. I understand there are political differences, but the two are not at all comparable. Talk about being overdramatic.
  13. When I mean overstated, I am talking about how it has been talked to death. 6 million, while not chump change, is a little less than 1/10th of the salary cap of 82 something million - meaning there was room to make one mistake like this. I understand why Eriksson was signed - and I, too, thought he would be a good signing for the Sedins, given their history together. I think there were other signings (Sutter/Roussel/Beagle) that were a bigger reason for why they handcuffed Benning into the spot he's in now. Furthermore, it's not like Eriksson's the worst contract of the three total UFAS that were signed either (James Neal and Milan Lucic were EQUALLY as bad). Whereas the Sutter/Roussell/Beagle were signings that Benning could have done better (in hindsight). I don't think that it was a mistake not to re-sign Toffoli, although as of right now, it looks really bad considering how many goals he's scored on Vancouver. Yet the contract could potentially be an anchor for Montreal down the road. There was no guarantee that Toffoli would have produced like he did during his short run here as well. Hypothetically, he could have taken a step backward after signing the contract. No one will know for sure. Also, the same complaints that fans made about signing big fish UFAs like Eriksson are harping on Benning for not signing a big fish UFA...Super contradictory. Lol.
  14. This is it. While the genocide is an important issue, it seems interesting that this would be brought to light now (and not during the Conservatives rule). I am not familiar with the genocide itself, but I highly doubt that this was a recent thing. The way China has treat Tibetans was already grounds for suspicion.
  15. I've always said that Baumer's defensive systems are questionable. Schmidt was top pairing for LV. He comes over to Vancouver and he suffers. Why? Deployment.
  16. Your denial of the situation is on par with most of the fans and FA. Most people didn't want Sedins to go/fade away, even though it was inevitable and unavoidable. They did decline as years passed by. You can attribute this decline through their points. But they were STILL the Canucks best option. My post makes perfect sense.
  17. And what happened after that season? Everyone knows the sedins were on their way out, yet Gillis didn't leave a plan. As you've admitted, it was a win now mode. But it came at a huge cost. That cost is still trying to be paid off even now. That is the legacy of Gillis.
  18. I don't think this is a particularly new idea, yet I feel this approach would cost too much for the Canucks. 1) Eriksson is likely going to be bought out next year. Why trade prospects/picks to 'get rid of him'? 2) Making a deal with Seattle to take Myers is going to cost the Canucks something. This puts the Canucks in a poor trading position. You have to trade something to get something. Lots of people were outraged that Tyler Toffoli cost Tyler Madden and a pick at the time. More people were outraged that Toffoli didn't return. On the other hand, if we had signed Toffoli, there was no guarantee that he was necessarily going to keep producing like he did/was, even if we were fairly certain beforehand. Look at Markstrom/Tanev. Despite paying so much for UFAs, did CAL really improve that much? No, the standings suggest otherwise. But in no way am I blaming Calgary's season on Markstrom/Tanev. All I'm saying is that we have to be careful about our trades and signings. I still think not signing Markstrom/Tanev (long term) were the correct decisions, especially with the expansion draft looming. Toffoli could have easily been another 5 million dollar mistake. Just saying.
  19. So what are some things that Benning did or didn't do that make you believe he should be fired? What are some things that Benning did do well in? You have to include both things if the discussion is to be balanced and analytical.
  20. I think the 6 million dollar contract for Eriksson has been overstated. The Canucks didn't entirely get punished by that ONE contract. However, there is something to be said about the other bottom 6 forwards - that they may have been paid too much for their production. I think it's valid to mention it. That being said, the very same people criticizing the construction of Benning's rosters have avoided crediting the prospect development that he brought about which has been huge for this team. Without it, perhaps those above signings would have gotten Benning fired a lot sooner. Look at Buffalo/Edmonton - both these teams have been stocking up 1st round picks, but because they rush their prospects, this has been problematic to them during their rebuild. Yes he has not been perfect. But to state that he didn't revamp the scouting department (he did) and how it looks for prospects (also what he did) is just dishonest discourse. No other GM in recent memory has produced as many exciting prospects/young players as Benning. That is a fact.
  21. If you don't really care about what Gillis did compared to Benning, you will have no frame of reference on what is good and bad. In other words, if you don't look at the overall situation, there is NO WAY for you to say that someone succeeded or failed. Here's an example: if someone is timed at 13.76 seconds at the 100m, you might think this person wouldn't be successful. If you look at the bigger picture and see that he was in a wheelchair, THEN you see, OH, that's what happened. 13.76 is the world record from what I looked up. The time itself is not representative of success or failure. Similarly, you cannot judge a situation purely from one time period. You obviously do know how to make comparisons because you've made it all the time, but you've deliberately avoided the ones that weaken your argument.
  22. Gillis left no prospects for Benning to work with, contrary to some posters overvaluing the remnant of players left behind. Who is to blame for that?
  23. Yes, we can. I have yet to be persuaded by your arguments that players that you deemed to be so valuable didn't get the return you expected. Everyone knows that we should take it and run if teams offered a 1st round pick for Beagle or any player on our roster we deem to be expendable. What about Tyler Motte? Or Gaudette? These are examples of supplementary pieces. The problem was that those pieces that Gillis had (not Motte/Gaudette) were not valuable enough to get decent picks to restart a proper rebuild. There's also the argument that picks alone would not have been enough. We can look at Gillis' handling of prospect development. Some highly touted prospects like Hodgson did fairly good, and some just faded into obscurity. The evidence suggests that Gillis did very poorly in this area. My point is: if you have to ignore evidence to 'disagree' on things, then you are not inclined for a proper discussion on things. Maybe what you need is to find people who agree with you unquestioningly.
  24. But the evidence speaks for itself that Gillis didn't leave a lot of assets for Benning to work with. Trying to rehash your previous arguments that have already been addressed by others doesn't generate anything new. In summary, the pieces left behind did not/would not have helped with a full out rebuild. By this, I am saying that trading pieces like Hansen/Burrows would not (and did not) result in top 10 picks. If you recall top10 picks is the standard that you have chosen to dictate how successful a GM is at rebuilding. The more he has of them, the more likely you'll say that he was 'gifted' star prospects through high picks. As you can see, the only one you could say Gillis helped with was number 6 - Virtanen. Most people will say this wasn't a great pick in hindsight. Yet most people before the draft, except pundits like Craig Button, did put Virtanen somewhere before top 15. Ultimately, many of these first round picks didn't shape out to be franchise players. That's why scouting/developing players, though seperate processes, are critical to the longevity of the team. This goes into post-Gillis time. Gillis left no such young pieces. To argue that Gillis developed young player successfully is easily refuted. Horvat is the only player to be credited to Gillis because the others are gone and haven't struck gold elsewhere. The state of the team arguably contributed to the significantly poor rebuild time. Now, whether the owner had any involvement throughout this entire process is not really well known to people like us. However, it can be safely assumed that the owner did have plenty of input on the direction of the team - why not? It's his team that he owns and he pays the bills. So whether you choose to believe it or not, we can all see where you stand on the issue, and you do not have a genuine desire to look at evidence that doesn't support what you've been saying all along. None of the information I've mentioned here is new because you haven't been able to explain why Gillis produced no young players aside from Horvat who was acquired through a risky trade involving Schneider. It worked out in hindsight, but the trade would've been really bad if Horvat did not improve his skating.
×
×
  • Create New...