[Rumor] Nate Schmidt being dealt very soon any minute now

[MeanSeanBean]

Forget Burrows... Do we really need him? Now we got Schmidt... Any minute now?

[Coconuts]

3 minutes ago, shayster007 said:

Forget Burrows... Do we really need him? Now we got Schmidt... Any minute now?

What if Burrows really needs Schmidt in Montreal asap?

 

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by Coconuts

[wallstreetamigo]

17 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

This is a very important point you brought up.

 

I know @wallstreetamigo has said this before, and I agree with him: our local media is more interested in entertainment, as opposed to reporting "facts". If they had facts, as they heard it, they would've reported that the trade was impending. Too bad amigo worships the local media like they are truth speakers. He actually contradicted himself several times when defending them LOL.

Instead, AZ reporters got in on the scoop before anyone else.

 

This is the consequence of making up crap, and the result is that the local media had eggs on their face when they didn't even hear this story. The Canucks aren't going to trust the media, and the media is gonna have to come up with a new circus act to stay relevant.

I dont worship the media like they are truthspeakers. I just dont hate them on a personal level, say everything they report that doesnt flatter Benning or the Canucks must be a lie, or suggest that they dont actually have inside sources and know far more than random people on cdc.

 

The reality is that sports reporting is almost always "I am hearing" rather than "I know for a fact". There are a lot of reasons for this that I have tried to explain several times so wont waste more breath on it with you here.

 

People here think that the team has a problem with the media and is shutting them out. Thats really not how it works though. The team and the media rely on each other. Random fans get pissed off if their favorite is painted in an unflattering light. GM's and team executives dont operate like that. They only care if the media ignores them. Praise or criticism is still generating interest in the team.

 

The Canucks are fortunate that they dont have to compete in their market with any other major sports like many NHL markets do. Because they would have a much harder time that way. 

 

Its not just the Vancouver media suggesting they are hearing the Canucks want to move Schmidt. No one knows if he wants out or they want him out. But a lot of credible reporters are indicating they are actively shopping him rather than simply getting asked about him by other teams.

[Furevanucks]

[Dazzle]

15 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I dont worship the media like they are truthspeakers. I just dont hate them on a personal level, say everything they report that doesnt flatter Benning or the Canucks must be a lie, or suggest that they dont actually have inside sources and know far more than random people on cdc.

 

The reality is that sports reporting is almost always "I am hearing" rather than "I know for a fact". There are a lot of reasons for this that I have tried to explain several times so wont waste more breath on it with you here.

 

People here think that the team has a problem with the media and is shutting them out. Thats really not how it works though. The team and the media rely on each other. Random fans get pissed off if their favorite is painted in an unflattering light. GM's and team executives dont operate like that. They only care if the media ignores them. Praise or criticism is still generating interest in the team.

 

The Canucks are fortunate that they dont have to compete in their market with any other major sports like many NHL markets do. Because they would have a much harder time that way. 

 

Its not just the Vancouver media suggesting they are hearing the Canucks want to move Schmidt. No one knows if he wants out or they want him out. But a lot of credible reporters are indicating they are actively shopping him rather than simply getting asked about him by other teams.

I heard everything you say about it, but I keep referencing you because rather than stick with one explanation, you contradict yourself in another post. Yes, you did contradict yourself, despite your denials.

 

There is a reason why the local media DID NOT hear about the OEL story. Yes, they may have heard about it previously, but they DID NOT report this latest one. What happened?

 

It's my understanding that the media is only given information that teams want to share. Because of the general media abuse, the Canucks did not purposefully share the OEL trade.

All I'm saying is that the media has every inclination to lie about a story, AS MUCH as Benning does. The fact that you hold the media to a different standard is WHY I think you are incredibly biased.

[wallstreetamigo]

21 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I heard everything you say about it, but I keep referencing you because rather than stick with one explanation, you contradict yourself in another post. Yes, you did contradict yourself, despite your denials.

 

There is a reason why the local media DID NOT hear about the OEL story. Yes, they may have heard about it previously, but they DID NOT report this latest one. What happened?

 

It's my understanding that the media is only given information that teams want to share. Because of the general media abuse, the Canucks did not purposefully share the OEL trade.

All I'm saying is that the media has every inclination to lie about a story, AS MUCH as Benning does. The fact that you hold the media to a different standard is WHY I think you are incredibly biased.

Paragraph 1 - You still dont understand what contradict means.

 

Paragraph 2 and 3 - You have no way of knowing why the media did not report the OEL story ahead of time. As far as I have seen, there have been no facts provided anywhere suggesting that they were shut out by the team purposely. 

 

Paragraph 4 - You are actually categorically wrong. Teams have much more incentive, and much easier opportunity, to "lie" than the media does. The media has far more self imposed constraints on the flow of information than hockey executives do. Benning can literally say anything he wants to craft the narrative that suits him best. The media has checks and balances on sourced reporting which is why so much of sports reporting is actually extrapolating and peojecting from what they hear rather than outright making up lies. The media making up lies out of nothing at all is exceedingly rare, actually pretty much non-existent in the established media. 

 

The standards arent determined by me. The standards are simply quite different for the media than for team executives. 

[Dazzle]

4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Paragraph 1 - You still dont understand what contradict means.

 

Paragraph 2 and 3 - You have no way of knowing why the media did not report the OEL story ahead of time. As far as I have seen, there have been no facts provided anywhere suggesting that they were shut out by the team purposely. 

 

Paragraph 4 - You are actually categorically wrong. Teams have much more incentive, and much easier opportunity, to "lie" than the media does. The media has far more self imposed constraints on the flow of information than hockey executives do. Benning can literally say anything he wants to craft the narrative that suits him best. The media has checks and balances on sourced reporting which is why so much of sports reporting is actually extrapolating and peojecting from what they hear rather than outright making up lies. The media making up lies out of nothing at all is exceedingly rare, actually pretty much non-existent in the established media. 

 

The standards arent determined by me. The standards are simply quite different for the media than for team executives. 

Oh, wallstreet, you amuse me.

 

Multiple people have called you out on your contradictions. I guess everyone is wrong then?

 

I actually speculated, yes, speculated that the media was shut out. The fact that you took my words as a 'truth' is exactly what I'm highlighting; journalists are mixing speculation with the so-called stories that they hear. You yourself admitted that the reports would be less entertaining if they were factual.

 

This goes into paragraph 4, which I honestly am amused that you're simply restating your original point.

 

Claiming that the media has less incentive to make up a story is completely at odds with what you said earlier; that the media doesn't sell anything if it doesn't lie to the public. Furthermore, you claimed that the public is interested only in lies. I am not misrepresenting what you said, at least not deliberately.

 

In summary, you are biased.

 

[Dazzle]

37 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Paragraph 1 - You still dont understand what contradict means.

 

Paragraph 2 and 3 - You have no way of knowing why the media did not report the OEL story ahead of time. As far as I have seen, there have been no facts provided anywhere suggesting that they were shut out by the team purposely. 

 

Paragraph 4 - You are actually categorically wrong. Teams have much more incentive, and much easier opportunity, to "lie" than the media does. The media has far more self imposed constraints on the flow of information than hockey executives do. Benning can literally say anything he wants to craft the narrative that suits him best. The media has checks and balances on sourced reporting which is why so much of sports reporting is actually extrapolating and peojecting from what they hear rather than outright making up lies. The media making up lies out of nothing at all is exceedingly rare, actually pretty much non-existent in the established media. 

 

The standards arent determined by me. The standards are simply quite different for the media than for team executives. 

On 7/11/2021 at 5:52 PM, wallstreetamigo said:

Their job absolutely is to evolve with the times.

 

Saying you are hearing that such and such is happening is not equal to tabloid journalism. How do you know they havent heard what they report? The fact is you dont. 

 

Sensationalism by the media is a direct result of what the public wants and responds to. People dont want facts. In many cases what they want confirmation of their pre-determined opinion and they want it right now. 

 

All the people on here complaining about the media if they report anything the least bit critical of Benning or the Canucks (while trumpeting as 100% truth anything that supports Benning or the Canucks) is doing this exact thing. Their idea of "news" or "truth" has little to do with getting facts. It is limited to what they believe it to be based on their own bias. 

 

X rumor cant possibly be true because it makes Benning look like a scatterbrained reactionary slacker. But x rumor about whats wrong with a player must be true if Benning traded away a guy for scraps or let them walk for nothing. 

 

Confirmation bias. And its really because a lot of people live at the extremes rather than in the real world where things are rarely as simple as they need it to be.

This is dug out from the archives in the other thread @wallstreetamigo

Why are these not contradictions?

Denying that they're not contradictions will confirm your bias. You obviously hold media to a different/lower standard. So yes, it would not be inaccurate to say you worship the media's words.

 

 

For your reference (again):
 

Edited July 26, 2021 by Dazzle

[DS4quality]

[DeNiro]

I have a feeling the run on defensemen in free agency is going to cause prices to skyrocket.

 

Wouldnt be surprised to see a guy like Savard get offered close to 6 million.

 

Hopefully while every other team is distracted with the big fish Benning can go after some more reasonable targets.

 

Then hang on to Schmidt until the value gets high enough or hang on to him. Either way we’re good there.

[Herberts Vasiljevs]

[wallstreetamigo]

12 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

This is dug out from the archives in the other thread @wallstreetamigo

Why are these not contradictions?

Denying that they're not contradictions will confirm your bias. You obviously hold media to a higher standard. So yes, it would not be inaccurate to say you worship the media's words.

 

 

For your reference (again):
 

Thats not a contradiction.

 

Taking legitimate info they are hearing from their sources and extrapolating from it and sensationalizing it does not equal outright lying or making up stories out of nothing to make poor Benning look bad.

 

Thats where you are mistaken. How information is reported ("I am hearing") and the delivery method used (sensationalizing it to gain attention and sell) and where the basis of the information comes from (sources and insiders) are two different things.

 

The media adapting to the public craving sensationalism over facts has nothing to do with the flawed theory that the media makes up stories out of nothing.

 

Again, you should research just how media sources actually work.

 

People struggle understanding that the media doesnt go into their reporting looking for only negatives. The fact that the Benning regime has produced a lot of negative media stories is almost exclusively because it has given the media ample reasons to be critical. 

[RWJC]

1 hour ago, Coconuts said:

What if Burrows really needs Schmidt in Montreal asap?

 

 

Cmon man, you know what we gotta do. Gotta convince him to take Raymond, Ballard and a 1st instead.

[aznmonk]

7 hours ago, brian42 said:

Makar is better and Hughes I rumored to get a  shorter 3 year deal which would bring the AAV down 

Hope so or trade Hugh's to NJ for there 4 first round picks 

[wallstreetamigo]

38 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Oh, wallstreet, you amuse me.

 

Multiple people have called you out on your contradictions. I guess everyone is wrong then?

 

I actually speculated, yes, speculated that the media was shut out. The fact that you took my words as a 'truth' is exactly what I'm highlighting; journalists are mixing speculation with the so-called stories that they hear. You yourself admitted that the reports would be less entertaining if they were factual.

 

This goes into paragraph 4, which I honestly am amused that you're simply restating your original point.

 

Claiming that the media has less incentive to make up a story is completely at odds with what you said earlier; that the media doesn't sell anything if it doesn't lie to the public. Furthermore, you claimed that the public is interested only in lies. I am not misrepresenting what you said, at least not deliberately.

 

In summary, you are biased.

 

I dont think you comprehend the difference between sensationalizing stories to sell and outright lying. One doesnt automatically equal the other.

 

The public doesnt want facts. That also doesnt equal the media never provides facts. That is simply your extreme stretch at trying to prove your failed contradiction theory. People will determine for themselves what the facts are based mostly on their own bias. You are a good example. Any story that goes against Benning is one you automatically suggest is an outright lie, simply because Benning doesnt admit it. You have no actual knowledge of whether it is or not, you just have your bias. Pro-Benning, anti-media.

 

The reality is that the media is far more well connected than you are, yet you think you know what they have heard from reliable sources and what they havent? How do you know that?

[Dazzle]

9 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Thats not a contradiction.

 

Taking legitimate info they are hearing from their sources and extrapolating from it and sensationalizing it does not equal outright lying or making up stories out of nothing to make poor Benning look bad.

 

Thats where you are mistaken. How information is reported ("I am hearing") and the delivery method used (sensationalizing it to gain attention and sell) and where the basis of the information comes from (sources and insiders) are two different things.

 

The media adapting to the public craving sensationalism over facts has nothing to do with the flawed theory that the media makes up stories out of nothing.

 

Again, you should research just how media sources actually work.

 

People struggle understanding that the media doesnt go into their reporting looking for only negatives. The fact that the Benning regime has produced a lot of negative media stories is almost exclusively because it has given the media ample reasons to be critical. 

 

Thanks for confirming yet again how biased you are. You've just stated that the media DOES have a motivation to push a story, and isn't any more trustworthy than a GM.

 

So much for your previous comments about the media being accountable then, eh? Looks like those checks and balances you talked about are rubbish.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Dazzle

[Dazzle]

8 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I dont think you comprehend the difference between sensationalizing stories to sell and outright lying. One doesnt automatically equal the other.

 

The public doesnt want facts. That also doesnt equal the media never provides facts. That is simply your extreme stretch at trying to prove your failed contradiction theory. People will determine for themselves what the facts are based mostly on their own bias. You are a good example. Any story that goes against Benning is one you automatically suggest is an outright lie, simply because Benning doesnt admit it. You have no actual knowledge of whether it is or not, you just have your bias. Pro-Benning, anti-media.

 

The reality is that the media is far more well connected than you are, yet you think you know what they have heard from reliable sources and what they havent? How do you know that?

Are you hearing yourself?

 

Because the public doesn't want facts (I don't know who would want to be lied to, but let's just go with your assumption here), therefore media is serving a purpose?

 

How will people determine for themselves what the facts are when you're ALSO claiming that the media has a need to stretch out a story to sell papers? Furthermore, YOUR claim has always been that the media has LESS of a reason to lie than a GM.

 

It's laughable that your basis of the pro-media argument is predicated on your claim that the public wants to be lied to. Laughable. Like after reading this post again, I am just laughing.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Dazzle

[oldnews]

[coryberg]

32 minutes ago, RWJC said:

Cmon man, you know what we gotta do. Gotta convince him to take Raymond, Ballard and a 1st instead.

That's old hat... Rousell, Beagle, Erriksson and a 1st is the new black!

[WZRD]

Any minute now folks.