[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman

[Dazzle]

17 minutes ago, AV. said:

I'm not concerned with how others view me lol.  I have a legion of followers who "paperbag" or "wat" anything I post and it's just comical.

 

Also, I'm really curious to see who I'm antagonizing, seeing as my posts are not in response to anybody and I'm not mentioning any users by name.  Spell that one out for me.  Am I just supposed to stop posting because you and others don't exercise your abilities to ignore my posts and move along?  We have an ignore function, perhaps that's the logical thing for you and some others to use here?  

 

In any event, I'm allowed to share my opinion on signings.  And, to be quite honest, my thoughts on Wednesday are still true today.  The Halak and Sutter deals were fiscally responsible with our cap.  The Poolman deal parallels a lot of other deals that have gotten us in trouble in the past.  There's nothing negative in that.

On 7/28/2021 at 9:05 AM, Dazzle said:

As usual, no comment on the better signings.

 

I, too, question whether 2.5 for that long is a good deal. He has literally no offense.

On 7/28/2021 at 9:06 AM, AV. said:

"aS uSuAL nO cOmMeNt oN tHe beTtER siGnInGs"

[AV.]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

You're slipping, AV.

NO ONE has ever said you're not allowed to share your opinion. We'd just prefer that you drop your shtick because it's just really annoying for others. Someone like @Squamfan pops in to jeer about the signings, but makes no attempt to generate any kind of discussion on the positive signings (same as above).

 

And instances like this where you lump people in posts like these (and many other ones before it) is why you attract even more negative reactions.

 

As I said in another post, it took a LOT of teeth pulling for you to talk about how JB exercised better cap management this FA. Given your first two posts above, your interest is not to discuss. It's to annoy/antagonize.

 

 

It's fine to point out the dangers of generalizations and lumping users together, but driving home your point with "We'd prefer that you drop your schtick" just invalidates all of that.  You can't pick and choose where generalizations are appropriate, especially when the implication here is that you're speaking on behalf of Canuck fans as a whole.

 

Hope this helps.

[RWMc1]

repost

 

i predict that Poolman will be worth his contract and quite likely out performs it.

 

 

Any doubters want to show integrity and make a prediction instead of wishy washy responses?

[Master Mind]

1 hour ago, King Heffy said:

Personally I consider it necessary when the same posters can't understand that we paid market value for one of the better options available.

No, it's always better to spread love than hate. Name-calling never helps.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Master Mind

[Dazzle]

5 minutes ago, AV. said:

It's fine to point out the dangers of generalizations and lumping users together, but driving home your point with "We'd prefer that you drop your schtick" just invalidates all of that.  You can't pick and choose where generalizations are appropriate, especially when the implication here is that you're speaking on behalf of Canuck fans as a whole.

 

Hope this helps.

I placed myself as "others", as in "others find you annoying". And given the negative reactions to your posts, it is 100 percent warranted.

 

I'm SURE there are others who don't find you annoying, good on them.

Don't be disingenous.

[AV.]

Just now, Dazzle said:

I placed myself as "others", as in "others find you annoying". And given the negative reactions to your posts, it is 100 percent warranted.

 

I'm SURE there are others who don't find you annoying, good on them.

Don't be disingenous.

So, there.  "We" is a smaller group who has every right to (1) not engage with what I say, (2) outright ignore what I say, (3) place me on the ignore list.  That's up to them and not me.

 

If others don't like me, they can do the same and it won't be a problem to me.

 

Hope this helps.

[AV.]

Just now, AV. said:

So, there.  "We" is a smaller group who has every right to (1) not engage with what I say, (2) outright ignore what I say, (3) place me on the ignore list.  That's up to them and not me.

 

If others don't like me, they can do the same and it won't be a problem to me.

 

Hope this helps.

Of course, I speak the truth and my takes are the best 

 

No need to ignore me 

[higgyfan]

I can't say I was impressed with the term for this contract, but it appears that the buyout structure is not too bad.  If he doesn't work out, it won't be a big leap terminate the contract.  Hopefully it won't be an issue.

 

 

[Dazzle]

1 minute ago, AV. said:

So, there.  "We" is a smaller group who has every right to (1) not engage with what I say, (2) outright ignore what I say, (3) place me on the ignore list.  That's up to them and not me.

 

If others don't like me, they can do the same and it won't be a problem to me.

 

Hope this helps.

I won't give you that kind of pleasure.

 

Hope this helps. Makes you wonder.

[AV.]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

I won't give you that kind of pleasure.

 

Hope this helps. Makes you wonder.

Lol alrighty then...?

[Cat Man]

1 hour ago, RWMc1 said:

Poolman!!!   Poolman!!!!!!!

Rocking and Bengaling meme!!! 

Alf can't resist this and will be along soon. 

Edited July 30, 2021 by Cat Man

[ShawnAntoski]

20 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

repost

 

i predict that Poolman will be worth his contract and quite likely out performs it.

 

 

Any doubters want to show integrity and make a prediction instead of wishy washy responses?

I agree: under Shaws' tutelage (good chance) he will outperform the contract or atleast, be solid at whatever position he is put in.

Edited July 31, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[Cat Man]

2 hours ago, RWMc1 said:

More inability to grasp basic concepts. No surprise.

 

The issue is that you quoted me out of context and characterized me as a poster while not responding to the the post that you quoted. Responding after I queried you is irrelevant.

 

2 hours ago, AV. said:

My apologies for quoting you by mistake.   Four people quoted the same thing I said, I just assumed they all had to do with the, y'know, post that was being quoted.

 

Are you satisfied now?

You both maybe talk to Lil B then go get a room. Poolman and his Bengal can watch.

Edited July 31, 2021 by Cat Man

[RWMc1]

1 minute ago, Cat Man said:

 

You both maybe talk to Lil B then go get a room. Poolman and his Bengal can watch.

Do people not remember how bad it got during this past season. The negative posters were dominating every thread and it was almost impossible to talk hockey without someone derailing the thread with negative narratives.

 

I hate this garbage as well as the next person, but I hated the direction our forum was going even more. At least it's not in every thread now.

[ShawnAntoski]

5 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

Do people not remember how bad it got during this past season. The negative posters were dominating every thread and it was almost impossible to talk hockey without someone derailing the thread with negative narratives.

 

I hate this garbage as well as the next person, but I hated the direction our forum was going even more. At least it's not in every thread now.

Imo, the best way: is to call out the BS right away and have some humility if wrong.

Edited July 31, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[AV.]

8 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

Do people not remember how bad it got during this past season. The negative posters were dominating every thread and it was almost impossible to talk hockey without someone derailing the thread with negative narratives.

 

I hate this garbage as well as the next person, but I hated the direction our forum was going even more. At least it's not in every thread now.

It goes without saying, winning more games would do a lot to lift the spirits.

[TheRussianRocket1994]

18 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

Do people not remember how bad it got during this past season. The negative posters were dominating every thread and it was almost impossible to talk hockey without someone derailing the thread with negative narratives.

 

I hate this garbage as well as the next person, but I hated the direction our forum was going even more. At least it's not in every thread now.

100% this!! And it continues now. This is why i made that original post this morning. Honestly, it really is enough...and i can't understand how some are defending them. It's just way too much all the time. 

[TheRussianRocket1994]

8 minutes ago, AV. said:

It goes without saying, winning more games would do a lot to lift the spirits.

Just because they're losing doesn't justify you and few others constant and consistent negativity about EVERY SINGLE THING!!! 

 

Honestly, even if they were winning, you would find something to complain about / blame Banning for! 

[AV.]

5 minutes ago, IRR said:

Just because they're losing doesn't justify you and few others constant and consistent negativity about EVERY SINGLE THING!!! 

 

Honestly, even if they were winning, you would find something to complain about / blame Banning for! 

Why?  People are passionate about the team they love and they're allowed to react how they wish.  As long as they aren't abusing others or breaking rules, what does it matter if they want to be critical of the team?

[RWMc1]

22 minutes ago, AV. said:

It goes without saying, winning more games would do a lot to lift the spirits.

Another stupid strawman tangent. Is that all you're capable of?