Confirmed with Link: (June 26th, 2018) Canucks re-sign D Derrick Pouliot to 1-year Deal ($1.1M AAV)

[krutovsdonut]

There is a huge difference between someone who is organically a "Benning apologist" because that's just their genuine impression of the job he's doing and someone who deliberately chooses to be fanatical about something for the sake of optimism/supportiveness. It makes sense for the former to get into arguments (even when their arguments are bad), but the latter is wasting everyone's time, because it's clear (to themselves and everyone else) that truth isn't what they're ultimately interested in.

this is a website for hockey fans. here is the wikipedia definition of a "fan":

"A fan, or fanatic, sometimes also termed aficionado or supporter, is a person who is enthusiastically devoted to something or somebody, such as a singer or band, a sports team, a genre, a politician, a book, a movie or an entertainer."

so you really need to lighten up if you have a problem with people being fanatical here.

 

[tyhee]

this is a website for hockey fans. here is the wikipedia definition of a "fan":

"A fan, or fanatic, sometimes also termed aficionado or supporter, is a person who is enthusiastically devoted to something or somebody, such as a singer or band, a sports team, a genre, a politician, a book, a movie or an entertainer."

so you really need to lighten up if you have a problem with people being fanatical here.

That definition doesn't require, to be a fan, that one make unrealistic arguments to support a team.

Despite logic suggesting the Canucks would be better off to hold off winning for a while longer, I get the warm fuzzies when they win. I can't bring myself, emotionally, to cheer for them to lose.

That doesn't mean that I'll argue that Gudbranson's extension was a great signing or that because Beagle is showing himself to be useful in 2018-19 that he was a great 4 year signing.

A problem with probably all sports discussion forums are that different people have different expectations. Some come to a discussion forum for logical discussion. Some come to a discussion forum for support, to cheer for their team and to be optimistic for the present and future.

Obviously those different expectations can't be easily _____, so what we get are those who want to come and get support for their positive emotions getting angry at the negativity of those who don't provide that support and those who want logical discussion get frustrated at those whose arguments are based on their emotions rather than logic.

I don't begrudge those who come for support for their optimism, but I do get frustrated when they don't realize that's what they're doing and make silly arguments over and over again. I also get frustrated when they complain about those of us who don't think that the least successful organization in hockey over the last three seasons is doing a great job so complain about negativity.

Logically there has been a lot to be negative about.

Emotionally many fans will still cheer and get excited about the future.

It really makes little sense for those that need to be optimistic to engage those seeking cold, hard logic and it makes little sense for those seeking logical discussion to engage those whose purpose for posting on the forums is simply to support their team. Perhaps we'd all be happier if those whose desires are totally inconsistent simply ignored one another.

I think that you, F A N, hindustan smyl, nicklang and quite a few others would be quite a bit happier not reading posts from y2k, melvin, bg and a multitude of others, including me. Similarly I get more out of the forum ignoring those that want to cheer and support rather than engaging in logical discussion when the logic doesn't suit their optimism.

I acknowledge the right of those that come onlly for support and optimism to be here-but for some of them I wish they'd realize the differences and not be upset that many of us don't share their optimism.

 

[Melvin]

this is a website for hockey fans. here is the wikipedia definition of a "fan":

"A fan, or fanatic, sometimes also termed aficionado or supporter, is a person who is enthusiastically devoted to something or somebody, such as a singer or band, a sports team, a genre, a politician, a book, a movie or an entertainer."

so you really need to lighten up if you have a problem with people being fanatical here.

It's a website for people who want to talk about hockey. Take your sanctimonious chest puffing and shove it.

 

[Shareefruck]

this is a website for hockey fans. here is the wikipedia definition of a "fan":

"A fan, or fanatic, sometimes also termed aficionado or supporter, is a person who is enthusiastically devoted to something or somebody, such as a singer or band, a sports team, a genre, a politician, a book, a movie or an entertainer."

so you really need to lighten up if you have a problem with people being fanatical here.

Nothing I mentioned in that post criticized or suggested a problem with people who want to be fanatical. I'm arguing that if you choose to be fanatical, it doesn't make any sense to argue about what's true, real, or accurate with people who aren't, as your motivations would inherently conflict with the purpose of the exercise, by definition of what it means to be fanatical.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Nothing I mentioned in that post criticized or suggested a problem with people who want to be fanatical. I'm arguing that if you choose to be fanatical, it doesn't make any sense to argue about what's true, real, or accurate with people who aren't, as your motivations would inherently conflict with the purpose of the exercise, by definition of what it means to be fanatical.

i think you underestimate fans.

 

[krutovsdonut]

It's a website for people who want to talk about hockey. Take your sanctimonious chest puffing and shove it.

i assume you didn't read the post i answered.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

this is a website for hockey fans. here is the wikipedia definition of a "fan":

"A fan, or fanatic, sometimes also termed aficionado or supporter, is a person who is enthusiastically devoted to something or somebody, such as a singer or band, a sports team, a genre, a politician, a book, a movie or an entertainer."

so you really need to lighten up if you have a problem with people being fanatical here.

Talk about nitpicking and semantics. Good job on failing to address 99% of his post, though.

I’ve been crapped on a lot here for being too negative/critical of the team and Benning, but I’ve always backed Pouliot because I think he can still be a capable #5 with offensive upside. Hoping he can take another stride this season.

 

[Shareefruck]

i think you underestimate fans.

It is possible to separate the two and not allow desire for positives to influence your arguments, which I assume is what you're getting at (and which are two things that we all try to keep in check, as we all hope for ultimate team success).

However, when a person's contention with a certain opinion has something to do with the misery that it conveys, they have failed to make that separation, and that mentality fundamentally does not allow for impartiality. You can't avoid or reject the possibility of a circumstance because of how undesirable it is and still claim to be making an assessment of what's true in good faith. It's a complete contradiction.

 

[alternate]

That definition doesn't require, to be a fan, that one make unrealistic arguments to support a team.

Despite logic suggesting the Canucks would be better off to hold off winning for a while longer, I get the warm fuzzies when they win. I can't bring myself, emotionally, to cheer for them to lose.

That doesn't mean that I'll argue that Gudbranson's extension was a great signing or that because Beagle is showing himself to be useful in 2018-19 that he was a great 4 year signing.

A problem with probably all sports discussion forums are that different people have different expectations. Some come to a discussion forum for logical discussion. Some come to a discussion forum for support, to cheer for their team and to be optimistic for the present and future.

Obviously those different expectations can't be easily _____, so what we get are those who want to come and get support for their positive emotions getting angry at the negativity of those who don't provide that support and those who want logical discussion get frustrated at those whose arguments are based on their emotions rather than logic.

I don't begrudge those who come for support for their optimism, but I do get frustrated when they don't realize that's what they're doing and make silly arguments over and over again. I also get frustrated when they complain about those of us who don't think that the least successful organization in hockey over the last three seasons is doing a great job so complain about negativity.

Logically there has been a lot to be negative about.

Emotionally many fans will still cheer and get excited about the future.

It really makes little sense for those that need to be optimistic to engage those seeking cold, hard logic and it makes little sense for those seeking logical discussion to engage those whose purpose for posting on the forums is simply to support their team. Perhaps we'd all be happier if those whose desires are totally inconsistent simply ignored one another.

I think that you, F A N, hindustan smyl, nicklang and quite a few others would be quite a bit happier not reading posts from y2k, melvin, bg and a multitude of others, including me. Similarly I get more out of the forum ignoring those that want to cheer and support rather than engaging in logical discussion when the logic doesn't suit their optimism.

I acknowledge the right of those that come onlly for support and optimism to be here-but for some of them I wish they'd realize the differences and not be upset that many of us don't share their optimism.

I'm sorry, but this post is ridiculous. Only negative/pessimistic arguments can be logically sound? Such drivel.

Perfectly logical to be optimistic of a core that includes EP, BB, BH, QH. That's not a position that needs to be based on emotional hope. Just like there was nothing logical about the claims of Miller's contract being an albatross, or Dorsett's contract crippling us long term, or picking Juolevi setting the rebuild back a decade. Such poppycock to claim that your positions are based solely on "cold, hard logic." Logic would actually dictate patience before judging any decision, because history owns countless tales with surprise endings.

On the other hand, saying "It's not what I would do, therefore it's illogical" as you are doing in your post, is not a sound argument. Get over yourself already.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Talk about nitpicking and semantics. Good job on failing to address 99% of his post, though..

did you think it merited a more detailed response? to me that post was awful condescending dreck. to me there is a lot of irony in people going after me for answering it.

 

[krutovsdonut]

It is possible to separate the two and not allow desire for positives to influence your arguments, which I assume is what you're getting at (and which are two things that we all try to keep in check, as we all want to the team to do well).

However, when a person's contention with a certain opinion has something to do with the misery that it conveys, they have failed to make that separation, and that mentality fundamentally does not allow for impartiality. You can't avoid or reject the possibility of a circumstance because of how undesirable it is and still claim to be making an assessment of what's true in good faith. It's a complete contradiction.

you are inadvertently describing yourself much more accurately than the people you think you are better than.

 

[Zombotron]

This conversation has literally nothing to do with Derrick Pouliot. Take it to the management thread. If it goes this far off-topic again, I'm locking people out.

 

[sting101]

Pouliot has been our 4th best Dman so far. Not bad for a reclamation project and a 4th rd pick.

If he can improve on his pivots and get a little more aggressive with shots he can be a decent regular. very much a modern day puck mover just needs refinement. Small sample but a nice storyline IMO.

 

[M2Beezy]

Pouliot has been our 4th best Dman so far. Not bad for a reclamation project and a 4th rd pick.

If he can improve on his pivots and get a little more aggressive with shots he can be a decent regular. very much a modern day puck mover just needs refinement. Small sample but a nice storyline IMO.

Nahhh

Tanev
Edler

Stecher

Hutton









Poo
Del Zotto


Gudbranson

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Nahhh

Tanev
Edler

Stecher

Hutton









Poo
Del Zotto


Gudbranson

Was going to reply to this....,but ascertained it would be a complete waste of energy.

So,....everybody please feel free to chime in on what u think.

 

[F A N]

Was going to reply to this....,but ascertained it would be a complete waste of energy.

So,....everybody please feel free to chime in on what u think.

I think Pouliot has been better than Hutton.

 

[Peen]

One thing that's surprising about Pouliot and Del Zotto is that their underlying numbers are essentially dead average.

Eye test wise, both are f***ing tire fires who have no idea how to defend.

Both their zone start percentages are even, and their CF/FF/GF are essentially even.

 

[geebaan]

I think Pouliot has been better than Hutton.

uhhhhhhhhh

This post has not aged well

 

[HankNDank]

Oh god. Almost had a heart attack. Please change thread title.

 

[DFAC]

Ranked 23rd in total PP TOI amongst dmen........

 

[VanJack]

Pouliot is one of those guys who when he's bad, he's abysmal. But I'd have to say that despite the gaffes of the other night and a couple of forgettable games in Vegas and Phoenix, he's actually been better this season. Of course the bar is set so low, I suppose that doesn't mean a great deal.

And for whatever reason, Green is determined to run with him. So when Edler returns, it'll be undoubtedly Del Zotto taking a seat in the press-box.

 

[WestCoast CyberG]

Pouliot is one of those guys who when he's bad, he's abysmal. But I'd have to say that despite the gaffes of the other night and a couple of forgettable games in Vegas and Phoenix, he's actually been better this season. Of course the bar is set so low, I suppose that doesn't mean a great deal.

And for whatever reason, Green is determined to run with him. So when Edler returns, it'll be undoubtedly Del Zotto taking a seat in the press-box.

Pouliot has been terrible all season and will never be any different.

 

[WestCoast CyberG]

One thing that's surprising about Pouliot and Del Zotto is that their underlying numbers are essentially dead average.

Eye test wise, both are ****ing tire fires who have no idea how to defend.

Both their zone start percentages are even, and their CF/FF/GF are essentially even.

MDZ will be UFA and Pouliot RFA at seasons end, say goodbye to both no way we can afford these guys they are zone killers.

 

[Hit the post]

Pouliot *almost* makes me miss Sbisa.

Almost....

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Pouliot is one of those guys who when he's bad, he's abysmal. But I'd have to say that despite the gaffes of the other night and a couple of forgettable games in Vegas and Phoenix, he's actually been better this season. Of course the bar is set so low, I suppose that doesn't mean a great deal.

And for whatever reason, Green is determined to run with him. So when Edler returns, it'll be undoubtedly Del Zotto taking a seat in the press-box.

While I would agree, that's damning with faint praise. It's like going from getting kicked in the jewels to just getting punched. You're still getting hit in the bread basket.