Post-Game Talk: Trade Deadline 2019: Public Enemy #1 is gone! Holy ****! (Dahlen too) That's about it...

[Cupless44]

Regardless of who's writing puff pieces (I would contend Botchford's Athletties are mostly just a puff piece for his Twitter followers), Iain McIntyre can write an actual paragraph. I appreciate that. It's not the most amazing skill, but Botchford has been writing in Twitter-mode so long that his articles are stacks of one-liners, easily digestible for the hordes. As a long-time admirer of the English language, it's really repellent. But that's personal taste.

In terms of hockey knowledge, I'm no big fan of McIntyre, but Botchford's actual hockey knowledge is in the negatives. I should start collecting examples of his absolutely clueless takes, but just from his most recent piece on The Athletic, he had some gems, e.g. the Minnesota Wild would "have to accept" Virtanen for Zucker or that "he's concerned that Green doesn't view Virtanen has a top-6 forward." LOL what Virtanen does he watch? Does he know who Zucker is? Likely not. Too busy tweeting out GIFs.

Anyways, you pretty much agreed that Botchford isn't an insider sort of journalist, so we're on the same page there.

Completely disagree. McIntyre has become a predictable schill for management and pretty bland to follow. Breaks nothing.

Botchford and Paterson, along with some of the Canucks Army guys are the only local journalists who will actually call out this Canuck management for countless mistakes and no vision over the last 5 years of running this team.

BTW you don't have to be a hockey expert to see how poor Jim Benning and John Weisbrod are at their jobs.

Do you think Travis Green has given Virtanen a really good look and extended run in the top 6 to try to untap his considerable skills? Yeah Id say no. Meanwhile Horvat has had to play with the worst collection of pedestrian wingers this year that matter nowhere near as much as Virtanen's development to this teams future.

Botchford does have his schtick but at least he is entertaining. I would rather read the Athletties than retreads Kuzma or McIntryre

 

[TruGr1t]

Botchford and Paterson, along with some of the Canucks Army guys are the only local journalists who will actually call out this Canuck management for countless mistakes and no vision over the last 5 years of running this team.

I'd argue Halford and Brough are very critical of management. Price is also going at it with homers on Twitter pretty constantly. The real apologists in the market work at 650. Media has broadly embraced the narrative that Benning/Weisbrod are freaking awful at pro scouting and roster building though. I hear it quite a bit.

 

[Dr Good Vibes]

Regardless of who's writing puff pieces (I would contend Botchford's Athletties are mostly just a puff piece for his Twitter followers), Iain McIntyre can write an actual paragraph. I appreciate that. It's not the most amazing skill, but Botchford has been writing in Twitter-mode so long that his articles are stacks of one-liners, easily digestible for the hordes. As a long-time admirer of the English language, it's really repellent. But that's personal taste.

Two points.

One. Are you actually arguing IMac is a good writer? He’s not Cormac McCarthy or Hunter S. Thompson and any writing “skills” he possesses don’t matter because...

Two. The content of his paragraphs comes from above. Every word out of his serpentine mouth is an apology or a justification for this team. He’s an embarrassment to journalism. A shill in cheap tweed jacket, sweating under the lights, and stumbling over his words on live TV.

 

[MadaCanuckle]

I'd argue Halford and Brough are very critical of management. Price is also going at it with homers on Twitter pretty constantly. The real apologists in the market work at 650. Media has broadly embraced the narrative that Benning/Weisbrod are freaking awful at pro scouting and roster building though. I hear it quite a bit.

They embraced it but when it counts, in pressers, they remain quiet. The only guys doing difficult questions are Paterson and Botch.

You can add Donnie and the Moj to the apologists group.

 

[alternate]

If you're not going to accept a quote from Botchford, the actual source that was cited, then that's akin to attacking the source. That's not a legitimate argument worth considering here, no matter how you feel about Botchford.

He's a Vancouver news reporter and this is a rumour. It's not meant to be iron clad. This is about proving the existence of the rumour via a legitimized source.

Questioning a source's credibility is absolutely a legitimate argument. Disregarding Botchford because he pops his collar, or writes a blog, etc is not legitimate. But pointing out a tendency to exaggerate or to run with unverified "rumours" especially ones that to his base of clickers, is absolutely legitimate. In this era of fake news and open internet, you need to spend some time developing your media savvy. Not every questioning of a source is an ad hominem.

That's because he spent most of his time in the press box which is a lousy way to showcase a player for a trade. Anaheim grabbed him and actually played him and 12 games later he returned a round higher pick and without having to take on the additional boat anchor like we had to just to get rid of him. If FAQ is pissed at anybody it should be Green...

Meh, someone was going to have to get waived because someone was coming off IR. This would have looked a lot worse if MDZ was claimed off waivers, then dealt at the deadline. Lots of us felt MDZ would have more value at the deadline, but wasn't worth risking someone on waivers over.

 

[stampedingviking]

It's not being a Debbie Downer. That's just a term people are using on here to describe people who are in tune with reality and don't want to be a homer who thinks everything his team does is great. I'm choosing to not lower my standards. You're choosing to lower your standards. That's fine.

There's also a term for those who are so blinded by their Benning hate that's all they can see in any transaction or non-transaction. That is definately lowering standards. Balance would be better but there are very few balanced posters on here, unfortunately.

 

[stampedingviking]

I'm honestly getting tired of repeating this over and over again:

It was reported by Botchford that Edler would waive his NTC if the Canucks told him they didn't want him.

Edler himself in an interview said he doesn't want to be with a team that doesn't want him.

Source: The Athletties


Sat Shah on Twitter reported that Edler would be willing to waive if a contending team would work out a contract extension with him.


Also, it's been reported almost everywhere that the Canucks are negotiating an extension with Edler, thus it's clear they do want him back. Hence, Edler wasn't going to waive his NTC.

Maybe the Nucks actually want to keep their best dman?

Was it not he would waive if he got an immediate extension?

 

[y2kcanucks]

Maybe the Nucks actually want to keep their best dman?

Was it not he would waive if he got an immediate extension?

Of course they want to keep a 33 year old defenseman, because they aren't rebuilding.

And yes, that's probably true that he required an extension to waive his NTC. Calgary's offer was contingent on them getting Edler extended.

 

[y2kcanucks]

There's also a term for those who are so blinded by their Benning hate that's all they can see in any transaction or non-transaction. That is definately lowering standards. Balance would be better but there are very few balanced posters on here, unfortunately.

Except when you have a GM who is as bad at his job as Jim Benning has been, the majority of the discussion will be negative. It's called being realistic. Not everything is going to be balanced good and bad. The real world doesn't work that way.

 

[stampedingviking]

Except when you have a GM who is as bad at his job as Jim Benning has been, the majority of the discussion will be negative. It's called being realistic. Not everything is going to be balanced good and bad. The real world doesn't work that way.

The real world also doesn't work with everything being negative all the time. There has to be some balance.

 

[xtra]

The real world also doesn't work with everything being negative all the time. There has to be some balance.

A lot of us have given him credit for pettersson and boeser but those are the best moves he’s made which would barely be even with the picks most of us have made in the first round on here. Like is that your bar for a successful gm? Barely even with online posters?

 

[y2kcanucks]

The real world also doesn't work with everything being negative all the time. There has to be some balance.

Probably because, in most jobs, when someone is as bad as Jim Benning has been they tend not to last in that role for 5 years.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Questioning a source's credibility is absolutely a legitimate argument. Disregarding Botchford because he pops his collar, or writes a blog, etc is not legitimate. But pointing out a tendency to exaggerate or to run with unverified "rumours" especially ones that to his base of clickers, is absolutely legitimate. In this era of fake news and open internet, you need to spend some time developing your media savvy. Not every questioning of a source is an ad hominem.

An attempt to question specific information by invalidating the source is the fallacy of origin. It's a logical fallacy. So no, it's not a legitimate argument.

If you were to question Botchford's credentials in isolation, that's fine. Make your case. Is he or is he not a Vancouver Canucks beat reporter?

If you are attempting to dismiss the validity of all rumours due to their general inaccuracy, do so for every reporter, not just Botchford.

This is not about "media savvy", it's about logic, and when you arbitrarily choose to employ it given the source of information.

 

[Ryan Miller*]

Two points.

One. Are you actually arguing IMac is a good writer? He’s not Cormac McCarthy or Hunter S. Thompson and any writing “skills” he possesses don’t matter because...

Two. The content of his paragraphs comes from above. Every word out of his serpentine mouth is an apology or a justification for this team. He’s an embarrassment to journalism. A shill in cheap tweed jacket, sweating under the lights, and stumbling over his words on live TV.

One. Yes, I am observant of the journalistic skill and experience by which Iain McIntyre constructs his articles. They still bear a tinge of old school reporting which I enjoy, though that tinge likely suffers from digital media's now-now-now style of news delivery. I read a variety of sports journalism, and it's of course mere personal preference, but sometimes I like reading just text and getting to inhabit a writer's sentences and logic, rather than be bombarded with charts and GIFs and tweets and memes in the total assault on the senses that often passes for sports journalism these days.

Two. I think your rejection of Iain McIntyre is just that you disagree with him. Trying to convert that into a "shill" narrative is just a method of invalidating his thoughts and opinions categorically, a technique which sadly happens all too often over internet discussions: e.g. everyone with a dissenting opinion must be a Benning bro, and thus categorically wrong. Yes, I think McIntyre is probably a little closer to the Canucks organization than someone like Botchford. Yes, I often find many of his opinions a little bland, mere human interest stuff in a market that instead craves constant provocations. No, I don't think McIntyre is being financially influenced by Canucks management to trot out his milquetoast opinions. That stuff is just conspiracy theory to me, another sad habit of internet discussions.

 

[Dr Good Vibes]

Motte Money. That’s fair. I actually don’t disagree with IMac. I just have noticed on numerous occasions that he “answers” questions that fans are asking by mocking them or saying it’s outrageous. He won’t say a bad word against the team. Journalism does not equal unequivocal support.

I never said his salary is paid by the Canucks. But he does have behind the scenes access to the team. You don’t think he might mince his words to maintain that access? The access that allows him to have a career?

 

[Balls Mahoney]

Botchford will post whatever "rumours" or "speculation" stoke up the most social media frenzy, and make him keep his job.

Have you ever heard Botchford's podcast? The guy is a complete hipster washout. It's painful to listen to. I think the guy just reads HF, takes the most controversial and obvious opinions and then tries to create clickbait around it.

All of Vancouver's media is pretty terrible but such is the case in the 21st century when you have zoomers and boomers here obsessing on the internet about hockey 24 hours a day. They simply can't complete.

My favorite Vancouver media personality is Alex Auld. Guy is probably the smartest and best personality. Canucks Central is an awesome podcast.

 

[Zombotron]

 

[Phenomenon13]

Gaunce should've been moved for picks then. Wouldn't that free up space in Utica for younger guys to get more ice time ?

 

[Canucks1096]

Completely disagree. McIntyre has become a predictable schill for management and pretty bland to follow. Breaks nothing.

Botchford and Paterson, along with some of the Canucks Army guys are the only local journalists who will actually call out this Canuck management for countless mistakes and no vision over the last 5 years of running this team.

BTW you don't have to be a hockey expert to see how poor Jim Benning and John Weisbrod are at their jobs.

Do you think Travis Green has given Virtanen a really good look and extended run in the top 6 to try to untap his considerable skills? Yeah Id say no. Meanwhile Horvat has had to play with the worst collection of pedestrian wingers this year that matter nowhere near as much as Virtanen's development to this teams future.

Botchford does have his schtick but at least he is entertaining. I would rather read the Athletties than retreads Kuzma or McIntryre

Virtanen played 249 ES mins with Horvat. Most mins out of every center on the team. Also he played 86 ES mins with Pettersson. Total 335 mins with our top 2 center and yet he has 4 goals in his last 38 games to show for. So around half the season he has played with our top 2 center. To say Green has not given him a good look at Virtanen in the top 6 is ridiculous. Stop making excuses for Virtanen. He is just not a very good offensive player. I think Green actually realize this now and he is going to play him on the 3rd line regularly going forward. His shooting percentage is back down now. I think it's fair to say his 8 goals in his first 20 games was just a hot streak and a lot of puck luck and nothing more.

Virtanen has 22 points. 2 PPP and 3 empty net points. Regular even strength points he has 17 Points. First season Virtanen had 13 even strength points. Considering the fact he is getting more ice time and playing with better players and league scoring up. You can make an argument he hasnt improve offensively at all.

 

[Phenomenon13]

Virtanen played 249 ES mins with Horvat. Most mins out of every center on the team. Also he played 86 ES mins with Pettersson. Total 335 mins with our top 2 center and yet he has 4 goals in his last 38 games to show for. So around half the season he has played with our top 2 center. To say Green has not given him a good look at Virtanen in the top 6 is ridiculous. Stop making excuses for Virtanen. He is just not a very good offensive player. I think Green actually realize this now and he is going to play him on the 3rd line regularly going forward. His shooting percentage is back down now. I think it's fair to say his 8 goals in his first 20 games was just a hot streak and a lot of puck luck and nothing more.

Virtanen has 22 points. 2 PPP and 3 empty net points. Regular even strength points he has 17 Points. First season Virtanen had 13 even strength points. Considering the fact he is getting more ice time and playing with better players and league scoring up. You can make an argument he hasnt improve offensively at all.

Yeah I remembered people predicting twenty maybe thirty goals for virtanen. He's probably a 15 goal scorer who can get 40 pts like Pearson who may have 1-2 years with 20+ goals.

I think management has recognized virtanen's upside. when Benning was listing young talent to be excited about he said Petterson, Horvat, Gaudette down the middle and on the wing we have boeser. This guy used to talk about virtanen as one of the guys in the list of young players. Still a very good piece for our team. There's value in that.