BamBam Posted February 21, 2009 Report Posted February 21, 2009 1. Ryan Smyth to Buffalo was told to me by three different sources in Western Canada Sabres Rumor 2. * The Phoenix coyotes had their "A1" scouting team in Philly last night to watch the Flyers and Sabres including GM Don Maloney and his assistant. Both Philly and Buffalo have interest in Morris and Jokinen. Sabres Rumor Jere Lehtinen to Ottawa (e2), NJ (e3) Matthew Lombardi to Buffalo (e3), Montreal (e2), Carolina (e2), Atlanta (e2), NY Islanders (e1) Tim Connolly to Calgary (e3), Vancouver (e4), and Dallas (e2) Brendan Morrison to Nj (e2), Buffalo (e1) Colby Armstrong to Pitt (e3), Calgary (e3), Edmonton (e2) Marian Gaborik to Montreal (e3), Ottawa (e3), Washington (e2) Ville Koistinen to Philly (e3), Atlanta (e2), Buffalo (e2), Tampa (e3) Mark Recchi to Pitt (e4), Calgaruy (e1), Minnesota (e2), Montreal (e3) Derek Morris to Buffalo (e3), Philly (e3), Washington (e2) Tomas Kaberle to Pittsburgh (e2), Buffalo (e3), Washington (e2) Olli Jokinen to Montreal (e2), Calgary (e3), Buffalo (e3), NJ (e3), Philly (e1), Pitt (e1) Michal Rozsival to Dallas (e3) Ryan Whitney to Toronto (e2), Colorado (e3), LA Kings (e3), Edmonton (e3) Erik Cole to Pittsburgh (e4), Boston (e3), Washington (e3) Tkachuk to Boston (e4), Pitt (e3) Now what do all of those e's mean? THE E RATING RATES THE SOURCE TELLING ME THE INFORMATION NOT THE RUMOR ITSELF e1: information from a single source not connected directly to the teams or players involved. e2: info from 2 or more e1's. e3: info from a single source somehow connected directly to the teams or players involved either directly or getting it directly first hand. e4: info from at least 2 e3's. e5: info from a source that the rumor has become a done deal
LabattBlue Posted February 21, 2009 Report Posted February 21, 2009 1. Ryan Smyth to Buffalo was told to me by three different sources in Western CanadaSabres Rumor 2. * The Phoenix coyotes had their "A1" scouting team in Philly last night to watch the Flyers and Sabres including GM Don Maloney and his assistant. Both Philly and Buffalo have interest in Morris and Jokinen. Sabres Rumor Smyth? Not unless we are unloading some serious salary on the Avs along with plenty more. :lol:
carpandean Posted February 21, 2009 Report Posted February 21, 2009 Smyth? Not unless we are unloading some serious salary on the Avs along with plenty more. :lol: And he waives his no-trade clause, which he just said he has no intention of doing. Actually, the one thing that makes sense about this is that Smyth's salary goes down quite a bit in the final two seasons and depending on if and how far the cap falls in 2010-11, we could still be more cash-strapped than cap-strapped, letting us absorb the extra cap hit. However, next year, his salary is still up near his cap hit, which would make it prohibitive, requiring a huge dump in internal budget.
BamBam Posted February 22, 2009 Author Report Posted February 22, 2009 Check out the new updated list in the modified post
nucci Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 If this guy makes a decent living doing this, I might change careers. How hard can it be?
BamBam Posted February 22, 2009 Author Report Posted February 22, 2009 If this guy makes a decent living doing this, I might change careers. How hard can it be? I guess it must be lucrative. Its pretty funny to see this guy proclaim that Buffalo is involved in all of these deals, when we actually don't make a whole lot of trades.
thesportsbuff Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 so how many of those did he get from this message board?
NowDoYouBelieve Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 I think we shade trade Peters to Boston for Tim Thomas, and a 6th round pick to Washington for the Ovechkin-Backstrom-Semin line.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 I know I am the only one on here who defends the guy, but no one seems to understand what Ecklund actually does. He tried again to explain it in a post today ... funny the list on top got posted here but no one apparently read the whole post ... here is the link ... http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/All-...at-I-Do/1/19555 Everyone seems to think if he posts it, he is saying he heard it is GOING to happen or is close to happening. He is very transparent about the fact that this is NOT the case. In fact, here is part of what he posted today: GMs will be the first to tell you that 95% of the deals they discuss never occur. I bet that I only hear maybe 10-20% of what the GM's are talking about. So the only way a "rumor" I hear will turn into an actual deal, like most recently occurred with Schneider in Montreal, one of those 5% of the discussions that a GM would have had to have been in that 10-20% that I hear and report to you. He comes right out and says he doesn't know 80-90% of what is going on, and what he does know MAYBE 5% will happen. Yet every time he posts something, people flip out that he made it up because he is wrong. It's not a question of wrong, he's not saying these deals are going to happen. He explains the e1-e5 system in that post ... it has NOTHING to do with how likely something is to happen. It's just if it was talked about and how close the source is. If Darcy told him he offered Kotalik, Tallinder, Afinogenov and Mancari for Smyth and Colorado laughed at him, he will still report it as an "e3" because the discussion happened and he got it directly from soneone involved ... if he called Colorado and they said "Yeah we laughed at him!" now it is an e4 ... and there is still a zero percent chance of it happening. Personally, I don't think he makes anything up. I think he just reports everything he hears to keep people coming back to the site. Some might think that is unethical, but it's not when he repeatedly TELLS US that these things are not likely to happen. Like I said, he is very transparent about it ... he tells you up front that he doesn't know 80% of what is going and what he does hear is going to be right, at best, 5% of the time. So why get worked up about him?
Bmwolf21 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 I know I am the only one on here who defends the guy, but no one seems to understand what Ecklund actually does. He tried again to explain it in a post today ... funny the list on top got posted here but no one apparently read the whole post ... here is the link ... http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/All-...at-I-Do/1/19555 Everyone seems to think if he posts it, he is saying he heard it is GOING to happen or is close to happening. He is very transparent about the fact that this is NOT the case. In fact, here is part of what he posted today: He comes right out and says he doesn't know 80-90% of what is going on, and what he does know MAYBE 5% will happen. Yet every time he posts something, people flip out that he made it up because he is wrong. It's not a question of wrong, he's not saying these deals are going to happen. He explains the e1-e5 system in that post ... it has NOTHING to do with how likely something is to happen. It's just if it was talked about and how close the source is. If Darcy told him he offered Kotalik, Tallinder, Afinogenov and Mancari for Smyth and Colorado laughed at him, he will still report it as an "e3" because the discussion happened and he got it directly from soneone involved ... if he called Colorado and they said "Yeah we laughed at him!" now it is an e4 ... and there is still a zero percent chance of it happening. Personally, I don't think he makes anything up. I think he just reports everything he hears to keep people coming back to the site. Some might think that is unethical, but it's not when he repeatedly TELLS US that these things are not likely to happen. Like I said, he is very transparent about it ... he tells you up front that he doesn't know 80% of what is going and what he does hear is going to be right, at best, 5% of the time. So why get worked up about him? Because he steals stuff from other people's columns without crediting them; he charges people for made-up stuff; and he has never proven that he has any sources anywhere outside of message boards or janitors. Might as well click here and save yourselves some money: http://hockeybuzzhogwash.com/ BTW, here is a nice entry about how Ek tweaked his explanation of the e-system, which was updated today: http://hockeybuzzhogwash.com/?p=1128 http://hockeybuzzhogwash.com/?p=1113 Someone on another site calculated his accuracy rate from Jan 2008 - Feb 2009. He came up with 9 correct rumors out of 233 posted, for a success rate of 3.8%.
shoveldog Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Someone on another site calculated his accuracy rate from Jan 2008 - Feb 2009. He came up with 9 correct rumors out of 233 posted, for a success rate of 3.8%. So, what betweenthepipes said is accurate and proven statistically. :)
Bmwolf21 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 So, what betweenthepipes said is accurate and proven statistically. :) carpandean will have to weigh in, but I think a 3-4% accuracy rate is probably statistically insignificant and no better than chance. You'd probably have a better accuracy rate if you put all the teams on pingpong balls and drew two at a time. IMO it's laughable that people pay to read this crap (especially when he steals from regular columnists and doesn't credit them) and/or takes ANYTHING he posts seriously.
shrader Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 So why get worked up about him? I get more worked up over the people who constantly read and report his rumors just so they can complain about them.
LabattBlue Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 e1: information from a single source not connected directly to the teams or players involved.e2: info from 2 or more e1's. Translated... e1: read this on 1 message board e2: read this on 2 or more message boards :rolleyes:
BetweenThePipes00 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 carpandean will have to weigh in, but I think a 3-4% accuracy rate is probably statistically insignificant and no better than chance. You'd probably have a better accuracy rate if you put all the teams on pingpong balls and drew two at a time. IMO it's laughable that people pay to read this crap (especially when he steals from regular columnists and doesn't credit them) and/or takes ANYTHING he posts seriously. You don't have to pay ANYTHING to read what he writes. The only thing that you have to pay to see is the "rumor chart," which I have seen and, while it is not worth paying for IMO, it is NOT "stolen" info. It's just a bunch of guys and a percentage guess on where they might end up. 90% of them are not traded at all. It's all his opinion with no "news." Again, he tells everyone this up front. I have never paid the guy a dime but the site is interesting to me. The Sabres blogger is a horrible writer and homer, but Dan Tolensky is very insightful and I like reading his stuff. I understand it is not for everyone and many think it is a waste of time if mostof it never happens, but I still do not understand the venom and hatred. Do people just ignore his whole premise and keep believing these deals are going happen, then get pissed when they don't? If someone tells you they are going to punch you in the face and you choose not to duck, whose fault is it your face hurts? If you believe everything he posts, even though he tells you first 95% of it will not happen, who should you be pissed at?
Eleven Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 You don't have to pay ANYTHING to read what he writes. The only thing that you have to pay to see is the "rumor chart," which I have seen and, while it is not worth paying for IMO, it is NOT "stolen" info. It's just a bunch of guys and a percentage guess on where they might end up. 90% of them are not traded at all. It's all his opinion with no "news." Again, he tells everyone this up front. I have never paid the guy a dime but the site is interesting to me. The Sabres blogger is a horrible writer and homer, but Dan Tolensky is very insightful and I like reading his stuff. I understand it is not for everyone and many think it is a waste of time if mostof it never happens, but I still do not understand the venom and hatred. Do people just ignore his whole premise and keep believing these deals are going happen, then get pissed when they don't? If someone tells you they are going to punch you in the face and you choose not to duck, whose fault is it your face hurts? If you believe everything he posts, even though he tells you first 95% of it will not happen, who should you be pissed at? You're making way too much sense lately. But I'm still going to make fun of Eklund.
FogBat Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 You're making way too much sense lately. But I'm still going to make fun of Eklund. Ever since I got my XM subscription back a few weeks ago, I have not even heard so much as a mouse f@rt of him on NHL Home Ice. Less for me to get worked up about. (Then again, I miss Ron Rimer not being on there.)
Bmwolf21 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 You don't have to pay ANYTHING to read what he writes. The only thing that you have to pay to see is the "rumor chart," which I have seen and, while it is not worth paying for IMO, it is NOT "stolen" info. It's just a bunch of guys and a percentage guess on where they might end up. 90% of them are not traded at all. It's all his opinion with no "news." Again, he tells everyone this up front. I have never paid the guy a dime but the site is interesting to me. The Sabres blogger is a horrible writer and homer, but Dan Tolensky is very insightful and I like reading his stuff. I understand it is not for everyone and many think it is a waste of time if mostof it never happens, but I still do not understand the venom and hatred. Do people just ignore his whole premise and keep believing these deals are going happen, then get pissed when they don't? If someone tells you they are going to punch you in the face and you choose not to duck, whose fault is it your face hurts? If you believe everything he posts, even though he tells you first 95% of it will not happen, who should you be pissed at? Eklund has already been caught plagiarizing a LA Times columnist, in which the HockeyBuzz blogger tried to pass off Sutter's info as his own, so as far as I'm concerned (as as far as most journalists would be concerned) everything he posts is suspect, especially since he uses a lot of anonymous sources. So IMO, yeah, it is stolen.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Eklund has already been caught plagiarizing a LA Times columnist, in which the HockeyBuzz blogger tried to pass off Sutter's info as his own, so as far as I'm concerned (as as far as most journalists would be concerned) everything he posts is suspect, especially since he uses a lot of anonymous sources. So IMO, yeah, it is stolen. Fine, except he really doesn't claim to be a journalist. He basically admits up front that he is a rumor monger and then lives up to it.
Bmwolf21 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 Fine, except he really doesn't claim to be a journalist. He basically admits up front that he is a rumor monger and then lives up to it. All evidence to the contrary: http://nhl.fanhouse.com/2007/08/01/unmaske...stions-about-a/ This passionate show of partisan advocacy isn't something you'd expect to see from a professional hockey writer, and that's because Eklund isn't one. But he wants to be, according to Kevin Allen, USA TODAY hockey writer and president of the Professional Hockey Writers Association, who said Eklund has "made it clear he would like to be included" in the organization. The question is whether the PHWA is willing to overlook serious questions about his ethics, tactics and candor in accepting him; and whether Eklund is ready, for the first time in his blogging career, for a little transparency. Because as Eklund's popularity and influence have grown -- with surging Web traffic, high-profile radio gigs and an on-air role during an NHL trade deadline television special -- so have serious charges about a fraudulent biography, his lack of journalistic ethics and some online behavior that historically has gotten professional reporters fired. During our hour-long conversation, the "anonymous hockey blogger" finally began to answer to them -- with some startling revelations. Even if he now claims not to be a journalist, it doesn't matter. Plagiarism is plagiarism, rumor monger or not.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 All evidence to the contrary: http://nhl.fanhouse.com/2007/08/01/unmaske...stions-about-a/ Even if he now claims not to be a journalist, it doesn't matter. Plagiarism is plagiarism, rumor monger or not. That's from 2007 ... if he hasn't changed his operation by now to become part of the legitimate media, I don't think he ever will. He chose to keep the schtick going instead of playing by the PHWA's rules. As far as I am concerned, he is what he is and there is no point getting worked up over the guy.
Bmwolf21 Posted February 23, 2009 Report Posted February 23, 2009 That's from 2007 ... if he hasn't changed his operation by now to become part of the legitimate media, I don't think he ever will. He chose to keep the schtick going instead of playing by the PHWA's rules. As far as I am concerned, he is what he is and there is no point getting worked up over the guy. You're partly right - he's a thief and a plagiarist. That is what he is. That is more than enough to get worked up over. He's a no-talent hack who makes stuff up. Period. And it's more like he kept his shtick going because the PHWA told him to :censored: off, not that he "chose to keep his shtick."
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.