Ecks Latest Sabres Rumor

[BamBam]

Read at your own risk....but here it is.

 

"I'm also looking into a possible deal involving the Sabres and Kings that could bring Jack Johnson and a pick to Buffalo for Stafford and "another strong forward with speed." Stafford to LA?

 

Any takers on who this is?

[thesportsbuff]

Yeah because the Sabres, with 8 NHL defensemen on the roster, are trying to move two forwards to add a 9th. :rolleyes:

 

If we could do it for Stafford and Gaustad or something, I'm all for it -- of course this will likely mean losing one of Butler/Weber/Sekera to minors or on waivers or whatever the situation is. But pretty much anybody else besides maybe Gerbe and I don't see it happening.

[inkman]

The most insulting thing of all is that the jackass doesn't even have the integrity to make up stuff that makes sense.

[Two or less]

IF this had any truth to it, i'd imagine it'd be something like Stafford + Kassian for JJ + 3rd round pick.

[Two or less]

Btw, for what it's worth, in Eklund's rumor page with the Johnson rumor, he has Souray to NYR (or a diff Oil/NYR deal) but Darren Dreger tweeted tonight that Oilers and NYR have NOT SPOKEN about any deal at all.

[Kristian]

Read at your own risk....but here it is.

 

"I'm also looking into a possible deal involving the Sabres and Kings that could bring Jack Johnson and a pick to Buffalo for Stafford and "another strong forward with speed." Stafford to LA?

 

Any takers on who this is?

 

I call BS.

 

We have no "strong forwards with speed" :thumbsup:

[eball]

Has this guy EVER been right about a Sabres rumor?

[TheMatrix31]

Would be nice....obviously not going to happen.

[shrader]

I've been thinking of starting my own eklund-style site for a while now. Does anyone know where I can find a monkey who likes to throw feces all day?

[thesportsbuff]

I've been thinking of starting my own eklund-style site for a while now. Does anyone know where I can find a monkey who likes to throw feces all day?

 

i will do it, depending on the price

[Iron Crotch]

Has this guy EVER been right about a Sabres rumor?

 

That's actually an interesting question. I think the answer is no. I can't recall a single time he has ever been right about the Sabres.

[nobody]

Yeah because the Sabres, with 8 NHL defensemen on the roster, are trying to move two forwards to add a 9th. :rolleyes:

 

If we could do it for Stafford and Gaustad or something, I'm all for it -- of course this will likely mean losing one of Butler/Weber/Sekera to minors or on waivers or whatever the situation is. But pretty much anybody else besides maybe Gerbe and I don't see it happening.

 

 

As I said in the other thread - I'm thinking Lindy is coming up with a creative new setup to play the game. He wants to put 3 defensemen & 2 forwards out for each shift.

[shrader]

i will do it, depending on the price

 

See, that won't work. You actually know who these players are and you could be aiming towards the pictures of certain players in order to influence the rumors.

[Cereal]

Does this thread mean it's officially hockey season??!!! :nana:

 

Jack Johnson's a stud. Maybe the Kings would want one or two of our young up and coming D-men plus Stafford haha.

[Hawerchuk]

Has this guy EVER been right about a Sabres rumor?

That would be a "NO" good buddy! I really hate that Eklund idiot. Nothing he states ever materializes... ever!!

[PotentPowerPlay22]

That's actually an interesting question. I think the answer is no. I can't recall a single time he has ever been right about the Sabres.

 

Even Darcy Regier would tell you that most deals don't get done even when they are discussed. The reporting about a possible deal should be taken with this in mind. It would be completely impossible to believe that every discussion between teams about a deal would be completed. There is so much back and forth before a deal is ever made. I would guess that over 95% of the discussions between GM's do not lead to deals.

 

Does that make reporting these discussions invalid? I don't think so. If the deal doesn't happen it doesn't mean the initial report was untrue.

 

As an example, there were stories that the Sabres were trying to deal Max Afinogenov. It never happened, but the rumors were accurate.

[Pullup Champ]

I've been thinking of starting my own eklund-style site for a while now. Does anyone know where I can find a monkey who likes to throw feces all day?

 

 

 

"If you have any poo.....fling it now".

[Iron Crotch]

Even Darcy Regier would tell you that most deals don't get done even when they are discussed. The reporting about a possible deal should be taken with this in mind. It would be completely impossible to believe that every discussion between teams about a deal would be completed. There is so much back and forth before a deal is ever made. I would guess that over 95% of the discussions between GM's do not lead to deals.

 

Does that make reporting these discussions invalid? I don't think so. If the deal doesn't happen it doesn't mean the initial report was untrue.

 

As an example, there were stories that the Sabres were trying to deal Max Afinogenov. It never happened, but the rumors were accurate.

 

By that logic Ek should be right about 5% of the time give-or-take (assuming he actually has some inside knowledge). But he is right 0% of the time, at least when it comes to the Sabres. So until he gets at least one right, IMHO his site is nothing but a concocted listing of "what if" scenarios.

[shrader]

By that logic Ek should be right about 5% of the time give-or-take (assuming he actually has some inside knowledge). But he is right 0% of the time, at least when it comes to the Sabres. So until he gets at least one right, IMHO his site is nothing but a concocted listing of "what if" scenarios.

 

Also by that logic, anyone can create whatever "rumor" they want with basically no repercussions. The only thing that could prove them to be false is if a GM actually spoke out to shoot them down, which they would never do.

[Bullwinkle]

I reported this rumor yesterday - and I didn't get it from Eckland (whomever that is) but from Spector.

 

I called it nonsense when I posted it here yesterday and I still think it's nonsense today. LA isn't that stupid.

[korab rules]

I reported this rumor yesterday - and I didn't get it from Eckland (whomever that is) but from Spector.

 

I called it nonsense when I posted it here yesterday and I still think it's nonsense today. LA isn't that stupid.

spector was reporting it as coming from ecklund.

[SwampD]

Bam is Eck.

[jpgr909]

Yes, this rumor is complete garbage. That said, is there any word from a reputable source that Jack Johnson is available? I wouldn't think so, though with Doughty they already have an all-around stud D-man, so maybe JJ is expendable for the right price (the Kings still have post-Kovalchuk-sweepstakes needs). JJ entered the league with some lofty expectations, and he seemed to have disappointed a lot of folks with his sub-par defensive zone play. I always thought most of the criticism was a bit unfair and I expected him to improve as he matured. After getting a pretty good dose of him in the regular season and Olympics, I was pretty impressed. He was much improved defensively and he was excellent for the Kings down the stretch last year, even when his teammates weren't providing much help. Not that this has anything to do with the Sabres, but in general I'd put a trade package together if he were available (I'm unaware of his contract status). Despite his very good season last year, MAYBE it wouldn't take as much to land him considering he's somewhat overshadowed by Doughty in LA. Still a lot, but MAYBE not quite the moon.

[PotentPowerPlay22]

By that logic Ek should be right about 5% of the time give-or-take (assuming he actually has some inside knowledge). But he is right 0% of the time, at least when it comes to the Sabres. So until he gets at least one right, IMHO his site is nothing but a concocted listing of "what if" scenarios.

 

First of all, your conclusion that using my "guess that over 95% of the discussions between GM's do not lead to deals" would infer Ek is right about 5% of the time is logically incorrect. I don't have the time to explain why you are wrong, but you are.

 

Secondly, have you evaluated all the rumors for accuracy? If so, please report the statistics to all of us. If not, how can you say that his rumors have a 0% accuracy pertaining to the Sabres?

 

Thirdly, if reporting baseless stories is wrong, then how would you explain the high ratings for Fox News? Apparently, people don't necessarily require facts or substance to be entertained either by so called rumor sites or mainstream national media.

[inkman]

Thirdly, if reporting baseless stories is wrong, then how would you explain the high ratings for Fox News? Apparently, people don't necessarily require facts or substance to be entertained either by so called rumor sites or mainstream national media.

Hence W...twice. :rolleyes: