BamBam Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 The most insulting thing of all is that the jackass doesn't even have the integrity to make up stuff that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two or less Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 IF this had any truth to it, i'd imagine it'd be something like Stafford + Kassian for JJ + 3rd round pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two or less Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 Has this guy EVER been right about a Sabres rumor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrix31 Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 Would be nice....obviously not going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cereal Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawerchuk Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PotentPowerPlay22 Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pullup Champ Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullwinkle Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
korab rules Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted September 24, 2010 Report Share Posted September 24, 2010 Bam is Eck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpgr909 Posted September 25, 2010 Report Share Posted September 25, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PotentPowerPlay22 Posted September 25, 2010 Report Share Posted September 25, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted September 25, 2010 Report Share Posted September 25, 2010 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.