HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Still waiting for an explanation (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=88237)

dropthegloves 07-01-2004 11:14 AM

Still waiting for an explanation
 
Look at me!

Potted Plant 07-01-2004 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropthegloves
Exactly why didn't we pick any defenseman in the first 3 rounds? Or take Olesz? Or conduct the majority of the draft around taking the best player available instead of need?

Well, I explained earlier in the thread that has since been deleted, you do not know that we went "need" rather than BPA. All you know is that we took mostly forwards. You don't know WHY we took mostly forwards. Likely, forwards were always considered the BPA whenever we were drafting.

Why didn't we take Olesz? Well, as Edge explained before the draft, someone dropped out of the Rangers' top 5. He just didn't know who or exactly why. Turns out that that someone was Olesz. Days before the draft, Olesz was in our sights. Then we changed our mind. It's not exactly earth shattering.

dropthegloves 07-01-2004 11:21 AM

No really, look at me!

TKLOOCH22 07-01-2004 11:23 AM

Lol, someone needs a clue. Or a life. 2 threads on this crap is insulting.

I'm pretty sure a Guru like yourself has all General Managers across the NHL cracked and figured out, huh? Give it up.

CoolDude* 07-01-2004 11:23 AM

Are you trying to say Montoya wasn't the best player available?

dropthegloves 07-01-2004 11:23 AM

Ignore me.

L.I.RangerFan 07-01-2004 11:24 AM

Thread gone in 3,2,.........

dropthegloves 07-01-2004 11:25 AM

I need attention.

dropthegloves 07-01-2004 11:27 AM

:goodmod:

dropthegloves 07-01-2004 11:29 AM

The periodic symbol for iron is Fe.

NYR469 07-01-2004 11:29 AM

if they drafted completely based on needs then why did they take montoya considering that a goalie was the least of our needs? they absolutely went with who they felt was the BPA with that pick...

and it was a crappy year for dmen after the top group...so how do you know that they didn't simply have those forwards ranked higher than the available dmen?

your entire arguement is based on assumptions about stuff that we don't know the answers too

Onion Boy 07-01-2004 11:29 AM

Quote:

They drafted almost entirely from need due to the confidence in their defense prospects.
Prove it. The only evidence out there giving insight into the Rangers' draft choices were Maloney's own comments claiming that at each pick they were picking the BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE which happened to be a forward most of the time. While that may or may not be true, take it as exhibit A. What you're arguing is pure speculation.

TKLOOCH22 07-01-2004 11:30 AM

I'm sure a HS junior who wont be in college until 2005, Billy Ryan, is drafting a need. Drafting a raw grinder, Dane Byers, who is gonna need somewhat of a long time is drafting a need. Drafting a soaking wet 165 lbs. freshman collegian in Darin Olver who will need 2 years atleast, is drafting a need. Getting a Humongous giant thats gonna take two more years in junior and alteast one more year in HFD is drafting for a need. If these are gonna be our needs in a few years then yea, oh man you're right. But when you say we drafted for need, that means they are stepping in to fill your holes right now and that isnt happening with a single player we drafted this year.

Potted Plant 07-01-2004 11:45 AM

Not to defend the guy, but I don't think deleting the messages and whatnot is necessary. If the board devolves in general, then it's time to step in. I'm not really bothered by this guy yet though.

klingsor 07-01-2004 11:47 AM

Can't put my finger on it, but I'm starting to miss Pasha.

Prucha73 07-01-2004 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighlyRegardedRookie
Not to defend the guy, but I don't think deleting the messages and whatnot is necessary. If the board devolves in general, then it's time to step in. I'm not really bothered by this guy yet though.

I agree, it is ridiculous, I don't even know what he said or why it was deleted.

dropthegloves 07-01-2004 11:57 AM

No kidding. If you want to watch profanity fine. Or racial stuff fine. I support both a 100%. However, some fiesty, chat board combat with some anger and smart remarks is not abusive. Thus, should not be illegal as per our agreement. I don't know how the moderators have gotten away with re-doing the agreement to match their own beliefs. You should all send e-mails to the owners like I did. If enough people complain we can make a difference. If you want to rip me or make smart comments to me. God bless you. That is what makes chat fun. This isn't a chat board. It's a dictatorship.

Pearl Necklace 07-01-2004 11:57 AM

No, no, no....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by klingsor
Can't put my finger on it, but I'm starting to miss Pasha.


...you're not missing Pasha. He was on an entirely different level.

Potted Plant 07-01-2004 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropthegloves
No really, look at me!

To answer your original post, I never claimed to have great insight. In fact, I think this draft is testament to the fact that the media and the message boards tend to have a very incomplete picture of what is going on at the draft. Wes O'Neill was being discussed as a top 10 pick in April/May. In that time, we were having endless Schremp/Ladd debates, in which I actively participated (in favor of Schremp). Later, I changed my tune on him and predicted he would drop, possibly into the second round. I got some things right (I picked Valabik going to 12) and I got some things wrong (I thought Lyamin would be a top 25 pick). Like most people, I never heard of Darin Olver before we drafted him. You made some very general predictions on the nature of "we'll draft forwards". You turned out to be right about that. Congratulations. It doesn't knock my socks off though.

But I think you're making a mistake in thinking that because you were right about the "what", you must have been right about the "why". I say you can't know anything about the "why", and nor do I. But most teams claim to draft BPA, and I see no reason to think we'd do otherwise. Strangely enough, however, Phoenix admitted that they drafted Wheeler even though they had Montoya higher because they didn't need a goalie. Go figure. Maybe you really are onto something.

But there's no need to be a butthole about it.

Blueshirt13 07-01-2004 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropthegloves
No kidding. If you want to watch profanity fine. Or racial stuff fine. I support both a 100%. However, some fiesty, chat board combat with some anger and smart remarks is not abusive. Thus, should not be illegal as per our agreement. I don't know how the moderators have gotten away with re-doing the agreement to match their own beliefs. You should all send e-mails to the owners like I did. If enough people complain we can make a difference. If you want to rip me or make smart comments to me. God bless you. That is what makes chat fun. This isn't a chat board. It's a dictatorship.

What makes a chat fun is when someone posts their OPINION, people can DEBATE back and forth on the TOPIC. At times, people tend to get emotional and the conversation gets heated but ultimately people understand that they each are entitled to their opinions and views and in the end nothing we discuss here decides ultimately what will happen.

The reason why the post was removed, I am guessing, is because it was not placed up to discuss a TOPIC but instead posted solely to try to rip an individual's views. If you posted to a specific string on one of the topics, arguing your view, fine. But putting up a post solely to attack someone is childish and completely uncalled for and that is probably why it was removed and if I was a moderator, I probably would have locked up the string as soon as I read the post.

Anyways, it's not worth responding here so if you have any points on hockey, on our picks, on our future, on the team, predictions for FA, predictions for trades or on the organization as a whole, feel free to post on it. If you want to attack people for the sake of being a jerk, go to an AOL or Yahoo chatroom and I am sure you will find plenty of people to play with.

L.I.RangerFan 07-01-2004 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropthegloves
No kidding. If you want to watch profanity fine. Or racial stuff fine. I support both a 100%. However, some fiesty, chat board combat with some anger and smart remarks is not abusive. Thus, should not be illegal as per our agreement. I don't know how the moderators have gotten away with re-doing the agreement to match their own beliefs. You should all send e-mails to the owners like I did. If enough people complain we can make a difference. If you want to rip me or make smart comments to me. God bless you. That is what makes chat fun. This isn't a chat board. It's a dictatorship.

See this link and all your questions will be answered.

http://hfboards.com/faq.php?

Prucha73 07-01-2004 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighlyRegardedRookie
To answer your original post, I never claimed to have great insight. In fact, I think this draft is testament to the fact that the media and the message boards tend to have a very incomplete picture of what is going on at the draft. Wes O'Neill was being discussed as a top 10 pick in April/May. In that time, we were having endless Schremp/Ladd debates, in which I actively participated (in favor of Schremp). Later, I changed my tune on him and predicted he would drop, possibly into the second round. I got some things right (I picked Valabik going to 12) and I got some things wrong (I thought Lyamin would be a top 25 pick). Like most people, I never heard of Darin Olver before we drafted him. You made some very general predictions on the nature of "we'll draft forwards". You turned out to be right about that. Congratulations. It doesn't knock my socks off though.

But I think you're making a mistake in thinking that because you were right about the "what", you must have been right about the "why". I say you can't know anything about the "why", and nor do I. But most teams claim to draft BPA, and I see no reason to think we'd do otherwise. Strangely enough, however, Phoenix admitted that they drafted Wheeler even though they had Montoya higher because they didn't need a goalie. Go figure. Maybe you really are onto something.

But there's no need to be a butthole about it.

I think most teams now don't trust the outside scouting services and go with their own scouting staff to rank the prospects. Of course there are teams like Hurricanes that mostly go by the outside scouting services.

But as for goalies, that is one position that is a good idea to exclude from the BPA theory at least for the first 15 to 30 picks. Look at Marek Schwarz, he was ranked by many as best goalie of the draft, yet many teams passed, not because he wasn't the BPA, but simply because they did not need another young goalie. And besides how much better is Montoya then Cory Schneider who we could easily had at #24? I think it would be wiser to trade down to #11 take Tukonen or Stafford, stay at #24 and get Schneider if they really needed another good goalie and have ourselves 2 more 2nd rounders or a 2nd rounder and a prospect.

Shadowtron 07-01-2004 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueshirt13
What makes a chat fun is when someone posts their OPINION, people can DEBATE back and forth on the TOPIC. At times, people tend to get emotional and the conversation gets heated but ultimately people understand that they each are entitled to their opinions and views and in the end nothing we discuss here decides ultimately what will happen.

The reason why the post was removed, I am guessing, is because it was not placed up to discuss a TOPIC but instead posted solely to try to rip an individual's views. If you posted to a specific string on one of the topics, arguing your view, fine. But putting up a post solely to attack someone is childish and completely uncalled for and that is probably why it was removed and if I was a moderator, I probably would have locked up the string as soon as I read the post.

Anyways, it's not worth responding here so if you have any points on hockey, on our picks, on our future, on the team, predictions for FA, predictions for trades or on the organization as a whole, feel free to post on it. If you want to attack people for the sake of being a jerk, go to an AOL or Yahoo chatroom and I am sure you will find plenty of people to play with.


Exactly. You can't create a post calling everyone idiots and then cry that there's been a breach in the agreement when your post has been deleted.

Dropthegloves, you have a very brash posting style. Borderline Trollish. You have to expect the be met with a certainy degree of harshness because of it. You created a post not to DEBATE a topic, arouse anger. How were you expecting that to be met with anything other than a deletion of your posts? This just isn't that type of message board. As Blueshirt13 put it, there are plenty of message boards around that have less civility and more raunch. Perhaps those are the places you should seek out, because unless you do a complete 180, I don't expect to see you around here much longer.

Shadowtron 07-01-2004 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.I.RangerFan
See this link and all your questions will be answered.

http://hfboards.com/faq.php?


In particular:


"Making threats, libelous comments, or attacks on other posters, including former posters, will not be tolerated. This is simple as calling someone an idiot, or as complex as calling them something in another language."

L.I.RangerFan 07-01-2004 12:27 PM

And
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowtron
In particular:


"Making threats, libelous comments, or attacks on other posters, including former posters, will not be tolerated. This is simple as calling someone an idiot, or as complex as calling them something in another language."

Additionally

f) Posting (aka trolling) for the specific purpose of inflaming other users will result in loss of posting priviledges.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:24 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.