And like I said, there is zero logic in that statement. A player in the past has struggled in the KHL, so therefore Malkin, Crosby, and Ovechkin would also if they went over there now to play. Yea, I can see the logic there.
Ovechkin was 18 and 19 and both seasons he played in the KHL he was well under PPG. Then suddenly he goes to the NHL and blows up for 106 Pts in his rookie season.
Ovechkin has struggled on the larger ice surface in International competitions.
No matter how fast and a strong a player is, for some reason the larger ice surface has eluded them.
Explain this to me, why has Canada faired better in recent years in International tournaments played on smaller rinks (2010 Olympics, 2004 World Cup) than on the larger surfaces? Canada does have the most NHL talent iced during tournaments so shouldn't they be able to dominate other teams that have players that play in "scrub leagues"?
Last edited by livewell68: 09-23-2011 at 10:14 AM.
My conclusions are based on logic and reason. Your reply here is another example of how your statements lack logic, in that you didn't take into account Jagr's age, in Jagr "producing in Jagr terms"
Just as there is zero logic in saying that you can with 110% conviction say that Crosby, Ovechkin, or Malkin wouldn't lead the KHL is scoring
Logic? I thought you were here only to talk hockey, and nothing else?
Well, then:
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanSciver
It's not realistic to think he'll be able to play at the same level as he did in his prime. Have you read any credible NHL source who beleives that Jagr can play to that level. That he will challenge for the Art Ross?
If Jagr can play at that level, why weren't more teams interested in him as a player?
"In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for 'appeal to the people') is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; it alleges: 'If many believe so, it is so.'"
I think it's pretty much common sense that a player who is projected to be a dominant, 100 point scorer, who is going to contend for the Art Ross trophy, would draw far more interest aroound the League, then a 39 year old player who can be a solid player and put up solid offensive numbers in line with the realistic projections from Jagr.
The common sense is that "a player who is projected to be a dominant, 100 point scorer, who is going to contend for the Art Ross trophy, would draw far more interest around the League" than a player who is not projected "to be a dominant, 100 point scorer, who is going to contend for the Art Ross trophy".
But since you admit you don't know how many teams were interested in signing Jagr, how can you possibly conclude from this "common sense" into which group Jagr belongs? You can't... and still, you start talking to someone here about "zero logic"...
Players who are projected to be Art Ross winners and pot 100 points earn more than 3.5 mil for a year. They also have more suitors than just Detroit and Pittsburgh, with Philly tossing out a "why not" offer.
__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
My conclusions are based on logic and reason. Your reply here is another example of how your statements lack logic, in that you didn't take into account Jagr's age, in Jagr "producing in Jagr terms"
Just as there is zero logic in saying that you can with 110% conviction say that Crosby, Ovechkin, or Malkin wouldn't lead the KHL is scoring
My arguments are based upon my logic and reason.
Can you provide a single source or credible report that suggests that Jagr will not score at the same pace as his prime.
Oh wait, you can't? Stop using that lame argument. They are based upon your logic and your reasoning.
Except it's hockey. I'm fed up of him asking for proof when he provides nothing himself but his own egotistical views on the subject. He does it for every argument.
Please read through a thread before posting the same crap that has been argued a million times. Kovulchuck didn't manage a ppg in the KHL either. Guess the guy is a hack
You do know there are 34 pages in this thread right? So, before anyone comments they should read and ensure they do not duplicate a point already discussed in the thread? Child Please
Ovechkin was 18 and 19 and both seasons he played in the KHL he was well under PPG. Then suddenly he goes to the NHL and blows up for 106 Pts in his rookie season.
Ovechkin has struggled on the larger ice surface in International competitions.
No matter how fast and a strong a player is, for some reason the larger ice surface has eluded them.
Explain this to me, why has Canada faired better in recent years in International tournaments played on smaller rinks (2010 Olympics, 2004 World Cup) than on the larger surfaces? Canada does have the most NHL talent iced during tournaments so shouldn't they be able to dominate other teams that have players that play in "scrub leagues"?
Who wins a World Tournament depends on who has the best team, and is playing the best Hockey. Regardless of the size of the rink. Can you prove that the only reason that Canada won was because of the rink size?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rexor
Logic? I thought you were here only to talk hockey, and nothing else?
Well, then:
"In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for 'appeal to the people') is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; it alleges: 'If many believe so, it is so.'"
Are you seriously reposting that again? It was ridiculous the first time. A second time, twice as ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pourquoi pas
The common sense is that "a player who is projected to be a dominant, 100 point scorer, who is going to contend for the Art Ross trophy, would draw far more interest around the League" than a player who is not projected "to be a dominant, 100 point scorer, who is going to contend for the Art Ross trophy".
But since you admit you don't know how many teams were interested in signing Jagr, how can you possibly conclude from this "common sense" into which group Jagr belongs? You can't... and still, you start talking to someone here about "zero logic"...
It's well known that there wasn't a bidding war for Jagr's services around the League, and that a few teams were trying to sign him. A UFA, who is a dominant player, an Art Ross contender, and a 100 pt scorer, would have had far more interest, and certainly wouldn't have signed for 3.3M
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongolium
My arguments are based upon my logic and reason.
Can you provide a single source or credible report that suggests that Jagr will not score at the same pace as his prime.
Oh wait, you can't? Stop using that lame argument. They are based upon your logic and your reasoning.
Yea, I already did. A number of pages ago. I gave Bill Meltzer, who is a well respected analyst, and also covers the European Hockey scene, has projected Jagr to score around 20-25 goals, and 55-60 pts. I also said I'd provide a link to that if neccessary. Aren't you getting tired of failing? You should have your facts straight before you criticize someone just to criticize someone. Because that's all your trying to do. You've offered zero substance.
Except it's hockey. I'm fed up of him asking for proof when he provides nothing himself but his own egotistical views on the subject. He does it for every argument.
As I've told you before. It's an open forum. Feel free to disprove or dispute any of my views. And we'll discuss. Please do so. I'm looking forward to it.
Players who are projected to be Art Ross winners and pot 100 points earn more than 3.5 mil for a year. They also have more suitors than just Detroit and Pittsburgh, with Philly tossing out a "why not" offer.
And you know that there were just two suitors (and one "why not" suitor).. how can you possibly know that?
Who wins a World Tournament depends on who has the best team, and is playing the best Hockey. Regardless of the size of the rink. Can you prove that the only reason that Canada won was because of the rink size?
Are you seriously reposting that again? It was ridiculous the first time. A second time, twice as ridiculous.
It's well known that there wasn't a bidding war for Jagr's services around the League, and that a few teams were trying to sign him. A UFA, who is a dominant player, an Art Ross contender, and a 100 pt scorer, would have had far more interest, and certainly wouldn't have signed for 3.3M
Yea, I already did. A number of pages ago. I gave Bill Meltzer, who is a well respected analyst, and also covers the European Hockey scene, has projected Jagr to score around 20-25 goals, and 55-60 pts. I also said I'd provide a link to that if neccessary. Aren't you getting tired of failing? You should have your facts straight before you criticize someone just to criticize someone. Because that's all your trying to do. You've offered zero substance.
Dan Bylsma, the coach of the Penguins himself said that scouts had been looking at Jagr in the KHL and his personal opinion was that he thought Jagr could still be a 75 Pts player. There is one expert, someone who watches players play everyday and who is coaching 2 former Art Ross winners that thinks Jagr can score more than this 50-65 Pts projection.
Last edited by livewell68: 09-23-2011 at 01:24 PM.
Except it's hockey. I'm fed up of him asking for proof when he provides nothing himself but his own egotistical views on the subject. He does it for every argument.
I have him on ignore so I don't even know what it's about haha.
Dan Bylsma, the coach of the Penguins himself said that scouts had been looking at Jagr in the KHL and his personal opinion was that he thought Jagr could still be a 75 Pts player. There is one expert, someone who watches players play everyday and who is coaching 2 former Art Ross winners that thinks Jagr can score more than this 50-65 Pts projection.
Well if you had come out and said I think Jagr can score 75 points, I seriously doubt that you would have had all the opposition to your stance that you've gotten. But that isn't what you projected for Jagr is it? You said he's going to be dominant, a 100 point scorer, and contend for the Art Ross trophy. I'm pretty sure there is a significant difference between Bylsma's opinion and yours. One is realistic, one is not.
Well if you had come out and said I think Jagr can score 75 points, I seriously doubt that you would have had all the opposition to your stance that you've gotten. But that isn't what you projected for Jagr is it? You said he's going to be dominant, a 100 point scorer, and contend for the Art Ross trophy. I'm pretty sure there is a significant difference between Bylsma's opinion and yours. One is realistic, one is not.
I am happy with my prediction and I will stick to it. I remember the same thing was said about Jagr back before the 2005-06 season had started, people thought his 100 Pts, MVP days were over and he completely surprised everyone. One thing I have learned about Jagr, when he is motivated and happy, you can never count him out. So I will stick to my prediction.
BTW I never said he was going to score more than 100 Pts, I said him scoring 100 Pts is not as far fetched. If you go re-read what I have been saying, I have been saying 80-95 Pts, with 100 Pts being a ceiling.
I am happy with my prediction and I will stick to it. I remember the same thing was said about Jagr back before the 2005-06 season had started, people thought his 100 Pts, MVP days were over and he completely surprised everyone. One thing I have learned about Jagr, when he is motivated and happy, you can never count him out. So I will stick to my prediction.
BTW I never said he was going to score more than 100 Pts, I said him scoring 100 Pts is not as far fetched. If you go re-read what I have been saying, I have been saying 80-95 Pts, with 100 Pts being a ceiling.
Backing off are we? How old was Jagr in 05/06? Tomorrow maybe it will 70-80 points?
How old was Jagr in 05/06? Backing off are we? What's it going to be tomorrow? 70-80 pts?
Jagr was 33-34 back in 2005-06, he was coming off of 3 back-to-back sub-80 Pts seasons and in fact in 2003-04 was the first season since his sophomore year in which Jagr wasn't a PPG player.
I'm not backing off anything. I have been confident from the get go, the difference between you and I is I accept certain things, you don't.
My prediction remains and it won't change that Jagr will get between 80-95 Pts and getting 100 Pts may be possible.
Jagr was 33-34 back in 2005-06, he was coming off of 3 back-to-back sub-80 Pts seasons and in fact in 2003-04 was the first season since his sophomore year in which Jagr wasn't a PPG player.
I'm not backing off anything. I have been confident from the get go, the difference between you and I is I accept certain things, you don't.
My prediction remains and it won't change that Jagr will get between 80-95 Pts and getting 100 Pts may be possible.
First of I apologise to the board for the multiple posts. don't know why it did that.
I'm perfectly willing to accept anything that is reasonable. Such as Bylsma's comments. Most of what you posted isn't reasonable. You views are clouded by an extreme infatuation with Jagr as a player.
I have to go do something but when I get back later on today, we'll start by reviewing the predictions you've made in previous posts.
Besides, if he had hordes of teams clamoring for his services he could have commanded a higher price. That's how it works.
Maybe Jagr wasn't looking for money. Many reports say that the Flyers offered him the second lowest amount of money among his suitors. Only Pittsburgh offered less.
Can you provide a single source or credible report that suggests that Jagr will not score at the same pace as his prime.
Oh wait, you can't? Stop using that lame argument. They are based upon your logic and your reasoning.
How does one provide a credible source for something that has not happended yet? At this point in the game, EVERYTHING is speculation and best guesses.
. It's just become so tedious. I think it's ignore time too.
