Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
I posted a trade proposal in calgaryflames board like 4 years back and Eklund copied it word for word on his blog or w/e, I was quite impressed lol. Im considered a "source".
He seemed to have Zanon before anyone else I follow on twitter.
But I also think Eklund gets a bit of a raw deal, people ignore that he deals in rumors where as the deadline shows are there to break trades that have actually happened, not as much to report on rumors.
Even if Eklund is correct on 0.3% of his rumors, I would say that's actually pretty good. I have no statistical evidence but I think its safe to say that less than 1 in every 100 trades discussed actually happens. And that is a large chunk of what the guy says, that's why he words things like this:
"team X is interested in player Y"
"team Z is talking to team W"
....etc
by my math if 1 in every 100 trades discussed actually happens and Eklund is right 0.3% of the time, it means he could actually be right closer to 1/3 of the time. Since 99% of the talks he reports on wouldn't actually happen.
Agree fully!
What those in charge here need to do is step up and punish those who complain about an Eklund rumor in a correctly titled thread. Don't want to read it, don't click the link. To comment on the source rather than the rumor is trolling and should be punished.
If I go by memory alone, he did break the Richards trade this summer. I remember how he was ridiculed on here by everybody once he called it. He also broke the Pronger trade from EDM to ANH back then before the big guys did.
I'm not a fan and I don't pay for his services but I find the bashing on here quite annoying. Give it a rest, people. The guy DO have some connections and sources that you don't. That's a fact.
well a lot of his rumors are saying certain teams are interested in certain players which could easily be true and we just don't know.
That's exactly the point. We could never know. So it's impossible to say if his reports are credible or reliable or anywhere close to being true. Because everything he reports has to stand on its own.
To compare him to Bob McKenzie (which is a disservice to McKenzie), but if you'll allow: we know McKenzie, we read him in The Hockey News, we watch him on television, we read his articles online and his tweets, he has even participated on these boards. We know about his sons playing hockey, we've seen him interviewing GMs and coaches and players. This all adds up.
The likelihood of McKenzie reporting falsehoods or making things up is extremely low, if not for pure ethics alone, then at least because someone in his 25-30 years of work would have blown the house of cards over. The time he has put in and continues to put in establishes credibility.
Now let's look at Eklund. What do we know? Well, we don't really know his name (officially). We don't really know his background (depending on what version of his biography you've read, he's written best-selling books, worked for two, maybe three NHL teams, etc.). We've never "seen" him (shadowy figure in the rafters at Sportsnet while Darren Millard and Bill Watters ate pizza notwithstanding). He appeared pretty much out of no where and so we have no idea of his contacts, his connections, anything. Sure, we know from past reporting that he's buddies with Tim Pannacio and a few other guys, but that's never been presented by him. It's only been things dug up by real journalists actually doing the work. He presents his readers with nothing of himself and expects them to believe what he says. Where's the credibility?
The idea of anonymity on the Internet flies almost directly in the face of credibility and ethics when it comes to reporting and journalism. There's a reason why my articles are written under my name, why I post here under my name, why I tweet under my name, etc. etc. In a way, it's branding, but more importantly it's trust too. Bob McKenzie is presenting his true self, his true name and from that truth comes the reasonably expectation that everything that goes along with that starting truth is likely to be true. That's a standard I try to follow myself.
Eklund doesn't provide any of that truth, which to me is the initial nugget of my problem with him. There are real writers, real journalists doing better work than him, providing more credible rumour and reporting, under their own name. But this "anonymous hockey blogger" crap continues.
I once read that "your name is the only thing you've got." Which sticks with me. If I screw up, if I report things that aren't true or make up a story, that's my name attached to it. I can't duck that. But if Eklund does, it doesn't matter as much to Dwight Keith Klessel.
its got to be hard because we dont get to see all of the actual rumours or proposals, as fans, that get shut down by GM's so maybe some of his rumours are. But i agree with most people in here I feel like he is a slimy *******, but if anyone can just make **** up and lie and make money on it, why dont we all...since we dont, he must have done something right...once or twice
That's exactly the point. We could never know. So it's impossible to say if his reports are credible or reliable or anywhere close to being true. Because everything he reports has to stand on its own.
To compare him to Bob McKenzie (which is a disservice to McKenzie), but if you'll allow: we know McKenzie, we read him in The Hockey News, we watch him on television, we read his articles online and his tweets, he has even participated on these boards. We know about his sons playing hockey, we've seen him interviewing GMs and coaches and players. This all adds up.
The likelihood of McKenzie reporting falsehoods or making things up is extremely low, if not for pure ethics alone, then at least because someone in his 25-30 years of work would have blown the house of cards over. The time he has put in and continues to put in establishes credibility.
Now let's look at Eklund. What do we know? Well, we don't really know his name (officially). We don't really know his background (depending on what version of his biography you've read, he's written best-selling books, worked for two, maybe three NHL teams, etc.). We've never "seen" him (shadowy figure in the rafters at Sportsnet while Darren Millard and Bill Watters ate pizza notwithstanding). He appeared pretty much out of no where and so we have no idea of his contacts, his connections, anything. Sure, we know from past reporting that he's buddies with Tim Pannacio and a few other guys, but that's never been presented by him. It's only been things dug up by real journalists actually doing the work. He presents his readers with nothing of himself and expects them to believe what he says. Where's the credibility?
The idea of anonymity on the Internet flies almost directly in the face of credibility and ethics when it comes to reporting and journalism. There's a reason why my articles are written under my name, why I post here under my name, why I tweet under my name, etc. etc. In a way, it's branding, but more importantly it's trust too. Bob McKenzie is presenting his true self, his true name and from that truth comes the reasonably expectation that everything that goes along with that starting truth is likely to be true. That's a standard I try to follow myself.
Eklund doesn't provide any of that truth, which to me is the initial nugget of my problem with him. There are real writers, real journalists doing better work than him, providing more credible rumour and reporting, under their own name. But this "anonymous hockey blogger" crap continues.
I once read that "your name is the only thing you've got." Which sticks with me. If I screw up, if I report things that aren't true or make up a story, that's my name attached to it. I can't duck that. But if Eklund does, it doesn't matter as much to Dwight Keith Klessel.
/THREAD
This is the problem that most people have with Eklund summed up perfectly. He can't be trusted at face value because he has nothing to gain or lose by having his credibility come into question. The fact that some sheep take his "I have sources" at face value is discouraging, as there is nothing to stop an anonymous poster here with a friend or two in the NHL from staking himself as an "Insider".
This is the problem that most people have with Eklund summed up perfectly. He can't be trusted at face value because he has nothing to gain or lose by having his credibility come into question. The fact that some sheep take his "I have sources" at face value is discouraging, as there is nothing to stop an anonymous poster here with a friend or two in the NHL from staking himself as an "Insider".
Which is a larger problem in itself.
Now there are people following this "Eklund" model. Whether for financial gain or just attention or whatever, there's such a clutter of "rumour" and "speculation" that it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate what's true and what is false. And the only people who suffer are the fans who just want news and the actual serious writers who are trying to do the right thing and report true facts, only to either get bogged down chasing these dead-ends or to have their voice lost in the noise.
Look no further than the deadline coverage: Marc Crawford got duped by one of these make-believe "sources" that Steve Staios was sent to Vancouver and reported it on the air. I'm pretty sure Gord Miller and Bob McKenzie were stifling laughter when he said it. That's the effect that this crap has had on legitimate sports journalism.
And somehow this is a good thing?
That people can just report so many outright lies and not be held accountable, not stand behind it and if ever brought into question only have to retreat behind the platitude of "oh, well talks were happening/negotiations behind closed doors".
Look at who you follow and where you get your news. Have you ever seen legitimate journalists behave in that manner?
So for whatever time you spent on following Eklund, the best thing you got out of it was Zanon to Boston 4 minutes before Bob McKenzie reported it?
This is basically what I was trying to say in my earlier post.
How does this tiny lead on the mainstream media (which truly can be chalked up to sitting there with his thumbs on his phone, ready to tweet) constitute "breaking" a story in any substantial way?
And even if you still consider him to be the one who "broke" it, what does a 4 minute head start matter anyway? It's 4 friggin' minutes.
He was tweeting about how the Sabres were trying to resign Gaustad...during his post deadline presser GM DR then came out and said no extension was ever discussed
That is not true and Regier was on the local Radio show on Friday and said he met with Gaustad's agent. Some people think that Regier was informing him he'd be traded but they wanted to resign him in the offseason.
That's exactly the point. We could never know. So it's impossible to say if his reports are credible or reliable or anywhere close to being true. Because everything he reports has to stand on its own.
To compare him to Bob McKenzie (which is a disservice to McKenzie), but if you'll allow: we know McKenzie, we read him in The Hockey News, we watch him on television, we read his articles online and his tweets, he has even participated on these boards. We know about his sons playing hockey, we've seen him interviewing GMs and coaches and players. This all adds up.
The likelihood of McKenzie reporting falsehoods or making things up is extremely low, if not for pure ethics alone, then at least because someone in his 25-30 years of work would have blown the house of cards over. The time he has put in and continues to put in establishes credibility.
Now let's look at Eklund. What do we know? Well, we don't really know his name (officially). We don't really know his background (depending on what version of his biography you've read, he's written best-selling books, worked for two, maybe three NHL teams, etc.). We've never "seen" him (shadowy figure in the rafters at Sportsnet while Darren Millard and Bill Watters ate pizza notwithstanding). He appeared pretty much out of no where and so we have no idea of his contacts, his connections, anything. Sure, we know from past reporting that he's buddies with Tim Pannacio and a few other guys, but that's never been presented by him. It's only been things dug up by real journalists actually doing the work. He presents his readers with nothing of himself and expects them to believe what he says. Where's the credibility?
The idea of anonymity on the Internet flies almost directly in the face of credibility and ethics when it comes to reporting and journalism. There's a reason why my articles are written under my name, why I post here under my name, why I tweet under my name, etc. etc. In a way, it's branding, but more importantly it's trust too. Bob McKenzie is presenting his true self, his true name and from that truth comes the reasonably expectation that everything that goes along with that starting truth is likely to be true. That's a standard I try to follow myself.
Eklund doesn't provide any of that truth, which to me is the initial nugget of my problem with him. There are real writers, real journalists doing better work than him, providing more credible rumour and reporting, under their own name. But this "anonymous hockey blogger" crap continues.
I once read that "your name is the only thing you've got." Which sticks with me. If I screw up, if I report things that aren't true or make up a story, that's my name attached to it. I can't duck that. But if Eklund does, it doesn't matter as much to Dwight Keith Klessel.
Yet, this site still has him pegged as a "credible source" and even has "Eklund" and "HockeyBuzz" titles for threads. It's amazing what a little $ will do. I wouldn't have a problem with it if HFB would just be upfront with us about the situation.
Yet, this site still has him pegged as a "credible source" and even has "Eklund" and "HockeyBuzz" titles for threads. It's amazing what a little $ will do. I wouldn't have a problem with it if HFB would just be upfront with us about the situation.
I don't know anymore than you do about the internals of that situation, but I don't think money was exchanged to place Eklund as a credible source. I think it was more proof of identity/verification. Frankly, I think he had one of his media buddies vouch for him.
As for the Eklund/HockeyBuzz tags for threads, that was done in direct response to people saying they didn't want to read those threads/wanted to avoid them, so it was dictated that they would be marked appropriately so that people could avoid them if they chose to.
EDIT:
To clarify my above posts a bit: I don't think Eklund makes up most of the things he reports. That is to say, I don't think he sits at home and intentionally publishes lies. I think in part, he looks at situations and makes "educated" (using the term loosely) guesses about what situations might result in player movement and what players might be good fits for other teams etc. I think he might start with a nugget of truth (guy unhappy with his coach/playing time) and then pads it out a bit to make a story (if he's dealt, here's some teams that would likely be interested). I also think that he operates as basically a pipeline without a filter (either knowingly or not, although I'm going to assume he knows).
I remember when the Valerie Plame/CIA/Yellowcake uranium thing was going on in the States (if you're unaware of the reference, don't worry about it). Anyway, there was a reporter, Robert Novak (he has since passed away) who ran with the story of Plame being a CIA analyst, basically publicly revealing it in his column.
Now the criticism at the time for Novak was that he ran with every story, regardless of the source, regardless of the quality, regardless of how true it was (or wasn't). Anything someone mentioned to him that seemed juicy was printed. There was no filter, no verification, no double-checking. If it crossed his radar, it made it to print. This is pretty dangerous journalism. It's real live by the sword kind of thing. It allowed Novak to break a number of stories but it also led to him being manipulated a bit as a pawn in the Washington political scene.
I think this is how Eklund operates (obviously to a smaller, less important scale). Which explains the instances where he's "copying" rumours off message boards or what have you. He simply reports everything, not caring about whether it's coming from a good source or it's true. There's no self-moderation.
I saw Spector's name mentioned earlier in this thread and he operates in a similar fashion, but with one key difference: almost everything Spector/Lyle Richardson posts is sourced back to a beat writer or columnist somewhere. Spector's Hockey is just an aggregate.
Spector's Hockey operates as a clearinghouse of the rumours published in newspapers/mainstream media columns etc across the country.
Eklund operates as a clearinghouse of that same spectrum, but also anything else he comes across. To me, that's the huge difference between the two.
Last edited by Kevin Forbes: 02-28-2012 at 01:23 PM.
I don't know anymore than you do about the internals of that situation, but I don't think money was exchanged to place Eklund as a credible source. I think it was more proof of identity/verification. Frankly, I think he had one of his media buddies vouch for him.
As for the Eklund/HockeyBuzz tags for threads, that was done in direct response to people saying they didn't want to read those threads/wanted to avoid them, so it was dictated that they would be marked appropriately so that people could avoid them if they chose to.
My problem with this explanation is that there is no thread marker for ***************, ***********, bleacher report, and other BS "sources" that truly are just as credible as Eklund. They're simply censored by the site.
My problem with this explanation is that there is no thread marker for ***************, ***********, bleacher report, and other BS "sources" that truly are just as credible as Eklund. They're simply censored by the site.
That's my concern. There are reputable sources that are out there that HF doesn't like or won't allow them to compete with Eklund.
I had one guy on twitter that called the Zanon deal before Eklund and then several minutes later Eklund posted it on his twitter.
It's pretty well known that all Eklund is doing is following virtually EVERYONE on twitter and just refreshing non-stop. Then when anyone credible calls something, he immediatly reports it so it makes it look like he is 'in the know'.
The fact that anyone thinks this guy is 'credible' is laughable. But kudos to him for paying off his home with this crap. Wish I'd thought of it.
He should just reveal his true "identity" (even thought most people know it) and should just stick to his sources in Philly. He should have a Flyers based rumor site.
For example, he got the Carter, Richards, Grossman deals (off the top of my head).
He should just reveal his true "identity" (even thought most people know it) and should just stick to his sources in Philly. He should have a Flyers based rumor site.
For example, he got the Carter, Richards, Grossman deals (off the top of my head).
Then he wouldnt have as many followers, and thus less money.
And I absolutely believe he makes up most of the stuff he publishes.
How this site makes him a credible source is laughable, they have to be getting some money from him.
