HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Possible Trade Ideas v5

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-28-2012, 10:36 PM
  #951
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 16,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
A 3rd rounder two years into the future is worth something around the equivalent of a 5th rounder. It's generous to say it's as valuable as a 4th rounder, so it shouldn't be referred to as that. The difference between Sheppard and someone like Christensen is that Sheppard was 23 years old when he was traded. Furthermore, the injury Sheppard sustained was non-hockey related, which carries a much different valuation modifier than a hockey related injury.
COMPLETELY disagree on the injury note! A non-hockey injury that requires several surgeries over two years to repair is just as dibilitating as a hockey injury with the same requirement!

TaLoN is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 10:40 PM
  #952
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
COMPLETELY disagree on the injury note! A non-hockey injury that requires several surgeries over two years to repair is just as dibilitating as a hockey injury with the same requirement!
But a non-hockey injury is much less of a risk of re-injury than a hockey one. If Bouchard's concussions were a result of him doing stupid things in the offseason instead of from playing hockey, would people have the same conviction that he'll be re-injured? I think not. If Cuma's knee injuries were from a car accident or from some bizarre slip while walking to lunch would there be the same worry about how long he can stay healthy? We're not worried that Seto is going to get hit by another car while leaving the chiropractor, but many people pencil Koivu in for missing 20 games with a shoulder injury this year.

squidz* is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 10:41 PM
  #953
Minnesota
Global Moderator
L'Étoile du Nord
 
Minnesota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Country: United States
Posts: 17,995
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Your vain attempt to be "deep" actually says absolutely nothing other than making a ridiculous attempt at a strawman.
Can't believe you still post like this.

Minnesota is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 10:41 PM
  #954
Vashanesh
Nope.
 
Vashanesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 500
Jesus christ, Squidz, you are absolutely impossible to get along with lately... What is your deal, man?

It's completely impossible for someone to disagree with you without you flipping out, going on seemingly unending semantical rants and inevitably questioning someone's intelligence.

Seriously, calm the **** down for a bit, it's getting really old...

Vashanesh is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 10:43 PM
  #955
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vashanesh View Post
Jesus christ, Squidz, you are absolutely impossible to get along with lately... What is your deal, man?

It's completely impossible for someone to disagree with you without you flipping out, going on seemingly unending semantical rants and inevitably questioning someone's intelligence.

Seriously, calm the **** down for a bit, it's getting really old...
Who's flipping out? Neither TaLoN nor I seem to have any issue discussing this. While a certain someone who was moderated a couple times in this thread hasn't been able to discuss things rationally, it doesn't seem anyone else has this issue.

squidz* is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 10:45 PM
  #956
Fel 96
JFC
 
Fel 96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Little Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 56,873
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Fel 96
Ok, I definitely think I'm lost somewhere.

Fel 96 is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 10:48 PM
  #957
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 16,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
But a non-hockey injury is much less of a risk of re-injury than a hockey one. If Bouchard's concussions were a result of him doing stupid things in the offseason instead of from playing hockey, would people have the same conviction that he'll be re-injured? I think not. If Cuma's knee injuries were from a car accident or from some bizarre slip while walking to lunch would there be the same worry about how long he can stay healthy? We're not worried that Seto is going to get hit by another car while leaving the chiropractor, but many people pencil Koivu in for missing 20 games with a shoulder injury this year.
Again, I completely disagree! Once you get a concussion... period... it's physically easier to get a second, and third etc and so on. HOW that concussion happens doesn't matter. It leaves easier suseptibility either way!

Same with damaged knees etc. Once a knee is damaged, no matter how it happened, the damage result is physically the same. Obviously not all injuies are degenerating etc... but when you have such extensive rebuilding of your kneecap, it is MUCH easier to re-injure afterwards.

Also... if Mikko injured his shoulder in a car accident, it could easily make that shoulder weaker for the rest of his career.

My Mom injured her jaw in a car accident years ago... she lost all cartiledge in her jaw from the injury. If a similar thing happened to Mikko's shoulder, you can't tell me that "oh it's a non-hockey injury, so it's no big deal".

TaLoN is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 10:49 PM
  #958
Vashanesh
Nope.
 
Vashanesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Who's flipping out? Neither TaLoN nor I seem to have any issue discussing this. While a certain someone who was moderated a couple times in this thread hasn't been able to discuss things rationally, it doesn't seem anyone else has this issue.
Read between the lines a bit, man. These unending, nitpicky little arguments are just getting old, and it seems like you're in the middle of every single one lately.

It shouldn't take 3+ people disagreeing with you to just agree to disagree, you have to beat every little point to death. It's just getting banal.

You make great points the majority of the time, but these types of situations lead me to just put you on my ignore list, even though 90%+ of your posts are great. This sub-10% type of situation is just plain silly...

Vashanesh is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 11:00 PM
  #959
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vashanesh View Post
Read between the lines a bit, man. These unending, nitpicky little arguments are just getting old, and it seems like you're in the middle of every single one lately.

It shouldn't take 3+ people disagreeing with you to just agree to disagree, you have to beat every little point to death. It's just getting banal.

You make great points the majority of the time, but these types of situations lead me to just put you on my ignore list, even though 90%+ of your posts are great. This sub-10% type of situation is just plain silly...
Probably just an impression result of the offseason. Although I'd definitely disagree with the "3+ people to just agree to disagree" point. Why do I have to be the one to refuse to discuss things? Those flipping out on the other side of the conversation are just as capable of doing so (as a couple posters have done lately). If you watch, I'm never the one to escalate to personal attacks (except possibly with SoH ).

squidz* is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 11:06 PM
  #960
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 16,967
vCash: 500
I think he's just saying you're in the obvious minority of opinion here on this particular subject, and doesn't see why you are trying to vehemently defend your opinion as if it's fact.

TaLoN is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 11:07 PM
  #961
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
Again, I completely disagree! Once you get a concussion... period... it's physically easier to get a second, and third etc and so on. HOW that concussion happens doesn't matter. It leaves easier suseptibility either way!

Same with damaged knees etc. Once a knee is damaged, no matter how it happened, the damage result is physically the same. Obviously not all injuies are degenerating etc... but when you have such extensive rebuilding of your kneecap, it is MUCH easier to re-injure afterwards.

Also... if Mikko injured his shoulder in a car accident, it could easily make that shoulder weaker for the rest of his career.

My Mom injured her jaw in a car accident years ago... she lost all cartiledge in her jaw from the injury. If a similar thing happened to Mikko's shoulder, you can't tell me that "oh it's a non-hockey injury, so it's no big deal".
I think my point isn't coming across clearly. I'm not saying the injuries aren't a big deal. Seto's car accident clearly affected both his offseason conditioning and his play into the season just as Mikko's shoulder injuries take him out of the game. My point is not that one specific injury is more or less severe than the others but that, all other things being the same, a hockey injury is more likely to be reinjured because it's not a one-off event. Because of how Mikko plays, he's likely to reinjure his shoulder at some point in the future. If his past shoulder injuries were because of a one time event (say, by flipping an ATV), the situation that led to the original injury is not likely to reoccur.

The Seto situation is probably the best example here. He was hit in a freak car accident that will almost certainly never occur to another NHL player ever again. Once he's recovered from the injury, he's fully recovered. There's absolutely no worry that he'll be hurt like that again. Now, if his injury was from playing hockey and taking a hard check in the corner, he goes into that corner multiple times a game, hopefully 82 games a year. Odds are pretty decent that he's going to be in the same situation again, and if he's there again, he's likely to get hurt in the same way.

A non-hockey injury is less damaging to a player's career than an identical hockey injury is.

squidz* is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 11:09 PM
  #962
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
I think he's just saying you're in the obvious minority of opinion here on this particular subject, and doesn't see why you are trying to vehemently defend your opinion as if it's fact.
I took the post as being applied to more than just this particular dispute. While some might argue that making sense for this particular dispute, it wouldn't apply to any of the other situations alluded to.

squidz* is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 11:10 PM
  #963
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 16,967
vCash: 500
A hockey injury, just like any injury, only truly becomes a concern if re-injury happens anyway.

Thus if an original injury happens from a car accident, then a subsequent injury happens on the ice... it's still the car accident that made the injury more likely in the first place.

Mikko wasn't considered injury prone to his shoulder until it happened a few times. Nobody worried about him routinely getting a broken leg, it only happened once...

TaLoN is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 11:11 PM
  #964
MuckOG
The Brodin Effect
 
MuckOG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: In a tree stand.
Country: United States
Posts: 7,250
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
A non-hockey injury is less damaging to a player's career than an identical hockey injury is.
Are you trying to say that if a player shreds his knee in an ATV accident that his repaired knee would not be as susceptible to reinjury as it would be if he suffered the same injury in a hockey game?

MuckOG is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 11:12 PM
  #965
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 16,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
I took the post as being applied to more than just this particular dispute. While some might argue that making sense for this particular dispute, it wouldn't apply to any of the other situations alluded to.
It may have been applied to more than just this discussion, but when you consider this discussion as being the trigger, you have to admit that you are in the absolute minority of opinion here.

TaLoN is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 11:17 PM
  #966
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
A hockey injury, just like any injury, only truly becomes a concern if re-injury happens anyway.

Thus if an original injury happens from a car accident, then a subsequent injury happens on the ice... it's still the car accident that made the injury more likely in the first place.

Mikko wasn't considered injury prone to his shoulder until it happened a few times. Nobody worried about him routinely getting a broken leg, it only happened once...
Yes, but if the injury is something off the ice, the events that led up to the original injury are less likely to occur again. Most injuries (at least those NHL players incur) tend to fully, or near fully heal if given the proper time and treatment. For any injury like that, a re-injury only occurs if a events occur that would have injured it even without an injury history. Those injuries incurred off the ice are significantly less likely to be repeated. "Re-injury" probably isn't the best word as it implies that the original injury played a part in it. That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that a person is less likely to incur the same injury again if it's from a one-off event (that is to say, is a non-hockey injury) than if it's from a situation that occurs frequently (like a hockey related injury).

squidz* is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 11:20 PM
  #967
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuckOG View Post
Are you trying to say that if a player shreds his knee in an ATV accident that his repaired knee would not be as susceptible to reinjury as it would be if he suffered the same injury in a hockey game?
No. "Re-injury" was poor word choice in my post. As I tried to follow up (after your post) I mean a player who injured their knee on an ATV, then fully healed the injury is less likely to sustain the same injury anew than a player who injured their knee in a hockey game.

squidz* is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 11:21 PM
  #968
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 16,967
vCash: 500
Again, I can't agree with that.

Re-injury is absolutely the right word, as once there is severe damage to an area it will never be exactly as it was prior to the injury... NEVER.

If the injury is bad enough, then you end up with a degenerative situation, in that no matter what is done, the injured location gets worse over time... even if another injury never occurs, the injured area becomes more and more of a problem - ala Yzerman's knees. They were degenerative. Never healed completely and constantly got worse.

Ala my mom's jaw, no cartiledge, always getting worse over time.

A completel reconstructed knee like Sheppard has... is the same whether it's on or off the ice as an original cause. You never know how a completely reconstructed knee will turn out.

TaLoN is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 11:30 PM
  #969
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
Again, I can't agree with that.

Re-injury is absolutely the right word, as once there is severe damage to an area it will never be exactly as it was prior to the injury... NEVER.

If the injury is bad enough, then you end up with a degenerative situation, in that no matter what is done, the injured location gets worse over time... even if another injury never occurs, the injured area becomes more and more of a problem - ala Yzerman's knees. They were degenerative. Never healed completely and constantly got worse.

Ala my mom's jaw, no cartiledge, always getting worse over time.

A completel reconstructed knee like Sheppard has... is the same whether it's on or off the ice as an original cause. You never know how a completely reconstructed knee will turn out.
Yes, but if Sheppard hurt his knee in a hockey play, he's more likely to put the knee at risk in the same manner. Just as a player who skates with his head down is more likely to suffer concussions than one who slipped on a sidewalk and bonked their head. If Powe were to slip this offseason and suffer a concussion from hitting his head on a sidewalk, does that make him equally likely to suffer another concussion as Kassian, who will almost certain suffer several in his career from being punched in the head? How about if Heatley is hurt like Powe, does that make him as likely for another as Bouchard who arguably sustained his first concussion because of his size and playing style? While the injury is the same, the player who sustains it in a hockey game puts themselves in a high risk situation far more frequently than those who sustain non-hockey injuries.

squidz* is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 11:39 PM
  #970
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 16,967
vCash: 500
A player with a previously injured knee... puts a lot of stress on that previously injured knee, making it suseptible to injury.

Injuries don't become recurring because the exact same scenario keeps playing itself out over and over again. Injuries happen because players put their bodies in extreme stress for long periods of time.

Bouchard gets his first concussion from a clean check... his second because he was faceplanted illegally into the glass. That's not a repeating scenario, that is two completely different situations. Because he already had one concussion though, that made a second more likely... whether the first came in a car accident or in a clean hockey check.

And YES... if Powe suffered a concussion from hitting his head on a sidewalk, he is more likely to get a concussion than ANYONE who has never had one as of yet. Once a concussion happens, it is physically easier to get a second. That is a medical FACT.

TaLoN is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 11:51 PM
  #971
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
A player with a previously injured knee... puts a lot of stress on that previously injured knee, making it suseptible to injury.

Injuries don't become recurring because the exact same scenario keeps playing itself out over and over again. Injuries happen because players put their bodies in extreme stress for long periods of time.
But you're contradicting yourself. If injuries happen because players put their bodies in extreme stress (presumably to the point where their body can't take it anymore), than injuries related to that stress are indicators that a player is more likely to sustain any injury than those who suffer them from freak occurrences.

Again, circling back to the Seto example, no one has any fear of him re-injuring himself in the manner he was hurt last year. If he had suffered the same injuries in a hockey game, people would be concerned, and for good reason. A player who is injured in a hockey game is likely to either adjust their game (generally in a negative manner) to avoid the same scenario, or is likely to sustain the same injury from performing the same act. If hurt myself "skating too hard," I'm likely to do that again in the future. If I hurt myself doing something else, I still have side effects from the original injury, but the injury is not a sign of future concern.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TaLoN View Post
Bouchard gets his first concussion from a clean check... his second because he was faceplanted illegally into the glass. That's not a repeating scenario, that is two completely different situations. Because he already had one concussion though, that made a second more likely... whether the first came in a car accident or in a clean hockey check.

And YES... if Powe suffered a concussion from hitting his head on a sidewalk, he is more likely to get a concussion than ANYONE who has never had one as of yet. Once a concussion happens, it is physically easier to get a second. That is a medical FACT.
I didn't ask if Powe was more likely to sustain a concussion than someone who never had one. Kassian has likely had dozens of concussions because he gets into hockey fights. Why do you think retired boxers talk, act, and sound like they do? If a theoretical Powe hit his head on the pavement and received a concussion, he's more likely than someone who never had a concussion before, but still significantly less likely to receive another than someone who frequently gets in fights or skates around with his head down. Because his injury was not a result of being in high risk situations, it's not an indicator of frequently being in high risk situations.

squidz* is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 11:57 PM
  #972
TaLoN
All Hail the FBJ!
 
TaLoN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Farmington, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 16,967
vCash: 500
You assume initial injuries are related to that stress... I'm not making that assumption. What I am saying, once an inujury happens, that will never be as it was prior to the injury, thus when you put it under stress it is now suseptible when it wasn't before.

As for the concussions... how about this... Powe would be more suseptible to them than even Bouchard if he got 2 different ones in non-hockey situations. Powe plays a more physical style than Bouchard does, and thus would be more likely to get a 3rd.

TaLoN is offline  
Old
07-28-2012, 11:57 PM
  #973
Avder
Global Moderator
Reliable NonSequitur
 
Avder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Location: Location.
Country: United States
Posts: 36,813
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
It's not an opinion statement. Cuma does not have meaningful trade value. Not sure which part of this people think is debatable.


squidz you really need to learn the difference between subjective and objective values. If I have a ten dollar bill, two quarters, a nickel, and two pennies in my hand, I have $10.57 worth of value in my hand. That's objective because it can be verfied by pretty much everyone that the objects I listed have a total value of exactly $10.57.

The value of a player is completely debatable and everyone has different criteria that make a player more or less valuable in certain ways.

You simply can not come in here and say that someone has no value, and that is is a fact, because it flat out isn't squidz, it just isn't, and the only person that seems to have a problem realizing that is you.

You keep arguing like you know more about everything than anyone else. You always state your opinions as facts, which is just plain disrespectful to the other people trying to have a discussion with you, and you have a tendency to take things way too far.

That's why I do not like having discussions with you, and I suspect I'm not the only one here who has similar issues with you.

You need to stop disrespecting the other posters on this board because I think we're starting to get tired of your "opinions as facts" mantra that you seem to adhere to. Your subjective opinion is no less and no more valid than anyone elses, and you need to get that through your head.

You state OPINIONS, squidz, not facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fel 96 View Post
Well, you guys are making my head hurt...
I just about exploded, so I know that feel bro.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Don't make us get Avder started on porn in the OT thread again. Then you'll be in for it.
You don't get to joke about my character quirks anymore.

Avder is offline  
Old
07-29-2012, 12:01 AM
  #974
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avder View Post
squidz you really need to learn the difference between subjective and objective values. If I have a ten dollar bill, two quarters, a nickel, and two pennies in my hand, I have $10.57 worth of value in my hand. That's objective because it can be verfied by pretty much everyone that the objects I listed have a total value of exactly $10.57.

The value of a player is completely debatable and everyone has different criteria that make a player more or less valuable in certain ways.

You simply can not come in here and say that someone has no value, and that is is a fact, because it flat out isn't squidz, it just isn't, and the only person that seems to have a problem realizing that is you.

You keep arguing like you know more about everything than anyone else. You always state your opinions as facts, which is just plain disrespectful to the other people trying to have a discussion with you, and you have a tendency to take things way too far.

That's why I do not like having discussions with you, and I suspect I'm not the only one here who has similar issues with you.

You need to stop disrespecting the other posters on this board because I think we're starting to get tired of your "opinions as facts" mantra that you seem to adhere to. Your subjective opinion is no less and no more valid than anyone elses, and you need to get that through your head.

You state OPINIONS, squidz, not facts.
Or, you know, you could actually read things that were written as none of that actually touches upon anything actually said, claimed, or alluded to. If you spent even 10% as much time seeing what people said, rather than what you believe they might say, you'd have far fewer issues.

squidz* is offline  
Old
07-29-2012, 12:05 AM
  #975
MuckOG
The Brodin Effect
 
MuckOG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: In a tree stand.
Country: United States
Posts: 7,250
vCash: 50
No, I'm with Avder here.....It's one thing to respectfully debate, it's another to speak down to in a condescending manner, such as:

Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz

Your vain attempt to be "deep" actually says absolutely nothing other than making a ridiculous attempt at a strawman.
or

Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz

It's not an opinion statement. Cuma does not have meaningful trade value. Not sure which part of this people think is debatable.

MuckOG is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:50 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.