HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Umberger

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-12-2005, 09:13 PM
  #51
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,802
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoJojo
I really dont uderstand the Rangers. Rookie max was peanuts to them pre cap. Look at the money they threw away in those years, yet they are willing to let a good, solid center prospect walk for nothing? Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time they let him go they werent exactly stacked with quality prospects. And then to say it was because of attitude, coming from a team with such screwed up chemistry as the Rangers? I gotta just shake my head and laugh. BTW, he was great on the Phantoms. Never a hint of attitude problem. Worth every penny of the rooki max, which we didnt have to pay him anyway since all rookie contract are two way.
Have to look at it from Umberger's POV as well though... it's not just up to the Rangers...

when Umberger was in Vancouver he had 2 yrs to hitting that UFA status - so the canucks had a bit more leverage at that stage - give him the rookie max (that he wanted), but he gets an extra year of $$ as a player if he signs with the canucks.

When he was dealt to the Rangers at the deadline - he was a UFA basically at season's end - for him he could just pick and choose where he wanted to go and get the rookie max from whatever team would pay him.

He basically got to choose where he wanted to go, so had no pressure to sign with the Rangers.

Philly got lucky with him too... signing him to a rookie max contract, and then getting the 24% rollback.

NFITO is offline  
Old
09-12-2005, 10:24 PM
  #52
cbjacketsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 25
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Again no one is bashing the kid, but if you don't use some sense of judgement in situations than you're going through life blind.
From a hockey standpoint, from a business standpoint those are factors you MUST look at. Same as hiring someone for a job. When someone walks into your office who hasn't worked in over a year, has some baggage they bring with them from previous stops in their career, you have an OBLIGATION to analyze those factors. That doesn't make them a bad person or a good person, it makes them a piece to a puzzle that you have to construct in a reasonable amount of time. The bottom line is that you have to make a judgement call on that specific player in that specific time with a very specific set of information.



Sorry but I just don't subscribe to that. It seems like an effort to have no opinion at all about anything at the risk of ever being wrong or ever (gasp) offending someone. When SEVERAL situations have similar results i pass a judgement on that as to what direction i want to take with the situation.

There were problems at the college level, at the contract level and that was followed by a year of not playing hockey. After the trade there was very little "motivation" to get back on the ice and prove himself and his entire development was stalled for money. No more, no less. That's what it came down to.

Whether the realty of that situation sounds pleasent or not, that has to be looked at in a fair and balanced manner. Now as a judgement call that EVERYONE makes EVERY DAY of their life, you have to decide whether you are willing to take that chance or take the pick and get a player you also like who doesn't have those particular mysteries (Korpikoski).

The Rangers made that choice and the results are pending. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't but it's a judgement call and in this particular instance the Rangers weren't out of line where their thought process.

What college level problems? How can someone who doesn't know a person say that there have been some "personal" wrong choices of his, you do not know his personal life? After sitting out for almost the full season and having only 3 months left until becoming a UFA he probably did not want to risk the chance of getting hurt and why not wait it out after sitting out that long to see what all your options are? Let it be repeated that they did offer him a contract so what does that say?

What you do not seem to get is that Brad is not argueing that a persons attitude effects their work but that you do not know him and are on here talking about RJs attitude. The whole foundation of your arguement is based on nothing you know and therefore makes your opinion about the situation quite invaluable. Brads arguement is based on the point that you do not know him, you are going off of rumors that of have accumulated because people like you talk out of their a*& like what they hear is truth when you do not know the person to make the judgement yourself. You have probably never even seen him, you never played with him. He was the assistant captain of OSU, captain of the world junior team, leading scorer of the phantoms...yep those are signs of a "head case" I am sure the world junior team would pick someone who isnt liked/respected/a leader of the team to be captain. You talk "business" then base your arguements on facts and not garbage rumors.


Last edited by cbjacketsfan: 09-12-2005 at 10:42 PM.
cbjacketsfan is offline  
Old
09-12-2005, 11:08 PM
  #53
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 9,773
vCash: 500
Wait a second. Were there or weren't there reported problems with Umberger (I'm too tired to do an extensive search right now)? If there were, this is a more than valid reason to pass on a guy - especially if you're getting a 2nd rounder as compensation. I mean, if I told you you could have a 2nd round pick for Brendl right now, would you take it?

Heck, even if there weren't documented incidents made public to the likes of you and me, that doesn't mean that the Rangers didn't have their own inside dope (which I have no problem believing, because they're in the business of knowing these things, he was their property for three months and, most importantly, they were the SECOND team to pass on him). And again it's a perfectly legitimate reason to dump a player - especially (I know I'm repeating myself here) if you're getting a 2nd rounder in return. Don't forget that we're talking about a guy who's never sniffed the NHL here.

All Edge is saying is that (A) he believes there are attitude problems with Umberger and (B) if there are, they are sufficient justification to pass on the guy. Now you can choose to dispute point (A) (although given Edge's history and other comments, not to mention that I seem to recall bad press on Umberger myself, I am inclined to agree), but you're wrong if you're dismissing point (B) out of hand.

There are plenty of examples throughout team sports - I mean look at the Cleveland Indians and Milton Bradley. The guy's talent is all-star level and he's young, but the team traded him for two minor leaguers. And after this year, I'm fairly certain that the Dodgers would, shall we say, be open to offers from other teams...

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 12:09 AM
  #54
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate
to be fair, tibbetts also had some anger management issues...i dont' think any came out while he was with the rangers, that i can remember, but i believe he flamed out of hockey pretty badly not long after
I guess cussing out one of the coaches on the bench (don't remember which one) during a game wasn't an anger mangement issue?

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 12:48 AM
  #55
Brad*
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 13,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangerFan

All Edge is saying is that (A) he believes there are attitude problems with Umberger and (B) if there are, they are sufficient justification to pass on the guy.
And that's fine. I never said that a bad attitude couldn't effect the on ice performance of a player.

What I find absolutely ridiculous and laughable about his argument, is that he makes statements against Umberger and argues against him based on the assumption, the opinion, the idea...that RJ is somehow a headcase. What's frustrating, is when he's called on it, Edge simply says: "Well, this isn't my opinion, this is the Rangers' opinion." Don't think so. HE posted: " problem with Umberger was never talent it's the head on his shoulders. " The Canucks did not post that. The Rangers did not post that. The WolfPack did not post that. Edge did. Maybe the Rangers do feel that way, mabye they don't, but it doesn't even matter. I'm not arguing with the Rangers, I'm arguing with you, and the point you made. Maybe you formulated that opinion, because you think that's how those organizations feel, but it's still your opinion. He's making his case against the kid based on speculative and unconfirmed information about the "head on his shoulders."

And no, I don't want to check your background or any of that silly nonsense. If you have something about Umberger that points to an attitude problem, show it. If not, then move on. I'm not gonna sit here and say: "Umberger is great because he saved three kittens from a burning house" without backing it up.

The bottom line is, which I've been saying all along, is that there is far more to the situation then what we know. Edge seems to believe, "hey, the Rangers and the Canucks didn't want him, he must be a headcase." Didn't you ever stop and think for a minute there were other reasons why things didn't work out in those areas? He's just railing against Umberger here based on the fact that he thinks (read: he doesn't know) that Umberger has problems with his attitude. That is ridiculous. He doesn't know the kid, he doesn't the entire situation in the events of his hockey history, and he doesn't have a reasonable stance to make a judgement on something like that anyway. Neither do I. That's what I don't do it, and I leave those types of decisions to people who are much closer to the situation. Edge will probably say, "Yeah but! the Rangers passed on him! That's your proof right there!" Nope. You know for a fact that the Rangers passed on him because they thought he had a bad attitude? If you don't, it's more speculation on your part, and takes you right back to the point I disagreed with at the beginning: formulating an opinion on a player on conjecture that may or may not even be true.


Last edited by Brad*: 09-13-2005 at 01:09 AM.
Brad* is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 01:11 AM
  #56
Shadowrunner
Registered User
 
Shadowrunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,198
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Shadowrunner Send a message via AIM to Shadowrunner
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
And that's fine. I never said that a bad attitude couldn't effect the on ice performance of a player.

What I find absolutely ridiculous and laughable about his argument, is that he makes statements against Umberger and argues against him based on the assumption, the opinion, the idea...that RJ is somehow a headcase. What's frustrating, is when he's called on it, Edge simply says: "Well, this isn't my opinion, this is the Rangers' opinion." Don't think so. HE posted: " problem with Umberger was never talent it's the head on his shoulders. Those questions came from college, the canucks, the wolfpack and unless something major happens they'll likely surface again in the future." The Canucks did not post that. The Rangers did not post that. The WolfPack did not post that. Edge did. Maybe the Rangers do feel that way, mabye they don't, but it doesn't even matter. I'm not arguing with the Rangers, I'm arguing with you, and the point you made. He's making his case against the kid based on speculative and unconfirmed information about the "head on his shoulders."

And no, I don't want to check your background or any of that silly nonsense. If you have something about Umberger that points to an attitude problem, show it. If not, then move on. I'm not gonna sit here and say: "Umberger is great because he saved three kittens from a burning house" without backing it up.

The bottom line is, which I've been saying all along, is that there is far more to the situation then what we know. Edge seems to believe, "hey, the Rangers and the Canucks didn't want him, he must be a headcase." Didn't you ever stop and think for a minute there were other reasons why things didn't work out in those areas? He's just railing against Umberger here based on the fact that he thinks (read: he doesn't know) that Umberger has problems with his attitude. That is ridiculous. He doesn't know the kid, he doesn't the entire situation in the events of his hockey history, and he doesn't have a reasonable stance to make a judgement on something like that anyway. Neither do I. That's what I don't do it, and I leave those types of decisions to people who are much closer to the situation. Edge will probably say, "Yeah but! the Rangers passed on him! That's your proof right there!" Nope. You know for a fact that the Rangers passed on him because they thought he had a bad attitude? If you don't, it's more speculation on your part, and takes you right back to the point I disagreed with at the beginning: formulating an opinion on a player on conjecture that may or may not even be true.
Dude,

Edge has been far more patient and reasonable with you than most people would have been.

You have chosen to be a troll.

Congradulations.

The end.

Shadowrunner is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 01:14 AM
  #57
Brad*
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 13,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner
Dude,

Edge has been far more patient and reasonable with you than most people would have been.

You have chosen to be a troll.

Congradulations.

The end.
Have anything intelligent to add?

Though I completely disagree with him, I don't have any beef with the guy nor am I about to personally insult him, and he hasn't done that to me, either. We've both been pretty civil on a heated topic, and I respect, as much as I disagree. He's a big boy, he can handle himself, and I'm sure he doesn't you running around adding and making troll comments.

Run along now.


Last edited by Brad*: 09-13-2005 at 01:26 AM.
Brad* is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 01:39 AM
  #58
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
What college level problems? How can someone who doesn't know a person say that there have been some "personal" wrong choices of his, you do not know his personal life? After sitting out for almost the full season and having only 3 months left until becoming a UFA he probably did not want to risk the chance of getting hurt and why not wait it out after sitting out that long to see what all your options are? Let it be repeated that they did offer him a contract so what does that say?
There were questions about his commitment to improving and problems with him actually listening. This is followed up by then skipping an entire year of hockey. Not that he missed three weeks and decided to see his optiosn but his entire year.

Furthermore when he did step on the ice it was reported by nearly every single person who was there that his attitude frankly sucked and his showed zero to no interest out there and looked almost annoyed when asked to participate in anything.

Bottom line is that at the end of the day the entire year, opportunities that some players would kill for he phoned in. Does that make him a bad person? No and I never said it did. What it does make him is a player that you have to wonder about. And i'm not saying this as if a decision has yet to be made on him, i'm saying this as a the reasons a decision WAS (past tense) made on him and the reasons behind it.

Quote:
What you do not seem to get is that Brad is not argueing that a persons attitude effects their work but that you do not know him and are on here talking about RJs attitude.
So let me ask you think, when you're looking at someone in your field and the various reports all point to the same thing and the actions taken all point to the same thing, you don't think there is a problem there?

What exactly does it take for there to be a problem that one recognizes? Again where there is smoke there is fire and i repeat that from a HOCKEY standpoint and a business standpoint there were LEGIT concerns.
Quote:
The whole foundation of your arguement is based on nothing you know and therefore makes your opinion about the situation quite invaluable. Brads arguement is based on the point that you do not know him, you are going off of rumors that of have accumulated because people like you talk out of their a*& like what they hear is truth when you do not know the person to make the judgement yourself.
And the flip side of this is Brad's who according to your argument would be in the same EXACT position (except you happen to agree with him) so therefore he is right?

My opinion is based on everything i've heard from people who were right there and who saw the position with their own eyes. People I worked and people i've come to trust in the 7 some odd years I worked in hockey from the PR department of the NY Rangers to the marketing department of the NHL to scouts and contacts at every level of the game from Broadway to Brandon.

I'm not going off rumors i'm coming off first hand accounts of people who were there, and who like myself have report on things a million times before on these boards. I wasn't employed on this website for several years to report rumors. If there's a rumor I present it as such but when no less than 7 people come to me (who each represent various interests) and report the same things than YES I begin to believe that there may indeed be a problem.

So let me guess, if these people said what you wanted to hear i gurantee you wouldn't say they were talking out of their @$$ would you? But because it may be something you don't want to believe, it doesn't count. VERY convienent.

Now look, i could give two craps about the past or what was said. But the reports were what they were and the decision was what it is. Calling a spade a spade we move on, but instead we are here fighting about actions from more than a year ago.

In many ways it almost reminds of IMDB. Few people realize just how many agents and people with vested interests will shine crap to protect their interests.

Bottom line is the situation was what it was. Whether you believe it or not changes nothing and ultimately matters little in the grand scheme of things.


Quote:
You have probably never even seen him, you never played with him. He was the assistant captain of OSU, captain of the world junior team, leading scorer of the phantoms...yep those are signs of a "head case" I am sure the world junior team would pick someone who isnt liked/respected/a leader of the team to be captain. You talk "business" then base your arguements on facts and not garbage rumors.
And likewise he had trouble with his college coach, skipped a year of hockey, and managed to rub everyone in the hartford organization the wrong way in less time than we've actually spent discussing his actions.

The facts are there if you want to look at them, but it reminds me of the old Michael Jackson argument in South PArk. Just keep sitting there with your fingers in your ears going "no that's ignorant" but convienently managing to avoid the opposing point of view altogether.

The argument of captaincy is laughable at best. Why don't you do a list of guys who've held the "C" over the years.

But again this something more, something personal and i can tell. We've gone from talking about certain issues about him as a player and certain actions to almost a trial on this kids life.

So what's your interest in this whole mess, because it isn't fooling anyone you've got an interest in it.

Edge is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 01:41 AM
  #59
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangerFan
All Edge is saying is that (A) he believes there are attitude problems with Umberger and (B) if there are, they are sufficient justification to pass on the guy. Now you can choose to dispute point (A) (although given Edge's history and other comments, not to mention that I seem to recall bad press on Umberger myself, I am inclined to agree), but you're wrong if you're dismissing point (B) out of hand.

There are plenty of examples throughout team sports - I mean look at the Cleveland Indians and Milton Bradley. The guy's talent is all-star level and he's young, but the team traded him for two minor leaguers. And after this year, I'm fairly certain that the Dodgers would, shall we say, be open to offers from other teams...
Thank you. That's EXACTLY what i am saying, lol.

This has been such an incredible waste of time featuring people who obviously have something to gain or lose by this conversation.

Edge is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 01:42 AM
  #60
Mole ii
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 391
vCash: 500
Umberger is a lazy bum that has no desire to improve and be the best he can be. Sitting out the entire 03/04 season proves my point.

He didnt even win the hobey baker and he demands rookie max?? Who does this punk think he is. His agent is an idiot too. Championship teams like Vancouver dont need this type of selfish, me first attitude in the organization.

Im sure whenever or if ever he makes the nhl and happens to receive rookie of the month honours, he will sit out and demand to be the highest paid player on the team.

who needs all that primadonna drama? especially in the new capped nhl

Mole ii is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 01:58 AM
  #61
Skroob*
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,064
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mole ii
Championship teams like Vancouver

Yeah. Wait, what?

Skroob* is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 02:07 AM
  #62
Mole ii
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 391
vCash: 500
maybe i missed the word... calibre.

Mole ii is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 02:11 AM
  #63
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,192
vCash: 500
I dont know how this got underlined...

Quote:
What I find absolutely ridiculous and laughable about his argument, is that he makes statements against Umberger and argues against him based on the assumption, the opinion, the idea...that RJ is somehow a headcase. What's frustrating, is when he's called on it, Edge simply says: "Well, this isn't my opinion, this is the Rangers' opinion." Don't think so.
Who made a statement against Umberger, this is what my opinion of the situation is based on the fact that have happened. These aren't rumors, this is documented stuff if you want to go back to look it up.

What is this absolute refusal to acknowledge it. It's there my friend.

And yes it isn't my decision. This was the Rangers opinion. Edge does not sign players for the Rangers and Edge did not pass on Umberger.

I had my opinion of the player and it happens to be the same as the Rangers. If the Rangers didn't have that opinion, would Umberger not be wearing a Ranger jersey now?




Quote:
HE
Quote:
posted: " problem with Umberger was never talent it's the head on his shoulders. " The Canucks did not post that. The Rangers did not post that. The WolfPack did not post that. Edge did.
And the Rangers commented about his commitment and the Canucks wondered outloud about his decisions.

Also what i said is no different than what many people, scouts included have said about this situation.

That is my opinion based on the facts that i know, not the rumors. Though ironically while you've done everything to try and discredit me, my reputation and its accuracy speak for yourself.

But that isn't enough, simply put you don't like what i'm saying so in your eyes its only wild rumor and i'm only assuming and backing away.

You've long since left the actual discussion and moved to something a bit more personal.

Quote:
Maybe the Rangers do feel that way, mabye they don't, but it doesn't even matter. I'm not arguing with the Rangers, I'm arguing with you, and the point you made. Maybe you formulated that opinion, because you think that's how those organizations feel, but it's still your opinion. He's making his case against the kid based on speculative and unconfirmed information about the "head on his shoulders."
I'm making my opinion based on HIS ACTIONS. His CHOICES and the way HE DEALT with certain situations. I have also by the way, stated this several times.

And that was the opinion of the Rangers. It was the same opinion i posted it was a year ago and its the same today. Whether you believe that or not is your CHOICE as is mine.

If you don't believe it that's fine, you're entitled to that but you've essentially dragged this out when that is really the issue at stake.

Quote:
And no, I don't want to check your background or any of that silly nonsense. If you have something about Umberger that points to an attitude problem, show it. If not, then move on. I'm not gonna sit here and say: "Umberger is great because he saved three kittens from a burning house" without backing it up.
But see that's it right there, i'm not commenting on him as a person. I'm commenting on it as a player. Right there with your burning house comment, you've made it more personal and changed the conversation for the point you want to make.

So to directly answer your comment AGAIN, these are my points on attitude:

Problem with college coach
Lack of any effort to play when he was sitting out
His approach to that try-out with the Rangers which EVERYONE knew about.

Now the real dispute seems to be that you just don't want to believe those incidents happened. They are my reasons, based on everything i've discovered from people i trust and the same sources who i relay information from when it permits.

Now with a minimum of the same insight on your side, you disagree. I am personally just fine with that, but you can't seem to accept that. You've pretty much shown it's deeper than that. You've decided to try to attack my opinion despite numerous times stating why i believe it to be.

You're only excuse is that "I don't know", well obviously you don't either. So if you don't know, how is it exactly that I'm wrong and that we just don't happen to disagree?

But that's not good enough for you, i can tell. You just don't like what i've got to say and so you're gonna try your darndest to make it go away but it won't. Your looping arguments and asking the same questions repeatedly and trying to argue on my behalf and pretend certain things didn't happen just won't work here.

Come back tomorrow, the day after and another year from now and it'll still be the same reasons for that time and the same opinion from that time. Is Umberger still that way? Don't know, but at that time that's what certain actions pointed to. And nothing you want to believe is gonna change that. Sorry but that's just the way it is.

Quote:
The bottom line is, which I've been saying all along, is that there is far more to the situation then what we know.
You're right and the Rangers obviously no more than either of us and STILL walked away, as did the Canucks. And that is also a VERY telling sign.

Quote:
Edge seems to believe, "hey, the Rangers and the Canucks didn't want him, he must be a headcase." Didn't you ever stop and think for a minute there were other reasons why things didn't work out in those areas?
Actually i've stated several times other reasons why i believed what i did and you know that.

You also should know that there were two other trusted insiders here at the time who stop periodically that confirmed what i was saying. Did you know that?

Quote:
He's just railing against Umberger here based on the fact that he thinks (read: he doesn't know) that Umberger has problems with his attitude. That is ridiculous.
Who's railing, i'm explaining my point of view which you have proven to everyone here you can't accept and behave like an adult about.

And let me ask you something, how exactly are you so sure that umberger DOESN'T have problems with his attitude?

Seeing as you're so convinced i'm wrong, other than your differing opinion why exactly is that?

Quote:
He doesn't know the kid, he doesn't the entire situation in the events of his hockey history, and he doesn't have a reasonable stance to make a judgement on something like that anyway. Neither do I.

And yet despite the reasons i've given you (which hasn't actually been oppossed, but rather criticized_) i'm wrong.

How is that there is no possible way i might actually be on to something?

It comes down to what you choose to believe and how you chose to interpret certain things.

We differ, but one of us is taking it very personal.

Quote:
That's what I don't do it, and I leave those types of decisions to people who are much closer to the situation. Edge will probably say, "Yeah but! the Rangers passed on him! That's your proof right there!" Nope.
And that's your first and second mistake right there.

1. You're making an argument i haven't made.

2. You're assuming your argument for me is actually my argument.

The Rangers passed on him because they werent crazy about his attitude or the way he endeared himself to future teammates. As a result they weren't willing to pay as high a price for a player they perceieved as being a higher risk due to personality reasons.

That is very different from you just said as "my argument".

But that's the whole point isn't it? You're not actually debating with me, you're debating with an imaginary me who isn't even saying half the things you're quoting me as saying.

Quote:
You know for a fact that the Rangers passed on him because they thought he had a bad attitude?
YES. Okay now we're getting somewhere. I know THAT for a FACT. I know that because my first job was working for the Rangers and I know that because before i said ANYTHING i checked with many different people.

I'VE NEVER posted anything that i wasn't confident in saying.

Quote:
If you don't, it's more speculation on your part, and takes you right back to the point I disagreed with at the beginning: formulating an opinion on a player on conjecture that may or may not even be true.
Truth is an objective term, and this is coming from a lawyer.

99% of the evidence can point one way but the truth could be the opposite.

Every day we pass our opinions on what we know, what we've seen, what we've heard and the reliabilty of our sources. It is the simplest element of our cognitive understanding and the basis for our very judicial system.

Based on what I SAW ( and keep in mind there was a time where I worked IN hockey and saw a lot of things), what i also heard that FIT what I SAW and what people I TRUST SAW that also FIT what I SAW, my opinion was formed.

Once again, this opinion was mine but it was also one of the chief reasons the Rangers did not go head over heels to sign him. It was also a reason the canucks weren't jumping up and down either.

What i am telling you was not a great secret at the time in the NHL, if it was someone would have looked to make a move for him a lot earlier and at a lot heavier a price than what was paid.

That is not assumption, those are events that happend that came as a result of what was going on at the time. The same things I SAW, that they SAW, etc.

But again if you don't believe those things, that's FINE. I'm not here to convince you or anyone else.

That is the way it was and whoever wants to believe it can do just that. At the end of the day it still is what it is.

Edge is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 02:14 AM
  #64
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowrunner
Dude,

Edge has been far more patient and reasonable with you than most people would have been.

You have chosen to be a troll.

Congradulations.

The end.

This happens every year around this time. Usually it happens during the summer, this year it waited till fall.

Hey for 8 years i've called it the way i've seen it and sometimes how some in the industry see it. I make no apologies. If people don't like it they dont ahve to read it and whether they believe it is entirely up to them.

Brad isn't the first person to take this road and he won't be the last, but at the end of the day it doesn't change a thing. I've got all the time in the world to go in a circle. All i have to hit is copy and paste.

Edge is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 02:23 AM
  #65
Brad*
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 13,887
vCash: 500
Edge,

I never said I wouldn't believe those things if they were true, but I haven't seen a "smoking gun" as you put it to show me that he's some kind of problem child. My point was simple from the beginning: we shouldn't try to judge a player from afar when we don't know everything about them, nor do we know all of the details. You've admitted as well, that neither know the whole story, my point was simply to withhold judgement on something as subjective as "attitude problems" since our understanding of the situation is not complete, and is a bit clouded to say the least. Is that so unreasonable?

Brad* is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 02:24 AM
  #66
Brad*
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 13,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
This happens every year around this time. Usually it happens during the summer, this year it waited till fall.

Hey for 8 years i've called it the way i've seen it and sometimes how some in the industry see it. I make no apologies. If people don't like it they dont ahve to read it and whether they believe it is entirely up to them.

Brad isn't the first person to take this road and he won't be the last, but at the end of the day it doesn't change a thing. I've got all the time in the world to go in a circle. All i have to hit is copy and paste.
How exactly have I been a troll?

Brad* is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 02:36 AM
  #67
Brad*
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 13,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
But that's not good enough for you, i can tell. You just don't like what i've got to say and so you're gonna try your darndest to make it go away but it won't. Your looping arguments and asking the same questions repeatedly and trying to argue on my behalf and pretend certain things didn't happen just won't work here.
Unbelievable.

Read back through the post in this thread, I never made this personal. I never attacked your opinion once. My first couple posts were very civil, especially considering your attempt to completely exaggerate what I was saying. I guess I attacked you when I said your opinion was "fair" and all. What a maniac I am.

If you felt attacked, then I'm sorry and I apologize for that, but that was never my intent.


Last edited by Brad*: 09-13-2005 at 03:09 AM.
Brad* is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 06:46 AM
  #68
Bacchus
Registered User
 
Bacchus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Dickes B
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine88
Rangers were just plain DUMB for not signing him. People give him the "bad attitude" sticker because he wanted the money, guess that means Kayria, Kovalchalk, and anybody else who held out has bad attitudes.
The difference is, that Umberger never played a single NHL game and yet held-out.
Kariya and Kovalchuk were / are the best and maybe most important players on their teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine88
But whos to say we couldnt have gotten Korpi at 21 or whatever # we had??
The Dallas Stars traded down twice after the Rangers picked Korpikoski (who traded up to get him - originally the Stars would have picked before the Rangers). That's not a clue but definatly a strong hint that the Stars wanted him also.
Dunno who the 3rd team was, though.

Bacchus is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 07:04 AM
  #69
Liquidrage*
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tallahassee
Posts: 2,721
vCash: 500
http://www4.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=163714

Scroll down to wetcoaster's Umberger post.

Liquidrage* is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 07:42 AM
  #70
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,094
vCash: 500
yay for Internet arguing

Quote:
Scroll down to wetcoaster's Umberger post.
weak. The entire post seems just be an attempt to rag on burke and say "but they said such nice things about him before!" So? that's not surprising behavior...teams always hype up prospects and players...then when they're in a position where they're in conflict with that player, they'll downplay it. That whole post doesn't say much about umberger, it's just a chance to rag on burke.

Levitate is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 09:40 AM
  #71
klingsor
HFBoards Sponsor
 
klingsor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 14,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLANTARANGER
If you do you wouldn't be so negative on Tibbetts. I did some research on my own and was initially very upset that we signed him. As I always do, I tried to find some info and come to my own conclusion. The kid got a bum deal. He didn't do anything that many young men and young women haven't done. From what I found out it was very consentual. The problem arose when the young lady in question dad's found out. From there things just spiralled out of control. I'm not obsolving Tibbetts, I certainly think that he could have used better judgement and control after the initial incident, but his whole life was ruined by something that many people have and continue to do.
Quote:
... I wonder if the 15-year-old girl he ***** in 1992 is doing as well.

Tibbetts was 17 at the time, living with his affluent family in Massachusetts. The girl got drunk at a party and passed out. She was taken behind a warehouse and sexually assaulted.

Tibbetts was charged with three counts of statutory **** -- the victim was alleged to have been ***** three different ways -- and pleaded guilty to one count. The judge gave him a suspended sentence. Sixteen months later, he shot someone with a BB gun and wound up doing 39 months behind bars...
That's what I remember. If it isn't true, Tibbetts has an awful good case for libel.

I also remember the judge calling the crime "brutal".

http://www.post-gazette.com/columnis...10328sally.asp

klingsor is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 10:00 AM
  #72
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,323
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by klingsor
That's what I remember. If it isn't true, Tibbetts has an awful good case for libel.

I also remember the judge calling the crime "brutal".

http://www.post-gazette.com/columnis...10328sally.asp

Thank you klingsor, you saved me the trouble of digging up old articles.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 10:42 AM
  #73
Potted Plant
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tuscaloosa, AL
Posts: 858
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Potted Plant
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Thank you klingsor, you saved me the trouble of digging up old articles.
I was going to post on this too. ATLANTARANGER reports it as a consensual act in which the girl cried **** when her father found out. I always heard it as a brutal **** with the girl clamming up when it came time to actually go through with testifying, so they had to reduce the charges to a strict-liability statutory **** charge, with no need for the victim's cooperation.

It is very common for ****-victims to be very reluctant to follow through on prosecution, and it's especially believable in a case like this. The accused was a star athlete, undoubtedly immensely popular at school. The victim, regardless of the outcome, had to continue to face her peers, many of whom are friends with the guy she put in prison. If I were her, I wouldn't want that either.

And I'd just like to add, Edge, you're my hero. I think you're a couple years younger than me, but I want to be you when I grow up. Good luck with the child and all.

Edit: why is r*ape a dirty word?

Edit 2: Well, I guess I can see how you wouldn't want people going around saying, "Barnaby should totally **** that guy," but here it just looks odd because the word is actually appropriate.


Last edited by Potted Plant: 09-13-2005 at 10:52 AM.
Potted Plant is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 11:24 AM
  #74
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
Edge,

I never said I wouldn't believe those things if they were true, but I haven't seen a "smoking gun" as you put it to show me that he's some kind of problem child. My point was simple from the beginning: we shouldn't try to judge a player from afar when we don't know everything about them, nor do we know all of the details. You've admitted as well, that neither know the whole story, my point was simply to withhold judgement on something as subjective as "attitude problems" since our understanding of the situation is not complete, and is a bit clouded to say the least. Is that so unreasonable?

I expressed my opinion from what I saw when i watched in college, what i understood from various people I talked to when i was a reporting and getting updates and the actions that backed up those points.

It is an opinion and any opinion is based on some degree of judgement, just like yours is. Is it so unreasonable that we disagree?

Edge is offline  
Old
09-13-2005, 11:26 AM
  #75
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
How exactly have I been a troll?

We've essentially spent 3 days now arguing a point that has been beaten to death on a board you don't even frequent to discuss a point whose opposing view you simply can't accept.

If you don't approve of what i've got to say, you've made that perfectly clear. At this point all we're doing is going in a circle.

Edge 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 12:05 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.