Well I would prefer to not put anymore time into this (and seriously I have no idea why you refuse to just put me on ignore like I did for you long time ago) but I guess I will have to defend myself since you are accusing me of all sort of things like it was my trial! Not really nervous though so let's play
EDIT : looking back it was worth it, I was enjoying it all the way
You call out anyone who criticizes a player (and in the past, Murray) and treat it like some sort of crime. Hell, you seem to take people criticizing these players quite personally.
You just don't get it. That has NOTHING to do with Murray or even the Senators. It's all about respect of any player/GM/coach as they are REAL PEOPLE TOO. I would never call out somebody who is criticizing players fairly, as I do it quite often myself. However I take exception with posters who are lacking respect for them by calling them names and such.
How many times I have read "senile old man, bum, dumb, giraffe, stupid, crap, blockhead, idiot, etc". I have the right to dislike reading these adjectives as far as I know. And knowing that internet is a stupid place where people throw insults in anonymity, it would be even worse if pure insults were not blocked on HF.
Saying a player is playing poorly or has poor advanced stats is NOT a crime. If they don't go too far, I am just disagreeing and arguing with them, rectifying facts and trying to change their minds.
However calling a player all kind of names is not cool at all. Yes I take it personally because it could be me, it could be my brother, my father, my friend, etc. I know people who played at high levels and still do. Ever heard of Zinedine Zidane for example? Well his family is connected to my family (so watch out, a part of my family also comes from Sicilia
). I just think it's NOT right to disrespect people like that just because "they are not here"
So since you're ready to make my trial I demand proof! Go ahead and find quotes where I am so "evil". I don't make it personal or throw insults, I am criticizing people's posts on a hockey forum. Is it not permitted?
And frankly, 80% of my posting is just retrieving facts. Example today :
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=127068545&postcount=21
Way to prove my point about mental gymnastics. You take one sentence out of context in that definition and apply it to paranoia at large. Meanwhile, you ignore the main aspect of paranoia: it "involves intense anxious or fearful feelings and thoughts often related to persecution, threat, or conspiracy."
You haven't read HF enough if you think some people don't feel persecuted or in some kind of conspiracy... HF boards is a social place where humans hang out, paranoia is a human behaviour/thought process, I really don't see why it's impossible that you could find some of that here
Just the Wiki definition : "Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of
delusion and irrationality".
Yes, IMO, some posters are delusional and irrational. Some of it comes from the fear/anxiety of the comparison with Leafs and Habs fans. Heck, it's easy to observe. Just in GDTs, people are much more emotional against the Leafs and emotion brings more irrationality.
Nobody is saying the Senators were persecuting them, threatening them, or part of some conspiracy to be mediocre. Hell, saying the people you called paranoid were "fearful or anxious" is a stretch. People are frustrated after nearly a decade of lackluster results. Frankly, that's perfectly normal for a fanbase.
I don't remember the exact context but it's clearly not what I was saying
. But anyway, I'm fairly frustrated too, however I seem to have much more patience than most because I think it takes a while to properly rebuild. I still have fun following the team even if they are not "Elite" like before.
You cling so much on the definition of that word, it's crazy as it's been a while. You need to move on at one point... You want to think that I am an idiot and I have no idea of what I am talking about? Be my guest
And as I pointed out then (guess you didn't read it), the way you qualified each rebuild was immensely flawed. You completely ignored changes in management and coaching, when a team actually bottomed out (yes, getting top 5 picks helps rebuilds, and it's something both LA and Chicago did), and when the idea of rebuilding was actually embraced. All you did was look at when mediocre results began and declared "this is where the rebuild started!" You threw context out the window. In both LA and Chicago's cases, they limped along, refusing to fully rebuild, instead just looking to get into the playoffs. Neither team began properly rebuilding until 2004 at the earliest.
Again, you're a master of mental gymnastics.
OK so let's take context in consideration for LA and Chicago but let's not take context in consideration for Ottawa? And you say that I am a master of mental gymnastics?
Again, it's a bit far in the past and it's hard to remember exactly but IIRC, I was just pointing out that 3 years IS NOT ENOUGH TO JUDGE A REBUILD
So I pointed simple facts like the number of years the Hawks and Kings suffered before being good again.
"Social experiment?" So you go around insulting (yes, that is what you're doing, even if it's often in a passive-aggressive manner) other posters as part of some little experiment (which sounds more like a way to excuse simply doing it "for the lolz" than anything)? Get a life. If you honestly take issue with people being harsh on the internet, well, it's probably not the place for you. And your little crusade isn't going to stop it from continuing. Especially when, as I've pointed out, you twist things to suit your own needs. It's a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
wow man chill out. I am not insulting people. I don't remember taking it personally to somebody. It's always about hockey posts. You should be looking yourself in the mirror right now
And yes, my "social experiment" proved what is so ridiculous about internet (precisely HF) in a vaccum. People can say : "This player/GM is dumb" but just because we assume that this person doesn't have an account on HF, it is permitted. In this "social experiment", I have tried to tell on purpose the exact same thing to the poster "the only dumb thing here is your post", and I got an infraction each and every time. Pretty ironic in my books
And now you come up with more personal judgments, as you are trying to insult me in a "passive-aggressive manner", as if I need to "get a life". Have I ever said something about you or your life? Am I talking about your fixation of my posting on a message board?
Don't worry about my life, it's not perfect but I have enough to be grateful everyday.
As for my little crusade, yes you're right I won't change the world, but if I can have some influence on some people... That's all I am asking for
Why? You don't know them anymore than you know posters here on this forum. Is it because you've seen pictures of them and therefore can associate a face with the person? You also don't know what posters here have accomplished in their lives. How arrogant are you that you decide a person being critical of hockey players on a message board warrants your criticism because you've decided they haven't "accomplish[ed] things?" That right there? That's insulting.
Again, I am NOT targeting anybody. I throw a hat and it's up to people to see if it fits them or not. I know hockey players in real life (and I meet some new quite often) and I know they have accomplished something : making the NHL. I respect them for that nothing more. I would bet than Bryan Murray has accomplished much more in his life than 99.9% of the people who called him dumb, senile or whatever. That's what I meant. Why exactly can't I choose to take side with whoever I want? If they have accomplished more, then good for them. Usually, people who have accomplished a lot don't spend most of their time whining. I could be wrong. It's just a thought that I am throwing out there. Is it illegal or something?
A classic case of laying down cover in the first part of that paragraph. It also shows just how much of a holier-than-thou attitude you actually have, but nice try with attempting to throw that at me. Well here I am, calling out your own biased opinion and warping of facts, like the definition of paranoia and the actual length of the rebuilds LA and Chicago went through, and on the fact that you insult others. So, essentially what you claim to be doing.
No. I am just telling you things like they are. You are attacking me every time you quote me but I still like you brother. I am just not somebody who has hate in his heart. Keep throwing jabs if you need it. I can take them
And you're whole "4 million over 5.25 years" depends on subtracting 11.7 million outright for this year, ignoring the fact that Phaneuf is still making $7.5 this year. Again, all they're saving is $4.2 million this year, and what, about $600k last year?
Ok nevermind too long to explain! Check my post history and do a search using Phaneuf and Toronto as key words, I have explained it well enough for anyone to understand.
And you're missing the fact that the majority of non-marginal NHLers are no longer what they once were by age 35.
Again, you missed the point, but whatever time is running out. I originally said "35 y/o, an age where most non-marginal NHL players still play at a great/good/decent level"
It means that MOST players (not every) who were good younger are still great, good OR decent at 35 y/o.
Just a random example : Mike Fisher is 36 y/o and most of his best years have been after 31 y/o despite the scoring going down.
Aging, which all people do, combined with the wear and tear of playing an 82 game NHL season isn't enough logical reason for you? As for Neil, he did get better, but he still wasn't especially good, especially after they took Shane Prince off his line by trading him. Not saying Prince was a star, but he was an effective player at keeping the puck out of his own end by helping to keep it on his and his teammates' sticks more often.
And Phaneuf is 6'3 and 214 lbs.. So he's got 2 inches on Neil and a bigger frame to boot. How much can he realistically sacrifice while still playing his style of game?
Again, in 25 years of following the NHL, I have seen a lot of good players maintaining a good OR decent level by the age of 35. Another example : Sergei Gonchar signed with Ottawa at 36 y/o, and while he was not in his prime anymore, he was still useful. Chris Neil is cool and everything but he is a marginal player. He was a role player all his career. Prince is marginal too.
Yes, you are aging from 31 to 35 but it's just 4 years. If you stay in good shape, you don't become an old fart all of sudden. Phaneuf appears to be a great athlete and as long as he doesn't suffer serious injuries, I'm not worried for him for that period of time.
Most players who regresses before 35, it's usually because of injuries. It can cause you to get "older" faster.
And JD1's criticism of my argument doesn't hold much weight when you realize I didn't simply remove their win streak. Hell, I still gave them a winning record during that time. Additionally, long win streaks like those always need to be taken with a grain of salt when properly evaluating a team. The issue wasn't just the 11 game win streak, but also how tight the standings were during the 2009-10 season. So the Senators benefitting from a ridiculously good streak (and ones like that don't come around often), where even going just over .500 would have left them on the outwide looking in, should be considered when looking back on that season and the team's success re: the standings. Hell, finishing 5th in the East in 2009-10 and then falling down to 5th last (and at one point 2nd last during the season) in 2010-11 shocked people.
Ok but what about losing streaks?
You're really trying to spin this one?
And the issue isn't spending to the cap. I mean, it doesn't help the Sens, but there are ways around that in terms of player evaluation. The issue is this team doesn't think long-term and hasn't for a while. They make moves just to get in. Are you honestly saying people should just shut-up and accept scraping by?
They can criticize, just not insult.
Seriously, Melnyk thinks 1 or 2 years of sucking would be too much? Does he not remember how accepting fans were of the need to rebuild in 2011? A rebuild that didn't even last a single season due to numerous factors (the emergence of Karlsson as an elite player, and several veterans having rebound seasons but whose age didn't align with a younger core). What fans want is a sense of direction. A firm plan for the future. The Sens' "plan" for the last several years has consisted of "just get in and hope for the best." Frankly, I think fans have every right to be frustrated by that and to criticize players (especially if they're overpaid and/or underperforming), coaching, management, and ownership under the circumstances.
They have the right to do it. It doesn't mean that they are good at it, and I will be here to point that out. Of course, bashing should not be accepted but outside of that, if they keep it civilized, I have no problem. Doesn't mean I won't argue or try to rectify facts though.
And let me guess, by "peace" you mean "shut-up, stop criticizing, and accept that I'm right?" Spare me your schpiel.
And no, by "peace" I really mean "peace", like stop fighting and move on to something else!
You really need to relax mec
