What Was the Worst Signing Today?

[calumniate]

We spent just over ten mill on three players, 3 year term max. All in all I'm happy we didn't sell the farm and got safely above the floor. Love that Brad is valuing character. I cringed when sutter called staios a great 'locker room' guy ha, when we had a beach club of leadership already. But this is a different situation entirely

[calumniate]

Oops, and pouliot. Love it!

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

I would prefer an energized lively debate with strong opinions in which people posit their views assertively to a lot of everyone agreeing about everything, challenging nothing and foregoing any real debate as to whether or not the conventional view makes any actual sense.

I have an issue with people speaking in absolutes on subjects that are currently not black and white and there are no objective truths to fall back on. To say that the Engelland deal is objectively terrible and therefore anyone who disagrees with that is a homer (idiot) is absurd. Argue that it is terrible assertively all you want, but that is not what you've done. You have used a style of rhetoric that is lazy, ineffective, and that makes you seem like a bit of a rod.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by BigTuna

And people on here laughed when I said Dion would get 7 million as UFA.

People on here laugh at you all the time.

[calumniate]

To add to major major. People use Homer glasses a lot but it's done in a general sense, and not normally thrown directly at an individual. Tactfulness dude

[FurnaceFace]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

in order to actually challenge any of the trite, overly simplistic, traditional and often wrong perspectives on hockey that arise in discussions with any group of hockey fans (especially casual ones who hear it from talking heads), "I'm sorry but I believe you're mistaken" doesn't really seem to get through. Without strenuous objection to conventional thinking there isn't a discourse. With it, we can come to a better understanding.

I think the challenge with this is assuming that the loud voices of the vocal minority speak for everyone and it's required to respond to them. What happens with this approach is that minority gets their back up, along with some of the valuable posters on here, and the message can get lost.

I feel there are lots of us who crave the days in the past where good hockey discussion was the norm and the internet fights were at a minimum. If more people took that "I'm sorry but I believe you're mistaken" approach I feel we'd have better discussions here and the varied opinions wouldn't be vilified. If the argument is well thought out, it'll get supported.

Oh, and I vote Orpik. That's 2 years too long...maybe even 3.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

For everyone saying that it won't hurt Calgary to sign Engelland to that deal, you may be right. But whether or not a bad contract has any practical impact on the team does not cause it to cease being a bad contract.


And I do appreciate that. I have some frustration on this point though, because while this board is actually a pretty good place to talk about hockey in comparison to some of the other alternatives out there, there is obvious Flames homerism (which is to be expected) and groupthink, which create a mob mentality that is much more aggressive in suppressing minority opinions and dissent than anything one poster could muster.

In other words, in order to actually challenge any of the trite, overly simplistic, traditional and often wrong perspectives on hockey that arise in discussions with any group of hockey fans (especially casual ones who hear it from talking heads), "I'm sorry but I believe you're mistaken" doesn't really seem to get through. Without strenuous objection to conventional thinking there isn't a discourse. With it, we can come to a better understanding. I believe that any attempt to stifle that by encouraging everyone to put on the kid gloves is doing a disservice to the quality of hockey discussion on here. There's a line, obviously, but I think the forum rules in saying "attack the idea, not the person" supply that line.

I would prefer an energized lively debate with strong opinions in which people posit their views assertively to a lot of everyone agreeing about everything, challenging nothing and foregoing any real debate as to whether or not the conventional view makes any actual sense. This is just my opinion, and of no practical consequence given that I'm just a member... except that I would hope you would consider it as an alternative perspective on what makes for a good discussion board from someone who has also moderated a pretty big one since about 2006. Or at least, hope you see where I'm coming from.

1) Just because you think you are right, doesn't make it so. Everyone is 'full of themselves' if they think they are right all the time.

2) The bolded is what is abrasive (didn't have to read the rest of your post). Calling someone 'wrong' makes someone else defensive. You feel this isn't enough. Why do you feel the need to tell someone they are wrong? Instead of pointing fingers and forcing posters into an automatic defensive mindset, instead just say: "I think that.."

The need to call posters wrong (or worse!) is what causes many fights, not discussions. The sooner you learn that, the better off you will be on all boards, not to mention your personal life.

Still, some people enjoy coming to different boards and starting to fights anyways. If this is you, please disregard the above.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Major Major

To say that the Engelland deal is objectively terrible and therefore anyone who disagrees with that is a homer (idiot) is absurd. Argue that it is terrible assertively all you want, but that is not what you've done. You have used a style of rhetoric that is lazy, ineffective, and that makes you seem like a bit of a rod.

See, this, for example, is much more aggressive and personally insulting than anything I've said.

Incidentally, "homer" does not mean "idiot". It means someone is biased and their opinion is influenced by that bias to a point where it is not particularly credible.

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

I feel there are lots of us who crave the days in the past where good hockey discussion was the norm and the internet fights were at a minimum. If more people took that "I'm sorry but I believe you're mistaken" approach I feel we'd have better discussions here and the varied opinions wouldn't be vilified.

This isn't the sense I get at all. Unconventional opinions are easily, and usually pretty snidely, dismissed.

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

2) The bolded is what is abrasive (didn't have to read the rest of your post).

I think you did, or there's very little chance that you would have gotten the point I was trying to make.

Calling someone 'wrong' makes someone else defensive. You feel this isn't enough. Why do you feel the need to tell someone they are wrong?

The need to call posters wrong (or worse!) is what causes many fights, not discussions. The sooner you learn that, the better off you will be on all boards, not to mention your personal life.

Because it's a discussion board with a quote function. The title of a thread sets a topic for discussion. People then say what they think about that. Then other people say what they think about what the first people thought, and so on. This is how a message board works. You really believe that the standard should be not to disagree with anyone?

[Red John]

You just don't get it. It's not that unconventional opinions are dismissed, it's how you deliver those opinions.

Some offer a dissenting opinion but bring it across in a thoughtful respectful way. You don't.

It's your delivery not the message that sucks.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Some peoples' hockey opinions are pretty damned unbelievable, and are often expressed as if they were obvious.

I mean, if you were having a conversation about, say, the benefits of living in Calgary vs. Winnipeg, and someone chimed in "but Winnipeg is larger and warmer than Calgary", would your reaction not be something along the lines of a shocked "what the hell are you even talking about?"

This comment killed your whole argument. A person can defend that Calgary is in fact larger and probably warmer than Winnipeg with "facts". Your take on players is different, but not necessarily factual, than other posters. If someone doesn't agree with your evaluation their hockey opinions aren't "damned unbelievable".

[Dion]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

See, this, for example, is much more aggressive and personally insulting than anything I've said.

Incidentally, "homer" does not mean "idiot". It means someone is biased and their opinion is influenced by that bias to a point where it is not particularly credible.

This isn't the sense I get at all. Unconventional opinions are easily, and usually pretty snidely, dismissed.

I think you did, or there's very little chance that you would have gotten the point I was trying to make.

Because it's a discussion board with a quote function. The title of a thread sets a topic for discussion. People then say what they think about that. Then other people say what they think about what the first people thought, and so on. This is how a message board works. You really believe that the standard should be not to disagree with anyone?

Being condescending with your responses is not a respectful way of having a discussion. Leave the homer crap out of the discussions and don't assume Flames fans are biased.

If someone doesn't get your point then move on. Expecting everyone to agree with your views and pushing the debate to a level where you state others are wrong or that their views are not credible is a quick way to get banned from this site.

[saXon]

Worst signings - Orpik and Engelland.

I don't care how much cap space the Flames have, 5 x the previous contract rate is disgusting...for any player in fact.

[TheJoeGreene]

Originally Posted by saXon

Worst signings - Orpik and Engelland.

I don't care how much cap space the Flames have, 5 x the previous contract rate is disgusting...for any player in fact.

So...if a player becomes a free agent after having a season, or seasons, that are 5x as productive as his contract dictates it would still be disgusting for a team to sign him for that? DE didn't do that, but what you've stated is not a fact.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Your take on players is different, but not necessarily factual, than other posters. If someone doesn't agree with your evaluation their hockey opinions aren't "damned unbelievable".

If it conflicts with all available evidence, it is. There's a lot of stuff posted on here that is the equivalent of saying "Patrice Bergeron is bad at faceoffs". Things that, despite all indications to the contrary, people are willing to put confidently forward. Spit-take level stuff. That's what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Red John

You just don't get it. It's not that unconventional opinions are dismissed, it's how you deliver those opinions. Some offer a dissenting opinion but bring it across in a thoughtful respectful way. You don't.

I just posted in the Vancouver thread and note that one of your posts responding to my views on Virtanen in there calls me arrogant and hilariously wrong, says that my opinion means nothing, and in the next post you tell another poster his opinion is drivel and he's in denial. None of which I have a problem with really, but you seem just a touch hypocritical here when it comes to expressing yourself in a respectful way. In fact, opening with "you just don't get it" is no less caustic than anything I've said.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Dion

Being condescending with your responses is not a respectful way of having a discussion. Leave the homer crap out of the discussions and don't assume Flames fans are biased.

But they are? Every team's fans are biased. To some degree every FAN is biased. I thought this was just taken as read.

If someone doesn't get your point then move on. Expecting everyone to agree with your views and pushing the debate to a level where you state others are wrong or that their views are not credible is a quick way to get banned from this site.

This is I guess my point, I don't think people should be banned for saying other people are wrong and their views are not credible. It's really hard to have any meaningful discussion in that case and it also doesn't seem to line up with the site rules as posted, although I guess if Jiri Hrdina says that's what goes then that's what goes.

[Karl]

Worst signing of today is Orpik, by a landslide.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

But they are? Every team's fans are biased. To some degree every FAN is biased. I thought this was just taken as read.

This is I guess my point, I don't think people should be banned for saying other people are wrong and their views are not credible. It's really hard to have any meaningful discussion in that case and it also doesn't seem to line up with the site rules as posted, although I guess if Jiri Hrdina says that's what goes then that's what goes.

You didn't just say biased, you said and I quote "No, it's legitimately a terrible contract and anyone not wearing homer glasses can see that." You made a point of suggesting that people couldn't see your view because they had homer glasses on. That is a condescending way to discuss a topic and I believe a point that Jiri was trying to make..

[saXon]

Originally Posted by TheJoeGreene

So...if a player becomes a free agent after having a season, or seasons, that are 5x as productive as his contract dictates it would still be disgusting for a team to sign him for that? DE didn't do that, but what you've stated is not a fact.

Show me a player (not a rookie) that has earned 5 x his contract from the previous amount, and where it's worked out that that said player kept earning that large $$ amount going forward. Keep obvious bridge contracts and ELC's out of it.

Good luck.

[trackercowe]

The worst posters of the day have been Ashax and 19Yzerman19. We get it you didn't like the deal; can you stop spamming the board saying as much? The next three years are going to be insufferable enough with your constant complaints about the deal. It's over and done with now, please for everyone's sake just let it be until you actually see him play.

I don't think anyone here is "in love" with the contract anyway, but you don't need to drive a stake in with your monotonous diatribes.

[Erick Estrada]

Overall it seems like there really was a lot of money thrown around to what amounts to average to depth players today. Not a single elite player signed and very few 1st line/pairing players. A team could have not signed anyone today and come out far better than some of the teams that did. That said there seemed to be a little more restraint by a lot of teams as there were quite a few deals in the 1-4 year range which softens the blow of overpaying somewhat. Baby steps I guess.