2017/2018 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

It’s not 50/50 though. When you go on an airplane, do you have a 50/50 chance of crashing? Either you do or you don’t? No, you have a 1/11,000,000 chance of crashing.

HES LITERALLY NOT SAYING THAT! He stated in his post he believes both outcomes are equally likely. Whether you agree with that or not is besides the point. In his opinion the odds are 50/50. Due to likelihood, not due to the number of outcomes!!!

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Just for the sake of nitpicking, Hayes is actually a 45 point winger.

Aside from that, only 4 forwards on the Flames scored more than Hayes last season. Only 3 outscored him the year before.

Beggars can’t be choosers, and the Flames *absolutely* need another guy who is good for 40+ points easy. Sure, a 70 point forward would be even better, mostly because we’ve only seen 2 different 70+ point guys since Jarome (and only witnessed that point total 3 times since before he left).

You can say “if this and that and this other thing happens then we’ve got all of these 40 point forwards” but, sorry, that’s not the way it works. Some guys may excel under Peters, others will drop off. No sense in counting your 40 point chickens before they hatch.

OK but even if we go after another 40 point chicken I want a chicken that is a RS. We have enough LS chickens up front. I think a RS RW is important for the PP to cluck perfectly. We will see who BT pecks up but I am hoping for a RS.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

All the people piling on damage must have misread his post. He isn’t saying it’s 50/50 because only two outcomes exist. He’s saying it’s 50/50 because in his opinion there’s a 50% chance Fox signs.
It’s a reasonable assumption. And all you guys piling on with your “funny” drive by 50/50 jokes are petty.

Actually, he said it’s “where he truth lies based on everything we know, everything else is subjective,” which suggests 50/50 is the objective probability, which is definitely not true.

Maybe you just misread his post.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

He said 50 50 based on an assumptions that there is no information to say that either outcome is more likely. And that’s not true.
Anyways moving on

Cop out. And you know it

I don’t agree with his assumption, but yours was flawed too, and intentionally flawed. Concede that.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Actually, he said it’s “where he truth lies based on everything we know, everything else is subjective,” which suggests 50/50 is the objective probability, which is definitely not true.

Maybe you just misread his post.

Objection; speculation.

[dammage79]

Just so we're clear here. I Think it's a 50 50 shot fox signs here. Right or wrong full stop. You're more than entitles to believe otherwise. End of story.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Cop out. And you know it

I don’t agree with his assumption, but yours was flawed too, and intentionally flawed. Concede that.

Sorry concede what? How was my reply flawed?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Cop out. And you know it

I don’t agree with his assumption, but yours was flawed too, and intentionally flawed. Concede that.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Just so we're clear here. I Think it's a 50 50 shot fox signs here. Right or wrong full stop. You're more than entitles to believe otherwise. End of story.

Agreed end of story. Didn’t think my initial reply would lead to an endless argument.

[H2SO4(aq)]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Sorry concede what? How was my reply flawed?

Quite simply you alluded to the number of college prospects that sign with the team that drafted them is higher than 50%. This is true. And this is what you referenced to discredit damage. But this is ignorant of the fact that high profile prospects that go to their fourth year have a significantly higher chance of not signing.

Am I wrong?

[goflamesgo18]

Take your silly argument to private messaging. Its turned into a $hi+ bonfire storm

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Quite simply you alluded to the number of college prospects that sign with the team that drafted them is higher than 50%. This is true. And this is what you referenced to discredit damage. But this is ignorant of the fact that high profile prospects that go to their fourth year have a significantly higher chance of not signing.

Am I wrong?

Fox is going into his third year. So yes, right away you are wrong. As for the number of third year college players that turn down their drafting team's offer, play another year in school and turn down that team's offer again, my guess is that you are wrong again. But I suppose you could look it up.

[colbym72]

Its pretty sad that in a Trade Rumours thread. I have to scroll through a few pages to find one actual rumour

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

Quite simply you alluded to the number of college prospects that sign with the team that drafted them is higher than 50%. This is true. And this is what you referenced to discredit damage. But this is ignorant of the fact that high profile prospects that go to their fourth year have a significantly higher chance of not signing.

Am I wrong?

Yes.
He’s not even going into his fourth
But people are rightly tired of this argument so let’s just move on

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by colbym72

Its pretty sad that in a Trade Rumours thread. I have to scroll through a few pages to find one actual rumour

Discussion about Fox signing, which is directly related to wanting to trade him or not.

Yeah the last page or two is junk, but your comment has been repeated countless times and I disagree with it.

Again, if someone wants to start a “Pro Writer Rumours Only - No Discussion” thread, go for it.

[sempuki]

Originally Posted by h2so4(aq)

objection; speculation.

overruled!!

[Major Major]

Hypothetically, if Brady Tkachuk falls to 9, would you make a big push to get him/keep him away from the oilers?

The rangers hold the 9th pick. Maybe you could swing Brodie to another team for a mid round first + a second, then you flip those combined with a sweetener like dube or kylington for the number 9?

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Major Major

Hypothetically, if Brady Tkachuk falls to 9, would you make a big push to get him/keep him away from the oilers?

The rangers hold the 9th pick. Maybe you could swing Brodie to another team for a mid round first + a second, then you flip those combined with a sweetener like dube or kylington for the number 9?

That's a lot of work for a gm to pull off in short notice. Also what year is it again that the flames have a 2nd round pick ? 2025?

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

That's a lot of work for a gm to pull off in short notice. Also what year is it again that the flames have a 2nd round pick ? 2025?

Brodie gets the second rounder in that proposal. Lots of work, yes, but treliving could already have that trade ready to go in case something like that happens. Or maybe the rangers are the ones that flip Brodie for the picks.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Major Major

Hypothetically, if Brady Tkachuk falls to 9, would you make a big push to get him/keep him away from the oilers?



The rangers hold the 9th pick. Maybe you could swing Brodie to another team for a mid round first + a second, then you flip those combined with a sweetener like dube or kylington for the number 9?

Brodie for a mid round first and a second?

Brodie has been really, really bad for 2 years, and you have his value close to the Hamilton trade value when the Flames got him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk