Shanny to the Rangers - Update

504Heater wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:Sorry Rooneypoo but I cut your post down a little. I think you still get the jist of it and I really don't want this forum to turn into a lesson in Cap economics.

Oop, sorry, only saw this after my last point went up. I still think the point valid, tho', and it was only like 2-3 sentences.

There are no points on here that aren't valid IMO. I suggested in a PM that you start your own topic on the cap so people can reference it!

Thank you, Heater [and Cash]. I agree wholly with the sentiment; as long as no one's being peronsally insulting or abusive, or saying anything libellous or getting the site into potential legal trouble, I don't see the point of editing a poster's comments.

When I first saw the edit, I thought it was because what I said was construed as a libellous comment about NHLnumbers. Then when I saw the Cap'n's post, I began to think that the decision might have been influenced more by personal judgment than anything -- i.e., the Cap'n doesn't like my penchant long posts or number-crunching -- and that's a decision that doesn't sit well all that well with me. Sometimes it takes a little "lesson in cap economics" to make a point. We would still be arguing about the possibility of having Mesz and Schneider together on our blueline if we didn't go over such things.

rooneypoo wrote:

504Heater wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:Sorry Rooneypoo but I cut your post down a little. I think you still get the jist of it and I really don't want this forum to turn into a lesson in Cap economics.

Oop, sorry, only saw this after my last point went up. I still think the point valid, tho', and it was only like 2-3 sentences.

There are no points on here that aren't valid IMO. I suggested in a PM that you start your own topic on the cap so people can reference it!

Thank you, Heater [and Cash]. I agree wholly with the sentiment; as long as no one's being peronsally insulting or abusive, or saying anything libellous or getting the site into potential legal trouble, I don't see the point of editing a poster's comments.

When I first saw the edit, I thought it was because what I said was construed as a libellous comment about NHLnumbers. Then when I saw the Cap'n's post, I began to think that the decision might have been influenced more by personal judgment than anything -- i.e., the Cap'n doesn't like my penchant long posts or number-crunching -- and that's a decision that doesn't sit well all that well with me. Sometimes it takes a little "lesson in cap economics" to make a point. We would still be arguing about the possibility of having Mesz and Schneider together on our blueline if we didn't go over such things.

It wasn't that at all Rooney. I appoligise for offending you and perhaps it would be better for such indepth analysis on the Cap and number crunching to go in it's own Topic as Heater suggested? I really don't want this to become an issue.

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:

It wasn't that at all Rooney. I appoligise for offending you and perhaps it would be better for such indepth analysis on the Cap and number crunching to go in it's own Topic as Heater suggested? I really don't want this to become an issue.

I appreciate the apology, and there are no hard feelings. I don't have much time or patience for internet battles!

However, I just don't see why those 2-3 sentences -- it was very brief -- need to be relegated elsewhere. Heater posted something that seemed to take for granted that we have about $8.7 mil in cap space. I merely pointed out that, if he's getting that number from NHLnumbers, he should know that it's not quite accurate, and that NHLSCAP is a more accurate source for these matters. To me, the point is entirely germane to the conversation thread, and not a 'side issue' that needs to be taken elsewhere.

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:

It wasn't that at all Rooney. I appoligise for offending you and perhaps it would be better for such indepth analysis on the Cap and number crunching to go in it's own Topic as Heater suggested? I really don't want this to become an issue.

I appreciate the apology, and there are no hard feelings. I don't have much time or patience for internet battles!

However, I just don't see why those 2-3 sentences -- it was very brief -- need to be relegated elsewhere. Heater posted something that seemed to take for granted that we have about $8.7 mil in cap space. I merely pointed out that, if he's getting that number from NHLnumbers, he should know that it's not quite accurate, and that NHLSCAP is a more accurate source for these matters. To me, the point is entirely germane to the conversation thread, and not a 'side issue' that needs to be taken elsewhere.

Sorry, I just mean for future posts that go into detail about each players salary the cap implications etc... Not your last post in particular.

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:

Sorry, I just mean for future posts that go into detail about each players salary the cap implications etc... Not your last post in particular.

I'm not sure I follow. In any trade rumour, cap details are going to be central to the issue being discussed. I don't see why the cold, hard facts of salaries, cap situations for respective teams, and issues of economic feasibility should be considered as somehow 'after the fact' and consequently banished to the margins of the discussion.

At any rate, I don't know how it is that I go about doing what you're suggesting. I just tried to start my own thread here (about the Zach Smith signing) and I was navigated to a page that told me I couldn't because I didn't have authorization. Is there some place in particular that you had in mind?

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:

Sorry, I just mean for future posts that go into detail about each players salary the cap implications etc... Not your last post in particular.

I'm not sure I follow. In any trade rumour, cap details are going to be central to the issue being discussed. I don't see why the cold, hard facts of salaries, cap situations for respective teams, and issues of economic feasibility should be considered as somehow 'after the fact' and consequently banished to the margins of the discussion.

At any rate, I don't know how it is that I go about doing what you're suggesting. I just tried to start my own thread here (about the Zach Smith signing) and I was navigated to a page that told me I couldn't because I didn't have authorization. Is there some place in particular that you had in mind?

The Fighting Montagoose and Rumour Chat is the only forum where it's restricted to Admin only. The reason for that is I want to make sure that Rumour topics have some sources.

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:

The Fighting Montagoose and Rumour Chat is the only forum where it's restricted to Admin only. The reason for that is I want to make sure that Rumour topics have some sources.

Ah, fair enough.

I still can't imagine talking trade rumours without paying attention to the cap, tho', and it doesn't make a lot of sense to banish such discourse to the margins. I hope it's not a big deal that I continue to crunch the occasional number if and when the thread invites and will prosper from it, as in this instance.

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:

The Fighting Montagoose and Rumour Chat is the only forum where it's restricted to Admin only. The reason for that is I want to make sure that Rumour topics have some sources.

Ah, fair enough.

I still can't imagine talking trade rumours without paying attention to the cap, tho', and it doesn't make a lot of sense to banish such discourse to the margins. I hope it's not a big deal that I continue to crunch the occasional number if and when the thread invites and will prosper from it, as in this instance.

That's fair. Is it possible for you to simply state your case with links and go into depth if people want more detail?

Cap'n' Clutch wrote: That's fair. Is it possible for you to simply state your case with links and go into depth if people want more detail?[/size]

Believe it or not, I always do my best to keep things short. In all honesty, not all things can be "simply stated," especially when people get into disagreements and you have to deal with conflicting "facts" and points of view, and that's why some posts run longer than others. People never listen to you when you just disagree with them; show them as clearly as possible why their views stand in need of re-thinking, however, and then you're having a real conversation.

I feel like I'm a very capable judge of what's superflous and what's not. I write for a living, after all, and I deal with the issue every day. I'll be as circumspect as ever, but I can't guarantee I'll never again write a 3+ paragraph post with plenty of numbers. If we're OK on this, then we're OK.

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n' Clutch wrote: That's fair. Is it possible for you to simply state your case with links and go into depth if people want more detail?[/size]

Believe it or not, I always do my best to keep things short. In all honesty, not all things can be "simply stated," especially when people get into disagreements and you have to deal with conflicting "facts" and points of view, and that's why some posts run longer than others. People never listen to you when you just disagree with them; show them as clearly as possible why their views stand in need of re-thinking, however, and then you're having a real conversation.

I feel like I'm a very capable judge of what's superflous and what's not. I write for a living, after all, and I deal with the issue every day. I'll be as circumspect as ever, but I can't guarantee I'll never again write a 3+ paragraph post with plenty of numbers. If we're OK on this, then we're OK.

Sounds good to me. BTW I started another Forum called Random Thoughts. Check it out it's for anything you feel like chatting about. Oh and Members have full access to add topics etc...

rooneypoo wrote:
Hey, how come that other stuff I wrote -- i.e., about NHLnumbers's current cap listing for the Sens being incorrect because they fail to take into consideration Lee's, Nycholat's, and Winchester's contracts -- has been deleted on me? I'm not slamming them and it's not libellous; in order for it to be a libellous comment, it would have to be wrong, and it's just the plain old truth.

I often see people citing NHLnumber's current salary listings for the Sens and basing their arguments on it. It creates a lot of misunderstandings, and I think people deserve to know that the numbers they are currently listing are not quite accurate.

Can I call you RP for short?

No-one knows the true salary situation until we know what the 21 (or 22, or 23) man roster will be. Just because someone is on a one-way ticket still doesn't mean squat. Look at Emery, Murray, Stajan, etc. -- the list is long. And those are just buyouts. Then you have the likes of Mogilny and Kasparaitis, who got paid their salaries in the minors (and they were not $800K salaries, either).

Thing is, we just don't know who will be on the roster come October, and that is the only thing that counts.

rooneypoo wrote:
Thank you, Heater [and Cash]. I agree wholly with the sentiment; as long as no one's being peronsally insulting or abusive, or saying anything libellous or getting the site into potential legal trouble, I don't see the point of editing a poster's comments.

Then you better stay away from DigitalHome.ca, then. There are lots of forums like that, where the mods will remove redundant and off-topic text or entire posts. They also move posts/threads to the correct forums as they see fit, and often will lock a thread if they deem the discussion was not worth pursuing.

rooneypoo wrote:

Cap'n' Clutch wrote: That's fair. Is it possible for you to simply state your case with links and go into depth if people want more detail?[/size]

Believe it or not, I always do my best to keep things short. In all honesty, not all things can be "simply stated," especially when people get into disagreements and you have to deal with conflicting "facts" and points of view, and that's why some posts run longer than others. People never listen to you when you just disagree with them; show them as clearly as possible why their views stand in need of re-thinking, however, and then you're having a real conversation.

I feel like I'm a very capable judge of what's superflous and what's not. I write for a living, after all, and I deal with the issue every day. I'll be as circumspect as ever, but I can't guarantee I'll never again write a 3+ paragraph post with plenty of numbers. If we're OK on this, then we're OK.

Who was it that said "If only I'd had more time, I would have written less" (I see similar quotes attributed to Eliot, Twain, Jefferson, Pascal and a few others).

Writing for a living does not entitle you to write more; just better, hopefully.

Sorry if I come across in a negative way, but I have to admit that sometimes I have trouble getting through the full post. And that's a shame, because I feel you can contribute in a very positive way with your comments and opinions. Keep up the good work, but take it easy on the old quill a bit.

wprager wrote:

Can I call you RP for short?

No-one knows the true salary situation until we know what the 21 (or 22, or 23) man roster will be. Just because someone is on a one-way ticket still doesn't mean squat. Look at Emery, Murray, Stajan, etc. -- the list is long. And those are just buyouts. Then you have the likes of Mogilny and Kasparaitis, who got paid their salaries in the minors (and they were not $800K salaries, either).

Thing is, we just don't know who will be on the roster come October, and that is the only thing that counts.

I see what you're saying here but it puts us on pretty slippery territory. Taken to its logical extreme, it says that there's no point in taking salaries or our current cap situation into consideration when discussing what the Sens may or may not do, because who knows what they'll look like in October. If you're going to stand by that point, then you should also be happily welcome on this site discussions of wildly improbable trade scenarios that make no financial sense. We are, I think, both tolerant men and avid hockey fans, but I'm guessing that pages and pages of such talk would begin to weary the patience of the most patient of us -- at least I'm guessing that's precisely so many of us express dissatisfaction with Eklund's site, and that's why this forum itself was created.

Referencing our current cap standing is of course not the perfect solution, but it's all that stands between us and a free-for-all form of wildly hypothetical conversations about highly improbable scenarios. It keeps us honest; it gives us a point of departure for responsible, informed speculation and conversation.

Our current cap room is $6.47. Is that number flexible? Of course -- but not by, I think, as much as your post suggests. There are a number of roster spots whose occupants we can readily infer: Spezza, Heatley, Aflie, and on and on. There are a number of others -- like guys with NTCs (Fisher), and new signings (Smith, Ruutu, Auld, and so on) -- who I think we can safely infer will be on the team, too. The truth is that it's really only a small number of role players on small contracts who are the x-factors (Bass, Winchester, McCammond, Neil, Nycholat), and whlile it's true that their status can impact our cap space by a bit, they don't significantly change the overall look of our cap. It's just not the case, then, that our roster is totally flexible, and so it makes sense that we do our best to take that fact into account.

wprager wrote:

Then you better stay away from DigitalHome.ca, then. There are lots of forums like that, where the mods will remove redundant and off-topic text or entire posts. They also move posts/threads to the correct forums as they see fit, and often will lock a thread if they deem the discussion was not worth pursuing.

I most certainly will then. I'm a big believer in freedom of speech.

wprager wrote:

Who was it that said "If only I'd had more time, I would have written less" (I see similar quotes attributed to Eliot, Twain, Jefferson, Pascal and a few others).

Writing for a living does not entitle you to write more; just better, hopefully.

Sorry if I come across in a negative way, but I have to admit that sometimes I have trouble getting through the full post. And that's a shame, because I feel you can contribute in a very positive way with your comments and opinions. Keep up the good work, but take it easy on the old quill a bit.

Wow, beat up on rooneypoo night, is it?

To be fair, I never said and nor do I feel that I am entitled to write more. All I said was that I think my background as a teacher of essay writing and grammar courses as well as a professional editor make me somewhat able to judge what is and isn't superflous. I always try to make every word, every sentence contribute to a point I'm making. I'm sorry if you don't feel that way, tho', and as I said to the Cap'n, I do do my best to keep it short and sweet -- but some occasions call for more.

rooneypoo wrote:

Wow, beat up on rooneypoo night, is it?

To be fair, I never said and nor do I feel that I am entitled to write more. All I said was that I think my background as a teacher of essay writing and grammar courses as well as a professional editor make me somewhat able to judge what is and isn't superflous. I always try to make every word, every sentence contribute to a point I'm making. I'm sorry if you don't feel that way, tho', and as I said to the Cap'n, I do do my best to keep it short and sweet -- but some occasions call for more.

Uh-oh. I was afraid I might have gone too far. I apologize. That said, I know for a fact (from my kids, no less) that I can be too wordy for my own good. Does that qualify me as an expert? Perhaps. Like I said, I feel you have very good, positive comments/opinions to contribute but, on occasion, I've found myself struggling to read every word.

wprager wrote:

Uh-oh. I was afraid I might have gone too far. I apologize. That said, I know for a fact (from my kids, no less) that I can be too wordy for my own good. Does that qualify me as an expert? Perhaps. Like I said, I feel you have very good, positive comments/opinions to contribute but, on occasion, I've found myself struggling to read every word.

No, no -- no need to apologise. I put that smiley face thing in there to indicate mock hurt-feelings.

In self-defence of the occasional long post, all I can say is that I certainly feel much more confident in my writing skills and judgment than I do my hockey or cap knowledge. If you respect what I have to say hockey-wise, then I hope you will one day come to respect my discretion as a writer and editor.

But let it die there. We should be talking hockey, not writing. I do more than enough of that with my 1st-years!