Brunners Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 I don't get why some people just spend all their time complaining about it. They know why it's allowed, they know the reason's he's valid and yet they always spout the same "I don't want to read Eklund rumours again". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bieksa's Quote Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 Looks like I should stop reading Bleacher Report rumours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kesler#17 Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Nice thread !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humble Rodent Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 I get having Ecklund as a reliable, but I think you should have to have some sort of tag or whatever in the title. I've seen people do [ECKLUND] or whatever in the title before, and it's pretty useful for those of us that don't bother to get our hopes up for his rumours. Like I said, I see it sometimes, but it would be nice if it was made mandatory or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerg Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 http://twitter.com/mcguire_pierre is another good source, he doesn't post much though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b3. Posted July 12, 2010 Author Share Posted July 12, 2010 I'm looking into it Gerg, there are quite a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riotsurvivor Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Did you not read any of the justifications for why Eklund is still considered a valid source? It's very well explained and outlined in the OP. "fabricated rumours" Eklund's already admitted that he doesn't have any sort of filter, he just gets told stuff and passes everything along, this is why we get a bunch of crazy sounding ideas, I have no doubt that Vancouver briefly enquired about Savard and Weiss, NHL clubs talk all the time and 99% of it comes to nothing, Eklund can use whatever justification he wants. He never gets anything right. Maybe one rumor per season, and that's dumb luck. Outside of that, he reposts things that have already been broken and claims to have broken them. Can we please discredit him based on his rich, deep history of being completely wrong on everything? And you say there are reputable writers "like Andy Strickland" ... no, there are not. It's just Andy Strickland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b3. Posted July 12, 2010 Author Share Posted July 12, 2010 Eklund can use whatever justification he wants. He never gets anything right. Maybe one rumor per season, and that's dumb luck. Outside of that, he reposts things that have already been broken and claims to have broken them. Can we please discredit him based on his rich, deep history of being completely wrong on everything? And you say there are reputable writers "like Andy Strickland" ... no, there are not. It's just Andy Strickland. Actually Eklund has gotten quite a few things right since the trade deadline, and has even gotten credit from Bob McKenzie and Darren Dreger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanye West Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Actually Eklund has gotten quite a few things right since the trade deadline, and has even gotten credit from Bob McKenzie and Darren Dreger. Ya still, He isn't a reliable source. I'd rather have McKenzie & Dreger over Eklund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riotsurvivor Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Actually Eklund has gotten quite a few things right since the trade deadline, Reposts and has even gotten credit from Bob McKenzie and Darren Dreger. I wanna see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b3. Posted July 12, 2010 Author Share Posted July 12, 2010 Ya still, He isn't a reliable source. I'd rather have McKenzie & Dreger over Eklund. That's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opmac Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Actually Eklund has gotten quite a few things right since the trade deadline, and has even gotten credit from Bob McKenzie and Darren Dreger. I believe he was the one that reported Bouwmeester to Calgary and everyone's like "Ahahahahahahahahahaha Eklund's an idiot (e5)" and "Eklund's an idiot, Calgary's got Phaneuf, Regehr, and Sarich already. No cap sace. What an idiot." How reliable is Hockeybuzzhogwash.com? It has Komisarek to Toronto as an incorrect rumour, Cammalleri to Montreal as an incorrect rumour, Bouwmeester to Calgary as incorrect, Giguere to Toronto as incorrect. The website also tracks each team that is named in a rumour as an individual rumour itself, so the numbers are skewed. Eklund is an accredited journalist and a recognized media member by the NHL. He has received media passes by the NHL to cover the Stanley Cup playoffs and the NHL Entry Draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humble Rodent Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Also, I would like to add that just because Sportsnet has him on their station doesn't necessarily mean they think he's creditable, it means they think he'll bring in ratings. That's like saying that Disney execs actually find Miley Cyrus funny because they let her have her own show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.G Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Also, I would like to add that just because Sportsnet has him on their station doesn't necessarily mean they think he's creditable, it means they think he'll bring in ratings. That's like saying that Disney execs actually find Miley Cyrus funny because they let her have her own show. Your analogy makes very little sense, if any. And no, on trade deadline day, sportsnet knows they will have a high rating irregardless of who is on the show. The reason they chose to include Eklund was to have another individual with resources, with the hopes of breaking news sooner than other stations. To prove how Eklund swayed the ratings minimally, my friends and I all watched TSN throughout the day despite Eklund being on sportsnet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brunners Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 I believe he was the one that reported Bouwmeester to Calgary and everyone's like "Ahahahahahahahahahaha Eklund's an idiot (e5)" and "Eklund's an idiot, Calgary's got Phaneuf, Regehr, and Sarich already. No cap sace. What an idiot." How reliable is Hockeybuzzhogwash.com? It has Komisarek to Toronto as an incorrect rumour, Cammalleri to Montreal as an incorrect rumour, Bouwmeester to Calgary as incorrect, Giguere to Toronto as incorrect. The website also tracks each team that is named in a rumour as an individual rumour itself, so the numbers are skewed. Eklund is an accredited journalist and a recognized media member by the NHL. He has received media passes by the NHL to cover the Stanley Cup playoffs and the NHL Entry Draft. Eklund hears when two teams talk. He then posts about it. Then nothing happens between those teams for a while. Eklund gets bashed, is called a fraud, yadayadayada, then months later the player is moved to the team he mentioned. Does anyone go back and go, Hmm, Eklund mentioned this months ago? No. Eklund reports on rumours; and because of this a lot of the stuff he reports is going to come to nothing, and if it does happen, chances are it happens months and months down the line - by which point everyones forgotten Eklund mentioned it months ago, and are focused on bashing him for whatever "crazy" rumour he's mentioned this week. I wonder how much higher his success rate would be if you took that into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cks Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 While I understand Eklund posts rumors, and majority of which will never see the light of day. It's the posts that he makes that don't make any sense whatsoever that bug me. Example the Canucks are interested in Savard. Canucks have absolutely no reason to get savard. To me it just seems like a ploy to get more people checking his website... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zing! Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 While I understand Eklund posts rumors, and majority of which will never see the light of day. It's the posts that he makes that don't make any sense whatsoever that bug me. Example the Canucks are interested in Savard. Canucks have absolutely no reason to get savard. To me it just seems like a ploy to get more people checking his website... All it could mean is just kicking tires to see what the worth is. It makes less sense now, but the rumor existed before July 1st signings. Could only be MG considering things to make a plan B, C, D, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Alexander Cody Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Anyone wanna tell me why NHLSourcesSay is an invalid source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b3. Posted July 12, 2010 Author Share Posted July 12, 2010 Reposts I wanna see. I'm not going to search their 1000's of tweets for you. If you really want to see it, you can do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BedBeats™2.0 Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Reposts I wanna see. I saw them...B-Mack gave Eklund credit for breaking something before TSN....Dreger did the same with the same rumour/signing. If you can filter Tweets with days...go to their posts on either the first day of FA or the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.