Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Attn: Invalid Sources


b3.

Recommended Posts

I agree with this.

Please take HHR Hockey of this list. A very

good source. Nothing invalid about him. Also, Eklund? He is an idiot. He called the Mike Richards trade, but thats basically it!

Exactly. Eklund is so full of sh't I don't even know how HHR_Hockey is invalid. They don't come up with complete BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are considered invalid sources, therefore please don't use them as 'sources'. Threads will be locked if the source is one of these. Invalid Sources: Brochu is Hockey

Bleacher Report

Blogspot

Frank Krulicki

HendricksHockey

HHR_Hockey

HockeyBreak

HockeyBums

NHL Gossip

NHL Hockey News by saint Pako

incarceratedbob Twitter

The NHL Line

NHLSourcesSay

NHLRumor

NHLUpdate

Puck Me Hockey

SB Nation

School Your Pool

SportsHaze

The Hockey Writers

TSNBubMcKenzie Twitter

Vanstrom BC Twitter and Facebook pages

You're an invalid source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter how badly you try to justify it, having Eklund as a valid source on CDC is a complete joke and makes this board look terrible. As of right now he says the Canucks are trying to get Marc Savard and Steven Weiss. Why the hell would we want either one of them when Hank and Kesler are both locked up long term? This is just one of the many ridiculous and fabricated "rumours" that Eklund makes up in his little fantasy land. The same land that you are condoning as a "valid source" basically because he has his own website (GIMME A BREAK!)

2 years later, and he's still a valid source!?

Nuxin07 is right.....Eklund threads everywhere just causes our fanbase to get happy for no reason, and then see that Eklund fails again. Even worse, is how you, the mods, are letting him be a valid source? Are you joking me? C'mon mod(s? [whoever is allowing it]), what are guys thinking... :picard::sadno:

If that's how it is, we should all be considered valid sources as well, cause its not hard to start stupid rumours that have 0 truth to them 99% of the time.

Hell, I can grab a trade off NHL 12 and make it more realistic then the crap Eklund says, and then cdc'ers actually post his stuff? Complete garbage...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For frack sakes people, stop visiting his website and posting his rumours on CDC. Every Eklund rumour that gets posted gets ridiculed by OP saying he's an idiot.

Eklund does get stuff right once in a blue moon, particularly stuff regarding the Philadelphia Flyers. He was the first one in on Jeff Carter being traded after Mike Richards got traded. Everybody was calling him an idiot that the Flyers weren't going to trade both Carter and Richards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eklund:

We consider Hockeybuzz.com as a valid source, as Eklund has some credible writers on his site. These threads pop up every year, and they usually end in the same fashion.

I think people get confused by what "rumours" really are and what they aren't. Taking any rumour as being a 100% guarantee to happen is a mistake and I think where many people get confused. For the amount of talking that goes on between NHL clubs, I'd wager most doesn't materialize into anything.

So what's the point of having rumours posted here at all then, you might ask? It's something to start a legitimate conversation over, to speculate over and on occasion they may just happen. You just have to take it all in with a grain of salt.

It's simply not true. People in this thread have already posted that they don't mind it. People continue to post and view these threads on a consistent basis.

If he was truly a fraud, it's unlikely Sportsnet would have hired him, Darren Dreger would give him props for reporting something first, or any sports radio show would have him on as a guest. It's also unlikely that the other reporters at Hockeybuzz, such as Andy Strickland would be working with him.

I didn't change the meaning of what I quoted above, I just shortened it to the quoted parts that I'm replying to.

Since you guys insist on linking anything related to removing Eklund as a source to this thread, let's discuss Eklund. I think the first thing that needs to happen is to revise/edit the 2nd post in this thread, the outdated post by bieksa3- on why Eklund is still a credible source.

Does Eklund still have credible writers? How can a rumour filled blog by Eklund be "credible" when it's wrong 99% of the time. There's a difference between a "credible source" and a rumour. I personally wouldn't label someone who posts rumours 24/7 as a "source".

People like Darren Dreger no longer believe he is credible.

everyone on here is sick and tired of reading an intriguing title only to go into the thread and see the source as Eklund.

Explanation needs to be improved. Saying some "people" don't mind it is like saying, "some people don't mind the Bloc Quebecois to win the election" It doesn't say much. It's not possible to conclude that the majority of people don't mind Eklund's sources. Just because people post and view the threads, doesn't make him credible. At the end of the day, the argument should be over whether he is a credible source or not. It shouldn't be about whether people like him or not, or the amount of views or popularity he has. We are arguing whether he is a credible "source". Posting rumours doesn't make someone "credible". He has made some correct trade predictions, but whether he is "credible" is up for debate.

The mods have all the power, but even though it may be repetitive, at least try to answer the questions instead of directing people to this thread without any explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is going to be a stretch because of what day it is and barely anybody reads this anyways. But can we not post new threads that are Rumors? There will probably be quite a few trades happening and we don't need the board cluttered with rumors that might not even happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I didn't change the meaning of what I quoted above, I just shortened it to the quoted parts that I'm replying to.

Since you guys insist on linking anything related to removing Eklund as a source to this thread, let's discuss Eklund. I think the first thing that needs to happen is to revise/edit the 2nd post in this thread, the outdated post by bieksa3- on why Eklund is still a credible source.

Does Eklund still have credible writers? How can a rumour filled blog by Eklund be "credible" when it's wrong 99% of the time. There's a difference between a "credible source" and a rumour. I personally wouldn't label someone who posts rumours 24/7 as a "source".

People like Darren Dreger no longer believe he is credible.

Explanation needs to be improved. Saying some "people" don't mind it is like saying, "some people don't mind the Bloc Quebecois to win the election" It doesn't say much. It's not possible to conclude that the majority of people don't mind Eklund's sources. Just because people post and view the threads, doesn't make him credible. At the end of the day, the argument should be over whether he is a credible source or not. It shouldn't be about whether people like him or not, or the amount of views or popularity he has. We are arguing whether he is a credible "source". Posting rumours doesn't make someone "credible". He has made some correct trade predictions, but whether he is "credible" is up for debate.

The mods have all the power, but even though it may be repetitive, at least try to answer the questions instead of directing people to this thread without any explanation.

Dreger is Nonis' cousin, so when he chimes in on the Luongo to Toronto speculation and devalues Luongo suggesting that he is a mere salary dump, proposing things like Luongo for Komisarek... it doesn't make me consider him a valid source either - it sounds more lobbying with an interest involved.

When Samjam speculated that Luongo would go to Toronto at the draft, it was pretty clear that he was making a prediction/speculating - a deal a month away? - not exactly news or information that a deal is immanent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...