Pears Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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 More sharing options...
SCORGASMS Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 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 More sharing options...
The Sedin's 6th Sense Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 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... 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 More sharing options...
carib_canuck Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Looks like HHR_Hockey has disappeared overnight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 HHR_Hockey and HockeyBreak should be considered as valid sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 HHR_Hockey and HockeyBreak should be considered as valid sources. I'd rather read their stuff than read Eklund's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stark Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 HHR_Hockey and HockeyBreak should be considered as valid sources. Agreed. It's a proven fact that they've been much more reliable as sources than Eklund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troygamblefan Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 How do we know Eklund has "sources"?? He keeps saying that he talks to these "sources", yet they've failed him time and time again. He's no more credible than the list that's compiled here. What a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamero89 Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 No one wants Eklund, yet he remains a valid source. Nick Kypreos, Darren Dragger, Bob McKenzie have all called him an invalid source, but the admins still let him be an valid source...WHY!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kchengc Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 may be our mod or a frd of mod is one of the bloggers for eklund... ;p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Why doesnt Eklund get a subforum in this section. Those who are interested still have easy access. Those who aren't have an easy way of staying out of the way. Seems win-win to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opmac Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 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 More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 I like how in the other thread SN-Admin didn't explain why Eklund is a valid source He isn't, and we all know that. He's only allowed because without his garbage posting, this thread would be out about 35% of its content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weber's Playoff Beard Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 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 More sharing options...
Kumquats Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 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 More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Has anyone gone through all of Eklund's rumours leading up to the deadline to see how many he actually got right? /curious face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Time to put samjam99 twitter as invalid source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 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 More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Is Hockeyy Insiderr a valid source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Templeton Peck Posted June 11, 2012 Share Posted June 11, 2012 Is Hockeyy Insiderr a valid source? Can you post a link to it? Never heard of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.