| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jumbo Joe Rocks |
Posted - 07/09/2010 : 13:45:55
SJ has offered Hammer a 4 year 14 million contract Chicago has 7 days to match or take 1st and 3rd round picks what do you think about this signing.
GO SHARKS GO |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/24/2010 : 15:45:25
I appreciate the shots at the spelling any typo's. I am a horrible speller and should use a spell check a lot more often than I do.
That being said, I agree with you 100% in your entire argument. However, I think my point has been either misunderstood or missed entirely.
To bring in odds and probability you need accurate information based on fact. Assumptions and guesses do not impact how likely or unlikely a situation is to happen.
My point is that this guest has zero specific and factual information meaning he had a 1 in 2 chance of getting it right.
|
| Guest7936 |
Posted - 07/24/2010 : 12:25:36
K. I was going to just ride off into the sunset and let everything slide. But now I've gone and got the reputation of all guests riding on me (minus the most recent guest poster...), so let's begin.
There is not a difference between probability aka odds and likeliness. They are synonyms. Definition of "likeliness" (dictionary.com): the state of being likely or probable; probability. Definition of "odds": the probability that something is so, will occur, or is more likely to occur than something else. Now I know that words can have different connotations that may not be caught in a definition, but that is not the case here. We are talking about two words with the same meaning.
So now that we have that cleared up, let's address our whole 50/50 claim. 50/50 means that there is a 50% chance of either event happening. So by definition, if each of two events have an equal chance of happening (both 50%) they must be equally likely. So yeah, if you are saying that there is a 50/50 chance that something will "occer" (sorry, couldn't resist), you ARE assuming that each outcome is equally likely.
Now there is an argument to be made that the offer sheet was a true 50/50 situation, as we didn't have enough information to assign a truer probability. I, for one, would dispute that. But saying that there is a 50% chance that New York will beat Miami in Miami is a completely untenable position. That's why I chose that situation for my example. The probability/odds/likliness/whatever is probably 10 to 1 against New York, maybe more. Not 50/50.
Oh, and before the calls of "too much time on your hands" start ringing out, I'm sitting here hungover at work. Yeah. This is literally the best use of my time right now. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 15:05:51
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Guest7936[/i]
[br]Well it's really quite simple. You are assuming that each outcome was equally likely to occur. I am suggesting it was not. An example:
Next year, say the Miami Heat play the New York Knicks in Miami. There are two possible outcomes: either Miami wins, or New York wins. Do you really think that New York has a 50% chance of winning? If so, you and I need to start doing a lot of sports betting...
I was NEVER assuming that "each outcome was equally LIKELY to occer". As Beans states, likeliness and odds are two totally different things. Sure the Heat would be favored to win, but the fact of the matter is there actually is 50% chance of NY winning. It's really quite simple, there are no ties in the NBA, there are two teams playing, only one team can win. Voila, 50/50. Sorry to disappoint.
You wanna talk "odds" on a team winning, then sure, there's a difference. But when talking about a team matching an offer sheet and some anonymous "guest" predicting the outcome, i'd say his "guess" was a 50/50 shot........ |
| Guest4715 |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 14:47:20
no because hes an ass hole |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 14:43:08
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Guest4715[/i]
[br]ur an a****** beans
why because he is smarter than you?
Pasty |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 14:02:34
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Guest7936[/i]
[br]Well it's really quite simple. You are assuming that each outcome was equally likely to occur. I am suggesting it was not. An example:
Next year, say the Miami Heat play the New York Knicks in Miami. There are two possible outcomes: either Miami wins, or New York wins. Do you really think that New York has a 50% chance of winning? If so, you and I need to start doing a lot of sports betting...
Well now we are talking about probibility and likilhoods. Sure, on the surface if the Heat are playing the Knicks that it's not 50/50, but what about if James, Bosh, and Wade are in a accident on the way to MSG and can not play??
I hear exactly what you are saying and you are correct when there is some kind of additional knowledge involved. The point I was getting at was this "Guest" who is Seabrook's best friend is full of somthing and has as much knowledge as the rest of us. Meaning there was a 50/50 shot of him getting it right. |
| Guest7936 |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 13:35:33
Well it's really quite simple. You are assuming that each outcome was equally likely to occur. I am suggesting it was not. An example:
Next year, say the Miami Heat play the New York Knicks in Miami. There are two possible outcomes: either Miami wins, or New York wins. Do you really think that New York has a 50% chance of winning? If so, you and I need to start doing a lot of sports betting... |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 07/23/2010 : 11:18:29
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Guest7936[/i]
[br]Just like to point out that it wasn't a 50/50. Just because there are two possible outcomes does not mean that they are equally probable. Everybody here except the guest was certain that Chicago would never match, therefore I am fairly sure this was not a case of a 50/50 chance prediction....
HUH? Now i'm confused.... 
Seriously, last time i checked, the option for Chicago was to match or not. That's two choices, only one of which they can pick. 1 out of 2 is 50%, 50% - a 50/50 chance......oh, nevermind..... |
| Guest7936 |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 16:28:48
Just like to point out that it wasn't a 50/50. Just because there are two possible outcomes does not mean that they are equally probable. Everybody here except the guest was certain that Chicago would never match, therefore I am fairly sure this was not a case of a 50/50 chance prediction.... |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 07/22/2010 : 14:09:28
Been away for a week or so, but this was the first thread i had to hit back on just to see the heckling the "gypsy" was taking. Lol....
Agree with most of what's been said but still think Chicago may yet trade Sharp, only because they've forced themselves to part with someone pretty good. If they want Niemi, it's gonna be tough without trading away some salary while keeping in mind, they've got Seabrook to deal with next summer! |
| Jumbo Joe Rocks |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 08:38:32
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tiller33[/i]
[br]First I had to Cancel my Bobby Ryan Jersey, and now this... Damn
I know my Hjalmarsson jersey showed up good thing it is a Chicago jersey.I am thinking about ordering a Kaberle one
GO SHARKS GO |
| Jumbo Joe Rocks |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 08:36:28
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tiller33[/i]
[br]Now how the hell they Ice a full team is beyond me.
Hire a hitman to kill Campbell and Huet?
No the hitman got caught after the Mike Danton incident.
GO SHARKS GO |
| Jumbo Joe Rocks |
Posted - 07/21/2010 : 08:35:01
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Guest4769[/i]
[br]ok boys big news for u............................................ alright sharp was supposed to go to the leafs today but something has come up and brian burke was not answering his phone so the trade will be postponed till thursday
Well Well Well look who guaranteed a trade Stan Bowman announces Sharp is staying put.Sharp will not be traded.
GO SHARKS GO |
| Guest3219 |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 15:14:25
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Guest7360[/i]
[br]beans u just love bringing ppl down dont u?
Yes he does he does it to everyone and every team,Everything people post,Trades mebers suggest.How do you know Hjalmarsson could have been told he was going to be matched and Sharp could have been told he could go to the leafs,Then they told Seabrook. |
| Guest7360 |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 09:57:25
beans u just love bringing ppl down dont u? |
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 09:29:41
First I had to Cancel my Bobby Ryan Jersey, and now this... Damn |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 09:18:21
Are you kidding?? How in the heck would a player know if a deal was going to be matched or not? Seriously, do you think the team sends out a text to the players and says, "We are going to match the deal!!" Management does not tell players what their plans are for contracts.
C'mon. It was a 50/50 chance of getting it right. It's not like the guy called anything specific. Call something specific, that only someone with inside information would know and I will be impressed.
This is the 2nd or 3rd time in my PUH career where someone made some claim to be someone or know someone connected and when the person was challenged about specifics the suddenly disappear.
|
| Guest5474 |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 08:40:58
even though he said the trade was gunna happen thursday, if sharp ever goes to toronto, whether today or in weeks from now, ill be impressed |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 08:40:14
quote:
Guest 4769's List of Predictions:
1. Chicago will match offer for Hjalmarsson
CORRECT (and bang on when almost everyone else disagreed)
2. Chicago will trade Sharp to the Leafs by July 13th
INCORRECT (no trade)
3. Chicago will trade Sharp to the Leafs by July 15th
INCORRECT (still no trade!)
So, what you're saying is that so far, guest4769 has been correct about a coin toss, and nothing where there is more than 2 outcomes.
It could be that guest was correct about Sharp going to TO, but the trade was scuttled last minute. The fact that nothing has come out of CHI since the match would indicate that something big is in the works right now, perhaps something that would allow them to keep Sharp in the end. |
| n/a |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 08:23:53
People, people . . . take it easy on him, please. 
Guest 4769's List of Predictions:
1. Chicago will match offer for Hjalmarsson
CORRECT (and bang on when almost everyone else disagreed)
2. Chicago will trade Sharp to the Leafs by July 13th
INCORRECT (no trade)
3. Chicago will trade Sharp to the Leafs by July 15th
INCORRECT (still no trade!)
Further Info: Guest 4769 claims to be personal friend of Brent Seabrook, thus his "insider knowledge on some matters".
Slozo's Breakdown:
The book is still out on whether you are actually a friend of Seabrook's, but it's entirely possible in my mind, especially with your scoop on the match for Hjalmarsson. Seabrook would know that, makes sense - defenceman on same team, may be a closer friend with him, etc. The fact that he was wrong about Sharp coming to Toronto could be due to many things being out of the control of both what Seabrook heard/knew, and at best all he knows is what Seabrook heard from someone else. Yes, a definite insider tip, but we all know that sometimes a sure trade can get derailed at the last minute.
I am tempted to believe the guest when he says he is a good friend of Seabrook's, but he'd have to be right about Sharp getting traded to the Leafs for me to be about 85% sure.
Who knows, but here's hoping the guest is who he says he is . . . cause the Leafs want Sharp baby! 
p.s. - Guest4769: What are the Leafs giving back for Sharp, or do you know?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Jumbo Joe Rocks |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 07:42:06
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tiller33[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by Guest4769[/i]
[br]ok boys big news for u............................................ alright sharp was supposed to go to the leafs today but something has come up and brian burke was not answering his phone so the trade will be postponed till thursday
OK it's Thursday, and I already have my Patrick Sharp home Leafs jersey on pre-prder don't let me down now 4769!!!
You should cancel the order for now.
GO SHARKS GO |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 07/16/2010 : 07:09:17
did burkes phone get disconnected again on thursday,, ??? and the sudden rise to stardome as the Pickuphockey predictor is followed by a steep and forgetfull fall from grace,, your great prediction of Hjalmarsson being matched now looks like a lucky guess and all your contacts,,,, well .....
Pasty |
| Jumbo Joe Rocks |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 11:53:40
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tiller33[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by Guest4769[/i]
[br]ok boys big news for u............................................ alright sharp was supposed to go to the leafs today but something has come up and brian burke was not answering his phone so the trade will be postponed till thursday
OK it's Thursday, and I already have my Patrick Sharp home Leafs jersey on pre-prder don't let me down now 4769!!!
I went and ordered a Hjalmarsson jersey on SJ now I am stuck with it I also have Hjalmarsson on Chicago too.Who cares though I like him.Except for the SJ one.
GO SHARKS GO |
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 07/15/2010 : 11:20:41
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Guest4769[/i]
[br]ok boys big news for u............................................ alright sharp was supposed to go to the leafs today but something has come up and brian burke was not answering his phone so the trade will be postponed till thursday
OK it's Thursday, and I already have my Patrick Sharp home Leafs jersey on pre-prder don't let me down now 4769!!! |
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 15:52:04
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Guest4769[/i]
[br]ok boys big news for u............................................ alright sharp was supposed to go to the leafs today but something has come up and brian burke was not answering his phone so the trade will be postponed till thursday
Bahaha, hilarious so much for those churches |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 15:41:52
quote:
I don't think Chicago's asking price will be huge for any player they ship out. The best they can do, is take on minor league players, prospects and draft picks.
True, I don't think their asking price is huge, and other GM's will be lowballing. However, they will have a lot of teams making offers, and perhaps a bidding war ensues. At the end of the day, I don't think that TOR would be willing to offer the best package to get Sharp.
Note, willing to offer...as Patsy posted before, they are certainly able. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 15:40:05
quote:
Kadri and 1rst round pick in 2011 - 2012
Yeah, I think CHI would take that.
Question is, would TOR give that? I should have phrased my question differently - "what *would* TOR offer to get Sharp"? |
| irvine |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 14:05:47
I don't think Chicago's asking price will be huge for any player they ship out. The best they can do, is take on minor league players, prospects and draft picks.
That being said, teams know, Chicago HAVE to make these moves. Teams will likely for Chicago's hand in taking less, by pointing out they have no choice in whether or not to move these guys.
Chicago would take a prospect + a 2nd for Sharp I'd say. Or, a 1st with nothing. Chicago are not in a position to negotiate. They can some, of course. But, they can not hold out forever.
Irvine/prez. |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 12:53:42
quote:
[i]Originally posted by nuxfan[/i]
[br]so if Sharp is TOR-bound, what on earth can TOR give up to make it a worthwhile trade?
Sharp would be a sought-after commodity for many teams - he is not a first-line C on most teams (he might be with TOR), he would be a solid second or very solid 3rd line choice - and can play wing as well. He is awesome on the PK and plays a very responsible defensive game, but can do good things on the PP. Good for 50 points a year.
I can imagine that Sharp is now on the block. I cannot imagine that TOR is capable of packaging the best return value.
Unless they're shipping Versteeg back the other way 
Kadri and 1rst round pick in 2011 - 2012 
Pasty |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 12:31:18
so if Sharp is TOR-bound, what on earth can TOR give up to make it a worthwhile trade?
Sharp would be a sought-after commodity for many teams - he is not a first-line C on most teams (he might be with TOR), he would be a solid second or very solid 3rd line choice - and can play wing as well. He is awesome on the PK and plays a very responsible defensive game, but can do good things on the PP. Good for 50 points a year.
I can imagine that Sharp is now on the block. I cannot imagine that TOR is capable of packaging the best return value.
Unless they're shipping Versteeg back the other way |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 11:54:42
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Guest4769[/i]
[br]ok boys big news for u............................................ alright sharp was supposed to go to the leafs today but something has come up and brian burke was not answering his phone so the trade will be postponed till thursday
WTF??? He didn't answer when you called??? What an A-HOLE!!! |
| Guest4769 |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 11:14:59
ok boys big news for u............................................ alright sharp was supposed to go to the leafs today but something has come up and brian burke was not answering his phone so the trade will be postponed till thursday |
| Guest5474 |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 09:58:35
quote:
[i]Originally posted by irvine[/i]
[br]The Blackhawks have officially screwed themselves financially.
By matching that offer sheet, they now have to ship more players out in order to become cap compliant. And, take on less salary in return. It's going to be tough.
They also have messed up plans to keep Seabrook. As, next season, finances will be tight as well.
Looks like Chicago must have a big move planned. Hossa?
Irvine/prez.
hossa......................or maybe sharp!!!!!! uh uh maybe guest 4769 is no joke |
| n/a |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 09:19:37
Well Alex, I think the choice to match the offer for Hjalmarsson was a product of the playoffs . . . this year, it seemed like it was made clear to many GMs that defence wins the cup. Myself, I think this is like a wind that can change any given year, and I still believe it starts with the goalie out . . . but a lot of moves this off season seem to have been directly influenced by the two teams that made the final, and by what "offense first" teams didn't make the finals.
I also think Chicago will regret this move. They won't regret Hjalmarsson, but they will regret the offense they will surely have to lose because of it - Sharp (4.2 mil) and Bolland (3.3 mil) are the two guys I can see moving, but not many teams out there will have huge interest in Bolland I think.
Except maybe the Leafs, who are looking for a legitimate top line center . . . problem is, it'd be a gamble to think Bolland can become that guy. The potential is there, though.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| irvine |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 09:15:21
The Blackhawks have officially screwed themselves financially.
By matching that offer sheet, they now have to ship more players out in order to become cap compliant. And, take on less salary in return. It's going to be tough.
They also have messed up plans to keep Seabrook. As, next season, finances will be tight as well.
Looks like Chicago must have a big move planned. Hossa?
Irvine/prez. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 09:09:07
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Guest5474[/i]
david pollack from the mercury news has said that niemi will not be coming to the sharks
Sorry, but unless you're guest4769, i won't believe anything you say |
| Guest5474 |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 08:54:36
[/quote]
I know you are Pickup Hockeys predictor.Please let us know.Oh and ya know if Seabrook says anything about Niemi to SJ tell us.
GO SHARKS GO
[/quote]
david pollack from the mercury news has said that niemi will not be coming to the sharks
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 08:52:51
Couldn't agree more Slozo. Not with the "piling on" so much, although you're prob right, but with the fact that Sharp is a legitimate first line player on many teams in the league! If the Leafs can swing this and not give up too much, kudo's to my good buddy Burke (dripping with sarcasm).
As for the guest, it's actually pretty scary that he got that prediction correct as very few in the hockey world saw the Blackhawks matching that one! Maybe he does have some inside info? Either way, i'm still shocked they matched, and i think they may regret it next year..... |
| n/a |
Posted - 07/13/2010 : 05:33:18
This thread has taken several turns, all entertaining . . . especially with guest 4769 getting his bold prediction of Chicago re-signing Hjalmarsson correct - despite almost everyone, including myself, disagreeing with this. Looks like the Hawks (Bowman) wants a sound defensive core first, and a top notch, deep offense second.
Kudos to the guest for getting this right . . . but it's a double-edged sword, my friend, I know this myself from past successes. You could get the Sharp thing wrong and tomorrow, they'll pile on you.
Although, between you and me and the deep blue sea, I sincerely hope you are right and Toronto gets Sharp . . . he is a legitimate first line player in my mind who just happened to play the second line in Chicago behind Kane and Toews . . . and I think his numbers would look even better with more ice time.
Couple of good cheap prospects sounds about right . . . for a very desperate team to get under the cap. But they'd have to be decent quality, so I can see Bozak or Hanson included if it goes down.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 07/12/2010 : 22:42:01
perhaps our guest is Paul the octopus....now that world cup is done, he needs to find something else to keep him away from the sushi chef. |
