CXLVII - Is this the 'Final Countdown' in Arizona?

[LPHabsFan]

Seems that the narrative that players don't want to go to AZ might be just a viewpoint from those that don't like the fact there is hockey in the valley.

One example is enough to prove or disprove a particular theory? Dang. I didn't know that's all we need.

 

[Salsero1]

One example is enough to prove or disprove a particular theory? Dang. I didn't know that's all we need.

And how many examples do we have of players burying the place? Enough to prove anything?

 

[PainForShane]

One example is enough to prove or disprove a particular theory? Dang. I didn't know that's all we need.

Umm... yes? You need only one example to disprove a theory. That's how theories work.

For instance, if you can find one example to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity, you win and Einstein is an idiot. Good luck

 

[Stumbledore]

So someone arrives to play for the Coyotes and goes on record as saying: "Such good people that have a passion for the game and want to make an organization something special."

Incredible. Absolutely mind-blowing. Arriving at a new team and saying something like THAT? Truly an historic statement.

 

[GordonGraham]

Seems that the narrative that players don't want to go to AZ might be just a viewpoint from those that don't like the fact there is hockey in the valley.

Coming from a 29 year old journeyman, an undrafted player on his 5th team with less than 20 career goals

 

[TheGreenTBer]

Umm... yes? You need only one example to disprove a theory. That's how theories work.

For instance, if you can find one example to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity, you win and Einstein is an idiot. Good luck

Technically...there are many examples that don't follow GR, but it has passed every relevant macroscopic test (it is incompatible with quantum mechanics, and merging the two is the single biggest problem in theoretical physics) thus far.

I'll see myself out now lol

 

[awfulwaffle]

One example is enough to prove or disprove a particular theory? Dang. I didn't know that's all we need.

So someone arrives to play for the Coyotes and goes on record as saying: "Such good people that have a passion for the game and want to make an organization something special."

Incredible. Absolutely mind-blowing. Arriving at a new team and saying something like THAT? Truly an historic statement.

Someone earlier in this thread commented players and agents were avoiding AZ.

 

[PainForShane]

Technically...there are many examples that don't follow GR, but it has passed every relevant macroscopic test (it is incompatible with quantum mechanics, and merging the two is the single biggest problem in theoretical physics) thus far.

I'll see myself out now lol

Looks like you win and Einstein is an idiot! Ha.

In all seriousness I see this discrepancy as more of an issue of scope rather than proving / disproving the theories. To use a different example, everyone knows atom bombs work and blow things up, but everyone also knows Newton's second law of motion is a fundamental law of classical physics.

Like you said, these are both true because most (all?) macroscopic laws / theories aren't compatible with QM and vice versa -- in other words as you know the behaviors in the various environments don't seem to be governed by the same set of laws / theories etc. So to me this is primarily an issue of scope, which means unfortunately looks like you and I are unable to disprove Einstein's theory of relatively. And here I thought we might be onto something oh well.

Ha, I'll show myself out too. But, honestly I do appreciate the input (everything you said is 100% correct), thx for sharing your thoughts

 

[Shwan]

Someone earlier in this thread commented players and agents were avoiding AZ.

They're not?

The problem for the Coyotes was that after meeting with Michkov before the draft, they came away with the distinct impression that he wanted no part of the franchise.

Sounds like Michkov told them he'd wait out in the KHL if they drafted him. Stark difference from how his interviews with the Flyers went.

Michkov said he wanted to play in the NHL and his dream was to win the Cup. Asked if he was afraid to play in Philadelphia, he said he wanted to play for the Flyers. He wanted to play in a hockey market.

 

[BMN]

Not taking sides here but you don't really learn much one way or the other about <insert city> as a valued place to play from a non-star. The question is always "Where are the players in a position to be choosy going?" And even then, those players are often looking at the organization first, city second (or third, fourth, etc.).....

 

[bleedblue94]

The beginning is when they couldn't put a deal together in Minnesota and pivoted to Phoenix. The end will be when they either move or drop the puck in a new arena.

I would love to hear more details about this. I've heard of this in passing but never with any level of details

 

[MNNumbers]

I would love to hear more details about this. I've heard of this in passing but never with any level of details

Original idea of Burke and Gluckstern when they purchased the Jets was to move them to Minneapolis and share Target Center with the Wolves (NBA). However, the city of Minneapolis wouldn't give them the kind of deal they asked for, so the deal to move to Minnesota fell through, and they had to move somewhere (history says that they would have been better off taking any deal in Minnesota). I think Bettman was commissioner by this time, and they ended up going to Phoenix and renting a basketball arena from the Suns.

 

[Stumbledore]

Original idea of Burke and Gluckstern when they purchased the Jets was to move them to Minneapolis and share Target Center with the Wolves (NBA). However, the city of Minneapolis wouldn't give them the kind of deal they asked for, so the deal to move to Minnesota fell through, and they had to move somewhere (history says that they would have been better off taking any deal in Minnesota). I think Bettman was commissioner by this time, and they ended up going to Phoenix and renting a basketball arena from the Suns.

Yeah, every time "History says..." you know she's a real bitch.

There's also a more polite quote about history having twenty-twenty vision but I'm too lazy to look it up and the boss says lunch is ready.

 

[Roadrage]

Coming from a 29 year old journeyman, an undrafted player on his 5th team with less than 20 career goals

I'd say something similar too if I were getting paid $1.1 million to play a game I love. It could be any team as well.

 

[KevFu]

The number of people who "argue the argument" instead of "arguing the topic" is astounding.

Yeah, it takes more than one to disprove a theory. And seven UFAs signed with the Coyotes.

Now I'll wait for the "But no one else wanted those guys" when it's July 5th and not August 5th.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Umm... yes? You need only one example to disprove a theory. That's how theories work.

For instance, if you can find one example to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity, you win and Einstein is an idiot. Good luck

I think that depends on the specific theory in question now doesn't it?

General Relativity proposes a theory for how the universe operates. By it's own theory if you can find an example that directly contradicts the predictions of relativity then you've found a flaw in general relativity.

Lots of questions are nowhere near so specific. Lets say I have a theory that men tend to be taller than women. Just because you find one woman taller than I am does nothing to disprove the theory because me theory only talks about tendencies.

Nobody has said all players will stay away from Arizona (or if they did they're not thinking it through). Clearly it's not true as the Coyotes continue to sign free agents. The Coyotes do have some selling features - warm year-round weather, no intrusive media. While Arizona does have a state income tax it's fairly low.

So instead the theory around Arizona is more that they will have more difficulty attracting players - in particular high-end free agents who are looking for a long-term contract.

So it's easy to see why Troy Stecher would want to sign in Arizona. It's a nice community, he knows the organization - and it's only a one year deal.

But good luck to Arizona signing someone on a long-term deal. Because of the instability around the franchise you could start playing in Arizona, but then have the team relocate to who-knows-where.

 

[PainForShane]

I think that depends on the specific theory in question now doesn't it?

General Relativity proposes a theory for how the universe operates. By it's own theory if you can find an example that directly contradicts the predictions of relativity then you've found a flaw in general relativity.

Lots of questions are nowhere near so specific. Lets say I have a theory that men tend to be taller than women. Just because you find one woman taller than I am does nothing to disprove the theory because me theory only talks about tendencies.

Nobody has said all players will stay away from Arizona (or if they did they're not thinking it through). Clearly it's not true as the Coyotes continue to sign free agents. The Coyotes do have some selling features - warm year-round weather, no intrusive media. While Arizona does have a state income tax it's fairly low.

So instead the theory around Arizona is more that they will have more difficulty attracting players - in particular high-end free agents who are looking for a long-term contract.

So it's easy to see why Troy Stecher would want to sign in Arizona. It's a nice community, he knows the organization - and it's only a one year deal.

But good luck to Arizona signing someone on a long-term deal. Because of the instability around the franchise you could start playing in Arizona, but then have the team relocate to who-knows-where.

No, it doesn't.

Learn how to use google. I'd recommend starting with "how to disprove a theory"

You're welcome

 

[LPHabsFan]

And how many examples do we have of players burying the place? Enough to prove anything?

You have a multi billion dollar per year organization with tentacles in other multi billion dollar industries (media). You have a sport that is mired in the "old boys club" and has a history of controlling the narrative. The fear of going on the record as being against anything is painfully obvious and has been for a while. Case in point? One of the first things that people realized after the vote failed was essentially "holy crap I can't believe the number of people in media who are now openly questioning the future of Arizona hockey and suggesting it might be time to move".

All of this to say, this is why we've only heard "insiders" talk about anonymous sources from all levels (players, management, agents, owners) who say things off the record about what a shitshow this has been.

If it gets resolved in a relocation, I'd imagine like most situations people will come out of the woodwork and be more open in their criticism of how everything went down.

The number of people who "argue the argument" instead of "arguing the topic" is astounding.

Yeah, it takes more than one to disprove a theory. And seven UFAs signed with the Coyotes.

Now I'll wait for the "But no one else wanted those guys" when it's July 5th and not August 5th.

I'm not going to say that nobody wanted those guys but we don't know what offers those players had from other teams but there are a number of reasons players sign with shitty teams. I remember a while ago a whole bunch of middle of the pack free agents signed in Florida for more money than people expected. Why? Was pretty evident at the time that it was because they weren't getting those deals anywhere else.

You make it sound as if they actually chose Arizona because they want to play there when none of them signed anything longer than 2 years. If they wanted to be there then they'd have signed longer time. None of them, even Kerfoot who signed for 2 years, probably even expects to still be there at the latest next summer.

 

[LPHabsFan]

No, it doesn't.

Learn how to use google. I'd recommend starting with "how to disprove a theory"

You're welcome

Umm... yes? You need only one example to disprove a theory. That's how theories work.

For instance, if you can find one example to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity, you win and Einstein is an idiot. Good luck

Alright so let's play this game. I did Google "how to disprove a theory" and one of the things that keeps coming up is the idea of "verifiability". See, you're only half right when you say you only need one example to disprove a theory. The part you're missing is that, in your example of the theory of relativity, you have thousands upon thousands of scientists across the world verifying that counter theory, and then only once almost all of said scientists come to the same conclusion, would there be agreement that the original theory is wrong.

So, back to this example.....Where are all of the people corroborating Troy Stetcher's comment to disprove the narrative?

 

[PainForShane]

Alright so let's play this game. I did Google "how to disprove a theory" and one of the things that keeps coming up is the idea of "verifiability". See, you're only half right when you say you only need one example to disprove a theory. The part you're missing is that, in your example of the theory of relativity, you have thousands upon thousands of scientists across the world verifying that counter theory, and then only once almost all of said scientists come to the same conclusion, would there be agreement that the original theory is wrong.

So, back to this example.....Where are all of the people corroborating Troy Stetcher's comment to disprove the narrative?

I'm sorry this shit is laughable. Verifiable means you can verify (ie reproduce) the result. So if I tell you Troy Stecher said "I would like to be here" verifiable means both you and I can go to Troy Stecher and he will say, "yes I said that I would like to be here."

On the other hand, something not verifiable means I say "Troy Stecher said he wants to be here" and you later went to Troy Stecher and he was like, "Nope, I never said that" -- that would be an example of something not being verifiable. However, that is clearly not what is happening and it's also not what you're arguing either.

So yeah, I have no idea what you are confusing yourself about rn. Go back to google I guess

 

[KevFu]

I'm not going to say that nobody wanted those guys but we don't know what offers those players had from other teams but there are a number of reasons players sign with shitty teams.

You make it sound as if they actually chose Arizona because they want to play there when none of them signed anything longer than 2 years.

Well, I've been the guy saying that you need to look at CIRCUMSTANCES on case-by-case basis and not just make assessments that about "The Market Failed" using cherry picked examples for the last 20 or so years on this site...

So forcing the "Market Failed" crowd into bringing up case-by-case circumstances of why each guy signed is just a really fun little twist I did there to entertain myself.

 

[aqib]

Original idea of Burke and Gluckstern when they purchased the Jets was to move them to Minneapolis and share Target Center with the Wolves (NBA). However, the city of Minneapolis wouldn't give them the kind of deal they asked for, so the deal to move to Minnesota fell through, and they had to move somewhere (history says that they would have been better off taking any deal in Minnesota). I think Bettman was commissioner by this time, and they ended up going to Phoenix and renting a basketball arena from the Suns.

I would love to hear more details about this. I've heard of this in passing but never with any level of details

Like MNNumbers said they tried to make a deal to go to the Target Center but wanted a subsidy. They also tried to make a deal to play at the St Paul Civic Arena. They wanted about $40 million in renovations to bring it to NHL standards. St Paul offered $20 million and they couldn't bridge that gap. Which in retrospect still would have been better than what they lose in AZ every year. St Paul wound up spending a whole lot more to build a new arena on the site a couple of years later for the Wild.

 

[Yukon Joe]

No, it doesn't.

Learn how to use google. I'd recommend starting with "how to disprove a theory"

You're welcome

Question:​

How many correct experiments do we need to disprove a theory? How many do we need to prove a theory? Explain.

Falsifiability​

A theory is falsifiable (also: refutable) if there are statements that can disprove the theory. These statements might be hypothetical but they must be based on scientific observations, no matter if these observations have been already made or not. The concept of falsifiability was introduced by the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper (1902 - 1994).

I don't see anything that contradicts what I said.

I objected to the statement "how many examples do you need to disprove a theory" - to which I responded "well it depends on what the theory is".

One single data point can only disprove a theory if the theory says such a data point will not exist. But if a theory says such an example is merely unlikely, not impossible, then the existence of that single data point will not disprove the theory.

 

[PainForShane]

I don't see anything that contradicts what I said.

I objected to the statement "how many examples do you need to disprove a theory" - to which I responded "well it depends on what the theory is".

One single data point can only disprove a theory if the theory says such a data point will not exist. But if a theory says such an example is merely unlikely, not impossible, then the existence of that single data point will not disprove the theory.

I legitimately am finding it funny / slightly unbelievable that you're arguing this. You're saying nonsense, and it also appears you don't know how to use google.

It's possible that people's googles are different, so after your response I was curious so cleared my cookies / browsing history to see what it showed. Anyway after clearing all of my history / cookies, if I type in "how to disprove a theory" this is what I get:

I don't think I need to read the relevants parts of the page, but I can do it if you want.

So yeah. Back to my original point, learn how to use google. I'd still recommend starting with "how to disprove a theory" because you are clearly confused. In the meantime, no one else is responsible for your continued (and seemingly willful) ignorance

 

[bleedblue94]

Original idea of Burke and Gluckstern when they purchased the Jets was to move them to Minneapolis and share Target Center with the Wolves (NBA). However, the city of Minneapolis wouldn't give them the kind of deal they asked for, so the deal to move to Minnesota fell through, and they had to move somewhere (history says that they would have been better off taking any deal in Minnesota). I think Bettman was commissioner by this time, and they ended up going to Phoenix and renting a basketball arena from the Suns.

So they closed the purchase of the Jets without actually having the landing spot finalized first?? Or this was during the negotiation period?