Injury Report: Hyman knee-on-knee (Update May 10: Back at practice)

[ACC1224]

Any update on Hyman?

100% awesome

 

[david999]

He’s skating along with Nash.

 

[zeke]

5-1 without Hyman.

 

[egd27]

5-1 without Hyman.

Are you suggesting that Hyman is not needed or just throwing out another useless statistic?

 

[CapspaceKiller]

5-1 without Hyman.

Just shows all those chicken-little sky is falling posters who said the leafs are easily out in the first round without Hyman didn't give the rest of this team the credit they deserve

 

[Leaftors]

Are you suggesting that Hyman is not needed or just throwing out another useless statistic?

Hyman is a great player. What was the record without Matthews this year? I think you can see that we don’t need to over pay to keep hyman. If he’s not willing to stay for a team friendly deal then we’ll be fine.

 

[egd27]

You seem sensitive.

Not really, just trying to determine the intent of your post.

 

[Gary Nylund]

You seem sensitive.

Seems like you're the one who's being sensitive.

You're the king of copy/paste and you're constantly posting random stats without context or a single word of explanation as to what you think anyone should be taking away from the numbers. Then when someone asks, instead of answering you call them sensitive.

If you're unable or unwilling to explain what (if anything) the stats add to the conversation, perhaps you shouldn't bother posting them.

 

[zeke]

Not really, just trying to determine the intent of your post.

Pretty hostile question tbh.

 

[saltming]

Hyman is a great player. What was the record without Matthews this year? I think you can see that we don’t need to over pay to keep hyman. If he’s not willing to stay for a team friendly deal then we’ll be fine.

We are a better team with him. No player should be over paid, but that doesn't mean we aren't a better team with him

 

[saltming]

Pretty hostile question tbh.

Always evasive you are.

 

[zeke]

Seems like you're the one who's being sensitive.

You're the king of copy/paste and you're constantly posting random stats without context or a single word of explanation as to what you think anyone should be taking away from the numbers. Then when someone asks, instead of answering you call them sensitive.

If you're unable or unwilling to explain what (if anything) the stats add to the conversation, perhaps you shouldn't bother posting them.

Thanks for the advice, Gary, but I'm happy with my posts.

If you find yourself writing long angry rants about a simple post of the team's record since Hyman was injured, perhaps you shouldn't bother posting.

 

[zeke]

Always evasive you are.

Yeah that post was super mysterious.

 

[egd27]

Pretty hostile question tbh.

Lol....ok Zeke. Don't worry about answering it, I'll draw my own conclusion.

 

[saltming]

Yeah that post was super mysterious.

Your replies were.
Question was asked. You replied with something completely off topic and deflecting the conversation. Second question same result

 

[zeke]

Your replies were.
Question was asked. You replied with something completely off topic and deflecting the conversation. Second question same result

It was a simple post. We all know what it does and doesn't mean.

Some super sensitive posters have angrily replied with insults.

Look inward, folks.

 

[zeke]

Lol....ok Zeke. Don't worry about answering it, I'll draw my own conclusion.

You could have done that in the first place.

But chose to insult instead, adorably.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Thanks for the advice, Gary, but I'm happy with my posts.

If you find yourself writing long angry rants about a simple post of the team's record since Hyman was injured, perhaps you shouldn't bother posting.

LOL angry, if anything I'm amused.

You're getting more and more sensitive with every post now, why not just tell us why you felt it necessary to post our record without Hyman and how that information is useful to us?

I'll tell you what I think. Your post might imply that we don't need Hyman as we're doing so well without him. That is also completely ridiculous, you know it, you also know that your post is 100% meaningless and since you have no explanation for posting this useless stat, you respond to the question with hostility.

 

[egd27]

It was a simple post. We all know what it does and doesn't mean.

Some super sensitive posters have angrily replied with insults.

Look inward, folks.

Well, since there was no explanation of the post, "we all" don't know what it does and doesn't mean. Hence the original question.

(which remains unanswered)

 

[saltming]

It was a simple post. We all know what it does and doesn't mean.

Some super sensitive posters have angrily replied with insults.

Look inward, folks.

Who insulted you?
Seems you should take your own advice about being sensitive

 

[zeke]

Well, since there was no explanation of the post, "we all" don't know what it does and doesn't mean. Hence the original question.

(which remains unanswered)

I thought you were drawing your own conclusions.

 

[zeke]

Who insulted you?
Seems you should take your own advice about being sensitive

Heh.

His question contained a direct insult.

 

[Clark4Ever]

Are you suggesting that Hyman is not needed or just throwing out another useless statistic?

Our record without Matthews is impressive as well.

I think it's a testament to the depth on this year's roster. Obviously, we're a stronger team with Hyman in the lineup.

 

[zeke]

LOL angry, if anything I'm amused.

You're getting more and more sensitive with every post now, why not just tell us why you felt it necessary to post our record without Hyman and how that information is useful to us?

I'll tell you what I think. Your post might imply that we don't need Hyman as we're doing so well without him. That is also completely ridiculous, you know it, you also know that your post is 100% meaningless and since you have no explanation for posting this useless stat, you respond to the question with hostility.

You know and everyone else knows both what that stat means and why you guys are in such a tizzy over it.

 

[saltming]

Heh.

His question contained a direct insult.

OK maybe you have a history with that poster in unaware of. From the outside it seemed like a simple question.
My apologies