Speculation: Rangers and Ducks talking trade?

[Zegs2sendhelp]

That's because most people who judge Fowler do so by staring at statistics rather than watching him play.

As for the proposal, I wouldn't do it. If Vatanen is actually available, I think we would get many higher offers than that. I think Vatanen is a bit overrated personally, but he'd be highly sought after if actually available.

Idk if he's over rated based on contract and what he does, I think offensive rhd are more of a premium , at least in terms of value

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I've watched Fowler and he's bad. And the stats sheet also say he is bad. Therefore he is not as good as Ducks fans make him out to be

Opinions are just that though

 

[paine]

I've watched Fowler and he's bad. And the stats sheet also say he is bad. Therefore he is not as good as Ducks fans make him out to be

Opinions are just that though

You maybe watched one or two games to come to that conclusion. Us Ducks fan who watch him every game know he's a very good defenseman.

 

[Baemon Severson*]

You'd seriously rather form an opinion off of a stat sheet rather than watch the game? I'd hope you don't get upset when people laugh in your face if you really used that in a evaluation of a player. It must be nice to scout players you've never seen play before, why fly scouts across the world to watch players when we have stat sheets.

Yes, I would rather SOLELY use stats over SOLELY use observations because the numbers are likely to be more accurate. I don't remember saying I only use stats to evaluate players, in fact, I even had a disclaimer at the bottom of my post.

 

[Ducks in a row]

Sorry, but if I had to either blindly make a decision based on statistics (i.e. facts) or from watching the game, I'd choose statistics 100% of the time. There's just too much natural bias that occurs.

*Note: not advisable to form an opinion without both.

Stats can't tell you everything. Stats don't tell you how good a skater someone is how good someone stick work is why a player stats are the way they are and so on. All stats tell you is what the stats are nothing more. A teammate could make a bad pass that leads the other way into a great scoring chance that results in a goal. That teammate could be Fowler defense partner who has a terrible game and as a result leads to looking like Fowler had a terrible game as well. Watching the game should be ahead of stats so if blindly picking one but not the other watching the game should be picked 100% of the time.

I've watched Fowler and he's bad. And the stats sheet also say he is bad. Therefore he is not as good as Ducks fans make him out to be

Opinions are just that though

Then you need to learn how to evaluate defenseman if you think he is bad from watching him.

 

[wintersej]

NYR don't really need to clear cap space though, we just can't take on much more then $2m.

And that doesn't seem to be helping the Ducks that much unless they have another deal setup. Its very interesting.

 

[bernmeister]

Eh. Fair enough. From an NYR perspective, I wouldn't do Miller for Fowler straight up. However, I wouldn't mind adding a bit on top of that 2nd in order to get Vatanen.

Miller goes nowhere unless Hanifin is involved

Zuc for Vatanen straight up

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

You maybe watched one or two games to come to that conclusion. Us Ducks fan who watch him every game know he's a very good defenseman.

Ducks fans say oh you've only watched him for one or two games. No I have not. I watch a lot of NHL games, and I'm in San Jose and go to Sharks games regularly. I just saw Fowler play last week when they Ducks played the Sharks.

I think he is an overrated defenseman, that is probably a solid second pairing guy at best. He's not this top pairing defenseman fans make him out to be, no matter how much you argue.

Just because he is put in that top pairing role doesn't mean he is a top pairing guy

 

[ScarTroy]

Yes, I would rather SOLELY use stats over SOLELY use observations because the numbers are likely to be more accurate. I don't remember saying I only use stats to evaluate players, in fact, I even had a disclaimer at the bottom of my post.

I know. So let's say we ignore your disclaimer. You think you could get more out of scouting prospects by checking their stats, rather than watching them in game? You've got to be kidding if this answer is yes.

 

[Machinehead]

I know. So let's say we ignore your disclaimer. You think you could get more out of scouting prospects by checking their stats, rather than watching them in game? You've got to be kidding if this answer is yes.

I would put objective observations at least on par with stats, if not above them.

I'll take stats over fans of a team watching their own players 10/10 times.

 

[ScarTroy]

I would put objective observations at least on par with stats, if not above them.

I'll take stats over fans of a team watching their own players 10/10 times.

Of course you would.

 

[Baemon Severson*]

I know. So let's say we ignore your disclaimer. You think you could get more out of scouting prospects by checking their stats, rather than watching them in game? You've got to be kidding if this answer is yes.

Yes. Look at how many crazy misses there were during the "Lindros Effect" where teams were reaching for 6'5 powerforwards. Obviously there are still always going to be busts but taking players due to grit, intangibles and size is much worse than taking guys with skill and better production.

 

[ScarTroy]

Yes. Look at how many crazy misses there were during the "Lindros Effect" where teams were reaching for 6'5 powerforwards. Obviously there are still always going to be busts but taking players due to grit, intangibles and size is much worse than taking guys with skill and better production.

Yes, because the only thing you can evaluate from watching a player is grit and intangibles lol.

 

[Machinehead]

Of course you would.

That's surprising? There's a reason very few jobs take references from family members.

 

[Kocur Dill]

Zuc for Vatanen straight up

There's no way, *no* way that you came from *my* loins. Soon as I get home, first thing I'm gonna do is punch yo mamma in da mouth!

 

[2020 Cup Champions]

That's surprising? There's a reason very few jobs take references from family members.

Of course there are few

 

[ScarTroy]

That's surprising? There's a reason very few jobs take references from family members.

And those same jobs don't hire you based off resume. They interview you to see if you actually live up to your resume, or perhaps are more qualified than what you have on your resume.

 

[Baemon Severson*]

And those same jobs don't hire you based off resume. They interview you to see if you actually live up to your resume, or perhaps are more qualified than what you have on your resume.

So you think they can accurately gather whether you live up to your resume in a 30-60 minute interview?

There's a reason why there are often personality or aptitude tests that go along with personal interviews

 

[ScarTroy]

So you think they can accurately gather whether you live up to your resume in a 30-60 minute interview?

Better than if they were to only look at the resume, yes.

 

[Machinehead]

And those same jobs don't hire you based off resume. They interview you to see if you actually live up to your resume, or perhaps are more qualified than what you have on your resume.

Interviews that are conducted by unbiased people who don't know you.

I give absolutely zero weight to eye-test opinions from fans on their own team's players. These assessments are 100% agenda-driven.

This has nothing to do with Fowler or the Ducks. This comes from years of listening to a plethora of fans who watch the Rangers 82 times a year, proceed to know absolutely nothing about the Rangers.

I've heard so much rose-colored and completely nonsensical **** from people who have seen every Rangers game since the O6 that I no longer really care what fans think of their own players.

 

[PuqTalk]

Interviews that are conducted by unbiased people who don't know you.

I give absolutely zero weight to eye-test opinions from fans on their own team's players. These assessments are 100% agenda-driven.

This has nothing to do with Fowler or the Ducks. This comes from years of listening to a plethora of fans who watch the Rangers 82 times a year, proceed to know absolutely nothing about the Rangers.

I've heard so much rose-colored and completely nonsensical **** from people who have seen every Rangers game since the O6 that I no longer really care what fans think of their own players.

So you're automatically assuming that every single fan is observing through the same rose-colored glasses which is a huge fallacy in and of itself. This discussion really is pointless with you, oh well.

 

[Ducks in a row]

Interviews that are conducted by unbiased people who don't know you.

I give absolutely zero weight to eye-test opinions from fans on their own team's players. These assessments are 100% agenda-driven.

This has nothing to do with Fowler or the Ducks. This comes from years of listening to a plethora of fans who watch the Rangers 82 times a year, proceed to know absolutely nothing about the Rangers.

I've heard so much rose-colored and completely nonsensical **** from people who have seen every Rangers game since the O6 that I no longer really care what fans think of their own players.

Bieksa sucks you don't believe me and think I have a agenda?

 

[Machinehead]

Bieksa sucks you don't believe me and think I have a agenda?

There's a mountain of evidence to support that claim.

I'm not saying fans are intently wrong about the home team. Just that I'm inherently skeptical.

 

[Ducks in a row]

There's a mountain of evidence to support that claim.

I'm not saying fans are intently wrong about the home team. Just that I'm inherently skeptical.

But you are more then just skeptical you said you give zero weight to the eye test from what fans say about their own teams players that goes way way beyond that.

 

[Sojourn]

I've watched Fowler and he's bad. And the stats sheet also say he is bad. Therefore he is not as good as Ducks fans make him out to be

Opinions are just that though

Ranger fans are hardly objective observers when it comes to Cam Fowler.

And on the topic of fan-based opinions, it's an interesting argument, but it's a poor one. It isn't in a fan's best interests to overrate an individual player, just because they are fans, especially when it's a player getting big responsibilities.

If someone gives zero weight about another fan's observations, I think it says more about that someone than it does the fan. Fans can be plenty objective. Just because some can be over the top optimistic(or over the top negative) doesn't mean the majority of fans can't have a far more realistic outlook. It's ridiculous, bordering on stupid to dismiss the opinion of the very people who will see the players the most, and who have a vested interest in said player actually playing well. No one sees Anaheim players more than Anaheim fans. No one sees Ranger players more than Ranger fans. I suspect the more accurate argument, at least for you, Machinehead, is that you're skeptical of fan opinions that don't coincide with your owns. It's easier to dismiss a contrary point of view when you can invalidate it as biased. It's convenient, even. You have built-in protection for your own opinion.