Éditer l'avatar
  • png, jpeg
  • La grandeur minimale recommandée se veut de 800px par 800px
  • Grandeur maximale: 1MB
Glisser l'image pour repositionner
Sauvegarder
Annuler

BeterChiarelli

Hey Beter
Membre depuis
29 oct 2017
Équipe préférée
Oilers d'Edmonton
Anniversaire
9 oct 1995
Messages dans les forums
3207
Messages par jour
2,7
Sujets de discussion
437
Forum: Armchair-GMMon at 1:35 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>SmugTkachuk</b></div><div>I think Nurse is probably worth a second one for one, I figured adding a third and taking a one year guy that improves the bottom six may be worth it if it gets you a better player to play with McDavid. That may be my bias showing big time because I really don't like Nurse!

I think it takes more for Neal than what it would for Kassian, but definitely a fair point.

Because Hyman is better than Puljujarvi, getting a proven commodity vs a player who hasn't worked there before.

I had Montour in there before, looking at next years UFA class for D a quality defensive D man is going to be tough to come buy at an afforable price.</div></div>

Biases aside, Nurse is worth a lot more than a second. Look at what happened when Edmonton traded Petry for a 2nd and a 5th. Adding to the point you have Edmonton taking back a $3M replacement-level player, it's a horrible deal through and through. To further add to the point regarding UFA defenders, if the market is so bad, why trade Nurse? The sum of the Beagle and Gustafsson contracts are more than what Nurse makes. Again, there's absolutely logic in trading Nurse as part of a package for a superior defenceman. There's none in trading him for a pure cap dump, picks outside the first round, and signing an inferior replacement.

I like the Neal+Jones+4th proposals I've seen for Seattle to take Neal, and Jones is very clearly an immediate upgrade to Samorukov. Likely a better environment for Broberg to develop in if there are two more stable LHD in front of him (Klefbom and Nurse) as opposed to someone Broberg may already be better than.

Hyman is three and a half times more expensive than Puljujarvi. If the shooting and possession rates are to be believed, Puljujarvi's career might be on the cusp of a jubilant revival. Odds are against him to ever live up to his #4 status, but we need more time to deduce that. He's been really good on the top line so far this season.
Forum: Armchair-GMMon at 1:24 pm
Forum: Armchair-GMMon at 1:20 pm
Forum: Armchair-GMFri at 1:12 pm
Nuge just doesn't drive a line like McDavid and Draisaitl can, and I'd highly recommend that Edmonton refrains in any capacity from running RNH as a top-six center. If they had the winger depth to plug him into the #3C spot from time to time, I'd be game. I agree that dismantling the DYNamite line was premature, but RNH still plays very well with McDavid. Pairing Connor with Jesse is going to want to see a more defensively-responsible winger for the short-term (I really like what I've seen from JP13 so far) and the Kahun-Draisaitl-Yamamoto line has been decent, if not a little snake-bitten. I'd really only be looking at demoting Kassian and promoting Puljujarvi as far as line changes for the top-nine are concerned.

If Neal's good to go, I'd be swapping him in for Nygard and benching Chiasson in favour of Archibald. Chiasson's been nothing shy of an anchor this season so far, and I still appreciate the PK utility Archibald brings. EDIT: Tipp might opt to go with Neal on the powerplay given the team's history with him there, but giving Puljujarvi some PP1 time would be really good for his confidence too.

I fundamentally hate this organization's borderline obsession with defencemen like Larsson and Russell: both have proven ineffective this season, and I'd be happily looking into playing a trio of:

Nurse - Bear
Koekkoek - Barrie
Lagesson - Bouchard

especially tonight with Matthews out. This team needs puck-moving defencemen to spring the forwards and they just aren't getting that through their veteran defenders. Nurse has been a trainwreck this season and I'd really be looking to reel in his TOI and trying to distribute minutes as much as possible throughout the six defenders.
Forum: Armchair-GM20 jan à 18 h 12
Forum: Armchair-GM20 jan à 18 h 08
Forum: Armchair-GM20 jan à 18 h 01
Forum: Armchair-GM20 jan à 15 h 37
Forum: Armchair-GM20 jan à 12 h 23
Forum: Chicago Blackhawks20 jan à 12 h 15
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MikeyVC97</b></div><div>Thank you for the explanation so you think the original team got deleted because I created a team trading every high priced veteran on the team for prospects and picks and not because I titled the Team and gave a description indicating my source in the Hawks front office to Toews announcing retirement by sometime next week?

I just want to make sure I don't break any rules. I have had a fun experience with capfriendly up until today. It took me like 30 minutes to create that team trading every veteran only to see it deleted moments later.</div></div>

I get into this part in my reply to Shibbal:

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BeterChiarelli</b></div><div>I really think the nature of this situation really boils down to the degree of speculation surrounding a very unfounded Toews retirement. Bullsh*tting a source really is what I believe to be the issue here. Had it been phrases as more of a "What if...?", I don't think we're having this conversation.

I think the relevancy of the name and an overall lack of context is still a sticking point here - and to use the specificity of this case as an example - half a dozen plus trades completely dismantling the Hawks without any context in the AGM description section does not lend itself well to the topic of "I have insider info on Toews retiring this week". The discussion goes two ways: the trade values are off or that the OP lacks credibility. Having seen my fair share of both camps (moderating really makes this place not fun) I know for a fact that only a vast minority approaches both. The majority of the discussion would have been (as we saw in this thread) about the OP's credibility. It's entirely off-topic despite there having been trades to discuss. At that point, do the trades matter? Are they relevant in the single context of "Toews is retiring per unnamed source"? Again, a source or a more general "What if...?" thread likely focuses more on the trades and the context of tearing down shop in name of a rebuild.</div></div>

Context was key, and (at least how I'm interpreting it) is that the AGM was too open-ended to troll replies or a completely off-topic discussion.
Forum: Chicago Blackhawks20 jan à 12 h 13
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Shibbal18</b></div><div>I said fair play to the mods for moving the one team without content to the forums. This was not the information given to us though, we were told they were deleted not moved, and it seems that the first 2 teams were just deleted not moved from a quick check (I may be wrong).</div></div>

As far as anyone can tell, one was moved (I mean, we're here, aren't we?) and that two were deleted. I can't tell which of the teams is which, but I think that's less of the point. Even beyond the speculation, how many identical threads do we need in such a short span?

I see this individual thread as an equal opportunity to any AGM thread: if Toews really is set to retire, you can still discuss who to trade, at what return, and next steps to take. I get that there's a lack of exposure in the forums, but I appreciate that some form of consensus may be reached in an environment like this one without needing to devolve from that kind of over-exposure. You typically won't have "LeafsFanBillyBob12345" claiming troll or proposing Kane for 6 first round picks in this forum; the Blackhawks discussion forums in this case are much more specialized.

At the same time, I suspect you're involved with this thread because Kane was sent to Buffalo, and there is a loss of that engagement if you don't see the Sabres' icon. I get that. I'm not sure - beyond like tagging - what the workaround to that is.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Shibbal18</b></div><div>Given the current situation on the internet, its only natural for users to relate it back to censorship and most of those were jokes. But I dont agree with "The AGM(s) immediately associated with Toews retiring exists solely to speculate around that retirement, never mind the trades." because if someone drops something like that, we could only expect users to create teams based on that topic even if its the same user. If it has roster moves to discuss, its an ACGM team based off of speculation. So thats what users are getting hung up on.</div></div>

I really think the nature of this situation really boils down to the degree of speculation surrounding a very unfounded Toews retirement. Bullsh*tting a source really is what I believe to be the issue here. Had it been phrases as more of a "What if...?", I don't think we're having this conversation.

I think the relevancy of the name and an overall lack of context is still a sticking point here - and to use the specificity of this case as an example - half a dozen plus trades completely dismantling the Hawks without any context in the AGM description section does not lend itself well to the topic of "I have insider info on Toews retiring this week". The discussion goes two ways: the trade values are off or that the OP lacks credibility. Having seen my fair share of both camps (moderating really makes this place not fun) I know for a fact that only a vast minority approaches both. The majority of the discussion would have been (as we saw in this thread) about the OP's credibility. It's entirely off-topic despite there having been trades to discuss. At that point, do the trades matter? Are they relevant in the single context of "Toews is retiring per unnamed source"? Again, a source or a more general "What if...?" thread likely focuses more on the trades and the context of tearing down shop in name of a rebuild.

I'm trying to approach this as if I were the moderator in question that moved and deleted the previous posts, and I hope this somewhat justifies what we're up to here, or at the very least answers your immediate questions.
Forum: Chicago Blackhawks20 jan à 11 h 53
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MikeyVC97</b></div><div>Ok I understand why this "team" was moved to "thread" because I did not make any trades. But my previous team did have trades and it was completely deleted not even moved to "thread/message" board. I just want to make sure I don't break any unwritten rules because I don't see where I have broken any of the written rules.

What is allowed? What is NOT allowed when posting a fantasy AGM team?

I will not claim any conspiracy I just want to make sure I am not breaking rules going forward.</div></div>

The reason why I've left the fourth iteration of your Toews-will-retire AGMs up is because you explicitly refer to the Kane trade and make the AGM about the Kane trade.

I didn't remove the other three, and only saw the first, but I did recognize that you traded everything but the kitchen sink in that AGM. We see so many troll AGMs where someone just demolishes the team without context or fair values, and those teams devolve quickly into flame wars and troll replies. I think it's possible that your original was either deleted because it came off as one of these less-serious AGM teams or was moved, and the moderator in question saw the second and third attempts as you not understanding what took place and deleted them.

In general, speculation is fine unless it's like way out of left field and could lead to a very decisive conversation. Threads get deleted and warnings tend to be applied because those threads breed the kind of deconstructive discourse that we don't permit at CapFriendly.

Hope this helps!
Forum: Chicago Blackhawks20 jan à 11 h 33
Forum: Armchair-GM19 jan à 16 h 39
Instead of just dishing out infractions and being robotic about keeping all users in check, I want to use this as a chance for all of us here to learn something from this and be better users for it. Sorry if being called out like this makes you feel weird, but I'm creeping up on a breaking point with how out of hand and ridiculous some of this has gotten. Please take my words into consideration.

Keeping each other blocked only works if the two of you mutually agree to not engage in third-party callouts. Using this thread as an example, <a href="/users/HatterTParty" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@HatterTParty</a> effectively serving as a moderator between you two so you guys can argue via proxy defeats that purpose.

<a href="/users/Ryminister_27" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Ryminister_27</a>, more context in your original post in this thread probably prevents a lot of this current discord from happening: I see your post and its intention because I'm a neutral party but not everyone is going to approach that kind of post with my neutrality. Your post can be seen as inflammatory from a Hawks perspective, even if it's not immediately false. I don't think you handled most of this situation very well up until post #23 in this discussion either: some of your back and forth really only adds fuel to this fire, especially when you're questioning the maturity of other users. Not your place, all it does is get those users riled up.

<a href="/users/ChiHawk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@ChiHawk</a> immediate callouts of other users as a troll will never diffuse the situation. Piggybacking on other users targeting (in this case) Ryminister because you can't directly flame him yourself is wholeheartedly unacceptable. How do posts such as "This guy is a massive Hawks troll" or "or last winning a cup in 66/67 (55 years ago) or reaching a conference finals since 01/02 (19 years ago) :laugh" improve the situation? Now that another user is requesting you stay off of their threads, I'd recommend you start focusing a lot more on how you're posting. Something you're doing is coming off as antagonistic, intentional or not. I don't need you to be all touchy-feely and overconsiderate of other users, but multiple instances of other users wanting you to frigg off is a telltale sign that something's not coming across right.

In all honesty, I'm tired of seeing your guys' names in our report forums. You guys have found every conceivable way this site has to piss the other off in spite of blocking each other. In spite of previous warnings and infractions, neither of you appears to be immediately willing to back out of this. Maybe it's pride, maybe you wholly believe it's all the other guys' fault. As far as the moderators are concerned, you've both been massive jackasses. The only way this gets better is if the two of you just learn to leave the other be. I won't speak for the other moderators, but I'm personally at the point where I'll ban one of you two (or both of you) the next time you guys cross the line. It's juvenile that the two of you have gone out of your way to manage to argue with each other despite having blocked each other.

This place is better off with tenured users like yourselves: despite the differences in opinions and that both of you think the other is a massive troll, both of you are valued users. The two of you combined have nearly 20,000 posts; you guys drive conversation and the development of good ideas when you set your minds to it. CapFriendly loses more than it gains if one or both of you end up banned because of this immature back-and-forth. Make it work before I or any of the other moderators need to make a hard decision.

<a href="/users/exo2769" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@exo2769</a> and <a href="/users/BigOaf69" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@BigOaf69</a>, neither of you two are without fault in this scenario either but I want to let you guys off with a very informal warning. Coming to the defense of your team's honour by way of "but what about the Leafs?!?!?" and similar snark is just about one of the most childish things you can do on these boards. All it does is piss people off and derail a conversation. I don't know how much of your opinions on the matter were swayed by ChiHawk calling Ryminister out as a troll, but you guys cannot be doing that. I know a lot of users do it, and I know bagging on the Leafs is a good time, but neither of those justifies it in the context of on-topic discussion. We're cracking down on it because of how much trolling and flaming comes out of it.

Can everyone just be better next time? None of this needed to happen.
Forum: Armchair-GM17 jan à 13 h 35
Sujet: Dell