Two dudes blogging and podcasting about the San Jose Sharks, straight from sunny California.

post DOH 115 – Hamburgers Helpers

September 15th, 2010, 8:15 am

Filed under: podcast — Written by Mike

In this episode, Mike and Doug talk about the DOH fantasy leagues, Sharks rookie camp, the plight of Sheldon Souray, and various other news.  In the Crazy Trade segment, could Setoguchi be good bait for a defenseman?


100 Comments to “DOH 115 – Hamburgers Helpers”

  1. Patrick says:

    Bad news – Staal re-signs with NYR for 5 years.

    I’m still optimistic that the Sharks can get something good done. There are a lot of situations around the league where GMs are under pressure to get under the cap or move a certain player, or whatever. Those are the times when Doug Wilson has made his best moves in the past.

    Oh yeah, and…

    Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

  2. Evildoug says:

    Guys, incorrect information, Calgary has no problem at the moment because Langkow is on long term injured reserve. So you guys wasted time talking about that, and the listeners’ time.

    • evilducks says:

      This is a lame argument. Langkow will eventually be off of LTIR and the Flames need to clear room for him when he does. Just because the trade doesn’t happen now doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. Same with the Nucks and their Salo and Burrows LTIR status. Eventually they’ll need to clear space.

      Regher isn’t going to be moved because they’ll ditch Staios and Kotalik before that even happens, but it’s still interesting.

  3. Evildoug says:

    Also, you’re forgetting the main part in offloading salary for Souray. Edmonton could use a goalie. Niittymaki, Huskins, Wallin, (Mitchell?) for Souray clears out more than Souray’s salary and you still have enough dmen and enough forwards if you use another prosect. dont have to though cuz theres cap room to sign someone.

    • nick says:

      I believe Edmonton just resigned 2 goalies this off-season (Dubnyk and Deslauriers), in addition to Khabibulin who they don’t seem to be parting ways with. I doubt they’re looking for a 4th.

  4. Tom says:

    @evildoug (aka buttercrunch7, aka zpleasegiveushuskinsforbieksa, etc etc…)

    The only thing that’s a waste of time to listeners or readers of this blog is pretty much anything you write.

  5. Patrick says:

    I actually like Evil Doug, as long as he keeps the comments concise. I just can’t get through the rambling posts.

    On another note: Duuuuuuuude?? You said people in League #3 would be getting their emails before they even heard today’s pod. Did I not get one because my grammar was too good, or because I didn’t beg enough?

  6. Andy C says:

    What no video???
    Seriously though, having sneaked a peek at a couple of them, you probably need to record the whole show to keep people coming back to make it a viable alternative to listening. (Rather than listening to the first 5 minutes twice)
    Either that, or:
    – Have Dudes’ Extra content, which is not available on the podcast. (e.g. we could have had the whole show about the NHL not blocking the Kovy deal, or you could have a quick segment of ‘crazy crazy trades’ or something!)
    – Vary the location from week to week. Basement one week, pub the next, beach the next! (Or get a blue screen behind you… I’m thinking Waynes World type backgrounds!).

  7. MJ says:

    I believe Kyle McLaren is still available.

  8. Evildoug says:

    NK may go to jail for a month. Gerber is for the AHL teams. The other two are prospects who haven’t panned out well. I read many edmonton bloggers because their team is so up and coming and exciting, and they know the team better than any of us, and that’s where I’ve gotten this information.

  9. Ruben says:

    How soon can the Sharks even trade Nitty or Niemi, if they wanted to? Is there a window where you can’t trade a recently signed free agent?

    And while EvilDOUG may have valid arguments, the ability to hide behind a keyboard allows him to be an ass at the same time, which is why most don’t take him seriously. And EvilDUCKS is right, the LTIR isn’t a panacea for the Flames, they will have to deal with their cap problem as soon as Langkow comes off of it.

    • Mike says:

      There is no trade restriction like that. There are certain rules regarding signing players after you waive them, but you can sign a UFA or RFA and trade him the same day if you want to.

  10. Ruben says:

    On another note, DW is constantly trumping a few young Dmen as possible to make the team, yet extoles the virtues of Huskins and Wallin. Unless Demers is not quite free of the Wooster shuttle, how is it possible that Moore or Petrecki or Joslin make the team? Jay Leach is going to be the #7 guy with his salary, I don’t see how any of those guys crack the lineup barring injury.

  11. Tom says:

    Having a real discussion about Calgary trade possibilities…

    Calgary has gone on record saying they desire a top line center to play with Iginla. Their main trade assets right now are their extra D.

    I doubt we have anything they want.

    The Savard idea I mentioned months ago. I proposed Clowe to BOS, Savard to CAL, and Regher to SJS…

    But I’ve changedy tune of late and think no forwards should be traded until the team has had a chance to see what Couture and Seto are going to play this year. If both have bad years then trading Clowe isn’t an option. But if both are going great it gives us more optin than just Clowe as a trade chip.

    I think unless a stellar deal or opportunity comes DW’s way, we should stay pat for now and let the season get rolling.

    Just my 2cents.

  12. Evildoug says:


    I appreciate your stance. However, others are either pretending not to share it, or don’t share it. If I was an asshole, but an asshole that made good points, people would see me as someone who makes good points, but is an asshole. That means, they would take me, or my posts, seriously, but maybe dislike that I’m an asshole.

    Instead, I think people really just can’t always follow my logic. People ‘aren’t taking me seriously’ because they agree with me, but dislike me. People treat me however they treat me because they want to disagree with everything I say. A lot of my points point out flaws with the Sharks, and this is a sharks fan website, so what do you expect the reaction to be? I get frustrated because I’m an intelligent person who IS able to separate my emotions and my biases, from what is logical. For simpletons, it can be harder. Some people don’t want to believe anything negative about the team except for the most obvious things that are spoon fed to them gently, and by everyone around them. For example, when it’s fashionable to think something negative about the Sharks, within the community of Sharks fans, then they will believe it. For example, Huskins, Wallin, those were such obvious bad moves, that even the simpletons accept that they are bad, and it’s become kind of in vogue to criticize those two. But say something negative about the team that Dudesonhockey hasn’t already pointed out as being negative, that people haven’t considered, or don’t want to consider, and people will disagree with you 10/10 times, immediately, without much thought.

    So, hey, I appreciate you saying i have good points, and the other person who said he actually liked me, because that goes a long way towards proving to everyone else that I actually am correct in the things I say, that the people who can follow my logic to conclusion, and who can separate their biases from that logic, those people do see validity in the points I make.

    Ultimately, it’s important for you and others to stick up for me, or others, when you do agree with them, even if it’s not fashionable to agree with them, otherwise everyone is just a sheep.

    As for me being an asshole, you should see the treatment I get from everyone. It’s easy when everyone is saying ‘look at that asshole,’ to look at my posts and say yup, he is an asshole, and to ignore the preceding the posts, and the things everyone else has said to me.

  13. Evildoug says:

    It happened again today or yesterday. The dudes were talking about how Calgary has a problem, NOW, they are 2 mil (or whatever) over the cap, and man they’re in trouble, they need to dump someone, maybe we can get Regehr. They look at capgeek, see the flames are 2 million over the cap, and they outline a scenario that just is not true, because capgeek didn’t tell them Langkow is on LTIR. I pointed it out, that they were wasting their time, because, right now, Calgary doesn’t have a problem. Langkow is on LTIR and could be for awhile. What I said was right. What they were saying was wrong. Yet, even though I am correct, someone comes on and says “well he’ll have to come off LTIR sometimes, so fuck you.” Really? Players come off LTIR after they heal? People point out things like this to me like it changes everything when they should know that it’s common knowledge. I was aware of that. But it doesn’t change the fact that the dudes did not know Langkow was on LTIR, and they were talking about a trade for Regehr, now, on this latest podcast, because they falsely believed that the flames needed to dump someone before the start of the season in order to get below the cap. They don’t need to dump someone before the season. That’s where they were wrong. It’s okay to be wrong, but when people are taking time to listen to your podcast, you should be getting the basic facts straight. I was listening to the podcast, enjoying it, because the dudes are good people, but then they started talking about calgary needing to dump someone, and it’s just like, no, no, that’s not true, no, no, they don’t have to dump someone, and it takes away from the podcast. If this was a one time mistake, that would be one thing, but they seem to do something like this every podcast. I realize they’re not experts, but this is basic, and when i listen to it, I can’t help but think how it will be problematic for sharks fans who don’t know better. At least it’s just frustrating to me, because I know the facts. but for sharks fans listenign who don’t know the facts, they will actually think we can trade for Regehr before the season, and will start discussing it, so it just dumbs down the fanbase. The Sharks fanbase is not one that needs further dumbing down.

    My point: I correct a factual error, and provide the real facts, and someone still tries to argue with me. If i can’t get someone to agree with a fact, that I didn’t even come up with, but which was reported on various websites, which I am repeating here… if someone won’t even accept a fact, if it comes from my mouth, then what does that tell you? People will disagree and argue with anything I say. If people can’t accept facts coming from me, there is no way people will take my opinions to heart. And that’s the problem. Sometimes I write facts, but they come from me. Sometimes I write opinions. But always people want to argue. I’d be happy to have a real conversation with someone, but they are constantly disagreeing with me. In other words, they are the instigators, not me. If responding to their derogatory posts makes me an asshole, then so be it. I don’t think it’s fair to label someone something like that for responding, but I can’t control what you think of me.

    • evilducks says:

      A. Dear crap Evildoug/phelpsphanphive/buttercrunch7/etc. is a fucking douche bag. What’s the over/under this guy has Aspergers?

      B. It’s not a waste of time because one of the listeners asked the question of the dudes in hopes of hearing their opinion, and they gave it. It’s not a waste of time because at some point the Flames will have to clear cap space and if they wait until the last second every team will have them over a barrel for what they want from them. It’s in the Flames best interest to deal with the problem now while they still have options. Finally, the Dudes even agreed that there is no way Regher leaves Calgary unless Sutter is retarded (entirely possible based on recent moves).

  14. Evildoug says:

    One last thing. Without looking over all the comments from past podcasts, it seems to be the podcasts which I respond to seem to garner about twice the comments as the podcasts I do not comment on, so even if the dudes dislike me for correcting them from time to time, maybe they can appreciate that I seem to spark more discussion on their site as well. Or maybe they just dislike me. I don’t know. Other than failing to realize when they’ve made an error, and failing to recognize or see the validity in even some of the factual things I’ve said, they have treated me with respect, and I appreciate that. I feel bad telling them they’re wasting peoples’ time, but someone has to point it out. Maybe Tom, you’d be willing to take over next time? Let me know any time before the next podcast.


    • evilducks says:

      Or it’s because you post 8 times about the same thing…

      • evilducks says:

        and then 5 more about how everybody is so mean to you even though you’re a genius and just trying to bring light and joy to their miserable, stupid lives.

  15. Evildoug says:

    seems to me
    not to be
    my fingers are failing me today
    no, no, i won’t go there. not because im better than going there. just because, people wont understand the lightheartedness behind it. they’ll think i actually think it’s a A+ joke.


  16. Evildoug says:

    I don’t post 8 times about the same things. But if I did, it would just be to help the slow ones who couldn’t understand what I was saying the first 7 times.

    • everybody is mean to me
    • i don’t know that they have miserable, stupid lives. (but it wouldn’t surprise me) (im just kidding)
    • genius is a strong word. it shouldnt be thrown around… on other people… (im just kidding). but really, i think you have to draw a line between really smart, and genius. standing all day long is hard on ones feet. i need somewhere to sit!

    heres some more food for thought. i dont know that its true, but its food for thought. if u are, for example, on a scale from 1 to 100, a 90, in your intelligence. maybe, if people keep insisting u are an 80, ud tell them u were a 100… do u understand? 100 – 80 = 20, then u take one 0 off of 100, = 10, u add that to 20, = 30, take a 0 off that, = 3, times the 30 = 90. That’s Philton’s formula for splitting the difference, and that’s what I’m talking about. Someone makes fun of your daughter, and says she’s stupid, maybe you stick up for her by saying “no, my daughter is wonderful, and extremely bright, and extremely beautiful,” when really she’s just average looking.

    Glad that’s cleared up. Doug, do you teach math class? Because this would make a good lesson.

  17. Mike says:

    We make a podcast, and throw out opinions on stuff. That’s what we do. My beef with you is your repeated attempts to categorize our differences as differences in fact, not opinion. If you interpret our words in the most antagonistic, literal way, some of what we say could be interpreted as ‘wrong’. Of COURSE Calgary doesn’t *have* to trade a defenseman. They could waive Iginla and send him to the minors: salary cap problem solved. Doesn’t it seem silly now?

    I try to deal with people in good faith. Saying my opinions are just factually incorrect is a rather poor attempt at dismissing them. If you would disagree with me based on the merits, and not whether they are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, I think you’d be serving yourself much better.

  18. Evildoug says:

    I’d like to think, after my last post, that there’s at least one person reading these comments who appreciates me. I’d like to think that…..

  19. Like A Bossk says:

    Aren’t the Flames planning on waiving someone? If they waived someone and then we did a trade of say Clowe for Regher, do you think the Flames would make that deal?

  20. Evildoug says:


    they don’t have a salary cap problem currently. They don’t need to dump anyone, or trade anyone.

    I’m not misinterpreting anyone. You’re telling me you KNEW Langkow was on the LTIR when you made that podcast?

    That’s the only fact you missed. That he was on LTIR. It was clear to me listening to the podcast that you two were under the impression calgary actually had to dump someone before the start of the season because they were over the cap. That’s not an opinion. That’s a factual error.

    • Mike says:

      I didn’t know Langkow was on the LTIR, and to be honest, I don’t know it now. This the most I’ve found, posted on the Flames’ own site only hours ago:

      “Daymond Langkow’s medical availability is also a factor in determining the lineup. At the moment, Langkow is not cleared for contact and will not take part in the initial stages of training camp.”

      I would appreciate a link to a credible source that says Langkow is on LTIR for the beginning of the 10-11 season. He was on LTIR last season with his injury. There is no LTIR in the offseason, as its definition in the CBA states a player’s inability to play the next 10 regular season games. That’s a medical determination, and the league can appeal if they think a team is putting a player on LTIR purely for cap relief.

  21. Tom says:


    The problem I have is you claiming that anything Mike and Doug say is a waste of time. You realize they don’t get paid to produce their podcast or maintain this blog. I don’t know them personally but I don’t think they deserve people telling them their hard work is a waste of time

    They do it mainly I’d guess because they enjoy it. But recognize that they work pretty hard trying to come up with discussion topic for the blog and podcasts for us. While maintaining day jobs no less. Be a little more appreciate and supportive and you’d be more respected on this board rather than just trying to “be right” all the time.

    As I said the only thing that wastes our time here on Dudes on Hockey is your attitude and opinionated diatribes.

    And it’s obvious that your the same guy posting as Buttercrunch7 at FTF, and zpleasegiveushuskinsforbieksa here.

  22. Evildoug says:

    I wasn’t trying to hide that I was huskinsforbieksa. that was supposed to be obvious. i changed that name because for some reason my old name didnt show up saved here like it usually does, and because the current podcast or article was ridiculous.

    but, way to make me feel bad. I understand where you’re coming from. I never said their podcast was a waste of time. But talking about something even for two minutes that is factually incorrect, is I think a waste of time. If I did some sort of NASA podcast about how there is a spaceship that can take us to other galaxies now, and I got into ‘what galaxy should we go to first? what if there are people there and they don’t want us putting our flag down, should we do it anyway?’, etc, but it turned out really there wasn’t a spaceship that could take us there, then that would be a waste of the listeners’ time.

    It’s not that I don’t appreciate their “effort.” I don’t mean to belittle it by putting it in quotes, but that part of your post is contradictory. ‘They don’t get paid. It’s a lot of hard work. Be appreciative.’
    And then, ‘they do it because they enjoy it.’

    Exactly. They’re not doing it for us, for free, even though it’s a ton of work, so let’s be appreciate. They are doing it because they enjoy it. It can’t really be both at least not in the way you were describing it.

    But hey, I understand what you’re saying. I understand your qualms with me, or at least this particular one. (Not the other ones though). I think it’s just a philosophical difference that we have. I believe, even though they’re just doing it for fun, that they have a responsibility to their listeners to get it right. Earlier this year they said, if Chicago can’t afford to keep Niemi at <5 million, maybe they'll have to play Huet (at 5mil +) in goal next season instead. That's factually incorrect, but people will believe it, and it dumbs down the fanbase.

  23. Tom says:


    If we are all so stupid and unintelligent and this blog/podcast is so bad, the why the fuck do you listen to the podcast, and read the blog, and post in the comments?

    Now that’s inconsistency.

    Saying That I think the Dudes work hard on their podcast and that they enjoy it, are not only both true and both possible at the same time.

  24. Evildoug says:

    Here are quotes from the podcast that show the factual errors:

    “Another team that is a really bad salary cap spot, and we’ve talked about them before, and they’ve been eerily quiet, because I don’t know which mad man is running the ship, is the calgary flames. they have a problem. they are 2.4 million over the cap RIGHT NOW. (Evildoug note: that number is factually incorrect, unless capgeek is listing their cap space without Langkow, which it appears they are not. They are 2.4 million over the cap with Langkow healthy, but since he is on the Injured Reserve, or will be put on the injured reserve, they are not 2.4 million over the cap, and they are not over the cap “right now” either. Two factual errors.)

    “They have (he lists their defensemen). I mean those guys, Staios excluded, that guy really sucks right now.

    Mike and Doug both back and forth: “I did read an interview with Robyn Regehr. He didn’t seem happy… said he was approached about a trade… or wouldn’t comment on him directly… well, he wouldn’t say whether they had or hadn’t asked him”

    (Mike chimes in): “That means they have.” (Evildoug note. That is also factually incorrect as well, as people in SJ had asked Marleau something similar before, maybe during the heatley saga, and he had declined to comment as well, but it turned out the sharks never were willing to trade him.”

    “I think there were legs to that Savard for Regehr deal. That makes perfect sense… I keep looking at calgary, and… they’ve gotta shed some salary. (Evildoug note: assuming Langkow heals, which is no guarantee, this is true for the future, but not the present. Still, it’s not that bad taken alone, just in the context of the ‘right now’ quote.

    “…The rangers are also over the cap… they are in a bad spot TOO.” Evildoug note: The rangers are actually over the cap, so the “too” implies that calgary is as well, when they’re not.

    Evildoug note:

    As you can see here very plainly, I’m not misconstruing opinions for facts. If either Mike or Doug had realized at this point that Daymond Langkow was going to be out for the start of the season, they would obviously have said “Langkow is out for now, so they’re not over the cap currently, but once he comes back, if he comes back, they will have a problem.” That Langkow was not mentioned once solidifies my point which is that they did not realize he was on the LTIR. It’s a big enough error, given all the previous ones, for me to point out, but not one we should still be talking about. If it was simply acknowledged right when I pointed it out, and everyone wasn’t in denial about it, it wouldn’t still be an issue that we’re arguing about. i’m going to take the lead and stop talking about it. I hope everyone follows suit. It’s a favorite activity for many of you, after all.

    • Mike says:

      No reasonable person would interpret the above remark as me stating I know for a fact that CGY asked Regehr to waive his NTC. That’s an opinion, a hunch, a guess. This is absolute irrefutable concrete evidence that you are willfully trying to misinterpret my statements. Or you have a serious English comprehension problem. Either way, this is my last response to anything you ever write.

      • evilducks says:

        I just want to point out that players on LTIR still count against the cap but the club recieves a leway credit that is the amount of that players salary to go over the cap.

        So technically, Mike and Doug are correct in that the Flames are over the cap currently. They just are in a special situation where they are allowed to be.

  25. Evildoug says:

    You can work hard and enjoy something simultaneously, but you implied arduous work in your comment by bringing up that they don’t get paid, that they have day jobs, etc. You implied that they are making an arduous sacrifice to do this podcast, and therefore that we should appreciate it regardless of a few errors. Arduous sacrifice and enjoyment are not congruous. Stop arguing with me. Your point was well taken, despite the minor contradiction in your post. The end.

    • Tom says:

      I never claimed any of that. I’m saying you’re being a dick. That’s all.

      But funny you can’t respond to my question. Deflecting away as always.

  26. Evildoug says:


    Thank you for admitting that you didn’t know. Except, the only reason you’re admitting it is because you think you’ve found some technicality that lets you off the hook. If we’re going to use that technicality, why don’t we use this one too: you can’t talk about cap numbers in the offseason, because someone listed on the cap might be injured, or not on the roster, to start the season. That’s logical, no? As logical as what you are saying. I have read that he is currently injured, and will be to start the season. Therefore, if he is injured to start the season, they will not be over the cap, and they will not have to dump a player immediately. Furthermore, if they already know he will be injured to start the season, for all intensive purposes he is on the LTIR. They do not have him counting against their cap, which they calculate often, because they know he is injured. It’s just a technicality that they can’t put him on the official list until the season starts. Why would you have a LTIR in the offseason when there are no games?

    To answer your question more succinctly, I have read that he is injured, and will be to start the season. Because he is injured *RIGHT NOW*, they don’t have to move anyone *RIGHT NOW*, or even before the season starts, like you falsely believed they did, unless he heals before the season.

    All technicalities aside, the bottom line is: as long as Langkow is injured, they don’t have to move anyone. You didn’t realize Langkow was injured, and that’s why the premise of your whole calgary discussion was false, and why the ensuing conversation was factually inaccurate.


    you’re catching the factually inaccurate portion too. the listener brought up certain proposals, which were ridiculous, that included Bogosian and other untouchables. He didn’t ask about Regehr. They brought it up themselves because they didn’t realize Langkow was injured. As for it being in their best interests to move him now, the dudes thesis was “calgary is 2.4 million over the cap, so they have to move someone,” not that “despite not being over the cap until langkow is healthy, the flames should probably move someone now.” If they’d used your thesis, maybe it wouldn’t have been factually incorrect. What you’re talking about though is not a fact. It’s an assumption, and a partially incorrect one at that. You say Calgary will be “over a barrel” if they wait, but in reality they can always just waive Kotalik and be free of their problems.

  27. Evildoug says:


    ““That means they have.”

    Did they ask him to waive his no trade clause? Well, he declined to comment.

    “That means they have.”

    have what?

    “That means they have.” … asked him to trade his no trade clause.

    It’s right there. That means they have. There’s no grey area in that quote.

  28. Evildoug says:

    they asked him to trade his no-waive clause, i meant to say.

    nope, not that either…

    waive his no-trade clause, before some idiot thinks it’s his key to pouncing on me.

    • Like A Bossk says:

      Do you know what the reply button is? I think it’s pretty clear where it’s location/what it’s function are.

  29. Tom says:

    Still deflecting.

    Why don’t you try responding to my question?

  30. Evildoug says:

    Mike, when you try to say I’m intentionally doing this, or don’t understand the english language, when clearly you said what you said, and then you follow it up with “i’m not responding to you anymore,” all that tells me is you realize your mistake, but you want to deflect on me instead. I’m the one out to get you. I’m the one who doesn’t understand english. It’s absolutely ridiculous. You said what you said man. Or, didn’t Doug say it? I confuse you guys, but you’re the one responding to it defensively so it must have been you. You said it. It’s not a huge deal except everyone is turning it into a big argument. But just own up to it. You said it. Most of the time, it’s true, when people decline to comment on that, it means they have been asked, but not all the time. I don’t know what you think I misinterpreted, because the quote is right there.

  31. Evildoug says:

    What’s your question, tom?

    • Tom says:


      If we are all so stupid and unintelligent and this blog/podcast is so bad, the why the fuck do you listen to the podcast, and read the blog, and post in the comments?

  32. Kit says:

    Holy crap what a retarded conversation about absolutely nothing important. Who gives a shit? EvilDOUG, you’re right. Happy? Is that what you wanted to hear? Because I don’t care, just stop complaining about anyone “wasting your time”. Stop listening if they waste your time, you have control of what you do. Writing posts as long as the ones you write probably takes up the time it takes to listen to a podcast, so stop wasting your own time.

  33. Evildoug says:

    By the way, everyone is harkening on the Calgary thing because of the two it’s probably easier to try and defend, but where’s the defense for the Niemi/Huet thing?

    With Chicago needing to clear players out because of the salary cap, one of the two dudes said ‘Maybe if they can’t keep Niemi, they will have to play Huet,’ (and then we can get them with Huet in the net!). Where’s the defense for that? It’s a ludicrous concept. It’s factually incorrect. You can go to the hawks website to try and find some technicality, but it won’t change the facts. Where’s the defense. Tom? Do you have one for them? Mike won’t respond to anything I say for the rest of his life because he knows I’m right. Anyone?

    • Tom says:

      Until you respond to my question that I’ve posted twice, btw… I not going to respond to anything you post either.

      Once more:

      If we are all so stupid and unintelligent and this blog/podcast is so bad, the why the fuck do you listen to the podcast, and read the blog, and post in the comments?

    • Tom says:

      You’re a hypocrite if you expect and demand people answer your questions and ignore mine.

  34. Evildoug says:

    “If we are all so stupid and unintelligent and this blog/podcast is so bad, the why the fuck do you listen to the podcast, and read the blog, and post in the comments?”

    Tom, how is not answering this “deflecting?” I thought you’d asked me some probing question that I didn’t see, that I wasn’t responding to. This one sound rhetorical. Seems more like you making a point that I shouldn’t be here if I don’t like the podcast and the people than really a question. However, i’m sure you’ll point out the question mark at the end of it, so here goes.

    I do like the podcast. Some of it is more elementary than I would like. The factual mistake per podcast is annoying. But the dudes seem like cool people. i never said they were unintelligent. Mike is being a baby right now taking it way too personally, being way to defensive, not admitting to anything, so I don’t know why that is, why he’s treating me this way, pretending I’m out to get him or whatever. But, on the podcast anyway, if not always on these comments, they seem like nice, good people, really laid back. I’m starving for hockey, and it’s not like there’s a lot of sharks stuff going on. Anything i can get my hands on is fun, and I enjoy their podcasts, or most of their podcasts. I overlook the problems and enjoy the rest of them.

    As for you guys, why I post on the comments, I tend to post to correct something, or to just give my opinion. when something is incorrect, i come on her with one post, saying it’s incorrect, and usually explaining why. Then people make fun of me with incorrect logic, so I correct that. It’s a vicious cycle. I get lured into arguments like these by other people. Notice i’m not starting these arguments. This one started with me correcting the calgary fact error, and not even looking at the site again until today. Then someone is saying why actually there was no factual error, when there was, so I go to correct that, and then the argument starts. Mostly, I like talking hockey, and I come on here with either my opinion or factcheck, and like i said earlier, when i present facts, people try to dispute them. When I present opinions, people try to disprove them. The answer is I don’t want to be in arguments. I would rather just talk hockey. But you guys would rather argue.

    • Tom says:

      If you don’t want to be in arguments then here’s a couple of tips…

      When someone doesn’t agree with you. You can just say, “ok I see your point(s) but I don’t agree…” or, ” we can agree to disagree.”

      Or better yet you can state your opinions as opinions not facts. When you try to ram your “facts” down our throats it makes people defensive, angry, and combatative.

      Here’s a general rule; go out of your way to be courteous to others.

      As to the Huet/Neimi thing. You might be right. The dudesight be lying and might not want to admit it. Here’s the thing; who cares???!!

      Your need for factual correctness is neurotic and rude. You don’t have to agree but being courteous is better than being right some times. You don’t seem to get this and that fact and it is THE MAIN reason you seem to get into these arguments here and in FTF.

      The common factor in all these experiences is YOU and your attitude. Own up to it.

  35. Evildoug says:

    It takes time to type, Tom. I never demanded anyone answer my questions lol. You’re the one asking i answer yours about ten times when meanwhile no one has responded to the Niemi/Huet tidbit.

  36. Evildoug says:

    By the way, here is are some quotes from your post.

    “You realize they don’t get paid to produce their podcast or maintain this blog. I don’t know them personally but I don’t think they deserve people telling them their hard work is a waste of time.”

    So, they don’t get paid. Why is that of note unless you meant that this is a sacrifice on their part, and arduous work? You’re claiming you meant it was just a hobby that takes some work. Do you get paid for your hobbies? Would you say to someone, “they don’t get paid to watch Jersey Shore after their long day, so maybe you should appreciate the hard work they put into it.” Of course not. By bringing up that they don’t get paid, you are implying what they are doing is arduous work, and not a hobby, because no one gets paid for their hobbies.

    You also their “hard work” shouldn’t be classified by me as a waste of time. Again, you’re making it sound like arduous work, like a sacrifice they are doing for us. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have written about how they don’t deserve what I’m saying. It reminds me of, like, “your teacher is sacrificing a lot for you. She doesn’t deserve to have pencils thrown at her.” (This is a joke, but you get the point). You only bring up them “not deserving” something from you, if they are giving you something. It’s the classic ‘they are doing this FOR YOU, so they don’t deserve to be treated in x manner.’ Essentially what you implied was, they are doing this “hard work” for you, for us, and they’re not even getting paid, so they don’t deserve to be treated in such a way.

    Which is exactly what I said. It can’t be a sacrifice on our account, and a hobby, at the same time.

    “They do it mainly I’d guess because they enjoy it. But recognize that they work pretty hard trying to come up with discussion topic for the blog and podcasts for us. While maintaining day jobs no less.”

    You bring up that they have day jobs. Again, they work “pretty hard,” “while maintaining day jobs no less,” implies sacrifice, as I’m sure any neutral party will attest to. Even though they have day jobs, they are still working pretty hard (for us) = you’re spelling it out like it’s a sacrifice, except…

    “They do it mainly I’d guess because they enjoy it.” And there we are, the part that doesn’t fit in with the rest. I don’t expect you to admit to being wrong but at least everyone else can see it now.

    And no, I don’t expect them to admit it either on your behalf. Probably the opposite. At least it’s all right here.

  37. Evildoug says:

    Oh, the best quote, I didn’t touch on.

    “But recognize that they work pretty hard trying to come up with discussion topic for the blog and podcasts for us.”

    Open and shut case. You say it all right there. “They work pretty hard to come up with discussion top for the blog and podcasts FOR US.”

    So it’s a hobby… but they’re doing it, for us?

    My hobbies: Watching hockey. I do that, for me. Reading. I do that, for me. Playing soccer. I do that… for… guess who… please, guess… me!
    My sacrifices: Driving my kids everyone. I do that for them. Doing the dishes. I do that for my wife, so she doesn’t have to do them. Taking out the trash. I do that for my family as well.

    Do you see any of the “I do that for them” things in the hobbies? No. Do you see any of the “I do that for myself” things in the sacrifices? No.

    Therefore, by saying they do it “for us,” for no money, even though it’s hard work, suggests it is a sacrifice. But, by saying they enjoy it, you are implying it is a hobby for them. Since the two are incongruous, your post contradicted itself.


    Again, I don’t know why you even try to argue. I take it from just the obvious tone of the message, that everyone should see by itself (but they don’t), to actually taking it apart piece by prove to irrefutably prove that you contradicted yourself. The reason I can do that, is because the contradiction is right there for me to point out. The reason you can’t do that with my posts, however, is because the contradictions aren’t there. The errors in logic you guys hope to see just aren’t there.


  38. Tom says:

    Just so everyone here knows what is really happening.

    “Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD) is the mental disorder of striving for too much success. Perfection is the ultimate goal of the OCPD person, and failure is seen as earth shattering. OCPD is the disorder that, on the outside, seems useful. A drive to succeed is very appealing, but OCPD pushes it past the line of success and into the realm of isolation, anxiety, and depression.

    What is a Personality Disorder?
    A personality disorder is defined to be “…an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the culture of the individual who exhibits it” (APA, 2000). This means that the person’s world perspective has, for the most part, always been skewed, with expectations that differ from the rest of his or her culture. Deeply-rooted and longstanding, the overly perfectionistic behaviors are sensible to the person with OCPD. Psychologists call this ego-syntonic, which means that the person with OCPD feels his disordered outlook is good and correct.”

    • Tom says:


      “Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) is a type of personality disorder marked by rigidity, control, perfectionism, and an overconcern with work at the expense of close interpersonal relationships. Persons with this disorder often have trouble relaxing because they are preoccupied with details, rules, and productivity. They are often perceived by others as stubborn, stingy, self-righteous, and uncooperative.”

      • evilducks says:

        I’m standing by Aspergers:

        The lack of demonstrated empathy is possibly the most dysfunctional aspect of Asperger syndrome. Individuals with AS experience difficulties in basic elements of social interaction, which may include a failure to develop friendships or to seek shared enjoyments or achievements with others (for example, showing others objects of interest), a lack of social or emotional reciprocity, and impaired nonverbal behaviors in areas such as eye contact, facial expression, posture, and gesture.

        Unlike those with autism, people with AS are not usually withdrawn around others; they approach others, even if awkwardly. For example, a person with AS may engage in a one-sided, long-winded speech about a favorite topic, while misunderstanding or not recognizing the listener’s feelings or reactions, such as a need for privacy or haste to leave. This social awkwardness has been called “active but odd”. This failure to react appropriately to social interaction may appear as disregard for other people’s feelings, and may come across as insensitive. However, not all individuals with AS will approach others. Some of them may even display selective mutism, speaking not at all to most people and excessively to specific people. Some may choose to talk only to people they like.

        Long winded, one sided conversations. Check.
        Inability to interact properly within social norms. Check.
        Choose to talk only to people they like. He claims he likes Mike. Check.

  39. Evildoug says:

    I g2g. Goodnight everyone. Mike, I do like you. Don’t take what I’m saying the wrong way. You can ignore me if you like but just know I don’t dislike you or think you’re stupid or anything. I do like you and enjoy listening to your podcast. By arguing everything I say people are blowing what I’m saying out of proportion. It goes from not a big thing that I’m just pointing out, to the center of a contentious argument. That’s not my intention.

  40. Evildoug says:

    Lol that sounds nothing like me. I’m not a perfectionist at all, to be honest.

    Plus, assuming you’re, like, a human being, if you really thought I had some sort of serious personality disorder, you’d be treating me with kindness, since, in that scenario, everything I’ve said to you would be a serious symptom of A DISEASE.

    Do make fun of cancer patients too? I bet you go to wikipedia, print out what you find, take it to the hospital, and read certain sections aloud in the cancer ward.

    “Cancer has a reputation as a deadly disease.”

    “Cancer affects people at all ages with the risk for most types increasing with age.[1] Cancer caused about 13% of all human deaths in 2007[2] (7.6 million).[3]”

    You’re a monster, man. What the fuck is wrong with you?

    Sick. Sick. What’s that disorder again? Schadenfreude’s disease? I think that’s you buddy.

    • Tom says:

      Looks like I hit a little too close to home.

      First off Personality disorders are not diseases. And everyone here has tried and tried to be nice to you. You have been asked here and on FTF to chill out and not be rude. You will not comply.

      You’re right, under normal circumstances people with mental health issues should be treated with care. But with some people , usually the ones with personality disorders, hard limits and boundaries must be set. For example, people with ASPD you cannot be “nice” to them. They are incapable of empathy or many other human emotions.

      My goal here with you is to either force you to act like an adult or make it so uncomfortable to be here that you don’t come back. You are ruining it fir everyone else.

      Sometime you have to chase the fox out of the chicken coup.

      • evilducks says:

        I dislike your analogy, it implies he’s somehow better than us.

        Sometimes you have to wipe the shit stain off the floor.

  41. Patrick says:

    OK – I completely take back what I said earlier today about actually liking EvilDoug.

  42. evilducks says:

    How come, if he’s so very smart, as he claims he is… why can’t he work out the reply button?

  43. WingsFanInSharkLand says:

    Is this really happening?

    Too much E-Doug nonsense to wade through to get to the good stuff. There are fewer than 10 comments here that aren’t either from or about EvilDoug. I can’t read this shit.

    EvilDoug, I said this before to someone else on here a couple of years ago and I’m going to say it to you too: this is the internet. You are not forced to be here. You are like the guy who sticks around at the show to heckle the last band. What’s the point? Move on. You’re free to do so. Your energy could be spent much more positively somewhere else. Start your own blog or podcast. Volunteer at the local soup kitchen. Knit a sweater. I don’t care what you do, but please, for the love of god, knock it off. Some of us want real hockey discussion and you’re polluting this board with your diatribes and nonsense and it needs to stop. If you can’t see that for yourself given all that’s gone down up to this point, then maybe what these guys are saying about you is true.

  44. Tom says:

    I’d like to change my answer…

    I actually checked in with a friend of mine and did a little consulting. I got a little stuck on OCPD cause of the extreme ego-syntonic nature if it. But my other option seems to be better.

    Alex I’ll take Narcassistic Personality Disorder for $500 please:

    DSM-IV-TR specifies nine diagnostic criteria for NPD. For the clinician to make the diagnosis, an individual must fit five or more of the following descriptions:

    He or she has a grandiose sense of self-importance (exaggerates accomplishments and demands to be considered superior without real evidence of achievement).
    He or she lives in a dream world of exceptional success, power, beauty, genius, or “perfect” love.
    He or she thinks of him- or herself as “special” or privileged, and that he or she can only be understood by other special or high-status people.
    He or she demands excessive amounts of praise or admiration from others.
    He or she feels entitled to automatic deference, compliance , or favorable treatment from others.
    He or she is exploitative towards others and takes advantage of them.
    He or she lacks empathy and does not recognize or identify with others’ feelings.
    He or she is frequently envious of others or thinks that they are envious of him or her.
    He or she “has an attitude” or frequently acts in haughty or arrogant ways.

    He meets about every one there. NPD is almost always ego-syntonic, meaning they think there is nothing wrong with their behavior and everyone else is the ones acting strange. But most people with PD’s comorbid with another PD… So it’s a whole cluster fuck, literally.

    The thing that gives me doubt about aspergers is that they tend to be less combatitive and their disorder is more biological and organic, often making it a little more ego-dystonic. But it’s still entirely possible.

    • Mike says:

      I can honestly say that these armchair diagnosis posts are the most interesting on this train wreck of a thread. And I really enjoy the terms ‘ego-syntonic’ and ‘ego-dystonic’. I’m going to try to incorporate one or more of them in a future podcast.

    • evilducks says:

      This is plausible…
      He qualifies for 1 (believes he would be a better GM and all of his “friends” agree),
      2 (genius),
      3 (only other “geniuses” understand him),
      4 (He just wants everybody to tell him he’s right and admit they’re wrong),
      5 (We should just accept everything he says because they are facts after all),
      7 (He can’t understand why everybody thinks he’s a gigantic shit nozzle),
      8 (We all just envy his being genius),
      9 (Every post he’s ever written anywhere)…

      All just from reading this section alone. (I’d guess 6 too, but he doesn’t really have that opportunity on a message board)

      I’ve known people with AS and they act very similar, but this really is a good fit. Well done.

  45. Tom says:


    Sorry for hijacking your board here. Ill stop.

    But I actually have a little expertise in mental health disorders. I’m not just talking out of my ass.

    I once had a discussion with an instructor once about how people with personality disorders are flocking to the internet and how it’s actually becoming a problem.

    But I digress.

  46. Tom says:

    Anyways, back to actual hockey…

    Andreas Lilja in camp?? Dudes?

    personally im not sure another 35 yr, third pairing D is what we need, but at league minimum I guess why not?

    I’d really like to hear Wingsfan’s take on Lilja…

    • Ian says:

      I would as well.

      • WingsFanInSharkLand says:

        Lilja was a pretty average defenseman in his time in Detroit. He stayed healthy for the most part (save for last year, in part thanks to Shea Webber), but wasn’t a guy that stood out – for better or worse. He’s a big dude and he’s strong on his skates, but lacks speed and an offensive sense. He’s not a bad guy to have in front of the net to clear guys out at around $1M/year. I would have like to see him stay in Detroit. He may not make a lot of great plays, but he also doesn’t make many bone-headed plays. I think he’ll make it on the Sharks and you’ll be happy with him on the 3rd pairing. He also has a Stanley Cup ring, so I guess he’s a shoe-in. 😉

        • Ian says:

          3rd pairing defenseman…. check
          Stanley Cup Ring… Check

          Someone give this guy 2.5 Million!!! :-p

          • nick says:

            thank GOD for some substance at the end of all that non-sense. I would have been really disappointed had there been none. Now someone get me an adult beverage to wash away the pain, STAT!

  47. Cyoor says:

    OMG! What just happend in this thread?
    Can we trade this guy to some other forum please?

    • evilducks says:

      Actually, we attempted to diagnose exactly what happened in this thread. I believe the final analysis was Narcissistic Personality Disorder

  48. Tom says:

    Just cause I want to see this thread get to one hundred comments……. How was the teal and white? Wife and I missed it this year…

    • evilducks says:

      Apparently Stalock was unbeatable (and Niitty, I’m pretty sure those two are 3-0 as far as scrimmages go). Niitty hasn’t given up a goal yet to my knowledge.

  49. Tom says:

    Also… The last two preseason games vs. Vancouver will be telecast live on the NHL network live.

    Just FYI because there isn’t much being reported on it.

    • evilducks says:

      What’s more weird is that we have 2 preseason games on the same day (Saturday I think?) Against the Yotes.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.