View Single Post
11-30-2012, 11:25 PM
Registered User
DAChampion's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,501
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
I really don't get what you're trying to argue here. What's your point?
My point is that players take risks, and I'm attacking the misguided belief that chronological and physiological risks are less valuable than financial risks. I think they're equivalent in an intrinsic sense, even though those with financial means own the media and legal system and are able to convince many that they built the sun and watered the oceans.

Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
He didn't give up anything. He made a career choice, he gets to live his dream, and like everybody that chases a dream job, he worked hard to get there.
For those that failed, they're young enough to go back to school and live the same experiences as every other student.
You can make the same argument about the rare owner who buys a franchise and sells it 15 years later at a cumulative loss. He made a career choice, he got to live his dream of being an owner, he worked hard, and he still has tons of money in the bank to pursue other dreams.


Anyway, risk has very little to do with. Jeremy Jacobs seems to be running the BoG as his own private fiefdom. He inherited his wealth from his daddy and bought the Bruins for 10 million in 1974, and they're currently worth 320 million and making 15 million a year. This seems to be his fight, and he's not taking any risks, other than the fact that he's throwing away a year of Zdeno Cahara's prime years and the Bruins Stanley Cup window in order to pursue an ideological crusade.

DAChampion is offline