View Single Post
02-21-2013, 06:24 PM
Join Date: Feb 2003
Originally Posted by
Medgett, I believe the opposite of your take to be true. Bieksa has been atrocious. Hamhuis just behind him, and Edler third. At least Edler is staying aggressive offensively. Not floating hopers at the net like Bieksa and cashing in. Garrison has been better than Hamjuice, and on par with Edler IMO.
When your top4 is playing that badly, only the foolish disregard the environment to single out a player. The environment is near everything. It's the context. Some people disregarded the environment to start singling out certain players unfairly, while giving others a free pass. In the GDT no less, where you know opinions are always completely rational...
It speaks to someone that hasn't watched him play in FLA. It also represents an inherent bias to the known quantity. It's not Garrison's fault certain posters have no prior knowledge of his play. Yet it's because he's an unknown here, and people are watching him intently while glossing over the bigger mistakes of the "known culprits", it's somehow reasoned to be a fair and even handed analysis. I'm not buying it. Especially when (and I know certain people will hate this) stats can be brought to bear to completely shut down some of these fallacious arguments.
Bad enough that someone makes an ill thought out remark in a GDT, where emotions are running high, but to still push it as a rational opinion after the fact? When terms like "thank god a buyout is still an option". Man, talk about jumping the gun. Ugh.
No one is singling out Garrison here. The thread was about Garrison so that is why he is getting talked about here. If you want to start a thread on Bieksa or Hamhuis or someone else then go ahead. This thread is about Garrison and that's why he gets talked about in this thread. How hard is that to understand???
No one here is glossing over the play of so-called "known culprits" but is simply trying to isolate the discussion to the topic at hand - Garrison. Indeed, I see very little glossing over of anyone's play ( I haven't). Instead people are only trying to bring back the focus back to the point of the discussion - Garrison.
And it makes no sense to justify the play of Garrison based on the poor play of others. If you are doing a bad job at school or work then it senseless to say well others are doing worse when its your body of work under inspection. If you think Garrison is playing well then you need to point where and how he is. You need to base it on the merits of his play not on the lack of success of others.
I and others have tired to point to specific areas where we believe Garrison is not looking good. You need to do the same. Don't tell us how Bieksa is playing bad but instead tell us where Garrison is doing well. How hard is that to understand?
And don't start in with some ad hominen attack that the other person is ignorant of Garrison back ground or is irrational or biased. Deal with the substance of what the person is saying. Defend your position by saying where the other person is wrong in their description of Garrison's play. And I think people really have tried to go into depth on things they see as poor play. In fairness, you need to do the same.
To suggest I or others have some built in dislike or prejudice against Garrison is juvenile and totally unsupported by you. It's just a way of trying to taint another person's opinion without having to deal with what they are saying. I want nothing that the best for Garrison and hope he excels here. But when he doesn't IMO, I'm not going to pretend he has done well.
As far as the buy out option is concerned I would repeat that I'm very glad the buy out has become an option. This is very long term contract and if Garrison continues to play like he is then there has to be questions whether the team can carry him at his long term cap hit. This is no different than the concern with Ballard's contract going into the season. Much of that concern has been eased by the play of Ballard much as the concern about Garrison's long term contract could be if he improves his play. This is no wild, overly passionate reaction but simply a reasonable consideration given Garrison play to this point and the tight conditions created by the new CBA. The team must avoid bloated or bad contracts going ahead and IMO Garrison's contract might become that.
As I have stated I certainly haven't come to the conclusion that Garrison must be bought out. But his, like other contracts (such as Booth) where the person is playing well below expectations created by the size of their contracts, needs to to be discussed.
You may say that Garrison is showing himself fully deserving of his contract. You may think he looking like a great pick up and a real bargain. But you need to show this not by making alibis, not be putting down other players and not by attacking the credibility of people with an opposite opinion. Instead you need to show how Garrison is playing well and is fair value for his contract based on his play.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by orcatown