View Single Post
07-20-2013, 10:38 AM
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,482
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by JohnnyB11 View Post
LOL I like that! If everyone would say what they mean properly the world would bea much better place. However, I disagree that people fall in to one of those two categories, there is a lot of grey in between the black and white.
There is shades of greyness in the results. I doubt everyone is just A or B. But the intent? The intent has to be absolute. Either you communicate in the purpose of being clear and straightforward, or you just don't care a fig about being understood properly. Whether or not you succeed at it is a bit irrelevant; just try to do your best.

My outburst was in reply of someone saying "who cares about what is being implied, life is too short". That is a backward, anti-intellectual thing to say.

Originally Posted by JohnnyB11 View Post
In effect, yes. But the way one says it has a bearing on what is implied.

The problem with implying something is that it is left wide open to interpretation. In your post, you stated that 'If you say it like :"He stood up to Subban's demands' implies that his goal was to lock horns with PK and make him blink.' Stating that "he did not budge on the bridge contract" implies a dedication to a strategy/doctrine regarding player contracts, not a desire to impose one's will over the other.

Don't you think one could be validated in feeling that if MB stood up to Subban's demands, it could be implied that MB was dedicated to a strategy/doctrine regarding player contracts? Thus, in his dedication, he was standing up to Subban's demands, rather than trying to lock horns?
Oh, people can believe either without problem. Again, I don't mind that people believe one side or the other of the argument.

Someone described event X with description A, while someone else used description B. Someone protested "Why would it make a difference, event X still happened?", I explained the importance of subtelty when one tries to make an explanation, and the best reply I get back is "who cares about that!".

Originally Posted by JohnnyB11 View Post
This is where trying to come up with what's implied in a statement can easily lead to an assumption that is incorrect. And you know the old saying about why you should never assume, right?
Agreed in principle. But again, without a direct access to MB's thought process, we have no way of knowing what was his genuine purpose. We can only make an educated guess regarding what we think his purpose was during these negotiations.

The reason someone would claim "he enforced the bridge contract" compared to "he stood up to Subban" is that the first claim is backable by the information we got.

Plus, it shines a better light on our future. Implication of that conclusion is that ALL prospects are going to get a 2-year bridge contract, regardless of who they are. It's team policy, there is no way out. Because if you give ONE player a way out, and you do not apply the same to another player, the other player will understand that he is seen as lesser than the first player.

What would have happened if Subban had got his 5 year contract but Chuckie only 2? Chuckie would have got the impression that he was less important than Subban. Subban would have became the benchmark of prospects. By imposing the bridge contract over EVERYONE, you dodge that bullet and remove that consideration.

Originally Posted by JohnnyB11 View Post
Only MB knows what his own thought process was. But in light of that I think we hae to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't trying to lock horns with PK for some unknown reason, but rather trying to do the best he can in his job position, which would be following a strategy on player contracts regardless of the individual player.

I have found that by surrounding myself with people who say what they mean and don't count on implications to get their message across leads to a much easier and happier life.
Well, how you say what you mean is as important as what you say. I don't necessarily seek a double-purpose in everything, but description of these events, one way or another, just add so much more meanings.

Kind of like talking about the American Civil War vs. Aggression of the North. Or that sort of things.

Originally Posted by JohnnyB11 View Post
And to close, and get back on topic, I think MB has shown sufficient ballsyness for me to date. To me he has a clear plan, despite the fact that some may disagree based on some of the moves he has made. Now is not the time to overspend a la Clarkson. The time may come, but it's not here yet. Perhaps at that time we will see how big his balls are lol.
I don't know if he is... balsy. But I know MB has nerves of steel.

PricePkPatch* is offline   Reply With Quote