Quote
Saguaro
You've already stated that you don't agree with VB assuming the Rams' side.

And you say these writers are doing just the reverse, assuming the AD side.

Which is what I said they were doing.

So doesn't that put us in agreement?

I disagreed with your premise, really.

You said, most of that panel talk as if. the Rams haven't been negotiating with Donald and haven't made him an offer

I didnt see them doing that. I see them as not being as automatically pro-management as VB tends to be.

But we do agree that there are different views on this. I just tend to stress that the facts as we know them right now simply don't support choosing between the different views. As I am fond of saying, we have no way of knowing which is right, or if they both are, or if neither is (for some reason).

So I don't complain about the pro-AD take because I see the whole thing as being a range of different takes, with no real way to choose among them. I dfon't complain about VB's take either, though I do disagree with those who seem to see it as the Only Plausible Take (IMO it just isn't).

So it's hard to make a real, fact-based judgment on this. Though...like most discussions about contracts I have been in since 98, many people will still have strong views, regardless. Nature of the beast.

So I don't see them acting as if the Rams haven't been negotiating. I see them as assuming? concluding? claiming? that the Rams haven't done enough to sign AD given AD's market value as best defender.


....
....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2018 10:19AM by zn.