What do you mean it wasn't defined?? Besides me specifically mentioning it in the posts you quoted:
the entire discussion, which you brought up, was about Marner's reported ask of 9m+. This report happened last offseason. It doesn't make sense under any other timeline. Last offseason, Marner had over 1 and a half seasons where his production and play was incredibly similar to Nylander, if not worse, and just under a half-season where he put up better production, after an incredibly disappointing half-season and while JVR was on fire and our PP had an insane OISH%.
In response, I explained the difference between paying somebody (Marner) based solely on extrapolating a tiny sample size (his 33 games or whatever - with underlying metrics saying he was overachieving) and expecting it to happen again vs. paying somebody (Matthews) based on the numbers he had put up over his entire career to date (a much, much, much bigger sample size).
Then Dache, who was not part of the conversation, replied to me:
As you can see, he brought up the season and a half. What season and a half is he talking about?
If he's talking about the 33 games he later claims, that is not a season and a half.
If he's talking about the other season and a half of his career, that is not the sample that shows Marner's increased production, which is what was being discussed to supposedly justify his 9m+ ask.
So what exactly is he talking about? I still have never gotten an answer. As you can see, I even specifically ask him near the beginning of all of this:
He comes back with this response:
As you can see, he brought up the 33 games, and as you can see, this response makes no sense. How is the season in which he got 37 points in 33 games equal to a season and a half? Then when called out on that making no sense, he doubles down on the season and a half claim again, instead of providing an explanation.
So I repeated again that 33 games is not "nearly" a season and a half either, since he seemed to put emphasis on that nearly part. In that post, I reiterate that I am talking about last offseason.
Meanwhile, he has already jumped to accusations against me.
This is just complete garbage and you know it. Where did I take his comment "off to the races"? Where did I form anything? Where did I create a narrative? Literally everything we talked about, he brought up, and I repeatedly asked for clarification that he did not give.
Dache jumped into a conversation that he was not part of, replying directly to me. He started this back and forth, yet somehow I have an obligation to make sure he understands obvious details perfectly?
Dache did not understand the timelines being discussed, yet I'm supposed to be psychic and know that somehow?
Dache did not ask for an explanation of what was being discussed or give an explanation of what he meant, yet I'm to blame for the misunderstanding?
Dache brought up the season and a half, yet you claim that I create this narrative?
Dache brought up the 33 games, yet you claim that I create this narrative?
Dache is the one who started the hostility and made accusations against me, yet you insult me and talk about all the things I am doing, not him?
I am replying constantly because he is attacking me and misrepresenting the situation. I was trying to explain, and I DID ASK. I even showed you the post where I asked him what season and a half he was talking about, and he came back with a just-as-confusing answer. I asked him what he means again and he just corrects the season and a half to "nearly". Ffs.
Also, why is it not his responsibility to ask me when he is the one butting into the conversation with his opinions and not understanding? He clearly had no idea what my line of thinking was, by your own admission, yet you only come at me, never the other person, expecting me to be the parent to a bunch of kids.
You would've seen it more from the other side, yet you specifically single me out.
Sometimes people are wrong. And if they are wrong, I will call them out for being wrong, while showing them how/why they are wrong. I have supported my position repeatedly whenever I call somebody out, whereas a ton of the people coming at me have failed to support their positions or accusations, usually running away from the conversation when they hit a block.
This isn't reffing where everybody has to get equal calls no matter who is in the wrong. Many people in this thread are uninformed. Many people in this thread are the usual outright trolls, attempting to spread chaos in anything Leafs. Many people are stuck in century-old outdated ways of evaluating players, and adamantly refuse to consider anything else that has been proven to be more effective or adds additional context. They crave being able to ignore context, because that's the only way they can maintain the narratives that have persisted in this thread.
It is not my job to baby people. It is not my job to give participation trophies and enable the people who send this thread off-topic. I am here to set the record straight, and provide evidence. I will not abandon evidence based discussion in favour of unsupported feelings or incoherent ramblings. That type of thinking has already screwed this world up enough.
How ironic that you are the one insulting here.
And if that's how you want to operate because you're barely around and don't care and don't have to deal with it all the time, go for it. But you can't tell other people how to act. If somebody has repeatedly broken rules, insulted/accused me of things, spouted lies/misrepresentations, refused to support their positions with evidence, and held certain positions only when it comes to Leaf players, then I am not going to have the same patience with them as I would with somebody actually here to learn and contribute in a productive way, and that's my right.
Easy to say now when you don't attach your name to any of the discussions/perspectives. Why don't you debate me on those points instead of only coming at me with blanket attacks?
That could not be further from the truth. I at least try to add further depth to the conversation whenever I reply, and clear up/address any misconceptions. That doesn't mean I won't defend myself from personal attacks or incorrect statements.
Most posters I reply to stick to their original position to the death, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Most posters have initiated hostility towards me way before I engage. Yet again, you only say this to me?
