do0glas
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2012
- 13,271
- 683
I don't see either one as more or less of an assumption, mine is just specific and I laid out my logic, you did not. If all he wanted to do was re-organize the front office... well let's just say that seems kind of an underwhelming privilege to spend 10's or 100's of millions of dollars on... but I guess it's possible, I just see it as pretty unlikely. A jump as you might say.
Point is, what you see as a huge assumption I see as a logical deduction based on available evidence.
He bought the team, he did so in an aggressive manner (it seems as if several of the owners were not looking to sell... though we don't know how it all unfolded). He made statements that he does not see the team ever making money. Those things to me, plus basic human psychology, equal he has plans for the team that involve significant changes that he could not make while the team had multiple owners.
no, my assumption was meant to parody yours. basically illustrating that your logic can be used both ways. which makes it an assumption. your logical deduction is nothing more than taking disparate facts and fitting them into a narrative that "sounds" logical...but really isnt.
im not saying youre wrong, but its a huge jump.
buys team in aggressive manner (whatever that means...again if you were a fly on the wall in negotiations this might hold water)
says he doesnt see the team making money (okay great, so it wasnt purely a business decision...but we know nothing else) so i can ride this one a little bit
basic human psychology? are you serious? the basics would be to buy out a business to capitalize on an emerging market...or possibly on some grander scheme in his overall business. however, you take that basics and say its because he is passionate enough about the sharks to take over their business and make hockey changes to turn it into a stanley cup winning team.
which of those sounds less likely?