I agree with your previous analysis post, but I tire of all the doom predictions before they actually happen posts. Not directed completely at you, but I am speaking in general.
It has just become the norm here to throw out reasonable analysis and then follow that up with some statement saying management will never see this and they suck, etc. That sure seems like a loaded argument to me, and it gets tiresome.
There is also a very specific and known group consistent with that strategy.
Tiresome and redundant.
Willie makes a roster or strategy decision that contradicts their doom and gloom 'he'll never..' statement.. And they seamlessly move to the next one...
Over n over.
First, the idea that it's a "strategy" is moronic, IMO. At worse, it's a measured defensive mechanism (like telling yourself that the team still might choke in the playoffs when we're up), at best it's a sincere impression of how trends look.
Doom and gloom should only be considered tiresome if you find negative thoughts inherently deplorable, which you really shouldn't-- I would suggest that you learn to take it in stride and be less possessive about these things.
Besides, being pessimistic should not be lumped together with treating it like a foregone conclusion. If someone's making baseless statements and treating it like fact, then sure, criticize how unwarranted they are for jumping the gun. But in general, there are no grounds to criticize or take issue with comments like MS', because he's not making statements about what will happen, he's suspecting and dreading what might based on what he's seen. When an impression is "contradicted" or turns out to be wrong, it's not a situation where someone is obligated to "eat crow" for having that kind of valid feeling.
The whole idea that people have an "agenda" with certain viewpoints is ridiculous in general, and I hear it too often. People's impressions of players are informed by reinforced experience. If something contradicts the trend (like Sbisa having a good game, or Hamhuis making equally bad errors even though he's been rock steady in past seasons), that doesn't and shouldn't automatically wipe the slate clean and reverse your impression-- it takes prolongued contradiction to do that. Bias obviously exists game to game, but for the most part, it's informed bias that gets corrected by consistency. Do you really think people will stubbornly hold onto the idea that Sbisa is awful if he starts plays reasonably solid hockey for a full season or if Benning has a good offseason or two? Of course not.
The only case I can think of where I get the feeling that there might be an agenda is Y2KCanucks Luongo/Sedin thing (even then, I can see where he's coming from regarding his attitude about the Sedins, it's just the Luongo contrast that makes you raise your eyebrows). But we're way too quick to jump on that assumption in general-- most of the time it's perfectly rational and logical behavior.
On the flip side, I actually instead get very tired of blind optimism, but my defense would be that I only find it annoying because it's ignoring all the signs/patterns and not because I'm inherently put off by the idea of positivity (which appears to me to be the case when your complaint is brought up). I would love to be optimistic about what Benning/Desjardin's future moves, but personally, I can't comprehend someone feeling good about what they've done to date, so it's hard to imagine that optimism right now is based on anything rational.
