Nithoniniel
Registered User
He said clearly that Franson is better overall.
I really don't get this.
Yes he said that Franson is better. When called out for it, he explained that he meant it from an arbitration standpoint. He could have explained that better the first time around. That's the crime here? Are we not allowed to articulate something badly on these boards anymore, without having it hanging over us indefinitely?
As for the subject itself, I don't really see anything outlandish with the idea that in an arbitration case, Franson would be valued higher than Gardiner. From most of what I have read about arbitration cases, point production seem to be very central and Franson has a big lead there.
And I say that as a pretty big supporter of Gardiner who would preferably see Franson gone.