You're absolutely incorrect. The part about Couturier's contract being a steal was only a small part of the conversation. It may be the part that you want to focus on and limit it to, but it was and is about far more. The quantifications of why Couturier's value is more than just points has already been shown in the article linked. What are you talking about?

- MJL

No, maybe you were having a conversation with Hobbes, but the first 3 times I mentioned Couturier's contract, it was in response to you calling it a steal. You joined the conversation with me in response:




And Very good. Out of 2 point in the posts, you responded to 1. Little steps. So, now, go and read the other one, and respond with evidence that those quantifications are contract relevant.

No, maybe you were having a conversation with Hobbes, but the first 3 times I mentioned Couturier's contract, it was in response to you calling it a steal. You joined the conversation with me in response:




And Very good. Out of 2 point in the posts, you responded to 1. Little steps. So, now, go and read the other one, and respond with evidence that those quantifications are contract relevant.
- PT21

You joined in an ongoing conversation and now you want to call the shots. Just more arrogance. There is no reason or need to respond to that. So either you continue and act like an adult or I see no reason to continue. I respond to what I choose to just as you do. Your arrogance knows no bounds. Your insecurity has degraded another conversation.

You joined in an ongoing conversation and now you want to call the shots. Just more arrogance. There is no reason or need to respond to that. So either you continue and act like an adult or I see no reason to continue. I respond to what I choose to just as you do. Your arrogance knows no bounds. Your insecurity has degraded another conversation.
- MJL

Yes, and once I joined with a specific point of contention, it should not be so challenging to keep track of 2 posters, and who is arguing what.

Now, have we made it to # 2 yet or is your offended bluster going to be a fig leaf for you and (Saran Wrap for the rest of us) that you have really no justification whatsoever for saying those Athletic metrics are of relevance to justifying the $ value of SC's contract?

Yes, and once I joined with a specific point of contention, it should not be so challenging to keep track of 2 posters, and who is arguing what.

Now, have we made it to # 2 yet or is your offended bluster going to be a fig leaf for you and (Saran Wrap for the rest of us) that you have really no justification whatsoever for saying those Athletic metrics are of relevance to justifying the $ value of SC's contract?
- PT21

Keeping track of your posts which contains 90% juvenile banter is not difficult. Don't flatter yourself. Again, I respond as I so choose and you don't get to decide what I respond to. If you want to have an adult conversation, I'll converse with you until the cows come home. If you in your arrogance want to control the conversation and limit the scope because you need the conversation to track a certain way for your low level of intelligence to comprehend. I don't work that way and you won't get anywhere with me in that manner. The article did the justifying for me.

I chose the Saran wrap.
- MJL

So refreshing to see a man in his mid-fifties be, ahem, transparent.

So refreshing to see a man in his mid-fifties be, ahem, transparent.




- PT21

You're acting like a 10 year old.

You're acting like a 10 year old.

- MJL

And yet you, who said he would leave if there wasn't an adult conversation, are still here 2 posts, and 90 mins later.

It's a special man who gets even his insults to boomerang back at him, don't ya think?

No, he is part of the problem. Not because he is not a good player, but because he is not good enough nor young enough to keep around at this time of the club's fortunes.

The net negative effect of his presence towards building a contender far outweighs the Risto trade. He is like Mats Sundin in those Leafs years.
- PT21

By getting rid of Couturier there would be no doubt that the Flyers are in a total rebuild, and I feel that is something the Flyers absolutely don't want. I truly believe the Flyers believe they can rebuild on the fly and do so in a timeframe that still includes Couturier, that is why they resigned him. This would make sense IF the Flyers set themselves up to get Tkachuk, JG or DeBrincat, but that is not what happened. What makes it worse is it does not seem the Flyers are really trying to get into the top 3 of this draft to get one of the supposed generational players who could play with and learn from Couts. So having Couts without top end talent around him is a waste IMO. As an example, the Bruins surrounded Bergeron with Pastrnak and Marchand, while Couts gets Cam and Bee.

#headscratcher

By getting rid of Couturier there would be no doubt that the Flyers are in a total rebuild, and I feel that is something the Flyers absolutely don't want. I truly believe the Flyers believe they can rebuild on the fly and do so in a timeframe that still includes Couturier, that is why they resigned him. This would make sense IF the Flyers set themselves up to get Tkachuk, JG or DeBrincat, but that is not what happened. What makes it worse is it does not seem the Flyers are really trying to get into the top 3 of this draft to get one of the supposed generational players who could play with and learn from Couts. So having Couts without top end talent around him is a waste IMO. As an example, the Bruins surrounded Bergeron with Pastrnak and Marchand, while Couts gets Cam and Bee.

#headscratcher
- jd250

Just yesterday, at 8:56AM. A little more than 24 hours ago, you made this post.

https://hockeybuzz.com/bo...?thread_id=180144&page=12

Which included the statement of

"Couturier is part of the solution here, not part of the problem"

It's unbelievable how you flip-flop.

By getting rid of Couturier there would be no doubt that the Flyers are in a total rebuild, and I feel that is something the Flyers absolutely don't want. I truly believe the Flyers believe they can rebuild on the fly and do so in a timeframe that still includes Couturier, that is why they resigned him. This would make sense IF the Flyers set themselves up to get Tkachuk, JG or DeBrincat, but that is not what happened. What makes it worse is it does not seem the Flyers are really trying to get into the top 3 of this draft to get one of the supposed generational players who could play with and learn from Couts. So having Couts without top end talent around him is a waste IMO. As an example, the Bruins surrounded Bergeron with Pastrnak and Marchand, while Couts gets Cam and Bee.

#headscratcher
- jd250

I will give you my take on this when I have a bit more time. I would argue, essentially, that the evidence points towards one of two explanations (so it is not a headscratcher), and especially one.

In the meantime, if you want to have a serious discussion, stay away from the resident dunce here.

Just yesterday, at 8:56AM. A little more than 24 hours ago, you made this post.

https://hockeybuzz.com/bo...?thread_id=180144&page=12

Which included the statement of

"Couturier is part of the solution here, not part of the problem"

It's unbelievable how you flip-flop.
- MJL

His first post suggests his opinion is that Couturier is part of some solution
His second post suggests that he does not believe management are pursuing that solution, or any other solution, so he is puzzled.

In summary, there is no contradiction.

Try posting an original thought or two every six months then you would stop making such elementary errors like this.

His first post suggests his opinion is that Couturier is part of some solution
His second post suggests that he does not believe management are pursuing that solution, or any other solution, so he is puzzled.

In summary, there is no contradiction.

Try posting an original thought or two every six months then you would stop making such elementary errors like this.
- PT21

You would have to be the village dunce not to see the contradiction.


On one post he is suggesting that Couturier is not the problem and is part of the solution. In the most recent post he is suggesting that re-signing Couturier is a mistake and doesn't make sense.

In summary, you're clueless.

You would have to be the village dunce not to see the contradiction.


On one post he is suggesting that Couturier is not the problem and is part of the solution. In the most recent post he is suggesting that re-signing Couturier is a mistake and doesn't make sense.

In summary, you're clueless.
- MJL

No, he is suggesting that re-signing Couturier and not signing players to complement him is a mistake. Which leaves open the possibility that the solution he had in mind when he praised the Couts signing included signing those complEmentary players.


EDIT: What makes you a bit of a sociological case, MJL, is not the fact that you are slow. That is hardly your fault. What makes you odd is that you constantly butt your head in to arguments which highlight this slowness.

No, he is suggesting that re-signing Couturier and not signing players to complement him is a mistake. Which leaves open the possibility that the solution he had in mind when he praised the Couts signing included signing those complEmentary players.



- PT21

In that post he is trying to say that the condition that they re-signed Couturier under doesn't make sense without signing other players to compliment him correct. In that regard, he is saying that the re-signing doesn't make sense. That is clearly a position against the re-signing. Who the Flyers signed or didn't sign around him is not a new development today. That same condition existed yesterday when the same poster posted in support of the re-signing. Which is made clear by who he replied to in the post yesterday. In posting that Couturier is part of the solution moving forward. That is clearly in support of the re-signing. Hence the painfully obvious contradiction.

I hope your hat is nice.

EDIT: What makes you a bit of a sociological case, MJL, is not the fact that you are slow. That is hardly your fault. What makes you odd is that you constantly butt your head in to arguments which highlight this slowness.
- PT21

Actually that person is you and evidenced by your repeated need to make posts like the above and attack a person rather than attacking their opinion. It's desperation. Even to the point of aligning yourself with the trolls of the thread in opposition. You routinely try to find angles and nuances of language that ignore the actual intended premise in an attempt to show that you're smarter than everyone. Nobody buys it. It's a tired act and pretty much everyone does the same as I do when you do it. Laughs at you. Your opinion of me carries zero weight and has no bearing whatsoever on my self worth.

In that post he is trying to say that the condition that they re-signed Couturier under doesn't make sense without signing other players to compliment him correct. In that regard, he is saying that the re-signing doesn't make sense. That is clearly a position against the re-signing. .
- MJL

Sentence 1: correct
Sentence 2: correct
Sentence 3: Inorrect. That is a position against the re-signing conditional on the non-signing of those complementary players.

There is nothing here that contradicts him believing that Couts can be a part of the solution IF they sign complementary players, and NOT a part of the solution if they don't.

Consider your self fortunate that social media has come along at the right time for you to be able to separate your identity from your shortcomings and anonymously post without the laughter you would have faced not just by these errors but your obstinacy in continuing to defend them.

Also, for god's sake, stop spelling complementary as complimentary.

Sentence 1: correct
Sentence 2: correct
Sentence 3: Inorrect. That is a position against the re-signing conditional on the non-signing of those complementary players.

There is nothing here that contradicts him believing that Couts can be a part of the solution IF they sign complementary players, and NOT a part of the solution if they don't.


- PT21

You're wrong. You can't separate factors in one view versus the other. Pretending that those conditions didn't exist when stating that Couturier is part of the solution going forward. It can't be well I think it's a good re-signing from this view point but on other side it's not a good re-signing. There is no universe where the condition of who else was added doesn't exist.
There is also the possibility that complimentary players can be added in the future. It's an 8 year deal. Not a one year deal. So if he can be part of the solution moving forward yesterday than why isn't he part of it today? With the possibility that players that are complimentary are added in the future?

One post supported the re-signing. Another a day later didn't support the signing. The factors were the same on both days.

You're wrong. You can't separate factors in one view versus the other. Pretending that those conditions didn't exist when stating that Couturier is part of the solution going forward. It can't be well I think it's a good re-signing from this view point but on other side it's not a good re-signing. There is no universe where the condition of who else was added doesn't exist.
There is also the possibility that complimentary players can be added in the future. It's an 8 year deal. Not a one year deal. So if he can be part of the solution moving forward yesterday than why isn't he part of it today? With the possibility that players that are complimentary are added in the future?

One post supported the re-signing. Another a day later didn't support the signing. The factors were the same on both days.
- MJL

I dunno who is the bigger loser here but since I have worn one shoe and it fits i might as well put the other one on.

You are assuming his definiton of the solution to mean solution TODAY. But he did not say that. And since he didn't, you cannot rule out the possibility that his view of the solution could have been adding complementary players sometime during the 8 year term.

If it did, he could simultaneously believe that Couts is part of the solution meaning sometime AND express disappointment that the sometime is not now.

More to the point, when jumping on a guy, and making such jumping 99% of what you do for years on end, is it not fair to actually read things closely and give the poster some laxness in possible meanig, especially when you struggle desperately with logical steps?

I dunno who is the bigger loser here but since I have worn one shoe and it fits i might as well put the other one on.

You are assuming his definiton of the solution to mean solution TODAY. But he did not say that. And since he didn't, you cannot rule out the possibility that his view of the solution could have been adding complementary players sometime during the 8 year term.


- PT21

If that was true, then he wouldn't have posted that the re-signing didn't make sense. That simple.

If it did, he could simultaneously believe that Couts is part of the solution meaning sometime AND express disappointment that the sometime is not now.


- PT21

That would be a tunnel vision view hyper focused on the immediate now which wouldn't make sense with a player signed to an 8 year deal. As if he was discussing the deal as if it was a one year deal. Of course he wasn't doing that so that eliminates your premise. He made a huge contradiction which is a repeated pattern for said poster.

If that was true, then he wouldn't have posted that the re-signing didn't make sense. That simple.



That would be a tunnel vision view hyper focused on the immediate now which wouldn't make sense with a player signed to an 8 year deal. As if he was discussing the deal as if it was a one year deal. Of course he wasn't doing that so that eliminates your premise. He made a huge contradiction which is a repeated pattern for said poster.
- MJL

Could it be implicit that he means the resigning doesn't make sense as of now?

Could it be implicit that he means the resigning doesn't make sense as of now?
- PT21

So yesterday his view was that Couturier was part of the solution but today, the re-signing doesn't make sense as of now. Thanks for supporting my point.

So yesterday his view was that Couturier was part of the solution but today, the re-signing doesn't make sense as of now. Thanks for supporting my point.

- MJL

Yes. Not just yesterday. He could believe at the same point in time that Couts is part of the solution (as defined earlier) AND simultaneously believe that he is not part of the solution now.

Just like some can say that player X is a good player and also believe that player X is not a good player now.

Are you working on that original post?

Yes. Not just yesterday. He could believe at the same point in time that Couts is part of the solution (as defined earlier) AND simultaneously believe that he is not part of the solution now.





Just like some can say that player X is a good player and also believe that player X is not a good player now.

Are you working on that original post?
- PT21

So that person believed yesterday that a player is part of the solution but now a day later, which is now, is not part of the solution. Got it. That's a contradiction and so is the statement made by the idiot who made the player X statement

So that person believed yesterday that a player is part of the solution but now a day later, which is now, is not part of the solution. Got it. That's a contradiction and so is the statement made by the idiot who made the player X statement
- MJL

Correct. Because "solution" was defined to be a solution someday during life of contract, and for it to not be a soluton, it would have to be not be a solution for all of the 8 seasons from 22-23, while for it not to be a solution now, it just has to fail to be a solution in 22-23.

Since it is possible for it to be a solution in say 25-26 and not in 22-23, it would thus be possible for it to be a solution and not be a solution now.

As for getting it, do you ever?

Correct. Because "solution" was defined to be a solution someday during life of contract, and for it to not be a soluton, it would have to be not be a solution for all of the 8 seasons from 22-23, while for it not to be a solution now, it just has to fail to be a solution in 22-23.

Since it is possible for it to be a solution in say 25-26 and not in 22-23, it would thus be possible for it to be a solution and not be a solution now.

As for getting it, do you ever?
- PT21

Again, if that was true, the poster wouldn't be saying the very next day that the re-signing didn't make sense for that reason. He would know that the team could add in the future. He also didn't say that it didn't make sense for the short term or just for this season. He made another in a long line of contradictions and flip flops that are pretty much a daily occurence.