Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
First clause of that sentence, you missed the 2nd act. He let that coach and GM fail under his watch, and then assumed many of that positions responsibilities to fail further.
|
You already described the "2nd act" in comparing the views to King and Lowe as team presidents. I was pointing out that you ignored the first act.
Quote:
|
Second clause about his the local sporting empire, that's just meaningless marketing speak. Sure he shored up the business good for him, that's his job. He looked great compared to Bremner, so what, Bremner was awful.
|
Ad hominem fallacy, re: comparison to Bremner. And I was not aware that purchasing the Roughnecks and Stampeders, and building the Hitmen into the top drawing team in the WHL (by a large margin) was "meaningless marketing speak."
Quote:
|
What turned the team into a perpetual money maker was the CBA, the Canadian dollar and 2003-04 run which you can ascribe to him in a way, or you can ascribe it to the Al Coates for trading for Iginla or Darryl Sutter for catching lightining in a bottle with Kiprusoff. The team then perpetually got worse, 1 division title, three playoff appearances, zero series wins, 4 seasons out of the playoffs. All under King's watch. If you want to credit the good, you have to credit the bad.
|
Right back atcha. If you wan to ignore or deflect the team's successes under King, you don't get to lay the faults at his feet either. And that, my friend, undermines your entire position.
Quote:
Which is why we're here with King rumoured to be on the way out.
You can have your opinion that King is great, sure good for you. You certainly can't belittle mine based on the evidence that he's not great and deserves to be shown the door.
|
You asked why people were viewing King and Lowe differently. I replied within that context. The fact that you have subsequently chosen to strip that context and cherry pick aspects of my reply to try and create a new narrative that was not offered is a reason to belittle your argument.