Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
Can we not judge the things that have been said and what we know? I agree we can't jump to conclusions about what offers have transpired, but it's rather obtuse and Pollyanna to claim there's nothing wrong here.
Most situations like this end with the player signing and everyone happy. That doesn't mean they don't sometimes and there's no legitimate concern either.
Burke "negotiating in public" merits comments on it's face value as they don't seem to have any potential benefits and if nothing else could be inflammatory. Seems like a stupid tactic to me
|
Not in any meaningful way you can't. Precisely because you do not know what you do not know.
I mean it can be a fun way to waste time but it is still mostly a waste of time.
A court of appeal judge told me one time that a lawyer who she was friendly with appeared before her on a case. The lawyer argued rather anxiously because the normally engaging judge never asked her a single question about her argument.
The lawyer left dejected and very worried because she could tell that the judge was obviously put off by the argument and she couldn't figure out why. It bothered her for weeks until the judgment came out and the judge ruled in her favour.
When the lawyer saw her friend the judge at a conference later she asked, "how could you do that to me? you never asked a question...you hardly looked up from your paper? you always ask questions and engage in good arguments...I know you so well!"
The judge's response? "I had laryngitis. Your argument was compelling."
Sometimes when opposing sides are most certain that a deal will be reached it has the effect of prolonging the negotiations and ultimate conclusion. If you are genuinely afraid to lose the deal, you act quicker. I am not saying that is or is not happening, just that if any of the information we 'know' is accurate, it is probably the 2% least important information from which to make an informed judgment about what is really going on.