Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Red's question was "what magic beans is Peters selling?"
Your response was "Treliving knows more than you."
Rather than offer arguments in favour of Peters, you just tried to shut Red down by telling him he doesn't know as much as Treliving, so be quiet.
What he - and others - are looking for are arguments in favour of this potential hire. And at least a few people have tried to provide some of that. In the post that I replied to, you did not.
|
That’s not an appeal to authority, that’s an indisputable basic fact. Read the post again before you comment. To say that Treliving knows more, or, as I said, that what appears to be “magic beans” is not actually “magic beans” to people with inside knowledge of professional hockey like Treliving, is not an appeal to authority. Would it be if I said his decision is right because he’s the GM? Yes, but I didn’t say that.
If you want to argue that there’s nothing relevant that Treliving knows that you don’t, then you’re just being obtuse about it. Obviously he knows more than you. That doesn’t mean he’ll make the right decision, it just means he’s better equipped to make a decision.
I didn’t tell Red to be quiet, and if you think anytime someone points out that a professional employed at the top level of an industry has access to more information than you is trying to tell you to “be quiet,” then I don’t know how to help you. These are facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
I didn't actually. And you really only reinforced my point. You don't rush into that thread with these arguments because you like bashing Chiarelli. But more to the point, you think he's a bad GM. And you're right to think that. Even though you lack all of the data lies behind the decisions he makes.
I disagree. Results on the ice are the only outcome that matters. Anything that isn't affecting that is not relevant..
|
Data point, he’s the GM of the Oilers. The only one most people need.
Again, you’re missing the point. Results on the ice ARE the only outcome that matters, but by suggesting only what has been seen at the fan level, in a four-season sample size on a mis-managed team, is all that is relevant? Or that nothing outside what we have seen in the what, maybe 5-10 Carolina games any of us actually watched over the past four years affects the outcome?
That’s just hilarious. lol