Quote:
Originally Posted by Monahammer
Y'know, it's funny. This is taking me back to summer, when a bunch of posters, myself included, were adamant in defending Tre, saying they had myriad plans of attack re: Gaudreau, that they weren't leaving it to last minute, that talks were consistent, that management had a good beat on what was happening... and all of that proved to be absolutely false. I was confronted with the utter falseness of it when I managed to see the presentation that was delivered to Johnny's agent for next contract. It was garbage, for the record. And it was clear that they hadn't spoken to johnny personally at all (johnny's agent took the presentation but johnny wasn't present). This was only a few weeks before he was to be signed.
Any posters claiming to believe that Tre/ team management have developed fulsome plans are likely lying. Nothing historically would indicate that they have any plan beyond get into the playoffs. They haven't said they have other plans. We ascribe and do much more thinking about the team on these forums than they apparently do.
|
I think you have a different idea than some others about what a plan is and how detailed and rigid it must be.
But your evidence of a non-plan is your opinion of the quality of a presentation? Or the timing and who was contacted (which was not a unilateral decision)? Let's say for the sake of argument it was a horrible presentation and was delivered badly. How does that translate into "no plan" (as opposed to "crappy execution of a plan").