Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
I was saying it’s not only that Friedman was speculating based on history. I was saying he said he heard, has a source.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elliotte Friedman
@33:27: "I heard the retention was the much bigger problem—the much bigger problem—and, like, I had people telling me it's fallen apart; it's over. But, I don't know that. I don't like to say that because I've learned in this business that just because something is true one day doesn't mean it's true the next day."
|
Friedman has a source who has said clearly that retention on any deal is a big issue. THAT'S ALL. He did not say that he is hearing that Calgary is balking at any retention, nor that the Flames won't retain on Markstrom. He qualifies what he has heard by saying that HIS BELIEF is that Calgary's reluctance to retain is the issue...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elliotte Friedman
@33:03: "I think the surest predictor of future events is past events, so teams know that the Flames are not crazy about this, right? So, I do believe that is a major hurdle and was probably the major hurdle, and I think the package was—I think they were closer on that. I'm not 100% sure, but I think they were closer on that."
|
Importantly, he has noted that this is his impression, NOT what has been reported—only that "retention was the much bigger problem." He is drawing an inference based on what the Flames have done in past deals, NOT on what he was told. For all we know, NJ's offer with retention is not close to what Calgary needs to make it work, and good for Conroy for ensuring that the Flames get the deal they need to move such an important player.
People form conclusions based on bits of information they hear reported in the media as if they are foregone conclusions, when they are mere speculations. It could very well be that the Flames are determined to make a deal without retaining any salary, but WE DO NOT KNOW THAT. What has been reported on this deal DOES NOT demonstrate that.
That is all.