Quote:
|
Originally Posted by That Guy
look, at the time that article was written it was 100% true. people keep using it as some form of proof of bias... the problem is that statement was absollutely correct at the time it was written (no restructures had been done and the cba looked like it might really be dead).
|
No, it wasn't true. If the CBA had not gone through, we would have been tough up against it but clearly Pasta's "there's no way they can get under the cap" statement was wrong. Yes - w/o restructures, we couldn't have done it. But - and here's where sloppy analysis and bias do come into play - rather than look at how the cap could be managed and discussed the possibility of restructuring, Pasta simply went with the "no way" argument. Was he unaware of the possibility of restructures? I doubt it.
Did he even attempt to see how it might be done? Again, I doubt it. Any actual research into ways to resolve the issue OTHER than simply cutting players? An interview with Skins staff? If the statement had been - w/o restructures, they can't get under the cap, and, even with them, they will likely have to cut some players they would rather not - that would have reflected a more accurate analysis. That, however, was not the conclusion drawn.
As for his latest conclusory statement, again - any mention of how the roster is being "blown up", how is he defining that term?
As I said, my problem with these jokers criticism of the Skins is that it is intellectually either sloppy or dishonest. I can forgive the local San Diego (or whereever) media for getting it wrong - they're simply relying the Peter King's and Pasta's to get it right.