I argued the idea was ludicrous for a myriad of reasons, one of which was the shot totals. You argued definitively that GMs don't look at shot totals. Shot totals tend to correlate with goal totals, btw.
It's a messageboard, my apologies if I was not as precise as one would hope. Neither you, nor I, have any idea how these negotiations go, or what stats a GM or agent finds or pretends to find persuasive, or the extent to which they do. If you want to get hung up on syntax, more power to you. So whether shot totals objectively correlate with goals scored is besides the point, and I didn't really dispute the concept anyway.
The only other reason you said the idea was ludicrous was that Landeskog was younger, by a whopping 2 and half years. Otherwise you just said he was "better", which of course begs the question, at least if what we're speculating about are contract demands. I don't disagree with that by the way, but again, it's besides the point.
While I don't recall what your thoughts were at the time, Lou gave Clarkson a deal that many of us thought was ludicrous, and at a time when there was a serious cap crunch. I don't think it's that unreasonable to speculate that Henrique's camp might be overplaying its hand.
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?