Jump to content

GDT - Devils @ Sabres 11/25/22 8:00pm MSGSN


NJDfan1711
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Fitz saying Bratt drafted in the 6th round pick saying its like found money... doesn't mean anything when it comes to his contract or wtv. It simply means that you get value/assets that you were not planning on getting.

So you're saying (if i may resume what im understanding) that your claim that Fitz didnt want to give Bratt fair money because he was a 6th round pick is based on him saying that Bratt was like found money... and that your opinion is that people don't care to piss away found money... so that means that Fitz didn't care to piss away Bratt and not give him the money he wanted.... is this correct?

Do you want me to say I'm making sh!t up? Is it fair to say that him being a late round pick has something to say for his contract status? I (me) believe that Fitz has handled this situation this way because of where he was drafted. He (Fitz) is fvcked now with regard to the negotiation. He's going to have pay way more now. That's my point. And, I believe it has something to do with where was drafted. Because, the Devils have locked both of their other corner stones. I do not believe that Bratt should be making more than the other 2. However, I do believe he will now. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, capo said:

Do you want me to say I'm making sh!t up? Is it fair to say that him being a late round pick has something to say for his contract status? I (me) believe that Fitz has handled this situation this way because of where he was drafted. He (Fitz) is fvcked now with regard to the negotiation. He's going to have pay way more now. That's my point. And, I believe it has something to do with where was drafted. Because, the Devils have locked both of their other corner stones. I do not believe that Bratt should be making more than the other 2. However, I do believe he will now. 

 

No, i just asked you from the very beginning where you took that claim from. It was pretty basic.

So Fitz offered long-term contracts that are technically lower than full potential to Nico and Jack. They both took it. Bratt didn't. 

He tried to offer a long-term deal to save money long-term. The only reason he's going to pay more is because Bratt didn't take the deal and wanted to maximize his contract by taking a shorter deal. Something both Nico and Jack didn't do. We all know they made the decision to take a "deal" on their end based on their potential for the best of the team. Bratt didn't. Do you see how that's where the difference is and not about him being drafted in the 6th round pick in my opinion. I personally don't think for a second him being a 6th round pick has anything to do with anything contract related. 

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

But if anything i certainly answered your question about why i thought his agent had something to do with it with actual answers. There was a pattern.

You haven’t answered my question, which is how your examples indicate to you that the agent is influencing the players rather than simply being an a$$hole at negotiating and working as hard as he can to get every penny. 

I understand why you haven’t answered, because it’s impossible for you to make that distinction because you (and I, and everyone else) have no clue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

You haven’t answered my question, which is how your examples indicate to you that the agent is influencing the players rather than simply being an a$$hole at negotiating and working as hard as he can to get every penny. 

I understand why you haven’t answered, because it’s impossible for you to make that distinction because you (and I, and everyone else) have no clue. 

I explained my rational as to why i personally believe that the agent is responsible for the process being more of a pain in the ass than it has to be every time. I answered that 100%. You may not accept or agree with my answer but i gave you my answer.

 

I asked capo why he made that claim. Asked if he knew something that we didn't or heard reports. I'd be happy with his answer being equivalent to mine to you. I just wanted to hear the rational

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

No, i just asked you from the very beginning where you took that claim from. It was pretty basic.

So Fitz offered long-term contracts that are technically lower than full potential to Nico and Jack. They both took it. Bratt didn't. 

He tried to offer a long-term deal to save money long-term. The only reason he's going to pay more is because Bratt didn't take the deal and wanted to maximize his contract by taking a shorter deal. Something both Nico and Jack didn't do. We all know they made the decision to take a "deal" on their end based on their potential for the best of the team. Bratt didn't. Do you see how that's where the difference is and not about him being drafted in the 6th round pick in my opinion. I personally don't think for a second him being a 6th round pick has anything to do with anything contract related. 

I believe it does because he didn't get offered comparable deal. They settled on 5.45 for one year. Long term deals are always for less AAV than short term. So, what did he turn down? 8/40? If it wasn't draft position what was it? Production?  Bratt is the last guy they have to pay for a few years. Graves IMO, gets a modest raise. Severson's days are likely numbered. Bratt's the guy. It should have got done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

I explained my rational as to why i personally believe that the agent is responsible for the process being more of a pain in the ass than it has to be every time. I answered that 100%. You may not accept or agree with my answer but i gave you my answer.

But that’s not my question lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, capo said:

I believe it does because he didn't get offered comparable deal. They settled on 5.45 for one year. Long term deals are always for less AAV than short term. So, what did he turn down? 8/40? If it wasn't draft position what was it? Production?  Bratt is the last guy they have to pay for a few years. Graves IMO, gets a modest raise. Severson's days are likely numbered. Bratt's the guy. It should have got done.

Why are you just comparing just these 3 players though? And then make an assumption that it's because one is a 6th round pick? There's such a huge gap.

Look at Zacha. He was a top pick, yet he sure wasn't offered a long-term deal and pretty low. Sharangovich had a 46 pts in 76 games in his last ELC and he was offered 2m. Bratt's contract situation is a lot closer to those guys than to Nick and Jack.

There's a pattern with Fitz where we got amazing value from his top contributors and most of his signings appears to be real good deals/value.

Jack is a deal. Nico is a deal. Siegenthaler is a deal. Vanecek is a deal. Hamilton signed for slightly less than we all imagined he'd get on free agency, most people thought 9.5 at least. Sharangovich is good value too

Then he got players on real good deals with Marino and Graves.

The only player we considered he overpaid was Palat but that was UFA.

And some of them straight up said that they took a smaller deal cause they bought into what the team was doing.

3 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

But that’s not my question lol. 

Well what's the question?

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Well what's the question?

The question is, what about the evidence you provided makes you conclude that the agent is manipulating the players, rather than just the agent being a hardass in negotiations and the players just laying back and letting him do things to get the best deal possible, like an agent is supposed to do? 

The evidence you provided was a bunch of statements about his clients signing deals and avoiding arbitration. So literally the deals got done, just after intense negotiations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

The question is, what about the evidence you provided makes you conclude that the agent is manipulating the players, rather than just the agent being a hardass in negotiations and the players just laying back and letting him do things to get the best deal possible, like an agent is supposed to do? 

The evidence you provided was a bunch of statements about his clients signing deals and avoiding arbitration. So literally the deals got done, just after intense negotiations. 

You explained yourself your process in negociation. You said that you play that game to convince the people involved that the value is higher than it really is, ask for way more and after a tough process, the deal lands higher than it should have been.

Well in that case that means YOU are telling your client that he's worth more than he is. So that's "manipulating" expectations and putting expectations that are not necessarely realistic in the clients mind. You literally admitted tricking people into thinking the value is higher. So if an agent tells a player, you're worth X. The player is going to go with that. But all along the X was not the actual fair value of the player. And that's what YOU told the player, so he's also not going to settle for less than that. And quite possibly why it's getting so harsh and why the player is okay with missing games or risking arbitration cause he's believing that his GM is giving him lower value than what he's been told by YOU that his value should be. But your number was inflated as part of a tactic 

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

You explained yourself your process in negociation. You said that you play that game to convince the people involved that the value is higher than it really is, ask for way more and after a tough process, the deal lands higher than it should have been.

Well in that case that means YOU are telling your client that he's worth more than he is. So that's "manipulating" expectations and putting expectations that are not necessarely realistic in the clients mind. You literally admitted tricking people into thinking the value is higher. So if an agent tells a player, you're worth X. The player is going to go with that. But all along the X was not the actual fair value of the player. And that's what YOU told the player, so he's also not going to settle for less than that. And quite possibly why it's getting so harsh and why the player is okay with missing games or risking arbitration cause he's believing that his GM is giving him lower value than what he's been told by YOU that his value should be. But your number was inflated as part of a tactic 

You missed the fact that I said I do that with the insurance company, not my client. 99.999% of my clients just let me do my thing, which is exactly what Bratt and the others could be doing. I would NEVER tell a client a case is worth more than it is, that’s the stupidest negotiation tactic ever, as then you look like you failed to get what the deal is worth. 

The other clients that don’t tell me that want more than they will ever get and I have to try to temper their expectations, usually by saying “there is no possibility you will ever get that, it’s worth $xxx”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mfitz804 said:

You missed the fact that I said I do that with the insurance company, not my client. 99.999% of my clients just let me do my thing, which is exactly what Bratt and the others could be doing. I would NEVER tell a client a case is worth more than it is, that’s the stupidest negotiation tactic ever, as then you look like you failed to get what the deal is worth. 

The other clients that don’t tell me that want more than they will ever get and I have to try to temper their expectations, usually by saying “there is no possibility you will ever get that, it’s worth $xxx”. 

Dude we both don't know exactly what's going on behind close doors. But we saw a pattern where the same agent has been doing things the same way with all his clients. Remember how we saw Murray knocking the goal many times and then we assumed he was doing it on purpose. Kind of the same thing, you see a pattern from the same person and then you make an assumption based on that.

The fact that this specific agent is a pain in the ass in every single situations he was put in. And that you yourself suggested that Bratt is letting him do his thing. Means that the agent is likely more responsible for being a pain in the ass than Bratt. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SterioDesign said:

Dude we both don't know exactly what's going on behind close doors. But we saw a pattern where the same agent has been doing things the same way with all his clients. Remember how we saw Murray knocking the goal many times and then we assumed he was doing it on purpose. Kind of the same thing, you see a pattern from the same person and then you make an assumption based on that.

That’s my whole point, we don’t know, and your examples don’t show it. 

But the difference is, you know what Murray did, you watched it. You have no idea if the agent is telling Bratt he is worth more than he is worth, and the evidence we have and the examples you gave don’t reveal that whatsoever. It’s equally possible that Bratt said “just go get me the best deal”, and indeed it would be so stupid for an agent to convince a player he was worth $11m and then hand him a $9m deal. That would be awful negotiation. Please tell me you at least understand that, you don’t inflate a client’s expectations and then deliver less. If anything, if you have the ultimate power of persuasion, you convince him he is worth $8m and then when you hand him a $9m deal, the client is ecstatic. 

I don’t know whether it’s the agent influencing Bratt, or Bratt telling the agent to do whatever he has to. I’m not claiming it’s one over the other, I’m saying both are possible and YOU don’t know or have any evidence to support one over the other. But I think my scenario is far more likely unless this guy has never negotiated anything in his entire life and has no idea how to make himself look good in negotiations. And trust me, he wants to look good. That is just as important to him, because it means future business. 

4 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Means that the agent is likely more responsible for being a pain in the ass than Bratt. 

For sure, that could be true. But it doesn’t follow that Bratt or any of his other clients have been misled or told they were worth more than they are. That was my entire point. It could very well be that Bratt is sitting back and just letting his agent do the dirty work, as he should. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

That’s my whole point, we don’t know, and your examples don’t show it. 

But the difference is, you know what Murray did, you watched it. You have no idea if the agent is telling Bratt he is worth more than he is worth, and the evidence we have and the examples you gave don’t reveal that whatsoever. It’s equally possible that Bratt said “just go get me the best deal”, and indeed it would be so stupid for an agent to convince a player he was worth $11m and then hand him a $9m deal. That would be awful negotiation. Please tell me you at least understand that, you don’t inflate a client’s expectations and then deliver less. If anything, if you have the ultimate power of persuasion, you convince him he is worth $8m and then when you hand him a $9m deal, the client is ecstatic. 

I don’t know whether it’s the agent influencing Bratt, or Bratt telling the agent to do whatever he has to. I’m not claiming it’s one over the other, I’m saying both are possible and YOU don’t know or have any evidence to support one over the other. But I think my scenario is far more likely unless this guy has never negotiated anything in his entire life and has no idea how to make himself look good in negotiations. And trust me, he wants to look good. That is just as important to him, because it means future business. 

For sure, that could be true. But it doesn’t follow that Bratt or any of his other clients have been misled or told they were worth more than they are. That was my entire point. It could very well be that Bratt is sitting back and just letting his agent do the dirty work, as he should. 

I didn't know what Murray did. I wouldn't make that call or assumption based on one clip. But once we saw the pattern then it became clear.

In this scenario we have Fitz, we have his pattern to look at to which it's usually pretty smooth and het gets really fair deals done early.

We have Bratt. And we have his agent who also have patterns. Bratt and his agent are basically linked together cause we don't know what's been said between the 2.

But then we have the agent's other clients. Who also went through hell. And we don't know what they said or wanted. But all these players get their "perceived value" from the agent's recommendation i'm sure. Especially if the clients are letting the agent do his thing, as you suggested.

So who's the 1 common link when it comes to complicated negotiations? It's that specific agent. Who also has a reputation around the league for been a pain to deal with. And the reason contract can't reached an agreement is when the demands aren't met. And Fitz has been good to meet that in the past, thats his pattern, the agent on the other end is always a pain. I'm not saying that's the ultimate truth. But that's what im going to believe based on all the information i have cause it's making sense with everything that's reported or rumoured. I dont know why you absolutely want me to believe the opposite or not believe that. Unless i'd hear that Bratt himself is hard to deal with and that coincidendally all the agents clients are too, that's what im personally going to believe.

 

 

 

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I’m sorry my man, but you have little to no understanding on how negotiations are done in any context. I’m going to just leave it at that, because you’re simply not understanding my point. 

Dude don't play that card. I'm literally running a business and have to negotiate contracts based on cost and value almost every day, it's literally what pays my bills. So don't be insulting that i don't understand how it works just cause we don't agree on something with you.

If you can't make a better argument than what i brought up, just dont answer. Don't rely on insults to win an argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Dude don't play that card. I'm literally running a business and have to negotiate contracts based on cost and value almost every day, it's literally what pays my bills. So don't be insulting that i don't understand how it works just cause we don't agree on something with you.

If you can't make a better argument than what i brought up, just dont answer. Don't rely on insults to win an argument.

I’m not insulting you, I apologize if you feel that was my intent. Negotiating you own price and third-party negotiation are two completely different things. I should have specified third-party negotiations like the one we are talking about. I am sure you don’t have much experience with third-party negotiation and the things you are saying kind of follow that. 

In your situation, when you negotiate your price for yourself, I have to assume you start with a high price, and you leave yourself room to come down, correct? That’s how it’s done, so let’s assume yes. You start high, they start low, meet in the middle. We can agree that’s basically the way negotiations work, yes? The reason that works is because you, the party who ultimately gets the money, know your services are actually “worth” less than your quote, or at least, you are willing to do them for less. 

If someone was negotiating for you, and a job is worth $5,000 (just using a figure, no idea if your services you provide are worth $5,000 or $50,000, but the logic is the same either way, just add a zero), but they tell you “I’m going to get you $8,000 because your work is worth $8,000”, and now you believe them, and then they come back to you and say “good news, I got you $5,000”, what would you think of the job they did for you? 

This is why in a third party situation, you would NEVER inflate the value of the deal to your own client. It’s a very basic principle of third-party negotiation. If your client has no idea what the value is (your situation, you probably do, but let’s assume you don’t for argument’s sake), and you have the ability to influence their idea of their worth, you would use your powers to convince them it’s worth $4,000, go to the other party and ask for $8,000, and then be a hero when you bring back a deal for $5,000, more than your client thinks it is worth. 

Based on the above logic, there is NO WAY an agent would EVER want their client to believe their worth is more than it is; if Bratt thinks he is worth $11m because his agent convinced him of that, and the best deal he brings back is $9m, that agent would probably get fired for not getting a deal equal to his “value”, or at the very least, would have a very disappointed client. 

Edited by mfitz804
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I’m not insulting you, I apologize if you feel that was my intent. Negotiating you own price and third-party negotiation are two completely different things. I should have specified third-party negotiations like the one we are talking about. I am sure you don’t have much experience with third-party negotiation and the things you are saying kind of follow that. 

In your situation, when you negotiate your price for yourself, I have to assume you start with a high price, and you leave yourself room to come down, correct? That’s how it’s done, so let’s assume yes. You start high, they start low, meet in the middle. We can agree that’s basically the way negotiations work, yes? The reason that works is because you, the party who ultimately gets the money, know your services are actually “worth” less than your quote, or at least, you are willing to do them for less. 

If someone was negotiating for you, and a job is worth $5,000 (just using a figure, no idea if your services you provide are worth $5,000 or $50,000, but the logic is the same either way, just add a zero), but they tell you “I’m going to get you $8,000 because your work is worth $8,000”, and now you believe them, and then they come back to you and say “good news, I got you $5,000”, what would you think of the job they did for you? 

This is why in a third party situation, you would NEVER inflate the value of the deal to your own client. It’s a very basic principle of third-party negotiation. If your client has no idea what the value is (your situation, you probably do, but let’s assume you don’t for argument’s sake), and you have the ability to influence their idea of their worth, you would use your powers to convince them it’s worth $4,000, go to the other party and ask for $8,000, and then be a hero when you bring back a deal for $5,000, more than your client thinks it is worth. 

Based on the above logic, there is NO WAY an agent would EVER want their client to believe their worth is more than it is; if Bratt thinks he is worth $11m because his agent convinced him of that, and the best deal he brings back is $9m, that agent would probably get fired for not getting a deal equal to his “value”, or at the very least, would have a very disappointed client. 

Well first you're bringing this whole conversation in a direction that's completely irrelevant to my original point. This whole "negotiation" argument is actually useless.

My original claim what that i didn't like that agent because it's always a pain in the ass when he's involved and that he's leading his clients into holding out or filing for arbitration.

You came back saying that i didn't know that and that it was all in my head. That Bratt had to be fully on board or wtv. Well duh. But he's on board following his agent's advices. At the end of the day, it's the agent knowing the business, advising Bratt on what to do and driving the negotiation. So all that pain in the ass is then created by the agent. That's my rational.

It's a LOT more likely that an agent with a reputation for being a pain... is the one leading ALL his negotiations into a nightmare cause he's just driven by getting every single possible penny. Than ALL his clients making him do that against his will or wtv.

Then of course it could be anecdotal of course. But when i know for a fact that this agent has a reputation around the league for being a pain in the ass to work with. And all his clients that went for a non-ELC contracts was a pain in the ass or held out. On every single occasions. And he has a handful of clients. So while i agreed that it's not the ultimate truth, ALL OF THAT is making me decide to accept that notion as my opinion. Cause it's all aligning to that conclusion and it's making sense.

I honestly don't actually know why you're digging your heels in like this. And why you think getting into semantics of how negotiations works is relevant to anything. He's known to be a hard negotiator and a pain in the ass. You yourself said that he's just a hard negotiator. So why are you fighting against this? Or saying "well that's what a good agent would do". Well that's not what Jack, Nico and a bunch of other players did didnt they? And we all know they could of

And i don't like that agent because AGAIN, ALL his negotiations are like this. All his clients are Swedish and theres still that pattern. It's NOT like Bratt went and targetted the agent in the league thats the biggest motherfvcker and gets every single penny he can. He took a local agent who's a pain in the ass with all his clients and was a pain in every negotiations with bratt. 

Where you appear to misunderstand is like you believe that im saying that the agent is manipulating the clients in an evil way or wtv. I told you that's not what i meant already and you framed it like that and i told you its not what i meant. So i dont know what you wanna hear honestly.

 

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Well first you're bringing this whole conversation in a direction that's completely irrelevant to my original point. This whole "negotiation" argument is actually useless.

My original claim what that i didn't like that agent because it's always a pain in the ass when he's involved and that he's leading his clients into holding out or filing for arbitration.

You came back saying that i didn't know that and that it was all in my head. That Bratt had to be fully on board or wtv. Well duh. But he's on board following his agent's advices. At the end of the day, it's the agent knowing the business, advising Bratt on what to do and driving the negotiation. So all that pain in the ass is then created by the agent. That's my rational.

It's a LOT more likely that an agent with a reputation for being a pain... is the one leading ALL his negotiations into a nightmare cause he's just driven by getting every single possible penny. Than ALL his clients making him do that against his will or wtv.

Then of course it could be anecdotal of course. But when i know for a fact that this agent has a reputation around the league for being a pain in the ass to work with. And all his clients that went for a non-ELC contracts was a pain in the ass or held out. On every single occasions. And he has a handful of clients. So while i agreed that it's not the ultimate truth, ALL OF THAT is making me decide to accept that notion as my opinion. Cause it's all aligning to that conclusion and it's making sense.

I honestly don't actually know why you're digging your heels in like this. And why you think getting into semantics of how negotiations works is relevant to anything. He's known to be a hard negotiator and a pain in the ass. You yourself said that he's just a hard negotiator. So why are you fighting against this? Or saying "well that's what a good agent would do". Well that's not what Jack, Nico and a bunch of other players did didnt they? And we all know they could of

And i don't like that agent because AGAIN, ALL his negotiations are like this. All his clients are Swedish and theres still that pattern. It's NOT like Bratt went and targetted the agent in the league thats the biggest motherfvcker and gets every single penny he can. He took a local agent who's a pain in the ass with all his clients and was a pain in every negotiations with bratt. 

Where you appear to misunderstand is like you believe that im saying that the agent is manipulating the clients in an evil way or wtv. I told you that's not what i meant already and you framed it like that and i told you its not what i meant. So i dont know what you wanna hear honestly.

 

You have stated multiple times that he is influencing his clients by telling them they are worth more than they actually worth. None of your examples show that and it’s ludicrous to believe that anyone would negotiate that way. My point is, and has been, that we don’t know that he ever did that, the evidence that you say you relied on in forming that opinion doesn’t show that, and in my opinion, it’s far more likely that he didn’t and that his clients just kick back and let him do his thing, knowing he’ll get them the best deal because he is a tough negotiator. 

This concept that he is the problem and not Bratt is not supported by anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

You have stated multiple times that he is influencing his clients by telling them they are worth more than they actually worth. None of your examples show that and it’s ludicrous to believe that anyone would negotiate that way. My point is, and has been, that we don’t know that he ever did that, the evidence that you say you relied on in forming that opinion doesn’t show that, and in my opinion, it’s far more likely that he didn’t and that his clients just kick back and let him do his thing, knowing he’ll get them the best deal because he is a tough negotiator. 

This concept that he is the problem and not Bratt is not supported by anything. 

No actually that's something that came up way later as either a guess as to why it's always going to arbitration or holding out. Or when i was commenting specifically on YOUR approach when you admitted inflating the value, i brought that up again in context to your way of doing it and how it could explain how he,s doing it. And then you took that as if that was my main claim. you're pulling this whole thing in all directions. Never claimed that he was. I even said that i didn't know but based on patterns that he was a problem / common factor.

My original claim is that hes the common factor making ALL his negotiations a pain in the ass. I wont claim to know why exactly and i said that i didn'T know. But it's a fact that he is and i've brought up the patterns and the facts that it's always a pain with him, multiple times. And i brought up how all his clients are from the same country, so it's not like they got him cause he's like the top top agent in the NHL guaranteeing to get every penny or wtv. His pattern are undeniable. You keep ignoring that.

So you gotta stop claiming that this is not supported by anything. It's supported by the pattern that is almost 100% of the time. Not 20%, not 50%. 

His negotiations across the board has always been a pain in the ass. That's simply a fact and that was my claim. 

And you saying " it’s far more likely that he didn’t and that his clients just kick back and let him do his thing, knowing he’ll get them the best deal because he is a tough negotiator. " Is exactly what im fvcking saying. "HIS WAY OF BEING A TOUGH NEGOTIATOR IS BEING A PAIN IN THE ASS DRIVING PLAYERS UP TO HOLDING OUT AND ARBITRATION. EVERY SINGLE TIME. HE'S CONTROLLING THAT. And that's why i dont like him. What is it that you don't understand?

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SterioDesign said:

No actually that's something that came up way later as either a guess as to why it's always going to arbitration or holding out. Or when i was commenting specifically on YOUR approach when you admitted inflating the value, i brought that up again in context to your way of doing it and how it could explain how he,s doing it. And then you took that as if that was my main claim. you're pulling this whole thing in all directions. Never claimed that he was. I even said that i didn't know but based on patterns that he was a problem / common factor.

My original claim is that hes the common factor making ALL his negotiations a pain in the ass. I wont claim to know why exactly and i said that i didn'T know. But it's a fact that he is and i've brought up the patterns and the facts that it's always a pain with him, multiple times. And i brought up how all his clients are from the same country, so it's not like they got him cause he's like the top top agent in the NHL guaranteeing to get every penny or wtv. His pattern are undeniable. You keep ignoring that.

So you gotta stop claiming that this is not supported by anything. It's supported by the pattern that is almost 100% of the time. Not 20%, not 50%. 

His negotiations across the board has always been a pain in the ass. That's simply a fact and that was my claim. 

And you saying " it’s far more likely that he didn’t and that his clients just kick back and let him do his thing, knowing he’ll get them the best deal because he is a tough negotiator. " Is exactly what im fvcking saying. "HIS WAY OF BEING A TOUGH NEGOTIATOR IS BEING A PAIN IN THE ASS DRIVING PLAYERS UP TO HOLDING OUT AND ARBITRATION. EVERY SINGLE TIME. HE'S CONTROLLING THAT. And that's why i dont like him. What is it that you don't understand?

I don’t understand how you have argued multiple times that the agent is telling his clients they are worth more than they actually are. And I never will. 

I still love you as much as I can love another man lol. 

1 hour ago, MB3 said:

who would win in a fight, one bratt-sized Scott Stevens or 10 Scott-Stevens sized Bratt’s? 

Answer is clear: ur mom. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I don’t understand how you have argued multiple times that the agent is telling his clients they are worth more than they actually are. And I never will. 

I still love you as much as I can love another man lol. 

Answer is clear: ur mom. 

Again, my only claim was that i didn't like that agent cause he was a pain in the ass and would always get his clients to arbitration or holding out. Every single time.

You said i made that up in my mind and that there was no way to know if it was him or the client being okay with that or wtv. I said that it's true that i couldnt know that but that because of the pattern that i saw across all his clients and negotiations. That to me it was clear that he was behind it and made his clients trust his process.

It's then that through you claiming that i was suggesting he was... manipulating them. Which i corrected you right away that its not what i meant. And you just made me try to explain my stance or defend it many times and that's when i brought up my guesses as to why it was always like this. Then you kept claiming that i had no reason to believe that and you kept ignoring the pattern i was pointing out. which is a legit fact. And then you got it into the argument side of things. you appear to just drill on my "shacky" guesses that are nothing but guesses as if they are my main claim. It's irrelevant

I love you too but i don't even understand your angle here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Again, my only claim was that i didn't like that agent cause he was a pain in the ass and would always get his clients to arbitration or holding out. Every single time.

You said i made that up in my mind and that there was no way to know if it was him or the client being okay with that or wtv. I said that it's true that i couldnt know that but that because of the pattern that i saw across all his clients and negotiations. That to me it was clear that he was behind it and made his clients trust his process.

It's then that through you claiming that i was suggesting he was... manipulating them. Which i corrected you right away that its not what i meant. And you just made me try to explain my stance or defend it many times and that's when i brought up my guesses as to why it was always like this. Then you kept claiming that i had no reason to believe that and you kept ignoring the pattern i was pointing out. which is a legit fact. And then you got it into the argument side of things. you appear to just drill on my "shacky" guesses that are nothing but guesses as if they are my main claim. It's irrelevant

I love you too but i don't even understand your angle here.

 

I don’t have an angle. I disagreed with one point you made multiple times. We agree on the other point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.