That is correct. He never provided any direct testimony on whether Pettersson was injured. So there is no conflict in evidence, or choice between direct testimony and rumours.
You mean to tell me that Pettersson confirming in May of 2024 that he was injured in the 2023-24 season should be taken as Pettersson confirming in February of 2025 that he is currently injured unless we prove otherwise? This is shockingly stupid logic and I almost don't know how to respond to it. And this is ignoring the fact that Pettersson directly spoke about his knee in September of 2025 where he said the knee was fine.
Its such a stupid premise on many levels but absolutely ignores the fact that injuries typically, and are expected to, heal overtime. If someone states they are injured at a given time, it would be beyond stupid to assume they remained injured for like 10 months after that time based on this initial statement. No one would ever think this.
It is incredible to me, the mental gymnastics you will go through, in order to somehow paint a picture where, as of today, we have both rumours that Pettersson is not injured, and direct testimony to the contrary. And that just doesn't exists and it is 100% irrelevant that Pettersson confirmed he was injured in the 2023-24 ten months ago.
And again, he may in fact be injured, and this wouldn't be terribly surprising to me.
I don't recall him citing it as a decline in his performance. I recall him disclosing the injury without any commentary on whether it caused his poor performance.
What base state are you talking about? My position last season, which I restated probably a dozen of times because posters continued to strawman me, was that on a balance of probabilities I didn't think an injury was the predominant cause of Pettersson's poor play. I have no idea what "reset" you are referring to, and frankly, I don't even know what your point is here. Again, the idea that Pettersson's statement from May of 2024 on his health in the 2023-24 season "carries over" all the way to February of 2025 (despite Pettersson's further comments on the subject in September 2024) is shockingly stupid logic.
And clearly he was right and I was wrong on that one! Or so it would at least appear.
But the reason I doubted the rumour wasn't because I dismiss all rumours as being not credible, or that I dismiss Dhaliwall as never being credible, it was the context of this rumour. And this was clear if you read the following part of my post which you seem to have conveniently not quoted:
"No one should take these rumours seriously. It’s almost as bad as reading too much into who they are taking out to dinner.
This management team has a reputation for not leaking information, and who a team wants to draft is extremely confidential given that it had real work implications in terms of pick trades. And plus, Dhaliwal’s sources are agents who at best are just speculating here.".
But obviously Dhaliwal has good relationships with agents including Brisson, so the same logic of doubting the credibility of a rumour from Dhaliwal on a draft pick selection doesn't exist here.
And listen, I don't even feel strongly either way as to whether Dhaliwal is correct that Pettersson is not injured. Again, I wouldn't be overly surprised if he was injured. What was surprising to me is that Dhaliwal was so emphatic about it. And I mentioned you as you typically weigh heavily Dhaliwal rumours.
I think its pretty clear that management knew there was an injury last year with Pettersson. Tochett acknowledged this in the end of year press conferences. Like, there is no world where somehow only Pettersson knew, and not the coaching staff or management. The most obvious explanation to the "disconnect" is that management/coaching don't disclose players injuries, they let the players decide whether to disclose these injuries. Some players do, some players don't. That's how you end up with management or coaching not disclose and injury, and then a player disclosing it. I don't think there is much to read into it beyond that.
I do agree that the parties' very well may disagree as to the severity of the injury, or how much it should or shouldn't affect Pettersson's play or his off season training.
Again, and I have stated this multiple times, it does appear that there is a disagreement between management and Pettersson in terms of how Pettersson handled his off season training.
Here is Patrick Johnston's quote on it who interviewed Rutherford:
“Rutherford said he didn’t know if the possibility of a trade ignited Pettersson’s willingness to sign a new deal.”
How is this an implication? Seems clear that JR wasn't willing to speculate one way or another. So there wasn't any contrary primary testimony in this evidentiary debate,
How can you still not understand my argument? Its not difficult, and you are going to extraordinarily illogical lengths to try to catch me in a contradiction that doesn't exist.
I generally prefer direct testimony to rumours. This is a logical decision. When the decision was between Brisson (direct testimony) and Friedman, Servelli and Dhaliwal (rumours), I preferred the former.
In the case of Dhaliwal's rumour that Pettersson is not injured there has not been any contrary direct testimony notwithstanding your wild mental gymnastics. So thhe above preference doesn't apply. There is no contradiction.
