There’s nothing quasi at all.
A. Players who are capable of the kind of bounce back season Kakko is having generally have a strong belief in themselves.
B. Players who would accept a 5 year contract at a half million per year better than a “show me” contract generally do NOT have a strong belief in themselves.
C. It’s difficult to have both of these mindsets at the same time. The two mindsets are at odds with each other.
You’re free to disagree with this, but it’s kind of obvious.
not only is it not completely obvious, it's a complete crock of shit. There's so much logical fallacy here it's almost impenetrable.
Are you saying that he didn't believe in himself last year? That performance on ice is a function of how much a player believes in themself at a given time? You clearly assert it's "obvious" that this nebulous, impossible-to-measure quotient of self belief is at least a factor in performance: how much? Which players on the rangers have it, and to what extent? Which don't?
These are all rhetorical questions because there's no way to reasonably and rationally answer them. The notion that you can interpret an element as shifting and dynamic as that which inheres on the axis of human doubt and confidence, borne out in hockey play, from the *non-existence* of a long term contract - that we don't even know was offered - is asinine.
You and Kupo are missing the point. Most fans believed, after last year, that he would not be able to be a productive player. I and some others had seen process to his development and trends in his play that showed otherwise. We expressed that and emphasized it by advocating for a long term deal.
Whether the deal happened or not is not important - we have no control over that. But the advocacy for such a deal is evidence of our belief that, despite what others SWORE up and down about Kakko, he was not only a good player but should be locked up at whatever bargain might have been available. We were summarily mocked and dismissed. Now everyone wants to sign him and I feel vindicated.
Again: the contract that might or might not have been discussed or existed is not the point. That we believed he deserved it, when most disagreed, is what matters