You have been saying that the contract you advocate for is the measure of your valuation of the player;
@Kupo and
@bhamill (as vocal an advocate of Kakko as there's been on these boards for years now, btw) have pushed back against that, preferring to differentiate between being "right" about the player and about a purely hypothetical contract... Because people can disagree with you on the latter and agree on the former, as we've seen.
Just, for example: to me, the contract youve been advocating for looks a lot more like hedging against Kakko's upside than staking a belief in it. (This is partially
@bhamill 's point I think re: Kakko's self-belief).
I mean, how big a victory is it to say that you would've signed a still young, established middle six winger with #2OA pedigree to a very low AAV, mid to long-term contract? You're bragging because you were willing to sign him to a deal like Yakov Trenin or calle jarnkrok, or Barclay Goodrow got? That's not exactly sticking your neck as far out as you're making it seem.
You couldn't even say you'd give him Blake Coleman's deal but people are supposed to prostrate themselves before you and your profound faith in Kakko after 20 games of good play this year?
I've long advocated for the player here, so I'll just give you some unsolicited advice: expecting people on this board to parade in mia culpa for their takes is a road to disappointment, but taking every opportunity to argue with the nebulous "many posters" or the board at large is only going to get the people who may agree with you to not even want to anymore. The only victory laps to take on here are those where you welcome people to take it with you. We're all rangers fans after all. JMHO
well reasoned. thanks for your reply and unsolicited advice. i'll respond to your points/answer your questions directly.
I don't think i suggested a specific contract before he signed this 1 year deal. So any contract I give as an example now (newhook was what i used) is hindsight. I don't know what would have been amenable to both player and team in July. I can't speak to the deal that I would have advocated for at that time as, as you said, a valuation of the player.
The point about the contract is just a proxy for every fan who watched the team, heard the narratives - media, fans, etc - saw him get scratched AGAIN, and said, "naw this is a undervalued player." I don't think the hypothetical contract is a hedge against upside - it's specifically an attempt at capitalizing on the players poor luck and deployment to our own advantage. It's like waiting until Laf signs to put him on PP1.
Just acknowledging that the player had underweighted value is the point.
As far as what kind of victory it was, that's not really relevant except in certain context. If you're looking at Kakko as a 2oa, then no there's no great victory at having secured a brett howden contract for him. But if you see the more specific context - that posters including @mcrangers92 and
@Pawnee Rangers, who are very active and outspoken, were literally saying he had 0 value and should be traded for a '27 4th before he couldn't be moved at all - then yes countering that he should be signed long term was a significant counter opinion. Like i said, i just looked for a specific contract i advocated for. I think i had those conversations on twitter - which i no longer use and the posts are deleted. In looking for them, i found a lot of guys talking a lot of unrepentant shit about Kakko the player. Very similar to Laf the previous summer and Miller right now.
To your next point - it's them that this is really directed to. Posters who were always in on Kakko need not apply. In all likelihood, the posters who absolutely skewered him are too chickenshit to admit it and own up. I don't care if they do, ultimately, nor do I care if the brash and brazen nature of victory dancing 20 games in is a turnoff for some who might have admitted they were wrong about the player - or at least way too harsh. That's between them and their god, although I respect anyone who does own up publicly.
As for your final advice, you're probably right. Posters I mostly agree with have started showing discontent with my posts and my abrasive rhetoric. I'm on a pretty bitter path right now because I think it's bullshit that hateful flaming of players, of their personal lives and choices, of their families etc. is largely abided, if not outright encouraged, by the board's populace, yet there is no tolerance for even a fraction of the same incisiveness in direct criticism of posters for their words and opinions. I apologize for verging on the political, but I think people should be held to account for what they say. I think it matters what people say, and that what they say is based on some way on facts, and I think it's important that ostensibly rational and reasonable people acknowledge when they're wrong. I think we'd be a better community if that was the case.
Is this line of rhetoric - Kakko victory dance aimed squarely at Machinehead, McRangers92, Pawnee, RangersFan1994 and others (and there were indeed Many) who insisted Kakko sucked - particularly effective at evincing that kind of community change? probably not. but that's the reasoning anyway.
like i said thanks for your measured response. I'll continue to think about what you've said.
in the meantime:
What contract would make sense for both player and team today? what's the most/longest you'd sign kakko for given his production and move to C?
