Gee - my providing facts without context is "wildly misleading" but your providing numbers that aren't even facts but 'projections', and with even less context, somehow isn't?
The facts are that Marner produced at 1.27 points per game, and Barzal produced at 0.84 points per game. That information was conveyed in a common, easily understandable way that provides way more context than what you wrote, and unlike your statement, is actually relevant to the contract.
Yeah, but if we look only at a season 7 years ago, but not too closely to learn where those points actually came from, and ignore the 65 point player he was over the next half-decade, we can pretend that he has massive untapped offense because reasons and then arbitrarily claim that he's worth the same as one of the best offensive and defensive forwards in the league.
The concept has been around since the Roman Empire at least, but I was thinking about the actual phrase "click bait".It's been a thing in some form forever ... tabloid newspaper headlines were print form.
What I read (FWIW as it was only one report) is that Washington paid over market for Roy and that this is generally considered an overpay. I did want him more than Tanev tho strictly because of the age thing.
104 points? Is that how many points you scored with him on NHL23? I love how you invent stats to support your arguments
No, it's his pace over the past 3 years, like I said. 1.27 P/GP if you'd prefer.
I would somewhat disagree, and I do have an understanding of employment law. Their obligation is to pay him, not to play him. I can't imagine an environment where the NLPA could influence usage or ice time and that's really what this would boil down to. How many minutes he plays and with who is not going to be written anywhere in his contract so there really isn't a basis to grieve. If there is a section in the NLPA that specifically relates to allowing the player in games I am not aware (if you have it please provide the link but I am too lazy to hunt). Unless he had a game related bonus that was going to cost money of course but those are almost non existent.
Name me the #1 overall draft pick center Barzal got to play with the last 3 years the way Marner is gifted Matthews and to a lesser extent, Tavares, as his centers.
The concept has been around since the Roman Empire at least, but I was thinking about the actual phrase "click bait".
www.linkedin.com
The idiots are the ones that just paid Stamkos $8M for 4 more years.
No, he was just never as good as a rookie as some perceived him to be.
None of the excuses being made make their numbers or their worth remotely comparable.
But of course that wasn't what you actually said.
Hard to know what happened with Roy. At least we weren't caught flat footed and we got two decent dmen. We needed that.
In the 20-21 playoffs, he managed 14 points in 19 games, playing with Leo Komarov on the top line.
So around but fairly new in 2008. Thanks.The term ... wonder if Oxford has the timeline for it?
The Rise & Fall of Clickbait
The phrase ‘clickbait’ was first coined in 2006 by blogger, Jay Beiger. But, now this term has become outdated and is being replaced by something else.
2006 ...
It's functionally the same. Just stated in a common, easier to understand way.
NJ doesnt even have holtz anymore lmao...
