Add new comment

that they were attempting to deceive, but when you think about it they acted as chief arbiter in both evaluations, which is fine I suppose.  Declaring AJ a done deal, minimum league-average player for the club years, removed from the equation the possibility of his flaming out.  They were stoked on him, so you could give them the benefit of the doubt.
But the reverse seems true of their analysis on these three.  To my mind, it's ok to evaluate in terms of downside, or in terms of upside.  But you shouldn't compare apples to oranges, which it pretty clearly appears to me they've done in this case.
I'm honestly not pointing a dirty look their way, but I prefer when the variables are openly displayed for all to see.  Sometimes those variables are the only part to debate, and subtlely removing them from play is stifling to intellectual debate.  Again, I'm not trying to cast a shadow.
Ultimately I think they're no more guilty of twisting numbers than anyone else.  If we see something we like, we try to find reasons why we like it.  Reverse holds for things we dislike.  We're all just people.
I guess it's the tone that sets me off the most.
/rant