Bulger contract questions and info

[Nick]

Zach can correct me if I'm wrong, but in another thread he stated that Bulger should have said something like, "well no one can really rule anything out in this life but I do not expect to be in a hold out.", as opposed to Bulger's actual statement, "I don't think that will happen. But you never know. I don't want to rule anything out." I don't see any difference in those statements and certainly don't think the outcome would have been any different.

I agree, I think we're talking about an unreasonable or unrealistic level of nuance here. I find the differences between that statement - both in how they're actually worded but also in how they would have been reported - minimal at best and likely inconsequential.

[z.nrd]

We'll just have to disagree here. I still see no difference between the two responses and certainly wouldn't expect any reporter to consider using your logic. If there is even a hint that a holdout is a possibility, they'll run with it. Your suggested response, "well no one can really rule anything out in this life but I do not expect to be in a hold out", leaves that possibility.



Probably. "keep their options open" in the context of a holdout question still leaves the door open to a possible holdout, doesn't it?



Very true, but not the issue we're discussing. We're dealing with responses to questions.

One response to a question is to wisely not entertain them while talks are going on. Meaning. I am trying to figure why lots and lots of marquee players face the same situation (talks) and the same press (which includes people who will take you out of context looking for controversy) and yet this rarely happens.

He could have put it differently. He could have been more vague. My main point is, with experience, I bet we see Bulger master the traps of the national spotlight interview more.

The vaguer version in question does not allow someone to directly say "he straightforwardly said he would not rule out a hold out." It's harder to make controversial hay out of the vaguer, more general statement. Cause one statement says in effect "I will not rule out a hold out." The other just says "players always want to keep their options open" which does NOT directly say "I will not rule out a hold out."

In any event, why does this happen rarely? Many reasons. Some know when to have emptier, vaguer responses when they face a trap question. That's just experience. Some decline to answer. That's just experience. Some hold off on the interview. And so on.

In short, he had a lot of options short of directly saying "no I do not rule out a hold out" to a trap question---and yeah the minute he said it, a lot of folks would recognize the pure invitation for the less rigorous in the media to just run with it. The unintended invitation was just sitting there gift wrapped. And I am saying, that will happen less with Marc as he begins to be more experienced as a player in the much hotter spotlights of national sports media.

Is this really worth this much debate? I see it differently than you, and I understand your position even if I don't agree with it...and I am very happily comfortable with my position. I can put it 10,000 different ways if you want, but, it's how I see it. I see that you disagree...can we leave it at that?

[EvilXenu]

For the love of God, Zack! We're all entitled to our opinions but you can't seriously continue to argue that there is any meaningful difference between those two quotes. Why don't you just back down, for once. At this point your posts just seem like double-talk. Are you in politics?

[BernieM]

Actually, I was thinking of hiring z.nrd as my research assistant.

[r8rh8rmike]

Is this really worth this much debate? I see it differently than you, and I understand your position even if I don't agree with it...and I am very happily comfortable with my position. I can put it 10,000 different ways if you want, but, it's how I see it. I see that you disagree...can we leave it at that?

Judging by the length of your responses, it must be worth this much debate. We can certainly agree to disagree, but just let me say this, the press has their own way of interpreting answers to question no matter how innocuous they are or are meant to be. You have heard of a reporters favorite rationalization tool the non-denial denial right?

[AvengerRam]

Brian: "I'm not the Messiah!"

Worshipers: "Only the true Messiah would deny he's the Messiah."

Brian: "Okay, then I am the Messiah!"

Worshipers: "HE IS THE MESSIAH!!!"

[r8rh8rmike]

Brian: "I'm not the Messiah!"

Worshipers: "Only the true Messiah would deny he's the Messiah."

Brian: "Okay, then I am the Messiah!"

Worshipers: "HE IS THE MESSIAH!!!"

OMG that is funny! Great reference to a great movie Av.

[z.nrd]

For the love of God, Zack! We're all entitled to our opinions but you can't seriously continue to argue that there is any meaningful difference between those two quotes. Why don't you just back down, for once. At this point your posts just seem like double-talk. Are you in politics?

Yeah I can. And do. Cause that's what I think. And the question is why you can't just live with someone thinking differently rather than demanding they back down. (What's with THAT?) I ain't telling everyone here to think like I do.

Now let's take for granted that he was taken out of context. But if I were Bulger and I were taken out of context, I would much rather have the second headline:

"Marc say he can't rule out a hold out."

The individual in that sentence specifically refers to actions he is capable of taking.

"Marc says that most players in his position would want to keep all options open."

The individual in that sentence cannot be directly quoted as saying HE personally and specifically would hold out. It has far less direct connection to his own actions; it's an empty vague generalization; HE cannot be taken directly as saying he would hold out; it sounds fuzzier, it has no sensationalizing possibility.

And of course it sounds like double talk. LOL. I am TRYING to show how Marc could have finessed, dodged, double-talked, equivocated, and/or been vaguer.

Imagine this game where you can't say yes to the question.

Question: would you rule out killing your wife?

1. "I can't rule it out."

2. "I suppose in general most people are capable of something like that, depending."

Now. After you say that, you have to go to court and hear the statement read into evidence.

Which one would you rather go to court with.

[AvengerRam]

Well, Zach, although your question was directed to EvilXenu, I think I can answer it with some more Monty Python quotes:

Man 1: "Look, this isn't an argument!"

Man 2: "Yes, it is."

Man 1: "No, it isn't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition. It isn't just contradiction."

Man 2: "Yes it is!"

Man 1: "No it isn't. Look, an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."

Man 2: "No, it isn't!"

Man 1: "Yes, it is."

Man 2: "No, it isn't."

Man 1: "Oh, this is pointless."

Man 2: (pregnant pause) "........ no, it isn't."

[z.nrd]

Judging by the length of your responses, it must be worth this much debate. We can certainly agree to disagree, but just let me say this, the press has their own way of interpreting answers to question no matter how innocuous they are or are meant to be. You have heard of a reporters favorite rationalization tool the non-denial denial right?

That's not direct quotation. The trick I learned is, when answering a trap question, never give them a potentially damning direct quotation.

And again....it's not "the press." It's some people in the press. Coats was on the radio defending Bulger and saying his comments were being misunderstood. Coats is the press too.

Length means something different to you than it does to me. To me it's trying to be completely clear and cover all the bases. Apparently it doesn't to you but learn to live with different kinds of people. I don't demand you say more.

[r8rh8rmike]

That's not direct quotation. The trick I learned is, when answering a trap question, never give them a potentially damning direct quotation.

Again, anything other than an absolute no is potentially damning when a reporter is looking to use the dreaded non-denial denial.

And again....it's not "the press." It's some people in the press. Coats was on the radio defending Bulger and saying his comments were being misunderstood. Coats is the press too.

Um, okay.

Length means something different to you than it does to me. To me it's trying to be completely clear and cover all the bases. Apparently it doesn't to you but learn to live with different kinds of people. I don't demand you say more.

Thanks for not demanding I say more Zach.

[z.nrd]

I'll just keep saying it. I disagree. Direct quotation of a statement of one's own possible actions is different from a vague generality, and my ear can hear the difference (so as a result we see this whole thing differently). It's not just any version of the statement "I don't rule it out" that can be used. One, when taken out of context, is blunt, direct, obvious, easily sensationalized. The other is fudgier and murkier and doesn't lend itself as well to exploitation.

Which...again...is why not everyone ends up in this mess, even though every big-time player in the middle of negotiating an extension or a new deal faces trap questions like that.

If you were right, and there was NO WAY anyone could put it to soften the exploitation potential, then, this same kind of controversy would happen more often. But, it doesn't.

So end on that. Each of us is convinced of our case. No one persuaded the other. Each side has strong arguments they believe in. People have got their shots in but no one was flustered or intimidated. Neither could prove the other was this big fat insincere liar out to sabotage the board. What's left? We just might have to live with the fact that we see this differently. Betcha anything, if we do that, the earth keeps revolving around the sun, regardless. You can even have the last word.

[Bar-bq]

You can even have the last word.

I'll steal here- and add some more Python.

"He's not the Messiah----he's a very naughty boy!"




On a more serious note---

Give it up, everyone. There's no way anybody is backing down, and unfortunately, I'm seeing a pattern developing here.

[r8rh8rmike]

A circular pattern?

[RamsFanSam]

A circular pattern?

Looks more like herringbone.