A Quick Question

If Moneybags is the victim of a character assassination, doesn't that imply that he had character to begin with?

I don't know that there is a lot more that can be said about this, but it just keeps sticking to the headline. Trade rumors that Moneybags claims not to know anything about, and Risebrough gets irritated about hearing. The team being pulled off the practice ice so the PR guys could no doubt tell them what they are supposed to say. Gee guys, did you really think the media wasn't going to cover the story? I think in July when Russo first mentioned that the two sides were going to start talking, everyone knew it would be a circus if it wasn't done by the time the season started, and yet here we are.

Back to today's business. Gaborik has never shown the kind of loyalty Salcer is claiming. He held out in 2004, he has disappeared in the playoffs, when he is "hurt" he doesn't play and doesn't practice. He has never made comments about how much he loves it in Minnesota (at least none that are jumping to mind). I remember a few times after big games him saying that the fans in Minnesota are great, but all sports players say that about their fans.

Character assassinations generally involve smear tactics against someone whom had (or has) the respect of a large number of people in order to make them seem less appealing. Mr. Salcer, I believe that ship sailed a long time ago. Say around October 2004 (the holdout), and the respect was certainly almost gone by April 20th, 2008 (latest playoff disappearance), slipped almost all the way with the "If they would just give me what I want" crack, and now has gone negative after finding out that your client injured his $6.33 million groin while playing hackey sack, not hockey.

Salcer also said today, "The important part of this process is recognizing the various dynamics of sensitive negotiations for both the player and team that transpire. Making some effort to maintain integrity for the principles involved should be considered."

If anyone can tell me what that means in English, you get two bonus points.

I will simply counter with this. If the party of the third part does not receive legal recourse for the antidisestablishmentarianism being portryed by the party of the second part and the party of the first part, then the party of the first part, here by referred to as "The Team," shall not get the epistemological benefit of being obsequious. 

And no, I have no idea what this has to do with there being no official state church, but the word just fit.

I have to work again tonight, so I will miss yet another game. I will be TiVOing (is that a word yet?) it, so don't tell me what happens, OK?

Go Wild!

-Buddha

PS- For those of you who told me that cameras cannot capture images of pure evil, I give you this: