Originally Posted by
Pelicanidae
I think part of the reason ''god awful'' is ''not an understood term'' is because it is by definition a value judgement, and therefore inherently subjective. What you mean by god awful might be entirely different from what I think is god awful, because there is no authoritative ruling as to what constitutes god awful-ness. If you want to say he's worse, then you have to establish by which metrics.
Aside from that pedantry, I don't think anyone is acting like there's no inherent risk to signing a player coming off a huge injury. But there's also a risk to not signing him, which you seem to be (mostly) leaving out of your calculation.
You'd probably be right if we had the following options:
A) Resign Boogie for the max, have him come back however he comes back, and move on.
B) Don't resign Boogie, move on.
But we don't have those options. What we actually have is something more like this:
A) Resign Boogie for the max, have him come back however he comes back, and move on.
B) Don't resign Boogie, try to move on, but accept that there is a risk of alienating the best player in franchise history in choosing this option, potentially driving him out of town given that this is against his expressly stated desires.
Now, again, this is a subjective judgement, but I would argue that option B is by far worse than option A. You may disagree, and that's absolutely fine, but someone picking A is not acting ''like there's no inherent risk'' to signing Boogie, they're just recognising that B is arguably a much worse scenario that is to be avoided.
It would be nice if this were a case of just understanding ''basic concepts'' but unfortunately, there are risks on both sides, and it's not just a case of people ignoring the risks; it's more a case of them recognising more of the potential risks, and making their own judgement based on that recognition.