PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if...

[JR4]

.. you add in the first year at 3M

This may have been pointed out but I didn't read it.
So while things are slow ...

Consider 27M + 3M = 30M/4 = 7.5M/yr

That is great value considering the quality of the Player.
PATs win again.

 

[NE39]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

He earned $5M last year with incentives.

 

[Caspir]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

And unless they readjust cap figures based on past conrracts, your revisionist numbers are wholly irrelevant.

 

[JR4]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

And unless they readjust cap figures based on past conrracts, your revisionist numbers are wholly irrelevant.

............. ^$$@*)+&$(+%# what are you talking about?

 

[LiveShot]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

Moss is worth every dime they pay him no matter how you break down the numbers.

 

[JR4]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

He earned $5M last year with incentives.

Miguel has it 3M with bonuses for 2007. Are you sure?

even if it's as you say, that's still great deal for the best WR in the league for an average of 8M/yr.

 

[tobias funke]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

Miguel has it 3M with bonuses for 2007. Are you sure?

even if it's as you say, that's still great deal for the best WR in the league for an average of 8M/yr.

"With bonuses".

$2,000,000 worth of bonuses.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

.. you add in the first year at 3M

This may have been pointed out but I didn't read it.
So while things are slow ...

Consider 27M + 3M = 30M/4 = 7.5M/yr

That is great value considering the quality of the Player.
PATs win again.

27M + 3M +2M (incentives) = 32 Million / 4 = 8 million a year.

 

[JR4]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

"With bonuses".

$2,000,000 worth of bonuses.

.... Ok .... still averaging 8M/ yr for Randy is a great deal. IMO.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

.... Ok .... still averaging 8M/ yr for Randy is a great deal. IMO.

Its only a great deal if the Pats win it. So far, they are 0/1 with Randy

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

.... Ok .... still averaging 8M/ yr for Randy is a great deal. IMO.

But while it averages that in payroll for 4 years it does not average that in cap hits. Just like you couldn't really add Asante's $7.8M tag to his rookie deal and average that out, although you could look at it that way from an overall 5 year cost perspective.

Seymour had a year left on his rookie deal when he extended. Therefore they were able to spread his 3 year $30M extension over 4 years which did effect his cap hits.

 

[GPR11788]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

Its only a great deal if the Pats win it. So far, they are 0/1 with Randy

Moss in no way to blame for the superbowl loss.
Some unlucky plays that just did not go the Pats way.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

Moss in no way to blame for the superbowl loss.
Some unlucky plays that just did not go the Pats way.

WOW. I guess simple LOGIC doesn't run in your family, does it. Hell, do brains? And, if they do, do they actually teach you how to use it?

No where did I blame Randy Moss for the Pats SB loss. So, how you came up with that is beyond me. Its basically you talking out your rear end.

I said that that the Pats were 0/1 with Randy, so it hardly makes the deal a great one.

THAT is the only thing you should have walked away with from my statement.

 

[GPR11788]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

WOW. I guess simple LOGIC doesn't run in your family, does it. Hell, do brains? And, if they do, do they actually teach you how to use it?

No where did I blame Randy Moss for the Pats SB loss. So, how you came up with that is beyond me. Its basically you talking out your rear end.

I said that that the Pats were 0/1 with Randy, so it hardly makes the deal a great one.

THAT is the only thing you should have walked away with from my statement.

No need to get personal. I personally think that the moss deal was a good one.

So tell me why don't you think the Moss deal is good? You said the Pats where 0/1 with Moss. The only game we lost with Moss in the line up was the superbowl. So now can you tell me what else would have made you think the deal was not good with the present facts? You where obviously talking about the superbowl loss as the only reason the Moss deal was not a good one right now.

The only thing you should have taken away from my statement was that with present facts I think the Moss deal is a good one.

you where suggesting a deal is not good because of the loss in the superbowl. I was simply suggesting that it was not Moss's fault for us losing the superbowl and thus it would be unfair to say the deal is not good because they did not win the superbowl with him.

If I misunderstood what you were saying, maybe you should be more clear with your statements. I obviously cannot read your mind.

 

[tobias funke]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

I also don't agree that a season is a complete failure if you don't win the Super Bowl.

One team wins a Super Bowl, 31 teams do not. According to your logic, no deal made for any player on any one of those teams was a good one, compared to picking up Kawika Mitchell.

 

[Run it up baby!]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

Didn't he get like a $12 million signing bonus too?

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

No need to get personal. I personally think that the moss deal was a good one.

So tell me why don't you think the Moss deal is good? You said the Pats where 0/1 with the Moss. The only game we lost with Moss in the line up was the superbowl. So now can you tell me what else would have made you think the deal was not good with the present facts? You where obviously talking about the superbowl loss as the only reason right now the Moss deal was not a good one right now.

The only thing you should have taken away from my statement was that with present facts I think the Moss deal is a good one.

you where suggesting a deal is not good because of the loss in the superbowl. I was simply suggesting that it was not Moss's fault for us losing the superbowl and it would be unfair to say the deal is not good because of that loss.

If I misunderstood what you were saying, maybe you should be more clear with your statements. I obviously cannot read your mind.

Maybe you shouldn't make assumptions about what is being said (which you CLEAR did and are still doing). Maybe you should ask questions instead of making idiotic statements.

Any person with half a brain could see I was referring to SEASONS and not the SB itself. 0/1 . As in 1 season with Moss and no SB win.

I think that 8 million for Moss is over-priced. I don't think ANY receiver is worth 8 million a year. The most I'd have spend on Moss is about 6.5 million. But that's ME.

It would be a GREAT deal if having Randy guaranteed 4 SB wins. It doesn't and so far the Pats are 0/1. I fully understand that the Pats are a TEAM which is why I question them spending an average of 9 million (6 million this year and 10.5 the next 2) on Moss. I don't want the Pats to get the Colts disease where they splurge on the offense and can't put a solid defense on the field. A defense than can easily absord 1 or 2 injuries to key personnel, the way it did in 2003 and 2004.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

Didn't he get like a $12 million signing bonus too?

The 12 million is part of the 27 million deal he got.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

I also don't agree that a season is a complete failure if you don't win the Super Bowl.

One team wins a Super Bowl, 31 teams do not. According to your logic, no deal made for any player on any one of those teams was a good one, compared to picking up Kawika Mitchell.

Again, people making ASSUMPTIONS and striking out wildly.

1) I never said the season was a complete failure. That is you talking.
2) I said that I didn't consider Randy's deal, as the OP presented it, to be a great one.
3) If you want to be a complete moron and extrapolate what I said out to include every friggin no name deal that has no relative impact on the salary cap, sure, what you said would apply. However, we aren't talking about every friggin no name deal that has relatively no impact on the salary cap. We are talking about the Randy Moss deal that averages out to 8 million a year. 8 million is a bit more than the minor contract that Mitchell got to play for the Giants last year.

P.S. BTW, Tobias, learn how to use the "QUOTE" button.

 

[GPR11788]

Re: PATs really got Moss for 7.5M/yr if ...

827083]Maybe you shouldn't make assumptions about what is being said (which you CLEAR did and are still doing). Maybe you should ask questions instead of making idiotic statements.[/B]

Any person with half a brain could see I was referring to SEASONS and not the SB itself. 0/1 . As in 1 season with Moss and no SB win.

I think that 8 million for Moss is over-priced. I don't think ANY receiver is worth 8 million a year. The most I'd have spend on Moss is about 6.5 million. But that's ME.

It would be a GREAT deal if having Randy guaranteed 4 SB wins. It doesn't and so far the Pats are 0/1. I fully understand that the Pats are a TEAM which is why I question them spending an average of 9 million (6 million this year and 10.5 the next 2) on Moss. I don't want the Pats to get the Colts disease where they splurge on the offense and can't put a solid defense on the field. A defense than can easily absord 1 or 2 injuries to key personnel, the way it did in 2003 and 2004.

It does not matter if you meant the season or just the superbowl loss. Right now all we have to go by is that superbowl loss with Moss.

Again I am expressing my opinion, which is what this board is for.

In my opinion, the deal is a good one and that loss in the superbowl should not determine if the deal is a good one.

I don't think I am misunderstanding you, you are saying that the Moss deal would not be considered good until they win a superbowl.

I am saying that I don't see it that way, and it is fine that we have different opinions. I am confident that we will win a superbowl with him, which again is my opinion and doesn't need to be misunderstood as fact.

With present facts, I am predicting the Moss deal to be considered a good one in the future. You are free to wait and see if the Moss deal is a good one until the Pats win another sb with him. There is nothing wrong with that.