- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,956
- Reaction score
- 126
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.And unless they readjust cap figures based on past conrracts, your revisionist numbers are wholly irrelevant.
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.
.. 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.
"With bonuses".
$2,000,000 worth of bonuses.
.... Ok .... still averaging 8M/ yr for Randy is a great deal. IMO.
.... 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
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.
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.
Didn't he get like a $12 million signing bonus too?
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.
DaBruinz;[B said: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.