Franchise tag and transition tag numbers released

[Miguel]

He was one of the highest drafted players in the 2004 draft. (21?)
I don't think he is far above the 21st best player from that draft, given the one-dimensional nature of his play, and the number of snaps he particiaptes in

DraftHistory.com

Please tell me who from the 2004 draft you consider to be better than Wilfork.

 

[Miguel]

There is a cost in the future of making twice as much this year that must be factored into that discussion, isnt there?

A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.

 

[Deus Irae]

Wow, you really get pissy when you are wrong, huh?

What I said was your example asking whoever you were asking if they would feel insulted if their company exercised a clause that they had to stay at their job making half of what another company would pay was an unrealistic example because it doesn't happen. I would venture to say that no one who has ever posted on this board has been in that position.
Therefore you asking someone how they would feel about being in a position they could never possibly be in is unrealistic.
I am essentially defining unrealistic for you now. Perhap a stop at dictionary.com might be helpful.

Save your 'politeness' no one here confuses it as genuine.

The level of compensation was used because of the numbers given by Rob. The Franchise number is $7 million. Rob's range went up to $15 million, which is actually more than the double amount I used in the hypothetical. And, again, people do sign contracts with option clauses. Those clauses do contain financial numbers. The outside world does sometimes make those numbers obsolete. That's just reality, whether you wish to pretend otherwise or not.

 

[Ring 6]

He has been well paid compared to DTs in their rookie contract, other Patriot players, and Jarvis Green in their rookie contracts.
Its just the nature of the league that this happens. By that standard up to half the league is underpaid.

He was one of the highest drafted players in the 2004 draft. (21?)
I don't think he is far above the 21st best player from that draft, given the one-dimensional nature of his play, and the number of snaps he particiaptes in

By the way I don't think that my definition of over or underpaid is the only acceptable one.
I recognize that my thoughts on this subject are heavily influenced by believing that when a player signs a contract they are obligated to honor it, and also by the thought that dynamics that are consequential to the CBA are part of the deal (i.e. the cba dictates that rookie contracts are lower than 2nd contracts expect for top few picks, so you cant compare the 2 evenly)

 

[Ring 6]

The level of compensation was used because of the numbers given by Rob. The Franchise number is $7 million. Rob's range went up to $15 million, which is actually more than the double amount I used in the hypothetical. And, again, people do sign contracts with option clauses. Those clauses do contain financial numbers. The outside world does sometimes make those numbers obsolete. That's just reality, whether you wish to pretend otherwise or not.

Your example is still unrealstic. No matter how you want to expand your comments to try to sound better, your example is unrealistic, which is exactly what I said.
Unless you can show me any person who has ever posted on this board who could be in that position asking posters if they would be insulted is unrealistic.

 

[Ring 6]

A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.

Sure it is.
I'm just saying that:

7 mill this year plus free agency and 14 mill up front on a 35 mill deal

is not truly getting paid half as much as

14 mill up front on a 35 mill deal this year.

I understand technically it is, but its disingenuous to imply its half as much and all other things are equal.

Really he is simply delaying his payday.

 

[Miguel]

There is a cost in the future of making twice as much this year that must be factored into that discussion, isnt there?

There is the injury risk factor. Playing in 2010 under the franchise tag places the injury risk on Wilfork. Playing in 2010 under a long-term deal places the injury risk on the team. There is value to the player not to play under the franchise tag.

 

[Miguel]

Really he is simply delaying his payday.

If you think that is guaranteed, see Wes Welker in week 17.

 

[Ring 6]

DraftHistory.com

Please tell me who from the 2004 draft you consider to be better than Wilfork.

I'd have to look it over, which I dont have time to do right now.
I was simply assuming that the play we have gotten from Wilfork is pretty consistent with what I'd expect at 21. His ranking may be higher or lower.

 

[Deus Irae]

Your example is still unrealstic. No matter how you want to expand your comments to try to sound better, your example is unrealistic, which is exactly what I said.
Unless you can show me any person who has ever posted on this board who could be in that position asking posters if they would be insulted is unrealistic.

The example is not unrealistic. What's more, you must know that, because you're intelligent enough to read, type and use a computer. You're just being your typical over-the-top homer self and attacking someone questioning a Patriots move. What's funny is that I'm not even doing that. I'm merely asking Rob a question using his own numbers for the hypothetical.

 

[Ring 6]

If you think that is guaranteed, see Wes Welker in week 17.

But the rules allow the Patriots to require Wilfork to assume the injury risk.
Why is it wrong for them to follow the rules?

 

[Deus Irae]

...Really he is simply delaying his payday.

If you think that is guaranteed, see Wes Welker in week 17.

Also see Bryant, Antonio:

Bucs ready to move on from Bryant at current asking price | ProFootballTalk.com

 

[Ring 6]

The example is not unrealistic. What's more, you must know that, because you're intelligent enough to read, type and use a computer. You're just being your typical over-the-top homer self and attacking someone questioning a Patriots move. What's funny is that I'm not even doing that. I'm merely asking Rob a question using his own numbers for the hypothetical.

Nice, now the homer card.
Where is that even related?
You gave an example asking people on this board how they would feel in a situation none could ever have been in, and I said that was unrealistic.
Your best defense to that is that I can't judge the reality of your example because I am a homer. I'm not objective about whether the example of someone facing that decision in their job because I tend to agree with BBs decisions and give him the benefit of the doubt? Wow. You've gone off the deep end now.
If you haven't noticed I wasn't talking about a Patriot move, in fact they havent even made one.

 

[Ring 6]

There is the injury risk factor. Playing in 2010 under the franchise tag places the injury risk on Wilfork. Playing in 2010 under a long-term deal places the injury risk on the team. There is value to the player not to play under the franchise tag.

But there is value to the team in not taking on the injury risk too.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying Wilfork should be unhappy at the CBA or the Patriots? Are you saying the Patriots should sign him to a long term deal? And is that because he is unhappy being tagged?

 

[Deus Irae]

Nice, now the homer card.
Where is that even related?
You gave an example asking people on this board how they would feel in a situation none could ever have been in, and I said that was unrealistic.
Your best defense to that is that I can't judge the reality of your example because I am a homer. I'm not objective about whether the example of someone facing that decision in their job because I tend to agree with BBs decisions and give him the benefit of the doubt? Wow. You've gone off the deep end now.
If you haven't noticed I wasn't talking about a Patriot move, in fact they havent even made one.

No....

I gave an example, asking one particular person how they would feel in a hypothetical question bounded by his own numbers.

You've made irrelevant argument after irrelevant argument in response to that post and my answers to you. You've done so because it's about Wilfork and the Patriots, and you're a Patriots homer who can't bear to even admit that you'd be pissed off and insulted if you got hosed in that manner.

It's been nothing more than that.

 

[Ring 6]

Also see Bryant, Antonio:

Bucs ready to move on from Bryant at current asking price | ProFootballTalk.com

OK. I will add 'unless he is injured' to clarify my comment.

Will you add 'if 2010 is the only year that ever exists' to yours? Otherwise you are misrepresenting the point.

 

[Ring 6]

No....

I gave an example, asking one particular person how they would feel in a hypothetical question bounded by his own numbers.

You've made irrelevant argument after irrelevant argument in response to that post and my answers to you. You've done so because it's about Wilfork and the Patriots, and you're a Patriots homer who can't bear to even admit that you'd be pissed off and insulted if you got hosed in that manner.

It's been nothing more than that.

Apparently your computer shows words in between my lines. Please let me know what they say.

First, the Patriots haven't even made a decision. What would I be defending. Second, it wouldn't be the Patriots that 'hosed' Wilfork, it would be the Players Union for agreeing to the CBA that gives the Patriots the right to franchise.
I never made any mention of the decision the Pats would or wouldn't make, or any factors other than to say your example was unrealistic. Read again and leave out the words you are inserting between my lines.
That was all I was responding to. Of course now that you know you are wrong you must deflect it into making something up....but go ahead show me anywhere in any of those posts that I was defending the Patriots or even giving an opinion about what should happen with Wilfork, who was right or wrong. You wont find it in the responses in this part of the thread.



Just to understand. You feel the Patriots are 'hosing' Wilfork if they franchise him, and think they should give up that right because Wilfork could make more money if they didnt have that right? So the PAts should act in Vince's best interest rather than their own (IF THEY ARENT THE SAME)?

 

[Miguel]

But the rules allow the Patriots to require Wilfork to assume the injury risk.
Why is it wrong for them to follow the rules?

I never said that it was wrong for the Pats to follow the rules. Please do not twist my words.

 

[Deus Irae]

OK. I will add 'unless he is injured' to clarify my comment.

Will you add 'if 2010 is the only year that ever exists' to yours? Otherwise you are misrepresenting the point.

Perhaps you should go back and read Rob's post again. And that's the final word I'll have with you on this subject, since you can't seem to grasp what a hypothetical is, how one works, and how the numbers I used and the example I used were specifically tailored to a particular person's post.

 

[Deus Irae]

...Just to understand. You feel the Patriots are 'hosing' Wilfork if they franchise him, and think they should give up that right because Wilfork could make more money if they didnt have that right? So the PAts should act in Vince's best interest rather than their own (IF THEY ARENT THE SAME)?

Clearly, this is not what I said. Clearly, I was talking about within the context of the hypothetical. Clearly, you had to know that which means that

clearly, you're deliberately misrepresenting my post.

Now that I've answered all your posts prior to my "final word" post (since this one came up as I was writing that), I'm done discussing this subject with you.