- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 43,668
- Reaction score
- 24,259
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.considering he never wanted to go in the first place, it wouldn't surprise me. I wonder how long until there are threads about bringing him back if he truly is disgruntled.
Can someone remind me why we traded him? (I'm serious, not being a dumb troll, just a dumb homer) Was it b/c we knew we wouldn't be able to afford his renewal, so decided to get a draft pick for one season without him?
Can someone remind me why we traded him? (I'm serious, not being a dumb troll, just a dumb homer)
Was it b/c we knew we wouldn't be able to afford his renewal, so decided to get a draft pick for one season without him?
Can someone remind me why we traded him? (I'm serious, not being a dumb troll, just a dumb homer) Was it b/c we knew we wouldn't be able to afford his renewal, so decided to get a draft pick for one season without him?
Yup. You pretty much answered your own question. He was in the last year of his deal and he had already held out (for a few weeks) a year or two earlier to get a minor rework of that deal, and he was making noises that he was going to be very expensive to re-sign.
yup thats itCan someone remind me why we traded him? (I'm serious, not being a dumb troll, just a dumb homer) Was it b/c we knew we wouldn't be able to afford his renewal, so decided to get a draft pick for one season without him?
No, because BB wanted the 2011 instead of the 2010, because rookie cap was coming.And to answer the other half of the question—why a 2011 1—it's because Crazy Al was unwilling to part with a 2010 2.
Can someone remind me why we traded him? (I'm serious, not being a dumb troll, just a dumb homer) Was it b/c we knew we wouldn't be able to afford his renewal, so decided to get a draft pick for one season without him?
The reason has never been publicly given.
Which makes it the same as every other transaction.The reason has never been publicly given.
Is any reason publicly given with the Pats? It was pretty obvious that the Pats would rather give the money to Wilfork then try to resign both. Seymour would of helped the Pats the past 2 years, this is true. But thinking long term Solder will provide more value to the Pats over 4 years then Seymour would of over 1 year.
And your value argument is wrong, IMO but, again, that's been gone over time and again.