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

[tobias funke]

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

Sorry, I've never posted 10,000 times on an internet forum so I'm not quite up to your standards of post quality, bro.

Don't get all pissed off because you made a stupid offhand comment and it got misinterpreted (even though you're still intimating that the deal is not a good one, so I don't think you have been).

The general agreement around the entire league is that Moss is the best non-QB offensive player in the game. He was 3rd in the league in total points scored, after two kickers. He is probably guaranteed to be in the Hall of Fame, maybe even as a Patriot. His athletic ability is literally unmatched, and he just set a record that may not be broken for a decade or two.

And his overall deal will possibly end up costing less per year than some receivers who are not half as good.

I just don't see how it's possible to spin the deal as anything but good, especially based simply on the outcome of the super bowl.

 

[GPR11788]

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

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.

You said that the Moss deal shouldn't be considered a good deal, since we did not win the superbowl.

I don't recall you saying that it wasn't a good deal because of the actual salary. If you had said that in your original post maybe no one would have misunderstood you. It is completely understandable for you to say that the deal was not good because of the price, but you did not initially say that.

I wrote a reply based on what you said, since that is all I can go by.
If you had mentioned that the deal was bad because of the price, I wouldn't have wrote about it at all. Maybe you should reason your post out more, and stop attacking people with personal comments instead of intelligent rebuttals.

 

[DaBruinz]

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

You said that the Moss deal shouldn't be considered a good deal, since we did not win the superbowl.

The least you could do is quote me correctly if you are going to be a PITA. Here is what I said.

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

Do you see the word GOOD in there? No. You don't.

I don't recall you saying that it wasn't a good deal because of the actual salary. If you had said that in your original post maybe no one would have misunderstood you. It is completely understandable for you to say that the deal was not good because of the price, but you did not initially say that.

Of course you don't recall me saying "It wasn't a good deal because of the actual salary." I never said those words at all. You are the only person who "misunderstood" me and that is because you made an assumption about what I was saying.

My quoting the previous poster and saying "Its only a great deal if the Pats win it" IS saying that that it wasn't a great deal because of the price. Any person reading normal english would come to that conclusion when you read what was quoted previously.

I wrote a reply based on what you said, since that is all I can go by.
If you had mentioned that the deal was bad because of the price, I wouldn't have wrote about it at all. Maybe you should reason your post out more, and stop attacking people with personal comments instead of intelligent rebuttals.

No, you didn't reply based on what I said. You replied based on your assumption of what I said. An assumption that I can't find any logic in whatsoever if you actually knew the english language or even how to follow a conversation.

I will "attack people with personal comments" when they are making idiots of themselves. My rebuttal to the OP was just fine. You are the one with the issue because you can't read plain english and understand how to follow a conversation.

When someone says: 8 Million for Randy Moss is a great deal.
And the reply is: Its only a great deal if the Pats win it.

Then, any normal person understands the following:
1) The original poster thinks that 8 Million for Randy Moss is a great deal
2) The replying poster only thinks that 8 million is a great deal if the Patriots win it, with IT being the SB.

So, following that NORMAL logic, its clear that I don't think that 8 million a year for Randy is a great deal yet because the Pats haven't won the SB.

Its a qualifying statement.

No where did I blame Randy Moss for the Pats losing the SB (which was YOUR original reply).

 

[DaBruinz]

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

Sorry, I've never posted 10,000 times on an internet forum so I'm not quite up to your standards of post quality, bro.

Don't get all pissed off because you made a stupid offhand comment and it got misinterpreted (even though you're still intimating that the deal is not a good one, so I don't think you have been).

I see you still haven't learned how to use the "QUOTE" button.

1) Whenever a person resorts to attacking the number of posts another poster has, you know they've lost the argument.

2) There was nothing stupid or off-hand about my comment.

3) The only reason it got "misinterpreted" is because that person doesn't understand plain english.

4) No where did I said it wasn't a GOOD deal. I said it wasn't a GREAT deal. Maybe the problem is that you and GPR don't understand that there is a difference in magnitude between good and great.

The general agreement around the entire league is that Moss is the best non-QB offensive player in the game. He was 3rd in the league in total points scored, after two kickers. He is probably guaranteed to be in the Hall of Fame, maybe even as a Patriot. His athletic ability is literally unmatched, and he just set a record that may not be broken for a decade or two.

People didn't think that Jerry Rice's record would be broken. Most people didn't believe that Manning's record of 49 TDs would be broken. Records are made to be broken.

And his overall deal will possibly end up costing less per year than some receivers who are not half as good.

I just don't see how it's possible to spin the deal as anything but good, especially based simply on the outcome of the super bowl.

Its clear to me where the misunderstanding on your part is based on what you've typed. You think the words good and great are synonymous. I do not. I see them as having different magnitudes. The OP said the Moss deal was a GREAT deal. I disagreed saying that it would only be a great deal if the Pats won it. But, no where did I say it wasn't a good deal. Nor did I ever say that because it wasn't a great deal that meant it was a horrendous deal.

 

[GPR11788]

In the end you are still saying that it shouldn't be considered a good deal unless they won the superbowl. You(Dabruinz) never said that the deal was not good because they payed more than market value. Although, I would still disagree with you if you said that the deal was above market value.

 

[DaBruinz]

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

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.

It DOES matter because you are the one who made the assumption that was incorrect because it clearly had nothing to do with what was actually said.

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.

No one said you couldn't express your "opinion." However, when you don't actually quote a person or you make an assumption about what was said, you can expect to get corrected. And, yes, you ARE misunderstanding, as well as misquoting, me. No where did I say that it wasn't a GOOD deal. I just said I didn't believe it was a great deal.

YOU, on the other hand, made the claim that I said that moss cost the Pats the SB. And I never intimated any such thing.

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.

What you did and what you continue to do is misquote me and claim that I said something that I didn't.

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.

With present facts, I said the deal wasn't a great one. YOU claim its a good one. Did you ever stop to think that just because I said it wasn't great that I could still think its a GOOD deal? NO. You just assumed that I was negative on the deal. Again, because you made assumptions.

 

[GPR11788]

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

Its clear to me where the misunderstanding on your part is based on what you've typed. You think the words good and great are synonymous. I do not. I see them as having different magnitudes. The OP said the Moss deal was a GREAT deal. I disagreed saying that it would only be a great deal if the Pats won it. But, no where did I say it wasn't a good deal. Nor did I ever say that because it wasn't a great deal that meant it was a horrendous deal.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I guess it is a fair point that you make between good and great. I agree I misunderstood your opinion.

There is no point to continue this argument, since we are just arguing not about the topic but what we each meant.

 

[tobias funke]

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

I see you still haven't learned how to use the "QUOTE" button.

1) Whenever a person resorts to attacking the number of posts another poster has, you know they've lost the argument.

Alternatively, I like my rules, which start with:

1) Whenever someone on the internet is complaining that you're not using the QUOTE button effectively, you know they've lost the argument.

and end with

2) When someone is reduced to arguing that they said "great" which doesn't mean "good" and you're totally misinterpreting them, you're dealing with a nitpicker who likes to talk about semantics instead of football.



And yes, as far as I'm concerned, the deal is "good" and "great" and any other superlative I can think of for signing the best WR in the game to a below-market contract.

You obviously disagree, as is your right, regardless if it lacks basis in reality.

P.S. Post #263, I figured out how to use the QUOTE button. WRITE IT DOWN PEOPLE.

 

[DaBruinz]

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

Alternatively, I like my rules, which start with:

1) Whenever someone on the internet is complaining that you're not using the QUOTE button effectively, you know they've lost the argument.

and end with

2) When someone is reduced to arguing that they said "great" which doesn't mean "good" and you're totally misinterpreting them, you're dealing with a nitpicker who likes to talk about semantics instead of football.

The Quote button helps others know who you are talking to so that they can respond appropriately. Its called educating yourself on the workings of a message board.

Also,You're dealing with an intelligent person who means what they say and gets tired of people like yourself purposely misquoting them and attempting to spin what they say into a negative light that only helps your argument.

OH, and the msg count thing is a pretty standard concept across the msg board communities. Not some rule that I made up. But, you clearly don't care for facts.

And yes, as far as I'm concerned, the deal is "good" and "great" and any other superlative I can think of for signing the best WR in the game to a below-market contract.

You obviously disagree, as is your right, regardless if it lacks basis in reality.

P.S. Post #263, I figured out how to use the QUOTE button. WRITE IT DOWN PEOPLE.

Really? You think that 9 Million a year is below market? Have you checked the market lately? 9 Million puts Randy in the top 5, if not the top over-all for salaries amongst WRs. (Franchis tag was 7.848 million this year, btw).

What part of my believing that its not a great deal lacks basis in reality?

 

[tobias funke]

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

The deal is for three years, and it's not backloaded like so many contracts of late, forcing the Pats to release him early.

Don't forget that the salary cap goes up every year, as well.

Randy will likely see every penny, and be playing for an average of $8.5 million a year when other receivers with lesser skill will be getting contracts that push the envelope even further past the $10,000,000 mark.

And when a team is paying Asante Samuel that $10 mill a year, I again have no problem in saying we got Randy for a good deal, because he offers this team much more than Asante does.

I hope you don't also forget that Randy could have gotten more money from other teams, one on the record as saying so, so again, another factor points towards it being a "great" deal for the Patriots.

 

[GPR11788]

Let's put this matter to a rest.

Correct me if I am wrong Dabruinz,
The Moss deal is good, but you don't think it should be considered great until they win a SB with him. I guess I can live with that opinion.

That being said, I am confident that the Pats will win a SB with Moss and it will be seen as a great deal.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The board is getting pretty testy tonight. I see some of you newbies have met DB...

I thought Brady's extension 3 years ago was a great deal. Maybe I should re-think that...nah.

 

[tobias funke]

I thought Brady's extension 3 years ago was a great deal. Maybe I should re-think that...nah.

You should. He hasn't won a Super Bowl, has he?

0/3

 

[VJCPatriot]

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

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.

Well thank goodness you aren't running the team then. LOL, 6.5M per Moss. Perhaps in bizarro land he would take that deal. The Pats are lucky to get Moss at the price they paid. Particularly since Javon Walker, a lesser receiver, inked an even bigger contract just a day afterwards!

 

[ALP]

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

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

is it only me, or wasnt the deal a 3 yr deal?