Seven sins

[ClosingTime]

Guess you guys missed the post i had three weeks ago linking to a glowing report on Maroney but keep up the petty defensiveness.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I personally don't give a crap what you post about. Nothing 'defensive', just not interested at all in what you have to say.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Got get your shinebox.

I's shinin' as fastest as'n I kan massah, don't be moanin' bought spit on youse laces if'n youse keeps takin' out youse team miseries on me.

Since this abomination links back to the whiny days of summer, here's a note for all you folks that need no excuse to attack a Patriots' player, but like one anyway:

Corey Dillon made a McDonald's run and delivered a sandwich to Patrick Pass, who today was wearing a winter cap with the number 88 on it; just after the Deion Branch trade, the PUPped back was spotted wearing a hat bearing the number 83.

Yep, Patrick is now protesting the loss of Christian Fauria! (Now how much am I bid for a lovely skeeter ranch backing up on the scenic county landfill?)

Thanks to Shalise's eagle eye http://www.beloblog.com/ProJo_Blogs/PatsBlog/archives/2006/10/locker_room_loo_2.html

 

[brady2brown]

I think the article is kind of funny. Warns us that cutting DB will have dire effects on the superbowl run and uses the cutting of Milloy as an example. Yeah, that really hurt our SB chances.

Anyway, IIRC correctly, the reason that Milloy was cut so close to the season is that the Pats were negotiating right up to the end and thought they would have a deal in place. Only when it fell apart at the very last minute did they cut him.

But that's in the past. Let's move on and not worry about a guy who is jealous because his team got whipped by the Bengals.

 

[ilduce06410]

wwwow

Sorry, IlDuce, but you've got some things wrong. 1) Branch signed for what his slot was supposed to be. 2) Seymour signed for the market value at the time he was negotiating his contract. 3) The Patriots were treating Branch the exact same way they were treating Seymour and Brady in that they were requiring him to finish his rookie contract. If you review Miguel's site, you will see that both Seymour and Brady were paid according to the last year of their rookie deals. Yes, they received the signing bonus of their new deal, but they still were under the salary of their old deals.

Your use of Bruschi to try and prove your point is pretty ludicrous. The fact is that Bruschi went into management and told them he only wanted the 2 million a year. How can you fault management for that?

1) bruschi is ludicrous? certainly patriots didn't negotiate him down to that figure, but are you sure that he went in and OFFERED to play for that? do you think patriots don't hold him and his salary up as an example to try and get other players to play for less than market price?
i 'm losing my own point here, so i'm not sure what our disagreement is, exactly.
2) are brady and seymour playing for less money than they could get elsewhere?
3) how is last year's contract salary + next year's bonus different than a new salary?
4) i shoulda known better than to say what twig's salary vs slot figure was without looking it up. this board is too sharp for that. mea culpa.

anyway, good ta hear from ya bruinz. sometime i wonder if anybody reads my posts.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: wwwow

1) bruschi is ludicrous? certainly patriots didn't negotiate him down to that figure, but are you sure that he went in and OFFERED to play for that? do you think patriots don't hold him and his salary up as an example to try and get other players to play for less than market price?
i 'm losing my own point here, so i'm not sure what our disagreement is, exactly.

Where have you been? YES, Bruschi went in and told them how much he'd play for. Its well documented. Not sure why you think otherwise.

2) are brady and seymour playing for less money than they could get elsewhere?

As I said, Seymour signed for what the going market rate was at the time.

I don't know if I would say that Brady signed for below market because he is being paid in the top 5 for QBs and was for when he signed his deal. We all THINK it was below market, but the reality could be something different.

3) how is last year's contract salary + next year's bonus different than a new salary?[/quote}

Obviously, its VERY different in Branch's eyes. Its why Branch held out without bothering to negotiate. That question is best directed to Branch.

4) i shoulda known better than to say what twig's salary vs slot figure was without looking it up. this board is too sharp for that. mea culpa.

anyway, good ta hear from ya bruinz. sometime i wonder if anybody reads my posts.

No problems. You do post good stuff. Makes people think and research.

BTW, you weren't totally wrong about Branch's contract because he did sign a 5 year deal where many of his "peers" signed 4 year deals.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I'm trying to figure out how the Patriots were guilty of "wrath" and haven't been able to. Exactly what did the Patriots do that shows "wrath"? They expected Branch, a player under contract, to come to camp and play. They expected Branch and his agent to negotiate in good faith. Neither of those things happened and so the Patriots are guilty of "wrath"?

Exactly what "wrathful" statements did the Patriots make?

They offered Branch the opportunity to find another team to play for and consumated a deal with that team that benefited Branch. And they're guilty of "wrath" - or as the writer says, "vengence"? Most everyone agrees that Branch got what he wanted and, in that sense, won. So the Patriots gave Branch what he wanted and that is vengence? I just don't get it. Oh, that's right, they are trying to collect the fines and possibly a pro-rated part of the signing bonus. That must be it.

 

[Fogbuster]

I'm trying to figure out how the Patriots were guilty of "wrath" and haven't been able to. Exactly what did the Patriots do that shows "wrath"? They expected Branch, a player under contract, to come to camp and play. They expected Branch and his agent to negotiate in good faith. Neither of those things happened and so the Patriots are guilty of "wrath"?

Exactly what "wrathful" statements did the Patriots make?

They offered Branch the opportunity to find another team to play for and consumated a deal with that team that benefited Branch. And they're guilty of "wrath" - or as the writer says, "vengence"? Most everyone agrees that Branch got what he wanted and, in that sense, won. So the Patriots gave Branch what he wanted and that is vengence? I just don't get it. Oh, that's right, they are trying to collect the fines and possibly a pro-rated part of the signing bonus. That must be it.

Ah, Grasshopper, you must understand that in these days of "gettin' mine" the one who argues for moderation, equalization and balance for the sake of a unified team is "evil".

Anyway, read Orwell again and you'll understand.