Rapaport: Gronk Expected to Return in 2018 | Edit: Gronk Tweets "#clueless"

[Deus Irae]

I'm sure you could get accepted into the universities my whimsical, unneeded degrees came from. You couldn't if your life depended on it. And I don't come from money - I wore hand-me-down clothes from cousins all the way through high school. Writers, for better or worse, have changed the course of history more than a couple times. If you were a little more educated and a little less simple-minded and obtuse, you might be able to grasp that. I explained quite clearly why I found fault with his recent reporting; obviously at least a couple posters on here agreed with me. I have to wonder if your initials are T.C.

Pretty much every profession/job has changed the course of history multiple times. I'm not sure why you're posting the way you're posting, over the subject you're posting about, but you might want to take heed of the first rule of holes.

 

[jimnance]

I'm sure you could get accepted into the universities my whimsical, unneeded degrees came from. You couldn't if your life depended on it. And I don't come from money - I wore hand-me-down clothes from cousins all the way through high school. Writers, for better or worse, have changed the course of history more than a couple times. If you were a little more educated and a little less simple-minded and obtuse, you might be able to grasp that. I explained quite clearly why I found fault with his recent reporting; obviously at least a couple posters on here agreed with me. I have to wonder if your initials are T.C.

I don't know you, but for someone who"s as accomplished as you portray, you seem very insecure about your intelligence and accomplishments.
Just sayin'.

 

[maust]

Nope, anything but. I was simply foolish enough to defend myself after another poster questioned my intelligence. I try not to make personal attacks, and get annoyed when others do. I have made money from my writing; I own a small business that grossed $500K the last two years and will gross considerably more than that this year. But I'm sure all the champion intellects that felt compelled to insult me, when I had not addressed or insulted them or any other poster and had merely given an opinion that anyone erudite enough to have actual understanding of the history of journalism would have understood and given credence to, have accomplished far more.

Maybe it's the engineer in me that makes me scorn your inefficiency but what you no doubt perceive as an eloquent response comes off as forced and a trifle redundant in it's verbosity. It's a fan forum, no one gets paid by the word here. BTW, as someone that hears and reads Curran daily I can honestly say he is an enthusiast not a sensationalist. Your assessment of him missed the mark.

 

[Deus Irae]

I always try to avoid, whenever humanly possible, openly discrediting another post on a forum because it doesn’t really benefit anyone. That said, this is a phenomenally, unspeakably dumb thought.

No, no issues with reading comprehension - a Ph.D. in English says otherwise. What I tried to communicate in my last post, but you clearly could not grasp, was that there was a time in the history of journalism when making incendiary claims that had the potential to cause multiple other human beings significant trouble, without naming any sources, was considered disreputable, bad journalism. Curran's article about Gronkowski retiring named exactly zero sources; it threw gasoline on an already-difficult situation for every member of the Patriots organization. You may not be aware of this, but this is actually a forum for fans of that organization? I happen to be one of those fans, and I'm old-fashioned enough to remember a time when supposedly credible journalists didn't try to undermine the future of their hometown teams with bad journalism (just to review, not naming sources was once considered bad journalism).

I realize you're probably the top reader at your community college, but there are whole new horizons of intellectual endeavor that you still have yet to conquer; you might consider venturing into them sometime before making yourself look foolish.

Nope, anything but. I was simply foolish enough to defend myself after another poster questioned my intelligence. I try not to make personal attacks, and get annoyed when others do. I have made money from my writing; I own a small business that grossed $500K the last two years and will gross considerably more than that this year. But I'm sure all the champion intellects that felt compelled to insult me, when I had not addressed or insulted them or any other poster and had merely given an opinion that anyone erudite enough to have actual understanding of the history of journalism would have understood and given credence to, have accomplished far more.

You've made 22 posts. Those are 3 of them. As I suggested earlier, first rule of holes...

 

[Tony2046]

I knew someone would broadcast his lack of very basic logic by quoting the post where I questioned someone's post, not the person himself. If you can't distinguish between the two, there's not much hope for rational discourse with you.

Dude knock it off. It's not impressive. No matter how much Febreeze you spray on that dog sh!t of an opinion it still sucks and instead of turning it into a "agree to disagree" type situation you've raged some kind of ridiculous "my credentials are greater than your credentials and therefor I'm right" type of bullshyt.

"blah blah blah PHD blah blah $500K blah blah blah"

WTF? hahahaha

 

[Tony2046]

Wow, you really got me. Nothing wins an argument like puerile profanity. You just totally excoriated my opinion with your whiskey-addled unintelligible rant.

Thou art ridiculous.

 

[maust]

Look at you displaying your thin skinned internet pugnacity, so busy looking for an argument you missed the point entirely. People took exception to your post because your criticism of Curran, based on his well known body of work to members of this forum, was mistaken. As for my 'critique' of your redundancy you invited it by touting your background and skills. A legitimate writer would have recognized my observation as valid. I await your next insecure and self aggrandizing riposte with bemusement oh 'doctor' of letters. In a battle of wits with Massholes you sir are unarmed.

 

[maineman209]

So, a thread about Gronk seems to have shifted into dueling discussions of pains in the back and lower parts of the anatomy. Hmmm ...

It seems to me that Curran has made some reasonable speculations about the personal side of Gronk's current unhappiness while more or less avoiding turning those speculations into soap opera plot points. And what Curran ponders may well be contributing factors to Gronk's malaise.

However, my guess is that this is mostly about money.

Start with the fact that, while Gronk's cap hits for 2018 and 2019 are ~$11M and $12M, respectively, only $4M of that $23M is guaranteed.

Then, consider that, for three of the past four seasons, Gronk has been in the Top-10 in receiving yards, receiving TDs and 20+ yard receptions, and damn close in YPC. All the rest of those Top-10s have been WRs, nearly all of whom have higher (or even significantly higher) AAV contracts and, more importantly, higher guaranteed money.

While the Pats' organization may or may not be able (or willing) to do anything about any Guererro-related issues (for instance) they can - and perhaps, should - do something about the money side. And, perhaps their addition of incentive bonuses to Gronk's 2017 pay demonstrated some willingness to do so.

It's technically and mathematically possible for the Pats to extend Gronk's current contract for another three seasons (through 2022, when Gronk will be 33). In so doing, they could significantly increase Gronk's guaranteed money and provide him with an AAV that would be in the Top-10 among WRs - while simultaneously reducing his cap hits for 2018 and 2019 by $4M-$5M for each year.

Seems like the smart play to me, and perhaps more technically feasible now than it was at this time in 2017.

Full disclosure:

I do NOT have a degree in English or any other human language. I do, however, shovel s**t for a living - literally. Seriously, I'm a commercial gardener/manure-mover these days. "PhD" has a somewhat different personal meaning to me.

OTOH, I confess that I can still recite portions of the Bard's plays and sonnets from memory (when appropriately lubricated), and I'm infamous for completing the Sunday NYT crossword (in ink) in just one or two extended sessions on the crapper (I haz skillz, as well as occasional constipation). But then, I also cling to the belief that the Aeneid was written as an epic comedy and would love to see it turned into a film with Dax Shepard in the title role, so maybe I'm just an alien life form.

 

[luuked]

It's technically and mathematically possible for the Pats to extend Gronk's current contract for another three seasons (through 2022, when Gronk will be 33). In so doing, they could significantly increase Gronk's guaranteed money and provide him with an AAV that would be in the Top-10 among WRs - while simultaneously reducing his cap hits for 2018 and 2019 by $4M-$5M for each year.

You gotta be careful with the structure because if he in a year or two suddenly does decide to retire you dont want to accelerate too much of the signing bonus into that year.

On a sidenote, I always felt that when players retire there should be no acceleration of that bonus but it should be possible to keep the intended structure in place. Especially because retirement often can be due to a injury that was sustained out of nowhere.

 

[Joker]

The NYT Sunday crossword is a shadow of its' former glorious self. The LA Times Sunday crossword puts it to shame BUT...you want to twist your gourd like a wet rag? Try the London Times crossword....make sure you have final expenses and burial costs taken care of though.

 

[PatsfanTN]

Damn, logged in and saw this thread near the top of the forum, thought someone had good news. This thread successfully trolled me.

 

[PatsDeb]

Damn, logged in and saw this thread near the top of the forum, thought someone had good news. This thread successfully trolled me.

It's a good review of all your SAT vocabulary words though!

 

[BTTA]

Full disclosure:

I do NOT have a degree in English or any other human language. I do, however, shovel s**t for a living - literally. Seriously, I'm a commercial gardener/manure-mover these days. "PhD" has a somewhat different personal meaning to me.

OTOH, I confess that I can still recite portions of the Bard's plays and sonnets from memory (when appropriately lubricated), and I'm infamous for completing the Sunday NYT crossword (in ink) in just one or two extended sessions on the crapper (I haz skillz, as well as occasional constipation). But then, I also cling to the belief that the Aeneid was written as an epic comedy and would love to see it turned into a film with Dax Shepard in the title role, so maybe I'm just an alien life form.

 

[Clonamery]

The NYT Sunday crossword is a shadow of its' former glorious self. The LA Times Sunday crossword puts it to shame BUT...you want to twist your gourd like a wet rag? Try the London Times crossword....make sure you have final expenses and burial costs taken care of though.

Huh. I’ve never had a cross word for any human. Jete fans are not human.

 

[Nikolai]

Damn, logged in and saw this thread near the top of the forum, thought someone had good news. This thread successfully trolled me.

Though I found the "i Am A pHD" talk pretty interesting. It's been a while since I've seen that on the internet...a true relic of the 2001-2003 era.

 

[luuked]

Though I found the "i Am A pHD" talk pretty interesting. It's been a while since I've seen that on the internet...a true relic of the 2001-2003 era.

Wasssaaaaaaaaaauuuup..

 

[Galeb]

Thou art ridiculous.

The return of Thelonius?

 

[Galeb]

Though I found the "i Am A pHD" talk pretty interesting. It's been a while since I've seen that on the internet...a true relic of the 2001-2003 era.

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[maineman209]

You gotta be careful with the structure because if he in a year or two suddenly does decide to retire you dont want to accelerate too much of the signing bonus into that year.

On a sidenote, I always felt that when players retire there should be no acceleration of that bonus but it should be possible to keep the intended structure in place. Especially because retirement often can be due to a injury that was sustained out of nowhere.

Isn't there some sort of appeals process, though, whereby a team may be allowed to delay cap hit acceleration due to a sudden retirement or a non-football injury that ends a career?

 

[maineman209]

The NYT Sunday crossword is a shadow of its' former glorious self. The LA Times Sunday crossword puts it to shame BUT...you want to twist your gourd like a wet rag? Try the London Times crossword....make sure you have final expenses and burial costs taken care of though.

Actually, I've lately been working my way through my recently-deceased mother-in-law's stash of older NYTs. I'm in 2008-09 right now, and some of those require three "sessions".