If Randy is claimed on waivers,.....

[hallfamebrady]

I think the best drama has yet to come. I see one of the following:

1. Moss staying and Childress getting fired.

2. Moss holding out based on who picks him up.

3. All of the above happening.

 

[Ring 6]

No. You responded as if it was an expectation of mine. Otherwise, you'd have chosen different wording.

I offered it as a possibility. Not a probability or expectation.

As for your example, no. The way you have it written, you are implying it's fact. Not that it's a reasonable possibility.

For it to be a reasonable possibility, you'd have phrase it like this:
"Deion Branch could demand to renegotiate his contract if he catches 100 passes this year."

Dude, get some command of the English language.

A: "If the Bengals win out they can match last years 10-6 record"
B: "How do you expect them to win out when they are 2-6 and playing awful?"

See A floated a ridiculous scenario, but by saying it he implied it was a reasonable possiblity.
B pointed out that it was not reasonable. B does not imply that A EXPECTS the scenario to happen, but asks how he could expect it to be a reasonable possibility.

Same here.

If I said how do you think there is a change Moss will put up big numbers...
instead of how would you expect...
does that better fit the simplistic usage of the language you want to invoke?

 

[DaBruinz]

Dude, get some command of the English language.

Andy - My command of the English language is just fine. You are the one with the problem and making assumptions about what others are saying.

A: "If the Bengals win out they can match last years 10-6 record"
B: "How do you expect them to win out when they are 2-6 and playing awful?"

See A floated a ridiculous scenario, but by saying it he implied it was a reasonable possiblity.
B pointed out that it was not reasonable. B does not imply that A EXPECTS the scenario to happen, but asks how he could expect it to be a reasonable possibility.

Same here.

First of all, you made an assumption that what I said is a ridiculous scenario. It's only your opinion that it's ridiculous. So, again, instead of just reading what is said, you are putting your own connotations into what I said and therefore distorting it.

BTW, one only has to look at what Randy Moss did in 2007 to know that, when Randy is happy, he is one of the best receivers in the league. So, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Randy could produce numbers good enough to earn him a good (but not great) contract. One that would pay him around $4-$6 million. He wasn't ever going to get a contract larger than that. Not at 33 years old..

If I said how do you think there is a change Moss will put up big numbers...
instead of how would you expect...
does that better fit the simplistic usage of the language you want to invoke?

While you call it "simplistic", I call it saying what I mean. That way I reduce the potential for misinterpretation. It also allows me to be very clear so that when people try and claim I said something that I didn't, I can easily show them they were wrong.