Greed knows no bounds.

[BillyBaroo]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...een-jets-revis/

 

He is the best corner in football but come on!

 

Idiot Al Davis screwed up the market value for top-tier CBs. But Asomougha's deal isn't long term.

 

Holding out for 10 years/$150/160mil is retarded.

 

He's not even on my team and I'm annoyed by it and want it over with. Take the 10 years/$120mil. I wonder how much guaranteed he'll get.

I don't know if any corner is ever worth that much exhibit A - Nate Clements

[Mr. WEO]

Apparently you have a problem making associations. I would imagine to most it was self explanatory but I will elaborate. Claiming that 120 million over 10 years is sufficient for Reevis' contract is ignorant of his actual worth and the value of NFL players who have hit the genetic lottery and are quite literally often 1 in a million who are able to accomplish the feats they do on the field. I made the Bill Gates reference as an illustration of the absurd concept of claiming that a number just because it is high for people like you and I is sufficient compensation for what is being obtained for that amount of money. Simply put, 120 million over 10 years may be a big number but it may not be sufficient compensation. Get it?

 

It doesn't ignore anything I posted earlier. It was just a response to your comments about a number being enough without knowing any of the other details of the contract proposals and the fact that the number may not be enough. Hope this helps.

No, I have trouble following your always goofy logic.

 

Look, this is what you said:

 

That bastard owner has had the best CB and possibly the best football player in the NFL playing for peanuts as the lowest paid CB on his team much less the entire NFL. The owner is pinching pennies and doesn't want to reward an exceptional employee with the compensation he is due. The owner looks at it like a business and sees he is getting an incredible deal paying this guy nothing and wants to keep miking him but not as badly as he was milking him before.

 

I pointed out the 120 million offer. No matter what the incentives, my guess is that this offer is not, as you claim, an attempt at penny pinching or further "milking". It is likely a deal that will reward him in a way at least an order of magnitude better than now.

[The Dean]

Oh come on! Is the network channel "screwing me" by advertising products I might buy when I am watching their programs other than NFL games?? What a reach!

 

 

Well it would be a reach and make no sense. But of course you completely misunderstood the point.

 

You said you see the games for free. You do not.

 

You don't pay directly, but the cost of advertising is included in every product you buy. If you pay $100 for Nikes, some portion of it is due to the cost of advertising during NFL games. Nothing is FREE. But, as I also said, the ones getting hit hard are the fans who buy tickets.

 

I have no problem with them paying the $$ for the tickets. I do, when I can afford it and have a chance to go. But in the crying about salaries, contracts, etc. the truth is everyone is making big money in the NFL (the owners making the most) and the fans are footing the bill. Fans who blindly support owners and blame the players are freaking stupid, IMO.

[PDaDdy]

No, I have trouble following your always goofy logic.

 

Look, this is what you said:

 

 

 

I pointed out the 120 million offer. No matter what the incentives, my guess is that this offer is not, as you claim, an attempt at penny pinching or further "milking". It is likely a deal that will reward him in a way at least an order of magnitude better than now.

 

I still think you have trouble understanding but eh. Let's continue the analogy a little further. If I offer Bills Gates an order of magnitude more money than 120 million say....1 billion...is that enough compensation to buy Microsoft? See? It's still not enough. To be honest as another poster mentioned I don't know that you can EVER spend a crap load of money on a corner even one as incredibly gifted and hard working as Reevis. It means you lose elsewhere.

 

A penny pincher, at least in my estimation, is not just someone who is unwilling to spend a lot of money but a person who is always trying to pay less than something is worth and getting the best of the guy in a deal. For all you and I know they could be quibbling over 30 vs 30.5 million guaranteed. If you're willing to go that far and pay that much 500K isn't worth squabbling about. I have no idea about those example numbers but why drag this out. This isn't some run of the mill guy. This is a GREAT GREAT guy.

 

Any how, lighten up dude. "Penny pincher" is a common colloquialism. Don't get all Matlock on me. Drink some prune juice and loosen up.

[PDaDdy]

Well it would be a reach and make no sense. But of course you completely misunderstood the point.

 

You said you see the games for free. You do not.

 

You don't pay directly, but the cost of advertising is included in every product you buy. If you pay $100 for Nikes, some portion of it is due to the cost of advertising during NFL games. Nothing is FREE. But, as I also said, the ones getting hit hard are the fans who buy tickets.

 

I have no problem with them paying the $$ for the tickets. I do, when I can afford it and have a chance to go. But in the crying about salaries, contracts, etc. the truth is everyone is making big money in the NFL (the owners making the most) and the fans are footing the bill. Fans who blindly support owners and blame the players are freaking stupid, IMO.

 

Mr WEO misunderstands a lot of points apparently and then it's the poster fault for that misunderstanding not his inability to get it.

[Mr. WEO]

Well it would be a reach and make no sense. But of course you completely misunderstood the point.

 

You said you see the games for free. You do not.

 

You don't pay directly, but the cost of advertising is included in every product you buy. If you pay $100 for Nikes, some portion of it is due to the cost of advertising during NFL games. Nothing is FREE. But, as I also said, the ones getting hit hard are the fans who buy tickets.

 

I have no problem with them paying the $$ for the tickets. I do, when I can afford it and have a chance to go. But in the crying about salaries, contracts, etc. the truth is everyone is making big money in the NFL (the owners making the most) and the fans are footing the bill. Fans who blindly support owners and blame the players are freaking stupid, IMO.

No, I understand your point. I disagree with it. That's a nuance you haven't considered.

 

Even if I buy the Nikes, they were just as likely seen advertised on any TV show, not just NFL broadcasts. Therefore, the NFL in particular isn't screwing any viewer watching free TV.

 

Buying an NFL ticket is not like paying your electric bill. It is a luxury item. Fans who buy them do so willingly--and gladly, I would assume. Sure, everyone wishes they were cheaper. We wish everything was cheaper. I don't call fans who take a side in this argument "stupid"--they are free to voice an opinion. They are not "blindly supporting the owners", they are supporting their team and are paying for live entertainment.

[Clippers of Nfl]

i started to read the first page....then thought. he's not worth my reading.

 

sorry for interrupting to say this:

 

he's a di*k!

[Malazan]

I'm sure the PA appreciates it considering it will be brought up during negotiations.

[The Dean]

No, I understand your point. I disagree with it. That's a nuance you haven't considered.

 

Even if I buy the Nikes, they were just as likely seen advertised on any TV show, not just NFL broadcasts. Therefore, the NFL in particular isn't screwing any viewer watching free TV.

 

Buying an NFL ticket is not like paying your electric bill. It is a luxury item. Fans who buy them do so willingly--and gladly, I would assume. Sure, everyone wishes they were cheaper. We wish everything was cheaper. I don't call fans who take a side in this argument "stupid"--they are free to voice an opinion. They are not "blindly supporting the owners", they are supporting their team and are paying for live entertainment.

 

 

The NFL Ticket is much like those buying tickets. They choose to play the game (as do the owners, as do the players, as do the season ticket holders). But if you think you watch the games on FOX or CBS for free, you are WRONG. Your shopping bill is higher because of it. Even if you don't buy the Nikes, the guy who sells you your tires does, and he has to pay for them. Everything gets paid for by the fans and viewers. If you can't understand that, you are too far gone for me to devote my time to.

[firemedic]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...een-jets-revis/

 

He is the best corner in football but come on!

 

Idiot Al Davis screwed up the market value for top-tier CBs. But Asomougha's deal isn't long term.

 

Holding out for 10 years/$150/160mil is retarded.

 

He's not even on my team and I'm annoyed by it and want it over with. Take the 10 years/$120mil. I wonder how much guaranteed he'll get.

Actually, we don't want it over with, we want him to sit his AZZ for at least as long as it takes us to play the Jests twice.

[K-9]

regis should just take the money.

 

I'm sure Regis would love to take the money but there was little left when they bought out Kathy Lee and even less when they hired Kelly Ripa.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[The Dean]

BTW, I keep reading that Revis is the best CB in football.

 

I don't think he is.

 

Asomugha is the best CB in football.

 

Revis is way better than I expected him to be based on his college performance. He is VERY opportunistic (which is nice). But he had ONE great year.

 

Based on the replays I see over and over, it looks like a chunk of his big plays came on bad throws, where he was NOT in the best position had the throw been decent.

 

I'm not suggesting Revis isn't good. He is VERY good, but he isn't as good as Asomugha. I have a hunch he might even be exposed over the next couple of years.

[Mr. WEO]

The NFL Ticket is much like those buying tickets. They choose to play the game (as do the owners, as do the players, as do the season ticket holders). But if you think you watch the games on FOX or CBS for free, you are WRONG. Your shopping bill is higher because of it. Even if you don't buy the Nikes, the guy who sells you your tires does, and he has to pay for them. Everything gets paid for by the fans and viewers. If you can't understand that, you are too far gone for me to devote my time to.

I get it--we all pay more for advertising.

 

But your point is that there is something unique in this regard re: the NFL. You could say the same about any broadcast on network TV or commercial radio. Why aren't all entities producing content for TV and radio considered to be "screwing the fans"?

 

If one NEVER choses to watch a game on network TV, he or she STILL pays the extra price of all advertised goods per your argument. So therefore there is no added cost to the viewer if he chose to flip from CSI over to the football game--or from the newspaper to the game.

 

I think watching all away and most of the home games on TV for the tiny increase of the price I pay for many goods (that you say I am already paying anyway) is a great deal. In my "too far gone" mind, I'm gonna call that "free" football!

 

Sorry if I've wasted your time.

[Mr. WEO]

I still think you have trouble understanding but eh. Let's continue the analogy a little further. If I offer Bills Gates an order of magnitude more money than 120 million say....1 billion...is that enough compensation to buy Microsoft? See? It's still not enough. To be honest as another poster mentioned I don't know that you can EVER spend a crap load of money on a corner even one as incredibly gifted and hard working as Reevis. It means you lose elsewhere.

 

A penny pincher, at least in my estimation, is not just someone who is unwilling to spend a lot of money but a person who is always trying to pay less than something is worth and getting the best of the guy in a deal. For all you and I know they could be quibbling over 30 vs 30.5 million guaranteed. If you're willing to go that far and pay that much 500K isn't worth squabbling about. I have no idea about those example numbers but why drag this out. This isn't some run of the mill guy. This is a GREAT GREAT guy.

 

Any how, lighten up dude. "Penny pincher" is a common colloquialism. Don't get all Matlock on me. Drink some prune juice and loosen up.

You can concoct any number of awkward analogies and mangled metaphors (forget that Microsoft is a publicly held corporation and that Gates hasn't "owned" it for many years, or that all but 1 NFL team is privately held, or that there is only one Microsoft and there will be another "best CB in the league" every year.....)---they do not advance your point. Trust me.

 

Anyway, if the 120 mil offer (it has a big chunk guaranteed, to be sure) was the offer of an obvious penny pincher and tightwad, , what do you think is a reasonable offer? It seems clear you don't understand that the parties are NOT "500K" apart, but more like 30-40 million apart. What number did you have in mind.

[The Dean]

I get it--we all pay more for advertising.

 

But your point is that there is something unique in this regard re: the NFL. You could say the same about any broadcast on network TV or commercial radio. Why aren't all entities producing content for TV and radio considered to be "screwing the fans"?

 

If one NEVER choses to watch a game on network TV, he or she STILL pays the extra price of all advertised goods per your argument. So therefore there is no added cost to the viewer if he chose to flip from CSI over to the football game--or from the newspaper to the game.

 

I think watching all away and most of the home games on TV for the tiny increase of the price I pay for many goods (that you say I am already paying anyway) is a great deal. In my "too far gone" mind, I'm gonna call that "free" football!

 

Sorry if I've wasted your time.

 

 

If nobody watched the games, the advertising would be cheap. It costs a LOT to advertise in an NFL game. Even more to be a sponsor with your brand all over the broadcasts, site, etc.

 

I also like watching the games without directly paying for them, and I am a big fan. I'm smart enough to know it isn't free.

 

Who do you think pays the tab for the NFL? If the owners and player make millions, where does than money come from?

 

My point is, if you are a fan pissed off about contracts you shouldn't be mad at the players (or even the owners). They are getting paid and you are paying the bill. Don't like it? Stop buying tickets, getting the NFL ticket and watching the games. If you continue to pay the bill, they will continue to take your money.

 

Me? I'm a fan and don't mind. But you don't see me grousing over the $$ given to player contracts, players breaking their contracts, etc.