In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
In response to PatsEng's comment:
Wow you really want to slide the symantec scale around. You said durable not about how many games. If you want to talk games it is a different story but don't say call it what you want because they are two very different things.
Missing games is the result of not being durable. So how is missing games not the same story as durability?
So the Patriots can just get who they want right? Hey you , you sign here on this line now or I'll break your head. Pretty sure it is a two way street.
No but they can certainly increase their odds of getting a player they want by paying slightly over market value in a position of need instead of trying to underbid the market to get the deal
We'll see, I have no idea what the future holds, and it is not only about this year.
You are right, it's about the next 2 honestly (deal that Welker signed), but you have to admit it's not the total value of the deal but how much the play per game time played. I mean if I give a guy $3mil bonus and he plays only 1 game is it worth the same as paying someone $5mil bonus but having him play all 16? I'd say the better value is in the latter even though you ended up paying more
It is better to negotiate from a position of strength. As far as entertainment. Drama is entertainment even if unintended. The Sox are kicking butt and people are probably talking about the Pats as much or more because of this. These boards are more active than in a long time, maybe. It's all entertainment.
True but I'd say boards like this are only a tiny % of the entertainment pie compared to TV and gameday tickets. The entertainment value is dominanted by on field perfromance and the general public (hardcores like us would watch regardless) prefer O over a defensive struggle so having that one extra weapon provides more entertainment as a whole
Haha nice analogy except if you didn't have two cars that "might" break down at some point, why would you let an aging car, (you said you were good with odds elsewhere), dictate to you how much you were going to pay to replace the other two cars when the likelihood, odds wise, are that an againg car "might" also start breaking down at some point. The Patriots did do that anyway though, they tried. They are rarely going to break their operating model however.
Because it's a known vs an unknown. I have a 13 yr old car I take care of and has never been an issue. My friend has a 5yr old car that has broken down on him 3 times already. I'd say I'd rather have the older car with the better track record than the one that already breaks down. True the older one will eventually break down but I have more faith it won't than the one that already has 3 times
By the way, enjoying the discussion.
I'm enjoying it to. These are good discussions which involve no name calling with both people presenting their view points in a civil manner