No fantasy whatsoever. Have you ever taken an economics class? Supply and demand? You realize that due to Randall's injury his demand was very down? That is why he wasn't worried about an extension because he knew he couldn't command what he hoped to command somewhere down the road. That is where our org failed. It should've jumped into that gap BEFORE

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

Just stop. Not "wasn't worried about an extension," DID NOT WANT AN EXTENSION after 2013 because he knew he couldn't command a fair contract after missing 10 games in 2013. You can't "jump into that gap" and force a long term BELOW MARKET extension on a player. I'm sorry, the player has to agree to and sign the contract. You might think Randall Cobb is pretty dumb but I guarantee you his agent isn't dumb.

Originally Posted by: greengold 

Uffda, your theory is built on baseless speculation:
1. That the Packers didn't try to sign Bulaga and/or Cobb to cheaper deals before they hit the market
2. Had the Packers done so, that Bulaga and/or Cobb would have been inclined to accept such deals

Certainly, the Packers would have likely saved money had they signed them a year earlier, but unless you have a source for the above, it isn't a fact, it isn't a certainty. As has already been mentioned, it takes two parties to come to an agreement on a contract. Bulaga and Cobb bet on themselves and won, it was smart on their part, and it could have easily gone the other way.

Just as you can't accurately judge a draft pick before they've played a few years, you can't judge a contract until a few years in. It's entirely possible that the Bulaga and/or Cobb will underperform and not be worth their contracts, but at this point, suggesting such is yet again baseless speculation. Unless you have a time machine, you have no idea whether this will be the case.

Opining that the Packers overspent is completely fine, it's a reasonable opinion. Stating it repeatedly as fact is ridiculous, unless you have a reliable source inside the organization giving you tangible information to support your theory. Believing something very strongly doesn't make it any more accurate, likely or true.

Originally Posted by: earthquake 

Uffda, your theory is built on baseless speculation:
1. That the Packers didn't try to sign Bulaga and/or Cobb to cheaper deals before they hit the market
2. Had the Packers done so, that Bulaga and/or Cobb would have been inclined to accept such deals

Certainly, the Packers would have likely saved money had they signed them a year earlier, but unless you have a source for the above, it isn't a fact, it isn't a certainty. As has already been mentioned, it takes two parties to come to an agreement on a contract. Bulaga and Cobb bet on themselves and won, it was smart on their part, and it could have easily gone the other way.

Just as you can't accurately judge a draft pick before they've played a few years, you can't judge a contract until a few years in. It's entirely possible that Bulaga and/or Cobb will underperform and not be worth their contracts, but at this point, suggesting such is yet again baseless speculation. Unless you have a time machine, you have no idea whether this will be the case.

Opining that the Packers overspent is completely fine, it's a reasonable opinion. Stating it repeatedly as fact is ridiculous, unless you have a reliable source inside the organization giving you tangible information to support your theory. Believing something very strongly doesn't make it any more accurate, likely or true.

Originally Posted by: earthquake 

I've already provided source(S) for numbers prior to the settling on 10 mil. We KNOW that it wasn't going to take 10 million to get him to sign before he had the year he had last year so why are you trying to rattle my cage?

There is nothing to gauge here. It is an undeniable irrefutable FACT that it wouldn't have taken 10 million to sign Randall Cobb BEFORE last season. Why you wish to argue this is beyond me.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

I've already provided source(S) for numbers prior to the settling on 10 mil. We KNOW that it wasn't going to take 10 million to get him to sign before he had the year he had last year so why are you trying to rattle my cage?

There is nothing to gauge here. It is an undeniable irrefutable FACT that it wouldn't have taken 10 million to sign Randall Cobb BEFORE last season. Why you wish to argue this is beyond me.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

The part you conveniently ignore is WHY Randall Cobb OR ANY PLAYER would sign a BELOW MARKET contract coming off a season when he missed TEN games due to injury. WHY would he do that? He would not and did not. No player that believes in themselves would sign that contract. NONE.

Originally Posted by: greengold 

I'm at a loss. Why is it so hard to comprehend that this is not what I'm referring to at all? Duh. Of course, a player doesn't take a deal commensurate with a season he just had that was truncated by a broken leg. I have NEVER implied he should.

What else do I need to say to you... THE ORGANIZATION not RC18 should've realized and known what they had in Cobb...the org had it set up PERFECTLY to extend him early. He wasn't coming off an all world season. That is when you offer him a very good deal to get him to sign. Athletes are very insecure and I know this from all the agents offices I dealt with and cultivated relationships with over the years. If you plunked down 5 or 6 mil in front of RC18 after he has a season where he does nothing and he's coming off a rookie deal that looks pretty sweet. You don't think it enters his mind at all that he might tear his ACL or go the way of Finley? Athletes crave security. Obviously, what we offered him was a joke. I have said we should've offered him a very very good contract where he would be more than happy to not have to take a risk. We did not do that therefore he did not sign. Our org didn't see or anticipate he would put up the season he did last year but he did and we paid through the nose for not having the foresight to compensate for what he would do not what he did do...that's what you don't get. We should've paid Randall like a guy who would've had a tremendous season had he not been injured. We didn't We wanted to pay him "market value" based on his truncated season. We gambled... we lost. No other way about it. Randall came out smelling like a rose.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa