Let's all go back and see who has posted the most in this thread besides me.  The guy who wanted it to slide off the first page.  LOL

 

Carry on.  

 

I'm not the one who is trying to hide my stupidity.  At this point, I'm posting to assure it doesn't slide off the first page.  Once again, you've struck gold.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Contract value vs. production matters a whole bunch.

 

Let me see if I can get this straight.  A player is drafted in the 4th round, proves to be pretty good, and rather than offer him a contract following a rookie contract, you say trade him for a 3rd round pick?  Exactly what team would offer a 3rd round pick to a veteran drafted in the 4th round of his draft class?  Especially for a player that you call "injury prone"?  That team would also have to negotiate his new veteran salary.  Exactly which team would spend a 3rd round pick and offer him a veteran salary?

 

This kind of logic isn't going to have the desired impact you're hoping for.  Remember, we're getting more than one pick for Shorts in trade despite the fact that one poster is calling him average, and another poster is referencing his injury history.   They contradict their own suggestions, and they don't even realize they're doing it.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

What is it with every decent player we have it's an instant trade?  We need all of our playmakers not ship them off for some draft pick.

---

I'm not the one who is trying to hide my stupidity.  At this point, I'm posting to assure it doesn't slide off the first page.  Once again, you've struck gold.

Like I said, we all realize to YOU it is the worst idea in the world, since YOU didn't come up with it and don't agree with it.

 

You can continue to rant all you want and keep the thread alive, despite your skewed opinion of it.

 

Keep setting that good example with insult after insult as the "administrator" also.  We are all enjoying your bullying and calling other names like you are in 3rd grade, as usual. 

 

I'm not sure if you have missed some of my posts or you are just intentionally ignoring them to further your agenda. Let me start over:

 

1. IF the contract negotiations with Shorts don't go well, we might be able to trade him to Cleveland, really NEEDS another WR, therefore they might be willing to give a 3rd rounder for a guy who has had one very good season, but has also had injury issues.  Since they NEED a WR, they may focus on his perceived potential.  

 

2. IF we do re-sign Shorts, IMO it will be for a deal that will be low enough ($3M-$4M per year) that it won't rule out a trade to another team later in the season or next year, if in fact the two rookies play just as well or better than Shorts, therefore limiting his snaps and his worth.  By keeping his contract numbers reasonable, another team may still be willing to take on his salary.

 

Now, again, I know you will continue to skew and exaggerate everything I said to further your agenda, but any reasonable fan, and there have been several in this thread, without a personal agenda against me, will see the idea is not so far-fetched.  

---

Like I said, we all realize to YOU it is the worst idea in the world, since YOU didn't come up with it and don't agree with it.

 

You can continue to rant all you want and keep the thread alive, despite your skewed opinion of it.

 

Keep setting that good example with insult after insult as the "administrator" also.  We are all enjoying your bullying and calling other names like you are in 3rd grade, as usual. 

 

I'm not sure if you have missed some of my posts or you are just intentionally ignoring them to further your agenda. Let me start over:

 

1. IF the contract negotiations with Shorts don't go well, we might be able to trade him to Cleveland, really NEEDS another WR, therefore they might be willing to give a 3rd rounder for a guy who has had one very good season, but has also had injury issues.  Since they NEED a WR, they may focus on his perceived potential.  

 

2. IF we do re-sign Shorts, IMO it will be for a deal that will be low enough ($3M-$4M per year) that it won't rule out a trade to another team later in the season or next year, if in fact the two rookies play just as well or better than Shorts, therefore limiting his snaps and his worth.  By keeping his contract numbers reasonable, another team may still be willing to take on his salary.

 

Now, again, I know you will continue to skew and exaggerate everything I said to further your agenda, but any reasonable fan, and there have been several in this thread, without a personal agenda against me, will see the idea is not so far-fetched.  

---

Me?  I make up stuff?  Why are you spouting off about trading him for a 4th rounder when I said 3rd in the original post?

 

And why are you still responding to the thread you want to die?  (Not answering, no surprise there).

 

As far as the contract values vs the production of the player, it doesn't really matter.  Everybody knows all kind of factors go into contracts, depending on the team, player, needs, etc.  This is not a "pay for performance" league, if you have not figured it out.

If ur saying his salary value now plays into how much a team is willing to offer, i completely agree... But i still dont think his production warrents anything more than something miniscule like a 5th..... Getting a 3 rd for him, imo, is out of the question.... Think about if caldwell handed a third away for a player Like shorts... There would hell to pay if this fan base didnt know that guy and we dished out a pick that early.

---

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jagabc6893" data-cid="212096" data-time="1400804889">

Like I said, we all realize to YOU it is the worst idea in the world, since YOU didn't come up with it and don't agree with it.


You can continue to rant all you want and keep the thread alive, despite your skewed opinion of it.


Keep setting that good example with insult after insult as the "administrator" also. We are all enjoying your bullying and calling other names like you are in 3rd grade, as usual.


I'm not sure if you have missed some of my posts or you are just intentionally ignoring them to further your agenda. Let me start over:


1. IF the contract negotiations with Shorts don't go well, we might be able to trade him to Cleveland, really NEEDS another WR, therefore they might be willing to give a 3rd rounder for a guy who has had one very good season, but has also had injury issues. Since they NEED a WR, they may focus on his perceived potential.


2. IF we do re-sign Shorts, IMO it will be for a deal that will be low enough ($3M-$4M per year) that it won't rule out a trade to another team later in the season or next year, if in fact the two rookies play just as well or better than Shorts, therefore limiting his snaps and his worth. By keeping his contract numbers reasonable, another team may still be willing to take on his salary.


Now, again, I know you will continue to skew and exaggerate everything I said to further your agenda, but any reasonable fan, and there have been several in this thread, without a personal agenda against me, will see the idea is not so far-fetched.

</blockquote>
This thread is like a chest thumping competition. No one wants to admit that they are wrong.


And I'm enjoying it!

---

"Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot."

Sounds fair.



That's my point. The value in trade wouldn't be worth it. If we had a Blackmon on the roster right now, then things would be different, but he's not here.

wait.. You mean we don't want to rely on 2 rookies and sanders as our starting receivers?

---

wait.. You mean we don't want to rely on 2 rookies and sanders as our starting receivers?

Nope. I've never said we should.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Like I said, we all realize to YOU it is the worst idea in the world, since YOU didn't come up with it and don't agree with it.

 

You can continue to rant all you want and keep the thread alive, despite your skewed opinion of it.

 

Keep setting that good example with insult after insult as the "administrator" also.  We are all enjoying your bullying and calling other names like you are in 3rd grade, as usual. 

 

I'm not sure if you have missed some of my posts or you are just intentionally ignoring them to further your agenda. Let me start over:

 

1. IF the contract negotiations with Shorts don't go well, we might be able to trade him to Cleveland, really NEEDS another WR, therefore they might be willing to give a 3rd rounder for a guy who has had one very good season, but has also had injury issues.  Since they NEED a WR, they may focus on his perceived potential.  

 

2. IF we do re-sign Shorts, IMO it will be for a deal that will be low enough ($3M-$4M per year) that it won't rule out a trade to another team later in the season or next year, if in fact the two rookies play just as well or better than Shorts, therefore limiting his snaps and his worth.  By keeping his contract numbers reasonable, another team may still be willing to take on his salary.

 

Now, again, I know you will continue to skew and exaggerate everything I said to further your agenda, but any reasonable fan, and there have been several in this thread, without a personal agenda against me, will see the idea is not so far-fetched.

I don't have to skew or exaggerate a single thing you post here. You pretty much make my point with every keystroke.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

If you can get a 2nd, deal him.


I'd rather have a 2nd round DT, FS, OG, C, TE, LB than Shorts right now.


We are still rebuilding. Cecil is a hearty at-a-boy slap on the helmet away from another concussion.

---

Nope. I've never said we should.

you rarely miss my sarcasm.

---

Really? 

 

 

Clearly, my reading comprehension skills are not as wicked good as yours.  It's obvious you said exactly as you claimed, if a team would give up a certain level of value I could see the point in trading him.

 

You definitely didn't suggest some team would give up a good haul of picks, implying multiple picks.  You never said that.  You definitely said good value.  Yup. 

 

Here's a tip for you.  You might want to try editing your posts before trying to lie your way out of a claim once you've been called out on it.  Only idiots would leave the original post in place before denying they ever said it. 

 

What I said: "If someone wanted to give me a million dollars for my house I think I'd take that deal"

 

 

What FBT and his friends read: "SOMEONE GAVE ME A MILLION DOLLARS FOR MY HOUSE"

---

Pittsburgh is part of the NFL, the Jaguars are part of the NFL. Success in the NFL isn't dependent on keeping around middle of the road talents at all costs.

 

Like I said, if a team were willing to give up a good haul of picks for Shorts I have to believe Caldwell would be willing to listen.

 

 

What I said: "If someone wanted to give me a million dollars for my house I think I'd take that deal"

 

 

What FBT and his friends read: "SOMEONE GAVE ME A MILLION DOLLARS FOR MY HOUSE"

 

You said what you said.  Feel free to try to squirm your way away from what you said in any way you see fit.  You're back tracking.  You should consider running for office because you've already got the sleazy double-speak down.

 

My point all along has been pretty consistent.  You suggested a team would give up multiple picks.  Then you came back and tried to say you indicated proper value.  Either way, you're contradicting yourself because you've also referred to Shorts as a mediocre player.  What team is going to offer multiple picks for a mediocre player? 

 

Start the new squirm maneuver.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

You said what you said.  Feel free to try to squirm your way away from what you said in any way you see fit.  You're back tracking.  You should consider running for office because you've already got the sleazy double-speak down.

 

My point all along has been pretty consistent.  You suggested a team would give up multiple picks.  Then you came back and tried to say you indicated proper value.  Either way, you're contradicting yourself because you've also referred to Shorts as a mediocre player.  What team is going to offer multiple picks for a mediocre player? 

 

Start the new squirm maneuver.

 

You should be a cop, I've never heard someone repeat what someone just said then claim they said something completely different so many times.

 

At least you're sure of yourself, even if it's clear your ability to comprehend reality is limited.

---

You should be a cop, I've never heard someone repeat what someone just said then claim they said something completely different so many times.

 

At least you're sure of yourself, even if it's clear your ability to comprehend reality is limited.

 

Did you not say you'd take a deal if a team offered multiple picks for Shorts?

 

Trust me, nothing you're posting here is terribly difficult to understand. 

 

You suggested a team would offer multiple picks.  I disagreed, and used your own logic to do so.  You call him a mediocre to average receiver.  No team is going to offer that deal.  Is this really that difficult for you to comprehend?

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Did you not say you'd take a deal if a team offered multiple picks for Shorts?

 

Trust me, nothing you're posting here is terribly difficult to understand. 

 

You suggested a team would offer multiple picks.  I disagreed, and used your own logic to do so.  You call him a mediocre to average receiver.  No team is going to offer that deal.  Is this really that difficult for you to comprehend?

 

The problem is you're claiming that I'm suggesting something which I never suggested.

 

What I suggested is that if a team wanted to pay a high price for Shorts I'd take it and that I'd hope Caldwell would at least consider such an offer.

 

Nothing in that sentence suggests I think a team would overpay for anyone. Anything is possible, Gabbert proved that, but I didn't suggest a team actually pony up a 2nd rounder for a guy who is still quite unproven and has concussion issues.

---

You said what you said.  Feel free to try to squirm your way away from what you said in any way you see fit.  You're back tracking.  You should consider running for office because you've already got the sleazy double-speak down.

 

My point all along has been pretty consistent.  You suggested a team would give up multiple picks.  Then you came back and tried to say you indicated proper value.  Either way, you're contradicting yourself because you've also referred to Shorts as a mediocre player.  What team is going to offer multiple picks for a mediocre player? 

 

Start the new squirm maneuver.

In the big red Quote you just posted.... Didn't he say "IF".. If a team offered multiple picks

---

In the big red Quote you just posted.... Didn't he say "IF".. If a team offered multiple picks

 

Does that make it impervious to disagreement?

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

The problem is you're claiming that I'm suggesting something which I never suggested.

 

What I suggested is that if a team wanted to pay a high price for Shorts I'd take it and that I'd hope Caldwell would at least consider such an offer.

 

Nothing in that sentence suggests I think a team would overpay for anyone. Anything is possible, Gabbert proved that, but I didn't suggest a team actually pony up a 2nd rounder for a guy who is still quite unproven and has concussion issues.

 

So you didn't suggest it but you did?  You didn't suggest if a team offered multiple picks you'd take it, but you did suggest it?  Really?

 

You've got a career in politics waiting.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.