Sounds like you're hungry again.....you must have missed your lunch. 

 

You're not missing lunch as long as you get it in within 24 hours, so...

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Yes.  So when I say "80% chance Cleveland matches..." I'm not saying the Jags did the wrong thing. 

 

And considering this odd type of circumstance where you have the "Right to Match" clause hanging out there, isn't that bit of doubt what you want? I mean, if you wrote up a contract for a player, looked at it and said "Man, there is no way they are going to match this! This contract blows!" wouldn't that be rather dangerous? And the opposite is also true. You have to make it just good enough that it works and just bad enough that you don't want it.

 

Tricksy indeed.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

speaking of smart.....nice mishap on the link.....lol, its not working, genius...

worked for me

---

You say 60%, another fan in another post recently said 80% chance the Browns match....most people see it as a relatively easy match for the Browns, which suggests we didn't do that good on this contract offer. 

 

Or weren't going to drastically overspend. Dude, seriously the offer was perfectly fine. We gave him a record contract, so it's not we were frugal. I guarantee you we could have 100% had Cleveland decline if we can six years and $60million, but that would have been foolish. We weren't going to give him silly money for the sake of doing so, what he has now is most likely the maximum offer we were willing to give. Cleveland may just end up valuing him more than us, it's that simple.

 

What size contract or what language would you have written into Mack's contract, that would make it likely for Cleveland to decline since you're effectively blaming the team for not giving a good enough offer?

---

speaking of smart.....nice mishap on the link.....lol, its not working, genius...

So your computer is no smarter than the operator.

---

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

worked for me

And the raking of the coal continues. I'm embarrassed for him.

---

Look, I don't find you to be a troll as others and sometimes you make good points... But you love to throw outrageous stuff that us logical people find hysterical. Did you seriously use message board posters' percentage guesses as backup? I mean come on... HAHAHA!!

Apparently PFT and two message board posters are his proof. I mean how do you argue against that? Pretty solid right there.

---

Cleveland probably doesn't even have a copy of the contract yet.  

---

If they agree to match within 24 hours that pretty much constitutes as "immediately" IMO

"In no time at all" also = 24 hours?

---

The money amount was never the rub with this deal.

There is no rub to this deal as far as Cleveland is concerned. This contract ensures them the services of Alex Mack for at least 2 seasons. If Mack wanted out he could have just signed the tender and been a FA next year when the Browns would be less likely to tag him again. The opt-out after year 2 isn't a deterrent for the Browns because it's better than the alternative, losing him now or next year.

---

Cleveland probably doesn't even have a copy of the contract yet.  

 

I think that once it is filed with the League Office then Cleveland has it, or at least has access to it, at that point. Could be wrong on that, but that's the way I'm used to document control/distribution working.

---

I'm trying to make myself more informed and less opinionated.

Stop saying whatever stupid thing you're talking about and pay attention to all the interesting things I have to say!

Cleveland probably doesn't even have a copy of the contract yet.  

 

They have the contract already as it was filed to the NFL office and given to them. 

---

Follow me on twitter @Demetrius82

Cleveland probably doesn't even have a copy of the contract yet.  

 

Shhh, they said they would immediately match!

 

Seriously though, it will probably take them a day or two just to go over all the provisions in the contract unless the money is already too high.

---

There is no rub to this deal as far as Cleveland is concerned. This contract ensures them the services of Alex Mack for at least 2 seasons. If Mack wanted out he could have just signed the tender and been a FA next year when the Browns would be less likely to tag him again. The opt-out after year 2 isn't a deterrent for the Browns because it's better than the alternative, losing him now or next year.

 

I get this, you get this, the Browns org. gets this......but apparently....I'm being "raked over the coals"....lol. 

---

I get this, you get this, the Browns org. gets this......but apparently....I'm being "raked over the coals"....lol.

Who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself? Haha

---

Who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself? Haha

Well he has to save face for his "fans". My god, does a message board poster really have an ego that big?

---

There is no rub to this deal as far as Cleveland is concerned. This contract ensures them the services of Alex Mack for at least 2 seasons. If Mack wanted out he could have just signed the tender and been a FA next year when the Browns would be less likely to tag him again. The opt-out after year 2 isn't a deterrent for the Browns because it's better than the alternative, losing him now or next year.

Maybe you have stated, but why didn't they just sign him to a long term deal as he wanted?

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

WELP, forgot about that little no trade clause. Makes it even tougher. Awful contract for Browns and Jags even. 

I don't see the "No Trade" affecting the Browns decision.  Mack and his agent knew the likelyhood of Browns matching were good and IF Mack wants nothing to do with the Browns, why would he care about a "No Trade"?    If he wanted out, he'd wouldn't care and can get out in year 3.   I think the clause was about stability and protection from the Jags trading him and not Browns.  Year 3 is what the Browns have to maul over for a bit. 

---

I get this, you get this, the Browns org. gets this......but apparently....I'm being "raked over the coals"....lol. 

 

There are 80 pages and I can't be bothered to read them all. Have you actually made a suggestion as to what we could offer that the Browns wouldn't match? You know they have more cap room than us dont you?

---

Just to be different, Bortles.

Maybe you have stated, but why didn't they just sign him to a long term deal as he wanted?

He has said all along that he wanted to test free agency. The Browns allowed the market to set his value.

---