First thought when Texans named in suit was it seemed odd to the "Buzbee and owner are friends" people.
we don't know what the offer was they'd accept as they didn't make it known....but it was known they would not allow meetings unless those teams had an offer in place they'd accept should Watson agree to go there.
where have I emphatically put blame?
Yep ....which makes it even more strange you don't understand by agreeing they'd offer the same if NOT facing suspension you agree with my point that this deal was not done to help Watson out in case he is suspended. he was getting a $1.035 mil base year 1 regardless.
No, that’s incorrect Because he is indeed likely to be suspended. Since he is about to be suspended a high year one salary that he’ll never see a part of would benefit no one but him. How is it you can’t see that simple fact. You can’t look at it as a regular contract. This is a contract given to a guy who will never see 100% of his contract. The more he doesn’t get, the more never hits the Browns cap
Jesus Christ it’s like banging your head against a wall trying to explain something everyone knows to someone whose agenda doesn’t want it to be so.
I’m done on the topic. I think you 100% know you are wrong because you’d have to be a complete moron to not see it and I know for years you’ve been agenda driven and refuse to admit you are wrong on anything and will argue for weeks while refusing to do so but I didnt think you were a moron in the past. It’s actually comical at this point
The Browns (and many teams) sign big money guys to minimum base deals in year 1. Watson was a big money guy. He got a minimum base deal. was going to get this contract if a suspension loomed or not. Pretty simple.
I've admitted I was wrong a couple times (maybe a few) in threads about Watson and Baker. Wonder if you'll admit you were wrong by saying I wont admit I'm wrong.Jesus Christ it’s like banging your head against a wall trying to explain something everyone knows to someone whose agenda doesn’t want it to be so.
A major reason they do so is they dont have the cap space to gove them a lot year 1, so they back load the deal. Also in most of those deals years the last couple years aren't guaranteed, so they can cut bait if needed.
I get why they do it and also that the Browns do have a ton of cap space. Had watson been the only player they did this for this might be believable (that it was done solely because of looming suspension). However, they signed Garrett to the same base in year 1. Now some may say he may smash another QB with a helmet so just in case to protect him? However, Ward and Njoku also got the same restructured base in 2022 on their extensions
Yup, no matter how it's explained, he just goes back to repeating his same argument over and over again and when you explain why his argument doesn't hold water he just keeps repeating his argument over and over like a broken record.Jesus Christ it’s like banging your head against a wall trying to explain something everyone knows to someone whose agenda doesn’t want it to be so.
Try this: "Name 2 or more players who have a 'Language exists that will not void future guarantees upon suspension' or similar note on their Spotrac contract page?"
You could've just said you lied and saved us time.
Come on Karen we expect more our of our grammAr Nazis.
I don't know much about @dtgold88's history on here, but it looks like he's correct on this.
Did those teams do that because they needed cap space? Browns had plenty of cap space already. It's been acknowledged that teams do this because they need current cap space.
OK, how much cap space did the Rams have for year 1 of that contract, and didvthey protect Stafford from losing money due to suspension?
I dunno. Name a QB in that circumstance and I can check.
Carrs 3 year extension, check that.
