More pie - Page 195

J. Fred Muggs · 09-12-2006, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
If it makes you feel any better, I think that there is a consensus that Daniel Snyder is an overpaid spoiled brat. And let's not even start a discussion about Jerry Jones*. Argument over?

*the antichrist

I read an interesting profile in a recent Washingtonian magazine that portrays him as misunderstood and actually made him come off as a nice guy.

J. Fred Muggs · 09-12-2006, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
Please explain to me why it is okay to criticize my parenting but it is off limits for nox4 to criticize yours?

NotBob, would you care to step in and explain it on her behalf?

Because it is better parenting for her to stay away from her child, yet she realizes that time with you is valuable. Fairly prescient of her.

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-12-2006, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Okay. So then I don't even see why we're arguing. Owners want the system the way it is because they can get out of it at will. Players would prefer to have guaranteed contracts. I think they should get them. You do not. I think it's shitty that players get 100% of the negative media attention when they have outperformed their contract and want to be paid market value and teams are looked at as prudent and well-run when they shit all over a player they use up and toss aside.

I'm on the player's side of just about everyone owner-player dispute.* We're arguing because I thought you were claiming that NFL players -- in the aggregate -- would make more money if their contracts were guaranteed. Were that the case, I think more players would be making the same amount of money.

* The exception to this is the Branch/T.O. situation. If a player signs a contract, they should perform. It's not like they're going to give back part of the signing bonus if they suck. For a player like Branch, who is underpaid, I think it would be better if the team rips up the contract and reaches a new deal at market. But Branch and the Pats were trying to do that, and failing, evidently because they disagreed about what market is.

Quote:

What happens in college? If a player gets a scholarship and gets injured (or isn't as good as the coaches thought he would be), is he in danger of losing it?

I don't think so. I'd hate to use the college system as a model for anything, though.

Replaced_Texan · 09-12-2006, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That post was chilling.

I, too, get a chill up my spine looking at demographic data of large metropolitan areas.

Penske_Account · 09-12-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
And let's not even start a discussion about Jerry Jones*. Argument over?

*the antichrist

We dined al fresco. He treated for the brunch. Draw your own conclusions.

Replaced_Texan · 09-12-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Why did I not know about this manna from heaven?

Weirdness. I think that might have been a timewarp aftershock.

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-12-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by patentparanyc
There is genuine evidence divorce is damaging to kids.

Compared to having unhappy parents remain in an unhappy marriage? I doubt that.

ThurgreedMarshall · 09-12-2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
Please explain to me why it is okay to criticize my parenting but it is off limits for nox4 to criticize yours?

You should ask why she thinks she's so good at her job since she's on this board as much as you instead. Maybe she is implying that parenting is harder than paralegaling, since she can be outstanding at paralegaling while posting here all day and that simply isn't possible with parenting?

Or maybe she's as dumb as a brick.

TM

Tyrone Slothrop · 09-12-2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
I said "generally".

Oops. "Good point."

patentparanyc · 09-12-2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
You should ask why she thinks she's so good at her job since she's on this board as much as you instead. Maybe she is implying that parenting is harder than paralegaling, since she can be outstanding at paralegaling while posting here all day and that simply isn't possible with parenting?

Or maybe she's as dumb as a brick.

TM

WTF? dude your billables must be in the toilet.

Penske_Account · 09-12-2006, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Compared to having unhappy parents remain in an unhappy marriage? I doubt that.

It's probably hard to isolate the many variables for comparison purposes.

I'm okay, you're okay, mmm'kay?

taxwonk · 09-12-2006, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Dunno. My work is blocking the picture.

Lucky bitch. My eyes are still burning.

Penske_Account · 09-12-2006, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Weirdness. I think that might have been a timewarp aftershock.

I get a chill down my spine and around the bend looking at leagl's use of the word "colours".

Leagl, if you can hear this, WellHungJuror misses you [sniff].....

patentparanyc · 09-12-2006, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It's probably hard to isolate the many variables for comparison purposes.

I'm okay, you're okay, mmm'kay?

Exactly. I don't believe in divorce. I'm allowed. Just like other people are allowed to believe in other things. It is what works for each person, man.

ThurgreedMarshall · 09-12-2006, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm on the player's side of just about everyone owner-player dispute.* We're arguing because I thought you were claiming that NFL players -- in the aggregate -- would make more money if their contracts were guaranteed. Were that the case, I think more players would be making the same amount of money.

I don't much care about the superstars (although I do think they're held to a different standard than the owners). They'll get their money. I just think that the guys who are seriously at risk of losing their jobs to injury or coaches whim get fucked by the current system. And if they spread the salary cap around to ensure these players of a couple of years of guaranteed paydays, I'm all for it.

Quote:

Originally posted by nononono
* The exception to this is the Branch/T.O. situation. If a player signs a contract, they should perform. It's not like they're going to give back part of the signing bonus if they suck. For a player like Branch, who is underpaid, I think it would be better if the team rips up the contract and reaches a new deal at market. But Branch and the Pats were trying to do that, and failing, evidently because they disagreed about what market is.

I don't think so. If the Jets are willing to pay significantly more than the Pats, isn't that market?

Quote:

Originally posted by nononono
I don't think so. I'd hate to use the college system as a model for anything, though.

Agreed. Those players get used so bad it is unbelievable. But imagine a system that allowed teams to yank scholarships from players for being injured or because they recruited the wrong guy and wanted to replace them. Good Lord. All the initial casual sex and BMOC crap could be the equivalent of a signing bonus in that analogy.

TM