Dez's contract situation may turn ugly

[peplaw06]

My saying we can still win and have a good passing game without him has nothing to do with how much money he can command. That's the market influence. Saying that also, does not "devalue" his impact for the team. He's not "devalued" in any way.

When people are saying you're devaluing Dez, they are saying that your minimizing his value to a team. When you essentially say he's expendable, then you are minimizing his value... or devaluing him.

 

[Doomsday]

Honestly Pep? You're not anywhere close to being worth all this time. You are hereby devalued.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[NoShame]

I just get tired of seeing you pollute the board with your stupidity. You're driving people away, because you have no ability to see reason, and the bullshit is just oozing out of 95% of your posts.

Realest shit you ever wrote

 

[peplaw06]

I've ignored the rest of your red herrings.

You're totally fucking incapable of carrying on an adult conversation. I even tried to hold your hand and walk you through it, and you refuse... like a two year old.

Of course, I think you see where it's going, and are bailing to save face.

 

[Doomsday]

Of course, I think you see where it's going, and are bailing to save face.

Yours.

 

[peplaw06]

You are hereby devalued.

Value to team impact on the field? Is that the "meter" you're talking about?

 

[Statman]

I would have to say that DeZ not getting into trouble last season does not add value. It simply doesn't decrease value. Paying someone extra not to act like a jackass is someone counter productive.

As far a "value" is concerned, the question shall always be, is Dez'a future performance and productivity going to be proportional to his contract and his contribution to the team when compared to his teammates and their contracts?

Due to the salary cap, whenever we increase someone's value via a new contract then we are also devaluing someone else. There are only so many dollars to go around.

 

[peplaw06]

I would have to say that DeZ not getting into trouble last season does not add value. It simply doesn't decrease value. Paying someone extra not to act like a jackass is someone counter productive.

Fair enough... do you disagree that his stats add value? His lack of trouble off-the-field was merely one of the "facts" I created in my hypothetical.

As far a "value" is concerned, the question shall always be, is Dez'a future performance and productivity going to be proportional to his contract and his contribution to the team when compared to his teammates and their contracts?

Yes, I understand how you have to weigh a player's value to the team when negotiating a contract, and you have to weigh the impact for the rest of the roster.

But in a general sense, when people claim that Dez's production will be replaced easily enough, and act like the team will win without him, that's minimizing his value to the team.

Due to the salary cap, whenever we increase someone's value via a new contract then we are also devaluing someone else. There are only so many dollars to go around.

You're not devaluing other players when another player's value increases. If the player becomes too valuable for the team to afford, then the team simply lets said player go... at least in a true free market.

For instance, Dez's value increased throughout last season due to his play... And so did Murray's. The team realized that they couldn't afford to pay both at the value the players commanded. But the increased value to Dez didn't devalue Murray. Murray realized his true value through free agency.

But when the term "devalue" came up in this thread, it was meant as a synonym for "minimizing impact to the team." Murray's impact to the team was huge last season. However, when it came time to pay him his money, the team weighed the pros and cons... they likely considered the high workload of 2014, his injury history, his fumbling issues last year, the likelihood that his production could be replaced by other players. Those things (facts) likely devalued him (or minimized his importance to the team) in their eyes.

The same thing is going on here when people talk about other 1000 yard WRs this team has had, the optimism for the potential of the other WRs currently on the roster... And we all know Dez is going to be here for 2015 and probably 2016 at least. It's like they are preparing themselves for life without Dez, even though we don't really know when that is going to happen.

 

[Statman]

I won't get into the myths that supposedly decreased Murray's value, the topic is Bryant.

However it's difficult to discern value between them when their success is so intricately connected, just like the triplets. One could not have accomplished all they did without the other. Murray's offense will almost certainly "devalue" Bryant. You will see far more double teams, our RB's scare no one.

As a result, expect to see more diversity in the passing game, everyone will get their shots. Every receiver will have their day. Meanwhile, the gameplan for opponents will always be to limit Bryant.

It's sad they Bryant and his side couldn't be more farsighted and recognize that less money in the short run would have yielded a higher quality of teammates with a better possibility of championships and even more money in the future. Refer to the San Antonio Spurs for proof of this philosophy.

 

[Midswat]

Once upon a time I used to engage in long winded debates like this.

This shit is exhausting to try and read.

Also, I barely like this team anymore so there's that too.

 

[cmd34]

Here are the cliff notes..


Doomsday: Dez bad.

pep: Oh my f'ing god is Doomsday a moron!

 

[Midswat]

Here are the cliff notes..


Doomsday: Dez bad.

pep: Oh my f'ing god is Doomsday a moron!

I side with peplaw

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Once upon a time I used to engage in long winded debates like this.

This shit is exhausting to try and read.

Also, I barely like this team anymore so there's that too.

 

[peplaw06]

I won't get into the myths that supposedly decreased Murray's value, the topic is Bryant.

However it's difficult to discern value between them when their success is so intricately connected, just like the triplets. One could not have accomplished all they did without the other. Murray's offense will almost certainly "devalue" Bryant. You will see far more double teams, our RB's scare no one.

As a result, expect to see more diversity in the passing game, everyone will get their shots. Every receiver will have their day. Meanwhile, the gameplan for opponents will always be to limit Bryant.

It's sad they Bryant and his side couldn't be more farsighted and recognize that less money in the short run would have yielded a higher quality of teammates with a better possibility of championships and even more money in the future. Refer to the San Antonio Spurs for proof of this philosophy.

Dude... Have you and Doomsday ever heard of a thing called an example, or a comparison? I realize the topic is Dez, but sometimes a comparison to a similar situation helps explain a position. I'm not trying to change the topic... just trying to explain where I'm coming from. You and Dooms appear to just disregard anything that's not directly on topic without trying to understand how it could be applicable.

Are you an alt?

 

[Doomsday]

You and Dooms appear to just disregard anything that's not directly on topic without trying to understand how it could be applicable.

Are you an alt?

No he is not a alt. And if we both dismiss red herrings well, that's a commonality among a lot of people.

Here are the cliff notes..


Doomsday: Dez bad.

No. It's "Dez probably gets the most money a WR ever has, but if it's not with Dallas we aren't going to die and will still somehow have a great passing game."

Then pep says, "You're DEVALUING DEZZZZZZZZZ!"

 

[peplaw06]

If you don't know what a strawman is, I doubt you know what a red herring is.

 

[Doomsday]

If you don't know what a strawman is, I doubt you know what a red herring is.

Keep repeating the same falsehoods over and over Goebbels, there's several people here gullible enough to believe you.

Wait - Maybe that should be "Aunt Sally?"

 

[peplaw06]

Dooms: Facts don't devalue anyone.

Me: Orly? Greg Hardy facts cause his value to decrease. Murray facts cause his value to decrease.

Dooms: ZOMG Red herrings!!

 

[Doomsday]

Me: Orly? Greg Hardy facts cause his value to decrease. Murray facts cause his value to decrease.

Again not even arguing the original point, which was NOT money value. That's why it is a red herring, as you should well know. It's a common tactic.

But do proceed, your only goal is to argue anyway - it's your profession after all.

It's a fact that actions can have consequences, and the fact of the action can create consequences, but it does not follow that ALL facts devalue or create any other consequence.



You're pathetically laughable.

 

[ZeroClub]

It's sad they Bryant and his side couldn't be more farsighted and recognize that less money in the short run would have yielded a higher quality of teammates with a better possibility of championships and even more money in the future. Refer to the San Antonio Spurs for proof of this philosophy.

I don't blame Romo for not doing it ... but if any player is in the position to give up money to allow other players to be signed, it'd be Romo.

I side with peplaw