Cowboys showing interest in Eric Berry

[Stash]

Oh, I see now.

You're saying had they dropped Berry any earlier, then that would have cost them money. You know, because dropping a player costs you money, and makes it more difficult to fit other players under the cap.

So, they had to wait until they committed to more money before they could afford to pay Berry less money.

Makes total sense.

Where did anyone say any such thing? You're resorting to outright lies now?

Silly me for thinking it might be a choice between keeping Berry and seeing if they could find a player they felt better about on the market before the 3/15 deadline, but waiting until they did.

That's exactly what I'm saying they did. The fact is that they got out of his deal as soon as possible. They actually agree to a deal with Matthieu BEFORE the true start of free agency, so they had the move already on place. What part of this continues to escape you?

Yeah, I'm the fabricator. I'm the foolish one. And for that matter, yeah, ***I'm*** the one who, when he learns he was wrong ***isn't man enough*** to back down and say so. (How ironic that you evidently refuse to even acknowledge that you missed something while you were pounding your chest about me missing something... or, did you also miss that?... you're replying to everything else I said except that post, and unlike you apparently, I make a conscious attempt not to presume.)

Yes, among our back and forth, I missed that post. It likely occurred as I was responding to another of yours. Kudos for admitting your claim was incorrect.

Honestly, you're welcome to say it could be a bad idea to sign Berry. That's a defensible opinion.

What isn't defensible is pretending that all that matters is what you, a common fan, know about the situation, and that there is no professional opinions that might matter.

You can defend being cautious and reflecting on the history as a basis for that. I'm not sure anyone even disagrees with that... surely not I.

But you cannot defend refusing to acknowledge that there might be other current information that could come to the table that could be compelling.... you're being irrational to pretend to know that what you don't know (and none of us do, it's not just you) is somehow immaterial.

I'm not pretending to be a doctor. I'm also not pretending that doctors are infallible the way you want to. As I mentioned, these doctors couldn't get Tyron Smith's back right, and the can't keep Sean Lee on the field. So you can place whatever faith in them that you like, and I will rely on facts and what has actually happened vs a prediction.

Tying that thought and the previous one together... I back down when I'm wrong. It's happens every now and then. Have you ever?

Is this a "right or wrong" scenario for you?

Because I see an opinion question where you either think it's a good idea to sign a guy who has played 3 game since in two years or you think it's a bad one.

 

[Stash]

He's just totally one dimensional--no coverage skills.

I had hopes, but if you can't get Jeff Heath off the field...

 

[ClappingCarrot]

Any updates on this?

I'm intrigued if the price is right.

 

[Stash]

I said earlier kick the tires on him but the more I read, the more I worry he's just damaged goods.

I think I might rather spend the money on a guy like Iloka or Boston or even Phillips from the Chargers, who will likely also be pretty cheap and you have a better likelihood will be healthy all season. Both would be upgrades on Heath.

At this point, give me Iloka. Boston doesn't want to play anything but free safety, and I think Xavier Woods is better served there. And I can't think Iloka would be too expensive for Stephen McScrooge.

 

[_sturt_]

I said earlier kick the tires on him but the more I read, the more I worry he's just damaged goods.

I think I might rather spend the money on a guy like Iloka or Boston or even Phillips from the Chargers, who will likely also be pretty cheap and you have a better likelihood will be healthy all season. Both would be upgrades on Heath.

If there was any interest in Boston, he'd already be on the roster. But the other two maybe.

What are you reading?

 

[SoupcanSam]

I had hopes, but if you can't get Jeff Heath off the field...

I agree heath is a liability. That is actually one guy I cant wait to see get the hell out of here. At first twill was at the top of that list.

But heath needs to go.

 

[Stash]

I agree heath is a liability. That is actually one guy I cant wait to see get the hell out of here. At first twill was at the top of that list.

But heath needs to go.

I think he'd be an OK backup, special teams guy. But they have to get him out of the starting defense.

Enough of the "team guy" bull**** where the guy can't actually play.

 

[_sturt_]

Where did anyone say any such thing? You're resorting to outright lies now?

But you did say any such thing. It's RIGHT THERE...

The timing had to do with MONEY as well as time. Not just one. They dropped him as soon as they could financially handle it

This makes no sense.

You can't make it make sense.

They could have "financially handled" dropping Berry on February 12.

And if they were giving up on Berry because he's just not an option @ $12m (or $15m? I've read both), he'd have already been off the roster. So, it was a possibility until they could find out if there was another option they felt better about.

 

[Stash]

But you did say any such thing. It's RIGHT THERE...



This makes no sense.

You can't make it make sense.

They could have "financially handled" dropping Berry on February 12.

And if they were giving up on Berry because he's just not an option @ $12m (or $15m? I've read both), he'd have already been off the roster. So, it was a possibility until they could find out if there was another option they felt better about.

Who denied that?

 

[_sturt_]

That's exactly what I'm saying they did. The fact is that they got out of his deal as soon as possible.

But you didn't. And they did not.

What part of this continues to escape you that players were being dropped all of the last month?

 

[Stash]

But you didn't. And they did not.

What part of this continues to escape you that players were being dropped all of the last month?

So you think I meant as soon as possible literally? Is that your issue?

Seriously?

Your whole issue is clock on the wall timing?

Then that's your issue.

 

[Alexander]

Any updates on this?

I'm intrigued if the price is right.

Broaddus apparently is saying no dice.

 

[_sturt_]

Yes, among our back and forth, I missed that post. It likely occurred as I was responding to another of yours. Kudos for admitting your claim was incorrect.

You say that now.

But that post was right there just above the others you responded to this morning.

That suggests... suggests, but I wouldn't want to presume... a conscious attempt to gloss over it the fact you were wrong.

I deserve the "kudos," yes. Anyone does when they're "man enough" to acknowledge that they didn't have all the information they thought they had.

Which conveniently goes back to my main point in all of this...

Until a person has a fuller understanding of the information that may or may not yet be known, no hard-and-fast conclusions can be legitimately reached.

 

[Stash]

You say that now.

But that post was right there just above the others you responded to this morning.

That suggests... suggests, but I wouldn't want to presume... a conscious attempt to gloss over it the fact you were wrong.

I'd consider stating something that was untrue as you did, to be "wrong". I'd consider an oversight on one of several posts to be an oversight. But if you want to hear me say I was wrong because I missed it? Ok, I was wrong. I missed that post.

I deserve the "kudos," yes. Anyone does when they're "man enough" to acknowledge that they didn't have all the information they thought they had.

Like stating false facts about him playing their last three games? It's funny, you think that's nothing, but if someone's misses one of your posts? That's a big deal? Please. It's funny how much you'll try to hold someone else accountable for every little detail but give yourself a pass when it's you.

Which conveniently goes back to my main point in all of this...

Until a person has a fuller understanding of the information that may or may not yet be known, no hard-and-fast conclusions can be legitimately reached.

Pull your head out of the sand and go see what Broaddus - a guy in the building said about it.

Like me, the team has no interest.

 

[_sturt_]

So you think I meant as soon as possible literally? Is that your issue?

Seriously?

Your whole issue is clock on the wall timing?

Then that's your issue.

Being one to grant the benefit of a doubt, I'll assume you just are involved in too many threads on the board to keep up with the flow of our discussion. Me, I try to just stick to one conversation at a time, and maybe that's because that's all I can handle.

Tell me if you think I'm unfairly characterizing anything... I'm sure you will (... but be smart about it... you know by now I'll just go pull up your previous quotes if you try to spin yourself as not saying what you said).

But "the issue" came from your contention that Berry was cut because of his past, not because of his present and future... ie, that the Chiefs had already determined before now that, because his past is that he only played 3 games in 2 years, they were moving on.

I protested.

I said, no, what's past is past. And if he was cut because of some angst about what money they'd already paid out, then THERE WAS NO RATIONAL REASON to have not ALREADY cut him.

The MERE ***FACT*** that they WAITED to see if there was another option that appealed more to them MEANS that they had made no such definitive decision UNTIL NOW.

So, no, it IS about the Chiefs evaluating what they consider their risk to be for THE FUTURE if they'd kept Berry versus what they could get on the open market.

So, yes, duh, of course, the timing is what informs the original question.

 

[Stash]

Being one to grant the benefit of a doubt, I'll assume you just are involved in too many threads on the board to keep up with the flow of our discussion. Me, I try to just stick to one conversation at a time, and maybe that's because that's all I can handle.

Tell me if you think I'm unfairly characterizing anything... I'm sure you will (... but be smart about it... you know by now I'll just go pull up your previous quotes if you try to spin yourself as not saying what you said).

But "the issue" came from your contention that Berry was cut because of his past, not because of his present and future... ie, that the Chiefs had already determined before now that, because his past is that he only played 3 games in 2 years, they were moving on.

I protested.

I said, no, what's past is past. And if he was cut because of some angst about what money they'd already paid out, then THERE WAS NO RATIONAL REASON to have not ALREADY cut him.

The MERE ***FACT*** that they WAITED to see if there was another option that appealed more to them MEANS that they had made no such definitive decision UNTIL NOW.

So, no, it IS about the Chiefs evaluating what they consider their risk to be for THE FUTURE if they'd kept Berry versus what they could get on the open market.

So, yes, duh, of course, the timing is what informs the original question.

If, through all of this back and forth, THIS is what you were most focused on and most obsessed about, you have at it.

You worry about the minutiae of this one detail.

But you should heck out other threads, like the one where Bryan Broaddus states the team isn't interested.

So all of your ramblings have been for naught.

 

[_sturt_]

I'd consider stating something that was untrue as you did, to be "wrong". I'd consider an oversight on one of several posts to be an oversight. But if you want to hear me say I was wrong because I missed it? Ok, I was wrong. I missed that post.

Okay, Fonzie... how magnanimous you are. Thanks. I feel so much better.

Never mind that it was an "oversight" when I looked at Berry's stat lines from his games, and based on that, stated something that was "untrue," and thus was "wrong."

And of course, there's a huuuuuge difference between that and when you looked at the posts, it was an oversight to not have seen that I had already said you were right about the gap between games, and based on that, you stated something that was untrue, and thus was wrong.

So, even in this, you seek some slight edge of superiority?

You're quite a guy... hehe...

 

[Stash]

Okay, Fonzie... how magnanimous you are. Thanks. I feel so much better.

Never mind that it was an "oversight" when I looked at Berry's stat lines from his games, and based on that, stated something that was "untrue," and thus was "wrong."

And of course, there's a huuuuuge difference between that and when you looked at the posts, it was an oversight to not have seen that I had already said you were right about the gap between games, and based on that, you stated something that was untrue, and thus was wrong.

So, even in this, you seek some slight edge of superiority?

You're quite a guy... hehe...

Yeah, you state a falsehood as fact, it's an "oversight", I fail to see one of your posts and it's an issue. Your "standards" for yourself are obviously so much lower than what you want to try to hold others to when they disagree with you.

Hypocrisy on full display.

Congrats.

 

[_sturt_]

If, through all of this back and forth, THIS is what you were most focused on and most obsessed about, you have at it.

You worry about the minutiae of this one detail.

But you should heck out other threads, like the one where Bryan Broaddus states the team isn't interested.

So all of your ramblings have been for naught.

Now, you're playing whack-a-mole.

I haven't read what Broaddus said. Might even agree with him.

But I maintain what I've said because what I've said is a matter of just rational principle, not just a matter of "winning" a particular debate.

Essentially, that one has to have a good appreciation not only of what s/he knows, but what s/he doesn't yet know but might eventually.

You've been arguing, no, let's just assume we know enough here on the outside.

Or, at least that's what is to be taken from most all of your posts.

I've said, just wait and let people closer to the situation, who have more knowledge by virtue of their profession, inform things.

I'm not wrong to say that. At all. Because that's just rationally the smarter approach to anything, this or otherwise.

 

[speedkilz88]