When in such a simple debate you start using words like "context, content and conclusions," It suggests that it's no longer about the argument but instead your need to try to show some great understanding that eludes. It's a simple debate of opinion about acquiring a player, or not.
There isn't a comparison between a second round draft pick hopeful and arguably the best at his position. Simple, no argument. As black and white as you can get.
His pay is what it is. You weren't arguing that initially. Your initial argument was that his pay is such that we wouldn't be able to sign players we want from other teams and our own. I used your own example of how this wasn't true, in that we were prepared to sign Watkins. We didn't because his price went too high. Exactly what I said from the start - we aren't handing out those astronomical contracts anymore.
I've essentially said the same thing in reply to you in three different posts using one of your own examples to refute your own argument. I think its pretty clear whose stretching and reaching etc.
My initial post was that the price is not too high IMO and I explained why. You disagree and that's cool, not a problem. You just couldn't support your argument and that's cool too.
Bottom line, I think he could help without negatively impacting the team and that's what its all about anyway.
