clydesdale line
Connor BeJesus
- Jan 10, 2012
- 25,697
- 24,669
Losing Harper and now Soto in a 4 year span... yikes.
At least Washington got a ring out of it.
At least Washington got a ring out of it.
It depends on if there are non-negotiable aspects to it. At least in my mind, something can be a fair offer but still unacceptable. Deal breakers exist. Right now, for Soto/Boras not starting with a 5 is a deal breaker.
I want to see what the market will offer is a totally understandable mindset. It doesn't make 440 million a "non serious" offer.It depends on if there are non-negotiable aspects to it. At least in my mind, something can be a fair offer but still unacceptable. Deal breakers exist. Right now, for Soto/Boras not starting with a 5 is a deal breaker.
I feel like this is a lot of arguing about semantics. Done. No reason to continue further.I want to see what the market will offer is a totally understandable mindset. It doesn't make 440 million a "non serious" offer.
Thirty million dollars of not your money is really easy to spend.I mean, 30mil spread out over 3 extra years a decade from now was enough to let harper walk over when they were already willing to go to 300? Seems strange to me, like an arbitrary line in the sand.
Your entire argument was a semantics argument.I feel like this is a lot of arguing about semantics. Done. No reason to continue further.
I feel like this is a lot of arguing about semantics. Done. No reason to continue further.
It's only a serious offer if it has a reasonable chance of getting accepted.
That offer had zero chance of getting accepted, hence non-serious.
As a matter of fact, I don't think Nats ownership would have even made that offer if they didn't know it had zero chance of getting accepted.
Probably. Easy nothing conversation.The years make it a bit of a bullshit offer to me.
440/12 probably would've gotten it done.
Wait....isn't that the same thing as a non-serious offer?Probably. Easy nothing conversation.
Are we having a semantics argument or not?Wait....isn't that the same thing as a non-serious offer?
Let's not.Are we having a semantics argument or not?
Probably in regards to three years of potential earnings isn't nothing.Wait....isn't that the same thing as a non-serious offer?
This has been my issue the entire time, gotta get better. A lot of times I don't realize the omission of important points until later, and getting accused of moving goalposts is frustrating because my clarification point is the source of the entire point.Again... your original argument was that it isn't a "serious offer" for him. Which is absolute assclown nonsense, as has been pointed out to you by numerous people.
Again... you say something ridiculous, then change your argument up to be something completely different later on. Again, this is why you need to stop and think before you type. Something I've been telling you to do for what... 3-4+ years now? You just can't help yourself.
If you had led with your later points, this wouldn't even be a debate. The second you called the largest offer of guaranteed money in MLB history "not serious" no one was going to take you seriously, and no one was going to pay much attention to anything else you had to say in the discussion.
At this point it's well known that they're chasing a $500M contract. He may not get it, but damn if he's not going to try.
It's only a serious offer if it has a reasonable chance of getting accepted.
That offer had zero chance of getting accepted, hence non-serious.
As a matter of fact, I don't think Nats ownership would have even made that offer if they didn't know it had zero chance of getting accepted.
People suck. We all want deals one sided in our favor.Really?
Soto could say and choose to not sign for less than $50 trillion annually. That makes anything less than that a non-serious offer?Really?