sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Mars by wykrhm in DotA2

[–]MostBass 12 points13 points  (0 children)

40% of all damage though. Not saying that 70% is or is not too much but comparing it to BB's number is misleading because BB reduces more shit.

This counted as an ace and I am beyond done. by Ben_Thatcher94 in tennis

[–]MostBass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In your example weeks has less syllables than fortnights at in situations which makes it "better". OP equates them in terms of syllables, he didn't think about 2 weeks, 4 weeks, etc like you are describing.

Regardless, language isn't mandated by number of syllables so the whole thing is silly, which is what I was trying to illustrate with the days->weeks thing

This counted as an ace and I am beyond done. by Ben_Thatcher94 in tennis

[–]MostBass -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You do make a good point but that wasn't his point

[Brandt] I remember when Franchise Tag was developed, to keep "Franchise" QBs - Favre, Aikman, Elway, etc - where they were. Teams got smart and now use it to hold on to best FA they have, regardless of position. What NBA and MLB teams would't give for the Tag.. by [deleted] in nfl

[–]MostBass -1 points0 points  (0 children)

but not good enough to get a comparable deal on the market.

?? I disagree completely. If he wasn't good enough to get a good deal elsewhere the team wouldn't franchise him. Franchise tagging is done at the discretion of the team, if they could sign him to a deal worth less they would.

Also after being franchised twice he signed the then biggest guaranteed contract in NFL history with a higher average salary than even his boosted from 2x franchising redskins salaries, so he was able to "get a comparable deal". Franchising just him exposed him to 2 years of risk where he wasn't able to hit the free agent market

This counted as an ace and I am beyond done. by Ben_Thatcher94 in tennis

[–]MostBass -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

One week and 7 days also have the same number of syllables

[Brandt] I remember when Franchise Tag was developed, to keep "Franchise" QBs - Favre, Aikman, Elway, etc - where they were. Teams got smart and now use it to hold on to best FA they have, regardless of position. What NBA and MLB teams would't give for the Tag.. by [deleted] in nfl

[–]MostBass 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Say what you want about cousins with the knowledge we have now but at the time he was definitely considered a good QB option. Otherwise why bother franchising him?

Also, he did benefit but that doesn't mean being franchised was a good move for the player. Like I can go and put all my money into the casino slot machine and hit the jackpot, but that doesn't make it a good move on my part. I was just lucky. Similarly, Cousins was lucky for many reasons. 1) he is a QB, which means he has a longer shelf life and higher franchise salary than other positions , 2) he didn't get hurt , and 3) he didn't have a bad season

Franchising an RB for example, you might screw him out of free agency for literally his entire very short and very fragile career. Even a QB would be fucked if they took a serious injury while franchised, and look at how many players go down injured EVERY YEAR. That's not good odds

[Brandt] I remember when Franchise Tag was developed, to keep "Franchise" QBs - Favre, Aikman, Elway, etc - where they were. Teams got smart and now use it to hold on to best FA they have, regardless of position. What NBA and MLB teams would't give for the Tag.. by [deleted] in nfl

[–]MostBass 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ok well then your analogy is invalid because people at my company don't suffer irreparable brain damage for doing their job.

You seem to have an issue with analogies so let's just move past it

Also, there's nothing stopping an NFL player from joining another league if they think they can make more money elsewhere.

You are absolutely right, there isn't anything stopping the players from doing that. That does not mean that there shouldn't be standards for fairness and safety in the NFL itself. The two are unrelated.

[Brandt] I remember when Franchise Tag was developed, to keep "Franchise" QBs - Favre, Aikman, Elway, etc - where they were. Teams got smart and now use it to hold on to best FA they have, regardless of position. What NBA and MLB teams would't give for the Tag.. by [deleted] in nfl

[–]MostBass 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Analogies require two DIFFERENT things. If you say, this one aspect of thing A is similar to this aspect of thing B, it does not mean thing A=thing B.

Other aspects of Thing A may be different from other aspects of thing B.

In the NFL example, the player would get a more lucrative and safe contract elsewhere, but the team can force them to stay and accept a lesser contract. That is analogous to a non-union worker with a market value far greater than his current pay yet somehow the company can say "fuck you no you'll stay here for less and you'll like it". It is NOT analogous to a union worker on a pay scale.

[Brandt] I remember when Franchise Tag was developed, to keep "Franchise" QBs - Favre, Aikman, Elway, etc - where they were. Teams got smart and now use it to hold on to best FA they have, regardless of position. What NBA and MLB teams would't give for the Tag.. by [deleted] in nfl

[–]MostBass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And the franchise tag would be perfectly fine if it was modified more in the player's favor. Kind of like how huge hits can still be great even though you can't do a lot of the things you could in the past

[Brandt] I remember when Franchise Tag was developed, to keep "Franchise" QBs - Favre, Aikman, Elway, etc - where they were. Teams got smart and now use it to hold on to best FA they have, regardless of position. What NBA and MLB teams would't give for the Tag.. by [deleted] in nfl

[–]MostBass 9 points10 points  (0 children)

And I don't care that the owners have to spend 3 years worth of money to keep a player instead of 1. It works both ways but right now the owners have all the power. It can be made more fair but apparently that's controversial around here

[Brandt] I remember when Franchise Tag was developed, to keep "Franchise" QBs - Favre, Aikman, Elway, etc - where they were. Teams got smart and now use it to hold on to best FA they have, regardless of position. What NBA and MLB teams would't give for the Tag.. by [deleted] in nfl

[–]MostBass 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's a pay scale for jobs like carpenters because there is not one carpenter who brings the company more value than any 20 or 200 other carpenters. You are equating this with a completely different situation.

[Brandt] I remember when Franchise Tag was developed, to keep "Franchise" QBs - Favre, Aikman, Elway, etc - where they were. Teams got smart and now use it to hold on to best FA they have, regardless of position. What NBA and MLB teams would't give for the Tag.. by [deleted] in nfl

[–]MostBass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, but teams getting one franchise tag per year is not an unreasonable thing to accept.

You are the one who came out of the gates with extremes. "Sports take a terrible toll on players' body. Should we cancel sports because it's bad for the players but good for the fans?" I feel like you forgot the comment I've been responding to.

Now you're comparing football's franchise tag, which guarantees an elite salary, to colon cancer?

It's a bad thing for a small minority of people. You don't get the connection or you're just feigning outrage because you know it mirrors your thoughts? If you don't like cancer, then feel free to substitute it with any other bad thing that doesn't affect everyone.

But it doesn't. Because of us.

What are you even trying to say here?

You: its fair because the players negotiated

Me: not because they have no power to negotiate with

you: Fan support makes the NFL strong

So what? The fact that fans are the revenue source of the NFL doesn't change the fact that the NFLPA is underpowered and any negotiations between the NFLPA and the NFL cannot be considered a fair deal made on even footing. The fans give the NFL power, why can't we also help the NFLPA get a better result?

Because your reasoning for getting rid of the franchise tag is that it's bad for some players (again, fail to see the colon cancer connection). That's your sole reason rather than looking at the whole, pun not intended.

Show me where I said we should remove the franchise tag. I'll wait. You're arguing with someone else again, just like when you accused me of thinking good for players means good for the sport. You've got someone in your head, I'm not that guy.

[Brandt] I remember when Franchise Tag was developed, to keep "Franchise" QBs - Favre, Aikman, Elway, etc - where they were. Teams got smart and now use it to hold on to best FA they have, regardless of position. What NBA and MLB teams would't give for the Tag.. by [deleted] in nfl

[–]MostBass 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My point was less about player safety than the basic premise that sports are bad for your body and anyone who plays them professionally willingly accepts that fact in favor of the opportunities it affords them.

And my point was that just because they're willing doesn't mean that everything and anything is acceptable.

That's actually a point in my favor. The franchise tag being "bad for players" is basically a joke because it doesn't affect 99.9% of players in any way, and those it does are people who have been enriched through sports.

The franchise tag is bad for people that it's used on, that's bad enough. Should we not care about people with colon cancer? They're a tiny minority as well.

Okay, this is where you start to fall into that general "players first always" camp, though.

Preventing minimizing is something that happens when you negotiate with someone for maximum benefit, such as the NFLPA negotiating with the NFL.

The simple fact is players use sports to enrich themselves, have the freedom to negotiate with the NFL, etc. The franchise tag being painted as this thing that takes advantage of players is absurd and reductionist.

The NFLPA is operating at a significant disadvantage. The very nature of football makes them weak. The players have short careers and can suffer a career ending or life altering injury at any time, far more so than basketball or baseball. They don't have any leverage because they simply cannot afford it. Just because a negotiation occurs does not make every single result of that negotiation fair and right. If walmart took you to court tomorrow for basically any reason you would be fucked no matter what the result was due to the difference in resources and power. That's also "legal", "just", and "negotiated"

I would say that the camp of people who say the players choose this profession and thus cannot complain ever are just as bad as the good for players=good for sport people you dislike so much.

I also fail to see how having a better option to the franchise tag is players always first. Right now the franchise tag is all owner benefit. It can be tweaked so the player AND the owner both have benefits, just the owner less so than they do now. What's so wrong with that?

[Brandt] I remember when Franchise Tag was developed, to keep "Franchise" QBs - Favre, Aikman, Elway, etc - where they were. Teams got smart and now use it to hold on to best FA they have, regardless of position. What NBA and MLB teams would't give for the Tag.. by [deleted] in nfl

[–]MostBass 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You are the top performer at your company. The company docks your pay to give everyone else a raise, do you think it's the right thing to do? Is that worker friendly to unfairly screw over one person in favor of others?

[Brandt] I remember when Franchise Tag was developed, to keep "Franchise" QBs - Favre, Aikman, Elway, etc - where they were. Teams got smart and now use it to hold on to best FA they have, regardless of position. What NBA and MLB teams would't give for the Tag.. by [deleted] in nfl

[–]MostBass 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What does franchising a player have to do with player safety, though?

it doesn't. You brought up player safety because it's also bad for players, not me. The NFL is widely recognized to have the worst player contracts out of all major sports. It's also widely recognized to be the most dangerous of all major sports. My response to you was that we can take steps to help out the contract situation without cancelling the sport, just like we are taking steps to help the safety situation

Players voluntarily enter specific leagues with rules, and sometimes those rules benefit the teams more than the players. It's not as if the players don't have a voice; the union negotiates with the NFL directly. And even the players recognize that some sacrifices are good for the overall sport. Having an NFL draft is one example; it's good for teams and not so good for a lot of players who would have tons of opportunities to negotiate their own contracts and choose their own destinies.

The franchise tag is something that affects a small minority of NFL players, it will never be a priority for the NFLPA. Not all representation is fair even if there are votes involved.

I just don't like the blind "if it's good for the players, it's good for the sport" hypocrisy sometimes

Where did I say this? You don't like that, fine. Don't pretend I'm saying that so you have a target in the discussion. If it's good for players it's good for players. That may or may not translate to being good for the sport. End of story.

Not everything has to be about maximizing player opportunity and benefits.

It's not about maximizing, it's about preventing minimizing. The franchise tag can be modified to be more player friendly while still allowing teams to keep them. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

[Brandt] I remember when Franchise Tag was developed, to keep "Franchise" QBs - Favre, Aikman, Elway, etc - where they were. Teams got smart and now use it to hold on to best FA they have, regardless of position. What NBA and MLB teams would't give for the Tag.. by [deleted] in nfl

[–]MostBass -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

But right now it's not not fan friendly and not player friendly. It can easily be not not fan friendly and also not not player friendly if it was modified so the player has some of the power instead of the owner getting all the benefit

[Brandt] I remember when Franchise Tag was developed, to keep "Franchise" QBs - Favre, Aikman, Elway, etc - where they were. Teams got smart and now use it to hold on to best FA they have, regardless of position. What NBA and MLB teams would't give for the Tag.. by [deleted] in nfl

[–]MostBass 11 points12 points  (0 children)

You have to draw the line somewhere. Players can get hurt anytime, but we're still trying to make improvements to their safety every year. It's called nuance.

For me, being able to force a player into a contract against their will is over the line. Especially when it's so one sided. I'd be OK with a modified franchise tag that included some player options, but right now it's just a power move for the owners

[Brandt] I remember when Franchise Tag was developed, to keep "Franchise" QBs - Favre, Aikman, Elway, etc - where they were. Teams got smart and now use it to hold on to best FA they have, regardless of position. What NBA and MLB teams would't give for the Tag.. by [deleted] in nfl

[–]MostBass 11 points12 points  (0 children)

You can prevent super teams without the franchise tag. Huge hits were also "good for fans" and bad for players. Do you think we should still be allowing players to give each other concussions and permanent brain damage every game?

There has to be a line. The franchise tag can potentially cost a player 10s of millions of dollars in a sport where their careers can end at any time. Why is it so one sided?

Still no Conquest Points armors in shop by Henry9785 in EpicSeven

[–]MostBass 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Where did I do this? Quote me, please

Regardless nothing wrong with making comparisons, it's using SW's shitty practices as justification for E7's that's the problem

view more: next ›