This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
In theory, I agree. But in reality, if he doesn't mention why VJax was expendable in the context of his roster, it's likely one or more posters would question the move and then we're on an even bigger tangent. The poster is probably hoping that by giving all of the information, the hijack begins and ends with his post. But so much for that.
Knew I could count on you, GB.
Knowing the 'market' helps. I just don't like it when folks drone on and on about their teams, but a simple "i traded X for X" is usually helpfull.
I had nothing to do with the trade, but I found it useful and wouldn't mind reading what VJax is going for.
A lot of what you are saying is correct (particularly about his fallout with the Chargers). But with Rome I think Rome was disrespectful to everyone early on and rubbed many people the wrong way (it wasn't just Jim Everett). Rome was the first 'Springer' type radio host to get recognition. I think the two personalities simply did not get along. Rome went on to bigger and better because, IMO, the lowest common denominator wins out over substance.You might be right about him having researchers working for him (I am not sure what standard wait times are when calling in) but I doubt he was alone in that regard and no one else was able to do what 'Saw did. And if it's so much easier to be informed about so many topics because of the internet age I would expect to hear more hosts demonstrate such knowledge but it simply doesn't happen.Maurile Tremblay said:
I think you missed my point. He's going to post SOMEthing, whether it's:"Traded VJax for MWilliams (TB)"Hipple said:
So as I understand it, a suspended player like VJax cannot report to his team during the suspension. Is it safe to assume that if a trade were agreed to in principle, he couldn't show up at the Vikings' facility during his suspension? I'm sure they can at least give him a playbook so he can try to start assimilating the offense, right? Wonder where the lines are exactly on this.Maurile Tremblay said:
Would certainly be a nice way to great the rookie or free agent QB that SHOULD be coming in next season... (With V-Jax and Rice)ROBOPUNTER said:
Important to know if the suspension is counted in "Weeks" or in "Games" Since we have a bi-week 4..Anyone know?
Ugh. Was hoping for something more definitive. Thanks for the update.
Right, he can't practice with the team or work out at the Vikings' facility until after his suspension is over (and after he signs, is traded, and reports).Beyond that, I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn or if it covers giving him a playbook, but they probably can.(And this is all hypothetical, of course, unless a deal is actually worked out. I think a lot of people are jumping the gun a bit on that; I think there's a pretty good chance that Jackson won't be traded. I suspect he still wants a lot of money, and I suspect the Chargers will still want substantial compensation. But we're all just guessing at this point.)
The suspension covers the first three games of the season. The roster-exemption (if it applies) covers the first three games after he reports.
I think week 5 is what we all hope for, which would only be a 3 game, or 4 week suspension.
This compensation has been the sticking point, it was before the Sept 4th deadline and it still is.
Which would be fine for our purposes, all except for the lack of time practicing with the Vikes... Which he could be doing after the agreement is settled, if not for the suspension..
If reports of VJax and a team arriving at an agreed contract before the Sept.4th deadline are accurate, then you are correct and it is the Chargers holding up the trade. However, the longer VJax is kept out of football, the lower the compensation that SD can expect back. So AJ has to make a decision at some point to get all that he can in return for VJ now, or in failing to trade him, would most likely have to settle for a compensatory pick that will be significantly less valuable.I don't know what AJ will do here. But he would have to be a petty, vindictive man indeed to insist on "sticking it to VJ" by making the asking price so high that it virtually ensures Jackson won't be playing football in 2010, rather than getting the best return on investment for the Chargers.
And I'm certainly not putting this past him.
Crap. Sounds like he won't be playing football this year.
I think that in order to allow the NFL to save face in this instance, they allow the NFL to call it 4 games per San Diego schedule, bringing him in week 5 for the Vikes, and he only misses 3 games per Vikings schedule...A compromise that everyone can be happy with..
Different strokes.I couldn't disagree more. He's terrible. He also seemed to be (when I listed to him) a shill who is positive about athletes/teams he likes and negative about athletes/teams he doesn't. He does talk about sports exclusively, which is fine, but he's also too much of the "I'll take a shot at player X and team Y just to get you guys to call...REACT TO ME!" type of sports talk host that I truly despise. Tell me what you actually think, and not what you think will get a reaction from me.Chaka said:
Confirmed. Farve's new toy? Muhahahaha
If he plays for the Vikes in week 5, then he only missed 3 games...
Or Bradfords
My money's on the Vikings
Still needs 2 things.An agreement between Chargers and Vikings...And a contract between Jackson and Vikings..Are these things achievable? Guess we'll soon see...I think the Eligible for game 5 things was tailored towards a move to the Vikings though, using the bi-week (week 4) as a buffer...
or Whitehurst's
1. The trade actually was FOR Jackson. Mike Williams was traded away.2. What made the additional information redundant (at least to me and some others) was that he listed why he wouldn't start Vincent Jackson now that he owns him. Of course, he doesn't start now and indefinitely due to his limbo status once the suspensions end, but there was really no purpose to showing that he had these other players ahead of him in the pecking order. Everyone's time would have been saved if he had just stated he was trading for V.Jax as bye week depth, potential playoff season upside, or even as a lottery ticket on his bench. The bottom line for me is that some team info can make sense in context, but what exactly is the value in knowing that this dude owns Calvin Johnson and Miles Austin? Or Finley? I still don't see it.
He won't play in week 5 no matter where he goes/stays.
Sooo....is it a suspension or isn't it?
Also, just offered Mike Wallace + 2011 2nd rounder to the VJ owner. Will have to see if he accepts or not.
I had no problem with anything you said up to this comment. Petros knows some football no doubt but he can't touch Hacksaw's knowledge of the sport. Maybe I would give Petros a slight edge on Xs & Os from his playing days but even then I'm not so sure and Petros rarely, if ever, actually demonstrates his knowledge between his attempts to increase his brand name through his lame comedy shtick.Petros wants to cross over into mainstream media so bad he can taste it. He might succeed too.
He has succeeded somewhat. He was the host of pros vs. joes for a few seasons and he's on several shows regularly.As far as knowledge of football, I'd defer to Petros over Hacksaw. Hacksaw has knowledge in the same regard that fans do. He watches a lot of it. He also used to have sources within the sport.
Why not?
