Tank?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

[quote="Scott Campbell"]

Leave the math stuff to Patler.

Is this the same Patler who said it was impossible to resign Wahle because Thompson only have $7.5 mil?

Oh yeah, leave the math to patler.

You'll have to show me the quote. I've never known Patler to get that boxed in by his own comments.

Read my archieves from JSONLINE. one of chickenhawks thread. I asked Patler if he thought it was impossible. He confirms so. I then provided him with the numbers. That was one of my best post cos i actually did some research.

I;m too lazy to look it up now. Look it up for yourself.

[Scott Campbell]

Well then call me crazy, but I'd leave the math stuff to Patler.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Well then call me crazy, but I'd leave the math stuff to Patler.

Just cos Patler said something is true doesnt mean it is true.

One time Patler told me Mike Sherman got absolutely nothing from Dallas for the Glenn trade.

Sherman got a 6th round pick.

If you say 6th round picks are crap, then Sherman only traded away crap when he moved up in the draft by trading away 6th rd picks.

[Scott Campbell]

One time Patler told me Mike Sherman got absolutely nothing from Dallas for the Glenn trade.

You'll have to show me the quote.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

One time Patler told me Mike Sherman got absolutely nothing from Dallas for the Glenn trade.

You'll have to show me the quote.

Oh fuck; I'll do it after dinner. Hold while i go get some shit to eat.

[Scott Campbell]

It ain't no biggie Tank.

[Fritz]

Basically all Tank does is form half-baked opinions

I have to correct you on this, KY. By his own admission, Tank is fully baked most of the time.

[KYPack]

[quote="Anti-Polar Bear"]

Leave the math stuff to Patler.

Is this the same Patler who said it was impossible to resign Wahle because Thompson only have $7.5 mil?

Oh yeah, leave the math to patler.

You'll have to show me the quote. I've never known Patler to get that boxed in by his own comments.

Read my archieves from JSONLINE. one of chickenhawks thread. I asked Patler if he thought it was impossible. He confirms so. I then provided him with the numbers. That was one of my best post cos i actually did some research.

I;m too lazy to look it up now. Look it up for yourself.

Cyclone, good work and nice posts on the cap situations.

Don't bother to do a great deal of work explaining to Tank the cap and where he is wrong. He pays them no attention. His usual MO it then to lie about the conclusions you worked to reach, maybe to refer to them later.

The exchange Tank had with Patler on JSO was a full blown Patler victory. It also is an example of Tank's research. When he is finally cornered in one of his imaginary busllshit arguments. he scrambles around on the net until he finds enough "facts" to support his arguments. Then he shoe-horns his logic into a situation to support his one point. & it's all bullshit.

The Wahle argument is a prime example. Tanks bleated on for weeks that TT was an awful GM because he didn't sign the guards or Sharper. Patler did the work and proved how it couldn't have been done.

Tank scarfed around and "claimed" that there was room to sign Wahle, which proved Patler wrong. This was still wrong and Patler said so at the time. For several reasons:

-Tank distorted (or outright lied) about the timeline. The cap room that he claimed was available after the cuts of the big 3.

- If Wahle could have signed, many more cuts of veterans would've have had to happen to sign the rookies. That's unacceptable from a roster management standpoint.

- The whole Tank argument is moot be cause the whole Wahle deal required the cooperation of Wahle and his representation. The word seeping out of Carolina after the signing was that Wahle wanted out of GB. He was sick of both Shermy and Beightol. Mike W. had a huge money deal taking him to greener pastures. Tank's "deal" wasn't gonna happen because Wahle wasn't gonna take it.

That's Tank' big victory over Patler - it only exists in Tank's mind. Patler waxed Tank's ass in every argument they ever had. Because Tank is a liar who doesn't know what in the hell he's talking about.

Clone, you are a good poster.

Don't waste your time or efforts trying to straighten out the silly Baby Tanky.

[Tarlam!]

KY, don't bother. Tank fessed up that we are all just guinea pigs in his psychology experiment and that he really only pretends to be this argumentative dipstick. This is done solely to observe our reactions and he collects the data for his thesis over cyber-something-or-other.

I thought everybody knew that.....

[KYPack]

KY, don't bother. Tank fessed up that we are all just guinea pigs in his psychology experiment and that he really only pretends to be this argumentative dipstick. This is done solely to observe our reactions and he collects the data for his thesis over cyber-something-or-other.

I thought everybody knew that.....

I know, Tar.

I will be a good boy & go back on "Tank Radio Silence"

These Forum Feuds are super annoying and I don't wanna get involved in bothering all the "non-involved". So I will drop out as of now.

I'm well aware of Baby Tanky's "thesis over cyber-something-or-other" (LOL BTW). More APB bullshit.

I was moved to post by Tank's "re-visionist" history regarding Patler. When the worst (or second worst poster) denigrates arguably the best poster in Forum history, I MUST POST. Tanks is a fool and Patler is brilliant. When a fool makes fun of a resource, it must be stopped.

Sounds like things are goin' better for ya, eh, Tar?

[Tarlam!]

Yeah, KY, we should stick up for ol Patler, since he missed the cyber-hop and he's not here to defend himself!

I have to admit, this last week of viscious attacks by Tankanator had me reeling. I am usually pretty immune, but T put the kiss of death into that Huff guy for me. If we draft him, I think I'll have too many Johnnies...

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Kentucky, you son of a whore, I will post this article again because you seems to be ingoring it.

BTW: I got Patler good that time; too lazy to search the thread for you or Campbell; well do so when i feel like it.

Anyway, please read this:

Salary cap lets teams legally go over the top
By Larry Weisman, USA TODAY
The Washington Redskins set a single-season spending record with a payroll of $118 million for the 2004 season. But how is that possible when the NFL salary cap was $80.5 million a team?
Cap computations include all salaries and applicable bonuses at full value each year, but a signing bonus gets a slightly different treatment that permits what the NFL calls "cash over cap."

Signing bonuses, while often paid immediately, count against the cap in equal portions for each year of a player's contract. A $5 million bonus on a five-year deal is amortized at $1 million a season. That math changes if the player is cut or traded before his contract expires.

Big bonuses usually are tied to lower base salaries in the early stages of a contract to give the club a favorable salary-cap number in what should be the player's most productive years. Example: A player signs a five-year contract worth $10 million and gets that $5 million signing bonus. His annual salaries are $500,000, $1 million, $1.5 million and $2 million. His cap number starts at $1.5M ($1 million of prorated signing bonus plus base). It ends at $3M. The club paid the signing bonus long before it finished accounting for it. Hence, room for cash over cap.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

BTW, old man,


The main reason Wahle left GB for Carolina is for more money. Isn't it logical that if thompson offered Wahle more money, like 12 M or even 13 M in SB, he wouldve resigned?

Read the article above, and then prove to me, with numbers, how 12 Mil prorated over 5 years, plus a 1 M base salary (wahle's base for last year) would be MORE then 7.5 M (which was the amount thompson had after terminating Wahle and Sharper's contract; there is no law in the NFL that said the players you cut cant resign with you).

[RashanGary]

I completely agree that Thompson should have resigned Wahle for the same $ amount acctually. They didn't even have to offer more.

Thompson F'ed that up and if he continues to lose the teams best players I'll be right along with Tank.

I do think that Thompson is one of the NFL's top scouts so I think over time he will shine in the most important area of running a team *the draft*.

So far though I believe Thompson messed up on Wahle. In hindsight though we get a star player at #5 because of it. I just hope it doesn't continue.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Kentucky: "If Wahle could have signed, many more cuts of veterans would've have had to happen to sign the rookies. That's unacceptable from a roster management standpoint."

Oh, forgot about this, Kentucky. If you do the math, you'll discover that the only vet who needed to be cut, and cut before TC, to sign the rookies (4 M allotment) is Cletidus Hunt (assuming that Thompson also signed Wahle to a contract similar to the one the Panthers gave him). Cut Hunt before TC, and you save almost 2 M. Thompson instead waited until AFTER TC to cut the NOW INJURED, underachieving DT. Consequently, Pack were forced pay Hunt's 05 salary, which brings his cap hit to over 3 ML (I've posted the exact numbers before, but because of the consequences of Mary Jane, my memory is a bit twisted; check out my or JSONLINE's archives if you want to know the exact numbers).

Will the real whore who thinks Hunt deserved to be in camp last year please stand up, please stand up.