- Apr 17, 2003
Stitch01 said:Again, it's not that I'm not following your argument. I just disagree heavily on the level underlying risk and the conclusion that it's likely to change how the Jets approach Revis.
Assuming the Jets signing Revis will effect the penalty (and I think that's reasonable although there is an argument the Pats were damaged even if he signs with another team) Here is my rough guess as to the underlying likelihood of penalty
Fine: 95 percent
Low draft choice: 4.999 percent
Larger penalty: 0.0001 percent.
Given those assumptions, what affect do you think potential penalties should have on a Jets contract offer?
I get that we have different underlying assumptions and I didn't mean to be personal/belittle your argument with my initial joke. I just don't think there is the same level of risk/uncertainty that you do.
I'll be more explicit, then. You attempted to cite the comp for Briggs, a 5th round pick (note that they also had to flip third-round picks, though only five slots).
Briggs was on a one-year deal at time of tampering (not signed for an additional season, as Revis was). And oh yeah---that comp was awarded after Briggs re-signed with his current team. We're talking about a scenario where the tampering team actually signs the guy. Thus, as to this one precedent, your assumption appears to be that contract status and where the player ultimately signs doesn't matter, and I think that's ridiculous.
We can look at all the other scenarios people have put forward to think about where league might land (Parcells/Belichick, where the 'other' team actually got the asset; other tampering FAs, franchise signings, etc.) but only if you're going to commit to taking the time to look at the facts of each, not just re-state completely made up probabilities about what might happen and stick your head in the sand about the facts in each.