A lot of you have probably seen this before, probably already posted here. But this never gets old. I mean it is old but... you know what i mean. The godmother of rock Sister Rosetta Tharpe- "Didn't It Rain?" Live 1964
Over the next 4 years, being in California is going to cost him a starting rookie contract(s) salary per year. Let that sink in, he could pay for Denzel Boston $2.25M and Emmanuel McNeil-Warren $2.09M with the tax difference he is paying, just on his salary.
Some Browns fans just don't get it..!
...why a player might be more interested in WINNING..rather than being upset over the tax structure in CA. vs OH.
Why is Cleveland considered as one of the worst locations to pursue a Pro football career in..?
The answer is not the tax structure in Ohio...IT IS due to the fact that the Browns are not winners..the Browns are considered by many to be losers.
Myles wants a legit shot at playing for and with A WINNER..!
I find it odd how people are bringing up Myles taxes in California when Myles himself wanted to and agreed to go there. It seems it was a non issue for him. It's almost as if people have veered away from the football aspect of the conversation and taken it in a direction meant for a different forum.
Just conversation dude. No one is making a mountain out of a mole hill...
So basically you're saying you agree with me while you've been arguing against me the whole time.
Nowhere did I say I think Watson did nothing wrong.
You constantly focus on one side of things, while pretending it's the only thing that exists, and then flat out make up bogus takes for me that I never held.
I think my "absurd" reasons are just examples of the type of none fact based, emotional "what if" deflection you peddle in sometimes.
If France or any other NATO ally had intel to suggest Iran had imminent ability to make a nuke, they would have joined in the war effort ... or let the US use their bases.
The UK did NOT permit the USA to fuel planes for proactive attacks on Iran - it supported the US only in defensive actions where allies (the US/neighboring countries to Iran) were being attacked.
Here's the bottom line: Maybe you think it's plausible that Trump and his administration shared fact based data to show Iran was imminently able to obtain a Nuclear weapon - and their reaction was that they collectively shrugged their shoulders and declined to get involved because of political popularity at home ... I find that idea laughable. Not only that but I do not believe for an iota that Trump would not then release and roast those nations publicly. As it is - we get a changing made up lie out of Trump every other day with zero facts or evidence of any claim he makes.
No, yours are purposefully absurd. Mine are reasoned, even if you don't agree with my reasoning.
France knows Russia has many nukes. That's where most of there forces are already deployed (well in position to deter Russia.) Iran's nukes are only somewhere on the spectrum of possible to probable and limited in potential number. The French military isn't that large. They can't be in in multiple places at the same time. Some NATO allies are allowing us to use their bases.
Bombers are not defensive. (Which is why I included the link) One can call using them "defensive actions," but by that logic the whole conflict could be considered a "defensive action."
I find your laughable idea laughable as well. Yet, the real reasons are likely more complex than you seem to want to admit.
Trump has roasted darn near everyone. I think Tulsi was limiting the information she shared with Trump, so he couldn't release it like the tantruming toddler he acts like. "Fortunately," long briefings and lots of information "bore" Trump. I'm worried about her replacement being a simpering sycophant, and not even trying to manage Donald. You're right many of Trump's claims are bogus. That's why I'm looking at what the IAEA and other agencies have said instead of listening to Trump.
Catch-22.... trade Ward or lose him after the following year for nothing.
He will turn 30 next April and will likely be in the boat of looking for his last big contract the following spring. The chances of it being with us is probably zero. So, we are already looking at replacing him, so that means we are already looking at if/when we might be able to move him.
It sucks, especially since he's a hometown kid, but this is the business. A contender looking to bolster their defense before the deadline will almost certainly come calling and we will listen.
Just a thought. If come the trade deadline we're not doing too well, do you think our FO would be open to trading Denzel? Could we get a first for him in "27 or possibly a second in "27 and "28? Thoughts?
I am of the opinion that the Myles Garrett trade was done in order for us to try to land our fQB. I am skeptical that a late-2027-first, late-2028 second, and a 2028 third is enough to move us up from our pick to get who we want from QB draftees. I expect us to win a few more games this year and that drops our pick down to mid-round.
Operating under that assumption, IMO you HAVE to trade Ward to accomplish what you set out to do with the Garrett trade. The difficulty is I don't think trading Ward will get us back a starter-caliber player AND significant draft comp. I think sending Ward will put a GIANT hole in our secondary that we don't have anywhere near the depth to cover.
By the numbers:
Mid first for the Browns pick = 1595 Rams Late round pick = 1260 Browns second round pick = 1038
So, even if one of the QB starving teams ends up #1 overall, I think we have enough according to chart. Do they have to go off of chart? absolutely not, but these numbers are well above chart numbers, so I don't think we are that far off.
I'm not sure if you can interpret France/UK not allowing us to use their bases like that. If I had to guess, I think their staunch non-involvement has more to do with our overall stance vs our NATO allies juxtaposed to how we flung ourselves back into Middle East conflict. We are a PitA in NATO right now, so I just don't think those countries want to extend themselves militarily and politically to help clean up our mess.
I don't think it has to do with some moral/ethical conclusion(s) they made regarding nukes.
Just a thought. If come the trade deadline we're not doing too well, do you think our FO would be open to trading Denzel? Could we get a first for him in "27 or possibly a second in "27 and "28? Thoughts?
I am of the opinion that the Myles Garrett trade was done in order for us to try to land our fQB. I am skeptical that a late-2027-first, late-2028 second, and a 2028 third is enough to move us up from our pick to get who we want from QB draftees. I expect us to win a few more games this year and that drops our pick down to mid-round.
Operating under that assumption, IMO you HAVE to trade Ward to accomplish what you set out to do with the Garrett trade. The difficulty is I don't think trading Ward will get us back a starter-caliber player AND significant draft comp. I think sending Ward will put a GIANT hole in our secondary that we don't have anywhere near the depth to cover.
I have no idea what this FO will do. Sometimes I agree with their moves but tend to disagree with their moves far more than I agree.
I lost my Magic 8 ball when I was 12.
The way I see it anything is possible. I'm not so sure I agree with your premise as the reason for such a trade however.
I don't think anyone is expecting the Browns to light things up this season. With pretty much an entirely new OL and two rookie WR's it's going to take some time for things to gel. Then there is that fact that an entirely new O system is being installed. If anything things would be turning around and beginning to get better at or right around the trade deadline. At least I think that would be normal expectations. If they trade Ward just before the trade deadline for the reason you indicated I think that would be a knee jerk reaction. Denzel is 28 years old and has a lot of good years still ahead of him.
Now I could see that if other players on the roster in the secondary develop into more than they are now which seems possible, they may feel they can move in from Ward without taking too much of a hit in the secondary. That would make more sense to me if that should happen. But then I doubt we would ever know the true reasoning for such a trade.
I think my "absurd" reasons are just examples of the type of none fact based, emotional "what if" deflection you peddle in sometimes.
If France or any other NATO ally had intel to suggest Iran had imminent ability to make a nuke, they would have joined in the war effort ... or let the US use their bases.
The UK did NOT permit the USA to fuel planes for proactive attacks on Iran - it supported the US only in defensive actions where allies (the US/neighboring countries to Iran) were being attacked.
Here's the bottom line: Maybe you think it's plausible that Trump and his administration shared fact based data to show Iran was imminently able to obtain a Nuclear weapon - and their reaction was that they collectively shrugged their shoulders and declined to get involved because of political popularity at home ... I find that idea laughable. Not only that but I do not believe for an iota that Trump would not then release and roast those nations publicly. As it is - we get a changing made up lie out of Trump every other day with zero facts or evidence of any claim he makes.
Just a thought. If come the trade deadline we're not doing too well, do you think our FO would be open to trading Denzel? Could we get a first for him in "27 or possibly a second in "27 and "28? Thoughts?
The fact that he will only have one year left on his contract, to me, voids a first round pick. BUT, that doesn't mean he doesn't have first round value. A good, not great player plus a 2027 second would probably be in play. Again, it will more likely be a Super Bowl aspiration team, so the second round pick will more than likely be closer to 64 than 32.
Look for a contending team that loses a starting QB to be a market partner. It's bound to happen...
I hate to lose him though, he is a top 5 CB in the league. Start trading too many players and it becomes counter productive.
I find it odd how people are bringing up Myles taxes in California when Myles himself wanted to and agreed to go there. It seems it was a non issue for him. It's almost as if people have veered away from the football aspect of the conversation and taken it in a direction meant for a different forum.
Just a thought. If come the trade deadline we're not doing too well, do you think our FO would be open to trading Denzel? Could we get a first for him in "27 or possibly a second in "27 and "28? Thoughts?
You seem to imply that the general makeup of the group leans towards high morality and honesty. To me, the general makeup of the group seems to lean towards sketchy, indicated to me by the grand juries' failures to indict
First of all I indicated no such thing. I said the general makeup of any group varies. That not everyone in a group are the same. Some will be greedy and willing to do anything to enrich themselves. They will have varying standards and morals from individual to individual. Nothing about any of that is an indication of this overall group of women. It just means that if you actually believe all 26 of these women are lying you must believe all of these women are liars and the same in that regard. We have already reached the "Bull is just making things up" portion of our program.
Quote
the NFL's decision to exclude a majority of the accusers, and the "evidence" Buzbee released to the media not seeming to be something "highly moral" women would agree to. And just the fact that Buzbee is putting "evidence" in the media has me questioning his degree of morality. That evidence seemed to more support a different crime than the one he was allegedly trying in court.
The NFL focused on what appeared to be the most credible accusers. And in the end they found those accusers credible. Those of these women who were victims needed a voice. Nothing about having a lawyer speak on your behalf has nothing to do with being or not being "highly moral". That's yet another thing you just made up.
Quote
You say you don't lump the women together, but you keep referencing "all 26" over and over in your arguments. Maybe you don't intend it that way, but your intentions aren't always the way you come across to other people.
I'm really not sure how much more simple I can make this for you. To believe watson did nothing wrong you would have to believe that all 26 women are lying. Nowhere I have ever indicated that all 26 women were being truthful. I certainly don't expect someone doing their best to muddy the water to admit how easy that is to understand.
You said it was because you are a skeptical person. Out of sheer curiosity, how many women would it take to overcome your skepticism? 25 wasn't enough. Would 30 do it? 35,40?
You see to me, and it seems you at least somewhat agree there was a "victim or victims" and even one is too many.
I think if you review my comments you will see that your assertion.................
Quote
Basically, I think 26 people said it, so all of their side must be true and only Watson is the liar is bad logic.
................... at least I think that was directed towards me, is totally false. My assertion all along has been for anyone to believe watson didn't do anything you would have to believe that "all 26 women are lying".
I actually do not dismiss your thoughts about people being motivated by money. I don't disagree that an attorney would see claiming more victims would make for stronger case. That's why I've never claimed all of these women were victims.
But I think there is what I like to call a general makeup with any group of people. Different characters with differing morals and what length they are willing to go to in order to enrich themselves. Different levels of honesty and dishonesty. Differing ethical standards and beliefs.
As such I don't lump these women as all being the same as we have seen at least one poster do. In a group of people of any profession you will have different people of differing character. I see this as being no different.
It's not about the quantity, my skepticism is tied to the quality of the evidence, and the existence of contradictory/"ameliorating" evidence. No number is going to sway me in itself.
I said there could have been victims. I find it unlikely they all were lying about everything, but unlikely things do happen.
I never said anything about claiming more victims making a stronger case, so we don't agree there. I think Buzbee weakened the case. But I think he did see more dollar signs, and an opportunity to extort, seemingly with knowledge that some of his clients had participated in illegal activity.
You seem to imply that the general makeup of the group leans towards high morality and honesty. To me, the general makeup of the group seems to lean towards sketchy, indicated to me by the grand juries' failures to indict, the NFL's decision to exclude a majority of the accusers, and the "evidence" Buzbee released to the media not seeming to be something "highly moral" women would agree to. And just the fact that Buzbee is putting "evidence" in the media has me questioning his degree of morality. That evidence seemed to more support a different crime than the one he was allegedly trying in court.
You say you don't lump the women together, but you keep referencing "all 26" over and over in your arguments. Maybe you don't intend it that way, but your intentions aren't always the way you come across to other people.
When you make that kind of money it doesn't hit you quite as hard.
No but...
His $29.2M bonus come September is going to cost him an extra $2.9M in tax penalties.
His average salary of $40M is going to jump from about $1.1M in Ohio tax to about $5.3M in California tax
Over the next 4 years, being in California is going to cost him a starting rookie contract(s) salary per year. Let that sink in, he could pay for Denzel Boston $2.25M and Emmanuel McNeil-Warren $2.09M with the tax difference he is paying, just on his salary.
![[Linked Image from i.redd.it]](https://i.redd.it/uz2a69ih76me1.gif)
