Beason Compensation: 7th round pick

[Mr. Scot]

dang Scott - what you sippin' on?

I'm not going to restate for the 100th time what I've already said .. you're getting weaker in each post and honestly I'm kinda disappointed in you

also - I'm still waiting on that "Observer article"

 

Except that what you've said the past '100 times' has been quite blatantly wrong.

 

You've essentially admitted that you can't provide a real world example of someone who would have offered a higher pick for Beason whereas I've demonstrated that the Giants were the only team with a reason to do so. 

 

Despite the evidence, you still insist "somebody" would have.  Not sure where you expect that 'somebody' to come from since we've been able to negate everybody but the Giants, but hey,there's always the trash talk angle to try and distract from your lack of an argument (I see you're already going that route) :unsure:

 

As far as the article...

 

Panthers give Beason a chance to start...for Giants

 

 

Beason met with Rivera on Thursday morning and told him he still wanted to be a starter. Rivera informed him the Panthers were sticking with Blackburn, and Beason broached the subject of playing elsewhere.

“I said I know I have value,” Beason told the New York Daily News. “I know somewhere else could use me, and they made it happen.”

 

 

Any questions?

[Mr. Scot]

No, you still don't understand what I'm saying. Go back and read my posts and try again. I'm saying we got the bad end of the deal. Because guess what? We did. No matter how you look at it, we did. Throw out the feel good "Beason wanted it and now he's happy" and just consider two things: Jon Beason vs 7th rounder. Ask any GM in the league whether they'd rather have Jon Beason NOW, not even before the injury, or a 7th rounder. Considering those GMs might find a decent backup out of a 7th rounder once in every 5 years, I guarantee you they'd rather have Jon Beason.

 

Would they give more than a 7th for him? Maybe not, but that's not the point I'm trying to say. I'm weighing the two things, Beason on the bench/in on our 3-4 looks/even as an OLB or a 7th round pick that almost always gets cut after a year or two.

 

Dude, ya gotta come up with a better answer than "Because we just did!  No matter how you look at it,we did!" with no actual evidence to support your argument.

 

Worth is defined by what someone will pay for something.  You can't admit no one will give more than a 7th but still say "he's worth more".  That's self-contradiction.

 

As mentioned before, you either have to make it work in the real world or you have no argument.

 

[Seal (SmittyIsOurSavior)]

Dude, ya gotta come up with a better answer than "Because we just did!  No matter how you look at it,we did!" with no actual evidence to support your argument.

 

Worth is defined by what someone will pay for something.  You can't admit no one will give more than a 7th but still say "he's worth more".  That's self-contradiction.

 

As mentioned before, you either have to make it work in the real world or you have no argument.

 

 

For the ten thousandth time, I have yet to say anything about anyone giving us more. Should I try to put it into a different perspective?

 

It's the beginning of the 7th round in the 2014 NFL draft. Jon Beason is put on the board. The Jon Beason of today, post injury, same age, etc etc. Is there a team in the NFL that would pass up Jon Beason in that situation? A player that has proven himself in the past, and while he may not be the same as he was, the upside is clearly there and tangible.

 

Even we would make that selection in the 7th. It has nothing to do with team needs, because if teams drafted solely based on needs, then why did we take Barner or Klein? You go BPA and upside in the mid-late rounds more often than you go based on filling a hole. We would take him, the Giants would take him, the Niners would take him, the Seahawks would take him.

 

I don't care about this realistic situation thing because I never said anything about that. I was simply stating that we didn't get a good deal out of this trade. Jon did, the Giants did, but we did not. He's worth more riding our bench as depth than a 7th. I'm glad he gets to go out and start for the Giants, but I don't understand why everyone is pretending we got a great deal because we got anything at all.

 

And no, I don't have to "make it work in the real world" when my argument has nothing to do with the real world. It is solely refuting the idea that we got a fantastic deal when in reality we got dirt for something worth much more than dirt to both us and other teams.

[Seal (SmittyIsOurSavior)]

Worth is defined by what someone will pay for something.  You can't admit no one will give more than a 7th but still say "he's worth more".  That's self-contradiction.

 

Also, that's not right either. Worth can be defined as a couple of different things. Sure, you can value "worth" as how much you can get out of something, but you're overlooking the use value of the commodity, which in this case is Jon Beason's usefulness on our bench OR to another team as a starter/on their bench. His use value is higher than that of even some of the best 7th rounders.

 

And then there is worth in terms of exchange value, a commodity for another commodity. And once again, Jon Beason is worth more to us or any other team than what we get in exchange, a 7th rounder that will be cut within a couple of years nine times out of ten.

[TheRed]

He's gone, move on cry babies.