I really want to like Gettleman. I honestly do.
I don't mind trading Beckham.. but why sign him in the first place if your priority is to build a smash mouth team. plus we lose carryover dollars.
Sorry but Barkley was the wrong choice.. as great as he seems now. QB is by far the most valuable position in sports. It was an error to use the number two pick on anything but a QB because...
... even though Eli is 38 and just about fallen off the cliff, DG is behaving like there is no problem here. Just awful evaluation.
Adding Tate makes absolutely no sense. Great so we can go 5-11 instead of 3-13. What a joke. If you're tanking then tank.
We need to add a QB. It is our most desperate need. If we don't get Murray or Haskins I think time is up for DG.
What is this seeming obsession with smash mouth football. What year is this? 1977?
I believe he is awful. Glad I could get that off my chest.
Well, you know that's a specious position. Running back is one of the easiest positions to play as a first year player.
Eli first year was nothing short of miserable. And if you actually study Darnold's rookie year, it wasn't that bad. So this needs to play out further before a real comparison can start.
Barkley is obviously very talented. Fun to watch. Entertaining. So I think it's an easy - almost lazy - position to say SB was the right pick. But RBs tend to have a low football "WAR" and they tend to hit a point of diminishing returns faster than any skill position.
Quote:
I should have read the whole thing first.
why is it nonsense? for chrissake it is the opinion of most non-giant fans and pundits. it is literally a majority opinion.
Because you post the same thing daily if not weekly. And you and many others simply can’t let go of the Barkley qb decision. You and many others have completely invalidated DG based on a pragmatic and logical decision, that being the Barkley pick over the qb. He’s basically dead to some of you now. That’s how illogical people think. Even if you disagree with it you can’t just kill the guy for it. Barkley is nothing short of amazing. They didn’t pass on a sure thing for a slob. They took the sure thing over the unknown. Ok? Move on. The very fact that the giants didn’t force the qb there and indeed took the guy that passed every single draft test and every eyeball test should be viewed as encouraging. This isn’t the same old giants yet that’s all I hear. The same old giants force the issue and took the qb because of a made up false narrative.
Quote:
In comment 14354372 djm said:
Quote:
I should have read the whole thing first.
why is it nonsense? for chrissake it is the opinion of most non-giant fans and pundits. it is literally a majority opinion.
Because you post the same thing daily if not weekly. And you and many others simply can’t let go of the Barkley qb decision. You and many others have completely invalidated DG based on a pragmatic and logical decision, that being the Barkley pick over the qb. He’s basically dead to some of you now. That’s how illogical people think. Even if you disagree with it you can’t just kill the guy for it. Barkley is nothing short of amazing. They didn’t pass on a sure thing for a slob. They took the sure thing over the unknown. Ok? Move on. The very fact that the giants didn’t force the qb there and indeed took the guy that passed every single draft test and every eyeball test should be viewed as encouraging. This isn’t the same old giants yet that’s all I hear. The same old giants force the issue and took the qb because of a made up false narrative.
Firstly, I don't post the same thing every day. I'm not on here every day and I think I have started a total of three threads in the last month. You obviously have me mistaken for someone else. But yes, when commenting on other threads this is my pov. It hasn't changed. Am i not free to comment on these ongoing discussions.
Second, not sure why you are so defensive. Gettelman looks like he doesn't understand what the NFL is. It's a passing league. Sure Barkley looks great. He's a great running back. The problem is running backs are simply more disposable and less valuable than elite players at other positions.
I’d also gladly wager with anyone that the giants win over five games in 2019. Please we can Stage the money on PayPal or Venmo. Honestly I’d probably make that bet for any team because more often than not teams are never as great or terrible as fan believe. But that’s another story. You’re miserable because golden Tate will help this team win 2 more games than expected. That’s just weird.
Quote:
season.
Well, you know that's a specious position. Running back is one of the easiest positions to play as a first year player.
Eli first year was nothing short of miserable. And if you actually study Darnold's rookie year, it wasn't that bad. So this needs to play out further before a real comparison can start.
Barkley is obviously very talented. Fun to watch. Entertaining. So I think it's an easy - almost lazy - position to say SB was the right pick. But RBs tend to have a low football "WAR" and they tend to hit a point of diminishing returns faster than any skill position.
Rbs are so easy to find yet the giants couldn’t find one for a frickin decade. And they couldn’t find one in the 70s either.
Let’s not even get into how amazingly good Barkley is. He’s not even your typical rb. Nope, in some worlds everything with the giants is lovely if they just took darnold over Barkley.
QBs get wayyyyyyy too much credit or blame around here. It’s the most important position to be sure and it’s also the most inaccurately scouted and unfairly judged position as well.
The Giants are sitting in good shape, with the fundamentals of roster and fiances where you want them. There are very few bad contracts, very few old players, lots of draft choices, and lots of free cap over the next two years.
Gettleman had a rough go of it with free agents and extensions last year. He's largely wiggled out of his mistakes.
This draft is huge. If the Giants draft a skillsy QB to groom, and keep adding young, cheap talent, this is a team that can be in the conversation in 2020.
DG has dumped all the talent this team had except SB. I'm fine with it though my main point is he should have started this last year. But ok the plan has changed. I agree, let's see what he does but I have little faith that he knows how to assemble a high flying offense that is required to win in this NFL. This team is at least 2 years away, at best 2021, I think... And if DG puts off the QB another year we are at least 3-4 years away.
What are you talking about? I have not posted new threads are on this subject. Why are you taking djm at his word?
Quote:
In comment 14354405 Ira said:
Quote:
season.
Well, you know that's a specious position. Running back is one of the easiest positions to play as a first year player.
Eli first year was nothing short of miserable. And if you actually study Darnold's rookie year, it wasn't that bad. So this needs to play out further before a real comparison can start.
Barkley is obviously very talented. Fun to watch. Entertaining. So I think it's an easy - almost lazy - position to say SB was the right pick. But RBs tend to have a low football "WAR" and they tend to hit a point of diminishing returns faster than any skill position.
Rbs are so easy to find yet the giants couldn’t find one for a frickin decade. And they couldn’t find one in the 70s either.
Let’s not even get into how amazingly good Barkley is. He’s not even your typical rb. Nope, in some worlds everything with the giants is lovely if they just took darnold over Barkley.
QBs get wayyyyyyy too much credit or blame around here. It’s the most important position to be sure and it’s also the most inaccurately scouted and unfairly judged position as well.
QBs get too much credit? That's an interesting take on the NFL.
Quote:
if you continue to post repeatedly, the same material - in new threads - we will regard it as trolling
What are you talking about? I have not posted new threads are on this subject. Why are you taking djm at his word?
consider yourself warned
Quote:
In comment 14354551 gidiefor said:
Quote:
if you continue to post repeatedly, the same material - in new threads - we will regard it as trolling
What are you talking about? I have not posted new threads are on this subject. Why are you taking djm at his word?
consider yourself warned
warned for what? i literally haven't done anything wrong. you are just backing up his fake accusation.
So you are putting a quota on how many times a poster can say the same thing?
Why? Because it goes against some preferred mainstream thought?
Sorry, I find this very bizarre.
Quote:
if you continue to post repeatedly, the same material - in new threads - we will regard it as trolling
So you are putting a quota on how many times a poster can say the same thing?
Why? Because it goes against some preferred mainstream thought?
Sorry, I find this very bizarre.
thank you!
I think the Mod here is just making a mistake. Folks here may not like my pov here but I have been fairly respectful to everyone - and I can't say the same for all who have commented. A troll is someone who is unreasonably disrespectful. I raise legitimate points and I swear djm is mistaken, I have not started a new thread everyday. The Mod should be able to see my activity. I am miffed as to why I have been threatened here.
Compare returns. Let him walk equals a 3rd rounder. That's crap.
Sign him and deal him equals #17, Pepeprs and a 3rd rounder which yu essentially bought for a one time cap payment of $16 million dollars. You make that exchange allday everyday.
Glad you're not our GM.
Compare returns. Let him walk equals a 3rd rounder. That's crap.
Sign him and deal him equals #17, Pepeprs and a 3rd rounder which yu essentially bought for a one time cap payment of $16 million dollars. You make that exchange allday everyday.
Glad you're not our GM.
??? they could have traded him last season and likely gotten more, saved money and cap. That's what we are saying. Maybe I should be the GM.
Quote:
if you continue to post repeatedly, the same material - in new threads - we will regard it as trolling
So you are putting a quota on how many times a poster can say the same thing?
Why? Because it goes against some preferred mainstream thought?
Sorry, I find this very bizarre.
I think the OP’s position is valid, but poorly supported. But he has every right to post it. Are we going to start monitoring all the pro-Eli and and pro- DG posters who regurgitate the same crap on almost a daily basis?
Again, I am not tak8ng side here, but if the moderators want to limit opinions they disagree with while letting the “everything is awesome” crowd run amok, they are really doing this site a disservice.
I get accused of trolling almost daily because I dare criticize the aristocracy at Jints Central... ;)
Quote:
YOu don't let him walk that would be a heinous move by the GM because you get nothing for him but a comp 3rd rounder. You don't want to tag him because it's a bad relationship and again you have less leverage and a lesser return in a deal if things go south. So you sign him because he's an elite talent and you're hoping he matures. If he doesn't you trade him, as we did.
Compare returns. Let him walk equals a 3rd rounder. That's crap.
Sign him and deal him equals #17, Pepeprs and a 3rd rounder which yu essentially bought for a one time cap payment of $16 million dollars. You make that exchange allday everyday.
Glad you're not our GM.
??? they could have traded him last season and likely gotten more, saved money and cap. That's what we are saying. Maybe I should be the GM.
Nobody is giving up much for a guy who is about to be a free agent. That isn’t how anything works.
I think the OP’s position is valid, but poorly supported. But he has every right to post it. Are we going to start monitoring all the pro-Eli and and pro- DG posters who regurgitate the same crap on almost a daily basis?
Again, I am not tak8ng side here, but if the moderators want to limit opinions they disagree with while letting the “everything is awesome” crowd run amok, they are really doing this site a disservice.
Agreed. This place is at it's best when things get a little dirty... ;)
Quote:
In comment 14354576 Torrag said:
Quote:
YOu don't let him walk that would be a heinous move by the GM because you get nothing for him but a comp 3rd rounder. You don't want to tag him because it's a bad relationship and again you have less leverage and a lesser return in a deal if things go south. So you sign him because he's an elite talent and you're hoping he matures. If he doesn't you trade him, as we did.
Compare returns. Let him walk equals a 3rd rounder. That's crap.
Sign him and deal him equals #17, Pepeprs and a 3rd rounder which yu essentially bought for a one time cap payment of $16 million dollars. You make that exchange allday everyday.
Glad you're not our GM.
??? they could have traded him last season and likely gotten more, saved money and cap. That's what we are saying. Maybe I should be the GM.
Nobody is giving up much for a guy who is about to be a free agent. That isn’t how anything works.
Except for the Bears who gave up two firsts for Mack. He had two years of eligibility left. How is that "about to be a free agent"? Just curious.
Do you even follow the NFL?
Quote:
if you continue to post repeatedly, the same material - in new threads - we will regard it as trolling
So you are putting a quota on how many times a poster can say the same thing?
Why? Because it goes against some preferred mainstream thought?
Sorry, I find this very bizarre.
Ditto
Quote:
This argument always makes me laugh. So every player that we want here should stay at all costs, no questions asks?
It’s obvious that something went south after he signed. So do you force it to work, likely making it worse, or do you strike a deal to get rid of a problem and recoup assets?
Let me ask you a question, have you ever planned on doing something, committed to it, then something happened where you had to change course?
sure i agree. but it's a failure. especially with millions on the line.
Not really. If we aren’t going to the playoffs this year, which we likely arent with or without Beckham, then eating the dead money now is effectively us buying picks to invest in the future. So idea being here long term was a failure but a net positive will likely happen.
Time to move on.
Quote:
Why sign him to a big contract, when the fifth year option was available?
Once he played a few games, then trade him......would have saved a lot of cap....
DG said he wouldn't trade OBj after signing him, UNLESS he received an offer he couldn't refuse....a ss(who's stats are not eye popping) who is cheap for 2 years, and two unknowns at 17 and the third round? That was a trade he couldn't refuse?
Agree completely. Look I am not mad about the return for OBJ. I never thought we were going to get two or three 1's for him, as some here fantasized.
He likely wouldn’t have played. Have you guys not been paying attention?
Quote:
if that is your real name. Maybe Franchise is on to something here, with a third round comp pick, we could do some real damage...
Do you even follow the NFL?
dO YoU eVeN FoLLow THe NfL?
So you agree that they could have traded Beckham last season with two years of eligibility left. Thanks for agreeing.
Glad you're not our GM.
??? they could have traded him last season and likely gotten more, saved money and cap. That's what we are saying. Maybe I should be the GM.
Are you 14 years old or do you really have no idea how this league works?
You think the Giants could have gotten more for OBJ coming off of that ankle injury AND with only one year left on his deal? Really?
You are doubling down on your stupidity.
Quote:
Glad you're not our GM.
??? they could have traded him last season and likely gotten more, saved money and cap. That's what we are saying. Maybe I should be the GM.
Are you 14 years old or do you really have no idea how this league works?
You think the Giants could have gotten more for OBJ coming off of that ankle injury AND with only one year left on his deal? Really?
You are doubling down on your stupidity.
There were two years left and yes I think they could have gotten as much for OBJ with two years left on a rookie salary than what Cleveland paid for a receiver on a monster salary. You're throwing around the stupidity word but I think you need to look in the mirror.
Quote:
position than Beckham. There is nobody giving up two firsts for a wide receiver who needs to be signed long term. Getting a first alone would have been a coup.
So you agree that they could have traded Beckham last season with two years of eligibility left. Thanks for agreeing.
No, not after that injury. They had to trade him after his 2016 season. You can trade any player anytime though so what point are you even making?
You should read up on the facts before lecturing people.
Quote:
In comment 14354623 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
position than Beckham. There is nobody giving up two firsts for a wide receiver who needs to be signed long term. Getting a first alone would have been a coup.
So you agree that they could have traded Beckham last season with two years of eligibility left. Thanks for agreeing.
No, not after that injury. They had to trade him after his 2016 season. You can trade any player anytime though so what point are you even making?
i'm saying that could have gotten an equal deal last year saved the cap and the money. it is what i said above. it shows a lack of clarity and vision for the team. it is fairly obvious.
Quote:
In comment 14354463 Toth029 said:
Quote:
With a questionable OL and no run game? With a bad defense? Same loser team. But hey, they got a young QB to ruin while your team lacks in premier talent.
Can’t you just say the exact same thing about Barkley?
Sure, it's a same team essentially. Remember the Rashad Jennings or Andre Brown year? So why get any panties in a bunch over them picking an elite prospect over a QB who isn't exactly Andrew Luck coming out? Their obviously picked a better player, in their minds, and I'm okay with that. The Rams picked Gurley early instead of forcing a pick at QB in their waning years post-Bradford.
I completely agree. It will be at least 5 years before you can say either one was a better decision.
Quote:
In comment 14354583 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
Glad you're not our GM.
??? they could have traded him last season and likely gotten more, saved money and cap. That's what we are saying. Maybe I should be the GM.
Are you 14 years old or do you really have no idea how this league works?
You think the Giants could have gotten more for OBJ coming off of that ankle injury AND with only one year left on his deal? Really?
You are doubling down on your stupidity.
There were two years left and yes I think they could have gotten as much for OBJ with two years left on a rookie salary than what Cleveland paid for a receiver on a monster salary. You're throwing around the stupidity word but I think you need to look in the mirror.
Name one player under the franchise tag that was traded for at least what the giants got for Beckham. The giants were able to get more because Beckham was under contract and his cost is controlled as the browns did not absorb the signing bonus.
Sean Gilbert netted the redskins 2 first round picks
Peerless price netted buffalo a first round pick
Quote:
In comment 14354626 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14354623 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
position than Beckham. There is nobody giving up two firsts for a wide receiver who needs to be signed long term. Getting a first alone would have been a coup.
So you agree that they could have traded Beckham last season with two years of eligibility left. Thanks for agreeing.
No, not after that injury. They had to trade him after his 2016 season. You can trade any player anytime though so what point are you even making?
i'm saying that could have gotten an equal deal last year saved the cap and the money. it is what i said above. it shows a lack of clarity and vision for the team. it is fairly obvious.
I don’t know how you can possibly think that when any buyer would be buying an injured player. This discussion is beyond stupid.
Quote:
In comment 14354634 EricJ said:
Quote:
In comment 14354583 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
Glad you're not our GM.
??? they could have traded him last season and likely gotten more, saved money and cap. That's what we are saying. Maybe I should be the GM.
Are you 14 years old or do you really have no idea how this league works?
You think the Giants could have gotten more for OBJ coming off of that ankle injury AND with only one year left on his deal? Really?
You are doubling down on your stupidity.
There were two years left and yes I think they could have gotten as much for OBJ with two years left on a rookie salary than what Cleveland paid for a receiver on a monster salary. You're throwing around the stupidity word but I think you need to look in the mirror.
Name one player under the franchise tag that was traded for at least what the giants got for Beckham. The giants were able to get more because Beckham was under contract and his cost is controlled as the browns did not absorb the signing bonus.
Sean Gilbert netted the redskins 2 first round picks
Peerless price netted buffalo a first round pick
There was a demand for Beckham last offseason. The Pats were allegedly very interested. We won't know the offers but I am sure they were decent. The Giants almost dealt him. The Pats paid a first for Cooks (a one year rental) and got a first for Cooks. The Cowboys paid a first for Cooper. Mack went for a better deal than Beckham. All I am saying is the Giants would have gotten at least the deal they got now. It's silly to suggest they wouldn't have gotten a first and a little extra last offseason.
Quote:
In comment 14354639 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
In comment 14354626 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14354623 Mike from Ohio said:
Quote:
position than Beckham. There is nobody giving up two firsts for a wide receiver who needs to be signed long term. Getting a first alone would have been a coup.
So you agree that they could have traded Beckham last season with two years of eligibility left. Thanks for agreeing.
No, not after that injury. They had to trade him after his 2016 season. You can trade any player anytime though so what point are you even making?
i'm saying that could have gotten an equal deal last year saved the cap and the money. it is what i said above. it shows a lack of clarity and vision for the team. it is fairly obvious.
I don’t know how you can possibly think that when any buyer would be buying an injured player. This discussion is beyond stupid.
He's still injured
First of all, there was interest in Beckham last offseason. So I don't even know what your point is that he was too injured to be traded.
Second, he was injured this offseason and still got traded. Again I don't get your pointless argumentation.
Third, Mack was traded and signed by a team that wanted him. I don't think it is far fetched to think Beckham would have been traded and signed by another team, since Cleveland traded for his very large contract.
This thread is great, keep the laughs coming please.
This thread is great, keep the laughs coming please.
You're the laugh. Let me know when you finish college, joker.
Keep it coming, I’m dying to see what you come up with next.
Keep it coming, I’m dying to see what you come up with next.
thanks for the comedy. i appreciate it. but you should have the Alzheimer's looked at. Your memory seems spotty. Let me remind you... The Giants were asking for TWO first rounders last off-season. That's not me. That's Gettleman who you are apparently defending. On this site people thought they shouldn't deal OBJ for anything less than THREE first rounders. I guess you forgot all that. I'm just saying they could have gotten one. If our GM was so badass and thought he could get TWO I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he could have gotten at least one. Don't you? Unless you think he is a moron.
Quote:
In comment 14354635 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14354634 EricJ said:
Quote:
In comment 14354583 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
Glad you're not our GM.
??? they could have traded him last season and likely gotten more, saved money and cap. That's what we are saying. Maybe I should be the GM.
Are you 14 years old or do you really have no idea how this league works?
You think the Giants could have gotten more for OBJ coming off of that ankle injury AND with only one year left on his deal? Really?
You are doubling down on your stupidity.
There were two years left and yes I think they could have gotten as much for OBJ with two years left on a rookie salary than what Cleveland paid for a receiver on a monster salary. You're throwing around the stupidity word but I think you need to look in the mirror.
Name one player under the franchise tag that was traded for at least what the giants got for Beckham. The giants were able to get more because Beckham was under contract and his cost is controlled as the browns did not absorb the signing bonus.
Sean Gilbert netted the redskins 2 first round picks
Peerless price netted buffalo a first round pick
There was a demand for Beckham last offseason. The Pats were allegedly very interested. We won't know the offers but I am sure they were decent. The Giants almost dealt him. The Pats paid a first for Cooks (a one year rental) and got a first for Cooks. The Cowboys paid a first for Cooper. Mack went for a better deal than Beckham. All I am saying is the Giants would have gotten at least the deal they got now. It's silly to suggest they wouldn't have gotten a first and a little extra last offseason.
There was not a demand for Beckham. Rumors were out there that the giants were looking to trade Beckham and team's were inquiring if that was the case, because they were looking to see if he could be had cheap. The patriots 31st overall pick in the first round isn't as valuable as the browns 17th overall pick.
You are also going off the basis that Gettleman signed Beckham with the intent of trading him one year later. That wasn't his intent. His intent was that Beckham would be a ny giant for the next 5 years at least. Beckham's actions changed their thinking and they still made a move that netted them a good haul
Quote:
In comment 14354646 TrueBlue56 said:
Quote:
In comment 14354635 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
In comment 14354634 EricJ said:
Quote:
In comment 14354583 FranchiseQB said:
Quote:
Glad you're not our GM.
??? they could have traded him last season and likely gotten more, saved money and cap. That's what we are saying. Maybe I should be the GM.
Are you 14 years old or do you really have no idea how this league works?
You think the Giants could have gotten more for OBJ coming off of that ankle injury AND with only one year left on his deal? Really?
You are doubling down on your stupidity.
There were two years left and yes I think they could have gotten as much for OBJ with two years left on a rookie salary than what Cleveland paid for a receiver on a monster salary. You're throwing around the stupidity word but I think you need to look in the mirror.
Name one player under the franchise tag that was traded for at least what the giants got for Beckham. The giants were able to get more because Beckham was under contract and his cost is controlled as the browns did not absorb the signing bonus.
Sean Gilbert netted the redskins 2 first round picks
Peerless price netted buffalo a first round pick
There was a demand for Beckham last offseason. The Pats were allegedly very interested. We won't know the offers but I am sure they were decent. The Giants almost dealt him. The Pats paid a first for Cooks (a one year rental) and got a first for Cooks. The Cowboys paid a first for Cooper. Mack went for a better deal than Beckham. All I am saying is the Giants would have gotten at least the deal they got now. It's silly to suggest they wouldn't have gotten a first and a little extra last offseason.
There was not a demand for Beckham. Rumors were out there that the giants were looking to trade Beckham and team's were inquiring if that was the case, because they were looking to see if he could be had cheap. The patriots 31st overall pick in the first round isn't as valuable as the browns 17th overall pick.
You are also going off the basis that Gettleman signed Beckham with the intent of trading him one year later. That wasn't his intent. His intent was that Beckham would be a ny giant for the next 5 years at least. Beckham's actions changed their thinking and they still made a move that netted them a good haul
Ok this is a fair reply. Yes there was some demand for Beckham. How much we might not ever know but I bet ot was more than just the Pats 31.. They had other picks to deal including an earlier first rounder that became Michel. But set that aside.
You make an interesting point. Beckham did something that suddenly forced their hand. Sorry I don't buy it. I think beckham did next to nothing. What? Pretend to pee? he basically acted as he always did. So I call that a miscalculation by DG. If he didn't want Beckham acting like Beckham then we all would have been better off if he did it a year earlier, hastening our rebuild. This set our rebuild back a year, imo. I feel DG thought we would compete and he needed Beckham to do so. When that failed, miserably, he has now decided he doesnt want to spend that kind of money on a WR and wants to retool the team differently, with a different allocation of resources.
This is a change of course. Which speaks to DG's lack of vision when he took this team over.
Now, I am googling my ass of to see where Gettleman, Mara, or anyone else in a decision making capacity actually said that.
The only thing I could find are "reports" from pundits. That is really strange. Especially considering DG said he was not looking to trade OBJ back then.
So, can someone show me where Gettleman publicly said he wanted two first rounders for OBJ?
Now, I am googling my ass of to see where Gettleman, Mara, or anyone else in a decision making capacity actually said that.
The only thing I could find are "reports" from pundits. That is really strange. Especially considering DG said he was not looking to trade OBJ back then.
So, can someone show me where Gettleman publicly said he wanted two first rounders for OBJ?
People don't announce in the press how much they want for a player. GM's lie all the time publicly anyway. There were press reports (not pundits) that this was the asking price and yes they tested the water last year.
I mean, you do know this basic, elementary level shit don’t you? Why on earth would anyone start negotiations low?