ImHeisenberg wrote:DetroitSho wrote:ImHeisenberg wrote:
We should have gone after Teague, but I think $12 million at that time would have looked like a huge overpay.
So which one is it? I'm still unclear on where you stand.
I think you're just a contrarian for the sake of being one.
You're having difficulty understanding the context of time.
Contrarian? What am I even going contrary to? I literally have no idea what you're saying you would've done. That's why I'm asking you. It's easy to say we should've went after Teague. Hell, I'm with you in believing he would've been better than Jennings. My question to you that you're not getting is what do you think the price would've been? Because without context of a price tag, "we should've gone after Teague" is an empty statement.










