That Jacobs is so cheap....

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... : well im gonna tell yea, that Mr. Jacobs was sooooo cheap, that when cleaning the ice, rather then using a zambonie, he used a BLANK.....
    Posted by kylequinn[/QUOTE]

    Wonderful!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    To those who are focused on one detail, Jacobs is so cheap, well he was.  The players mentioned Prop and Poulin were brought in to help the Bruins win the Cup.  Yet outside of Poulin the players were not kept for a longer period of time. Investing in winning the Cup is not investing long term to build a team to win the Cup on a consistent manner like the Pens or Oilers.  The fact of the matter JJ did not surround Ray Bourque with players to win the Cup in the 90s.  Looking at the top salaries in the 90s it is not surprising that Bourque was not in the top five for most of the 90s.  What is noticed is the number of Pens and Oilers!  This was a period where salaries escalated beyond belief, yet, JJ did not keep up with the competition.   Jacobs was cheap.  

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    The Rangers are also quite prevalent on that list.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from cup2009. Show cup2009's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    Well the question was in JJ cheap the answer is no.. NOt any more back in accient history yes he was.. The question is not in the year 2010 does he run his business as well as he could or does his employees spend money wisely the answer to those two questions is no.. The orginal question is JJ cheap in the year 2010 the answer is NO>>>....  
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from nitemare-38. Show nitemare-38's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....:
    [QUOTE]Poulin had 25 points in 32 games for the B's that season. Propp had 12 points in 14 games for the B's that season.  In the previous 10 seasons, Propp had failed to record at least 30 goals only two times (26 and 27). Christian came over on the heels of two 30+ goals seasons and was terrific on the checking line for Boston. These players weren't quality acquisitions because I say so, they are quality acquistions because their play said so. Sure, Edmonton was deeper, but that's not the point.  You said the B's refused to make any moves to improve the team.  Propp, Poulin and Christian are here to dispute that. I'm not sure what Adam Oates has to do with the team in 1990.  He wasn't a Bruin then.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    I have to agree with you on this one NAS. Those late aquisitions were a huge reason the B's made it to the finals. However, I know one game doesn't win you a series, but I think the 1st period in game 1 was the nail in the coffin! Billy Ranford put on a freakin clinic! The B's outshot the Oilers in that period 16-4 & had nothing to show for it except being down 2-0. I checked into it & the B's are the only team in NHL history to have given up 3 different goalies & have them to come back & not only beat them in the play-offs, but to also win the Conn Smythe in the process. Dryden, Parent & Ranford. Ranford out-dueling the guy the B's traded him for. Andy Moog.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from TryToBearIt. Show TryToBearIt's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....:
    [QUOTE]To those who are focused on one detail, Jacobs is so cheap, well he was.  The players mentioned Prop and Poulin were brought in to help the Bruins win the Cup.  Yet outside of Poulin the players were not kept for a longer period of time. Investing in winning the Cup is not investing long term to build a team to win the Cup on a consistent manner like the Pens or Oilers.  The fact of the matter JJ did not surround Ray Bourque with players to win the Cup in the 90s.  Looking at the top salaries in the 90s it is not surprising that Bourque was not in the top five for most of the 90s.  What is noticed is the number of Pens and Oilers!  This was a period where salaries escalated beyond belief, yet, JJ did not keep up with the competition.   Jacobs was cheap.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_player_salaries_in_the_NHL#1997.E2.80.9398_season
    Posted by islamorada[/QUOTE]

    Finally--someone who gets it. Also appreciate the fact check to back up my points.

    The Bruins did just enough to get by in the 90's...not enough to win it all, and that's why the Poulin/Propp/Christian acquisitions--while good--were never going to be enough to win it all.

    The larger point islamorada makes here is the one I failed to--that the Bruins might bring in a player or 2 for a season or so (think: Gionchar, Knuble--really most of the 2004 team--Guerin, Allison, and on and on), but never would allow those players to stick around for long enough to gel and create an identity and winning formula. Why? Because that would cost MONEY...money that both JJ and Harry Sinden were loathe to pay b/c they thought players should be soooooo honored to wear the spoked B that they should take whatever money was offered and shut up....and maybe that's a fine viewpoint to have...very "old school", but totally out of touch w/the way the game and sports in general had changed by th 90's.

    Who paid the price? Bruins fans.

    And the point about Oates was not 1990 (when someone knows they are in a corner they change the subject--I never said oates was on th '90 squad, and in fact the 1990 team was merely a small example I gave from the broader point about what the Bruins have done since their last Cup appearance)....but that Oates nailed the Bruins' un-willingness to bring in the best players to augment what they had when he was so unceremoniously sent packing in the mid-90s.

    Harry and JJ couldn't stomach Oates speaking the truth and so let their pride get in the way of the greater good--letting one of the best-ever playmakers go (one wonders if Savard will be next?) just to show how "tough" they were. After Oates left the truly horrible spate of cheap, ugly, stupid Bruins teams reared their ugly heads and from about 1994 til 2004 the B's were one of the very worst teams in hockey, but apparently to many "fans", it had nothing to do with the owner.

    Maybe the facts should just speak for themselves:

    No Stanley Cup since 1972. (Only Toronto has gone longer since their last one.)

    2 advances past round 1 of the playoffs in the past 11 years.

    Again--and for the last time will I mention this--it IS worthless to complain about Jacobs spending habits now--he's already won by fighting for and getting the Cap in place that allows him to spend up to it, save money over what he would have had to pay w/out it--and dupe fans into thinking that makes him a caring owner.

    JJ fought for the cap. He got it. Spending up to it--as nearly every team that can afford to does--does NOT Make him a good or caring owner...it just makes him a shrewd businessman, and that is not the same thing.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... : Finally--someone who gets it. Also appreciate the fact check to back up my points. The Bruins did just enough to get by in the 90's...not enough to win it all, and that's why the Poulin/Propp/Christian acquisitions--while good--were never going to be enough to win it all. The larger point islamorada makes here is the one I failed to--that the Bruins might bring in a player or 2 for a season or so (think: Gionchar, Knuble--really most of the 2004 team--Guerin, Allison, and on and on), but never would allow those players to stick around for long enough to gel and create an identity and winning formula. Why? Because that would cost MONEY...money that both JJ and Harry Sinden were loathe to pay b/c they thought players should be soooooo honored to wear the spoked B that they should take whatever money was offered and shut up....and maybe that's a fine viewpoint to have...very "old school", but totally out of touch w/the way the game and sports in general had changed by th 90's. Who paid the price? Bruins fans. And the point about Oates was not 1990 (when someone knows they are in a corner they change the subject--I never said oates was on th '90 squad, and in fact the 1990 team was merely a small example I gave from the broader point about what the Bruins have done since their last Cup appearance)....but that Oates nailed the Bruins' un-willingness to bring in the best players to augment what they had when he was so unceremoniously sent packing in the mid-90s. Harry and JJ couldn't stomach Oates speaking the truth and so let their pride get in the way of the greater good--letting one of the best-ever playmakers go (one wonders if Savard will be next?) just to show how "tough" they were. After Oates left the truly horrible spate of cheap, ugly, stupid Bruins teams reared their ugly heads and from about 1994 til 2004 the B's were one of the very worst teams in hockey, but apparently to many "fans", it had nothing to do with the owner. Maybe the facts should just speak for themselves: No Stanley Cup since 1972. (Only Toronto has gone longer since their last one.) 2 advances past round 1 of the playoffs in the past 11 years. Again--and for the last time will I mention this--it IS worthless to complain about Jacobs spending habits now--he's already won by fighting for and getting the Cap in place that allows him to spend up to it, save money over what he would have had to pay w/out it--and dupe fans into thinking that makes him a caring owner. JJ fought for the cap. He got it. Spending up to it--as nearly every team that can afford to does--does NOT Make him a good or caring owner...it just makes him a shrewd businessman, and that is not the same thing.
    Posted by TryToBearIt[/QUOTE]

    The decision to fight for the cap was made in unison by all the owners. Insert their names in there with JJ's. If you think that by Jacobs sitting at the table representing the rest of the owners ( because of being an owner longer then most others ) made him a candidate for benefiting the most because he didn't want to spend the money then that's your opinion . I see it as the majority of owners wanted the salary cap because of uncontrolled spending and some owner's had to be front and center to lead the way . JJ was part of that team because of being in the league longer then others. He was part of that group because the rest of the owners wanted him there not because he would benefit the most. Bottom line was to have an even playing field for all teams to go by not have a New York Yankees buy your way to a cup league. If you think that JJ was front and center fighting for only himself and not for other owners also I find that a little ridiculous.

    BTW I have to say that talking about JJ's past spending habits is the worthless part of this thread . If you think that today's Bruins salary cap numbers are worthless then that's your opinion. I disagree totally. Things do change and dwelling on the past is counterproductive IMO.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ocram. Show ocram's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    after the Seguin signing, the Bruins are # 1 in payroll! 
    capgeek.com
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from TryToBearIt. Show TryToBearIt's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....:
    [QUOTE]after the Seguin signing, the Bruins are # 1 in payroll!  capgeek.com
    Posted by ocram[/QUOTE]

    yes, Go Brooonz.,....but are you actually proud of the fact that the B's are #1 in payroll given Thomas' terrible contract...Ryder's terrible contract...and the fact that they are up against the cap and now looking at trading one of their best players (Savard) to get some relief?

    Again: Spending to a cap that one of the richest teams and owners in the NHL can easily afford is NOT the same as paying for the best players in an open market. It looks good on paper (except when you analyze the actual moves) but it's an artificial measuring stick for being an engaged and caring owner.

    You may not like the way the Red Sox and Yankees buy the best talent to win, but they put all the money they have back into the team to make them winners. JJ keeps jacking up ticket prices without having won a cup since he bought the team, and lets his GM spend to a cap he knows is far less than he'd have to pay in an open market.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... : yes, Go Brooonz.,....but are you actually proud of the fact that the B's are #1 in payroll given Thomas' terrible contract...Ryder's terrible contract...and the fact that they are up against the cap and now looking at trading one of their best players (Savard) to get some relief? Again: Spending to a cap that one of the richest teams and owners in the NHL can easily afford is NOT the same as paying for the best players in an open market. It looks good on paper (except when you analyze the actual moves) but it's an artificial measuring stick for being an engaged and caring owner. You may not like the way the Red Sox and Yankees buy the best talent to win, but they put all the money they have back into the team to make them winners. JJ keeps jacking up ticket prices without having won a cup since he bought the team, and lets his GM spend to a cap he knows is far less than he'd have to pay in an open market.
    Posted by TryToBearIt[/QUOTE]

    I'd rather the team that I follow be attempting to be under the cap than attempting to gain salary to be over the minimum.

    The B's keep raising prices and people keep paying them.  I see no flaw in that.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... : yes, Go Brooonz.,....but are you actually proud of the fact that the B's are #1 in payroll given Thomas' terrible contract...Ryder's terrible contract...and the fact that they are up against the cap and now looking at trading one of their best players (Savard) to get some relief? Again: Spending to a cap that one of the richest teams and owners in the NHL can easily afford is NOT the same as paying for the best players in an open market. It looks good on paper (except when you analyze the actual moves) but it's an artificial measuring stick for being an engaged and caring owner. You may not like the way the Red Sox and Yankees buy the best talent to win, but they put all the money they have back into the team to make them winners. JJ keeps jacking up ticket prices without having won a cup since he bought the team, and lets his GM spend to a cap he knows is far less than he'd have to pay in an open market.
    Posted by TryToBearIt[/QUOTE]

    Having a salary cap is what the league and owners decided what to do to make it an even playing field. If you think that an open market is what you'd like then I don't suggest choosing a different team ( as NAS has ) , I suggest choosing a different sport or hockey league because that is what the NHL has in place.

    Blame JJ for the salary cap ? Try blaming the NHL and all the owners if you don't like it.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... : Having a salary cap is what the league and owners decided what to do to make it an even playing field. If you think that an open market is what you'd like then I don't suggest choosing a different team ( as NAS has ) , I suggest choosing a different sport or hockey league because that is what the NHL has in place. Blame JJ for the salary cap ? Try blaming the NHL and all the owners if you don't like it.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]

    JJ was the chief architect of the CBA!  Why is he constantly figured to be one of the THN top influences in each hockey year and year out.    He advocated for the cap and practiced the cap de facto prior to the CBA of 2004.  If the other owners walked the line it was that the spending spree in the 90s had gone awry.  The economic conditions warrant a different view of the CBS even in it's current status.  As for this poster looking backward well if you do get the correct vision of the 90s.  As stated above the "no limit credit card" spending created the budget now called the "Cap".  The CBA needs big time fixing as the loop holes slowly were opened ala long term contracts and salaries.  JJ is now correct with his views on spending, he is not clear from being called "cheap" in the 90s nonetheless.  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    NHL's list of top influences is done on a yearly basis. What happened 5 years ago ( salary cap ) has no outcome on THN's list since then . Jacob's makes the list because of being the chairman of the NHL's board of governor's and being the longest tenured owner. Being cleared of being cheap in the 90's is not what was intended at all. Calling him cheap in the present is what is being discussed. And you're right Issy the CBA has far too many holes .

    Still don't agree with the pied piper theory . The other owners were smart enough on their own to figure out that a cap was needed without Jacobs or any other owner leading the way. It just happened that some owners were more front and center during the lockout as some players were on the NHLPA's side. Bottom line the salary system had to be changed and I for one am glad it did. I think it has put an emphasis back on drafting and developing your own players ( and trades ) like it used to be rather then who spends the most money. Spending the most money to become a winner is not what sports should be all about IMO.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from nitemare-38. Show nitemare-38's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....:
    [QUOTE]NHL's list of top influences is done on a yearly basis. What happened 5 years ago ( salary cap ) has no outcome on THN's list since then . Jacob's makes the list because of being the chairman of the NHL's board of governor's and being the longest tenured owner. Being cleared of being cheap in the 90's is not what was intended at all. Calling him cheap in the present is what is being discussed. And you're right Issy the CBA has far too many holes . Still don't agree with the pied piper theory . The other owners were smart enough on their own to figure out that a cap was needed without Jacobs or any other owner leading the way. It just happened that some owners were more front and center during the lockout as some players were on the NHLPA's side. Bottom line the salary system had to be changed and I for one am glad it did. I think it has put an emphasis back on drafting and developing your own players ( and trades ) like it used to be rather then who spends the most money. Spending the most money to become a winner is not what sports should be all about IMO.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]

    Nicely put Chowda!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....:
    [QUOTE]NHL's list of top influences is done on a yearly basis. What happened 5 years ago ( salary cap ) has no outcome on THN's list since then . Jacob's makes the list because of being the chairman of the NHL's board of governor's and being the longest tenured owner. Being cleared of being cheap in the 90's is not what was intended at all. Calling him cheap in the present is what is being discussed. And you're right Issy the CBA has far too many holes . Still don't agree with the pied piper theory . The other owners were smart enough on their own to figure out that a cap was needed without Jacobs or any other owner leading the way. It just happened that some owners were more front and center during the lockout as some players were on the NHLPA's side. Bottom line the salary system had to be changed and I for one am glad it did. I think it has put an emphasis back on drafting and developing your own players ( and trades ) like it used to be rather then who spends the most money. Spending the most money to become a winner is not what sports should be all about IMO.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]

    Chowdahkid, I explain my current views of JJ in the above postings.  JJ was an influence on the CBA without a doubt.


    When I have more time I will find more articles linking Bettman and JJ.  The other owners by 2004 were forced to adopt JJ's stand on salaries he used de facto.  Acting alone these owners created the spending spree on salaries prior to the CBA. They were acting in concert with JJ and Bettman.  Correctly so.


    As for the last comment I cannot agree more.  Building a system of development and training right down to the roots of hockey is the best return on investment.  Now, revenue sharing in the league is the most unfair aspect of the CBA.  As I stated above JJ is correct on that point as well.  

    Go Bruins, cannot wait for the preseason and season to start.  



     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from No4BobbyOrr-GOAT. Show No4BobbyOrr-GOAT's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    Must be he allowed Wheel to go to Arbitration instead of giving him the big payday he has every other player, same with Stuart, what is becoming of these big contracts, Chara and Berg will sign for a M each.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... : The Bruins did just enough to get by in the 90's...not enough to win it all, and that's why the Poulin/Propp/Christian acquisitions--while good--were never going to be enough to win it all. 

    Again--and for the last time will I mention this--it IS worthless to complain about Jacobs spending habits now--he's already won by fighting for and getting the Cap in place that allows him to spend up to it, save money over what he would have had to pay w/out it--and dupe fans into thinking that makes him a caring owner. JJ fought for the cap.

    He got it. Spending up to it--as nearly every team that can afford to does--does NOT Make him a good or caring owner...it just makes him a shrewd businessman, and that is not the same thing. Posted by TryToBearIt[/QUOTE]

    TTB, You've gone back to "complaining just to complain" again here. If PC didn't resign Thomas or grab Ryder during free agency you'd complain that the Bruins are cheap.

    You've also suggested that the 1990 Oilers were not a good team as any NHL fan knows they were still a great team without Gretzky, Moog, Coffey and Fuhr. That Sinden was too cheap to make moves to improve the team this was not the case either. The 1990 and 1991 had the best PP and PK in the league but Harry still tried to go out and attempt to make the Bruins better with good moves. Ppulin, Propp and Christian weren't good moves ? Lost credibility on that one

    You've thrown in GMs bad moves as being cheap or that JJ had something to do with the Bruins not performing on the ice in 88' and 90' you're way off here. You're all over the place as a frustrated Red Sox fan looking for something and someone to whale on.

    Get your facts straight as another poster suggested is somewhere you should start.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TryToBearIt. Show TryToBearIt's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... : TTB, You've gone back to "complaining just to complain" again here. If PC didn't resign Thomas or grab Ryder during free agency you'd complain that the Bruins are cheap. You've also suggested that the 1990 Oilers were not a good team as any NHL fan knows they were still a great team without Gretzky, Moog, Coffey and Fuhr. That Sinden was too cheap to make moves to improve the team this was not the case either. The 1990 and 1991 had the best PP and PK in the league but Harry still tried to go out and attempt to make the Bruins better with good moves. Ppulin, Propp and Christian weren't good moves ? Lost credibility on that one You've thrown in GMs bad moves as being cheap or that JJ had something to do with the Bruins not performing on the ice in 88' and 90' you're way off here. You're all over the place as a frustrated Red Sox fan looking for something and someone to whale on. Get your facts straight as another poster suggested is somewhere you should start.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    SanDog,

    This is like a bad game of "telephone". First: Never did I suggest the 1990 Oilers were not a good team. In fact, they were a great team even w/out Gretzky, b/c they were 3 lines deep and a complete team. Very well put together.

    if you go back and read my original point on how the Bruins have done in recent years under JJ you'll see that I wrote "The Bruins have 2 Stanley Cup appearances since the last one they won (1988 and 1990) as opposed to 6 for the Flyers, when I was pointing out and challenging NAS' assertion of "how does the love for his hockey team work out for Snider in Philly?"....Better, I wrote, than JJ's "love" for his hockey team in Boston, and then mentioned those 2 apperances vs. Philly's 6.

    My overall point is NOT that the Bruins didn't have a good team in 1990===clearly, they did! Did they go far enough, IMO, to put together the BEST team to win it all? No. And you can argue the Poulin/Propp?chistian thing as opposed to Messier, Anderson, et al, ad nauseum. Throw in Glen Wesley's gacker if you want,too.

    The MAIN POINT I wanted to make--and shame on me, I guess, for not pointing it out clearly enough, is that the Bruins M.O. over the past 20 + years has been to acquire good players, jettison them as soon as they want more money or complain about not having enough support to win it all (Oates' point), and there really can be no argument about the results we've seen up until about 2004.

    The 1994-2004 Bruins were a sad sack of you know what, and we had to watch in frustration as players from Allison to Guerin to Thornton were let go for the "next" player who would fill their roles...a revolving door of talent that never was allowedd to gel into a team with an identity and especially the overall talent to bring a Cup to Boston, which should be JJ's ONLY priority as a CARING OWNER of a sports franchise. Saying he's a good business man is not the same thing.

    Finally, I would like it to be at least acknowledged that I did not start a "JJ s*ks" thread...I was instead responding to a "JJ's just fine" thread based on a premise I still and always will reject: That spending to a cap HE HELPED CREATE AND FOUGHT FOR....knowing full well it would SAVE HIM MONEY compared to how it would be in a true free market system does NOT make him an owner to fawn over.

    I'm straight on those facts, and don't mind getting beat up for those minority views. I'm as hopeful as any Bruins fan that this will be the year they finally win a Cup....but the facts are on my side: The Bruins have gone longer without a Stanley Cup than every single team but one.

    The owner has to take some responsibility for that, cuz it can't all be because of too many men on the ice. 


     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: That Jacobs is so cheap.... :

    The MAIN POINT I wanted to make--and shame on me, I guess, for not pointing it out clearly enough, is that the Bruins M.O. over the past 20 + years has been to acquire good players, jettison them as soon as they want more money or complain about not having enough support to win it all (Oates' point), and there really can be no argument about the results we've seen up until about 2004.

    I'm as hopeful as any Bruins fan that this will be the year they finally win a Cup....but the facts are on my side: The Bruins have gone longer without a Stanley Cup than every single team but one. The owner has to take some responsibility for that, cuz it can't all be because of too many men on the ice. 
    Posted by TryToBearIt[/QUOTE]

    Good points you're acknowledged!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from stinkman. Show stinkman's posts

    Re: That Jacobs is so cheap....

    They are over the cap, he can not be that cheap. I do not want to go into it any further because it is a baseless arguement. If you want to say they spent the money on the wrong players that is find but they are not cheap. SEIDIENBERG, HORTON,SEGUIN, STUART, THOMAS, SAVARD, CHARA, FERANCE, The list is ongoing. They are for the most part all good signings.
     

Share