I'm not sure if you're ranting at me or if you're simply upset that the word crapshoot doesn't have a precise and specific likelihood attached to it. Yes, trading or not trading Brady both carry risks. You have to pick which one increases your likelihood to contend, assuming that's your goal.
The dictionary definition is actually irrelevant. All that matters is our intent in utilizing the term. I defined the term "crapshoot" as I was using it, and you agreed that that made sense (ie a result having no reasonable expectation of happening). To me having NO reasonable expectation makes it highly unlikely.
I didn't agree that your definition made sense, I just pointed out that you brought up the term when you were complaining about it's use. The dictionary definition is relevant because that's pretty close to the definition I use.
I asked you to define how you were using it because it started to be unclear, and at first you said "close to 50/50." When that didn't seem to work with the positions you were applying it to, you moved the goal posts to "anything below 50/50." So you were operating with some idea of what "crapshoot" meant the whole time...It just changed.
I didn't move the goalposts. I clarified what I meant when it started to seem that you didn't understand what the term means. Saying that something that's 50-50 is a crapshoot doesn't mean or imply that doing something with a 25% chance of working *isn't* a crapshoot. Also, I was using terms like highly unlikely which most people wouldn't take to mean 50-50.
The negative connotation comes from saying you shouldn't do something because it is a crapshoot. That is imbuing that course of action with a negative connotation as you are trying to dissuade someone from going down that path.
But you keep saying that whether you do something or not it's still a crapshoot. It's not the case that every move or non-move is negative, so the term isn't really negative.
Anyway, if you think keeping Brady as our quaterback is a crapshoot then let's leave it at that. Having Brady quarterback the team is a crapshoot. I guess we have no reasonable expectation of contending.
Again, I think you're more angry at the word for it's vague definition than my use of it. You can't say for sure you'll contend with Brady on the roster next year. He could be injured, other players could be injured, he could get suspended or arrested or suddenly retire in November. Some of those are more likely than others, but the odds of none of them happening is probably higher than the odds the team will contend without Brady.
What you're saying is basically there's a chance the Pats will lose with Brady and there's a chance the Pats will lose without him so it doesn't matter if he's on the team. What you're missing is that the odds the Pats will lose without Brady is a lot higher than the odds that they'll lose with him.
I'm not misrepresenting your position. Your position is that trading Brady for a couple of players and a draft pick or two that would hopefully bring in a suitable replacement for Brady is not an outrageous idea. I disagree, and I was doing so by explaining that no team would trade away a franchise qb with such a nebulous plan to replace him.
The misrepresentation once again lies in the details. My position is that I don't think trading Brady is
AS outrageous an idea as you do. Little word, but it does change the meaning.
[/quote]
What the little word does is muddy the meaning of that statement. Do you mean that it's much less outrageous an idea than I think it is or outrageous but slightly less outrageous than I think? Trying to guess your meaning is a crapshoot. I think this was at least slightly clearer: "So the idea of trading Brady isn't all that outrageous." So, ok, my characterization of your statement was a slight mischaracterization but not all that much of one.
