You had no idea at the time you wrote this, what the deal was that was offered to Forsett but why let that stop you from assuming the worst of the organization?
Given the way this had been playing out, it seemed obvious that we simply determined that we could leverage the situation to avoid subjecting a player to waivers that we ultimately wanted on the 53 man roster and worked out this plan with Forsett. The report is now out and, not surprisingly, it appears this assumption was accurate, given he's getting the same basic deal (with additional incentives). The organization established trust with a player and both sides gave their word on how this would play out and both followed through on it. A model of cooperation between team and player.
Almost shortchanged Tucker? ... but didn't, so almost doesn't count. Boldin? Well, I was never thrilled with that move either, but IMO we've reached our statute of limitations on that one as far as it being a major talking point in 2016.
Don't deny that Oz tried to shortchange Anquan a couple of years back- that's a fact. If he did it once, he could do it again.
You're a piece of work. SMH. First you say while "Shortchanging" Ozzy; "Forsett just got shortchanged from Ozzie just like he did to Anquan Boldin and almost did to TUcker... I can't imagine good FA coming here because of Oz's reputation to not pay out on a full contract." Then in the next sentence you "Shortchange" Forsett with; We shouldn't overpay in the first place. No other team would've payed Forsett $3M/ year." And to make matters worse, as balfan23 said, You had no idea at the time you wrote this, what the deal was that was offered to Forsett. Now 24 hrs. later you try to save face with a rebuttal about a 4 year old topic? C'mon man. You would do good if you would just stop "Shortchanging" yourself!
