TBayXXXVII

I think it still applies because I believe Bucs fans were saying the same about Winfield after his second season, and I believe that's where I read that nothing can happen with his deal after after Year 3, and he was a 2nd round pick, which is why I think the rule is for any round. I think that every rule for rookies applies globally, with the sole exception being that 1st round picks get a 5th year option (which needs to be picked up after Yr 3).

Thanks for proving me right, that you didn't read the whole article.

I don't think that's the "gotchya" you think it is. I'm guessing you didn't read the article.

Looks like I hit a lot of leftists in their soft spot. LOL To all of you who are pretending that all of the trials and impeachment bull crap wasn't 100% political, well, I'm sorry you're stupid. If we can't all agree on the most obvious things, there's nothing really worth discussing.

I don't think he can get anything. I believe that no player on a rookie contract can get any type of a new deal (money), until after 3 years. I know that is the case with 1st round players... but I think it's global. He has to play this year before he gets an extension. Sure, there may be teams lining up to give him a big deal, after 27 games... but that big deal will come with a lot of conditions and team outs. After 3 years, those conditions and outs go down to almost nothing.

G.t.f.o.h. The Democrats would've been calling him a racist and misogynist? They'd have created the Steele Dossier? They'd have had a lawyer falsify a document to get a FISA warrant, all in hopes he'd what... win the election anyway? Just stop while you're behind.

Exactly ...and on top of that, the tweet claimed that the Judge said "if he disrupts the trial they will proceed without him & if he doesn't show up "there will be an arrest." If they'll proceed without him, that means he can't show up. To wit, "if he doesn't show up 'there will be an arrest'", which means, if he doesn't show up (which we've already established that he can't), then he gets arrested. Hence, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. That's communism bud.

You know darn well what my point was. That being, had he won the election as a Democrat instead of a Republican, NOTHING that has transpired in the media and the courtrooms since 2015 would NEVER have happened. You know that's true, I know that's true, everyone knows that's true.

No, telling him that they won't let him be there, then arrest him if he doesn't show up. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Willing to bet that the Prosecutor and the Judge would've raised their hand to the first one and "Yes" to Question 34 too. I think they should be excused as well.

LOL, nice dodge. Everything that happened to Trump, that's in the media and in court, was/is Democrat driven. There never would've been accusations of him being racist, misogynistic, or anything else splattered all over the MSM for months on end. There never would've been a Steele Dossier and there never would've have a Russia Collusion diatribe. You know this and you're trying to pretend it would've happened anyway. Just stop.

That's pretty communistic. Not surprised really.

Ok, so you're going with denial. That's fine.

I know... Bill Clinton did it, why can't Trump?

Look, just because the DNC screwed over Bernie, it doesn't mean they'd have done the same with Trump. If he had been in lock step with the party like he was during the Bill Clinton years, Hillary may never have even been on the radar. That being said, I said he was the President in 2016... didn't say who he beat in the primary, I'm just saying he won in November 2016. You and I both know that if he was, there never would have been a Russia Collusion investigation, right? We BOTH know that? We also both know that the media wouldn't have called him a racist or xenophobic, or anything of the kind... even if he ran the exact same Presidency. We BOTH know that, right?