is there ever a time under any circumstances where you would side with a player under contract who is holding out
i know there are some serious front office butt humpers on this site...but isnt there a time even when under contract that a player has a case to holdout???
lately, within the eagles organization, no. they get fairly decent deals and sign the bottom line. the birds are shrewd with locking up young talent early but it pans out. pinkston blows and he has a nice contract. darwin walker peaked and hes hooked up too.
I think a case could be made for guys like reggie and keith jackson back in the early 90s. I was only 12 or 13 when it went down so i really cant say much because i didnt understand the dynamics of the situation.
Sure, I can see a situation where a guy deserves a new deal. Take Herremans, for example. Lets say Tra's blood clot situation turns out to be an ongoing problem. Herremans steps in and plays does an acceptable job this year, and is at least Tra's equal by 2006. If that were the case, I'd say a new deal would be well earned.
Westbrook is in a situation like this. If management really was on top of things they would have gotten something done last year.
Sure, I can see a situation where a guy deserves a new deal. Take Herremans, for example. Lets say Tra's blood clot situation turns out to be an ongoing problem. Herremans steps in and plays does an acceptable job this year, and is at least Tra's equal by 2006. If that were the case, I'd say a new deal would be well earned.
im not talking about deserving a new deal...im saying in the scenario you presented if herremans held out next year would you be on his side...there arent to many people who would say westy doesnt desereve a new deal...at the same time i dont see anyone agreeing with his holdout (other than myself)
The fact that no one here agrees with your stance on Westbrook's holdout should lead you to the irrefutable conclusion that your opinion on this issue is a misbegotten one.
But whatever, you're entitled to your opinions. I admire people who refuse to accept facts and logic when they're clearly presented. Being a Phillies phan, I can certainly relate.
Quote from: jerome99RIP on August 07, 2005, 09:40:36 AM
But whatever, you're entitled to your opinions. I admire people who refuse to accept facts and logic when they're clearly presented. Being a Phillies phan, I can certainly relate.
:-D
this is why im here more. TATE makes me :boom :'(
I could see myself siding with the players sometimes, but I just haven't seen a case yet where I would side with the player. Each situation is different. But most of the time I am of the school of thought where if you want a wad of cash, you get it by being in camp and working on things behind the scenes.
Holdouts don't help the situation because once the media gets a hold of it... it usually gets ugly because the media pits the player against the team.
Take care of your biz behind the scenes.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on August 07, 2005, 10:05:54 AM
Holdouts don't help the situation because once the media gets a hold of it... it usually gets ugly because the media pits the player against the team.
Unless its the Eagles where TO shows up at camp and shuts up...while 2 other players hold out...and TO is still the only talk in the media thats being pitting player against, well...everyone.
im really against holding out and im trying to think of any situation or player that would make it somewhat acceptable.
i can only think of one guy, and thats dawk. i heart him.
Quote from: StevieLeftCollege on August 07, 2005, 10:10:43 AM
im really against holding out and im trying to think of any situation or player that would make it somewhat acceptable.
i can only think of one guy, and thats dawk. i heart him.
And Dawkins loves the game more than the normal player. He'd never hold out because he couldn't stand to not play. :evil
if you dont agree with westy then i cant fathom a scenario where you would ever side with the player...which is why i threw this topic out there...perhaps someone has one where they would be pro player
I'm not getting this...do you think the Eagles aren't offering Westbrook a fair deal?
I think the FO should show a little more flexibility, instead of always referring back to the 'spreadsheet'. It's OK to overpay a little for your own talent...it's OK to throw a carrot to your star WR.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on August 07, 2005, 10:33:57 AM
I'm not getting this...do you think the Eagles aren't offering Westbrook a fair deal?
IGY has no clue what the Eagles are offering Westbrook, PG, and that's the problem here.
However, judging from what we've seen of the Eagles front office in the past, I have no doubt whatsoever that the Eagles are offering an extremely fair and competitive offer to #36.
Other(s) see it differently and like I said previously, that's certainly their right. :-o
Quote from: PhillyGirl on August 07, 2005, 10:11:26 AM
Quote from: StevieLeftCollege on August 07, 2005, 10:10:43 AM
im really against holding out and im trying to think of any situation or player that would make it somewhat acceptable.
i can only think of one guy, and thats dawk. i heart him.
And Dawkins loves the game more than the normal player. He'd never hold out because he couldn't stand to not play. :evil
exactly. he wouldnt even think about it.
Quote from: Larry on August 07, 2005, 10:51:59 AM
I think the FO should show a little more flexibility, instead of always referring back to the 'spreadsheet'. It's OK to overpay a little for your own talent...it's OK to throw a carrot to your star WR.
The Eagles have been more than fair with their players but the bottom line is, there's a bottom line financially that has to be reckoned with.
They simply cannot afford to overpay players because if they do, they'll end up like the rest of the dregs of the NFL who've done so in the past.
Teams like San Francisco, Jacksonville, Tennessee & Washington have all spent like drunken sailors and look what that's gotten them in the salary cap era. I know the Eagles haven't won the big one yet, but in all honesty, I'd rather root for a team with a chance every year than a team who blows its wad in a desperate attempt to get there and that's exactly what would happen if they broke the bank on players.
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 07, 2005, 10:31:45 AM
if you dont agree with westy then i cant fathom a scenario where you would ever side with the player...which is why i threw this topic out there...perhaps someone has one where they would be pro player
and i cant see how you could side with him.
hes got 1.4 on the table right now. thats more then his rookie contract as a 3rd pick was total. i dont know the exact figures but 5 years 9-12SB and 25mil seems to be the going number.
i think thats plenty for what he is.
Quote from: jerome99RIP on August 07, 2005, 11:02:46 AM
Quote from: Larry on August 07, 2005, 10:51:59 AM
I think the FO should show a little more flexibility, instead of always referring back to the 'spreadsheet'. It's OK to overpay a little for your own talent...it's OK to throw a carrot to your star WR.
The Eagles have been more than fair with their players but the bottom line is, there's a bottom line financially that has to be reckoned with.
They simply cannot afford to overpay players because if they do, they'll end up like the rest of the dregs of the NFL who've done so in the past.
Teams like San Francisco, Jacksonville, Tennessee & Washington have all spent like drunken sailors and look what that's gotten them in the salary cap era. I know the Eagles haven't won the big one yet, but in all honesty, I'd rather root for a team with a chance every year than a team who blows its wad in a desperate attempt to get there and that's exactly what would happen if they broke the bank on players.
100% utah!
ive been happy with the team the past 5 or years, except for a few moments. i rather have a constant with the team then ups and downs.
Quote from: jerome99RIP on August 07, 2005, 11:02:46 AM
Quote from: Larry on August 07, 2005, 10:51:59 AM
I think the FO should show a little more flexibility, instead of always referring back to the 'spreadsheet'. It's OK to overpay a little for your own talent...it's OK to throw a carrot to your star WR.
The Eagles have been more than fair with their players but the bottom line is, there's a bottom line financially that has to be reckoned with.
They simply cannot afford to overpay players because if they do, they'll end up like the rest of the dregs of the NFL who've done so in the past.
Teams like San Francisco, Jacksonville, Tennessee & Washington have all spent like drunken sailors and look what that's gotten them in the salary cap era. I know the Eagles haven't won the big one yet, but in all honesty, I'd rather root for a team with a chance every year than a team who blows its wad in a desperate attempt to get there and that's exactly what would happen if they broke the bank on players.
They can afford to pay a player or two above the norm, especially when that player is an essential part of the team. The key is to identify which players are essentials.
I'll use NE as an example...Ty Law, Damian Woody, not essential, so they were let go. Brady & Seymour, essential, so they were given big extensions.
I happen to think Owens & Westbrook are essential to this team's continued success.
And Westbrook's offer is EXTREMELY fair! Larry, what money would you like thrown at this guy? Seriously?
They pay McNabb well above the norm and they pay Kearse well above the norm.
There's two right there.
As for Owens, he was extremely well-compensated last year. He also knew when he signed the deal that this year was the one in which his compensation would drop dramatically. I have no sympathy for him whatsoever in terms of his lust for more money. He signed the farging deal. Live up to it like a man and shut your face hole.
The same goes for Westbrook. He signed the tender with the understanding that a new deal MIGHT be worked out, but if it wasn't, he agreed to play for the tender amount.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on August 07, 2005, 11:20:19 AM
And Westbrook's offer is EXTREMELY fair! Larry, what money would you like thrown at this guy? Seriously?
Well Westbrook doesn't think it's that fair. :-D
Westbrook's not a stupid guy...he knows many defensive coordinators consider him the most feared weapon of our offense.
As for compensation, I'd give him a deal near or at McAllister's. On top of that, I'd plan to use Westbrook a lot more often.
And I think that's another issue Westbrook has with his role here...he wants the ball more often (I happen to believe his apparent fragility is overblown). You give him enough carries, he'll be able to put up numbers similar to Edge & Priest Holmes.
Note that the Colts & Chiefs have ended up playing without a healthy Edgerrin James & Priest Holmes, respectively, quite often. Using Westbrook that much would pretty much guarantee he'd be out and/or not nearly 100% for the playoffs. Plus, giving him a deal like Deuce McAllister's is absurd. If they do that, goodbye Mike Lewis.
Quote from: Larry on August 07, 2005, 11:35:44 AM
Quote from: PhillyGirl on August 07, 2005, 11:20:19 AM
And Westbrook's offer is EXTREMELY fair! Larry, what money would you like thrown at this guy? Seriously?
Well Westbrook doesn't think it's that fair. :-D
Westbrook's not a stupid guy...he knows many defensive coordinators consider him the most feared weapon of our offense.
As for compensation, I'd give him a deal near or at McAllister's. On top of that, I'd plan to use Westbrook a lot more often.
And I think that's another issue Westbrook has with his role here...he wants the ball more often (I happen to believe his apparent fragility is overblown). You give him enough carries, he'll be able to put up numbers similar to Edge & Priest Holmes.
You said it, IN OUR OFFENSE. who is to say he would be as effective somewhere else? look at the players around him and how they make westbrook the weapon he is. Its a team effort.
McAllister money? thats TATER-esque right there man. Thats double what he is offered now. Duece is their offense, he can carry the load and not wear down. Im from Philadelphia, I followed Westbrook at Nova and he was hurt there numerous times and again in high school. Lets not forget that he hasnt been 100% either. Hes a great player but hes not a top flight back.
IGY has no clue what the Eagles are offering Westbrook, PG, and that's the problem here
lol...problem??
anyway...
theres not a person on this board that has any idea what the eagles are offering...this includes the 'fine print' they have included...theres more to a contract than the money and years that rich hoffmans "sources" are reporting...if those numbers are even true
but this wasnt meant to be a westbrook discussion...i just wanted to see if this board was on the nuts of the front office as hard as i had suspected
are we?
i get hard over football in general.
Quote from: Larry on August 07, 2005, 11:35:44 AM
As for compensation, I'd give him a deal near or at McAllister's. On top of that, I'd plan to use Westbrook a lot more often.
Completely and utterly preposterous comment right there. I can't take a damn thing you say serious after reading that.
You can't offer Westbrook money on par with McAllister. It isn't financially responsible. For what his role in the offense is, the contract that is *reportedly* on the table is more than fair. He deserves to be categorized with the likes of D. Davis and Rudi Johnson, and his contract represents that. I'm all for keeping Westbrook long term, but inking him to a deal similiar to the once Deuce received would signal the end of Michael Lewis and offer little flexibility elsewhere in the future.
The Eagles front office does a great job continually, only over-spending on positions and players when absolutely necessary. If a WIP stooge like IGY wants to say I'm "on their nuts", then so be it. It's not as if I can never point out an error they make (ie: I am starting to think paying Corey Simon $5m this year is a waste of salary cap money), but of all the things to complain and nit-pick about in Philadelphia sports, the Eagles front office is one of the last on the list.
Examples?
1. Saying no to T.O.'s demands
The guy took over $9 million to the bank last season and will take $3.5 million this season. That's real money, in his pocket. If he'd kept his yap shut and continued to play to or above the level he played at in 2004 through 2005, the Eagles would be handing him a hefty roster bonus in 2006 or even MORE money through a contract renegotiation. Now, he must produce at a MUCH higher level to approach that money from the Eagles or ANY team. T.O. has been compensated fairly and would continue to be, would he have simply done his job.
2. Negotiating with Westbrook
He cannot be a 30-touch-a-game back and retain his effectiveness, so the Eagles cannot pay him like one. We all know they will pay him quite well to stay on a team and in a system where he knows he can have success. If he wants to be paid like an every-down superstar back, he'll have to go elsewhere. It would suck for the Eagles, and it would suck for him, but that's the fact of it.
3. Trotter after 2001 season
The Eagles knew he was a "system" player with some shortcomings. They offered to pay him well above what they would ever pay a linebacker, and he bitched and moaned, eventually signing a contract with Washington that was severely back-loaded and proved him to be only a decent player with injury concerns.
4. Cutting loose Vincent and Taylor
This was the move that was supposed to basically cost the Eagles a shot at returning to the NFC Championship game. Both players were hurt for much of the 2004 season, and while it looks like Vincent may get a chance to be a productive safety for the Bills, Taylor's fighting for a job as a nickel back.
5. Letting Staley go to the Steelers
The Steelers were 15-1 in 2004 DESPITE Staley being only decent and being injured often, thanks to a revival of Jerome Bettis. Now, Staley is aching again with knee problems, and Bettis has concerns about being run down before the season. Does Staley have anything left? Sure. Did he have $15 million worth of production left as of last off-season? HELL NO.
Yes, there are blunders, especially with some poor drafting. However, I think Reid is improving with personnel decisions, and his working relationship with Heckert has been much more fruitful than with Modrak. Banner and Howie are the best numbers geeks in the business, period. Better to be on their nuts than on the nuts of the quacks with hosting/writing gigs on WIP or ESPN.
I side with the front office not only for the Eagles, but for the NFL. I'm so farging tired of hearing players and agents complain that the team has the right to cut them, so they should have the right to hold out and demand a new contract. Let's not lose sight that these rules and restrictions were approved by both management AND the players through the NFLPA. The representatives in the NFLPA are put there to act in the best interests of the workers (like any union shop), and they agreed to these terms and rules. And until the CBA has expired and another one is voted on and accepted in its place, tough shtein to those that don't like it. It's not management against the players, as the press would have you believe. It's management playing the game within the rules as agreed to. Period.
Now, of course all that's happened in the last several years with players and agents leads me to believe that when it is time to renegotiate the CBA, it's not going to look very similar to how it does today. I think the owners are going to have to make concessions such as guarenteed money, or grant the players rights for renegotiations. Either way, it's not going to be pretty.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on August 07, 2005, 01:34:18 PM
Quote from: Larry on August 07, 2005, 11:35:44 AM
As for compensation, I'd give him a deal near or at McAllister's. On top of that, I'd plan to use Westbrook a lot more often.
Completely and utterly preposterous comment right there. I can't take a damn thing you say serious after reading that.
In other words, you don't have a viable retort. :-D
I find it funny that people think Westbrook can't handle a big load. When has Westbrook ever worn down? He hasn't because he's never been given the opportunity to wear down. How do you know he'll wear down if he's given 300+ touches? You don't.
And his injuries have little or nothing to do with 'fatigue' or too much of a workload. Injuries are freak occurences...they can happen on the 1st carry or the 300th carry. I've never heard of someone saying, "Geez, the ACL tear was due to too many carries..." :boom
McAlister had these same injury worries coming out of college. That's why he dropped in the draft. Some, including Kiper, had him as the top-ranked player in 2001. He was given the opportunity to be the feature back -- after the Saints dumped Williams -- and he's excelled. Why can't Westy do the same?
So I guess the odds of injury don't increase with a heavier workload.
I find it funny that people think Westbrook can't handle a big load. When has Westbrook ever worn down? He hasn't because he's never been given the opportunity to wear down. How do you know he'll wear down if he's given 300+ touches? You don't.
moreover he shouldnt be punished in negotiations because of the way Reid chooses to use him...its very much like a conflict of interest...the guy paying you is the same guy who controls your output
Joe Banner and Howie Roseman do the negotiations, IGY. Not Andy Reid.
Reid tells Banner who he wants on the team and Banner handles the dollars and cents.
reid is the gm he is the one who equates performance with dollars
Like I said, Reid identifies players he wants on his team -- then Banner goes out and does the deals.
Reid, Banner and others have said this before.
Take the Kearse thing for instance. Reid said he wanted a top notch pass rushing DE. Jevon Kearse and Darren Howard were the top two choices. Howard got franchised so Banner said he called Rosenhaus at 12:01am to start negotiations.
Banner is the one doing the deal with Fletcher Smith and Brian Westbrook. Andy Reid is not doing the monetary portion of the deal.
But I do believe the "running back by commitee approach" does have a cap economic aspect to it:
3 RBs producing x yards is a helluva lot cheaper than 1 rb producing 3x yards.
You are bound by the terms of your contract, especially early on in a long term deal.
TO signed a deal last year, and yet he wants a new deal a year into his contract? I don't see how that works.
Westbrook signed a 1 year tender this offseason. He knew the terms of his contract and understood what he was getting into. Yet he still held out. It's not like Westy is in the last year of a 5 year deal where he tore it up on the field and is grossly underpaid. I'm a firm believer in adhering to the terms of your agreement.
Why do players want long term deals in the NFL anyways? It's not like the NBA where it is all guarenteed money. The game in the NFL is that you want a mid/short term deal with a ton of money up front with a huge signing bonus. That is what perplexes me about Corey Simon. He is going to be paid the same rate as the average top 5 DT's yet he refuses the sign. A one year deal, you get 5 million bucks. Have a great year and then go out and make a killing in FA.
Short term deals with a ton of money up front is where it is at. Yet you see players take these deals where all of their contract money is backloaded and somehow they are happy (like J-Trot, who could have made more money if he just stayed with Philly the first time). I just don't get it.
Stupid NFL players. There is probably some stipend in NFL contracts that agents put in where the largest sum of money the agent can secure for you is what they are actually paid. For example, if a player signs for 7 years, 49 million, the comission for the agent comes off of that 49 million or they recieve a larger percentage because they got 'more money' for their client, even though there client will probably never see seasons 5, 6, and 7 of their deal since they are the years with the highest base salaries.
Oh well.
In contract negotiations, you don't want to bank money on what the RB 'could' do. Saying that Westbrook 'could' carry the same load as McCallister is a speculation, and when you are trying to fit players under the cap you don't want to say that he simply can and then pay him to later find out that he can't. That's how teams around the league get into cap problems in the first place. Overpay for players, watch their productivity deteriorate, and then get stuck with cap penalties and a complex payroll.
The Eagles have been so competitive because they know where to put their money and how to structure salaries to stay competitive in pursing FA's and locking up key players for the long term. This is all a credit to Andy Reid's coaching and his staff as well as Banner's genius managing the cap.
With that being said, Westbrook should not recieve McCallister money. His role in this offense is never going to be one in which he gets 30 carries a game running, let alone 30 touches in the entire game period.
All Westbrook has to do is report to camp, or go through this ordeal next year again when we retain him as a RFA.
But I do believe the "running back by commitee approach" does have a cap economic aspect to it:
3 RBs producing x yards is a helluva lot cheaper than 1 rb producing 3x yards.
because im retarded lawrence says it better than i ever could...listen to this man
Phreak, Reid obviously has a say in the dollars. He's the end of the line for talent evaluation, so he has to at least communicate to Banner a general idea of how valuable the player is to the team in order to sign him.
As for those saying that Reid is "holding back" Westbrook or the team is punishing him by not giving him as many snaps or runs as the premier workhorse backs in the league, are you all farging insane? NO WAY IN HELL Westbrook would be nearly as effective at the end of the season and into the playoffs were the Eagles to play him that much. Even the big guys wear down over that kind of use, and Westbrook's wear and tear would be worse.
The guy has an important role on this team and fills it in a uniquely amazing way, no doubt. But, he will NEVER be the every-down, workhorse back that he's asking to be paid like. PERIOD.
There are situations in which I would back the player over the FO. Antonio Gates is in the middle of one now. I just haven't seen the situation arise here in which I would agree with the player.
In a situation where even the player's agent thinks holding out is a bad idea, it's safe to say I think it's a bad idea too.
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 07, 2005, 08:40:21 PM
But I do believe the "running back by commitee approach" does have a cap economic aspect to it:
3 RBs producing x yards is a helluva lot cheaper than 1 rb producing 3x yards.
because im retarded lawrence says it better than i ever could...listen to this man
Why? If the team is able to get a running game of 1,500 rushing yards using three backs, paying them $3 mill, $1.5 mill, and $0.5 mill, why would it want to pay one back $5 mill and try to get him to rush for the 1,500? Isn't what the Eagles are doing smart? I think Westbrook is terrific in our system, but I think the Eagles rushing game can still produce if Buck and Moats stay healthy.
Combined stats for Duce, Westbrook and Buck from the 3-headed monster year:
1618 yds rushing, 20 tds rushing, 847 yds receiving, 7 tds receiving.
Combined stats for Westbrook and Dorsey from last year with Westbrook being 'the guy':
1222 yds rushing, 7 tds rushing, 795 yds receiving, 6 tds receiving.
If Westbrook thinks that this team was made better by him being the feature back he's smoking crack. These contract numbers being thrown around are completely insane.
Quote from: rjs246 on August 08, 2005, 10:35:10 AM
Combined stats for Westbrook and Dorsey from last year with Westbrook being 'the guy':
1222 yds rushing, 7 tds rushing, 795 td receiving, 6 tds receiving.
Westbrook might have an argument if he has 795 receiving TDs.
Quote from: QB Eagles on August 08, 2005, 11:25:00 AM
Quote from: rjs246 on August 08, 2005, 10:35:10 AM
Combined stats for Westbrook and Dorsey from last year with Westbrook being 'the guy':
1222 yds rushing, 7 tds rushing, 795 td receiving, 6 tds receiving.
Westbrook might have an argument if he has 795 receiving TDs.
Haha. Oops.
you can also argue that the addition of TO opened up the passing game even more, thus leading to less from the backs. u can also argue that ritchie wasn't playing and a practice squad player was.
Quote from: mussa on August 08, 2005, 11:41:50 AM
you can also argue that the addition of TO opened up the passing game even more, thus leading to less from the backs. u can also argue that ritchie wasn't playing and a practice squad player was.
While I agree that Ritchie would have improved Westbrook's numbers, I'm not sure he would have led to 400+ yards and 13 more TDs or even anywhere near those numbers. And yes, Josh Parry sucks.
the eagles' front office can do no wrong so this is a silly thread....actually, while we're at it, the eagles' players can do no wrong. in the rare cases where the front office and a player do not agree, they're both right.
Quote from: mhunt on August 08, 2005, 12:19:25 PM
the eagles' front office can do no wrong so this is a silly thread....actually, while we're at it, the eagles' players can do no wrong. in the rare cases where the front office and a player do not agree, they're both right.
:sly
Quote from: mhunt on August 08, 2005, 12:19:25 PM
the eagles' front office can do no wrong so this is a silly thread....actually, while we're at it, the eagles' players can do no wrong. in the rare cases where the front office and a player do not agree, they're both right.
(http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00175/Jessica_Alba__tatt__175740m.jpg)
Quote from: mhunt on August 08, 2005, 12:19:25 PM
the eagles' front office can do no wrong so this is a silly thread....actually, while we're at it, the eagles' players can do no wrong. in the rare cases where the front office and a player do not agree, they're both right.
This is not your best work, hunt. Is fatherhood slowing down your wit?
I luv me sum Joe Banner!
Quote from: FFatPatt on August 07, 2005, 01:47:54 PM
4. Cutting loose Vincent and Taylor
This was the move that was supposed to basically cost the Eagles a shot at returning to the NFC Championship game. Both players were hurt for much of the 2004 season, and while it looks like Vincent may get a chance to be a productive safety for the Bills, Taylor's fighting for a job as a nickel back.
BT was cut.
And still no job? Maybe he can replace Pinkston as the downfield wvss.
Quote from: rjs246 on August 08, 2005, 12:26:51 PM
Quote from: mhunt on August 08, 2005, 12:19:25 PM
the eagles' front office can do no wrong so this is a silly thread....actually, while we're at it, the eagles' players can do no wrong. in the rare cases where the front office and a player do not agree, they're both right.
(http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00175/Jessica_Alba__tatt__175740m.jpg)
:D
Keep up the good work rjs. Your efforts do not go unnoticed by me. :yay
The FO's style of negotiation seems to be that they'll offer a player fair market value, and they'll leave it on the table for that season. If he doesn't take it, they then try to franchise them, or they draft their replacement. All of these cases were well publicized. Examples:
In November 2000, BEFORE Trot was named to the Pro Bowl, the Eagles offered him a 6 year, 20M contract with a 4M SB. He and his agent turned it down. It was said that although he didn't want to at first, Reid went to Lurie and asked that they franchise him after the Rams loss in the first NFCCG. We all know how that turned out. Still, they tried for over 18 months to sign him.
In Simon's case, they offered him a deal similar to what McFarland got in Tampa. But Corey still thinks he's worth more than 34M and a 9M signing bonus. They franchised him this year and drafted Patterson to take his place.
In Westy 's case, I've seen Fletcher Smith say in the Inky where Westbrook isn't a 3rd down back. I've never read any of the FO refer to him as a 3rd down back. In fact, Reid said if he could stay healthy all year (this was at the coaches breakfast in Hawaii), he wouldn't mind giving Westbrook big money. But he's not an every down back. Just look what happened last year when he had almost 30 touches against Chicago. Even though they had a bye before they played the Panthers, he wasn't running with the same zest that he had before.
In Owens' case, well, there isn't any case. I don't know how many of you have read his book, but I took the occasion to read it while I was on vacation in Spain last week. On page 265, paragraph 3 and 266, para 1, he says the following:
"The press conference was supposed to start at five-thirty. David and Jason went upstairs to renegotiate the fine points of the bonus arrangement. After two hours of wrangling, the Eagles agreed to change three words to provide me with more financial protection. Those three words were the final hurdle."
"The NFL couldn't keep me in San Francisco or make me play for the Ravens. I was where I really wanted to be and for the money that I deserved after eight seasons in the league."
Now, in the whole 17 months that Owens has been with the Eagles, I never heard the press mention this or anyone else. He knew what he was getting before he signed and now he turns around and says it isn't a fair deal.
I haven't seen this FO ask a player to take a pay cut in February and then cut him in June to get under the salary cap like some teams--notably the Titans.
Quote from: bobbyinlondon on August 09, 2005, 09:10:05 AM
In Owens' case, well, there isn't any case. I don't know how many of you have read his book, but I took the occasion to read it while I was on vacation in Spain last week. On page 265, paragraph 3 and 266, para 1, he says the following:
"The press conference was supposed to start at five-thirty. David and Jason went upstairs to renegotiate the fine points of the bonus arrangement. After two hours of wrangling, the Eagles agreed to change three words to provide me with more financial comfort. Those three words were the final hurdle.
"The NFL couldn't keep me in San Francisco or make me play for the Ravens. I was where I really wanted to be and for the money that I deserved after eight seasons in the league."
Now, in the whole 17 months that Owens has been with the Eagles, I never heard the press mention this or anyone else. He knew what he was getting before he signed and now he turns around and says it isn't a fair deal.
I haven't seen this FO ask a player to take a pay cut in February and then cut him in June to get under the salary cap like some teams--notably the Titans.
I just read his book last weekend, too. And I remember that part distinctly. However, it gave me the impression that his agent didn't go into detail with him on it. Just said that they were working on changing some terminology. I dunno...just the impression I got.
I wasn't sure either, until I re-read it, and then when he goes on to say he got the money he deserved. He definitely didn't think it was a low ball contract. And I still haven't seen anyone who can tell most of us how Owens outperformed his deal. After all, he didn't establish any new career highs--his TDs and yardage were about his average and his catches were just below what he averaged in SF.
Quote from: bobbyinlondon on August 09, 2005, 09:16:57 AM
I wasn't sure either, until I re-read it, and then when he goes on to say he got the money he deserved. He definitely didn't think it was a low ball contract. And I still haven't seen anyone who can tell most of us how Owens outperformed his deal. After all, he didn't establish any new career highs--his TDs and yardage were about his average and his catches were just below what he averaged in SF.
I agree with you completely. I'm just saying, it seemed in the book that his agent did all the finagling and just passed along the info to TO that the deal was a good one.
What I didn't read anywhere, though...was where the NFLPA told him to not sign it. When would they have had the time to do that?
And I still haven't seen anyone who can tell most of us how Owens outperformed his deal. After all, he didn't establish any new career highs--his TDs and yardage were about his average and his catches were just below what he averaged in SF
i agree with you and believe TO to be one of the worst people on the planet...but to be fair outperforming a contract has nothing to do with career averages...it has to do with what he did last year compared to what hes getting paid this year and in comparison to other wr's stats and pay
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2005, 09:24:05 AM
And I still haven't seen anyone who can tell most of us how Owens outperformed his deal. After all, he didn't establish any new career highs--his TDs and yardage were about his average and his catches were just below what he averaged in SF
i agree with you and believe TO to be one of the worst people on the planet..
Comments like this make you look like a complete jackass.
Worst people on the planet? So, he's among the murderers, rapists, drug dealers, kidnappers, etc?
hyperbole: look it up
::)
Quote from: PhillyGirl on August 09, 2005, 09:19:39 AM
Quote from: bobbyinlondon on August 09, 2005, 09:16:57 AM
I wasn't sure either, until I re-read it, and then when he goes on to say he got the money he deserved. He definitely didn't think it was a low ball contract. And I still haven't seen anyone who can tell most of us how Owens outperformed his deal. After all, he didn't establish any new career highs--his TDs and yardage were about his average and his catches were just below what he averaged in SF.
I agree with you completely. I'm just saying, it seemed in the book that his agent did all the finagling and just passed along the info to TO that the deal was a good one.
What I didn't read anywhere, though...was where the NFLPA told him to not sign it. When would they have had the time to do that?
Agreed, I didn't see that part, either.
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2005, 09:24:05 AM
it has to do with what he did last year compared to what hes getting paid this year and in comparison to other wr's stats and pay
You can't look at a contract in a bubble. T.O. made $10 million REAL MONEY last year. He did not yet earn all that money, especially being injured throughout the playoffs and not being 100% for the Super Bowl. Sure, he's "only" making $3.5 million this year, but at an average of $6.75-$7 million per season for his first two seasons, I'd say he's being compensated more than fairly. There is a natural gap in his contract for next year because of the large roster bonus due, which would have been the perfect time for both sides to want to renegotiate. All T.O. had to do was be T.O. for 2005, and he'd see his big paycheck from the Eagles or another team. Easy money.
You don't have to be "on the nuts" of the Eagles' front office to realize that T.O. is absolutely being compensated fairly under his current contract and that giving him a new deal with more big dollars up-front in 2005 would have been far exceeding what he's earned on the field.
If anyone remembers T.O. also didnt have to sign a waiver before he played in the SB which most teams would have to get them out of a contract if her was injured during the game. The eagles instead decided to honor the contract and leave themself open to the salarycap for an injured player. They did the right thing for T.O. and instead T.O. stabbed them in the back. Either way he's here now and we are a better team with him than without him. As long as he's healthy for the reg season im cool with him he just needs a better PR person
whoa!....chill dook....i agree with you...TO is a moron
i was simply pointing out that career averages have nothing to do with outperforming or not outperforming a contract
nothing less nothing more
You're partially wrong, though. Career averages are one of the many factors that determine a player's expected value to give him a new contract. The contract that T.O. and the Eagles agreed on before the 2004 season was partially based on his previous production, in order to predict his production with the Eagles. Expectations were high, and he met those expectations. He absolutely, positively did NOT exceed those expectations. Everything in a player's past playing career is, therefore, a factor.
im not talking about getting a new contract...naturally what youve done previous to that determines its size...im talking about performance vs a current contract...what you did three years ago has no bearing on that
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2005, 10:07:18 AM
im not talking about getting a new contract...naturally what youve done previous to that determines its size...im talking about performance vs a current contract...what you did three years ago has no bearing on that
But that's the point - his original contract was based on past performance, and a re-negotiation would be based on what happened last year. If his performance in the last year demonstrated that his past performance was not indicitive of his value, then you could argue that the contract was not fair. However, this past year was consistent with his previous performance - exactly what the Eagles expected when they made the original contract.
Again, the question is: what did he do to make himself more valuable a player than he was when he signed his original deal?
C
Again, the question is: what did he do to make himself more valuable a player than he was when he signed his original deal?
absolutely nothing...no one said he did
QuoteAgain, the question is: what did he do to make himself more valuable a player than he was when he signed his original deal?
He didn't do anything, but there's more to it than that.
In a nutshell, the one event which spurred Owens to seek more money is this: Marvin Harrison's contract extension.
It's a simple capitalistic principle--if you're working at a particular occupation and someone in the same field suddenly receives a large raise which exceeds your pay, naturally you're going to ask for more money, especially if you believe you're more talented than that person.
Owens most likely thinks he's more valuable than Harrison, but now, Harrison makes a whole lot more money. That's gotta stick in TO's craw.
Same for Westbrook when compared to Jordan...that's why he's using Jordan's contract as a starting point. He believes he's more valuable than him.
and Lamont Jordan basically had to sit around 4 years playing 2nd fiddle up in NY before he got his big deal.
I wonder if T.O. would be complaining if he made, say, 6.5 million last year and 6 million this year? He would still get the 12.5 over the 2 year period but it would be structured differently. People have to understand that to fit players under the cap GM's and owners are going to have to structure deals with everyone else in mind. The Eagles could have afforded to pay TO 9 million last year because they could afford to pay him that much while still maintaining obligations to the other players. This year he 'only' gets paid 3.5, but what they don't tell you is the total cap structure for the Eagles organization and who else they have to pay. Maybe Kearse is getting a big pay year this year and they can't afford to restructure, or they have to factor in incentive based bonuses against the cap, and a ton of other factors that go into the contract formulation process.
It's just not as cut and dry. There are a ton of nuances involved, especially when you need to fit 53 guys under a cap with many incentive based bonuses and a variety of salary structures.
I just don't think this would be an issue if TO made 6.5 million this season and 6.0 last, even though the ends are exactly the same.
Thats just something you have to deal with when you have a salary cap.
Every player in every sport is a product of the team and the players they play with. In Westbrook's case, he is made for Andy's system. He should be happy the Eagles are pleased with his performace and have offered him a generous contract. There are perhaps three players on this team right now that I feel are just great players and would be no matter where they played. They are TO, McNabb and Dawkins. There are players that may eventually fit that category but right now those are the three.
I think that if any one of those players went to the FO discreetly and allowed the FO to appear to be proactively renegotiating a deal it might get done. THis FO will NEVER allow a contract negotiation to be done in the press. I have been an Eagles fan for 40 years and this FO is tops and has proven that they are tops in the NFL too. I have disagreed with the Eagles FO many times on small issues but not the ones that make or break a season.
If you want proof look at the NHL. Who did the Flyers call when the NHL instituted a cap? Joe Banner that's who. The next thing we know they've signed three marquis players and made difficult decisions about other popular veteran players. I can agree with this FO because they know how to put a winning team on the field. If that should change I'll let them know about it.
I can think of NO SITUATION where holding out would be justifiable to me. You sign a contract, you live by its terms. Any player or agent who thinks that's the way to get the Eagles FO to listen is a jackass.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on August 09, 2005, 09:25:41 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2005, 09:24:05 AM
And I still haven't seen anyone who can tell most of us how Owens outperformed his deal. After all, he didn't establish any new career highs--his TDs and yardage were about his average and his catches were just below what he averaged in SF
i agree with you and believe TO to be one of the worst people on the planet..
Comments like this make you look like a complete jackass.
Worst people on the planet? So, he's among the murderers, rapists, drug dealers, kidnappers, etc?
At least this forum has a whipping boy...and deservedly so!! IGY...dude, chill with the TO bashing.
I've got five bucks that says TO gets his strength from the blood of murdered orphans.
I'll take your bet.
But only because I know his strength comes from eating reproductive organs of the endangered bald eagle.
I eat the reproductive organs of the endangered bald eagle and i like it!
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a30/dawkinsdarthcore/terrell_owens.jpg)
(the above proud message brought proudly to you by the proud sponsor of "proud" Greg Lewis)
You forgot "Proud."
Quote from: The Waco Kid on August 09, 2005, 01:51:17 PM
I EAT RPRDCTVE ORGNS OF NDANGRD BLD IGLS N I LUV IT!
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a30/dawkinsdarthcore/terrell_owens.jpg)
As a woman, I can only sit here and say, "Damn" :o
Quote from: PhillyGirl on August 09, 2005, 01:55:37 PM
Just like Spadaro, I can only sit here and say, "Damn" :o
Fixed.
:-D
You'd think the professor would have developed some SPF 50 while they were all stuck on the island.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on August 09, 2005, 01:55:37 PM
As a woman, I can only sit here and say, "Damn" :o
As a man I can only say shut up PG.
Quote from: General_Failure on August 09, 2005, 01:58:00 PM
You'd think the professor would have developed some SPF 50 while they were all stuck on the island.
I just now got the Gilligan reference...good one! Nice hat TO!!
Quote from: General_Failure on August 09, 2005, 01:58:00 PM
You'd think the professor would have developed some SPF 50 while they were all stuck on the island.
He certainly worked out enough.
Gay or Not Gay?
Even as a guy, i'd have to say that TO is one hell of a physical specimen.
He luv him some muscle.
Gay. You're very gay.
Damn!! :'(
I'm a steer...not a queer.
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a30/dawkinsdarthcore/lastphoto2.jpg)
james todd smith>TO
Quote from: The Waco Kid on August 09, 2005, 02:14:15 PM
Damn!! :'(
I'm a steer...not a queer.
I'm sorry dude, there's no way out of that one. You've been branded.
hey, it's not like he has his eyes on the freak or anything.
Quote from: T_Section224 on August 09, 2005, 03:03:13 PM
hey, it's not like he has his eyes on the freak or anything.
No more hot oil massages at tailgates for you. You're also going to have to find someone else to go antiquing with this Fall.
lmao, i think
Quote from: The Waco Kid on August 09, 2005, 02:14:15 PM
Damn!! :'(
I'm a steer...not a queer.
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a30/dawkinsdarthcore/lastphoto2.jpg)
Waco Kid is a steer....not a queer.
Everyone got it now? :-\
That bull looks pretty gay. I bet Waco Kid's both steer and queer.