like sands thru an hourglass so are the days of TO's life

[bobbyinlondon]

Thanks, everyone.

[Father Demon]

And my point was, by SAS's logic, a player who is on par with expectations should have the opportunity to renegotiate.  That is, quite simply, stupid-talk.

That's assuming the player has what could be at least construed as an equitable deal.  TO, a year into his contract for good money, obviously has an equitable deal. Hines Ward, a consummate team player and professional, does not. Ward is on par with expectations; however, is contract is up to par with his actual value.

I understand that.  My problem isn't with the people that signed long-term deals early in their careers and have unquestionably outperformed it.  My problem is when a guy makes more money than probably all of us put together will see in a lifetime, and complains that he needs or wants more. 

However, even when a player who has a contract that is not equitable to the performance, they are still part of the NFLPA and have to live with the CBA.  Yes, they can ask for a raise and a new contract, but management has no requirement to give it toi him.  If they ask, and the answer is "NO", well that's too bad because the rules are there.  As has been pointed out, I have yet to see a player go to management and say "You're really paying me too much for what I'm giving the team.  Let's lower my salary."  Is it a risk to some players to play that last year of a low contract while performing way above expectations?  Yes.  But it's still a contract, that should be honored if both sides don't agree on redoing it.  A team takes risk on that last year as well -- treat your star player poorly, and you run the risk of losing him to FA.  And that's why contracts get redone -- to keep the player happy, and to minimize the team risk.

[Tomahawk]

And my point was, by SAS's logic, a player who is on par with expectations should have the opportunity to renegotiate.  That is, quite simply, stupid-talk.

That's assuming the player has what could be at least construed as an equitable deal.  TO, a year into his contract for good money, obviously has an equitable deal. Hines Ward, a consummate team player and professional, does not. Ward is on par with expectations; however, is contract is up to par with his actual value.

I understand that.  My problem isn't with the people that signed long-term deals early in their careers and have unquestionably outperformed it.  My problem is when a guy makes more money than probably all of us put together will see in a lifetime, and complains that he needs or wants more. 

However, even when a player who has a contract that is not equitable to the performance, they are still part of the NFLPA and have to live with the CBA.  Yes, they can ask for a raise and a new contract, but management has no requirement to give it toi him.  If they ask, and the answer is "NO", well that's too bad because the rules are there.  As has been pointed out, I have yet to see a player go to management and say "You're really paying me too much for what I'm giving the team.  Let's lower my salary."  Is it a risk to some players to play that last year of a low contract while performing way above expectations?  Yes.  But it's still a contract, that should be honored if both sides don't agree on redoing it.  A team takes risk on that last year as well -- treat your star player poorly, and you run the risk of losing him to FA.  And that's why contracts get redone -- to keep the player happy, and to minimize the team risk.

Teams frequently tell players they must renegotiate their salary or be cut. Those renegotiations to help the team don't give the player more money. In fact, his salary is probably decreased.

[Father Demon]

That's not a case of a player going to management sayinghe underperformed, as I said.  The closest I saw was Marshall Faulk voluntarily renegotiating his contract for lower money to fit in Torry Holt's new numbers.  And you have to agree that is a case of one in thousands.

[PhillyPhanInDC]

The best article I've read yet on the T.O subject.

[Tomahawk]

The best article I've read yet on the T.O subject.

I posted that link a while ago, jerk. Quit stealing my thunder!

You'll get your comeuppance! Comeuppance!!

King actually wrote a decent article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/peter_king/08/15/mmqb/index.html

[PhillyPhanInDC]

Most people ignore you from what I read, so I wanted to put it up for "the others" to see. 

[MURP]

for what its worth, Jaws thinks the Eagles should get rid of TO asap.

[rjs246]

for what its worth, Jaws thinks the Eagles should get rid of TO asap.

Get Jaws!

[ice grillin you]

......

[Father Demon]

......

This may be the single smartest thing IGY has ever chronicaled!!

Mods -- I nominate this as the 2005 Post of the Year Award

[ice grillin you]

This may be the single smartest thing IGY has ever chronicaled!!



it would seem that way...except the only reason i posted it was because my original post was in the wrong thread...thus igy's moronic ways continue....

[Beermonkey]

King actually wrote a decent article:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/peter_king/08/15/mmqb/index.html

Actually, that's one of the best I've seen during the "TO Crisis".

The Contract: When Owens signed his seven-year, $49 million deal last year, he said nothing about the injustice of it. And why would he? The Eagles rescued him from a bad situation. The Eagles did not make him play under his existing contract, which they had every right to do. They tore up the contract and agreed to pay Owens $21 million in bonus money and salary over the first three years of the deal. That made Owens, along with Marvin Harrison and Randy Moss, one of the highest-paid receivers in football -- behind the other two, but not by much. Owens' new agent, Drew Rosenhaus, said that Owens is not even among the top 10 highest-paid receivers in the game, which is nonsense. Rosenhaus is taking Owens' 2005 salary ($3.25 million) as if it exists in a vacuum, without the approximately $16 million in bonus money due Owens in the first three years of the contract. It is reprehensible to claim a deal that was just fine in year one is suddenly so onerous in year two -- not to mention how absurd it is to ask a team to tear up a contract after the first year of a seven-year deal.

"When I was in Philadelphia, it was like a benign tumor. I knew it was gonna get malignant eventually and now it has. But they can't cut it out right now. They have to wait till the end of the year to do the surgery. What they have to do right now is give that tumor some chemo so it's manageable for the rest of the year."
--  Former Eagles receiver Freddie Mitchell, now a Chief, comparing the relationship between Owens and the Eagles to cancer.

[Rome]

Is it wrong of me to hope that Mitchell gets "Stingley'd" on the field?

[MURP]

Freddie Mitchell is basically saying that TO is blackmailing the Eagles?   If the Eagles give him some money he will be quiet for this year, if they dont, he will act like a jackass all season?