A Decade of Andy Reid

Started by PhillyPhreak54, July 19, 2008, 12:05:41 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

General_Failure

Damn, I didn't know Dawkins wanted $40 million!

The man. The myth. The legend.

hbionic

No, more like eleventy-billion.
I said watch the game and you will see my spirit manifest.-ILLEAGLE 02/04/05


PhillyGirl

Jesus...he and Banner need to never talk again.
"Oh, yeah. They'll still boo. They have to. They're born to boo. Just now, they'll only boo with two Os instead of like four." - Larry Andersen

PhillyPhreak54

Quote from: Eagles_Legendz on April 29, 2009, 05:15:58 PM
Andy said he couldn't sign Dawkins because it would have put the team in a bad place financially (potentially) and then they might not have had enough money for Stacy, Peters, and Leonard Weaver. 

Yep, upping Dawkins contract would have prevented them from giving Weaver $1 million.  Nice.   :-D

For real?

God.  :-D

Sgt PSN

you know, when it comes to a player who has helped make that franchise A LOT of money over the last 13 years, the very farging least you can do is be upfront and honest about why you let him walk. 

"we offered brian a contract based on what we feel he is currently worth to the organization based on his age, production and durability.  denver offered more.  we could afford to match or even exceed denver's offer but that isn't in our business plan."

you know what, i would absolutely HATE that answer but i can at least respect it for being honest.  not only do i hate the answer that reid gave, but it's pure and total bull as well.  farg him. 

Sgt PSN

it also just occured to me that next year just might be an uncapped year, which means that they quite literally could have broken dawk off with like 10mil this year and it wouldn't impact future finances at all. 

and speaking of uncapped years, has anyone heard on any progress being made with new cba negotions?  i really hope they get done because an uncapped year would not be good for the eagles.  they're having a hard enough time staying with the jones's as it is with everyone on a level playing field.  remove the cap even for 1 year and i promise you that the eagles are in the bottom 10 for total payroll. 

PoopyfaceMcGee

It's not even the cap they care about at this point.  It's actual outlay of cash.  They were offering Dawkins a contract with about $2m guaranteed.  Denver gave him $9m guaranteed (or something like that).

Lurie's portfolio is down 40%.  He's practically begging for alms on the streets.

General_Failure

Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 29, 2009, 06:20:30 PM
and speaking of uncapped years, has anyone heard on any progress being made with new cba negotions?

From the interview they did on day 1 of the draft on NFLN, it isn't going very far. They have plans to talk in a couple weeks. Woo.

The man. The myth. The legend.

Eagaholic

Quote from: Eagles_Legendz on April 29, 2009, 05:15:58 PM
Andy said he couldn't sign Dawkins because it would have put the team in a bad place financially (potentially) and then they might not have had enough money for Stacy, Peters, and Leonard Weaver. 

Yep, upping Dawkins contract would have prevented them from giving Weaver $1 million.  Nice.   :-D

And this fits in with Banner saying they had more money under the cap than they could spend, how exactly?

General_Failure

Quite perfectly, is cheap-ass Eagleworld. They can never spend all the money if they stop signing players.

The man. The myth. The legend.

PoopyfaceMcGee

Quote from: General_Failure on April 29, 2009, 07:39:50 PM
Quote from: Sgt PSN on April 29, 2009, 06:20:30 PM
and speaking of uncapped years, has anyone heard on any progress being made with new cba negotions?

From the interview they did on day 1 of the draft on NFLN, it isn't going very far. They have plans to talk in a couple weeks. Woo.

The new president of the NFLPA has a Bubba lip.

BigEd76


ice grillin you

Quote from: Eagles_Legendz on April 29, 2009, 05:15:58 PM
Andy said he couldn't sign Dawkins because it would have put the team in a bad place financially (potentially) and then they might not have had enough money for Stacy, Peters, and Leonard Weaver. 

Yep, upping Dawkins contract would have prevented them from giving Weaver $1 million.  Nice.   :-D

wait a second so which is it....andy above or banner below

Quote
"We couldn't possibly spend all of our cap space."


these people are so full it its amazing...how stupid do they think the fans are

right now today even after peters andrews and weaver they are over 30 mil under the cap

and dawkins got 7.2 guaranteed over five years....which is a pittance in todays nfl and more than managable...even if hes the worst safety in the league next year hes worth signing to avoid the PR hit and for his leadership

like sarge said just be honest...you still would have made the wrong decision and still would look cheap but you at least wouldnt look like lying douches



i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

shorebird

Quote
“We couldn’t possibly spend all of our cap space.”

It's comments like that which lead to people like me thinking the Eagles will never, ever win a Superbowl.


ice grillin you

i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous