NSab Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Westbrook did not show up at mini camp today. The Team and his Agent expected him to be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 any guesses as to why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted August 1, 2005 Author Share Posted August 1, 2005 any guesses as to why? 905219[/snapback] He has turned down offers for a long term deal, word is they offered him more than Rudy Johnson got, but he turned it down. Every one was cocerned with TO and fully expected Westbrook to show up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 The Eagle has landed.... CRASH landed! Philly Flyers.... and the Philly Criers! Sorry NSab, that must bite the big hiney! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted August 1, 2005 Author Share Posted August 1, 2005 The Eagle has landed.... CRASH landed! Philly Flyers.... and the Philly Criers! Sorry NSab, that must bite the big hiney! 905238[/snapback] Nobody's Crying Rovers, just passin it on. It will get worked out I am sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Wow, this came out of left field! Could give T.O. some more leverage. I know many of you hate holdouts, and sometimes it's validated but the owners deserve this to a certain degree. The standards we hold against players somehow aren't the same as the owners'. Fans always expect the players to honor their contracts, yet the owners can release a player at any time. Most contracts pay the big money at the end so owners can effectively "use" players while the contract is at a bargain price then release the player when the meat of the contract is due. That IMO is complete B.S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebartender Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 This could kill the Eagles. Owens is one thing, but Westbrook means so much to this offense. Without him the Eagles are screwed IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted August 1, 2005 Author Share Posted August 1, 2005 This could kill the Eagles. Owens is one thing, but Westbrook means so much to this offense. Without him the Eagles are screwed IMO. 905248[/snapback] It is the first day, they will get it done! This was just a suprise that's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 I know many of you hate holdouts, and sometimes it's validated but the owners deserve this to a certain degree. The standards we hold against players somehow aren't the same as the owners'. Fans always expect the players to honor their contracts, yet the owners can release a player at any time. Most contracts pay the big money at the end so owners can effectively "use" players while the contract is at a bargain price then release the player when the meat of the contract is due. That IMO is complete B.S. 905247[/snapback] This argument holds no water with me. To compensate for the fact that the contract can be terminated, the players are given large signing bonuses. Guaranteed money, up front. Most of the time, the AGENT wants the deal backloaded. That forces the team to re-do the deal and pay another signing bonus. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted August 1, 2005 Author Share Posted August 1, 2005 This argument holds no water with me. To compensate for the fact that the contract can be terminated, the players are given large signing bonuses. Guaranteed money, up front. Most of the time, the AGENT wants the deal backloaded. That forces the team to re-do the deal and pay another signing bonus. . . 905259[/snapback] I agree with the Captain! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebartender Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 Wow, this came out of left field! Could give T.O. some more leverage. I know many of you hate holdouts, and sometimes it's validated but the owners deserve this to a certain degree. The standards we hold against players somehow aren't the same as the owners'. Fans always expect the players to honor their contracts, yet the owners can release a player at any time. Most contracts pay the big money at the end so owners can effectively "use" players while the contract is at a bargain price then release the player when the meat of the contract is due. That IMO is complete B.S. 905247[/snapback] Yes, the owners can release players whenever they want. That is why players get signing bonuses. If a player signs a contract with a big signing bonus and tears up his knee the next day, do the owners get the signing bonus back? Not, unless the palyer did something wrong that is specifically forbidden in their contract (i.e Winslow Jr.). It works both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebartender Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 You beat me to it Captain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted August 1, 2005 Author Share Posted August 1, 2005 You beat me to it Captain. 905268[/snapback] Nice Avy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted August 1, 2005 Author Share Posted August 1, 2005 Puddy check our league forum for my post> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 (edited) Here's a good article on holdouts. Edited August 1, 2005 by Brentastic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted August 1, 2005 Author Share Posted August 1, 2005 Here's a good article on holdouts. Well at least supporting my point of view on the matter. 905282[/snapback] That is also the reason, other sports have guys sitting around getting paid for years without contributing. Footbal is the r0ole model for the other major sports IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 That is also the reason, other sports have guys sitting around getting paid for years without contributing. Footbal is the r0ole model for the other major sports IMO. 905286[/snapback] But what's more fair? I'm not saying holdouts are good for the game, but I think it's very hypocritical to only criticize the players who holdout while saying "it's only business" when owners cut players. Where's the compromise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebartender Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 I don't want to get into the whole T.O. thing again, but how exactly is he underpaid? He made $9M+ last year. He will make an average of about $7M per year for the first three years which would put him in the top 3-5 WRs I believe. Anyway, my point earlier in this thread still stand IMO. Signing bonuses are the player's way of evening out the fact that they can be cut at any time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 I don't want to get into the whole T.O. thing again, but how exactly is he underpaid? He made $9M+ last year. He will make an average of about $7M per year for the first three years which would put him in the top 3-5 WRs I believe. Anyway, my point earlier in this thread still stand IMO. Signing bonuses are the player's way of evening out the fact that they can be cut at any time. 905290[/snapback] Who's talking about T.O.? Isn't this the Westbrook thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gijunky Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Wow, this came out of left field! Could give T.O. some more leverage. I know many of you hate holdouts, and sometimes it's validated but the owners deserve this to a certain degree. The standards we hold against players somehow aren't the same as the owners'. Fans always expect the players to honor their contracts, yet the owners can release a player at any time. Most contracts pay the big money at the end so owners can effectively "use" players while the contract is at a bargain price then release the player when the meat of the contract is due. That IMO is complete B.S. 905247[/snapback] You know, I REALLY get tired of hearing how the owners can release players at the drop of a hat...True, this happens when teams are thrust fully up against the cap, or have been backed into a corner, but if a player is consistently producing, I think that being released is the exception, not the rule. Not to mention, the players had to agree to this as part of the CBA...so my tears are few. What you DON'T see is an owner threatening to renegotiate a contract after a player has a sucky year. Take T.O. for instance...do you think for a second that he would have offered to give back some of that signing bonus last year if he had only caught 5 or 6 TDs? Didn't think so...Sometimes a stud lays an egg, either as a result of his own play, or as the result of someone else's play. I don't think that T.O. would have had as much success last year had Feeley been throwing those passes...My point is, this thing goes both ways, and we hear the players because they are the ones crying about it. If players and agents don't like backloaded contracts, DON'T SIGN THEM!! They sign the contracts because of all of the up-front money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 But what's more fair? I'm not saying holdouts are good for the game, but I think it's very hypocritical to only criticize the players who holdout while saying "it's only business" when owners cut players. Where's the compromise? 905287[/snapback] The compromise is the SIGNING BONUS!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebartender Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 You know, I REALLY get tired of hearing how the owners can release players at the drop of a hat...True, this happens when teams are thrust fully up against the cap, or have been backed into a corner, but if a player is consistently producing, I think that being released is the exception, not the rule. Not to mention, the players had to agree to this as part of the CBA...so my tears are few. What you DON'T see is an owner threatening to renegotiate a contract after a player has a sucky year. Take T.O. for instance...do you think for a second that he would have offered to give back some of that signing bonus last year if he had only caught 5 or 6 TDs? Didn't think so...Sometimes a stud lays an egg, either as a result of his own play, or as the result of someone else's play. I don't think that T.O. would have had as much success last year had Feeley been throwing those passes...My point is, this thing goes both ways, and we hear the players because they are the ones crying about it. If players and agents don't like backloaded contracts, DON'T SIGN THEM!! They sign the contracts because of all of the up-front money. 905313[/snapback] Although I agree with most of your points, I think the reason agents push for backloaded deals is so they can say, Hey I got so and so a $75M contract. Teams don't put up a stink with contracts that are heavily backloaded since everyone knows players rarely see years 5, 6, or 7 of their contracts anyway. It is an ego thing with agents. Players want to see big signing bonuses because that is all that is guaranteed, which I don't blame them for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoJoTheWebToedBoy Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 (edited) He has turned down offers for a long term deal, word is they offered him more than Rudy Johnson got, but he turned it down. Every one was cocerned with TO and fully expected Westbrook to show up. 905231[/snapback] Skipping the Player/Owner argument (it can't be won guys) anybody know the reason? Is he tired of playing for the Eagles? Afraid he's going to be replaced? Is it just a matter of Money? Not an Eagles fan, Just curious Edited August 2, 2005 by JoJoTheWebToedBoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcoach Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 Wow, this came out of left field! Could give T.O. some more leverage. I know many of you hate holdouts, and sometimes it's validated but the owners deserve this to a certain degree. The standards we hold against players somehow aren't the same as the owners'. Fans always expect the players to honor their contracts, yet the owners can release a player at any time. Most contracts pay the big money at the end so owners can effectively "use" players while the contract is at a bargain price then release the player when the meat of the contract is due. That IMO is complete B.S. 905247[/snapback] Then why do agents, players, and unions either sign or support the contracts? If it's not what you want, can live with or just plain and simple stinks why even sign the thing to begin with? And yes to some extent I agree with owners being able to release a player before his contract is up for a multitude of reasons. Most are obvious; lack of production, Mossdum, TOitis and some others. Seems fair to me when players want a new contract every year after they sign for seven. We're not talking chump change the owners are dealing out here. They also have a right to get what they pay for. That's the only way for the owners to recoup their losses on busts and so on. Now, if the players were open to renegotiating their contracts for a lesser amount when their production falls off then maybe I could agree to some guaranteed type of money. I guess there are arguments on both sides, I just can't stand employees. And yes, to owners that's exactly what they are employees. They do get signing bonuses that are guaranteed and I do believe the CBA has something in place if a career is cut short in case of injury. Insurance and such I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSab Posted August 2, 2005 Author Share Posted August 2, 2005 Skipping the Player/Owner argument (it can't be won guys) anybody know the reason? Is he tired of playing for the Eagles? Afraid he's going to be replaced? Is it just a matter of Money? Not an Eagles fan, Just curious 905512[/snapback] Money! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.