TO compares himself to Jesus

[Clubfoothead]

 

You may be right, but whenever Az and I disagree on something like this, the debate is always worth my time.

 

891392[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Az rocks. Enjoy. I think yer right in both TO threads.

[Ziachild007]

Owens only played one year of his seven year contract so far, and looking at the numbers over the first three years of the contract will be paid an average of $7 a year

888521[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

No wonder he wants a raise!!!

[Jrick35]

The total of the contract ($48M) doesn't matter at all. The only way to compare the player contracts is to look at the first two years, plus the signing bonus.

How can the total of the entire contract not matter? It is how the entire contract is structured that determines the amount of Salary & Bonus that is paid in years 1 & 2. And it is the expectation of the team that the player honor his committment to the entire contract in order to earn the Bonus paid up front. Or the team can take it back. see Ricky Williams

Furthermore, why would T.O. hold out if he were being paid in accordance with his peers?

I don't know. Why would he tell SF to trade him and then when they do fight it like hell when they trade him to Baltimore instead of Philly? And then after fighting so hard to get to Philly why would he be in such a hurry to go somewhere else?

It wouldn't make sense. Never has he said "I want to be the highest-paid WR in the game" or "I want a whole new contract".

 

891389[/snapback]

 

 

And I am pretty sure this entire thread is about TO wanting a "whole new contract"

 

As I said earlier in this thread, if someone thinks they can get more money then go for it. If I thought I could get a pay raise by NOT showing up to work I'd be all over it. But TO got a long term deal worth an average nearly $7 million a year. There are not more than 2 players at his position earning more money per year. He is not being underpaid by any means or through any comparisons to other WR's.

 

TO Wants more money! That is something I can understand and even accept.

 

TO deserves more money because he is underpaid! That's crap.

[Swiss Cheezhead]

How can the total of the entire contract not matter? It is how the entire contract is structured that determines the amount of Salary & Bonus that is paid in years 1 & 2. And it is the expectation of the team that the player honor his committment to the entire contract in order to earn the Bonus paid up front. Or the team can take it back. see Ricky Williams

I don't know. Why would he tell SF to trade him and then when they do fight it like hell when they trade him to Baltimore instead of Philly? And then after fighting so hard to get to Philly why would he be in such a hurry to go somewhere else?And I am pretty sure this entire thread is about TO wanting a "whole new contract"

 

As I said earlier in this thread, if someone thinks they can get more money then go for it. If I thought I could get a pay raise by NOT showing up to work I'd be all over it. But TO got a long term deal worth an average nearly $7 million a year. There are not more than 2 players at his position earning more money per year. He is not being underpaid by any means or through any comparisons to other WR's.

 

TO Wants more money! That is something I can understand and even accept.

 

TO deserves more money because he is underpaid! That's crap.

 

891915[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Wow...that was probably the most uninformed take on the T.O. situation I've heard yet.

 

Get a clue, man.

[Donutrun Jellies]

Jesus has never held out for a bigger contract, although it appears that he has told several football players to do so.

 

888864[/snapback]

 

 

 

Plus, Jesus isn't drafting TO for his fantasy team ... for about the 6th straight year.

[Ruffian]

FAIR MARKET VALUE is what he signed his contract for last year when he was a free agent.  and the way they structured the FAIR MARKET VALUE spread out over 6 years was to give a big lump sum in the first year, then scale it down in the second year, etc.  what did he make last year with his $10 million bonus?  if you're going to break it down on a year by year basis and compare it to other WR's salaries on a year by year basis, then last year he made way MORE than FAIR MARKET VALUE.  but he's not offering to give any of that back, is he?

 

890991[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I completely agree, AZ. No one had to beg him to sign the deal he took last season. The most compelling argument here is this--had TO blown his ankle in July, do you think he would have offered to restructure his deal to give back the money he was given by the Eagles front office since he was unable to contribute on the field? Yeah, right. Can't have it both ways...

[wiegie]

T.O. is an idiot.

 

The "fair market value" argument is also stupid as does anyone in their right mind actually think that T.O. would have agreed to a salary cut if the average salary for other receivers had gone down instead of up? Az, had it right that when T.O. signed the contract he was getting fair market value.

 

What T.O. wants to do would be the equivalent of your bank giving you a 30-year loan at a fixed interest rate, but then the next year suddenly demanding that you have to pay them a higher interest rate because the market interest rate has gone up.

 

Also, I don't remember reading anywhere about people throwing stones at Jesus.

 

Finally, since I own T.O. in a keeper league, I hope he has the best season ever for a receiver. Go T.O., you are my hero.

[Swiss Cheezhead]

does anyone in their right mind actually think that T.O. would have agreed to a salary cut if the average salary for other receivers had gone down instead of up?  Az, had it right that when T.O. signed the contract he was getting fair market value.

892021[/snapback]

 

First of all, that argument doesn't make sense. The average salary for other receivers will never go down. There will always be, for instance, the top 5 WR performers every year. If T.O. performs like one, but doesn't get paid like one, then he's not getting fair market value. Plain and simple.

 

T.O. wouldn't have to "agree" to take a salary cut. Nor would he ever be in a position to "give money back" if he has a down year. People seem to forget that TEAMS DO THAT ALREADY. If the team thinks they're paying a player MORE than his fair market value they'll either force him to renegotiate or release him. See: George, Eddie; Bettis, Jerome; Milloy, Lawyer; Law, Ty.

 

What T.O. wants to do would be the equivalent of your bank giving you a 30-year loan at a fixed interest rate, but then the next year suddenly demanding that you have to pay them a higher interest rate because the market interest rate has gone up.

892021[/snapback]

 

If I'm not mistaken, that's not exactly an unusual proposition in the business world. There are types of "loans" that don't have fixed rates.

[Swiss Cheezhead]

Once again, I'll clarify: I'm not "defending" T.O.

 

I could easily make the argument that, yes, T.O. IS an idiot. He's handled the situation about as poorly as he could have. And, given Rosenhaus's utter failure in the PR aspect of it, T.O. seems to be decreasing his value to every NFL team on a daily basis.

 

My point is that it's not just a player being "greedy". Holdouts, in general, aren't about greed. They're about fair market value. No agent would advise ANY player to holdout if he was ALREADY being paid like his peers. It would be ridiculously stupid.

 

I'm not going to criticize owners for cutting a player who doesn't perform or for lowering a player's salary to match his performance. It's a part of the NFL. So are holdouts.

[ebartender]

Swiss,

If TO was to under perform last season, would he have given the Eagles any money back?

 

Fact is that TO was NOT a free agent when the Eagles traded for him. He was under contract. The Eagles renegotiated to give him a signing bonus. Why should they have to re-do the contract again after 1 year? If this is the case why did TO sign a 7 year deal? He should only sign 1 year deals if he consistently want to be paid in the top 5 WRs.

 

I don't care if TO make $100M a year, it's not like I pay his salary. The point is that he signed a long term deal and wants to re-do it after one year.

[Swiss Cheezhead]

Swiss,

If TO was to under perform last season, would he have given the Eagles any money back?

 

Fact is that TO was NOT a free agent when the Eagles traded for him.  He was under contract.  The Eagles renegotiated to give him a signing bonus.  Why should they have to re-do the contract again after 1 year?  If this is the case why did TO sign a 7 year deal?  He should only sign 1 year deals if he consistently want to be paid in the top 5 WRs.

 

I don't care if TO make $100M a year, it's not like I pay his salary.  The point is that he signed a long term deal and wants to re-do it after one year.

 

892498[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You obviously haven't read every post in the thread, so I won't bother responding to your arguments.

[ebartender]

You obviously haven't read every post in the thread, so I won't bother responding to your arguments.

 

892512[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You are agruing that if a player "out-performs" his contract they have every right to want more money. My questions is that if he under performs, would he be willing to give some money back to the team a.k.a re-negotiate his contract for less money. You can't say it is right for a player to want to redo a contract based on over-performance but a team shouldn't be able to do the same based on under-performance. If a player doesn't want to take a pay cut then the teams releases them. I see no difference in that then when a player holds out for more money. If the teams cuts them and they are really worth what they think, another team will pay them.

 

Also, I did read all the posts in this thread and I do not see where anyone mentioned the fact that the Eagles already renegotiated Owen's contract.

 

I really think it is childish of you to accuse someone of not reading the entire post. If you don't have the time to answer I don't care. Don't act like your opinion is so important that someone's comments are not worth your time.

[Swiss Cheezhead]

You are agruing that if a player "out-performs" his contract they have every right to want more money.  My questions is that if he under performs, would he be willing to give some money back to the team a.k.a re-negotiate his contract for less money.  You can't say it is right for a player to want to redo a contract based on over-performance but a team shouldn't be able to do the same based on under-performance.  If a player doesn't want to take a pay cut then the teams releases them.  I see no difference in that then when a player holds out for more money.  If the teams cuts them and they are really worth what they think, another team will pay them. 

 

Also, I did read all the posts in this thread and I do not see where anyone mentioned the fact that the Eagles already renegotiated Owen's contract.

 

I really think it is childish of you to accuse someone of not reading the entire post.  If you don't have the time to answer I don't care.  Don't act like your opinion is so important that someone's comments are not worth your time.

 

892535[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Dude, if MY comments were worth YOUR time, you would have read and/or understood the post RIGHT ABOVE your first one. I'll remind you of what I said:

 

I'm not going to criticize owners for cutting a player who doesn't perform or for lowering a player's salary to match his performance. It's a part of the NFL. So are holdouts.

 

892147[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

What made you think I wasn't okay with owners forcing a player to re-negotiate?

 

Hopefully, that covers the "players-don't-give-money-back" argument as well.