Bronco Billy Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 (edited) Link Cards have one-word reply for Boldin trade queries: No Kent Somers The Arizona Republic Apr. 23, 2008 12:00 AM Other teams have inquired about trading for Cardinals receiver Anquan Boldin, and his agent has asked if the team would be willing to part with him. On both counts, Cardinals officials had one simple answer: No. "We're not interested in trading Anquan," General Manager Rod Graves said. "That's the short of it." Trade rumors involving Boldin started last month, the day the team re-signed receiver Larry Fitzgerald to a four-year, $40 million contract. advertisement That prompted speculation that the Cardinals couldn't afford to keep both elite receivers and that they might be willing to deal Boldin, who has three years left on his contract. "Obviously, because of those rumors, a few teams have called to inquire," Graves said, "and my response has been consistent with everyone: We're not interested in trading him." The trade talk is more than just rumor, however. Boldin wants a new contract in the neighborhood of Fitzgerald's. Boldin's agent, Drew Rosenhaus, recently asked the team if it would be willing to trade his client, according to Cardinals officials. The Cardinals said no, nor do they plan to allow Rosenhaus to seek a trade. "Anquan is a quality person and a great player," Graves said. "We're hoping we can agree on a longer-term deal." Graves went on to say the trade request is not a new tactic for Rosenhaus. "We have not heard that (trade request) from Anquan," Graves said. Rosenhaus has not returned a number of phone calls over the past several weeks, and Boldin could not be reached for comment. The roots of the trade talk extend to last summer, when Boldin and Rosenhaus met with Graves and coach Ken Whisenhunt to discuss a new deal. Rosenhaus, according to the Cardinals, made a proposal, and the Cardinals countered with one in late November or early December. That offer, Graves said, would have put Boldin among the five highest-paid receivers within three years. "Drew did not respond to that proposal," Graves said. "The proposal sat with him over a month. I called to ask him if he was going to respond, and he said he was going to wait until Larry Fitzgerald (contract) was done." Boldin has three years left on his second contract with the team. The club extended his deal in 2005 after he outplayed his rookie contract. The motivation for making an offer in December, Graves said, was recognition that Boldin was worth more than the four-year, $23.5 million deal he signed three summers ago. And look at who is at the bottom of this yet again... Edited April 23, 2008 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Man, that guy is a snake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I know people hate Rosenhaus, but I am willing to bet he has a pretty good understanding of player performance over time in the league versus how much a player is making. He's only trying to help his clients do the best they can in terms of the business aspect of the game. That is why they pay him after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle2003 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Is he going to return any money for the games he missed because of all his injuries? What a joke! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I know people hate Rosenhaus, but I am willing to bet he has a pretty good understanding of player performance over time in the league versus how much a player is making. He's only trying to help his clients do the best they can in terms of the business aspect of the game. That is why they pay him after all. Precisely what I was gonna say. This is a business people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Is he going to return any money for the games he missed because of all his injuries? What a joke! If a player gets legitimately hurt putting their body on the line for your organization and in order to make you money, you want some back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 23, 2008 Author Share Posted April 23, 2008 If a player gets legitimately hurt putting their body on the line for your organization and in order to make you money, you want some back? Well, if it is okay with you for one party to ignore the terms of a contract, why wouldn't it be okay with you for the other party to do the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 It is a business and one that is injured by the likes of Resenhaus who hamstrings franchises with constantly renegotiated contracts. In the case of Boldin, there does not seem to be nearly as pressing a need to renegotiate a contract with three years left given that Boldin has missed time injured in three of the last four years. Last year he only played in 12 games and his performance was hardly dominating. I personally hope the Cards hold firm against it. Sure - an agent's role is to squeeze every single penny possible from franchises for his clients but inherent in that is always asking for too much, always being too big a pain in the ass and always being unrealistic with demands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I know people hate Rosenhaus, but I am willing to bet he has a pretty good understanding of player performance over time in the league versus how much a player is making. He's only trying to help his clients do the best they can in terms of the business aspect of the game. That is why they pay him after all. I don't completely agree. Signing mega long term deals and then turning around to redo them when its only half over is shady in my book. I can understand redoing something with a year left to secure a player's services and keep them off the market, but he's trying to redo contracts with 3 years remaining. Where does it end? What's next? 4, 5, 6 years left on a 7 year deal... Its just crazy. I'm glad both the Cards and Bengals are telling him to pound salt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballjoe Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 The way I see it is that if you have a contract you should abide by it. The team should have the right to cut players but in return the player has the right to negociate a contract that allows for more upfront / guarenteed money. I the teams wants to resign them that fine and certainly wise at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I don't completely agree. Signing mega long term deals and then turning around to redo them when its only half over is shady in my book. I can understand redoing something with a year left to secure a player's services and keep them off the market, but he's trying to redo contracts with 3 years remaining. Where does it end? What's next? 4, 5, 6 years left on a 7 year deal... Its just crazy. I'm glad both the Cards and Bengals are telling him to pound salt. Why is it more shady than teams cutting the players before the deal is up if they are not performing up to snuff? Teams have no loyalty to the contracts when a player is playing poorly, so I have no issue with an agent trying to renegotiate a deal if the player deserves it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Well, if it is okay with you for one party to ignore the terms of a contract, why wouldn't it be okay with you for the other party to do the same? How is approaching a team to get a contract renegotiated ignoring it? Until the player actually breaches the contract, it's all talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 23, 2008 Author Share Posted April 23, 2008 How is approaching a team to get a contract renegotiated ignoring it? Until the player actually breaches the contract, it's all talk. With every "approach" of a team with renegotiation comes either the tacit or implied threat of a hold out. Without that, the "approach" holds no meaning whatsoever. The article also states that AZ approached Rosenhaus & Boldin with an offer of renegotiation and that Rosenhaus never returned any communication because he apparently wanted to use the Fitz contract as leverage. Rosenhaus may be acting in what he thinks are the best interests of his clients, but he's a black eye on agents' behavior, decorum, & ethics. There's something to be said for making such a negative name for yourself that you actually harm your clients in negotiations, and I think that's right where Rosenhaus has placed himself. Ethics may not be quantified, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 23, 2008 Author Share Posted April 23, 2008 (edited) Why is it more shady than teams cutting the players before the deal is up if they are not performing up to snuff? Because that may be the only recourse a team has to relieving itself of a player who no longer makes a meaningful contribution to the team, or may actually act as a negative impact on the team if they turn into a cancer - and because it is a right that teams have per their agreement with the NFLPA per the CBA, one that players agreed to surrender in exchange for not having their signing bonuses threatened to be pro-rated when they are cut. Don't fret too much for the player - they may have been cut and miss out on some of their salaried years, but they still get to keep the entire signing bonus that was weighted for the entire term of the contract. And if they can still actually add value to a team, they can make another team's roster (Likely making even more guaranteed money on another signing bonus in the process). Edited April 23, 2008 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 With every "approach" of a team with renegotiation comes either the tacit or implied threat of a hold out. Without that, the "approach" holds no meaning whatsoever. Still, until a player actually perpetrates an action that breaches the contract, all they have done is talk. I have no problem with that at all. I do have a problem with players not adhering to their contracts and with them not respecting the CBA for that matter. I have more of a problem with a player that holds out because they were named the team's Franchise Player than with a player that is looking for a contract renegotiation. Regardless, I can't see how anyone would have a problem with a negotiation until it turns into more than a negotiation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 23, 2008 Author Share Posted April 23, 2008 Regardless, I can't see how anyone would have a problem with a negotiation until it turns into more than a negotiation If that's the sole criteria, I'll concede that point and agree with you. There's nothing wrong with going in and asking for a raise or better conditions. As long as getting "no" for an answer doesn't result in the player violating the terms of a contract in retaliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Why is it more shady than teams cutting the players before the deal is up if they are not performing up to snuff? Teams have no loyalty to the contracts when a player is playing poorly, so I have no issue with an agent trying to renegotiate a deal if the player deserves it. See, I think there are specific when your statement is more applicable - a late round draft choice who obviously plays well above his draft position for example. Yes, they deserve something new before the contract is up. But a player that signs a contract before its end may give up full free-market value on that contract in exchange for some security (signing bonus) now. In the case of both Anquan and Chad, they already got the renegotiated deals recently (2005 and 2006 according to Rotoworld). If a team rewards a player performance with a great contract extension - making them very highly paid - why must they continue to renegotiate it so soon? They are paid a deserving wage already, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 If that's the sole criteria, I'll concede that point and agree with you. There's nothing wrong with going in and asking for a raise or better conditions. As long as getting "no" for an answer doesn't result in the player violating the terms of a contract in retaliation. I am of the mind that you do not take the "Minority Report" approach with these things. Hold people responsible for what they do, not what they might do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 (edited) See, I think there are specific when your statement is more applicable - a late round draft choice who obviously plays well above his draft position for example. Yes, they deserve something new before the contract is up. But a player that signs a contract before its end may give up full free-market value on that contract in exchange for some security (signing bonus) now. In the case of both Anquan and Chad, they already got the renegotiated deals recently (2005 and 2006 according to Rotoworld). If a team rewards a player performance with a great contract extension - making them very highly paid - why must they continue to renegotiate it so soon? They are paid a deserving wage already, IMO. Again, I am willing to bet would guess that Rosenhaus knows exactly what these players make in comparison to others at their position with similar performance and that he would not be looking for more if there were not a disparity. Betting isn't really appropriate. No way to prove it out. Edited April 23, 2008 by Caveman_Nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 (edited) I think that much of this could be solved by getting rid of non-guaranteed contracts, and giving players shorter deals with a little more guaranteed money. Players in all sports whine about their contracts, but it seems so much more pronounced in the NFL. And I'll bet a lot of that has to do with the fact that they can be unexpectedly cut halfway through a contract. So they have ample incentive to whine about a trade three years into a deal, where they can be given the opportunity to re-negotiate a new contract with another team and get more guaranteed money right away. Even if one is a filthy-rich veteran, that uncertainty is disruptive to one's family and one's life in general (although I'm sure that Chad is mostly about the money). Edited April 23, 2008 by Bill Swerski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Why is it more shady than teams cutting the players before the deal is up if they are not performing up to snuff? Teams have no loyalty to the contracts when a player is playing poorly, so I have no issue with an agent trying to renegotiate a deal if the player deserves it. Because that's the way businesses work. If you're not doing your job, you get fired or demoted. And you renegotiate when your contract is up. If you give in to the players, when does it stop? Guaranteed contracts? The biggest problem in sports outside of the NFL is the guaranteed contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 (edited) This is a business people. Yep. So honor your contract and leave the demands to renegotiatiate and childish ultimatums on the playground ... Edited April 23, 2008 by Donutrun Jellies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 23, 2008 Author Share Posted April 23, 2008 I think that much of this could be solved by getting rid of non-guaranteed contracts, and giving players shorter deals with a little more guaranteed money. I disagree completely and would point right at MLB & the NBA as examples of excatly why doing this is bad business. Players get some guaranteed money with signing bonuses. They also get easy-to-reach clauses such as voluntary work-out attendance bonuses, roster bonuses, etc. But the rest of the money they have to earn. That's appropriate and keeps athletes on top of their game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Because that's the way businesses work. If you're not doing your job, you get fired or demoted.And you renegotiate when your contract is up. If you give in to the players, when does it stop? Guaranteed contracts? The biggest problem in sports outside of the NFL is the guaranteed contracts. that's a heck of a leap to take, from "Give my player a raise because he deserves it" to "The Sky is Falling! Contracts are guaranteed!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 A contract is a contract. I can see a rookie wanting to renegotiate - but a vet wanting more money after signing a contract is garbage. 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.