SouthNYfan Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said: Where were you when I should have said 'no' to that '78 AMC Pacer?! My father sold a '63 split window 'vette back in 1982 for peanuts. He still kicks himself whenever he sees one going for $150k+ lol
IDBillzFan Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 13 hours ago, Peter said: In the end, we have lost another starting linemen (a pro bowler at that) and, for our trouble, we have another $1.15 in dead money against the cap. To me, there had to be a way to manage this better (both the Bills and Incognito). It would have been nice to keep a pro bowl lineman rather than create an addition hole. It would have been nice to give Shady and whoever starts at QB (especially if it is an untested rookie QB) the best possible protection. Addition by subtraction. I know people have a problem with that phrase because it's difficult to digest for some, but as someone who spent the past quarter century plus hiring/firing/managing personnel, one rule is very simple: if someone doesn't want to work for you, they don't want to work for you, regardless of any effort to make them stay. Cut bait, learn your errors and move on. If the reports of his drunken rampage to the Pegula's is true (and certainly his public behavior suggests he's on something), this is a no brainer. With the kind of money the team is dealing with, tossing $1.5M to a mentally unstable guy to make him be someone else's problem is a pin prick to the budget. 16 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: How is it not really? He was approached about a paycut. He could have said "no" He didn't. He took the paycut. Then he decided he didn't like it, had "buyer's remorse" so to speak. Guess what? Don't sign the freaking deal if you don't like it. I believe some would refer to your post as 'pissing in the wind.' You speak absolutely, complete truth. It's just difficult for some people to understand. 2 1
SouthNYfan Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 1 minute ago, LABillzFan said: Addition by subtraction. I know people have a problem with that phrase because it's difficult to digest for some, but as someone who spent the past quarter century plus hiring/firing/managing personnel, one rule is very simple: if someone doesn't want to work for you, they don't want to work for you, regardless of any effort to make them stay. Cut bait, learn your errors and move on. If the reports of his drunken rampage to the Pegula's is true (and certainly his public behavior suggests he's on something), this is a no brainer. With the kind of money the team is dealing with, tossing $1.5M to a mentally unstable guy to make him be someone else's problem is a pin prick to the budget. I said something like this earlier. It's like in a divorce. Sometimes people just decide to give up more than they have to just to get out of a bad situation.
SouthNYfan Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 23 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: (Cut the top, already responded to that) I believe some would refer to your post as 'pissing in the wind.' You speak absolutely, complete truth. It's just difficult for some people to understand. Please tell me what was incorrect about what I said? It's an absolute fact that he didn't have to sign the contract. Nobody forced him to sign. I fail to see what is incorrect about what I said.
IDBillzFan Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: Please tell me what was incorrect about what I said? It's an absolute fact that he didn't have to sign the contract. Nobody forced him to sign. I fail to see what is incorrect about what I said. That wasn't directed at you. Like I wrote, you spoke the truth. No one forced him to do anything. No one demanded he do anything, in spite of that being offered as a consideration by some. 1
Aussie Joe Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 Hope Richie’s liver is working OK now to help break down all that tequila...
Foreigner Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 If he does not sign with the Bills as a free agent, and who thinks he will, this has been a novel and successful way of him dumping the Bills. Which is of course it ishis right to do, but does anyone really know for sure the real reason he has wanted to leave.
Luxy312 Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 My two cents on this debacle: Richie played a few good years for this team. Great run blocker and just OK pass blocker, if I'm honest. He didn't have to take a pay cut. That's a choice that is 100% on him. On point #2, maybe he figured out AFTER signing for less money that his agent was giving him bad advice. Players in the last year or two of their existing deals renegotiate all the time for more or less money. This is not new. If he hadn't signed for reduced money, the Bills may have released him anyway. Then again, maybe they just pay him for the last year of the deal. If he used the "broken body" excuse for retirement and now comes back to play somewhere else, that's simply unprofessional. I don't really care what the truth is about his situation. He's either got some mental issues or just didn't think out his situation as it unfolded. 2
SouthNYfan Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 8 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: That wasn't directed at you. Like I wrote, you spoke the truth. No one forced him to do anything. No one demanded he do anything, in spite of that being offered as a consideration by some. I totally misread dude. Sorry about that
Peter Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 58 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: How is it not really? He was approached about a paycut. He could have said "no" He didn't. He took the paycut. Then he decided he didn't like it, had "buyer's remorse" so to speak. Guess what? Don't sign the freaking deal if you don't like it. You are missing my point. People have taken the position that Incognito should have lived with contract that he signed. Based on that reasoning, the Bills should have honored the original deal and should never have approached Incognito or his agent about taking a pay cut. I am not saying that I agree with that reasoning, but, in my view, it is inconsistent to argue that Incognito should have honored the re-done contract and the Bills were free ignore the original deal and could cut him or threaten to do so if he did not take a large pay cut. Clearly, we disagree. I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me. Let's agree to disagree. I know you want to get the last word in so have at it.
Peter Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 49 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: Addition by subtraction. I know people have a problem with that phrase because it's difficult to digest for some, but as someone who spent the past quarter century plus hiring/firing/managing personnel, one rule is very simple: if someone doesn't want to work for you, they don't want to work for you, regardless of any effort to make them stay. Cut bait, learn your errors and move on. If the reports of his drunken rampage to the Pegula's is true (and certainly his public behavior suggests he's on something), this is a no brainer. With the kind of money the team is dealing with, tossing $1.5M to a mentally unstable guy to make him be someone else's problem is a pin prick to the budget. I believe some would refer to your post as 'pissing in the wind.' You speak absolutely, complete truth. It's just difficult for some people to understand. This "addition by subtraction" bit is becoming as tiresome as McBeane stealing Nick Saban's "process" mantra. Ultimately, subtraction ends up being just that. There was no indication that Incognito was a bad teammate. In fact, the contrary is demonstrably true. Ask Shady or anyone else including Dawkins. In fact, while Dawkins had a good rookie year, I wonder how much of that was facilitated by the fact that he was playing next to a veteran pro bowl guard. There also is no indication that Incognito would have been unhappy with the original contract that he and the Bills signed. I also have to believe that cooler heads on both sides could have come up with a middle ground. Instead, we are down one pro bowl offensive lineman (and another starter on the line). That is not a good recipe for our QB (whoever it may be) or Shady. As for your reference to rumors about a drunken call with Pegula, they seem to be just that. What you describe as me "pissing in the wind," in actuality, is me just being realistic about the fact that we are now missing our pro bowl guard and, to add insult to injury, we have $1.15 million in yet more dead money against the cap. In any event, we disagree. God bless.
BillsFan4 Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 15 hours ago, Limeaid said: This exactly what happened with Eugene Parker and Bills. He felt he could use pressure of holdouts, bad publicity, etc to force contract changes and is exactly why Bills should have insisted Richie Incognito remain on reserved/retired list unless Bills received compensation to release him. But can the Bills keep Richie on the reserve/retired list if he chose to unretire (which is what was reported)? Don't they have to take him off the list? Or no? I kind of thought that was why they released him - Richie was unretiring and the Bills didn't want him back in the clubhouse, so it kind of forced their hand. Maybe I just misunderstood things, though.
SouthNYfan Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 13 minutes ago, Peter said: You are missing my point. People have taken the position that Incognito should have lived with contract that he signed. Based on that reasoning, the Bills should have honored the original deal and should never have approached Incognito or his agent about taking a pay cut. I am not saying that I agree with that reasoning, but, in my view, it is inconsistent to argue that Incognito should have honored the re-done contract and the Bills were free ignore the original deal and could cut him or threaten to do so if he did not take a large pay cut. Clearly, we disagree. I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me. Let's agree to disagree. I know you want to get the last word in so have at it. But your point makes no sense. NFL contracts are signed with the caveat that they are not guaranteed. The Buffalo Bills are well within their rights of honoring the contract by cutting somebody, since that's part of the deal. They also are within their rights to ask the guy to renegotiate the contract, just like he was within his rights to not accept the pay cut, which he chose to accept. It's not inconsistent at all to think that he should have honored a paycut he agreed to.
Saxum Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 6 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Can you help me out with a source on this "signed by agent and not RI" please? i do some work with some agents as a Bills Backers chapter president. Have gotten Andre Reed among others. I was trying to get Richie for a charity event from my contact and was told he might not be available for a while. He said that Bills were having cap issues and talked to Richie's agent on it. He called Richie on it and was busy (I am assuming it was the medical stuff) and Richie under stress said "Whatever, handle it" and guess he did not expect results just to be a salary cut rather than something just to help with cap. Not a lot of details I know.
Foreigner Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 You are all guessing as to why he did what he did, with someone saying recently he has mental issues or is basically not thinking clearly, and the situation with the contract seemingly is the #1 guess, but isn't it possible he has looked at the roster and on his side of the ball, saw a bad OL, a rookie QB and really no #1 WRs. Benjamin lost me with the push off in the end zone against the Jags, plus coming off surgery as he was damaged goods from Carolina. Don't forget our other WR running around naked with blood on himself, and apparently was never disciplined. As no one has actually picked the Bills in the Super Bowl this year, maybe he just wants to play for a winner.
KD in CA Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: But your point makes no sense. NFL contracts are signed with the caveat that they are not guaranteed. The Buffalo Bills are well within their rights of honoring the contract by cutting somebody, since that's part of the deal. They also are within their rights to ask the guy to renegotiate the contract, just like he was within his rights to not accept the pay cut, which he chose to accept. It's not inconsistent at all to think that he should have honored a paycut he agreed to. It's amazing how many people fail to comprehend this fact. Every contract has a termination clause. 1
Luxy312 Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 Just now, SouthNYfan said: But your point makes no sense. NFL contracts are signed with the caveat that they are not guaranteed. The Buffalo Bills are well within their rights of honoring the contract by cutting somebody, since that's part of the deal. They also are within their rights to ask the guy to renegotiate the contract, just like he was within his rights to not accept the pay cut, which he chose to accept. It's not inconsistent at all to think that he should have honored a paycut he agreed to. To say that the team shouldn't have approached him is ridiculous, and simply grossly oblivious of reality. In the same token, should a guy that has significantly outplayed his contract NOT approach the team for a new deal, but simply play out his contract? Of course not. That's just stupid and not how the NFL actually works. Should OBJ just play the last year of his contract for less than $9m or ask the Giants for a new deal that will probably pay him close to $18m per year? Every team in the NFL asks players to rework deals, and every team in the NFL has players that ask for new deals before their contracts are done. 1
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 2 hours ago, The Red King said: Sorry, false logic. Players and teams are both welcome to renegotiate at any time. See, Coggie had this little tool at his disposal. He was asked to take a pay cut, not demanded. As a result, and I know this may sound crazy to you, stay with me... ...Richie could have said "No." rather then signing the new contract. Wild, I know. And you know what, if he had, I might even be on his side in all this for all the reasons mentioned in this thread. But he didn't. He signed on the dotted line, saying with crystal clarity "I accept these new terms that you offered, and agree to play by them." At that point, any right to complain about those terms went right out the window. That is my reasoning. If one side or the other wants to change the terms, they are more then welcome to readdress the topic, but in the end the signed contract is the default. Bottom line, if Cogs didn't like the terms and wanted to fight for more money, that all should have been done before signing the new contract. He lost any right to complain after he put his name to the paper. 2 hours ago, Peter said: Not really, but whatever. 20 minutes ago, Peter said: You are missing my point. People have taken the position that Incognito should have lived with contract that he signed. Based on that reasoning, the Bills should have honored the original deal and should never have approached Incognito or his agent about taking a pay cut. I am not saying that I agree with that reasoning, but, in my view, it is inconsistent to argue that Incognito should have honored the re-done contract and the Bills were free ignore the original deal and could cut him or threaten to do so if he did not take a large pay cut. Clearly, we disagree. I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me. Let's agree to disagree. I know you want to get the last word in so have at it. Teams and players re-do contracts all the time, when a player far out plays the contract, the player will ask for more money and the team will give him more money prior to present deal expiring, or they say no to which the player plays out the contract and often then will leave via FA for another team. Just as here the team asked for a pay cut and he agreed. So either both agree to the same action or they don't, then you move on. In a perfect world what you're saying is true and if the players want to end asking for more money, then the Bill's stance would be un-called for, but that's not how things work.
SouthNYfan Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, Luxy312 said: To say that the team shouldn't have approached him is ridiculous, and simply grossly oblivious of reality. In the same token, should a guy that has significantly outplayed his contract NOT approach the team for a new deal, but simply play out his contract? Of course not. That's just stupid and not how the NFL actually works. Should OBJ just play the last year of his contract for less than $9m or ask the Giants for a new deal that will probably pay him close to $18m per year? Every team in the NFL asks players to rework deals, and every team in the NFL has players that ask for new deals before their contracts are done. Exactly.
Recommended Posts