Mike32282 Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 wait... did you say what i think you just said?? 405473[/snapback] Oh wait....since when did I have respect for either of those two assclowns?
Corp000085 Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 Oh wait....since when did I have respect for either of those two assclowns? 405475[/snapback] good job my friend
Hollywood Donahoe Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 So how would you respond if one of us said, " I don't think I'd shed a tear if something happened to Brady " I would say that Brady hasn't warranted such a comment, as he hasn't pulled any dumb, Owens-like stunts off the field. Many a poster on this board has wished for a Brady injury, and I've not responded, actually. You're such a hypocrite Given that I've not responded to posts wishing an injury on Brady, that's simply not the case. You're engaging in a straw-man fallacy. go away you !@#$ing troll......... That's rather uncalled for.
Frez Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 I think TO has some very good points. Maybe he is going about this the wrong way. But that said, I think he DOES deserve top 5 money at the WR spot. The Eagles are to cheap to pay him. That's probably why they are 15 million under the cap. TO did sign a waiver and put his carrrer on the line last year. Like I said, he has some good points but need to direct them in a different way, I guess. EVERYONE doubted TO last year and he was the second best player in the Superbowl last year. He put his ass on the line in that game for his team. How many players on the Eagles are not happy? Yup, it's more than one.
Corp000085 Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 since i hate numbers, maybe someone can do some research on the top 5 wrs in the league vs. what owens makes now. i thought he was among that group, but i could be wrong.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 I think he DOES deserve top 5 money at the WR spot. He deserves the money owed to him in the 7-year contract he signed. Nothing more. If he wanted to re-evaluate his worth this off-season, he should've signed a one-year contract. The Eagles are to cheap to pay him. They payed him last year, and had the foresight to sign him to a long-term deal. Why should they be forced to pay him again?
jester43 Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 I think TO has some very good points. Maybe he is going about this the wrong way. But that said, I think he DOES deserve top 5 money at the WR spot. The Eagles are to cheap to pay him. That's probably why they are 15 million under the cap. TO did sign a waiver and put his carrrer on the line last year. Like I said, he has some good points but need to direct them in a different way, I guess. EVERYONE doubted TO last year and he was the second best player in the Superbowl last year. He put his ass on the line in that game for his team. How many players on the Eagles are not happy? Yup, it's more than one. 405482[/snapback] whatever. 7 years, 49million. stfu and go catch some touchdowns. i don't care if he was the star of the superbowl and mcnab sucked (it's true), right now he's hurting this team far worse...
bobblehead Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 Frankly, I have no idea what everone is so cranked up about. This is a business, not a sport. TO has every right to decide that he wants nothing to do with his teammates and his team and has every right to walk out on them simply because he doesn't want to be somewhere simply because he thinks he needs more money because he last contract was unfair. Plus, Drew Rosenhaus is really the one to blame for this, but you can't blame him because he's just trying to get his player more money and since the NFL screws players, players should be able to screw the NFL. Get over it, people. TO can do what he wants because nothing else matters but TO. 404331[/snapback] Drew's philosophy, which he has been pushing all over the media this season, is that since the NFL does not have guaranteed contracts, and teams can cut anyone at any time, if a player "outperforms his contract", the player should be able to get a new contract. Ok, sure. But when you are already paid like "the man" on your team, and you dealed your way into the contract you have now, how do you "outperform your contract"? That's the problem I have with TO, and Drew's new modus operandi - when you are already either the highest paid, the best player, or both, how can you outperform that? TO may not be making the money he thinks he should be, but he signed the contract knowing he was going there to be the "difference maker" for the Eagles, to get them over the Super Bowl hurdle. He did that, how do you "outperform" that? I'm also afraid of Willis next year. IMO, Willis' holdout has already started, he's just playing through this year. Even if he does get a deal next year ( which he should, if he plays like we think he will) , Drew is just going to say after the '07 season that Willis outperformed his new contract and hold him out again in '08.
BuffaloRebound Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 Even though TO did sign the contract, the Eagles had to see this coming. Despite the fact that it is a negotiation, you can't let a guy sign a contract that you know isn't fair market value. It's like playing chess against a moron and you have to tell him what move to make next because you don't want to beat him that easy. The 7 years $49m number is worthless. The only thing that matters in football contracts is guaranteed money because any game could be their last. As far as Willis goes, if he has an All Pro season, Donahoe will give him what he deserves. He is not a cheap bastard like the Eagles front office.
erynthered Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 I would say that Brady hasn't warranted such a comment, as he hasn't pulled any dumb, Owens-like stunts off the field. I guess you didnt understand, go back and read it again. Many a poster on this board has wished for a Brady injury, and I've not responded, actually. Thats because you would have been called out as the patsy troll that you are. That's rather uncalled for. Let me say it again for you, only louder, YOU'RE A PATSY TROLL!! Oh, and BTW, I dont give a sh*t if I hurt you feelings. Thats uncalled for? kitty!! Go cry in some chowda.......
stuckincincy Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 Show business is show business. The actors on the now-defunt tv show, Friends", got 750K per episode in 2002. And nobody tackled them and busted their bones. http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,9515,00.html
Hollywood Donahoe Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 I guess you didnt understand, go back and read it again. I'm afraid I don't see the point you're trying to make. The two situations don't seem at all similar to me. Thats because you would have been called out as the patsy troll that you are. No, it's because I didn't feel such comments were worth my time. Let me say it again for you, only louder, YOU'RE A PATSY TROLL!! Oh, and BTW, I dont give a sh*t if I hurt you feelings. Thats uncalled for? kitty!! Don't you feel you're being a little immature? Go cry in some chowda....... Chowda? Where do you think I'm from, New England? Assumptions, assumptions.
erynthered Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 I'm afraid I don't see the point you're trying to make. The two situations don't seem at all similar to me. That doesn’t surprise me No, it's because I didn't feel such comments were worth my time. Then you should spend less time here. Don't you feel you're being a little immature? No, I'm quite comfortable with me calling you a !@#$ing troll. Chowda? Where do you think I'm from, New England? For once, you may have me there. But it doesn’t matter, you're still a troll.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 Then you should spend less time here. Why? Such comments are few and far between, and I really enjoy talking football with most of the people here. No, I'm quite comfortable with me calling you a !@#$ing troll. ... For once, you may have me there. But it doesn’t matter, you're still a troll. I'm a troll? Why?
Talonz Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 I think TO has some very good points. Maybe he is going about this the wrong way. But that said, I think he DOES deserve top 5 money at the WR spot. The Eagles are to cheap to pay him. That's probably why they are 15 million under the cap. TO did sign a waiver and put his carrrer on the line last year. Like I said, he has some good points but need to direct them in a different way, I guess. EVERYONE doubted TO last year and he was the second best player in the Superbowl last year. He put his ass on the line in that game for his team. How many players on the Eagles are not happy? Yup, it's more than one. 405482[/snapback] Ok, so the way the NFL should start to work is this: When a player "outperforms" his contract in a given year, the following year he should pout, be a team distraction, tell the world how unhappy he is, and on top of that he should want a new contract?? Are you freaking KIDDING me? Players like TO and agents like DR are POISON. The quicker this act is put to bed, the better it will be for the NFL in the long run..... As far as "putting his ass on the line"......This guy makes more in 1 or 2 games than most of us will make in our ENTIRE LIVES...Get real...TO is a SPOILED BRAT...
Dan Gross Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 I think TO has some very good points. Maybe he is going about this the wrong way. But that said, I think he DOES deserve top 5 money at the WR spot. The Eagles are to cheap to pay him. That's probably why they are 15 million under the cap. TO did sign a waiver and put his carrrer on the line last year. Like I said, he has some good points but need to direct them in a different way, I guess. EVERYONE doubted TO last year and he was the second best player in the Superbowl last year. He put his ass on the line in that game for his team. How many players on the Eagles are not happy? Yup, it's more than one. 405482[/snapback] Based on base salary, TO is #4 highest paid receiver. 2 of the 3 ahead of him are at the tail-end of back-loaded deals.
IDBillzFan Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 whatever. 7 years, 49million. stfu and go catch some touchdowns. i don't care if he was the star of the superbowl and mcnab sucked (it's true), right now he's hurting this team far worse... 405489[/snapback] Abso!@#$inglutely. He's embarrassing himself, his team, and anyone who wears an Owens jersey. How stupid do you have to be....seriously..how !@#$ing stupid do you have to be to be answer a question like "TO, you obviously don't get a long with your quarterback, and you don't get along with one of your coaches" but cutting the guy off and saying "I didn't get alone with Steve in SF, either..." as if to say "What's your !@#$ing point?" You're a !@#$ing moron of epic proportions. Is it me or is listening to him kinda like watching an Eddie Murphy Saturday Night Live skit? Is it me or is someone else looking forward to the next Bang cartoon based solely on this interview? Is it me, or did he just take the time in another ESPN interview to say the reason he's having problems is because the Eagles don't like Rosenhaus. And the Eagles don't like Rosenhaus because he's done this with a couple of other players...? Someone. Please. Give the man a gun.
Frez Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 Based on base salary, TO is #4 highest paid receiver. 2 of the 3 ahead of him are at the tail-end of back-loaded deals. 405559[/snapback] Check the signing bonus part of it. If he was the #4 paid receiver in the NFL he wouldn't be bitching right now. It's ok for an NFL team to cut a player if he underperforms his contract though right?
Talonz Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 Check the signing bonus part of it. If he was the #4 paid receiver in the NFL he wouldn't be bitching right now. It's ok for an NFL team to cut a player if he underperforms his contract though right? 405572[/snapback] Why bother with contracts then?????
Dan Gross Posted August 12, 2005 Posted August 12, 2005 Check the signing bonus part of it. If he was the #4 paid receiver in the NFL he wouldn't be bitching right now. It's ok for an NFL team to cut a player if he underperforms his contract though right? 405572[/snapback] The total value of the first three years of his contract (including bonuses) put him at #3, behind Harrison and Moss, per This Article. Yes, it's okay for an NFL team to cut an underperforming player, but the way contracts are generally structured in the salary cap era, it would kill your cap to cut a highly-paid player early in a long-term deal, so it generally isn't done. There is some certainty in that respect. It's also allowable for a player to sit out, but to sit out a year into a long-term deal (unless they are grossly underpaid) is silly as well.
Recommended Posts