Hypothetical: If Big Mike moves to G...

[Rico]

That's why teams backload contracts. On paper, it's not a cut in pay, but the reality is that a player will never see the last year or two of their contracts.

500429[/snapback]

OK. Now, if (hypothetically speaking) you were an arbitrator between TD & MW, can you or anyone else show a possible scenario for an extension that will come close to pleasing both sides? I still say it can't be done without an actual paycut (too much $$$ still owed), and I'd like to be proven wrong.

[Bflojohn]

I think the mantra that "we" are getting the best five out there is sound enough, but how about this? Everyone knows Mike Williams can play RT and initially Jason Peters was destined for LT. Simply put, this move is "only" two players playing new positions, but next year what's to stop them from going with Peters at LT, Williams at RT and Gandy at LG? This way, Peters gets "live" action for eight games and Williams also sees action at LG. Next year under Jim McNally, I could see this being the eventual solution overall.

[BB2004]

best lineman, and dominates in the years to come (In fact, he becomes easily our best OL'man), would he be considered a failure at his current salary because he is a guard? 

 

I have no motives here, I'm just wondering what people would think.  Remember, it's a hypothetical, which we all hope would happen.

500165[/snapback]

 

A few years back in 2000, we signed Ruben Brown to a very high contract as a left guard. I don't think it was nearly as high of a contract as Mike Williams is getting. I would say that to pay him that type of money to play left guard is way to pricey. If he takes a reasonable paycut, one that's good for him and the team, then he'll most likely stay.

[Shamrock]

MW has to dominate like Larry Allen in his prime to even be considered halfway-decent value ...

 

...that's a high standard to measure up too- if only