Rico Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 not true -- the team can cut the dude at any time if he sucks, and wash their hands of the contract. 5 years would mean he's a free agent and due a big pay day one year earlier is he's good...or even decent. 732848[/snapback] You don't wash your hands of the pro-rated signing bonus hit to your salary cap once the player is cut... if you could, MW might've been gone after his horrific 2003 season.
Mickey Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 Yep....I was thinking (and posting) the same thing yesterday...especially about the getting hurt thing..... When Dante does get to camp....these other guys are going to be working at an uptempo NFL level......and Dante will be trying to catch up fast. Nothing good can come from that 732851[/snapback] The chances of him getting hurt at the moment are zero unless he trips over the dog on his way to pay the pizza delivery guy. If a guy comes to camp out of shape, he has an increased chance of injury regardless of whether his first day of camp is day one or day 18 after a hold out. It is the being out of shape part that is the problem, not the holding out part. In fact, if you have two guys out of shape and one starts camp on the first day and another after a long hold out, the first guy probably has a better chance at being injured. More practices=more chances to get hurt and since they both showed up out of shape, that isn't really going to effect their odds as between eachother. Sure, Dante will have to catch up. But at the same time, he will be getting paid the same amount of money. The only ones hurt here are the team and the fans which is exactly why Dante is holding out, it is the only thing that gives him any leverage. No big deal, this stuff happens every year.
Matt in KC Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 I think there's some posturing (Marv's comments, Donte not coming to camp) but both sides want to work this out (soon) I'm sure. In the big picture, a week of trainnig camp is a reasonable price for having a player feel like they got a fair deal they will be obliged to follow for the next 5-6 years, and the Bills get a rising star for many years to come.
kasper13 Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 Marv needs to start playing hardball. Every day Whittner holds out, increase the years/money for the deal. OK pal- you didn't sign today? SEVEN Years. Don't sign tommorrow? EIGHT years. That will show him who's boss.
PromoTheRobot Posted August 1, 2006 Author Posted August 1, 2006 Marv needs to start playing hardball. Every day Whittner holds out, increase the years/money for the deal. OK pal- you didn't sign today? SEVEN Years. Don't sign tommorrow? EIGHT years. That will show him who's boss. 732927[/snapback] Can't be done. NFL regulates length of contract. It has to be 5 or 6 years. That's why this holdout is stupid. PTR
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 *waves white flag* Je ME RENDS! I don't know what I was thinking insisting that people being paid millions to play a game should actually work together and doe their jobs. You're all correct, as usual. I bow to your superior wisdom.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 *waves white flag* Je ME RENDS! I don't know what I was thinking insisting that people being paid millions to play a game should actually work together and doe their jobs. You're all correct, as usual. I bow to your superior wisdom. 733014[/snapback] But you're against capitalism it appears. Commie fag. I have yet to see anyone doubt that Whitner should play under a fair offer. What people don't agree with you on is that Whitner has received a fair offer. We don't know that yet. In fact, I would bet that if the Bills offer were indeed precisely halfway between what Huff signed for and what Sims signed for, that Whitner would already be signed.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 But you're against capitalism it appears. Commie fag. I have yet to see anyone doubt that Whitner should play under a fair offer. What people don't agree with you on is that Whitner has received a fair offer. We don't know that yet. In fact, I would bet that if the Bills offer were indeed precisely halfway between what Huff signed for and what Sims signed for, that Whitner would already be signed. 733047[/snapback] Oh, I'm all about capitalism. But the NFL is hardly a capitalist enterprise. Salary caps, revenue sharing, slotted contracts...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 Oh, I'm all about capitalism. But the NFL is hardly a capitalist enterprise. Salary caps, revenue sharing, slotted contracts... 733051[/snapback] But you're siding with The Man on this one.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 But you're siding with The Man on this one. 733061[/snapback] Maybe I am. Maybe I am, dammit! Honestly, I think the palyers union has FAR too much power in the NFL.
Bill from NYC Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 But you're against capitalism it appears. Commie fag. I have yet to see anyone doubt that Whitner should play under a fair offer. What people don't agree with you on is that Whitner has received a fair offer. We don't know that yet. In fact, I would bet that if the Bills offer were indeed precisely halfway between what Huff signed for and what Sims signed for, that Whitner would already be signed. 733047[/snapback] It is a good thing that we beat the Bengals in 05, or Whitner would be holding out for #4 money.
Dan Gross Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 *waves white flag* Je ME RENDS! I don't know what I was thinking insisting that people being paid millions to play a game should actually work together and doe their jobs. You're all correct, as usual. I bow to your superior wisdom. 733014[/snapback] Quitter.
Dawgg Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 Very good point, considering Whitner was the single must-have player for the Bills this year. It is a good thing that we beat the Bengals in 05, or Whitner would be holding out for #4 money. 733079[/snapback]
Rico Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 It is a good thing that we beat the Bengals in 05, or Whitner would be holding out for #4 money. 733079[/snapback]
H2o Posted August 1, 2006 Posted August 1, 2006 If we had the #4 pick, we'd either have D'Brick or Vernon Davis right now. It would be a whole totally different scenario.
Patience Posted August 2, 2006 Posted August 2, 2006 I don't think Marv/Jim are going to budge on this. They are set at a number of years they want him signed to. Donte is only hurting himself, a rookie needs to be in camp, learning with his teammates. I expect a 6yr deal will come about, because the money is right anyway.
Shamrock Posted August 2, 2006 Posted August 2, 2006 But you're against capitalism it appears. Commie fag. I have yet to see anyone doubt that Whitner should play under a fair offer. What people don't agree with you on is that Whitner has received a fair offer. We don't know that yet. In fact, I would bet that if the Bills offer were indeed precisely halfway between what Huff signed for and what Sims signed for, that Whitner would already be signed. 733047[/snapback] ...can we do a 5 1/2 year deal...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 2, 2006 Posted August 2, 2006 Very good point, considering Whitner was the single must-have player for the Bills this year. 733081[/snapback]
Recommended Posts