ganesh Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 Pats to sign Wes Welker to an offer sheet This guy is very good and is in his prime...The Pats will definitely upgrade their WR corps.
SACKMARINO Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 bills_red said: They have to give up a 2nd, to much imo. i agree for the simple fact that he's not great at any one position, but he does many things really well.
Rayzer32 Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 ganesh said: Pats to sign Wes Welker to an offer sheet This guy is very good and is in his prime...The Pats will definitely upgrade their WR corps. We have seen him twice a year anyways, no biggie. He alone is not going to make the Pats much better than they already are. If they signed Randy Moss, then I would be worried.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 HargroveforMVP said: God I hate the patriots All Bills fans do.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 The Dols would be fools to not match the offer, considering it's for just a late-2nd rounder in a weak draft. I'd string the Pats along for a week though, just to give them hope. Welker would be like a young Troy Brown for them.
JoeF Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 SACKMARINO said: i agree for the simple fact that he's not great at any one position, but he does many things really well. Plus the Pats have 8 picks this year including 2 number 1's...their second is like a throw away. Getting Welker for an end of round second pick--a 58th pick or so..I'll do that deal anytime.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 MadBuffaloDisease said: The Dols would be fools to not match the offer, considering it's for just a late-2nd rounder in a weak draft. I'd string the Pats along for a week though, just to give them hope. Word is the Pats are considering a geographical poison pill along the lines of the those used by Minnesota and Seattle when signing Steve Hutchinson and Nate Burleson, respectively. Quote Welker would be like a young Troy Brown for them. Now here's a prediction I hope you get right.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 Those poison pills are no longer legal. The Burleson one was allowed as compensation for the Hutchinson thing.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 MadBuffaloDisease said: Those poison pills are no longer legal. The Burleson one was allowed as compensation for the Hutchinson thing. According to PFT (I know, I know...) the NFL and the NFLPA negotiated the elimination of poison pills after the Hutchinson/Burleson scenario, but nothing was agreed to. Thus, they are still legal.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 We'll see. But it might be moot in any case. WRT Hutchinson, the Hawks would have had to guarantee his entire $49M contract. What are the Pats thinking of offering Welker that the Dols wouldn't/couldn't match?
Kelly the Dog Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 MadBuffaloDisease said: We'll see. But it might be moot in any case. WRT Hutchinson, the Hawks would have had to guarantee his entire $49M contract. What are the Pats thinking of offering Welker that the Dols wouldn't/couldn't match? Using the poison pill they can do whatever they want. Like they can say if Welker plays 5 games in the state of Florida he is owed a 20 million bonus. I know it's crazy but they can do it if they want, that's what's so stupid about it, and the league has really dropped the ball on getting this stuff out of play.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 MadBuffaloDisease said: What are the Pats thinking of offering Welker that the Dols wouldn't/couldn't match? Something along the same lines, I imagine. Not $49 million, mind you, but a clause that guarantees all his salaries or calls for large option or roster bonuses if the Dolphins were to match.
Hollywood Donahoe Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog said: Using the poison pill they can do whatever they want. Like they can say if Welker plays 5 games in the state of Florida he is owed a 20 million bonus. I know it's crazy but they can do it if they want, that's what's so stupid about it, and the league has really dropped the ball on getting this stuff out of play. I agree, but I wouldn't blame the league. It's the union that's preventing an end to the practice.
JoeF Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 Hollywood Donahoe said: Word is the Pats are considering a geographical poison pill along the lines of the those used by Minnesota and Seattle when signing Steve Hutchinson and Nate Burleson, respectively.Now here's a prediction I hope you get right. So they could write in something like if God and the Chosen QB don't play on your team, the whole contract is guaranteed..just hypothetically in this case..
JoeF Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 Hollywood Donahoe said: I agree, but I wouldn't blame the league. It's the union that's preventing an end to the practice. Yep--its a CBA rule that would need both sides to agree. If I was the NFLPA there is no way I am agreeing to change this one..it gets younger guys who are RFA's and Transition and Franchised free agents more cash. To get a player to sign a deal like that the bidding team needs to sweeten the pot and that's always in the union's best interest. Look at Hutchinson last year..and look at the floor of the market for the top 3 guards it established this year in the UFA market..
Kelly the Dog Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 Hollywood Donahoe said: I agree, but I wouldn't blame the league. It's the union that's preventing an end to the practice. True, but to me it's still the league and the union together. Both are at fault. They knew it was a huge problem when the Colts did it to the Bills 15 years ago.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 Hollywood Donahoe said: I agree, but I wouldn't blame the league. It's the union that's preventing an end to the practice. There is a "special master" who rules on this stuff, who is supposed to be impartial. I think a new "special master" may be in order.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 JoeF said: Yep--its a CBA rule that would need both sides to agree. If I was the NFLPA there is no way I am agreeing to change this one..it gets younger guys who are RFA's and Transition and Franchised free agents more cash. To get a player to sign a deal like that the bidding team needs to sweeten the pot and that's always in the union's best interest. Look at Hutchinson last year..and look at the floor of the market for the top 3 guards it established this year in the UFA market.. It doesn't get a guy more cash. The player gets the deal regardless. It's a matter of being able to keep guys you drafted/developed.
Recommended Posts