Lombardi predicts Seahawks will trade Deion Branch to the Jets for Thomas Jones

[Deus Irae]

He held out because he could get more value elsewhere.

When Belichick cuts someone because the team can get more value elsewhere how is that not leaving the player high and dry?

The NFL is a business and that cuts both ways. You can't have it just one way.

You're arguing a false comparison here. The contracts aren't guaranteed, and that's a matter for collective bargaining.

 

[Patjew]

So you guys think Bill's a huge hypocrite?

No, I think he operates within the rules of NFL contracts.

 

[condon84]

You're arguing a false comparison here. The contracts aren't guaranteed, and that's a matter for collective bargaining.

Although both sides are not equal (management being able to cut players at will, while players have to hold out in trying to get released/traded), it is essentially the same objective when one of the sides think the value of the contract is no longer "fair." Management can simply cut players when they no longer feel that that player is no longer of that contract's value. When the player feels that he is more valuable than the contract he is signed, he holds out. It's essentially the same objective. To maximize value.

Personally, I don't think Bill would trade for Deion because there are other priorities. But at the same time, I don't believe Bill holds anything against Deion. It's all about business. Bill cuts/trades people he respects all the time. His excuse is that it's a business and he's doing what's best for the team. Why would he be a hypocrite and hold grudges against players (who have played hard for him) because they do what's best for them?

 

[condon84]

No, I think he operates within the rules of NFL contracts.

And so are the players who force their way out. If it was not within the rules, players wouldn't be able to do it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Although both sides are not equal (management being able to cut players at will, while players have to hold out in trying to get released/traded), it is essentially the same objective when one of the sides think the value of the contract is no longer "fair." Management can simply cut players when they no longer feel that that player is no longer of that contract's value. When the player feels that he is more valuable than the contract he is signed, he holds out. It's essentially the same objective. To maximize value.

Personally, I don't think Bill would trade for Deion because there are other priorities. But at the same time, I don't believe Bill holds anything against Deion. It's all about business. Bill cuts/trades people he respects all the time. His excuse is that it's a business and he's doing what's best for the team. Why would he be a hypocrite and hold grudges against players (who have played hard for him) because they do what's best for them?

Again, you're arguing a faulty comparison, and it's not the same objective at all, since even from a player's side of the story, Money is not a direct equivalent to value. Cutting a player is not equivalent to a player under contract holding out.

 

[Deus Irae]

And so are the players who force their way out. If it was not within the rules, players wouldn't be able to do it.

It's not within the rules, and that's why teams can fine the players for doing it.

 

[Patjew]

And so are the players who force their way out. If it was not within the rules, players wouldn't be able to do it.

You're completely off here. It violates their contracts to hold out. What do you think, if they're not thrown in jail they're allowed to do it?

 

[Deus Irae]

You're completely off here. It violates their contracts to hold out. What do you think, if they're not thrown in jail they're allowed to do it?

Apparently he missed the whole "T.O. vs. the Eagles" thing.

 

[Patjew]

Although both sides are not equal (management being able to cut players at will, while players have to hold out in trying to get released/traded), it is essentially the same objective when one of the sides think the value of the contract is no longer "fair." Management can simply cut players when they no longer feel that that player is no longer of that contract's value. When the player feels that he is more valuable than the contract he is signed, he holds out. It's essentially the same objective. To maximize value.

Personally, I don't think Bill would trade for Deion because there are other priorities. But at the same time, I don't believe Bill holds anything against Deion. It's all about business. Bill cuts/trades people he respects all the time. His excuse is that it's a business and he's doing what's best for the team. Why would he be a hypocrite and hold grudges against players (who have played hard for him) because they do what's best for them?

You could say that about Asante. Not Branch.

 

[condon84]

Money is not a direct equivalent to value.

Explain this within the parameters of a contract being negotiated by the team and the player.

 

[Deus Irae]

Explain this within the parameters of a contract being negotiated by the team and the player.

It really should require no explanation. Money is not a direct equivalent to value for either a player or a team. Hell, take a look at Taylor for a recent example. The Patriots reportedly offered him more money. He's going to play for the Dolphins.

 

[condon84]

Apparently he missed the whole "T.O. vs. the Eagles" thing.

I think T.O.'s entire career proves my point. Players can force their way out if they feel their value is not equivalent to the contract they have. Just like teams can cut players if they think the contract that player has is not equivalent to the value he brings to the team. The objective to both situations is to get what they feel is a fair contract for the value the player brings to the team. They go about it differently because management has more power, but the objective is essentially the same. Why is this hard to comprehend?

 

[Deus Irae]

I think T.O.'s entire career proves my point. Players can force their way out if they feel their value is not equivalent to the contract they have. Just like teams can cut players if they think the contract that player has is not equivalent to the value he brings to the team. The objective to both situations is to get what they feel is a fair contract for the value the player brings to the team. They go about it differently because management has more power, but the objective is essentially the same. Why is this hard to comprehend?

T.O. got into all kinds of trouble, and his antics undercut the players in future moves because of his loss in front of the arbitrator. How he's supposed to prove your point is beyond me. I mean, you do recall his suspension, right?

 

[condon84]

It really should require no explanation. Money is not a direct equivalent to value for either a player or a team. Hell, take a look at Taylor for a recent example. The Patriots reportedly offered him more money. He's going to play for the Dolphins.

Of course it is. Money equals salary cap. Salary cap is distributed according to how teams value each player.

 

[Deus Irae]

Of course it is. Money equals salary cap. Salary cap is distributed according to how teams value each player.

Ok, this is just insane. It's as if people are sniffing glue tonight. Between you and RayClay missing the blatantly obvious, I'm getting more and more convinced that I'm stuck in an Alan Funt bit. If this assertion of yours were true, all of a team's contracts would immediately be modified on a sliding scale when any deal was made.

 

[condon84]

Ok, this is just insane. It's as if people are sniffing glue tonight. Between you and RayClay missing the blatantly obvious, I'm getting more and more convinced that I'm stuck in an Alan Funt bit. If this assertion of yours were true, all of a team's contracts would immediately be modified on a sliding scale when any deal was made.

Everyone's contract must fit within a salary cap. It's been that way since 1994.

EDIT: I'll bust out a pie chart if it makes it easier to understand.

 

[Deus Irae]

Everyone's contract must fit within a salary cap. It's been that ways since 1994.

And that makes no difference at all to what I said. It's been that way since prior to 1994. Again, Taylor chose something other than money. Money, while being a part of "value" is not the equivalent thereof, for either the team or the player.

 

[condon84]

And that makes no difference at all to what I said. It's been that way since prior to 1994. Again, Taylor chose something other than money. Money, while being a part of "value" is not the equivalent thereof, for either the team or the player.

Salary cap started in 1994 for the NFL.

Taylor chose to take a paycut. The Dolphins gave him a contract that they thought was equivalent to the value he brings to their team.

 

[Deus Irae]

Salary cap started in 1994 for the NFL.

And my point's been true since before that.

Taylor chose to take a paycut. The Dolphins gave him a contract that they thought was equivalent to the value he brings to their team.

So, for the player (Taylor), money CLEARLY did not equal value, despite your contentions to the contrary. Hell, you're pointing that out yourself when you note that he chose to take a paycut. As for what value the Dolphins were assigning, you're just speculating. Brady and Bruschi both took contracts that were less than they could have gotten: that didn't mean that the team valued them less and it clearly didn't mean that money was the equal of value to the players.

 

[Disco Volante]

Haha, this topic has sure gone on a tangent.

Then again the original topic of discussion wasn't even correct.