JoeSixPat
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Messages
- 10,671
- Reaction score
- 1,043
Over the last few months it seems to me that Mangini has handled the Pete Kendall situation very poorly with such things as putting him in the rookie dorm during training camp (a "mistake" that Mangini says he knew nothing about - yeah right.)
But at the end of the day, Kendall's under contract (like Branch was) and if indeed there's some truth to the contention of the hypothesis below, this situation could have an impact on other teams and other players pushing for a new contract.
Let's hope Mangini is smart enough to deal with this the right way given the implications it has for other teams.
But at the end of the day, Kendall's under contract (like Branch was) and if indeed there's some truth to the contention of the hypothesis below, this situation could have an impact on other teams and other players pushing for a new contract.
Let's hope Mangini is smart enough to deal with this the right way given the implications it has for other teams.
profootballtalk.com said:POSTED 1:31 p.m. EDT, August 18, 2007
KENDALL USING ON-FIELD SCREWUPS TO GET CUT?
As disgruntled Jets offensive lineman Pete Kendall continues to stew about the team's refusal to adjust his contract or to cut him loose, we're starting to wonder whether Kendall is trying to get cut via his on-field performances.
On Friday night against the Vikings, Kendall played center in the second half -- and had two bad snaps, one of which was recovered in the end zone for a Minnesota touchdown.
And though we've got no specific reason to believe that Kendall was trying to throw the ball over the head of quarterback Kellen Clemens from shotgun formation, it's hard not to think that his unhappiness (justified or not) is influencing his actions, even if at a minimum his frustration is causing a subconscious distraction for him.
A reader is convinced that Kendall's actions were a not-so-subtle middle finger to management, especially since it's well known that Kendall doesn't want to play center.
Where this goes next remains to be seen. Kendall has quieted down a bit, apparently due to the possibility of a suspension for conduct detrimental to the team. But if he suddenly performs poorly, will the team be able to show that he is tanking it on purpose?
The bigger question might be whether the team will even want to bother with it. At some point, the smart move could be to cut the guy. If they do it after the start of the regular season, he will be allowed to take the balance of his salary as termination pay.
Then again, Kendall is largely responsible for his current situation. He signed a new contract in March 2006 and received a $3.9 million signing bonus. Though the deal also reduced his base salary for 2006 from $4.3 million to $1.3 million, he came out of the transaction with more money on his 1040.
But he had a solid season last year (possibly because he was sandwiched between two first-rounds who panned out), and now he wants more money. Pete, get in line. Unless there was a specific promise made to increase his pay on which the Jets are reneging, Kendall should be willing honor his deal.
Bottom line? No one forced him to sign the new contract that gave him $3.9 million bird in the hand. Sure, the new contract also slashed his 2007 salary. But, again, he didn't have to sign it.
Thus, yet another player doesn't want to respect the terms of the contract that carries his name, under the apparent guise that he has already "outperformed" the deal. But the system is what the system is. At a time in 2006 when Kendall might have been in danger of getting cut, he signed the paperwork -- and cashed the check. Less than 18 months later, he wants a do-over. And, like T.O. from two years ago, Kendall is opting not to hold out but to pout until he gets his way.
If there's any proof that Kendall is making mistakes on the field as a manifestation (thanks, Tiki) of his dissatisfaction, then the Jets need to enforce their rights aggressively. Regardless of the motivation, "tanking it" is a direct threat to the integrity of the game, and if it's happening it should be treated no differently than gambling.
Last edited: