TBR
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2014
- Messages
- 14,859
- Reaction score
- 14,950
With Amendola, Lewis and Solder on offense. And perhaps Edelman's last year of his prime.we won the superbowl 2 years ago without him.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.
With Amendola, Lewis and Solder on offense. And perhaps Edelman's last year of his prime.we won the superbowl 2 years ago without him.
If you went back and looked for it, it was always there. Some teams don’t care but our defensive scheme gets destroyed by it.I was being nice. That running play w/ Gillislee seemed blatant but im not 100% sure
I dunna know though. He seemed fine to me before the 2016 season.
So, you decide to "ride it out" because the best offer you received from a team that Gronk would be happy to play for is only a 2nd + a 3rd ("stupid" to accept that little), and then Gronk retires?
I don't know how this stupid rumor started but I don't believe it for a second. Could it happen? Sure, but unless Gronk is a problem in the locker room (which I doubt) there's no reason to trade the most dominating TE of all time. He just wants to get paid what he deserves.why do we want to make things more difficult for tom brady??? shouldn't we want to surround him with better players. this would be so ****ing stupid.
Maybe there's one in the cards, though.
Hey -- what happened to the TV on your head?
Can we trade Bedard for a used tampon.
Yep
I don’t believe Gronk is retiring , I think he wants more money. He’s the best player ever at his position and he’s 28, if you trade him you make sure you get real value for him, I wouldn’t take less than a top fifteen pick, and I would bet on him playing.
For someone who has access to Miguel's salary cap page, what effect would
trading Gronk have on the Patriots salary cap? Also, does Gronk owe the
Patriots any bonus money if he retires?
Yep
I don’t believe Gronk is retiring , I think he wants more money. He’s the best player ever at his position and he’s 28, if you trade him you make sure you get real value for him, I wouldn’t take less than a top fifteen pick, and I would bet on him playing.
I think there is a real good possibility that Gronk gets traded because he is
behaving like a dumbass. I don't agree with the compensation you are all
suggesting. The whole league knows they can screw Belichick when he is
over a barrel. SF has already traded their #2 to the Patriots, so maybe their
#3 this year or a #2 next year.
I highly disagree with what Jimke is claiming and I think he’s being way too over the top, but the answer to your question would lie in one’s opinion of what getting screwed in a trade means.Name 2-3 examples where anyone screwed BB on a trade. Please.
And don't try to mention JG because nobody got screwed there. It was either an early 2nd or a late 3rd round comp pick 1.5 years later. Or trading Brady.
I highly disagree with what Jimke is claiming and I think he’s being way too over the top, but the answer to your question would lie in one’s opinion of what getting screwed in a trade means.
Duane Starks for a 3rd rounder certainly didn’t work out too well, considering that he was only here for one season (thankfully). Trading away a 3rd and a 4th/5th for Derrick Burgess’ sorry ass didn’t go so well. We all know the Ochocinco and Haynesworth moves. Outright cutting a former first round pick and 2 time pro bowler in Meriweather was certainly questionable, considering the fact that one would assume at least a mid-late round pick in return.
Of course, these are all failed trades, so it likely doesn’t fit your criteria about someone taking advantage of Belichick. They may just have been failed trades. Point blank. No one necessarily got “screwed” as that poster is suggesting, although these are likely some of the examples that he may be thinking of. As we know, many have worked out and many haven’t. That’s just the nature of the gamble.
Here's what I know.
Immediately after the SB loss, and then coming home from that to find that the sanctity of his home had been violated, Gronk made some vague statements about pondering his future. Not a particularly unusual reaction from any human being who's just experienced such a double-whammy. When, at the time, he was asked about "retiring", he pretty much ducked the question.
That was nearly two months ago. Since then, apparently Gronk has been seen working out at the Pats facility. When asked about Gronk's intentions/state of mind, Gronk's agent has pulled a Belichick.
Gronk also has connections in Hollywood and has reportedly been given a role in a new (proposed) film.
That's all I actually know. The rest is just media-hyped speculation based on reports for "sources" - which is 99.9999% BS under pretty much any circumstances.
--------
The contract extension that Gronk signed way back in 2012, after only his first two seasons in the league, was considered extravagant for a TE - at the time. His scheduled pay rate for the later years of his contract (where we are now) was roughly equivalent to the pay rate for a top WR - at the time. It's not unreasonable to suspect that this contract provided at least some impetus to Jimmy Graham's subsequent suit against the league to be classed as a WR for Franchise Tag purposes, which would have meant significantly more money for him at the time (he lost, btw).
Pay scales have increased significantly over the intervening six years for both TEs and WRs. Gronk's "new cash earnings" for 2017 were actually only $5M (not even top pay for a TE, much less WR), until the Pats added incentive bonuses of $5.5M (which Gronk earned).
His 2018 new cash is scheduled to be $9M. This is good for a TE, but not nearly commensurate with his receiving production which, on a per-game basis, has consistently been among the top ten of all receivers, and notably better than several WRs who are getting paid as much as 50% more (and none of those WRs offer the inline blocking in the running game and pass-pro that Gronk does).
So, a solid argument can be made that he's relatively underpaid for what he contributes.
IF Gronk and his agent are making this argument to the Pats, the Pats have the ability to address the issue with more incentive bonuses for 2018 that can increase Gronk's new cash intake. Or, they can extend his contract and increase his new cash intake by converting some of his 2018 and 2019 salaries to signing bonus which (in terms of cap expense) would be amortized over 1-2 more years, thus reducing his 2018 & 2019 cap hits.
I also know what fan expectations are for what the Pats should demand/receive in exchange for Gronk in a trade scenario. In my opinion, based on previous market transactions, the Pats are highly unlikely to receive offers that include a 2018, or even 2019, first round pick - regardless how you or I (as fans) may perceive his value, and regardless of his relative statistical value.
In a ridiculous, soap-opera, media-driven-fantasy scenario in which Gronk is threatening to quit/retire unless (A) he gets significant new cash from the Pats, or (B), the Pats trade him to a team of his choice that's willing to give him that new cash, it would be the epitome of stupid (and business malfeasance) for the Pats to refuse to accept the best offer from one of those teams (whether it meets fan expectations or not) and, instead, lose Gronk for zero return.