borges vitriol on neal dealings...

[Miguel]

Then your statement isn't "objective"

My statement is my opinion. I have never once claimed that my opinion was objective or that my opinion is fact. It is a pet peeve of mine when people use the word fact when they are giving an opinion.

 

[Miguel]

because an NFL deal can only be described as "lousy" in comparison to other offers.

That's your opinion. I have a differing opinion.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Okay, I read the article and I'm confused by several things in it...perhaps someone can answer.

Everyone keeps asserting that Cornrich is Belichick's agent yet the strongest "evidence" I've seen is that he DID work for Belichick. If he's NOT currently Belichick's agent, why are people continually stating/implying that he is and where would there be a "conflict of interest"? Cornrich is not involved in these negotiations and it's rather illogical to presume that individual attorneys would risk their reputations to help Belichick retain his free agents.

Borges also stated that Adam asserted/implied that Hurst wasn't doing his job yet I read an article where Adam stated that Hurst was never his "agent", just his "lawyer" and that he, ADAM, was acting as his own agent. Which is accurate? Also, how many teams were looking for a kicker? That Adam signed the first offer he got from Indy without pursuing other options EVEN with a new agent seems to suggest there wasn't a large market for his services.

Well, I can speak to conflicts of interest.

I work in the government - I won't specify which level (fed, state, local,) or my position, only that people who administer or let contracts have to constantly undergo ethics training. Same basic issues always come up. You know what? For us grunt level guys (don't drag Halliburton into this,) the appearance of conflict of interest is something to avoid, as a guideline. In other words, they may "not be able to prove anything," but the creation of doubt can be such a natural conclusion, that it is less costly to preemptively avoid the impression, than to correct it during legal procedings or worse yet, in the press.

Obviously they don't have the same rules. But I will say this - a current association would be a clear conflict of interest. A past association plus the timing of certain events create the appearance of conflict of interest. Hurst "not being Adam's agent, just his lawyer" is something of a fig leaf too. An "agent" would mean the client will let you sign for him, if "agency" works as it does in an admittedly distant sphere. "Just his lawyer" could mean he tells AV whether to sign. Maybe he's "just Belichick's lawyer" too.

I haven't followed the controversy that closely, but it looks like some of the hairs may be finer than they first appear - first glance reaction, admittedly reacting to a "defense" post, not primary information.

PFnV

 

[Jimke]

I'm surprised how unprofessional the NFL GM's are

to blab their business all over the Boston Globe sportspage.

 

[Flying Fungi]

Wasn't Casserly a candidate here at one point? If I recall, Casserly and Haslett were brought in for interviews for GM and HC respectively...

...at least...I think that happened...

 

[upstater1]

No.

I still think that the deal is a lousy one for Neal.

I just don't understand how you can say this when Neal was quoted as saying the Patriots offered more money than the three other teams he visited. That Casserly says the Texans would have given him more after the fact is really a moot point.

Are you saying that Neal is worth more than his deal? I might agree with you there, but that's a subjective argument, and the free agent market certainly doesn't agree with that assessment. clearly, the Patriots offered more than the three teams that Neal visited with.

 

[Pats726]

Well, I can speak to conflicts of interest.

I work in the government - I won't specify which level (fed, state, local,) or my position, only that people who administer or let contracts have to constantly undergo ethics training. Same basic issues always come up. You know what? For us grunt level guys (don't drag Halliburton into this,) the appearance of conflict of interest is something to avoid, as a guideline. In other words, they may "not be able to prove anything," but the creation of doubt can be such a natural conclusion, that it is less costly to preemptively avoid the impression, than to correct it during legal procedings or worse yet, in the press.

Obviously they don't have the same rules. But I will say this - a current association would be a clear conflict of interest. A past association plus the timing of certain events create the appearance of conflict of interest. Hurst "not being Adam's agent, just his lawyer" is something of a fig leaf too. An "agent" would mean the client will let you sign for him, if "agency" works as it does in an admittedly distant sphere. "Just his lawyer" could mean he tells AV whether to sign. Maybe he's "just Belichick's lawyer" too.

I haven't followed the controversy that closely, but it looks like some of the hairs may be finer than they first appear - first glance reaction, admittedly reacting to a "defense" post, not primary information.

PFnV

But it's not only with this example..but in others..McGinest and Uberstine supposedly working together...who knows the exact relationship..Borges links to Brad Blank..who was Given's agent..and all of a sudden a story appearing about Givens..and??? Sems like many conflicts of interest...

 

[Miguel]

I just don't understand how you can say this when Neal was quoted as saying the Patriots offered more money than the three other teams he visited. That Casserly says the Texans would have given him more after the fact is really a moot point.

Are you saying that Neal is worth more than his deal? I might agree with you there, but that's a subjective argument, and the free agent market certainly doesn't agree with that assessment. clearly, the Patriots offered more than the three teams that Neal visited with.

For the nth time in this thread I was commenting on the structure of the deal.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Pats726, there are two possibilities.

Either,

A) The Pats operate closer to that line than any other team in the NFL, or

B) Borges. 'Nuff said.

I wouldn't dismiss (A) out of hand though.

But look at it this way, if you wrap yourself in the flag and say you're a patriot in the non-NFL world, you can usually get away with conflict of interest. The thing is, it's still wrong and incorrect... plus, you'll eventually get caught. Genius is fine... conflict of interest isn't.

Waiting to see if anything this guy throws at the wall sticks,

PFnV

 

[kolbitr]

"Does Stephen Neal's agent work for the Patriots??Does he not know that the Pats are way under the cap??Why agree to a deal that just sets Neal up to be cut in 2010?? How many 33-year old guards will be making a $2.5 million salary in 2010?? IMO, Neal should either gotten a front-loaded deal in terms of salaries or have paid the $6.9 million in salaries evenly throughout the deal?? Why do players agree to such back-loaded deals with teams that have a lot of cap space??

The above is, I believe, Miguel's pertinent query regarding the "structure of the deal". With the exception of the first question, I feel that these are terrifically valid questions, myself. However, there may well have been additional information exchanged between the team and the agent that we are unaware of. My own concern was to distance, as much as possible, this particular series of questions from the insinuation in Borges' column (and, explicitly, in Miguel's first question as well) that the agent is working "for" the Patriots.

They are connected, but, to my mind, separate issues.

 

[PF1996]

It doesn't matter WHAT the basis of criticism of Neal's deal is...whether it is the total money involved or the "structure" of the contract...because unless you KNOW what other teams were offering, then I really do not see how you can comment on how fair or unfair or "lousy" the deal is. Were the San Diego offering a similar deal with more guaranteed money? I'm just lost as to why people keep claiming this deal is lousy even though they apparently do not know of any other better offers in terms of total money OR structure of the contract. An opinion without supporting context indicates a predisposition to a particular idea [i.e. the Pats are cheap] and really cannot be taken seriously. It's almost like there's this idea that because the Pats have 16 million in cap room, that they should spend accordingly regardless of the player. [I wonder if anyone would be talking about how "lousy" the contract is if the Pats were up against the cap.] What was Neal projected to get on the market? I don't recall anyone projecting him to get a big deal or have many suitors so again, I'm really confused as to why people are acting like the Pats just signed a 27 year old 5 time Pro Bowl right guard to a contract where he "can be cut by 2010". If that were the case, perhaps THEN you could claim the contract is "lousy", although since I believe the market determines "value" and hence the relative "lousiness" of a contract, I still think you would have to know the value of other offers.

As far as conflict of interest goes...law firms often handle cases in which an attorney of the firm previously repesented the adverse party. As long as the attorney with a previous involvement with the parties is NOT involved and is shielded from the current case, there is no "conflict of interest". What's I find interesting is that Belichick's "connection" to Conrich from all I've read is a PAST connection. He's not Belichick's current agent...(again, this is my assumption from what I've read). So an agent, because he has a past affiliation with Belichick, will risk his reputation and future clients and PROFITS to enable Belichick to retain his free agents? Such a scenario is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous is the idea that the associates/employees of said agent would risk THEIR individual repuations to enable someone they have no personal relationship with, to retain his free agents. This doesn't mean that it's impossible that this would occur, only that it's rather unreasonable to assume, without any evidence, that it did.

Anyone with answers as to the conflict between Adam's statements in the Herald story and his comments (as asserted by Borges) in the Globe story today?

 

[Miguel]

It doesn't matter WHAT the basis of criticism of Neal's deal is...whether it is the total money involved or the "structure" of the contract...because unless you KNOW what other teams were offering, then I really do not see how you can comment on how fair or unfair or "lousy" the deal is.

Let's agree to disagree on this rather than repeating the same thing over and over again.

An opinion without supporting context indicates a predisposition to a particular idea [i.e. the Pats are cheap] and really cannot be taken seriously.

IMO, I have provided supporting context. If you do not take my opinions seriously, it is no big deal with me. BTW, that is your opinion about opinions.

I still think you would have to know the value of other offers.

This is your opinion. I have a differing opinion. [/QUOTE]