Waters' Locker Cleaned Out (Update: Reports Nameplate Taken Down)

[Sciz]

Another fact that makes me skeptical of this story; BB routinely said his absences were excused when asked so they can't now retroactively fine him if he shows up and wants to get paid.

Other than the beginning of training camp and beginning of OTAs, when did he say this?

 

[supafly]

And yes I'm aware Mankins and Vollmer weren't playing. Yes, those two of the post knee surgery and gimpy back. Not a stable situation, by any means.

I certainly share in some form of concern with you, don't get me wrong.

My only point is that the absence of Waters apparently doesn't change that significantly enough in the mind of Bill Belichick to warrant caving in to any demands.

There are just too many variables here to take a side outright, but I find it hard to believe that Belichick would go out and attempt to piss off someone to make the team weaker, and that is what is being implied with the suggestion that they suddenly expected him to take a significant pay cut.

 

[TyronePoole]

Your original point was we let him sit out camp last year. That is wrong. Goalposts at static.

So let me get this straight. Waters was cut in July last year and the Pats didn't approach him until September when they suddenly decided he was worth 5.5m and would be a starter?

Before you go on and on about him not being under contract, that's completely irrelevant to my point. You are saying he's not worth 1.4m without Camp. The Pats last year decided he was worth 5.5m without it. Static, dynamic, in a tornado, whatever you want to do with your goalposts it's a gaping whole in your argument that all of a sudden he's not worth it if he doesn't want to come to TC.

Its an entirely different situation. We went out to sign a FA in September vs having a player under contract refuse to participate in training camp, then ask for a raise. It is 180 degrees different.

180 degrees different would be us cutting a player at the end of TC. But why start making sense now?

You really believe the Patriots looked at this as an opportunity to screw someone out of 500k and risk hurting the team? Really?

Nope.

No clue what you mean here, waters IS under contract.

You really don't know what I mean? That Waters agreed to restructure his contract without signing anything and the Pats just whoopsied? Pretty simple, it makes no sense.

He did not refuse to show up for training camp last year, he was an unsigned veteran that we pursued in September. This year he refused to show up. Clearly you can see that differnece.

It doesn't matter. He was worth 5.5m without it to the Pats last year and now you are literally saying that he's not worth 1.4 without it this year. Doesn't add up.

 

[Ring 6]

All of a sudden Bedard has the inside scoop? Either there was an agreement which the Pats didn't sign making them morons, or there wasn't and they are lying. I never said anything about them doing it now, i said that the story as told, which I'm skeptical of, would lead me to think that they made a handshake deal with him in exchange for letting him skip TC. with the idea that because he wanted to do that they had leverage to reduce/restructure his deal.

This is all in your mind. There is absolutlely zero evidence of any of this.

Another fact that makes me skeptical of this story; BB routinely said his absences were excused when asked so they can't now retroactively fine him if he shows up and wants to get paid.

Again, you call it a fact, but please show once source that verifies this.
You are a victim of what you wanted to believe was going on while no one on either side ever even implied he was coming back with any certainly, and now you are holding one side to what you interpreted to be.

 

[supafly]

Other than the beginning of training camp and beginning of OTAs, when did he say this?

And to take it one step further, I'm not even 100% sure that he came right out and actually said this at the beginning of TC.

I think it was implied and assumed by some of the sportswriters and forum posters, who likely thought it was the same situation as OTAs.

For all we know, Belichick may have expected Waters there a long time ago, and may have only had a deal in place to miss a small portion of TC in the beginning.

I certainly doubt that Waters had the green light as so many have said, to sit home throughout the entire camp. I could see a portion in the beginning, but not more than 1/2 way through camp, that never made much sense to me, but so many assured everyone that it was okay it was hard to feel negative about it.

 

[TyronePoole]

This is all in your mind. There is absolutlely zero evidence of any of this.



Again, you call it a fact, but please show once source that verifies this.
You are a victim of what you wanted to believe was going on while no one on either side ever even implied he was coming back with any certainly, and now you are holding one side to what you interpreted to be.

I'm completely lost as to what your argument is at this point. What are you even arguing? That he's holding out for more money?

 

[Ring 6]

So let me get this straight. Waters was cut in July last year and the Pats didn't approach him until September when they suddenly decided he was worth 5.5m and would be a starter?

Evidently. Are you arguing they 'signed' him in July and agreed he could skip camp? Really???

Before you go on and on about him not being under contract, that's completely irrelevant to my point. You are saying he's not worth 1.4m without Camp.

Please show me where I said that.

The Pats last year decided he was worth 5.5m without it. Static, dynamic, in a tornado, whatever you want to do with your goalposts it's a gaping whole in your argument that all of a sudden he's not worth it if he doesn't want to come to TC.

They decided to pay 5.5 mill to a FA who agreed to show up tomorrow IF he agreed to a second year at 1.4mill.
They have not said they won't honor his contract, he has chosen to not report.

180 degrees different would be us cutting a player at the end of TC. But why start making sense now?

No, 180 degrees different is a FA vs a HOLDOUT.

Nope.

Then you shouldnt comment as such

You really don't know what I mean? That Waters agreed to restructure his contract without signing anything and the Pats just whoopsied? Pretty simple, it makes no sense.

He is under contract and chose not to show up.

It doesn't matter. He was worth 5.5m without it to the Pats last year and now you are literally saying that he's not worth 1.4 without it this year. Doesn't add up.

No he was worth a 2 year deal as a FA and he is not worth coddling as a holdout. It adds up perfectly.

 

[TyronePoole]

And to take it one step further, I'm not even 100% sure that he came right out and actually said this at the beginning of TC.

I think it was implied and assumed by some of the sportswriters and forum posters, who likely thought it was the same situation as OTAs.

For all we know, Belichick may have expected Waters there a long time ago, and may have only had a deal in place to miss a small portion of TC in the beginning.

I certainly doubt that Waters had the green light as so many have said, to sit home throughout the entire camp. I could see a portion in the beginning, but not more than 1/2 way through camp, that never made much sense to me, but so many assured everyone that it was okay it was hard to feel negative about it.

I can't be bothered to dig up the transcript of BB saying this but I remember him explicitly saying it at least a couple of times throughout camp:

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story...nd-patriots-mailbag-juggling-act-season-nears

Kaden, players under contract are required to report and if they don't, they can be subject to fines. But in this case, it doesn't seem as if the Patriots are taking that approach, as Belichick previously said that Waters was excused for personal reasons. My main takeaway from the situation is that no matter what unfolds -- and I now think Waters will be back -- Belichick and Waters have had an open dialogue and there have been no surprises behind closed doors. It's just that Belichick doesn't care to share the information publicly.

I will find the transcripts if it really matters, but even irrespective of him saying it I would be highly surprised if the CBA allows for retroactive fines. It seems to me that not fining him at the time is a waiver and an implied excuse.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

And to take it one step further, I'm not even 100% sure that he came right out and actually said this at the beginning of TC.

I think it was implied and assumed by some of the sportswriters and forum posters, who likely thought it was the same situation as OTAs.

For all we know, Belichick may have expected Waters there a long time ago, and may have only had a deal in place to miss a small portion of TC in the beginning.

I certainly doubt that Waters had the green light as so many have said, to sit home throughout the entire camp. I could see a portion in the beginning, but not more than 1/2 way through camp, that never made much sense to me, but so many assured everyone that it was okay it was hard to feel negative about it.[/QUOTE]

Your right, Bedard said they were expecting him at the beginning but speculated that he had a hard time leaving his family, maybe they figured he'd show up with a week or so to go. And YES I believe Bedard in this, he said he checked his facts.

 

[TyronePoole]

Evidently. Are you arguing they 'signed' him in July and agreed he could skip camp? Really???

NO! i'm arguing that they approached him in July/early August or at the very least found that he was going to sit out TC and that was fine by them. Do you honestly think they didn't start a dialog with him until September 4?

They decided to pay 5.5 mill to a FA who agreed to show up tomorrow IF he agreed to a second year at 1.4mill.
They have not said they won't honor his contract, he has chosen to not report.





No, 180 degrees different is a FA vs a HOLDOUT.


Then you shouldnt comment as such




He is under contract and chose not to show up.



No he was worth a 2 year deal as a FA and he is not worth coddling as a holdout. It adds up perfectly.

blah blah blah so you're argument now is that he's a holdout. I won't bother asking for a source or giving you the "this is in your mind" line you gave me.

Why have the not fined him? Why did BB excuse his absences? Please answer.

 

[Sciz]

I will find the transcripts if it really matters, but even irrespective of him saying it I would be highly surprised if the CBA allows for retroactive fines. It seems to me that not fining him at the time is a waiver and an implied excuse.

Please do.

In minicamp, it was "excused for personal reasons."
On the first day it was "It’s basically the same as it was in minicamp," and then "We’ll just take it day to day, there’s no long-term plan."

So unless you can find him saying it later, the only thing we can assume for sure is that Waters was excused for the first day.

 

[supafly]

I'd be interested in knowing when they started the fining process myself, seeing as how they have apparently fined him 30k per day from some point on.

I would assume that they would be aware of the process and rules as it pertains to the fining of a player, but only time will tell how that is going to play out.

I'm not sure if they need to disclose that information to the public anyway.

 

[Sciz]

Isn't is possible to fine a player the $30k a day and then lower that amount later? I'd be willing to assume that's what Belichick did. He always covers his bases.

 

[supafly]

Please do.

In minicamp, it was "excused for personal reasons."
On the first day it was "It’s basically the same as it was in minicamp," and then "We’ll just take it day to day, there’s no long-term plan."

So unless you can find him saying it later, the only thing we can assume for sure is that Waters was excused for the first day.

See, that is exactly the wording that I remember too. Belichick was careful not to speak too much about it, besides saying that it was the "same as it was in mini-camp."

I think the 'assumption' game spread like wildfire in this instance.

I don't remember Belichick ever once stating that Waters' absence was anywhere near excused, only that sportswriters started to paraphrase and began to put words into his mouth as the situation progressed.

 

[ATippett56]

As far as 'depth' at the interior positions, please tell me that you're joking right?

It's one of the deepest positions on the entire team.

The offensive line depth at the interior positions is currently in question due to the status of Mankins' knee and McDonald's shoulder. Whether Mankins' knee can hold up for 60+ snaps is certainly a topic open to debate. In addition, Donald Thomas is a downgrade from Logan Mankins.

Furthermore, the New England Patriots currently have eight offensive lineman on the 53 man roster.

 

[Ring 6]

NO! i'm arguing that they approached him in July/early August or at the very least found that he was going to sit out TC and that was fine by them. Do you honestly think they didn't start a dialog with him until September 4?

All I know are the facts, that he was not under contract and refusing to report.

blah blah blah so you're argument now is that he's a holdout. I won't bother asking for a source or giving you the "this is in your mind" line you gave me.

Im not making any assumptions

Why have the not fined him? Why did BB excuse his absences? Please answer.

Because first they appear willing to accept him back which is fine, but secondly if the reports of a paycut have any validity then they actually are fining him arent they?

 

[supafly]

Isn't is possible to fine a player the $30k a day and then lower that amount later? I'd be willing to assume that's what Belichick did. He always covers his bases.

I would probably guess that is exactly what he did, or at least was going to do anyway. Only time will tell (if we even find out) whether or not Waters will be responsible for the payment, but I would think that the fines would certainly be in place.

There's often times where the team actually throws the fines out the window as a bargaining chip, IF the decision goes the way they want it to and the player returns in a reasonable amount of time.

I believe that the NYJ threw the fines out in the Revis situation a couple of summers ago, when he finally showed up in the last couple of weeks/week or so.

 

[Sciz]

The offensive line depth at the interior positions is currently in question due to the status of Mankins' knee and McDonald's shoulder. Whether Mankins' knee can hold up for 60+ snaps is certainly a topic open to debate. In addition, Donald Thomas is a downgrade from Logan Mankins.

Furthermore, the New England Patriots currently have eight offensive lineman on the 53 man roster.

If there were worries inside the organization, they wouldn't have cut an interior OL this past week.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm completely lost as to what your argument is at this point. What are you even arguing? That he's holding out for more money?

I am arguing that what you are arguing is wrong.

 

[zoostation]

I can appreciate all the theories, but at this point it's time to move on.

We fight the battle without him. My $ is on this line gelling by week 6, and the team playing well enough to win at least 4 of those first 6.