Eagles FO shows how to handle disgruntled player with contract issues
by dabillsr1 on Apr 21, 2009 11:20 PM EDT
Email
PrintI know we are trying to move past the Jason Peters trade, but I couldn't resist comparing how each of the FO's handled these disgruntled player issues since they happened almost simultaneously. I know that Peters didn't say anything last year which caused a lot of the challenge for Buffalo last season. However, a bold statement like this one really is telling how they are running their organization.
Eagles respond to Brown’s trade request
By PFW staff
April 20, 2009
Eagles CB Sheldon Brown has gone public with his desire to be traded, and his team is not happy about it.
Brown announced his unhappiness with the lack of a new contract. He signed an extension in 2004 that went through the ’12 season — his current deal — and says he wishes to be traded if a new deal isn’t signed.
The Eagles feel Brown not only mishandled the situation but that he is being paid fairly. The team issued a statement Monday:
“It’s very unfortunate and counterproductive that Sheldon has chosen to go public with his feelings about his situation. After thorough evaluation by himself and discussions with his family and agents, he chose to accept an extension of his rookie contract early that provided his family financial security for the rest of his life. It removed any concerns about health or performance that all other players in his draft class had to worry about. He has four years remaining on that contract and, after taking the signing bonus and his first two years of salary into account, we feel that Sheldon is being paid fairly. Focusing only on a player’s salary for a given year is not a valid analysis.
“There have been league MVPs, Super Bowl champion quarterbacks, and perennial Pro Bowlers who have been in a similar situation. All of their teams have required them to wait until their contract expired or there was only one year remaining before any adjustment took place. It is only in the most extraordinary, in fact, less than a handful of circumstances in the last ten years that any players two new years into a contract with three years left have been adjusted. We don’t think this qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance.
“Sheldon’s comments under the circumstances actually serve to devalue him in a trade if we were willing to consider it, which we are not.”
Just another great fan opinion shared on the pages of BuffaloRumblings.com.
8 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The Bills stood their ground last year, and the fan base criticized them saying “they are being unreasonable”, and “here is another great talent we won’t pay”. Wow, certain fans just can’t be satisfied.
That and the Bills offered to pay Peters, just not as much as Peters wanted to be paid.
by Ron From NM on Apr 21, 2009 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Ok so they're not willing to trade a disgruntled player, but they are willing to trade for one.
Seems kind of hypocritical to me.
by CanadianBillsFan on Apr 21, 2009 11:44 PM EDT reply actions
it's ironic
that Philly in turn trades for a guy (peters) that did the exact thing that the statement says when he was in Buffalo:
It is only in the most extraordinary, in fact, less than a handful of circumstances in the last ten years that any players two new years into a contract with three years left have been adjusted.
Goes to show you what a tough spot the Bills were in. A rare, rare scenario. The Bills made me a great contract offer, Peters accepted, then Buffalo signed 2 OL that made way more. Peters had beef and Buffalo FO had beef. Now I fully understand the Peters deal. I just had an “eureka” moment or whatever that’s called
MARVelous - "I went from America's team to North America's Team" Terrell Owens
If it were up to me...
An NFL contract would be what a contract should be; both sides agree to it, both sides sign it and both sides fulfill it.
I wish the NFL would overhaul the economics of how player contracts are handled. Cut out the BS of guaranteed money, long contracts that everyone knows won’t be played out and asinine rookie contracts that make picking in the top 10 more of a risk than a benefit.
How about the MLB’s contract policies? Have this in the NFL (along with a working salary cap of course, which we already have) and you’d end up with less inflation of player salaries, more conservative front offices, job security for the players and less feeling of entitlement among the players. Is this possible?
I just don’t like players that don’t think they have to honor the contract they signed, but I also don’t like how teams have 95% of the upper hand once a contract is signed. Changing the structure would cause both sides to rethink their strategies. Then again, the NFL is perfect, popular, well-run and full of parity so I understand not trying to fix a squeeky part in a machine that’s not broken.
I think the NFL should institute a rookie cap where they’re paid no more than 1 million per season in base salary. The rest of their pay could come in the form of incentives. This would mean Mike Williams wouldn’t set a team back as much and a 7th-rounder who plays significantly and excels would see a much fairer chunk of change.
I would also say that at least $200,000 of that money each season should automatically be rolled into a retirement fund for these guys. If they just looked at the big picture and the big money with a little bit smaller eyes, I think a positive change would come to the game. I know i’d give up a Bentley at 22 for the opportunity to have my life set at 62.
"It's not delivery, it's DiGiorgio!"
by TheAfghanTwilight on Apr 22, 2009 7:15 AM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
