TheKillerNacho Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 4 hours ago, Mossburg said: Just gonna paste what I said in the News thread. No sure why people have to take sides in these kind of things. Unless a party is being completely irrational, both parties are trying to do what it best for them, sometimes they don't agree and that's ok. That being said, I do not expect a grown man who already made a ton of money being so butthurt that he can't make more money to flip off his own team as he's carted off the field (if that was indeed what was happening). I feel like there was more to it than just that. Negotiations must've gotten really sour. It was clear Earl didn't want to be there, nor would he consider signing with Seattle again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonebillsfan Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 7 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said: I feel like there was more to it than just that. Negotiations must've gotten really sour. It was clear Earl didn't want to be there, nor would he consider signing with Seattle again. And most of the players seem to still have his support which leads me to think it was to the organization and Pete than the other guys out there and they'd know that. It was an ugly divorce, they happen in the professional world (I have seen it a lot) you dust off and everybody moves on hopefully learning something to take with them in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp6488 Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 5 hours ago, lancerman said: Not a great example. Bell was being denied a longterm contract in favor of franchise tagging him so they could run him into the ground and ruin his value for another team. Thomas got a longterm contract and was upset that in the final years the market passed him by. 5 hours ago, CP3MVP said: He’s under contract and bell isnt This is what has confused me re: the Earl Thomas narrative (media coverage, etc.). I believe I heard someone on ESPN phrase it, "now he won't be able to get a new contract this year." He's playing in the final year of a mutually agreed upon extension. While it's true the team could have released him coming into the season (they didn't), I'm not sure how he was somehow treated poorly. I don't begrudge him holding out (if he was willing to live with the consequences), but I'm not sure how he's an example of players necessarily needing to stand up for something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp6488 Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 3 hours ago, stl4life07 said: I’m pro the players for getting paid. So I won’t take sides unless there is an exception. Like for example, when Pujols left the Cards to join the Angels. I was glad Pujols got his money until he made a comment on how the Cards paid Holiday and not him. Like the Cards paid Holiday to help him. The Cards were willing to pay Pujols but they also was trying to help make life easy for Pujols in the lineup plus help Pujols win titles. Since Pujols left the Cards he hasn’t sniffed a title. The Cards been to a WS without him. So again I’m always pro player getting paid unless there is an exception. There is no exception why the Seahawks couldn’t give Thomas his money or trade him. Same thing with Bell. Maybe they just didn't want to. They have no obligation to do either of those things. I support anyone fighting/lobbying/making the case for why they deserve more compensation, but I don't think Thomas was necessarily wronged in any way here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 8 hours ago, stl4life07 said: Now he is hurt and he can’t get his money Why is that? A broken leg in October shouldn't prevent him from getting paid in the following offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stl4life07 Posted October 1, 2018 Author Share Posted October 1, 2018 8 minutes ago, N4L said: Why is that? A broken leg in October shouldn't prevent him from getting paid in the following offseason. Yes it can. This is the second time he broke his leg in recent memory. Teams can label him as an older injury prone guy that can hurt him at the negotiating table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp6488 Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 18 minutes ago, stl4life07 said: Yes it can. This is the second time he broke his leg in recent memory. Teams can label him as an older injury prone guy that can hurt him at the negotiating table. Maybe. There's really no way to prove or disprove this. Not sure how this speaks to the point of the thread, though. Any player playing under contract might get injured at any time, which could have some impact on future negotiations if there is concern about it being ongoing. Thomas was on a second deal that had substantial guaranteed money paid up-front. If he had a career ending injury 3 years ago, then the Seahawks would have been the one holding the short end of the stick. I fail to see how Thomas was wronged here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Prince Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 Players play on the last year of an agreed upon deal all the time. Just because Seahawks didnt want to pay him a new contract doesnt mean they did anything wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NateDawg Posted October 1, 2018 Share Posted October 1, 2018 Boo boo for Thomas. It’s a shame he didn’t get to rip Seattle off for insane guaranteee money in order to be injured and not on the field. If anything, a testimony to Seattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onejayhawk Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 9 hours ago, eagles18 said: Bell is 26 9 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said: And Thomas is 29. Not sure how that guy concluded that one is a valuable asset and the other isn't. Apologies, I was unclear. Bell and Thomas are of comparable age/mileage given their positions. Both wanted one long-term contract for the balance of their career. Both will probably have to settle for single year contracts with lots of incentives. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFlaccoSeagulls Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 1 hour ago, onejayhawk said: Apologies, I was unclear. Bell and Thomas are of comparable age/mileage given their positions. Both wanted one long-term contract for the balance of their career. Both will probably have to settle for single year contracts with lots of incentives. J What if I told you Earl Thomas is already in the last year of his 1st long-term contract while Bell played out his rookie contract and then got slapped with the franchise tag twice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onejayhawk Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 14 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said: What if I told you Earl Thomas is already in the last year of his 1st long-term contract while Bell played out his rookie contract and then got slapped with the franchise tag twice? And...? Nothing in that invalidates what I posted. ET is at the end of his peak period, hoping for a peak contract past his peak. So is Bell, but he is being more combative about it. Don't let the calendar age fool you. LeVeon Bell is middle aged for a RB. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43M Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 16 hours ago, lancerman said: Not a great example. Bell was being denied a longterm contract in favor of franchise tagging him so they could run him into the ground and ruin his value for another team. Thomas got a longterm contract and was upset that in the final years the market passed him by. He turned down a $70 million contract with $33m in guarantees. Saying he was being denied a long term deal is nonsense. He wants $16m-17m per year....something that the vast majority of fans on here were saying they wouldnt pay him. If people want to support Bell's decision to sit out, so be it....but just because they didnt offer him the money he wanted doesnt mean they didnt give him a fair offer, especially considering his injury history and off field issues. If it werent for his off field stuff, he very likely wouldve gotten re-signed two years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 Why is it that Earl “should’ve” gotten paid or traded? He agreed to the deal he was playing under. The team isn’t obligated to give him a raise or send him off while he’s under contract, especially as an older player. I’m all for Earl using the little leverage he has to get more $$$ in an extremely violent game. Maybe he should’ve held out longer, who knows. If his play fell off, Seattle wouldn’t hesitate to cut him, so yeah, it isn’t fair for the players. But fairness in business doesn’t really apply, and as per the CBA, this is how things are. I don’t blame Earl for going for the money and I don’t blame Seattle for not giving in to a player under contract. They’re both doing what’s best for them. It sucks for the players but teams aren’t obligated to pay a player who’s under contract. If players really want to change things, they should be smarter/more strict in their contract negotiations. Same goes for Bell. Do I blame Bell for playing his only card while trying to save his legs? No. Do I blame Pittsburgh for not paying Bell whatever he wants even if it’s more than what they think he should get? No. It’s just business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigInBoys Posted October 2, 2018 Share Posted October 2, 2018 Quote In fact, he still has hope the team will re-sign him to a long-term contract once his franchise tag is up. Bell is staying away from the team to preserve his body, Quote Bell, who is still sitting out while refusing to sign his franchise tender, said he's in prime physical condition and could play football "tomorrow" if he needed. He added he'll be "fully committed" to playing his best for Pittsburgh upon his return. Quote "But I've gotta take this stand. Knowing my worth and knowing I can tear a ligament or get surgery at any time, I knew I couldn't play 16 games with 400 or more touches." Quote "I could be naïve or hopeful, but at the end of the day I feel like that's what's going to happen," Bell said about re-signing with the Steelers. "I don't think they really want me gone. That could be me being prideful. But I'm still holding out hope." Quote The primary reason he's sitting: Bell's $70 million offer from Pittsburgh over the summer contained $17 million in guarantees. That wasn't enough when Todd Gurley and David Johnson received between $31 million and $45 million in guarantees. Bell called the Steelers' $70 million "Monopoly money." Bell knows he's taken a public-relations hit by deciding to sit out. "It's costing me some fans," Bell said. "A lot of people call me selfish but I'm really not. I'm doing it for guys behind me or guys who don't understand what's going on in the business of football. The 22 years I've been playing football, I've always brought value. I don't think the Steelers valued me as much." http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/24863960/leveon-bell-set-report-steelers-week-7-8-frame Can't fault Bell based on the information we have here. Seems like it's the Steelers trying to have their cake and eat it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.