Tough to get behind this move

LRJets wrote:When you say "unwillingness to negotiate with a veteran player when his contract is up", its sounds like you're saying that's some type of horrible thing. Remember he let Willie McGuinist go to the Browns at the end of his career? Willie was a great Patriot.
But you don't give a guy a big contract for past performance. You already paid for that service.
Gup, I always admired your knowledge, your writing style and being a good sport.
The last two sentences of the above paragraph had to be authored by someone else, couldn't be you.
In every sport- - after your rookie contract, it's predicated on past performance. Even in the more relaxed, contract-friendlier baseball and basketball.
The most recent examples are Flacco and Mike Wallace. $120+ million and $60+ million respectively. One from his existing employer and the other as a free agent, citing both scenarios.
Aaron Rodgers, and soon Kaepernick will be re-working new contracts. Rodgers will dwarf Flacco's and Kaepernick will rise a few hundred percent of what he signed for.
We both could form a list of others from all sports.

LR, Flacco and Wallace are still in their prime. They got the big bucks, supposedly, for what they are going to do for their teams in the coming years that their contract is paying them for, more so than what they have already done. What they have done/accomplishd in the past is the best indicator of what they are capable of doing going forward, and their employers who gave them new contracts are gambling that they will perform in the future at the same level or greater than they have performed in the past. Again, I think you and I are just talking semantics here. Flacco got his deal because the Ravens consider him as one of the top QBs in football -- right now, and that he is expected to play like one for the next 5-8 years, or whatever. He's getting paid for his future potential, and the big expectations he is supposedly going to live up to. He is not getting the big money merely because he won the SB in 2013. By winning the SB, he proved himself worthy of a rich contract going forward. He's getting big bucks, because the Ravens organization think he can do it again. What about my example of Willie McGuinist? Did his contract with the Browns at the end of his career come close in dollars to what he earned in his peak with the Patriots? The Browns paid him based on what they thought he could do for them, not what he did in the past for the Pats. What he did in the past for the Pats is merely a measuring stick or indication of what he might be still able to do for the Browns when he put in his service time for them, and his contract was based on that.

You slammed Belichick for supposedly not negotiating with a veteran at the end of his career, and I believe you said "it aint right". Seriously, is there some rule he is supposed to follow with veterans? The issue is value. What value does the player have for next year. In football teams are constantly being reshaped and rebuilt. BB operates in a way that is tough for fans, who are emotional about players to understand. Its not their money being spent. He has to be cold and detached. How 'bout this as a way of doing business? Don't overpay a player, no matter how popular he is with the fans, and then guess what? You'll have money left over to build team depth, which you really need in football. How bout that?

LR, Flacco and Wallace are still in their prime. They got the big bucks, supposedly, for what they are going to do for their teams in the coming years that their contract is paying them for, more so than what they have already done

Gup, I'll only respond now to the beginning of your post.
Flacco and Wallace signed big contracts BECAUSE of their past performances. Additionally, an athlete's past performance creates the PREDICTOR for the future. This past FA signing week is an example. The real big bucks came to only a select few.
Didn't Buffalo sign Mario Williams to an eight-figure contract just last season? They perceived him as all-world. Even your Pats gave (and I cannot remeber his name) a NT his veritable last chance.
And I'll admit going to the Pats is the best team to fulfill one's potential.
Welker and Woodhead were admittedly nothing special before coming to the Pats. Who knows if they'll fare as well on their new teams?

LRJets wrote:LR, Flacco and Wallace are still in their prime. They got the big bucks, supposedly, for what they are going to do for their teams in the coming years that their contract is paying them for, more so than what they have already done

Gup, I'll only respond now to the beginning of your post.
Flacco and Wallace signed big contracts BECAUSE of their past performances. Additionally, an athlete's past performance creates the PREDICTOR for the future. This past FA signing week is an example. The real big bucks came to only a select few.
Didn't Buffalo sign Mario Williams to an eight-figure contract just last season? They perceived him as all-world. Even your Pats gave (and I cannot remeber his name) a NT his veritable last chance.
And I'll admit going to the Pats is the best team to fulfill one's potential.
Welker and Woodhead were admittedly nothing special before coming to the Pats. Who knows if they'll fare as well on their new teams?

Just as I said, this is more of a question of semantics than disagreement between us. Yes, in a sense Flacco and Wallace got their big contracts "BECAUSE" of their past performances. But even more of a factor in why they got those contracts is because their employers are banking on the gamble THAT THEY CAN DUPLICATE, MAINTAIN, OR IMPROVE UPON THEIR PAST PERFORMANCES AGAIN IN THE UPCOMING YEARS IN WHICH THOSE CONTRACTS ARE IN FORCE . Their new contracts are not "rewards" for what they did in the past. The orgainizations contracting to pay that money out in the future are banking on the business gamble that those players will, through their high level of performance which is to be expected from them based upon reasonable predictions, EARN that money. Thats all I meant when I said you don't pay a guy for past performance. The money is not a "reward" for the past. It still has to be "earned" in the future. If its not being "earned" because of poor play, or whatever, the player will be cut (and get only the guaranteed part, but not the full value of the contract).

This is not controvertial stuff in my mind. Thats why it was a little surprising to see such a strong reaction from you, saying that someone else other than me must have written those sentences I wrote, as if I was being extremely mistaken, unfair, or worse. I didn't quite get the strong reaction.

All in all, I think the system of letting the market decide a player's "value" works pretty well. If I was an owner, I would want the greatest value for my buck, meaning I would want a great player at a fair, but not an overpaid price. If, on the other hand, I was a player, I would want the biggest payday I could possibly get, and if that meant I would have to leave my long time team and go to another one, I, like Wes Welker, would go. Forget the sports world for a minute. If you were in one job with Coca-Cola for a long time that you loved, but then you got an offer from Pepsi to do the same thing, but for a big raise in salary that Coke wouldn't match, would you make the switch? If you said "yes", then you would have done what most people would do, and everyone would understand, because they would have done the same thing.

Remember one thing. Whenever an athlete says, "Its not about the money", its about the money. That being true, I think George's point is legitimate about Welker when he made the comment about Asante Samuel "choosing money over championships" when Asante left the Pats and signed with the Eagles in '08. It was an unfortunate statement, and Welker probably should not have said it. What he should have said is, "Asante has got to do what's best for him." So I'm giving it to George in this case. He has a point. Now, whether Welker's statement was so out of line, and so uncalled for, that it qualifies him as a "mouthy punk", that is all in the eye of the beholder. George might call Welker's crime a felony, whereas I might call it a misdomeanor.

If we were cops and stopped someone for speeding, George might give the speeder a ticket, whereas, I might give only a warning. Hey George, lets say you were a judge and two defendants, both NFL players who were found guilty of the exact same crime, were brought into your courtroom for sentencing. You looked down at them from your exhaulted seat on the bench, contemplating what amount of justice you would dispense as they both stood before you in silence. One of them was a NE Patriot. The other was [insert name any one of the other 31 teams]. I say this is what you would do with the two equally guilty defendants: Judge George: "As to the NE Patriot, get him out of my sight and lock him up and thow away the key." "As to you, Mr., Non-NE Patriot, whatever your team is, I'm going to ask you nicely not to do that crime again, OK? Good. Now you're free to go." Tell me George, that's not precisely what you would do. LOL.

This is not controvertial stuff in my mind. Thats why it was a little surprising to see such a strong reaction from you, saying that someone else other than me must have written those sentences I wrote, as if I was being extremely mistaken, unfair, or worse. I didn't quite get the strong reaction.

Gup, don't be surprised, it was not a lashing out to you, it was a compliment. You see things as they are in most cases, so I was surprised you felt athletes are paid for the future. Sometimes it's difficult on the written word to glean the entire thought. Now I know you mean future and their past. Our difference was your writing "their services were paid for"
I know you are aware a contract is given by a team for the hopes he may replicate his past on field performance. I know that you are also aware he is getting a new contract (albeit a new team or existing team) based on that.
This has nothing to do with you being a Patriot fan. My reply would have been the same to a Jets fan. It was a conceptual difference of opinion, not because of our team preference.
Rags used to write things that would make me want to choke him. At other times he'd say he liked the Jets for what they did to the "established old order NFL". In other words, both you guys are quite knowledgeable but we as humans, our bias sometimes blocks it.

Protect the shield
-Roger Goodell

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

LRJets wrote:This is not controvertial stuff in my mind. Thats why it was a little surprising to see such a strong reaction from you, saying that someone else other than me must have written those sentences I wrote, as if I was being extremely mistaken, unfair, or worse. I didn't quite get the strong reaction.

Gup, don't be surprised, it was not a lashing out to you, it was a compliment. You see things as they are in most cases, so I was surprised you felt athletes are paid for the future. Sometimes it's difficult on the written word to glean the entire thought. Now I know you mean future and their past. Our difference was your writing "their services were paid for"
I know you are aware a contract is given by a team for the hopes he may replicate his past on field performance. I know that you are also aware he is getting a new contract (albeit a new team or existing team) based on that.
This has nothing to do with you being a Patriot fan. My reply would have been the same to a Jets fan. It was a conceptual difference of opinion, not because of our team preference.
Rags used to write things that would make me want to choke him. At other times he'd say he liked the Jets for what they did to the "established old order NFL". In other words, both you guys are quite knowledgeable but we as humans, our bias sometimes blocks it.

Protect the shield
-Roger Goodell

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thanks LR. We've got to remember, its only the off seaon, so we've got to keep it light. At least wait until the season starts before we start ripping each other. Don't want to peak too early.


My bold prediction of the day. Celtics end the Heat's win streak tonight. We can't allow LeBron and Ray Allen's Heat to make history on the Garden floor in front of the Celtics fans. (2nd longest winning streak ever if they win)

Thanks LR. We've got to remember, its only the off seaon, so we've got to keep it light. At least wait until the season starts before we start ripping each other. Don't want to peak too early.
Gup, by the time the season arrives, I hope the gun has enough ammunition (Jets team) to respond.
Gotta admit the new G.M. Idzik has made a couple of cost-conscious acquisitons that hopefully make the Jets respectable/competitive.

My bold prediction of the day. Celtics end the Heat's win streak tonight. We can't allow LeBron and Ray Allen's Heat to make history on the Garden floor in front of the Celtics fans. (2nd longest winning streak ever if they win)
Yesterday Doc Rivers said KG has a 50-50 chance of playing. I will be rooting for the Celtics tonight!

LRJets wrote:Thanks LR. We've got to remember, its only the off seaon, so we've got to keep it light. At least wait until the season starts before we start ripping each other. Don't want to peak too early.
Gup, by the time the season arrives, I hope the gun has enough ammunition (Jets team) to respond.
Gotta admit the new G.M. Idzik has made a couple of cost-conscious acquisitons that hopefully make the Jets respectable/competitive.

My bold prediction of the day. Celtics end the Heat's win streak tonight. We can't allow LeBron and Ray Allen's Heat to make history on the Garden floor in front of the Celtics fans. (2nd longest winning streak ever if they win)
Yesterday Doc Rivers said KG has a 50-50 chance of playing. I will be rooting for the Celtics tonight!

It should be a zero percent chance of KG playing if Doc has any brains. And I think he does. Having him on the floor against the Heat in June is a little more important than having him there in March.

guppy wrote:

LRJets wrote:LR, Flacco and Wallace are still in their prime. They got the big bucks, supposedly, for what they are going to do for their teams in the coming years that their contract is paying them for, more so than what they have already done

Gup, I'll only respond now to the beginning of your post.
Flacco and Wallace signed big contracts BECAUSE of their past performances. Additionally, an athlete's past performance creates the PREDICTOR for the future. This past FA signing week is an example. The real big bucks came to only a select few.
Didn't Buffalo sign Mario Williams to an eight-figure contract just last season? They perceived him as all-world. Even your Pats gave (and I cannot remeber his name) a NT his veritable last chance.
And I'll admit going to the Pats is the best team to fulfill one's potential.
Welker and Woodhead were admittedly nothing special before coming to the Pats. Who knows if they'll fare as well on their new teams?

Just as I said, this is more of a question of semantics than disagreement between us. Yes, in a sense Flacco and Wallace got their big contracts "BECAUSE" of their past performances. But even more of a factor in why they got those contracts is because their employers are banking on the gamble THAT THEY CAN DUPLICATE, MAINTAIN, OR IMPROVE UPON THEIR PAST PERFORMANCES AGAIN IN THE UPCOMING YEARS IN WHICH THOSE CONTRACTS ARE IN FORCE . Their new contracts are not "rewards" for what they did in the past. The orgainizations contracting to pay that money out in the future are banking on the business gamble that those players will, through their high level of performance which is to be expected from them based upon reasonable predictions, EARN that money. Thats all I meant when I said you don't pay a guy for past performance. The money is not a "reward" for the past. It still has to be "earned" in the future. If its not being "earned" because of poor play, or whatever, the player will be cut (and get only the guaranteed part, but not the full value of the contract).

This is not controvertial stuff in my mind. Thats why it was a little surprising to see such a strong reaction from you, saying that someone else other than me must have written those sentences I wrote, as if I was being extremely mistaken, unfair, or worse. I didn't quite get the strong reaction.

All in all, I think the system of letting the market decide a player's "value" works pretty well. If I was an owner, I would want the greatest value for my buck, meaning I would want a great player at a fair, but not an overpaid price. If, on the other hand, I was a player, I would want the biggest payday I could possibly get, and if that meant I would have to leave my long time team and go to another one, I, like Wes Welker, would go. Forget the sports world for a minute. If you were in one job with Coca-Cola for a long time that you loved, but then you got an offer from Pepsi to do the same thing, but for a big raise in salary that Coke wouldn't match, would you make the switch? If you said "yes", then you would have done what most people would do, and everyone would understand, because they would have done the same thing.

Remember one thing. Whenever an athlete says, "Its not about the money", its about the money. That being true, I think George's point is legitimate about Welker when he made the comment about Asante Samuel "choosing money over championships" when Asante left the Pats and signed with the Eagles in '08. It was an unfortunate statement, and Welker probably should not have said it. What he should have said is, "Asante has got to do what's best for him." So I'm giving it to George in this case. He has a point. Now, whether Welker's statement was so out of line, and so uncalled for, that it qualifies him as a "mouthy punk", that is all in the eye of the beholder. George might call Welker's crime a felony, whereas I might call it a misdomeanor.

If we were cops and stopped someone for speeding, George might give the speeder a ticket, whereas, I might give only a warning. Hey George, lets say you were a judge and two defendants, both NFL players who were found guilty of the exact same crime, were brought into your courtroom for sentencing. You looked down at them from your exhaulted seat on the bench, contemplating what amount of justice you would dispense as they both stood before you in silence. One of them was a NE Patriot. The other was [insert name any one of the other 31 teams]. I say this is what you would do with the two equally guilty defendants: Judge George: "As to the NE Patriot, get him out of my sight and lock him up and thow away the key." "As to you, Mr., Non-NE Patriot, whatever your team is, I'm going to ask you nicely not to do that crime again, OK? Good. Now you're free to go." Tell me George, that's not precisely what you would do. LOL.

I was a cop, and if I have to get out of the car, you're getting a ticket. As for judge George, I think I might be a little more lenient on the Pats fan. He already has enough problems.

George1963 wrote:

LRJets wrote:Thanks LR. We've got to remember, its only the off seaon, so we've got to keep it light. At least wait until the season starts before we start ripping each other. Don't want to peak too early.
Gup, by the time the season arrives, I hope the gun has enough ammunition (Jets team) to respond.
Gotta admit the new G.M. Idzik has made a couple of cost-conscious acquisitons that hopefully make the Jets respectable/competitive.

My bold prediction of the day. Celtics end the Heat's win streak tonight. We can't allow LeBron and Ray Allen's Heat to make history on the Garden floor in front of the Celtics fans. (2nd longest winning streak ever if they win)
Yesterday Doc Rivers said KG has a 50-50 chance of playing. I will be rooting for the Celtics tonight!

It should be a zero percent chance of KG playing if Doc has any brains. And I think he does. Having him on the floor against the Heat in June is a little more important than having him there in March.

Absolutely. KG did not participate in the shoot around Monday morning. I would be shocked if he plays. Doc may have to tie him down to keep him out though.