Jump to content

Are the Bills Oppressing Anquan Boldin?


Gugny

Recommended Posts

He was on the Bills for what, a week?

 

I think it's wrong that they need to approve any kind of trade.

 

Just let the man pursue his dreams and further his career.

 

I feel that the Bills are treating Boldin as "their property," and it's unjust.

 

If he'd had a longer tenure with Buffalo, YES, I would get it.

 

But he never played a meaningful down. They should just unchain him and let him go to whichever team he chooses.

 

Like everyone is saying, he's old and washed up, so why does it matter? Why do they need to get something in return?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 208
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Contractual rights. It's a business and both parties knew that when they signed said contract.

 

And I never did hear how the signing bonus was handled when AB 'retired'...

That’s enough to wrap this up.

 

 

Were you being serious???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its principle. Boldin made a commitment and threw it all away. Makes him look childish for not honoring a commitment and try coming back If he didnt want to be "oppressed" then he shouldnt have signed the contract.

Edited by Kmart128
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Just wow. Guy wants to play, picks a team out of maybe a small handful, signs an exclusive rights contract and then retires and the other party should just allow that? I'm a moderate but that's some bleeding heart liberal shite right there. If he didn't want to play here, shouldn't have signed. And because he did and then quit, that's on him too. Could have asked for a trade rather than walking out. Could have played and then asked for a trade. There's also a precedent here. No other owner would want to the Bills to grant a player an outright release after they "retired," it would open up opportunities for other players to pay that card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was on the Bills for what, a week?

 

I think it's wrong that they need to approve any kind of trade.

 

Just let the man pursue his dreams and further his career.

 

I feel that the Bills are treating Boldin as "their property," and it's unjust.

 

If he'd had a longer tenure with Buffalo, YES, I would get it.

 

But he never played a meaningful down. They should just unchain him and let him go to whichever team he chooses.

 

Like everyone is saying, he's old and washed up, so why does it matter? Why do they need to get something in return?

He's under contract. A contract he signed of his own free will. He is responsible to meet the terms he agreed to in signing that contract. Don't blame the Bills for Boldin's choices and for trying to work a trade to better the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He signed a contract to play for Buffalo. Then at the last second he retires.. screwing Buffalo in the process who was relying on him. How could you feel for the guy? He's a fickle jerk who can't make up his mind. Good for the Bills for not letting him off the hook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He signed a contract to play for Buffalo. Then at the last second he retires.. screwing Buffalo in the process who was relying on him. How could you feel for the guy? He's a fickle jerk who can't make up his mind. Good for the Bills for not letting him off the hook.

 

Gotta be #woke, breh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I feel that the Bills are treating Boldin as "their property," and it's unjust.

 

They should just unchain him and let him go to whichever team he chooses.

 

 

Does Gugny = Al Sharpton? I mean really. I am not all PC and all but truly words like "oppressed" "property" and "unchain" sounds like you are looking for Civil War reparations at the worst or trolling at best.

 

BTW... it is a contract signed by a "free man" so, in turn, he needs to honor it.

Edited by aceman_16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just say you signed a year long lease for an apartment and moved into the place. After 2 weeks you say "hey, I don't want to live here anymore and I'm gonna move."

 

What do you think the land lord would do? Just let you break the contract and walk away? Have fun with that.

 

I'm sure you could get out of it, but it would cost you. The same principles apply to Bolden. He's gonna have to pay to get out of this mess he created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He signed a contract, so blame his agent, not the Bills.

Even that is passing the buck....he has a brain of his own.

 

By all accounts he’s a good guy. If we can get something/anything out of this I’m for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just say you signed a year long lease for an apartment and moved into the place. After 2 weeks you say "hey, I don't want to live here anymore and I'm gonna move."

What do you think the land lord would do? Just let you break the contract and walk away? Have fun with that.

I'm sure you could get out of it, but it would cost you. The same principles apply to Bolden. He's gonna have to pay to get out of this mess he created.

Let's say you moved into an apartment and your landlord said everything is included. And then a week later your landlord said we traded your kitchen to a dude in Los Angeles for an extra toilet and a small den you get in a year. You no longer have a kitchen. But most everything is still included.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did you see that word before you just typed it? It certainly was not in the original post. Stop making this into something it isn't.

Actually your original words of your opening post lead to it - "unchained" "oppressed" "unjust" and "property." Those words are what lead many to show you were referring (slavery) to the situation. You DO NOT have to use a word to describe it. It is akin to me saying "furry" "pet" "bark" and "man's best friend" and getting appalled someone THOUGHT I was referring to a dog.

Edited by aceman_16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He signed up to play, decided not to. So now he shouldn't get to play. When I was young if I signed up to play then saw how bad the team was and quit and then decided later I wanted to play but for a different (better) team they would have laughed at me and said sorry but no and gave me a speech about commitment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say you moved into an apartment and your landlord said everything is included. And then a week later your landlord said we traded your kitchen to a dude in Los Angeles for an extra toilet and a small den you get in a year. You no longer have a kitchen. But most everything is still included.

I might agree with you if you could provide a real world situation in which that actually happened. A landlord trading your kitchen for a toilet hasn't ever happened, ever. You're just imagining crazy scenarios.

 

People try and break leases all the time tho. And breaking isn't easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Just wow. Guy wants to play, picks a team out of maybe a small handful, signs an exclusive rights contract and then retires and the other party should just allow that? I'm a moderate but that's some bleeding heart liberal shite right there. If he didn't want to play here, shouldn't have signed. And because he did and then quit, that's on him too. Could have asked for a trade rather than walking out. Could have played and then asked for a trade. There's also a precedent here. No other owner would want to the Bills to grant a player an outright release after they "retired," it would open up opportunities for other players to pay that card.

 

Am I interpreting this right ? Sounds like you brought politics into this?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might agree with you if you could provide a real world situation in which that actually happened. A landlord trading your kitchen for a toilet hasn't ever happened, ever. You're just imagining crazy scenarios.

People try and break leases all the time tho. And breaking isn't easy.

I understand and of course that was outrageous. But the Bills might have made a commitment to him. I highly, highly doubt if they had already traded Sammy and Darby that Boldin would have signed. The word around here and around the league was that it was a good trade for the future and not so good for short term. He signed for one last chance to go to the playoffs and to mentor Sammy and Zay. Then a week later they traded Sammy. And our offense looked awful. And he thought I no longer have two of the three or four things I signed up for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the OP was trying to say that in this era of tension and conflict between Colin K. and ownership, maybe the Pegulas should offer the olive branch to the players and show good faith by waiving any right to compensation. I mean, seriously, by holding out for a 2019 7th round draft pick, how are we helping the cause. Just release him and show the NFL that the Bills are above the fray. By demanding compensation, it seems we are treating Boldin as a piece of meat. Let the man pursue his career (and still seek social justice on weekends).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...