Incognito's Retirement? [update: Now Released]

[vincec]

I have a hunch that Incognito unreturned so that he can keep his money and the Bills did him a favor by releasing him, I don’t think he’s going to play again.

[SouthNYfan]

9 hours ago, NoSaint said:

 

He can definitely be a well spoken guy and has a unique perspective... but I think there’s a wide gap between lets have him on set for an interview and let’s sign him to a contract to represent a major network day in and day out.

 

maybe one of the edgier cable or radio programs give him a chance to build his resume and get the ratings boost associated with possible shock value. I can’t see him going major network anytime soon though. He keeps digging his hole deeper. 

 

Howard Stern would probably be a good landing spot ?

 

9 hours ago, Peter said:

 

After what happened, Richie wanted to get his release.  Not only did he get his release, he reportedly gets to keep $1.15 million whether he plays another down in the NFL or not.  This was money that he would have had to return. 

 

It must be nice to get $1.15 million whether you continue to work or not.

 

Because of the way that this was handled, the Bills reportedly do not get to recoup that money and, to add insult to injury, that money is now additional dead money against our cap.

 

Dead Money - Spotrac

 

In the end, we have lost another starting linemen (a pro bowler at that) and, for our trouble, we have another $1.15 in dead money against the cap.

 

To me, there had to be a way to manage this better (both the Bills and Incognito).  It would have been nice to keep a pro bowl lineman rather than create an addition hole.  It would have been nice to give Shady and whoever starts at QB (especially if it is an untested rookie QB) the best possible protection.

 

Divorces are usually ugly.. Many times one side just throws their hands up and says "screw it, you keep the house, the car, and all my sh*t, I just want to be done with your crazy @$$"

 

8 hours ago, Sky Diver said:

 

Having his salary cut created ill will and resentment that he couldn’t move past. Who likes having their compensation cut when they are a strong performer? The Bills should have kept his salary the same rather  than creating a hole. ~$1.5M wouldn’t have killed them.

 

He chose to take the salary cut.

His had a choice to say "no" to it.

He got buyer's remorse afterwards, then decided to make a public spectacle of it.

You continue to ignore this in your responses, similar to what you do in every other discussion, ignore the things that don't fit your argument.

 

7 hours ago, The Red King said:

I'm sorry, he signed the contract.  Welcome to the real world.  You sign a contract, you honor it.  And don't give me any BS about him giving his agent the power to sign a contract.  If that's what happened it's still on him because he gave his agent that power.  We're talking NFL money, there is no way I allow my agent to sign anything.  You work out a deal, shoot me the numbers, and let me make the final decision.  Whether what the Bills offered was fair or not is completely irrelevant.  Richie agreed to it and should have honored it.

 

Exactly.

 

 

6 hours ago, Dadonkadonk said:

You realize the team signs the contract too and they can cut him at any time?  The NFL salary structure is at least 75% based on signing bonuses. This is not the NBA or MLB.  

The player has every right to hold out and demand what the market will pay.  The team has no obligation to renegotiate of course.  This has nothing to do with honor. It is economics.

 

He signed it donk.

Holdouts are before you sign it, like you feel you underpaid, you ask for a raise, they refuse it, you say "fine I'm not gonna play".

Instead they asked him to take a paycut, he said "sure" then decided afterwards he didn't like what he did, so started with the retirement circus.

If he wasn't happy with the initial paycut then he shouldn't have signed the contract.

The NFL CBA is something the player's Union signed, which allows for non guaranteed contracts, again that's on them for signing it

 

 

For the record I liked 'cog.

I think he plays hard every down and is very skilled.

I also think he's completely wrong in how he handled it.

Edited May 23, 2018 by SouthNYfan
Format

[atlbillsfan1975]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I agree.  But, on the other hand, if I'm a team looking to shell out a contract for a 34 yr old guard, I look at his baggage.  And that Miami thing is part of his baggage, along with his previous history with the Rams.  He rehabilitated himself as a player in Miami and in Buffalo, but if I'm a GM I look at his very public behavior towards Buffalo, his previous history of drug and alcohol abuse and erratic behavior with the Rams and in Miami, and say "hmmmm"

Correct. In my original post in this thread I said there is more to this story.  I did know Richie battled with substance abuse. I hope he isn’t losing that battle currently. I also agree at the end of the day Richies recent actions may not help him end up with a contract much more than the Bills have him. Richie will need to decide on health vs money maybe still.

[Mr. WEO]

10 hours ago, Idandria said:

The Bills have been the best running team in the NFL the past couple years.

 

fred Jackson’s 200+ yard rushing game. He was blowing open huge holes for him to run thru. HOF performance. 

 

 

Yes, without Jason Peters at LT....

[The Red King]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

 

That goes both ways.

 

...what...does that even mean?  ?

 

Yes...it goes both ways.  Regardless of whether or not the contract was fair, once both parties signed it, they should both honor it...and...the Bills had every intention of honoring the new contract, so I have no clue whatsoever what you're getting at.

[BarleyNY]

21 hours ago, Sky Diver said:

 

How has he been a problem here before they jerked him around?

 

They asked him to take a pay cut and gave him a signing bonus as part of that. That’s not uncommon for a 34 year old player and I certainly wouldn’t call it jerking him around.  He agreed, took the signing bonus and then retired without so much as even attending one practice or off season workout.  That is an extremely rare, if not unprecedented, situation and one I’d definitely classify as  him jerking the Bills around. Especially with the request for release so he could potentially play elsewhere and Twitter BS. 

21 hours ago, Best Player Available said:

Might not ever know how that went down. Unless cogs signed a new agent. and at some date talks. 

Otherwise once you're cut you owe the team nothing in terms of signing bonuses, etc.

You have to wonder how many ex employees, etc. on the Pegulas sports teams. Are sitting

on their couch waiting for those checks to roll in? Most likely more than any other owner. 

 

Usually that’s true with signing bonuses, but this would be a bad faith situation.  They can be recouped in such situations. 

[BarleyNY]

19 hours ago, Doc said:

 

He's got one year left and might have been looking for a decent-sized long-term deal with a  new team.  I don't know.  It will be interesting to see where, if anywhere, he ends up, and for how much.

 

An NFL team is going to give a 34 year old OG with chronic behavioral issues a decent long term deal?

[HardyBoy]

Can we please get the thread title updated to reflect he was cut?! It is very misleading.

 

[edit: done -mod]

[Doc]

7 hours ago, Ol Dirty B said:

I wonder how Incognito would have been treated if he was black. I'm not a fan of that white privilege ****, but why did they release him from the retired designation?

 

He didn't deserve it, and they didn't do it with Anquan who they signed under false pretenses. 

 

I know most of you hate it, but this regime's talk of character, faith, and how they treat guys is messy. I hate his success, but when do you hear belichick ever wander outside of production when it comes to players? Getting into all of that other **** gets messy, and I don't like that they do it. 

 Except all of this wasn't invented yesterday. He knew this when signed the restructured contract.

 

Who willingly takes pay cut then holds out? 

 

Where are you getting that they signed Boldin "under false pretenses"?  That's just silly.

 

32 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

An NFL team is going to give a 34 year old OG with chronic behavioral issues a decent long term deal?

 

No.  I said he might have been looking for one, hence the reason no team would trade for him. 

[Peter]

1 hour ago, The Red King said:

 

...what...does that even mean?  ?

 

Yes...it goes both ways.  Regardless of whether or not the contract was fair, once both parties signed it, they should both honor it...and...the Bills had every intention of honoring the new contract, so I have no clue whatsoever what you're getting at.

 

In other words, by the reasoning you and some others have employed, the Bills should not even have approached Incognito's representative to take a pay cut because both parties had signed the initial deal and should live by the contract to which they had agreed.

 

That is what that means.

[HeHateMe]

What is incognito's deal?  A player can just retire, get released, then play for another team?

 

Sounds odd.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 minutes ago, HeHateMe said:

What is incognito's deal?  A player can just retire, get released, then play for another team?

 

Sounds odd.

 

Skipped a step.

 

Player can retire

Player can unretire

Team then has to make decision, do they want unretired player on their roster (and release someone else to make room), or no?

Team decides no and releases player

Player can then play for another team

 

It's pretty unusual, I'll grant you that

 

[The Red King]

38 minutes ago, Peter said:

 

In other words, by the reasoning you and some others have employed, the Bills should not even have approached Incognito's representative to take a pay cut because both parties had signed the initial deal and should live by the contract to which they had agreed.

 

That is what that means.

 

Sorry, false logic.  Players and teams are both welcome to renegotiate at any time.  See, Coggie had this little tool at his disposal.  He was asked to take a pay cut, not demanded.  As a result, and I know this may sound crazy to you, stay with me...

 

...Richie could have said "No." rather then signing the new contract.

 

Wild, I know.  And you know what, if he had, I might even be on his side in all this for all the reasons mentioned in this thread.  But he didn't.  He signed on the dotted line, saying with crystal clarity "I accept these new terms that you offered, and agree to play by them."  At that point, any right to complain about those terms went right out the window.  That is my reasoning.  If one side or the other wants to change the terms, they are more then welcome to readdress the topic, but in the end the signed contract is the default.

 

Bottom line, if Cogs didn't like the terms and wanted to fight for more money, that all should have been done before signing the new contract.  He lost any right to complain after he put his name to the paper.

Edited May 23, 2018 by The Red King

[Peter]

33 minutes ago, The Red King said:

 

Sorry, false logic. 

 

Not really, but whatever.

[TheFunPolice]

I doubt he gets any type of big $$, and in fact will probably end up getting less than his pay cut here would have paid him.

 

Maybe he figures by keeping his bonus from the pay cut contract, and adding in his new deal he will come out ahead. I see a pretty low market for his services, though. Especially after his recent behavior on twitter.

[707BillsFan]

Went to New Era last Friday. His jersey was on the discount rack. I think that means they've moved on and he won't be back. I debated on the purchase, but passed. 

[SouthNYfan]

42 minutes ago, Peter said:

 

Not really, but whatever.

 

How is it not really?

 

He was approached about a paycut.

He could have said "no"

He didn't.

He took the paycut.

Then he decided he didn't like it, had "buyer's remorse" so to speak.

Guess what?

Don't sign the freaking deal if you don't like it.

 

[Uncle Joe]

3 minutes ago, 707BillsFan said:

Went to New Era last Friday. His jersey was on the discount rack. I think that means they've moved on and he won't be back. I debated on the purchase, but passed. 

 But you could go to a Raider or 49er's game Incognito ?

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

1 minute ago, SouthNYfan said:

Guess what?

Don't sign the freaking deal if you don't like it.

 

Where were you when I should have said 'no' to that '78 AMC Pacer?!

[707BillsFan]

3 minutes ago, Uncle Joe said:

 But you could go to a Raider or 49er's game Incognito ?

Dang, now I'm regretting my decision. 

[SouthNYfan]

5 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Where were you when I should have said 'no' to that '78 AMC Pacer?!

 

My father sold a '63 split window 'vette back in 1982 for peanuts.

He still kicks himself whenever he sees one going for $150k+ lol

[IDBillzFan]

13 hours ago, Peter said:

In the end, we have lost another starting linemen (a pro bowler at that) and, for our trouble, we have another $1.15 in dead money against the cap.

 

To me, there had to be a way to manage this better (both the Bills and Incognito).  It would have been nice to keep a pro bowl lineman rather than create an addition hole.  It would have been nice to give Shady and whoever starts at QB (especially if it is an untested rookie QB) the best possible protection.

 

Addition by subtraction. I know people have a problem with that phrase because it's difficult to digest for some, but as someone who spent the past quarter century plus hiring/firing/managing personnel, one rule is very simple: if someone doesn't want to work for you, they don't want to work for you, regardless of any effort to make them stay. Cut bait, learn your errors and move on.

 

If the reports of his drunken rampage to the Pegula's is true (and certainly his public behavior suggests he's on something), this is a no brainer. With the kind of money the team is dealing with, tossing $1.5M to a mentally unstable guy to make him be someone else's problem is a pin prick to the budget.

16 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

How is it not really?

 

He was approached about a paycut.

He could have said "no"

He didn't.

He took the paycut.

Then he decided he didn't like it, had "buyer's remorse" so to speak.

Guess what?

Don't sign the freaking deal if you don't like it.

 

 

I believe some would refer to your post as 'pissing in the wind.'

 

You speak absolutely, complete truth. It's just difficult for some people to understand.

[SouthNYfan]

1 minute ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Addition by subtraction. I know people have a problem with that phrase because it's difficult to digest for some, but as someone who spent the past quarter century plus hiring/firing/managing personnel, one rule is very simple: if someone doesn't want to work for you, they don't want to work for you, regardless of any effort to make them stay. Cut bait, learn your errors and move on.

 

If the reports of his drunken rampage to the Pegula's is true (and certainly his public behavior suggests he's on something), this is a no brainer. With the kind of money the team is dealing with, tossing $1.5M to a mentally unstable guy to make him be someone else's problem is a pin prick to the budget.

 

I said something like this earlier.

It's like in a divorce.

Sometimes people just decide to give up more than they have to just to get out of a bad situation.

[SouthNYfan]

23 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

(Cut the top, already responded to that)

 

I believe some would refer to your post as 'pissing in the wind.'

 

You speak absolutely, complete truth. It's just difficult for some people to understand.

 

Please tell me what was incorrect about what I said?

It's an absolute fact that he didn't have to sign the contract.

Nobody forced him to sign.

I fail to see what is incorrect about what I said.

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[IDBillzFan]

3 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Please tell me what was incorrect about what I said?

It's an absolute fact that he didn't have to sign the contract.

Nobody forced him to sign.

I fail to see what is incorrect about what I said.

 

That wasn't directed at you. Like I wrote, you spoke the truth. No one forced him to do anything. No one demanded he do anything, in spite of that being offered as a consideration by some.

 

 

 

[Aussie Joe]

Hope Richie’s liver is working OK now to help break down all that tequila...

[Foreigner]

If he does not sign with the Bills as a free agent, and who thinks he will, this has been a novel and 

successful way of him dumping the Bills. Which is of course it ishis right to do, but does anyone really

know for sure the real reason he has wanted to leave.

[Luxy312]

My two cents on this debacle:

1. Richie played a few good years for this team.  Great run blocker and just OK pass blocker, if I'm honest.
2. He didn't have to take a pay cut.  That's a choice that is 100% on him.
3. On point #2, maybe he figured out AFTER signing for less money that his agent was giving him bad advice.  
4. Players in the last year or two of their existing deals renegotiate all the time for more or less money.  This is not new.
5. If he hadn't signed for reduced money, the Bills may have released him anyway.  Then again, maybe they just pay him for the last year of the deal.
6. If he used the "broken body" excuse for retirement and now comes back to play somewhere else, that's simply unprofessional.

I don't really care what the truth is about his situation.  He's either got some mental issues or just didn't think out his situation as it unfolded.

[SouthNYfan]

8 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

That wasn't directed at you. Like I wrote, you spoke the truth. No one forced him to do anything. No one demanded he do anything, in spite of that being offered as a consideration by some.

 

 

 

 

I totally misread dude.

Sorry about that

[Peter]

58 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

How is it not really?

 

He was approached about a paycut.

He could have said "no"

He didn't.

He took the paycut.

Then he decided he didn't like it, had "buyer's remorse" so to speak.

Guess what?

Don't sign the freaking deal if you don't like it.

 

 

You are missing my point.  People have taken the position that Incognito should have lived with contract that he signed.  Based on that reasoning, the Bills should have honored the original deal and should never have approached Incognito or his agent about taking a pay cut.

 

I am not saying that I agree with that reasoning, but, in my view, it is inconsistent to argue that Incognito should have honored the re-done contract and the Bills were free ignore the original deal and could cut him or threaten to do so if he did not take a large  pay cut.

 

Clearly, we disagree.  I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me. Let's agree to disagree.  I know you want to get the last word in so have at it. 

[Peter]

49 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Addition by subtraction. I know people have a problem with that phrase because it's difficult to digest for some, but as someone who spent the past quarter century plus hiring/firing/managing personnel, one rule is very simple: if someone doesn't want to work for you, they don't want to work for you, regardless of any effort to make them stay. Cut bait, learn your errors and move on.

 

If the reports of his drunken rampage to the Pegula's is true (and certainly his public behavior suggests he's on something), this is a no brainer. With the kind of money the team is dealing with, tossing $1.5M to a mentally unstable guy to make him be someone else's problem is a pin prick to the budget.

 

I believe some would refer to your post as 'pissing in the wind.'

 

You speak absolutely, complete truth. It's just difficult for some people to understand.

 

This "addition by subtraction" bit is becoming as tiresome as McBeane stealing Nick Saban's "process" mantra. Ultimately, subtraction ends up being just that. 

 

There was no indication that Incognito was a bad teammate.  In fact, the contrary is demonstrably true. Ask Shady or anyone else including Dawkins.  In fact, while Dawkins had a good rookie year, I wonder how much of that was facilitated by the fact that he was playing next to a veteran pro bowl guard.

 

There also is no indication that Incognito would have been unhappy with the original contract that he and the Bills signed.  I also have to believe that cooler heads on both sides could have come up with a middle ground.

 

Instead, we are down one pro bowl offensive lineman (and another starter on the line).  That is not a good recipe for our QB (whoever it may be) or Shady.

 

As for your reference to rumors about a drunken call with Pegula, they seem to be just that. 

 

What you describe as me "pissing in the wind," in actuality, is me just being realistic about the fact that we are now missing our pro bowl guard and, to add insult to injury, we have $1.15 million in yet more dead money against the cap. 

 

In any event, we disagree.

 

God bless.

[BillsFan4]

15 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

 

This exactly what happened with Eugene Parker and Bills.  He felt he could use pressure of holdouts, bad publicity, etc to force contract changes and is exactly why Bills should have insisted Richie Incognito remain on reserved/retired list unless Bills received compensation to release him.

 

But can the Bills keep Richie on the reserve/retired list if he chose to unretire (which is what was reported)? 

 

Don't they have to take him off the list?  Or no? 

 

 

I kind of thought that was why they released him - Richie was unretiring and the Bills didn't want him back in the clubhouse, so it kind of forced their hand. 

 

Maybe I just misunderstood things, though. 

 

[SouthNYfan]

13 minutes ago, Peter said:

 

You are missing my point.  People have taken the position that Incognito should have lived with contract that he signed.  Based on that reasoning, the Bills should have honored the original deal and should never have approached Incognito or his agent about taking a pay cut.

 

I am not saying that I agree with that reasoning, but, in my view, it is inconsistent to argue that Incognito should have honored the re-done contract and the Bills were free ignore the original deal and could cut him or threaten to do so if he did not take a large  pay cut.

 

Clearly, we disagree.  I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me. Let's agree to disagree.  I know you want to get the last word in so have at it. 

 

But your point makes no sense.

NFL contracts are signed with the caveat that they are not guaranteed.

The Buffalo Bills are well within their rights of honoring the contract by cutting somebody, since that's part of the deal.

They also are within their rights to ask the guy to renegotiate the contract, just like he was within his rights to not accept the pay cut, which he chose to accept.

It's not inconsistent at all to think that he should have honored a paycut he agreed to.

[Punching Bag]

6 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Can you help me out with a source on this "signed by agent and not RI" please?

 

i do some work with some agents as a Bills Backers chapter president.  Have gotten Andre Reed among others.

 

I was trying to get Richie for a charity event from my contact and was told he might not be available for a while.

He said that  Bills were having cap issues and talked to Richie's agent on it. He called Richie on it and was busy (I am assuming it was the medical stuff) and Richie under stress said "Whatever, handle it" and guess he did not expect results just to be a salary cut rather than something just to help with cap.

 

Not a lot of details I know.

 

[Foreigner]

You are all guessing as to why he did what he did, with someone saying recently he has mental issues

or is basically not thinking clearly, and the situation with the contract seemingly is the #1 guess, but isn't

it possible he has looked at the roster and on his side of the ball, saw a bad OL, a rookie QB and really

no #1 WRs. Benjamin lost me with the push off in  the end zone against the Jags, plus coming off surgery

as he was damaged goods from Carolina. Don't forget our other WR running around naked with blood on

himself, and apparently was never disciplined.

As no one has actually picked the Bills in the Super Bowl this year, maybe he just wants to play for a winner.

 

[KD in CA]

3 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

But your point makes no sense.

NFL contracts are signed with the caveat that they are not guaranteed.

The Buffalo Bills are well within their rights of honoring the contract by cutting somebody, since that's part of the deal.

They also are within their rights to ask the guy to renegotiate the contract, just like he was within his rights to not accept the pay cut, which he chose to accept.

It's not inconsistent at all to think that he should have honored a paycut he agreed to.

 

It's amazing how many people fail to comprehend this fact.  Every contract has a termination clause.

[Luxy312]

Just now, SouthNYfan said:

 

But your point makes no sense.

NFL contracts are signed with the caveat that they are not guaranteed.

The Buffalo Bills are well within their rights of honoring the contract by cutting somebody, since that's part of the deal.

They also are within their rights to ask the guy to renegotiate the contract, just like he was within his rights to not accept the pay cut, which he chose to accept.

It's not inconsistent at all to think that he should have honored a paycut he agreed to.

 

To say that the team shouldn't have approached him is ridiculous, and simply grossly oblivious of reality.  In the same token, should a guy that has significantly outplayed his contract NOT approach the team for a new deal, but simply play out his contract?  Of course not.  That's just stupid and not how the NFL actually works.  Should OBJ just play the last year of his contract for less than $9m or ask the Giants for a new deal that will probably pay him close to $18m per year?  Every team in the NFL asks players to rework deals, and every team in the NFL has players that ask for new deals before their contracts are done.  

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

2 hours ago, The Red King said:

 

Sorry, false logic.  Players and teams are both welcome to renegotiate at any time.  See, Coggie had this little tool at his disposal.  He was asked to take a pay cut, not demanded.  As a result, and I know this may sound crazy to you, stay with me...

 

...Richie could have said "No." rather then signing the new contract.

 

Wild, I know.  And you know what, if he had, I might even be on his side in all this for all the reasons mentioned in this thread.  But he didn't.  He signed on the dotted line, saying with crystal clarity "I accept these new terms that you offered, and agree to play by them."  At that point, any right to complain about those terms went right out the window.  That is my reasoning.  If one side or the other wants to change the terms, they are more then welcome to readdress the topic, but in the end the signed contract is the default.

 

Bottom line, if Cogs didn't like the terms and wanted to fight for more money, that all should have been done before signing the new contract.  He lost any right to complain after he put his name to the paper.

 

2 hours ago, Peter said:

 

Not really, but whatever.

 

20 minutes ago, Peter said:

 

You are missing my point.  People have taken the position that Incognito should have lived with contract that he signed.  Based on that reasoning, the Bills should have honored the original deal and should never have approached Incognito or his agent about taking a pay cut.

 

I am not saying that I agree with that reasoning, but, in my view, it is inconsistent to argue that Incognito should have honored the re-done contract and the Bills were free ignore the original deal and could cut him or threaten to do so if he did not take a large  pay cut.

 

Clearly, we disagree.  I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me. Let's agree to disagree.  I know you want to get the last word in so have at it. 

 

 

Teams and players re-do contracts all the time, when a player far out plays the contract, the player will ask for more money and the team will give him more money prior to present deal expiring, or they say no to which the player plays out the contract and often then will leave via FA for another team.  Just as here the team asked for a pay cut and he agreed.  So either both agree to the same action or they don't, then you move on.

 

In a perfect world what you're saying is true and if the players want to end asking for more money, then the Bill's stance would be un-called for, but that's not how things work.  

[SouthNYfan]

2 minutes ago, Luxy312 said:

 

To say that the team shouldn't have approached him is ridiculous, and simply grossly oblivious of reality.  In the same token, should a guy that has significantly outplayed his contract NOT approach the team for a new deal, but simply play out his contract?  Of course not.  That's just stupid and not how the NFL actually works.  Should OBJ just play the last year of his contract for less than $9m or ask the Giants for a new deal that will probably pay him close to $18m per year?  Every team in the NFL asks players to rework deals, and every team in the NFL has players that ask for new deals before their contracts are done.  

 

Exactly.