James Cook: "Business" man

[DrDawkinstein]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I didn't say Shakirs deal was "reasonable" because it makes "fans happy" - It was reasonable because Shakirs projected market as a FA was much higher than what he signed for.  Those deals are much easier to get done, and yes, being a 5th round pick on a rookie deal brings a lot of injury risk, so there is incentive to sign early at a discount for stability.  But that is beside the point, the point is Shakir's deal was easy to get done because it was a good deal on both sides.  If Shakir was demanding $20M per year, he would still be in limbo the same as Cook.  

 

Point is - Bills have tried to extend Cook, and Cook started asking for $15M, at least publicly.  Beane has stated their have been offers and they are not there yet on both sides.  So the term "reasonable" is in direct reference to what the FO deems reasonable based on how they value him and their forward looking cap plans.  And reports are that they are now closer, if true, that coupled with the Rams deal that just happened, I think we could see this resolved soon.  

 

End of the day, Shakir wasn't demanding more than the FO was offering, so the deal got done.  Its just that simple as to why one was done, and easily, and the other is in a Hold In status. 

 

Ok, so we disagree on what "reasonable" means.

 

I'd think reasonable means fair to both. Seems like you're saying reasonable is when a player takes far less than their value. Which imo is unfair to the player and therefore not reasonable.

 

Reasonable would be something in between. If Cook started at his advertised $15M, and Beane started at his usual $10M (Bernard, Poyer, etc), then reasonable might be $12M-$13M.

 

It very well could be that Beane has his plan, and will not go above $11M. To which I'd say, in that case, Beane was unreasonable. Fine if he wants to stick to his plan, but dont blame Cook like he's the (only) unreasonable one.

 

But we're just guessing.

 

eta: I'd say Rousseau and Benford's deals were "reasonable".

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

rea·son·a·ble

/ˈrēzənəb(ə)l,ˈrēznəb(ə)l/

 

adjective

adjective: reasonable

1.

(of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible.

 

2.

as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.

 

 

Edited Thursday at 11:02 PM by DrDawkinstein

[DaggersEOD]

7 minutes ago, MJS said:

Their situations aren't even slightly related. Cook wants to be paid like a top 3 running back. Shakir's contract made him the 27th highest paid receiver.

Cook wants 15 million. That would make him tied for 3rd highest, not 6th. He'd be on par with Henry. And Shakir is the 27th highest paid receiver.

That was also my point. You can’t compare the two because the numbers are essentially in different scales. 
 

The 6th highest was if he had the same salary as Shakir (approx $13.5M), not the $15M he was asking for so you are also correct. 
 

Also my unassailable numbers come from a single, lazy AI question / response, so I’m sure yours are better. 

[MJS]

22 minutes ago, DaggersEOD said:

That was also my point. You can’t compare the two because the numbers are essentially in different scales. 
 

The 6th highest was if he had the same salary as Shakir (approx $13.5M), not the $15M he was asking for so you are also correct. 
 

Also my unassailable numbers come from a single, lazy AI question / response, so I’m sure yours are better. 

No worries. The point is the same. You can't compare their contracts.

[aristocrat]

You’d think if they were that close the deal would be done 

[MasterStrategist]

2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

No disrespect, but you just echoed what I said when I said reasonable.  What Beane deems is reasonable based on how he percieves his value, the value of the position, and the cap plans with other contracts and spending moving forward.  I didn't say it was our definition of reasonable.  

 

As I siad, if the contract Cook was seeking was reasonable (to Beane) he would be signed.  The facts are, Cook is asking for more money than Beane was looking to pay - Shakir was not - so Shakir signed, Cook not signed.  This isn't as complicated as its getting made out to be.  

 

Beane is clearly going to have to pay Cook more than he wants - but that amount still needs to be reasonable enough for him to go up in his price and ge the deal done - had they already gotten there the deal would already be signed.  

 

This convo started off someone complaining we paid Shakir already and not Cook.  The massive difference is that Shakirs deal was in line with what Beane felt was good for the team - so its done.  If Shakir and his team sat back and demanded $20M per year (like many were worried would happen around here), I assure you that would not have been a reasonable deal for Beane and Shakir wouldn't have a new deal either.  

No disrespect, but you cant say in 1 sentence that a Cook deal would be done if his "ask" was reasonable...then try to rationalize why Beanes "reasonable" is taking other considerations into play (which is what i said).

 

Its apples to oranges.  A players value is a players value on the open market.  I dont disagree with Beanes approach, as I said, about being strongly disciplined in future cap considerations.  

 

But what we all dont know, is what is Beanes offer?  You say its "reasonable", what # though?  This is like that commercial when interviewing for a job and asks how much is the salary...."its competitive".  Thats not an answer, and I dont expect you to know Beanes offer.

 

But I do expect you, as a past history of being a level headed poster, of understanding that you cant blanket statement say a deal would be done, if Cooks ask is "reasonable".  I think you see what I mean, or hope so now.

2 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Ok, so we disagree on what "reasonable" means.

 

I'd think reasonable means fair to both. Seems like you're saying reasonable is when a player takes far less than their value. Which imo is unfair to the player and therefore not reasonable.

 

Reasonable would be something in between. If Cook started at his advertised $15M, and Beane started at his usual $10M (Bernard, Poyer, etc), then reasonable might be $12M-$13M.

 

It very well could be that Beane has his plan, and will not go above $11M. To which I'd say, in that case, Beane was unreasonable. Fine if he wants to stick to his plan, but dont blame Cook like he's the (only) unreasonable one.

 

But we're just guessing.

 

eta: I'd say Rousseau and Benford's deals were "reasonable".

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

rea·son·a·ble

/ˈrēzənəb(ə)l,ˈrēznəb(ə)l/

 

adjective

adjective: reasonable

1.

(of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible.

 

2.

as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.

 

 

You are i are saying the exact same, preach on 🙌 

 

Time for people to stop judging this, without knowing what Beane is even offering.

[Alphadawg7]

2 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Ok, so we disagree on what "reasonable" means.

 

I'd think reasonable means fair to both. Seems like you're saying reasonable is when a player takes far less than their value. Which imo is unfair to the player and therefore not reasonable.

 

Reasonable would be something in between. If Cook started at his advertised $15M, and Beane started at his usual $10M (Bernard, Poyer, etc), then reasonable might be $12M-$13M.

 

It very well could be that Beane has his plan, and will not go above $11M. To which I'd say, in that case, Beane was unreasonable. Fine if he wants to stick to his plan, but dont blame Cook like he's the (only) unreasonable one.

 

But we're just guessing.

 

eta: I'd say Rousseau and Benford's deals were "reasonable".

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

rea·son·a·ble

/ˈrēzənəb(ə)l,ˈrēznəb(ə)l/

 

adjective

adjective: reasonable

1.

(of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible.

 

2.

as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.

 

 

 

No disrespect, but feels like you are really way over analyzing a word here and taking this conversation into things completely unrelated to the post I originally replied or the context of what I actually said (and clarifed).  Its all good, agree to disagree on what I meant. Cheers

 

18 minutes ago, MasterStrategist said:

No disrespect, but you cant say in 1 sentence that a Cook deal would be done if his "ask" was reasonable...then try to rationalize why Beanes "reasonable" is taking other considerations into play (which is what i said).

 

Its apples to oranges.  A players value is a players value on the open market.  I dont disagree with Beanes approach, as I said, about being strongly disciplined in future cap considerations.  

 

But what we all dont know, is what is Beanes offer?  You say its "reasonable", what # though?  This is like that commercial when interviewing for a job and asks how much is the salary...."its competitive".  Thats not an answer, and I dont expect you to know Beanes offer.

 

But I do expect you, as a past history of being a level headed poster, of understanding that you cant blanket statement say a deal would be done, if Cooks ask is "reasonable".  I think you see what I mean, or hope so now.

You are i are saying the exact same, preach on 🙌 

 

Time for people to stop judging this, without knowing what Beane is even offering.

 

Like I said to the other poster - you are over analyzing a word to be something entirely different than the context I used it to.  This is off on some other tangent now from the actual comment I replied to.

 

The point was Shakirs deal was easy to do when he wasn't asking for more than Beane was willing to pay.  This isn't complicated 

 

Its all good, no biggie and we can just agree to disagree on my context, cheers.  

Edited Friday at 01:31 AM by Alphadawg7

[MasterStrategist]

19 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

No disrespect, but feels like you are really way over analyzing a word here and taking this conversation into things completely unrelated to the post I originally replied or the context of what I actually said (and clarifed).  Its all good, agree to disagree on what I meant. Cheers

 

 

Like I said to the other poster - you are over analyzing a word to be something entirely different than the context I used it to.  This is off on some other tangent now from the actual comment I replied to.

 

The point was Shakirs deal was easy to do when he wasn't asking for more than Beane was willing to pay.  This isn't complicated 

 

Its all good, no biggie and we can just agree to disagree on my context, cheers.  

Not overanalyzing brother.

 

You said this deal would be done if Cooks ask was reasonable...not sure how that is overanalyzing.  

 

But yes, cheers...all fans here, and im a fan of your posts.  Appreciated the story from Lake Tahoe...now considering traveling from PA to that next yr.  

 

Hopefully Cook and Beane can get something done, hes a special player in this offense and ready for another great year

[Alphadawg7]

9 minutes ago, MasterStrategist said:

Not overanalyzing brother.

 

You said this deal would be done if Cooks ask was reasonable...not sure how that is overanalyzing.  

 

But yes, cheers...all fans here, and im a fan of your posts.  Appreciated the story from Lake Tahoe...now considering traveling from PA to that next yr.  

 

Hopefully Cook and Beane can get something done, hes a special player in this offense and ready for another great year

 

All good bud, took no offense at all - just the whole "reasonable" was taken its own direction.  The OP I replied to was someone slamming the signing of Shakir and couldn't believe he got a deal before Cook.  

 

My entire point is that Shakir was not seeking more than Beane was offering - hence why his deal, as well as Groot, Benford, etc all got done before Cook.  Cook is asking for more than what Beane has been willing to pay, hence the status of Cook.  Had Shakir asked for $20M his deal wouldn't have gotten done either.  

 

Again, all good bud, just this just kind of got off topic from the post I actually replied too which was slamming the Shakir signing over Cook.  

 

Cheers  

Edited Friday at 01:55 AM by Alphadawg7

[Doc Brown]

3 hours ago, Billl said:

You don’t want guys like Chris Jones, Trey Hendrickson, Micah Parsons, TJ Watt, Jamaar Chase, etc.?

Just Chris Jones.  Screw the Chiefs.

[dave mcbride]

23 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Just Chris Jones.  Screw the Chiefs.

Chris Jones is one of the 10 best players in the NFL. He happens to play for the Chiefs because he was drafted by them. What is the basis of your animus?

[Billl]

6 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Chris Jones is one of the 10 best players in the NFL. He happens to play for the Chiefs because he was drafted by them. What is the basis of your animus?

Jealousy dating back to his 40 at the combine when he tripped over his own…well…

 

 

Edited Friday at 02:32 AM by Billl

[dave mcbride]

13 minutes ago, Billl said:

Jealousy dating back to his 40 at the combine when he tripped over his own…well…

 

 

 That might explain why the best defensive lineman since Aaron Donald fell to the early second round!

[Doc Brown]

22 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Chris Jones is one of the 10 best players in the NFL. He happens to play for the Chiefs because he was drafted by them. What is the basis of your animus?

Pure jealousy.

[Freak-O]

11 hours ago, Billl said:

You don’t want guys like Chris Jones, Trey Hendrickson, Micah Parsons, TJ Watt, Jamaar Chase, etc.?

Not if having one of them means the rest of the team consists of sub par players because of the salary cap. Of course not. 

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, Freak-O said:

Not if having one of them means the rest of the team consists of sub par players because of the salary cap. Of course not. 

 

Which team is in that situation?

[finn]

I suspect it's not so much Cook wanting a premier salary as much as wanting respect. Shakir, Brown, Bernard, Benford, Rousseau...everyone is getting extensions in their last contract year except him. It's hard to be isolated, and his feelings are hurt. He seems like a good guy, but emotionally he strikes me more of an adolescent than a grown man, sweet but stupid, to be blunt, and he's probably particularly susceptible to his idiot brother and agent egging him on. They might see the Hard Knocks spotlight as leverage. The Kyren Williams contract, given that Beane is offering something similar, is perfectly fair and in fact is a better deal than Benford got, given that Benford truly is top-five at his position and Cook is simply not. But Cook might have rejected it while he was feeling raw, and now he's stuck.

 

So Beane has the tricky task of not offending him further but not giving in, either, massaging his ego until he sees what is in his best interests. What he, Beane, needs is to come up with some means to let Cook save face so he can stand up to his ass-hat retinue. Big performance incentives this year, for instance, and maybe more guaranteed money than is on the table. Taking a hardline stance--fining him, for instance, or negotiating via the media would backfire badly. With this "hold-in," Cook has foolishly painted himself into a corner. Now he needs Beane to come up with a way to bail him out without his (Cook) looking like the complete ass he is. 

[Augie]

To recap to date: 

 

* I want Cook back on a fair deal, one that will set him up for life

* Cook started with a number that is too high, IMO, and he did it publicly

* We don’t know for sure what Beane has offered because he has not been public about the most recent terms offered, as it should be

* A fair deal would seem to be between the Chargers new deal and Cook’s original ask, and a middle ground should be possible

* Cook has no business being offended because others go their deal first, because he can’t blame them for seeing the light before he did. If you want the safety and guarantees of having a deal NOW, it comes with a bit of a price. It’s not a “hometown discount”, it’s an “I’m set for life” decision. If you want the deal NOW, the terms are a little different. If you want to get the absolute top dollar available in free agency, you have to take the risks that go with that. Cook can’t have it both ways. 

 

Beane has been reasonable and gotten every other deal done, and privately. Cook started publicly (and high for what he is) and that’s not a good thing. I don’t begrudge any player trying to get the best deal they can, but they should go about it the right way, and that is not in public, IMO. 

 

I think a deal gets done fairly soon now, and we can forget about this for the next 3-4 years. 

 

.

Edited Friday at 02:06 PM by Augie

[yall]

I don't know what Beane is offering so I can't make any claims about the reasonability of his offer. 

 

I will say this; I believe Cook asking for 15 million a year is unreasonable. 

[SCBills]

23 minutes ago, yall said:

I don't know what Beane is offering so I can't make any claims about the reasonability of his offer. 

 

I will say this; I believe Cook asking for 15 million a year is unreasonable. 

If Cook would take the Kyren Williams deal, as I think John Wawrow alluded he might, then Cook is probably being reasonable in his ask and it sounds like the Bills FO maybe just doesn’t want him back unless it’s at a low number. 
 

If Cook wants more than Kyren Williams, then (imo) he should ask for a trade if he that’s upset about us not offering that or stop the nonsense and play out his final year. 
 

Cook and Kyren are similarly valued players albeit very different.   Cook is more talented and explosive but doesn’t offer the all-around 3 down back ability Kyren does. 
 

And we are not in the same position as LA, with Kyren.  We have an elite mobile QB.  They have a very good, but aging immobile QB dealing with a somewhat serious injury. 
 

Edited Friday at 01:23 PM by SCBills

[Big Turk]

11 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Pure jealousy.

 

Hey Jealousy ..hey jealousy...

 

 Well, tell me do you think it'd be alright...

If I could just crash here tonight...