BillsVet Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I'm not scurred of Wes Welker, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 It doesn't get a guy more cash. The player gets the deal regardless. It's a matter of being able to keep guys you drafted/developed. I disagree..the player knows when he signs a deal like this that he is basically going to end up with the new team. A smart agent will leverage this fact to up the ante. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 I disagree..the player knows when he signs a deal like this that he is basically going to end up with the new team. A smart agent will leverage this fact to up the ante. Up what ante? Once a restricted FA entertains a contract offer from a team (and there may be many teams offering him contracts, from which he chooses one), he presents that to his old team to see if they'll match it. He or his former team cannot negotiate a bigger/different contract after that. The deal is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Up what ante? Once a restricted FA entertains a contract offer from a team (and there may be many teams offering him contracts, from which he chooses one), he presents that to his old team to see if they'll match it. He or his former team cannot negotiate a bigger/different contract after that. The deal is what it is. What are you talking about?..There is a negotiation between the player/agent and the bidding team to get an RFA offer. If the team is going to use a poison pill in the RFA offer sheet--the player and agent know that..and this basically tells them they are going to end up with the new team. It becomes a negotiating point --to sign something with a poison pill in it--I want $250K more a year...why do you think the Union wants to protect it..its another leverage point for the player. An RFA can negotiate with any team--if a team is going to use a poison pill and another is not the player an agent can use that to up the price for the team that wants the poison pill.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 So you're saying that Welker's agent said to the Pats "...and for just $250K more per year, I'll let you add a poison pill into the contract...?" Doubtful. The Pats likely offered him the deal and said "...and we're going to add a poison pill in there." At best the allowance of a poison pill is a way for the restricted player to choose where he wants to go, when his old team is supposed to have final say on whether he goes or not. I can see why the NFLPA would want to keep that, but also why the NFL would want to prevent that from happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeF Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 So you're saying that Welker's agent said to the Pats "...and for just $250K more per year, I'll let you add a poison pill into the contract...?" Doubtful. The Pats likely offered him the deal and said "...and we're going to add a poison pill in there." At best the allowance of a poison pill is a way for the restricted player to choose where he wants to go, when his old team is supposed to have final say on whether he goes or not. I can see why the NFLPA would want to keep that, but also why the NFL would want to prevent that from happening. Theoretically, owners want players to have as little leverage as possible. What Welkers agent probably did say is my client has been contacted by 10 teams--your base offer was X and you want to add another point to the agreement that will almost assuredly mean that my client will end up playing with you. If I shopped the inclusion of that point to the 10 other teams I can get Y amount more than you are offering for the inclusion of that clause in the offer my client signs. Its not any stronger than any other negotiating point--but its a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 The Pats' offer to Welker will apparently be $38.5 million over 7 years. That definitely sounds poison pilled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 The Pats' offer to Welker will apparently be $38.5 million over 7 years. That definitely sounds poison pilled. I hope so. Otherwise I would say holy shnikey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Gun10 Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 The Pats' offer to Welker will apparently be $38.5 million over 7 years. That definitely sounds poison pilled. i almost choked when i saw this why is he getting this much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hollywood Donahoe Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 i almost choked when i saw this why is he getting this much. He's probably not. The Patriots probably attached a poison pill to the contract. In all likelihood, much of that dollar figure would only kick in if Welker plays a certain specified amount of games in the state of Florida. In any event, is $5.5 million a year really that much in this crazy market? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prognastic Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I'm not scurred of Wes Welker, anyone? He pretty much single handedly KILLS the Pats and does a lot of things very well. He'd be a FANTASTIC addition to the WR corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts