Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    True, and as long as there is good faith negotiating going on (or a good faith attempt to negotiate), I have no problem with the Pats refusing to release him.  But I think there's a point where holding the screws to a guy like Wilfork, even if it's within your rights, starts to become pretty crappy behaviour.  I don't think we're at that point yet . . . but I hope it never gets to that point, either. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Until we know exactly what is being asked of him and if there is a time frame associated it is tough to judge.

    From Vince's perspective if he has been given an ultimatum I don't blame him for wanting out now. From the Pats perspective it is tough to release a guy who has demanded it. That doesn't set a good precedent... opens the door for other players digruntled with their contracts to do the same.

    [/QUOTE]

    Except I think Wilfork is fine with his contract.  It's the Pats who are "disgruntled" with his contract and want to change it. I know what you're saying--you don't want to signal to players that you're a pushover.  At the same time if you signal that you're a hardarse, expect some players and their agents to play hardarse more often too.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Without knowing the details and just speculating it seems right now both sides are in a bind. It is going to be interesting to watch this play out. There was another thread a while back and the question was asked what player would you be most disappointed to lose and for me as a fan hands down it was Vince although i would understand it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I would love to see him retire as a Patriot and think it's too bad if they can't make something work.  He's too costly right now, so I agree the Pats should be trying to re-work his deal.  If, however, Vince doesn't want to do that and it becomes clear that can't reach an agreement, I hope the Pats release him quickly so he can look elsewhere.  Guy's done enough for the team to be treated well when he leaves. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree with your opinion here.  They're at an impasse -- he signed a deal he'd be fine playing under but his salary and production at this point probably don't match.  No need to make this personal on either side.  Agree to negotiate toward a solution or agree to part ways -- and hopefully amicably since Vince has been nothing but a good soldier. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to TexasPat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

         Sounds to me like Vice is being unreasonable. As an earlier poster recommended, why not explore trading him to the Raiders for, say, a 5th round pick? Doing so does Vince a favor, in that it insures that he gets paid...and it keeps him way from from teams like the Jets, Baltimore, Miami, and Denver.

    [/QUOTE]

    Depends completely on what has been offered--if the Pats offered something close to the veteran minimum, Vince would certainly be justified in asking to look elsewhere.  If they offered him something that preserves his $8 million pay this year, but just helps the Pats reduce his cap hit this year, then I think it would be unreasonable for him to decline that offer.  In-between those two extreme options, there's lots of ground and everything depends on which end of the spectrum the Pats' offer was closest to.  

    Trading would be fair, but I don't think a trade is going to happen given he's a big risk at his current salary of $8 million.  If I were a GM, I wouldn't commit nearly that much (plus a draft pick) for him now.  Way too risky for a guy his age coming off a serious injury. 

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to CablesWyndBairn's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    True, and as long as there is good faith negotiating going on (or a good faith attempt to negotiate), I have no problem with the Pats refusing to release him.  But I think there's a point where holding the screws to a guy like Wilfork, even if it's within your rights, starts to become pretty crappy behaviour.  I don't think we're at that point yet . . . but I hope it never gets to that point, either. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Until we know exactly what is being asked of him and if there is a time frame associated it is tough to judge.

    From Vince's perspective if he has been given an ultimatum I don't blame him for wanting out now. From the Pats perspective it is tough to release a guy who has demanded it. That doesn't set a good precedent... opens the door for other players digruntled with their contracts to do the same.

    [/QUOTE]

    Except I think Wilfork is fine with his contract.  It's the Pats who are "disgruntled" with his contract and want to change it. I know what you're saying--you don't want to signal to players that you're a pushover.  At the same time if you signal that you're a hardarse, expect some players and their agents to play hardarse more often too.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Without knowing the details and just speculating it seems right now both sides are in a bind. It is going to be interesting to watch this play out. There was another thread a while back and the question was asked what player would you be most disappointed to lose and for me as a fan hands down it was Vince although i would understand it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I would love to see him retire as a Patriot and think it's too bad if they can't make something work.  He's too costly right now, so I agree the Pats should be trying to re-work his deal.  If, however, Vince doesn't want to do that and it becomes clear that can't reach an agreement, I hope the Pats release him quickly so he can look elsewhere.  Guy's done enough for the team to be treated well when he leaves. 

    [/QUOTE]


    I agree with your opinion here.  They're at an impasse -- he signed a deal he's be fine playing under but his salary and production at this point probably don't match.  No need to make this personal on either side.  Agree to negotiate toward a solution or agree to part ways -- and hopefully amicably since Vince has been nothing but a good soldier. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Agree with you both. Both sides need to stop leaking out info and just come to a mutually agreed upon resolution.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Restructuring is part of the business.  Vince knows this and is playing the only real card that he has by asking for his release.  The Pats know exactly what they are doing and if Vince doesn't know what he's doing shame on him.

    I do not get this 'loyalty' stuff.  Do the fans on this board want to win or not?  You can't have it both ways. Either loyalty to one player (no matter who it is) is top priority or winning is the top priority.

    For me, it's winning and if that means restructuring VW then so be it.  Or cutting him.  Or trading him. Or hiring him as team mascot. 

    Do what you need to do BB to continue to do what is best for the team.  End of conversation IMO.,

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't understand why it's a bad thing for him to ask for his release. If the Pats want to pay him less, it's certainly in his best interest to be able to shop around the league to see if some team will pay him more than the Pats will.  The CBA gives the teams all the power in this situation because they can walk away from the contract they signed with the player, but the player can't do the same.  I know those are the rules that were agreed to, and so the Pats are under no obligation to release him and can keep him off the market either to try to pressure him into signing their deal or (somewhat vindictively) to make him pay for not signing it. I just don't see how anyone can blame Wilfork for requesting a release in this situation, which is something he has every right to do. He has a deal with the Pats to be paid $8 million next year.  If the Pats don't want to pay it, they have every right to cut Wilfork.  But hanging on him to him to keep him off the market is a hardball negotiating tactic.  Fine to say playing hardball is okay, but then you can't complain when a player like Mankins refuses to sign his tender (also something perfectly in his rights to do).  They are in some way equivalent hardball tactics, though honestly the team has far more power in these situations, so I find the players' attempts to balance out the power dynamic a little less of a hardball tactic than the owners' pressing a big advantage they already have and thereby negatively impacting an individual's future earning potential. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Neither side is right... both sides are within their rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    True, and as long as there is good faith negotiating going on (or a good faith attempt to negotiate), I have no problem with the Pats refusing to release him.  But I think there's a point where holding the screws to a guy like Wilfork, even if it's within your rights, starts to become pretty crappy behaviour.  I don't think we're at that point yet . . . but I hope it never gets to that point, either. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Not entirely sure that I ever used the word 'bad'.  What I did say is that I hope Vince knows what he's doing because I'm prepared to bet the farm that the Pats know what they're doing.  It's business and that's all it is. 

    If Vince (or anyone else) expected this contract to run full term without a restructuring or renogotiation then they don't know the business of the NFL on both sides - team and player. 

    It's not playing hardball, in my opinion.  It's part of crafting a winning team.  And I hasten to add that indeed both sides are within their rights to do what they are doing.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, nothing is just business.  Human beings are still involved and how you treat people may not matter to your wallet but it does to your soul.  

    Americans increasingly forget that.  It's one reason why people down there feel so bad about their country. What they don't realize is that it's their own attitudes that cause their discontent. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    True, and as long as there is good faith negotiating going on (or a good faith attempt to negotiate), I have no problem with the Pats refusing to release him.  But I think there's a point where holding the screws to a guy like Wilfork, even if it's within your rights, starts to become pretty crappy behaviour.  I don't think we're at that point yet . . . but I hope it never gets to that point, either. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Until we know exactly what is being asked of him and if there is a time frame associated it is tough to judge.

    From Vince's perspective if he has been given an ultimatum I don't blame him for wanting out now. From the Pats perspective it is tough to release a guy who has demanded it. That doesn't set a good precedent... opens the door for other players digruntled with their contracts to do the same.

    [/QUOTE]

    Except I think Wilfork is fine with his contract.  It's the Pats who are "disgruntled" with his contract and want to change it. I know what you're saying--you don't want to signal to players that you're a pushover.  At the same time if you signal that you're a hardarse, expect some players and their agents to play hardarse more often too.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Without knowing the details and just speculating it seems right now both sides are in a bind. It is going to be interesting to watch this play out. There was another thread a while back and the question was asked what player would you be most disappointed to lose and for me as a fan hands down it was Vince although i would understand it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I would love to see him retire as a Patriot and think it's too bad if they can't make something work.  He's too costly right now, so I agree the Pats should be trying to re-work his deal.  If, however, Vince doesn't want to do that and it becomes clear that can't reach an agreement, I hope the Pats release him quickly so he can look elsewhere.  Guy's done enough for the team to be treated well when he leaves. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree. If he's going, he's got to be going soon so we can use that money saved on some quality FAs. Meaning if the decision is already made, both sides benefit from a release ASAP.

    maybe Vince is playing hardball? Will bb blink? How does Kraft figure into this given his tight relationship with Vince which may only be second to Brady on this team? 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazy-world-of-troybrown. Show crazy-world-of-troybrown's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    I dont know about him declining. 2012 he had a heck of a year.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Restructuring is part of the business.  Vince knows this and is playing the only real card that he has by asking for his release.  The Pats know exactly what they are doing and if Vince doesn't know what he's doing shame on him.

    I do not get this 'loyalty' stuff.  Do the fans on this board want to win or not?  You can't have it both ways. Either loyalty to one player (no matter who it is) is top priority or winning is the top priority.

    For me, it's winning and if that means restructuring VW then so be it.  Or cutting him.  Or trading him. Or hiring him as team mascot. 

    Do what you need to do BB to continue to do what is best for the team.  End of conversation IMO.,

     



    I don't understand why it's a bad thing for him to ask for his release. If the Pats want to pay him less, it's certainly in his best interest to be able to shop around the league to see if some team will pay him more than the Pats will.  The CBA gives the teams all the power in this situation because they can walk away from the contract they signed with the player, but the player can't do the same.  I know those are the rules that were agreed to, and so the Pats are under no obligation to release him and can keep him off the market either to try to pressure him into signing their deal or (somewhat vindictively) to make him pay for not signing it. I just don't see how anyone can blame Wilfork for requesting a release in this situation, which is something he has every right to do. He has a deal with the Pats to be paid $8 million next year.  If the Pats don't want to pay it, they have every right to cut Wilfork.  But hanging on him to him to keep him off the market is a hardball negotiating tactic.  Fine to say playing hardball is okay, but then you can't complain when a player like Mankins refuses to sign his tender (also something perfectly in his rights to do).  They are in some way equivalent hardball tactics, though honestly the team has far more power in these situations, so I find the players' attempts to balance out the power dynamic a little less of a hardball tactic than the owners' pressing a big advantage they already have and thereby negatively impacting an individual's future earning potential. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Neither side is right... both sides are within their rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    True, and as long as there is good faith negotiating going on (or a good faith attempt to negotiate), I have no problem with the Pats refusing to release him.  But I think there's a point where holding the screws to a guy like Wilfork, even if it's within your rights, starts to become pretty crappy behaviour.  I don't think we're at that point yet . . . but I hope it never gets to that point, either. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Not entirely sure that I ever used the word 'bad'.  What I did say is that I hope Vince knows what he's doing because I'm prepared to bet the farm that the Pats know what they're doing.  It's business and that's all it is. 

    If Vince (or anyone else) expected this contract to run full term without a restructuring or renogotiation then they don't know the business of the NFL on both sides - team and player. 

    It's not playing hardball, in my opinion.  It's part of crafting a winning team.  And I hasten to add that indeed both sides are within their rights to do what they are doing.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, nothing is just business.  Human beings are still involved and how you treat people may not matter to your wallet but it does to your soul.  

    Americans increasingly forget that.  It's one reason why people down there feel so bad about their country. What they don't realize is that it's their own attitudes that cause their discontent. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Disregarding the commentary on Americans and their self-image, this is a business decision.  I seriously doubt that VW is involving his soul in his thought processes with regard to this issue.  I can also assure you that BB has had no dialog with his soul in these negotiations. 

    How I treat my employess is one thing.  What I expect from the New England Patriots in negotiations such as these is quite another.  It is the culture of the NFL and is reality.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Restructuring is part of the business.  Vince knows this and is playing the only real card that he has by asking for his release.  The Pats know exactly what they are doing and if Vince doesn't know what he's doing shame on him.

    I do not get this 'loyalty' stuff.  Do the fans on this board want to win or not?  You can't have it both ways. Either loyalty to one player (no matter who it is) is top priority or winning is the top priority.

    For me, it's winning and if that means restructuring VW then so be it.  Or cutting him.  Or trading him. Or hiring him as team mascot. 

    Do what you need to do BB to continue to do what is best for the team.  End of conversation IMO.,

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't understand why it's a bad thing for him to ask for his release. If the Pats want to pay him less, it's certainly in his best interest to be able to shop around the league to see if some team will pay him more than the Pats will.  The CBA gives the teams all the power in this situation because they can walk away from the contract they signed with the player, but the player can't do the same.  I know those are the rules that were agreed to, and so the Pats are under no obligation to release him and can keep him off the market either to try to pressure him into signing their deal or (somewhat vindictively) to make him pay for not signing it. I just don't see how anyone can blame Wilfork for requesting a release in this situation, which is something he has every right to do. He has a deal with the Pats to be paid $8 million next year.  If the Pats don't want to pay it, they have every right to cut Wilfork.  But hanging on him to him to keep him off the market is a hardball negotiating tactic.  Fine to say playing hardball is okay, but then you can't complain when a player like Mankins refuses to sign his tender (also something perfectly in his rights to do).  They are in some way equivalent hardball tactics, though honestly the team has far more power in these situations, so I find the players' attempts to balance out the power dynamic a little less of a hardball tactic than the owners' pressing a big advantage they already have and thereby negatively impacting an individual's future earning potential. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Neither side is right... both sides are within their rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    True, and as long as there is good faith negotiating going on (or a good faith attempt to negotiate), I have no problem with the Pats refusing to release him.  But I think there's a point where holding the screws to a guy like Wilfork, even if it's within your rights, starts to become pretty crappy behaviour.  I don't think we're at that point yet . . . but I hope it never gets to that point, either. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Not entirely sure that I ever used the word 'bad'.  What I did say is that I hope Vince knows what he's doing because I'm prepared to bet the farm that the Pats know what they're doing.  It's business and that's all it is. 

    If Vince (or anyone else) expected this contract to run full term without a restructuring or renogotiation then they don't know the business of the NFL on both sides - team and player. 

    It's not playing hardball, in my opinion.  It's part of crafting a winning team.  And I hasten to add that indeed both sides are within their rights to do what they are doing.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, nothing is just business.  Human beings are still involved and how you treat people may not matter to your wallet but it does to your soul.  

    Americans increasingly forget that.  It's one reason why people down there feel so bad about their country. What they don't realize is that it's their own attitudes that cause their discontent. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Disregarding the commentary on Americans and their self-image, this is a business decision.  I seriously doubt that VW is involving his soul in his thought processes with reagard to this issue.  I can also assure you that BB has had no dialog with his soul in these negotiations. 

    How I treat my employess is one thing.  What I expect from the New England Patriots in negotiations such as these is quite another.  It is the culture of the NFL and is reality.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's never just business.  

    And if you try to reduce it to just business, you diminish yourself and the world you live in.

    Sorry for the lecture, but I'm kind of sick of a culture that considers the human dimension of relationships less important than the financial. 

     

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Restructuring is part of the business.  Vince knows this and is playing the only real card that he has by asking for his release.  The Pats know exactly what they are doing and if Vince doesn't know what he's doing shame on him.

    I do not get this 'loyalty' stuff.  Do the fans on this board want to win or not?  You can't have it both ways. Either loyalty to one player (no matter who it is) is top priority or winning is the top priority.

    For me, it's winning and if that means restructuring VW then so be it.  Or cutting him.  Or trading him. Or hiring him as team mascot. 

    Do what you need to do BB to continue to do what is best for the team.  End of conversation IMO.,

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't understand why it's a bad thing for him to ask for his release. If the Pats want to pay him less, it's certainly in his best interest to be able to shop around the league to see if some team will pay him more than the Pats will.  The CBA gives the teams all the power in this situation because they can walk away from the contract they signed with the player, but the player can't do the same.  I know those are the rules that were agreed to, and so the Pats are under no obligation to release him and can keep him off the market either to try to pressure him into signing their deal or (somewhat vindictively) to make him pay for not signing it. I just don't see how anyone can blame Wilfork for requesting a release in this situation, which is something he has every right to do. He has a deal with the Pats to be paid $8 million next year.  If the Pats don't want to pay it, they have every right to cut Wilfork.  But hanging on him to him to keep him off the market is a hardball negotiating tactic.  Fine to say playing hardball is okay, but then you can't complain when a player like Mankins refuses to sign his tender (also something perfectly in his rights to do).  They are in some way equivalent hardball tactics, though honestly the team has far more power in these situations, so I find the players' attempts to balance out the power dynamic a little less of a hardball tactic than the owners' pressing a big advantage they already have and thereby negatively impacting an individual's future earning potential. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Neither side is right... both sides are within their rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    True, and as long as there is good faith negotiating going on (or a good faith attempt to negotiate), I have no problem with the Pats refusing to release him.  But I think there's a point where holding the screws to a guy like Wilfork, even if it's within your rights, starts to become pretty crappy behaviour.  I don't think we're at that point yet . . . but I hope it never gets to that point, either. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Not entirely sure that I ever used the word 'bad'.  What I did say is that I hope Vince knows what he's doing because I'm prepared to bet the farm that the Pats know what they're doing.  It's business and that's all it is. 

    If Vince (or anyone else) expected this contract to run full term without a restructuring or renogotiation then they don't know the business of the NFL on both sides - team and player. 

    It's not playing hardball, in my opinion.  It's part of crafting a winning team.  And I hasten to add that indeed both sides are within their rights to do what they are doing.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, nothing is just business.  Human beings are still involved and how you treat people may not matter to your wallet but it does to your soul.  

    Americans increasingly forget that.  It's one reason why people down there feel so bad about their country. What they don't realize is that it's their own attitudes that cause their discontent. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Disregarding the commentary on Americans and their self-image, this is a business decision.  I seriously doubt that VW is involving his soul in his thought processes with reagard to this issue.  I can also assure you that BB has had no dialog with his soul in these negotiations. 

    How I treat my employess is one thing.  What I expect from the New England Patriots in negotiations such as these is quite another.  It is the culture of the NFL and is reality.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's never just business.  

    And if you try to reduce it to just business, you diminish yourself and the world you live in.

    Sorry for the lecture, but I'm kind of sick of a culture that considers the human dimension of relationships less important than the financial.  

    [/QUOTE]


    Your philosophical repugnance toward the NFL business culture is noteworthy and commmendable but, with all due respect, irrelevant to this discussion.  The reality of it - and I'm afraid I'm a reality based guy - is that in the NFL this is business and only business.  If the culture offends you then I respectfully suggest you refrain from engaging in discussions of this nature.  I can assure you it isn't going to change any time soon.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to ATJ's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Restructuring is part of the business.  Vince knows this and is playing the only real card that he has by asking for his release.  The Pats know exactly what they are doing and if Vince doesn't know what he's doing shame on him.

    I do not get this 'loyalty' stuff.  Do the fans on this board want to win or not?  You can't have it both ways. Either loyalty to one player (no matter who it is) is top priority or winning is the top priority.

    For me, it's winning and if that means restructuring VW then so be it.  Or cutting him.  Or trading him. Or hiring him as team mascot. 

    Do what you need to do BB to continue to do what is best for the team.  End of conversation IMO.,

     

     



    I don't understand why it's a bad thing for him to ask for his release. If the Pats want to pay him less, it's certainly in his best interest to be able to shop around the league to see if some team will pay him more than the Pats will.  The CBA gives the teams all the power in this situation because they can walk away from the contract they signed with the player, but the player can't do the same.  I know those are the rules that were agreed to, and so the Pats are under no obligation to release him and can keep him off the market either to try to pressure him into signing their deal or (somewhat vindictively) to make him pay for not signing it. I just don't see how anyone can blame Wilfork for requesting a release in this situation, which is something he has every right to do. He has a deal with the Pats to be paid $8 million next year.  If the Pats don't want to pay it, they have every right to cut Wilfork.  But hanging on him to him to keep him off the market is a hardball negotiating tactic.  Fine to say playing hardball is okay, but then you can't complain when a player like Mankins refuses to sign his tender (also something perfectly in his rights to do).  They are in some way equivalent hardball tactics, though honestly the team has far more power in these situations, so I find the players' attempts to balance out the power dynamic a little less of a hardball tactic than the owners' pressing a big advantage they already have and thereby negatively impacting an individual's future earning potential. 

     

     

     

     




    Neither side is right... both sides are within their rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    True, and as long as there is good faith negotiating going on (or a good faith attempt to negotiate), I have no problem with the Pats refusing to release him.  But I think there's a point where holding the screws to a guy like Wilfork, even if it's within your rights, starts to become pretty crappy behaviour.  I don't think we're at that point yet . . . but I hope it never gets to that point, either. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Not entirely sure that I ever used the word 'bad'.  What I did say is that I hope Vince knows what he's doing because I'm prepared to bet the farm that the Pats know what they're doing.  It's business and that's all it is. 

    If Vince (or anyone else) expected this contract to run full term without a restructuring or renogotiation then they don't know the business of the NFL on both sides - team and player. 

    It's not playing hardball, in my opinion.  It's part of crafting a winning team.  And I hasten to add that indeed both sides are within their rights to do what they are doing.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, nothing is just business.  Human beings are still involved and how you treat people may not matter to your wallet but it does to your soul.  

    Americans increasingly forget that.  It's one reason why people down there feel so bad about their country. What they don't realize is that it's their own attitudes that cause their discontent. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Disregarding the commentary on Americans and their self-image, this is a business decision.  I seriously doubt that VW is involving his soul in his thought processes with reagard to this issue.  I can also assure you that BB has had no dialog with his soul in these negotiations. 

    How I treat my employess is one thing.  What I expect from the New England Patriots in negotiations such as these is quite another.  It is the culture of the NFL and is reality.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's never just business.  

    And if you try to reduce it to just business, you diminish yourself and the world you live in.

    Sorry for the lecture, but I'm kind of sick of a culture that considers the human dimension of relationships less important than the financial.  

    [/QUOTE]


    Your philosophical repugnance toward the NFL business culture is noteworthy and commmendable but, with all due respect, irrelevant to this discussion.  The reality of it - and I'm afraid I'm a reality based guy - is that in the NFL this is business and only business.  If the culture offends you then I respectfully suggest you refrain from engaging in discussions of this nature.  I can assure you it isn't going to change any time soon.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's more than the NFL culture I find repugnant. 

    I'm reality based too, by the way.  I just think reality should--and can, if we choose to make it so--be bigger than just business. What is relevant or irrelevant very much depends on what we choose to make relevant or irrelevant. 

    As far as my refraining from engaging in discussions, I'll express my opinion as much as I damn well please, thank you very much.

      

     

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Restructuring is part of the business.  Vince knows this and is playing the only real card that he has by asking for his release.  The Pats know exactly what they are doing and if Vince doesn't know what he's doing shame on him.

    I do not get this 'loyalty' stuff.  Do the fans on this board want to win or not?  You can't have it both ways. Either loyalty to one player (no matter who it is) is top priority or winning is the top priority.

    For me, it's winning and if that means restructuring VW then so be it.  Or cutting him.  Or trading him. Or hiring him as team mascot. 

    Do what you need to do BB to continue to do what is best for the team.  End of conversation IMO.,

     

     



    I don't understand why it's a bad thing for him to ask for his release. If the Pats want to pay him less, it's certainly in his best interest to be able to shop around the league to see if some team will pay him more than the Pats will.  The CBA gives the teams all the power in this situation because they can walk away from the contract they signed with the player, but the player can't do the same.  I know those are the rules that were agreed to, and so the Pats are under no obligation to release him and can keep him off the market either to try to pressure him into signing their deal or (somewhat vindictively) to make him pay for not signing it. I just don't see how anyone can blame Wilfork for requesting a release in this situation, which is something he has every right to do. He has a deal with the Pats to be paid $8 million next year.  If the Pats don't want to pay it, they have every right to cut Wilfork.  But hanging on him to him to keep him off the market is a hardball negotiating tactic.  Fine to say playing hardball is okay, but then you can't complain when a player like Mankins refuses to sign his tender (also something perfectly in his rights to do).  They are in some way equivalent hardball tactics, though honestly the team has far more power in these situations, so I find the players' attempts to balance out the power dynamic a little less of a hardball tactic than the owners' pressing a big advantage they already have and thereby negatively impacting an individual's future earning potential. 

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Neither side is right... both sides are within their rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    True, and as long as there is good faith negotiating going on (or a good faith attempt to negotiate), I have no problem with the Pats refusing to release him.  But I think there's a point where holding the screws to a guy like Wilfork, even if it's within your rights, starts to become pretty crappy behaviour.  I don't think we're at that point yet . . . but I hope it never gets to that point, either. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Not entirely sure that I ever used the word 'bad'.  What I did say is that I hope Vince knows what he's doing because I'm prepared to bet the farm that the Pats know what they're doing.  It's business and that's all it is. 

    If Vince (or anyone else) expected this contract to run full term without a restructuring or renogotiation then they don't know the business of the NFL on both sides - team and player. 

    It's not playing hardball, in my opinion.  It's part of crafting a winning team.  And I hasten to add that indeed both sides are within their rights to do what they are doing.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, nothing is just business.  Human beings are still involved and how you treat people may not matter to your wallet but it does to your soul.  

    Americans increasingly forget that.  It's one reason why people down there feel so bad about their country. What they don't realize is that it's their own attitudes that cause their discontent. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Disregarding the commentary on Americans and their self-image, this is a business decision.  I seriously doubt that VW is involving his soul in his thought processes with reagard to this issue.  I can also assure you that BB has had no dialog with his soul in these negotiations. 

    How I treat my employess is one thing.  What I expect from the New England Patriots in negotiations such as these is quite another.  It is the culture of the NFL and is reality.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's never just business.  

    And if you try to reduce it to just business, you diminish yourself and the world you live in.

    Sorry for the lecture, but I'm kind of sick of a culture that considers the human dimension of relationships less important than the financial.  

    [/QUOTE]


    Your philosophical repugnance toward the NFL business culture is noteworthy and commmendable but, with all due respect, irrelevant to this discussion.  The reality of it - and I'm afraid I'm a reality based guy - is that in the NFL this is business and only business.  If the culture offends you then I respectfully suggest you refrain from engaging in discussions of this nature.  I can assure you it isn't going to change any time soon.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's more than the NFL culture I find repugnant. 

    I'm reality based too, by the way.  I just think reality should--and can, if we choose to make it so--be bigger than just business. What is relevant or irrelevant very much depends on what we choose to make relevant or irrelevant. 

    As far as my refraining from engaging in discussions, I'll express my opinion as much as I damn well please, thank you very much.

    [/QUOTE]

    How about dismounting from that high horse long enough to understand what I'm saying.  First, I would never tell anyone that they shouldn't post here.  And I would think you  would know me well enough by now to know that.  I'm saying that whether you like it or not and whether I agree with you or not, the NFL does not and will not change the way it does business. 

    In order for NFL contract negotiations to be much less cold and calculating and much more cordial and considerate agents, lawyers, business models and free agency need to be eliminated from the process.  And that isn't going to happen.  That's what I'm saying.  Whether it should or shouldn't is a separate discussion.

    Now continue being pissed off and antagonistic if you wish.  I do beg your pardon if how the NFL work offends you.
     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Salcon. Show Salcon's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    Right on ATJ.

    Way too much money involved.  The players are probably not seen as people but commodities and that is just a fact.

    I wish the company I work for saw me more as a person with a family that has given them 27 plus years of my life before they callously reduced my pay and almost every one of my benefits and froze my pension.  But that's life in big business.

    Wilfork made millions.  Right now he is an unknown coming off that achilles injury.  Can he still play at a high level?  Who knows.  Maybe the Pats saw a bit of a drop-off before the injury.  Again, we don't know and frankly, I don't care.  All I care about is how he performs for the team that I follow.  This is entertainment for me. Not real life.  I have my own problems and watching football is one of the things I do as an escape from the doldrums of working for a living.   If VW isn't there to entertain me then someone else will be.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    Most of what is written here is a debate that has gone on for years when players have been released or signed elsewhere.

    The only problem I have is far too many are saying the Pats released the information on the contract. That may not be true. It maybe a Wilfolk insider or a Pats insider we do not know.
    Funny both sides could have agreed to the release of the information since neither is disputing it in any way right now.

    V W and Welker and Talib were injured players. No one knows how V W will play but Pats are going with what they know about players who have had this injury before. Welker is one hard hit from becoming another concusion stat. Talib is also working on what seems to be leg issues.

    Pats work it as a business and to us fans may not always seem fair.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I think your problem in all this is that you ignore the cap. You somehow apply normal business principles to something that is in no way a normal business.

    A team's greatest loyalty should lie with the fans. They pay all the bills. It is the team's obligation to put the very best product out on the field that they can. If that means cutting somebody or offering a restructure, because of the finite cap, then so be it.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not ignoring the cap. If they offered him a reasonable restructure and he said no by all means it's a business just cut him. However, if they lowballed him, why do that just cut him and let him hit FA right away. The only reason to let this stuff leak is to get the fanbase on your side, the Sox do it all the time. Listen I have no problem with them cutting a guy for a business decision but how you treat players during contract talks and esp on their way out the door makes a huge difference, esp to the younger guys. I said it back during those negotiations it was short sighted of them to be so hard nose about it and down the road those tactics would come back to bite them. This is a case where that has happened as both Wilfork and Mankins won't take restructures at a time when the team needs extra space and now they will have to lose a starter and replace him. Right or wrong that's what is happening and that's all I'm saying, maybe the first time they went hard into those talks was the best short term move because they might have saved some coin but long term I think it hurt them.

    [/QUOTE]


    You are seriously contending that Wilfork and Mankins would be more willing to restructure if the Pats had been nicer in their last contract negotiation?

    There isn't an iota of evidence that is true. Both were grumbley about those negotiations and Mankins was a super jerk. I would have let them both walk.

    Bottom line is that the Pats paid them very well and that is not something they readily do (nor should do). But that makes the Pats bad guys because they didn't beg them to take all that money?

    The bottom line is that the Pats have offered him whatever they think he is still worth. A fair person might applaud them for not cutting him last year after he got hurt sice he apparently doesn't fit their plans anyway.

    I just don't get this drama queen angst about Wilfork. He has outlived his usefulness as a player on this team for the money he gets. It happens all the time in the NFL. See ya Vince.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    That's what I am saying. I have the most respect for vw regardless of where he plays. I am simply looking at it from a cost/benefit standpoint. why not pay a kid like nix a fraction of his salary for the same or similar production? 

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree but look at this thread alone. How many fans who 3 years ago would have laid down in mud if Wilfork asked them to are now calling him greedy, and just average, and not a team player? I mean really, as Triple pointed out in the last week we saw that happen with Talib and last year you saw it with Welker, you saw it with Seymour and Law and Samuel and every other former Pat. Why is it as fans we can't just except it as business and instead have to vilify every player that leaves. I have a strange feeling if Brady didn't want to renegotiate his contract last year we'd have more Rusty's out there.

    I'm just tired of fans instantly jumping on players without knowing the situation. I also don't like fans can't see how these types of actions can hurt a team in the eyes of younger players. If it's business everyone can understand that but when a lifelong loyal player gets dragged through the mud then how does that look in the eyes of younger players?

    [/QUOTE]


    It's mostly the Jim Jones...errr I mean BB, kool-aid guzzling crowd.

    Business is business, no doubt but the people here that diss the player  (Wilfork,Welker) after they leave or want to leave and embrace players they previously dissed are more than embarrassing.  All of the sudden they suck or all of the sudden previous concerns or they used to suck are mute?

    What's changed?  BB wants them or not.  It's disturbing and frankly, stupid.

    [/QUOTE]

    Age is a factor in these matters. I don't know about saying players sucked after they leave. Welker and Wilfork were certainly very good players. But having big money contracts as age becomes a factor is not especially advisable. I'm pretty confident in BB the coach knowing when to let guys that play for him go. It's the incoming players from the GM that have been the problem for this team.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattC05. Show MattC05's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bottom line is that the Pats paid them very well and that is not something they readily do (nor should do). But that makes the Pats bad guys because they didn't beg them to take all that money?

    [/QUOTE]

    For what he's done for this team, the Pats have severely underpaid him since they drafted him; and in the past couple years, have leaned on him more and more until his body finally broke this past year.  And then said "hey, you're injured, we don't want to pay you anymore" when it was BB's decision to play him for 85-90% of snaps for years on end (which is an INSANE workload for a NT) is what got him injured.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I think your problem in all this is that you ignore the cap. You somehow apply normal business principles to something that is in no way a normal business.

    A team's greatest loyalty should lie with the fans. They pay all the bills. It is the team's obligation to put the very best product out on the field that they can. If that means cutting somebody or offering a restructure, because of the finite cap, then so be it.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not ignoring the cap. If they offered him a reasonable restructure and he said no by all means it's a business just cut him. However, if they lowballed him, why do that just cut him and let him hit FA right away. The only reason to let this stuff leak is to get the fanbase on your side, the Sox do it all the time. Listen I have no problem with them cutting a guy for a business decision but how you treat players during contract talks and esp on their way out the door makes a huge difference, esp to the younger guys. I said it back during those negotiations it was short sighted of them to be so hard nose about it and down the road those tactics would come back to bite them. This is a case where that has happened as both Wilfork and Mankins won't take restructures at a time when the team needs extra space and now they will have to lose a starter and replace him. Right or wrong that's what is happening and that's all I'm saying, maybe the first time they went hard into those talks was the best short term move because they might have saved some coin but long term I think it hurt them.

    [/QUOTE]


    You are seriously contending that Wilfork and Mankins would be more willing to restructure if the Pats had been nicer in their last contract negotiation?

    There isn't an iota of evidence that is true. Both were grumbley about those negotiations and Mankins was a super jerk. I would have let them both walk.

    Bottom line is that the Pats paid them very well and that is not something they readily do (nor should do). But that makes the Pats bad guys because they didn't beg them to take all that money?

    The bottom line is that the Pats have offered him whatever they think he is still worth. A fair person might applaud them for not cutting him last year after he got hurt sice he apparently doesn't fit their plans anyway.

    I just don't get this drama queen angst about Wilfork. He has outlived his usefulness as a player on this team for the money he gets. It happens all the time in the NFL. See ya Vince.

     

    [/QUOTE]
    This is the problem here.  You guys call it a business when Belichick squeezes a player for discount or pay cut, but hate on the players who use their leverage to maximize their deals. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    Actually, nothing is just business.  Human beings are still involved and how you treat people may not matter to your wallet but it does to your soul.  

    Americans increasingly forget that.  It's one reason why people down there feel so bad about their country. What they don't realize is that it's their own attitudes that cause their discontent. 



    Yeah, if we Americans could only think like those utopian canucks all would be heavenly. LMAO

    That whole country is full of a bunch of delusional twits that overcompensate for an inferiority complex. Get over it. It's okay that you don't matter. Be at peace with it.

    Believe me, Americans don't obsess over Canadians like Canadians do over Americans. We simply hardly notice they exist and unquestionably don't look to them for advice on anything whatsoever.

    Poor Vince only got 25 million guaranteed from those heartless Americans! They have no soul! LMAO again.

    I should note that it is really only the eastern english speaking canadians that have this problem. They really do the same thing to the rest of the canadians as they do to Americans, I am told. So, this boils down to some 15 million twits who think they know what's good for everybody else. Laughable that such nobodys could feign thinking so much of themselves as a compensation mechanism.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Restructuring is part of the business.  Vince knows this and is playing the only real card that he has by asking for his release.  The Pats know exactly what they are doing and if Vince doesn't know what he's doing shame on him.

    I do not get this 'loyalty' stuff.  Do the fans on this board want to win or not?  You can't have it both ways. Either loyalty to one player (no matter who it is) is top priority or winning is the top priority.

    For me, it's winning and if that means restructuring VW then so be it.  Or cutting him.  Or trading him. Or hiring him as team mascot. 

    Do what you need to do BB to continue to do what is best for the team.  End of conversation IMO.,

     

     



    I don't understand why it's a bad thing for him to ask for his release. If the Pats want to pay him less, it's certainly in his best interest to be able to shop around the league to see if some team will pay him more than the Pats will.  The CBA gives the teams all the power in this situation because they can walk away from the contract they signed with the player, but the player can't do the same.  I know those are the rules that were agreed to, and so the Pats are under no obligation to release him and can keep him off the market either to try to pressure him into signing their deal or (somewhat vindictively) to make him pay for not signing it. I just don't see how anyone can blame Wilfork for requesting a release in this situation, which is something he has every right to do. He has a deal with the Pats to be paid $8 million next year.  If the Pats don't want to pay it, they have every right to cut Wilfork.  But hanging on him to him to keep him off the market is a hardball negotiating tactic.  Fine to say playing hardball is okay, but then you can't complain when a player like Mankins refuses to sign his tender (also something perfectly in his rights to do).  They are in some way equivalent hardball tactics, though honestly the team has far more power in these situations, so I find the players' attempts to balance out the power dynamic a little less of a hardball tactic than the owners' pressing a big advantage they already have and thereby negatively impacting an individual's future earning potential. 

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Neither side is right... both sides are within their rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    True, and as long as there is good faith negotiating going on (or a good faith attempt to negotiate), I have no problem with the Pats refusing to release him.  But I think there's a point where holding the screws to a guy like Wilfork, even if it's within your rights, starts to become pretty crappy behaviour.  I don't think we're at that point yet . . . but I hope it never gets to that point, either. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Not entirely sure that I ever used the word 'bad'.  What I did say is that I hope Vince knows what he's doing because I'm prepared to bet the farm that the Pats know what they're doing.  It's business and that's all it is. 

    If Vince (or anyone else) expected this contract to run full term without a restructuring or renogotiation then they don't know the business of the NFL on both sides - team and player. 

    It's not playing hardball, in my opinion.  It's part of crafting a winning team.  And I hasten to add that indeed both sides are within their rights to do what they are doing.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, nothing is just business.  Human beings are still involved and how you treat people may not matter to your wallet but it does to your soul.  

    Americans increasingly forget that.  It's one reason why people down there feel so bad about their country. What they don't realize is that it's their own attitudes that cause their discontent. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Disregarding the commentary on Americans and their self-image, this is a business decision.  I seriously doubt that VW is involving his soul in his thought processes with reagard to this issue.  I can also assure you that BB has had no dialog with his soul in these negotiations. 

    How I treat my employess is one thing.  What I expect from the New England Patriots in negotiations such as these is quite another.  It is the culture of the NFL and is reality.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's never just business.  

    And if you try to reduce it to just business, you diminish yourself and the world you live in.

    Sorry for the lecture, but I'm kind of sick of a culture that considers the human dimension of relationships less important than the financial.  

    [/QUOTE]


    Your philosophical repugnance toward the NFL business culture is noteworthy and commmendable but, with all due respect, irrelevant to this discussion.  The reality of it - and I'm afraid I'm a reality based guy - is that in the NFL this is business and only business.  If the culture offends you then I respectfully suggest you refrain from engaging in discussions of this nature.  I can assure you it isn't going to change any time soon.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's more than the NFL culture I find repugnant. 

    I'm reality based too, by the way.  I just think reality should--and can, if we choose to make it so--be bigger than just business. What is relevant or irrelevant very much depends on what we choose to make relevant or irrelevant. 

    As far as my refraining from engaging in discussions, I'll express my opinion as much as I damn well please, thank you very much.

    [/QUOTE]

    How about dismounting from that high horse long enough to understand what I'm saying.  First, I would never tell anyone that they shouldn't post here.  And I would think you  would know me well enough by now to know that.  I'm saying that whether you like it or not and whether I agree with you or not, the NFL does not and will not change the way it does business. 

    In order for NFL contract negotiations to be much less cold and calculating and much more cordial and considerate agents, lawyers, business models and free agency need to be eliminated from the process.  And that isn't going to happen.  That's what I'm saying.  Whether it should or shouldn't is a separate discussion.

    Now continue being pissed off and antagonistic if you wish.  I do beg your pardon if how the NFL work offends you.
     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think I understand perfectly well what you're saying.  All I'm saying is business is never "just business."  I know a lot of business people like to say that and try to make it that . . . but there's always more involved, and it's really just a choice whether, as a business man, you want to consider those other things important or not.  I don't think the NFL has to change its processes or get lawyers or agents or free agency out of the picture.  That's never going to happen, and it really shouldn't happen because as anyone who is in business knows you need all that to get solid deals done when that much money is at stake. But all that doesn't stop Bob Kraft from taking Vince's situation into consideration as well as the team's and making a decision that's a good compromise for both, even if it's not absolutely the most advantageous for Kraft.  It's not about loyalty, it's about decency.  

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Right on ATJ.

    Way too much money involved.  The players are probably not seen as people but commodities and that is just a fact.

    I wish the company I work for saw me more as a person with a family that has given them 27 plus years of my life before they callously reduced my pay and almost every one of my benefits and froze my pension.  But that's life in big business.

    Wilfork made millions.  Right now he is an unknown coming off that achilles injury.  Can he still play at a high level?  Who knows.  Maybe the Pats saw a bit of a drop-off before the injury.  Again, we don't know and frankly, I don't care.  All I care about is how he performs for the team that I follow.  This is entertainment for me. Not real life.  I have my own problems and watching football is one of the things I do as an escape from the doldrums of working for a living.   If VW isn't there to entertain me then someone else will be.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's life in big business because we allow it to be life in big business.  

    It's a choice whether we live by the golden rule or not. 

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bottom line is that the Pats paid them very well and that is not something they readily do (nor should do). But that makes the Pats bad guys because they didn't beg them to take all that money?

    [/QUOTE]

    For what he's done for this team, the Pats have severely underpaid him since they drafted him; and in the past couple years, have leaned on him more and more until his body finally broke this past year.  And then said "hey, you're injured, we don't want to pay you anymore" when it was BB's decision to play him for 85-90% of snaps for years on end (which is an INSANE workload for a NT) is what got him injured.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You just have to be kidding. Stop pulling my leg. Poor Vince. He only got 25 mil guaranteed. sniff sniff.

    Guys get old and are dropped from fat contracts in the later years all the time in the NFL. It's understood by both sides. That's why the guaranteed money is the real deal.

    This "oh the poor exploited player" hand wringing is nearly unbearable to endure.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ghostofjri37's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ATJ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Restructuring is part of the business.  Vince knows this and is playing the only real card that he has by asking for his release.  The Pats know exactly what they are doing and if Vince doesn't know what he's doing shame on him.

    I do not get this 'loyalty' stuff.  Do the fans on this board want to win or not?  You can't have it both ways. Either loyalty to one player (no matter who it is) is top priority or winning is the top priority.

    For me, it's winning and if that means restructuring VW then so be it.  Or cutting him.  Or trading him. Or hiring him as team mascot. 

    Do what you need to do BB to continue to do what is best for the team.  End of conversation IMO.,

     

     



    I don't understand why it's a bad thing for him to ask for his release. If the Pats want to pay him less, it's certainly in his best interest to be able to shop around the league to see if some team will pay him more than the Pats will.  The CBA gives the teams all the power in this situation because they can walk away from the contract they signed with the player, but the player can't do the same.  I know those are the rules that were agreed to, and so the Pats are under no obligation to release him and can keep him off the market either to try to pressure him into signing their deal or (somewhat vindictively) to make him pay for not signing it. I just don't see how anyone can blame Wilfork for requesting a release in this situation, which is something he has every right to do. He has a deal with the Pats to be paid $8 million next year.  If the Pats don't want to pay it, they have every right to cut Wilfork.  But hanging on him to him to keep him off the market is a hardball negotiating tactic.  Fine to say playing hardball is okay, but then you can't complain when a player like Mankins refuses to sign his tender (also something perfectly in his rights to do).  They are in some way equivalent hardball tactics, though honestly the team has far more power in these situations, so I find the players' attempts to balance out the power dynamic a little less of a hardball tactic than the owners' pressing a big advantage they already have and thereby negatively impacting an individual's future earning potential. 

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Neither side is right... both sides are within their rights.

    [/QUOTE]

    True, and as long as there is good faith negotiating going on (or a good faith attempt to negotiate), I have no problem with the Pats refusing to release him.  But I think there's a point where holding the screws to a guy like Wilfork, even if it's within your rights, starts to become pretty crappy behaviour.  I don't think we're at that point yet . . . but I hope it never gets to that point, either. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Not entirely sure that I ever used the word 'bad'.  What I did say is that I hope Vince knows what he's doing because I'm prepared to bet the farm that the Pats know what they're doing.  It's business and that's all it is. 

    If Vince (or anyone else) expected this contract to run full term without a restructuring or renogotiation then they don't know the business of the NFL on both sides - team and player. 

    It's not playing hardball, in my opinion.  It's part of crafting a winning team.  And I hasten to add that indeed both sides are within their rights to do what they are doing.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, nothing is just business.  Human beings are still involved and how you treat people may not matter to your wallet but it does to your soul.  

    Americans increasingly forget that.  It's one reason why people down there feel so bad about their country. What they don't realize is that it's their own attitudes that cause their discontent. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Disregarding the commentary on Americans and their self-image, this is a business decision.  I seriously doubt that VW is involving his soul in his thought processes with reagard to this issue.  I can also assure you that BB has had no dialog with his soul in these negotiations. 

    How I treat my employess is one thing.  What I expect from the New England Patriots in negotiations such as these is quite another.  It is the culture of the NFL and is reality.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's never just business.  

    And if you try to reduce it to just business, you diminish yourself and the world you live in.

    Sorry for the lecture, but I'm kind of sick of a culture that considers the human dimension of relationships less important than the financial.  

    [/QUOTE]


    Your philosophical repugnance toward the NFL business culture is noteworthy and commmendable but, with all due respect, irrelevant to this discussion.  The reality of it - and I'm afraid I'm a reality based guy - is that in the NFL this is business and only business.  If the culture offends you then I respectfully suggest you refrain from engaging in discussions of this nature.  I can assure you it isn't going to change any time soon.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's more than the NFL culture I find repugnant. 

    I'm reality based too, by the way.  I just think reality should--and can, if we choose to make it so--be bigger than just business. What is relevant or irrelevant very much depends on what we choose to make relevant or irrelevant. 

    As far as my refraining from engaging in discussions, I'll express my opinion as much as I damn well please, thank you very much.

    [/QUOTE]

    How about dismounting from that high horse long enough to understand what I'm saying.  First, I would never tell anyone that they shouldn't post here.  And I would think you  would know me well enough by now to know that.  I'm saying that whether you like it or not and whether I agree with you or not, the NFL does not and will not change the way it does business. 

    In order for NFL contract negotiations to be much less cold and calculating and much more cordial and considerate agents, lawyers, business models and free agency need to be eliminated from the process.  And that isn't going to happen.  That's what I'm saying.  Whether it should or shouldn't is a separate discussion.

    Now continue being pissed off and antagonistic if you wish.  I do beg your pardon if how the NFL work offends you.
     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think I understand perfectly well what you're saying.  All I'm saying is business is never "just business."  I know a lot of business people like to say that and try to make it that . . . but there's always more involved, and it's really just a choice whether, as a business man, you want to consider those other things important or not.  I don't think the NFL has to change its processes or get lawyers or agents or free agency out of the picture.  That's never going to happen, and it really shouldn't happen because as anyone who is in business knows you need all that to get solid deals done when that much money is at stake. But all that doesn't stop Bob Kraft from taking Vince's situation into consideration as well as the team's and making a decision that's a good compromise for both, even if it's not absolutely the most advantageous for Kraft.  It's not about loyalty, it's about decency.  

    [/QUOTE]

    You may be right and Robert Kraft may involve himself in these neogtiations from that perspective in which case I will publicly acknowledge it here.  I do not believe he will.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Right on ATJ.

    Way too much money involved.  The players are probably not seen as people but commodities and that is just a fact.

    I wish the company I work for saw me more as a person with a family that has given them 27 plus years of my life before they callously reduced my pay and almost every one of my benefits and froze my pension.  But that's life in big business.

    Wilfork made millions.  Right now he is an unknown coming off that achilles injury.  Can he still play at a high level?  Who knows.  Maybe the Pats saw a bit of a drop-off before the injury.  Again, we don't know and frankly, I don't care.  All I care about is how he performs for the team that I follow.  This is entertainment for me. Not real life.  I have my own problems and watching football is one of the things I do as an escape from the doldrums of working for a living.   If VW isn't there to entertain me then someone else will be.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's life in big business because we allow it to be life in big business.  

    It's a choice whether we live by the golden rule or not. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    ^ Coo coo for cocoa puffs.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Wilfork asks for Release from Pats

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    This is the problem here.  You guys call it a business when Belichick squeezes a player for discount or pay cut, but hate on the players who use their leverage to maximize their deals. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't. Most every guy who gets into these big bucks negotiations I would let walk.

    Neither Mankins nor Wilfork would have ever got the money they did from me.

     

Share