View Full Version : Not Feeling Very Good

01-09-2001, 09:14 PM
I just listen to Chris Mortensen's comments regarding today's hearing...He says that the Rams stance of not wanting Vermeil to coach isn't going to happen...He is going to rule that Vermeil will be able to coach but it will just be a matter of compensation...He went on to say that he thinks that it will be along the lines of the Parcells case...Which was a 3 and a 4 in the 1st year then a 2 in the next draft and then a #1 the following...I swear to christ he better be way wrong about that...If we have to give up anything close to that I will be bring my 20 plus year love affair with this franchise to a screeching halt....I will burn every piece of apparel and merchandise that I own....This disgruntled Chief fan is in no kind of emotional condition to take that kind of blow...not after this miserable fuggin year with GOONTHAR...I'm going to need counseling...

Rick Stephens
01-09-2001, 09:21 PM
I heard on WHB this afternoon that it is probably a second and a third round pick. They were saying that there was no way that there is a #1 pick involved and when everyone left the hearing they pretty much knew what the compensation would be. Look for an announcement in the morning.

01-09-2001, 09:21 PM
I don't see any way that compensation could logically apply here because we're not talking about two teams that play each other every year multiple times, and we're not talking about a coach who is going to be hired to be both GM and coach, like Parcells was. But I suppose sometimes logic does not come into play with the NFL...

01-09-2001, 09:22 PM
Don't sweat it...CM said he wasn't coming in the 1st place...No 1st rd pic to StL this year or next. Worst case,IMHO...a 2 and a 3..maybe 3 and a 3...CP has the edge on this one!

01-09-2001, 09:24 PM

I will still be very pissed if it is a 2 and a 3, but I think I will be able to avoid counseling...And that #2 better not be this year cause it is a very high #2...

01-09-2001, 10:05 PM
Oh oh... looks like a new ID is needed....

Please note that jl80 was previously known as Jleighty till taking a self imposed header of a bridge after a particularly hard loss.... He was then resurrected as jl80.....

Notorious GUN
01-10-2001, 07:39 AM
As long as we don't give up a #1 pick this year I will be happy. What people are failing to realize is that last year we could of had Marshall Faulk in the backfield and wouldn't have done anything because of the lack of ability to gameplan on the coaching staff. If it takes a 2 and a 3, then I would be content with that.

If Belichick got a #1 and never did anything when he was the coach of the Browns, then Vermeil likely will require a #2.

Vermeil will bring the assistants to be able to gameplan and actually coach the players. This makes all the difference to me. I want to win now, and if we have a rookie head coach, we likely would not win next year.

If by some miracle we are unable to keep the #12 and must surrender it to St. Louis then this will make CP and Vermeil go out and get an impact player in free agency.

But to complain about giving up a #2 is ridiculous. He is a Superbowl coach. I dont care what his record was previous to that, but the NFL is a "what have you done for me lately league" and he won the bowl when he last coached.

01-10-2001, 07:49 AM

"But to complain about giving up a #2 is ridiculous."

We wouldn't even give up a #2 and a 5 for Marshall Faulk two years ago when he was on the block and we badly needed a feature back...So if Peterson wouldn't get off his ass and attempt to make that deal for a 2 and a 5 to get a stud RB in his prime then we as fans have every fuggin right in the world to get pissed off and complain about giving up a 2 and a 4 for a 64 year old coach.

01-10-2001, 07:56 AM
This just proves that <b>none</b> of these experts know any more than we do. I've heard ESPN gurus say everything from Parcellels compensation to no compensation.

Relax gang, the drama will play out soon enough. Till then we're <b>all</b> shooting in the dark.

Notorious GUN
01-10-2001, 08:20 AM

I read somewhere a couple of months ago that the Colts would have never traded Faulk to an AFC team. The reason the Rams got him so cheap was because of the fact that they were in the NFC, and they knew they wouldn't have to face Faulk unless it was in the Superbowl.

People keep bringing up this "64-year old coach" issue every chance they get. Marv Levy was well into his 60's when he took the Bills to countless Superbowls. Bobby Bowden is in his 70's as well, and consistantly leads FSU to impressive seasons. I don't put much stock that he's a 64 year old coach. Vermeil always looks to be in good shape health wise, and I'm sure he won't put in the hours Gunther did. Vermeil used to be a work-a-holic, but those days have passed.

As I said before, if Belichick went for a #1, and he didn't have the resume that Vermeil has, then I would be OK with giving up a second round pick.

01-10-2001, 08:42 AM

You are right about them wanting more from an AFC team but he could have been had...Baltimore about had a deal worked out for a 1 and a 5...The Colts wanted a 1 and a 3...Baltimore stood firm on a 1 and a 5 so Polian got pissed and dealt him to the Rams for a 2 and a 5...We should have been in the bidding none-the-less especially if we are willing to risk parting with similar compensation for a coach...

BTW 64 is significant...Some people will work well past that age but in general most don't and you can't reasonably expect anyone to want to be around much past that age...

Bob Dole
01-10-2001, 09:07 AM
Bob Dole is not going to be satisfied unless we have to give no more than the 2 3rd round picks acquired from Washington (the "going rate" for an experienced head coach with one year remaining on his contract). That much compensation would not be correct IBDHO...but at least it would be palatable.

<b>Everything</b> Bob Dole has read agrees that Vermeil's coaching contract was terminated. To be forced to compensate more for a coach <b>not</b> under contract (Vermeil) than for a coach clearly under contract (Marty) bears absolutely <b>no</b> resemblance to justice or fairness.

KC Jones
01-10-2001, 09:19 AM
So what's the most likely outcome of the dispute between the Rams and Chiefs over the contractual status of Dick Vermeil? Look for NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue to rule in favor of Kansas City, and then require the Chiefs to give up a pair of draft pick compensation to the Rams.

Kansas City is expected to get the nod because the language included in Vermeil's disputed Rams contract is fairly clear: It uses the word "terminated" in regards to Vermeil's early 2000 retirement, which allowed the Rams to set up their generous plan to pay him $500,000 per year as a consultant for four years.

The league probably can't rule against contractual language that strong, but the NFL also does not want to set a precedent of allowing a coach to break a contract and go to work for another team without consequences. Thus it'll come down to how much compensation can the Rams fairly expect for Vermeil?

Last week Chiefs general manager Carl Peterson was willing to pay the Rams two third-round picks for Vermeil. St. Louis team president John Shaw is adamant that the Rams want the Chiefs' No. 1 pick this year.

It's unlikely that Tagliabue will grant the Rams' request, given that Kansas City's first-rounder is the 12th overall pick this year. He'll probably try and split the difference between the first-rounder, and the two third-rounders being offered. Maybe a second and a fourth-rounder would get the matter settled and deliver Vermeil to Kansas City.

-- Don Banks, Sports Illustrated

Bob Dole
01-10-2001, 09:27 AM
<i>"Last week Chiefs general manager Carl Peterson was willing to pay the Rams two third-round picks for Vermeil. St. Louis team president John Shaw is adamant that the Rams want the Chiefs' No. 1 pick this year."</i>

Bob Dole believes this willingness is false, according to an article in today's Star.

<i>"It's unlikely that Tagliabue will grant the Rams' request, given that Kansas City's first-rounder is the 12th overall pick this year. He'll probably try and split the difference between the first-rounder, and the two third-rounders being offered. Maybe a second and a fourth-rounder would get the matter settled and deliver Vermeil to Kansas City."</i>

And like Bob Dole wrote in Bob Dole's last post: It seems real "fair and just" to force a team to give up more compensation for a coach <b>not</b> under contract than one that is.

<i>"...but the NFL also does not want to set a precedent of allowing a coach to break a contract and go to work for another team without consequences."</i>

The precedent that needs to be set is "write your damned contracts properly or pay the consequences." Or "don't allow your coach to break his contract if you don't want him coaching somewhere else."

Nice to know that the sportswriters (like most of the players) don't live in the same world as the rest of us where you pay a price for your mistakes.

01-10-2001, 09:34 AM
I agree with BOB DOLE's oppinion...Since when is the "intent" more legally binding than the "written word in a signed document"..

I don't know alot about contract law, but the one thing I DO know is that it doesn't really matter what is said, IT is the written wording of the contract that holds binding...I bought a house recently, alot of things were promised before closing, and I made darn sure the things I wanted done were in the contract....the items not in the contract weren't done.

Shaw should get a "red belly" for being an idiot...If you are hired to oversee contracts, get paid very well to do it, the least he could do is actually think ahead and cover issues like this in writing.

01-10-2001, 09:40 AM
If the Chiefs have to give up any draft picks as compensation, I'm going to be pissed.
Those picks could potentially contribute for years. Vermeil will only be around for 2 or 3. This draft is deep. I want those picks.

01-10-2001, 09:43 AM
I completely agree...I know one thing for sure and that is JL80 has never had anything in life go his way based on "intent" or the "spirit of" BS that I keep hearing over and over...

01-10-2001, 10:11 AM
I think we will have to compensate STL and it won't be for any "spirit" or "intent" but for tampering. Anything less than this years 1st or multiple picks this year I can live with. If we lose #12 and Dan Morgan sits there or even worse...goes to STL, I may cry.

01-10-2001, 10:14 AM

I agree with your thinking...but to this point there has not been a single word from anyone somewhat in the know that tampering is even being considered...Also, I don't know if "tampering" even exist when it comes to a consultant as opposed to a coach or player...

[Edited by jl80 on 01-10-2001 at 10:16 AM]

Bob Dole
01-10-2001, 10:34 AM
An article yesterday (can't remember where or who, so it may have been in the Post-Dispatch) mentioned tampering, but unless there is an exclusivity clause in the consultation agreement (which has not been mentioned in the press), then there is no tampering.

Carl and Lamar may be a lot of things, but Bob Dole is fairly certain that Lamar would not approve/participate in <b>anything</b> that related to tampering.

01-10-2001, 10:41 AM
The tampering charge allows the NFL to award picks to STL. Apparently the contract language is pretty specific in ending DV's HC contract. The NFL cannot and willnot allow DV to move w/o some sort of compensation and the tampering charge will give them the excuse they need.


The more I think about it, the more I agree that Dan Morgan should be our man. King Carl should trade up if need be. A stud runner may be there in FA or 2nd round. A Dan Morgan will not be.

Bob Dole
01-10-2001, 10:44 AM
So your feeling is that the commissioner can just make up a tampering excuse and award picks, or do you have some basis for your position on tampering?

01-10-2001, 10:47 AM

I completely agree...He is the only player in the draft that fits one of our needs that I believe is a can't miss...Barring injury, worst case scenario is that he will be a good starter...best case scenario is that he will be the best LB in the game...reality will probably be somewhere in between but I think it will fall closer to the later... I would be willing to give up our 1 and 2 to move up or our 1 and a pair our pair of 3's...

Now that Vick is in the picture I am re-evaluating our chances of him falling to us at 12...I think we would need to move up to #7 to get him which is Seattle's pick...Being that they have two 1st rounders and a lot of holes they might be willing to make that move with us...

01-10-2001, 11:01 AM
IMO, inviting a member of the STL Rams, even a consultant, into managment meetings of the KC Chiefs constitutes tampering. The NFL commissioner can award compensation as he sees fit. He does not have to "make up a tampering excuse" all he has to is determine in his own mind tampering took place and rule as such. Does anyone really think KC will get DV for nothing? If the contract language is iron-clad as it appears, how will Tags justify giving STL comp.? Carl apparently offered the Rams some sort of comp package already. Why did he do that if he did not have to? IMO, he thought that if the commish were to rule anything could happen. That may include #12.

Bob Dole
01-10-2001, 11:07 AM
As stated earlier, Peterson says that he never offered St. Louis compensation.

<i>"The Chiefs feel so strongly about the case they agreed to a three-year, $10 million contract with Vermeil and never made an offer to the Rams to settle the issue."</i>

And it's pretty scary that you (and apparently others) think "all he has to do is determine in his own mind..." Why bother to have any damned contracts at all, then? Why bother to have employment rules? Hell...maybe the NFL should buy an island, declare themselves an independent nation, draft their own employment laws and do whatever the hell they want?

01-10-2001, 11:20 AM
I think we will have to pay St Louis some kind of compensation, and the only reason I think Carl is trying to reach a compromise is because there is NO WAY the Rams are going to even allow us to sniff in the direction of Al Saunders if we screw them over totally. They wouldn't even let Marty speak to him without promise of compensation.

Regarding the earlier thing regarding Faulk for a 2 and 5: One thing people are forgetting is what was reported when that deal was made, and that is Polian and Vermiel are good buddies, and they had a rapport going, so when he wanted to trade him away to the NFC, Vermiel had a big advantage.

As far as the 2nd rounder, it could be valuable, or it could be Mike Cloud. A coach and a staff can mean a world of difference, and I'd gladly give up a 2 if it improved that aspect of my team drastically...

[Edited by DaWolf on 01-10-2001 at 11:23 AM]

01-10-2001, 11:25 AM
Bob Dole,

How does the commish enforce any of his rulings? He is the judge in these matters and the US courts will not be involved. Comp. has been provided in the Holmgren, Belichek, Schottenheimer, and Parcells cases. I can't see any way comp. won't be provided in this case. As far as Carl saying he never offered comp., Would he ever 'fess up if it were to his advantage to deny?

01-10-2001, 12:49 PM
And that list of coaches gives you precedent...

That's what's kicking the shit out of me!!! Holmgren, Parcells, and Belicheck all cost 1st rounders - and all were COACHES with years remaining on their ACTIVE contracts.

Dick Vermeil is retired with one year left, as was Marty. Therefore, precedent is NOT a 1st ROUND PICK, it is 1 or 2 THIRD ROUND picks...

Chris Mortenson is an IDIOT...just wanted to say that...

Bob Dole
01-10-2001, 02:11 PM
Actually, Vermeil is retired with ZERO years left on his contract, because they voided the damned thing when he signed the 4 year consultant agreement.

Bob Dole could live with the 2 3rd round pick thing, though.