PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs We need to trade Derrick Johnson


Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 05:48 PM
He's gonna be a free agent soon and we just know he will leave!!!

we better just take what we can get right now before it's too late.


oh noes ... trade him, trade them all before they leave us!!

for the luv of gawd ....... trade them all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f194/UndeadFaith/OH_NOES.jpg

Mecca
04-20-2008, 05:49 PM
When he's one strike away from a year suspension and demands giant money let me know.

Bowser
04-20-2008, 05:50 PM
I wish we could trade our defense for our 1995 defense, and trade our offense for our 2003 oofense. YAY CHAMPIONSHIP!

Bowser
04-20-2008, 05:51 PM
When he's one strike away from a year suspension and demands giant money let me know.

Took all of one post. I figured it would take at least 10 or so.

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 05:56 PM
When he's one strike away from a year suspension and demands giant money let me know.
Jared Allen has already said publicly that he would agree to a contract stipulation that would protect the Chiefs against further drinking issues.

but you just keep ignoring it .... it's ok ... really .... it is

Mecca
04-20-2008, 05:56 PM
Jared Allen has already said publicly that he would agree to a contract stipulation that would protect the Chiefs against further drinking issues.

but you just keep ignoring it .... it's ok ... really .... it is

Quick news, the players union would never allow that contract to be passed.

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 05:58 PM
Quick news, the players union would never allow that contract to be passed.
says who?

you?


bullshite


there are already behavior stipulations allowed by the union ..... this would just be more specific



go ahead and make some more shite though

Pasta Giant Meatball
04-20-2008, 05:58 PM
Quick news, the players union would never allow that contract to be passed.

plus how great will it be for the team when his next strike sits him out an entire season.

Mecca
04-20-2008, 05:59 PM
says who?

you?


bullshite


there are already behavior stipulations allowed by the union ..... this would just be more specific



go ahead and make some more shite though

If you really think the players union would be all for letting that contract go through you are naive.

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 06:00 PM
If you really think the players union would be all for letting that contract go through you are naive.
they already do

Deberg_1990
04-20-2008, 06:02 PM
Why do Chiefs fans act as if we would be trading away Lawrence Taylor circa 1986??

Very few players are irreplacable. JA is a good, solid player, but hes not irreplaceable.


Sorry drinking buddies...

Mecca
04-20-2008, 06:03 PM
they already do

Let's ask Mike Vick about his money.......the players union is not for setting precedents that lead to players having to pay money back.

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 06:06 PM
Let's ask Mike Vick about his money.......the players union is not for setting precedents that lead to players having to pay money back.
they very fact that Atlanta can ATTEMPT to retrieve their money is proof that behavior clauses in contracts have gone through.

thanks for proving my point for me ....... next.

Mecca
04-20-2008, 06:07 PM
they very fact that Atlanta can ATTEMPT to retrieve their money is proof that behavior clauses in contracts have gone through.

thanks for proving my point for me ....... next.

Did they get their money back.....yea that's right they didn't.

I find it funny that people are just that easily overlooking his piss poor alcoholic behavior.

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 06:07 PM
Why do Chiefs fans act as if we would be trading away Lawrence Taylor circa 1986??

Very few players are irreplacable. JA is a good, solid player, but hes not irreplaceable.


Sorry drinking buddies...
you would be for trading any player the chiefs TOLD YOU to be for trading.

please, at least wipe carl's shite off your nose before talking next time.

Mecca
04-20-2008, 06:08 PM
And there it is, the "if you support this you are just a Carl dick sucker" post.

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 06:10 PM
Did they get their money back.....yea that's right they didn't.

I find it funny that people are just that easily overlooking his piss poor alcoholic behavior.
i'm not overlooking anything.

he appears to have cleaned up
he has publicly agreed to a contract stipulation
he's the Chiefs best player

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 06:10 PM
And there it is, the "if you support this you are just a Carl dick sucker" post.
nah mecca ... you're just a plain ol' dick sucker.

carl has nothing to do with it

JBucc
04-20-2008, 06:11 PM
How many more of these ****ing "might as well trade this guy too!" threads do we need?

Brock
04-20-2008, 06:13 PM
It doesn't really matter if he agrees to a contract stip, as far as I'm concerned. The team would still be out his services for a year, not that I'm in favor of trading him.

Deberg_1990
04-20-2008, 06:13 PM
you would be for trading any player the chiefs TOLD YOU to be for trading.

please, at least wipe carl's shite off your nose before talking next time.

Riiiiiight


I couldnt HATE Carl more

For the record, i wasnt for trading away LJ.

milkman
04-20-2008, 06:14 PM
How many more of these ****ing "might as well trade this guy too!" threads do we need?

Well, since we only have two or three players worth a damn, I think we've exhausted our possibilities.





Wait......maybe we need a "We should trade Dustin Colquitt" thread.

Deberg_1990
04-20-2008, 06:17 PM
Wait......maybe we need a "We should trade Dustin Colquitt" thread.


If we could get a 2nd or 3rd rounder for him...why not?

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 06:19 PM
If we could get a 2nd or 3rd rounder for him...why not?

are you sarcastic or serious?

milkman
04-20-2008, 06:19 PM
If we could get a 2nd or 3rd rounder for him...why not?

Well, hell yeah, I would.

But I don't think even Carl would give up that much for a punter.

morphius
04-20-2008, 06:21 PM
Quick news, the players union would never allow that contract to be passed.
So we shouldn't even try because you believe so? So we try to sign it, and it doesn't get accepted by the players union and we are out what exactly?

Mr. Flopnuts
04-20-2008, 06:27 PM
Did they get their money back.....yea that's right they didn't.

I find it funny that people are just that easily overlooking his piss poor alcoholic behavior.

There is a big difference between putting an alcohol clause in a player's contract, and putting a dogfighting/illegal behavior clause in. It's apples and oranges. Calm down KU fans, I know I said oranges.

Deberg_1990
04-20-2008, 06:27 PM
are you sarcastic or serious?

No, sarcastic.

But realize this. On a team at rock bottum such as this, almost no player is irreplaceable as i stated before.

Especially a punter!!! :)

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 06:28 PM
Well, hell yeah, I would.

But I don't think even Carl would give up that much for a punter.
i think any team that need a punter would give us a 3rd for Colquitt right now.

if i was a GM .... i would


young,consistent,long life position


why wouldn't u?

Brock
04-20-2008, 06:30 PM
Why the hell would I care whether Clark Hunt gets his money back or not? Losing him for a year is what you should be thinking about.

Mr. Laz
04-20-2008, 06:31 PM
No, sarcastic.

But realize this. On a team at rock bottum such as this, almost no player is irreplaceable as i stated before.

Especially a punter!!! :)
IF ....... the player is old or is in a position with a short shelf life.

colquitt could be .... probably will be punter great for the next 10 years.

Jared allen will be good for several years .... probably.

Larry johnson will NOT be good for several year... probably.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-20-2008, 06:32 PM
Why the hell would I care whether Clark Hunt gets his money back or not? Losing him for a year is what you should be thinking about.

If he gets his money back the team gets to apply it to their cap. In Atlanta's case, they didn't get a credit because they got squadouche. I want KC to be able to pony up more of Hunt's money should shit hit the fan.

Brock
04-20-2008, 06:34 PM
If he gets his money back the team gets to apply it to their cap. In Atlanta's case, they didn't get a credit because they got squadouche. I want KC to be able to pony up more of Hunt's money should shit hit the fan.

I still don't care about the money. The salary cap is pretty much a joke at this point, and it's probably completely moot in a couple of years anyway.

banyon
04-20-2008, 06:46 PM
Damon---> AJ Hinch, Angel Berroa, Roberto Hernandez
Dye----> Neifi Perez
Beltran----> Teahen, Buck, Mike Wood

blueballs
04-20-2008, 06:59 PM
DBowe wants to redo his contract

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2008, 07:02 PM
i'm not overlooking anything.

he appears to have cleaned up
he has publicly agreed to a contract stipulation
he's the Chiefs best player

So a 26 year-old that's had MULTIPLE DUI's in his life (high school, college and two more since joining the NFL) is suddenly become "clean" in a contract year? And YOU trust him?

What. The. F*ck. Ever.

Are you really this gullible?

noa
04-20-2008, 07:04 PM
Did they get their money back.....yea that's right they didn't.

The Falcons didn't have a clause saying, if you go to jail for dogfighting, you pay us X amount of dollars back. I think its a different scenario.
Arguing for getting your money back when there was NO clause in the contract is different than trying to write a contract with a protection clause that both the franchise and the player can agree to.
And I know, the players union won't want to set the precedent, but it might still be worth trying. Maybe strike a deal where you can only use that type of clause on a guy facing a definite 1 year suspension.

jspchief
04-20-2008, 07:05 PM
Losing him for a year is what you should be thinking about.

Losing Jared Allen for a year vs. losing him for the rest of his career....

decisions, decisions.

Chiefnj2
04-20-2008, 07:11 PM
What if he drinks?
What if the #5 pick is a bust?
What if the #5 pick gets hurt?
What if the #5 pick ends up getting in trouble?

You can play these what if games 'til your blue in the face.

milkman
04-20-2008, 07:13 PM
i think any team that need a punter would give us a 3rd for Colquitt right now.

if i was a GM .... i would


young,consistent,long life position


why wouldn't u?

No, I wouldn't.

I understand the value of a punter in the battle for field position, there are very few punters that have been drafted as high as Colquitt, and I think most that were were by the Raiders.

Good, even great punters can be found late in the draft or as UDFAs.

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2008, 07:15 PM
What if he drinks?
What if the #5 pick is a bust?
What if the #5 pick gets hurt?
What if the #5 pick ends up getting in trouble?

You can play these what if games 'til your blue in the face.

Yes, you can.

But when you already have solid evidence that someone can't be trusted, do you just go ahead and ignore it?

I don't think so.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-20-2008, 07:18 PM
I still don't care about the money. The salary cap is pretty much a joke at this point, and it's probably completely moot in a couple of years anyway.

You have a good point. Al Davis is showing how worthless the salary cap is.

Hydrae
04-20-2008, 07:21 PM
Yes, you can.

But when you already have solid evidence that someone can't be trusted, do you just go ahead and ignore it?

I don't think so.

I think it is pretty simple. You wait until the start of camp and then sign him. That will have given him the entire off season to show that he is under control and worth the risk. This also allows you to use the tag to keep him close during the summer and getting it removed before the first game which will negate Allens' threat about that.

Until I read that we actually traded him or we get to the first preseason game without a contract, then I will worry.

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2008, 07:24 PM
I think it is pretty simple. You wait until the start of camp and then sign him. That will have given him the entire off season to show that he is under control and worth the risk. This also allows you to use the tag to keep him close during the summer and getting it removed before the first game which will negate Allens' threat about that.

Until I read that we actually traded him or we get to the first preseason game without a contract, then I will worry.

With Jared Allen's extensive alcoholic history, I'd do exactly what the Chiefs are doing: Let him find a trade partner and let him negotiate a contract with that trade partner.

If the contract is acceptable to the Chiefs, match it. If it's not, let him go for reasonable compensation.

Otherwise, franchise him, make him play for one year under the franchise number (somewhere between $9-10 million) and re-evaluate the situation in 2009.

From a management perspective, they're making the right move (maybe the first time, ever).

J Diddy
04-20-2008, 07:24 PM
I think it is pretty simple. You wait until the start of camp and then sign him. That will have given him the entire off season to show that he is under control and worth the risk. This also allows you to use the tag to keep him close during the summer and getting it removed before the first game which will negate Allens' threat about that.

Until I read that we actually traded him or we get to the first preseason game without a contract, then I will worry.

I think the risk after getting the money is the concern

RedThat
04-20-2008, 07:25 PM
Can't trade em all. Gotta keep some guys.

I don't agree with trading Derrick Johnson, unless he wants to leave? That's a different story.

The other Johnson I would trade even for 2nd rounder I'd jump on it. But guys like Tony G, Waters, Bowe, DJ, Colquitt you keep and build around them. Gotta admit though the Donnie Edwards signings doesn't look so good now. It was good when we signed him, but with the direction were heading in rebuilding given the fact he's 35 why not try to trade him?

Hydrae
04-20-2008, 07:32 PM
I think the risk after getting the money is the concern

What, he doesn't have enough money to go get drunk right now? C'mon

milkman
04-20-2008, 07:33 PM
Can't trade em all. Gotta keep some guys.

I don't agree with trading Derrick Johnson, unless he wants to leave? That's a different story.

The other Johnson I would trade even for 2nd rounder I'd jump on it. But guys like Tony G, Waters, Bowe, DJ, Colquitt you keep and build around them. Gotta admit though the Donnie Edwards signings doesn't look so good now. It was good when we signed him, but with the direction were heading in rebuilding given the fact he's 35 why not try to trade him?

Yeah, a 35 year old LB has a lot of value.

I bet we oculd get a Bud Light for him, even.

J Diddy
04-20-2008, 07:33 PM
What, he doesn't have enough money to go get drunk right now? C'mon

and LJ didn't have enough money?

Hydrae
04-20-2008, 07:34 PM
With Jared Allen's extensive alcoholic history, I'd do exactly what the Chiefs are doing: Let him find a trade partner and let him negotiate a contract with that trade partner.

If the contract is acceptable to the Chiefs, match it. If it's not, let him go for reasonable compensation.

Otherwise, franchise him, make him play for one year under the franchise number (somewhere between $9-10 million) and re-evaluate the situation in 2009.

From a management perspective, they're making the right move (maybe the first time, ever).


He has stated that if he is under the tag for the first game (unsure if it was regular season or if preseason counts for this) he will never sign with the Chiefs. So if you do that, there is little to no re-evaluation needed in 2009. If that is your plan, trade him now while you still can get something in return.

Hydrae
04-20-2008, 07:35 PM
and LJ didn't have enough money?

Huh?

I was pointing out that I seriously doubt that a couple more million in the bank is going to make Jared more likely to go out and get drunk. Nothing to do with LJ.

HMc
04-20-2008, 07:38 PM
I think its less about whether or not he can afford the booze, and more about him having more reasons to stay sober BEFORE he's paid.

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2008, 07:38 PM
He has stated that if he is under the tag for the first game (unsure if it was regular season or if preseason counts for this) he will never sign with the Chiefs. So if you do that, there is little to no re-evaluation needed in 2009. If that is your plan, trade him now while you still can get something in return.

The Chiefs can always tag him again, then trade him.

The Chiefs are in complete control of his destiny.

Sully
04-20-2008, 07:45 PM
How many times can you tag a player? I think they changed it, didn't they?

RedThat
04-20-2008, 07:47 PM
Yeah, a 35 year old LB has a lot of value.

I bet we oculd get a Bud Light for him, even.

Ah trade him for a 6th or 7th rounder? We could get our Tom Brady or Marques Colston there.

CoMoChief
04-20-2008, 10:05 PM
How many times can you tag a player? I think they changed it, didn't they?

I was under the impression that you could tag him as much as you wanted to.

Of course I higher than a kite so what do I know anyways?

Mojo Rising
04-20-2008, 10:30 PM
So a 26 year-old that's had MULTIPLE DUI's in his life (high school, college and two more since joining the NFL) is suddenly become "clean" in a contract year? And YOU trust him?

What. The. F*ck. Ever.

Are you really this gullible?

I have many freinds who are professionals (not football player but people who would lose their career if they had a felony which a 2nd DUI is) and they have figured out when and where to drink. It would be much easier with a $20m signing bonus and multi M per year contract.

Even if we give him a huge signing bonus, he would lose $3-4 M for the suspended year. If he is able to quit drinking for the year he has. He will figure out hoe to have his agent arrange a limo.

It is not like the players with weed problems because they can not overcome their NFL restriction by simply smoking weed at home.

Mojo Rising
04-20-2008, 10:31 PM
I was under the impression that you could tag him as much as you wanted to.

Of course I higher than a kite so what do I know anyways?

We can. We just have to pay him 10% more each year we do. This is what drove C Woodson out of Oakland.

stlchiefs
04-20-2008, 11:02 PM
Quick news, the players union would never allow that contract to be passed.

Mecca, I wonder why you keep saying this. From what I read it looks like it has been going on since at least 1997 and similar moral/behavior clauses are being contemplated by the Cowboys re: Pacman even today. I've yet to find anything that says the current CBA outlaws such clauses. Just a few examples:

Dallas may put 'no strip club clause' into Pacman contract
According to New York Daily News columnist Gary Myers if the Dallas Cowboys put a "no strip club" clause in Pacman Jones' contract and he somehow follows it, then a trade to Dallas, which looks like it's going to happen any day, could possibly work. Jones gets himself in the most trouble at strip clubs and in the offseason.

The only reason for Goodell to reinstate Jones now rather than wait until right before training camp is so he can get into a structured environment.

Jerry Jones passed on Randy Moss in the 1998 draft because he was trying to clean up the Cowboys' image tarnished by a team running wild. Now he already has Tank Johnson and is on the verge of bringing in Pacman.

Source: New York Daily News
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/rumors/post/Dallas-may-put-no-strip-club-clause-into-Pacma?urn=nfl,74075



Bengals' 'Loyalty Clause' Upheld
Arbitrator concludes that it does not supersede collective bargaining agreement
Cincinnati, Ohio, January 17 -- Arbitrator Richard Bloch upheld the Bengals' "loyalty clause," also known as the "Carl Pickens Clause," setting a precedent that could affect future NFL contract negotiations. According to the Cincinnati Enquirer, the clause would permit the team to take away all or part of a player's signing bonus if he publicly criticizes team officials, coaches, or teammates. The arbitrator's decision results from a December 14 hearing between the NFL Players Association, on behalf of Bengals players, and the NFL Management Council, representing Bengals management.

The loyalty clause originated with the behavior of former Bengals wide receiver Carl Pickens, who often launched tirades against the team and its management. Pickens' final diatribe occurred in December 1999 when management announced that coach Bruce Coslet would be retained for 2000. Pickens was three months shy of receiving his $3.5 million signing bonus when he made the comments and was released from the team. Under this clause, he would have been forced to give back some or all of the bonus, but at that time management lacked power to withhold the money.

According to CBS Sportsline, the loyalty clause was included in contracts negotiated last summer with all rookies except first-round draft pick Peter Warrick as well as several veterans including tackle Willie Anderson. The clause provided the Bengals with a vehicle for recovering all or a portion of the signing bonus if a player made comments that were perceived as critical of the team or its management.

The NFLPA said the clause was an attempt by the Bengals to impose greater discipline than is allowed by the NFL's collective bargaining agreement. The existing collective bargaining agreement permits a team to sanction players for "conduct detrimental to the team," and the NFLPA maintained that the Bengals' language was an attempt to supersede that. The Bengals countered that they were merely using language that had already been agreed upon by players and the league. The arbitrator used two previous cases as precedents in siding with the club: Mike Kenn of the Falcons and Lee Williams of the Oilers lost reporting bonuses when they failed to arrive on time for training camp.

The Bengals' Director of Business Development said the clause would be part of most future Bengal contracts. Bengals owner Mike Brown added that this ruling will "impact how [the Bengals] and other NFL teams handle signing bonuses in the future."




Behave Well, or Else: Bonuses Have Strings
By MIKE FREEMAN
Published: July 13, 1997

Tired of paying signing bonuses equal to small-town budgets and losing their investments for reasons such as drug abuse, National Football League teams have recently taken steps to try to insure that players live up to their contracts. As a result, the signing bonus money is becoming a sort of good-behavior insurance.

Addendums that teams are putting into contracts address a variety of issues, such as refusing to report to training camp, failure to practice or play, and the most controversial one, failing a drug test. If the clause is violated, even by a player who has had no prior troubles, then a team can take back the signing bonus.

Fail a drug test or abuse alcohol and you could lose your signing bonus -- either part or all of it. Go skydiving, the same could happen. Refuse to report to camp in the third year of a four-year deal because you want to renegotiate, and you could lose big signing bonus bucks if you signed an addendum agreeing not to do that.

As far as drugs, N.F.L. contracts have sometimes been structured differently for a player who has a history of drug use -- one who has failed a drug test, for example. That still happens, but a relatively new approach has teams taking a sort of pre-emptive strike against drug use, almost guaranteeing they get their money's worth out of a player by putting the stipulation on signing bonuses into the contracts of players who have never even had a drug problem.

''I think these contracts do have an effect on players and helps to keep them focused,'' said Andrew Wasynczuk, New England's vice president of business operations. ''This is fairly new, but I think it works. The money is there for the player. All the player has to do is live up to the contract.''

Wasynczuk said that while all teams are not adding so-called ''behavior clauses'' to contracts, some agents believe that these clauses will become standard in almost all contracts within several years.

''A club that has been burned before, especially with drug use by a player, will do those sorts of contracts,'' said Giants General Manager George Young. ''As far as players who don't do drugs and are asked to sign these types of contracts, if I am a player and I don't use drugs, why would I be upset? If a team is giving me money, shouldn't that team have a right to protect itself? It's not like you put in there if you get a speeding ticket you lose the money.''

New England has done several of these addendums within the last few months, and they have been all-encompassing rather than having a single focus such as drug use. But agents say that other teams have focused specifically on drugs in recent months, even for players with no known drug history.

Some teams, agents say, also insert these clauses when they suspect a player of drug use. And where does this suspicion come from if a player has never failed a drug test? Listen to this story from a prominent agent.

''I get a call from a general manager who tells me that I need to keep an eye on my client,'' said the agent, who asked not to be identified. ''He says that my client was at a nightclub and he was hanging around a cocaine dealer. He wasn't using cocaine, just hanging out with this dealer.

''I of course ask him how does he know this. He tells me the league has these ex-F.B.I. guys or cops watching certain hot spots in many cities where there is an N.F.L. team, and if a player is hanging around questionable people, the league lets the team know. That is why now you may have some teams wanting these clauses built into the contracts, even if a player may not have actually done anything wrong. They have all this information about players, and now they want to do something with that information. It's a form of insurance, I guess.''

The National Football League Player's Association has said very little on the subject; agents mostly hate the idea.

''There's probably mixed reaction from agents and the union,'' Wasynczuk said. ''But all we're looking for is responsible behavior.''
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406E0D61638F930A25754C0A961958260




NATURAL BORN RISK-TAKERS? EXPERTS: THRILLS, SENSE OF INVINCIBILITY DRIVE ATHLETES | 29 Jun 06
The Washington Times - Bob Cohn - About four years ago, sports agent Gary Wichard had a piece of advice for one of his clients, Miami Dolphins defensive end Jason Taylor: "Get off the bike."

Recently, Taylor offered some words of his own to Wichard: "Thank you."

This was after Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was seriously injured in a motorcycle accident. Roethlisberger, who was riding without a helmet, suffered a broken jaw, broken nose and other facial injuries. He underwent seven hours of surgery but otherwise was considered lucky. He might play again this season.

Taylor listened to Wichard and stopped riding his motorcycle. Roethlisberger listened to no one who urged him to do the same thing. Neither did Cleveland Browns tight end Kellen Winslow, former Chicago Bulls guard Jay Williams - who were also seriously injured in motorcycle accidents - and other players injured in off-field incidents.

The standard NFL contract prohibits athletes from engaging in activities that "may involve a significant risk of personal injury."

The NFL contract actually is less specific than those of Major League Baseball, the NBA and NHL, which spell out such activities, although risk clauses can be added to individual contracts (Roethlisberger's contract does not have such a clause). The intent is to dissuade athletes from engaging in risky hobbies. In other words, if they are going to get hurt, let it happen on the field, the ice or the court.
http://www.johnfmurray.com/News.aspx?id=476

DaneMcCloud
04-20-2008, 11:12 PM
I have many freinds who are professionals (not football player but people who would lose their career if they had a felony which a 2nd DUI is) and they have figured out when and where to drink. It would be much easier with a $20m signing bonus and multi M per year contract.

Even if we give him a huge signing bonus, he would lose $3-4 M for the suspended year. If he is able to quit drinking for the year he has. He will figure out hoe to have his agent arrange a limo.

It is not like the players with weed problems because they can not overcome their NFL restriction by simply smoking weed at home.

$3 to $4 million? How do you figure? Where did you learn math?

He'd lose more like $11-15 million per season. He's hoping to sign a $70-$80 million dollar deal with a $30 million dollar signing bonus.

Regardless, he can't be trusted. Regardless of all the rest, he's not "one of your friends".

He's a hyper-talented athlete who's been given every chance to overcome his alcohol problems, yet he's only been able to do it in a contract year.

Sorry, that doesn't bode well for the future. Especially AFTER he's received a $25 million dollar plus signing bonus.

J Diddy
04-20-2008, 11:44 PM
$3 to $4 million? How do you figure? Where did you learn math?

He'd lose more like $11-15 million per season. He's hoping to sign a $70-$80 million dollar deal with a $30 million dollar signing bonus.

Regardless, he can't be trusted. Regardless of all the rest, he's not "one of your friends".

He's a hyper-talented athlete who's been given every chance to overcome his alcohol problems, yet he's only been able to do it in a contract year.

Sorry, that doesn't bode well for the future. Especially AFTER he's received a $25 million dollar plus signing bonus.


$30 million guaranteed isn't a $30 million signing bonus

Mojo Rising
04-20-2008, 11:55 PM
$3 to $4 million? How do you figure? Where did you learn math?

He'd lose more like $11-15 million per season. He's hoping to sign a $70-$80 million dollar deal with a $30 million dollar signing bonus.

Regardless, he can't be trusted. Regardless of all the rest, he's not "one of your friends".

He's a hyper-talented athlete who's been given every chance to overcome his alcohol problems, yet he's only been able to do it in a contract year.

Sorry, that doesn't bode well for the future. Especially AFTER he's received a $25 million dollar plus signing bonus.

When you are suspended you lose your salary. They do not go back and take back signing bonuses. Normally when these contracts are signed the initial years have low salaries and they gradually get higher.

My guess is that the first couple years will be in the $3-4 M range. (I think this is all the justification you are looking for. I don't think you really want to know that I learned math at St Thomas Moore in southern KC.)

He has matured. We do not need him to not drink at his bar. We just need him to not drive home from there. For $3-4 M a year he will not do that. Plus, the jail time he would face.

With $20m in his pocket he can afford a limo/cab.

DaneMcCloud
04-21-2008, 12:17 AM
When you are suspended you lose your salary. They do not go back and take back signing bonuses. Normally when these contracts are signed the initial years have low salaries and they gradually get higher.

My guess is that the first couple years will be in the $3-4 M range. (I think this is all the justification you are looking for. I don't think you really want to know that I learned math at St Thomas Moore in southern KC.)

He has matured. We do not need him to not drink at his bar. We just need him to not drive home from there. For $3-4 M a year he will not do that. Plus, the jail time he would face.

With $20m in his pocket he can afford a limo/cab.

Dude, his salary at ANY point during his NFL career would MORE than cover the cost of a taxi. The bottom line is that he wasn't smart enough to take a taxi.

So, instead of hiring a driver or taking a taxi, what did he opt to do? Quit drinking altogether! That's a little strange, isn't it? It's not like he publicly hired a driver - he quit drinking altogether. Kind of like cutting off the head to save the body. It really doesn't make much sense.

Additionally, there's NO way in the world that after signing a $75 million dollar contract (with a minimum - $25 million dollar contract), that he'd only cost $3 million against the cap. Maybe more like $10-$12 million but not $3 million.

NFW.

ClevelandBronco
04-21-2008, 12:20 AM
they very fact that Atlanta can ATTEMPT to retrieve their money is proof that behavior clauses in contracts have gone through.

thanks for proving my point for me ....... next.

Has anyone recovered any money from Jake Plummer yet?

DaneMcCloud
04-21-2008, 12:24 AM
Has anyone recovered any money from Jake Plummer yet?

I think he lost it all on the the handball court

ClevelandBronco
04-21-2008, 12:29 AM
I think he lost it all on the the handball court

I told him that he didn't really have to pay me.

DaneMcCloud
04-21-2008, 12:34 AM
I told him that he didn't really have to pay me.

Handball not Handjob





















You left yourself wide open on that one :evil:

ClevelandBronco
04-21-2008, 12:37 AM
Handball not Handjob

You left yourself wide open on that one :evil:

Bastage. I owe you.

Fruit Ninja
04-21-2008, 12:40 AM
Damon---> AJ Hinch, Angel Berroa, Roberto Hernandez
Dye----> Neifi Perez
Beltran----> Teahen, Buck, Mike Wood

Seems like your waiting for the next set of young Royals players to make a name for themselves then split like the rest. The Royals have been the new Montreal Expos. CHiefs seem to be going in that direction.

DaneMcCloud
04-21-2008, 12:45 AM
Bastage. I owe you.


ROFL

Mojo Rising
04-21-2008, 12:50 AM
Dude, his salary at ANY point during his NFL career would MORE than cover the cost of a taxi. The bottom line is that he wasn't smart enough to take a taxi.

So, instead of hiring a driver or taking a taxi, what did he opt to do? Quit drinking altogether! That's a little strange, isn't it? It's not like he publicly hired a driver - he quit drinking altogether. Kind of like cutting off the head to save the body. It really doesn't make much sense.

Additionally, there's NO way in the world that after signing a $75 million dollar contract (with a minimum - $25 million dollar contract), that he'd only cost $3 million against the cap. Maybe more like $10-$12 million but not $3 million.

NFW.

DUDE - You are the one that is drinking too much. When he decides to drink again he would lose $3-5M per year in lost salary because he would be suspended for a dui. He has enough sense not to do this at this point in his life.

My point was that he would look at how much he would lose. No. I do not think he would say, "If I drink this beer and drive I will be cut and cost the Chiefs $12m in salary cap."

I am sure that his $375k salary when he was 21 would have covered his cab ride home. There is a difference between that and the maturity to quit drinking when you're on the eve to earning millions. He did it.

How many times do we criticize people for blowing opportunities. He had the maturity to realize what he could realize and he capitalized on it.

He was in a no win situation in your point of view. If he would have acted like Dale Carter or Michael Irvin he would have been a loser for continuing his partying ways.

He quit and it is curious to you? Hmm. What else could he have done?

DaneMcCloud
04-21-2008, 12:55 AM
He was in a no win situation in your point of view. If he would have acted like Dale Carter or Michael Irvin he would have been a loser for continuing his partying ways.

He quit and it is curious to you? Hmm. What else could he have done?

DUI in high school (which led him to Idaho State)

DUI at Idaho State (leading him to be a 4th round pick with 1st round talent)

DUI #3 as a Chief

DUI #4 as a Chief

What in the freakin' world leads you to believe that in a non-contract year, Jared Allen can be trusted not to get DUI #5?

What?

Mojo Rising
04-21-2008, 01:07 AM
DUI in high school (which led him to Idaho State) Was in his teens NO CASH

DUI at Idaho State (leading him to be a 4th round pick with 1st round talent) No cash. Immature

DUI #3 as a Chief Feeling wild oats as a pro player

DUI #4 as a Chief see # 3

What in the freakin' world leads you to believe that in a non-contract year, Jared Allen can be trusted not to get DUI #5?

What?

What leads me to believe it is that if he does drink and drive and knocks someone out he will lose $70m.

Pretty lazy on your part to cut and paste something you already posted. Is this going to cost us $12 or 3 M/year?

Thank you for pointing out that JA is not my freind. I was kind of confused earlier.

The point was that when people have some maturity, something to lose, and most importantly, a demonstrated effort to change. People improve their situations.

J Diddy
04-21-2008, 01:07 AM
DUI in high school (which led him to Idaho State)

DUI at Idaho State (leading him to be a 4th round pick with 1st round talent)

DUI #3 as a Chief

DUI #4 as a Chief

What in the freakin' world leads you to believe that in a non-contract year, Jared Allen can be trusted not to get DUI #5?

What?

unusually you are right