Let's say Tank is traded

[superonyx]

Foles has an out on the option but they can franchise him.

If they franchise him it's not for the purpose of keeping him which is technically against the rules.

No team will keep a backup QB at 25M for the season.

The team also had an option which they exercised. The option was to keep him at the 20M rate.
How is this not the team saying they dont intend to keep him? It was Foles that opted out of the 20m contract not the team.

 

[Nightman]

They aren't.

Everyone from the owner down to the coach has said Wentz is their QB going forward.

You never know... there could be a huge offer

Either way it is not unreasonable to keep both especially when Wentz isn't healthy

The idea it violates the CBA is specious to begin with and is a non-starter... it is gonna happen Capt'n

 

[Sydla]

The team also had an option which they exercised. The option was to keep him at the 20M rate.
How is this not the team saying they dont intend to keep him? It was Foles that opted out of the 20m contract not the team.

What?

They picked up the option with the hope they could trade him for something. This was nothing more than a procedural move for them. They had to pick up the option if they wanted to try to trade him.

 

[Sydla]

You never know... there could be a huge offer

Either way it is not unreasonable to keep both especially when Wentz isn't healthy

The idea it violates the CBA is specious to begin with and is a non-starter... it is gonna happen Capt'n

Well sure. If some team gets dumb and says they will give up four first rounders for Wentz, sure, that might change things. Three years ago, their plan was to sit Wentz as a rookie but when Minnesota panicked after Bridgewater got hurt and made a ridiculous offer for Bradford, they had to take the value.

So sure, things could change based on someone giving ridiculous value for Wentz. But that would be a deviation from the plan. They will go with Wentz moving forward.

 

[Nightman]

Well sure. If some team gets dumb and says they will give up four first rounders for Wentz, sure, that might change things. Three years ago, their plan was to sit Wentz as a rookie but when Minnesota panicked after Bridgewater got hurt and made a ridiculous offer for Bradford, they had to take the value.

So sure, things could change based on someone giving ridiculous value for Wentz. But that would be a deviation from the plan. They will go with Wentz moving forward.

4- 1sts for Wentz.......LOL

Even in your fantasies he is overrated

 

[Sydla]

4- 1sts for Wentz.......LOL

Even in your fantasies he is overrated

The four firsts was hyperbole to prove a point. That sure, at some point, the Eagles would trade Wentz if someone made a ridiculous offer for him. Shoot, I even couched that comment by saying if "Sure, if some team gets dumb....". He's not worth four first round picks, obviously.

But that's not their plan. Their plan is to try and see if they can move Foles for something if they tag him and work around the CBA (teams have done this before) and then extend Wentz. If they feel they can't trade Foles, then they will just let him walk after he bought out his option. Joe Banner pointed out that it would largely be up to Foles to contest the trade under the CBA. But more than likely the Eagles will have a trade lined up with Foles' blessing if they tag him.

It's quite possible that teams might even offer less than the likely 3rd round comp pick they'd get in 2020, so they'd let him walk. I'd guess it's a long shot they could work out a trade, personally. Teams know the Eagles are over a barrel on this one.

 

[Nightman]

The four firsts was hyperbole to prove a point. That sure, at some point, the Eagles would trade Wentz if someone made a ridiculous offer for him. He's not worth four first round picks. But that's not their plan. Their plan is to try and see if they can move Foles for something if they tag him and then extend Wentz.

My god, man.

I get it....you love Wentz.... it shows in every post

 

[Verdict]

Diversity of opinions.

LOL. This is what you do. You find a high priced player to rail on and on and on and on about. This won't be your last thread on Lawrence, for sure. And the posts will vary from straight out ripping to the player to the passive aggressive thread you started here.

This is simple. Lawrence is our best DL. Lawrence is our best pass rusher. You remove him from the equation, and this is a mediocre DL. So if you move on from Lawrence, you better have a plan that brings in some better talent along the DL because no, a starting lineup of Gregory, Armstrong/Charlton (and no, he's not better against the run), Woods and Crawford/Collins, is not good enough.

And your entire post conveniently ignores the salary cap implications of resigning Tank, because it is more fun to say you want to keep the player and ignore the salary cap
Implications of his new contract. Instead of pretending that why don't you state your position on what number is too high to resign him.

If you think Tank should be resigned at all costs, regardless of that cap that's ok too. But at least everyone will know that you can't be taken seriously on this subject.

 

[xwalker]

The team also had an option which they exercised. The option was to keep him at the 20M rate.
How is this not the team saying they dont intend to keep him? It was Foles that opted out of the 20m contract not the team.

The issue we are discussing is whether the Eagles will franchise Foles with the intent to trade him.

If they want to trade him, then the 1st step was to pick up the option. There is no rule against picking up the option with the intent to trade.

They are not going to pay a backup 25M on the franchise tag.

If they franchise Foles, it is either with the intent to trade him unless you think they are going to trade Wentz.

 

[superonyx]

What?

They picked up the option with the hope they could trade him for something. This was nothing more than a procedural move for them. They had to pick up the option if they wanted to try to trade him.

Of course we all know this. However how can we say for sure this was their intention? Foles could have easily agreed and he would be an Eagle for $20M next season. They made a decision to risk this.
We can speculate on their intentions but when it comes down to it the Eagles have made more of a provable effort to keep Foles by picking up the option and making the $20m commitment than we have with D Law (so far).

Prove me wrong.

 

[Sydla]

I get it....you love Wentz.... it shows in every post

It was clear what my point was and wasn't anything to do with what I think or don't think of Wentz.

 

[superonyx]

The issue we are discussing is whether the Eagles will franchise Foles with the intent to trade him.

If they want to trade him, then the 1st step was to pick up the option. There is no rule against picking up the option with the intent to trade.

They are not going to pay a backup 25M on the franchise tag.

If they franchise Foles, it is either with the intent to trade him unless you think they are going to trade Wentz.

Actually the issue we are discussing is the collective bargaining agreement saying a team can't place a franchise tag on a player just to restrict his free agency rights.
Based on the language in the CB agreement we would be the ones guilty of this more than the Eagles since we have not made any commitment to D Law. The Eagles picked up the team option on Foles for 20M per year for next year.

 

[Sydla]

Of course we all know this. However how can we say for sure this was their intention? Foles could have easily agreed and he would be an Eagle for $20M next season. They made a decision to risk this.
We can speculate on their intentions but when it comes down to it the Eagles have made more of a provable effort to keep Foles by picking up the option and making the $20m commitment than we have with D Law (so far).

Prove me wrong.

Well for starters, it's easier to "prove" that because Foles had an option year in his contract and Lawrence does not. In other words, I suspect if Lawrence had an option year on his contract for $18MM, the Cowboys would have also picked it up and waited for Lawrence to buy it out (which he would most definitely had done).

You misconstrue the motive of the move anyway. They HAD TO PICK UP THE OPTION if they wanted to trade him. Which is what they want to do.

PS - This is all moot anyway. Trading Lawrence would be silly because we'd be taking away our best defensive player, unless, of course, someone got really dumb and made an offer we couldn't refuse (which wouldn't happen).

 

[Sydla]

Actually the issue we are discussing is the collective bargaining agreement saying a team can't place a franchise tag on a player just to restrict his free agency rights.
Based on the language in the CB agreement we would be the ones guilty of this more than the Eagles since we have not made any commitment to D Law. The Eagles picked up the team option on Foles for 20M per year for next year.

Because they had to if they wanted to trade him. They didn't have any options. You seem to view this option as some good faith move on their part when it's not. It was simply a procedural move they had to make in order to try to trade him. That's it.

You seem to think them picking up the option was a sign they want to keep him. That's false. It was simply a procedural move they had to make if they wanted to try to trade him.

 

[cowboyblue22]

Cowboys are in a tough spot.

Their pass rush is average as it is. Lawrence is the best DE they have by far. Letting him walk means their pass rush likely goes back to being well below average.

Unless there is a free agent out there who will be cheaper and be just as good, if you let Lawrence walk, you better be prepared for mediocre DL play.

THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PAY LAWRENCE IF THEY WANT TO WIN

 

[Sydla]

And your entire post conveniently ignores the salary cap implications of resigning Tank, because it is more fun to say you want to keep the player and ignore the salary cap
Implications of his new contract. Instead of pretending that why don't you state your position on what number is too high to resign him.

If you think Tank should be resigned at all costs, regardless of that cap that's ok too. But at least everyone will know that you can't be taken seriously on this subject.

It does not ignore the cap implications. We have the cap space to bring him back at a high level DE contract and still do some other things with Cooper, etc. Now would I pay him as much as Mack got? Of course not. If that's what he wants then you have to make the tough decision and let him walk. But he's one of the better DEs in football and if he gets a deal like that, so be it. I can live with that.

The flipside here is that your entire post conveniently ignores the reality that if you subtract Lawrence, you have taken a major step back on defense unless there is some plan to bring in a Clowney or Frank at DE (which is unlikely - Clowney might cost as much as Lawrence and Frank is going back to Seattle). Anyone who sits there and suggests we can be really good with Gregory, Charlton and Armstrong and Crawford as our DEs absolutely cannot be taken seriously on this topic.

 

[xwalker]

Actually the issue we are discussing is the collective bargaining agreement saying a team can't place a franchise tag on a player just to restrict his free agency rights.
Based on the language in the CB agreement we would be the ones guilty of this more than the Eagles since we have not made any commitment to D Law. The Eagles picked up the team option on Foles for 20M per year for next year.

You have to be trolling or you are an Eagles fan because it can't be that difficult to understand.

 

[superonyx]

Because they had to if they wanted to trade him. They didn't have any options. You seem to view this option as some good faith move on their part when it's not. It was simply a procedural move they had to make in order to try to trade him. That's it.

You seem to think them picking up the option was a sign they want to keep him. That's false. It was simply a procedural move they had to make if they wanted to try to trade him.

I understand why they did it. I am only saying that they have made some form of a commitment to keeping Foles and they risked Foles not opting out and sitting on the bench for $20M.
I know they didnt intended to keep him. We all do. But they have at least satified what would be needed to show they (on paper) made an effort to keep him.

And I know D Law isnt going anywhere. We would be stupid to let him go anywhere.

 

[superonyx]

You have to be trolling or you are an Eagles fan because it can't be that difficult to understand.

Neither actually.
The problem is I already have the proper understanding. You fail to state any counter points and your argument is only based on speculation.

 

[Sydla]

I understand why they did it. I am only saying that they have made some form of a commitment to keeping Foles and they risked Foles not opting out and sitting on the bench for $20M.
I know they didnt intended to keep him. We all do. But they have at least satified what would be needed to show they (on paper) made an effort to keep him.

And I know D Law isnt going anywhere. We would be stupid to let him go anywhere.

They made little commitment to "keep" Foles. Them picking up the option was the only move they could make to trade him. They didn't have a choice in the matter if they wanted to trade him.

In other words, if the union and league stepped in to block a trade of Foles under the CBA, they'd laugh at the Eagles argument of, "well we picked up his option so that really showed we wanted him!".