It's a well written article, but very poorly thought out, in terms of logical progression. You appear to have started out defending Ellis from the perception that he is an underachieving top 10 pick. That's debatable, but it's hardly relevent to his contract dispute today.
You then proceed to use some Terrence Newman red herring that I am still struggling to find relevancy for. To my knowledge, Newman is still on his base deal signed as a rookie. To my knowledge, Newman has never complained about needing more money, despite nearing the age where you're only getting one more contract.
Greg Ellis is an entirely different scenario, one where the player has already signed a new deal, one he and the team agreed was fair value at the time. And it definitely was, despite any moaning to the contrary. How has Ellis responded? Has he outperformed that deal? Has he even reached the incentives they placed within it? No. So where is the perceived slight? He's getting paid what he and the team considered fair value. The market changed. It's Greg's fault he signed such a long deal - no doubt necessitated by his injuries, and lack of production to that point. Nothing's changed. Neither should his contract.
You also intimate a double standard on what fan's stance might be if Newman holds out eventually, which is pointless to discuss or even refute. I sincerely doubt that Newman will sign his new deal, play two years, and then whine every year after that about needing mroe "commitment".
Interesting "points" (when they aren't fallacies) apart, but put together it just looks like a bunch of guesswork that comes together to make no point at all. Almost none of that is relevent to Ellis' current contract situation. What is? The fact that Ellis agreed to a deal, has not outperformed it, yet continues to whine every year - even after a year in which he had a serious injury.
Oh yeah - fans tire of that real quick.
At least the reasonable ones do.
