***Gurode released*** MERGED

jswalker1981;4074133 said:
Funny, when NE does this, it's brilliant. When Jerry does it, it's being Al Davis.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The difference is that the Patriots are able to actually get something for their players.
 
JoeCorrado;4074113 said:
Gurode would have full veto powers in any trade. It would have had to have been agreeable to ALL parties involved, not just the two teams.
Click to expand...

I dont know...sure Gurode could refuse a trade....but how many NFL players have? especially when you have that much money left on your contract? Gurode wont get that kinda of cash as a FA imho. Not a injured overaged C.

IMHO if a team wanted to trade for Gurode and his contract...there is no way Gurode would veto it.

The NFL doesnt have no movement clauses....or no trade contracts...I could be wrong...but I dont think I ever heard of one in the NFL. I know they are common in the NHL.

What prevents teams from trading players is the cap hit .....Guaranteed money basically assures a player being on a team for a few years.

I understand Gurode could refuse to head to the team he was traded to (holdout....fail to report) but a player cannot stop a NFL team from trading them.

That being said....most trades that do happen.....teams that are receiving that certain player....have a good idea already if that player is willing to play for them. In this case....Gurode would be foolish to throw those 2 years of 5 mil plus a year away.....so he can force his current team to release him.

IMHO he wont see that money in FA now.
 
Getting away from motives of the move, at least now we will be able to run screens and have an OL that can pull. Hopefully we'll be better with the blitz pickup than we were in previous years, we'll just have to trust the organization on this one.
 
stasheroo;4074156 said:
The difference is that the Patriots are able to actually get something for their players.
Click to expand...

Seymour and Moss were coming off of good seasons.

Gurode... Well not many think Gurode has been anything special the last couple of seasons.
 
It doesn't matter if Gurode had veto power or not...

No team felt he was a good investment at $5 mil for this season.
 
stasheroo;4074119 said:
No he wouldn't. This isn't baseball.
Click to expand...

Yes he would have had veto power...not directly over a trade, but on whether or not he agreed to restructure his contract. There was virtually no chance that another team would have taken him at his salary - I think about 5.7 million this year - so a trade would have been predicated on Gurode agreeing to restructure. All he had to do was say no to that...and that is veto power.

A trade was really unlikely. Gurode had no incentive to restructure. He could wait to get cut then probably have interest from three or four teams, and he'd be able to get a deal on the open market and have some choice in where he ends up. I don't blame either he or the Cowboys in this...just business.
 
MichaelWinicki;4074171 said:
Seymour and Moss were coming off of good seasons.

Gurode... Well not many think Gurode has been anything special the last couple of seasons.
Click to expand...

Gurode has made the past 5 Pro Bowls.

Somebody voted him in.
 
Shouldn't a pro bowl center be good at :
hiking the ball? in shotgun formations?
And call out Def formations?
And lead the Oline decisions?

Exactly. He has snapped his last ball over Romo's head.

Cya!
 
honyock;4074178 said:
Yes he would have had veto power...not directly over a trade, but on whether or not he agreed to restructure his contract. There was virtually no chance that another team would have taken him at his salary - I think about 5.7 million this year - so a trade would have been predicated on Gurode agreeing to restructure. All he had to do was say no to that...and that is veto power.
Click to expand...

No. The Cowboys could have agreed to pay a portion of his salary as a means to facilitate a trade. Gurode could not veto that as long as he was getting paid. Restructuring his deal did not have to happen.

A trade was really unlikely. Gurode had no incentive to restructure. He could wait to get cut then probably have interest from three or four teams, and he'd be able to get a deal on the open market and have some choice in where he ends up. I don't blame either he or the Cowboys in this...just business.
Click to expand...

Again, he did not have to restructure his contract in order to be traded.
 
stasheroo;4074181 said:
Gurode has made the past 5 Pro Bowls.

Somebody voted him in.
Click to expand...

Jeter hasn't exactly been the best short stop in the AL the last couple of years, but he was voted in as the starter anyhow.
 
nyc;4074193 said:
Jeter hasn't exactly been the best short stop in the AL the last couple of years, but he was voted in as the starter anyhow.
Click to expand...

Was he 'undeservedly' voted into the last 5?
 
I'm sick of hearing about Pro Bowls. The game is a joke and the players aren't exactly the best of the best.

The Pro Bowl is obsolete and has been for a very long time.
 
honyock;4074178 said:
Yes he would have had veto power...not directly over a trade, but on whether or not he agreed to restructure his contract. There was virtually no chance that another team would have taken him at his salary - I think about 5.7 million this year - so a trade would have been predicated on Gurode agreeing to restructure. All he had to do was say no to that...and that is veto power.

A trade was really unlikely. Gurode had no incentive to restructure. He could wait to get cut then probably have interest from three or four teams, and he'd be able to get a deal on the open market and have some choice in where he ends up. I don't blame either he or the Cowboys in this...just business.
Click to expand...


Yes....he has veto powers over his contract....but not over a trade.

If a team wanted to accept his current contract. Gurode has no say ...all he can do is refuse to show up.....and that will be the other teams problem dealing with it.

Gurode wasnt traded because no team wanted to pay what is remaing on his contract. Its like when Oakland traded with NE for that DT.....at first he didnt wanted to play for Oakland. NE still got a 1st round pick. It was Oaklands problem dealing with that DT and his contract. As it ended up...player showed up in Oakland...and signed a extention. That player couldnt refuse being traded...and had no say where he was going to be traded to.
 
stasheroo;4074190 said:
No. The Cowboys could have agreed to pay a portion of his salary as a means to facilitate a trade. Gurode could not veto that as long as he was getting paid. Restructuring his deal did not have to happen.



Again, he did not have to restructure his contract in order to be traded.
Click to expand...


In theory, yes. Practically, I can't see the Cowboys eating, say 3 million of his salary to have him not be here. That makes no sense. They were probably wanting to get him down to that or less, to HAVE him here. That makes little sense from a Cowboys point of view, to pay him NOT to be here, when they had already been talking about financial issues with regard to him and his contract. Gurode had veto power over a restructure. From the point of view of any scenario that was likely to happen in practice, that gave him veto power over a trade.

That's why I said it was unlikely and a longshot that he'd be traded. In theory, a team could have taken him at full value. Not likely though. In theory, the Cowboys could have paid a chunk of his salary. Highly unlikely though. He could have agreed to restructure. But he didn't have much reason to.
 
SDogo;4073588 said:
Gone are the days of the 350+ mammoth leaning on other teams. Dallas is going more athletic and Gurode being released is just another sign of that. If Houck does indeed retire after this year it will be interesting to see what kind of coach they bring it to go along with this new philosophy. If I had to venture a guess now I would say Mike Sullivan from San Diego will get a long hard look.
Click to expand...

Been saying this for a while. Houck's philosophy has gone the way of the dinosaurs.
 
stasheroo;4074156 said:
The difference is that the Patriots are able to actually get something for their players.
Click to expand...

NE also has a history of getting rid of guys 1 year early rather than 1 year too late.

I'm as disappointed as the next guy that we couldn't get anything for a 5 time pro bowler, but we should blame ourselves for giving him the contract we gave him which obviously made him un-tradable.

We could have kept him and ended up cutting him anyway next year, but what benefit would there have been to that?
 
Double Trouble;4074212 said:
A NFC scout said, "Slow and can't get to the second level anymore. He needs too much help with protection in the passing game and that's not good for a player of his experience. It looks like he plays when he wants too."


Sounds exactly like what many have been saying here for the last few years.
Click to expand...
....but....but he's a Pro Bowler

http://img231.*************/img231/5567/210173royaltyfreerfclip.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 79 more.
Total: 18,460 (members: 179, guests: 18,281)
Robots: 881

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,066
Messages
14,510,217
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top