TNCowboy
Double Trouble
- Messages
- 12,303
- Reaction score
- 5,315
adbutcher;4073699 said:We released a very good player .
:laugh2:
adbutcher;4073699 said:We released a very good player .
honyock;4074216 said: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.
TheCount;4074223 said: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?
stasheroo;4074237 said:Thei incentive would have been to have received something for him rather than what they got - nothing. Paying a few million this year may have meant the difference between getting a draft pick for next year and not getting one.
You are mistakenly fixated on a restructure having to happen. It has been pointed out in numerous posts that this was in no way a requirement.
And he didn't have to for a trade to happen. The scenarios have been explained numerous times. The Cowboys obviously felt that getting nothing was the way to go.
stasheroo;4074156 said:The difference is that the Patriots are able to actually get something for their players.
stasheroo;4074181 said:Gurode has made the past 5 Pro Bowls.
Somebody voted him in.
stasheroo;4074181 said:Gurode has made the past 5 Pro Bowls.
Somebody voted him in.
MichaelWinicki;4074282 said:The key word is "past".
stasheroo;4074181 said:Gurode has made the past 5 Pro Bowls.
Somebody voted him in.
Did he have to offer NA ten million a year?Originally Posted by birdwells1
Dude he had to resign Free, what else was he going to do? BTW I didn't have any pet cats.
Owner Jerry Jones remains the game's best promoter, (he even landed a star turn on the hit HBO series Entourage this summer). His stadium netted an additional $12 million last year over what it makes on the Cowboys, thanks to events like the NBA All-Star game, boxing and concerts. The team's overall operating income hit $143 million, a record for a U.S. sports franchise.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/mo...ss-sports-football-valuations-10-intro_2.html
BraveHeartFan;4074279 said:I'm sorry are you saying they next just cut players? That people always trade with them?
As long as the fan vote counts for a large portion of the voting, as it does, the Pro Bowl voting will always be a joke.
Roy Williams made it in at safety too for 2 or 3 years that he had no business getting in.
Hanging your argument on the Pro Bowl is flimsy, at best.
InmanRoshi;4074294 said:Not the people who run NFL front offices, and I doubt the coaches who vote spend more than 10 minutes filling it out ... assuming they don't let the towel boy fill it out for them while they're busy doing other things
stasheroo;4074310 said:Nope, but they have a history of getting value for their players both is those they trade and those they trade for. We have a history of overpaying in trades and turning Pro Bowlers into nothing more than dead cap space. That's what I'm saying.
It's always a joke when it doesn't support your position.
But still less 'flimsy' than putting it completely on players who have done nothing at the NFL level.
stasheroo;4074237 said:Thei incentive would have been to have received something for him rather than what they got - nothing. Paying a few million this year may have meant the difference between getting a draft pick for next year and not getting one.
JustDezIt;4074296 said:Did he have to offer NA ten million a year?
You want me to prove why your very uninformed on this topic and should possibly have your keyboard privileges revoked for a day or two?
Still waiting to hear back from you Birdwell.
birdwells1;4074391 said:He would have cut Newman and his 8 million dollar contract so fast it would have made your head spin, so it would have only cost him 2 million for the best cb in the game.
So on the stadium, are you saying that Jerry has already made back his initial investment in the stadium? I know that his investment was around 700 million so I guess he's made that back in 2 years huh.
stasheroo;4074313 said:Then it looks like we've got a real conspiracy on our hands.
InmanRoshi;4074418 said:A conspiracy theory means someone cares. I think it's been pretty much widely accepted for years that that the Pro Bowl is a joke, especially when it comes to offensive linemen. The fact that Larry Allen made the Pro Bowl every year from 2003-2006 is proof of that. He made the Pro Bowl in years when he was regularly pulled out of games for bad play.
stasheroo;4074454 said:As long as it's universally regarded as a joke, I have no issue with that. But it seems to me that the Pro Bowl has its' value when it suits someone's argument and no value if it doesn't.
stasheroo;4074156 said:The difference is that the Patriots are able to actually get something for their players.
