Let's say Tank is traded

millennial_legend

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,415
Reaction score
1,208
It doesn't matter if you take a step back or not. You have to set a cap on what he is worth and then stick to it. That's the salary cap world as opposed to rainbows and unicorns.
Plus, we can make up for the loss of Lawrence by improving our offense ourselves. Frederick is back and Zeke should rush for 2000 with Cooper and Gallup scaring other teams big time.
 

superonyx

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,373
Reaction score
15,676
There was zero risk in picking up the option.
Ok.
Are you of those types that need to disagree for the sake of disagreement?

Because that point has zero to do with what this conversation is even about.
Besides carrying $20/million on your cap does carry some risk. Even if you play to cut the guy before the third day or whatever. But it doesn’t even seem to matter at this point.

Go ahead and find something to disagree about.
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,692
Reaction score
91,138
Ok.
Are you of those types that need to disagree for the sake of disagreement?

Because that point has zero to do with what this conversation is even about.
Besides carrying $20/million on your cap does carry some risk. Even if you play to cut the guy before the third day or whatever. But it doesn’t even seem to matter at this point.

Go ahead and find something to disagree about.

I’ll forever disagree with your idea that somehow Philly showed more interest in retaining Foles to date than we have of retaining Lawrence.

Philly made a procedural move, plain and simple. That’s it.
 
Last edited:

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,692
Reaction score
91,138
Plus, we can make up for the loss of Lawrence by improving our offense ourselves. Frederick is back and Zeke should rush for 2000 with Cooper and Gallup scaring other teams big time.

After years of lamenting how we didn’t have a good enough defense to match our offense, we now have an upward trending defense and what do people want to do?

Jettison our best defensive player and focus on the offense. LOL. Amazing.
 

superonyx

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,373
Reaction score
15,676
Are you one of those guys that struggles to admit that you might have been wrong?
Ok. You need to argue I see.
So go ahead and tell me how I am wrong?

I stated a fact and you can't dispute it at all. You come up with some speculation over intent of the eagles as proof that they have not done anything to show an effort to retain Foles. I present you actual proof and you present speculation.

I was trying to let you off the hook and let you save face before.

You are completely wrong.

If we tagged and traded D Law and the Eagles tagged and traded Foles and both cases went to court the reality is we would be the only team that couldnt show they attempted to keep the guy. The Eagles exercised their option for $20M to keep Foles. We have done nothing.

Your speculation isnt anything more than just your personal speculation. No proof. No actions. Nothing to stand on but your weak speculation.

Your turn.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
Ok.
Are you of those types that need to disagree for the sake of disagreement?

Because that point has zero to do with what this conversation is even about.
Besides carrying $20/million on your cap does carry some risk. Even if you play to cut the guy before the third day or whatever. But it doesn’t even seem to matter at this point.

Go ahead and find something to disagree about.
I still haven't seen what section of the CBA we are even arguing about

Where does it say a Franchised Player can't be offered for Trade?

@Sydla @xwalker
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,692
Reaction score
91,138
Ok. You need to argue I see.
So go ahead and tell me how I am wrong?

I stated a fact and you can't dispute it at all. You come up with some speculation over intent of the eagles as proof that they have not done anything to show an effort to retain Foles. I present you actual proof and you present speculation.

I was trying to let you off the hook and let you save face before.

You are completely wrong.

If we tagged and traded D Law and the Eagles tagged and traded Foles and both cases went to court the reality is we would be the only team that couldnt show they attempted to keep the guy. The Eagles exercised their option for $20M to keep Foles. We have done nothing.

Your speculation isnt anything more than just your personal speculation. No proof. No actions. Nothing to stand on but your weak speculation.

Your turn.

You stated that Philly picking up the option shows they want to retain him.

That’s not a “fact”.

And it’s not speculation as to what Philly wants to do. It’s pretty well established what they want to try to do with Foles. The Eagles came out and said Wentz is their guy going forward so the notion they would then carry a backup QB at 20MM with the cap problems they have is laughable. It’s been well reported nationally and locally that the Eagles want to trade Foles. The Eagles haven’t even come out to refute the reports and state they might want to keep Foles.

Picking up an option isn’t cover for them. It was their ONLY MOVE to try and trade him. It was purely procedural in their process to try to trade him.

The league would laugh at them just like they would to us like you claim.
 

superonyx

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,373
Reaction score
15,676
You stated that Philly picking up the option shows they want to retain him.

That’s not a “fact”.

And it’s not speculation as to what Philly wants to do. It’s pretty well established what they want to try to do with Foles. The Eagles came out and said Wentz is their guy going forward so the notion they would then carry a backup QB at 20MM with the cap problems they have is laughable. It’s been well reported nationally and locally that the Eagles want to trade Foles. The Eagles haven’t even come out to refute the reports and state they might want to keep Foles.

Picking up an option isn’t cover for them. It was their ONLY MOVE to try and trade him. It was purely procedural in their process to try to trade him.

The league would laugh at them just like they would to us like you claim.
The FACT that they picked up a $20m option is not speculation. Its Fact. You only offer speculation to as their intent in doing so.
The 'reports' dont mean jack squat.
Please tell me you dont want to keep this going while offering no facts at all.
I guess based on your theory every team who picks up a players option really just wants to trade the player. Is that what we did with Byron Jones?
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,692
Reaction score
91,138
The FACT that they picked up a $20m option is not speculation. Its Fact. You only offer speculation to as their intent in doing so.
The 'reports' dont mean jack squat.
Please tell me you dont want to keep this going while offering no facts at all.
I guess based on your theory every team who picks up a players option really just wants to trade the player. Is that what we did with Byron Jones?

No one denies they picked up the option. So why are you claiming that fact as support of your argument.

The issue is you claimed they picked up the option because they want to retain him. That’s not a fact. In fact, most of the evidence and overwhelming number of reports say the exact opposite. Plus logic has to set in. Why in the world would a team with cap problems want to willingly carry a backup QB with a nearly $22MM cap hit?

No, every team that picks up an option wants to then trade the player. What an absurd comment. Jones is a starting CB. Why would we pick up an option of a starter to trade him? Foles is a backup. Making starter money if he accepted the option. It’s pretty clear at this point why they would pick up the option and possibly tag him. And it’s not to keep him.

They might not even tag him this coming week if they can’t find a team that wants to trade for him.

And in the end, I am not even advocating tagging and trading Lawrence. But your angle here doesn’t make a ton of sense and ignores what’s pretty well established at this point.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
Section 8. Good Faith Negotiation: (a) In addition to complying with specific provisions in this Agreement, any Club, any player, and any player agent or contract advisor engaged in negotiations for a Player Contract (including any Club extending, and any player receiving, a Required Tender) is under an obligation to negotiate in good faith.(b)A Club extending a Required Tender must, for so long as that Tender is extended, have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season. It shall be deemed to be a violation of this provision if, while the tender is outstanding, a Club insists that such a player agree to a Player Contract at a compensation level during the upcoming season below that of the Required Tender amount.
The foregoing shall not affect any rights that a Club may have under the Player Contract or this Agreement, including but not limited to the right to terminate the contract, renegotiate the contract, or to trade the player if such termination, renegotiation, or trade is otherwise permitted by the Player Contract or this Agreement.

This section specifically states it DOES NOT impede the team from Trading or Cutting the player

It is only stating the Team cannot later pay a player less than the Tendered amount

The whole argument is moot and Florio talking out of his butt again
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,692
Reaction score
91,138
Section 8. Good Faith Negotiation: (a) In addition to complying with specific provisions in this Agreement, any Club, any player, and any player agent or contract advisor engaged in negotiations for a Player Contract (including any Club extending, and any player receiving, a Required Tender) is under an obligation to negotiate in good faith.(b)A Club extending a Required Tender must, for so long as that Tender is extended, have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season. It shall be deemed to be a violation of this provision if, while the tender is outstanding, a Club insists that such a player agree to a Player Contract at a compensation level during the upcoming season below that of the Required Tender amount.
The foregoing shall not affect any rights that a Club may have under the Player Contract or this Agreement, including but not limited to the right to terminate the contract, renegotiate the contract, or to trade the player if such termination, renegotiation, or trade is otherwise permitted by the Player Contract or this Agreement.

This section specifically states it DOES NOT impede the team from Trading or Cutting the player

It is only stating the Team cannot later pay a player less than the Tendered amount

The whole argument is moot and Florio talking out of his butt again

It’s been argued by some agents as well. Not saying I buy it, but this is not just a Florio creation.

Frankly I think it’s moot anyway.
 

superonyx

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,373
Reaction score
15,676
Section 8. Good Faith Negotiation: (a) In addition to complying with specific provisions in this Agreement, any Club, any player, and any player agent or contract advisor engaged in negotiations for a Player Contract (including any Club extending, and any player receiving, a Required Tender) is under an obligation to negotiate in good faith.(b)A Club extending a Required Tender must, for so long as that Tender is extended, have a good faith intention to employ the player receiving the Tender at the Tender compensation level during the upcoming season. It shall be deemed to be a violation of this provision if, while the tender is outstanding, a Club insists that such a player agree to a Player Contract at a compensation level during the upcoming season below that of the Required Tender amount.
The foregoing shall not affect any rights that a Club may have under the Player Contract or this Agreement, including but not limited to the right to terminate the contract, renegotiate the contract, or to trade the player if such termination, renegotiation, or trade is otherwise permitted by the Player Contract or this Agreement.

This section specifically states it DOES NOT impede the team from Trading or Cutting the player

It is only stating the Team cannot later pay a player less than the Tendered amount

The whole argument is moot and Florio talking out of his butt again
I believe Nick Foles agent has been speaking about this also.
I read about some players in the past fighting this.
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,692
Reaction score
91,138
I believe Nick Foles agent has been speaking about this also.
I read about some players in the past fighting this.

There was an agent article on CBS or ESPN last week suggesting the same thing.

Now whether it would actually hold up, who the hell knows. The Dolphins tagged Landry last year and then traded him to Cleveland. It’s unclear if it was allowed by rule or that Landry, who requested a trade, didn’t want to file a grievance and just wanted out of Miami.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
It’s been argued by some agents as well. Not saying I buy it, but this is not just a Florio creation.

Frankly I think it’s moot anyway.
The Section is VERY specific..... it clearly allows Trades and Releases
 

superonyx

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,373
Reaction score
15,676
No one denies they picked up the option. So why are you claiming that fact as support of your argument.

The issue is you claimed they picked up the option because they want to retain him. That’s not a fact. In fact, most of the evidence and overwhelming number of reports say the exact opposite. Plus logic has to set in. Why in the world would a team with cap problems want to willingly carry a backup QB with a nearly $22MM cap hit?

No, every team that picks up an option wants to then trade the player. What an absurd comment. Jones is a starting CB. Why would we pick up an option of a starter to trade him? Foles is a backup. Making starter money if he accepted the option. It’s pretty clear at this point why they would pick up the option and possibly tag him. And it’s not to keep him.

They might not even tag him this coming week if they can’t find a team that wants to trade for him.

And in the end, I am not even advocating tagging and trading Lawrence. But your angle here doesn’t make a ton of sense and ignores what’s pretty well established at this point.
Well it is a fact that they picked up his option. At no point did I say it means they want to keep him. Show me where I said this. Ive said the opposite many times now.
Its weird that you go back to this to try and make an argument. The debate is more productive when you dont attempt to frame the other persons position accurately.

What I did say and will say again for you is that the Eagles picking up his option shows the eagles making an effort to keep him. This doesnt mean they intend to keep him. You seem more comfortable pretending 1 means the other in my mind.

And yes its was a risk to exercise that option because Foles could have signed it and this would have tied up the Eagles cap situation and probably given Wentz a few more neck boilers.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
Well it is a fact that they picked up his option. At no point did I say it means they want to keep him. Show me where I said this. Ive said the opposite many times now.
Its weird that you go back to this to try and make an argument. The debate is more productive when you dont attempt to frame the other persons position accurately.

What I did say and will say again for you is that the Eagles picking up his option shows the eagles making an effort to keep him. This doesnt mean they intend to keep him. You seem more comfortable pretending 1 means the other in my mind.

And yes its was a risk to exercise that option because Foles could have signed it and this would have tied up the Eagles cap situation and probably given Wentz a few more neck boilers.
Same with the FT...... Foles could instantly sign it and the Eagles would have no options

They would have to pay him the 25m one way or another

The dickmove was making Foles pay 2m instead of just Tagging him
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,692
Reaction score
91,138
Well it is a fact that they picked up his option. At no point did I say it means they want to keep him. Show me where I said this. Ive said the opposite many times now.
Its weird that you go back to this to try and make an argument. The debate is more productive when you dont attempt to frame the other persons position accurately.

What I did say and will say again for you is that the Eagles picking up his option shows the eagles making an effort to keep him. This doesnt mean they intend to keep him. You seem more comfortable pretending 1 means the other in my mind.

And yes its was a risk to exercise that option because Foles could have signed it and this would have tied up the Eagles cap situation and probably given Wentz a few more neck boilers.

Page 8, top of page.

You certainly seem to be saying them picking up the option is a sign they want to retain him. If I misread it, my apologies.

And again there was no risk to the option. Even if Foles accepted it, the Eagles would have not carried him beyond day three of the league year. And taken no cap hit for it.
 

Nightman

Capologist
Messages
27,121
Reaction score
24,038
Page 8, top of page.

You certainly seem to be saying them picking up the option is a sign they want to retain him. If I misread it, my apologies.

And again there was no risk to the option. Even if Foles accepted it, the Eagles would have not carried him beyond day three of the league year. And taken no cap hit for it.
Unless he got hurt during those 3 days
 
Top