Yahoo: Jerry talking to players about T.O. - 2/6/09

[khiladi]

This has finally gotten utterly ridiculous. Look, there are perfectly logical reasons to suggest the Cowboys ought to keep Owens. I understand that. But the "keep Owens" crowd has gotten completely ludicrous. Of course, Owens signed an original contract with the Cowboys structured in a way that favored the team. You are the first person I have ever, ever seen suggest otherwise. And there was limited interest. Until the past day or two, I'm not sure anyone made a serious argument to the contrary.

Who is talking about the Cowboys structuring the contract in a way that favored the team? That is done for every player, whether it is Ware or TO. The issue is your claim that TO got substantially below market value, which I just flat-out refuted. What is actually ludicrous is you complaining when I just brought you actual evidence to my point that what you claimed regarding TO and market-value as absurd. I further compared it to what Brady got for those years, which are roughly similar. Those numbers for TOs contract are directly from ESPN, when they reported that TO signed the contract. Tell me, how are those numbers substantially below market value? If I'm telling you it is a myth that no team wanted TO, and in fact, six teams aggresively pursued him, and you say that he got below market value to counter-act the point, and then I say that isn't true, his contract was pretty good, in fact, way more than what it was with the Eagles for those years, please spare me the drama that I'm being ludicrous...It was the Eagles that gave him substantially below market value. Maybe now you can understand why TO was so upset, especially after the Philly organization blatantly lied to him saying they would re-do his contract.

 

[tyke1doe]

So let me get this straight-

You are saying Romo only criticized the coaching because TO criticized the coaching and that prompted him to do so?

It had nothing to do with Romo's true feelings on the matter?

True feelings really have nothing to do with it.

I'm sure a lot of people don't like their managers. But criticizing those managers publicly is another matter.

And group dynamics being what they are, often people are emboldened to voice their frustrations or like opinions when someone else takes the lead.

After all, the question on the Cowboys squad now is whether Romo is a leader. We know T.O. is - for better or worse. We have questions as to if Romo is. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he followed T.O.'s lead.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

Who is talking about the Cowboys structuring the contract in a way that favored the team? That is done for every player, whether it is Ware or TO. The issue is your claim that TO got substantially below market value, which I just flat-out refuted. What is actually ludicrous is you complaining when I just brought you actual evidence to my point that what you claimed regarding TO and market-value as absurd. I further compared it to what Brady got for those years, which are roughly similar. Those numbers for TOs contract are directly from ESPN, when they reported that TO signed the contract. Tell me, how are those numbers substantially below market value? If I'm telling you it is a myth that no team wanted TO, and in fact, six teams aggresively pursued him, and you say that he got below market value to counter-act the point, and then I say that isn't true, his contract was pretty good, in fact, way more than what it was with the Eagles for those years, please spare me the drama that I'm being ludicrous...It was the Eagles that gave him substantially below market value. Maybe now you can understand why TO was so upset, especially after the Philly organization blatantly lied to him saying they would re-do his contract.

Oh c'mon. You refuted nothing. You merely asserted. Owens didn't get the money he would have gotten had he not been seen as a problem. That's simply a fact, no matter how you try to paint the thing.

 

[tyke1doe]

Who cares? The bottomline is that the no competition bullcrap is just that, bullcrap.

We know of at least one other team that was aggressively pursuing him and just because no one else broadcast their interest that does not mean that no one else was not interested either.

Sorry, I don't understand what you just said.

 

[tyke1doe]

So your accusing him of lying.. BTW, Rosenhaus said that after TO was signed.... In the case of McGahee, it was to drive the value up...

I'm not accusing him of lying. I don't have enough information to make that call. But I am saying that Rosenhaus actually said he had McGahee on the phones to give the impression that other teams were considering drafting him.

And he did so because his goal is to make sure his guy is put in as favorable a light as possible.

As for T.O. being signed, that doesn't make a difference. I mean, do you think Rosenhaus would say, "The Cowboys were the only team interested in T.O." even after he signed?

I don't think so. As an agent, you're always marketing your guy just in case.

 

[tyke1doe]

4. You forgot injuries

Even Reeves said as much when asked about what he would have been doing for the Cowboys and if he thought our "locker issues" lead to our 9-7 finish.

The 90's teams had great chemistry. They also had off the field distractions, that was their problem they ultimately overcame.

This team has chemistry and discipline "issues".
These issues are not the result of Owens and will not be solved with his depature.

Owens is not the disease, he's the symptom. Treat the disease not the symptom.

I forgot injuries. Thanks.

 

[khiladi]

Oh c'mon. You refuted nothing. You merely asserted. Owens didn't get the money he would have gotten had he not been seen as a problem. That's simply a fact, no matter how you try to paint the thing.

What part of his numbers don't you understand? You said he got substantially below market value, and did not provide a single shred of evidence for this claim. You could have provided something to compare his numbers against, but you didn't. I, on the other hand, gave you dollar terms of what his contract were, and these numbers were right up there with Tom Brady for 2007, and you said I made an assertion. And you claim I'm the one painting things..Tell me, on what basis do you assert TO got substantially below market value... I don't want to here your drama... Provide something substantial, like numbers, not, in your words, 'assertions'... So far we got:1. Drew Rosenhaus saying six teams aggresively pursued TO2. TO got dollars that were pretty good for 3 years, similar to Brady's numbers for 2007. Hell, maybe TO signed with Dallas, because Dallas was a big-name place and he got to play against the Eagles twice a year.

 

[khiladi]

I'm not accusing him of lying. I don't have enough information to make that call. But I am saying that Rosenhaus actually said he had McGahee on the phones to give the impression that other teams were considering drafting him.

And he did so because his goal is to make sure his guy is put in as favorable a light as possible.

As for T.O. being signed, that doesn't make a difference. I mean, do you think Rosenhaus would say, "The Cowboys were the only team interested in T.O." even after he signed?


I don't think so. As an agent, you're always marketing your guy just in case.

Well, the Cowboys weren't. Denver was also a team that was interested in TO, as per reports in papers. Even if we don't accept Drew's words on the subject, we do know that Dallas wasn't the only one interested in TO.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

What part of his numbers don't you understand? You said he got substantially below market value, and did not provide a single shred of evidence for this claim. You could have provided something to compare his numbers against, but you didn't. I, on the other hand, gave you dollar terms of what his contract were, and these numbers were right up there with Tom Brady during 1997, and you said I made an assertion. And you claim I'm the one painting things..Tell me, on what basis do you assert TO got substantially below market value... I don't want to here your drama... Provide something substantial...

Tell you what, sir, you believe as you wish. I have no time to hunt down Owens' contract figures, and NFL contracts are deceptive, anyhow, past any money that isn't guaranteed. So I will withdraw with my tail between my legs, and you can tell everyone here that the SF and Philly incidents had zero impact on NFL interest in Owens or on his contract with the Cowboys. I'm sure you will be seen, universally, as being correct. There! I made your day.

 

[khiladi]

Tell you what, sir, you believe as you wish. I have no time to hunt down Owens' contract figures, and NFL contracts are deceptive, anyhow, past any money that isn't guaranteed. So I will withdraw with my tail between my legs, and you can tell everyone here that the SF and Philly incidents had zero impact on NFL interest in Owens or on his contract with the Cowboys. I'm sure you will be seen, universally, as being correct. There! I made your day.

It is obvious who is believing what they wish... Interesting that you've never even hunted it down to know what exactly the contract was, and yet, your claiming it was substantially below market value for his services. The irony... Did you also forget that I also pointed out that his Philly contract was way worse than what the Cowboys were giving him. The implication is, that contract he got in Philly, when the Ravens wanted him, was below his market value and he wasn't known as a 'team destroyer' then. Your argument would have more grounds to stand on, if you actually argue he was forced to take a lesser valued contract with the Eagles, when many NFL teams were vying for his services.So you have no proof for your contention that the only team that wanted the Cowboys was TO, and further, that his contract was substantially less then his market value... Interesting also that you've decided to change the argument to 'zero impact' to try and save some face... Since when is 'zero impact' the same as your original contention, that he was forced to take a contract substantially less than market value... Oh yeah, it's not..

 

[Shake_Tiller]

It is obvious who is believing what they wish... Interesting that you've never even hunted it down to know what exactly the contract was, and yet, your claiming it was substantially below market value for his services. The irony... Did you also forget that I also pointed out that his Philly contract was way worse than what the Cowboys were giving him. The implication is, that contract he got in Philly, when the Ravens wanted him, was below his market value and he wasn't known as a 'team destroyer' then. Your argument would have more grounds to stand on, if you actually argue he was forced to take a lesser valued contract with the Eagles, when many NFL teams were vying for his services.So you have no proof for your contention that the only team that wanted the Cowboys was TO, and further, that his contract was substantially less then his market value... Interesting also that you've decided to change the argument to 'zero impact' to try and save some face... Since when is 'zero impact' the same as your original contention, that he was forced to take a contract substantially less than market value... Oh yeah, it's not..

I don't know how to break this to you. Please. Sit down. I am not especially interested in "saving face" in an anonymous Internet forum. At the same time, I can't allow your digs to dictate to me how I should spend my time. It doesn't matter. Lots of people read this forum, and they have varying levels of interest in and knowledge of pro football. Those folks can decide whether they buy your contention that Owens didn't sign a below market contract to join the Cowboys. They can decide whether they buy your contention that his past problems had no impact on the level of interest in his services or on the amount of money he would earn. Beyond that, I don't see where we have anything to discuss on the subject. Nobody wins a prize.