'Sweet Love said:
'bostonfred said:
'Sweet Love said:
Yh, we have never reflected on that whole thing as a group (unless I missed something) and while the gut reaction is "pay the man", even when w know as a group, you will never get close to your money out of him on the field, I am sure many would have caved. If they paid him, they would be stuck with a hurt overpaid RB, and knowing they would have to draft his eventual replacement in 2013...now they have him at an affordable price, knowing they have to draft his eventual replacement.
its not that simple. Would mjd have gotten hurt if he hadn't held out until september? would mjd have contributed more than one very good game if he had been in game shape on day 1? Would that success have helped gabbert lead the jags to a .500 record at this point? Is jacksonville better off paying mjd 5 mil/yr for the last two years of his contract when they get a holdout weakened year, and a possible holdout again next year?
I think so. I am a huge "butterfly effect" guy, so I appreciate where you are going with your initial question. So I take it to the most extreme stance in that regardless of what MJD did/does this year and going forward if they signed him on day 1, they still would have come out behind. That is ground zero and it would have only gotten worse from there. By denying him the contract it not only sets a tone for how business will be done, but lets the 45 "non-stars" realize that there is more money in the bank for them if they perform. We rarely discuss this, but if I personally were on a team and one guy got a contract that eats up 15% of the cap, my first thought would be, "well, that's less for the rest of us". While it does not make "football sense", each player on a 53 man roster could be paid $2 million per year; each guy that gets "paid", chisels away from what the rest of the masses can receive. He also set a tone where he will not cave to a guy who already counts 4% of the cap when he is on the downside of his career. MJD is getting good money for what he will do in 2012 and likely in 2013. The system sucks in that players do not get paid for what they do, but mostly get paid for what they have done (whether it is on that original team or not), but in essence, by him not getting a ridiculous contract, there is much more money to go around to the masses, and I am sure it is an unspoken "win" in their minds.
I said all along that the person making the mistake was mjd, not khan, because mjd had very little leverage this year. That the best thing for him to do was to have a good season and help the jags win 7+ games, then leave them in a position where the fans thought they had a legit shot to contend as long as mjd is there. That's how you get paid. Instead, he went to a new owner, who was trying to set the tone for his team, and held their crappy season hostage by threatening to make it slightly crappier. Not a good strategy. But while I don't blame ownership for refusing to cave, I think there's a case to be made that the holdout hurt the organization. Gabbert is developing, but he is not learning to be a winner. Teams don't respect the pass or the run. Jones drew wasn't playing that great even before he got hurt. Now imagine this year, but with a legit run game, sustaining drives, keeping their d fresh, keeping opponents a little more honest, giving gabbert a little more confidence, and imagine what strides he might have made. Yes, they cost themselves in the locker room a little by paying a guy on the way out, but they also send a message that the team takes care of you when you work hard, and they probably win a few more games this year, making it easier to attract free agents. And it also depends whether the jags ultimately spent their entire cap room this year. If they didnt, then the message sent is not a good one. I dont think well run organizations should cave, especially to a player with two years left on their deal. But if there is a time when they should cave, this might have been it.
