What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

*** T.O. suspension *** (1 Viewer)

IvanKaramazov

Footballguy
I don't see why this would affect Philly's ability to sign professionals in the future. It might, however, impact their ability to sign selfish, childish cancers. Not sure that that's a bad thing.

 

Aerial Assault

Footballguy
Man, the NFL is one twisted, hypocritical league.  If you wanna suspend TO for dissing his team...fine.  But please don't allow some coach to tell us it don't matter if his team (that I PAY to see) don't win games, or allow folks that beat their wives to play, etc.

Bull####....
The NFL didn't suspend TO, The Eagles did.
True, but it is the league allowing it to happen.Again, I am fine with suspending him. I just don't see how one team can suspend a player for dissing team members in the media, but a woman beater can play on. Makes no sense....
There are many other reasons TO was suspended other than dissing team members in the media.
True, like Hugh Douglas attacking him. TO - - such a tool.
 

Fla\/\/ed

Footballguy
I don't see why this would affect Philly's ability to sign professionals in the future. It might, however, impact their ability to sign selfish, childish cancers. Not sure that that's a bad thing.
:lmao:
 

Vic Vega

Footballguy
I believe other FAs will view the hard stance as a negative thing, and hurt the Eagles chances in landing future FAs.
Why wouldn’t the organization be true to themselves by standing firmly against liabilities to their business? It shows other teams and players that they don’t screw around with malcontents – they want players that produce and enhance the synergy of the team.If we were talking about you and your job...

Would you expect to keep a job where you show up every day and ##### at your coworkers and superiors?

How bad do you think they would want you if you do the equivalent of taking out full page ads in industry trade media that say how ####ty the organization, its management, and many prominent workers are?

Why in the #### would they want anything to do with you?

If not solely for selfish reasons alone, why would you want to be there if you’re so damned miserable?

 

CletiusMaximus

Footballguy
I don't understand why they won't release him - seems unprofessional to me. I imagine this is being discussed in one of the many other TO threads theads.

 

Jason Wood

Zoo York
Dodds tried to make this point a week or two ago and I just don't get it...

Players choose their FA destinations largely on some combination of the following factors:

Amount of $$$ being offered

Potential for the team to contend
Quality of the facilities
Quality of the coaches
System
Playing timeThe Eagles are a model franchise, they have had and will continue to have $$$ to spend on players they covet. The coaching staff remains among the league's best and the facilities are brand new and state of the art. The core of the team both offensively and defensive is under long-term contract.

I think players will look at how guys like Jeremiah Trotter and Hugh Douglass came back for veteran minimums to the team even though they weren't retained previously as an indication of the quality situation.

Also, I think players and agents will notice that the Eagles proactively locked up guys like McNabb, Akers, Westbrook, G. Lewis, Dawkins, Sheppard, Brown, Thomas, Hicks, Rayburn and Adams to LONG TERM deals.

I also think they'll look at the Eagles willingness to break the bank for guys like Kearse and Owens in free agency and not shy away.

LOL at this somehow HURTING the Eagles chances in free agency.

$15mm-$20mm under the cap + Reid + the Linc + a core locked up to long-term contracts = free agents more than willing to come aboard.
Most things being equal between the Eagles and another franchise, that player might choose the other franchise.
Right...but most things most definitely aren't equal. :confused: How many teams have more money (short term or long term) to spend?

How many teams have better facilities?

How many teams have better coaches?

How many teams have the history of locking up core players?

NOW, how many have the COMBINATION?

If the choice is between New England and Philly, I can see your point. Most other teams? :no:

 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
I believe other FAs will view the hard stance as a negative thing, and hurt the Eagles chances in landing future FAs.
Why wouldn’t the organization be true to themselves by standing firmly against liabilities to their business? It shows other teams and players that they don’t screw around with malcontents – they want players that produce and enhance the synergy of the team.If we were talking about you and your job...

Would you expect to keep a job where you show up every day and ##### at your coworkers and superiors?

How bad do you think they would want you if you do the equivalent of taking out full page ads in industry trade media that say how ####ty the organization, its management, and many prominent workers are?

Why in the #### would they want anything to do with you?

If not solely for selfish reasons alone, why would you want to be there if you’re so damned miserable?
They would fire my #### and I would go find another job. The same should be true for TO. There is no law that says that an employer can send me home for calling my boss a jerk, pay me, and refuse to let me go get another job.
 

GregR_2

Footballguy
Dodds tried to make this point a week or two ago and I just don't get it...

Players choose their FA destinations largely on some combination of the following factors:

Amount of $$$ being offered

Potential for the team to contend
Quality of the facilities
Quality of the coaches
System
Playing timeThe Eagles are a model franchise, they have had and will continue to have $$$ to spend on players they covet. The coaching staff remains among the league's best and the facilities are brand new and state of the art. The core of the team both offensively and defensive is under long-term contract.

I think players will look at how guys like Jeremiah Trotter and Hugh Douglass came back for veteran minimums to the team even though they weren't retained previously as an indication of the quality situation.

Also, I think players and agents will notice that the Eagles proactively locked up guys like McNabb, Akers, Westbrook, G. Lewis, Dawkins, Sheppard, Brown, Thomas, Hicks, Rayburn and Adams to LONG TERM deals.

I also think they'll look at the Eagles willingness to break the bank for guys like Kearse and Owens in free agency and not shy away.

LOL at this somehow HURTING the Eagles chances in free agency.

$15mm-$20mm under the cap + Reid + the Linc + a core locked up to long-term contracts = free agents more than willing to come aboard.
To take your words and amend them to how I see it:I think players will look at how guys like Jeremiah Trotter and Hugh Douglass came back for veteran minimums to the team even though they weren't retained previously and realize the Eagles will almost never pay market value for free agents.

Let's be honest about it. That's the reason the Eagles are in such good cap situation. Same thing with the Pats. With only a few exceptions (McNabb, maybe Westbrook), they cut guys who won't play for less than they could get elsewhere. This works for the Eagles, as it does for the Pats, because they do a fantastic job in drafting and always seem to have a backup who is capable of stepping into the starting job. How many free agents have they actually given a market-worthy contract to? Jevon Kearse. TO's contract was low enough the NFLPA told him he shouldn't sign it. Have they had any other major free agents join the team in recent history?

 

Vic Vega

Footballguy
I don't understand why they won't release him - seems unprofessional to me. I imagine this is being discussed in one of the many other TO threads theads.
A bit vindictive, maybe. But warranted in my opinion. As crazy as this may seem, T.O. may actually learn something from all of this. Not very likely, but I guess there is an outside chance.
 

Fla\/\/ed

Footballguy
Dodds tried to make this point a week or two ago and I just don't get it...

Players choose their FA destinations largely on some combination of the following factors:

Amount of $$$ being offered

Potential for the team to contend
Quality of the facilities
Quality of the coaches
System
Playing timeThe Eagles are a model franchise, they have had and will continue to have $$$ to spend on players they covet. The coaching staff remains among the league's best and the facilities are brand new and state of the art. The core of the team both offensively and defensive is under long-term contract.

I think players will look at how guys like Jeremiah Trotter and Hugh Douglass came back for veteran minimums to the team even though they weren't retained previously as an indication of the quality situation.

Also, I think players and agents will notice that the Eagles proactively locked up guys like McNabb, Akers, Westbrook, G. Lewis, Dawkins, Sheppard, Brown, Thomas, Hicks, Rayburn and Adams to LONG TERM deals.

I also think they'll look at the Eagles willingness to break the bank for guys like Kearse and Owens in free agency and not shy away.

LOL at this somehow HURTING the Eagles chances in free agency.

$15mm-$20mm under the cap + Reid + the Linc + a core locked up to long-term contracts = free agents more than willing to come aboard.
Most things being equal between the Eagles and another franchise, that player might choose the other franchise.
Right...but most things most definitely aren't equal. :confused: How many teams have more money (short term or long term) to spend?

How many teams have better facilities?

How many teams have better coaches?

How many teams have the history of locking up core players?

NOW, how many have the COMBINATION?

If the choice is between New England and Philly, I can see your point. Most other teams? :no:
I have no idea why someone would think this would hurt the Eagles? The vast majority of players in the NFL know what a tool TO is and don't blame the Eagles for what they did.
 

dotman

Footballguy
Man, the NFL is one twisted, hypocritical league.  If you wanna suspend TO for dissing his team...fine.  But please don't allow some coach to tell us it don't matter if his team (that I PAY to see) don't win games, or allow folks that beat their wives to play, etc.

Bull####....
The NFL didn't suspend TO, The Eagles did.
True, but it is the league allowing it to happen.Again, I am fine with suspending him. I just don't see how one team can suspend a player for dissing team members in the media, but a woman beater can play on. Makes no sense....
Are you suggesting the league shouldn't allow the Eagles to suspend TO?I understand you think Randy McMichael should be told to sit but it really doesn't have much to do with this issue, if anything at all.

 

Vic Vega

Footballguy
I believe other FAs will view the hard stance as a negative thing, and hurt the Eagles chances in landing future FAs.
Why wouldn’t the organization be true to themselves by standing firmly against liabilities to their business? It shows other teams and players that they don’t screw around with malcontents – they want players that produce and enhance the synergy of the team.If we were talking about you and your job...

Would you expect to keep a job where you show up every day and ##### at your coworkers and superiors?

How bad do you think they would want you if you do the equivalent of taking out full page ads in industry trade media that say how ####ty the organization, its management, and many prominent workers are?

Why in the #### would they want anything to do with you?

If not solely for selfish reasons alone, why would you want to be there if you’re so damned miserable?
They would fire my #### and I would go find another job. The same should be true for TO. There is no law that says that an employer can send me home for calling my boss a jerk, pay me, and refuse to let me go get another job.
If you are under contract, they could keep you, pay you, and give you no work to do until the end of your contract.
 

Billy1x

Footballguy
OWENS LOSES ARBITRATION CASE

http://www.philadelphiaeagles.com/homeNews...il.jsp?id=40179

November 23, 2005

By CHRIS McPHERSON

Arbitrator Richard Bloch has ruled against wide receiver Terrell Owens in his grievance case against the Philadelphia Eagles.

Bloch upheld the Eagles' four-game suspension against Owens which means that he will remain suspended for this Sunday's game against Green Bay.

Head coach Andy Reid did not know of the decision during his Wednesday press conference. Reid said that he will comment later in the day. Stay tuned to PhiladelphiaEagles.com all day for the latest.

==============================

I think this only covers the 4 games suspension and not the deactivation. The 1st grievance was to reduce the 4 games suspension only or get paid for those games.

It ain't over till its over.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

packersfan

Footballguy
If the Eagles return to the ranks of the NFC's upper-echelon next season (and there's no reason to assume they can't do that) and if they demonstrate they're willing to pay players to come to Philly, then good players will still want to go there. The players who don't want to go to a winning situation aren't likely to be players you'll want anyway. Simple really.

 

Stinger Ray

Footballguy
Great win for the Eagles. They can continue losing games and get the pleasure of paying their most talented player to sit and home and laugh at them, but they do get to save 4 games' salary. That'll show him for saying their quarterback who's out for the rest of the season is hypothetically worse for their team than a guy that hasn't missed a game in forever.
:goodposting:
 

bostonfred

Footballguy
I think players will look at how guys like Jeremiah Trotter and Hugh Douglass came back for veteran minimums to the team even though they weren't retained previously as an indication of the quality situation.
Those guys were playing at the top of their game, ready to make a big contract, and the Eagles let them walk instead. They had to go somewhere else to get paid, ended up getting cut, and when they came back, they were offered the veteran minimum. The fact that they took it is not really the advertisement for the Eagles you seem to think it is. From a player's perspective, this franchise hasn't been treating its stars well financially for a long time. Owens is another example of this.

That said, I'm not sure how much damage this will do to their recruiting abilities, for the reasons you said. The Eagles have been able to get away with this, and could still sign good players. The Patriots have a similar reputation, and continue to get good players too. The problem is, the Eagles have to keep winning for it to work, and this season isn't looking good for that.

Players won't want to play there if they continue to lose, and agents certainly won't want to guide their players to the Eagles. It's not something that will cripple their free agent signing ability, but it certainly doesn't help.

 

bostonfred

Footballguy
To take your words and amend them to how I see it:

I think players will look at how guys like Jeremiah Trotter and Hugh Douglass came back for veteran minimums to the team even though they weren't retained previously and realize the Eagles will almost never pay market value for free agents.

Let's be honest about it. That's the reason the Eagles are in such good cap situation. Same thing with the Pats. With only a few exceptions (McNabb, maybe Westbrook), they cut guys who won't play for less than they could get elsewhere. This works for the Eagles, as it does for the Pats, because they do a fantastic job in drafting and always seem to have a backup who is capable of stepping into the starting job. How many free agents have they actually given a market-worthy contract to? Jevon Kearse. TO's contract was low enough the NFLPA told him he shouldn't sign it. Have they had any other major free agents join the team in recent history?
:goodposting: Beat me to it.

 

ericttspikes

Footballguy
Don't you think things will go differently in another grievance, if the Eagles inactivate him?  Wouldn't the 2 punishment thing apply more in a 2nd grievance after inactivation?  In other words, if that grievance goes TO's way, wouldn't the Eagles be more inclined to release him, rather than have him as a distraction?  I don't think this thing is over by a long shot.
There is absolutely zero chance that any arbitrator will rule that the Eagles have to make TO active.
It's still going to mean a second messy arbitration hearing and a second bout of media attention on this. Three straight losses to division rivals, an even bigger circus than if they'd just let him continue playing or cut him outright, and now they're going to extend the messy arbitration by another couple weeks. Way to get rid of the distraction, Andy, you did a great job handling this.
I agree. Terrible job by the Eagles all around. This should of been done in the summer, not when their QB rips his groin and the team tanks. TO sits and gets to sign with Dallas next year, smooth. Giants and Dallas will dominate the East for years while Eagles are also rans. If the "not playing for a divison rival" was ever an issue, TO would of been waived and given a chance to sign with a scrub team like Texans or GB. Still not sure what benefit it is holding on to him? Possible 3rd rounder? Will teams really want a trade when the Eagles have announced no intention of continuing the contract? It will be hilarious to see TO stomping on the Eagle head in the endzone next year as a member of the Giants or big D.
 

packersfan

Footballguy
agents certainly won't want to guide their players to the Eagles.
The only agent who could possibly use this against the Eagles is Rosenhaus. Other agents will almost certainly look to capitalize on the situation and guide their players to the Eagles by selling them as strong team players and guys "who aren't like TO." That will serve to undercut Rosenhaus which you can rest assured is one of the top agendas for all NFL agents right now. More importantly, agents will guide their players to where the money is. If the Eagles demonstrate a willigness to pay then agends will guide their players to them. No agent is going to give a rat's ### what happened to TO if it means getting a nice chunk of salary from their player's new contract with the Eagles.

 

kingmalaki

Footballguy
Man, the NFL is one twisted, hypocritical league.  If you wanna suspend TO for dissing his team...fine.  But please don't allow some coach to tell us it don't matter if his team (that I PAY to see) don't win games, or allow folks that beat their wives to play, etc.

Bull####....
The NFL didn't suspend TO, The Eagles did.
True, but it is the league allowing it to happen.Again, I am fine with suspending him. I just don't see how one team can suspend a player for dissing team members in the media, but a woman beater can play on. Makes no sense....
Are you suggesting the league shouldn't allow the Eagles to suspend TO?I understand you think Randy McMichael should be told to sit but it really doesn't have much to do with this issue, if anything at all.
Different penalties and I know it's not related. I just think it is dumb as hell for the player committing a horrid act to get no suspension AT ALL while someone who disses someone to reporters is gone for the yr...in the same league. No positive way to spin "he talked about his qb and we gave him the boot, but he beat his wife and it's cool".
 

Wingnut

Footballguy
Will this finally put a stop to all the TO threads? Hes done. Nothing more to talk about this year.Hopefully this will be the last thread on him.

 

AnonymousBob

Footballguy
Sirrius reported the same thing, HOWEVER, ESPN reported that he may be released and go on the waiver wire

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=2234460

=============================

Report: Eagles WR Owens suspension to be reduced

SportsTicker

National Football League News Wire

NEW YORK - Terrell Owens may get his wish after all.

According to a report in Newsday, arbitrator Richard Bloch is expected to reduce the controversial wide receiver's four-game suspension by the Philadelphia Eagles.

The arbitration hearing for Owens was held last Friday and lasted 14 hours. A decision is expected to be announced on Wednesday.

Owens was suspended by Eagles coach Andy Reid for conduct detrimental to the team and has already missed three games. The NFL Players Association is seeking to have the suspension reduced and wants the Eagles to cut Owens if they have no intention of playing him again.

The report indicates that the Eagles, who planned to deactivate Owens for the remainder of the season, will release the mercurial superstar receiver instead. Philadelphia is concerned that Owens will cause a distraction if the ruling allows him to return to the Eagles' practice facility.

Owens has stated all along that he wants to return to the Eagles, but would want to be released if Philadelphia didn't plan to play him. If released, Owens would go through the league's waiver system, with the worst team getting the first shot of claiming him.

Owens is making a base salary of $3.75 million this season.
Actually they've now got it right...ESPN ran with the erroneous Newsday story initially...http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2234459
Ok, thanks Jason and Nigel Tufnel.
 
TO will make more money in the games after suspension playing with some other teams than the iggles would give him. It is very very important to let malcotent players know that they bad attitude will not be rewarded.

 

jurb26

Footballguy
I'm a bit mixed on this one. TO is clearly an exception and not the norm as far as players go. I think 95% of the players in the NFL understand that TO was out of line and that there are better ways of handling the business aspects fo playning NFL football. On the other hand though, Philly has never dished out big $ to even it's very good players really. That is all good so long as they are winning and being part of a winning franchise and having a shoot at the SB is in sight. What if they start to loose like they have this year though? I would say it does little to change the Eagles ability to sign guys.

 

AnonymousBob

Footballguy
Don't you think things will go differently in another grievance, if the Eagles inactivate him?  Wouldn't the 2 punishment thing apply more in a 2nd grievance after inactivation?  In other words, if that grievance goes TO's way, wouldn't the Eagles be more inclined to release him, rather than have him as a distraction?  I don't think this thing is over by a long shot.
There is absolutely zero chance that any arbitrator will rule that the Eagles have to make TO active.
It's still going to mean a second messy arbitration hearing and a second bout of media attention on this. Three straight losses to division rivals, an even bigger circus than if they'd just let him continue playing or cut him outright, and now they're going to extend the messy arbitration by another couple weeks. Way to get rid of the distraction, Andy, you did a great job handling this.
I agree. Terrible job by the Eagles all around. This should of been done in the summer, not when their QB rips his groin and the team tanks. TO sits and gets to sign with Dallas next year, smooth. Giants and Dallas will dominate the East for years while Eagles are also rans. If the "not playing for a divison rival" was ever an issue, TO would of been waived and given a chance to sign with a scrub team like Texans or GB. Still not sure what benefit it is holding on to him? Possible 3rd rounder? Will teams really want a trade when the Eagles have announced no intention of continuing the contract? It will be hilarious to see TO stomping on the Eagle head in the endzone next year as a member of the Giants or big D.
First, I think this is a brilliant job by Reid to keep the spotlight off the terrible year they're having-instead of attacking him, the media has latched onto TO. Second, I could see a team trading for TO before next year if they wouldn't have a chance at grabbing him off the waiver. Or since it's before the deadline and he has more than four years would he not be subjected to that?
 

stevetrash

Footballguy
I think this only covers the 4 games suspension and not the deactivation. The 1st grievance was to reduce the 4 games suspension only or get paid for those games.

It ain't over till its over.
"The finding is that the club has shouldered its burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence of play misconduct in that the four-week suspension was for just cause," Bloch wrote in his decision. "Additionally, there was no inherent violation of the labor agreement in the club's decision to pay Owens but not practice or play him due to the nature of the player's conduct and its destructive and continuing threat to the team."source: philly.com

 

Uncle Pete

Footballguy
Dodds tried to make this point a week or two ago and I just don't get it...

Players choose their FA destinations largely on some combination of the following factors:

Amount of $$$ being offered

Potential for the team to contend
Quality of the facilities
Quality of the coaches
System
Playing timeThe Eagles are a model franchise, they have had and will continue to have $$$ to spend on players they covet. The coaching staff remains among the league's best and the facilities are brand new and state of the art. The core of the team both offensively and defensive is under long-term contract.

I think players will look at how guys like Jeremiah Trotter and Hugh Douglass came back for veteran minimums to the team even though they weren't retained previously as an indication of the quality situation.

Also, I think players and agents will notice that the Eagles proactively locked up guys like McNabb, Akers, Westbrook, G. Lewis, Dawkins, Sheppard, Brown, Thomas, Hicks, Rayburn and Adams to LONG TERM deals.

I also think they'll look at the Eagles willingness to break the bank for guys like Kearse and Owens in free agency and not shy away.

LOL at this somehow HURTING the Eagles chances in free agency.

$15mm-$20mm under the cap + Reid + the Linc + a core locked up to long-term contracts = free agents more than willing to come aboard.
Great Posting!!!!!! not just :goodposting:
 

bostonfred

Footballguy
First, I think this is a brilliant job by Reid to keep the spotlight off the terrible year they're having
They were above .500 and in second place in their division with Owens. They're winless without him and in last place in their division. Suspending Owens caused the terrible year they're having.
 

mydixie

Footballguy
All the talk of a second arbitration is BS. As a Steeler fan I have watched Duce Staley be deactivated to make room for a special teams player or extra LB for weeks now. He is not filing a grievance for being deactivated and hurting his FA value because he knows that it is the teams right to pick 45 players out of the 53 man roster at will. If in TOs delusions he believes he will win, the team need only point to the 8 players that are inactive every week.

 

Ozymandias

Footballguy
I think the NFL wins by this. Even though there are those who think the whole thing will start up again after he is deactivated. Contracts that have a huge upfront bonus cannot be easily tossed aside after the player has a good year, and wants more money. Of course, they can cut a player who doesn't perform, but he gets to keep the whole upfront bonus, provided there is no bad faith involved.First of all, the biggest loser is not TO but his idiot of an agent. Second, it actually is better for TO, in the long run. He may have learned that to act like a butthole can cost him money, and that he can't be a jackbutt and expect everyone to take it. If his suspension had been reduced, he would have thought he was a winner.The Eagles also lose, but this may help them in the long run. Players who might be inclined to copycat TO will be less likely to do so in the future.

 

Courtjester

The Town Drunk
This is not a win for the Eagles. It is a win for the NFL as a whole. A TO victory would have been a disaster.
Exactly.All the posters that are complaining that TO should be released now are obvious FFL TO owners nothing more nothing less.

He acted like a jerk, got what he deserved and now subsequently will be released/traded (if anyone wants him) prior to the big cap hit he costs them in March.

He has completely destroyed any chance he had at a future big dollar contract and will be stuck playing for incentive laden/moral clause type contracts for the remainder of his NFL career. Not to mention the complete wasteland that will be TO's endorsement possibilities for quite a bit.

Don't get me wrong, he will be on an NFL roster next year, but he is done for this year. I would not put it by Fox or CBS to pick him up as a guest commentator for their football shows though.

 

stevetrash

Footballguy
First, I think this is a brilliant job by Reid to keep the spotlight off the terrible year they're having
They were above .500 and in second place in their division with Owens. They're winless without him and in last place in their division. Suspending Owens caused the terrible year they're having.
and someone could argue that keeping Owens caused them to have the season the terrible year they're having.without Owens: competitive vs. the Cowboys.

with Owens: blown out and thoroughly embarrassed vs. the Cowboys.

 

fatness

against the grain
First, I think this is a brilliant job by Reid to keep the spotlight off the terrible year they're having
They were above .500 and in second place in their division with Owens. They're winless without him and in last place in their division. Suspending Owens caused the terrible year they're having.
Losing McNabb hurts them more than losing Owens does.
 

bostonfred

Footballguy
First, I think this is a brilliant job by Reid to keep the spotlight off the terrible year they're having
They were above .500 and in second place in their division with Owens. They're winless without him and in last place in their division. Suspending Owens caused the terrible year they're having.
and someone could argue that keeping Owens caused them to have the season the terrible year they're having.without Owens: competitive vs. the Cowboys.

with Owens: blown out and thoroughly embarrassed vs. the Cowboys.
:confused: Please make that argument.

 

Bevo

Footballguy
I believe other FAs will view the hard stance as a negative thing, and hurt the Eagles chances in landing future FAs.
Why wouldn’t the organization be true to themselves by standing firmly against liabilities to their business? It shows other teams and players that they don’t screw around with malcontents – they want players that produce and enhance the synergy of the team.If we were talking about you and your job...

Would you expect to keep a job where you show up every day and ##### at your coworkers and superiors?

How bad do you think they would want you if you do the equivalent of taking out full page ads in industry trade media that say how ####ty the organization, its management, and many prominent workers are?

Why in the #### would they want anything to do with you?

If not solely for selfish reasons alone, why would you want to be there if you’re so damned miserable?
They would fire my #### and I would go find another job. The same should be true for TO. There is no law that says that an employer can send me home for calling my boss a jerk, pay me, and refuse to let me go get another job.
Criminal law? I would agree, no such law.Civil (contractual) law. I would disagree.

1) Is there a law specifically saying they can't do exactly that?

2) T.O. signed a contract that apparently allows just that. I have signed such contracts (for software design) that essentially say the same thing; both parties agreed to a contract that said that as long as the employer continued to pay me that I could not, under any circumstances, go to work for a company in a competing industry. Of course I was free to go to work at a MickeyD and I am pretty sure that T.O. can do the same thing; he just cannot go to work for a competing company (another team) as long as the Eagles continue to pay him. He shouldn't have signed the contract if he didn't like the terms.

 

bagger.

The One Play Quiz
First, I think this is a brilliant job by Reid to keep the spotlight off the terrible year they're having
They were above .500 and in second place in their division with Owens. They're winless without him and in last place in their division. Suspending Owens caused the terrible year they're having.
and someone could argue that keeping Owens caused them to have the season the terrible year they're having.without Owens: competitive vs. the Cowboys.

with Owens: blown out and thoroughly embarrassed vs. the Cowboys.
:confused: Please make that argument.
I agree with bfred.The Eagles were at least a wild card with TO. Now they are (or soon will be) a bottom feeder.

 

BigJim®

Footballguy
That's impossible. Mort and others have said T.O. stands an excellent chance of winning. They wouldn't have done that just to hedge their professional insight or <gasp> to keep people glued to ESPN, would they?

 

Gargoylez

Footballguy
Whether TO is playing or not, the Eagles dont make the play offs, PERIOD. McNabb is gone and their secondary is taking a huge hit.They might of gone 8-8 instead of a 6-10 season, but thats it.THANK GOD this happened, can't stand T.O. and all the other dumbasses in the NFL should take notice.

 

FunkyPlutos

Footballguy
And everyone laughed at the Vikings...we got a top 10 pick and a player (albeit not a very good one) for Moss while the Eagles will get nothing for TO. Great work by the Vikings!! :thumbup:

 

Billy1x

Footballguy
More Info via interview with NFL Lawyer on Sirrius- Owens suspension upheld for 4 games- The Coach has the ability to forbid Owens from entering facility or attending practice for the rest of the year if he wants.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

beefcake

Autobot
Cacillius on ESPNradio said if he was released then another team could pick him up and hold him to the same contract, ie 200k a game and 8 mil for next year. Im not sure if its the same if he gets cut, but if I were an owner I wouldnt give him 15 mil to badmouth my QB, my team and the coaching staff while playing.

 

bostonfred

Footballguy
agents certainly won't want to guide their players to the Eagles.
The only agent who could possibly use this against the Eagles is Rosenhaus. Other agents will almost certainly look to capitalize on the situation and guide their players to the Eagles by selling them as strong team players and guys "who aren't like TO." That will serve to undercut Rosenhaus which you can rest assured is one of the top agendas for all NFL agents right now. More importantly, agents will guide their players to where the money is. If the Eagles demonstrate a willigness to pay then agends will guide their players to them. No agent is going to give a rat's ### what happened to TO if it means getting a nice chunk of salary from their player's new contract with the Eagles.
I don't think any of them have any altruistic interest in what happens to Owens or any other specific player. The players are little more than products in inventory for the agents. But I do think that the Eagles' continued stance does make it more difficult for agents to deal with them, and I think that this is the hardest stance they've taken yet. Imagine if you were a real estate agent selling a house, and you had two potential buyers. One of them has generally been willing to buy houses for fair market value, and sometimes seems to overpay. The other one plays a hard line, always tries to underbid, and if you find anything during the home inspection, they take a hard line on it and tell you to find another house if you want it fixed. All of that is within this buyer's rights, mind you, but as a seller, you'd be more likely to guide your client towards the soft case whenever possible.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top