- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,163
Yeah, Foles only as as much "leverage" as the Eagles choose to allow him to have...so is it really "leverage" then?
OT: Sources: Eagles expected to franchise, trade Nick Foles
- Thread starter Warden of the Northeast
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, Foles only as as much "leverage" as the Eagles choose to allow him to have...so is it really "leverage" then?
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 57,890
- Liked Posts:
- 37,871
The other team might care though if Mack refuses to sign a long term deal with them.
Yes that is an option. Leverage doesn't suggest you will always win or get your way. However, it presents a risk to the other team. In this case the Thunder gambled and won.
Sculpt
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 8,526
- Liked Posts:
- 2,908
I read on ESPN, according to Adam Schefter, teams have contacted Eagles for Foles for 3rd round.
It is risky for Eagles, as you say, but maybe Foles and Eagles are 'in cahoots", so to speak. Let's say Foles wants to go to Jax, and Jax has been on the phone with Eagles telling them in order to have exclusive rights with Foles, they'll take him tagged and will work out a long term deal, and give Eagles a 3rd round. Foles would rather not be tagged, but if he is and with the team he wants (Jax), then he's starting with about $25mil for 2019, or if he prefers, workout a long term deal, that's not a bad place to start, right? and maybe Foles/Jax agree to a number ahead of time anyway -- and Foles is fine with Eagles getting a 3rd rounder out of it.
Visionman
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 28, 2017
- Posts:
- 7,995
- Liked Posts:
- 4,451
Foles has all the leverage. Philly cant afford to keep him, and he can nix any deal he doesnt approve of. Philly would have to cut him (or pay him 20m to sit the bench) and then he can sign with whoever he wants.
Sure, he may lose money doing that. But I guess it all comes down to if he's in it purely for the money or not...
Sure, he may lose money doing that. But I guess it all comes down to if he's in it purely for the money or not...
- Joined:
- Jun 20, 2010
- Posts:
- 38,265
- Liked Posts:
- 32,918
- Location:
- In the mod forum planning your ban
I dont believe the market will be that hot on Foles as we believe. I see Foles's market like Glennon's, one dumb team will go after him
- Joined:
- Nov 5, 2012
- Posts:
- 4,300
- Liked Posts:
- 2,527
- Location:
- NJ
My favorite teams
Or they do what the Steelers did, tag him and if he plays he plays if he sits he sits.
I think that may be more a case of the athlete "playing a hand of poker" rather than "exerting bargaining power or leverage".
- Joined:
- Nov 5, 2012
- Posts:
- 4,300
- Liked Posts:
- 2,527
- Location:
- NJ
My favorite teams
Not sure how it's a gamble? I don't know the NBA so I am assuming it is analogous to Bell and the Steelers.
Tag him: he plays for you and you pay top $$ for top-level production. Or he doesn't play and loses top $$ but while the team doesn't have him suiting up, they also know he didn't make the team make a deal they didn't want to do.
Not only does that not seem like a gamble (unless you were referring to gambling on Connor?) but it sure doesn't seem like Bell had leverage in any form.
Last edited:
- Joined:
- Dec 12, 2011
- Posts:
- 30,816
- Liked Posts:
- 35,721
I still think the other teams have the leverage. They know that the Eagles need to make a move, they know the move has to be agreed to before the new league year.
The only way the Eagles come out of this un-scathed is if they have multiple heavily motivated teams.
Burque
Huevos Rancheros
- Joined:
- Mar 11, 2015
- Posts:
- 15,965
- Liked Posts:
- 10,862
Or at the very least in danger of entering the Remy Vortex Dance Party.
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 57,890
- Liked Posts:
- 37,871
All reports are the intent of tagging him is to trade him as they don't want to pay him 25 million to be a backup. They presumably need that 25 million to acquire players. By contrast, the Steelers were content with Bell playing.
The Thunder were the team that acquired Paul George as part of the trade not the team trading him. In that case, the Thunder traded for him despite George saying he would not sign a long term deal but George ended up liking it enough that he did in fact sign a long term deal after the season was over. So the gamble was that George could have left after as a free agent and the Thunder would have lost him and the picks they used to trade for him.
So I am saying it would be a gamble for a team to trade for Foles without agreeing terms with him. Doesn't mean they lose the gamble but it is still a gamble.
Burque
Huevos Rancheros
- Joined:
- Mar 11, 2015
- Posts:
- 15,965
- Liked Posts:
- 10,862
The more I think about it the more I have to say this is VERY sketchy for the Eagles. They could pull it off and get a draft pick for Foles, but they could just as easily end up with Foles on their team and paying him 25 Million.
Burque
Huevos Rancheros
- Joined:
- Mar 11, 2015
- Posts:
- 15,965
- Liked Posts:
- 10,862
The new CBA will probably have something in it that allows for a team to trade a player that hasn't signed their franchise tag. Allowing situations like this to work out for everyone involved more seamlessly.
Visionman
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 28, 2017
- Posts:
- 7,995
- Liked Posts:
- 4,451
If I were Foles, I'd sign the franchise tag the moment it was offered. 20+m for riding the pine, and still be a FA in a year...
- Joined:
- Sep 15, 2012
- Posts:
- 57,890
- Liked Posts:
- 37,871
I am guessing the players try to do away with the tag all together although not sure if the owners will cave.
Visionman
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 28, 2017
- Posts:
- 7,995
- Liked Posts:
- 4,451
Think the best they could hope to achieve would be to make it more $$$. Maybe instead of the average of the top 5, use the top 3.
Sculpt
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 8,526
- Liked Posts:
- 2,908
I agree with you, the franchised player doesn't have more leverage with a tag, that's not my assertion. Players don't want to be tagged. I'm just saying when their team franchises them, since players can do some combo of saying they don't want to go to that team, won't sign long term deal or will sit -- if that's going to be the new team's 2019 starter and 'new franchise QB' they aren't going to happy with that trade as compared to a QB agreeing with the trade -- then the QB can huddle-up with their team and have a degree of leverage on which team they go to. GMs don't want to waste time dealing with a team they know their player will stonewall with.
Since Eagles can't afford the tag, I don't think they'd tag him unless another team says they'll take Foles tagged for whatever draft pick. That's no leverage for Foles. However, I don't think a team makes that trade with the Eagles unless they know Foles won't stonewall them, which is Foles' degree of leverage.
Sculpt
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 8,526
- Liked Posts:
- 2,908
I think we already know Foles wouldn't do that.
Why? Because Eagles engaged the $25mil option on Foles, and the next day Foles paid the $2mil to get out of it. Foles doesn't want to ride the pine (even for a lot of money) he wants to start. He's already 30 years old, and he knows he can't remain sharp or get better unless he starts. Sitting retards skills. He has the clout to get to a team that will start him.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,163
Not the Raiders concern.............
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,163
........
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,163
But Foles doesn't control that so it's not really his leverage and at the end of the day the Eagles can trade him to whoever they want to for whatever offer they get that they like.
- Status
