Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 177 to 198 of 237

Thread: OT: Sources: Eagles expected to franchise, trade Nick Foles

  1. #177
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    29,941

    Default

    Foles would have some control over a trade. He couldn't be moved until he signed his tender. Foles would effectively have a de facto no-trade clause or veto power since his cooperation would be necessary in order to be dealt to another team.

    I faced the unsigned tender trade situation during my agent days. One of the players I helped represent was cornerback Jimmy Hitchcock. The Patriots informed us during the 1998 NFL draft after selecting Tebucky Jones, a safety who would be moved to cornerback, in the first round that a trade with the Ravens had been worked out for Hitchcock. Since Hitchcock didn't want to be dealt to a team that drafted a cornerback in the first round, we advised him to refuse to sign his restricted free agent tender. His refusal killed the trade. Hitchcock subsequently signed his tender for a trade to the Vikings, who hadn't used a high draft choice on a cornerback. The prospect of a team giving up potentially significant draft choice compensation or players should be unappealing to Foles because his new club would be weakened.

    Foles quickly signing his tender, which would be in the $25 million range, instead could create a different set of headaches for the Eagles. He and/or his agent could discourage potential trade partners by telling teams there isn't any circumstance that he will sign long-term if acquired because he is going to test free agency in 2020.

    Foles' tender would become fully guaranteed when signed. To make matters worse, the Eagles would still be on the hook for the entire amount if Foles was released regardless of how big of a deal he signed with another team. Franchise and transition tenders, once fully guaranteed, don't contain an offset.

    Either approach could hinder Foles' trade market. Finding a team willing to take Foles for approximately $25 million next season without assurances that he would sign a long-term contract to prevent him from being an expensive short-term rental could prove to be a difficult task. Cutting in Philadelphia's favor is the relatively weak free-agent quarterback class in which Foles would clearly be the best one available if on the open market. Foles could be franchised again in 2020 for right around $30 million, a CBA mandated 20 percent raise over his 2019 franchise tag.


    https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/a...risks-rewards/

    For the bozos like Rory that think Foles has no leverage. Former player and agent explaining pretty much what I already said. Thanks to the poster who provided to me because they didn't want to get caught up in Rory's stupidity.

  2. #178
    CCS Donator Outlaw Josey Cutler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/a...risks-rewards/

    For the bozos like Rory that think Foles has no leverage. Former player and agent explaining pretty much what I already said. Thanks to the poster who provided to me because they didn't want to get caught up in Rory's stupidity.
    Rory is neither stupid nor a bozo. And your mysterious benefactor is just a coward too afraid to discuss rationally because Rory might cut his feelings with "sharp remarks" over the Internet.

    However, I honestly read the article thinking you may have a point but the article confirms the Eagles have all the decision-making power here and Foles is entirely dependent on what the Eagles will do from here.

    Now it does say that "[Foles] ... couldn't be moved until he signed his tender. Foles would effectively have a de facto no-trade clause or veto power since his cooperation would be necessary in order to be dealt to another team."

    But this doesn't translate into picking the team of his choice or if there is the right team out there at all. Say he likes none of them. Now, it is just he would either have to sign and get paid to be a backup QB or get paid 0.

    Even IF he drags his feet and hopes that his personal "no-go" teams that surface with interest will give up and find something else, he would still have to sign when or IF his "dream" team destination pops up ... BUT the Eagles still have the power of getting what THEY want for him or not. If the Eagles are looking at not wanting to sign a backup to franchise tag then the only factor that heightens the chance of the Eagles making the sweetheart deal to the "right" team that FOLES wants is time (over which he has no leverage either).

    Also, the longer it goes, the longer Foles would also be risking injury to Wentz which could inspire PHI to say fuck off to any other team no matter what - which is yet another factor Foles does not have leverage over.

    98 Hitchcock is not 2019 Foles so that paragraph lost me as a complete non sequiter.

    Then came: "He and/or his agent could discourage potential trade partners by telling teams there isn't any circumstance that he will sign long-term if acquired because he is going to test free agency in 2020."

    This doesn't increase his options either. It assumes there are trade partners and also assumes none of the trade partners would be teams he would actually want to start for because that kind of finalized stance would drive them away (just to spite PHI) and wanting to take back any little bit of control.

    I mean the article is not wrong here; yeah he could say "Fuck off JAX. I'll QB for you on the tag in 2019 only then in 2020 fuck off" then his "choice" was to be forced to play on a one-year deal for JAX instead of PHI. This alos assumes JAX is cool with that. They may NOT agree at all and Foles is back in square one with PHI: Eagles QB for 25 mil or sit for 0.

    Again, you may say that if the RIGHT team comes along he would say "for YOU guys I'll sign the long term deal and I don't mind PHI getting by with this move" but PHI would still win by getting the trade and that depends on that "right" TEAM's interest which Foles will have no leverage over either.

    "Foles' tender would become fully guaranteed when signed. To make matters worse, the Eagles would still be on the hook for the entire amount if Foles was released regardless of how big of a deal he signed with another team. Franchise and transition tenders, once fully guaranteed, don't contain an offset."

    Which simply means the Eagles would never release him. Great stuff there. What a find.

    TLDR: Foles has very little choice here and very few options if PHI franchise tags him: play on 1-year 25 mil tag or sit for 0. Now, he can send signals to teams he likes and ones he doesn't I get that, but he has zero control over what a team would offer PHI and what PHI is looking for in return. If Wentz pulls an MCL playing tennis in April, Foles could face less than zero choice fast.
    Last edited by Outlaw Josey Cutler; 02-11-2019 at 10:09 AM.

  3. #179
    All-Star Rory Sparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Foles would have some control over a trade. He couldn't be moved until he signed his tender.

    The prospect of a team giving up potentially significant draft choice compensation or players should be unappealing to Foles because his new club would be weakened.

    For the bozos like Rory that think Foles has no leverage. Former player and agent explaining pretty much what I already said. Thanks to the poster who provided to me because they didn't want to get caught up in Rory's stupidity.
    Cool. I'm still not understanding how Foles wielding de facto "trade veto power" amounts to any type of financial "leverage". Again, Post #158... Foles can increase his bargaining power by proactively limiting his employer market. In this case, Foles can "leverage" himself into getting a big money long-term deal by making it clear that he won't be signing a long-term deal. Blind stupidity.

    As I have said repeatedly...if money is no issue to Foles and it is simply about playing for a particular team then, yes, he has some "leverage"...but even then the Eagles can still retain Foles' services with the "franchise tag"...which, as I have also said repeatedly, is the whole purpose of the franchise tag.

    Also, even if a team trades for Foles' services, that team has no obligation to offer Foles a long-term contract. They could simply proceed with Foles' 1yr/$25M franchise tag contract...just like every other player in the history of the NFL who has played under the franchise tag!

    Again, its not that complicated. The franchise tag is designed to limit a player's leverage. Not sure where the misunderstanding lies. Its also incredible that the article points out that a franchise tag contract is guaranteed money...a team can't release a franchise tagged player and not have to pay him....OMG! I don't even think remy would even be dumb enough to think that. Sheesh.

  4. #180
    CCS Donator Outlaw Josey Cutler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rory Sparrow View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Cool. I'm still not understanding how Foles wielding de facto "trade veto power" amounts to any type of financial "leverage". Again, Post #158... Foles can increase his bargaining power by proactively limiting his employer market. In this case, Foles can "leverage" himself into getting a big money long-term deal by making it clear that he won't be signing a long-term deal. Blind stupidity.

    As I have said repeatedly...if money is no issue to Foles and it is simply about playing for a particular team then, yes, he has some "leverage"...but even then the Eagles can still retain Foles' services with the "franchise tag"...which, as I have also said repeatedly, is the whole purpose of the franchise tag.

    Also, even if a team trades for Foles' services, that team has no obligation to offer Foles a long-term contract. They could simply proceed with Foles' 1yr/$25M franchise tag contract...just like every other player in the history of the NFL who has played under the franchise tag!

    Again, its not that complicated. The franchise tag is designed to limit a player's leverage. Not sure where the misunderstanding lies. Its also incredible that the article points out that a franchise tag contract is guaranteed money...a team can't release a franchise tagged player and not have to pay him....OMG! I don't even think remy would even be dumb enough to think that. Sheesh.
    Eagles have such a lions' share of the leverage it is not really an issue dealing with what Foles can do when or if they tag him. Foles is completely dependent on PHI's next move. To say he could not care about money or he could try to get picky over which team he goes to is not the same as "exerting bargaining power" or "having leverage", but rather seems to make the opposite case and reveals just how limited his situation is as far as I can see.

  5. #181
    CCS HoF: Class of 2015 Grimson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    25,214

    Default

    This thread is truly amazing.


  6. #182
    All-Star Rory Sparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimson View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This thread is truly amazing.

    Agreed. It is the clear early front-runner for CSS 2019 Thread of the Year



  7. #183
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    29,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Outlaw Josey Cutler View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Rory is neither stupid nor a bozo. And your mysterious benefactor is just a coward too afraid to discuss rationally because Rory might cut his feelings with "sharp remarks" over the Internet.

    However, I honestly read the article thinking you may have a point but the article confirms the Eagles have all the decision-making power here and Foles is entirely dependent on what the Eagles will do from here.

    Now it does say that "[Foles] ... couldn't be moved until he signed his tender. Foles would effectively have a de facto no-trade clause or veto power since his cooperation would be necessary in order to be dealt to another team."

    But this doesn't translate into picking the team of his choice or if there is the right team out there at all. Say he likes none of them. Now, it is just he would either have to sign and get paid to be a backup QB or get paid 0.

    Even IF he drags his feet and hopes that his personal "no-go" teams that surface with interest will give up and find something else, he would still have to sign when or IF his "dream" team destination pops up ... BUT the Eagles still have the power of getting what THEY want for him or not. If the Eagles are looking at not wanting to sign a backup to franchise tag then the only factor that heightens the chance of the Eagles making the sweetheart deal to the "right" team that FOLES wants is time (over which he has no leverage either).

    Also, the longer it goes, the longer Foles would also be risking injury to Wentz which could inspire PHI to say fuck off to any other team no matter what - which is yet another factor Foles does not have leverage over.

    98 Hitchcock is not 2019 Foles so that paragraph lost me as a complete non sequiter.

    Then came: "He and/or his agent could discourage potential trade partners by telling teams there isn't any circumstance that he will sign long-term if acquired because he is going to test free agency in 2020."

    This doesn't increase his options either. It assumes there are trade partners and also assumes none of the trade partners would be teams he would actually want to start for because that kind of finalized stance would drive them away (just to spite PHI) and wanting to take back any little bit of control.

    I mean the article is not wrong here; yeah he could say "Fuck off JAX. I'll QB for you on the tag in 2019 only then in 2020 fuck off" then his "choice" was to be forced to play on a one-year deal for JAX instead of PHI. This alos assumes JAX is cool with that. They may NOT agree at all and Foles is back in square one with PHI: Eagles QB for 25 mil or sit for 0.

    Again, you may say that if the RIGHT team comes along he would say "for YOU guys I'll sign the long term deal and I don't mind PHI getting by with this move" but PHI would still win by getting the trade and that depends on that "right" TEAM's interest which Foles will have no leverage over either.

    "Foles' tender would become fully guaranteed when signed. To make matters worse, the Eagles would still be on the hook for the entire amount if Foles was released regardless of how big of a deal he signed with another team. Franchise and transition tenders, once fully guaranteed, don't contain an offset."

    Which simply means the Eagles would never release him. Great stuff there. What a find.

    TLDR: Foles has very little choice here and very few options if PHI franchise tags him: play on 1-year 25 mil tag or sit for 0. Now, he can send signals to teams he likes and ones he doesn't I get that, but he has zero control over what a team would offer PHI and what PHI is looking for in return. If Wentz pulls an MCL playing tennis in April, Foles could face less than zero choice fast.
    No one said anything about increasing his options. I simply said he had leverage. The point has been proven. You and Rory seem to be moving goalposts. An actual NFL agent agrees he has leverage which is the only thing I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Outlaw Josey Cutler View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Eagles have such a lions' share of the leverage it is not really an issue dealing with what Foles can do when or if they tag him. Foles is completely dependent on PHI's next move. To say he could not care about money or he could try to get picky over which team he goes to is not the same as "exerting bargaining power" or "having leverage", but rather seems to make the opposite case and reveals just how limited his situation is as far as I can see.
    Again you don't seem to know what the term means.

    power to influence people and get the results you want:
    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...glish/leverage

    If I refuse to negotiate a long term deal with you and you respond by withdrawing, not making an offer, or reducing your offer to the Eagles then I have influenced you in negotiations and that by definition is leverage. It is clear he has some leverage per the agent. It remains to be seen exactly how much until the negotiations start. Pretty simple concept.

  8. #184
    All-Star Rory Sparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No one said anything about increasing his options. I simply said he had leverage. The point has been proven.
    How so? The article doesn't say anything about "leverage". All it says is that Foles could discourage potential trade partners by refusing to sign a long term deal...Yep! Foles could also discourage a trade by retiring from the NFL! Great stuff! Post #158, rinse/repeat...

    I'm still not understanding how Foles wielding de facto "trade veto power" amounts to any type of financial "leverage". Again, Post #158... Foles can increase his bargaining power by proactively limiting his employer market. In this case, Foles can "leverage" himself into getting a big money long-term deal by making it clear that he won't be signing a long-term deal. Blind stupidity.

    As I have said repeatedly...if money is no issue to Foles and it is simply about playing for a particular team then, yes, he has some "leverage"...but even then the Eagles can still retain Foles' services with the "franchise tag"...which, as I have also said repeatedly, is the whole purpose of the franchise tag.

  9. #185
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    29,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rory Sparrow View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Cool. I'm still not understanding how Foles wielding de facto "trade veto power" amounts to any type of financial "leverage". Again, Post #158... Foles can increase his bargaining power by proactively limiting his employer market. In this case, Foles can "leverage" himself into getting a big money long-term deal by making it clear that he won't be signing a long-term deal. Blind stupidity.

    As I have said repeatedly...if money is no issue to Foles and it is simply about playing for a particular team then, yes, he has some "leverage"...but even then the Eagles can still retain Foles' services with the "franchise tag"...which, as I have also said repeatedly, is the whole purpose of the franchise tag.

    Also, even if a team trades for Foles' services, that team has no obligation to offer Foles a long-term contract. They could simply proceed with Foles' 1yr/$25M franchise tag contract...just like every other player in the history of the NFL who has played under the franchise tag!

    Again, its not that complicated. The franchise tag is designed to limit a player's leverage. Not sure where the misunderstanding lies. Its also incredible that the article points out that a franchise tag contract is guaranteed money...a team can't release a franchise tagged player and not have to pay him....OMG! I don't even think remy would even be dumb enough to think that. Sheesh.
    No one said anything about financial leverage and that is a stupid statement to make as financial leverage is an entirely different concept regarding your debt vs equity. See my post to Outlaw as it is clear you are confused by what the term means.

    As has been reported, the Eagles don't actually want to pay him the franchise tag amount so it is unlikely they can retain his services with the tag as that would be cost prohibitive. That is part of the reason Foles has some leverage because he knows the Eagles likely have to trade him.

    Further a team trading for him may not want to blow a pick for a player that refuses to sign a long term deal. This is fairly obvious and another reason why Foles has some measure of leverage. If a team refuses to trade for him without negotiating a long term deal then their decision is influenced by Foles desire to negotiate with them. That again is the definition of leverage.

    Finally, if you concede he has some leverage then not sure what you are going on about. All I said to you is he had leverage. So you seem to want to argue just for arguing sake because nothing you are saying disproves my point.

  10. #186
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    29,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rory Sparrow View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How so? The article doesn't say anything about "leverage". All it says is that Foles could discourage potential trade partners by refusing to sign a long term deal...Yep! Foles could also discourage a trade by retiring from the NFL! Great stuff! Post #158, rinse/repeat...

    I'm still not understanding how Foles wielding de facto "trade veto power" amounts to any type of financial "leverage". Again, Post #158... Foles can increase his bargaining power by proactively limiting his employer market. In this case, Foles can "leverage" himself into getting a big money long-term deal by making it clear that he won't be signing a long-term deal. Blind stupidity.

    As I have said repeatedly...if money is no issue to Foles and it is simply about playing for a particular team then, yes, he has some "leverage"...but even then the Eagles can still retain Foles' services with the "franchise tag"...which, as I have also said repeatedly, is the whole purpose of the franchise tag.
    Foles would have some control over a trade. He couldn't be moved until he signed his tender. Foles would effectively have a de facto no-trade clause or veto power since his cooperation would be necessary in order to be dealt to another team.

    Saying he has some control over a trade is saying he has leverage. In the English Language, one can express a thought (ie someone having leverage) without actually using the word.

    ​power to influence people and get the results you want:

    Simple question. If I have some control over a trade, do I have some leverage based on the definition above?

  11. #187
    All-Star Rory Sparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As has been reported, the Eagles don't actually want to pay him the franchise tag amount so it is unlikely they can retain his services with the tag as that would be cost prohibitive. That is part of the reason Foles has some leverage because he knows the Eagles likely have to trade him.
    How is that "leverage" on Foles' part? The Eagles can retain Foles' services by using the franchise tag. End of story. Its like you are arguing that Foles being franchise tagged gives him leverage because it is unlikely that the Eagles would be able to afford to keep Foles at $25M...but those are two different things. One is the concept of the franchise tag, which is being discussed. The other is the Eagles cap situation, which is an unknown at this point.

  12. #188
    All-Star Rory Sparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Saying he has some control over a trade is saying he has leverage.
    Every NFL player has control over a trade...they could refuse to report and simply retire. It is not "leverage". Great stuff! Back to the iueyedoc "choices" argument, where Foles has "leverage" in regards to his franchise tagged contract...he can either choose to earn $25M, or he can choose to earn $0!

  13. #189
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    29,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rory Sparrow View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How is that "leverage" on Foles' part? The Eagles can retain Foles' services by using the franchise tag. End of story. Its like you are arguing that Foles being franchise tagged gives him leverage because it is unlikely that the Eagles would be able to afford to keep Foles at $25M...but those are two different things. One is the concept of the franchise tag, which is being discussed. The other is the Eagles cap situation, which is an unknown at this point.
    This entire post is bullshit. The discussion started out based on the premise that the Eagles did not want to keep Foles at the price and the only reason they were tagging him was to trade him. This was said multiple times long before you entered the thread. So your attempt here to move the goal posts and pretend that was not the basis of the discussion is absurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rory Sparrow View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Every NFL player has control over a trade...they could refuse to report and simply retire. It is not "leverage". Great stuff! Back to the iueyedoc "choices" argument, where Foles has "leverage" in regards to his franchise tagged contract...he can either choose to earn $25M, or he can choose to earn $0!
    So every NFL player has leverage per the English Language definition. Thank you!

  14. #190
    All-Star Rory Sparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So every NFL player has leverage per the English Language definition. Thank you!
    Exactly! So the issue isn't some article written by an agent or Foles having the ability to not sign a long term deal with a certain team...the issue OBVIOUSLY is your continued use of the term "leverage".

    As I have said repeatedly...if money is no issue to Foles and it is simply about playing for a particular team then, yes, he has some "leverage"...but even then the Eagles can still retain Foles' services with the "franchise tag"...which, as I have also said repeatedly, is the whole purpose of the franchise tag.

    We at CCS use words like "leverage". We use this word as the backbone of a life spent defending something, you use them as a punchline. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain myself, to a man who rises and sleeps, under the blanket of the very CCS freedom that I provide, and than questions the manner in which I provide them!

  15. #191
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    29,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rory Sparrow View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Exactly! So the issue isn't some article written by an agent or Foles having the ability to not sign a long term deal with a certain team...the issue OBVIOUSLY is your continued use of the term "leverage".

    As I have said repeatedly...if money is no issue to Foles and it is simply about playing for a particular team then, yes, he has some "leverage"...but even then the Eagles can still retain Foles' services with the "franchise tag"...which, as I have also said repeatedly, is the whole purpose of the franchise tag.

    We at CCS use words like "leverage". We use this word as the backbone of a life spent defending something, you use them as a punchline. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain myself, to a man who rises and sleeps, under the blanket of the very CCS freedom that I provide, and than questions the manner in which I provide them!
    Yes I use the English Language definition. You apparently use the Rory or CCS definition. Glad we can clear that up.

    At least your movie references are better than your English skills.

  16. #192
    All-Star Rory Sparrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes I use the English Language definition. You apparently use the Rory or CCS definition. Glad we can clear that up.

    At least your movie references are better than your English skills.
    I tend to leverage my movie knowledge on CCS to make better postings. So we've finally decided that the Eagles applying the franchise tag to Nick Foles would increase Foles' leverage, right?



    As I have said repeatedly...if money is no issue to Foles and it is simply about playing for a particular team then, yes, he has some "leverage"...but even then the Eagles can still retain Foles' services with the "franchise tag"...which, as I have also said repeatedly, is the whole purpose of the franchise tag.

  17. #193
    v. 2.0: Fully Modded FirstTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    26,339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Non exclusive doesn't really fuck him at all.
    Yes it would..because the teams would have to give up two first round picks if they signed him. The Eagles would control the market and it would scare teams off. How many teams want Foles for 1 year and 25 million and/or long term? Now..how any teams want all that PLUS giving up multiple firsts for Foles to sign him long term or just matching the tag? If the Eagles retain him and he's pissed and doesn't play he gets nothing.

    At this point Foles can make his money either way. Either in Philly or some place else. It's not really leverage.

    He could also sit and earn nothing. Again..that's not leverage.

    Do you not understand this shit?

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    A transition tag is even dumber because a team would just offer him a multi-year contract and the Eagles would not be in position to match.
    The Eagles could match though and what's the market for long term contracts for Foles? The Eagles COULD match and trap Foles in Philly. Foles could refuse to play and then make nothing.

    The Eagles could screw over Foles about 50 different ways if Foles goal is to leave Philly. Foles can really only "screw" Philly by signing the tag....which Philly is well aware he could do and gave him the option to do so ..he really doesn't have any leverage.
    Last edited by FirstTimer; 02-12-2019 at 04:05 PM.

  18. #194
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    29,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FirstTimer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes it would..because the teams would have to give up two first round picks if they signed him. The Eagles would control the market and it would scare teams off. How many teams want Foles for 1 year and 25 million and/or long term? Now..how any teams want all that PLUS giving up multiple firsts for Foles to sign him long term or just matching the tag? If the Eagles retain him and he's pissed and doesn't play he gets nothing.

    At this point Foles can make his money either way. Either in Philly or some place else. It's not really leverage.

    He could also sit and earn nothing. Again..that's not leverage.

    Do you not understand this shit?


    The Eagles could match though and what's the market for long term contracts for Foles? The Eagles COULD match and trap Foles in Philly. Foles could refuse to play and then make nothing.

    The Eagles could screw over Foles about 50 different ways if Foles goal is to leave Philly. Foles can really only "screw" Philly by signing the tag....which Philly is well aware he could do and gave him the option to do so ..he really doesn't have any leverage.
    1. The Eagles don't want to scare teams off because the premise of them tagging him is to trade him. That was the premise of the discussion. They don't want to keep him at 25 million so all a non-exclusive tag does is increase they chances they are stuck with him which is not what they are reported to want.

    2. Once again the Eagles are rumored to want to trade him. A transition tag is stupid because a team could sign him to a long term deal and structure it in a way the Eagles almost certainly would not match because again they don't want to keep him per reports. If they don't want to commit 25 million to him for one year not sure why for example they would commit even more in guaranteed money on a long term deal that a team could structure in a way that conflicts with Wentz's FA year.

  19. #195
    v. 2.0: Fully Modded FirstTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    26,339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    1. The Eagles don't want to scare teams off because the premise of them tagging him is to trade him.
    You don't know that. Maybe they want to retain Foles in case Wentz is hurt again or doesn't recover as expected. They don't NEED to trade him. That's the entire point. Foles is at the mercy of what the EAGLES want to do. Either way they are fine. Keep Foles as an asset if Wentz is hurt or trade him for assets. Foles cant really do much about either.

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They don't want to keep him at 25 million so all a non-exclusive tag does is increase they chances they are stuck with him which is not what they are reported to want.
    If they didn't want to risk being stuck with him they would have never tagged him to begin with because Foles could have signed the tender the second they offered it.
    Eagles are win-win here.
    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    2. Once again the Eagles are rumored to want to trade him. A transition tag is stupid because a team could sign him to a long term deal and structure it in a way the Eagles almost certainly would not match because again they don't want to keep him per reports.
    But the Eagles have right of first refusal...and how would a team structure the deal that would make the Eagles not match? The Eagles are already offering Foles $25 million a year. What team is going to come in OVER that long term?


    You're clueless.

  20. #196
    CCS HoF: Class of 2015 Grimson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    25,214

    Default

    Can we get a remy subforum? Would probably be the most active section of the site.

  21. #197
    All-Star
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    29,941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FirstTimer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You don't know that. Maybe they want to retain Foles in case Wentz is hurt again or doesn't recover as expected. They don't NEED to trade him. That's the entire point. Foles is at the mercy of what the EAGLES want to do. Either way they are fine. Keep Foles as an asset if Wentz is hurt or trade him for assets. Foles cant really do much about either.


    If they didn't want to risk being stuck with him they would have never tagged him to begin with because Foles could have signed the tender the second they offered it.
    Eagles are win-win here.

    But the Eagles have right of first refusal...and how would a team structure the deal that would make the Eagles not match? The Eagles are already offering Foles $25 million a year. What team is going to come in OVER that long term?


    You're clueless.
    1. So you arguing a premise that no one ever brought up. The reports are they want to trade him.

    2. The Eagles haven't actually tagged him yet so they haven't risked anything they.

    3. The Eagles are not already offering Foles 25 million because they haven't tagged him yet. Highly possible they won't tag him unless they are reasonably confident they can move him. And a team offering him 40-50 million guaranteed over 3 or 4 years would certainly cause problems because again Wentz will be due a huge raise in a couple of years.

    4. Perhaps you should read up on the reports and understand no tag has been applied yet as you appear clueless regarding the situation.

  22. #198
    v. 2.0: Fully Modded FirstTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    26,339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    1. So you arguing a premise that no one ever brought up. The reports are they want to trade him.
    Ok and the Eagles control the trade market for Foles and IF they trade him. Foles doesn't have leverage. The Eagles could trade him to whoever they want to and Foles has no say.

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    2. The Eagles haven't actually tagged him yet so they haven't risked anything
    This isn't even the point because we are discussing the franchise tag "leverage" Foles has..so their risk is even LESS...again. Foles has NO leverage. He can't even sign the tender because it hasn't been offered and he can be traded anywhere the Eagles want to send him.


    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    3. The Eagles are not already offering Foles 25 million because they haven't tagged him yet. Highly possible they won't tag him unless they are reasonably confident they can move him. And a team offering him 40-50 million guaranteed over 3 or 4 years would certainly cause problems because again Wentz will be due a huge raise in a couple of years.
    Then the Eagles let him walk on the non-exclusive and get 2 first rounders.............................and if teams don't want to give up the first rounders it adversely effects the bidding for Foles and the contract offers for him. So...Umm what leverage does he have again?

    Quote Originally Posted by remydat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    4. Perhaps you should read up on the reports and understand no tag has been applied yet as you appear clueless regarding the situation.
    We are talking about the entire issue of Foles being tagged. I'm completely read up on the subject. The point is if Foles is tagged that he somehow has leverage. He really doesn't. This has been covered.

    Remy out here being clueless again.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •