“That was all my agent.” “That was my agent.” “That was between my agent and Mr.Pace”

anotheridiot

anotheridiot

Well-known member
Joined:
Jul 15, 2016
Posts:
5,935
Liked Posts:
799
Ares said:
I think you should keep in mind that Roquan Smith is barely 21 and this is his first contract for his first real job.

I remember when I interviewed and handled offers for my first job out of college at 22.

I felt like I was way out of my depth, and I was, now that I look back on how things went and what I was paid.

.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but he is barely 21 and about to make 18 million fucking dollars all guaranteed money. I dont know if he plans to do dog fighting, or gang rape something on the road, or wants to decapitate ball carriers instead of just tackling them.

We saw the MLB free agents getting hosed by their agents this off season, pretty soon these players that probably never held 1000.00 in their hands will choose an agent that will get them into camp and paid.

I dont know about this kid, really dont. First thing he did was lose a tablet with all the bear defense on it. This is the guy we want to trust to make calls?

He has alot to prove to alot of us fans now.
 
Washington

Washington

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 22, 2016
Posts:
3,740
Liked Posts:
2,697
remydat said:
An accidental bump wouldn't be considered someone being the aggressor and if the Bears tried to claim that then it would go to a arbitrator. Accidental doesn't typically mean aggressor.
Click to expand...

I agree with that but that is not the point. If Roquan were to get suspended for being an aggressor in a non-football play or he gets suspended for bumping a ref let's say, the Bears can void his guarantees.
 
Washington

Washington

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 22, 2016
Posts:
3,740
Liked Posts:
2,697
dweebs19 said:
He would have to be suspended 3 times before the Bears can void anything. Not just one suspension. If I read that correctly
Click to expand...

That's not how I read the following --> Smith’s guarantees will void only if he’s suspended two games for a post-play infraction, or if he’s deemed to be the aggressor as to an incident resulting in a one-game suspension.
 
IBleedBearsBlood

IBleedBearsBlood

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
10,827
Liked Posts:
4,675
Toast88 said:
I’m not a Roquan hater at all. I said during the holdout that if it was truly about principles for Roquan Smith, he should do what he feels is right.

I also said that if he was just a CAA pawn, that doesn’t bode well for his future as an intelligent football leader.

After listening to his availability today, wow. Just wow.

I hope he’s successful. I really do. But the answer is clear now.

The media didn’t even really try to trip him up or corner him. On softball questions on whether he had ANYTHING to do with the deal getting done yesterday or how involved he was in the process or what the holdout was about or even whether he felt it was worth missing the practice time to stand on principle, his answer was always the same. And it was astounding.

Literally verbatim.

“That was all my agent.”

That was my agent.”

“That was for my agent to decide.”

“I don’t know—that’s my agent. I trust them. That’s why I hired them and Mr. Pace.”

“That’s for my agent and Mr. Pace.”

“That’s all between my agent and Mr. Pace.”


No! No, it’s not! You’re the client!

There is no way that man who stood in front of the media today orchestrated that holdout—no way in hell.


I wondered during the holdout if he was standing on principle or whether he was an unwitting pawn. The answer is now clear.
Click to expand...

Ok. So it’s not. With 7 exclamation points!!!!!!! Woo Hoo. We let him know how we feel. Next! Let’s play football.


Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk
 
nc0gnet0

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
17,599
Liked Posts:
3,584
Toast88 said:
“We were dealing with some very sensitive issues that were important to me, but in the end, I’m glad we got it done.”

Or, if you think a 21-year-old is unable to form such thoughts:

“Yes, I was involved in the process.”

Or

“Yes, I was in contact with my agent throughout the process.”

Or, for the minimalist:

“Yes, it was important.”

Or, heck:

“Yes.”
Click to expand...

LOL, you got your narrative that he was not involved in the process, now Bears fan can love him and not hold it against him. Plausible deniability (and most likely pure BS as well).

Would you have rather stated he was 100 percent behind it, thought Pace and the Bears were being petty in negotiations, and continue the debate on that front?
 
remydat

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,892
Liked Posts:
37,871
anotheridiot said:
I dont know about this kid, really dont. First thing he did was lose a tablet with all the bear defense on it. This is the guy we want to trust to make calls?

He has alot to prove to alot of us fans now.
Click to expand...

When someone breaks into you car and takes something that belongs to you, you haven't lost it. That is called theft, grand larceny, etc.

He doesn't have to prove anything to you as he will get paid whether you like him or not.
 
circusboy666

circusboy666

Well-known member
Joined:
Nov 10, 2013
Posts:
1,076
Liked Posts:
698
Jesus it’s a business just like anything else. You can’t expect a KID to have any idea how to handle the situation. When your financial future is on the line you can’t let emotion compromise your earnings. That’s why they have agents. To deal with mr pace lol

This will be a non-issue in 1 month when he is all over the field.
 
remydat

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,892
Liked Posts:
37,871
MojoRisin said:
I agree with that but that is not the point. If Roquan were to get suspended for being an aggressor in a non-football play or he gets suspended for bumping a ref let's say, the Bears can void his guarantees.
Click to expand...

Accidentally bumping a ref doesn't get you 2 games. It would likely get you one hence why they chose two games as the threshold. Lynch for example got 1 game when it was all said and done. Pretty obvious the games are a numerical proxy for the deemed seriousness of the offense. So if all he did was accidentally bump a ref in the heat of the moment and got a 1 game suspension they wouldn't be able to void his guarantee.
 
Washington

Washington

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 22, 2016
Posts:
3,740
Liked Posts:
2,697
remydat said:
Accidentally bumping a ref doesn't get you 2 games. It would likely get you one hence why they chose two games as the threshold. Lynch for example got 1 game when it was all said and done. Pretty obvious the games are a numerical proxy for the deemed seriousness of the offense.
Click to expand...

Nobody here said bumping a ref gets you any games. The point was and is, he can be a non-aggressor and if he gets suspended for 2 games for whatever reason, he can lose his money. A suspension for let's say pushing a ref would probably be based on him as an aggressor meaning it would only take a 1 game suspension. I seriously doubt the Bears would ever invoke that, but they surely could and it's a pretty low threshold.
 
remydat

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,892
Liked Posts:
37,871
MojoRisin said:
Nobody here said bumping a ref gets you any games. The point was and is, he can be a non-aggressor and if he gets suspended for 2 games for whatever reason, he can lose his money. A suspension for let's say pushing a ref would probably be based on him as an aggressor meaning it would only take a 1 game suspension. I seriously doubt the Bears would ever invoke that, but they surely could and it's a pretty low threshold.
Click to expand...

And my point is you were responding to my comment about accidentally bumping a ref. Accidentally bumping a ref does not get one game. That is precisely why they made it two games.

Basically the 2 games is for things where there is debate over whether he is the aggressor or not. So in the Lynch case for example there was some debate. However, the suspension was only for 1 game so it would be a moot point. The Bears could try to argue it was intentional but if the arbitrator saw that the league only imposed a 1 game suspension that would be evidence that the league concluded it was not intentional so the Bears would likely not go through the trouble of trying to argue it was intentional.

So really 1 game is for obvious intentional acts IMO, 2 games if for things that there is dispute over the intention. 3 games is for really ridiculous infractions during a play.
 
remydat

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
57,892
Liked Posts:
37,871
Myk said:
Vortex in effect warning!
Click to expand...

Think Vortex started with OP taking shots over Smith simply telling the media to fuck off. Whole premise of the thread is vortex inducing.
 
Adipost

Adipost

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Sep 28, 2014
Posts:
8,616
Liked Posts:
10,212
Location:
Chicago, IL
Roquan Smith is a smart guy. Of course he had something to do with the hold out. And of course the smartest thing he could do in this situation is to completely detach himself from it. Especially with some fans feeling upset at him for holding out. I’m sure CAA even advised him to put it all on them. He’s a smart kid, and this was a smart move by him. You are reading this situation completely wrong.
 
botfly10

botfly10

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Jun 19, 2011
Posts:
32,872
Liked Posts:
26,846
Toast88 said:
When asked whether it was his idea to hold out and whether he was involved at all in the process, “That was all my agent” is probably not the best response.

He essentially admitted to being a pawn just because he “trusts” his agent.
Click to expand...

Its literally the best possible response he could have given. Its literally the fastest possible way to end the conversation.

He has zero to gain by sharing how he actually feels. This is the most professional way he could have handled his first presser back. There is really no other answer he could have given that wouldn't result in drama. As close to "no comment" as you can get without saying it.

You know he did the best thing possible because the drama queens on here are disappointed.
 
botfly10

botfly10

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Jun 19, 2011
Posts:
32,872
Liked Posts:
26,846
Toast88 said:
If you guys are cool with him hiring an agent and then just sitting back and doing nothing, that’s fine. That’d be his choice to make anyway for his life.

But then when someone points out such an approach makes him a pawn when he’s the second-longest holdout in history, don’t be offended at that suggestion.
Click to expand...

Or maybe he just wasn't interested in discussing his business with the state of Illinois? Maybe the best possible thing is to just let the agents be the bad guy in this whole thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

10,878members
93,005threads
4,372,438posts
670online users

Members online NOW

  • Member
  • Admin
  • Mod
  • Donor
  • HOF
Total: 670 (members: 32, guests: 638)

Staff online NOW

Top