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

[remydat]

No, you don't get it. The whole purpose of the franchise tag was to limit player mobility ("leverage") and allow teams to retain top players. Your and iueyedoc's repeated claims of "choices" and "leverage" not only are absurd at face value, they also are in direct opposition to what the franchise tag actually is. The incredible thing is that we JUST saw this whole shitshow play out with Leveon Bell, yet you and iueyedoc are seemingly oblivious to this. I never held either of you guys in high regard when it came to "football thoughts", but this is a new low.

Reducing leverage or bargaining power as you call it does not eliminate it altogether. Bell is different because Steelers wanted to pay the tag amount. Foles has more leverage than Bell because unlikely the Eagles actually want to keep him for 25 million.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

Reducing leverage or bargaining power as you call it does not eliminate it altogether.

LOL at this. What bargaining power did Leveon Bell have this past season?

Foles has more leverage than Bell because unlikely the Eagles actually want to keep him for 25 million.

How so? I think I've asked you this question three times now. A response from you would be nice.

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

Gosh, I never realized that!



“by the time the new league starts”…brilliant! I agree, if the Eagles don’t want to pay Foles $25M, then its “likely” they want Foles “off the books”, because if Foles is “on the books”, that means the Eagles have to pay Foles $25M! You and iueyedoc have a talent for stating the obvious, perhaps you should start going to MENSA meetings together.



So if the Eagles pay Foles $25M and no other NFL team takes Foles’ contract off their hands, then the Eagles can’t turn around and spend that same $25M on free agents? Wow. This is so complicated. No wonder NFL teams hire ‘capologists’.



But how is that “leverage” for Foles? His only bargaining chip is calling the Eagles bluff and being willing to play for $25M this year. Although as iueyedoc adroitly pointed out, Foles actually has a choice of either earning $25M or earning $0, so who knows!

:lmao:

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

Gosh, I never realized that!



“by the time the new league starts”…brilliant! I agree, if the Eagles don’t want to pay Foles $25M, then its “likely” they want Foles “off the books”, because if Foles is “on the books”, that means the Eagles have to pay Foles $25M! You and iueyedoc have a talent for stating the obvious, perhaps you should start going to MENSA meetings together.



So if the Eagles pay Foles $25M and no other NFL team takes Foles’ contract off their hands, then the Eagles can’t turn around and spend that same $25M on free agents? Wow. This is so complicated. No wonder NFL teams hire ‘capologists’.



But how is that “leverage” for Foles? His only bargaining chip is calling the Eagles bluff and being willing to play for $25M this year. Although as iueyedoc adroitly pointed out, Foles actually has a choice of either earning $25M or earning $0, so who knows!

Look out, I have heard that if one replies to remy, one is in danger of becoming a "remy alt".

 

[remydat]

LOL at this. What bargaining power did Leveon Bell have this past season?

How so? I think I've asked you this question three times now. A response from you would be nice.

We are talking Foles. He had more bargaining power as he can refuse to negotiate a long term deal except for teams he prefers which may discourage trades to teams he does not want to play for. Already noted this before your response so you are being dense.

As for Bell already said he had less leverage than Foles. But he avoided injury by sitting and this year counted against franchise tag so now this would be his 3rd tag resulting in a ridiculous amount to tag him again.

 

[iueyedoc]

 

[Rory Sparrow]

We are talking Foles.

As for Bell already said he had less leverage than Foles.

Considering Bell had "no leverage", I still don't understand what we are supposed to infer from your repeated comparisons of Foles and Bell.

He had more bargaining power as he can refuse to negotiate a long term deal except for teams he prefers .

WTF? So let me get this straight...first, you said that Foles has MORE "leverage" than Bell because the Eagles most likely WOULDN'T be paying him $25M. Now, in your attempt to deftly and repeatedly avoid clarifying this miscarriage of logic, you've "changed course" and are saying Foles has MORE bargaining power by limiting his open market and 'refusing' to negotiate with certain teams?

This is dropping down into iueyedoc levels of cap idiocy. I guess economics isn't your thing.

 

[remydat]

Said this in post 67.

Couple of things, don't think you are allowed to apply the franchise tag officially until you have the cap space so Philly is 16 million over the cap and franchise tag will be 25 million or so. Thus, they need to clear about 41 million in cap space before they can apply it.

Foles has leverage because he can sign the tag immediately whenever Philly applies it. That would thus force them to move him quickly or otherwise hamstring them in FA as that would be 25 million they can't use until they trade him. Foles can also refuse to work a long term deal with a team he doesn't want to be traded too and teams can wait Philly out the first few weeks of FA to ensure they can't make any big moves.

You can't read. Said from start he can refuse to negotiate an extension with certain teams and in doing so force trade to a team of his choosing.

Also you brought Bell up in post 80 and 81. I responded to that saying the comparison to Bell is stupid. So you blaming me for your stupid comparison.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

You can't read. Said from start he can refuse to negotiate an extension with certain teams and in doing so force trade to a team of his choosing.

Great. So you are confirming that, in your opinion, Foles has MORE bargaining power by limiting his open market and 'refusing' to negotiate with certain teams. Gotcha.

Also you brought Bell up in post 80 and 81. I responded to that saying the comparison to Bell is stupid. So you blaming me for your stupid comparison.

No you didn't. In Post 101 you said the Foles has more "leverage" than Bell...I am asking you how we should interpret that comment, considering that Bell had no leverage. I remember years ago the WFL tried to lure Fran Tarkenton from the Vikings by offering him a 'revenue-sharing' plan where he got 15% of the overall franchise profits, to which Tarkenton asked "What is 15% of $0?"

 

[remydat]

Great. So you are confirming that, in your opinion, Foles has MORE bargaining power by limiting his open market and 'refusing' to negotiate with certain teams. Gotcha.

No you didn't. In Post 101 you said the Foles has more "leverage" than Bell...I am asking you how we should interpret that comment, considering that Bell had no leverage. I remember years ago the WFL tried to lure Fran Tarkenton from the Vikings by offering him a 'revenue-sharing' plan where he got 15% of the overall franchise profits, to which Tarkenton asked "What is 15% of $0?"

If his intent is to go to a team of his choosing then yes refusing to negotiate a long term deal with other teams is pretty obviously bargaining power. Not sure why this confuses you.

Post 101 was in response to your posts. So again, you brought up the stupid comparison to Bell. I responded in post 101 telling you why it was stupid. The Steelers wanted Bell so comparing that to Foles where the Eagles want to sign and trade him is stupid. Two different scenarios.

 

[WindyCity]

I would still be surprised if the Eagles tagged him. It is an incredible risk because they cannot afford to keep him. Most teams that use the tag have the cap room to keep the player and in most cases want to keep him.

My fear if I am the Eagles is that teams realize they have to trade him and low ball them or do not make an offer at all.

 

[PrideisBears]

Come on ladies

 

[bamainatlanta]

why would Philly tag a guy who didnt have a playoff worthy offense in his last game?

 

[Outlaw Josey Cutler]

If his intent is to go to a team of his choosing then yes refusing to negotiate a long term deal with other teams is pretty obviously bargaining power. Not sure why this confuses you.

Say Foles wants to go to JAX. But PITT reaches out. Foles refuses PITT's offer and keeps having his agent call JAX ... and you are saying that his intent to go to JAX and refusing to negotiate with PITT (or OAK or "any other team" (quoted from an imaginary phone conference by his agent)) is a case of Foles exerting bargaining power.

I must say this confuses me too as it seems stupid and basically saying JAX can now low-ball him cause he cut off all other possible destinations.

 

[Rory Sparrow]

If his intent is to go to a team of his choosing then yes refusing to negotiate a long term deal with other teams is pretty obviously bargaining power. Not sure why this confuses you.

Its amazing the Foles' "intent" has nothing to do with finances/money! I thought that NFL players usually signed with whomever offers the most money.

 

[remydat]

Say Foles wants to go to JAX. But PITT reaches out. Foles refuses PITT's offer and keeps having his agent call JAX ... and you are saying that his intent to go to JAX and refusing to negotiate with PITT (or OAK or "any other team" (quoted from an imaginary phone conference by his agent)) is a case of Foles exerting bargaining power.

I must say this confuses me too as it seems stupid and basically saying JAX can now low-ball him cause he cut off all other possible destinations.

Let's use a very simple example. Let's say Mack didn't want to go to the Bears. The Bears and Oak agreed in principle on a trade and then Oak granted the Bears permission to negotiate with Mack. Mack informs them he does not want to negotiate a long term deal and has no intent to sign with them. In that scenario it would be pretty risky for the Bears to still trade for him. Mack then informs Oak that the only teams he will consider a long term deal with are the Colts and the Niners. What do you think Oak does? Keep trying to work trades with teams it is unlikely Mack signs long term with or work with the teams Mack has approved?

 

[FirstTimer]

Let's use a very simple example. Let's say Mack didn't want to go to the Bears. The Bears and Oak agreed in principle on a trade and then Oak granted the Bears permission to negotiate with Mack. Mack informs them he does not want to negotiate a long term deal and has no intent to sign with them. In that scenario it would be pretty risky for the Bears to still trade for him. Mack then informs Oak that the only teams he will consider a long term deal with are the Colts and the Niners. What do you think Oak does? Keep trying to work trades with teams it is unlikely Mack signs long term with or work with the teams Mack has approved?

The negotiate with teams that give them the best return. They don't care what Mack does once he's gone. They just need to get the most out of it while they can.

 

[Sculpt]

The negotiate with teams that give them the best return. They don't care what Mack does once he's gone. They just need to get the most out of it while they can.

But in that scenario from Remy -- Raiders make Bears offer, Bears talk to Mack -- if Mack tells the Bears he refuses to sign a long term deal with them, or even threatens to sit the year, then the Bears will decline the deal offered by Raiders, yes?

 

[Rory Sparrow]

But in that scenario from Remy -- Raiders make Bears offer, Bears talk to Mack -- if Mack tells the Bears he refuses to sign a long term deal with them, or even threatens to sit the year, then the Bears will decline the deal offered by Raiders, yes?

If Mack "refuses to sign a long term deal", then that is beyond my comprehension. Much like "Kurt Cousins" getting the "choice" to either earn $24M, or $0. I agree, if money is no object for Foles and he merely wants to go to a certain team, then he MIGHT be able to make that happen IF the Eagles choose to rescind their franchise tag on him and/or are able to work out a trade with that team. As long as Foles is franchise tagged, he doesn't have "leverage"...which is the whole point of the franchise tag.

 

[FirstTimer]

But in that scenario from Remy -- Raiders make Bears offer, Bears talk to Mack -- if Mack tells the Bears he refuses to sign a long term deal with them, or even threatens to sit the year, then the Bears will decline the deal offered by Raiders, yes?

Maybe? Or you do what the Thunder did with PG13 and make the deal anyways and work on convincing Mack to stay long term. The player doesn't have a gun to the team's head. They make the deal that is best for the team and continue to tag the player until he plays and gets paid or sits out years and doesn't get paid. Mack can try and force his hand all he wants but he leverage is almost nil as the team can continue to own his rights, offer to pay him, and if he decides to not play he sits at home and doesn't get paid.