DanteGabriel Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 That list is absurd. And you guys always made way too much out of this stuff. I'm a Colts fan. I just also really like the Jets, Broncos, Bears, Cardinals, Giants, Lions, and the 49'ers. And I guess kind of the Chiefs, because of Alex Smith. Not a huge fan of Kaepernick, but the rest of the 49'ers is awesome. I like football! What do you have against puppies and salt water taffy? :crying: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivin Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 What do you have against puppies and salt water taffy? :crying: Under no duress or threat of duress, and completely of my on volition while in a state of sound mind and body, I would like to say that Bill Belichick is... great. No further questions will be fielded at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I'm definitely questionable on the amount. The freakish athlete he is now isn't going to be around in 4 years, so if he can't improve as a passer significantly they are way overspending. If he can find the touch to be able to complete the pass at the NFC championship game...money well spent. Actually, it would seem that this is a much more team-friendly deal than first reported. Technically, the deal has $61 million guaranteed, even though $6 million of the guaranteed salary could evaporate (more on that later). Either way, only $13.073 million is guaranteed at signing. It comes in the form of a $12.328 million signing bonus, a base salary of $645,000, and a workout bonus of $100,000. For 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and part of 2018, the base salaries are guaranteed only for injury. On April 1 of each year, the guarantees convert from injury only to fully guaranteed. That gives the 49ers the ability to decide, in any given year, to move on from Kaepernick. And with the deadline for the conversion of the guarantee coming on April 1, the 49ers can squat on his rights until several weeks after the start of free agency, making it harder for him to get paid elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Under no duress or threat of duress, and completely of my on volition while in a state of sound mind and body, I would like to say that Bill Belichick is... great. :agree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 The more you read about Kaepernick's deal, the more it looks genius for the Niners.The bulk of it seems to be incentive based, with criteria like 'makes Superbowl or is 1st/2nd All Pro', etc. A contract that makes Kaepernick close to the highest paid if he plays like one of the very best, gives the team a yearly opt-out, etc. Niners appeared to be in a bind, but come out of it satisfying Kaep's profile while protecting themselves against him flatlining.Brilliant.And none of this even accounts for the salary cap jump that's coming and whose margins will most immediately be applied to quarterbacks.Honestly, Baalke's a fucking magician.Edit: eh, semi-redundant. I missed the non-Sivin related post a couple spots up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I wouldn't say the bulk of the deal is incentive base. $2 mil of the $20 mil average or whatever is incentive based. The rest seems to be guaranteed on April 1st of each year so they're essentially paying as you go. I think that's a great deal for both the player and the team. The team outlays a shitload of money on the assumption you're producing and if you're not, they can always look to replace you. Solid structure and I hope the Bengals do the same thing (more incentives, less base) for Dalton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted June 6, 2014 Author Share Posted June 6, 2014 God I hope you're making some sort of meta comment and not giving voice to my fear that ADWD will be the last book ever published. :crying: Oh, I don't think there'd be anything gloomy about it. Pretty sure she'd rejoice in it. He's a Browns fan, you can't blame him for automatically thinking the last mediocre production is the best he's gonna get. And I would not enjoy killing you all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebla Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Not big news but the Bears signed Jimmy Clausen. With Jay Cutler also on the team, I think it's safe to say that the Bears now lead the league in Jerkface. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivin Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Well, I have something to share. It seems Jim Irsay not only has nothing to apologize for, but he 'has not touched a drink in over a decade', and thinks it's mean that people celebrate individuals who survive cancer, but don't celebrate people who end addictions to alchohol or narcotics. There are several different ways we can go here" 1) He claims he has nothing to apologize for after being arrested for driving under the influence. (It's his social media that he really should apologize for) 2) He claims he has not had an alcoholic drink in over 10 years, despite being arrested for driving while intoxicated just 3 months ago. 3) He tries to make his alcoholism as important as the challenges facing someone who has had cancer... (His head coach recently underwent treatment for Leukemia) I feel dirty, liking his team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 The things he said about acknowledging alcoholism and addiction and diseases are fair enough, but if he really doesn't think he did anything wrong and is trying to claim he hasn't had a drink in ten years, he's a dangerous, delusional idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime L Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 The things he said about acknowledging alcoholism and addiction and diseases are fair enough, but if he really doesn't think he did anything wrong and is trying to claim he hasn't had a drink in ten years, he's a dangerous, delusional idiot. Yeah, he's not necessarily wrong about alcoholism/addiction being a disease, but just the entitlement and playing up the victim that is laced through that rant is off-putting. I mean he still made the decision to get behind the wheel while high on painkillers. Take some fucking responsibility. To use his words, he's not "morally corrupt" because he's an addict. He's morally corrupt for the choices he made (and continues to make) and not self-aware enough to realize it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Yeah, he's not necessarily wrong about alcoholism/addiction being a disease, but just the entitlement and playing up the victim that is laced through that rant is off-putting. I mean he still made the decision to get behind the wheel while high on painkillers. Take some fucking responsibility. To use his words, he's not "morally corrupt" because he's an addict. He's morally corrupt for the choices he made (and continues to make) and not self-aware enough to realize it. It does make me hope that the NFL throws the book at him (to an even greater extent). And personally, I think that for Owners, banning for half a season or something doesn't really do anything. Just fine him something ridiculous. Like $10 million. Second offense? 10% ownership share. Owners would stay out of trouble then, and Goodell would show he is serious about "Protect the Shield". But it's not going to happen of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted June 11, 2014 Author Share Posted June 11, 2014 It does make me hope that the NFL throws the book at him (to an even greater extent). And personally, I think that for Owners, banning for half a season or something doesn't really do anything. Just fine him something ridiculous. Like $10 million. Second offense? 10% ownership share. Owners would stay out of trouble then, and Goodell would show he is serious about "Protect the Shield". But it's not going to happen of course. Those are both a little... extreme. Sure, he's got billions of monies, but a $10,000,000 fine for DUI? That's a bit harsh. And taking away part of the club his dad built is also pretty fucked up. Now, if he keeps acting like a jackass, I think it'd be a great idea to give the owners a chance to peer him out. BTW, I am in no way defending the jackass Irsay's actions or words. I just disagree with your proposed punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Those are both a little... extreme. Sure, he's got billions of monies, but a $10,000,000 fine for DUI? That's a bit harsh. And taking away part of the club his dad built is also pretty fucked up. Now, if he keeps acting like a jackass, I think it'd be a great idea to give the owners a chance to peer him out. BTW, I am in no way defending the jackass Irsay's actions or words. I just disagree with your proposed punishment. I think the punishment should be extreme. Owners should be held to a higher standard - they are older, they stay in the league much longer (decades instead of years), and they have far more to gain from protecting the league. Staying out of trouble with the law isn't that much to ask, and if you become a repeat offender, the NFL should punish you very, very hard. And why should I feel bad about the league taking away part of the team that Irsay inherited? Ownership has responsibilities, and he is failing at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 And why should I feel bad about the league taking away part of the team that Irsay inherited? Ownership has responsibilities, and he is failing at them. They should cart away part of his team in Mayflower trucks, in the middle of the night, with no warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted June 11, 2014 Author Share Posted June 11, 2014 I think the punishment should be extreme. Owners should be held to a higher standard - they are older, they stay in the league much longer (decades instead of years), and they have far more to gain from protecting the league. Staying out of trouble with the law isn't that much to ask, and if you become a repeat offender, the NFL should punish you very, very hard. And why should I feel bad about the league taking away part of the team that Irsay inherited? Ownership has responsibilities, and he is failing at them. Well to my knowledge this is the first time he's been charged for any crime (again, to my knowledge), people fuck up sometimes. The guy's been the owner of one of the 2 most successful franchises in the league for the better part of 2 decades, you can't really say he's been failing at his responsibilities. Making an ass of himself on social media, sure, but nothing to take away part of his inheritance for. They should cart away part of his team in Mayflower trucks, in the middle of the night, with no warning. How did I know you'd say that? :P Honestly, I thought it'd be Mack, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Well to my knowledge this is the first time he's been charged for any crime (again, to my knowledge), people fuck up sometimes. The guy's been the owner of one of the 2 most successful franchises in the league for the better part of 2 decades, you can't really say he's been failing at his responsibilities. Making an ass of himself on social media, sure, but nothing to take away part of his inheritance for. Right, which is why the 10% share of the franchise would only be for repeat offenders. But you can't say he's been a great owner just because he had the good fortune of drafting Peyton Manning. Part of his job as an owner is to avoid associating the league with drug abuse and criminality. He has failed in that, and if he continues to do so, the punishment should be harsh, and harsh in such a way that even a billionaire could not ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted June 11, 2014 Author Share Posted June 11, 2014 Right, which is why the 10% share of the franchise would only be for repeat offenders. But you can't say he's been a great owner just because he had the good fortune of drafting Peyton Manning. Part of his job as an owner is to avoid associating the league with drug abuse and criminality. He has failed in that, and if he continues to do so, the punishment should be harsh, and harsh in such a way that even a billionaire could not ignore. Oh, I'm not saying that I think he's a good owner, I personally find the man repulsive, but his franchise has been the envy of most of the league for a long time now. The Colts have had virtually no issue with guys getting into trouble (MARVIN HARRISON WAS NEVER CHARGED!) or doing drugs when compared to the rest of the league. Seriously, one of the most stable teams with a lot of very respectable players. Guy's been doing something right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Oh, I'm not saying that I think he's a good owner, I personally find the man repulsive, but his franchise has been the envy of most of the league for a long time now. The Colts have had virtually no issue with guys getting into trouble (MARVIN HARRISON WAS NEVER CHARGED!) or doing drugs when compared to the rest of the league. Seriously, one of the most stable teams with a lot of very respectable players. Guy's been doing something right. Fair point on the player character issues, but on his part in making the Colts the "envy of the league" -- come on. They happened to be abominable the year before Peyton Manning got drafted, and then they Sucked for Luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Oh, I'm not saying that I think he's a good owner, I personally find the man repulsive, but his franchise has been the envy of most of the league for a long time now. The Colts have had virtually no issue with guys getting into trouble (MARVIN HARRISON WAS NEVER CHARGED!) or doing drugs when compared to the rest of the league. Seriously, one of the most stable teams with a lot of very respectable players. Guy's been doing something right. Well, if you're not saying he's a good owner, then I don't know what the problem is with having a stiff penalty for any owner who runs afoul of the league's conduct policy. Owners should be held to a higher standard, and that means the penalties need to be sufficiently severe that an owner will actually care. What would be an exorbitant fine to a normal person and even a large fine to a player (say 500k) is just a pinprick to a billionaire. In order to actually incentivize good behavior for owners, the punishments need to be severe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.