Question about Brook's Return
Guys, need an explanation - Commentators have been saying all weekend that it's a mistake for Brook to be back in camp (i.e. he may get injured and risk his long term contracts hopes, etc.). ?? Didn't he HAVE to report or risk losing his year of tenure to become an unrestricted free agent next year? he's under contract for this season so I don't understand what the controversy is in him returning. What other choice did he have? We're still in negotiations with him for a long term contract, but in the meantime, he has to show up or risk fines and eligibility problems. No team matched his tender in the market so I don't get it...does anyone know the issue here?
posted by Paulomon Grundy at 9:52 AM
7 Comments:
From everything I have read, as you said, he HAD to return. Did not have a choice in the matter. I dont know of any other way around it
Yeah -- apparently, restricted free agents who have signed their tender are required to report no less than one month before the start of the regular season. If they don't they lose one full year of credit, so at the end of the season, they're still a resticted free agent, rather than an unrestricted one. Again, seems like the Eagles are holding the cards... So I don't know why it would be a mistake for him to continue to refuse to report. Man, this is all such a mess...
BWestr had no choice, however I think he is getting advice from someone other than his agent. THe Birds offered hima 9M signing bonus and 12M guaranteed in the first 3 years. More than fair markey value.
And apparently Westy and his agent are using contracts like the one Lamont Jordan signed with the Raiders as a benchmark. Jordan signed for something like 15 million guaranteed over 3 years, but only a 7 million signing bonus.
Actually, I don't really understand why that's really all that different. I mean, Westy's deal is one million less overall, but two million more as a signing bonus. Why wouldn't they be focused on getting as much as possible up front? Do they stretch payment of the bonus over the life of the contract?
Of course, my knee-jerk reaction is that these players make WAY too much money and should be happy with what they have. But then I think about the front office -- they make HUGE money (especially in the Eagles organization). So by me saying Westbrook doesn't need any more coin, am I saying that Banner/Lurie/Reid do need more?
Give it to the players.
(But save some room to grab a new reciever).
Again, Bwest id getting bad financial advice. Even if it was guaranteed, 1M today is better than 2M two years from now. Thats finance 101.
Pop, I know $1.4MM sounds like a lot of money to most people (and it is in some respects), that's what the Brook is making on paper. After taxes, agent fees, upkeep of an athlete, general living expenses, etc., there probably isn't that much leftover. And it's all relative - if I was Brook, I would be insulted making that much with the talent I have in relation to other players out there. I mean, there are 3rd tier backs making that kind of money. IMO, the Brook is THE weapon for the Birds' offense, even more valuable than TO or in some repects even more than McNabb. We're being cheap with him and he knows it.
Dood, I feel you. 1.4M does sound like a lot, but becomes much, much less when considering his agent's cut, taxes, etc. And also, we need to consider the reality that football is a profession with an extremely limited earning window, so it's not like you can consider that to be a yearly salary. And it's not like most football players have much non-football earning capacity they can rely on after their NFL career (altho some might say that's their own fault).
Anyway, I agree with you that Westy is such an important weapon, and really should get a big contract. I thought the contract he was offered was pretty solid though (and even better than the one his agent was apparently comparing it too).
Post a Comment
<< Home