Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
Smelly McUgly":ije9zyu4 said:You're trying to move the goalposts just enough to make a point that isn't quite what we're talking about. Nice try with the red herring.
Not really. The claim was that "...but Seattle's FO tries their best to reward players who perform", as if this is unique or atypical. The Seahawks and 9ers (and everyone else) both regularly extend and re-sign players who perform, as long as they fit into the team's long-term salary plans. Boone wants another extension, Tate was very vocal about wanting to be brought back, but the team opted for Baldwin instead. So what? Was Red Bryant cut because he didn't perform, or because his salary was no longer in the team's best long-term interest?
My point was simply that every single team in the NFL, for better or for worse, is almost always "loyal" to players to the precise degree that it fits their long-term strategy. The Hawks are still one year away from really feeling the sharp end of this knife (the 9ers have spent the past two years having to move on from Pro-Bowlers, something that's yet to come for the Hawks), but deluding oneself into thinking that one's team is atypical in rewarding players who perform is kind of silly, IMO. There's a salary cap. Great teams have great players who can't all be given fair-market contracts, be they second contracts, extensions, or restructures. The salary cap is is everyone's father. FWIW I think you and I are both lucky to be rooting for teams that have this problem, lest we be Titans fans who are forced to see our FO wildly overpay to keep their only marquee player happy, only to be forced to cut him soon after, and without any meaningful success in between.