Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Worst thing Arizona can do


Recommended Posts

Is to give in and redo Patrick Peterson's deal.  Though they could pay him after 2014 but if they allow him to hold out and force them to give him a new deal.  Then the rookie salary cap will have been a waste of time.    All the benefits of the 5th year option will go out the window and every good rookie will hold out.

 

Opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you should....I think the OP's point is that if Peterson does hold out what is to stop other players around the league, under their rookie contract, from doing the same?  An interesting situation actually.  Peterson doesn't really have a case because of the CBA but stranger things have happened, especially when a popluar (and arguably the best DB, fug you Sherman) player is involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you should....I think the OP's point is that if Peterson does hold out what is to stop other players around the league, under their rookie contract, from doing the same? An interesting situation actually. Peterson doesn't really have a case because of the CBA but stranger things have happened, especially when a popluar (and arguably the best DB, fug you Sherman) player is involved.

Peterson does have a case to hold out. The new CBA only prevents new players from forcing a new deal after years 1 or 2 (a la Chris Johnson). Therefore he can force the team in to giving him a new deal after year 3 or else be without his services until they do.

Now the teams don't have to give in because they have them under contract for a 4th season and an option for a 5th if they were a 1st rounder. But new players do have a right to hold out after their 3rd season if they want.

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP
    • When we drafted Luke, we already had Cam, Smith, Olsen, Stewart, Deangleo, Gross, Kalil, CJ, Hardy, Beason, TD, Gamble (and maybe more I'm forgetting), we had a lot of great pieces in place. Going pure BPA for a player with Luke's potential when the LB you already have is different when you already have all those pieces in place.  Our OL right now is probably in a better shape than that team and our RBs and TE have potential compared to proven vets back then, but after that, the 2012 roster was in a far better shape than we are right now. We need a #1 WR, DEs, LBs, DBs, C, and depending who you ask a QB.  Going BPA at pick #5 when that player is a DT and your current best player on either side of the ball is a DT, seems irresponsible. If he's the only player they like that high left, then you trade back and go with position of more need at a slot that makes sense for the player while adding other picks.  If you trade back and he falls because other teams don't need/want a DT, then you consider him at that point because of the value.    
    • This sounds like the same back and forth when we drafted a LB when we already had a LB or as mentioned prior back to back DLs. I want the BPA, if it is another DT so be it. (No not a kicker/punter for those people that think they are funny))
×
×
  • Create New...