Beason - what would make him a guinea pig?

hard to blame hurney when we've been more than fair w/ everyone else.

 

The point of it being on the table and then taken off is the key to the whole disagreement. Somebody fucked up ad now it's a big problem.

I believe we should honor what we put on the table, discipline the offender and not put it on the table again.

It's kind of like when they mark something wrong at the grocery store, they have to sell it to you for that (can you say 8 ribeyes for 33 cents? heh).

 

I am curious how this issue was addresses wirh Williams, Davis and Gamble.

 

according to the article, none of the folks we've signed, or signed to extensions since lelie have gotten it. imma trust jakes agent on this one.

 

http://www.contracostatimes.com/raiders/ci_6524785

and later in the article:

Sounds like if Davis will give an option bonus, it will be a new kind of option bonus, if that's even possible.

 

We're talking about a little bit more money than 8 ribeyes for 33 cents. The other piece is that we don't know for sure that it was taken (took?) off the table. The Panthers may have wanted to add a forfeiture clause to allow them to recover a portion of it under certain circumstances like ALL other teams still using the option bonuses, but the agent didn't want a forfeiture clause. Is that taking it off the table? It could be in the agent's view. That's the only side of the story that we continue to hear. IF it was on the table, and IF it is as important as the agent is presenting, he should have accepted the deal while it was available. He elected to try for something else.

 

Credibility on the message board, yes. Your problem isn't that you're an idiot, because it's obvious that you're reasonably intelligent. Instead it seems to be that you're thin-skinned enough that you get a bruised pussy any time someone has the temerity to invalidate something you have to say. The reception of your opinion here depends on the quality of your argument and your posting history. Or to use another example, your credibility among a group of friends depends on what you've said around them. You might be a Nobel prize winner, but if those friends have seen you being an idiot for years, you won't have any credibility with them. Or taking the opposite tack, you might be unknown to the average man but immensely respected and credible among your friends if they believe you've earned such distinction. I honestly don't get why that concept is so hard for you to understand.

It's not for disagreeing with me, it's for saying something stupid, and I don't do it to feel important. My ego is self-sustaining. I insult people for idiotic comments because it's a reflex with me. Just as your leg responds when the doctor taps you below the knee cap, I have a conditioned response when I read something stupid. But don't pretend that I always insult everyone just because your own feelings got hurt.

 

And the fact that we're known for being idiots in terms of over-paying. Great. I honestly think it's time for Hurney to be shown the door. He freely admits that he doesn't have the background to make good personnel decisions, but despite his status as a supposed cap specialist, he's been consistently over-paying for years now. This buffoonery with Beason is just the straw that broke the camel's back.

The arbitrator's ruling isn't part of the CBA or anything, so in theory it shouldn't be that difficult to continue using option bonuses but with tacked on conditional language stipulating that the money can be recovered like a signing bonus. Assuming both parties agreed to that, I don't see what the legal problem would be, but then again I'm no lawyer.

 

Good point in that we really don't know the specifics of what was on the table (or what is now), and that he should have signed it right then, if he had the chance. We don't know if he tried for something else or not.

I wasn't trying to compare the amount of money I paid for the steaks with the contract's amount (which is supposedly not the issue anyway). For you and anyone else who interpreted it that way here's the point I was attempting to make: it's about showing good faith. If Hurney's subordinate framed the deal in the manner claimed by the agent, he did that as Hurney's representative so I'd feel as if Hurney should honor it and deal with his employee. But as has been mentioned, we really don't know.

 

My problem continues to be that if Hurney is going to be an unreasonable dick and insist that no option bonus will be included, then it's his responsibility to come up with a reasonable alternative. Incentive packages and roster bonuses are not reasonable because they don't offer the same financial security that the option bonus does, so he needs to step up with something else. If we're going to be the only ones retarded enough to insist that option bonuses never be used again, then we better have a plan for acceptable alternatives.


And I'm actually surprised that this didn't occur to me before, but I have absolutely no idea how a Peppers extension could get done without an option bonus. They're not going to accept roster bonuses and that crap, at least not for much of the bonus money, and we don't have the cap room to offer a $40 million signing bonus. To my mind, our stance on option bonuses would really lower the chances of extending Peppers. Plus it will mean that we'll have a much harder time competing with other teams in free agency. It's just plain stupid all around.