Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 hour ago, oldtimer said:

you nimrod he's already getting 8 mil from us for being a cheerleader..maybe we should resign Bobby Bell while we are at it

So your saying it makes even sense to sign him because we are already paying him we might as well get production 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
 
14 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

Exactly, for the vet minimum there's really no reason why not except for pettiness.  Anything more and it's a hard pass.

He will go for 8 mil or more. Already paying him 8 mil now

 If he truly wanted to be still on the chiefs he could have restructured imo last year

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
30 minutes ago, kkuenn said:

He will go for 8 mil or more. Already paying him 8 mil now

 If he truly wanted to be still on the chiefs he could have restructured imo last year

 

No one is going to pay him 8 million, and the dead money we're paying him is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
21 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

No one is going to pay him 8 million, and the dead money we're paying him is irrelevant.

Lol not irrelevant because it is costing us 8 million to not even play here. So we are to sign him again and pay him more? Very relevant especially with our cap space as it stands now. He also will get more than vet minimum so it is all a moot point really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Just now, kkuenn said:

Lol not irrelevant because it is costing us 8 million to not even play here. So we are to sign him again and pay him more? Very relevant especially with our cap space as it stands now. He also will get more than vet minimum so it is all a moot point really.

Do you know what a sunk cost is?  It's the definition of irrelevant.  Again, no downside to a vet minimum contract.  Only question is if we can get someone better for a similar contract.  I'm skeptical he will get more than a one-year prove-it contract, probably at the vet minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
11 minutes ago, Adamixoye said:

Do you know what a sunk cost is?  It's the definition of irrelevant.  Again, no downside to a vet minimum contract.  Only question is if we can get someone better for a similar contract.  I'm skeptical he will get more than a one-year prove-it contract, probably at the vet minimum.

I know what it means. He could have restructured it but he chose not too. He will go more than vet min and it all has relevancy because it is why we let him go and also why we wont resign him. He was not playing for 2 years for us and another year out last year. All very relevant why we wont be fooled again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 

Also the 8 mil is a shot in the dark but i do believe if he is healthy he is at least above average. 14 or so safeties make 7 mil or more, about half of them in the league at his position. I think he will look for that and wont take vet min. Of course i bet he has a lot of written in bonuses to attain on the deal too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
  • Create New...