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!

     

Shouldn't have traded Arnold


Jmac
 Share

Recommended Posts

Stupid move. S.D needs all the help he can get. Decent TE who could actually get open and catch the ball. Definitely could have used him the last two weeks. Need him much more then the bus load of corners we now have.

Edited by Jmac
  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
  • Poo 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point that people don’t seem to get is that we traded a starter on offense where we are struggling to have an identity for someone that isn’t even contributing. I would think Arnold probably catches a couple of those 10 drops we had today which might have made a difference.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Jmac said:

Stupid move. S.D needs all the help he can get. Decent TE who could actually get   open and catch the ball. Definitely could have used him the last two weeks. Need him  much more then the bus load of corners we now have.

Well champ, Henderson hasn't even played yet so lets give him a few games before we judge that trade. As to Arnold, seems he has a lot of relatives on this website who think of him as Greg Olson Jr., he isn't so move along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...