No coaching changes

[Ruff]

Judging by the title of the tread, your OP and previous responses... a coaching change of some sort.

My posts in this thread:

wtf am I proposing? That's what I don't get.

:nopity:

I'm glad someone understands. lol.

I said that I don't think he's going to be fired this year (I think, if anything, Fox resigns. But, I doubt that happens.), yet you still try and argue your point to me, lol.

I think that if it's an issue of money, Jerry's not afraid to pull the trigger. Hell, he's shown that he's not afraid of blackouts, so he's definitely not against losing money.

I'm not saying the Richardson is going to fire Fox. (Honestly, I don't think he's going to.) I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic. You say he won't fire Fox because he will owe him money, but he cut a QB who was owed more than twice what Fox was.

I don't understand how that adds up.

lol, touche.

So, he's willing to pay a guy $12 million dollars to leave, but he's not willing to pay Fox $6 million to leave...?

I don't know, maybe because he paid a QB $12 million to leave? Maybe because he cut ties with guaranteed contracts of other players before the season started?

Dude, I think you're the one who can't add one and one.

Once again, where did I propose a coaching change?

[CBDellinger]

My posts in this thread:

Once again, where did I propose a coaching change?

I confused you with the OP, it happens.

But your last 2 posts in you quote certainly make it seem like you think JR could do it since he did cut Jake despite owing him 12 mil... which is redic since the two situations are nothing alike.

[mav1234]

COULD and WILL are two totally different things, CB. that's all.

two situations being nothing alike are close, save for the fact that they demonstrate that $$ isn't all JR cares about. If he did, he woulda cut one of our rookies to save some $$ and kept Jake.

[CBDellinger]

COULD and WILL are two totally different things, CB. that's all.

two situations being nothing alike are close, save for the fact that they demonstrate that $$ isn't all JR cares about. If he did, he woulda cut one of our rookies to save some $$ and kept Jake.

No, because cutting Jake now keeps him from bearing the brunt of his contract cap wise over the course of X # of years. This is a free year cap wise to make cuts, which is why we made so many. He made those move for the good of the team in the long haul.

The Fox situation is nothing like that and has everything to do with saving himself money in the event of a lockout. The players wouldnt get paid in a lockout, the coaches would.

again, the argument of "well he cut jake owing him 12 mil why wouldnt he pay Fox 6 mil to leave?" is redic. They are nothing alike.

[mav1234]

No, because cutting Jake now keeps him from bearing the brunt of his contract cap wise over the course of X # of years. This is a free year cap wise to make cuts, which is why we made so many. He made those move for the good of the team in the long haul.

The Fox situation is nothing like that and has everything to do with saving himself money in the event of a lockout. The players wouldnt get paid in a lockout, the coaches would.

again, the argument of "well he cut jake owing him 12 mil why wouldnt he pay Fox 6 mil to leave?" is redic. They are nothing alike.

How do you figure he has to pay a coach for the lockout if he fires Fox?

If he fires Fox and makes Meeks or Davidson (*cough*) interim HC, they won't be getting paid HC money during the lockout unless they become our new HC... which is the same as if he let Fox walk at the end of the season.

Here is how the situation is similar:

1) Cutting Jake meant paying him this year, despite not having his services.

2) Cutting Fox means paying him this year, despite not having his services.

That is how they are alike. You have pointed out how they are different, and yes, cutting Jake now saves the team money in the long term. The argument that he is keeping Fox due purely to money is incorrect in my opinion. It may play a role, but he could fire Fox this week, and not be on the hook for much more than he is anyway. Either way, if he plans to hire a coach regardless of a lockout, he'd be on the hook for it. If he plans to wait, he wouldn't be, regardless of if Fox is fired now or walks at the end of the season.

I've never heard of interim HCs getting a huge pay boost for getting the position, but mebbe I'm wrong. Now, we're not talkign about giving Meeks/Davidson/whoever a contract as HC, just interim for the remainder of the season.

Either way, I was expecting an OC change if anything, not a HC change.

edit: the point wasn't that jake and fox situations were identical or even close to similar, just that they both indicate a willingness to part ways with someone even if you have to pay 'em for that year. I see what you mean about how one saves money in the long term, but I still don't think it means Fox is being kept around due to $$