stevenaa Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 It seems to me, restructuring to help the team is not very helpful to the Union cause. Wouldn't they want to make it as painful as possible for the owners, so they would have more motivation to get the deal done. If I'm a player and I think that we're asking for a fair deal, there is no way I'd help the team out. It makes me wonder just how on board the players are with the Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiefPowhatan17 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Cause the players want to stay in a winning program. They know that Gibbs is going to do everything in his power to win a SB.:logo: Plus, the players are going to get there money if we go to an uncapped 2007. And this is one of the places to be if that happens.:helmet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dockeryfan Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 You think they are restructuring out of kindness? They are restructuring partly because it's good for the team, but the real reason is that they make a little more money in the end. The incentive to restructure is a better payday, if even just a little better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Players are probably getting guaranteed money in the deal. That's always good for a player, because you never know if you might get seriously hurt, or get cut by the team. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSchwartz Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 They restructure because they lose NOTHING in the deal. Basically they walk in to Redskin Park sign a deal and Snyder hands them their salary for this year. As opposed to collecting it over the season... These guys are restructuring not taking paycuts. They make for nice sound bites, but all that "taking one for the team" rhetoric is exactly that, just rhetoric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 I understand how it is advantageous to their own personal situations. I just find it ironic that they act as a Union yet behave individually. Not surprising in the least, just shows me that the Owners will prevail in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Guaranteed money now is always a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twenty-eight Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 They get more money up front Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Obviously, the players have bought into GIbbs and his program. This would have never happened five years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 There are several resons from a player's viewpoint that he should restructure. A dollar today has more value than a dollar tomorrow and a guarunteed dollar is worth even more. Popularity in the community (though this is less important with the real big money guys make today). Signal to those who you'll deal with in the future that you aren't an intransigent a-hole. Realization that you are only part of the whole and valuing something like a SB ring more than an extra Escalade. A union, like any organization of its type, represents a group of individuals whose values are indivdual and can't be known until they ACT. They must make educated guesses as to what those values are and try to maximize all these guessed at the individual value propositions (an action which itself is likely to alter the individual value propositions). Error by such a body is a certainty and the quickest way to correct this error is what you observe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Obviously, the players have bought into GIbbs and his program.This would have never happened five years ago Offer me four million now or four million two years from now and see what I take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Obviously, the players have bought into GIbbs and his program.This would have never happened five years ago You dont think they'd restucture for Spurrier? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I've noticed that players on our team have restructured more since the return of Gibbs. Hmm, I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboyinDC Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I've noticed that players on our team have restructured more since the return of Gibbs.Hmm, I wonder why? Maybe because you're in worse cap shape now so you have to approach more players for restructuring? If you don't need a player to restructure you don't ask, its putting money into the future. Almost every player is willing to restructure, he gets more upfront money. It has NOTHING to do with a team first attitude. The only time you hear about players not willing to restructure is when they are asked to take a huge pay cut, like the Jets are asking Pennington to do (about a 8 million dollar decrease). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish50 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Imo, I think they restucture because #1 They like Joe Gibbs and he will take this team to the Super Bowl and they can sense that. #2 A lot of your players aren't interested in playing in Detroit, Arizona, Green Bay (too cold), etc. These teams are under the cap and could probably pay out a lot of money for talent. With Green bay being the exception, these teams were losers before and after the cap, so if you go there, you'll make a lot of money but lucky if you even make a run for your division title. It's not always about the money. Players want to win. I'm sure most of our players who have restructured this past week could have gotten a little bit better deal somewhere else. With the cap situation as it is now, over half of the teams are strapped for money, that leaves the Arizonas, etc. able to spend and I think most of your players really don't want to go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Almost every player is willing to restructure, he gets more upfront money. It has NOTHING to do with a team first attitude. The only time you hear about players not willing to restructure is when they are asked to take a huge pay cut, like the Jets are asking Pennington to do (about a 8 million dollar decrease). You're just mad because you were hoping that the Skins would be in cap hell and clearly we aren't. That's a typical Cowboy fan for you, you didn't even read the comments from Brunell or Springs:laugh:. I suppose you can't be relied upon to read the actual report that's posted all over this website, can you? Clearly they DID do it to help the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboyinDC Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 You're just mad because you were hoping that the Skins would be in cap hell and clearly we aren't. That's a typical Cowboy fan for you, you didn't even read the comments from Brunell or Springs:laugh:.I suppose you can't be relied upon to read the actual report that's posted all over this website, can you? Clearly they DID do it to help the team. Clearly they SAID they did it to help the team. But when you actually think about it, they're just getting more guranteed money and not really sacraficing anything. So they're helping themselves, and just happen to be helping the team in the process. And if the CBA isn't extended you'll still be in cap hell. People seem to think cap hell is having to cut big name players. Most teams are still able to keep their big names guys no matter what, they just don't have any depth. But the CBA will most likely get extended and the Redskins will be fine. I'm not upset about that, its good for the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 If players start taking pay cuts to play for Gibbs, I will be impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeaconBlue Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 So CowboyinDC, Do I take that to mean that you do not believe that our current roster doesn't have more of a spirit of team unity then Redskins teams in previous years under different coaching/leadership?I think that its pretty clear that alot more of our players seem to care about the Redskins now than at any other time in recent memory. Now I know you're a Cowboys fan and that makes it difficult for you to admit to anything positive that pertains to the Redskins. If this, however, is your heartfelt belief on the other hand ,well, your just deluding yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboyinDC Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 So CowboyinDC, Do I take that to mean that you do not believe that our current roster doesn't have more of a spirit of team unity then Redskins teams in previous years under different coaching/leadership?I think that its pretty clear that alot more of our players seem to care about the Redskins now than at any other time in recent memory. Now I know you're a Cowboys fan and that makes it difficult for you to admit to anything positive that pertains to the Redskins. If this, however, is your heartfelt belief on the other hand ,well, your just deluding yourself. I'm saying that restructuring in no way shows "team unity". Now I'm not going to say that there isn't more team unity, but thats a different matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 The team definitely has a better locker room now than at any point in the past decade. Restructuring has nothing to do with that. If you offer me $1 million now versus $1 million next year, I will always take the money now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akorn22 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I think the players can feel a SB coming real soon as long as this team stays together. THis is why i love this team. The guys who restructured are great guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeaconBlue Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 I'm saying that restructuring in no way shows "team unity". Now I'm not going to say that there isn't more team unity, but thats a different matter. Ok I can accept that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItaliaMuscle Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 haha yep! I love thinking about how fat a cat we would be without the cap! OH MAN! SB after SB wins! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlinginSammy HOF '63 Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Job security. You restructure and it helps you lock in for long term. If you don't restructure then you face getting released with a big fat contract and too old for other teams to want to take a chance. I'm sure Brunell could've refused but that means he's probably out of a job after '06 while if he restructures he could potentially stay a few years longer as a backup. It makes financial sense for him. Hypothetically , if he was released after not restructuring he'd only be signed if he agreed to vet minimum with several incentives. I'm sure same thing could be said about Jansen and Springs too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.