Sanders denied from playing this year !

[Riggo-toni]

rv581,

Deion reached an agreement at the time of his settlement. He was still owed 2.5m (the second half of his signing bonus) when he tried to get the Skins to release him. Now, if he'd agreed to forego that $$$ in exchange for being released, no doubt the Skins would have complied. He'd be free to play w/ whomever he wanted. He's in the position he's now in because he wanted to squeeze every last drop out of his contract. When it was reported that he forfeited $500k of his bonus, what that really meant was he took $2million more from us AFTER he retired. The Skins could've held his feet to the fire and forced him to either play, or repay the pro-rated portion of his bonus. Instead, we gave him a sweetheart deal - the most golden of parachutes. He knew exactly what he was doing when he signed that agreement. Wouldn't it be unethical for him to go back on an agreement?

[rv581]

Originally posted by Henry

Basically, what rv is saying is that Deion shouldn't be restricted by the rules all the other players have to follow because ... well darn it, he's Deion.

We can argue about other things later, but do you now acknowledge that I did NOT say what you've claimed I said and that you mischaracterized my beliefs?

[Henry]

Sorry rv, but that's the way I saw it when you wrote this:

I don't like it. Regardless of how we feel about Deion, it would've been interesting to see how he could compete at age 35. Marty robbed us of this

Perhaps I misunderstood, but you are saying you don't care if them's the rules, we are being robbed of seeing Deion compete, are you not? Perhaps I am way off base here, but I doubt you'd be saying the same thing about, say, Tom Carter.

[Hokieskin]

Question: Let's say D. Sanders gets into the hall of fame, does he go in as a Charger?

[rv581]

Originally posted by Henry

Perhaps I misunderstood, but you are saying you don't care if them's the rules, we are being robbed of seeing Deion compete, are you not? Perhaps I am way off base here, but I doubt you'd be saying the same thing about, say, Tom Carter.

This is my NINTH post on this one thread, and for you to mischaracterize my statements and sentiments on the basis that I mentioned in ONE sentence that I thought it would be interesting to see how Deion could play at age 35.... is nothing but a cheep shot. I've used numerous players as examples, including Bruce Smith, Emmitt Smith, Darrell Green, and Barry Sanders.

If you can't acknowedge that you made a mistake in mischaracterizing my point of view-- particularly when there's now NINE posts illustrating my point of view, then we have nothing to discuss further.

[Henry]

Well rv, if words like 'sorry,' 'perhaps I misunderstood,' and 'perhaps I am way off base' aren't good enough for you I don't know what else to say.

I am not attempting to take a cheap shot or skew your words in any way. I'm just telling you the way I take them to mean.

And, I am still sorry (for what it's worth), but from what I have read in your nine posts, you think superstars deserve special treatment from the powers that be in the NFL, above and peyond the rules that are already in place. I disagree with that sentiment ... especially in Deion's case.

[Larry]

Unfortunately, Henry, you're neglecting to mention that the reason Deion's in this position is because he signed a contract stating that he'd play football for the Skins and no-one else for seven years, then reneg'd on his end of the contract after only one year, and forgot that the contract didn't simply vanish when he cashed the last paycheck.

A player doesn't become a free agent simply by announcing that he doesn't want to play for us any more (but, he still want's the full bonus).

Now, if your problem is that he had to clear waivers, (and the fact that those waivers ment people could claim him without paying him), the reason he's in that position is because he thought it'd be nice to be a playoff-only player. If he'd chosen to "un-retire" at the begining of the season like lesser players, then whichever team claimed him would be stuck paying him whatever salary was in his contract.

[Henry]

I totally agree Larry. I didn't want to re-hash the previous four pages of this thread.

rv, as far as I can tell and I could be totally wrong, just thinks it's not cool of the Chargers to make it impossible for Deion to play this season. It has nothing to do with the rules and contracts and whatnot.

My posts have been aimed at disagreeing with that thought, so I've been ignoring the other factors, such as Deion's supposed committment to play for the Redskins for the next six years.

[rv581]

Originally posted by Henry

Well rv, if words like 'sorry,' 'perhaps I misunderstood,' and 'perhaps I am way off base' aren't good enough for you I don't know what else to say.

I am not attempting to take a cheap shot or skew your words in any way. I'm just telling you the way I take them to mean.

And, I am still sorry (for what it's worth), but from what I have read in your nine posts, you think superstars deserve special treatment from the powers that be in the NFL, above and peyond the rules that are already in place. I disagree with that sentiment ... especially in Deion's case.

Well, I'm sorry if I over reacted. It's just very frustrating to be the only one voicing an opinion, and everyone else telling you that you're wrong. But I guess that's par for the course on a football forum. :laugh:

My position is that LEGALLY, the Chargers are within their rights to sign Deion, but there are lots of legal things that aren't exactly ethical. I don't know how many years Darrell Green has left on his contract, but if he retired in 2001, and the 2002 Oakland Raiders were in need for a corner and this was his last chance to win another Superbowl, I think it would stink to high heavens if a team like the Dallas Cowboys signed him-- just to keep him on the bench.

I know: Darrell Green is "good" and Deion Sanders is "bad" and that makes all the difference, in some people's mind...

[Yomar]

Look, I am not interested in "piling on" or whatever, but you are looking at this with way too much emotion.

But even so, I don't understand how you can preach ethics and Deion in the same breath.

I know, you know, little girls in Ubekistan know that Deion didn't really want to retire from the football, he just didn't want to play for Marty.

But the problem for Deion is that he had a bad year in 2000 and his value was hurt, so if he re-negotiated so that he gave up most of his signing bonus and in return got his release, he knew he wasn't going to make that money back as a free agent, so he opted to sit out, keep the money, and hope the Skins would release him outright. Is that legal? Yes. Is that a smart business decision? Yes. Is that ethical? No more so than what the Chargers and 4 other teams did in blocking him from playing for the Raiders in the playoffs. If you want to bemoan the ethics involved, then you should hold Deion to the same standard

[Henry]

Nothing wrong with playing Devil's Advocate, rv. It's what keeps threads long and interesting.

However, to your last post comparing Darrell to Deion, I again point out that this has never come up with Darrell Green, has it?

I wonder why that is.

[NavyDave]

Danny Crleone made sure his fingerprints werent gonna be on this one so calling in his marker he got von Schott and some AFC WEst rivals to tae care of a minor irritant.

rv, if slimetime would return the bonus for the years he didnt play I'd have no problem with him signing for another team.

I love poetic justice in this case.