NoCalMike Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Ya know, I am suprised the media wasn't all over the Skins FO for that move. Instead almost every article actually acknowledges that he wouldn't have been worth the money and his production didn't justify nearly that much. When he was cut, I was expecting the Skins FO to get lambasted regarding it, asking how we could let such an integral part of the D-line go. Hahaha, for once I am pleased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 It would have been too absurd to attack the skins for cutting BDW. If we kept him without a deep salary cut, then the media would have been all over us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glorydays Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 What OldSkool said - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Maybe "the media" was smart enough to realize what they'd look like, if they wrote an article about how mean, cheapskate (!) owner Dan Snyder was unfairly trying to squeeze money out of the worth-every-penny, $3.5M player, and the BDW can't get an offer better then min wage. You can get away with predicting a 5-11 season for the Skins, because at the end of the year, nobody remembers your picks. But, if you make comments about what a player's worth, and then the market sets a much different value just a few days later, it's hard to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 well, the media WAS criticizing the Skins, not for cutting Wilkinson but for not having an 'adequate' replacement in place at DT first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romberjo Posted August 7, 2003 Share Posted August 7, 2003 Yeah, the party line in the media is that Snyder keeps trying to buy a championship, so when we cut a player we seem to need b/c he costs more than even our great need, it doesn't resonate. Stray thought: it seems, though, that we should have worked harder to create a situation in which BDW could come back to us, sign a contract larger than he could get anywhere else (though less than $3.5) and still save face. E.g., have Snyder or Spurrier say to the press, "He's a good player, those stats last year were misleading. We just can't afford to pay him $3.5 million, but we'd be delighted to have him back at $2 million if he can't find a situation he likes better than here after he has a chance to explore his options." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.