Can we get Wilkinson back

[OURYEAR#56]

Some one please enlighten me. Since we cut Big Daddy nobody has signed him. The way it looks now, nobody is going to sign him in the immediate future. Can we sign Big Daddy back and give him less money? I know it sounds like a unilateral contract rather than a bilateral one. But sometimes you have to strong arm people. What do you think?

[bulldog]

to tell you the truth, with his attitude I would rather go 0-16 than bring him back :laugh:

now that he is gone, let's move on.

perhaps I would not have cut him when they did and let him work for a new contract in 2004 by being solid this year, but what's done is done.

the idea of the team going crawling back to #95 after he already lifted millions from us in the past 5 years is just a little nauseating.

let's face it. Wilkinson has generated far more press the past 5 seasons in discussions of how the team is going to restructure or manage his salary than he has with anything he has done on the field.

[@DCGoldPants]

Bulldog is right. Wilkenson is not a long term solution. I think we either need to trade for that solution or let a young DT on the team get his reps in.

Or use the 3-4 a lot more.

[Henry]

Wilkensen is the best DT on the market right now and we are in desperate need of a DT. I wouldn't ignore the possibility of bringing him back at a reasonable price out of spite.

[Romberjo]

I completely agree w/ Henry that there's no point in refusing to re-sign BDW out of spite. We have to think, of course, about a) whether he's worth bringing back as a player, and at what price, whether the cutting and re-signing would be too much of a distraction, and c) the long-term message we send about meaning what we say in contract negotiations (helpful in the future if the FO can show we're not bluffers).

But one thing we should avoid -- and which Spurrier's comment quoted in the Post today suggests we may be doing -- is thumbing our nose at BDW as spiteful payback. I would be happy to see how things go against NE, then offer him $1.5 million (maybe with a hundred-thousand guaranteed, say) to come back. More than he can get elsewhere, and enough so that he wouldn't totally lose face, but less than he's worth to us.

Can we sign Big Daddy back and give him less money? I know it sounds like a unilateral contract rather than a bilateral one.

For you fans of contract law: BDW's situation has absolutely nothing to do with a unilateral vs. a bilateral contract (all football contracts are of necessity bilateral rather than unilateral -- you couldn't have a player accept by performance rather than return promise). You are likely thinking of contractual modifications and the pre-existing duty rule, and considering a potential argument that a modification of the contract to a lower salary in exchange for the same performance is invalid and w/o consideration b/c the duties would be changed on only one side. Cutting and re-signing BDW, however, would not be a modified contract; it would be a valid rescission and novation.