The Official ES (or E...C) 2022 Free Agency Thread Signed G Andrew Norwell, Obada, Trai Turner...Goodbye Scherff, Kyle Allen, Tim Settle

[skinsfan93]

15 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

Not sure I am with you on this one. First, those are two different things that do not necessarily have anything in common. They could but they do not have to. 

Based on this list of owners net worth danny boy is tied for 11th with a net worth of $4B. (https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfls-richest-owners-revealed-cowboys-rams-and-panthers-top-list-of-15-wealthiest-for-2022/ - April 2022)   People with a net worth of $4B do not have cash flow issues.

 

Owners wanting to keep thier money as long as they can is something we should all do but they do it so they can continue to let that money make more money for them until the last second. 

 

I am certain danny has no cash flow issues. This is a media/fan generated wish list. What I know to be fact is that danny is cheap as ****. He hates to spend a penny unless it makes him more money back. This can give the appearance of being cash poor when in reality he is just ****ing cheap. 

 

Full disclosure I would love it if he were broke and had to sell the team. But the fact is - and I am sorry everyone - it's fact, he is not even close to broke. He is not even cash poor since his assets - debts = $4B. He can get whatever money he wants/needs whenever he wants it. 

Cmon you really can’t be that naïve. It’s not about Dan being broke but what he cash he can produce on hand. Yes Dan is WORTH $4billion but that doesn’t mean he has $4billion in cash on hand until he sells his assets and even then it depends on what he gets for those assets. He can also borrow off his assets to produce cash. 
 

Elon Musk is the richest person in the world. In his bid to take Twitter private it cost $43billion or 1/6th of his net worth. However to buy twitter he will fork over $3 billion of his “cash on hand” but he also needs to borrow another $39 billion against his Tesla stock or Space X to make the all cash offer. 
 

Get it?

 

[Skinsinparadise]

I'll use my own example.  My net worth is mostly in my house and my business.    Now if I sold my house and my business, I'd be really liquid and can have a good time with purchases. 

 

But lets say i didn't.  And my business is cyclical which ironically it is just like apparently the NFL is.  I will be more liquid in September than I am now based on how my cash flows in my business. 

 

But its the summer right now, I don't have that much cash.  My net worth would indicate I should have cash but my net worth doesn't mean anything unless I sell those assets and lets say I don't want to sell those assets.  So i wait until i have more cash flow to buy whatever.

 

Lets say my neighbor is rich.  And isn't relying on just one cyclical business like I have but they have multiple other businesses that bring them cash flow.  They can make a purchase right now which I can't do without breaking a sweat.

 

Now bringing more to this.  If I just took out a $875,000 loan to buy out my business partners.  Mind you I don't have the cash to just buy them out, I have to take a loan and pay interest on it.  And my business requires me to undergo the biggest expense its ever had to endure -- spending 2 billion on name that thing. 

 

Obviously in my case it would be much smaller scale -- but darn right it would effect my current finances if I wasn't that liquid and I am about to be challanged on my liquidity in a way that I never had before -- not even close. 

 

Just because Dan is rich and can throw 40 million plus dollars on a house -- doesn't conversely mean he can deal with essentially 3 billion dollars coming due (stadium and payback on a mega loan) without breaking a sweat.

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[skinsfan93]

13 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I'll use my own example.  My net worth is mostly in my house and my business.    Now if I sold my house and my business, I'd be really liquid and can have a good time with purchases. 

 

But lets say i didn't.  And my business is cyclical which ironically it is just like apparently the NFL is.  I will be more liquid in September than I am now based on how my cash flows in my business. 

 

But its the summer right now, I don't have that much cash.  My net worth would indicate I should have cash but my net worth doesn't mean anything unless I sell those assets and lets say I don't want to sell those assets.  So i wait until i have more cash flow to buy whatever.

 

Lets say my neighbor is rich.  And isn't relying on just one cyclical business like I have but they have multiple other businesses that bring them cash flow.  They can make a purchase right now which I can't do without breaking a sweat.

 

Now bringing more to this.  If I just took out a $875,000 loan to buy out my business partners.  Mind you I don't have the cash to just buy them out, I have to take a loan and pay interest on it.  And my business requires me to undergo the biggest expense its ever had to endure -- spending 2 billion on name that thing. 

 

Obviously in my case it would be much smaller scale -- but darn right it would effect my current finances if I wasn't that liquid and I am about to be challanged on my liquidity in a way that I never had before -- not even close. 

 

Just because Dan is rich and can throw 40 million plus dollars on a house -- doesn't conversely mean he can deal with essentially 3 billion dollars coming due (stadium and payback on a mega loan) without breaking a suit.

 

Also one more thing to remember is that the real wealthy will borrow off their assets, not sell them. If they sell, they have to pay capital gains taxes that can be 20% or more AND their personal income tax bracket goes up from the increased revenue. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

People with a net worth of $4B do not have cash flow issues.

 

 

Not in layman's ways he doesn't.  And I never suggested otherwise.   

 

But billionaires where their assets are almost all tied into one business which has income that is cyclical.  With a new 875 million dollar debt waiver loan.  With a crumbiling stadium that they need to get out and where he supposedly pledges to put in 2 billion dollars of his own money to build a new one -- that dude actually might not be that gung ho of adding lets say 100 million of change in new contracts that are front loaded as bigger money contracts typically are (via guaranteed money and signing bonuses) and might at a minimum want to wait it out until its closer to the period where he gets that infusion of cash from the NFL. 

 

I used to put the Terry contract 100% on Ron.  I blasted him many times for it.    I even did it on the draft thread, I was that hot about the odd way to punt on we will do that later not now drill.  But as new information came forward, it made me rethink this.  And yes I do think its Dan who wants to do it this way.   And it adds up the more I digest and read about it.  

 

I admit part of it is I have in the past on occasion thought yeah Dan sucks but people are going a bit too far on this or that. Give the poor dude at least a little bit of a break. In retrospect, I don't think I was vindicated even once in doing that.  So i am sticking to what's been a winning bet for me for years and that is bet against Dan. 

 

If its something that doesn't make sense logically -- I am betting its Dan that's behind it, not Ron.  And its not so much that I don't think there isn't logic behind this for Dan, I get the finances side of it from his point of view, it doesn't seem that intricate actually.   I used to not think that we were handicapped financially with having Dan as the owner.  He brought plenty of other problems but I didn't really sweat the finances.  It's the same reason why I just brushed off Standig poking around on this point earlier this off season.  I am off the train now. 

 

I do think its a viable point at a minimum that Dan has a temporary issue with liquidity considering his loan and the stadium issue looming.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

9 minutes ago, skinsfan93 said:

Also one more thing to remember is that the real wealthy will borrow off their assets, not sell them. If they sell, they have to pay capital gains taxes that can be 20% or more AND their personal income tax bracket goes up from the increased revenue. 

 

Exactly.  Dan's wealth is almost entirely based on the team and that to me is the main plot line considering all the other unique circumstances that presents him with financial challenges he hasn't had since he bought the team originally.  Mike Lombardi did a good job once explaining how the owners get money from the NFL in various big increments.  And referenced that the owners who aren't as dependent on the cycles of those increments have some liquidity advantages over other owners that can spill into how they do business.

 

When you sign a big contract with a major signing bonus and major guaranteed money -- all that money is needed now.  Not over the length of the contract but now.   

 

How would a dude that has to both pay off a loan that is give or take 20% of his net worth and have to spend for a stadium at a price according to most that would be 50% of his networth -- so about 70% of his networth combined is in play -- and somehow none of that effects him at all? 

 

And again his net worth is tied to the asset which is the team, he'd have to sell the team to have access to that net worth in liquid form.    For this reason, some have speculated that Dan will get his cash by actually getting some new minority partners.  Who knows?  Will see. 

[ntotoro]

1 hour ago, FootballZombie said:

Man bought a new $48 Million dollar riverfront house this year. He aint in financial dire straights, barely making ends meet.

 

 

 

He's not exactly a hard luck case, but I don't think he has the liquid football assets, post-buyout, to do the stuff he did in years past. 

 

So not only is he gonna' go on the cheap, but he's still a ****ty owner on top of it.

[skinsfan93]

4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

And again his net worth is tied to the asset which is the team, he'd have to sell the team to have access to that net worth in liquid form.    For this reason, some have speculated that Dan will get his cash by actually getting some new minority partners.  Who knows?  Will see. 

His problem with finances had to do with buying out the minority owners in my opinion. He stretched himself a bit too much. Also I read that the team’s revenue ranked near the bottom or was dead last. If true the team’s revenue on hand is limited. 
 

Like I said I hope the dweeb sells the team. Just go away you midget!

[Skinsinparadise]

10 minutes ago, skinsfan93 said:

His problem with finances had to do with buying out the minority owners in my opinion. He stretched himself a bit too much. Also I read that the team’s revenue ranked near the bottom or was dead last. If true the team’s revenue on hand is limited. 
 

Like I said I hope the dweeb sells the team. Just go away you midget!

 

To me no doubt.  If I am taking a loan out that is almost 25% of my net worth and my net worth isn't very liquid, it would effect me a lot.  And that's before delving into Dan struggiling to secure state help to pay for the stadium and its looking like he has to pony up 2 billion for it and do so soon.

 

In my business, the term is so used its a cliche when it comes to affluent clients which is are they liquid or not?  It's not an all or nothing thing either.  

 

For a wealthy dude who isn't that liquid but is more likely to use whatetever liquidity they have on personal pleaures -- mansions, yachts -- versus using that money to put it into their business instead -- also feels like a cliche from my own experiences with rich folks.   

 

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

Not sure I am with you on this one. First, those are two different things that do not necessarily have anything in common. They could but they do not have to. 

Based on this list of owners net worth danny boy is tied for 11th with a net worth of $4B. (https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfls-richest-owners-revealed-cowboys-rams-and-panthers-top-list-of-15-wealthiest-for-2022/ - April 2022)   People with a net worth of $4B do not have cash flow issues.

(I'm going to agree with you in a moment, in one important regard, so hang on, but I am going to disagree with some of this also.)

 

Cash Flow Issues <> Net Worth.  And Most of Dan's net worth is tied up in the football team. Unlike if his money was in the market, where he could be getting dividends off of the investment, it's not.  He is dependent on the cash which is generated by operations to funnel to him. 

 

The question from a cash flow perspective is, how much cash does the franchise throw off on a yearly basis.  That answer is basically unknown.

 

The linked story says the Washington Football Team (this is from 2020) had an operating income of $25M.  

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193556/operating-income-of-national-football-league-teams-in-2010/

 

Now, what does that mean?  It means after receiving all revenue from operations, and paying all operation expenses (ie: players, stadium, FO, ticket sales, etc) they ended up with $25M.  

 

That's not Net Income though, because then you have to pay taxes, indirect expenses (admin costs), etc. 

 

It's also kindof a myth that DAN is paying the players out of his pocket.  He's not.  The team is.  He owns the team, but it's the team that is making the payment.

 

So the question is, and this NOBODY knows, how much cash does the team have on hand?  

 

Because if the team has lower cash reserves, then they have a harder time making big payments. 

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

I am certain danny has no cash flow issues. This is a media/fan generated wish list. What I know to be fact is that danny is cheap as ****. He hates to spend a penny unless it makes him more money back. This can give the appearance of being cash poor when in reality he is just ****ing cheap. 

I really used to be in this camp pretty squarely, but I'm really not sure anymore.  There is absolutely no question the fan revolt, people not going to the stadium, sponsors pulling out, fans not buying merch, the overall cost of the rebrand (twice!), buying out his minority owners, etc. has taken a toll on Dan's cash position.  

 

They also can't predict they will have sellouts or very significant non-NFL revenue shared revenues this year because of the fan revolt and a crappy stadium.  

 

So, the cash in is going to be somewhat more close to what the revenue sharing amount is rather than taking advantage of all of the non-revenue shared opportunities. 

 

Also, let's quantify "Cash Flow Issues."  Could Danny go out and buy just about anything he wants today, for cash, and not notice?  Yes.  

 

Could he go out and pay Terry $50M tomorrow?  I think absolutely.  Could he put the remaining guaranteed money in escrow?  Yes.  

 

So I DO NOT think Dan's possible cash issues are holding up the negotiation.  

 

But I do think it's reasonable to think Dan wants to be more certain about getting a good deal.

 

Now, the second part, the irony is (and again, this points to some cash flow issues), Dan WASN'T cheap in the first 11 years of his ownership.  He bought the team/stadium, and IMMEDIATLY dumped $20M into the stadium to replace metal railings with glass, and put in escalators to the upper deck.  (Unfortunately, that was about the last major upgrade he did to the stadium until they replaced the light-bright boards whenever that was in the 10's.)  He also payed players to set the market a variety of times.  He was out there free-wheeling and deal making.  (The WRONG players, but he was paying them.)  

 

There were things he was cheap on, the team facilities and scouts to name a couple.  

 

But until 2010, if he wanted a guy, nobody was going to out bid him.

 

So, then you ask yourself, what change?  Bruce for one.  He ended that, mostly for cap reasons, though.   Where there other factors?  I don't know.  Could his current financial position be effecting him now?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  It's unclear.  

 

But Dan WASN'T cheap for a decade. (At least not with player's salaries.)  But he HAS been cheap since then. So you have to ask why.

 

 

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

Full disclosure I would love it if he were broke and had to sell the team. But the fact is - and I am sorry everyone - it's fact, he is not even close to broke. He is not even cash poor since his assets - debts = $4B. He can get whatever money he wants/needs whenever he wants it. 

Yeah, he can definitely get whatever money he wants.  But here's the thing:  Let's say they value the team at $5B if he was to sell it. (Which I don't think is unreasonable, to be honest.)  Let's say he has $1B of debts outstanding.  He STILL has to find a way to pay the debt, and the "only" cash coming in is from the operations of the football team.  Which is not trivial.  

 

But whereas other owners have 1. better income from their team and 2. money invested elsewhere which earns interest, Dan has less of that, and that will have an impact.

 

The only way he can realize his net worth is to sell the team.  Which he doesn't want to do.  (Though I very much would like him to.)

[Skinsinparadise]

Lets say Dan is liquid as heck for arguments sake and nothing is effecting him at all as for current circumstances -- decreasing sales (shrug), $875 million dollar loan (shrug), 2 billion dollars for a stadium (shrug).  Even running with that premise, mymain point is I don't think its wild to think its been Dan not Ron wanting to punt on the Terry contract to the summer. 

 

A.  Albert Breer bringing up owners liking to hold their cash for as long as possible to make interest on it and specifically talked about that very thing relating to the Terry contract. 

 

Sounds silly to most of us.  6 months on our investments who gives a crap.  But if we had lets say for argument say $500 million in investments.  If he's just making 3% on that money, just hold on to that for 6 more months, that's a lot of money.  The Lehners in particular were famous for backloading contracts so they can make interest on their money longer

 

B.  Somehow Dan by coincidence does his big in house extensions often (Allen, Kerrigan, Trent and now with Terry) in the summer versus first thing in the off season.  Pure coincidece?  Dan is just a summer dude and that's just how he randomly rolls?

 

The idea that he waits until the summer to get a better deal seems wild to me.  Dan is stupid but I don't think he's so stupid that he doesn't understand that time is an enemy not a friend to getting a contract at a lower price.  

 

C.  The idea that a rich dude is willing to shell out more money for personal expenses than their business isn't some wild thought.  I own my own business.  I will put money into a luxury for myself over investing in my business typically.  There is so much i want my business to leverage my personal life especially in terms of putting any stress on my personal finances.  I'll put more in my business when my overall finances are in a great place.  If they aren't in a great place, I am more likely to skimp on my business than i am my personal life.  Most of my colleagues own businesses too, I don't think this style is that wild from what I observed.

 

I can switch money from my personal account to my business and vice versa in literally 3 seconds online.  It's not hard. You just need to keep track of it for tax purposes.  And yes one thing effects the other.  If I am shelling out more expenses in my business than normal, it does effect my overall finances.   And this is coming from a dude where my net worth isn't just about fully tied to my business.  If it were, the personal-business tie would feel even more intense.

 

And fiances doesn't have to be an all or nothing scene.  

 

For example, I can pay for an expensive vacation right now and live to tell the tale.  But I'd rather wait until my cash flow is better where it feels more comfortable for me to do.  Right now I have to front load a lot of expenses.  That will change in 2 months where both those expenses are paid and my cash flow will jump up quite a bit.   So I'll wait.  Could I do it now anyway?  Sure, I can do something.  Actually ironically just booked a trip to Indy for the game but  it was nothing crazy expensive.  If I am spending more money on something bigger, I'll wait.

 

Just because Dan has a larger scale than we do, doesn't mean he doesn't have the same issues we all do at picking his spots.  While he has a much large scale of money to play with, his expenses are much larger too.  For me laying out $10,000 is a lot and for Dan its pennies.   But I seriously doubt paying 75 million for a Terry contract is pennies to him when the bigger contracts are front loaded.   Could he pay it?  I bet he could easily.  Does he want to wait?  Some say no.  I say it makes plenty of sense that he would want to wait and do it this summer (probably soon) like the other big contracts from the place as far as in house players. 

 

For the same reason that I'd rather wait before paying for an expensive vacation which is I'd rather have the cash in my pocket until my cash flow improves and then i'd pull the trigger.

 

 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[goskins10]

2 hours ago, skinsfan93 said:

Cmon you really can’t be that naïve. It’s not about Dan being broke but what he cash he can produce on hand. Yes Dan is WORTH $4billion but that doesn’t mean he has $4billion in cash on hand until he sells his assets and even then it depends on what he gets for those assets. He can also borrow off his assets to produce cash. 
 

Elon Musk is the richest person in the world. In his bid to take Twitter private it cost $43billion or 1/6th of his net worth. However to buy twitter he will fork over $3 billion of his “cash on hand” but he also needs to borrow another $39 billion against his Tesla stock or Space X to make the all cash offer. 
 

Get it?

 

@skinsfan93 @Voice_of_Reason @Skinsinparadise

 

This conversation should be in the thread below. I am moving my response there to let this thread get back to the topic at hand. 

 

 

 

 

[duffy]

https://www.si.com/nfl/commanders/news/washington-chris-odom-houston-gamblers-usfl-sack-leaders-chase-young-jonathan-allen-daron-payne-sign-free-agency

 

[skinsfan93]

I know we have been linked to a couple free agent linebackers. However on Instagram it looked like a signing of Anthony Barr seemed like it will happen. 
 

He would be a good signing and someone who can play the middle but with all the hype about Holcomb playing MIKE I just don’t see it happening especially since we are still trying to sign Terry. 
 

Anyone hear any noise on this?

[markmills67]

Just a quick question for people who are more clued up on how the cap works. If McClaurin signs a new LTD is there another way or paying the Guaranteed money in the deal.  Let's say McClaurin gets 75m can it be guaranteed without a signing bonus to save Snyder from paying the bonus in one lump sum? And is it possible McCLaurin could play on his 2022 salary and then he gets 25m Fully Guaranteed in 23/24/25 similar to say say Kirk Cousins. 

 

Sorry in advance if my post doesn't make sense fellow Skins. 

 

HTTR from Bolton England. 

[CommDownMan]

3 hours ago, markmills67 said:

Just a quick question for people who are more clued up on how the cap works. If McClaurin signs a new LTD is there another way or paying the Guaranteed money in the deal.  Let's say McClaurin gets 75m can it be guaranteed without a signing bonus to save Snyder from paying the bonus in one lump sum? And is it possible McCLaurin could play on his 2022 salary and then he gets 25m Fully Guaranteed in 23/24/25 similar to say say Kirk Cousins. 

 

Sorry in advance if my post doesn't make sense fellow Skins. 

 

HTTR from Bolton England. 

 

This is what I believe the saints did this Winston,  having a year 2 roster bonus. 

 

Basically,  if Terry's deal was mostly identical to AJ Brown, but the signing bonus of 23 million was split 11.5mill this year and 11.5 as a roster bonus next year,  I think they'd avoid the 11.5 escrow this year.  This money would be guaranteed for injury and the dead cap of ~35mill (this is browns, with delayed money this would be slightly less) Terry would still have high assurances he would collect.   So it's possible that he would consider this shift.   

That's basically ~45mill vs ~57 mill Guaranteed day 1, but clearly less to shell out day 1.

 

**Also the escrow piece  of guaranteed is new to me, and with the guarantee for injury they may still need to pay up front.   But since it's listed as not fully guaranteed at time of signing it may be a way to punt a bit.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Any chance Beavers gets the coveted 69 jersey?

[DiscoBob]

21 hours ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Any chance Beavers gets the coveted 69 jersey?

 

Come on Rivera, just for the memes

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

McCain who would think?

 

 

 

 

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

On 6/15/2022 at 9:05 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

McCain who would think?

I think apart form a very unfortunate post-game interview last year, McCain has "been who we thought he was." 

 

He was a pretty good player with Dolphins, had position flexibility.  

 

I still hold to the theory the entire defense, but particularly the secondary, was so completely jumbled and confused at the beginning of last year, nobody was really going to excel.  I put that 25% on player acquisition (blame Ron, Martin, Marty, I don't care.  It starts with Ron, though, since he's in charge of everything), 50% Jack, 10% players, and 5% Ron as the HC.  

 

Bringing in WJIII to replace Darby which was a skill position mis-match was a questionable decision, and looks like it's not getting that much better this year, but we'll see.

 

I don't have a problem with drafting St. Juste, as you always need good DBs, but that was another change.  So all of a sudden, at the beginning of the year, you went from Fuller/Darby/Moreau/Moreland to Fully/WJIII/St.Juste/?. That's a lot of change. 

 

Safety is tricky, because in 2020, they had a rotating door at FS due to injury. But Curl was the stalwart of that group.  Then they brought in McCain, benched Curl, played Collins coming off the Achilles.  

 

I just think all of the change was too much.  It broke everything.  I put a TON on Jack for not realizing Curl was his best player and making sure he was on the field from the start.  And playing Collins instead.

 

As a side-note: The ONE time I have had questions as to whether there was some sort of a directive from the owners box was with Collins.  We know Dan gave him a signed ST21 jersey, I think we know there is some relationship between Dan and Collins, and it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that Dan told Ron/Jack to make sure Collins got a shot coming back from the injury. And because of the same relationship, they weren't able to fully move him to LB. Kindof like in Jay's first intro presser, he said they were going to use Griffin's mobility, then whammo, 2 days later, he corrected that because somebody (probably not Dan directly, probably Bruce, but at Dan's direction) gave him the Matumbo finger-wag and said "no-no-no."  

 

I still don't think that happened, but if there was even a sprinkle of evidence, a throw-away quote, whatever, I would have believed it.  What I did happen is think Jack liked Collin's skillset for one thing, and didn't quickly enough realize it sucked for another thing, and I think it took Ron to step in force a change (based on comments from Ron during the bye week), and essentially change Collin's position. 

 

Anyway, back to McCain.  I think he actually played well through the back part of the season after things settled down in the secondary, and folks got used to their roles.  It just took a long time to get there because of the goof-ups with personnel and scheme.  

[Koolblue13]

The drama of Settle around here reminds me a lot of when Baker was let go and went to the Bucs. I was one of his loudest supporters and he did nothing after here.

 

I think the biggest difference was that Baker played in a talent desert, while Settle was the 4rth best on a very talented group and could barely get on the field. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

The drama of Settle around here reminds me a lot of when Baker was let go and went to the Bucs. I was one of his loudest supporters and he did nothing after here.

 

I think the biggest difference was that Baker played in a talent desert, while Settle was the 4rth best on a very talented group and could barely get on the field. 

The only thing about the Settle situation which is troubling is apparently Ron/Martin/Marty and the rest of the 47 former GMs on the team couldn't keep track of their own FAs and have the lines of communication open between the team and the agents so they knew what was going on.  If they wanted to keep Settle but they wanted the market to develop and then have the ability to match an offer, they did a piss pour job of executing that strategy.  Same with McKissic, who they did get back.

 

Losing Settle is a big fat "whatever" to me.  The fact the team kindof forgot of his existence is somewhat concerning, however.  

[Koolblue13]

5 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

The only thing about the Settle situation which is troubling is apparently Ron/Martin/Marty and the rest of the 47 former GMs on the team couldn't keep track of their own FAs and have the lines of communication open between the team and the agents so they knew what was going on.  If they wanted to keep Settle but they wanted the market to develop and then have the ability to match an offer, they did a piss pour job of executing that strategy.  Same with McKissic, who they did get back.

 

Losing Settle is a big fat "whatever" to me.  The fact the team kindof forgot of his existence is somewhat concerning, however.  

They obviously had no interest in keeping Settle. Just like Baker.

[DWinzit]

2 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

They obviously had no interest in keeping Settle. Just like Baker.

That's the way I have seen it as well. They deemed him not worth the contract they would need to give him. Exactly the same as Baker. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

12 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

They obviously had no interest in keeping Settle. Just like Baker.

Eh there were reports they wanted to. Not very loud reports but a few here and there.  It wasn’t a priority but they probably would have been happy to have him back at the right price as a 4th rotational guy. I think Keim said it a few times.  

 

I didn’t care at all either way.