Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr
There is nothing the rank & file of the union would be willing to give up in order to get the owners to give up the cost certainty they have now w/RB's.
And we don't have to figure out how to make them more valuable. They are already valuable. Barkley's value is not the problem. You are drinking the kool-aid. I have said this repeatedly: The problem is RB's are never able to put their services on the market when they are most desirable.
Do you really think the Giants value their LT more than they do their RB? Do you really think their LT sells more jerseys than their RB? Do you really think the Giants PR Dept gets more interview requests for their LT than their RB? Do you really think Vegas thinks the Giants LT absence will have more affect on the outcome of a Giants game than their RB?
Once more, the problem ain't value. The problem is RB's are never able to put their services on the market when they are most desirable. They feared their LT would be able to eventually leave while still at the top of his game & demand a much bigger number down the road. So they acted. There are no such fears w/runners. Owners have them under their thumb for 7 years. And if they do last that long, they don't worry about the 8th cause they figure they already got more value than what they paid for,
|
Right, their best years are their rookie contract. Even without the tags, what kind of long term contract are teams giving a 26-27 year old RB? One of the options I mentioned addresses this. Somewhat.