Shane Graham no longer an option ?

[BengalSIS]

Graham sure has missed some big kicks but I'm concerned that the 2 guys they brought in are far from being upgrades at the position. I like the idea of making a change but it has to improve the team. Change for the sake of change doesn't help anyone.

(I would be stressing as well and picturing Shaquille Oneal trying to make a free throw for the championship- wouldnt be able to watch)

Haha...that's funny..I know how that is.

[HairOnFire]

And you say this: But the salary they agreed to pay him was always fair (and you know this how?).

Because to better determine his market value the Bengals allowed Shayne to market his services to all NFL teams, and then promptly matched the contract terms Shayne had happily agreed to. So what isn't fair about that? And years later, after the long term contract expired the Bengals agreed to pay Shayne a fully guaranteed salary that ranked within the Top5 salaries at his position. And what isn't fair about that?

And he didn't play hardball, he was a free agent, had a worth determined by the market and the Bengals didn't want to pay it long term.

Shayne most definately played his own version of hardball, and you admit it by noting how close the two sides had come to a long-term agreement. In short, if they were close why assume the risk of the Bengals franchise tagging you, dictating a one year deal, especially when you know that tagging a kicker doesn't have any significant financial downside for the team?

Players want long term for job security, and benefits. A one year contract doesn't benefit players due to injury risks, etc.

Exactly. So why not agree to sign the long term contract that you admit came close to meeting his demands? Why risk the tag?

yes, they tagged him, but he didn't really want it.

Oh, I'm dead certain that's true. Because in this example testing the market meant leaving, and while the Bengals couldn't prevent that form happening they did have the tools needed to delay Shayne's departure for a year. But there's nothing unfair about what they did, and Shayne and his agent had to be aware of the risk they were assuming when they rejected a long term contract offer that all sides agree was close.

They tagged instead. How is that his fault?

I wouldn't use that word. Rather, by rejecting a long term offer that was close Shayne set into motion events that led to him performing under the terms of a one year deal. So he is responsible for outcome and whatever impact his down season had on his earning potential as an unrestricted free agent. And there's the rub because under the circumstances few would expect the Bengals to keep their previous offer on the table, let alone improve it. In fact, it's reasonable to expect a reduced offer under the circumstances.

[BengalSIS]

And you say this: But the salary they agreed to pay him was always fair (and you know this how?).

Because to better determine his market value the Bengals allowed Shayne to market his services to all NFL teams, and then promptly matched the contract terms Shayne had happily agreed to. So what isn't fair about that? And years later, after the long term contract expired the Bengals agreed to pay Shayne a fully guaranteed salary that ranked within the Top5 salaries at his position. And what isn't fair about that?

And he didn't play hardball, he was a free agent, had a worth determined by the market and the Bengals didn't want to pay it long term.

Shayne most definately played his own version of hardball, and you admit it by noting how close the two sides had come to a long-term agreement. In short, if they were close why assume the risk of the Bengals franchise tagging you, dictating a one year deal, especially when you know that tagging a kicker doesn't have any significant financial downside for the team?

Players want long term for job security, and benefits. A one year contract doesn't benefit players due to injury risks, etc.

Exactly. So why not agree to sign the long term contract that you admit came close to meeting his demands? Why risk the tag?

yes, they tagged him, but he didn't really want it.

Oh, I'm dead certain that's true. Because in this example testing the market meant leaving, and while the Bengals couldn't prevent that form happening they did have the tools needed to delay Shayne's departure for a year. But there's nothing unfair about what they did, and Shayne and his agent had to be aware of the risk they were assuming when they rejected a long term contract offer that all sides agree was close.

They tagged instead. How is that his fault?

I wouldn't use that word. Rather, by rejecting a long term offer that was close Shayne set into motion events that led to him performing under the terms of a one year deal. So he is responsible for outcome and whatever impact his down season had on his earning potential as an unrestricted free agent. And there's the rub because under the circumstances few would expect the Bengals to keep their previous offer on the table, let alone improve it. In fact, it's reasonable to expect a reduced offer under the circumstances.

Close only counts in horseshoes and grenades. You assume that if sides are close that the player should always concede. Locking into a long term contract that didn't cover all the bases players look at in long term contracts... why do that? kickers contracts are jumping in value quite a bit. less than 3 years into his contract, he was being paid near the bottom of the kicker list, despite performing for those years near the top of the list. Signing a deal that already starts him low on the list not only sets him up for a lower deal (with fewer years and less guaranteed), but it also pisses off other kickers who are negotiating. Players don't sign in a vacuum.

Anyway, it's all moot. It's likely better the way things ended up anyway.

Shayne isn't welcome by many fans and I'd rather he be somewhere he can get back the trust he once had.

I'm still going to root for the Bengals. A redhead can't wear orange for 7 years and not grow attached to it.

So as long as he isn't playing the Bengals, I wish success for the team.

[redsbengalsbucks]

And you say this: But the salary they agreed to pay him was always fair (and you know this how?).

Because to better determine his market value the Bengals allowed Shayne to market his services to all NFL teams, and then promptly matched the contract terms Shayne had happily agreed to. So what isn't fair about that? And years later, after the long term contract expired the Bengals agreed to pay Shayne a fully guaranteed salary that ranked within the Top5 salaries at his position. And what isn't fair about that?

And he didn't play hardball, he was a free agent, had a worth determined by the market and the Bengals didn't want to pay it long term.

Shayne most definately played his own version of hardball, and you admit it by noting how close the two sides had come to a long-term agreement. In short, if they were close why assume the risk of the Bengals franchise tagging you, dictating a one year deal, especially when you know that tagging a kicker doesn't have any significant financial downside for the team?

Players want long term for job security, and benefits. A one year contract doesn't benefit players due to injury risks, etc.

Exactly. So why not agree to sign the long term contract that you admit came close to meeting his demands? Why risk the tag?

yes, they tagged him, but he didn't really want it.

Oh, I'm dead certain that's true. Because in this example testing the market meant leaving, and while the Bengals couldn't prevent that form happening they did have the tools needed to delay Shayne's departure for a year. But there's nothing unfair about what they did, and Shayne and his agent had to be aware of the risk they were assuming when they rejected a long term contract offer that all sides agree was close.

They tagged instead. How is that his fault?

I wouldn't use that word. Rather, by rejecting a long term offer that was close Shayne set into motion events that led to him performing under the terms of a one year deal. So he is responsible for outcome and whatever impact his down season had on his earning potential as an unrestricted free agent. And there's the rub because under the circumstances few would expect the Bengals to keep their previous offer on the table, let alone improve it. In fact, it's reasonable to expect a reduced offer under the circumstances.

Close only counts in horseshoes and grenades. You assume that if sides are close that the player should always concede. Locking into a long term contract that didn't cover all the bases players look at in long term contracts... why do that? kickers contracts are jumping in value quite a bit. less than 3 years into his contract, he was being paid near the bottom of the kicker list, despite performing for those years near the top of the list. Signing a deal that already starts him low on the list not only sets him up for a lower deal (with fewer years and less guaranteed), but it also pisses off other kickers who are negotiating. Players don't sign in a vacuum.

Anyway, it's all moot. It's likely better the way things ended up anyway.

Shayne isn't welcome by many fans and I'd rather he be somewhere he can get back the trust he once had.

I'm still going to root for the Bengals. A redhead can't wear orange for 7 years and not grow attached to it.

So as long as he isn't playing the Bengals, I wish success for the team.

Well, dont be a stranger on the board. All fans are welcome and you have always given great incite and useful banter. I wish Shayne success in the future, as long as he isnt kicking game winners against the Bengals.

[HairOnFire]

You assume that if sides are close that the player should always concede.

Not at all. All players are free to refuse any contract offer that isn't to their liking. But that said, a refusal to sign sometimes puts things in motion that aren't easily controlled. For example, the threat of Shayne being tagged was a known risk, and I wasn't suprised when it happened. And he shouldn't have been suprised either.

Anyway, it's all moot. It's likely better the way things ended up anyway.

Perhaps.

I'm still going to root for the Bengals. A redhead can't wear orange for 7 years and not grow attached to it.

You'll always be welcome here. Best, I'm guessing you and your daughter can carry off the orange tiger-striped look better than I can. Far too often I worry about looking like a 220 lb. bearded Cher impersonator.

Who Dey!