clevelandbengal Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 My vote goes to Pollack/agent (more so the agent) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 My vote goes to Pollack/agent (more so the agent) You need a "Both" option... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesperateDerelict Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 "Contract negotiations is the absolute pinacle for Mike Brown. It is his super bowl"-- attributed to Bob 'Cement Hands' Trumpy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 Neither. It's the fault of the agent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalboomer7 Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 I agree with Kirk, there are jus too many grey areas to put the blame on one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TippCityRick Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 Gotta go with both also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 "Both" and "it doesn't matter" who is to blame. He will be in when he is in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 I didn't vote but I lean towards the agent due to the reasons mentioned in countless other threads. As for the Bengals habit of lowballing early I'm reminded of the comments made by Carson Palmers agent. Expect the lowball offer, use it as a starting point, never get emotional, always refuse to negotiate through the press, and never break off talks if you feel it's important to have your client in camp early. Joisey, you're up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 I'm sure that somehow it's Bill Clinton's fault. Someone call Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter, I'n sure one of them can connect the dots... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 I'm sure that somehow it's Bill Clinton's fault. Someone call Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter, I've got'em on speed dial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derekshank Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 Neither. It's the fault of the agent. I would agree with that until you threw the agents under the bus. Everyone is simply doing their job, looking out for their best interests. They wouldn't do a hold-out if they weren't concerned with getting more clients.Pollack wouldn't have signed them if he didn't want a good deal.Brown would pay him if he wasn't concerned about getting a good player for cheap.They're all looking out for their own interests. It's business, and we won't have to think about it for 5 more years in a few days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalPappaw Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 IMO it is just ANOTHER time for Mikee to get his hand into messing up the Bengals. He has turned over player/team dealings (except for Peter Warrick) to Marvin -- I wish he'd turn over control of the management to someone else. As an OLD Bengals fan and Yogi Berra would say -- "This is deja vu, all over again." My prediction -- The money (and terms) will come closer to what the player thinks is right than Mikee -- but Mikee will screw around until we have lost the use of our number 1 draft choice until mid-season. He's a man of principal -- not principle. LETS PLAY FOOTBALL -- I'M TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT THIS!!! :player: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semper_Fi_Dawg Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 Just heard a review of the rookie holdouts on ESPN News. According to them the Pollack holdout came about as a result of the Bengals management offering Pollack a 10% increase over last years comparable pick when the market value for this year is 15%, and that this 10% (if I understood correctly) was less than both the 2 picks below him this year have received. No word on when or if this is going to be be resolved. FWIW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UofLnMU Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 If Semper Fi (and ESPNEWS) is right, this is squarely on the Bengals. If they are offering a 10% increase from last year's #17, and everyone else is at 15%, then the Bengals are blowing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 Yeah, the 10%/15% thing has been floating around for some time. Supposedly, they've settled on the money now, but are bickering over escalator targets and "language." Katie skipped the owners' meeting in order to work on the deal with Kremer. But when this thing will draw to a close...your guess is as good as mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmyBengal Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 If Semper Fi (and ESPNEWS) is right, this is squarely on the Bengals. If they are offering a 10% increase from last year's #17, and everyone else is at 15%, then the Bengals are blowing it. Just saw that myself on ESPN... If it's true, the Bengals have been WAY off !!!NOT WHODEY !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShulaSteakhouse Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 Apparently some people have forgotten that the Blackburn and Brown families were not replaced by king Marvin.They're still here.I hope after Sunday both of these annoying off-field situations can be forgotten about. Nothing like a future salary cap distraction to take away from what should be a promising season by the Brown family of morons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 Apparently some people have forgotten that the Blackburn and Brown families were not replaced by king Marvin.They're still here. Give it up, Shula. I've tried, few will listen.The team is much better. The coaching is much better. But the management is still mom 'n' pop.Like Meatloaf sang, "two outta three ain't bad." But she still walked out that door.Hopefully the front office follies don't prove to be the difference between the playoffs and another .500 season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 You guys are only reporting half of the ESPN blurb. John Clayton is reporting that the Pollack holdout could be the longest of all, including veterans, because Camp Pollack refuses to agree to the loyalty clause. Again, does this sound like the actions of an agent who wants to get his client into camp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingwilly Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 I put the blame on the Bengals, especially if the 10%/15% info is indeed true.The agent's job is to get the most/best for his client. Since these picks are tied to slotted money, rarely does a pick (except #1) get over. The agent knows what is about right. They see if the club will blink first, but in general they get in line and work it out. That is why you see picks fall in line like dominos once they start to slot.Now the Bengals seem to employ a different approach. It seems they start so far off-base that the negotiation drags on and on, usually hurting the team. I don't see DP in camp till P-dub is traded or cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 You guys are only reporting half of the ESPN blurb. John Clayton is reporting that the Pollack holdout could be the longest of all, including veterans, because Camp Pollack refuses to agree to the loyalty clause. Again, does this sound like the actions of an agent who wants to get his client into camp? Camp? What, the camp that's over in 3 or 4 more days? BFD.As for the loyalty clause, if the report is true, good for them. Thing is a joke anyhow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 Marvin just said he thinks he (pollak has become astute in contracts) that he is afraid of getting hurt, and he cant win everything, just busted Pollaks balls , Go Landon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalByTheBay Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 You guys are only reporting half of the ESPN blurb. John Clayton is reporting that the Pollack holdout could be the longest of all, including veterans, because Camp Pollack refuses to agree to the loyalty clause. Again, does this sound like the actions of an agent who wants to get his client into camp?Camp? What, the camp that's over in 3 or 4 more days? BFD.As for the loyalty clause, if the report is true, good for them. Thing is a joke anyhow. I used to think the same thing about the loyalty clause. However, it would have come in handy for the Eagles if they had one right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 As for the loyalty clause, if the report is true, good for them. Thing is a joke anyhow. Kinda figured that would be your response. You've got the lather up for Mike Brown and that has to feel comfortable...like a favorite pair of old shoes or pants. Why bother asking yourself why an agent would hold his client out over a clause that hasn't been abused even once? If it's a non issue, or a joke, why go to the wall fighting against it? That would be stupid, right? Free advice for Mike Brown: Reduce your offer. Do it now, and then do it again every week Pollack doesn't sign. It won't get you a contract agreement any sooner, but one week before the season starts you'll find ALL of the leverage you don't have now will suddenly swing back to your side the moment Camp Pollack realizes they're risking a game check. Oh, and when they begin to change their tune...don't improve the offer one bit. That's the key to all of this. In fact, increase the amount of snaps played needed to trigger incentives every week the holdout continues. Free advice for Pollack: Schedule a three week vacation tomorrow. See the sights. Kick back and get a tan. Oh, and start shopping for a smaller house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalByTheBay Posted August 12, 2005 Report Share Posted August 12, 2005 As for the loyalty clause, if the report is true, good for them. Thing is a joke anyhow. Kinda figured that would be your response. You've got the lather up for Mike Brown and that has to feel comfortable...like a favorite pair of old shoes or pants. Why bother asking yourself why an agent would hold his client out over a clause that hasn't been abused even once? If it's a non issue, or a joke, why go to the wall fighting against it? That would be stupid, right? Free advice for Mike Brown: Reduce your offer. Do it now, and then do it again every week Pollack doesn't sign. It won't get you a contract agreement any sooner, but one week before the season starts you'll find ALL of the leverage you don't have now will suddenly swing back to your side the moment Camp Pollack realizes they're risking a game check. Oh, and when they begin to change their tune...don't improve the offer one bit. That's the key to all of this. In fact, increase the amount of snaps played needed to trigger incentives every week the holdout continues. Free advice for Pollack: Schedule a three week vacation tomorrow. See the sights. Kick back and get a tan. Oh, and start shopping for a smaller house. Negotiating based on the Godfather II method, huh Hair? "My offer is this.....nothing." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.