Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

colts_100nascar17fan

2014 free agency breaking news

48 posts in this topic

I think it depends on the player.  A lot of players sign on the first day of free agency.  I have a hard time thinking they are looking for the biggest money deal.

 

It doesn't take long for agents and GMs to talk about money. I've read several articles in the past couple years that have painted a picture of agents telling GMs what range they're looking for, and the GM either responding with an offer or deciding they're not interested. There's not usually a lot of negotiation. You reach a deal in principle, then you work out the details. And it makes sense, given all the player movement during free agency.

 

And now, with the free agency warm-up period, teams and agents have a chance to talk before signings begin. So it really doesn't take long for deals to get done.

 

For the most part, a player is going to go for the money. If the money is equal or really close, he'll probably choose the team that's closest to contention, but some players would rather play in warm weather, or closer to their family, and so would turn down the Steelers or Ravens and go to the Dolphins or Bucs, for the same money. Some players want to start, and so turn down a team that's ready to contend to go to a worse team that's going to feature them in their gameplan (especially receivers). But mostly, it's about the money. That's why Mario Williams went to Buffalo. It's why Pierre Garcon went to Washington (our offer wasn't that far off, either). It's the general rule.

 

In most cases, they don't go from team to team looking for the best offer, but I'm certain the marquee free agents field offers from multiple teams, and then weigh their options with their agents. And the overriding factor, nine times out of ten, is money. And it doesn't take long for that process to play out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IND_The Catch_728x90

You're mostly right about players not taking less money, though I believe it does happen from time to time.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying about Indy not being more of a contender than Oakland. No one knows what the future holds, but when surveying the NFL landscape, I can't understand anyone not agreeing that the Colts are much further ahead than the Raiders are.

 

As a Colts fan I agree with you.  The Colts are further along.  As someone who studies the NFL, I don't think the gap is that great.  Both teams, IMO are just a couple of players away from being very good teams.  And once the season starts, if you are a good team, often times the difference between being a contender or a hopeful is a few fortunate bounces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Colts fan I agree with you.  The Colts are further along.  As someone who studies the NFL, I don't think the gap is that great.  Both teams, IMO are just a couple of players away from being very good teams.  And once the season starts, if you are a good team, often times the difference between being a contender or a hopeful is a few fortunate bounces.

 

That's fair. I think the Colts clearly have a better situation at QB, and have a recent track record of success with their new regime. The Raiders are building the trenches, and have some promising guys all over the roster. But side by side, being objective, it's the Colts. A bad bounce here, an injury there, and the situations could be reversed. As a free agent making a decision in the offseason, I can't see someone making a decision on the basis of which team is closer to contention, and choosing the Raiders.

 

JMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does this mean colts wont bring any fa's in because Oakland will sign them all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fair. I think the Colts clearly have a better situation at QB, and have a recent track record of success with their new regime. The Raiders are building the trenches, and have some promising guys all over the roster. But side by side, being objective, it's the Colts. A bad bounce here, an injury there, and the situations could be reversed. As a free agent making a decision in the offseason, I can't see someone making a decision on the basis of which team is closer to contention, and choosing the Raiders.

 

JMO

That is what I am trying to say about the Colts and the Raiders... I don't see a free agent, making the decision based on being a contender) choosing either the Colts or the Raiders in 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what I am trying to say about the Colts and the Raiders... I don't see a free agent, making the decision based on being a contender) choosing either the Colts or the Raiders in 2014.

 

That might be fair. If a free agent wants to play for a contender, why wouldn't he choose the Saints or Seahawks or Broncos or Pats? If that's his primary motivation, the Colts probably aren't on his top five.

 

I thought you were saying that if a free agent was choosing between the Raiders and the Colts on the basis of who is closer to a Super Bowl, he wouldn't necessarily default to the Colts. I think he would, at this point. But that's a different story entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about Oakland & there FA money I care about finishing this year, then to the FA laboratory next year!??

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some players want to win and they know that's not going to happen in Oakland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.