Emmanuel Sanders Will Have Plenty of Competition on FA Market

[Slapstick]

Teams do this every year when they sign a player to 5 years for 30 million (for instance) and cut them after year one or 2 depending on the guarantee. Just because it is common means its morally right I suppose and this is in writing. I know his agent shouldn't have verbally agreed, but if he didnt they would have pulled the offer off the table the minute he talked to another team. I'm just saying there is plenty of "wrong doing" going around from both sides.

I don't think it is the same thing at all...

First, players receive guaranteed money...

Second, the production has to match the price...were the Steelers in the wrong for cutting LaMarr Woodley? Or was he in the wrong for failing to keep himself in shape in order to honor the contract he signed?

[phillyesq]

Teams do this every year when they sign a player to 5 years for 30 million (for instance) and cut them after year one or 2 depending on the guarantee. Just because it is common means its morally right I suppose and this is in writing. I know his agent shouldn't have verbally agreed, but if he didnt they would have pulled the offer off the table the minute he talked to another team. I'm just saying there is plenty of "wrong doing" going around from both sides.

The situation is not analogous. Both sides are fully aware that these contracts are not guaranteed, but the team expected the handshake agreement to be honored.

[sick beats]

Prior to my current business venture, I have spent most of my business life buying and selling merchandise and negotiating these deals all the time. In my business, word got around quickly regarding people who negotiate in bad faith. The NFL is a much smaller business community. You can be assured that this word has already spread like wildfire. After all, we know about it so every NFL exec and agent does too.

If you think that teams avoid the Drew Rosenhaus's of the world, wait until you see the leper treatment that this clown will receive next time he makes some phone calls. Clients will leave or not sign with him because of it.

IDK, isn't that one agent found to be doing cheesy moves all the time, and he is the biggest agent out there, signing the biggest deals. Drew Rosenhaus. His rep hasn't hurt him at this point.

[SteelCrazy]

I don't think it is the same thing at all...

First, players receive guaranteed money...

Second, the production has to match the price...were the Steelers in the wrong for cutting LaMarr Woodley? Or was he in the wrong for failing to keep himself in shape in order to honor the contract he signed?

Im glad the Steelers cut Woodley, but they signed him for 6 years, not 3. Like I said in my OP, its common, so its alright to do.

[steeler_fan_in_t.o.]

Im glad the Steelers cut Woodley, but they signed him for 6 years, not 3. Like I said in my OP, its common, so its alright to do.

It is a provision of a player's contract that salary is not guaranteed. Cutting a player before the end of the contract length is an included part of the agreement. In return, players negotiate large signing bonuses and other guaranteed money. Cutting a player is not "breaking a contract".

[hawaiiansteel]

Revisiting the Steelers decision to resign Sanders in 2013

By Jack Finn on Mar 16 2014



In 2013, the Steelers decided to match the Patriots offer sheet for Restricted Free Agent Emmanuel Sanders. In hindsight that may have looked like the wrong choice to make, but the Steelers made the right decision.

The news that Emmanuel Sanders has singed with the Denver Broncos on a 3 year $15 million dollar contract has resurrected the discussion over the Steelers decision to match the Patriots offer sheet for Sanders during the 2013 NFL free agency.

At the end of the 2012 season, Sanders became a Restricted free agent. The Steelers accordingly gave him an original round tender, meaning that if he were to sign it it would become a one year $1.32 million dollar contract. It also meant that if another team signed Sanders, the Steelers would receive that teams 3rd round pick (because that was the round Sanders was drafted in in 2010).

As it happened the New England Patriots offered Sanders a contract worth $2.5 million, and the Steelers had a decision to make. They decided to match Patriots offer and signed Sanders to a one year deal worth $2.5 million (thus not receiving the Patriots 3rd round pick).

In the wake of a disappointing 8-8 season that did not result in a play-off berth, and Sanders leaving the Steelers this off-season, many appear upset that the Steelers decided not to let Sanders go a year earlier and receive a 3rd round pick in the process.

The basic argument is why miss out on a highly valuable draft pick when you know it will be virtually impossible to resign him next season, especially when the Steelers didn't even make the play-offs?

Well the answer to the question above is really pretty simple, and invokes the age old principle of "hindsight is 20/20".

At the time, the Steelers considered themselves a legitimate play-off calibre team. It was not in anyone's interest to lose a valuable, productive piece of the offense before the season had even begun. Especially at a position that ,after the departure of Mike Wallace, was pretty thin on quality depth.

Sanders was a good receiver, the fact that Bill Belichick attempted to poach him should be evidence enough. His 740 yards and 6 TD's in 2103 may not have set the world on fire but he was a valuable no 2 receiver. He was also familiar with the offensive system and had working chemistry with quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, to the extent that Ben himself lobbied for Sanders retention.

In addition, if Sanders were allowed to leave, what guarantee is there that any rookie receiver could have replaced his production? The answer is absolutely none. For a team that considered itself a contender, that is simply too much of a risk to take.

Yes, it would have been wonderful to accrue an extra 3rd round pick last year, and the fact the Steelers missed the play-offs is unfortunate, as is losing Sanders with no compensation.

But all things considered the front office absolutely made the right call in keeping Sanders another year. If the Steelers were faced with that same situation 1000 times over, the right moved would be to match the Patriots offer sheet every single time.

[URL]http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/2014-steelers-free-agency/2014/3/16/5515890/revisiting-the-steelers-decision-to-resign-sanders-in-2013[/URL]

[SteelCrazy]

It is a provision of a player's contract that salary is not guaranteed. Cutting a player before the end of the contract length is an included part of the agreement. In return, players negotiate large signing bonuses and other guaranteed money. Cutting a player is not "breaking a contract".

"breaking a contract".......Neither is an agent verbally agreeing for his client. If it was, Sanders would be playing for the Chiefs.

[feltdizz]

IDK, isn't that one agent found to be doing cheesy moves all the time, and he is the biggest agent out there, signing the biggest deals. Drew Rosenhaus. His rep hasn't hurt him at this point.

Sports radio said GM's like Rosenhaus because he always picks up the phone.

[steeler_fan_in_t.o.]

"breaking a contract".......Neither is an agent verbally agreeing for his client. If it was, Sanders would be playing for the Chiefs.

Okay, but in the big picture would any GM ever deal with an agent who obviously has no authority on behalf of his client?

[NorthCoast]

Revisiting the Steelers decision to resign Sanders in 2013

By Jack Finn on Mar 16 2014



...

Sanders was a good receiver, the fact that Bill Belichick attempted to poach him should be evidence enough. ..........

[URL]http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/2014-steelers-free-agency/2014/3/16/5515890/revisiting-the-steelers-decision-to-resign-sanders-in-2013[/URL]

With that line, the author lost all credibility.

Been proven fairly frequently that Bellichick sucks at finding WR talent. If it weren't for Brady, NE WRs would be bottom half of the league in production.