There are 286 users in the forums
Originally posted by Geeked:
That's why Staley plays LT. He's not the best tackle on this team. I wouldn't have to work too hard to come up with four more players better than Davis.
Originally posted by 9erz4Life:
I believe Boone is making a bad business decision. As much as the local sports shows and hosts like Damon Bruce who's still pissed off he was kicked off KNBR yell the 49ers should pay Boone you have the money you don't care about winning they will be the first ones who jump on the 49ers if they give in and it backfires cap wise.
It's not about having the money it's about being fiscally responsible when your sport has a salary cap. Boone's agents are the same ones who represented Vincent Jackson who held out until week 11 when SD still had a shot to win something. Boone's not coming back folks unless the 49ers cave which will only happen if the line is epically bad. I don't see that happening.
Bad move by Boone and the 49ers playing this perfect so far. Boone has zero to no leverage here with another year on his deal. Boone won't be back untill week 11 so he can get credit for an accrued year unless the 49ers have caved. By week 11 the 49ers may be full go with Joe Looney. Then what Boone has no new contract and maybe no starting job unless someone gets hurt. Then going into next year he's a back up. Why would the 49ers negotiate a new contract with a back up 28 going to be 29 yr old G???
So Boone hits FA at 29 and hasn't started in 2 years. I don't think he will get the payday he envisioned. I just don't see the logic in this move on Boone's part unless he's trying to force a trade. Has someone told him he's not a WR or QB he doesn't hold that kind of value? I think the 49ers will be perfectly content letting Boone sit to prove a point. Normally I would say that's stupid and petty but Boone as good as he is won't be the difference between winning and losing a SB. Also the 49ers would only receive a 3rd pick at best and they are far from locks. You see this holdout is costing Boone way more than it will the 49ers and will also show other player's agents this route won't work.
Originally posted by Geeked:At the end of the day, he couldn't beat out Anthony Davis at Tackle. And I would have a hard time placing Davis in the top 15. Boone will NOT get the type of money / contract he wants because, historically speaking, he's done nothing to justify that type of compensation.
He's not even the best GUARD on this team. May not end up being the second best. If J. Martin keeps improving, he wouldn't be the third best Tackle on this team. All he's doing is hosing himself and letting someone else take his job.
Originally posted by kem99:Kem, earlier today I typed up a long post detailing something similar to what you're saying. I made a comparison to Vincent Jackson, but I ended up not posting it because I wasn't confident if what I was saying was accurate.
I am in the 49ers corner on the situation with Boone, but there are so many problems with your post:
1. Boone was not drafted. He was signed as an undrafted free agent.
2. If you're saying you would fire Boone if he was your employee, then aren't you saying the 49ers should just cut him outright?
3. Iupati was a mid-first round pick, so his contract history is significantly different than Boone's contract history.
4. If his holdout "sabotages" the team and forces it to struggle, you've just made the best case for Boone to get what he wants. If he's that important in your view, then he probably should be demanding more money.
5. Unlike Iupati's contract status, Boone has this year and next year left on his contract. If he had only this year left on his contract, he might be in camp knowing that if he played well, he would get paid one way or another in 2015. At this point, his salary actually goes down 40% next year regardless of how he plays.
The bottom line is that the 49ers are going to wait out Boone the same way they waited out Crabtree. Boone will be forced to report at some point to get the service year. I think that's at or around the 8th game. It could be earlier, but he is not going to sit out the whole year.
No, I agree, I'm not disputing that. But I don't think that the service time will prohibit him from becoming a free agent like it did with Jackson.Originally posted by AmpLee:I'm haven't read the rules, but unless writers like Barrows, Maiocco, etc. are incorrect, he still needs to show up by week eight to accrue a season. I believe it's detailed in the newest CBA.
Originally posted by theduke85:Even if you want to put the service time issue aside, Boone's value would not go up or even remain status quo if he sat out 2 years. He will have lost 2 years in his prime, be rusty and have serious questions about his true desire to play the game. Sitting out two years is not going to help his value even if it would get him to free agency, not to mention the fact he will have given up $3.2 million in salary over those 2 years, opened the door to the 49ers going after all or a sizable portion of his signing bonus and still have the resolution of the accumulated fines to address. Not to mention the fact that his new agents who set him on this path, will not want to be waiting 2 years before they will get any revenue generated by Boone for them. They are not going to want him to sit out 2 full seasons either. He would be more likely to show-up week 8, win back his starting job at RG to prove his value and then hold-out again next year if his contract is not resolved to his satisfaction.
Kem, earlier today I typed up a long post detailing something similar to what you're saying. I made a comparison to Vincent Jackson, but I ended up not posting it because I wasn't confident if what I was saying was accurate.
With Boone, I'm not sure that the year of service matters. In Vincent Jackson's case, it did matter -- it was significant. Because he was drafted by the Chargers and still on his rookie deal, he wasn't eligible to become a free agent until he accrued X number of years of service. Therefore, had he held out the entire season, he wouldn't have been able to become a free agent after 2010, he would've had to wait another full season in 2011. A somewhat-comparable situation is that of Marcus Lattimore (or any of the rookies we "redshirt"): when we drafted him last year, we had the rights to him for four seasons: 2013 through 2016. However, because he spent the year on IR, he didn't accrue a year of service, so that window was pushed back and essentially became 2014 through 2017.
Boone however was an undrafted free agent, so he's not on his rookie deal anymore. I believe (although I'm not positive) that he has accrued four years of service (2010 - 2013). The point I'm trying to make is that if he were, hypothetically, to wait it out and literally not play for the next two seasons, the lack of service accrual wouldn't prevent him from becoming a free agent after his contract ends in 2015. Now, that would be a terrible idea, but technically speaking, I think it's a route he could pursue. There may be other ramifications to not accruing service years (e.g. hypothetically, benefits received after meeting certain service year milestones).
Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'm curious if I understand the situation correctly or if I'm maybe misinterpreting the rules / differences between Boone and Vincent Jackson.
Originally posted by AmpLee:I believe it's different, since his current contract is an extension and not part of his original rookie deal. Since he was an UDFA it muddies the water even more. Honestly, I am not claiming to definitively know, it's just this is what I believe from my understanding.
I've been led to believe that if he were to not show up by week eight, his contract would reset to another two year deal.
Originally posted by kem99:I completely agree it would be a terrible / futile tactic, I tried to concede as much when I brought it up originally. I'm just saying, technically, it is a route he could pursue. In the Vincent Jackson case there was more pressure for him to relent by week 8, but that same pressure does not apply in Boone's case. Even if it is a really bad idea on his agents' part, it makes it harder for the front office to call their bluff; it may not be a bluff. Jackson essentially had no choice, he had to come back or he was going to delay free agency by another year.
Even if you want to put the service time issue aside, Boone's value would not go up or even remain status quo if he sat out 2 years. He will have lost 2 years in his prime, be rusty and have serious questions about his true desire to play the game. Sitting out two years is not going to help his value even if it would get him to free agency, not to mention the fact he will have given up $3.2 million in salary over those 2 years, opened the door to the 49ers going after all or a sizable portion of his signing bonus and still have the resolution of the accumulated fines to address. Not to mention the fact that his new agents who set him on this path, will not want to be waiting 2 years before they will get any revenue generated by Boone for them. They are not going to want him to sit out 2 full seasons either. He would be more likely to show-up week 8, win back his starting job at RG to prove his value and then hold-out again next year if his contract is not resolved to his satisfaction.
Originally posted by theduke85:
I believe it's different, since his current contract is an extension and not part of his original rookie deal. Since he was an UDFA it muddies the water even more. Honestly, I am not claiming to definitively know, it's just this is what I believe from my understanding.
I completely agree it would be a terrible / futile tactic, I tried to concede as much when I brought it up originally. I'm just saying, technically, it is a route he could pursue. In the Vincent Jackson case there was more pressure for him to relent by week 8, but that same pressure does not apply in Boone's case. Even if it is a really bad idea on his agents' part, it makes it harder for the front office to call their bluff; it may not be a bluff. Jackson essentially had no choice, he had to come back or he was going to delay free agency by another year.
I do see it in the realm of possibility for Boone to sit out the entire season. I think back to when Maurice Clarett and Mike Williams tried to declare early for the 2004 NFL Draft. They ended up not playing football the entire year, but Mike Williams still managed to be a top 10 pick, and Clarett went in the 3rd round. It would hurt is stock, but it wouldn't necessarily decimate it. I think the best thing for Boone to do would be to play football and honor his contract, but stranger things have happened.
Originally posted by kem99:
Even if you want to put the service time issue aside, Boone's value would not go up or even remain status quo if he sat out 2 years. He will have lost 2 years in his prime, be rusty and have serious questions about his true desire to play the game. Sitting out two years is not going to help his value even if it would get him to free agency, not to mention the fact he will have given up $3.2 million in salary over those 2 years, opened the door to the 49ers going after all or a sizable portion of his signing bonus and still have the resolution of the accumulated fines to address. Not to mention the fact that his new agents who set him on this path, will not want to be waiting 2 years before they will get any revenue generated by Boone for them. They are not going to want him to sit out 2 full seasons either. He would be more likely to show-up week 8, win back his starting job at RG to prove his value and then hold-out again next year if his contract is not resolved to his satisfaction.
Originally posted by AmpLee:This seems to corroborate what you are saying, and go against what I am claiming:
I've been led to believe that if he were to not show up by week eight, his contract would reset to another two year deal.
In order to accrue a full season of service in the terms of an NFL contract, a player needs to be on the team for six regular season games—that's either on the 53-man roster or on injured reserve. If Boone was to hold out for long enough that he doesn't acquire an "accrued season," his contract wouldn't move on to the final year of his deal. It is my understanding the deal would toll, essentially pushing the contract through 2016.http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2140910-san-francisco-49ers-worst-case-scenario-for-alex-boones-holdout
Originally posted by SnakePlissken:
Alex Boone is a traitor.
Originally posted by SofaKing:Originally posted by SnakePlissken:Alex Boone is a traitor.
Now it's do or die for Boone. Pre-season is over, Dallas is only 10 days away. If he doesn't report TOMORROW, it's basically guaranteed he's sitting until week 8 at the least.
It's funny a few days ago I compared this contract dispute to Logan Mankins and the Patriots a few years back. He also held out on them until mid-season, trying to force a new deal, before reporting. He ended up getting his new deal eventually, but I'm sure Belichick never forgot. The second Mankins showed a little bit of decline, they shipped his ass out lol.
