As is often the case in politics, it costs BOB nothing to throw out a counter-narriative with him as the reasonable, sane good guy, and there are some people will buy in, no matter how implausible because it confirms what they want to believe is true.
Again, merely in the interest of clarifying - the issue with Hopkins - per Breer - was his desire for a new, and very expensive, contract NOT his behavior. His behavior - again, per Breer - is why the Texans were reluctant to redo his deal. Again, I'm not defending the trade at all. I'm just clarifying Breer's reporting - which *does*, at least, give insight into the Texans' thinking.
But he's not essentially a FA because the Cardinals aren't reworking his deal and he hasn't asked for a new deal. He also cannot hold out because the new CBA is incredibly harsh on players trying to hold out when under contract. He has no leverage compared to previous holdouts under the old CBA. If he tries anything the Cardinals will just fine him and make him bleed money until he decides that making $13mil/year is not a bad gig. There is absolutely NOTHING about this situation that can be connected to the Antonio Brown situation. Hopkins can complain about wanting $20mil/yr all he wants he's just gonna make himself broke and still not see an extra dime.
The Eagles, at least according to Breer, disagree with you: Also, the new CBA takes effect next league season; not this season. I'm not sure what the penalties were/are - but he's under the same agreement as Antonio Brown. Also, the Cardinals are, according to their own web site, also aware that money was a driver in the deal: I'm not sure how teams knew that, re: money - if the Texans were smart, they would've put a lid on it as they were trading him well before he could make any noise about it. I think that's the smoking gun, here. If Hopkins' camp was talking up money - and that was out there - I can see it depressing his value.
I Dont really need clarification or any bs spin from Breer, all i know is that a sht trade is still a sht trade, regardless the intent of the Texans' (BoB) thought process. Hopkins could have been threatenin to sit out for all i care, BoB sht the bed with the trade, got bent over and taken advantage off. He probably thought he got the better end of the deal after that trade rape.
If you're going to misappropriate his reporting, then, yes - you need clarification, regardless of your personal opinion of the trade. Also, listening and considering POVs that conflict with your own is a good thing, no matter how upset you are. I think the Texans made a tremendously dumb, petty trade they'll regret. But hearing their side of things at least gives some insight into what had been damn-near impossible to comprehend.
It's still difficult for me to understand. Knowing why they felt they should do it doesn't make it any better to me at all. Does it to you?
According to ESPN the Eagles didn't even want to pay Hopkins on his current deal. Did you even look at their cap situation? They're really up against it. It's a horrible example because they lack the space necessary to take on that contract. No it doesn't. It takes place this season. The new CBA immediately replaces the last year of the last CBA. We are going to have the new playoff system in 2020. If Breer said otherwise he's wrong and perhaps lying. There are parts of the CBA which for the 2020 season are kept similar to old one, like the 16 game schedule or 47% player share, but at this point the NFL is using the new CBA. Yes, there is money driving the deal like with all trades. The Eagles couldn't even fit Hopkins on his current deal without shaking up their roster and restructuring other players. That makes it hard for them. The question is whether Hopkins being a locker room cancer asking for a raise is what drove down his value. That is a different question.
BOB was afraid Hopkins would become a bad influence in the locker room? This trade's resulted in exactly the opposite of what BOB wanted, because morale/team confidence seems real low. I can only hope this is a locker-room-losing move.
Regardless of money reasons, behavior reason or what not. BoB can try to explain stuff out of his ass and i dont fking care. It was a sht trade and knowing his reasoning for it changes nothing. It was a sht trade that should have never happened if BoB didnt feel like his manhood was being threaten by Hopkins. Only explanation that might b okay, is that Hopkins commited a crime and they figured any value was worth it if he cant play for unforseeable future, but even then.
Yeah, a little, I guess? It's certainly interesting to get a larger picture. I don't buy much of it, BTW. I think it's all true - I just don't believe it was trade-worthy. I can understand the practice issue - but that seems like something a good coach handles internally, either with the player himself or the circle of players he might be influencing. What I can't figure out... the only way teams would've known Hopkins wanted (significantly) more money (which was Breer's contention) was if the Texans or Hopkins' camp leaked it. The teams do not have access to Hopkins until they deal for him. And there had not been - at least publicly - any mention of Hopkins' displeasure with his contract. So how did they know? Per Schefter, the Eagles knew. Per Breer, the Cardinals knew. WHO TOLD THEM??!! My fear/gut is the Texans leaked it and destroyed their leverage. Which - if true - is just monumentally stupid. Which is why it's my fear/gut... this FO is monumentally stupid.
At the end of the day, the Texans apparently took a pro-active, instead of reactive, move to jettison Hopkins. Still baffling that they could not get more for him, but it was also clear that they weren't going to ever give into his contract demands. They did get the most of his best years. His health can only get worse with time. And its a given that most long term deals do not end up well for the team giving them, for past-prime production. But it was still a dumb trade for this year.
Are you maybe reading an older article? The Eagles were projected to have ~$46MM in cap space, and gave FA Jason Hargrave $39MM, which was the remaining amount on Hopkins' deal. Fair enough. I know very little about the CBA, except that trade negotiations almost certainly were underway before it was ratified. And I don't know anything about any changes that would've dissuaded holdouts. Again, I think you have some bad information, re: Eagles. And I don't believe Hopkins' issues rose to "cancer" level. I think it was a case of BO'B irresponsibly misunderstanding the Belichick Way of dealing with disgruntled nosiemakers and, just maybe, having some other concerning issues bouncing around in his head about certain players.
I was just thinking. What’s worse, the Coronavirus or the Hopkins trade? Both are terrible. I think I might be willing to be infected with the virus if we could have Hopkins back. But, I am in a rather risky age group. So, it’s a tough decision. Bill O’Brien, why you do this to us?
$11 million a year vs $22-$23 Million a year....with probably $65-$70 million guaranteed. Big difference.
Nick Martin is one of the good guys. I'm sure he has no baby Mamas, sucks up to Billy O Brien and does not challenge his imbecile decisions.
