11/21/24
March 05, 2004
If this is true, the 49ers really screwed TO: and he should definitely fire his agent now. That said, because of all his ranting and raving, he probably had it coming.
HAHAHAHAHA ... ass. I think if the 49ers could have traded him to the CFL, they would have done so. Have fun in Btown, you punk.
posted by wfrazerjr at 03:54 PM on March 05, 2004
How does this agent still have a job?!
posted by dusted at 04:21 PM on March 05, 2004
Well, how exactly is this one the fault of the agent? I mean, the 49ers did a backdoor deal with the Ravens, after a deal had been agreed upon with the Iggles. I don't see how the agent is in the wrong here.
posted by bcb2k2 at 04:33 PM on March 05, 2004
This whole situation is a direct result of his previous, monumental blunder. Anything and everything that happens to Owens because he is not a free agent must land squarely on his agents head, as filing paperwork and dealing with contracts for the client is the crux of his damn job. That's why it is his fault and why he TO really ought to find another one.
posted by pivo at 04:55 PM on March 05, 2004
Don Banks has a lengthy column over on CNN/SI about Owens, Winfield and other free agent shenanigans plus an OMG about the signing bonuses for second tier players.
posted by billsaysthis at 06:52 PM on March 05, 2004
ha ha. /nelson
posted by lescour at 05:49 PM on March 06, 2004
Of course now TO is making noises about not reporting to B-more and filing a grievance. If he won that, he would be the first player ever to overturn a trade because he didn't like the new team (not counting players with no-trade or limited team trade clauses).
posted by billsaysthis at 06:47 PM on March 06, 2004
I still see no legitimate grounds for a grievance. Anyone know/ have ideas what type of angle may work on that front? He should pursue some sort of malpractice thing against his agent , seems he would have a better shot.
posted by pivo at 08:58 PM on March 06, 2004
Well, if TO's really pissed, he could go the full "cutting off the nose to spite the face" route and retire. Or perhaps he could sit-out the season in protest like so many NHL players? Or does the NFL not put up with that crap?
posted by molafson at 09:23 PM on March 06, 2004
molafson, he has three years left on the current contract and I think coming back after that, at age 33, would be highly unlikely.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:37 PM on March 06, 2004
Regardless of the contract situation I think TO is largely made to be a scapegoat. The only major change from the 2002 to 2003 49ers was replacing Steve Mariucci with Dennis Erickson. Sure, Garcia was hurt at times, but Rattay proved a more than capable backup, so much so that they released Garcia this week. J.J. Stokes was no great loss, so Mariucci to Erickson is the major move this team made, and they went from division champions to 7-9. And it's TO's fault. I don't care if he's a jackass or not, and I leave that to others to debate. But I definitely see him being used as a scapegoat by the front office, who doesn't want to admit it screwed up badly last year in the entire handling of the coaching situation.
posted by nath at 12:18 AM on March 07, 2004
nath, were there any coaching decisions last year that lost games? Not that I remember. They lost two games directly because of bad kicks, and might have won a couple more were it not for some really bad kicking. I'm not exactly thrilled with Erickson either, but Mariucci was getting worse every year, and neither guy had much to do with last year's crappy season.
posted by dusted at 03:55 AM on March 07, 2004
Coaching is more than in-game decisions. It's planning, preparation, scheme, strategy, teaching, developing talent, etc. All I'm saying is that they put up with TO just fine as long as they were winning, but a losing season is a convenient excuse to get rid of him. Personally, I think the 49ers have been getting worse via a combination of personnel mistakes and Erickson's coaching inability. The last two 49ers drafts have been lackluster at best (after great drafts in 2000 and 2001), and some of the young players seemed to regress this year. To me this speaks more of problems in the front office and coaching than in the players.
posted by nath at 05:19 PM on March 07, 2004
Nath, I agree that the new Niners front office team, post-Walsh, is a huge downgrade in quality but TO last year was all talk. I am anxiously awaiting the outcome of this new players association grievance filing in the free agent case...
posted by billsaysthis at 07:19 PM on March 07, 2004
49ers continue their fall from NFL's elite. billysaysthis: Bill Walsh is currently still in the Niners front office, but most observers expect him to leave this year.
posted by dusted at 11:47 AM on March 08, 2004
dusted, being local to the team I understand that but the truth is that he has had less and less say in the decisions each year for the last three or four and this year has next to none. York and Donahue are running the show, especially in regards to salary, and Walsh is prepping to teach a class at Stanford. The clamor for the Yorks to sell has already begun.
posted by billsaysthis at 12:46 PM on March 08, 2004
Agreed, billysaysthis. John York is being exposed as a really bad owner. The article I posted goes into more detail.
posted by dusted at 01:28 PM on March 08, 2004
Couldn't happen to a nicer jackass. What would the grievance be though? He didn't get traded where he wanted, but if he has no rights of refusal he's SOL isn't he? Bad show on the 49'ers part vis a vis Philly, but anything to stick it to TO I guess. I'd take a 2nd over a 5th and any Philly offensive player not named McNabb so seems a better deal on the 49'ers side. This agent has to be the worst since Master- P, how' he's still employed is beyond me.