infiltrateib
TV Doctor
I've heard and read so much (conflicting) drama about the TO situation. I decided I'd dive into what's out there and give a complete report (mixed with a little opinion).
I. FACTS AND ASSUMPTIONS. I'll start with my facts and assumptions:
1. Terrell Owens has been given permission to seek a trade, but that will not likely happen because:
2. TO has five seasons remaining on his current 7-year, $49 million contract (he received an $8.5m signing bonus). He is due two roster bonuses totaling $7.5 million in March, but he will never cash in on those benefits because the Philadelphia Eagles will have already released him by that time.
3. If TO is traded before the deadline, the team picking him up WILL be responsible for his roster bonuses and current contract. The upside is that it's a lowball contract for what he's worth in terms of salary. The downside is that the money will be given to him up front which is bad for leverage.
4. TO's salary could be mitigated or renegotiated but the fact remains his agent is Drew Rosenhaus who is difficult to deal with. He already requested more money from the Eagles after one year on his deal, and I don't expect Rosenhaus to budge much.
5. This means the team eventually acquiring TO will almost certainly have to pay more for him than he makes in his current contract. This theory is supported by the the InfiltrateIB "EBay Theory:" someone will be willing to overpay for Owens' services, and it only takes ONE. He just has to find that someone.
II. TO AS A CANCER: Here is a summary of TO's incidents:
Owens publicly criticizes his quarterback, Jeff Garcia, while playing for the 49ers. He even goes so far as to imply that Garcia is gay.
Owens publicly criticizes the 49ers organization, and makes it knows he no longer wants to play for them.
The Baltimore Ravens make a deal with the 49ers to acquire Owens. Owens protests the trade, refuses to report to Baltimore for a physical, and says he wants to play for the Eagles instead. Not wanting to risk a holdout, or possibly losing an arbitration hearing, the Ravens agreed to allow Owens to sign with the Eagles in exchange for a 5th round draft pick.
Sept. 24, 2000: He celebrated a second-quarter score by racing to midfield and standing, arms outstretched, on the Dallas Cowboys' star logo. In the fourth quarter, Owens ran back to midfield to celebrate and Dallas safety George Teague tackled him, leading to a fight: "I really don't see what I did wrong because I know what I did wasn't an act of taunting." He was suspended by the San Francisco 49ers for a week.
Oct. 14, 2002: After catching a second TD pass on Monday Night Football vs. the Seattle Seahawks, Owens pulled out a Sharpie from his sock, autographed the ball and handed it to his financial adviser: "I knew I was going to get in the end zone again. I was just trying to have some fun."
February 2005, before the Super Bowl: "I feel like I'm a special individual. People criticize my character, my antics. I'm controversial, and that may be right. Obviously it was in (God's) plan for me to become controversial. Controversy is going to find me, whether it's good or bad. I welcome it with open arms."
April: Owens on Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb: "I wasn't the guy who got tired in the Super Bowl."
August: Angry he wasn't being given a contract extension, Owens threatened to hold out of training camp until a deal was reached, but he reported to camp on time. Within weeks, he was banished from camp for a week: "(Coach Andy Reid) told me to shut up. I told him to shut up. And I told him my name isn't Reid. My name is Owens. I'm not one of his kids. Don't tell me to shut up."
Owens also said to Eagles offensive coordinator Brad Childress: "I said speak to me only when I speak to you. You don't have to talk to me; I don't have to talk to you."
Nov. 3: In an ESPN.com interview, Owens, upset that there was no in-stadium announcement of his 100th career TD reception vs. the San Diego Chargers on Oct. 23: "That right there just shows you the type of class and integrity that they claim not to be. They claim to be first class and the best organization. It's an embarrassment. It just shows a lack of class they have." Owens then said the team would be unbeaten with Brett Favre at quarterback. "A number of commentators will say he's a warrior, he's played with injuries. I feel like him being knowledgeable about the quarterback position, I feel like we'd probably be in a better situation."
Nov. 4: Owens issued this apology: "I've had an opportunity to talk with the Eagles organization and I have learned that the team does not recognize individual achievements. It has been brought to my attention that I have offended the organization and my teammates. Therefore, I would like to apologize for any derogatory comments toward them."
III. TO AS A DOLPHIN
There are a variety of arguments for and against TO. I'll argue both.
1. TO could bring us over the hump: The "TO as a savior" approach is hackneyed and ill-founded. The entire point of TO is that he is not to be relied on. As displayed above, he's too wishy-washy to put faith in. His natural talent alone could indeed provide a jump-start for the offense, but his constant demands for the ball coupled with his inability to be a team-player threatens the offensive consistency, especially with a new offensive coordinator. Mularkey had problems with Moulds, who is half the petulant child that TO is. Summary: TO may be able to bring offensive talent at the WR position, but he is not to be relied on, especially with Mularkey.
2. TO for a year: I don't think this is a viable argument. TO isn't going to want to have to "prove himself." His argument was that he deserved more money for what he was doing, and he might be right. He's one of the top 3 receivers in the NFL and was on his way to a 1,600 yard season. His argument is going to be that he has nothing to prove. The upside would be that it would probably be a salaried contract that would be an organization-safe deal. A long-term deal is going to require a hefty signing bonus and thus a commitment to a guy who you can't commit to.
3. TO would come cheap: Again, not true. Everyone thinks this guy is totally rational and just wants to play football. It's clearly not true. He plays for the money. The Eagles LOVED him, the fans LOVED him, everyone was in love with TO during their SuperBowl run. The entire week before the SB was constant TO coverage: is he playing? What'd he eat this morning? He wanted a bigger contract in Philly, and he was on his way to a monster year. He's going to want more.
4. Saban could control TO: This is too tough to argue. I have no idea. Two QBs (one of which is one of the most likeable guys int he NFL) and two head coaches couldn't come close to controlling him. Can Saban? This argument is too difficult to address.
5. TO would ruin the team chemistry: this all depends on how much we rely on him. He can't ruin what he's not a part of. It's just like how right now Ricky can't ruin team chemistry: if he quits, we've got another RB in line. The reason RW hurt so much when he left is that our offense was based around him. This is the same reason the Eagles were so distraught. If we draft a WR in the first few rounds or pick up another vet that can play the #2 slot, we'd have Chambers, Owens, and a guy at #3 who could play #2 if he had to. This is the security blanket you need when dealing with a volatile element like TO.
6. TO was just angry about _______. this is a tough one. Was it the money? He criticized McNabb before he ever had the contract problems. Oh, so was it the quarterback? McNabb is a top-tier QB talent and TO was clearly getting his catches. Was it the city? San Fran is pretty nice. It's pretty close to Miami's element (minus the club scene, etc) in terms of weather, etc. Plus, Philly loved TO like none other. It was a love-fest after the SuperBowl. Was it the coach? Andy Reid RARELY has problems with his players (if ever). It doesn't look like it. And Favre said he'd only play Mariucci, so probably wasn't him. It seems like TO is just never happy, regardless of his surroundings. He has a chip on his shoulder that cannot be repaired.
7. TO is too good to not get: believe it or not, this simple argument is pretty compelling. TO singlehandedly MADE that Eagles team. They got to the SB without him, but that was a weak conference. And his play in that game was absolutely stunning. TO, in the ephemeral times when he's actually happy, is a superstar. He's too big to tackle, he uses his body to shield the defender (way better than Chambers has or will), and is a running back in the open field. He's a physical specimen with soft hands, can lay the block, and is almost uncoverable 1-on-1. He's Steve Smith Part II (with 4 inches and a lot of weight). And it's not often that a WR like this becomes available on the market (except Chad Johnson... who would require at LEAST a first). TO is a warrior, a workout warrior, a field-warrior, and a guy who you want on your team in crunch-time. He's also not going to get worse any time soon. Randy Moss relies on speed and athleticism he's one blown ACL from being a mediocre talent... TO has the entire package and will be a force for as long as he can control himself.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
TO is still on a deal that would require $7.5m if he's traded. He will certainly be released before that, UNLESS some team is willing to pony up the "safety" pick just to make sure they win the TO lottery. But it is not worth ponying up a draft choice to get TO because he only plays for who he wants to play for anyway (see: Ravens). TO will want a big contract with a signing bonus that pays him according to his physical talent and some team will be willing to pay that. There are 32 teams, and at least one of them has a Rick Spielman.
The issue of whether TO is "worth it" revolves around not what you pay him, but how comfortable you are without him. The team should treat their chances and their offense as if TO is not there. If we can put a bunch of guys on the field who we think can bring us to the SuperBowl, then TO is an addition that could just raise those chances. But it's not worth committing a ton of money to a guy who won't be happy anywhere for more than 2 years and has a 40% chance of leaving before then.
In summation: If 1) Terrell Owens would sign a contract that explicitly provides for a forfeit of his bonuses should he be found in violation of a character clause and 2) is released by the Eagles and 3) the Miami Dolphins have a WR corps that is sufficient WITHOUT OWENS (i.e., a #3 receiver who could play #2) and 4) the contract is team-friendly and allocates risk accordingly, I would be willing to pay him a top contract. After all, what's the risk? He can't destroy team chemistry if he's not counted on. He'll give back anything he screws up.
But this all is dependent upon TO being willing to sign a contract (likely lower than the highest bidder) for the Miami Dolphins that makes him responsible for his own actions. This is unlikely at best.
It is also important to note that it does not matter who is at QB of the Dolphins. I've realized as I wrote this that TO is unpredictably unhappy and there is no defining element that makes him unhappy. It's not production, QB, coach, money, city, fans, teammates. It may be a combination of them, but the safest route is to consider him a volatile and ephemeral commodity and DO NOT MAKE THE CONCESSIONS that other teams have. This builds into the "relying on TO" element. Regardless of who our QB is, if all of my criteria are fulfilled, I'd take him. If he's unhappy, it's probably not just or at all because of the QB.
In other words, in spite of the above, I'm willing to allow TO to be a part of the Miami Dolphins at a pay commensurate with his talent provided that he take responsibility for his own actions.
I. FACTS AND ASSUMPTIONS. I'll start with my facts and assumptions:
1. Terrell Owens has been given permission to seek a trade, but that will not likely happen because:
2. TO has five seasons remaining on his current 7-year, $49 million contract (he received an $8.5m signing bonus). He is due two roster bonuses totaling $7.5 million in March, but he will never cash in on those benefits because the Philadelphia Eagles will have already released him by that time.
3. If TO is traded before the deadline, the team picking him up WILL be responsible for his roster bonuses and current contract. The upside is that it's a lowball contract for what he's worth in terms of salary. The downside is that the money will be given to him up front which is bad for leverage.
4. TO's salary could be mitigated or renegotiated but the fact remains his agent is Drew Rosenhaus who is difficult to deal with. He already requested more money from the Eagles after one year on his deal, and I don't expect Rosenhaus to budge much.
5. This means the team eventually acquiring TO will almost certainly have to pay more for him than he makes in his current contract. This theory is supported by the the InfiltrateIB "EBay Theory:" someone will be willing to overpay for Owens' services, and it only takes ONE. He just has to find that someone.
II. TO AS A CANCER: Here is a summary of TO's incidents:
Owens publicly criticizes his quarterback, Jeff Garcia, while playing for the 49ers. He even goes so far as to imply that Garcia is gay.
Owens publicly criticizes the 49ers organization, and makes it knows he no longer wants to play for them.
The Baltimore Ravens make a deal with the 49ers to acquire Owens. Owens protests the trade, refuses to report to Baltimore for a physical, and says he wants to play for the Eagles instead. Not wanting to risk a holdout, or possibly losing an arbitration hearing, the Ravens agreed to allow Owens to sign with the Eagles in exchange for a 5th round draft pick.
Sept. 24, 2000: He celebrated a second-quarter score by racing to midfield and standing, arms outstretched, on the Dallas Cowboys' star logo. In the fourth quarter, Owens ran back to midfield to celebrate and Dallas safety George Teague tackled him, leading to a fight: "I really don't see what I did wrong because I know what I did wasn't an act of taunting." He was suspended by the San Francisco 49ers for a week.
Oct. 14, 2002: After catching a second TD pass on Monday Night Football vs. the Seattle Seahawks, Owens pulled out a Sharpie from his sock, autographed the ball and handed it to his financial adviser: "I knew I was going to get in the end zone again. I was just trying to have some fun."
February 2005, before the Super Bowl: "I feel like I'm a special individual. People criticize my character, my antics. I'm controversial, and that may be right. Obviously it was in (God's) plan for me to become controversial. Controversy is going to find me, whether it's good or bad. I welcome it with open arms."
April: Owens on Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb: "I wasn't the guy who got tired in the Super Bowl."
August: Angry he wasn't being given a contract extension, Owens threatened to hold out of training camp until a deal was reached, but he reported to camp on time. Within weeks, he was banished from camp for a week: "(Coach Andy Reid) told me to shut up. I told him to shut up. And I told him my name isn't Reid. My name is Owens. I'm not one of his kids. Don't tell me to shut up."
Owens also said to Eagles offensive coordinator Brad Childress: "I said speak to me only when I speak to you. You don't have to talk to me; I don't have to talk to you."
Nov. 3: In an ESPN.com interview, Owens, upset that there was no in-stadium announcement of his 100th career TD reception vs. the San Diego Chargers on Oct. 23: "That right there just shows you the type of class and integrity that they claim not to be. They claim to be first class and the best organization. It's an embarrassment. It just shows a lack of class they have." Owens then said the team would be unbeaten with Brett Favre at quarterback. "A number of commentators will say he's a warrior, he's played with injuries. I feel like him being knowledgeable about the quarterback position, I feel like we'd probably be in a better situation."
Nov. 4: Owens issued this apology: "I've had an opportunity to talk with the Eagles organization and I have learned that the team does not recognize individual achievements. It has been brought to my attention that I have offended the organization and my teammates. Therefore, I would like to apologize for any derogatory comments toward them."
III. TO AS A DOLPHIN
There are a variety of arguments for and against TO. I'll argue both.
1. TO could bring us over the hump: The "TO as a savior" approach is hackneyed and ill-founded. The entire point of TO is that he is not to be relied on. As displayed above, he's too wishy-washy to put faith in. His natural talent alone could indeed provide a jump-start for the offense, but his constant demands for the ball coupled with his inability to be a team-player threatens the offensive consistency, especially with a new offensive coordinator. Mularkey had problems with Moulds, who is half the petulant child that TO is. Summary: TO may be able to bring offensive talent at the WR position, but he is not to be relied on, especially with Mularkey.
2. TO for a year: I don't think this is a viable argument. TO isn't going to want to have to "prove himself." His argument was that he deserved more money for what he was doing, and he might be right. He's one of the top 3 receivers in the NFL and was on his way to a 1,600 yard season. His argument is going to be that he has nothing to prove. The upside would be that it would probably be a salaried contract that would be an organization-safe deal. A long-term deal is going to require a hefty signing bonus and thus a commitment to a guy who you can't commit to.
3. TO would come cheap: Again, not true. Everyone thinks this guy is totally rational and just wants to play football. It's clearly not true. He plays for the money. The Eagles LOVED him, the fans LOVED him, everyone was in love with TO during their SuperBowl run. The entire week before the SB was constant TO coverage: is he playing? What'd he eat this morning? He wanted a bigger contract in Philly, and he was on his way to a monster year. He's going to want more.
4. Saban could control TO: This is too tough to argue. I have no idea. Two QBs (one of which is one of the most likeable guys int he NFL) and two head coaches couldn't come close to controlling him. Can Saban? This argument is too difficult to address.
5. TO would ruin the team chemistry: this all depends on how much we rely on him. He can't ruin what he's not a part of. It's just like how right now Ricky can't ruin team chemistry: if he quits, we've got another RB in line. The reason RW hurt so much when he left is that our offense was based around him. This is the same reason the Eagles were so distraught. If we draft a WR in the first few rounds or pick up another vet that can play the #2 slot, we'd have Chambers, Owens, and a guy at #3 who could play #2 if he had to. This is the security blanket you need when dealing with a volatile element like TO.
6. TO was just angry about _______. this is a tough one. Was it the money? He criticized McNabb before he ever had the contract problems. Oh, so was it the quarterback? McNabb is a top-tier QB talent and TO was clearly getting his catches. Was it the city? San Fran is pretty nice. It's pretty close to Miami's element (minus the club scene, etc) in terms of weather, etc. Plus, Philly loved TO like none other. It was a love-fest after the SuperBowl. Was it the coach? Andy Reid RARELY has problems with his players (if ever). It doesn't look like it. And Favre said he'd only play Mariucci, so probably wasn't him. It seems like TO is just never happy, regardless of his surroundings. He has a chip on his shoulder that cannot be repaired.
7. TO is too good to not get: believe it or not, this simple argument is pretty compelling. TO singlehandedly MADE that Eagles team. They got to the SB without him, but that was a weak conference. And his play in that game was absolutely stunning. TO, in the ephemeral times when he's actually happy, is a superstar. He's too big to tackle, he uses his body to shield the defender (way better than Chambers has or will), and is a running back in the open field. He's a physical specimen with soft hands, can lay the block, and is almost uncoverable 1-on-1. He's Steve Smith Part II (with 4 inches and a lot of weight). And it's not often that a WR like this becomes available on the market (except Chad Johnson... who would require at LEAST a first). TO is a warrior, a workout warrior, a field-warrior, and a guy who you want on your team in crunch-time. He's also not going to get worse any time soon. Randy Moss relies on speed and athleticism he's one blown ACL from being a mediocre talent... TO has the entire package and will be a force for as long as he can control himself.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
TO is still on a deal that would require $7.5m if he's traded. He will certainly be released before that, UNLESS some team is willing to pony up the "safety" pick just to make sure they win the TO lottery. But it is not worth ponying up a draft choice to get TO because he only plays for who he wants to play for anyway (see: Ravens). TO will want a big contract with a signing bonus that pays him according to his physical talent and some team will be willing to pay that. There are 32 teams, and at least one of them has a Rick Spielman.
The issue of whether TO is "worth it" revolves around not what you pay him, but how comfortable you are without him. The team should treat their chances and their offense as if TO is not there. If we can put a bunch of guys on the field who we think can bring us to the SuperBowl, then TO is an addition that could just raise those chances. But it's not worth committing a ton of money to a guy who won't be happy anywhere for more than 2 years and has a 40% chance of leaving before then.
In summation: If 1) Terrell Owens would sign a contract that explicitly provides for a forfeit of his bonuses should he be found in violation of a character clause and 2) is released by the Eagles and 3) the Miami Dolphins have a WR corps that is sufficient WITHOUT OWENS (i.e., a #3 receiver who could play #2) and 4) the contract is team-friendly and allocates risk accordingly, I would be willing to pay him a top contract. After all, what's the risk? He can't destroy team chemistry if he's not counted on. He'll give back anything he screws up.
But this all is dependent upon TO being willing to sign a contract (likely lower than the highest bidder) for the Miami Dolphins that makes him responsible for his own actions. This is unlikely at best.
It is also important to note that it does not matter who is at QB of the Dolphins. I've realized as I wrote this that TO is unpredictably unhappy and there is no defining element that makes him unhappy. It's not production, QB, coach, money, city, fans, teammates. It may be a combination of them, but the safest route is to consider him a volatile and ephemeral commodity and DO NOT MAKE THE CONCESSIONS that other teams have. This builds into the "relying on TO" element. Regardless of who our QB is, if all of my criteria are fulfilled, I'd take him. If he's unhappy, it's probably not just or at all because of the QB.
In other words, in spite of the above, I'm willing to allow TO to be a part of the Miami Dolphins at a pay commensurate with his talent provided that he take responsibility for his own actions.
