Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Josh Cribbs Is Expected To Skip Browns Minicamp


plumcrazy73

Recommended Posts

from PFT:

The bigger problem here is that Cribbs’ previous representative negotiated a long-term deal before Cribbs became one of the best kick returners in the game. And so the player is now stuck with base salaries of $620,000, $635,000, $650,000, and $790,000 over the next four seasons.

 

One source called the contract “criminally negligent.” Regardless of the label that’s applied, this isn’t a case of a good deal being overcome by contracts paid to other players. Given the base salaries, the deal wasn’t a good one to begin with, providing base salaries that never cross into seven figures.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

from the Rogers/Cribbs thread:

 

'It wasn't us who did that deal and George Kokinis didn't do that deal,'' Rickert said of the new Browns' general manager. ''What a great opportunity to correct a bad situation.''

 

Rickert said Cribbs isn't looking for Devin Hester money. Hester, the Chicago Bears' Pro Bowl returner who tried to expand his role as a receiver in 2008, signed a four-year, $30 million contract extension with $15 million guaranteed last July.

 

''No, not at all,'' Rickert said of Hester's deal. ''We're not even saying, 'Do a new deal.' We're saying, 'Start the process with us.' ''

 

While playing on every special teams unit, Cribbs also sees action at receiver and may get time in the defensive backfield.

 

''We're just looking for market value for what he does,'' Rickert said.

 

Can we stop bashing him for wanting Hester's contract now?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, but we are no longer just asking for incentives

maybe not. it's difficult to tell. and taylor's report wasnt that cribbs was asking for just incentives, but that he would agree to take that. I havent seen anything (other than Cabot's clearly erroneous comment) that contradicts that. Either way, all he's asking for is that they act in good faith on guarantees we know for sure he received from Savage and that he might have gotten from Lerner himself. That sounds reasonable to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do support him Tom. I don't have a problem if we give him more money. I also don't have a problem if the browns say they can't do it anytime soon.

 

The team was talking an expanded role....possibly on D.

 

Right now is a pretty important time for him in my opinion. A time for him to shine and really show he is worth more cash.

 

By sitting out, is becomes a Northcutt of sorts.

 

The kid is blowing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what if your boss had been fired and then at the end of your quarter the USGA said "Thanks for working 6 events, but I dont know what bonus you are talking about."

 

The up front guaranteed money argument again? So if he was just getting that $333,333 prorated into his base salary each year you would be okay with his stance? What is the right way, because it sounds from his end that he's been trying the "right way" for a couple of years, and that he was reassured that they were going to step up for him.

 

I listened to this same debate for the last year regarding Jason Peters. Based on my experience, neither side here on this board is going to budge. But I suppose the debate is still worth having - that's almost all we can do.

 

The difference is my boss didn't pay me $$$$ up front without even knowing if I was worth it or would deliver on it. Cribbs was a guy in 2006 that was just a kick returner and #4 or #5 receiver making the NFL minimum and he didn't finish out his rookie contract because the organization wanted to do right by him. He got $2 million up front guaranteed and 4 years added to his current contract. He wanted family security, in case of injury and took the money up front, which everybody knows would lower the yearly salary but he still had the money in case he got injured. That was his decision.

 

If they do a new contract now, it is like he got an additional $1 million each year because he signed the new contract in 2006.

 

Know, if his agent says he just wants to open lines of communications and start the process, then the Browns should listen and work out a deal to be effective after this season. If the Browns hold him hostage to the entire contract, then shame on them, but I really don't think that will be the case because Lerner has never done business that way. Reference what he did for Winslow, Bentley and others.

 

One thing people have to remember is that this isn't a situation unique to the Browns. It happens all over the league and these things get worked out. It is the business part of football. Cribbs will play and he will get some contract adjustments. Maybe not all he wants, but the team will take care of him like many other teams will do to players they have who feel they outplayed their contracts.

 

This is a common thing with UDFAs because they are playing for the NFL minimum, but this isn't Cribb's rookie contract, it has been adjusted once already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Taylor cites 4 sources now saying that Savage and Crennel made promises to Cribbs. And other sources saying that Cribbs got a call from Lerner right after the Pitt game. Lerner isnt disputing what was said on the phone; he's saying the call was never made. He's calling Cribbs and Taylor's sources liars. To me, this isnt a great way to treat a hard working player.

 

As for the course Cribbs has chosen, all he is asking for is some incentives in his deal that would pay out if he gets used a lot on offense. Can somebody, ANYBODY, please tell me what problem you have with this? And please address this current situation. I find it hard to believe there will be a negative precedent set here. Are we really worried that we will have many future STers start taking snaps at QB/RB and ask for incentives to be added to his current contract? I find it hard to believe that's a big concern. This is a very unique situation.

 

Actually, everything I have read so far is that Lerner is denying ever discussing Cribbs' contract on the phone or in person. Lerner has not denied talking to Cribbs on the phone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is amazing to me. What does a player have to do to get any support from you guys?

 

BTW Tom, no input from you about what Cribbs' agent is saying the starting point is? Aren't you the one that claimed he only wants incentives put into his contract? His agent kind of blows that idea out of the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW Tom, no input from you about what Cribbs' agent is saying the starting point is? Aren't you the one that claimed he only wants incentives put into his contract? His agent kind of blows that idea out of the water.

I did discuss that, yes. John Taylor's report was that Cribbs would be satisfied with just incentives. Obviously his agent isnt going to come out and publicly announce his real bottom line; that would be the least effective negotiating ever done. Of course, what his agent really asks for is even less than Taylor said. All the agent wants is for Mankok to show some good faith in starting real talks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, everything I have read so far is that Lerner is denying ever discussing Cribbs' contract on the phone or in person. Lerner has not denied talking to Cribbs on the phone.

I'll rephrase and you can parse that language then: Cribbs claims he got a promise from Lerner that his contract would be addressed, that he then immediately called several people to discuss that exciting news, that he has phone records of this, and there are people close to Cribbs that say it happened. Lerner says he never mentioned Cribbs' contract at all. Ever.

 

This is not a misunderstanding. This is someone either lying now or being intentionally deceptive at the time of the call. How this changes anything, I have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What he does is ST. What's market value for a ST player?

This is getting silly. As has been said a dozen times in this thread, he wants a contract that will pay him for being more involved in the offense. If Mangini really wants to use him the way he says he does, then he isnt just a ST teams player.

 

While we're at it, you'll have a hard time naming a ST player more valuable than him, so I guess he should at least make more than the rest of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll rephrase and you can parse that language then: Cribbs claims he got a promise from Lerner that his contract would be addressed, that he then immediately called several people to discuss that exciting news, that he has phone records of this, and there are people close to Cribbs that say it happened. Lerner says he never mentioned Cribbs' contract at all. Ever.

 

This is not a misunderstanding. This is someone either lying now or being intentionally deceptive at the time of the call. How this changes anything, I have no idea.

 

That is a vastly different statement then saying Lerner claims he never called and there are records showing he did. VASTLY different. As also stated elsewhere, it could as be as simple as miscommunication...Randy saying one thing, Josh hearing another, etc. None of us here will ever know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is getting silly. As has been said a dozen times in this thread, he wants a contract that will pay him for being more involved in the offense. If Mangini really wants to use him the way he says he does, then he isnt just a ST teams player.

 

While we're at it, you'll have a hard time naming a ST player more valuable than him, so I guess he should at least make more than the rest of them.

 

But he hasn't been more involved yet, so his claim of outperforming his contract doesn't hold water in respect to an EXPECTED expanded role. He had a great 2007, an average 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a vastly different statement then saying Lerner claims he never called and there are records showing he did. VASTLY different. As also stated elsewhere, it could as be as simple as miscommunication...Randy saying one thing, Josh hearing another, etc. None of us here will ever know.

A miscommunication? Cribbs saying he got a specific guarantee and Lerner saying the topic never came up? Give me a break. I'm going to go out on a limb and keep discussing this as if neither Cribbs nor Lerner is mentally handicapped and they both spoke English during their phone conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he hasn't been more involved yet, so his claim of outperforming his contract doesn't hold water in respect to an EXPECTED expanded role. He had a great 2007, an average 2008.

I think he obviously outperformed his contract just with his special teams, but that isnt the point. You want him to give the Browns a year for free. That makes no sense. All I'm saying (and, according to the as yet unrefuted Taylor report, all Cribbs is saying) is that they should add incentives to his contract that pay him IF he is more involved. At this point, we're just rehashing the whole thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A miscommunication? Cribbs saying he got a specific guarantee and Lerner saying the topic never came up? Give me a break. I'm going to go out on a limb and keep discussing this as if neither Cribbs nor Lerner is mentally handicapped and they both spoke English during their phone conversation.

 

I'm just saying a possibility that was mentioned elsewhere. A hell of a lot better than your misstatement claiming Lerner denied ever talking to him on the phone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he obviously outperformed his contract just with his special teams, but that isnt the point. You want him to give the Browns a year for free. That makes no sense. All I'm saying (and, according to the as yet unrefuted Taylor report, all Cribbs is saying) is that they should add incentives to his contract that pay him IF he is more involved. At this point, we're just rehashing the whole thread.

 

Unless it comes from Cribbs or his agent about just wanting incentives, then it is just reports. As for outperforming his contract, that's a matter of opinion. But get off this "give the Browns a year for free" bullshit. He's getting paid to be a Cleveland Browns player. I didn't realize they wrote specific positions/roles into contracts. IF he gets a more expanded role, and does well, then his contract should be revisited. But don't give me this bullshit of playing for free, or not being paid to play a certain position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that mine was a mistake, now corrected, and yours is a farfetched opinion that youre sticking to. Congrats, you nailed me.

 

As I said and you can't comprehend, I read it elsewhere in this thread, I did not fabricate it. I only listed it once more as a possibility. But since I am not all-knowing/all-seeing such as you are, I can admit I have no idea what was said and what Cribbs wants in his contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time for a name change -

 

Old: We need Tom Tupa

 

New: We need Josh Cribbs

How about We need Good Players? Or We need to not dick over guys that play hard for us?

 

Neb, you should find a new place to play if you dont like discussions where we dont know exactly what is going on. I hate to break the news to you, but we wont have players here throughout the year telling us what goes on behind closed doors. The best information we have is his agent who says they want market value and not what Hester got, and John Taylor who says he would settle for a bunch of offensive incentives. Maybe he wants more. I'm focusing on the incentives argument because I'm on record here saying that I dont think we should give him a bunch of new guaranteed money, but that it makes perfect sense to give him incentives for taking on an expanded role, especially since he is going into his second season since being promised an improved deal. Does anyone think some incentives would be a bad deal? That's what I'm arguing for.

 

I think that the right thing to do is reward the people that played hard for you and were productive. I think the right thing to do is to honor promises that are made to players. I think the right thing to do is to at least enter good faith negotiations with someone who you want to take on a bigger role. I wish Cribbs wouldnt take the stance he is, but I'm not that upset considering the fact that he sat quietly all last year when mgmt promised him new talks and on the fact that all he is asking for is TALKS. What part of this do you disagree with? No one in this room would pass up the opportunity to make millions if they thought the opportunity might pass them by. This isnt a guy that is set for life. Regardless of what you may think, $3 million isnt the kind of money that makes you a rich retiree at 30. I'm not saying he's poor, but he isnt Ocho Cinco, he's not looking for ego money, this is money that makes a real difference to the way he will be able to live.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about We need Good Players? Or We need to not dick over guys that play hard for us?

 

Neb, you should find a new place to play if you dont like discussions where we dont know exactly what is going on. I hate to break the news to you, but we wont have players here throughout the year telling us what goes on behind closed doors. The best information we have is his agent who says they want market value and not what Hester got, and John Taylor who says he would settle for a bunch of offensive incentives. Maybe he wants more. I'm focusing on the incentives argument because I'm on record here saying that I dont think we should give him a bunch of new guaranteed money, but that it makes perfect sense to give him incentives for taking on an expanded role, especially since he is going into his second season since being promised an improved deal. Does anyone think some incentives would be a bad deal? That's what I'm arguing for.

 

I think that the right thing to do is reward the people that played hard for you and were productive. I think the right thing to do is to honor promises that are made to players. I think the right thing to do is to at least enter good faith negotiations with someone who you want to take on a bigger role. I wish Cribbs wouldnt take the stance he is, but I'm not that upset considering the fact that he sat quietly all last year when mgmt promised him new talks and on the fact that all he is asking for is TALKS. What part of this do you disagree with? No one in this room would pass up the opportunity to make millions if they thought the opportunity might pass them by. This isnt a guy that is set for life. Regardless of what you may think, $3 million isnt the kind of money that makes you a rich retiree at 30. I'm not saying he's poor, but he isnt Ocho Cinco, he's not looking for ego money, this is money that makes a real difference to the way he will be able to live.

 

I don't need to find a new place to play. I am discussing things, am I not? I'm just not making claims to know what a player wants or who said what, based on reports by "sources". I also disagree when you use phrases like "give the Browns a free year" or "paid to play other positions". Those are bullshit phrases. He's paid to be a Cleveland Brown, he's paid the amount HE agreed to. He needs to prove to the current regime his value IF he plays an expanded role, then he would have a little more leverage to ask for a redo.

 

As far as all the accusations flying about, I have no idea who is right and who isn't. But I'm not going to be quick to jump on management just because a player and his new agent say its so, an agent that hasn't made any real money by representing Josh to this point. So forgive me if I see a somewhat greedy agent looking to get paid and giving bad advice to his client. But, I could be wrong, I just don't know.

 

You have your stance, I have mine. Its why this forum exists. Difference being, I am not making statements purporting to know who wants what and who said what. And I don't use reports from "sources" as my gospel to stand by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Difference being, I am not making statements purporting to know who wants what and who said what. And I don't use reports from "sources" as my gospel to stand by.

 

Let's make a rule that nobody is allowed to use sources here okay? We'll have a discussion once Josh and Randy get themselves logins and tell us what's going on in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...