Holmgren tells cribbs agents take it or leave it
-
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...ens-to-do-list/
Mike Holmgren is rather busy this Tuesday.
He wasn't too busy, however, to speak with Josh Cribbs' agent about a new contract. And Cribbs doesn't like what he heard.
Agent J.R. Rickert told Fox's Alex Marvez that Cribbs was offered a "take-it-or-leave-it" multiyear extension that averaged only $1.4 million-per-season, with potential to reach $2 million.
Holmgren spoke about Cribbs Tuesday: "I believe players should be rewarded for what they do."
Holmgren also pointed out that Cribbs has three years left on his existing contract, which makes a new deal almost unprecedented.
Cribbs is a passionate player, so it's not surprising to see that he was emotional on Twitter Wednesday.
"Thanks everyone, I love playing for the browns & put my all in to it, but it doesn't look good 4me at this point on returning," Cribbs wrote. "I don't believe I made the to do list for the team in 2010."
2010 is only six days old, so there is no motivation for Holmgren to rush into a deal. Heck, he doesn't even have a G.M. or coach yet. (Well, he has a coach. But not his coach.)
No matter what happens in January between the two sides, there is plenty of time left before training camp to pay the man
looks like the bold statement is all that needs to be said
well looks like Cribbs is SOL he can either sign and shut it or miss 3-4 years of NFL because Holmgren can set an example around the NFL and not let a player get his way and be above the franchise and trade cribbs like his agents want him to be letting him get his way
-
Very strange. I don't think paying Cribbs between $2m and $3m per year should be a problem. If he'd take that (which I've read he would), I'd give it to him.
-
-
Seems like his agent has a firm grip on his balls and Cribb's isn't doing anything about it.
-
1.4 mil is what, a 150-200% increase in his current pay? i would kill to be able to get a raise based on that %.
1.4 mil is what, a 150-200% increase in his current pay? i would kill to be able to get a raise based on that %.
You also don't return the most kicks in the history of the NFL, or lead the special teams in tackles or start at WR or play RB. If you were asked to do the job you have right now and got paid what you started off making 5 years ago, you would not like it either.
-
1.4 mil is what, a 150-200% increase in his current pay? i would kill to be able to get a raise based on that %.
You also don't return the most kicks in the history of the NFL, or lead the special teams in tackles or start at WR or play RB. If you were asked to do the job you have right now and got paid what you started off making 5 years ago, you would not like it either.
You also don't return the most kicks in the history of the NFL, or lead the special teams in tackles or start at WR or play RB. If you were asked to do the job you have right now and got paid what you started off making 5 years ago, you would not like it either.
which is why i focused on the %, not the actual money.
and i'm not saying he shouldn't get more money, but to be insulted by a 200% increase in pay is being a bit selfish. and hey, maybe he should get a bit more than 1.4-2, but thats far from an insulting raise imo
-
This looks like an insert to an article, rather than a sourcable direct quote.
In other words, the reporter may have added the "take it or leave it" to provide spice to the article.
-
It's only such a big % raise because he had a nice signing bonus. His yearly salary on this current deal was (I thought) $1.1 or $1.3m. So it's a tiny raise by NFL standards.
-
-
It's only such a big % raise because he had a nice signing bonus. His yearly salary on this current deal was (I thought) $1.1 or $1.3m. So it's a tiny raise by NFL standards.
-
1.4 mil is what, a 150-200% increase in his current pay? i would kill to be able to get a raise based on that %.
You also don't return the most kicks in the history of the NFL, or lead the special teams in tackles or start at WR or play RB. If you were asked to do the job you have right now and got paid what you started off making 5 years ago, you would not like it either.
You also don't return the most kicks in the history of the NFL, or lead the special teams in tackles or start at WR or play RB. If you were asked to do the job you have right now and got paid what you started off making 5 years ago, you would not like it either.
Very good point.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login