Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 877705">My point is it's neither a matter of intimidation or a gamble since the player does not have veto power over having to play on a one year contract.  If the team does not want to pay up to a player's line in the sand he doesn't have an option other than going the Bell route which is obviously extremely unappealing.  It's a matter of negotiation, weighing risks, the economics.  Figures of speech have meanings and you want to pick the right ones.Now, with respect to Clark, people say, "pay the man" without knowing how big that amount might need to be for him to sign on the dotted line while not considering who might not get paid as a result shortly down the line.  My sense is the Packers will come to terms with Clark eventually if only because Gutekunst stated early in the offseason that it would be a priority.  I would not consider it a lock, however.  Clark's demands may be beyond Gutekunst's pain point.  Without knowing Clark's demands we cannot say.  What we do know is it is not an easy matter because it hasn't gotten done.</blockquote>

Total: 1,159 (members: 1, guests: 1,158)