1. Welcome to San Diego Chargers NFL Football Podcast and Forum!

    Bolt Talk is one of the largest online communities for the San Diego Chargers. We host a regular Chargers podcast during the season. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Create an Account or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Eric asking for the moon?

Discussion in 'Chargers Fan Forum' started by House of Hayne, Jun 13, 2015.

  1. House of Hayne

    House of Hayne Chargers Smash

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2014
    Messages:
    649
    Ratings:
    +204
  2. Chaincrusher

    Chaincrusher BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,324
    Ratings:
    +302
    Either Weddle is asking for the moon or Telesco is offering him used toilet tissue or both.
     
  3. Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan

    Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    6,983
    Ratings:
    +1,583
    I believe everything Telesco said about this.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. Chaincrusher

    Chaincrusher BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,324
    Ratings:
    +302
    Telesco said that they are not "at Weddle's number". Telesco could be making what he thinks is a reasonable offer and yet it may not actually be reasonable.

    It seems some people on this forum just assume that everything Telesco does is automatically correct and reasonable.

    In this case, without knowing what the actual numbers presently are from either side, I will guarantee you that there are four possibilities:

    1. Weddle's demand is unreasonable and Telesco's offer is reasonable;
    2. Telesco's offer is unreasonable and Weddle's demand is reasonable;
    3. Both Weddle's demand and Telesco's offer are unreasonable; and
    4. Both Weddle's demand and Telesco's offer are reasonable given what a reasonable contract range for Weddle may be, but the two sides cannot come together.

    The reality is that barring access to the negotiations, not a single one of us on this forum knows which of the four scenarios is playing out to this point.

    What is amazing is that at least a couple of posters on this forum appear to have concluded that it has to be that Weddle's demand is unreasonable and Telesco's offer is reasonable. Why?

    And in response to the above quoted post, everything Telesco has said about this may be 100% true and yet any one of the four possibilities described above may still also be true. A person's belief that he is taking a fair (not sinister) position does not necessarily make it so or not so.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2015
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  5. Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan

    Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    6,983
    Ratings:
    +1,583
    Seriously?
    Weddle made a money grab and dictated what he wanted last time. The Chargers only gave him more because they thought another team was going to out bid them. It's been documented that wasn't the case. So Weddle & his agent think they can do the same thing this time. They think they're in the drivers seat. They're not. Telesco & the Chargers are. It's wrong for Weddle & his agent to think they can force the issue.
     
  6. Chaincrusher

    Chaincrusher BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,324
    Ratings:
    +302
    Carlsbad, do you know what Weddle has demanded? Do you know what the team has offered? If so, please tell me. If not, then my premise is correct that none of us know what the numbers are on either side. So, you admit that, right?

    Now, humor me just a bit. Please take two standard coins out of your pocket with a "head" and "tail" on them. If you were to flip both coins, what would be the possible outcomes? Wouldn't it be as follows?

    1. Coin 1-heads, Coin 2-tails
    2. Coin 1-tails, Coin 2-heads
    3. Coin 1-heads, Coin 2-heads
    4. Coin 1-tails, Coin 2-tails

    Now, let's change the names of our coins and our possible results. Instead of the name Coin 1, let's use the name Weddle. And, just for kicks, let's call Coin 2 "Telesco". And, instead of heads and tails, let's use the descriptions reasonable and unreasonable.

    Now, isn't it a fact that if you do not know what the numbers are, you cannot say whether either side's number is reasonable or unreasonable? Of course it is.

    And if you cannot say whether one side's position is reasonable or unreasonable (which you can't because you don't know that side's number), then all four possibilities exist (one reasonable, the other not; the other reasonable the first one not; both unreasonable; both reasonable) just as they do in the coin example above.

    Finally, have you ever been involved in a serious negotiation process? I have been involved in probably thousands. One thing that I will guarantee you is that it is not exactly a unique occurrence for both sides to believe with complete and honest conviction that their side is the one that is being fair and that the other side is being unreasonable. In fact, that heartfelt belief on the part of both sides is present more much often than it is not (where one side knows it is being unfair).

    That is why you can't extrapolate from Telesco's assertion that the team is doing nothing sinister with respect to the Weddle negotiations to the conclusion that you appear to want to reach that the team is making a reasonable offer. I have no trouble believing that Telesco honestly believes that his offer to Weddle is fair. But that does not tell me anything at all about whether or not it is actually fair. And it doesn't tell you anything about it either.

    And just so nobody thinks that I am picking on Telesco, the exact same can be said about Weddle's demand. I am sure that he feels that his demand, apparently backed lots of data which Telesco has acknowledged seeing, is reasonable. But just because Weddle believes his demand is reasonable does not make it so either.

    Also, there is no conclusion at all to be drawn from how party conducted itself in a previous negotiation. All separate negotiations are different from one another even if they involve the same or similar parties. What a party did before in a different negotiation setting is not a very good predictor for what a party will do in a different negotiation years later, especially where many facts are entirely different from what they were in the previous negotiation.

    At the end of the day, because we do not know what the numbers are right now from each side, we cannot say whether either, both or neither side is being unreasonable in the negotiations. I submit, then, that any conclusions that you are drawing are based upon unsound logic and bias rather than based upon an objective logical breakdown, which I have attempted to provide for you above.
     
  7. Chaincrusher

    Chaincrusher BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,324
    Ratings:
    +302
    Okay, I have addressed some of the issues with logic that your post above involves in my post above this one.

    I would further submit that your bias is evidenced by your language choice that characterizes Weddle's last contract demand as a "money grab". That terminology suggests an improper monetary motivation with respect to his previous contract.

    In case you missed it, Weddle has been first or second team All-Pro in every year of his current contract and he has not missed a single game. The contract, then, was an entirely fair contract and Weddle has earned every penny he has been paid.

    And you, and perhaps Telesco, are trying paddle upstream without an oar, a boat and with your hands and feet bound if you think that by drawing out the negotiation process, Telesco is improving the team's negotiating position. Waiting moves the negotiation closer to free agency. Free agency favors Weddle, not the team.

    Your post above proves my point. "The Chargers only gave him more money because they thought another team was going to outbid them." That's exactly why the team doesn't want to let the negotiation get to free agency and why they should fish or cut bait with Weddle sooner rather than later. Nobody can outbid them or appear as a "phantom outbidder" now.

    If I were Weddle's agent, I would be telling Weddle that if the most $$$ is his priority, he should play out his existing contract and go to free agency and bring those higher bidders or phantom higher bidders into play for exactly the reason suggested in your post.

    That has been my gripe all along about Telesco stating that he would not negotiate (further) with Weddle until after the season is over--it moves the parties closer to a point at which negotiating leverage shifts dramatically in Weddle's favor.
     
  8. powayslugger

    powayslugger Feckless Slappy

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,297
    Ratings:
    +276
    when you have to sign your franchise QB (to a big contract) it seems reasonable that you can't offer a huge deal to your safety... after all aren't there 51 other guys you need to pay, too? From my perspective I think $6-7 million over 4 years seems reasonable... especially since I won' t see one season's worth in my entire lifetime!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page