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

Report: Matt Slauson inks two-year deal with Chargers

Discussion in 'Chargers Fan Forum' started by Moses, May 8, 2016.

  1. Moses

    Moses Can You Stand The Rain?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    848
    Ratings:
    +358
    The San Diego Chargers have added a quality piece to their offensive line.

    ESPN's Adam Kaplan reported Saturday that the Chargers have signed veteran guard Matt Slauson to a two-year contract. Slauson visited with both the Bolts and the Bills after being released by the Bears last weekend.

    Slauson, 30, is in line to be an immediate contributor in San Diego. He has the versatility to play both inside and outside on the line, but will likely step in as the Chargers' starting center.

    Last season, Slauson graded out as the 18th-best guard in the NFL, according to analytics site ProFootballFocus.com. He was particularly strong in pass protection, allowing just one sack in 16 starts with Chicago. The Bears made the surprise move to part ways with the veteran after they used a second-round pick on guard Cody Whitehair.

    Word of this signing will sound like sweet music to Philip Rivers, who has another able body in front of him as he begins his 13th season this fall.
     
  2. HEXEDBOLT

    HEXEDBOLT Don't like it, lump it!!!

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Messages:
    14,284
    Ratings:
    +1,886
    Great move. Things seem to be coming to together very nicely for a change.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Moses

    Moses Can You Stand The Rain?

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Messages:
    848
    Ratings:
    +358
    We now have the biggest OL in the league in terms of height / weight on the projected starting lineup. Hopefully they can stay healthy!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Lance19

    Lance19 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,699
    Ratings:
    +2,156
    Okay, given the terrible state of the Chargers' O-line in 2015, I have welcomed the addition of Slauson,
    as I would welcome the addition of almost any healthy, experienced lineman at this point.

    However, I did begin to get curious about why the Bears would let him go, given that Charger fans
    are acting as if we just scored a tremendous coup. And before anyone gets mad at me for not being "optimistic,"
    I do feel our line, and thus our team are better for having added Slauson.
    But he wasn't exactly the hot property some here would like to think.

    Brad Biggs wrote a story mid-week that provides some context, re. the Bears not being able to trade Slauson:
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...ct-matt-slauson-why-bears-20160504-story.html
    "The Bears tried to trade Slauson and those efforts began well before the draft. Slauson has multiple teams pursuing him right now as he is visiting the Chargers and is scheduled to visit the Bills, where coach Rex Ryan and offensive line coach Aaron Kromer both have familiarity with him. But the fact that the team couldn’t flip Slauson for a draft pick should also be an indication of how other teams viewed him and the $3 million salary for this season. This wasn’t a move that was made to clear cap space. The Bears made a football decision. The 2016 season will tell us if it was the right move or the wrong move."

    Again, Slauson was reliable, and "good enough" for years, but:
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...lease-safety-antrel-rolle-20160501-story.html

    "The Bears soured on Slauson's athleticism, though, and extensive efforts to trade him this offseason came up empty.
    Then on Friday, they traded back twice in the second round and drafted Kansas State guard Cody Whitehair."


    Some other sources

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...ace-haugh-bears-spt-0504-20160503-column.html
    say great things like "best lineman on the Bears last year," "tough," "leader" & "classy" which all sound great. :D

    But the fact that none of the other 31 teams would trade anything for the rights to Slauson, tempers my enthusiasm
    re. thinking Telesco just pulled off a major coup. Of course, now that Slauson's in Bolts, I hope he plays like Superman.
     
  5. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,298
    Ratings:
    +4,410
    It's all relative...... If you already had decent center talent on your roster, then Slauson wouldn't be viewed as worth giving up a draft pick for. Teams do tend to overvalue "potential" players over proven ones.

    However, if you had trash at the position, like the Chargers did, then the Slauson signing would rightfully been seen as a coup. I see no downside to the signing regardless.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. Lance19

    Lance19 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,699
    Ratings:
    +2,156
    Absolutely. One of the articles pointed out that Slauson's only two public visits were to teams who
    had horrible O-lines in 2015...teams that were good, average, or even generally weak weren't calling.
    (If anyone is wondering http://bills.buffalonews.com/2015/10/29/bills-offensive-line-ranked-30-out-of-32-teams/)

    Still, for our Chargers: Better Slauson than no Slauson... :p he's definitely an upgrade for this line...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Bruce Daniel

    Bruce Daniel BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    570
    Ratings:
    +242
    I wasn't aware people were calling it a "major coup". It's a solid veteran signing that can start if Watt/Tuerk don't win the center job in camp. He can also adequately back up Franklin and Fluker on the inside. It's a good signing. Plenty of reasons why teams wouldn't trade for him (they're going younger/scheme fit/don't like the contract) that have nothing to do with his play.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. Blue Bolt

    Blue Bolt Persona Non Grata

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    22,298
    Ratings:
    +4,410
    Well, I can can think of two people who wouldn't consider it a good signing. ;)
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan

    Carlsbad_Bolt_Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    6,982
    Ratings:
    +1,582
    Hmmm...who could they be? ;)
     
  10. HEXEDBOLT

    HEXEDBOLT Don't like it, lump it!!!

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Messages:
    14,284
    Ratings:
    +1,886
    WTF, who made this guy out to be an all-pro future HOF center for such crap to be spewed out. If he's better than what the Bolts have it should be a solid pick up, if he stays healthy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Bolts4lyfe

    Bolts4lyfe BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2012
    Messages:
    3,182
    Ratings:
    +1,031
    Any upgrade from what we dealt with last year is a future HOF in the eyes of us fans. But the dude is a + graded blocker.
    I have always believed it always starts in the middle, this guy can help the rest of the line get better.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Joy Division

    Joy Division Slightly-known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,323
    Ratings:
    +542
    Slauson IS Gawd!
     
  13. Slam

    Slam BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    592
    Ratings:
    +137
    and they told me we can't have, and now we have. :)
     
  14. AnteaterCharger

    AnteaterCharger Calibrating Bolttalk, Podcast by Podcast Staff Member Super Moderator Podcaster

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,111
    Ratings:
    +2,930
    Is it a major coup? Meh. He's the best OL on the board by a substantial margin and fills a need for sure. The Chargers now have guard and center insurance.

    Was this an excellent pick up? Absolutely. See reasons above.

    I think the Chargers are now 7-8 deep at OL with some very good players, including two excellent backups in Hairston and Slauson.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Slam

    Slam BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    592
    Ratings:
    +137
    It seems like we're doing everything right this offseason, I'm sure ONE person will argue this.

    With the local conservative group making a stand against the stadium, I hope it doesn't get ugly and seep into the chemistry of the players. I swear the whole, we don't know where we're playing had to have had an impact last year.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. Chaincrusher

    Chaincrusher BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,322
    Ratings:
    +302
    I agree that this is a solid veteran signing.

    I expect Slauson to be better than either Watt or Robinson (which is to say that I believe Slauson has a pulse).

    Tuerk probably needs to develop some in terms of his physical strength and technique and this gives us a legitimate center option while that process is underway.

    I will cheer if/when Watt, very arguably the worst player on the roster, is cut.

    I also agree that you can't read too much into the missed trade opportunity for the Bears. Lots of factors could have prevented a trade. The Bears could have asked for too much. Teams could have anticipated that Slauson would be released. Teams could have made other plans at C. There are many potential explanations not having to do with Slauson's ability as a C.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Chaincrusher

    Chaincrusher BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,322
    Ratings:
    +302
    To be perfectly clear, I think Telesco made a number of good moves and has done some things that I thought were mistakes.

    I really liked the signings of Benjamin and Mebane in particular as well the drafting of Joshua Perry.

    I really didn't like the failure to get Weddle signed (could have easily re-signed him, but Telesco totally blew the negotiations) and the drafting of Hunter Henry at #35 overall (awful pick there).

    I didn't like the failure to re-sign Patrick Robinson (who actually played pretty well for us) and the drafting of Bosa at #3 overall. As to Bosa, the dislike has more to do with taking him at #3 overall than it has to do with us taking him at all.

    I liked the re-signing of Gates and the drafting of Jatavis Brown and Drew Kaser.

    And now I like the signing of Slauson.

    So, I see the results as mixed overall.
     
  18. Slam

    Slam BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    592
    Ratings:
    +137
    I don't know about you, but I saw Weddle's production go way down last year. We could argue he was injured, or perhaps it was the bad blood. He was definitely whiffing on tackles on purpose. I am not convinced he has that much left in the tank, career wise.

    We should of perhaps kept him as a leadership role, but I am unsure whether it's two entities on different pages. Weddle looking for a huge payday, and Chargers looking for a cheaper, longer term option.

    What if he has a terrible season with the Ravens? It means the Chargers were right in letting him go...not in the way they did it though.
     
  19. boltssbbound

    boltssbbound Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    7,073
    Ratings:
    +1,554
    The only way we could have "easily re-signed" Weddle is if we wanted to give him a 10 mil per year deal before last season. Once we refused to do that, Weddle announced his intentions to sign elsewhere. Weddle signed a 4 year 26 million dollar contract, which is essentially a 2-year, 12 million dollar deal. Weddle's play last season and his value on the open market vindicated Telesco's decision not to throw a huge money extension at him last offseason.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  20. LT-Express

    LT-Express Bolttalk.com Janitor since 06' Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,673
    Ratings:
    +434
    How do you know he was talking about you? :)
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  21. Chaincrusher

    Chaincrusher BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,322
    Ratings:
    +302
    Weddle took $6.5M per season to play for BAL. He has stated that he was looking for $6.5M to $8M per season all along. Where is your evidence that $10M was ever Weddle's demand?

    And even if it were Weddle's opening demand, any negotiator with half a clue understands what an opening demand is. If there is ground to be covered before an agreement can be reached, the best way to get there is not by planting one's feet in cement, but rather by actually trying to cover the ground through the negotiation process.

    That doesn't mean walking to the other side's position, but rather knowing what your side is willing to do and the likely terrain ahead and where the other side is. Building a strategy with those things in mind before you ever sit down at the table goes a long way toward getting you there.

    Undenied by Telesco are all of the following.

    Per Weddle, Weddle had been trying to negotiate an extension since during the 2014 season.

    Telesco refused to negotiate then.

    Weddle tried to negotiate in 2015. Telesco refused to negotiate then.

    Telesco then burned his bridge with Weddle once and for all with his state of the team address in which he stated that it would be best for all involved if Weddle moved on, thus cutting off any potential negotiations at any time after the 2015 season.

    Those are the facts and the have not been disputed/denied by Telesco.

    Telesco never negotiated with Weddle at all!

    I can tell you this with 100% certainty. Amazingly enough, in the many, many negotiations (probably in the thousands) in which I have been involved over the years, I do not recall reaching any agreements by virtue of not actually negotiating with the other side.

    Also, Weddle had some injury issues last year, so I wouldn't be too quick to call a player playing at age 30 (in 2015) in decline.

    The only proposition that got vindicated is that Telesco was an idiot in his handling of Weddle. We don't have an obvious starting FS of anywhere near Weddle's ability on our roster right now. That's one more hole to fill in the rapidly closing Philip Rivers window.
     
  22. Chaincrusher

    Chaincrusher BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,322
    Ratings:
    +302
    I have been the most critical of the team when total offseason mistakes (failure to re-sign, bad FA signings, bad draft choices) are considered.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Chaincrusher

    Chaincrusher BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,322
    Ratings:
    +302
    Sure, Weddle could get hit by a falling meteor tomorrow, but I am not counting on either that or that he will have a bad season with the Ravens. I see the two as being just about equally likely.

    He was injured in 2015. We don't need to argue it.

    It is unlikely in the extreme that a player playing FS in his 30-year-old season that does not have a huge injury history would suddenly run out of gas.

    By the way, in 2014, when Weddle originally tried to get his contract extended, he was the same age as Brandon Flowers when Flowers got his big contract. Of course, the Weddle situation was different in that he had established a greater record of durability, had been named to multiple Pro Bowls and was All-Pro many times over, all unlike Flowers.

    But at least we were sure to lock up the lesser player of the two.
     
  24. The LBC

    The LBC I'm a Real Prick

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,993
    Ratings:
    +1,394
    Hindsight is always 20/20. Too bad that's a piss-poor way to retroactively evaluate considering that in real-time nothing is or ever was as simple as people - with their perfect hindsight - want to make it out to have been.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  25. Chaincrusher

    Chaincrusher BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,322
    Ratings:
    +302
    Fair enough, but the general approach that should have been taken was pretty apparent from the outset and stonewalling and refusing to negotiate at all was not that approach.

    That a GM is not going to get an agreement by refusing to negotiate should be clear enough to that GM.
     
  26. Slam

    Slam BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    592
    Ratings:
    +137
    My firm belief is Weddle will have a terrible year, thus showing Telesco's good foresight on the matter.

    It is and will be an irrecovable fact
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  27. The LBC

    The LBC I'm a Real Prick

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,993
    Ratings:
    +1,394
    Again, you seem to be approaching this with the application of knowledge afterthought to the situation at the time. As this was unfolding you very clearly intimated and agreed that the outrageous demand on behalf of Weddle's agent was a bargaining tactic. I'm not disputing that, in fact I agree; and I would suggest that Telesco recognized that as well. To suggest that everything out of Weddle's camp is factual while (most everything) out of Telesco's mouth is conjecture is flat out irresponsible. BOTH sides made extremist bargaining tactics.

    However, Telesco doesn't handle contract negotiations. He oversees the guy who does so - or so we are at least to believe or give benefit of the doubt to - who has been there, working in that capacity with the franchise, for longer that Telesco has been a Chargers employee. In fact, Ed McGuire has been with the Chargers organization alone only three years less than Telesco has been in the league as an employee in any capacity. He's the chief negotiator on all player contracts - as is explicitly stated on the team website.

    None of us (NONE of us) can profess to know exactly how the inner workings and hierarchy in the Chargers organization are structured. However, given McGuire's long tenure with the team and Executive Vice President title, it's not unthinkable in the slightest to think that he answers far more to Team Presidents of Business and Football Operations (A.G. and John Spanos, respectively) than he does to Tom Telesco. As such, vilifying Telesco for being the great decider who pulled the team away from the negotiation table appears just plain foolhardy.

    But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative. That's the primary mantra of the interwebs, right?
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  28. Concudan

    Concudan Caffeinated Commando

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    53,044
    Ratings:
    +4,979
    Weddle is gone.

    End of narrative.
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
  29. Chaincrusher

    Chaincrusher BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,322
    Ratings:
    +302
    There is zero hindsight here at all, none. And I have set forth the relevant facts and have done so accurately to the best of my knowledge and belief.

    We have been made aware of what actually happened afterward as one side has reported certain facts and the other side has not denied any of it. Absent cause not to believe what has been reported and not denied, I am accepting those representations at face value.

    Those representations (from Weddle himself) include:

    1. Weddle first began trying to get his contract extended during the 2014 season (not just in the episode a couple of months before the 2015 season about which we were all aware). Telesco stonewalled him then.
    2. Weddle attempted to get a new contract done in 2015. Telesco refused to negotiate with him.
    3. All along, Weddle would have accepted a contract in the $6.5M (which he did accept) to $8M per season range.

    We also know (because we saw the press conference in which it was done publicly) that Telesco stated publicly that it would be best for all concerned for Weddle to move on.

    Turning to Ed McGuire, I think most of us are well aware that he is involved in the negotiations of player contracts. However, Telesco is the GM and McGuire is certainly being given parameters for his negotiations. If your assertion is that McGuire has carte blanche to reach whatever deal he wants with any player, then you and I will have to agree to disagree.

    Of course, to state the painfully obvious, McGuire's presence never gets mentioned by anyone ever on this forum when Telesco is given credit for the signing of a player. But when Telesco is challenged, it seems that many on this forum will reach for whatever desperate argument possible to make an excuse for an obvious Telesco f*ck up. But why should such persons strive for any sort of internal consistency in their positions?

    In the case of Weddle, if we apply just a little logic here, I think we can see that McGuire is not why Weddle was not re-signed. Specifically, we have the uncontradicted report of Weddle that there were no negotiations at all despite Weddle's multiple attempts to negotiate.

    So, either McGuire just decided one day not to do his job as it relates to Weddle, or McGuire had directions from above not to negotiate with Weddle. Since McGuire still has a job with the team, it is pretty clear that he was instructed not to negotiate with Weddle. Thus, McGuire is irrelevant to this discussion.

    Lastly, I would note that none of us know what Weddle's original demand was. We don't even know that it was high, though the Steelers did indicate that they found it to be ridiculous. Naturally, even if it were ridiculous, it is an opening demand. Overcoming a gap between a demand and an offer is what negotiations are all about.

    What we do know is that if Telesco had decided to negotiate with Weddle, he ultimately could have signed Weddle for $6.5M (though it may have been during free agency). And we know this because San Diego was Weddle's first choice and he ultimately took $6.5M to play for a team that was not his first choice.

    There would have been zero risk or harm in Telesco not burning his bridge with Weddle as he did publicly in his state of the the team address at the end of the season. Had he not done so, the worst case scenario would have been that the team would have had a chance to re-sign Weddle during free agency.

    Now, if you are aware of any facts that are different than what I have set forth, please let me know about that.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2016
    • Old Old x 1
  30. chahjah

    chahjah BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2014
    Messages:
    182
    Ratings:
    +134
    lmao so full of conjectures

    also I think this could help you distinguish between facts and opinions, which you seem very confused about
    [​IMG]
     
    • Winner Winner x 2

Share This Page