dchester said:
Originally posted by PatPatriot
#3 seems more plausible, in light of the "kicker" issues and how fast he got a deal after his recent change. Again, plausible, not definite.
For #3 to be plausible, one would need to come up with the motive for why the agent would be willing for his client (and thus him) to receive less money. The only motive I could come up, would be if Kraft was paying the agent a kickback, to get players to sign here for below the market. I'm rather skeptical of that, to say the least. [/QUOTE]
I still suspect that this may be ballocks. But, playing devil's advocate, let me propose an alternative. We know that, at least in the past, the Patriots have had a good working relationship with the Cornrich agency. Nothing wrong with that. Perhaps they have recommended the agency to some players who were looking for agents, either players looking to make a switch or looking for a new agent. After all, they thought highly of the agency.
Now, in 2006, the agency is in turmoil. The main agent has been decertified for testimony in a completely unrelated matter. Undoubtedly, this news is not good for business. The agency is in danger of losing two of New England's premier free agents to other teams. In itself, this is not bad--it's their job to get the best deal for their clients, who are the players. But perhaps this agency, which has seen business dry up in recent months, was afraid to irritate/anger the team with which they had the best working relationship. After all, we know of certain agents who have angered teams to the extent that they won't negotiate with them (perhaps the Postons and Rosenhaus have a few of these), or will only hold hostile negotiations with them. As a result of this fear, the agents do indeed try to steer the players back into the fold, partly because they feel that the deals are good ones, but also to keep one of their best working relationships healthy in a time of difficulty.
In other words, the deals come not as a result of anything shady on the team's end (which seems genuinely hard to believe), but from a financially-driven desire of the agency to maintain a business relationship with a team who still likes them, and maybe one which can recommend them to future players looking for an agency, in the situations I mentioned above. If true, this would be extremely poor judgement on the part of the agency, and would be (obviously) a possible death knell for their client base.
I do not
know any of this--it is
pure speculation. We have not heard from Neal at all, or the agent, and perhaps all of this is crap, which I am, personally, given my Patriotism, inclined to believe. I am merely suggesting a scenario which, to me, seems more plausible than any involving kickbacks and payola, suggestions which strike me as conspiratorial and borderline-ludicrous.
(I would also add that, being neither a sports agent nor a lawyer, I hope that if what I have suggested is impossible or implausible, someone will correct me.)