Tapp agrees to pay cut
Darryl Tapp agreed to restructure his contract and take a pay cut before the Eagles narrowed their roster to 53 on Friday, according to an NFL source.
Tapp agrees to pay cut
Jeff McLane, Inquirer Staff Writer
Darryl Tapp agreed to restructure his contract and take a pay cut before the Eagles narrowed their roster to 53 on Friday, according to an NFL source.
The defensive end was slated to earn $2.575 million this season. The Eagles and Tapp were still working on a new figure.
The Eagles have asked players with hefty contracts on the roster bubble to restructure their contracts before. Last season before the cut-down day deadline, tackle Winston Justice and defensive end Juqua Parker took pay cuts.
Antonio Dixon was approached about restructuring his contract earlier this week. The defensive tackle, who was slated to make approximately $1.9 million this season, was released on Friday.
"That was a hard one," Eagles general manager Howie Roseman said of cutting Dixon. "He brings great personality to this team. He’s somebody we care about both personally and professionally. Sometimes you have to make tough decisions. And that was one of them."
In March, defensive tackle Cullen Jenkins agreed to restructure his contract.
Tapp is one of six defensive ends currently on the Eagles roster. He joins a formidable group that includes Trent Cole, Jason Babin, Brandon Graham, Phillip Hunt and Vinny Curry. Roseman said that the Eagles could dress as many as five on game days because of the importance the Eagles defense places on their line play.
Curry, a rookie, would appear to be the most likely to be inactive on game days to start the season.
Tapp, who signed with the Eagles in March 2010, is in the last year of his contract. He's recorded 5.5 sacks in two seasons with the Birds. Last season, Tapp was slowed by injuries. He performed well this preseason, though.
Wow! Harsh, real life economics at work. "You are replaceable. Take a pay cut, or be out of a job." Just hope the Eagles use the money saved to upgrade somewhere otherwise its just pinching pennies and the players know it. Not the best feeling to have.— PhillyinBmore- In the "real world" you usually don't get the option to take a pay cut. You're just terminated....period, regardless of the terminology you use (laid off, fired, let go, downsized, whatever). I imagine that Tapp could take a hefty pay cut from $2.575 million and still not be hurting too much. — SteveS11
- Remember Buddy Ryan's line: "It's either a 25 percent pay cut or a 100 percent pay cut." — J H
- It is good for the sport. The problem with the other major sports is that guaranteed contracts create blck holes that teams take forever to recover from. You get paid market value in the NFL. When you no longer are worth you rsalary then you can go find a team that wants to pay it or you take a pay cut to match what you would actually get from someone else if you were cut. Sometimes there are disputes but playersd also get their deals re-worked all of the time before they are up which doesn't happen in other sports. This is the bestw ay for competitive balance. I think all leagues should have max legnths of 5 years.— UncleStosh
- Couldn't agree more with UncleStosh. All sports should have non-guaranteed contracts. It would make the financials more viable and it increase quality on the field or court due to competition. Perfect example is the Phillies with many long term, unworthy contracts.— Servo
- Imagine if pop up jimmy had to play under a non-guaranteed contract or on a year-to-year basis like the players of old. — coloradoeagle
- The reason sports like baseball have fully-guaranteed contracts is because it is what their union has fought for and won over the years. NFL players blew their chance at guaranteed contracts years ago when they weren't a cohesive unit off the field. If the baseball owners tried implementing the type of hard cap/non guaranteed contracts the NFL has, we wouldn't see baseball until they relented. The players will sit out for years before agreeing to that. — Eilex826
- I agree as well. All sports jobs should be like any other job that we all have, if you don't perform your job well then you loose it. Take a pay cut or we'll have to lay you off, simple economics at work and the players should start understanding this. Rollins certainly doesn't get it.— LAFlyer
- Count me in also.
I don't mind ownership having most, if not all, the leverage... but the best system would also include an "up escalator" in cases where players outplay their contracts. In practice this may be difficult to administer, but having the incentive there is important for both sides.— Mr. Magee - Charlie Finlay, when he owned the A's, proposed that every contract be year to year. This terrified Marvin Miller, who knew that long term deals, for the most part, only benefit the player— blaqjaq
- Up until Marvin Miller, MLB contracts were almost always year to year. Joe DiMaggio just missed the Triple Crown one year and had to take a pay cut. Brutal. I agree, though, that players should get paid according to what they do. That is one thing I like about pro golf and tennis (though I rarely watch them): they get paid by how well they do.— phillyinsd
- Too bad Roseman, Castillo and Reid aren't asked to take pay cuts. Down to $0 would be nice.— Scope33
- Frankly I think Howie Rosen does a great job. He has wisdom far beyond his years. Most cities with NFL teams would take Andy Reid in a New York minute and Andy knows it. Does anyone really believe he would be unemployed long if the Eagles released him? As for player contracts, maybe other sports should look at tennis and golf. The better you play the more you make. It's a capitalist approach, long forgotten, or never learned, by most of America.— Lockyer
- He would be picked up right away but that doesn't mean he will ever win a Super Bowl. He will be fired after this season and be picked up by San Diego. Frankly it would be a good move for both sides to part ways after this season. Burden would be great
- I don't disagree with the idea of contract length nor earning what you are paid. Essentially, that is what the NFL has with voidable contracts. It allows teams to cut players on a year to year basis and reallocate capital. But honestly, we are all part of the problem. The biggest revenue generator is the TV contract. As long as fans who continue to watch, go to games and make the NFL a multi-billion industry, you can't blame the owners or players for the crazy contracts. Players have recognized amount of revenue from TV and just want a bigger piece of the pie. Some players are worth it (ie: Megatron, etc) and some aren't. It will never hurt all labor for employees to ask for and expect pay raises. It just a question of how much do owners want to move that line that separates valued employees vs labor.— PhillyinBmore
