David Akers Still Unhappy With Philadelphia Eagles, Won't Sign Transition Tender
David Akers' agent, Jerrold Colton, told Jeff McLane of the Philadelphia Inquirer that the kicker would not be following Michael Vick's example and signing his one-year transition tag tender.
"It was never something that we were going to sign at this point," Colton said, before going on to say that Akers is still unhappy with the designation.
Signing the tag would have guaranteed Akers a one-year deal at $2.8 million, the average salary of the top-10 highest-paid kickers in the league. The salary would be double the $1.4 million Akers made in 2010, but the long-time Eagles kicker is looking for a long-term deal.
Les Bowen of the Philadelphia Daily News reports that Akers won't sign the tag because doing so would prevent him from seeking out offers from other teams. If he doesn't sign, Akers still has the hopes that another team will offer him a long-term deal and force the Eagles to match.
If the team refused to match the long-term offer, Akers would likely take the deal with the other team rather than taking a one-year pay-raise.
While I understand Akers' desire for a long-term deal, I do not understand why he's so upset with the team for slapping him with the tag. In these uncertain times, it is simply their way of making sure they retain his rights for the time being.
The "30 percent" rule also plays a part in all this. Under the rule, the team could not increase Akers' pay more than 30 percent for next season, which would put him right around $1.8 million for next season—a number he would surely not accept even if they offered him a seven-year deal.
In order to be paid what he's worth, Akers would likely have to make somewhere in the area of $2.5 million per season.
Akers might not be happy with the tag, but he and his agent must understand that it's the best possible solution right now for Akers and the team if they are to ever move forward with a long-term deal.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?