Blog Entry

Giants tell Umenyiora he can no longer seek trade

Posted on: August 3, 2011 2:30 pm
Edited on: August 4, 2011 7:33 am
Posted by Ryan Wilson's Clark Judge reported Monday that the Giants were seeking a first-round pick for disgruntled defensive end Osi Umenyiora. Two days later, Umenyiora's price reportedly dropped to a second-rounder, and the Ravens appeared to be one of five teams interested in his services.

Judge wrote earlier Wednesday that a source denied the report that the Giants had lowered their asking price, and "According to the source, the Giants still are asking for a top pick, which hasn't produced interest to this point."

Now, according to the Newark Star-Ledger's Mike Garafolo, the Giants have told Umenyiora and his agent that they can no longer seek a trade.

"The team informed the two-time Pro Bowl defensive end today he and his agent are no longer allowed to seek a trade partner, according to someone informed of the conversation between the two camps today," Garafolo wrote Wednesday.

Umenyiora's agent, Tony Agnone, confirmed the report to Garafolo, who adds: "The team's decision to take the trade off the table is a sign they're looking to nip this distraction in the bud, though it might only serve to further escalate Umenyiora's anger over his claim the Giants promised to restructure his contract. If so, that might speed up the process here and bring a suspension for "conduct detrimental to the team" in play."

Right. We're not sure how this will do anything other than cause a distraction. Umenyiora hasn't been shy about voicing his displeasure with the Giants in recent months, accusing them of not keeping a promise to pay him more money. He contemplated a holdout before reporting to training camp, but has yet to participate in practices due to an undisclosed injury the Giants have been unwilling to confirm, according to Garafolo.

Justin Tuck thinks Umenyiora is healthy enough to practice, although he hedged by adding, "The only thing I worry about is if he'll be in that Giants Blue. I know where he is mentally, I know where he is physically. Only problem now is he's not happy with his contract. Last time I checked, I am defensive captain but I do not write checks for the New York Giants. So I can't answer the questions, is he going to be here or not."

For now, it appears Umenyiora won't be going anywhere.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 16, 2012 3:03 am

Giants tell Umenyiora he can no longer seek trade

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 1, 2012 1:43 am

Giants tell Umenyiora he can no longer seek trade

Almost instructive as well as easy to understand uncomplicated to recognize. Desiring to locate significantly more a great writeups!! Do you have a myspace . com?

Since: Nov 19, 2011
Posted on: December 25, 2011 4:04 am

Giants tell Umenyiora he can no longer seek trade

It is really terrific to understand from you to verify out just what you have been roughly. This web page may make every person understand the motion for phrases and phrases and images. Keep on to occur in the very best of methods.

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 4, 2011 7:02 pm

Giants tell Umenyiora he can no longer seek trade

Greetings certainly, there, Will it be realistic to capture advantage of this situation super write-up in this little web-based website? It's safe to in my opinion truth be told internet site web page to return once again for your requirements. Allow me the chance find out what you might be mind up to carryout.

Since: Nov 28, 2011
Posted on: November 28, 2011 12:25 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

Since: Oct 21, 2011
Posted on: October 23, 2011 8:51 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

Since: Nov 14, 2006
Posted on: August 8, 2011 6:00 pm

Giants tell Umenyiora he can no longer seek trade

And now you're just a bald-faced liar. Show me one New York Times article that reported legacy costs as the primary reason why GM failed. You won't because you can't. There are none. Liar.

First I never said the NY times reported that legacy cost were the primary reason. Again, sales slowed due to fuel efficancy and gas prices, I never argued any different but the Legacy Cost did not allow them the chance to make it through.

Second, here is the link...stop calling people liars when you yourself seem to be speaking out your a$$..I won't even bother to address your other nonsense.

"Sales for the Big Three started falling in the spring of 2008 as gas prices soared. In the fall, as the current recession took hold, sales plunged, including a dismal 31.9 percent drop in October, to the lowest level recorded in 25 years. The drop affected all automakers, as even Toyota, which had recently surpassed G.M. as the world's largest, reported a loss. But the American carmakers, hobbled with high legacy costs, found themselves in worse shape, as they burned through their cash reserves at alarming rates."

Since: Feb 25, 2009
Posted on: August 6, 2011 10:12 pm

Giants tell Umenyiora he can no longer seek trade

The point your missing is even if the auto sales were low they could have still survived if not for the leagcy cost.
And they might have even turned a profit if those damned employees didn't insist on being paid for their work! You're putting the cart before the horse, here, and your attempts to spin the truth is starting to look desperate.

In the're funny. No doubt that bad fuel efficant cars were the reason for lowered sales but your still missing the big picture...they could have survived had it not been for the legacy cost...this is're actually saying a bad product made a giant like GM fall on it's own when this is clearly not the case.
1. I'm not saying it. Nearly every news agency and many GM employees are. I'm just telling you what they said.
2. Here's some Logic 101, since you obviously can't reason your way out of a wet paper bag: GM "survived" legacy costs for decades. Now all of a sudden legacy costs crash the company? No. When change happens, you look for what is different, not what is the same. GM covered their costs for over a century, and then they coudn't. What was different this time, that they couldn't cover their costs? Sales.

Considering your accusation of redundancy, you're starting to sound like a broken record. You do realize this misguided harping on "legacy costs" is the same as saying that if it weren't for (insert the name of any other cost), GM would have done better, right?

Basically, the legacy cost provided no room for the comapany to weather the storm.
Blame-the-victim mentality at it's most pathetic. GM wasn't hit by a storm. Their demise was not an act of God or a force of nature, coming out of nowhere to sink the company. They fell because they made very bad decisions and stuck with them in the face of all reason. They wanted short-term profit, and they paid the price for their lack of forward thinking.

You can substitute any large cost for your spoon-fed pet cause, and you'll achieve the same, stupid result. Let's assume for argument's sake that they somehow snatched enough money away from their workers to "weather the storm", okay? Okay. So, they're still in business, still selling crappy, lumbering, inefficient monsters that nobody wants. Where's the money coming from, now? You've already robbed your own, and sales won't help you. In fact, sales are sinking you. Where's the money? What happens now?

What happens now is that you crash down dead later rather than sooner, while your board and your shareholders squeeze a few more millions from the carcass. We're right back where we started.

Only provided examples of some of the bad choices they made.
What? So now you're going to run away from your own arguments? Pathetic. You gave those examples as proof that GM tried to go the fuel-efficiency route and it failed. This, you argued, means that GM's refusal to get in the fuel efficiency game had no effect. I then shot those examples down as too old to have any relevance. And now, you start spinning your own words. Sad.

Did not realize the NY times was not credible.
And now you're just a bald-faced liar. Show me one New York Times article that reported legacy costs as the primary reason why GM failed. You won't because you can't. There are none. Liar.

Since: Nov 14, 2006
Posted on: August 6, 2011 2:08 pm

Giants tell Umenyiora he can no longer seek trade


Because you said so...sure pal

You truly believe that fuel efficiency didn't play a huge role in GMs downfall? Come on man. Sure it wasn't just that, horrible design and terrible build quality played a role as well, but while Toyota/Honda etc were pumping out gas misers and selling like hotcakes, GM was pushing "MORE HORSE POWER!!" IMO they deserved a one way ticket to extinction, the recession was a convenient scapegoat for them so they took the bail-out dough. Unions had nothing to do with GM pumping out crappy gas swilling POS's. They negotiated good wages for their employees, just like a corporate fat-cat negotiates massive wages for himself and himself alone

It played a part in ther declining sales, but anyone with knowledge of the situation understands that the company could have survived the slow slaes had it not been fo teir legacy clearly don't understand the situation..Let me help a bit...there are two sides to this story...bad product = bad sales leagacy cost = did not allow company to survive the down trend. got it?


On the topic of unions, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Corporations are bound to their shareholders, not their employees. If they could they would slash salaries, benefits, pensions and anything else, with no regard for quality of life. Unions are there to keep businesses in check. Personally, Im a big fan of the 40 hour work week not to mention the 5 day week. Who do you think is responsible for that? You can't compare pro sports unions to a carpenters union for example... it's apples and oranges. 

You clearly have no idea how a company works.


Since: Nov 14, 2006
Posted on: August 6, 2011 1:57 pm

Giants tell Umenyiora he can no longer seek trade

You're right. I did not take your completely subjective, baseless peculation into consideration. Also, unions cover the smallest percentage of the workforce since their inception in the 19th century. Don't think so fearfully
Subjective? Not at all, but it is clear your knowledge of unions and how they operate is limited. I have been involved in many of these cases...It happens all the time...A simple google search will show how many times union are placed under trusteeship. Out of work list rise and the presidant of the international which over sees those unions pockets millions.  While unions cover a small portion of the work force it is the basis of our conversation...why even bring that up? It has no value in this arena.

More basless speculation, now joined by unfounded accusation. Prove that one union milked one contract and took every penny from one state before you throw this sort of tripe around all willy-nilly.

Once again your lack of knowledge in this area shows....look no further than the world trade center do understand what has happened and is now currently happening there? 

One had better be very careful which company they're talking about, then. Most manual-labor-intensive companies (and many in every other category) care nothing about "talent". They care about "cheapest possible". Or is there some other reason why so many moved to third-world countries to pay illiterate peasants next to nothing?

Which manual labor companies are you speaking of? most companies follow whats called a "lean" program. Keep the talent pay them more and get ride of the fat (those that do very little, clock watch and are unproductive) 

Disproven. A , commissioned by merit pay proponents (people who agre with you), showed that "motivation for advancement" isn't a significant factor in the education of children. It's quite the opposite: We can't keep good teachers because too many people believe the line of crap you're putting out. If they stayed - according to you - they'd get paid more. Why wouldn't they stay? Because they - like every other teacher - are underpaid. The funny thing is, this is the education of the childred - the future of our country - we're talking about. If there is ONE place in the entirety of the USA that we should overpay, this should be it. But we don't. Politicians talk big about improving education, but they don't put the taxpayers' money where their (and the taxpayers') mouth is. They don't have to, because people like you think that Americans are spoiled and overpaid, especially the ones we need the most: teachers, soldiers, police, and firemen. Sadly, they are grossly underpaid.
LOL....and there are many studies that disagree with your study......So nothing is disproven...Go no further than NY...the big push against allowing charter schools open ...finally the teachers union agreed to allow two charter schools to open but only if they open in the worst performing school districts in NY. The teachers union's obvious reason, opening two schools in harlem would assure them no big differance in scores..yet the charter schools out performed the public school and now the teachers union is lobbying hard to have them closed down..I am sure your study disproves that fact as well.



The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or