Twitter | Search | |
Michael David Smith
Managing Editor, Pro Football Talk
43,541
Tweets
1,021
Following
27,975
Followers
Tweets
Michael David Smith 19h
Replying to @FO_ASchatz
I don't think there's any question the 7 seed 49ers would've been favored at 2 seed Detroit. In Detroit's actual first playoff game, home vs. Dallas, Vegas had it as a pick 'em. The 49ers were better than the Cowboys that year by all the metrics bettors consider important.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith 23h
If NFL players vote based on self interest, the highly paid stars will vote against the CBA because it doesn't do much to raise top salaries. Fringe players who make the minimum or are on the practice squad will vote for it because it does a lot for those guys.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith 23h
Replying to @MikeTanier
Honestly if they vote this down they should also vote to fire De Smith and hire a new executive director. Voting this down means they're fundamentally not aligned with their leadership.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith 23h
Replying to @king_kaufman
Bloomberg's net worth probably fluctuates daily, up or down depending on how the markets do, by an amount of money that exceeds Trump's net worth.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith Feb 21
Then your database is missing some because off the top of my head I know Eric Ebron was also released after having his fifth-year option picked up.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith Feb 21
Replying to @benbbaldwin
“A fair bargain leaves both sides unhappy.” ― George R.R. Martin, A Dance with Dragons
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith Feb 21
Replying to @Brad_Gagnon
Yes. The rank-and-file members tend to elect respected veteran players to be their union reps. And respected veterans tend to be well above the median salary. So while they're supposed to represent the whole membership, they're more attuned to the needs of the higher-paid players
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith Feb 21
Replying to @kpatra
The star players have the biggest platforms to voice their objections, but when it's time to vote there are a lot more guys who will benefit from the higher minimum salary and the bigger performance-based pay pool than stars who would benefit from, say, ending the franchise tag.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith Feb 21
Replying to @TitaniaMcGrath
Quite possibly the bravest tweet ever written.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith Feb 21
Replying to @kpatra
That's the only thing he's tweeted, and as far as I can find he has said nothing anywhere else about it. Would be interested to know what terms would be acceptable to him and why he's confident the union will get those terms in the future if it votes no on this deal now.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith Feb 21
A lot of people on here say the NFLPA should turn down the owners' proposal. What's your case to a minimum-salary player for why he should vote No? Why should he turn down a $90K pay raise? A lot more union members make minimum salaries than JJ Watt money.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith Feb 21
Next they're going to tell us that little girl picking daisies in Lyndon Johnson's anti-Goldwater commercial was just an actress, and she didn't really get obliterated in a mushroom cloud!
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith Feb 21
I wanted to @ JoAnn Wypijewski in praising that article, but she appears not to be on Twitter, which only adds to her esteem.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith Feb 20
Replying to @MikeTanier
When I was 23 and just getting started in the career I had dedicated my entire life to attaining, I definitely would've scoffed at a $90K pay raise and insisted on spending the next year arguing about arcane details of revenue splits.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith Feb 20
Replying to @duresport
NFL. Owners voted today to approve the latest CBA offer to the union. The union has not yet voted on whether to accept it. But that $90K extra for players making the league minimum guarantees most of the low-paid players will vote Yes.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith Feb 20
Replying to @MikeTanier
I mean realistically almost all of those guys have to be in favor of it. If you're a minimum-salary guy $90K more this year is a meaningful difference to you, and you have no idea if you'll even still be in the league when a possible better deal gets done a year from now.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith Feb 20
One reason a lot of rank-and-file players will vote to approve the CBA: It guarantees at least a $90K increase in minimum salaries, starting in 2020. There's some sentiment among players to wait and try to get a better CBA in 2021 but minimum salary players will want a raise now.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith Feb 20
Replying to @WALLACHLEGAL
It says there will be a neutral decision-maker on most discipline. That's a change.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith Feb 20
Replying to @washingtonpost
Thank you very much for the important public service of "fact checking" a video that played the sound of crickets chirping while candidates stood around silently at a debate. I'm sure many people thought there were actually crickets inside the otherwise silent auditorium.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael David Smith Feb 20
The Washington Post is "fact checking" a video from the Bloomberg campaign that showed the other candidates standing around in awkward silence while crickets chirped at the debate. Did some Washington Post readers really need to be told that wasn't real?
Reply Retweet Like