Patrick Causey, @PhillySportsJD
You can reasonably debate the virtues of the Philadelphia Eagles' decision to release Evan Mathis.
On the one hand, Mathis was the oldest starting offensive lineman in the NFL, and was demanding a higher contract. That is not exactly bargaining from a position of strength, so it is easy to understand why the Eagles did not give in to his demands.
The situation became toxic over the last few months, with Chip Kelly and Mathis taking shots at each other through the media. Given the Eagles past experiences with star players that were unhappy with their contracts (see, Jackson, Desean, and Owens, Terrell), it is somewhat understandable that the Eagles wanted to avoid another cancerous situation in the locker room.
On the other hand, Mathis was a two-time pro bowler that rated out as the best guard in football, and he had an argument that he was underpaid despite his age. Per Spotrac.com, Mathis' $5.5 million salary would have made him just the 12th highest paid guard in the league.
What's more, the Eagles have not drafted an offensive lineman in the last two years. They have done little to reinforce what was (before Mathis' release) the oldest offensive line in football. Getting rid of one of your best players, and arguably the best guard in the NFL, with no replacement on the roster, was questionable at best.
Where you fall on the spectrum of that debate largely depends on how you view contract disputes between player and team. If you support players making as much money as possible given the physical toll of the game and the short lifespan of a player's career, then you might have sided with Mathis. If you think a player should honor his contract (despite that teams rarely reciprocate that loyalty when a player under-performs), then you might have sided with the Eagles.
But that debate can and will be hashed out in other forums. The biggest issue I have with the move is the timing of the release.
As we reported yesterday, Mathis was set to join the Eagles on Monday at mandatory mini-camp:
Just asked Evan Mahtis if he had planned to show up next week. Response via text: "Yep. Flight was scheduled for Monday."
— Geoff Mosher (@GeoffMosherCSN) June 11, 2015
If Mathis was truly planning on showing up, it makes little sense to release him at this point in the season.
The Eagles are woefully thin at the offensive line and can ill-afford to lose quality players at that position. If Barbre or Tobin or any other player gets injured between now and the start of the season, that line depth becomes even worse. Mathis could have been a safe guard (no pun intended) against an injury.
Now with Mathis out of the picture, your key reserves are Andrew Gardner, Dennis Kelly and David Molk. Ugh.
I understand that Kelly released Mathis to preserve the culture he so desperately wants to cultivate. But was keeping Mathis around through training camp that big of an issue? Mathis played last year while unhappy about his contract, and played well. There is little reason to assume that would have changed this year.
And as we already discussed, injuries happen. Another team, perhaps a championship contender, could lose a guard at any moment between now and the start of the season. They could then become much more open to the idea of giving up something valuable in return for Mathis.
By cutting him now, the Eagles lose the opportunity to get anything of value in return for a two-time pro bowler. So while you can debate the merits of the Eagles cutting him generally, it seems foolish that the Eagles cut Mathis when they did.
