Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Marshawn Lynch -- "I'm here so I won't get fined" (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gianmarco
- Start date
False Start
Footballguy
A team cutting a player when they offered a contract with years left is bull. They agreed to it too. Why is it OK for the owners when they do it but the players get the scarlet letter. This is something that the players will try to work out in next CBA.
Owners are going to have to come off a lot next time around.
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
RB's, compared to other positions? That's another topic entirely and completely irrelevant. He's being paid fairly and right up there with his peers (RB's) based on what the market (32 NFL teams) says he's worth.
He's not Alfred Morris working on a 6th rounders contract. Which is also fair, as the CBA says he can't renegotiate his rookie deal after two years.
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
Depending on how the contract was structured, the player could still be getting paid by the team after being cut (if there was guaranteed money left on it).If not, then it was never really a contract with more guaranteed money on it, and you're letting the contract language fool you into believing it really was an X-year commitment. It's all about working the salary cap for NFL teams, and the length of the contract helps spread out the cap hit regardless of how much they're actually paying out in cash. And most importantly, for the players it's all about the guaranteed money past year 1. Not the "contract years". NFL players and agents understand this.
NFL teams aren't jipping players out of guaranteed money, otherwise you'd have a point. Contract years mean nothing in practical terms, they're just a way for the player to earn more guaranteed money over that time and once there's no more guaranteed money, they're a way for teams to "game" the system in comparison to what they're actually paying out.
Last edited by a moderator:
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
Also, I can't believe someone in here really believes Lynch is more important to the Seahawk's success going forward than Russell Wilson. Do you even pay attention to how replaceable even the best RB's are?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
It is only bull to those who do not understand that the owner has paid for the privilege of being able to cut the player. That pay came in the signing bonus. Owners have fixed, immutable contract obligations, and they have options which they have purchased. They are simply exercising those options when they cut a player before all the options years have been picked up..
GregR
Footballguy
Good post. The players agreed in the CBA to have contracts with these kind of structures in exchange for other gains. If every contract being fully guaranteed was more important to the players, they would have them. And if so they would probably get a smaller piece of the revenue pie or take more years to reach free agency or other things they would have had to give in exchange, that was more important to them.
Even with that, I don't believe there is anything preventing a player from getting a fully guaranteed contract if he wanted it, or at worst a mostly guaranteed one. But most players don't want one because it would be for less money. Giving the team options in the event the player doesn't perform at the level of his contract makes the team more willing to increase the amount they do pay.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
The length of your deal should be a choice you make leveraging your belief in your ability to perform better the next few years vs. the security of being more locked in. Granted, you're not totally locked in, but signing a longer deal makes it harder for you to end up on the street because the team takes on cap ramifications for cutting you that wouldn't be there if you signed a shorter deal and the contract just expired (and your up-front signing bonus is usually higher in longer deals as well).
Lynch could have signed a two year deal and he'd be a FA right now free to extort the Seahawks for all the money he wants or he could go elsewhere. Of course, the risk was that he didn't play that well and the Seahawks didn't want him after 2 years and wouldn't have had to give up anything to let him go. Instead, he CHOSE to sign a 4 year deal to have the added security that it would be harder for the Seahawks to let him go. Making the contract longer rather than shorter was almost certainly something that came from his side of the agreement, not the Seahawks' side. He essentially took less money for less risk, and now that the risk has been covered he's saying "nevermind, I want the more money deal afterall".
Beyond a player's rookie deal most teams typically don't want to sign players to very long-term deals. It's typically the players that want a long-term deal. In this case, they basically want it both ways. Sign me to a long-term deal so I have more security, but if I play better give me the money as if I had taken the more risky short-term deal. He's essentially saying "I only want my risk covered if that risk materializes." It's like buying insurance with hindsight. I want you to insure my $50,000 car for $500/year for the next 5 years but only if I make a large claim. Otherwise I want my $500/year refunded because I didn't actually use it.
Lynch didn't know what would happen over the next two years when he signed his deal. He could have signed a two year deal, leaving him open to renegotiate in 2014. Instead he signed a 4-year deal to mitigate risk, but now that the risk didn't materialize he basically wants to go back in time and re-do the deal from two years ago now that he knows the outcome.
I have a lot less problem with players on their rookie deals holding out since they didn't really have a choice with their initial contract. But you get to pick the terms of your 2nd deal and it's pretty crappy to take the safe road with that contract and then complain about it later.
Last edited by a moderator:
False Start
Footballguy
Are the best RBs that replaceable? Lions couldnt find one after Barry left. Took a few years after Emmitt left for the Cowboys, Did LT easily get replaced in San Diego? Mathews isnt doing what LT did. Anyone in New York find a guy like Tiki? Colts were looking for another James for a while. How easy are they to replace again? What about Marshall Faulk in St. Louis was he easily replaceable? Davis in Denver. Point is elite talent is not easy to replace and Lynch is an elite talent.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
ImTheScientist
Footballguy
Donnybrook
Footballguy
Some mod should change the title of this thread to keep it current.
Last edited by a moderator:
False Start
Footballguy
False Start
Footballguy
Yup in a league or two, and will be targeting him in all redrafts regardless of this news.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Seattle would have a running game in the 20s last year without Wilson's rushing, so it's not Lynch is giving them a top 5 running game all by himself. Wilson is a big part of their overall rushing totals.To assume a guy who is efficient because of the running game Lynch provides will be that efficient without him is pretty funny. I think I mentioned his legs add a dimension? Yes I did, so thanks for reading the whole point I made.
Speaking of 22nd ranked, thats where Wilson ranked in pass attempts, 19th in completions, 11th in pct, 16th in passing yards, His efficientcy in TD to Int is nice and I like it, but Lynch was 2nd in attempts, 6th in yards, 1st in rushing TDs 2nd in overall TDs, 36 receptions on 44 targets with only 1 fumble lost on the season.
But you mention his 4.2 ypc as 22nd and not his actual stat at a good number like 4.2 ypc, because Starks is #1 on that list that puts Lynch 22nd, so... think that pretty much buries that stat. Blount and his 150 carries was 6th, Foster played 8 games and you are counting that above 300+ carry Lynch. My point is made, of the people ahead of him 10 people had less then 182 carries.
Lynch statistically provides more value tot he Seahawks than Wilson, sorry. If Lynch aint around your boy Wilson will not be as efficient.
Leaving aside where he ranks in YPC, Lynch's 4.2 is right around the league average. Meanwhile, again, Wilson was top 5 in YPA. Wilson might not have thrown the ball a lot, but when he did, he made it count.
And Wilson ain't my boy. I am neither a Seahawks fan nor a Wilson owner in any keeper or dynasty league, but his talent and highly efficient play is more than obvious to anyone who watches the games.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Would love to hear a reporter ask Pete Carroll if the team intended to honor both years of Lynch's contract, or just this one. Seeing as how it's called a contract for a reason and he's disappointed in Marshawn and all.
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
Tuesday is a pivotal day in this saga.
cstu
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
False Start
Footballguy
This is why some of the rumors say this wouldnt last. We will see how serious Lynch is tomorrow. He will be back because he wants his money, the question is, when?
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
isnt he losing like 30k a day? his deal isnt getting re-done, usually vets like him hold out until camp is over, thats like 15/16 dyas. but why cost yourself more money if you know it isnt going to get you anywhere?
GregR
Footballguy
Is the part of the contract where Lynch and the team agreed that the team would have the option of releasing him not also called a contract for a reason?
cstu
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
GregR
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
The Seahawks gave Lynch a nice signing bonus and a bunch of guaranteed money in exchange for the ability to cut him at any time.
Lynch can certainly do what he wants but he does not have a leg to stand on.
I also love the argument that the contracts are unfair because players can get cut at any time. This is the NFL. This isn't an arrangement where both parties are even. This is similar to an employee and employer relationship. The owners are the bosses and they have provided this opportunity to the players to make a lot of money. If you are unhappy with it, there is nothing stopping you from going to another professional league to try and make more money.
If you know you are going to get cut, then you obviously are not playing up the standards you should be, or you were not realistic in knowing your value when you signed the contract. That is not the team's fault. Take a paycut (like a lot of players do) or be released and have the ability to sign a new contract.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Why do you hate America?
Wise Old Owl
Footballguy
I hate this argument, you take away any teams second leading rusher and of course they are going to worse in overall rushing rankings. Because it doesnt reflect the whole story, maybe lynch would have gotten more carries and thus more yards. Maybe part of Russel being productive was because defenses had to gameplan for Lynch. I'm sure Wilson's legs benefited Lynch's numbers.Seattle would have a running game in the 20s last year without Wilson's rushing, so it's not Lynch is giving them a top 5 running game all by himself. Wilson is a big part of their overall rushing totals.
Speaking of 22nd ranked, thats where Wilson ranked in pass attempts, 19th in completions, 11th in pct, 16th in passing yards, His efficientcy in TD to Int is nice and I like it, but Lynch was 2nd in attempts, 6th in yards, 1st in rushing TDs 2nd in overall TDs, 36 receptions on 44 targets with only 1 fumble lost on the season.
But you mention his 4.2 ypc as 22nd and not his actual stat at a good number like 4.2 ypc, because Starks is #1 on that list that puts Lynch 22nd, so... think that pretty much buries that stat. Blount and his 150 carries was 6th, Foster played 8 games and you are counting that above 300+ carry Lynch. My point is made, of the people ahead of him 10 people had less then 182 carries.
Lynch statistically provides more value tot he Seahawks than Wilson, sorry. If Lynch aint around your boy Wilson will not be as efficient.
Leaving aside where he ranks in YPC, Lynch's 4.2 is right around the league average. Meanwhile, again, Wilson was top 5 in YPA. Wilson might not have thrown the ball a lot, but when he did, he made it count.
And Wilson ain't my boy. I am neither a Seahawks fan nor a Wilson owner in any keeper or dynasty league, but his talent and highly efficient play is more than obvious to anyone who watches the games.
The idea that you can just remove Wilsons numbers to say "Lynch wasn't a major factor" is silly.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Does that contract say Lynch doesn't have the option of holding out and trying to get a better one if he's willing to eat the fines?
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Good thing I didn't say, "Lynch wasn't a major factor."
GregR
Footballguy
The contract says Lynch has the option of holding out and lists the ramifications if he does. Just like the contract says the team can release him and lists the ramifications if they do.
Saying Lynch holding out isn't honoring his contract and it's called a contract for a reason would be as wrong as it was to say it about the team.
Edit to add: Not honoring the contract would be a player trying to get more money than the contract calls for him to make, or a team trying to pay a player less than the contract calls for him to make.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Non Sequitur
Footballguy
Basically with the Lombardi Trophy in hand, we the fans or FF owners are not allowed to ask a lot of questions or even suggest that the loss of a guy like Marshawn Lynch who has had some of the most sensational runs in the NFL over the last 3 years, should he leave Seattle for whatever the reason(retirement/cut/traded) we are to believe it won't even make a scratch to the offensive production, is that how it works now?
I think the Seahawks have a fairly deep RB stable, I like what Turbin and Chrissy bring to the table but Lynch is a beast and the guy you want as your lead sled dog on a Super Bowl winning team.
I'm surprised Seattle fans are not more respectful of Lynch and what he brings to the team. And also having a QB who plays for virtually free which is gonna change pretty soon but that's another topic for another day.
I think Lynch wants to sit out camp and will report at some point, he's a veteran and has to prove nothing, if Seattle doesn't like it they can trade or cut him but Lynch would be signed so fast it would make your head spin, every other team with playoff hopes even those that might look on the surface to have their lead back would quickly make room and shuffle things to have Lynch on their team. To think otherwise IMO is pretty naive.
Lynch has a lot of value but all that is happening here is Lynch not wanting to go thru the day to day camp stuff IMO.
I think the Seahawks have a fairly deep RB stable, I like what Turbin and Chrissy bring to the table but Lynch is a beast and the guy you want as your lead sled dog on a Super Bowl winning team.
I'm surprised Seattle fans are not more respectful of Lynch and what he brings to the team. And also having a QB who plays for virtually free which is gonna change pretty soon but that's another topic for another day.
I think Lynch wants to sit out camp and will report at some point, he's a veteran and has to prove nothing, if Seattle doesn't like it they can trade or cut him but Lynch would be signed so fast it would make your head spin, every other team with playoff hopes even those that might look on the surface to have their lead back would quickly make room and shuffle things to have Lynch on their team. To think otherwise IMO is pretty naive.
Lynch has a lot of value but all that is happening here is Lynch not wanting to go thru the day to day camp stuff IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Why don't they bribe him with an off the books lifetime supply of skittles.
* Getting traded or cut seems far fetched, but I'm not sure teams would break the bank with a lot of future guaranteed money for a RB with 900 carries in the last three seasons, that will turn 29 before the 2015 season. Power backs like Lynch don't always age gracefully.
** SEA not wanting to pay more in the future out of loyalty for past production isn't all that different than if Lynch refused to take a pay cut because he thought he was worth more.
This situation has some similarities with MJD last year (except he was coming off an injury, and had one year left on his contract, Lynch is healthy and has two more years left). MJD knew he would be worth less in a year, but in the end he had no leverage and reported.
Most likely that is how this situation will go down, too. The only caveat is that Lynch is notorious for marching to the beat of his own drum. I'd have as much of a chance about knowing what is going on inside the head of a Martian as Lynch.
* Getting traded or cut seems far fetched, but I'm not sure teams would break the bank with a lot of future guaranteed money for a RB with 900 carries in the last three seasons, that will turn 29 before the 2015 season. Power backs like Lynch don't always age gracefully.
** SEA not wanting to pay more in the future out of loyalty for past production isn't all that different than if Lynch refused to take a pay cut because he thought he was worth more.
This situation has some similarities with MJD last year (except he was coming off an injury, and had one year left on his contract, Lynch is healthy and has two more years left). MJD knew he would be worth less in a year, but in the end he had no leverage and reported.
Most likely that is how this situation will go down, too. The only caveat is that Lynch is notorious for marching to the beat of his own drum. I'd have as much of a chance about knowing what is going on inside the head of a Martian as Lynch.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Non Sequitur
Footballguy
They really should have a promo add in Times Square with Lynch smiling and where the gold teeth usually are, they should put skittles in there instead for the add, would be hilarious.
Last edited by a moderator:
Touchdown There
Footballguy
Yes, that is exactly what some people are trying to tell you. Plus, it could improve the defense if that is where the extra dollars are allocated.Mr Non Sequitur said:
mphtrilogy
Footballguy
this might result in a slight uptick of work for r wilson, adding packages to take advantage of his skillset and growing confidence and experience...
fridayfrenzy
Footballguy
It is also hurting his wallet though at $30K a day. The big factor in this is Tuesday or Wednesday, when if he doesn't report then he loses $900,000.Mr Non Sequitur said:
We'll know how serious Lynch is in the next couple of days.
cstu
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Plus aren't the fines almost always waived once the player agrees to show back up to camp?
GregR
Footballguy
I guess I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make or why. I'm not a lawyer but I feel safe in saying it actually is a contract. It includes the compensation he makes under a number of situations, and includes other things too.
Touchdown There
Footballguy
Good article here.
The penalties under the CBA are much more severe in training camp, which are an effective deterrent for most players. A team can fine a player a maximum of $30,000 for each day of training camp he misses. A player who signed his contract as an unrestricted free agent can be fined one week's base salary (1/17 of salary) for each preseason game missed in addition to the $30,000 per day. A year of service toward free agency isn't earned without a player reporting to his team at least 30 days prior to NFL's first regular season game (Aug. 5 reporting date this year).
A team can also recover a portion of a player's signing bonus. Fifteen percent of the prorated amount of signing bonus can be recouped on the sixth day of a training camp holdout. It's one percent for each additional missed day with a maximum of 25 percent of the prorated amount during training camp. An additional 25 percent can be recovered with the first missed regular season game. After four missed weeks, a team can recover 1/17 of the prorated amount for each additional week of the player's absence. The maximum a team can recover in a season is the entire prorated amount of the player's signing bonus in that contract year.
Once a player decides to end his holdout, some teams will reduce the fines accumulated as a gesture of goodwill, especially with a player who is one of the most important players on the team or a veteran that commands a lot of respect among his teammates. Occasionally, the team will decide that a trade is in the best interest of all parties if too much damage to the relationship between the team and player was done during the holdout.
Last edited by a moderator:
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
I have never heard of a team suing a player for breach of contract, or a player suing a team for breach of contract. That is because the agreement both parties enter into has pre-established terms, established by the collective bargaining agreement, that deal with what happens when the player doesn't report or the team terminates the contract.
I don't ever understand when folks seem to get personally offended by hold outs. The agreements are NOT the same kind of contracts as re in place when you agree to paint a guys' fence for 2000 and then don't do it (unless you are working with an member of the National Fence Painters Association and agreed to collective bargaining terms anyway).
Players KNOW that they don't have guaranteed contracts, and received trade-offs in compensation for it while bargaining. So teams have a right to cut them whenever they want, subject to the terms of the CBA. Likewise, players have the right to hold out, or retire, or whatever else, but are ALSO subjects to the terms of the CBA if they choose to do so (fines, years of service etc.).
This argument "we" have year after year, case after case, about what teams and players "should" do, is simply not valid. There are pretty well defined rules in place to handle all of these situations. And if the rules AREN'T clear, there will be law suits to clear them right up.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Apparently he didn't show today and the fines go way up. He's out a lot of $$ at this point and it sure seems like it could get ugly from here.
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
This could get ugly. If he's willing to forfeit half a mil over this, he's serious...
Touchdown There
Footballguy
I think Lynch owners are pooping their pants right now.
Similar threads
- Locked
