Javon Walker is a CANCER! (1 Viewer)

[BlueOnion]

Go back ten, twelve years. The Packers are always tight against the cap and likely will be again this year. They had an anomolous year actually having cap room. They will certainly invest that cap room in players. Frankly it was earmarked for Walker, and Barnett and maybe Hutchinson had the bidding not gone so crazy.

You have to understand, the Packers ownership situation makes it so that they have no incentive to not spend to the salary cap. They are not saving an owner any money since their really is no owner. As the smallest market team in arguably the least desirable (at least to ball players from big Cities and warm weather climates) City the Packers must have a reputation of being generous with their salry cap or they absolutely could not compete.i

Certainly the Packers have no incentive to not spend up to the cap (agreeing with you). But that is probably the source of a bigger problem. Don't want to highjack.

 

[P Boy]

Walker is being a horse's ### doesn't mean that caving to Walker is in GB's best interest.  In fact, it would set a terrible precedence that other players in the future would surely try to exploit.

FYI PB.Joey Galloway set this precedent 7 years ago.

When did Galloway play for Green Bay?

 

[BlueOnion]

If you don't think Walker is going to hit a monster pay day, your just nuts. 

Am I? You mean just like teams were crawling all over each other for T.O.?

T.O. had a pattern of being a problem (San Fran, Baltimore, Philly). Walker has not established a pattern yet.A better comparison might be Corey Simon (got paid).

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Purely out of curiousity, how much was Walker's upfront money?

It was something like $4.3 million. $3M up front with a guranteed $1.3M more in the next year as a bonus.All before he played a down and prior to base salaries and other bonuses due.

Isn't that peanuts for a WR of Walkers calibre?

It is in todays market. At the time, however, it was above his draft slot expectation. Additionally most rookie contracts were then for 3 years. Walker wanted more up front cash so he asked the packers for a then extraordinary five year contract to get a bigger up front bonus. The point is the very contract Walker complains of is the one he specifically sought as an accomodation, and which the Packers provided.

 

[Dave Baker]

Purely out of curiousity, how much was Walker's upfront money?

It was something like $4.3 million. $3M up front with a guranteed $1.3M more in the next year as a bonus.All before he played a down and prior to base salaries and other bonuses due.

Isn't that peanuts for a WR of Walkers calibre?

Caliber is an interesting word here. While most would admit Walker's one good year was enough to include him as one of the better WRs in the game, there was plenty of risk by GB if he had not been had that one good year. And yes, it's only been one good year. He hasn't put up that much more than he's been paid. He's averaged less than 40 receptions per year.Are you saying a $4.3M signing bonus at the time was peanuts? Hardly. It was considered almost a coup by Walker and his camp. But that's how contracts work. If a player does poorly, the team can not get that money back. If he does great, the player should not force his hand IMO.

Also, are you saying that his portion of his contract as upfront money was peanuts? No chance. It was a contract that Walker was lauded for in getting his money right away and was a very reasonable percentage to get up front.

Those who think that just because the teams can void the contract make it ok for the players to demand increases prior to their term simply are not appreciating the concept of this upfront money.

At that time, Walker could have easily signed a two year deal that would have only offered him a pittance of what he received, but it would have also afforded him the opportunity to go after the big bucks if he proved himself. He decided he wanted as much money as he could get NOW and took the longer deal with more money up front. His decision. He should live by it.

 

[Big Score]

Green Bay could pay Walker from week 11 on, but they could tell him to stay home,

My understanding of the CBA is that teams can no longer do this.

or they could force him to come to practice & games and suit up but not be involved in one snap on the field of play,

Now the above is true. Of course Walker will be at all team functions, practices etc and all the while will be spreading a poison amongst the other players.

or they could tell him that his job is to keep running 5 yd ins from the slot position every play against the Bears - if Green Bay chooses, if I read the language correctly.

If the Packers were to choose this course of action, their rookie negoitiations would become infinitely more difficult and the chance of attracting quality FA's in the future, would become Slim & None...and Slim just left town.

 

[Sabertooth]

Now he's in a much poorer position and has much less leverage because he took such an adversarial stance and because of his injury.  Walker was in a position to cash in on a huge pay day in his turn, but instead he got greedy & he paid the price for his greed.  Walker has no one to blame but himself, and has earned whatever is happening to him.

He is going to get paid big time. I suspect he will sit out until week 11, show up for 6 games so he registers an eligible year and then becomes a free agent next year.

This guy is a talent and will get a lot of money.

The Packers would be better off telling Walker to explore his options and see if a trade can be worked out. At which point, the Packers would be better off taking what they could get instead of 6-sulky games in December...while paying him.

If he comes in and shoots out the lights, they franchise him and get 2 first rounders for him ala Galloway to the Cowboys. Walker has no leverage at all. Here's his options.

a) He can sit out and get a further label as a malcontent.

b) He can be a professional, come in and play for cheap knowing full-well that the Packers can franchise him next season.

c) He can retire.

 

[Sabertooth]

I'd let him come to practice and make him do wind sprints and up-downs all day. Then I'd switch his position to DT and let him learn things like how to properly play the 3 - technique and sinking his hips (whatever the #### that means). Then I'd have him serve water to all the little kids that are there watching.

If he really behaved, I'd have him do something more than wedgebuster during games.

 

[BlueOnion]

Walker has no leverage at all. Here's his options.

a) He can sit out and get a further label as a malcontent.

b) He can be a professional, come in and play for cheap knowing full-well that the Packers can franchise him next season.

c) He can retire.

(a) is just wishful thinking on the behalf of Packer fans. There will be 31 other NFL Franchises who will not consider Walker a malcontent for wanting fair market value.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Purely out of curiousity, how much was Walker's upfront money?

It was something like $4.3 million. $3M up front with a guranteed $1.3M more in the next year as a bonus.All before he played a down and prior to base salaries and other bonuses due.

Isn't that peanuts for a WR of Walkers calibre?

Caliber is an interesting word here. While most would admit Walker's one good year was enough to include him as one of the better WRs in the game, there was plenty of risk by GB if he had not been had that one good year. And yes, it's only been one good year. He hasn't put up that much more than he's been paid. He's averaged less than 40 receptions per year.Are you saying a $4.3M signing bonus at the time was peanuts? Hardly. It was considered almost a coup by Walker and his camp. But that's how contracts work. If a player does poorly, the team can not get that money back. If he does great, the player should not force his hand IMO.

Also, are you saying that his portion of his contract as upfront money was peanuts? No chance. It was a contract that Walker was lauded for in getting his money right away and was a very reasonable percentage to get up front.

Those who think that just because the teams can void the contract make it ok for the players to demand increases prior to their term simply are not appreciating the concept of this upfront money.

At that time, Walker could have easily signed a two year deal that would have only offered him a pittance of what he received, but it would have also afforded him the opportunity to go after the big bucks if he proved himself. He decided he wanted as much money as he could get NOW and took the longer deal with more money up front. His decision. He should live by it.

Exactly. How dare the Packers hold him to the accomodation he asked for. Beyond that, the year he choose to get pissy about his contract was a year in which the Packers simply had no money against the cap. They could not rengotiate because they had nothing. The situation was so bad they had to let their two all pro guards walk. Walkers chance was this year. The Packers had arranged their cap so that this year he would get paid. Unfortunately for Walker his antics last year and this year are making the Packers balk at paying. Still I think they will insult him by offering a very lucrative contract. I believe he willl turn it down having been talked into a corner. I believe he will sit out except for the final six games. I believe the Packers will let him sit if necessary. Should that come to pass Walker will have a chance of being released, but he will also have to wonder if the Packers won't franchise him out of spite. He will eventually pay for his freedom, get it, and the Packers will be compensated by the league in compensatory picks worth more value than most of the speculation I've seen on this board for trade value.

Walker will then get his big payday. Of course it will not be nearly as big as he would have gotten from the Packers had he waited his turn and kept things in house. His new contract will be negotiated by owners who appreciate his upside but are leary of a known malcontent who has been injured, who hasn't played in two years, and whose one good yyear came from a system that made Antonio freeman, Bill Schroeder, and even to some extent Charles Lee look good. Teams will be reminded of the increased production factor again this year when Antonio Chatman disappears from the radar screen. Walker will be viewed like a Denver back on the open market. GM's will wonder if his stats are all system generated.

 

[BlueOnion]

I'd let him come to practice and make him do wind sprints and up-downs all day. Then I'd switch his position to DT and let him learn things like how to properly play the 3 - technique and sinking his hips (whatever the #### that means). Then I'd have him serve water to all the little kids that are there watching.

If he really behaved, I'd have him do something more than wedgebuster during games.

I am sure the other 51 players on the team will watch in awe of the greatness of your organization.

Again, it is better to just take the highroad and tell the player, "If you don't want to be here, we don't want you here." And then show him the door.

 

[Sabertooth]

Walker has no leverage at all.  Here's his options.

a) He can sit out and get a further label as a malcontent.

b) He can be a professional, come in and play for cheap knowing full-well that the Packers can franchise him next season.

c) He can retire.

(a) is just wishful thinking on the behalf of Packer fans. There will be 31 other NFL Franchises who will not consider Walker a malcontent for wanting fair market value.

How is it wishful thinking? If he sits, he doesn't accrue a year of service and he's still under contract. I don't care if 31 other team think he's the Queen of Elizabeth, he ain't going anywhere. He's pretty well boxed in.

 

[Sabertooth]

I'd let him come to practice and make him do wind sprints and up-downs all day.  Then I'd switch his position to DT and let him learn things like how to properly play the 3 - technique and sinking his hips (whatever the #### that means).  Then I'd have him serve water to all the little kids that are there watching.

If he really behaved, I'd have him do something more than wedgebuster during games.

I am sure the other 51 players on the team will watch in awe of the greatness of your organization.

Again, it is better to just take the highroad and tell the player, "If you don't want to be here, we don't want you here." And then show him the door.

Probably why my team wouldn't do so well. We'd be in great shape though!

 

[Big Score]

Are you saying a $4.3M signing bonus at the time was peanuts?

No,I'm saying given Walker's development, he is now underpaid and it is recognized throughout the NFL.

Also, are you saying that his portion of his contract as upfront money was peanuts?

Compared to the Calibre WR that he is now recognized throughout the NFL to be, yes.

Those who think that just because the teams can void the contract make it ok for the players to demand increases prior to their term simply are not appreciating the concept of this upfront money.

Apparently multiple NFL organizations & GM's disagree with you what you're saying here. It is very common for teams to tear up / renegoitiate the contracts of players who are outperforming their initial contracts. In the real world it's called a "raise".

At that time, Walker could have easily signed a two year deal that would have only offered him a pittance of what he received, but it would have also afforded him the opportunity to go after the big bucks if he proved himself. He decided he wanted as much money as he could get NOW and took the longer deal with more money up front. His decision. He should live by it.

I estimate the chances of Green Bay (or any NFL team for that matter) ever giving a rookie a two year deal at about 0.0001%.Walker did not have the option of signning a two year deal.

 

[P Boy]

Again, it is better to just take the highroad and tell the player, "If you don't want to be here, we don't want you here." And then show him the door.

You just don't get it, do you? This is big business, and teams expect players to honor the contracts that they sign - especially when the initial contract was lucrative in Walker's favor in both signing bonus & years (see the two very good posts above by DW & DB). While a team can accomodate a player to an extent (like GB did initially with Walker), that same team can't afford to show weakness in negotiations or they'll get creamed by the players & their agents in subsequent squabbles & the team will go down the crapper permanently.This is very, very delicate stuff. What Walker did was essentially piss down the Packers' leg - he put himself in a really bad spot & now he's reaping what he's sown.

 

[Big Score]

Purely out of curiousity, how much was Walker's upfront money?

It was something like $4.3 million. $3M up front with a guranteed $1.3M more in the next year as a bonus.All before he played a down and prior to base salaries and other bonuses due.

Isn't that peanuts for a WR of Walkers calibre?

It is in todays market.

That is Walker's point.

 

[Dave Baker]

Again, it is better to just take the highroad and tell the player, "If you don't want to be here, we don't want you here." And then show him the door.

Luckily most teams realize that the high road, in your example, is disastrous for the sport. Basically, every player that has a season better than their base pay would become a free agent, as all they'd have to do is what Walker did here. Yet every player that does not do as well as their contract terms suggest will have already received their up front money and taken it to the bank.No, the best thing to do, for the league as a whole, is take a firm stance with players such as Walker, especially in this case where he's stating that it doesn't matter what the team pays him, he won't play. That's a perfectly acceptable attitude to have when your contract is termed, but prior to then, he deserves nothing.

 

[Big Score]

Walker is being a horse's ### doesn't mean that caving to Walker is in GB's best interest.  In fact, it would set a terrible precedence that other players in the future would surely try to exploit.

FYI PB.Joey Galloway set this precedent 7 years ago.

When did Galloway play for Green Bay?

He didn't, but I'm sure you understood my point. (At least I hope you did)

 

[Dave Baker]

Are you saying a $4.3M signing bonus at the time was peanuts?

No,I'm saying given Walker's development, he is now underpaid and it is recognized throughout the NFL.

That might be the case. Some contracts work out well for the player. Some for the team. I think it's fallacious to think that just because a player outperforms his contract he should get more money, because the owners can not get the upfront money back if the player underperforms.

 

[P Boy]

I estimate the chances of Green Bay (or any NFL team for that matter) ever giving a rookie a two year deal at about 0.0001%.

Walker did not have the option of signning a two year deal.

Damn! You really are having trouble with this, and I'm not sure why. Walker could have had a standard 3 year deal when he was drafted - then he would have been a FA after his great 3rd season. But Walker didn't want that - he wanted a longer term contract with a higher signing bonus. Green Bay accomodated Walker's demands of more years at a higher bonus.Now he wants out of the contract that HE demanded of GB.

 

[Sabertooth]

Are you saying a $4.3M signing bonus at the time was peanuts?

No,I'm saying given Walker's development, he is now underpaid and it is recognized throughout the NFL.

That might be the case. Some contracts work out well for the player. Some for the team. I think it's fallacious to think that just because a player outperforms his contract he should get more money, because the owners can not get the upfront money back if the player underperforms.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Walker has no leverage at all.  Here's his options.

a) He can sit out and get a further label as a malcontent.

b) He can be a professional, come in and play for cheap knowing full-well that the Packers can franchise him next season.

c) He can retire.

(a) is just wishful thinking on the behalf of Packer fans. There will be 31 other NFL Franchises who will not consider Walker a malcontent for wanting fair market value.

With all due respect I don't think you appreciate the term nor the ramifications of "Fair market Value". Lets say you work in an industry that may be on the cusp of a boom in salaries. Let's say your salary average for your skill is $100,000.00 with an industry average historical increase of 7% per annum. You find yourself cash strapped with a young family, a pregnant wife, student loan bills, and a fresh mortgage. You ask your boss for the following accomodation. You would like a cash payment, an advance on future years salary, of $200,000.00. This will be difficult for your boss but because he likes you he makes it happen. You agree that the loan will be interest free, but that you will compensate for that by not recieving anticipated or any yearly salary increases while you pay the loan back through salary reductions of $40,00.00 over each of the next five years. Your boss asks you if you really want to do this, after all if there is a boom maybe salaries will rise by 10% per annum, or even 15%. You insist you need the money now. Hardship or not your boss makes the deal happen, perhaps by taking out a loan upon which he will have to pay interest.In year five you are getting paid $60.000.00, as per your negotiation. Your coworkers are now being paid 3 times that. Are you underpaid? The answer is no because your paycheck does not reflect your purchasing power or economic position which you freely negotiated earlier. You are still acruing the benefits of that earlier money by not paying interests and principal payments on loans you retired. You had advance use of the money that reflects, along with your apparently smaller paycheck, actual fair market value.

 

[Big Score]

This is big business, and teams expect players to honor the contracts that they sign

I think this is why we are seeing more & more players rebelling. The players know the teams expect them to honor the signed contracts. Yet it has been shown over & over & over again, that for the players to expect the teams to honor the signed contracts, is folly.

It...just...doesn't...happen.

NFL teams tear up contracts anytime it suits them!

For example, I give Moulds about a 10% chance of Buffalo honoring the signed contract that he has with them.

 

[Dave Baker]

...are you saying that his portion of his contract as upfront money was peanuts?

Compared to the Calibre WR that he is now recognized throughout the NFL to be, yes.

Wrong. Everything about his contract was considered a great thing for Walker at the time he signed it. That's all that matters.Look, I have to problem with teams actively trying to retain their players by paying them more money and arriving at new contract terms prior to the previous one expiring. That's fine. And I don't have a big problem with a player asking for more money, in essence telling his team that if he doesn't get it, he's outta there after his contract expires.

I DO have a problem with players like Walker suggesting that they will not play at all despite being under contract. He has suggested that he would even return the prorated portion of his salary, but that's preposterous and would never happen. He has already been paid for his services this year.

If he doesn't like it, he can play this year and then no matter what GB offers him, tell them to screw themselves and go somewhere, anywhere, else.

 

[P Boy]

This is big business, and teams expect players to honor the contracts that they sign

I think this is why we are seeing more & more players rebelling. The players know the teams expect them to honor the signed contracts. Yet it has been shown over & over & over again, that for the players to expect the teams to honor the signed contracts, is folly.

It...just...doesn't...happen.

NFL teams tear up contracts anytime it suits them!

For example, I give Moulds about a 10% chance of Buffalo honoring the signed contract that he has with them.

:shakinghead: I knew it was going to come to this again. Teams get the contractual right to cut players before the end of their contracts in exchange for giving up a signing bonus to the players before those players even play a down for their future teams. It is a quid-pro-quo that benefits both sides over all but ends up with a player or team getting screwed occassionally in isolated settings.You simply either do not understand or will not concede that signing bonuses are monies that teams risk by paying up front for services that may never meet expectations. But because they pay that money up front, when players do not meet expectations and are being far too much than their contract value is, the team can cut the players and at least recover the annual portion of the contract. They will never recover the signing bonus portion of the contract.

For some reason, you happen to think that the players are getting screwed in this arrangement. That the players accept the signing bonuses that can't be recovered by the teams is the offset for the team being able to cut the player for underperforming their annual contract.

Please, please, please try to get this very basic concept through your head. It's a very important part of sports contracts and will disabuse you of your fallacy ideal of "fairness" when it comes to cutting players.

 

[Big Score]

I estimate the chances of Green Bay (or any NFL team for that matter) ever giving a rookie a two year deal at about 0.0001%.

Walker did not have the option of signning a two year deal.

Damn! You really are having trouble with this, and I'm not sure why. Walker could have had a standard 3 year deal when he was drafted

What are you talking about PB?Where is anything said about a 3 year deal by either Dave Baker or myself? He talked about a two year deal and I simply pointed out that wouldn't happen

However, if you want to bring up the "standard three year deal" we can.

As I know you to be fooyball savvy, I'm sure you're quite aware that "standard three year deals" are extremely uncommon. With FA happening in year 3 of a players career, the vast majority of rookie contracts offered by teams are 4 years +.

Not even sure why you tried to slide that one in PB. We both know, 3 year rookie almost never happen.

 

[P Boy]

With all due respect I don't think you appreciate the term nor the ramifications of "Fair market Value". Lets say you work in an industry that may be on the cusp of a boom in salaries. Let's say your salary average for your skill is $100,000.00 with an industry average historical increase of 7% per annum. You find yourself cash strapped with a young family, a pregnant wife, student loan bills, and a fresh mortgage. You ask your boss for the following accomodation. You would like a cash payment, an advance on future years salary, of $200,000.00. This will be difficult for your boss but because he likes you he makes it happen. You agree that the loan will be interest free, but that you will compensate for that by not recieving anticipated or any yearly salary increases while you pay the loan back through salary reductions of $40,00.00 over each of the next five years. Your boss asks you if you really want to do this, after all if there is a boom maybe salaries will rise by 10% per annum, or even 15%. You insist you need the money now. Hardship or not your boss makes the deal happen, perhaps by taking out a loan upon which he will have to pay interest.In year five you are getting paid $50.000.00, as per your negotiation. Your coworkers are now being paid 3 times that. Are you underpaid? The answer is no because your paycheck does not reflect your purchasing power or economic position which you freely negotiated earlier. You are still acruing the benefits of that earlier money by not paying interests and principal payments on loans you retired. You had advance use of the money that reflects, along with your apparently smaller paycheck, actual fair market value.

Very, very This is so basic, yet it eludes so many people. The only think DW forgot was to include the time/value of money, which benefits the amount paid early significantly. Money right now is worth more than the same amount of money in 3 years, given that the value of items goes up over that 3 years.

 

[P Boy]

I estimate the chances of Green Bay (or any NFL team for that matter) ever giving a rookie a two year deal at about 0.0001%.

Walker did not have the option of signning a two year deal.

Damn! You really are having trouble with this, and I'm not sure why. Walker could have had a standard 3 year deal when he was drafted

What are you talking about PB?Where is anything said about a 3 year deal by either Dave Baker or myself? He talked about a two year deal and I simply pointed out that wouldn't happen

However, if you want to bring up the "standard three year deal" we can.

As I know you to be fooyball savvy, I'm sure you're quite aware that "standard three year deals" are extremely uncommon. With FA happening in year 3 of a players career, the vast majority of rookie contracts offered by teams are 4 years +.

Not even sure why you tried to slide that one in PB. We both know, 3 year rookie almost never happen.

AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!3 year rookie deals absolutely used to be the standard deal. Why are you talking about 2 year deals when the deal Walker signed was a 5 year deal (that he insisted upon)?

The rookie deal by Walker, amongst a few others, set the standard to longer contracts for higher draft picks - which in turn increased signing rookie bonuses. If I'm not mistaken, 3 year deals are still very common to mid to lower round picks.

 

[Big Score]

:shakinghead: I knew it was going to come to this again. Teams get the contractual right to cut players before the end of their contracts in exchange for giving up a signing bonus to the players before those players even play a down for their future teams. It is a quid-pro-quo that benefits both sides over all but ends up with a player or team getting screwed occassionally in isolated settings.

I edited out the rest of your post PB as it was basically a lecturing on things I'm already well aware of.The bolded part of the quote is the crux of the matter between Green Bay & Walker.

Walker is looking to rectify his contractural inequity and is doing so by the only means available to him.

It really is that simple.

We can go on for another 10 pages, but that's what it all boils down to.

 

[P Boy]

Walker is looking to rectify his contractural inequity and is doing so by the only means available to him.

It's a contractual inequity (only through circumstance) that he insisted on and then agreed upon with Green Bay, and he was compensated very well with a large signing bonus for adding additional years of service to his contract (which again Walker insisted upon).There was shared risk in the initial contract by both parties. The risk on GB's part was paying a larger signing bonus for an at-the-time unknown quantity, and the risk on Walker's part was the extended years of service. They mutually agreed upon that.Green Bay met its obligation by paying the relatively large signing bonus, which Walker gladly took. Now Walker wants to negate his part of the risk despite being fairly compensated to take that risk.Why is this so difficult to understand? You're right, this is really very simple.

 

[BlueOnion]

Again, it is better to just take the highroad and tell the player, "If you don't want to be here, we don't want you here."  And then show him the door.

Luckily most teams realize that the high road, in your example, is disastrous for the sport. Basically, every player that has a season better than their base pay would become a free agent, as all they'd have to do is what Walker did here. Yet every player that does not do as well as their contract terms suggest will have already received their up front money and taken it to the bank.No, the best thing to do, for the league as a whole, is take a firm stance with players such as Walker, especially in this case where he's stating that it doesn't matter what the team pays him, he won't play. That's a perfectly acceptable attitude to have when your contract is termed, but prior to then, he deserves nothing.

I don't think I agree, but I don't think I know what you are trying to say either.

 

[BlueOnion]

Walker has no leverage at all.  Here's his options.

a) He can sit out and get a further label as a malcontent.

b) He can be a professional, come in and play for cheap knowing full-well that the Packers can franchise him next season.

c) He can retire.

(a) is just wishful thinking on the behalf of Packer fans. There will be 31 other NFL Franchises who will not consider Walker a malcontent for wanting fair market value.

With all due respect I don't think you appreciate the term nor the ramifications of "Fair market Value". Lets say you work in an industry that may be on the cusp of a boom in salaries. Let's say your salary average for your skill is $100,000.00 with an industry average historical increase of 7% per annum. You find yourself cash strapped with a young family, a pregnant wife, student loan bills, and a fresh mortgage. You ask your boss for the following accomodation. You would like a cash payment, an advance on future years salary, of $200,000.00. This will be difficult for your boss but because he likes you he makes it happen. You agree that the loan will be interest free, but that you will compensate for that by not recieving anticipated or any yearly salary increases while you pay the loan back through salary reductions of $40,00.00 over each of the next five years. Your boss asks you if you really want to do this, after all if there is a boom maybe salaries will rise by 10% per annum, or even 15%. You insist you need the money now. Hardship or not your boss makes the deal happen, perhaps by taking out a loan upon which he will have to pay interest.In year five you are getting paid $50.000.00, as per your negotiation. Your coworkers are now being paid 3 times that. Are you underpaid? The answer is no because your paycheck does not reflect your purchasing power or economic position which you freely negotiated earlier. You are still acruing the benefits of that earlier money by not paying interests and principal payments on loans you retired. You had advance use of the money that reflects, along with your apparently smaller paycheck, actual fair market value.

Your example works great for as the deal is negotiated between myself and my manager. But the example is not portable to a scenario in which I work for a Union.What is the contract between the my Union and the company I am working for?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

This is big business, and teams expect players to honor the contracts that they sign

I think this is why we are seeing more & more players rebelling. The players know the teams expect them to honor the signed contracts. Yet it has been shown over & over & over again, that for the players to expect the teams to honor the signed contracts, is folly.

It...just...doesn't...happen.

NFL teams tear up contracts anytime it suits them!

For example, I give Moulds about a 10% chance of Buffalo honoring the signed contract that he has with them.

They honored it fully when they paid his signing bonus. What they negotiated with the signing bonus is a unilateral option for them to not see the contract through to its term. No NFL team has ever not honored a contract and your insistance on this point shows an ignorance of even basic contract law. You feel safe in this ignorance because you have heard other ignorant people spout the position, but it is absolute ignorance. No attorney or court has ever taken your position.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

With all due respect I don't think you appreciate the term nor the ramifications of "Fair market Value".

Lets say you work in an industry that may be on the cusp of a boom in salaries.  Let's say your salary average for your skill is $100,000.00 with an industry average historical increase of 7% per annum.  You find yourself cash strapped with a young family, a pregnant wife, student loan bills, and a fresh mortgage.  You ask your boss for the following accomodation.  You would like a cash payment, an advance on future years salary, of $200,000.00.  This will be difficult for your boss but because he likes you he makes it happen.  You agree that the loan will be interest free, but that you will compensate for that by not recieving anticipated or any yearly salary increases while you pay the loan back through salary reductions of $40,00.00 over each of the next five years.  Your boss asks you if you really want to do this, after all if there is a boom maybe salaries will rise by 10% per annum, or even 15%.  You insist you need the money now.  Hardship or not your boss makes the deal happen, perhaps by taking out a loan upon which he will have to pay interest.In year five you are getting paid $50.000.00, as per your negotiation.  Your coworkers are now being paid 3 times that.    Are you underpaid?  The answer is no because your paycheck does not reflect your purchasing power or economic position which you freely negotiated earlier.  You are still acruing the benefits of that earlier money by not paying interests and principal payments on loans you retired.  You had advance use of the money that reflects, along with your apparently smaller paycheck, actual fair market value.

Very, very This is so basic, yet it eludes so many people. The only think DW forgot was to include the time/value of money, which benefits the amount paid early significantly. Money right now is worth more than the same amount of money in 3 years, given that the value of items goes up over that 3 years.

Didn't think I should put both points in one post given the apparent level of understanding.

 

[packersfan]

Pony Boy and Ditkaless, you might as well give it up. All of the things you've said are things I and others have said in other Walker threads but some folks seriously don't seem to grasp the realities of this situation. For some odd reason it's always ignored that Walker was overpaid in the first two years of his contract. Was anyone shedding any tears for the Packers then or demanding they ask Walker for money back? Of course not. That's the system. It's the same system that enabled Walker to get a sweet deal before he ever played a game and one that puts him potentially behind other WRs at this point. That's how it works. It's certainly his right to try and buck the system but with no leverage whatsoever last year it's no surprise he failed miserably.

Moving ahead to this year and his situation hasn't changed. The Packers still hold all the cards. If he wants to sit out for 10 games that's his right. But once he returns the Packers are under no obligation to play him. They could make him inactive for the final six games which would mean Walker essentially loses two years in the prime of his career. What's more, next year the Packers can slap the franchise tag on him and if no team signs him and he still doesn't want to play for Green Bay he will then lose possibly a third season in the prime of his career. Is someone really advising him that this is an intelligent move to make because it sure is ignorant.

If Walker is a superstar -- which he insists he is -- then the Packers would be absolute fools to give him away for marginal draft picks. They should demand a first-round pick or a high second or a proven player (preferably on defense) in return. Will they get that? Probably not but that's the deal. If Walker wants to be paid as a superstar then the Packers need to get superstar value in return. This is a business and the Packers need to make sure that if they give up a valuable commodity they are suitably reimbursed.

The Packers can also afford to play hardball with Walker because they are not likely to be very good this season. It's highly unlikely Javon Walker will make or break this coming season. This isn't a QB or even a RB who the team badly needs in order to make a run to the playoffs or deep into the playoffs. This is a team that will have to have a lot of things break right just to be 8-8. So they can afford to tell Walker to stay home if he wants and they'll try to put the pieces back together without him.

Since this whole thing has begun Walker has been getting some horrible advice. In the other Walker thread I detailed some behind-the-scenes things with him that provide a lot of clarity as to why this situation has developed the way it has. It's too bad he's not smart enough to figure out how he's potentially damaging his career but since he hasn't figured it out and since it doesn't appear he's going to change his mindset anytime soon then the hell with him. Let him sit.

 

[Dave Baker]

This is big business, and teams expect players to honor the contracts that they sign

I think this is why we are seeing more & more players rebelling. The players know the teams expect them to honor the signed contracts. Yet it has been shown over & over & over again, that for the players to expect the teams to honor the signed contracts, is folly.

It...just...doesn't...happen.

NFL teams tear up contracts anytime it suits them!

For example, I give Moulds about a 10% chance of Buffalo honoring the signed contract that he has with them.

C'mon Big Score, I have a hunch you know better than this. This is why the players get so much of their money up front. Yes, the reality here is that they are voidable contracts. Everyone knows this and plays by those rules. That is why they get such huge signing bonuses and up front money. The player fully understands that they might have their contract voided before it is complete, but they will have already been paid. The players understand this concept well and that's why they agree to get the money ahead of time, knowing full well that their base salary at the end of their contract will be peanuts compared to others.

 

[BlueOnion]

This is big business, and teams expect players to honor the contracts that they sign

I think this is why we are seeing more & more players rebelling. The players know the teams expect them to honor the signed contracts. Yet it has been shown over & over & over again, that for the players to expect the teams to honor the signed contracts, is folly.

It...just...doesn't...happen.

NFL teams tear up contracts anytime it suits them!

For example, I give Moulds about a 10% chance of Buffalo honoring the signed contract that he has with them.

They honored it fully when they paid his signing bonus. What they negotiated with the signing bonus is a unilateral option for them to not see the contract through to its term. No NFL team has ever not honored a contract and your insistence on this point shows an ignorance of even basic contract law. You feel safe in this ignorance because you have heard other ignorant people spout the position, but it is absolute ignorance. No attorney or court has ever taken your position.

The owners and the players agreed on a CBA that clearly shows that NFL contracts (in part, because of the salary cap) are simply a series of 1-year contracts.

The owners get the flexibility to terminate (at any point during the length of the contract) by the team.

The players get the right to ask for guaranteed upfront money (signing bonus).

This allows players to get some guaranteed money (Which they deserve) but also allows teams the flexibility to operate under a salary cap.

 

[Dave Baker]

I estimate the chances of Green Bay (or any NFL team for that matter) ever giving a rookie a two year deal at about 0.0001%.

Walker did not have the option of signning a two year deal.

Damn! You really are having trouble with this, and I'm not sure why. Walker could have had a standard 3 year deal when he was drafted

What are you talking about PB?Where is anything said about a 3 year deal by either Dave Baker or myself? He talked about a two year deal and I simply pointed out that wouldn't happen

This was my bad. I meant to type in three year deal.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Walker has no leverage at all.  Here's his options.

a) He can sit out and get a further label as a malcontent.

b) He can be a professional, come in and play for cheap knowing full-well that the Packers can franchise him next season.

c) He can retire.

(a) is just wishful thinking on the behalf of Packer fans. There will be 31 other NFL Franchises who will not consider Walker a malcontent for wanting fair market value.

With all due respect I don't think you appreciate the term nor the ramifications of "Fair market Value". Lets say you work in an industry that may be on the cusp of a boom in salaries. Let's say your salary average for your skill is $100,000.00 with an industry average historical increase of 7% per annum. You find yourself cash strapped with a young family, a pregnant wife, student loan bills, and a fresh mortgage. You ask your boss for the following accomodation. You would like a cash payment, an advance on future years salary, of $200,000.00. This will be difficult for your boss but because he likes you he makes it happen. You agree that the loan will be interest free, but that you will compensate for that by not recieving anticipated or any yearly salary increases while you pay the loan back through salary reductions of $40,00.00 over each of the next five years. Your boss asks you if you really want to do this, after all if there is a boom maybe salaries will rise by 10% per annum, or even 15%. You insist you need the money now. Hardship or not your boss makes the deal happen, perhaps by taking out a loan upon which he will have to pay interest.In year five you are getting paid $50.000.00, as per your negotiation. Your coworkers are now being paid 3 times that. Are you underpaid? The answer is no because your paycheck does not reflect your purchasing power or economic position which you freely negotiated earlier. You are still acruing the benefits of that earlier money by not paying interests and principal payments on loans you retired. You had advance use of the money that reflects, along with your apparently smaller paycheck, actual fair market value.

Your example works great for as the deal is negotiated between myself and my manager. But the example is not portable to a scenario in which I work for a Union.What is the contract between the my Union and the company I am working for?

You are stuggling to purposely misunderstand. Merely assume that your union allowed the deal because they see value in you having use of money up front, and because they are unwilling as a union to use union funds to supply loans through a credit union. See, they know that this would be bad business for them, just too risky to loan out up front money with so little security.

 

[Big Score]

3 year rookie deals absolutely used to be the standard deal.

Before Walker's time.......if I'm not mistaken.

Why are you talking about 2 year deals when the deal Walker signed was a 5 year deal (that he insisted upon)?

Once again Pony Boy, it was not me that was talking about 2 year deals. That was Dave Baker. I simply commented on what he said.

I cannot speak for Dave Baker, so you should probably take it up with him as to why he brought up two year deals.

The rookie deal by Walker, amongst a few others, set the standard to longer contracts for higher draft picks - which in turn increased signing rookie bonuses.

I think you are mistaken here Pony Boy. NFL teams quickly realized it was in their best interests to sign rookies to longer contracts due to the 3 year service rule for FA. Now the length of the contract determines the size of the signning bonus. I'm sure if Walker and his agent could've negoitiated the signning bonus he received for only a 3 year contract, they would've. Fact of the matter is, no way green Bay was going to give him the signning bonus he wanted on only a 3 year contract. For Walker to get the up front money he wanted, he had no option but to sign the 5 year contract.

If I'm not mistaken, 3 year deals are still very common to mid to lower round picks.

I'll take your word for it, as I don't know and I don't feel like looking up the details of mid to late round player contracts.

 

[Big Score]

I estimate the chances of Green Bay (or any NFL team for that matter) ever giving a rookie a two year deal at about 0.0001%.

Walker did not have the option of signning a two year deal.

Damn! You really are having trouble with this, and I'm not sure why. Walker could have had a standard 3 year deal when he was drafted

What are you talking about PB?Where is anything said about a 3 year deal by either Dave Baker or myself? He talked about a two year deal and I simply pointed out that wouldn't happen

This was my bad. I meant to type in three year deal.

No problem Dave Baker Hey Pony Boy!

The 2 year deal thingy explained. It was just a typo on Dave's part.

 

[BlueOnion]

You are stuggling to purposely misunderstand. Merelyu ssume that your union allowed the deal because they see value in you having use of money up front, and because they are unwilling as a union to use union funds to supply loans through a credit union. See, they know that this would be bad business for them, just too risky to loan out up front money with so little security.

So I need a loan against my future earnings and if my future earnings turn out to be more than what my boss and I anticipate them being (At the time of the deal), my boss is going to shaft me out of money that is rightfully mine and I am not suppose to be upset?Basically if this was the circumstance, I would tell my boss to screw off, I'll go work for another company. However, this is not an option for Javon Walker because he had no say in who drafted him.

 

[Dave Baker]

Once again Pony Boy, it was not me that was talking about 2 year deals. That was Dave Baker. I simply commented on what he said.

I cannot speak for Dave Baker, so you should probably take it up with him as to why he brought up two year deals.

See my above post for clarification.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Pony Boy and Ditkaless, you might as well give it up. All of the things you've said are things I and others have said in other Walker threads but some folks seriously don't seem to grasp the realities of this situation. For some odd reason it's always ignored that Walker was overpaid in the first two years of his contract. Was anyone shedding any tears for the Packers then or demanding they ask Walker for money back? Of course not. That's the system. It's the same system that enabled Walker to get a sweet deal before he ever played a game and one that puts him potentially behind other WRs at this point. That's how it works. It's certainly his right to try and buck the system but with no leverage whatsoever last year it's no surprise he failed miserably.

Moving ahead to this year and his situation hasn't changed. The Packers still hold all the cards. If he wants to sit out for 10 games that's his right. But once he returns the Packers are under no obligation to play him. They could make him inactive for the final six games which would mean Walker essentially loses two years in the prime of his career. What's more, next year the Packers can slap the franchise tag on him and if no team signs him and he still doesn't want to play for Green Bay he will then lose possibly a third season in the prime of his career. Is someone really advising him that this is an intelligent move to make because it sure is ignorant.

If Walker is a superstar -- which he insists he is -- then the Packers would be absolute fools to give him away for marginal draft picks. They should demand a first-round pick or a high second or a proven player (preferably on defense) in return. Will they get that? Probably not but that's the deal. If Walker wants to be paid as a superstar then the Packers need to get superstar value in return. This is a business and the Packers need to make sure that if they give up a valuable commodity they are suitably reimbursed.

The Packers can also afford to play hardball with Walker because they are not likely to be very good this season. It's highly unlikely Javon Walker will make or break this coming season. This isn't a QB or even a RB who the team badly needs in order to make a run to the playoffs or deep into the playoffs. This is a team that will have to have a lot of things break right just to be 8-8. So they can afford to tell Walker to stay home if he wants and they'll try to put the pieces back together without him.

Since this whole thing has begun Walker has been getting some horrible advice. In the other Walker thread I detailed some behind-the-scenes things with him that provide a lot of clarity as to why this situation has developed the way it has. It's too bad he's not smart enough to figure out how he's potentially damaging his career but since he hasn't figured it out and since it doesn't appear he's going to change his mindset anytime soon then the hell with him. Let him sit.

I'd give up the fight if it were only to enhance the understanding of those actively participating in this thread. The problem is the misconceptions being spouted, if not countered, could be believed by others reading, and it would be a shame to have them go down the road of misunderstanding that is so commmon in these matters.Somewhere in the archives Pony Boy has an excellent primer on NFL contracts. It should be pinned, and should be required reading before people come into thee threads to argue these matters. For some reason football fans think that following the sport makes them experts in contract law and collective bargaining. It does not. Many are ill-informed. I, myself, am a lawyer and i do not pretend to expertise in the CBA, but I do insist I have a fundamental understanding of contract law which many at this site have demonstrated by their postings they do not. Pony Boy's primer is excellent.

 

[bagger.]

All i can say is, "WHAT A JERK". Before there was the talk of Vince Youngs Wonderlic score, there was Javon Walker's Wonderlic score. He is an IDIOT! Without a Brett Favre type arm he is just another "in-the-middle-of-the-pack" receiver like Robert Brooks and Donald Driver.

 

[P Boy]

So I need a loan against my future earnings and if my future earnings turn out to be more than what my boss and I anticipate them being (At the time of the deal), my boss is going to shaft me out of money that is rightfully mine and I am not suppose to be upset?

Why would you be upset? A smaller lump sum amount at an earlier date can have more actual value than a larger amount paid in installments over time.This is a basic economic truth. You are not being shafted, especially since your future value is a complete unknown.

 

[Big Score]

I think it's fallacious to think that just because a player outperforms his contract he should get more money, because the owners can not get the upfront money back if the player underperforms.

Apparently multiple NFL teams & GM's disagree with you. There are many, many examples.

Here's a quick one that I'm sure you're famailiar with. The Steelers & how they've handled Hines Ward's contract.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

You are stuggling to purposely misunderstand.  Merelyu ssume that your union allowed the deal because they see value in you having use of money up front, and because they are unwilling as a union to use union funds to supply loans through a credit union.  See, they know that this would be bad business for them, just too risky to loan out up front money with so little security.

So I need a loan against my future earnings and if my future earnings turn out to be more than what my boss and I anticipate them being (At the time of the deal), my boss is going to shaft me out of money that is rightfully mine and I am not suppose to be upset?Basically if this was the circumstance, I would tell my boss to screw off, I'll go work for another company. However, this is not an option for Javon Walker because he had no say in who drafted him.

Again you are struggling to misunderstand. Struggle instead to grasp the concept.If you want potential future earnings now you pay a premium and you assume risk.

If you told your boss to screw off you would get sued, get garnished, and would have to pay collateral damages as well for his cost of litigation and his cost of replacing you. Basically you are taking the position that your words and promises are valueless if and when they are difficult to keep. I hope your boss, your credit card companies, your mortagage company, and any and all other creditors understand you do not feel compelled to live up to your obligations, freely negotiated.

 

[MrPack]

I think he got completely hosed by the Packers last year when he deserved a deal.  I'd be saying the same things.

How dare GB not redo his rookie deal with 2 years left after he produced one good year....

It's a two-way street. Don't expect a player to put everything he has into winning a championship for a franchise if the franchise is not willing to recpricate the same devotion to the player.

Agreed. But don't sign a contract which is top heavy with boat loads of guaranteed money up front unless you plan on serving out the full extent of the contract.

All these ignorant posters in here just don't get it. The Packers basically gave him a veteran contract before he even caught 1 ball. So then he goes and has exactly ONE good season out of 3, and he wants to renegotiate, and takes it public conveniently forgetting the Packers GAVE into his demands as a rookie, and trashes them publicly.

All the so-called fans who have no clue of that contract (And that includes 90% of the guys here) come out of the woodwork to bash Green Bay and praise Walker.

It's just a hilarious joke.

I am with Dave here, I hope the stupidass' career goes down in flames. he'll be a crackhead before ya know it...

Be a man Javon, and be true to your word. YOU signed your contract, now live up to it.

 

[packersfan]

Pony Boy and Ditkaless, you might as well give it up. All of the things you've said are things I and others have said in other Walker threads but some folks seriously don't seem to grasp the realities of this situation. For some odd reason it's always ignored that Walker was overpaid in the first two years of his contract. Was anyone shedding any tears for the Packers then or demanding they ask Walker for money back? Of course not. That's the system. It's the same system that enabled Walker to get a sweet deal before he ever played a game and one that puts him potentially behind other WRs at this point. That's how it works. It's certainly his right to try and buck the system but with no leverage whatsoever last year it's no surprise he failed miserably.

Moving ahead to this year and his situation hasn't changed. The Packers still hold all the cards. If he wants to sit out for 10 games that's his right. But once he returns the Packers are under no obligation to play him. They could make him inactive for the final six games which would mean Walker essentially loses two years in the prime of his career. What's more, next year the Packers can slap the franchise tag on him and if no team signs him and he still doesn't want to play for Green Bay he will then lose possibly a third season in the prime of his career. Is someone really advising him that this is an intelligent move to make because it sure is ignorant.

If Walker is a superstar -- which he insists he is -- then the Packers would be absolute fools to give him away for marginal draft picks. They should demand a first-round pick or a high second or a proven player (preferably on defense) in return. Will they get that? Probably not but that's the deal. If Walker wants to be paid as a superstar then the Packers need to get superstar value in return. This is a business and the Packers need to make sure that if they give up a valuable commodity they are suitably reimbursed.

The Packers can also afford to play hardball with Walker because they are not likely to be very good this season. It's highly unlikely Javon Walker will make or break this coming season. This isn't a QB or even a RB who the team badly needs in order to make a run to the playoffs or deep into the playoffs. This is a team that will have to have a lot of things break right just to be 8-8. So they can afford to tell Walker to stay home if he wants and they'll try to put the pieces back together without him.

Since this whole thing has begun Walker has been getting some horrible advice. In the other Walker thread I detailed some behind-the-scenes things with him that provide a lot of clarity as to why this situation has developed the way it has. It's too bad he's not smart enough to figure out how he's potentially damaging his career but since he hasn't figured it out and since it doesn't appear he's going to change his mindset anytime soon then the hell with him. Let him sit.

I'd give up the fight if it were only to enhance the understanding of those actively participating in this thread. The problem is the misconceptions being spouted, if not countered, could be believed by others reading, and it would be a shame to have them go down the road of misunderstanding that is so commmon in these matters.

Agreed but my point is it doesn't seem to matter how clearly the situation is spelled out people seem to be ignoring so many of the pertinent facts. I've argued repeatedly the accurate nature of this situation and yet here's a new thread where everything I and others have said is being ignored and you and Pony are coming in to correct folks again. I see it as a cylical cycle and one that isn't likely to be broken anytime soon. People seem to have made up their minds about the Walker situation no matter whether they have all the facts or not. And even when presented with the facts they tend to ignore them. Odd but true.