Javon Walker is a CANCER! (1 Viewer)

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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.

That some are willing to voluntarily renegotiate deals under economic pressure does not help your argument when speaking to contract rights. Please, your ignorance is your own. Feel free to wallow in it, but do not propagate what you clearly do not understand. You are actually potentially hurting others.

 

[Dave Baker]

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.

The teams are making decisions to impact their team in a positive way. I never said that teams should not do that. In fact, I think there are many situations where it behooves the teams to do so. But I also don't think a player should walk out after already cashing his upfront money. His valid and logical response to a team that doesn't offer him increased wages despite higher than market value would be to walk away from the team regardless of the offer after his contract has termed.If a player gets a $20M dollar contract over four years with a $50K base salary and $19.8M upfront money, it appears you believe the player should get more money in season four because his base salary is only $50K and comparable players are getting $2.5M. That's where the fallacy lies.

 

[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.

That some are willing to voluntarily renegotiate deals under economic pressure does not help your argument when speaking to contract rights. Please, your ignorance is yor own. Feel free to wallow in it, but do not propagate what you clearly do not understand. You are actually potentially hurting others.

No offense Ditkaless Wonders, but despite your excellent vocabulary, which generally denotes a higher education and therefore, by default, a supposedly higher perceptiveness than usual, your obtuseness here is flat out remarkable.

Or you have completely missed the poit.

My post had nothing to do with contracts, but was simply to point out that a renegoitiation of a players contract while still in effect to reward said player for outperforming that existing contract is quite commom.

How you failed to see this and managed to mangle it into something totally off topic, completely baffles me.

However, carry on.

 

[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 familiar with. The Steelers & how they've handled Hines Ward's contract.

The teams are making decisions to impact their team in a positive way. I never said that teams should not do that. In fact, I think there are many situations where it behooves the teams to do so. But I also don't think a player should walk out after already cashing his upfront money. His valid and logical response to a team that doesn't offer him increased wages despite higher than market value would be to walk away from the team regardless of the offer after his contract has termed.If a player gets a $20M dollar contract over four years with a $50K base salary and $19.8M upfront money, it appears you believe the player should get more money in season four because his base salary is only $50K and comparable players are getting $2.5M. That's where the fallacy lies.

Completely valid points.But it truly is Walker's dollar numbers we are talking about, which differ significantly from the scenario you've presented above.

When it's all said and done, I think Walker blowing out his knee in game 1 last year, threw a monkey wrench in the relationship between him & the Pack. I truly believe that if Walker had put up #'s last year, comparable to his 2004 season, this thread would not even exist.

Walker is now soured and I'm sure (whether right or wrong) harbors resentment toward Green Bay.

The Green Bay organization is now quite hesitant to renegotiate Walkers contract, without first determining Walker's football worth. In essence, Walker must prove himself again. walker does not agree.

This is the impasse as I see it.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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.

That some are willing to voluntarily renegotiate deals under economic pressure does not help your argument when speaking to contract rights. Please, your ignorance is yor own. Feel free to wallow in it, but do not propagate what you clearly do not understand. You are actually potentially hurting others.

No offense Ditkaless Wonders, but despite your excellent vocabulary, which generally denotes a higher education and therefore, by default, a supposedly higher perceptiveness than usual, your obtuseness here is flat out remarkable.

Or you have completely missed the poit.

My post had nothing to do with contracts, but was simply to point out that a renegoitiation of a players contract while still in effect to reward said player for outperforming that existing contract is quite commom.

How you failed to see this and managed to mangle it into something totally off topic, completely baffles me.

However, carry on.

Has to do with the nature of addressing multiple arguments at once. You came in here as more or less of a Packer hating troll. Your comments, though admittedly on a parallel subject, were offered in style and timing to support Blue Onion in his misconceptions. You are supplying the justification for him, and others similarly situated, to continue in their fallacious understandings. In my haste I combined the two in my head. This was probalby exacerbated by my multi-tasking as I am on a conference call that is boring the #### out of me. Still, your clinging to the concept of out-performing a contact needs to be addressed. One does not outperform ones own expectations which are part and parcell of what was negotiated. One may, show signs of future improvement and a team may want to lock up that future greater performance, but please find another way of articulating the point so that it does not pollute the undersatnding of persons trying to come to grips with contract concepts.

 

[P Boy]

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

Ward was entering the last year of his contract. Ward is also much more of a proven commodity than Walker.That's a huge difference, whether you want to admit it or not, than what has happened with Walker. Apples & oranges.

 

[P Boy]

When it's all said and done, I think Walker blowing out his knee in game 1 last year, threw a monkey wrench in the relationship between him & the Pack.

No. No, no, no, no, no!Walker poisoned the well when he demanded renegotiation of his contract with 2 years left on it and then try to strongarm GB with his holdout. That's when the wrench was inserted into the gears.If Walker would have kept his yap shut & played through last year, he would have been signing a contract this offseason that would have had big numbers attached to it.

 

[Imedos]

You are actually potentially hurting others.

Okay, now this is funny. Who is he potentially hurting and how will message board fodder on a ff site hurt someone?Think of the children, hugs 4 everyone, TIA.

And fwiw, read some of the lengthy posts of ponyboy, baker, and yourself regarding anti-Walker and pro-GB. I still disagree, but I don't feel like going on and on about it as its a waste to go ### for tat.

I will say I was a little brash in my first post(not that anyone cares save for some guy that gets riled too easily), but it was more of a response to some of the JW is the devil sentiment that this thread was aiming to generate. imo, there is blame to go on both sides. JW ain't no good guy for what he is doing, but guess what? It is certainly within his rights to do so.

 

[Dave Baker]

When it's all said and done, I think Walker blowing out his knee in game 1 last year, threw a monkey wrench in the relationship between him & the Pack. I truly believe that if Walker had put up #'s last year, comparable to his 2004 season, this thread would not even exist.

Walker is now soured and I'm sure (whether right or wrong) harbors resentment toward Green Bay.

The Green Bay organization is now quite hesitant to renegotiate Walkers contract, without first determining Walker's football worth. In essence, Walker must prove himself again. walker does not agree.

But Walker says he's not even willing to listen to GB's offer. His stance, as I said before, is perfectly acceptable in situations when his contract has termed. Don't like the way your team treated you while under contract? Refuse to play for them after your contract is satisfied, even if it means a paycut for you. This happens a lot of the time in sports.

 

[Sea Bass]

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.      

What was Bret Favre's Wonderlic score?

 

[Dave Baker]

You are actually potentially hurting others.

Okay, now this is funny.

Should have just stopped there.

 

[MrPack]

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.

Damn DAMN

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

You are actually potentially hurting others.

Okay, now this is funny. Who is he potentially hurting and how will message board fodder on a ff site hurt someone?Think of the children, hugs 4 everyone, TIA.

And fwiw, read some of the lengthy posts of ponyboy, baker, and yourself regarding anti-Walker and pro-GB. I still disagree, but I don't feel like going on and on about it as its a waste to go ### for tat.

I will say I was a little brash in my first post(not that anyone cares save for some guy that gets riled too easily), but it was more of a response to some of the JW is the devil sentiment that this thread was aiming to generate. imo, there is blame to go on both sides. JW ain't no good guy for what he is doing, but guess what? It is certainly within his rights to do so.

The propagation of ignorance always hurts others. My meaning was clear that it hurts their understanding of player contracts. As for acknowledging that Walker has a right to be an ### and to take stances that are counter to his own financial interest, I freely concede that. If that was the point you were hoping to establish I cede it. Frankly I don't think the point needed to be made, but congratulations on establishing it both by argumentation and by example.

 

[Dave Baker]

JW ain't no good guy for what he is doing, but guess what? It is certainly within his rights to do so.

If he refuses to play while under contract, he is breaking his contract. That's no more within his rights than is yelling fire in a crowded theatre, except for the fact that the NFL handles their own contract disputes without bringing them to US Courts.And please, oh please, don't let someone come along and state that the NFL breaks contracts all the time. If you think about writing that, you don't know a single thing about NFL contracts.

 

[MrPack]

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 can't be serious equating the NFL's Union and yours?Does your Union allow you to negotiate a contract JUST for you like all the NFL players do?

 

[P Boy]

And please, oh please, don't let someone come along and state that the NFL breaks contracts all the time. If you think about writing that, you don't know a single thing about NFL contracts.

I believe, Mr. Loco, that this is precisely where the problem stems.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

And please, oh please, don't let someone come along and state that the NFL breaks contracts all the time.  If you think about writing that, you don't know a single thing about NFL contracts.

I believe, Mr. Loco, that this is precisely where the problem stems.

Addressed in post #84. Addressed ad nauseum in your contract primer thread. Some just won't let it take hold in their heads.

 

[Imedos]

JW ain't no good guy for what he is doing, but guess what? It is certainly within his rights to do so.

If he refuses to play while under contract, he is breaking his contract. That's no more within his rights than is yelling fire in a crowded theatre, except for the fact that the NFL handles their own contract disputes without bringing them to US Courts.And please, oh please, don't let someone come along and state that the NFL breaks contracts all the time. If you think about writing that, you don't know a single thing about NFL contracts.

wth? Him refusing to play in NO WAY correlates to yelling fire in a crowded theatre.Walker threatening to not play or be a malcontent is the only real leverage he has, and he is free to use it if he wants. There is no contract that can force him to play. There is no contract that can force him to not dog it on the field.

It's just a question on whether the Pack wants to call his bluff and go through the motions. Well, maybe not that much of a question, but should be interesting regardless.

 

[P Boy]

wth? Him refusing to play in NO WAY correlates to yelling fire in a crowded theatre.Walker threatening to not play or be a malcontent is the only real leverage he has, and he is free to use it if he wants. There is no contract that can force him to play. There is no contract that can force him to not dog it on the field.

If he refuses to play, you are correct in that there is no way to physically force him onto the field to do so.However, if he does refuse to play for the season, he can be forced to return a pro-rated portion of his signing bonus. It can happen, and has happened in the past to other players.

 

[Angry Cheesehead]

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.

What was Bret Favre's Wonderlic score?

Vince Young - 6 (though took it a 2nd time and scored a 16)Javon Walker - 7

Brett Favre - 22

Nice try

 

[Dave Baker]

JW ain't no good guy for what he is doing, but guess what?  It is certainly within his rights to do so.

If he refuses to play while under contract, he is breaking his contract. That's no more within his rights than is yelling fire in a crowded theatre, except for the fact that the NFL handles their own contract disputes without bringing them to US Courts.And please, oh please, don't let someone come along and state that the NFL breaks contracts all the time. If you think about writing that, you don't know a single thing about NFL contracts.

wth? Him refusing to play in NO WAY correlates to yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

I figured my analogy would be dangerous here. Refusing to abide by his contract is breaking the contract. It is not legal to break a binding contract. Just as it is not legal to yell fire in a croweded theatre. Difference here, as I noted, was how the NFL tends to keep such matters in house.

 

[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 familiar with. The Steelers & how they've handled Hines Ward's contract.

That some are willing to voluntarily renegotiate deals under economic pressure does not help your argument when speaking to contract rights. Please, your ignorance is yor own. Feel free to wallow in it, but do not propagate what you clearly do not understand. You are actually potentially hurting others.

No offense Ditkaless Wonders, but despite your excellent vocabulary, which generally denotes a higher education and therefore, by default, a supposedly higher perceptiveness than usual, your obtuseness here is flat out remarkable.

Or you have completely missed the point.

My post had nothing to do with contracts, but was simply to point out that a renegotiation of a players contract while still in effect to reward said player for outperforming that existing contract is quite common.

How you failed to see this and managed to mangle it into something totally off topic, completely baffles me.

However, carry on.

Has to do with the nature of addressing multiple arguments at once. You came in here as more or less of a Packer hating troll. Your comments, though admittedly on a parallel subject, were offered in style and timing to support Blue Onion in his misconceptions. You are supplying the justification for him, and others similarly situated, to continue in their fallacious understandings. In my haste I combined the two in my head. This was probably exacerbated by my multi-tasking as I am on a conference call that is boring the #### out of me. Still, your clinging to the concept of out-performing a contact needs to be addressed. One does not outperform ones own expectations which are part and parcell of what was negotiated. One may, show signs of future improvement and a team may want to lock up that future greater performance, but please find another way of articulating the point so that it does not pollute the undersatnding of persons trying to come to grips with contract concepts.

Ditkaless Wonders, I resent your assassination of me as plowing in here as a "Packer hating troll" and supporting Blue Onion. Complete assumption on your part, which I think was born of your own personal & biased perception that anyone taking the side of Walker in this debate must be.

Please reference this thread Javon Walker demands trade, Where's he going to end up? for my previous posts regarding Walker and you will see I am not trolling. And my stance on Walker, Blue Onion or no Blue Onion, is previously & publicly documented.

With that being said, responding to multiple posts while at the same time being on a boring conference call, can indeed be confusing...so you are excused

However, to the subject at hand.

I'm sure that you aware, that rookie salary parameters are pre determined by slotting. They of course change year to year and some player salaries may actually jump a little higher than expected, but for the most part it is known what the rookie $$$ will generally be.

Understand Walker had no control over where he was drafted and thus by extension, little control over his initial salary in the NFL. He was able to negotiate a larger up front signing bonus, but at the expense of having to sign a 5 year contract.

In the here & now, would you not agree that Walker has either outperformed or proved to have far more immediate potential (which we have seen) than Donte Stallworth, Charles Rogers, David Terrell, Freddie Mitchell etc?

Yet their initial contracts have payed them more.

This is the inequity that Walker is seeking to address.

As I stated in an earlier post, I don't think this thread would even exist if Walker had put up #'s last year comparable to his 2004 season. I'm sure the Pack would've have already renegotiated his contract by now, regardless of Walker's position last year.

Blowing out his knee the 1st game of last year, has precipitated this unfortunate set of circumstances and i do not foresee a happy ending for either the Pack, or Walker. :(

 

[Big Score]

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

Ward was entering the last year of his contract. Ward is also much more of a proven commodity than Walker.

:sigh:I know you understood my point, but alright Pony Boy.

Would using Anquan Boldin as an example satisfy you?

 

[Big Score]

And please, oh please, don't let someone come along and state that the NFL breaks contracts all the time. If you think about writing that, you don't know a single thing about NFL contracts.

I agree. The NFL does not break contracts....

....they have contracts on how many and which games each of the various television media outlets can carry and will certainly not break those contracts. same with the marketing of NFL merchandise...etc, etc, etc.

However, NFL Teams can & do break contracts all the time.

 

[caul]

this seems to just keep going back and forth. I havnt scanned the whole thread but does anyone actually have his original contract details? And how much he has been paid so far, and was likely to earn in the last years of his contract.

Its odd to see somone with a front loaded contract, so it definatly could change the situation if its so heavily front loaded and hes using his low base salary as a reason for pay raise.

On the other hand, if its a little more even, perhaps the man just got upset with GB mgmt for telling him to wait to resctructure, and then he goes out and gets hurt and now they prolly arent going to pay him as much.

 

[Big Score]

However, if he does refuse to play for the season, he can be forced to return a pro-rated portion of his signing bonus. It can happen, and has happened in the past to other players.

Now you know this is just plain flat out false information Pony Boy.

I've already shown you the new Discipline rules of the CBA once already. Do I need to provide you them for you again?

 

[Big Score]

Its odd to see somone with a front loaded contract, so it definatly could change the situation if its so heavily front loaded and hes using his low base salary as a reason for pay raise.

On the other hand, if its a little more even, perhaps the man just got upset with GB mgmt for telling him to wait to resctructure, and then he goes out and gets hurt and now they prolly arent going to pay him as much.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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 familiar with. The Steelers & how they've handled Hines Ward's contract.

That some are willing to voluntarily renegotiate deals under economic pressure does not help your argument when speaking to contract rights. Please, your ignorance is yor own. Feel free to wallow in it, but do not propagate what you clearly do not understand. You are actually potentially hurting others.

No offense Ditkaless Wonders, but despite your excellent vocabulary, which generally denotes a higher education and therefore, by default, a supposedly higher perceptiveness than usual, your obtuseness here is flat out remarkable.

Or you have completely missed the point.

My post had nothing to do with contracts, but was simply to point out that a renegotiation of a players contract while still in effect to reward said player for outperforming that existing contract is quite common.

How you failed to see this and managed to mangle it into something totally off topic, completely baffles me.

However, carry on.

Has to do with the nature of addressing multiple arguments at once. You came in here as more or less of a Packer hating troll. Your comments, though admittedly on a parallel subject, were offered in style and timing to support Blue Onion in his misconceptions. You are supplying the justification for him, and others similarly situated, to continue in their fallacious understandings. In my haste I combined the two in my head. This was probably exacerbated by my multi-tasking as I am on a conference call that is boring the #### out of me. Still, your clinging to the concept of out-performing a contact needs to be addressed. One does not outperform ones own expectations which are part and parcell of what was negotiated. One may, show signs of future improvement and a team may want to lock up that future greater performance, but please find another way of articulating the point so that it does not pollute the undersatnding of persons trying to come to grips with contract concepts.

Ditkaless Wonders, I resent your assassination of me as plowing in here as a "Packer hating troll" and supporting Blue Onion. Complete assumption on your part, which I think was born of your own personal & biased perception that anyone taking the side of Walker in this debate must be.

Please reference this thread Javon Walker demands trade, Where's he going to end up? for my previous posts regarding Walker and you will see I am not trolling. And my stance on Walker, Blue Onion or no Blue Onion, is previously & publicly documented.

With that being said, responding to multiple posts while at the same time being on a boring conference call, can indeed be confusing...so you are excused

However, to the subject at hand.

I'm sure that you aware, that rookie salary parameters are pre determined by slotting. They of course change year to year and some player salaries may actually jump a little higher than expected, but for the most part it is known what the rookie $$$ will generally be.

Understand Walker had no control over where he was drafted and thus by extension, little control over his initial salary in the NFL. He was able to negotiate a larger up front signing bonus, but at the expense of having to sign a 5 year contract.

In the here & now, would you not agree that Walker has either outperformed or proved to have far more immediate potential (which we have seen) than Donte Stallworth, Charles Rogers, David Terrell, Freddie Mitchell etc?

Yet their initial contracts have payed them more.

This is the inequity that Walker is seeking to address.

As I stated in an earlier post, I don't think this thread would even exist if Walker had put up #'s last year comparable to his 2004 season. I'm sure the Pack would've have already renegotiated his contract by now, regardless of Walker's position last year.

Blowing out his knee the 1st game of last year, has precipitated this unfortunate set of circumstances and i do not foresee a happy ending for either the Pack, or Walker. :(

I agree that even with an injury Walker is substantially more valuable moving forward than all but a handful of receivers, certainly more so than the ones you list.I would disagree that it ws inequitable that others had better rookie contracts than Walker. In hindsight it was inequitable, but at the time of the contract it was equitable. One cannot address inequity in only one direction in hindsight. The economic consequences would be disastrous. Until teams can recover the contracts of the Freddie Mitchells of the world inequity will be a fact of life.

I have always understood your argument. In a "perfect world" sense i get it. Since the NFL, and life in general are not a perfect world I argue contract law should control these situations. The problem in doing otherwise is, as Dave Baker pointed out aptly in his $20,000,000.00 post, that there will always be some apparent inequities. With these apparent inequities, along with the general misunderstanding of fair market value and time value of money some, those without your vision, will tend to concentrate on only one side of the equitable eqaution, the players side, and will end up arguing foolish positions. It is easy to do, as, for instance, when you state walker 'had' to sign his rookie contract if he wanted the greater bonus. He had to do nothing. He choose his option. In fact he negotiated through skilled representation and sought to use all the leverage he had to impose it on Green Bay. In the end the Packers choose to acquiese.

My feelings on the negotiation are well documented as well. I don't think th einjury is playing as central a role as some others in the negotiations. I believe Walker is a workout warrior. I believe he will recover full effectiveness. I believe the packers believe this too. I believe thae packers bit the bullet last year letting Wahle and Riviera go precisely so they could give Walker all he deserves this year. I believe it rankled them that Walker was too stupid to see that, and that he choose to rock the boat lst year. I believe Thompson was about to address the matter but that Walker again shot his stupid mouth off rather than going in house. I appreciate that many say that seems unlikely, nobody would be that stupid, yet walker's stupidity in demanding money last year when there just was no money shows his incredible fatuousness when it comes to this subject.

I say again $20,000,000.00 body, 10 cent head.

(wow. formating freakout. I'm too spent to fix it.)

 

[Dave Baker]

However, NFL Teams can & do break contracts all the time.

I'll assume, with the smiley, you are kidding. NFL teams don't break contracts. There are no player legal counsels that have argued this.

 

[Hobbes]

Its odd to see somone with a front loaded contract, so it definatly could change the situation if its so heavily front loaded and hes using his low base salary as a reason for pay raise.

On the other hand, if its a little more even, perhaps the man just got upset with GB mgmt for telling him to wait to resctructure, and then he goes out and gets hurt and now they prolly arent going to pay him as much.

This is exactly what I heard was going on....Walker shows up and plays last year and gets hurt...now GB is using the injury to bring his price down...of course they would, it's just good business but it doesn't show much loyalty to the player and I can't blame him for wanting to leave.I think it is far different for a player under a rookie contract (just like Boldin last year) to look to get an extention at a higher salary if they outperform because they are basically slotted into their first contract anyway...none of this would really be an issue anyway if GB weren't comfortable making him their 5th highest paid receiver last year...

 

[P Boy]

However, if he does refuse to play for the season, he can be forced to return a pro-rated portion of his signing bonus.  It can happen, and has happened in the past to other players.

Now you know this is just plain flat out false information Pony Boy.

I've already shown you the new Discipline rules of the CBA once already. Do I need to provide you them for you again?

Really?From your link:

*********************************************************

• Teams can't get back signing-bonus money if a player voluntarily retires; that has to be negotiated into a player's contract.* In the past, teams could ask a player to pay back the proration of the remaining part of his contract if he retires in the early stages or in the middle of the contract .

• A player can lose only 25 percent of his signing bonus that year if he acts in a way that "undermines his ability to fully participate in an exhibition game or a regular season game." A second occurrence could cost him the remaining 75 percent**

• Teams can't do a Ricky Williams and go back and collect signing bonuses, performance bonuses or escalators earned in past years. ***Williams quit the Dolphins to live a temporary life of smoking dope and healing holistically. The Dolphins gave him an $8.4 million bill because of the forfeiture language in his contract.

• If a player retires and skips a good portion of the season against a team's wishes, the team must take him back under his existing contract and can't force him to give back any of the signing bonus. If the team wants to fight him for portions of the signing bonus, it has to release him and give him a chance to find another team. ****

• A player can't be ordered to lose signing-bonus money if he fails to participate in voluntary offseason workouts. Players can't lose portions of their signing bonuses if they make adverse public statements.

• The new CBA prohibits teams from inserting forfeiture clauses for violations of the NFL drug and steroids policy. A player loses game checks if he is suspended by the league, but the league can't get back more money than the pay for the games he misses.

*********************************************************

So, assuming ESPN has correctly interpretted the CBA extension (and they have published false interpretation before), a team CAN indeed get back pro-rated portions of the signing bonus - as I clearly stated - if:

*The team writes into a player's contract and the player signs the contract stating that he has to return that pro-rated portion if he voluntarily retires.

**He can lose 25% of the pro-rated bonus if he refuses to participate in a game or "dogs" it, and can lose the other 75% if he does it twice.

***They can't get signing bonus earned in other years. That clearly implies that they can get the pro-rated portion from the current year.

****If the team choses to release him when he doesn't report, they can pursue the pro-rated portion of the signing bonus.

So, when you accuse me of printing flat-out false information, it turns out, according to your own link, that you indeed don't understand the extension, just as you don't understand contracts and the original CBA agreement.

 

[P Boy]

I'll assume, with the smiley, you are kidding.

He's not kidding.

 

[Big Score]

for instance, when you state walker 'had' to sign his rookie contract if he wanted the greater bonus. He had to do nothing. He choose his option. In fact he negotiated through skilled representation and sought to use all the leverage he had to impose it on Green Bay. In the end the Packers choose to acquiese.

To be fair, Walker and his agent indeed used skillful negotiation tactics to increase his signing bonus.However you paint it as a one way street, with the favored spotlight squarely on Walker, whilst Green Bay is cast in the role of the hapless virgin served up sacrificially.

The reality is there was give & take on both sides.

Yes, Green Bay indeed agreed to a higher than normal bonus for Walker, going by his draft position.

But Green Bay had Walker & his agent agree to a longer than normal contract at less than stellar yearly monetary value.

In hindsight, given how Walker has actually performed on the field and the obvious talent that he is, Green Bay actually got a bargain, even with the larger than normal signing bonus for Walker's draft position.

I say again $20,000,000.00 body, 10 cent head.

No argument here. He should have held out for an even LARGER bonus on his rookie contract.

But we all know that was not practical. Green Bay probably gave as large of a bonus as they were going to. However, that is what Walker attempted to address last year and is again attempting to address this year.

 

[Red Herring]

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

I, for one, would love to see that happen. You know Favre would be more than happy to risk a few throws into the middle just to watch Walker go down Not just the bears either, I'm sure leading him high in front of Sharper could be funny too

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Its odd to see somone with a front loaded contract, so it definatly could change the situation if its so heavily front loaded and hes using his low base salary as a reason for pay raise.

On the other hand, if its a little more even, perhaps the man just got upset with GB mgmt for telling him to wait to resctructure, and then he goes out and gets hurt and now they prolly arent going to pay him as much.

This is exactly what I heard was going on....Walker shows up and plays last year and gets hurt...now GB is using the injury to bring his price down...of course they would, it's just good business but it doesn't show much loyalty to the player and I can't blame him for wanting to leave.I think it is far different for a player under a rookie contract (just like Boldin last year) to look to get an extention at a higher salary if they outperform because they are basically slotted into their first contract anyway...none of this would really be an issue anyway if GB weren't comfortable making him their 5th highest paid receiver last year...

According to Walker they are not negotiating at all, nor have they, so how could they be using the injury as an argument to reduce the offer which has never happened?I agree Green Bay might have been tempted to use the injury to lowball Walker. I also believe they are to smart tenough to not make such an alienating move. I believe that Green Bay believes Walker will fully recover and they were merely monitoring the recovery ( a prudent move) before making a very lucrative offer. I believe had Walker's people asked Ted Thompson they would have found this out. I believe, however, that they failed to do so because of last years animosity which was entirrly on Walker for not appreciating Green Bay's long standing policy and for not appreciating their short term cap problems making negotiation impossible even had they wished.

Wake up Javon. The Packers were not disrespecting you. All that cap space could have been yours. The were just proceeding slowly due to the circumstances. You Najahed yourself right when you could have grabbed the brass ring. You are listening to the wrong people.

 

[P Boy]

The reality is there was give & take on both sides.Yes, Green Bay indeed agreed to a higher than normal bonus for Walker, going by his draft position.But Green Bay had Walker & his agent agree to a longer than normal contract at less than stellar yearly monetary value.In hindsight, given how Walker has actually performed on the field and the obvious talent that he is, Green Bay actually got a bargain, even with the larger than normal signing bonus for Walker's draft position.

By all the gods! There may actually be hope. This shows a smattering of understanding of the situation.

 

[Dave Baker]

The Packers were not disrespecting you.

Sadly, this is what it comes down to. Interestingly, I have no respect for someone that cries it's all about respect.A perceived lack of respect causes more problems with people than is imaginable. The need for respect is riddled with insecurity, immaturity and selfishness.

In this case, it's only business. Green Bay is playing by the rules that the players association agreed to. Walker is not.

 

[Big Score]

However, if he does refuse to play for the season, he can be forced to return a pro-rated portion of his signing bonus.  It can happen, and has happened in the past to other players.

Now you know this is just plain flat out false information Pony Boy.

I've already shown you the new Discipline rules of the CBA once already. Do I need to provide you them for you again?

Really?From your link:

*********************************************************

• Teams can't get back signing-bonus money if a player voluntarily retires; that has to be negotiated into a player's contract.* In the past, teams could ask a player to pay back the proration of the remaining part of his contract if he retires in the early stages or in the middle of the contract .

• A player can lose only 25 percent of his signing bonus that year if he acts in a way that "undermines his ability to fully participate in an exhibition game or a regular season game." A second occurrence could cost him the remaining 75 percent**

• Teams can't do a Ricky Williams and go back and collect signing bonuses, performance bonuses or escalators earned in past years. ***Williams quit the Dolphins to live a temporary life of smoking dope and healing holistically. The Dolphins gave him an $8.4 million bill because of the forfeiture language in his contract.

• If a player retires and skips a good portion of the season against a team's wishes, the team must take him back under his existing contract and can't force him to give back any of the signing bonus. If the team wants to fight him for portions of the signing bonus, it has to release him and give him a chance to find another team. ****

• A player can't be ordered to lose signing-bonus money if he fails to participate in voluntary offseason workouts. Players can't lose portions of their signing bonuses if they make adverse public statements.

• The new CBA prohibits teams from inserting forfeiture clauses for violations of the NFL drug and steroids policy. A player loses game checks if he is suspended by the league, but the league can't get back more money than the pay for the games he misses.

*********************************************************

So, assuming ESPN has correctly interpretted the CBA extension (and they have published false interpretation before), a team CAN indeed get back pro-rated portions of the signing bonus - as I clearly stated - if :

*The team writes into a player's contract and the player signs the contract stating that he has to return that pro-rated portion if he voluntarily retires.

**He can lose 25% of the pro-rated bonus if he refuses to participate in a game or "dogs" it, and can lose the other 75% if he does it twice.

***They can't get signing bonus earned in other years. That clearly implies that they can get the pro-rated portion from the current year.

****If the team choses to release him when he doesn't report, they can pursue the pro-rated portion of the signing bonus.

So, when you accuse me of printing flat-out false information, it turns out, according to your own link, that you indeed don't understand the extension, just as you don't understand contracts and the original CBA agreement.

Oh come on Pony Boy! Don't insult me, yourself or others with this Big Big Big if.....and I do not see where you have clearly state this if anywhere....excepet now & after the fact.

The funniest thing is, it seems you are trying to imply that Green Bay might have put this very specific language into Walkers 2002 contract. I guess the Pack consulted Madame Cleo back in 2002 when they wrote up Walker's contract, thus preparing for the new CBA Discipline provisions of 2005.

 

[Big Score]

The reality is there was give & take on both sides.

Yes, Green Bay indeed agreed to a higher than normal bonus for Walker, going by his draft position.

But Green Bay had Walker & his agent agree to a longer than normal contract at less than stellar yearly monetary value.

In hindsight, given how Walker has actually performed on the field and the obvious talent that he is, Green Bay actually got a bargain, even with the larger than normal signing bonus for Walker's draft position.

By all the gods! There may actually be hope. This shows a smattering of understanding of the situation.

Understanding has been there all the time Pony Boy. The question is, why has it taken you so long to recognize it?

 

[Dave Baker]

**He can lose 25% of the pro-rated bonus if he refuses to participate in a game or "dogs" it, and can lose the other 75% if he does it twice.

Oh come on Pony Boy! Don't insult me, yourself or others with this

Actually, wouldn't this mean GB could get the pro-rated portion, as Walker has stated he wouldn't report or play for the team no matter what? All it would take is two games and his entire pro-rated portion is history, if the info provided here is accurate.

 

[Big Score]

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

I, for one, would love to see that happen. You know Favre would be more than happy to risk a few throws into the middle just to watch Walker go down Not just the bears either, I'm sure leading him high in front of Sharper could be funny too

You'll never ever see any NFL team do what Pony Boy has suggested, as far as trying to so obviously and purposefully playing a player out of position to spite the player. He was just being a dunce.

Any NFL team that tried to do that would never get any players of worth, short of massive and outrageous contracts. It would always be in the back of their minds that if they did something to upset management, it could happen to them.

 

[Dave Baker]

Any NFL team that tried to do that would never get any players of worth, short of massive and outrageous contracts. It would always be in the back of their minds that if they did something to upset management, it could happen to them.

While I agree that no NFL team would ever do this, don't overestimate the desire for money.Just as NFL teams will sign a malcontent (like TO) despite them dumping on every team they've ever played for (read: admits he doesn't play hard, creates locker room animosity, etc.), a player will play for any team that pays them the most money.

 

[ninerfan]

FROM FBG: Javon Walker runs a no-route, with stiff-arm for Packers

Without a Brett Favre type arm he is just another "in-the-middle-of-the-pack" receiver like Robert Brooks and Donald Driver.

With all due respect to Brett Favre and his abilities, Javon Walker is a far better receiver than either Brooks or Driver.

When you mention Favre's abilities are you talking about his ability to stick his nose where it doesn't belong or his ability to hit the open DB?

 

[Big Score]

**He can lose 25% of the pro-rated bonus if he refuses to participate in a game or "dogs" it, and can lose the other 75% if he does it twice.

Oh come on Pony Boy! Don't insult me, yourself or others with this

Actually, wouldn't this mean GB could get the pro-rated portion, as Walker has stated he wouldn't report or play for the team no matter what? All it would take is two games and his entire pro-rated portion is history, if the info provided here is accurate.

Not if he retires which is what he says he will do.The chances of the language of Walkers 2002 contract, being worded to follow the rules of the 2005 CBA provisions on retirement Discipline, are so infinitesimally small as to be negligible.

You've got a better chance of winning the Lottery 52 weeks in a row, than Walkers contract being worded in such a way, that it satisfies the 2005 CBA retirement discipline provisions.

I don't even know why Pony Boy put that garbage up there.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

FROM FBG: Javon Walker runs a no-route, with stiff-arm for Packers

Without a Brett Favre type arm he is just another "in-the-middle-of-the-pack" receiver like Robert Brooks and Donald Driver.

With all due respect to Brett Favre and his abilities, Javon Walker is a far better receiver than either Brooks or Driver.

When you mention Favre's abilities are you talking about his ability to stick his nose where it doesn't belong or his ability to hit the open DB?

You're not even worth the effort of a good ##### slap.

 

[Red Herring]

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

I, for one, would love to see that happen. You know Favre would be more than happy to risk a few throws into the middle just to watch Walker go down Not just the bears either, I'm sure leading him high in front of Sharper could be funny too

You'll never ever see any NFL team do what Pony Boy has suggested, as far as trying to so obviously and purposefully playing a player out of position to spite the player. He was just being a dunce.

Any NFL team that tried to do that would never get any players of worth, short of massive and outrageous contracts. It would always be in the back of their minds that if they did something to upset management, it could happen to them.

Whoa dude. First of all, I don't think in the slightest it would happen, as we don't live in my perfect world. Even you would have to admit the highlight reel would rock though. Secondly, not GB (in my memory), but other NFL teams have done plenty just to spite players, the most obvious example being the Rai-duhs treatment of Marcus Allen. Still didnt stop them from signing the likes of Moss, Jordan, etc. Finally, why all these guys are wasting this much time trying to convince one obviously fishing poster is beyond me. How's that saying about arguing with someone on the internet go again?

 

[Dave Baker]

**He can lose 25% of the pro-rated bonus if he refuses to participate in a game or "dogs" it, and can lose the other 75% if he does it twice.

Oh come on Pony Boy! Don't insult me, yourself or others with this

Actually, wouldn't this mean GB could get the pro-rated portion, as Walker has stated he wouldn't report or play for the team no matter what? All it would take is two games and his entire pro-rated portion is history, if the info provided here is accurate.

Not if he retires which is what he says he will do.

If he retires, and then decides to come to play, GB would still own his rights.

 

[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?

You can't be serious equating the NFL's Union and yours?Does your Union allow you to negotiate a contract JUST for you like all the NFL players do?

I wasn't trying to equate the NFL life to my own, Sabertooth was.

 

[Big Score]

Any NFL team that tried to do that would never get any players of worth, short of massive and outrageous contracts. It would always be in the back of their minds that if they did something to upset management, it could happen to them.

While I agree that no NFL team would ever do this, don't overestimate the desire for money.Just as NFL teams will sign a malcontent (like TO) despite them dumping on every team they've ever played for (read: admits he doesn't play hard, creates locker room animosity, etc.), a player will play for any team that pays them the most money.

I'm sure you're right. I'm also sure if hypothetically any NFL team were to ever purposefully play a player so obviously out of position as Pony Boy suggests, you would see any future players signing with that team put massive bonus clauses into their contracts for just such an event.Also what would the fan backlash be, if a team ever did put a player in the position as the one Pony Boy has suggested, for the obvious purpose of spite / pay back (call it what you will), and the player was then serverly injured?

Pony Boy was just putting out a ridiculous hypothetical situation, without really taking the time to think through what he was saying.

 

[P Boy]

Oh come on Pony Boy! Don't insult me, yourself or others with this

Big Big Big if.....and I do not see where you have clearly state this if anywhere....excepet now & after the fact.

The funniest thing is, it seems you are trying to imply that Green Bay might have put this very specific language into Walkers 2002 contract. I guess the Pack consulted Madame Cleo back in 2002 when they wrote up Walker's contract, thus preparing for the new CBA Discipline provisions of 2005.

I find it incredulous that you can possibly be this naive. I have to assume that you're fishing.You don't think lawyers writing contracts wouldn't have thought of putting language into contracts regarding pro-rating even though the CBA covered signing bonuses? How big do you think an NFL player's contract is? 2 pages? "Just see the CBA, except for items 1, 2, & 3". Yeah, I'm sure that'll do, given the lawyers involved on both sides.

As far as the "if" crap you are posting? We'll just see when it's time to enforce discipline by the teams, won't we? Yeah, I'm sure the teams will just let players act like T.O. did last year without trying to enforce any financial penalty or trying to get any money back.

What universe do you live in?