This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but if he retires, which is more than within his rights and is what he says he will do, he cannot play for anyone else until he fulfills his GB contract, right? So if he retires, he keeps all his signing bonus. The chances of GB putting that in his contract are slim and none. As I read it, however, the contract wording does NOT apply to the portion of the CBA that states that players that jake or refuse to play are subject to loss of bonus money. 2 different fruits so to speak. Wait a minute. Am I arguing on the internet?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.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.Oh come on Pony Boy! Don't insult me, yourself or others with this
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.
I am not going to respect myself in the morning...
So? They would have his rights for a whopping 6 games and he then becomes a FA without losing any of his bonus money - pro rated or not.If he retires, and then decides to come to play, GB would still own his rights.Not if he retires which is what he says he will do.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.Oh come on Pony Boy! Don't insult me, yourself or others with this
Actually, much of this thread was dedicated to other things, like trying to help people understand that NFL teams do not break contracts and that if Walker refuses to play, he is indeed breaking a contract.Walker's valid points begin and end with him saying he should get more money. Refusing to play and refusing to listen to GB's offers are not legitimate points IMO. He is under contract to play.Basically the points are Javon Walker feels he was wronged by the organization and the Packer Organization (and their fans) feel they were wronged by Javon Walker. Like most divorces both sides have legitimate points.
Dave knows me, so he knows I am the antithesis of wise. Still, due to my great respect for him I offer apologies to any and all I might have poked at. I offer up that any of my posts causing offense should be edited or deleted, and I leave the thread to those wiser heads. Good night all and have a great weekend.
Pony Boy,I generally like reading your posts and normally find them largely informative.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.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.
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?
OK, I suppose if he retires, then waits until next year, comes back to Green Bay, plays six games, then waits until the following year to go to another team, you are correct. Retiring would be a way to keep his pro-rated portion of his bonus.But I am almost certain he can't simply declare "I retire", thereby guaranteeing the pro-rated bonus, then come back and play six games this year. If he does, they could go after the money per the above quoted rule.So? They would have his rights for a whopping 6 games and he then becomes a FA without losing any of his bonus money - pro rated or not.If he retires, and then decides to come to play, GB would still own his rights.Not if he retires which is what he says he will do.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.Oh come on Pony Boy! Don't insult me, yourself or others with this
Wasn't that your point you? That you thought Green bay could go after a % of his bonus?
No need to leave us now, Suds. It was not directed toward any one person. Of course, if you believe you could not refrain, then you are truly wiser beyond your years...and that's a good long time.
Isn't this splitting hairs though? He gains nothing by holding out as he loses time and money, which he won't get back. If he then comes back to play for GB, which seems unlikely, any mis-step would then result in the team trying to get their money back. With the way he's handled this thus far, I doubt highly he can go 6 games without doing something that could be deemed detrimental
LOL @ thinking I've gotten my feelings hurt. There's nothing more fun on the internet than a good donnybrook, as long as it doesn't get personal. Okay, maybe pr0n is more fun, but I digress.In any case, if the language in the CBA extension is as ESPN has interpretted, those exceptions to get pro-rated portions of signing bonuses were put in their for a reason. They weren't part of the language just because they needed to fill the bottom half of a page.Pony Boy,
I generally like reading your posts and normally find them largely informative.
But I think you might've gotten a tad lost there and you were simply trying to recover.
I do apologise for coming across so blatantly hard core on that point. Please continue with this discussion knowing that I won't snap at you again.
Why don't you think he can't do just that? I have neither seen nor come across any rules stating when a player can, or conversely, cannot retire. I could well be wrong, but i don't think there are any restrictions on when a player can retire.But I am almost certain he can't simply declare "I retire", thereby guaranteeing the pro-rated bonus, then come back and play six games this year.So? They would have his rights for a whopping 6 games and he then becomes a FA without losing any of his bonus money - pro rated or not.If he retires, and then decides to come to play, GB would still own his rights.Not if he retires which is what he says he will do.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.Oh come on Pony Boy! Don't insult me, yourself or others with this
Wasn't that your point you? That you thought Green bay could go after a % of his bonus?
Only if they immediately grant him FA status.At least from what I'm understanding.
I don't know about any rules about when a player can or cannot retire. I was talking more about returning to the game.I don't know for sure, but it sounds a little strange for there to be a rule that says a team can go after pro-rated bonus money, but as soon as the player proclaims the words "I retire", the team can no longer get that money. The player could then, 30 seconds later, say "ok, I'm back." I find it hard to believe the rules are stated as such.
Just going by the available info
Clayton & ESPN could certainly be wrong. They were with the Portis - broken ankle - story, a couple of years back.His unintentional comedy in most threads brings a smile to my face.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.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.
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?
I didn't really think one person could really be so ignorant, but he has proven me wrong on many accounts.
Certainly, splitting hairs. But it comes down to leverage. Green Bay also gains nothing by retaining his rights while he is holding as well. In fact, if he does return than somebody else has to be kicked off the roster to make room for Walker on the 52 man roster. It gets a little juveline (on both sides), but ugly negotiations and ugly divorces often too.That is why I think Green Bay should just cut ties with him; "If you don't want to be part of this team, then we don't want you on the team. Don't let the door hit you on the way out." And to be truthful, I don't see how this hurts the Packers; I think a lot of players would like to play for Green Bay. The only precident this action would set would be, "Green Bay doesn't want me-guys on the team."
Usually I would agree here, but I really don't think the Packers did anything wrong here at all.History has shown that they take care of their superstars in the final year of their contract. They pay them very well too.Basically the points are Javon Walker feels he was wronged by the organization and the Packer Organization (and their fans) feel they were wronged by Javon Walker. Like most divorces both sides have legitimate points.
His numbers in 2003 are far from top notch. 9 TDs is nice, but 41/716 is average top 50 stuff. While not starting obviously is good reason for a lack of numbers, it's still only one really good year. No more.
I do not dispute that "Green Bay doesn't want me-guys on the team." is said by that move. Its not the only thing it says, though. It also says "If you want out of Green Bay, all you have to do is whine, cry, and threaten" Its exactly what Walker has done and the result he wants from it. What then stops any player at any time from doing the same thing? Say GB drafts Hawk and one year in he can't stand GB, the coaches, the fans, the city, whatever? Why can't he do the same thing? To me, no sane businessman would allow his employees to affect the terms of their employment like that, NFL or otherwise.Certainly, splitting hairs. But it comes down to leverage. Green Bay also gains nothing by retaining his rights while he is holding as well. In fact, if he does return than somebody else has to be kicked off the roster to make room for Walker on the 52 man roster. It gets a little juveline (on both sides), but ugly negotiations and ugly divorces often too.That is why I think Green Bay should just cut ties with him; "If you don't want to be part of this team, then we don't want you on the team. Don't let the door hit you on the way out." And to be truthful, I don't see how this hurts the Packers; I think a lot of players would like to play for Green Bay. The only precident this action would set would be, "Green Bay doesn't want me-guys on the team."
Not quite the best analogy.How about Walker washed your car to perfection once (his breakout season) and then told you that the next car wash will be $40 as he's already proved his worth as a car washer.
I believe he was referring to trying to take back bonus money, not to lowering the amount paid in future seasons...
Umm, how about then you paid Walker $100 for 5 carwashes on 5 consecutive saturdays, with $5 more each week after its done. Does he then get to ask for more after he did a crappy job week one, a decent job week 2, an awesome job week 3, then twisted his ankle after barely getting the car wet week 4?
not really -- link to breakdown of Walker's first 3 years especially in Walkers case, he had by far the largest portion of his salary given to him in the 1st 2 years, IMO in anticipation of his very good 3rd year as it certainly wasn't for what he did in his first 2
Of course as has been pointed out, very very very few WR's hit the ground running and it's especially tough to do anything, if you're not on the field.Once the Pack gave him a starting role and an extended presence in the offense, he produced.
Considering the jack Sherman had just shelled out to Terrina Glenn that year...yes I do. You don't pay a vet that kind of coin and then sit him while starting the rook.
Green Bay actually got decent value for the money they paid Walker.What a lot of folks overlook when discussing Walker, is that he was second most prolific WR for receptions & the most prolific in yardage for the Pack his 2nd year. He did this despite not being the #2 WR with mega money hog Freeman still being on the roster.
Wide Receivers+----------------------+----+-----------------------+----------------------+| Name | G | RSH YARD AVG TD | REC YARD AVG TD |+----------------------+----+-----------------------+----------------------+| Donald Driver | 15 | 5 51 10.2 0 | 52 621 11.9 2 || Robert Ferguson | 15 | 1 -8 -8.0 0 | 38 520 13.7 4 || Antonio Freeman | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 14 141 10.1 0 || Javon Walker | 16 | 2 1 0.5 0 | 41 716 17.5 9 |+----------------------+----+-----------------------+----------------------+If you're asking if he was worth the money he got, for only the 1st two years of his career, I agree.But why would you throw out the production of his 3rd year? It did happen didn't it?Well, if you really think Walker (or any WR not named Moss) is worth their contract in year 1 and 2,
ETA: All the info needed to refute everything you've been saying is contained in this thread. Why I ever thought I could succeed where they had failed is beyond me. I'm taking the hook out of my mouth now.
Makes me wonder if Boldin played for the Pack, would people be calling him a team cancer right now? :(
But, as I said, and you might not have read, the player was already paid for his services via the upfront money. All fo this would be different if players did not get the upfront cash. But they do.
Nope. I already for him to wash the car, and to use the example a little better, I paid him ahead of time to wash it four times but I only paid him about 50% of the money owqed for the last three. But he decided after the first two washes he did so well, he should get more money and refuses to wash the final two times...even though I already paid him to do so.
FROM FBG: Javon Walker runs a no-route, with stiff-arm for Packers
Summary:: What part of "no" don't the Green Bay Packers understand?
In an interview Tuesday morning, Javon Walker's stepfather said not money, not the passage of time and not the retirement of Brett Favre could change the wide receiver's aversion for the team that drafted him in the first round in 2002.
"They could give him a $15 million signing bonus and he would decline it," Charles Goldsmith said. "I think everybody is thinking it's going to blow over and Javon's going to show up. He's not showing up. I mean, he is absolutely not showing up. Period. At all."
During a 35-minute conversation, there were 23 occasions in which Goldsmith categorically and almost matter-of-factly said Walker's days as a Packer were over.
Last month, Goldsmith sat next to Walker when he discussed his future with coach Mike McCarthy for about half an hour.
"He said, 'It has nothing to do with you,'" Goldsmith said. "He said, 'I don't want to play in Green Bay ever again and I'm not coming back.' He said, 'If you force me to come back, you're really going to have a terrible cancer on your hands.'
Our View: Not much to add after that last line above. We believe Javon Walker won't play for the Packers in 2006. He will likely be traded as he could show up in week 10 to earn the year and become a free agent. We doubt the Packers are going to want this distraction all year though.
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.
yeah, the analogy didn't really make sense. Usually that is used to counter the notion that there is no free speech, not that something is illegal. Really you could've substituted jaywalking or gay marriage in their and wouldn've somehow been more clear on that.
But breaking a contract in of itself is not necessarily illegal. The consequences for breaking a contract are usually written into the contract(or at least rudimentarily implied). Failure to not own up to the consequences of breaking the contract would result in legal action.understood. But if he does come back just to dog it, I don't really see any recourse the Pack have. Kind of like the stunt Vince Carter pulled in toronto. I mean, the pack could theoratically franchise him, but I don't really see the point in wasting anymore resources on him if there truly is that much hate in his heart for them.
Here is Walker's stats for 2003.Year G GS No Yards Avg Lg TD 20+ 40+ FD
this post really does sum up the entire issue
