Javon Walker is a CANCER! (1 Viewer)

[Traders2001]

We call Walker greedy all the time, I remember at this time last year seeing what other WRS were making 2 or 3 or 4 times more money than Walker, and yes there were some major scrubs. This year how can Randle El make 6 times more than Walker? I'd be pissed too.

I agree with you about El.He is a 4th WR on most teams and he got that much , this is too much for me .

El is worthless WR making big money , the SKins have no clue.

But Walker is a cancer .......

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I think why people get so hot about this issue is they KNOW Walker has talent.  I would agree that his head is worth significantly less than his athletic body.

But let's be fair.  Walker was a beast in year 3 of his deal.  And the word on him coming in the draft was that was who this kid was.  A beast on the field but probably slow to pick up reading defenses, etc.  He had character issues I believe and saw his stock drop in the draft.

I am not saying it's right, but Walker felt he was the best WR coming in the draft.  As soon as his play caught up to that vision of himself, he wanted the big dollars.  Those pointing that he underplayed years 1 and 2 make excellent points to everyone but Javon Walker.  He felt he was the best WR coming in and now had the proof.

His leverage was last year.  He knew it and was trying to get those dollars.  The Packers front office was holding firm and not renegotiating.  People weren't calling this a TO situation at first.  Many agreed that Walker was a beast and they saw both side's points.

That all changed the second Brett Favre got involved.  He carries a huge voice and he essentially called Walker out as not being a team player.  The fans turned on Walker in a heartbeat and he quickly caved in as all of his leverage was gone.

So outside of Walker posturing for a better deal, he eventually caved with his tail between his legs.  He saw the only way he was going to get this big deal was to swallow his pride and be the man again on the field.  He came to camp and wasn't a distraction.  But inside I think he was pissed off in a big way. 

But he held hope the BIG PAYDAY was just stalled by a year.  In his mind, he knew he would be dominant again and would get the reward. 

Then he got injured.  His season was lost.  Now the Packers don't know what they have in Walker so of course they aren't offering a huge multi-year deal.

Walker says of course you know what you have.  You knew it last year and said wait a year.  Well I tried to have a great season and got hurt.  The year's up.  Pay me or release me.

From the outside, I think this situation is pretty easy to analyze.  The Packers had the leverage last year and used it.  But some of the leverage the Packers used threw Walker under the bus for the short term.  Had Walker had another great year, he would have likely renegotiated a huge deal going forward.  But if an injury happened to Walker, then this thing was going to get super ugly.  And that's exactly where we are now.

If you are Javon Walker, would you really want to play for this team right now?  Forget the you have to honor the contract stuff for a second.  It's clear he is bitter beyond words.  You don't have to agree with him, but he has felt under-appreciated for a long time (on draft day, after his Pro-bowl season, and now).  He wants out and is doing EXACTLY what you do to get traded.

You say you hate this team to the media.  You say you will never play for them again.  You say you would rather sell ice creams from a truck than go back, etc.  He is poisoning the well in a big way.  No way can the Packers keep this guy now.  They know at best he will come in for the last 6 weeks and then he will be gone for good.

How does everyone feel about what Antonio Gates did last year?  He wasn't drafted and the team had him for something close to the minimum.  Everyone knew he deserved a huge contract, but the team was not required to pay it.  They could have kept asking for another year to be played too, but decided that the fans would revolt.  The fans are almost always the wildcard here.  The fans turned on Walker, but depending on who you talk too some of that timing was because of Favre's comments.  Favre wanted Walker back in a big way.  What if he had spoken from the other side and said I really need this guy in a Packers uniform.  I hope the front office pays him what he is worth and locks him up for many years.  Don't you think the fans/players turning on the Packers front office a bit (ala Hines Ward situation) would have presented a different situation here.

I am not taking sides here.  But this has clearly turned ugly.  I don't necessarily think Walker is a bad team guy nor do I think the Packers were wrong to not renegotiate with two years left.  But the second Walker went down with an injury, none of the following should come as a surprise.

The Packers need to move him for a conditional pick next year.  If he performs at a high level, they could get a second.  If he doesn't make an impact they likely will get a third or fourth.  Everything else and the Packers are going to be dealing with this headache all year.

Javon Walker won't retire.  He will show up in week 10 if not traded.  Everyone on both sides of this argument knows this.  That essentially fulfills his contract and allows him to be a free agent next season.

A few problems with your analysis.Walker had no leverage last year, ever. Forgeting the Packers internal policy of not renegotiating contracts with two years left, how could the Packers, even had they wanted, come up with any cash for Walker? There simply was none. They were cutting guys they liked and needed at L.B. and were forced to let their two pro bowl guards go at the same time. They simply had zero cap room. I know fans have gotten used to miracle cap moves they really don't understand to clear space, but there actually is a time when there is no more space and last year was it for the Packers. Unless someone can show me exactly how the space would have been created I maintain Walker had zero leverage.

How do we know that the Packers are not offering a huge multiyear deal? Everyone assumes the Packers were going to leverage Walker's injury to offer less than market value, but how do we know that? True, the Packers have been slow in making Walker the offer many expect to come, but that is prudent given his injury. The Packers may simply have been monitoring his rehab before offering a whopper contract. This scenario is consistent with the Packer's strange inactivity in free agency. Clearly they are saving massive cap room for something. Given they are always spending their whole cap what else are they saving it for?

As for getting value for Walker yes they can get some value for him by trading an injured and disgruntled player for far below market value. People are specualting a 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th round pick. The argument is this recoups something and avoids the distraction. I would argue otherwise. Counterposed to avoiding the distraction the Packers, should they stand by their guns eand stablish that they will not be blackmailed by malcontents, an important precedent worth more to the team than avoiding distractions. Then, when Walker leaves, the Packers will not have lost any further value than they would with a below market trade because the league will give the Packers compensatory picks in that range anyhow. Nothing is lost.

The sad thing is that you and I, and all rational people see just how counterproductive Walker's stance has been. When he finally gets on the market he will not have been seen in two years. He will be a known malcontent willing to damage a team over finances. He will be viewed cautiously as perhaps a product of Sherman's deep pass happy offense and the beneficiary of Favre's throws. Yes he will get his way by getting freedom and a good contract, his talent will get him that. It will not, however, be nearly the contract he would have gotten by staying put.

The interesting thing here is that the Packers coach and GM have both remained on the same page. They have not returned anomosity for anomosity. They keep saying be calm, all is well. They seem convinced that once they can get in Javon's ear to replace the whisperings of Javon's entourage` that they can get him back in the fold. The approach is interesting. If Walker understood the implications the Packer's appraoch is highly insulting as they clearly do not think he knows his own mind even when he holds a position passionately. Imagine if Walker draws that conclusion. This could get even uglier.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

For those making the argument comparing players on the end of old contracts to players beginning new contracts that apparent inequity is inherent in contracts not all beginning and ending at the same time. The argument is offered up by partisan, bloodsucking agents, to that segment of the public to blinded by raw numbers to understand actual value. They use your misunderstanding to generate fan leverage. You become their tool, and I do mean Tool since it is your misperceptions they are using to help accomplish their ends.

 

[allaces10]

I think why people get so hot about this issue is they KNOW Walker has talent.  I would agree that his head is worth significantly less than his athletic body.

But let's be fair.  Walker was a beast in year 3 of his deal.  And the word on him coming in the draft was that was who this kid was.  A beast on the field but probably slow to pick up reading defenses, etc.  He had character issues I believe and saw his stock drop in the draft.

I am not saying it's right, but Walker felt he was the best WR coming in the draft.  As soon as his play caught up to that vision of himself, he wanted the big dollars.  Those pointing that he underplayed years 1 and 2 make excellent points to everyone but Javon Walker.  He felt he was the best WR coming in and now had the proof.

His leverage was last year.  He knew it and was trying to get those dollars.  The Packers front office was holding firm and not renegotiating.  People weren't calling this a TO situation at first.  Many agreed that Walker was a beast and they saw both side's points.

That all changed the second Brett Favre got involved.  He carries a huge voice and he essentially called Walker out as not being a team player.  The fans turned on Walker in a heartbeat and he quickly caved in as all of his leverage was gone.

So outside of Walker posturing for a better deal, he eventually caved with his tail between his legs.  He saw the only way he was going to get this big deal was to swallow his pride and be the man again on the field.  He came to camp and wasn't a distraction.  But inside I think he was pissed off in a big way. 

But he held hope the BIG PAYDAY was just stalled by a year.  In his mind, he knew he would be dominant again and would get the reward. 

Then he got injured.  His season was lost.  Now the Packers don't know what they have in Walker so of course they aren't offering a huge multi-year deal.

Walker says of course you know what you have.  You knew it last year and said wait a year.  Well I tried to have a great season and got hurt.  The year's up.  Pay me or release me.

From the outside, I think this situation is pretty easy to analyze.  The Packers had the leverage last year and used it.  But some of the leverage the Packers used threw Walker under the bus for the short term.  Had Walker had another great year, he would have likely renegotiated a huge deal going forward.  But if an injury happened to Walker, then this thing was going to get super ugly.  And that's exactly where we are now.

If you are Javon Walker, would you really want to play for this team right now?  Forget the you have to honor the contract stuff for a second.  It's clear he is bitter beyond words.  You don't have to agree with him, but he has felt under-appreciated for a long time (on draft day, after his Pro-bowl season, and now).  He wants out and is doing EXACTLY what you do to get traded.

You say you hate this team to the media.  You say you will never play for them again.  You say you would rather sell ice creams from a truck than go back, etc.  He is poisoning the well in a big way.  No way can the Packers keep this guy now.  They know at best he will come in for the last 6 weeks and then he will be gone for good.

How does everyone feel about what Antonio Gates did last year?  He wasn't drafted and the team had him for something close to the minimum.  Everyone knew he deserved a huge contract, but the team was not required to pay it.  They could have kept asking for another year to be played too, but decided that the fans would revolt.  The fans are almost always the wildcard here.  The fans turned on Walker, but depending on who you talk too some of that timing was because of Favre's comments.  Favre wanted Walker back in a big way.  What if he had spoken from the other side and said I really need this guy in a Packers uniform.  I hope the front office pays him what he is worth and locks him up for many years.  Don't you think the fans/players turning on the Packers front office a bit (ala Hines Ward situation) would have presented a different situation here.

I am not taking sides here.  But this has clearly turned ugly.  I don't necessarily think Walker is a bad team guy nor do I think the Packers were wrong to not renegotiate with two years left.  But the second Walker went down with an injury, none of the following should come as a surprise.

The Packers need to move him for a conditional pick next year.  If he performs at a high level, they could get a second.  If he doesn't make an impact they likely will get a third or fourth.  Everything else and the Packers are going to be dealing with this headache all year.

Javon Walker won't retire.  He will show up in week 10 if not traded.  Everyone on both sides of this argument knows this.  That essentially fulfills his contract and allows him to be a free agent next season.

A few problems with your analysis.Walker had no leverage last year, ever. Forgeting the Packers internal policy of not renegotiating contracts with two years left, how could the Packers, even had they wanted, come up with any cash for Walker? There simply was none. They were cutting guys they liked and needed at L.B. and were forced to let their two pro bowl guards go at the same time. They simply had zero cap room. I know fans have gotten used to miracle cap moves they really don't understand to clear space, but there actually is a time when there is no more space and last year was it for the Packers. Unless someone can show me exactly how the space would have been created I maintain Walker had zero leverage.

How do we know that the Packers are not offering a huge multiyear deal? Everyone assumes the Packers were going to leverage Walker's injury to offer less than market value, but how do we know that? True, the Packers have been slow in making Walker the offer many expect to come, but that is prudent given his injury. The Packers may simply have been monitoring his rehab before offering a whopper contract. This scenario is consistent with the Packer's strange inactivity in free agency. Clearly they are saving massive cap room for something. Given they are always spending their whole cap what else are they saving it for?

As for getting value for Walker yes they can get some value for him by trading an injured and disgruntled player for far below market value. People are specualting a 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th round pick. The argument is this recoups something and avoids the distraction. I would argue otherwise. Counterposed to avoiding the distraction the Packers, should they stand by their guns eand stablish that they will not be blackmailed by malcontents, an important precedent worth more to the team than avoiding distractions. Then, when Walker leaves, the Packers will not have lost any further value than they would with a below market trade because the league will give the Packers compensatory picks in that range anyhow. Nothing is lost.

The sad thing is that you and I, and all rational people see just how counterproductive Walker's stance has been. When he finally gets on the market he will not have been seen in two years. He will be a known malcontent willing to damage a team over finances. He will be viewed cautiously as perhaps a product of Sherman's deep pass happy offense and the beneficiary of Favre's throws. Yes he will get his way by getting freedom and a good contract, his talent will get him that. It will not, however, be nearly the contract he would have gotten by staying put.

The interesting thing here is that the Packers coach and GM have both remained on the same page. They have not returned anomosity for anomosity. They keep saying be calm, all is well. They seem convinced that once they can get in Javon's ear to replace the whisperings of Javon's entourage` that they can get him back in the fold. The approach is interesting. If Walker understood the implications the Packer's appraoch is highly insulting as they clearly do not think he knows his own mind even when he holds a position passionately. Imagine if Walker draws that conclusion. This could get even uglier.

We know because it came straight from Ted Thompson's mouth...http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?r...1:547196:SPORTS

Gm Ted Thompson Says The Team Has No Intention Of Trading Javon Walker.

Wisconsin State Journal :: SPORTS :: D1

Saturday, March 11, 2006

JASON WILDE jwilde@madison.com 608-252-6176

GREEN BAY

He could have gone with the old reliable no comment. But he didn't.

Instead, Green Bay Packers general manager Ted Thompson made it very clear Friday the club will not accommodate recalcitrant wide receiver Javon Walker, who has demanded a trade for the second time in as many offseasons.

Although Thompson would not speak with reporters about the issue Friday, he did release a statement saying he will not negotiate with Walker, who told ESPN.com Thursday night he wants his career with the Packers to be over.

"During his time as a Green Bay Packer, Javon Walker has been well thought of by everyone here. I like Javon, certainly as a person and as a player," said Thompson, who earlier this week denied agent Kennard McGuire's request for permission to seek a trade for Walker. "That said, Javon is under contract, which he signed as a 2002 first-round draft choice ... and we expect him to honor it."

- I usually take the teams side when debating these issues..but for this occasion...i have changed my stance and feel that the Packers have really dropped the ball and have not only refused to pay one of the best wr's in the game a new contract that i believe most non packers fans would agree he deserves..but have alienated him in such a way that he no longer wants to play for them even if they offered him the big contract he is after...

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I think why people get so hot about this issue is they KNOW Walker has talent.  I would agree that his head is worth significantly less than his athletic body.

But let's be fair.  Walker was a beast in year 3 of his deal.  And the word on him coming in the draft was that was who this kid was.  A beast on the field but probably slow to pick up reading defenses, etc.  He had character issues I believe and saw his stock drop in the draft.

I am not saying it's right, but Walker felt he was the best WR coming in the draft.  As soon as his play caught up to that vision of himself, he wanted the big dollars.  Those pointing that he underplayed years 1 and 2 make excellent points to everyone but Javon Walker.  He felt he was the best WR coming in and now had the proof.

His leverage was last year.  He knew it and was trying to get those dollars.  The Packers front office was holding firm and not renegotiating.  People weren't calling this a TO situation at first.  Many agreed that Walker was a beast and they saw both side's points.

That all changed the second Brett Favre got involved.  He carries a huge voice and he essentially called Walker out as not being a team player.  The fans turned on Walker in a heartbeat and he quickly caved in as all of his leverage was gone.

So outside of Walker posturing for a better deal, he eventually caved with his tail between his legs.  He saw the only way he was going to get this big deal was to swallow his pride and be the man again on the field.  He came to camp and wasn't a distraction.  But inside I think he was pissed off in a big way. 

But he held hope the BIG PAYDAY was just stalled by a year.  In his mind, he knew he would be dominant again and would get the reward. 

Then he got injured.  His season was lost.  Now the Packers don't know what they have in Walker so of course they aren't offering a huge multi-year deal.

Walker says of course you know what you have.  You knew it last year and said wait a year.  Well I tried to have a great season and got hurt.  The year's up.  Pay me or release me.

From the outside, I think this situation is pretty easy to analyze.  The Packers had the leverage last year and used it.  But some of the leverage the Packers used threw Walker under the bus for the short term.  Had Walker had another great year, he would have likely renegotiated a huge deal going forward.  But if an injury happened to Walker, then this thing was going to get super ugly.  And that's exactly where we are now.

If you are Javon Walker, would you really want to play for this team right now?  Forget the you have to honor the contract stuff for a second.  It's clear he is bitter beyond words.  You don't have to agree with him, but he has felt under-appreciated for a long time (on draft day, after his Pro-bowl season, and now).  He wants out and is doing EXACTLY what you do to get traded.

You say you hate this team to the media.  You say you will never play for them again.  You say you would rather sell ice creams from a truck than go back, etc.  He is poisoning the well in a big way.  No way can the Packers keep this guy now.  They know at best he will come in for the last 6 weeks and then he will be gone for good.

How does everyone feel about what Antonio Gates did last year?  He wasn't drafted and the team had him for something close to the minimum.  Everyone knew he deserved a huge contract, but the team was not required to pay it.  They could have kept asking for another year to be played too, but decided that the fans would revolt.  The fans are almost always the wildcard here.  The fans turned on Walker, but depending on who you talk too some of that timing was because of Favre's comments.  Favre wanted Walker back in a big way.  What if he had spoken from the other side and said I really need this guy in a Packers uniform.  I hope the front office pays him what he is worth and locks him up for many years.  Don't you think the fans/players turning on the Packers front office a bit (ala Hines Ward situation) would have presented a different situation here.

I am not taking sides here.  But this has clearly turned ugly.  I don't necessarily think Walker is a bad team guy nor do I think the Packers were wrong to not renegotiate with two years left.  But the second Walker went down with an injury, none of the following should come as a surprise.

The Packers need to move him for a conditional pick next year.  If he performs at a high level, they could get a second.  If he doesn't make an impact they likely will get a third or fourth.  Everything else and the Packers are going to be dealing with this headache all year.

Javon Walker won't retire.  He will show up in week 10 if not traded.  Everyone on both sides of this argument knows this.  That essentially fulfills his contract and allows him to be a free agent next season.

A few problems with your analysis.Walker had no leverage last year, ever. Forgeting the Packers internal policy of not renegotiating contracts with two years left, how could the Packers, even had they wanted, come up with any cash for Walker? There simply was none. They were cutting guys they liked and needed at L.B. and were forced to let their two pro bowl guards go at the same time. They simply had zero cap room. I know fans have gotten used to miracle cap moves they really don't understand to clear space, but there actually is a time when there is no more space and last year was it for the Packers. Unless someone can show me exactly how the space would have been created I maintain Walker had zero leverage.

How do we know that the Packers are not offering a huge multiyear deal? Everyone assumes the Packers were going to leverage Walker's injury to offer less than market value, but how do we know that? True, the Packers have been slow in making Walker the offer many expect to come, but that is prudent given his injury. The Packers may simply have been monitoring his rehab before offering a whopper contract. This scenario is consistent with the Packer's strange inactivity in free agency. Clearly they are saving massive cap room for something. Given they are always spending their whole cap what else are they saving it for?

As for getting value for Walker yes they can get some value for him by trading an injured and disgruntled player for far below market value. People are specualting a 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th round pick. The argument is this recoups something and avoids the distraction. I would argue otherwise. Counterposed to avoiding the distraction the Packers, should they stand by their guns eand stablish that they will not be blackmailed by malcontents, an important precedent worth more to the team than avoiding distractions. Then, when Walker leaves, the Packers will not have lost any further value than they would with a below market trade because the league will give the Packers compensatory picks in that range anyhow. Nothing is lost.

The sad thing is that you and I, and all rational people see just how counterproductive Walker's stance has been. When he finally gets on the market he will not have been seen in two years. He will be a known malcontent willing to damage a team over finances. He will be viewed cautiously as perhaps a product of Sherman's deep pass happy offense and the beneficiary of Favre's throws. Yes he will get his way by getting freedom and a good contract, his talent will get him that. It will not, however, be nearly the contract he would have gotten by staying put.

The interesting thing here is that the Packers coach and GM have both remained on the same page. They have not returned anomosity for anomosity. They keep saying be calm, all is well. They seem convinced that once they can get in Javon's ear to replace the whisperings of Javon's entourage` that they can get him back in the fold. The approach is interesting. If Walker understood the implications the Packer's appraoch is highly insulting as they clearly do not think he knows his own mind even when he holds a position passionately. Imagine if Walker draws that conclusion. This could get even uglier.

We know because it came straight from Ted Thompson's mouth...http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?r...1:547196:SPORTS

Gm Ted Thompson Says The Team Has No Intention Of Trading Javon Walker.

Wisconsin State Journal :: SPORTS :: D1

Saturday, March 11, 2006

JASON WILDE jwilde@madison.com 608-252-6176

GREEN BAY

He could have gone with the old reliable no comment. But he didn't.

Instead, Green Bay Packers general manager Ted Thompson made it very clear Friday the club will not accommodate recalcitrant wide receiver Javon Walker, who has demanded a trade for the second time in as many offseasons.

Although Thompson would not speak with reporters about the issue Friday, he did release a statement saying he will not negotiate with Walker, who told ESPN.com Thursday night he wants his career with the Packers to be over.

"During his time as a Green Bay Packer, Javon Walker has been well thought of by everyone here. I like Javon, certainly as a person and as a player," said Thompson, who earlier this week denied agent Kennard McGuire's request for permission to seek a trade for Walker. "That said, Javon is under contract, which he signed as a 2002 first-round draft choice ... and we expect him to honor it."

- I usually take the teams side when debating these issues..but for this occasion...i have changed my stance and feel that the Packers have really dropped the ball and have not only refused to pay one of the best wr's in the game a new contract that i believe most non packers fans would agree he deserves..but have alienated him in such a way that he no longer wants to play for them even if they offered him the big contract he is after...

I totally agree that the Packers have screwed this up royally. They are supposed to be bright, intellegent, and to have foresight. Walker is a known mental midget. They needed to get out front of this driving the situation rather than responding to Walker. They did not. Had they, the situation could have been averted. In fact it should have. That said, to take the position that the Packers response this friday to Walker's multiple prior statements shows that they did not have a plan or approach to this mapped out the past month seems obtuse. You are somewhat putting the March 30th cart before the March 27th, and 20th, and 18th horse.

 

[Red Herring]

For the record, here are the WR with similar years to Javon's "breakout" year (thanks HDD!). Three observations: 1. Amid all those great names, there are the Derrick Alexanders and Terrances Mathis' to make you pause; 2. Regardless of what they were making, (we'll get to Fitz in a sec) they all got paid. Big. 3. Fitz had as good a season as Walker, yet isn't crying about his money. Why? I think he or his agent has seen this list. He knows he will get his. Even if you are DA or TM, you will get paid, even if you dont have another good season ever. When was the last time NFL salaries went down? The worst that happens with waiting to be paid is that your salary climbs. Ok, the worst would be a career ending injury, but barring that, even with a season ending injury, someone would give any guy on this list a nice fat contract. The risk/reward is just too good. Realistically, despite his proving he is a complete tool, Walker will get that same payday next year. He could have had it this year had he just shut up and kept his discontent in house. But he will be paid. A lot. So will Fitz. The only difference is Fitz's agent will have many more options for endorsments. This is where Walker's "advisors" really screwed him. He'll get a good NFL payday again, but he'll never realize his full earning potential now.

NAME POS YR AGE EXP G REC RECYD YD/REC RECTD FANT PT

1 Larry Fitzgerald wr 2005 22 2 16 103 1409 13.68 10 205.00

2 Steve Smith wr 2005 26 5 16 103 1563 15.17 12 236.80

3 Torry Holt wr 2004 28 6 16 94 1372 14.60 10 197.20

4 Joe Horn wr 2004 32 9 16 94 1399 14.88 11 205.90

5 Muhsin Muhammad wr 2004 31 9 16 93 1405 15.11 16 238.00

6 Javon Walker wr 2004 26 3 16 89 1382 15.53 12 210.20

7 Torry Holt wr 2003 27 5 16 117 1696 14.50 12 242.10

8 Chad Johnson wr 2003 25 3 16 90 1355 15.06 10 195.50

9 Randy Moss wr 2003 26 6 16 111 1632 14.70 17 267.00

10 Marvin Harrison wr 2002 30 7 16 143 1722 12.04 11 239.20

11 Terrell Owens wr 2002 29 7 14 100 1300 13.00 13 221.90

12 Hines Ward wr 2002 26 5 16 112 1329 11.87 12 219.10

13 Marvin Harrison wr 2001 29 6 16 109 1524 13.98 15 242.70

14 Terrell Owens wr 2001 28 6 16 93 1412 15.18 16 239.30

15 Rod Smith wr 2001 31 7 15 113 1343 11.88 11 203.00

16 Derrick Alexander wr 2000 29 7 16 78 1391 17.83 10 203.60

17 Marvin Harrison wr 2000 28 5 16 102 1413 13.85 14 225.30

18 Randy Moss wr 2000 23 3 16 77 1437 18.66 15 234.20

19 Terrell Owens wr 2000 27 5 14 97 1451 14.96 13 224.20

20 Marvin Harrison wr 1999 27 4 16 115 1663 14.46 12 238.70

21 Randy Moss wr 1999 22 2 16 80 1413 17.66 11 211.60

22 Antonio Freeman wr 1998 26 4 15 84 1424 16.95 14 226.90

23 Randy Moss wr 1998 21 1 16 69 1313 19.03 17 233.70

24 Robert Brooks wr 1995 25 4 16 102 1497 14.68 13 229.80

25 Tim Brown wr 1995 29 8 16 89 1342 15.08 10 194.20

26 Isaac Bruce wr 1995 23 2 16 119 1781 14.97 13 257.80

27 Cris Carter wr 1995 30 9 16 122 1371 11.24 17 239.10

28 Michael Irvin wr 1995 29 8 16 111 1603 14.44 10 220.30

29 Herman Moore wr 1995 26 5 16 123 1686 13.71 14 252.60

30 Jerry Rice wr 1995 33 11 16 122 1848 15.15 15 284.40

31 Terance Mathis wr 1994 27 5 16 111 1342 12.09 11 200.20

32 Jerry Rice wr 1994 32 10 16 112 1499 13.38 13 249.20

33 Jerry Rice wr 1993 31 9 16 98 1503 15.34 15 253.20

34 Sterling Sharpe wr 1992 27 5 16 108 1461 13.53 13 224.90

35 Gary Clark wr 1991 29 7 16 70 1340 19.14 10 194.00

36 Jerry Rice wr 1990 28 6 16 100 1502 15.02 13 228.20

 

[packersfan]

That all changed the second Brett Favre got involved. He carries a huge voice and he essentially called Walker out as not being a team player. The fans turned on Walker in a heartbeat and he quickly caved in as all of his leverage was gone.

This is incorrect David. As has been said numerous times, first off Walker never had any leverage to begin with. Not only was he trying to buck a well-known system with regard to the Packers and contract extensions but as has been pointed out even if the Packers wanted to extend Walker's deal they didn't have any money to use to do so. One of the main reasons why so many players were let go last season was not only to help the Packers with their cap situation last season but also to put them in a much more favorable position to work on Walker's deal this year. I've been told this by several people connected to the Packers' organization. If I know it don't you think Walker and Rosenhaus knew it? They did but they didn't care and they decided to take another course of action and it failed miserably.With regard to Favre's comments, nothing changed after that except some folks got worked into a tizzy outside of Green Bay. With regard to Packers fans, the majority of fans were already against Walker before Favre said a word because Walker was threatening to hold out. It was his holdout threats which led to reporters asking Favre about it in the first place. But Walker was getting destroyed in the court of public appeal long before Favre said a word about it.

If you are Javon Walker, would you really want to play for this team right now? Forget the you have to honor the contract stuff for a second. It's clear he is bitter beyond words. You don't have to agree with him, but he has felt under-appreciated for a long time (on draft day, after his Pro-bowl season, and now). He wants out and is doing EXACTLY what you do to get traded.

And he's potentially destroying his career in the process. No matter how this plays out, the Packers are under no obligation to play him this season which would mean he's lost two seasons in the prime of his career. If the Packers slap the franchise tag on him next year and he refuses to play he'll potentially lose a third year. The Packers hold all the cards here and I hope to God Ted Thompson doesn't cave and holds firm. The Packers aren't going anywhere in 2006 anyway so it's not like having Javon Walker is going to change much. It'll make them better but it's unlikely his mere presence is going to be the determining factor whether this team does well or not.

 

[Big Score]

After 5 pages on this thread and 6 pages on the other Walker thread, it seems there are two pre dominant lines of thought in this debate.

Camp #1

Walker should not be going about his contract negotiations in the manner he is. He signed the contract he did in his rookie year and the Pack's policy is that they do not renegotiate contracts with multiple years remaining, no exceptions and to make an exception this time would be detrimental to the team. To that end, cap room was created this year specifically for Walker (other factors I'm sure) and if he were acting in a better manner, he would be getting the contract he wants. However because he has resorted to these particular negotiation tactics (referring to both last year & this year), the Pack have now decided that they will not be renegotiating Walker's contract this year.

Camp #2

Plain & simply, Walker is unhappy playing under the contract he currently has. Walker feels it to be below market value commiserate to his level of production and talent. To that end, Walker exercised the only option that he felt was open to him to prove to the Pack that he was serious about a contract renegotiation, staging a short but what became a very public holdout last year. He then ended his public holdout and came into camp and by all reports, or should I say non reports, behaved in a professional manner. Unfortunately for Walker, he suffered a season ending knee injury in his first regular season game. Walker now has 1 year remaining on his contract, knows the Packers have the cap room to reward his performance with a better contract, but again has not been offered anything by the Pack. Walker is now doing what he feels needs to be done, to accomplish his goal of a better contract.

Pretty simplistic I know, (leaving out a lot of pro & con arguments) but I feel it to be a fair and accurate summation.

I am honestly wondering which Camp, #1 or #2, represents the one most disacossiated from the situation and by default, the least biased?

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

This observation is not an indictment one way or the other. I honestly love to see any teams fans to be passionate about their team. But, I'm left to wonder, how temperate and unclouded are the views & opinions expressed here?

 

[packersfan]

I think there are always going to be some form of bias in any discussion. That's part of human nature so it's hard to eliminate that. Speaking for myself, I do not tend to side either exclusively with management or exclusively with players in contract issues. I take each case individually and form an opinion based on as much evidence as I am able to ascertain or become aware of. There are going to be times when I believe the team is in the right and there are going to be times when I believe the player is in the right. It all depends on each individual case.

With regard to this situation, I have long stated that I am a believer in Javon Walker's talent and I have never once begrudged him the desire to earn more money. I have, however, had serious problems with the way he has conducted this situation from Day 1 and I believe his approach has severely worsened in the past few months. I believe he is being misled by people close to him which has served to make the situation even worse. I have no problem with Javon Walker wanting more money or eventually getting more money. I simply wish he had handled this situation much differently. If he had, I believed the bad blood that exists between him and the Packers at the present time would never have materialized.

 

[trader jake]

solid post above big score

the packers could acquire as much for walker week 10 as they can right now...unless that changes they should just let him sit until midseason

 

[Skkorpion]

The whole Walker thing is just a small part of what is happening in Green Bay. IMO, the franchise is sinking back into the mediocrity of the 70s and 80s when it had 17 consecutive non-winning seasons.

Reggie White's retirement, Ron Wolf's retirement, Favre throwing Walker under the bus, free agency losses and Favre's disintigrating skills, along with several poor drafts have all contributed to ruin a great team.

Reggie White made it okay for free agents to go to Green Bay. Now, reality is catching up. Green Bay is a back-water of a place to live in and work in. Mediocrity has already set in to the Packers and will take firm hold now.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

So Javon Walker is a CANCER, and Brett Favre can do whatever the hell he wants to do for winning one Super Bowl.

Last time I checked, Desmond Howard was the MVP.

Favre's behaviour this week is just as ridiculous as Walker's...

Just keep milking that Packer cash cow Brett. Your minions of toothless mouth-breathing fans grovel at your feet.

 

[Big Score]

So Javon Walker is a CANCER, and Brett Favre can do whatever the hell he wants to do for winning one Super Bowl.

Last time I checked, Desmond Howard was the MVP.

Favre's behaviour this week is just as ridiculous as Walker's...

Just keep milking that Packer cash cow Brett. Your minions of toothless mouth-breathing fans grovel at your feet.

GRID,Why even bother posting?

The only part of the above post even remotely worth reading, is bolded in blue.

The rest is just

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

Ya, but the part in blue has holes in it.

Favre is under contract to the Packers. He can do whatever the hell he wants to do as far as making a decision. THEY want to push the issue and would rather have him quit than to have to waive him, as they'd NEVER live that down.

...and he'd rather have them waive him, so they look like the knobs, and then he can close out his career with a team with talent on both sides of the ball - and a legit shot at making the playoffs.

Packer hatred aside.... I don't like seeing long time greats fade away and stick around too long - and I'm afraid that's what Favre is doing right now. He's like a punch-drunk boxer who's sticking around for one fight too many.

 

[Family Matters]

I think why people get so hot about this issue is they KNOW Walker has talent. I would agree that his head is worth significantly less than his athletic body.

But let's be fair. Walker was a beast in year 3 of his deal. And the word on him coming in the draft was that was who this kid was. A beast on the field but probably slow to pick up reading defenses, etc. He had character issues I believe and saw his stock drop in the draft.

I am not saying it's right, but Walker felt he was the best WR coming in the draft. As soon as his play caught up to that vision of himself, he wanted the big dollars. Those pointing that he underplayed years 1 and 2 make excellent points to everyone but Javon Walker. He felt he was the best WR coming in and now had the proof.

His leverage was last year. He knew it and was trying to get those dollars. The Packers front office was holding firm and not renegotiating. People weren't calling this a TO situation at first. Many agreed that Walker was a beast and they saw both side's points.

That all changed the second Brett Favre got involved. He carries a huge voice and he essentially called Walker out as not being a team player. The fans turned on Walker in a heartbeat and he quickly caved in as all of his leverage was gone.

So outside of Walker posturing for a better deal, he eventually caved with his tail between his legs. He saw the only way he was going to get this big deal was to swallow his pride and be the man again on the field. He came to camp and wasn't a distraction. But inside I think he was pissed off in a big way.

But he held hope the BIG PAYDAY was just stalled by a year. In his mind, he knew he would be dominant again and would get the reward.

Then he got injured. His season was lost. Now the Packers don't know what they have in Walker so of course they aren't offering a huge multi-year deal.

Walker says of course you know what you have. You knew it last year and said wait a year. Well I tried to have a great season and got hurt. The year's up. Pay me or release me.

From the outside, I think this situation is pretty easy to analyze. The Packers had the leverage last year and used it. But some of the leverage the Packers used threw Walker under the bus for the short term. Had Walker had another great year, he would have likely renegotiated a huge deal going forward. But if an injury happened to Walker, then this thing was going to get super ugly. And that's exactly where we are now.

If you are Javon Walker, would you really want to play for this team right now? Forget the you have to honor the contract stuff for a second. It's clear he is bitter beyond words. You don't have to agree with him, but he has felt under-appreciated for a long time (on draft day, after his Pro-bowl season, and now). He wants out and is doing EXACTLY what you do to get traded.

You say you hate this team to the media. You say you will never play for them again. You say you would rather sell ice creams from a truck than go back, etc. He is poisoning the well in a big way. No way can the Packers keep this guy now. They know at best he will come in for the last 6 weeks and then he will be gone for good.

How does everyone feel about what Antonio Gates did last year? He wasn't drafted and the team had him for something close to the minimum. Everyone knew he deserved a huge contract, but the team was not required to pay it. They could have kept asking for another year to be played too, but decided that the fans would revolt. The fans are almost always the wildcard here. The fans turned on Walker, but depending on who you talk too some of that timing was because of Favre's comments. Favre wanted Walker back in a big way. What if he had spoken from the other side and said I really need this guy in a Packers uniform. I hope the front office pays him what he is worth and locks him up for many years. Don't you think the fans/players turning on the Packers front office a bit (ala Hines Ward situation) would have presented a different situation here.

I am not taking sides here. But this has clearly turned ugly. I don't necessarily think Walker is a bad team guy nor do I think the Packers were wrong to not renegotiate with two years left. But the second Walker went down with an injury, none of the following should come as a surprise.

The Packers need to move him for a conditional pick next year. If he performs at a high level, they could get a second. If he doesn't make an impact they likely will get a third or fourth. Everything else and the Packers are going to be dealing with this headache all year.

Javon Walker won't retire. He will show up in week 10 if not traded. Everyone on both sides of this argument knows this. That essentially fulfills his contract and allows him to be a free agent next season.

Your post does a nice job of setting the table for both sides. I do not blame Walker for what he wants. I agree he is not handling it well now but he tried to do the "right" thing and he got burned and now the Packers are leaving him hanging in the wind. The problem I have is that the owners have all the leverage. They always did. And the palyers are left vulnerable and pray they don't get injured. Because if they do their future is likely gone for any hopes of a big payday. It shouldn't be like that.

And I think the players union carries some blame for that too. They are ones that negotiated this problem for their players. They have done a huge disservice to their players on this issue IMO.

I'm not going to get into any debate with anyone on this because it's a no-win situation so I'm going to let this go now.

 

[Dave Baker]

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

FWIW, I'm not a Packers fan. Never have been. Never will be. I'm a Bears fan.I always have and always will hate player holdouts. No respect for that whatsoever.

 

[Red Herring]

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

FWIW, I'm not a Packers fan. Never have been. Never will be. I'm a Bears fan.I always have and always will hate player holdouts. No respect for that whatsoever.

Ditto, 'cept I'm a Chiefs fan

 

[Big Score]

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

FWIW, I'm not a Packers fan. Never have been. Never will be. I'm a Bears fan.I always have and always will hate player holdouts. No respect for that whatsoever.

Possible bias then?

 

[Big Score]

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

FWIW, I'm not a Packers fan. Never have been. Never will be. I'm a Bears fan.I always have and always will hate player holdouts. No respect for that whatsoever.

Ditto, 'cept I'm a Chiefs fan

A fan of the Chiefs who hates player hold outs.Again...possible bias?

 

[Dave Baker]

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

FWIW, I'm not a Packers fan. Never have been. Never will be. I'm a Bears fan.I always have and always will hate player holdouts. No respect for that whatsoever.

Possible bias then?

No bias. Opinion.

 

[Big Score]

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

FWIW, I'm not a Packers fan. Never have been. Never will be. I'm a Bears fan.I always have and always will hate player holdouts. No respect for that whatsoever.

Possible bias then?

No bias. Opinion.

Okey Dokey.

 

[Big Score]

Oh!

FWIW, I'm a longtime Falcons fan (since the Franchises inception).

 

[Red Herring]

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

FWIW, I'm not a Packers fan. Never have been. Never will be. I'm a Bears fan.I always have and always will hate player holdouts. No respect for that whatsoever.

Ditto, 'cept I'm a Chiefs fan

A fan of the Chiefs who hates player hold outs.Again...possible bias?

No. and certainly not based on your claim I'm a packer fan.

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

You never asked about player hold out bias. To that: no, I'm not biased against them. I hate what they do to the image and quality of a sport I love. To qualify it further, I don't really hate the hold-out itself. Plenty of guys have held out in a dignified, class manner. Walker is not one of them. Threatening to be a cancer robs you of any claim to class. All your fishing trips in this thread have been shot down with fact. Care to throw us another?

 

[Big Score]

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

FWIW, I'm not a Packers fan. Never have been. Never will be. I'm a Bears fan.I always have and always will hate player holdouts. No respect for that whatsoever.

Ditto, 'cept I'm a Chiefs fan

A fan of the Chiefs who hates player hold outs.Again...possible bias?

No. and certainly not based on your claim I'm a packer fan.

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

You never asked about player hold out bias. To that: no, I'm not biased against them. I hate what they do to the image and quality of a sport I love. To qualify it further, I don't really hate the hold-out itself. Plenty of guys have held out in a dignified, class manner. Walker is not one of them. Threatening to be a cancer robs you of any claim to class. All your fishing trips in this thread have been shot down with fact. Care to throw us another?

Sorry, but it's a Red Herring to say I'm fishing. (pun intended )Two distinct & separate times I specifically stated that not all posters following the train of thought in Camp #1 were Packer fans, just that it seemed to be predominately made up of Packer fans.

I did not "claim" anyone in particular be a Packer fan.

In my quote of your post, echoing Dave Baker's admission of disliking player holdouts, I was simply asking you if that could be biasing your postion...hence the question mark and me carefully wording the question as possible bias.

Both yourself & Dave Baker say that despite a stated dislike of player hold outs, this is not biasing your position in this thread and to that I say fine, I'll take your word for it.

I've also explicitly stated my own thoughts on the Walker situation in this thread in Post # 105

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.

Post # 123

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. :(

And again in the other Walker thread Post # 263

As for this year, business decision plain & simple. He blew out his knee & until the Pack see that he's fully recovered from it, they're not going to renegotiate his contract for more $$$ when they have him this year at $1.5 mil.

That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

EDIT: Well........the above......and Thompson is a turd

Post # 186

I think it's obvious that Green Bay will not re-negotiate his contract this year. So if Walker gets traded like McKenzie did, he wouldn't have to wait for his money would he?

That's the angle Walker is working.

I'm not saying who is in the right here, Walker or the Pack.

But I do know what Walker is doing & why.

If you want characterize my thoughts, opinions and questions surrounding the Walker situation to be fishing, you can....but you're flat out wrong.However that's your prerogative.

 

[greenroom]

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

FWIW, I'm not a Packers fan. Never have been. Never will be. I'm a Bears fan.I always have and always will hate player holdouts. No respect for that whatsoever.

So do you like owners who cut players that have contracts as well??You cannot have it both ways. IF a owner has the right just to waive a player because he has a high cap number for the year even thou it was a contract that was signed in good faith by the player and owner at the time.

If you do then the player should be able to rework his contract as he wishes. as well.

 

[Dave Baker]

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

FWIW, I'm not a Packers fan. Never have been. Never will be. I'm a Bears fan.I always have and always will hate player holdouts. No respect for that whatsoever.

So do you like owners who cut players that have contracts as well??You cannot have it both ways. IF a owner has the right just to waive a player because he has a high cap number for the year even thou it was a contract that was signed in good faith by the player and owner at the time.

If you do then the player should be able to rework his contract as he wishes. as well.

Because the players get paid up front, I think they have committed to their contract terms. If they did not receive this up front money, I would not think so, but they do. In essence, they are paid ahead of time for the term of their contract and have a relatively small base salary every year.This is a key difference that few try to appreciate. The player has already been paid for the entire term of the contract and it's already within the rules for the owner to void the contract, which is really only voiding the base salary.

So, no, I have zero problem with owners cutting players that have contracts. They've already been paid anyway. If there was zero bonus up front money, I would stand up and shout against this practice. But that's not reality.

Because the players are paid ahead of time for their services, I generally rarely side with them in such disputes.

 

[greenroom]

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

FWIW, I'm not a Packers fan. Never have been. Never will be. I'm a Bears fan.I always have and always will hate player holdouts. No respect for that whatsoever.

So do you like owners who cut players that have contracts as well??You cannot have it both ways. IF a owner has the right just to waive a player because he has a high cap number for the year even thou it was a contract that was signed in good faith by the player and owner at the time.

If you do then the player should be able to rework his contract as he wishes. as well.

Because the players get paid up front, I think they have committed to their contract terms. If they did not receive this up front money, I would not think so, but they do. In essence, they are paid ahead of time for the term of their contract and have a relatively small base salary every year.This is a key difference that few try to appreciate. The player has already been paid for the entire term of the contract and it's already within the rules for the owner to void the contract, which is really only voiding the base salary.

So, no, I have zero problem with owners cutting players that have contracts. They've already been paid anyway. If there was zero bonus up front money, I would stand up and shout against this practice. But that's not reality.

Because the players are paid ahead of time for their services, I generally rarely side with them in such disputes.

So your saying that if you signed a 7 yr 49 mil dollar contract that with a signing bonus. That the signing bonus is actually your money and the years and yearly salary does not matter???? To me you cannot say one side can void a contract, but the other side cannot try to rework a contract. If you are going to take the "honor the contract" side then both sides need to "honor the contract".

 

[Big Score]

Due to this thread and the excellent contributions by many in explaining the contractual laws regarding NFL contracts, I now have a far better understanding of the ins & outs concerning organizations abilities in terminating contracts, than I did before.

However, the argument of players receiving their money up front via initial bonus and the yearly base being gravy thereafter, does not address player contracts where the initial bonus is spread over multiple years.

I know the Strahan & the Giants contract negotiations became contentious when the Giants were demanding the bonus in Strahan's new contract be spread over multiple years. Strahan's hesitation in signing that contract was exactly because he rightfully understood that if he were to suffer a career ending injury in year one of the new contract, the contract would be terminated and he would fail to receive the rest of the signing bonus.

Oh! And Tiki Barber publicly sticking his nose in Strahan's contract negotiations did not go over too well either.

Walker's own contract has a split signing bonus.

Walker, Javon Year Team Base Salary Sign Bonus Other Bonus Total Salary Cap Value Position 2004 Packers $390,000 $0 $1,500 $391,500 $1,626,500 WR 2003 Packers $300,000 $1,300,000 $2,000 $1,602,000 $1,157,000 WR 2002 Packers $545,000 $3,000,000 $0 $3,545,000 $1,045,000 WR What would have happened if Walker had suffered a career ending injury his 1st year ala Robert Edwards?

The initial upfront bonus Walker received would've immediately been 25+% less.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Due to this thread and the excellent contributions by many in explaining the contractual laws regarding NFL contracts, I now have a far better understanding of the ins & outs concerning organizations abilities in terminating contracts, than I did before.

However, the argument of players receiving their money up front via initial bonus and the yearly base being gravy thereafter, does not address player contracts where the initial bonus is spread over multiple years.

I know the Strahan & the Giants contract negotiations became contentious when the Giants were demanding the bonus in Strahan's new contract be spread over multiple years. Strahan's hesitation in signing that contract was exactly because he rightfully understood that if he were to suffer a career ending injury in year one of the new contract, the contract would be terminated and he would fail to receive the rest of the signing bonus.

Oh! And Tiki Barber publicly sticking his nose in Strahan's contract negotiations did not go over too well either.

Walker's own contract has a split signing bonus.

Walker, Javon Year Team   Base Salary Sign Bonus Other Bonus Total Salary Cap Value Position 2004 Packers  $390,000  $0          $1,500     $391,500    $1,626,500    WR  2003 Packers  $300,000  $1,300,000  $2,000     $1,602,000  $1,157,000    WR 2002 Packers  $545,000  $3,000,000  $0         $3,545,000  $1,045,000    WR What would have happened if Walker had suffered a career ending injury his 1st year ala Robert Edwards?

The initial upfront bonus Walker received would've immediately been 25+% less.

Excellent in that you cite specific examples of players, and their agents(read paid representatives who are 'experts' in NFL contracts and who are advised by lawyers who are experts in contract law in general) specifically negotiating bonuses and terms of payment. Players do fully understand what they are getting into. Players contracts are fully honored on payment of bonuses as required. Players have no right to greater expectations than that. If they have greater expectation it is because their agents have not been clear with them, or they are just dumber than a box of hair. They may have a bone to pick with their agents, but not with ownership. Of course slick agents may confuse the players or ignorant fans to transfer that anomosity which should rightfully be placed upon them to the owners, but that is wrongfully misplaced.Long and short, owners always honor contracts. There is no example of them not doing so, period, ever. Anyone, like for instance Greenroom, who even intimates otherwise is flat out wrong. Those persons always argue their feelings on contracts, but they do not understand contract law, period. Feelings and ininformed impression are a poor basis for argumentation and they pale in comparison to legal knowledge.

The problem in situations like this is agents. They like making the contracts look like more than they are as a form of advertising to obtain other player contracts. The big, but wholly unrealistic numbers, attract attention, and thereby clients. These same agents point to temporary apparent inequities in pay only when it would be to a clients benefit, never their detriment. Worse, they ignore bonuses and actual contract value in championing the inequity. They also ignore whether a player is at the begining or end of a contract to enhance their skewed vision. The problem with their fallacious negotiating arguments that they themselves do not believe is that ignorant players and some fans buy into the arguments. The agents themselves encourage that ignorance as it assists them in gaining negotiating power, but they laugh at the ignorance of the players and those fans who buy their crap.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

FWIW, I'm not a Packers fan. Never have been. Never will be. I'm a Bears fan.I always have and always will hate player holdouts. No respect for that whatsoever.

So do you like owners who cut players that have contracts as well??You cannot have it both ways. IF a owner has the right just to waive a player because he has a high cap number for the year even thou it was a contract that was signed in good faith by the player and owner at the time.

If you do then the player should be able to rework his contract as he wishes. as well.

Because the players get paid up front, I think they have committed to their contract terms. If they did not receive this up front money, I would not think so, but they do. In essence, they are paid ahead of time for the term of their contract and have a relatively small base salary every year.This is a key difference that few try to appreciate. The player has already been paid for the entire term of the contract and it's already within the rules for the owner to void the contract, which is really only voiding the base salary.

So, no, I have zero problem with owners cutting players that have contracts. They've already been paid anyway. If there was zero bonus up front money, I would stand up and shout against this practice. But that's not reality.

Because the players are paid ahead of time for their services, I generally rarely side with them in such disputes.

So your saying that if you signed a 7 yr 49 mil dollar contract that with a signing bonus. That the signing bonus is actually your money and the years and yearly salary does not matter???? To me you cannot say one side can void a contract, but the other side cannot try to rework a contract. If you are going to take the "honor the contract" side then both sides need to "honor the contract".

Not in the warped world of 'NFL contracts' though... 'the great' Barry Sanders even had to pay back his signing bonus to the Lions, as he never fulfilled his contractual obligation. They took him to court and he lost. To stick it to them, he paid them back one year at a time, in case he changed his mind and decided he wanted to come back (which he never planned on doing). Yet the Lions could have cut him whenever they wanted and not paid him a dime more from his 'contract'.

 

[Big Score]

Players get paid up front, I think they have committed to their contract terms. If they did not receive this up front money, I would not think so, but they do. In essence, they are paid ahead of time for the term of their contract and have a relatively small base salary every year.

This is a key difference that few try to appreciate. The player has already been paid for the entire term of the contract and it's already within the rules for the owner to void the contract, which is really only voiding the base salary.

This does not address instances where the "up front money" is split over multiple years.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

Good arguments both ways. Really tough to side with either party without knowing exactly what is going on behind the scenes. Really don't feel Walker is a cancer at all though as some are trying to label him because of what has taken place.

 

[Buttmonkey]

Every guy that logs into this board would do the same as Walker if you felt you were not making what your peers were. Plain and simple. Contracts get re-negoiated - it's a fact of life in the NFL. Heck, we'd all do it if given the same opportunity. Nothing wrong with "show me the money" Team loyalty aside, in the end no NFL team is ever going to look after a former player if they fall on hard times. Their window of opportunity is ultra-small. I hope Walker ends up somewhere decent and gets his.

 

[BlueOnion]

I cannot believe how warped some people few the NFL Contracts:

Plain and Simple: Players and Owners are allowed to negotiate contracts to which is in the best interest of both teams. No side has the power to force the other side to sign a contract.

Given the owners and the NFLPA have both signed off on the current CBA agreement, lets first acknowledge that the NFL contracts signed by players is 100% (according to the owners and the NFLPA) fair to both sides.

Each side has there different points of leverage. Owners can terminate contracts after any year of the contract. Players can ask for as much money in an upfront signing bonus as they want.

To say NFL contracts are owner bias because owners can cut players whenever they want and not owner contracts is just as crazy as...

To say NFL contracts are player bias because players can ask for as much signing bonus as they want.

 

[P Boy]

I've gone over to the NFLPA web site and looked up the CBA there, but it's still the old one, so I cannot definitively say, that Clayton & ESPN's reporting of the new CBA Discipline rules are 100% accurate.

They have portions of the extension posted, but not the entire agreement - at least not as of this past Friday.

 

[thayman]

I cannot believe how warped some people few the NFL Contracts:

Plain and Simple: Players and Owners are allowed to negotiate contracts to which is in the best interest of both teams. No side has the power to force the other side to sign a contract.

Given the owners and the NFLPA have both signed off on the current CBA agreement, lets first acknowledge that the NFL contracts signed by players is 100% (according to the owners and the NFLPA) fair to both sides.

Each side has there different points of leverage. Owners can terminate contracts after any year of the contract. Players can ask for as much money in an upfront signing bonus as they want.

To say NFL contracts are owner bias because owners can cut players whenever they want and not owner contracts is just as crazy as...

To say NFL contracts are player bias because players can ask for as much signing bonus as they want.

Completly agree. The players know what they are getting into when they sign up. They have a union for a reason.

 

[Big Score]

I've gone over to the NFLPA web site and looked up the CBA there, but it's still the old one, so I cannot definitively say, that Clayton & ESPN's reporting of the new CBA Discipline rules are 100% accurate.

They have portions of the extension posted, but not the entire agreement - at least not as of this past Friday.

Should be up soon enough. Once completely there, it'll be interesting to see just how accurate Clayton was in his interpitation of the new CBA Discipline rules.

 

[Big Score]

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

FWIW, I'm not a Packers fan. Never have been. Never will be. I'm a Bears fan.I always have and always will hate player holdouts. No respect for that whatsoever.

So do you like owners who cut players that have contracts as well??You cannot have it both ways. IF a owner has the right just to waive a player because he has a high cap number for the year even thou it was a contract that was signed in good faith by the player and owner at the time.

If you do then the player should be able to rework his contract as he wishes. as well.

Because the players get paid up front, I think they have committed to their contract terms. If they did not receive this up front money, I would not think so, but they do. In essence, they are paid ahead of time for the term of their contract and have a relatively small base salary every year.This is a key difference that few try to appreciate. The player has already been paid for the entire term of the contract and it's already within the rules for the owner to void the contract, which is really only voiding the base salary.

So, no, I have zero problem with owners cutting players that have contracts. They've already been paid anyway. If there was zero bonus up front money, I would stand up and shout against this practice. But that's not reality.

Because the players are paid ahead of time for their services, I generally rarely side with them in such disputes.

So your saying that if you signed a 7 yr 49 mil dollar contract that with a signing bonus. That the signing bonus is actually your money and the years and yearly salary does not matter???? To me you cannot say one side can void a contract, but the other side cannot try to rework a contract. If you are going to take the "honor the contract" side then both sides need to "honor the contract".

Not in the warped world of 'NFL contracts' though... 'the great' Barry Sanders even had to pay back his signing bonus to the Lions, as he never fulfilled his contractual obligation. They took him to court and he lost. To stick it to them, he paid them back one year at a time, in case he changed his mind and decided he wanted to come back (which he never planned on doing). Yet the Lions could have cut him whenever they wanted and not paid him a dime more from his 'contract'.

This is supposedly addressed in the new CBA.

 

[EbTide73]

When I first posted this topic I had no idea it would be this big in posts or devisive in "CAMPS" being set up. There are good points all around and we have not walked in Walkers or Favre's shoes to know what they are going through for us to have the whole picture.

However, what Favre is doing, holding out on giving the Packers and answer, is not unlike what Walker did last year. The BIG difference. Favre called out Walker that he was not being a team player and was not supporting his teammates by not being "in camp".

Bottom line. if Walker doesn't want to play in Green Bay, fine. Similair to T.O. not wanting to play in SF.

The assumptions on Bearzzzz fans on that everybody is a Favre or Packer lover who posts here is ridiculous! Bearzzzz fans should sympathize with anyone who is loyal to their team. They have been loyal to teams in their city that have underachieved for years. They remain loyal and that is what makes them great fans. (Unlike ViQueens fans) That will get a response..

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

It seems clear to me, that after looking at the majority of the posters on both sides of the debate, there is a definite predominance of Packer fans in Camp #1 (though not all). This leads me to believe that Camp #1, could be slightly biased in the arguments / viewpoints expressed (though again....not all).

FWIW, I'm not a Packers fan. Never have been. Never will be. I'm a Bears fan.I always have and always will hate player holdouts. No respect for that whatsoever.

So do you like owners who cut players that have contracts as well??You cannot have it both ways. IF a owner has the right just to waive a player because he has a high cap number for the year even thou it was a contract that was signed in good faith by the player and owner at the time.

If you do then the player should be able to rework his contract as he wishes. as well.

Because the players get paid up front, I think they have committed to their contract terms. If they did not receive this up front money, I would not think so, but they do. In essence, they are paid ahead of time for the term of their contract and have a relatively small base salary every year.This is a key difference that few try to appreciate. The player has already been paid for the entire term of the contract and it's already within the rules for the owner to void the contract, which is really only voiding the base salary.

So, no, I have zero problem with owners cutting players that have contracts. They've already been paid anyway. If there was zero bonus up front money, I would stand up and shout against this practice. But that's not reality.

Because the players are paid ahead of time for their services, I generally rarely side with them in such disputes.

So your saying that if you signed a 7 yr 49 mil dollar contract that with a signing bonus. That the signing bonus is actually your money and the years and yearly salary does not matter???? To me you cannot say one side can void a contract, but the other side cannot try to rework a contract. If you are going to take the "honor the contract" side then both sides need to "honor the contract".

Not in the warped world of 'NFL contracts' though... 'the great' Barry Sanders even had to pay back his signing bonus to the Lions, as he never fulfilled his contractual obligation. They took him to court and he lost. To stick it to them, he paid them back one year at a time, in case he changed his mind and decided he wanted to come back (which he never planned on doing). Yet the Lions could have cut him whenever they wanted and not paid him a dime more from his 'contract'.

This is supposedly addressed in the new CBA.

The post so nice it got posted twice.

 

[Z-Dog]

For the record, here are the WR with similar years to Javon's "breakout" year (thanks HDD!). Three observations: 1. Amid all those great names, there are the Derrick Alexanders and Terrances Mathis' to make you pause; 2. Regardless of what they were making, (we'll get to Fitz in a sec) they all got paid. Big. 3. Fitz had as good a season as Walker, yet isn't crying about his money. Why? I think he or his agent has seen this list. He knows he will get his. Even if you are DA or TM, you will get paid, even if you dont have another good season ever. When was the last time NFL salaries went down? The worst that happens with waiting to be paid is that your salary climbs. Ok, the worst would be a career ending injury, but barring that, even with a season ending injury, someone would give any guy on this list a nice fat contract. The risk/reward is just too good. Realistically, despite his proving he is a complete tool, Walker will get that same payday next year. He could have had it this year had he just shut up and kept his discontent in house. But he will be paid. A lot. So will Fitz. The only difference is Fitz's agent will have many more options for endorsments. This is where Walker's "advisors" really screwed him. He'll get a good NFL payday again, but he'll never realize his full earning potential now.

Two observations:1. Terrance Mathis hd 4 good seasons with Atlanta, but that aside, players who hit the 1200 yard receiving mark are overwhlemingly terrific players. A handful of exceptions don't change that.

2. Fitz isn't holding out for an obvious reason - he got a LOT more money! Walker got about $4 million in bonus money and about 500k/year in salary. Fitzgerald theoretically got a $20 million bonus, but in reality got $12 million. That's the difference between being drafted in the top-5 and being drafted 20th. Neither of these players had true negotiation freedom since both were slotted into salaries based on where they were selected.

 

[BlueOnion]

FYI - MLB contracts are guaranteed but very rarely have upfront signing bonuses. It is a 2-way street.

Because A-Rod's 252 million dollar contract is guaranteed, then why didn't the Rangers give it to him upfront? How come he has to wait? He could get the money upfront, invest it and that 252 million could be worth 500 million at the time his contract was up.

 

[P Boy]

I've gone over to the NFLPA web site and looked up the CBA there, but it's still the old one, so I cannot definitively say, that Clayton & ESPN's reporting of the new CBA Discipline rules are 100% accurate.

They have portions of the extension posted, but not the entire agreement - at least not as of this past Friday.

Should be up soon enough. Once completely there, it'll be interesting to see just how accurate Clayton was in his interpitation of the new CBA Discipline rules.

Here's an example of Clayton's lack of authority on NFL rules:LINK

So I would question the way he interprets the CBA until I see it myself or someone smarter than me here goes through it for us ( a veritable plethora of posters, to be sure).

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

FYI - MLB contracts are guaranteed but very rarely have upfront signing bonuses.  It is a 2-way street.

Because A-Rod's 252 million dollar contract is guaranteed, then why didn't the Rangers give it to him upfront?  How come he has to wait?  He could get the money upfront, invest it and that 252 million could be worth 500 million at the time his contract was up.

What's your point. Two sports conduct themselves under different contracting paradigms. They also conduct themselves under different rules, no surprise.The reason they did not give him all the money up front is that was not the deal they made, plain and simple.

 

[BlueOnion]

FYI - MLB contracts are guaranteed but very rarely have upfront signing bonuses.  It is a 2-way street.

Because A-Rod's 252 million dollar contract is guaranteed, then why didn't the Rangers give it to him upfront?  How come he has to wait?  He could get the money upfront, invest it and that 252 million could be worth 500 million at the time his contract was up.

What's your point. Two sports conduct themselves under different contracting paradigms. They also conduct themselves under different rules, no surprise.The reason they did not give him all the money up front is that was not the deal they made, plain and simple.

That was my point. The argument that players are getting screwed in the NFL because the annual salaries are not guaranteed would not be that different from an argument that MLB players are getting screwed because their annual salaries are guaranteed, but the money is not given to them upfront.

 

[Red Herring]

FYI - MLB contracts are guaranteed but very rarely have upfront signing bonuses.  It is a 2-way street.

Because A-Rod's 252 million dollar contract is guaranteed, then why didn't the Rangers give it to him upfront?  How come he has to wait?  He could get the money upfront, invest it and that 252 million could be worth 500 million at the time his contract was up.

What's your point. Two sports conduct themselves under different contracting paradigms. They also conduct themselves under different rules, no surprise.The reason they did not give him all the money up front is that was not the deal they made, plain and simple.

That was my point. The argument that players are getting screwed in the NFL because the annual salaries are not guaranteed would not be that different from an argument that MLB players are getting screwed because their annual salaries are guaranteed, but the money is not given to them upfront.

To me, the cancer arguement stems from one thing: Javon threatening to be a cancer. I honestly doubt the discussion would be this heated and going on this long if he hadn't brought it up himself. Be it from bad advice or his own mind, the thought and threat of trying to make a team perform badly through your words and behavior drops a cancer label on you. With the example of TO still fresh in everyone's mind, this is only magnified. Personally, saying "I will do it" makes you a big risk. Even if he gets a nice fat contract this year, nothing will stop him from behaving the same way when his contract isn't as much as other top WR again in a few years.

 

[BlueOnion]

FYI - MLB contracts are guaranteed but very rarely have upfront signing bonuses.  It is a 2-way street.

Because A-Rod's 252 million dollar contract is guaranteed, then why didn't the Rangers give it to him upfront?  How come he has to wait?  He could get the money upfront, invest it and that 252 million could be worth 500 million at the time his contract was up.

What's your point. Two sports conduct themselves under different contracting paradigms. They also conduct themselves under different rules, no surprise.The reason they did not give him all the money up front is that was not the deal they made, plain and simple.

That was my point. The argument that players are getting screwed in the NFL because the annual salaries are not guaranteed would not be that different from an argument that MLB players are getting screwed because their annual salaries are guaranteed, but the money is not given to them upfront.

To me, the cancer arguement stems from one thing: Javon threatening to be a cancer. I honestly doubt the discussion would be this heated and going on this long if he hadn't brought it up himself. Be it from bad advice or his own mind, the thought and threat of trying to make a team perform badly through your words and behavior drops a cancer label on you. With the example of TO still fresh in everyone's mind, this is only magnified. Personally, saying "I will do it" makes you a big risk. Even if he gets a nice fat contract this year, nothing will stop him from behaving the same way when his contract isn't as much as other top WR again in a few years.

I cannot say there is anything wrong with this logic. But comparing T.O. to Walker is not legit in my eyes; Walker can walk away from this and for all intents and purposes say, "This is an isolated and unique incident." T.O. screwed up in San Francisco, publicly dissed the Ravens and then screwed up in Philly. T.O. has established a trend.

 

[Red Herring]

FYI - MLB contracts are guaranteed but very rarely have upfront signing bonuses.  It is a 2-way street.

Because A-Rod's 252 million dollar contract is guaranteed, then why didn't the Rangers give it to him upfront?  How come he has to wait?  He could get the money upfront, invest it and that 252 million could be worth 500 million at the time his contract was up.

What's your point. Two sports conduct themselves under different contracting paradigms. They also conduct themselves under different rules, no surprise.The reason they did not give him all the money up front is that was not the deal they made, plain and simple.

That was my point. The argument that players are getting screwed in the NFL because the annual salaries are not guaranteed would not be that different from an argument that MLB players are getting screwed because their annual salaries are guaranteed, but the money is not given to them upfront.

To me, the cancer arguement stems from one thing: Javon threatening to be a cancer. I honestly doubt the discussion would be this heated and going on this long if he hadn't brought it up himself. Be it from bad advice or his own mind, the thought and threat of trying to make a team perform badly through your words and behavior drops a cancer label on you. With the example of TO still fresh in everyone's mind, this is only magnified. Personally, saying "I will do it" makes you a big risk. Even if he gets a nice fat contract this year, nothing will stop him from behaving the same way when his contract isn't as much as other top WR again in a few years.

I cannot say there is anything wrong with this logic. But comparing T.O. to Walker is not legit in my eyes; Walker can walk away from this and for all intents and purposes say, "This is an isolated and unique incident." T.O. screwed up in San Francisco, publicly dissed the Ravens and then screwed up in Philly. T.O. has established a trend.

I totally agree that Walker can (especially with someone with some sense advising him) become an upstanding NFL citizen. He admittedly picked a poor time to do this with TO having caused the problems he did just last year. However, he has already said he is willing to do it. Negotiating ploy or not, he essentially threatened to do what TO did. That makes the TO comparison legit in my eyes, albiet I consider him equal to what I thought of TO coming out of SF, not current TO. Walker is also on his way to a trend, IMHO, with the mess his contract talks turned into last year. I do think if he can get someone interested in helping him become all he can be in the NFL by his side, he can make a turn around. Listening to the goldiggers he's been listening to so far? Not a chance.

 

[GregR_2]

I've gone over to the NFLPA web site and looked up the CBA there, but it's still the old one, so I cannot definitively say, that Clayton & ESPN's reporting of the new CBA Discipline rules are 100% accurate.

They have portions of the extension posted, but not the entire agreement - at least not as of this past Friday.

Should be up soon enough. Once completely there, it'll be interesting to see just how accurate Clayton was in his interpitation of the new CBA Discipline rules.

Something I saw in an article suggested that the owners and players agreed to a Terms Sheet to govern the new CBA, but that the full text hadn't been written out yet. If that is correct, it may still be awhile before they have the full thing done.

 

[Big Score]

I've gone over to the NFLPA web site and looked up the CBA there, but it's still the old one, so I cannot definitively say, that Clayton & ESPN's reporting of the new CBA Discipline rules are 100% accurate.

They have portions of the extension posted, but not the entire agreement - at least not as of this past Friday.

Should be up soon enough. Once completely there, it'll be interesting to see just how accurate Clayton was in his interpitation of the new CBA Discipline rules.

Something I saw in an article suggested that the owners and players agreed to a Terms Sheet to govern the new CBA, but that the full text hadn't been written out yet. If that is correct, it may still be awhile before they have the full thing done.

It'll be worth waiting for, if only to see how accurate Clayton is.