L Coles (1 Viewer)

[Weiner Dog]

This will get interesting.

Coles is a good (...not great) WR and the Jets have stated they will guarantee him $5mm and $6mm, respectively, over the next two seasons. Guarantees in the NFL are rare and I'm surprised Coles is not jumping at this offer. With that being said, Coles could arguably be the top available WR on the market (...outside of Moss, of course) if the Jets start to shop him. Some team will pony-up and give him a 6-year $40mm deal...

...of which, he'll probably only sniff $15mm of it.

FYI...Coles is on record with saying he plans on playing another 4-5 years.

link:

http://www.nj.com/jets/ledger/index.ssf?/b...&thispage=1

For the second consecutive offseason, the Jets find themselves in a contract dispute with one of their top players.

Veteran wide receiver Laveranues Coles said yesterday that the organization has "lied" to him and "strung him along" the past two seasons regarding a long-term contract. Coles said that if the Jets don't want to make a long-term commitment to him, he wants the option to seek a long-term deal with another club.

Coles, who has the next two years remaining but wants a lengthier deal, said he's not going to report for the start of the team's offseason workout program next month.

"I don't want to seem like another greedy player, but I feel I've earned the right to know where I'll finish my career," Coles told The Star-Ledger. "I've done everything this organization has asked me to do and I'm asking them to do this for me. I think I've earned that much. I've put it all on the line every Sunday for this organization.

"They've told me for the past two seasons that they would take care of me and now I feel they're stringing me along. I'm not going through this for another year.

"I've played hurt. I've been a leader in the locker room. I've held the team together in bad times. I was an intermediary between management and the players. I sacrificed my numbers for the good of the team. ... I don't want to be a disgruntled player. I want to be someplace where I'm happy."

A Jets team official said yesterday that no one would be available for comment.

Last offseason, the team was in a contract stalemate with veteran guard Pete Kendall, who was eventually traded to Washington. The offensive line struggled all season and was one of many factors that led to the team's 4-12 finish.

"The Jets told me they would take care of me (with a long-term contract) and now that time is here," Coles said. "I don't want this to be a Pete Kendall situation. I don't want to be like Brandon Moore and sit out a practice to get a new contract. It shouldn't have to come to that point."

Coles, an eight-year veteran, has two years remaining on his contract. The organization has made the unusual move of offering to guarantee the final two seasons at $11 million ($5 million in 2008 and $6 million in 2009).

NFL contracts rarely are guaranteed outside of the signing bonus, and the move by the Jets is believed to be unprecedented in club history. The move, however, is not enough to satisfy Coles. He is confident he would get that type of money on the open market if the Jets released him.

Coles, 30, was drafted by the Jets out of Florida State in 2000. He went to the Redskins as a free agent in 2003, but was traded back to the Jets in 2005. At that time, he signed a five-year, $25 million deal with the Jets. Coles has been the team's top receiver since returning. Last season he had 55 catches for 646 yards and a team-high six touchdowns in 12 games despite fighting through several injuries.

He suffered a concussion against Buffalo in Week 8, then had his streak of 104 consecutive starts snapped the following week against the Redskins. He then suffered a severely sprained left ankle in an upset victory over the Steelers in Week 10. He limped through the next two games, taking pain-killing injections in the ankle, before a fall off a makeshift training table before the Week 14 game against the Patriots ended his season.

Coles, who said the organization had concerns about how much he has left because of his fearless style of play, can't change his style.

"I only know one way to play," he said.

Coles said he approached the club for a second time about a long-term contract after this season, but said he was told his production was down. Their response left him bewildered.

"I played hurt," he said. "I ran clear-out routes for Jerricho (Cotchery). They praised me for my toughness and not worrying about my numbers. They tell me that I'm an unselfish player.

"I do everything they ask me to do and then when it comes to business, they tell me my production is down. That's not right."

Coles said he saw how the organization treated Kendall and Moore (who eventually got a new deal) and it caused him to pause. But Coles said he was assured by the organization that he would be rewarded for being a good soldier.

"They asked me to not judge them on how they treated other players and to trust them," said Coles. "I tried to trust them until this point. But now I'm here and I'm getting slapped in the face. I tried to give the organization a fair chance.

"They said my production is down. But some of the best wide receivers in the league don't have their best seasons until they're in their 30s, (such as) Terrell Owens. I think I have four or five good years left. I just want to know where I'm going to end my career and I've made it clear I want to retire as a Jet."

 

[Smizzy]

He doesn't have 4 yrs left on that body. His head and toe are still issues. He signed a contract and now wants more money.

Adios LC.

 

[Weiner Dog]

He signed a contract and now wants more money.

Not to hijack my own thread, but I do think NFL contracts are BS. If a team decides to renig on a contract, they simply cut the player. If a player decides to renig on a contract, he's considered selfish. It's definitely not a two-way street.Do I think Coles has outperformed his original 5-year, $25mm deal?? No.

Do I think Coles has underperformed his original 5-year, $25mm deal?? No.

Do I think Coles should jump at the Jets offer of guaranteeing the $11mm associated with his final two years?? You betcha.

Do I think Coles will make more than $11mm over the next two season in the open-market?? Yup.

 

[FantasyTrader]

It's all about timing and he (rightly) feels this is his last chance at BIG upfront money. If he locks in the 11 mill. for the next two years, that's great - but then at 32 that's it. It'll be 1yr. incentive-laden deals to wrap up his career. He sees a rather weak FA class so IMO it's just smart business by Coles to put a little pressure on them.

 

[Boston]

The Jets should tell him to pound sand. They were a bad team with him last year and they can be a bad team without him this year. Coles is a good WR but he's nothing special. He's not a difference-maker. You're setting a real bad precedent as a team if you allow a player like Coles to force his way to more money when he still has two years left on his deal. This is a tough part of the business and it often can get nasty but you can't allow players to run roughshod over you or let it turn into in a media pissing contest (i.e. don't get into a war of words regardless of the bombs the player will throw). This type of situation is something every NFL franchise has to deal with and you have to take a long-term outlook on how you want it resolved because every other player on the team will be watching.

 

[Smizzy]

The Jets should tell him to pound sand. They were a bad team with him last year and they can be a bad team without him this year. Coles is a good WR but he's nothing special. He's not a difference-maker. You're setting a real bad precedent as a team if you allow a player like Coles to force his way to more money when he still has two years left on his deal. This is a tough part of the business and it often can get nasty but you can't allow players to run roughshod over you or let it turn into in a media pissing contest (i.e. don't get into a war of words regardless of the bombs the player will throw). This type of situation is something every NFL franchise has to deal with and you have to take a long-term outlook on how you want it resolved because every other player on the team will be watching.

Agreed.It's Pete Kendall Pt.2

 

[Weiner Dog]

It's all about timing and he (rightly) feels this is his last chance at BIG upfront money. If he locks in the 11 mill. for the next two years, that's great - but then at 32 that's it. It'll be 1yr. incentive-laden deals to wrap up his career. He sees a rather weak FA class so IMO it's just smart business by Coles to put a little pressure on them.

 

[Christo]

He signed a contract and now wants more money.

Not to hijack my own thread, but I do think NFL contracts are BS. If a team decides to renig on a contract, they simply cut the player. If a player decides to renig on a contract, he's considered selfish. It's definitely not a two-way street.

Teams pay a signing bonus before the player ever steps foot on the field. If the player blows a knee in practice the next day, he keeps the bonus. That's the trade-off.

 

[Weiner Dog]

He signed a contract and now wants more money.

Not to hijack my own thread, but I do think NFL contracts are BS. If a team decides to renig on a contract, they simply cut the player. If a player decides to renig on a contract, he's considered selfish. It's definitely not a two-way street.

Teams pay a signing bonus before the player ever steps foot on the field. If the player blows a knee in practice the next day, he keeps the bonus. That's the trade-off.

Sure...this is definitely a partial trade-off. However, when a player inks a X-year, $XXmm deal, the signing bonus is included in this "contract". The player cannot make any more than $XXmm, but has the opportunity to make less if he's cut.In real world terms, assume the player is a car dealership and the team is the car buyer. The car dealership (ie. player) receives a downpayment when leasing the car to the car buyer (ie. team). However, in the NFL, the car buyer has the opportunity to 1) tear-up the "contract", 2) refuse to pay the car dealership and 3) give the car back at anytime.

 

[Christo]

He signed a contract and now wants more money.

Not to hijack my own thread, but I do think NFL contracts are BS. If a team decides to renig on a contract, they simply cut the player. If a player decides to renig on a contract, he's considered selfish. It's definitely not a two-way street.

Teams pay a signing bonus before the player ever steps foot on the field. If the player blows a knee in practice the next day, he keeps the bonus. That's the trade-off.

Sure...this is definitely a partial trade-off. However, when a player inks a X-year, $XXmm deal, the signing bonus is included in this "contract". The player cannot make any more than $XXmm, but has the opportunity to make less if he's cut.

This is not true. The player can make more if he's cut. He can also make more if the contract is renegotiated early.

In real world terms, assume the player is a car dealership and the team is the car buyer. The car dealership (ie. player) receives a downpayment when leasing the car to the car buyer (ie. team). However, in the NFL, the car buyer has the opportunity to 1) tear-up the "contract", 2) refuse to pay the car dealership and 3) give the car back at anytime.

Right, the player gets the car back.

 

[The Man With No Name]

The Jets should tell him to pound sand. They were a bad team with him last year and they can be a bad team without him this year. Coles is a good WR but he's nothing special. He's not a difference-maker. You're setting a real bad precedent as a team if you allow a player like Coles to force his way to more money when he still has two years left on his deal. This is a tough part of the business and it often can get nasty but you can't allow players to run roughshod over you or let it turn into in a media pissing contest (i.e. don't get into a war of words regardless of the bombs the player will throw). This type of situation is something every NFL franchise has to deal with and you have to take a long-term outlook on how you want it resolved because every other player on the team will be watching.

imo,He's really not asking for more money now, just more contract years like he says they promised. But yes, that would lead to more money eventually.

 

[Weiner Dog]

In real world terms, assume the player is a car dealership and the team is the car buyer. The car dealership (ie. player) receives a downpayment when leasing the car to the car buyer (ie. team). However, in the NFL, the car buyer has the opportunity to 1) tear-up the "contract", 2) refuse to pay the car dealership and 3) give the car back at anytime.

Right, the player gets the car back.

...at a depreciated value. With time, both a car's value and a player's values decrease.

 

[Weiner Dog]

He signed a contract and now wants more money.

Not to hijack my own thread, but I do think NFL contracts are BS. If a team decides to renig on a contract, they simply cut the player. If a player decides to renig on a contract, he's considered selfish. It's definitely not a two-way street.

Teams pay a signing bonus before the player ever steps foot on the field. If the player blows a knee in practice the next day, he keeps the bonus. That's the trade-off.

Sure...this is definitely a partial trade-off. However, when a player inks a X-year, $XXmm deal, the signing bonus is included in this "contract". The player cannot make any more than $XXmm, but has the opportunity to make less if he's cut.

This is not true. The player can make more if he's cut. He can also make more if the contract is renegotiated early.

Making more if he's cut has absolutely nothing to do with the current "contract". Coles cannot choose to be cut. He's at the mercy of the Jets.If (for example) a player has a 40% chance of seeing the full contract, he has a 59% chance of getting cut and 1% of chance of renegotiating a better contract. Contracts are renenotiated (not to be confused with "restructured")...what...2-3 times per year. Larry Johnson comes to mind.

For comparative purposes, how many players' contracts are cut short each year?? 200-300??

Not a fair comparison.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Jets should sign Coles long-term. It would be a worse mistake than the Kendall fiasco if the Jets mess this one up.

I think this will smooth over, and LC will leave with a new, $$$ contract that he deserves.

 

[Koya]

The Jets should tell him to pound sand. They were a bad team with him last year and they can be a bad team without him this year. Coles is a good WR but he's nothing special. He's not a difference-maker. You're setting a real bad precedent as a team if you allow a player like Coles to force his way to more money when he still has two years left on his deal. This is a tough part of the business and it often can get nasty but you can't allow players to run roughshod over you or let it turn into in a media pissing contest (i.e. don't get into a war of words regardless of the bombs the player will throw). This type of situation is something every NFL franchise has to deal with and you have to take a long-term outlook on how you want it resolved because every other player on the team will be watching.

Agreed.It's Pete Kendall Pt.2

And boy, the Jets sure handled the Kendall situation well. Now it seems that the Jets may have a pattern of and reputation for being contentious and perhaps misleading with their players. If indeed that is true, word will certainly spread around the league hampering the Jets efforts to some regard in attracting players. Someone really needs to get through to Mangini quick - just because you had some nice beginners fortune in your first year does NOT make you the Patriots organization. You are playing all of their games, with NONE of their success. So Jets fans can "stand their ground" all they want, but right now the organization is beginning to teeter on overall mismanagement. I am far from convinced Mangini is even close to the genius others call him, at least not at this stage of his career. I hope this doesnt become one season after another of management miscalculations that end up killing the momentum the Jets had gained when they hired Parcells.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

The Jets should tell him to pound sand. They were a bad team with him last year and they can be a bad team without him this year. Coles is a good WR but he's nothing special. He's not a difference-maker. You're setting a real bad precedent as a team if you allow a player like Coles to force his way to more money when he still has two years left on his deal. This is a tough part of the business and it often can get nasty but you can't allow players to run roughshod over you or let it turn into in a media pissing contest (i.e. don't get into a war of words regardless of the bombs the player will throw). This type of situation is something every NFL franchise has to deal with and you have to take a long-term outlook on how you want it resolved because every other player on the team will be watching.

Agreed.It's Pete Kendall Pt.2

And boy, the Jets sure handled the Kendall situation well. Now it seems that the Jets may have a pattern of and reputation for being contentious and perhaps misleading with their players. If indeed that is true, word will certainly spread around the league hampering the Jets efforts to some regard in attracting players. Someone really needs to get through to Mangini quick - just because you had some nice beginners fortune in your first year does NOT make you the Patriots organization. You are playing all of their games, with NONE of their success. So Jets fans can "stand their ground" all they want, but right now the organization is beginning to teeter on overall mismanagement. I am far from convinced Mangini is even close to the genius others call him, at least not at this stage of his career. I hope this doesnt become one season after another of management miscalculations that end up killing the momentum the Jets had gained when they hired Parcells.

I agree, I"m a Giant fan, but I don't root against the Jets, I even wish them well, but the culture they're developing on this front is really disturbing, if what the players are alleging is true. I don't begrudge Coles(or any NFL holdout) one single bit. The window is a brief one and with no guarantees, you've got to get whats yours.

 

[TD5150]

He signed a contract and now wants more money.

Not to hijack my own thread, but I do think NFL contracts are BS. If a team decides to renig on a contract, they simply cut the player. If a player decides to renig on a contract, he's considered selfish. It's definitely not a two-way street.

I 100% disagree with NFL contracts being "BS". This seems to be the common thought among people but I don't know why? Tell me what other sport gives signing and roster bonuses that are so high? The actual year over year salary is relatively low so after the players cash in with their big signing bonus I'm willing to bet a lot of them hope to be cut in a few years so they don't have to play out the last several years of their contract while only making the low yearly salary. Once they are cut they have a chance to sign a new contract and collect another large signing bonus.In fact teams typically sign players for more years then they ever intend to keep them around, this allows them to spread the signing bonus over more years so the annual impact to the salary cap is lessened.I think players benefit as much as teams when they are cut before their contract expires.Granted, there are exceptions to everything but for the majority of players I bet they don't mind being cut at all.

 

[Weiner Dog]

He signed a contract and now wants more money.

Not to hijack my own thread, but I do think NFL contracts are BS. If a team decides to renig on a contract, they simply cut the player. If a player decides to renig on a contract, he's considered selfish. It's definitely not a two-way street.

I 100% disagree with NFL contracts being "BS". This seems to be the common thought among people but I don't know why? Tell me what other sport gives signing and roster bonuses that are so high? The actual year over year salary is relatively low so after the players cash in with their big signing bonus I'm willing to bet a lot of them hope to be cut in a few years so they don't have to play out the last several years of their contract while only making the low yearly salary. Once they are cut they have a chance to sign a new contract and collect another large signing bonus.In fact teams typically sign players for more years then they ever intend to keep them around, this allows them to spread the signing bonus over more years so the annual impact to the salary cap is lessened.

I think players benefit as much as teams when they are cut before their contract expires.

Granted, there are exceptions to everything but for the majority of players I bet they don't mind being cut at all.

Question for you...What percent of "cut players" earn more after their cut?? I would be surprised if the number tops 10%. Most "cut players" sign league minimum deals, retire, etc. You can bet your last dollar that NFL players mind being cut. Most NFL contracts are back-end loaded. Therefore, most of the higher-paid NFL players never see the majority of their contracts.

Just a quick tidbit...

The average NFL player earns less than 1/2 of the average MLB player ($1.2mm vs $2.8mm). If you couple the fact that the the NFL as a whole earns approx 50% more than MLB per year ($6 billion vs $4.3 billion), you can see the problem with NFL contracts from a player perspective

Worst yet, the average life of an NFL player is obviously much less than a MLB player.

 

[az_prof]

I have ZERO sympathy for Coles. The guy is under contract and the contract sounded good to him when he signed it. He should jump at the two years, 11 million guaranteed that is being offered.

He says he has played hard and done what was asked of him for the best of the team. Isn't that his job? Isn't he being paid millions now to do it? I was on a school board making $5,000 a year in stipend, often working twenty hours a week: I took the brunt of public criticism for mistakes made by administrators and staff; I united the board and helped administration and teachers to work together; I helped the district address its longstanding facility needs and regain the trust of the public. That's called public service. Coles is just doing a job and he is under contract to do that job. Teams need to stop rewarding this kind of behavior and hold players to their contracts. If he doesn't want to play then he won't be playing for anyone until he is 32.

 

[treat88]

The average NFL player earns less than 1/2 of the average MLB player ($1.2mm vs $2.8mm). If you couple the fact that the the NFL as a whole earns approx 50% more than MLB per year ($6 billion vs $4.3 billion), you can see the problem with NFL contracts from a player perspective

Isn't this a simple issue of roster size? 53 NFL vs 25? Seems to be at face value anyway. At least that's my take.The NFL contracts are not BS in any respect.

The player knows exactly what he is signing. There are no surprises. He understands he can be cut at the teams discretion. He chooses to accept the terms offered when he inks the contract. He takes the guaranteed money as the compensatory value of the contract. Straight forward, simple, and not disingenuous in any way till the media/agents spin it.

Additionally, by definition, there is no way a player can underperform or overperform their contract. They are simply reimbursed a set amount for a set period of time. After that period of time becomes discretionary teams can choose to pay a player a new, possibly larger amount if he has played productively, or decline to continue the business relationship.

In no way are NFL players being taken advantage of.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

The average NFL player earns less than 1/2 of the average MLB player ($1.2mm vs $2.8mm). If you couple the fact that the the NFL as a whole earns approx 50% more than MLB per year ($6 billion vs $4.3 billion), you can see the problem with NFL contracts from a player perspective

Isn't this a simple issue of roster size? 53 NFL vs 25? Seems to be at face value anyway. At least that's my take.The NFL contracts are not BS in any respect.

The player knows exactly what he is signing. There are no surprises. He understands he can be cut at the teams discretion. He chooses to accept the terms offered when he inks the contract. He takes the guaranteed money as the compensatory value of the contract. Straight forward, simple, and not disingenuous in any way till the media/agents spin it.

Additionally, by definition, there is no way a player can underperform or overperform their contract. They are simply reimbursed a set amount for a set period of time. After that period of time becomes discretionary teams can choose to pay a player a new, possibly larger amount if he has played productively, or decline to continue the business relationship.

In no way are NFL players being taken advantage of.

I believe this, and it should also extend to the team and thus the understanding when a player holds out or wants to renegotiate. I can count on one hand the number of baseball holdouts that I remember. The pill of a bad or undervalued contract is a lot easier to swallow when you have some financial certainty. A NFL player can play under a bad deal, and while waiting for a new one, he can blow an ACL, hell, he can get paralyzed. Get whats yours while the gettin is good I say.

If people or teams don't like it, very easily switch to guaranteed deals and it will all dry up. Excuse me while I sit here NOT holding my breath waiting for that one to happen.

 

[az_prof]

The average NFL player earns less than 1/2 of the average MLB player ($1.2mm vs $2.8mm). If you couple the fact that the the NFL as a whole earns approx 50% more than MLB per year ($6 billion vs $4.3 billion), you can see the problem with NFL contracts from a player perspective

Isn't this a simple issue of roster size? 53 NFL vs 25? Seems to be at face value anyway. At least that's my take.The NFL contracts are not BS in any respect.

The player knows exactly what he is signing. There are no surprises. He understands he can be cut at the teams discretion. He chooses to accept the terms offered when he inks the contract. He takes the guaranteed money as the compensatory value of the contract. Straight forward, simple, and not disingenuous in any way till the media/agents spin it.

Additionally, by definition, there is no way a player can underperform or overperform their contract. They are simply reimbursed a set amount for a set period of time. After that period of time becomes discretionary teams can choose to pay a player a new, possibly larger amount if he has played productively, or decline to continue the business relationship.

In no way are NFL players being taken advantage of.

I believe this, and it should also extend to the team and thus the understanding when a player holds out or wants to renegotiate. I can count on one hand the number of baseball holdouts that I remember. The pill of a bad or undervalued contract is a lot easier to swallow when you have some financial certainty. A NFL player can play under a bad deal, and while waiting for a new one, he can blow an ACL, hell, he can get paralyzed. Get whats yours while the gettin is good I say.

If people or teams don't like it, very easily switch to guaranteed deals and it will all dry up. Excuse me while I sit here NOT holding my breath waiting for that one to happen.

If a player is willing to accept less money up front in signing bonus and less money overall, I am sure they could negotiate a guaranteed contract. Instead, they take the big bonus check and if they do badly they keep their mouth shut and hope the team doesn't cut them and if they have a good season they threaten to hold out unless they get a new, bigger contract and more guaranteed bonus money.I want players to be well compensated so my team can be competitive but I would never criticize my team for not renegotiating a contract. That is a privilege and is not something a player should demand. And for a 30 year old WR who is often hurt it makes very little sense to do so.

 

[thayman]

He signed a contract and now wants more money.

Not to hijack my own thread, but I do think NFL contracts are BS. If a team decides to renig on a contract, they simply cut the player. If a player decides to renig on a contract, he's considered selfish. It's definitely not a two-way street.

I 100% disagree with NFL contracts being "BS". This seems to be the common thought among people but I don't know why? Tell me what other sport gives signing and roster bonuses that are so high? The actual year over year salary is relatively low so after the players cash in with their big signing bonus I'm willing to bet a lot of them hope to be cut in a few years so they don't have to play out the last several years of their contract while only making the low yearly salary. Once they are cut they have a chance to sign a new contract and collect another large signing bonus.In fact teams typically sign players for more years then they ever intend to keep them around, this allows them to spread the signing bonus over more years so the annual impact to the salary cap is lessened.

I think players benefit as much as teams when they are cut before their contract expires.

Granted, there are exceptions to everything but for the majority of players I bet they don't mind being cut at all.

Question for you...What percent of "cut players" earn more after their cut?? I would be surprised if the number tops 10%. Most "cut players" sign league minimum deals, retire, etc. You can bet your last dollar that NFL players mind being cut. Most NFL contracts are back-end loaded. Therefore, most of the higher-paid NFL players never see the majority of their contracts.

Just a quick tidbit...

The average NFL player earns less than 1/2 of the average MLB player ($1.2mm vs $2.8mm). If you couple the fact that the the NFL as a whole earns approx 50% more than MLB per year ($6 billion vs $4.3 billion), you can see the problem with NFL contracts from a player perspective

Worst yet, the average life of an NFL player is obviously much less than a MLB player.

Pardon me for not feeling bad for someone when the "average" is over a million dollars per year.

 

[treat88]

I believe this, and it should also extend to the team and thus the understanding when a player holds out or wants to renegotiate. I can count on one hand the number of baseball holdouts that I remember. The pill of a bad or undervalued contract is a lot easier to swallow when you have some financial certainty. A NFL player can play under a bad deal, and while waiting for a new one, he can blow an ACL, hell, he can get paralyzed. Get whats yours while the gettin is good I say. If people or teams don't like it, very easily switch to guaranteed deals and it will all dry up. Excuse me while I sit here NOT holding my breath waiting for that one to happen.

If there is language in the contract regarding holdouts or renegotiations I totally agree and the players should have full right to those recourses.Problem is, there is no such language in a NFL contract.When the player holds out he is breaching the contract. When the team releases a player they are within the terms of the contract. Big difference. Bad faith vs good faith business.I agree that injury risk is far higher in the NFL. Again, the player knows this also at the time of signing. He understands the obligation and the inherent risks and the compensation for those things at the time of signing.Teams in no way take advantage of players. Regardless of the players performance on the field compared to compensation. The player has been instrumental and informed every step of the way. There is no such thing as a bad deal.

 

[Weiner Dog]

The average NFL player earns less than 1/2 of the average MLB player ($1.2mm vs $2.8mm). If you couple the fact that the the NFL as a whole earns approx 50% more than MLB per year ($6 billion vs $4.3 billion), you can see the problem with NFL contracts from a player perspective

Isn't this a simple issue of roster size? 53 NFL vs 25? Seems to be at face value anyway. At least that's my take.The NFL contracts are not BS in any respect.

The player knows exactly what he is signing. There are no surprises. He understands he can be cut at the teams discretion. He chooses to accept the terms offered when he inks the contract. He takes the guaranteed money as the compensatory value of the contract. Straight forward, simple, and not disingenuous in any way till the media/agents spin it.

Additionally, by definition, there is no way a player can underperform or overperform their contract. They are simply reimbursed a set amount for a set period of time. After that period of time becomes discretionary teams can choose to pay a player a new, possibly larger amount if he has played productively, or decline to continue the business relationship.

In no way are NFL players being taken advantage of.

To be blunt, you do not understand how NFL contracts work.

 

[treat88]

To be blunt, you do not understand how NFL contracts work.

Actually I think I have a good handle on contract law, but...Care to expand?

 

[Weiner Dog]

To be blunt, you do not understand how NFL contracts work.

Actually I think I have a good handle on contract law, but...Care to expand?

An NFL player "chooses to accept the terms offered when he inks the contract" b/c he has no other options. Unlike MLB and NBA contracts, the NFL does not guarantee contracts. Sure...the player could choose to play baseball or basketball, but if he decides to stick with football, he is forced to sign a contract which allows the team to have full discretion of honoring the contract. The player cannot force to be cut. The player cannot force a pay increase. The team, however, can force the player to be cut and, consequently, an immediate pay decrease.I think the word "contract" needs to italicized when discussing the NFL b/c the player is the only participant who is required to abide by the rules of a standard "contract".

 

[treat88]

An NFL player "chooses to accept the terms offered when he inks the contract" b/c he has no other options. Unlike MLB and NBA contracts, the NFL does not guarantee contracts. Sure...the player could choose to play baseball or basketball, but if he decides to stick with football, he is forced to sign a contract which allows the team to have full discretion of honoring the contract. The player cannot force to be cut. The player cannot force a pay increase. The team, however, can force the player to be cut and, consequently, an immediate pay decrease.I think the word "contract" needs to italicized when discussing the NFL b/c the player is the only participant who is required to abide by the rules of a standard "contract".

I see where you are coming from.However, we can't redefine the legal nature of a contract to fit personal preference.First, you are correct in that NFL players sign NFL contracts. However, that is what their players union has bargained for them. There are advantages and disadvantages but the nature of the deal has not been unilaterally imposed by the NFL. Are certain terms unfavorable vs. MLB or NBA deals. Sure. That does not make the legal nature of the contract less binding on either party.Second, I would love to see a link to an example of a situation where a team has breached the terms of a contract with an NFL player. I will hazard a guess that has not happened in recent memory due to the CBA and the NFLPA oversight. Players violate the language of their contracts every year by holding out. I understand about leverage and the game that is played to maximize compensation, that however does not make it valid within the framework of contract law.Third, if a team releases a player, it is because in the contract that player signed it indicated that he may be released at certain specified dates. The team is well within it's rights to do so. There are no surprises. Further if released, the team cannot recoup whatever guaranteed monies the player has already collected. Player and team understand this from the inception.I take the position that both team and player know exactly what they are agreeing to when a contract is finalized. Neither party is taking advantage of the other. It is a business relationship amongst equals, the terms of which are specified in the contract. Teams should, theoretically at least, receive a players best efforts for a pre-determined length of time for a predetermined amount of money.

 

[TD5150]

He signed a contract and now wants more money.

Not to hijack my own thread, but I do think NFL contracts are BS. If a team decides to renig on a contract, they simply cut the player. If a player decides to renig on a contract, he's considered selfish. It's definitely not a two-way street.

I 100% disagree with NFL contracts being "BS". This seems to be the common thought among people but I don't know why? Tell me what other sport gives signing and roster bonuses that are so high? The actual year over year salary is relatively low so after the players cash in with their big signing bonus I'm willing to bet a lot of them hope to be cut in a few years so they don't have to play out the last several years of their contract while only making the low yearly salary. Once they are cut they have a chance to sign a new contract and collect another large signing bonus.In fact teams typically sign players for more years then they ever intend to keep them around, this allows them to spread the signing bonus over more years so the annual impact to the salary cap is lessened.

I think players benefit as much as teams when they are cut before their contract expires.

Granted, there are exceptions to everything but for the majority of players I bet they don't mind being cut at all.

Question for you...What percent of "cut players" earn more after their cut?? I would be surprised if the number tops 10%. Most "cut players" sign league minimum deals, retire, etc. You can bet your last dollar that NFL players mind being cut. Most NFL contracts are back-end loaded. Therefore, most of the higher-paid NFL players never see the majority of their contracts.

Just a quick tidbit...

The average NFL player earns less than 1/2 of the average MLB player ($1.2mm vs $2.8mm). If you couple the fact that the the NFL as a whole earns approx 50% more than MLB per year ($6 billion vs $4.3 billion), you can see the problem with NFL contracts from a player perspective

Worst yet, the average life of an NFL player is obviously much less than a MLB player.

If you have been watching the news lately NFL players make 60% of the NFL revenue, there is no other sport that pays its players as large of a percentage. In fact the owners think they are being screwed by the players and are going to opt out of the contract this summer and try to get that 60% number down on the next contract. The reason other sports players are paid more $$ is the number of games played (thus the annual revenue is much higher) and number of players on a roster. (Roster size goes down pay goes up) so the players make more $$ but not a higher % of the total revenue.Also, to answer your question, if you look at the players who are cut and calculate the amount of possible earnings (not counting the contracts that were very back loaded with both the team and player knowing they will never get to that part of the contract, most contract are negotiated this way with the player KNOWING he will be cut or have his contract renegotiated before these high $$ years kick in) that were not achieved, I bet the vast majority of players who do sign another contract make MORE money with their new contract than they lost with their old.

I think the signing bonus is the big equalizer and the NFL players actually have it better (relatively speaking) to the other sports. Everybody needs a negotiating angle, and players and agents play on the non guaranteed contract angle to sway public opinion and gain sympathy and possible leverage with the owners. The signing bonus is the guaranteed part of the contract, just ask Mike Vick.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

I believe this, and it should also extend to the team and thus the understanding when a player holds out or wants to renegotiate.

I can count on one hand the number of baseball holdouts that I remember. The pill of a bad or undervalued contract is a lot easier to swallow when you have some financial certainty. A NFL player can play under a bad deal, and while waiting for a new one, he can blow an ACL, hell, he can get paralyzed. Get whats yours while the gettin is good I say.

If people or teams don't like it, very easily switch to guaranteed deals and it will all dry up. Excuse me while I sit here NOT holding my breath waiting for that one to happen.

If there is language in the contract regarding holdouts or renegotiations I totally agree and the players should have full right to those recourses.Problem is, there is no such language in a NFL contract.

When the player holds out he is breaching the contract. When the team releases a player they are within the terms of the contract. Big difference. Bad faith vs good faith business.

I agree that injury risk is far higher in the NFL. Again, the player knows this also at the time of signing. He understands the obligation and the inherent risks and the compensation for those things at the time of signing.

Teams in no way take advantage of players. Regardless of the players performance on the field compared to compensation. The player has been instrumental and informed every step of the way. There is no such thing as a bad deal.

Players who hold out or wish to renegotiate do face sanctions. They are fined for days they miss in camp, so I would say they do respect those provisions in regard to penalties incured. Now if teams choose to waive or compensate them for any such penalties, thats the teams business. Players are only able to renegotiate when they have leverage. Its why when Strahan pulled this power play last year, a 36 year old DE off a broken foot and a missed half season was not able to gain any additional leverage, while you will see a different case if that happens with Umenioyra, a player in his 20's at the top of his game. In regards to the bolded point, how exactly does the franchise tag not take advantage of players? Now I realize that it was bargained for in the deal, and the non-guaranteed deals are all collectively bargained for. The NFLPA is a model of ineptitude in their overall weakness on that point, but to speak specifically to your point. A franchise tagged player is compensated on the average of the top five, but with no guranatees as to length of a deal. There is no open market, there is no provision for a player to lock into say a 5 year deal at the average salary being presented. Thats just one example of players being taken advantage of.

And just because its in the language of their deal as a union doesn't mean individual players aren't being taken advantage of in the construct of the current contract. I don't know what you do for a living, but what is the value in a deal you yourself would engage with an employer that basically binds your occupation to them, but does not similarly bind your employer to compensate you. Its a onesided contract.

 

[Reaper]

The Jets should tell him to pound sand. They were a bad team with him last year and they can be a bad team without him this year. Coles is a good WR but he's nothing special. He's not a difference-maker. You're setting a real bad precedent as a team if you allow a player like Coles to force his way to more money when he still has two years left on his deal. This is a tough part of the business and it often can get nasty but you can't allow players to run roughshod over you or let it turn into in a media pissing contest (i.e. don't get into a war of words regardless of the bombs the player will throw). This type of situation is something every NFL franchise has to deal with and you have to take a long-term outlook on how you want it resolved because every other player on the team will be watching.

Agreed.It's Pete Kendall Pt.2

And boy, the Jets sure handled the Kendall situation well. Now it seems that the Jets may have a pattern of and reputation for being contentious and perhaps misleading with their players. If indeed that is true, word will certainly spread around the league hampering the Jets efforts to some regard in attracting players. Someone really needs to get through to Mangini quick - just because you had some nice beginners fortune in your first year does NOT make you the Patriots organization. You are playing all of their games, with NONE of their success. So Jets fans can "stand their ground" all they want, but right now the organization is beginning to teeter on overall mismanagement. I am far from convinced Mangini is even close to the genius others call him, at least not at this stage of his career. I hope this doesnt become one season after another of management miscalculations that end up killing the momentum the Jets had gained when they hired Parcells.

Being a Jets fan I've seen my share of mismanagement and I'm not convinced this is it.Pete Kendall was out of his freaking mind and just signed a new deal - him and his agent messed up and then held the jets hostage to get themselves out of the deal they signed.... The Jets mistake was not getting rid of him asap and playing around a bit... This is the 3rd team he pulled stuff with....I can see how the perception isn't great though.Now with Coles, I tend to agree with Chase and I thought this would get done with no problems since Coles specifically said he's not like Pete Kendal. Mangini and Coles seemed to have a connection lately and Coles is pretty much a leader on the team. I'd have to see Coles' contract compared to the market but, either way, like everyone is saying it's business. I've also never called Mangin a genius, I'm a fan though especially over what we have had lately. I'm happy with their drafts so far and I think they're on the verge of building a defense but, This is a huge offseason, I see opportunity to make some key moves and keep developing... lot's of OL to choose from.Hey I also liked Coughlin and Eli when people had them hanging from the rafters.

 

[treat88]

The NFLPA is a model of ineptitude in their overall weakness

Thanks for a very intelligent discussion.I think the quoted text is the crux of the matter truly and I agree.Terms of the CBA can be discussed, ala the franchise tag, as to their fairness or resonableness. I won't argue that the franchise tag is an advantage the teams use against the players. It is.However, the binding nature of the contracts I don't think can be discussed and it is disingenuous to take the position that teams don't play by the rules when they quite obviously do. Players know these rules so are making informed decisions about their business relationship when they agree to participate. Until the rules are collectively rebargained they must be abided by by the involved parties.While I do believe the system can be improved, I don't believe either the players collectively nor the NFL teams are being taken advantage of.Sorry for the hijack. Back to L. Coles.

 

[Christo]

In real world terms, assume the player is a car dealership and the team is the car buyer. The car dealership (ie. player) receives a downpayment when leasing the car to the car buyer (ie. team). However, in the NFL, the car buyer has the opportunity to 1) tear-up the "contract", 2) refuse to pay the car dealership and 3) give the car back at anytime.

Right, the player gets the car back.

...at a depreciated value. With time, both a car's value and a player's values decrease.

Maybe, maybe not.

 

[renesauz]

He signed a contract and now wants more money.

Not to hijack my own thread, but I do think NFL contracts are BS. If a team decides to renig on a contract, they simply cut the player. If a player decides to renig on a contract, he's considered selfish. It's definitely not a two-way street.

I 100% disagree with NFL contracts being "BS". This seems to be the common thought among people but I don't know why? Tell me what other sport gives signing and roster bonuses that are so high? The actual year over year salary is relatively low so after the players cash in with their big signing bonus I'm willing to bet a lot of them hope to be cut in a few years so they don't have to play out the last several years of their contract while only making the low yearly salary. Once they are cut they have a chance to sign a new contract and collect another large signing bonus.In fact teams typically sign players for more years then they ever intend to keep them around, this allows them to spread the signing bonus over more years so the annual impact to the salary cap is lessened.

I think players benefit as much as teams when they are cut before their contract expires.

Granted, there are exceptions to everything but for the majority of players I bet they don't mind being cut at all.

Question for you...What percent of "cut players" earn more after their cut?? I would be surprised if the number tops 10%. Most "cut players" sign league minimum deals, retire, etc. You can bet your last dollar that NFL players mind being cut. Most NFL contracts are back-end loaded. Therefore, most of the higher-paid NFL players never see the majority of their contracts.

Just a quick tidbit...

The average NFL player earns less than 1/2 of the average MLB player ($1.2mm vs $2.8mm). If you couple the fact that the the NFL as a whole earns approx 50% more than MLB per year ($6 billion vs $4.3 billion), you can see the problem with NFL contracts from a player perspective

Worst yet, the average life of an NFL player is obviously much less than a MLB player.

Something is wrong with the math here. 53 man roster, 100+ Million payroll? If you're looking at base salary only (before bonuses), then it makes sense, but the truth is that NFL players are paid much closer to what MLB players are then you think, for a much shorter season with far fewer games. (Granted, in a much more violent, dangerous atmosphere.)

 

[Christo]

He signed a contract and now wants more money.

Not to hijack my own thread, but I do think NFL contracts are BS. If a team decides to renig on a contract, they simply cut the player. If a player decides to renig on a contract, he's considered selfish. It's definitely not a two-way street.

Teams pay a signing bonus before the player ever steps foot on the field. If the player blows a knee in practice the next day, he keeps the bonus. That's the trade-off.

Sure...this is definitely a partial trade-off. However, when a player inks a X-year, $XXmm deal, the signing bonus is included in this "contract". The player cannot make any more than $XXmm, but has the opportunity to make less if he's cut.

This is not true. The player can make more if he's cut. He can also make more if the contract is renegotiated early.

Making more if he's cut has absolutely nothing to do with the current "contract". Coles cannot choose to be cut. He's at the mercy of the Jets.If (for example) a player has a 40% chance of seeing the full contract, he has a 59% chance of getting cut and 1% of chance of renegotiating a better contract. Contracts are renenotiated (not to be confused with "restructured")...what...2-3 times per year. Larry Johnson comes to mind.

For comparative purposes, how many players' contracts are cut short each year?? 200-300??

Not a fair comparison.

You keep using "examples" that are completely irrelevant or made up. The fact of the matter is each player has a unique shelf life. That shelf life depends completely on his skill, health and attitude. As has been proven time and again in the NFL, if a player has usefulness some team will give him a shot.Coles' situation certainly isn't one you'd use as an example to rail against non-guaranteed contracts. Here the Jets are offering to do exactly what you're complaining doesn't happen (guaranty the rest of his $11 million contract), and he won't take it. If he really thinks he's good for another five years, he should take it become a free agent in two years and see how much another team will pony up.

The truth of the matter is he knows that his health will keep him from being a No. 1 WR for 5 more years and is hoping the Jets or someone else will overpay for him.

 

[az_prof]

To be blunt, you do not understand how NFL contracts work.

Actually I think I have a good handle on contract law, but...Care to expand?

An NFL player "chooses to accept the terms offered when he inks the contract" b/c he has no other options. Unlike MLB and NBA contracts, the NFL does not guarantee contracts. Sure...the player could choose to play baseball or basketball, but if he decides to stick with football, he is forced to sign a contract which allows the team to have full discretion of honoring the contract. The player cannot force to be cut. The player cannot force a pay increase. The team, however, can force the player to be cut and, consequently, an immediate pay decrease.I think the word "contract" needs to italicized when discussing the NFL b/c the player is the only participant who is required to abide by the rules of a standard "contract".

Are you also going to italicize the signing "bonus"? O yeah. That part is guaranteed. If a guy sucks does the team get the signing bonus back? No.

 

[Weiner Dog]

He signed a contract and now wants more money.

Not to hijack my own thread, but I do think NFL contracts are BS. If a team decides to renig on a contract, they simply cut the player. If a player decides to renig on a contract, he's considered selfish. It's definitely not a two-way street.

I 100% disagree with NFL contracts being "BS". This seems to be the common thought among people but I don't know why? Tell me what other sport gives signing and roster bonuses that are so high? The actual year over year salary is relatively low so after the players cash in with their big signing bonus I'm willing to bet a lot of them hope to be cut in a few years so they don't have to play out the last several years of their contract while only making the low yearly salary. Once they are cut they have a chance to sign a new contract and collect another large signing bonus.In fact teams typically sign players for more years then they ever intend to keep them around, this allows them to spread the signing bonus over more years so the annual impact to the salary cap is lessened.

I think players benefit as much as teams when they are cut before their contract expires.

Granted, there are exceptions to everything but for the majority of players I bet they don't mind being cut at all.

Question for you...What percent of "cut players" earn more after their cut?? I would be surprised if the number tops 10%. Most "cut players" sign league minimum deals, retire, etc. You can bet your last dollar that NFL players mind being cut. Most NFL contracts are back-end loaded. Therefore, most of the higher-paid NFL players never see the majority of their contracts.

Just a quick tidbit...

The average NFL player earns less than 1/2 of the average MLB player ($1.2mm vs $2.8mm). If you couple the fact that the the NFL as a whole earns approx 50% more than MLB per year ($6 billion vs $4.3 billion), you can see the problem with NFL contracts from a player perspective

Worst yet, the average life of an NFL player is obviously much less than a MLB player.

Something is wrong with the math here. 53 man roster, 100+ Million payroll? If you're looking at base salary only (before bonuses), then it makes sense, but the truth is that NFL players are paid much closer to what MLB players are then you think, for a much shorter season with far fewer games. (Granted, in a much more violent, dangerous atmosphere.)

Incorrect.MLB's payroll is 1200. NFL's payroll is 1800.

MLB: 1200 x $2.8mm = $3.00 billion

NFL: 1800 x $1.25mm = $2.25 billion

NFL brings in more revenue, but pays less payroll. To make matters worse, the baseball revenue further supports minor league teams. The NFL is spoon-fed freebie college players each year.

 

[Weiner Dog]

To be blunt, you do not understand how NFL contracts work.

Actually I think I have a good handle on contract law, but...Care to expand?

An NFL player "chooses to accept the terms offered when he inks the contract" b/c he has no other options. Unlike MLB and NBA contracts, the NFL does not guarantee contracts. Sure...the player could choose to play baseball or basketball, but if he decides to stick with football, he is forced to sign a contract which allows the team to have full discretion of honoring the contract. The player cannot force to be cut. The player cannot force a pay increase. The team, however, can force the player to be cut and, consequently, an immediate pay decrease.I think the word "contract" needs to italicized when discussing the NFL b/c the player is the only participant who is required to abide by the rules of a standard "contract".

Are you also going to italicize the signing "bonus"? O yeah. That part is guaranteed. If a guy sucks does the team get the signing bonus back? No.

For the second time...The bonus is considered part of the total contract. If it's a contract in the traditional sense of the word, why would the player not receive the full value of the contract...whether he underperforms or overperforms?!?!?MLB and NBA follows America's principals of capitalism. NFL has decided to go in another direction.

 

[Weiner Dog]

He signed a contract and now wants more money.

Not to hijack my own thread, but I do think NFL contracts are BS. If a team decides to renig on a contract, they simply cut the player. If a player decides to renig on a contract, he's considered selfish. It's definitely not a two-way street.

Teams pay a signing bonus before the player ever steps foot on the field. If the player blows a knee in practice the next day, he keeps the bonus. That's the trade-off.

Sure...this is definitely a partial trade-off. However, when a player inks a X-year, $XXmm deal, the signing bonus is included in this "contract". The player cannot make any more than $XXmm, but has the opportunity to make less if he's cut.

This is not true. The player can make more if he's cut. He can also make more if the contract is renegotiated early.

Making more if he's cut has absolutely nothing to do with the current "contract". Coles cannot choose to be cut. He's at the mercy of the Jets.If (for example) a player has a 40% chance of seeing the full contract, he has a 59% chance of getting cut and 1% of chance of renegotiating a better contract. Contracts are renenotiated (not to be confused with "restructured")...what...2-3 times per year. Larry Johnson comes to mind.

For comparative purposes, how many players' contracts are cut short each year?? 200-300??

Not a fair comparison.

You keep using "examples" that are completely irrelevant or made up. The fact of the matter is each player has a unique shelf life. That shelf life depends completely on his skill, health and attitude. As has been proven time and again in the NFL, if a player has usefulness some team will give him a shot.Coles' situation certainly isn't one you'd use as an example to rail against non-guaranteed contracts. Here the Jets are offering to do exactly what you're complaining doesn't happen (guaranty the rest of his $11 million contract), and he won't take it. If he really thinks he's good for another five years, he should take it become a free agent in two years and see how much another team will pony up.

The truth of the matter is he knows that his health will keep him from being a No. 1 WR for 5 more years and is hoping the Jets or someone else will overpay for him.

I'm on record with saying Coles should accept the Jets offer of guaranteeing the final two years of his contract. With that being said, I'm on also record with disagreeing that a player receiving the full amount of his contract should not be considered an amenity or blessing.

 

[thayman]

To be blunt, you do not understand how NFL contracts work.

Actually I think I have a good handle on contract law, but...Care to expand?

An NFL player "chooses to accept the terms offered when he inks the contract" b/c he has no other options. Unlike MLB and NBA contracts, the NFL does not guarantee contracts. Sure...the player could choose to play baseball or basketball, but if he decides to stick with football, he is forced to sign a contract which allows the team to have full discretion of honoring the contract. The player cannot force to be cut. The player cannot force a pay increase. The team, however, can force the player to be cut and, consequently, an immediate pay decrease.I think the word "contract" needs to italicized when discussing the NFL b/c the player is the only participant who is required to abide by the rules of a standard "contract".

Are you also going to italicize the signing "bonus"? O yeah. That part is guaranteed. If a guy sucks does the team get the signing bonus back? No.

For the second time...The bonus is considered part of the total contract. If it's a contract in the traditional sense of the word, why would the player not receive the full value of the contract...whether he underperforms or overperforms?!?!?MLB and NBA follows America's principals of capitalism. NFL has decided to go in another direction.

So you think the NFL should follow the NBA's example?

 

[Kiddnets]

AS A HUGE JET FAN

I agreed with them not caving to Kendall - the problem was not having a fallback option - they should have seen it coming is their only mistake - Kendall has always been a locker room lawyer

Their offer to Coles is fair and reasonable - he has a history of pulling this - he is not the WR he once was

No way they should give him a long term contract - the difference is it is early enough to replace him -

take the money Coles wants and sign Hackett or Berrian - then draft a tall WR in the 1st 3 rds - Cotch, DJ/Berrian with a rook will be just fine this year - get younger not older - Coles is a warrior but he is very close to breaking down. Its a tough decision but one that is the right move IMO

As for the current FO - I'd rather players be angry at them for playing hard ball rather than the Boobway years where he screwed up contracts ala JEtskins purge. FAs will always go to where the money is - not worried at all about that

See ya Coles - go jack some other team...just glad that this came up with enough time for the JEts to react.

 

[Bri]

To be blunt, you do not understand how NFL contracts work.

Actually I think I have a good handle on contract law, but...Care to expand?

An NFL player "chooses to accept the terms offered when he inks the contract" b/c he has no other options. Unlike MLB and NBA contracts, the NFL does not guarantee contracts. Sure...the player could choose to play baseball or basketball, but if he decides to stick with football, he is forced to sign a contract which allows the team to have full discretion of honoring the contract. The player cannot force to be cut. The player cannot force a pay increase. The team, however, can force the player to be cut and, consequently, an immediate pay decrease.I think the word "contract" needs to italicized when discussing the NFL b/c the player is the only participant who is required to abide by the rules of a standard "contract".

Are you also going to italicize the signing "bonus"? O yeah. That part is guaranteed. If a guy sucks does the team get the signing bonus back? No.

If a player doesn't fulfill the playing time in his contract by his own choosing, yes some must be given back.Vick (or just his lawyers) went to court over his for example.Ricky owed the Fins this IIRCI don't think suspension is a valid reason but I'm not sure. Suppose the Titans have "had it" with Pacman and cut him. I don't think they can get some of his signing bonus back as the NFL (in a way) is the one that stopped him from playing by suspending him. (I know I know and I can't stand the guy but....) However if some judge finally puts Pacman in jail for a long stay, then they probably could.

 

[Bri]

He's 30 and an NFL WR.....rest is pretty much expected

feels it's his last pay day

Jets worry how long he'll hold up etc.

I think he's excellent and the Jets would be terrible without him.

 

[Balco]

Jets offered to guarantee the last two years and he still wants a new contract. Look to trade him, if anyone will take him, if not they can cut him. i am sure he will get a huge contract from some team

 

[Weiner Dog]

Last year, Coles was having a GREAT season before injuring himself in Week 8. Thru the first 7 games, Coles was on pace for a 95-1050-14 season. He then played with a high-ankle sprain and concussion for much of the season.

 

[Bri]

Jets offered to guarantee the last two years and he still wants a new contract. Look to trade him, if anyone will take him, if not they can cut him. i am sure he will get a huge contract from some team

(To quote one of a few cut suggestions)I don't imagine cutting him is an option the Jets consider. Work on new deal/renegotiate, trade, or "tough" play for your current dealI don't think Coles can be a problem player to the rest of the team. He might sit some of camp or somesuch but being away is not the same as ruffling feathers and being a headache. He comes across as a nice guy and I think the Jets know that and bank on that in these negotiations.They get nothing for cutting him and even take a cap hit for cutting him. I don't see any gain for the Jets in cutting him

 

[Bri]

Last year, Coles was having a GREAT season before injuring himself in Week 8. Thru the first 7 games, Coles was on pace for a 95-1050-14 season. He then played with a high-ankle sprain and concussion for much of the season.

He is so darn quick and recognizes the soft spot in zones so quickly, he sometimes seems to get 5-6 yard catches at will.Welker's the only other one I can think of that does this so easily and with the same sorta you know it's coming but the D still can't stop it type of effectiveness.Granted the Jets need more than 5-6 yards on many occasions but it's sure nice to have a gimme play in the playbook.

 

[zamboni]

Last year, Coles was having a GREAT season before injuring himself in Week 8. Thru the first 7 games, Coles was on pace for a 95-1050-14 season. He then played with a high-ankle sprain and concussion for much of the season.

Agreed - although that was with Chad, who has mental telepathy with him. In any event, Coles and Mangini have never totally been on the same page, and given the ever-improving Cotchery on the other side, this strikes me as Coles sensing his last opportunity to cash in.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

New England.

Dude is tough as nails, a real BB type of guy.

Plus jamming it to Mangini is always nice for

the Patriot FO.

 

[sheerterror]

New England.Dude is tough as nails, a real BB type of guy.Plus jamming it to Mangini is always nice forthe Patriot FO.

Why would New Englandpay a ton of money fora 30 year old receiver with an injury history looking for a monster paydaywhen they've already got Wes Welker toperform the same role?