Larry Johnson refusing to report to camp (1 Viewer)

[TDavi118]

Anytime anyone signs a written contract, they need to abide by that contract. I pour concrete for a living, and if I violated the terms of a contract between me and the homeowner or business,... well I'd be taken to court and the judge would ask me why I violated the contract... no excuses, I'd be in the wrong, and probably be sued. ALL players should think before they sign on the dotted line. Don't wait a few years and then decide they are worth more than the current contract that they signed years ago. That's immature. He should Honor the contract that he SIGNED. Period.

He's paid less than many backups. He plays a sport and a position that can leave you crippled in your later years. The Chiefs signed him as a backup-he no longer plays that role so why should he be paid as such?Look at it this way-if you were suddenly given a LOT more job responsibilities would you continue to do the job without expecting a pay raise?

I completely understand. But in my opinion,... I would have signed a 1-year contract instead of a multi-year contract knowing that I would have been the starter after that year, or increased workload. After that 1 year, if Priest was still deemed the starter, then I would have signed another 1-year deal, etc,etc. These players are going to have to start thinking before they get pencil-happy.

I understand your viewpoint but it doesn't happen that way. Teams have most of the leverage. You are an unproven talent-if you want to have even the CHANCE to work for them you have to accept their terms. If contracts were guaranteed (as in baseball) then I would agree it is wrong for a player to hold out. Do you get upset when a team cuts a player? How about when they force a player to restructure a contract? In those cases the team is refusing to honor the contract as well. The players that hold out are simply getting what they can before the team screws them over. It's not pretty but that's the way it is.

I agree 100%. And yes, if a team offers a player a multi-year contract, and then decides to not honor the contract by either cutting him or rfusing to pay, then yes, they should be held accountable also for not honoring their side of the contract. I know it's more complicated than I might know, but still, honor thy signed contract....both sides. Whew, my back hurts.

 

[munchkin]

Anytime anyone signs a written contract, they need to abide by that contract. I pour concrete for a living, and if I violated the terms of a contract between me and the homeowner or business,... well I'd be taken to court and the judge would ask me why I violated the contract... no excuses, I'd be in the wrong, and probably be sued. ALL players should think before they sign on the dotted line. Don't wait a few years and then decide they are worth more than the current contract that they signed years ago. That's immature. He should Honor the contract that he SIGNED. Period.

If you signed a contract that would potentially put you out of business you would. It would be better to pay the fine or lose face with the home owner/gc than to put youself out of business.Team owners are quick to ask a non performing/older player to cut his contract, why shouldn't a player of LJ's value be free ask for more coin? Both sides know the consequences of their actions in these negotiations. I can't blame LJ for trying to get a new deal. It may be his only chance.

 

[Jason Wood]

It's a shame these threads always have to take the inevitable "he's got a contract, play for it" turn because it's not at all analogous to the reality of the situation.

 

[vandyt]

Anytime anyone signs a written contract, they need to abide by that contract. I pour concrete for a living, and if I violated the terms of a contract between me and the homeowner or business,... well I'd be taken to court and the judge would ask me why I violated the contract... no excuses, I'd be in the wrong, and probably be sued. ALL players should think before they sign on the dotted line. Don't wait a few years and then decide they are worth more than the current contract that they signed years ago. That's immature. He should Honor the contract that he SIGNED. Period.

Ridiculous comparison.LJ is part of the NFLPA, and because of the collective bargaining agreement the NFLPA has with the NFL, his "contract" is very different from a "contract" you have with a homeowner.

 

[TDavi118]

It's a shame these threads always have to take the inevitable "he's got a contract, play for it" turn because it's not at all analogous to the reality of the situation.

Sorry

 

[Andy Dufresne]

It's a shame these threads always have to take the inevitable "he's got a contract, play for it" turn because it's not at all analogous to the reality of the situation.

Not necessarily. It's an opportunity to explain to people that a "real life" contract isn't a good comparison to an NFL contract.Discussions just like this helped to change my thinking on the subject.

 

[TD Ryan]

It's a shame these threads always have to take the inevitable "he's got a contract, play for it" turn because it's not at all analogous to the reality of the situation.

agreed.so, back on track...How's the Chief's cap situation. Can they pay him? and if not, who CAN?DAL? GB?

 

[joffer]

Anytime anyone signs a written contract, they need to abide by that contract. I pour concrete for a living, and if I violated the terms of a contract between me and the homeowner or business,... well I'd be taken to court and the judge would ask me why I violated the contract... no excuses, I'd be in the wrong, and probably be sued. ALL players should think before they sign on the dotted line. Don't wait a few years and then decide they are worth more than the current contract that they signed years ago. That's immature. He should Honor the contract that he SIGNED. Period.

surprised it took 35 posts for the first "a contract is a contract" post

 

[Andy Dufresne]

No need to pile on, guys.

 

[doomsdaydoc]

He is worthy of a new contract and in the NFL, unlike other leagues, where you can be cut if you make too much, it is important to get guaranteed money when you can. Dallas has a back and a first round pick to trade. The Chiefs could use the Brown's first round pick (via Dallas), to draft a young back next season and get by with JOnes or Barber with Bennett this season. I fully understand what LJ is doing and I have to agree. The injury risk of a RB is severe and you have to get paid while you can. You cannot draw parallels to EDGE as he was a bit past his prime when he left INDY and had a major knee injury. Despite success after his knee surgery, in my opinion he was never quite the same explosive back after he recovered.

 

[Jason Wood]

It's a shame these threads always have to take the inevitable "he's got a contract, play for it" turn because it's not at all analogous to the reality of the situation.

Not necessarily. It's an opportunity to explain to people that a "real life" contract isn't a good comparison to an NFL contract.Discussions just like this helped to change my thinking on the subject.

I'm really glad to hear these discussions have changed your view on this Andy. To be honest, I always wondered if these discussions served a purpose and now, it seems, they do. Objectively, the Chiefs have already acknowledged LJ deserves more money...so the whole "play for your contract" really has no place in the conversation; even the Chiefs know he deserves a raise. It's just a case of HOW MUCH more he deserves; which is where they are apart. According to several reports, Peterson is offering $11-$14mm in guarantees, LJ wants $28mm.

 

[Fullback Fro]

It's a shame these threads always have to take the inevitable "he's got a contract, play for it" turn because it's not at all analogous to the reality of the situation.

Not necessarily. It's an opportunity to explain to people that a "real life" contract isn't a good comparison to an NFL contract.Discussions just like this helped to change my thinking on the subject.

I'm really glad to hear these discussions have changed your view on this Andy. To be honest, I always wondered if these discussions served a purpose and now, it seems, they do. Objectively, the Chiefs have already acknowledged LJ deserves more money...so the whole "play for your contract" really has no place in the conversation; even the Chiefs know he deserves a raise. It's just a case of HOW MUCH more he deserves; which is where they are apart. According to several reports, Peterson is offering $11-$14mm in guarantees, LJ wants $28mm.

LJ is worth and deserves way more than 11-14m. By Peterson offering only that, he is basically saying we are going to trade you. There is no way that LJ plays this year under his current contract. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the Chiefs do not up their offer to 28 mil in guranteed $, he will be traded and Dallas looks like the clear benefactor.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

IMO, athletes are normally in the wrong in regards to holding out.This is not one of those cases. I'd hold out too.

Unless you are a key cog in a team poised to be a top contender for the SB (see: Emmitt Smith, 1993 holdout), you have no leverage whatsoever in negotiating a contract this way.I think it's smart of him to make it known that he wants much more money for the work he is putting in though. I'm just not sure how holding out really helps the situation. Of course, having no other superstars on the time besides Tony G, he might have some extra leverage as ownership wants to insure butts in the seats.

 

[Jason Wood]

It's a shame these threads always have to take the inevitable "he's got a contract, play for it" turn because it's not at all analogous to the reality of the situation.

Not necessarily. It's an opportunity to explain to people that a "real life" contract isn't a good comparison to an NFL contract.Discussions just like this helped to change my thinking on the subject.

I'm really glad to hear these discussions have changed your view on this Andy. To be honest, I always wondered if these discussions served a purpose and now, it seems, they do. Objectively, the Chiefs have already acknowledged LJ deserves more money...so the whole "play for your contract" really has no place in the conversation; even the Chiefs know he deserves a raise. It's just a case of HOW MUCH more he deserves; which is where they are apart. According to several reports, Peterson is offering $11-$14mm in guarantees, LJ wants $28mm.

LJ is worth and deserves way more than 11-14m. By Peterson offering only that, he is basically saying we are going to trade you. There is no way that LJ plays this year under his current contract. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the Chiefs do not up their offer to 28 mil in guranteed $, he will be traded and Dallas looks like the clear benefactor.

How many people have genuinely been willing to hold out and forsake millions of dollars? Has there ever been one? I'm not I just can't think of someone that actually passed up a seven figure income in protest of their contract, despite there being a handful who threaten as much each and every year. I DO, however, think LJ can and will hold out into the regular season (as Emmitt Smith did years ago).

 

[TD Ryan]

LJ is worth and deserves way more than 11-14m. By Peterson offering only that, he is basically saying we are going to trade you. There is no way that LJ plays this year under his current contract. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the Chiefs do not up their offer to 28 mil in guranteed $, he will be traded and Dallas looks like the clear benefactor.

I would assume that the old staple of "(2) 1st-round draft picks" becomes part of the trade talks with LJ.What does DAL have for picks to trade? Do they give up the (2) 1st rounders (and maybe more)?

 

[AnonymousBob]

No need to pile on, guys.

I also think it's good to have these contract discussions. I used to think they should "honor the contract" but it's threads such as these that caused me to change my thinking.

 

[burd]

there's no way KC let's LJ sitout too long ... he's way too important to the team and his gripe is legitimate. they'll meet someone in the middle ... say low 20's guaranteed. but this won't happen until mid-August though.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Why would KC want Julius Jones? Isn't he in the last year of his contract as well?

 

[Fullback Fro]

Why would KC want Julius Jones? Isn't he in the last year of his contract as well?

A trade wouldn't be made without a new contract agreement in place with KC and the Jones Camp, ala Thomas Jones in NYJ.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Anytime anyone signs a written contract, they need to abide by that contract. I pour concrete for a living, and if I violated the terms of a contract between me and the homeowner or business,... well I'd be taken to court and the judge would ask me why I violated the contract... no excuses, I'd be in the wrong, and probably be sued. ALL players should think before they sign on the dotted line. Don't wait a few years and then decide they are worth more than the current contract that they signed years ago. That's immature. He should Honor the contract that he SIGNED. Period.

I think this situation though is more like you sign a contract with a homeowner to pour a sidewalk for them, understanding that they have one of the best guys in the business already hired to pour the foundation for the house. Next thing you know the guy that was hired to pour the foundation has gone out of business and the homeowner tells you that you're now going to pour the foundation too but that he's not going to pay you any more money.And I'm yet another one of the guys that used to say that players that signed contracts should shut up and play, but has come around on that somewhat. I still think that guys like Strahan need to shut up and play. He got plenty of money when he signed his last contract. It's these guys that sign rookie contracts with lower amounts of money and then turn into stars that really need to be paid, especially the RBs. The shelf life for a RB in the NFL is pretty short and then teams just throw them away.

 

[az_prof]

It's a shame these threads always have to take the inevitable "he's got a contract, play for it" turn because it's not at all analogous to the reality of the situation.

Not necessarily. It's an opportunity to explain to people that a "real life" contract isn't a good comparison to an NFL contract.Discussions just like this helped to change my thinking on the subject.

I'm really glad to hear these discussions have changed your view on this Andy. To be honest, I always wondered if these discussions served a purpose and now, it seems, they do. Objectively, the Chiefs have already acknowledged LJ deserves more money...so the whole "play for your contract" really has no place in the conversation; even the Chiefs know he deserves a raise. It's just a case of HOW MUCH more he deserves; which is where they are apart. According to several reports, Peterson is offering $11-$14mm in guarantees, LJ wants $28mm.

LJ is worth and deserves way more than 11-14m. By Peterson offering only that, he is basically saying we are going to trade you. There is no way that LJ plays this year under his current contract. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the Chiefs do not up their offer to 28 mil in guranteed $, he will be traded and Dallas looks like the clear benefactor.

11-14 million puts him the range of people like Edge and Shaun Alexander. I would say that is about right. RBs are not worth as much as some other positions for the very reason that people are using to defend LJ: RBs get hurt. It just is not wise to tie up 20 plus million for a RB. Best for both would be to deal LJ. If he holds out and this is signed at the end of the preseason, it will not be good. He will be out of shape and more likely to get hurt.

 

[Obie Wan]

Anytime anyone signs a written contract, they need to abide by that contract. I pour concrete for a living, and if I violated the terms of a contract between me and the homeowner or business,... well I'd be taken to court and the judge would ask me why I violated the contract... no excuses, I'd be in the wrong, and probably be sued. ALL players should think before they sign on the dotted line. Don't wait a few years and then decide they are worth more than the current contract that they signed years ago. That's immature. He should Honor the contract that he SIGNED. Period.

It sounds harsh, but your analogy doesn't apply because your ability to pour concrete doesn't: 1) a short-term life span, supported by historical evidence; 2) doesn't uniquely define you to be among the five best in the world at this particular skill; and 3) fill Arrowhead Stadium with thousands of supporters wanting to watch you apply 6-mil poly.

I guess should have put those incentives in his contract when he signed it -Maybe he could have gievn up some guaranteed money up front for higher incentives down the road, if he wanted to protect his upside.OR he could take as much as he could up front and just whine about it later.

 

[FavreCo]

I'm with LJ on this one.

Agreed. Who would want to play for the Herminator on a team heading south unless they were going to pay you a ton of $? No passing game what-so-ever and 8 in the box.

 

[nygiants56]

has camp started?? If not, then I think this have been discussed already; actually, it won't even matter until the regular season starts . . . LJ missing a few pre season games is no big deal . . .

btw, if Im Peterson, I trade him and spend cap dollars on rebuilding the team . . . LJ isn't a guy that you want as the "face of the franchise" . . . and he's nearing the AARP age for running backs . . .

got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard on this msg board. You really DON'T watch football games , do you?

LJ is 27.has 892 carries in his career. Age is a factor with RB's ,yes, but so are other factors, such as the amount of carries, type of offense ( does the RB get hit often, or plow thru to the next level and go one-on-one with the CB's,LB's or safties? ..

Tomlinson is 28,has 2050 carries to his name..so, then, according to your infinite wisdom, if LJ is nearing the AARP age for RB's, LT must be half-dead with one foot in the grave pushing up daisies already, I mean, he has over 2000 carries and all, right? but you're the same guy who would bash LJ and praise LT like he is a demi-god...

you are the same guy who said in another post " I don't know how..I don't know why..I don't know when..but..change is coming'..you've got it all figured out, Nostradamus..

please, for the love of GOD, can we check ID's at the door to make sure we keep loonies like this guy , out of here?!

holy crap.

as for LJ, I think KC will trade him, perhaps to GB, a team that reportedly had a $30mil offer to LJ on the table, the day of the NFL draft..Kc could've used the picks GB was offering too..

in the end, tho, I think LJ will be dealt before the season opens..

 

[Z-Dog]

Anytime anyone signs a written contract, they need to abide by that contract. I pour concrete for a living, and if I violated the terms of a contract between me and the homeowner or business,... well I'd be taken to court and the judge would ask me why I violated the contract... no excuses, I'd be in the wrong, and probably be sued. ALL players should think before they sign on the dotted line. Don't wait a few years and then decide they are worth more than the current contract that they signed years ago. That's immature. He should Honor the contract that he SIGNED. Period.

He's paid less than many backups. He plays a sport and a position that can leave you crippled in your later years. The Chiefs signed him as a backup-he no longer plays that role so why should he be paid as such?Look at it this way-if you were suddenly given a LOT more job responsibilities would you continue to do the job without expecting a pay raise?

I completely understand. But in my opinion,... I would have signed a 1-year contract instead of a multi-year contract knowing that I would have been the starter after that year, or increased workload. After that 1 year, if Priest was still deemed the starter, then I would have signed another 1-year deal, etc,etc. These players are going to have to start thinking before they get pencil-happy.

The CBA is the agreement that sets the ground rules for contracts. The CBA says that teams have the right to cut players at will, regardless of their contract, and do not have to pay players the non-guaranteed money left on the contract. The same CBA says that if a player doesn't report for work, the team may fine him a certain amount. There are a bunch more rules about when a player has to report in order to get credit for having played a year (for pension and RFA purposes) and when a team can recover signing bonus money and so forth.The point is that neither a team cutting a player nor a player holding out from a team is actually a breach of contract, it's just a situation that is already contemplated by the contract and CBA that both parties have agreed to.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

has camp started?? If not, then I think this have been discussed already; actually, it won't even matter until the regular season starts . . . LJ missing a few pre season games is no big deal . . .

btw, if Im Peterson, I trade him and spend cap dollars on rebuilding the team . . . LJ isn't a guy that you want as the "face of the franchise" . . . and he's nearing the AARP age for running backs . . .

got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard on this msg board. You really DON'T watch football games , do you?

LJ is 27.has 892 carries in his career. Age is a factor with RB's ,yes, but so are other factors, such as the amount of carries, type of offense ( does the RB get hit often, or plow thru to the next level and go one-on-one with the CB's,LB's or safties? ..

Tomlinson is 28,has 2050 carries to his name..so, then, according to your infinite wisdom, if LJ is nearing the AARP age for RB's, LT must be half-dead with one foot in the grave pushing up daisies already, I mean, he has over 2000 carries and all, right? but you're the same guy who would bash LJ and praise LT like he is a demi-god...

you are the same guy who said in another post " I don't know how..I don't know why..but..change is coming'..you've got it all figured out, Nostradamus..

please, for the love of GOD, can we check ID's at the door to make sure we keep loonies like this guy , out of here?!

holy crap.

Here is the problem with what you said. LT2 got his money 2 or 3 years ago. What you are talking about is giving a RB who is going to be 29 in the first year of his new contract, 28 million dollars guaranteed. The guy is only gonna get used up over the next two seasons and I as a GM would have a very hard time explaining to my owner why we would have to pay a 32 year old RB over 6-7 million a year in guaranteed money. Like it or not backs who play like LJ (upright and hammer the hole) get old very quickly in the NFL. Pat Kirwan wrote a decent article about RBs and their decline once they hit 30.

 

[Sinrman]

First off, I'm one who normally feels that if you sign a contract, you should be obligated. HOWEVER, in the NFL, no contract is guaranteed. This is where there's room for negotiation...

Second, I don't see the Chiefs ponying up the dough. I think ultimately they will be faced with either trading him, or having him sit out for a year.

Third, IF the Chiefs were willing to trade him, I think the list of trading partners is VERY small. GB? I don't think so -- what teams have to consider is that they will have to give up a good deal just to get LJ, but they would also be faced with signing him to a HUGGGGE contract. GB isn't a huge market like a Dallas or New York. Which leads me to believe that IF the Chiefs entertained the idea of a trade, I could definitely see him going to Dallas. Jerry Jones seems just the right person to pull the trigger on a top RB. Very few others would be willing, as they either don't want to immediately face having to sign him to a monster contract, giving up a lot for him, or they already have a decent-enough RB and don't need him as badly...

 

[ravnzfan]

Anytime anyone signs a written contract, they need to abide by that contract. I pour concrete for a living, and if I violated the terms of a contract between me and the homeowner or business,... well I'd be taken to court and the judge would ask me why I violated the contract... no excuses, I'd be in the wrong, and probably be sued. ALL players should think before they sign on the dotted line. Don't wait a few years and then decide they are worth more than the current contract that they signed years ago. That's immature. He should Honor the contract that he SIGNED. Period.

I used to think the same way. But the difference is that you have some recourse if your employer "cuts you from the team" and doesn't fulfill his end of the contract.In the NFL, the money's not guaranteed and a team can cut a player without paying out the contract.

So the comparison is a bit apples and oranges.

well played, AD...the owners and players have created a situation where the "loyalty" some of us once felt needed to be honored went out the window when the contract the OP refers to can be torn up and tossed aside w/yesterday's newspaperIF the contracts were guaranteed and the owners couldn't just drop a player w/no cause, then I aggree the players have an obligation to honor the deal

Ask Robert Edwards about this---he'd be LJ's #1 supporter

 

[Mr. Peterson]

If he holds out for a significant amount of time can Bennett really hold down the job?

No way.

I can't either. If there is no trade which brings in another vet and LJ just holds out then I can't imagine what the Chiefs are gonna do. Bennett is fodder and so are the other Chief RB's. Is there someone in that group that can surprise us all and become a factor?I have the feeling that LJ knows that he is the only RB (or offensive player for that matter) on that team that is any good. The Chiefs are in trouble this year.

 

[ImTheScientist]

has camp started?? If not, then I think this have been discussed already; actually, it won't even matter until the regular season starts . . . LJ missing a few pre season games is no big deal . . .

btw, if Im Peterson, I trade him and spend cap dollars on rebuilding the team . . . LJ isn't a guy that you want as the "face of the franchise" . . . and he's nearing the AARP age for running backs . . .

got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard on this msg board. You really DON'T watch football games , do you?

LJ is 27.has 892 carries in his career. Age is a factor with RB's ,yes, but so are other factors, such as the amount of carries, type of offense ( does the RB get hit often, or plow thru to the next level and go one-on-one with the CB's,LB's or safties? ..

Tomlinson is 28,has 2050 carries to his name..so, then, according to your infinite wisdom, if LJ is nearing the AARP age for RB's, LT must be half-dead with one foot in the grave pushing up daisies already, I mean, he has over 2000 carries and all, right? but you're the same guy who would bash LJ and praise LT like he is a demi-god...

you are the same guy who said in another post " I don't know how..I don't know why..but..change is coming'..you've got it all figured out, Nostradamus..

please, for the love of GOD, can we check ID's at the door to make sure we keep loonies like this guy , out of here?!

holy crap.

Here is the problem with what you said. LT2 got his money 2 or 3 years ago. What you are talking about is giving a RB who is going to be 29 in the first year of his new contract, 28 million dollars guaranteed. The guy is only gonna get used up over the next two seasons and I as a GM would have a very hard time explaining to my owner why we would have to pay a 32 year old RB over 6-7 million a year in guaranteed money. Like it or not backs who play like LJ (upright and hammer the hole) get old very quickly in the NFL. Pat Kirwan wrote a decent article about RBs and their decline once they hit 30.

This is also why he should get a lot closer to 14mil signing bounous and not a 28mil

 

[j3r3m3y]

Anytime anyone signs a written contract, they need to abide by that contract. I pour concrete for a living, and if I violated the terms of a contract between me and the homeowner or business

You aren't one of the top 20 concrete pourers in the world and the homeowner you pour concrete for is not an NFL franchise.I know you both have "contracts" but your "contract" is not really comparable to LJ's. They are apples and oranges.

 

[BigRed]

He's paid less than many backups. He plays a sport and a position that can leave you crippled in your later years.

This is not as common as many imply. And if that's truly such a concern, he should retire. It's not like the money he has now is chicken feed.

The Chiefs signed him as a backup-he no longer plays that role so why should he be paid as such?

The Chiefs signed him as a first round pick and paid him as such. I'm pretty sure they did so with an eye to him being the starter before long, given Priest's age/situation at the time, and I'm sure LJ knew it too.

Look at it this way-if you were suddenly given a LOT more job responsibilities would you continue to do the job without expecting a pay raise?

Funny you should say that as it's happened to me recently and FYI this isn't exactly unheard of in "normal" jobs.I can see both sides here, but basically I'd warm up a lot more to holdouts getting more money when they're playing well if they also agreed to taking a pay cut if they don't play up to the level of pay they get.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

but he's done very little, if anything, to improve the offense.

I don't want to derail this thread, but this is inaccurate, so I must comment.The are returning their entire offensive line from last season. A line which saw three rookies start games. So you think the O line will be worse now that these guys have a year under their belt? And worse when you consider all five starters are coming back?Greg Jennings was a rookie last season. Do you think that was the end of his development and he's not going to improve?The only position on offense they turned over was running back. And frankly, a combination of Morency and Jackson is just as good as an over the hill running back with some major injury baggage.Yes, Green Bay's offense will be better. With or without Larry Johnson.

 

[Gottabesweet]

He's paid less than many backups. He plays a sport and a position that can leave you crippled in your later years.

This is not as common as many imply. And if that's truly such a concern, he should retire. It's not like the money he has now is chicken feed.

The Chiefs signed him as a backup-he no longer plays that role so why should he be paid as such?

The Chiefs signed him as a first round pick and paid him as such. I'm pretty sure they did so with an eye to him being the starter before long, given Priest's age/situation at the time, and I'm sure LJ knew it too.

Look at it this way-if you were suddenly given a LOT more job responsibilities would you continue to do the job without expecting a pay raise?

Funny you should say that as it's happened to me recently and FYI this isn't exactly unheard of in "normal" jobs.I can see both sides here, but basically I'd warm up a lot more to holdouts getting more money when they're playing well if they also agreed to taking a pay cut if they don't play up to the level of pay they get.

When ADP and Lynch sign will this affect LJ's money situation at all?

 

[ImTheScientist]

When ADP and Lynch sign will this affect LJ's money situation at all?

No .... They are rookies

 

[pinequick]

Since this *is* a fantasy football site, after all, what do you guys think the fantasy implications are of each of the following?

1. This all gets worked out, LJ is in camp on time.

2. LJ holds out, misses quite a bit of camp but gets it done and is ready to go for Week 1.

3. LJ holds out well into the regular season (even up to Week 10).

4. LJ is traded.

For each, what's the impact of this news? Who wins? Where's the advantage.

I'm most intrigued by the "LJ misses a considerable amount of time for the Chiefs" (or is traded) scenarios. M. Bennett is the logical beneficiary, but he's so fragile. Is it just a total cluster-f there, or does Bennett represent some value?

 

[duaneok66]

but he's done very little, if anything, to improve the offense.

I don't want to derail this thread, but this is inaccurate, so I must comment.The are returning their entire offensive line from last season. A line which saw three rookies start games. So you think the O line will be worse now that these guys have a year under their belt? And worse when you consider all five starters are coming back?Greg Jennings was a rookie last season. Do you think that was the end of his development and he's not going to improve?The only position on offense they turned over was running back. And frankly, a combination of Morency and Jackson is just as good as an over the hill running back with some major injury baggage.Yes, Green Bay's offense will be better. With or without Larry Johnson.

agree about the offensive line, they will be very good this year . . .subsequently, Morency/Jackson will do well this year . . .

 

[TD Ryan]

M. Bennett is the logical beneficiary, but he's so fragile. Is it just a total cluster-f there, or does Bennett represent some value?

a crappy RB on a weak offensive team.Bennett's only value is that he's a "starting" RB.doesn't sound very promising to me.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Okay, we've hijacked this enough. Let's save these arguments for the next player that holds out.

Which team can:

A) Afford to sign LJ to a contract he will be happy with? Which teams have that kinda cap room?

B) Give up enough to get LJ? Who has players/draft picks to spare?

If the Chiefs were going to trade this guy why didn't they do it closer to draft day? I would think that would be a better time for all parties involved. It's not like Peterson can say he couldn't see this coming.

 

[ravnzfan]

He's paid less than many backups. He plays a sport and a position that can leave you crippled in your later years.

This is not as common as many imply. And if that's truly such a concern, he should retire. It's not like the money he has now is chicken feed.

The Chiefs signed him as a backup-he no longer plays that role so why should he be paid as such?

The Chiefs signed him as a first round pick and paid him as such. I'm pretty sure they did so with an eye to him being the starter before long, given Priest's age/situation at the time, and I'm sure LJ knew it too.

Look at it this way-if you were suddenly given a LOT more job responsibilities would you continue to do the job without expecting a pay raise?

Funny you should say that as it's happened to me recently and FYI this isn't exactly unheard of in "normal" jobs.I can see both sides here, but basically I'd warm up a lot more to holdouts getting more money when they're playing well if they also agreed to taking a pay cut if they don't play up to the level of pay they get.

I just checked the USA Today salary data-base...the deal Johnson signed as a rookie, the contract he's playing under and in it's final season, paid him as follows:'03...$3.310M bonus, $452K salary

'04....$50K in bonus, $515K salary

'05....$50K in bonus, $628K salary

'06....$50K in bonus, $741K salary

Total compensation...$5.796K or $1,449,000/per yr

Mike Anderson signed a 2 year deal last season to see some part time action here in Baltimore...

2 years/$4M, or $2M/yr

I know, I know...Anderson was a FA and Johnson is under contract...

...the point is if Mr Peterson doesn't remove his head from it's current portal, he can look forward to signing the Mike Andersons' of the world for the money Johnson is scheduled to make this season---or do the right thing and sit down and work out a deal that secures the services for a guy that has truely out played his current contract

 

[AnonymousBob]

Since this *is* a fantasy football site, after all, what do you guys think the fantasy implications are of each of the following?1. This all gets worked out, LJ is in camp on time.2. LJ holds out, misses quite a bit of camp but gets it done and is ready to go for Week 1.3. LJ holds out well into the regular season (even up to Week 10).4. LJ is traded.For each, what's the impact of this news? Who wins? Where's the advantage.I'm most intrigued by the "LJ misses a considerable amount of time for the Chiefs" (or is traded) scenarios. M. Bennett is the logical beneficiary, but he's so fragile. Is it just a total cluster-f there, or does Bennett represent some value?

I know the mere thought of him holding out is likely going to drop his value in our auction league. Value!

 

[kevinray]

Anytime anyone signs a written contract, they need to abide by that contract. I pour concrete for a living, and if I violated the terms of a contract between me and the homeowner or business,... well I'd be taken to court and the judge would ask me why I violated the contract... no excuses, I'd be in the wrong, and probably be sued. ALL players should think before they sign on the dotted line. Don't wait a few years and then decide they are worth more than the current contract that they signed years ago. That's immature. He should Honor the contract that he SIGNED. Period.

He's paid less than many backups. He plays a sport and a position that can leave you crippled in your later years. The Chiefs signed him as a backup-he no longer plays that role so why should he be paid as such?Look at it this way-if you were suddenly given a LOT more job responsibilities would you continue to do the job without expecting a pay raise?

I completely understand. But in my opinion,... I would have signed a 1-year contract instead of a multi-year contract knowing that I would have been the starter after that year, or increased workload. After that 1 year, if Priest was still deemed the starter, then I would have signed another 1-year deal, etc,etc. These players are going to have to start thinking before they get pencil-happy.

In normal contractual law after the other party signed they wouldn't just be able to back out on a long term project just because they feel like it. The NFL players can't hold the team to their end of the deal if the team wants to cut, and LJ has the right to absorb the punishment thats in the deal and do just enough not to be obligated to the chiefs next year.

 

[NoFBinLA]

Anytime anyone signs a written contract, they need to abide by that contract. I pour concrete for a living, and if I violated the terms of a contract between me and the homeowner or business,... well I'd be taken to court and the judge would ask me why I violated the contract... no excuses, I'd be in the wrong, and probably be sued. ALL players should think before they sign on the dotted line. Don't wait a few years and then decide they are worth more than the current contract that they signed years ago. That's immature. He should Honor the contract that he SIGNED. Period.

I used to think the same way. But the difference is that you have some recourse if your employer "cuts you from the team" and doesn't fulfill his end of the contract.In the NFL, the money's not guaranteed and a team can cut a player without paying out the contract.So the comparison is a bit apples and oranges.

Also, if you decide to leave after the contract - your employer can't make you stay another year as opposed to looking for other - and better paying - employment.

 

[*****]

The CBA is the agreement that sets the ground rules for contracts. The CBA says that teams have the right to cut players at will, regardless of their contract, and do not have to pay players the non-guaranteed money left on the contract. The same CBA says that if a player doesn't report for work, the team may fine him a certain amount. There are a bunch more rules about when a player has to report in order to get credit for having played a year (for pension and RFA purposes) and when a team can recover signing bonus money and so forth.The point is that neither a team cutting a player nor a player holding out from a team is actually a breach of contract, it's just a situation that is already contemplated by the contract and CBA that both parties have agreed to.

In the law, there is something called an efficient breach which encourages certain "losing contracts" to be breached. The idea is basically that sometimes breaching a contract is the most efficient and proper outcome. For example, say you have a contract to supply cement to Mr. Smith for $1 and the likely penalty at trial for breach of the contract is $2 for failing to supply the cement on time at that price. Now say that you can supply that cement to another building for $10 on the open market (because the demand for (ie, value of) your services went up dramatically). In law school (and business school) they'd teach you that the right thing to do is breach the first contract, collect the profit on the new job and risk paying the $2 damages for the breach (paying the damages but also collecting the higher profit is the best business decision).Larry Johnson is basically doing the same thing. If he breaches the contract by holding out, he has to pay a fine and loses paychecks for each game he misses. But, if the value of his services has increased such that he can get a new large contract by holding hout, then that is really the most efficient course of action available to him.If you think about, when a hold out fails, it is usually because the player has miscalculated the extent to which the value of their services has increased and holding out for too many games begins to cost more than the value of the raise they are likely to get. When a holdout succeeds, it is usually because the hodlout is way underpaid and they are not losing that much by holding out (because their contract and its checks are so small).

 

[Lash]

mini-poll

LJ to the Titans for LenDale and/or Brown and a nice pick ? (if i'm not mistaken the Titans have the cap to pay him)

LJ to Dallas for Julius or Barber and a nice pick ?

LJ to GB for BJax or Morency and a nice pick ?

LJ to NYG for Jacobs (Christian Okoye II) and a decent pick ?

LJ to CHI for Benson and a decent pick ?

LJ to a team unnamed above ?

LJ plays for KC ?

LJ sits the year and becomes FA ?

i vote (with my heart) and pick the Titans

 

[Gr00vus]

Sorry if I missed it, but what's Johnson's compensation under this contract for this season?From OP (thanks Fatness):

The Chiefs believe Johnson already has a contract, which has one year remaining on it, scheduled to pay the running back over $1.9 million this season.

I could see him sitting out the year. He'll make up the $2 mil easy in his next contract, and it's possibly not worth getting pounded into meal this season for.Johnson's definitely holding the cards here.

 

[Family Matters]

Anytime anyone signs a written contract, they need to abide by that contract. I pour concrete for a living, and if I violated the terms of a contract between me and the homeowner or business,... well I'd be taken to court and the judge would ask me why I violated the contract... no excuses, I'd be in the wrong, and probably be sued. ALL players should think before they sign on the dotted line. Don't wait a few years and then decide they are worth more than the current contract that they signed years ago. That's immature. He should Honor the contract that he SIGNED. Period.

He's paid less than many backups. He plays a sport and a position that can leave you crippled in your later years. The Chiefs signed him as a backup-he no longer plays that role so why should he be paid as such?Look at it this way-if you were suddenly given a LOT more job responsibilities would you continue to do the job without expecting a pay raise?

I completely understand. But in my opinion,... I would have signed a 1-year contract instead of a multi-year contract knowing that I would have been the starter after that year, or increased workload. After that 1 year, if Priest was still deemed the starter, then I would have signed another 1-year deal, etc,etc. These players are going to have to start thinking before they get pencil-happy.

I understand your viewpoint but it doesn't happen that way. Teams have most of the leverage. You are an unproven talent-if you want to have even the CHANCE to work for them you have to accept their terms. If contracts were guaranteed (as in baseball) then I would agree it is wrong for a player to hold out. Do you get upset when a team cuts a player? How about when they force a player to restructure a contract? In those cases the team is refusing to honor the contract as well. The players that hold out are simply getting what they can before the team screws them over. It's not pretty but that's the way it is.

Let me add to this. Teams don't just have leverage, they own you. LJ didn't have any ptions other than these:1. Sign a 4 year deal.2. Sign a 5 year deal.3. Don't sign and stay home.I could be off slightly but I think htese are the rookie options. It's like this due to the CBA and players have no say in what's available to them. LJ has little leverage except in the court of public opinion and for what's been established as reasonable by other transactions. But the bottom line is that KC has him by the shorts.Someone mentioned the Walker case and that's a perfect example. He had to play and he got hurt. GB basically dumped him and he while he got a FA deal in Denver, the value was somewhat deminished by the injury he suffered in his last year of the GB deal. There was nothing he could do. And what if he got permanently hurt? He's screwed. So before you go off on LJ suggesting he's not honoring his contract, remember that the NFL has all of them by the short hairs. In fact they can cut any player at any time regardless of many years remain on their contracts and the players have little recourse. The money they've been paid is all they have to show for what they've done and even that can be at risk under certain circumstances.It's not always as it seems my friend.

 

[Family Matters]

btw, if Im Peterson, I trade him and spend cap dollars on rebuilding the team . . . LJ isn't a guy that you want as the "face of the franchise" . . . and he's nearing the AARP age for running backs . . .

Depending on what you could get, I would too. The cap hit wouldn't be huge given his contract.Problem is, what would another team be willing to give up for a disgruntled running back?

To what end do the Chiefs benefit from trading Johnson? He's irreplaceable for what they would get back in trade (most likely), is in his prime and deserves more money. They could easily give him a new deal within the parameters of an NFL budget that should still be able to contend. Removing Johnson from the equation could be disastrous on many levels. With changes on the O-line, and the desire to build up a new young QB, the Chiefs could end up shattering Croyle's development and turning the offense so pedestrian that any potential improvements on defense will be obfuscated.

Depends on how bad of shape you think the Chiefs are in. And like I said, it would depend on what you could get in return.

The reason so few NFL trades are ever viewed "equally" is, as you know, because intentions are often transparent. No team is going to race to overwhelm Peterson with an offer for LJ, particularly this late in the offseason. The only thing a team would be willing to do, MAYBE, is trade '08 and '09 picks, which would be hard to explain away if your CP unless you're willing to admit to the fans that the Chiefs need to be worse before they get better.

What needs said here is that this isn't about what LJ is worth. As far as KC is concerned this will only be about what LJ is worth during trade discussions. What this is about is how much KC is willing to pay. It's as simple as that. They will have to decide if they are willing to pay fair market money to LJ. If not and if he insists on fair market then this will get ugly. There could be some compromise that makes them both happy but we'll have to see if that exists. My guess is LJ will have to make more concessions than KC.Remember the Gates deal? SD played hardball wile Gates wanted to paid like a top TE? Well Gates got top TE guarenteed money but he had to compromise by doing a longer term which is what SD wanted. I can see something similar happening here only with bigger money involved due to the higher cap dollars.

 

[cowboy homer]

LJ is worth and deserves way more than 11-14m. By Peterson offering only that, he is basically saying we are going to trade you. There is no way that LJ plays this year under his current contract. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the Chiefs do not up their offer to 28 mil in guranteed $, he will be traded and Dallas looks like the clear benefactor.

I would assume that the old staple of "(2) 1st-round draft picks" becomes part of the trade talks with LJ.What does DAL have for picks to trade? Do they give up the (2) 1st rounders (and maybe more)?

What if they trade LJ to Dallas and use a first round pick to get Turner from SD? That would make sense to me especially since I own both Turner and LJ

 

[BoltBacker]

What this is about is how much KC is willing to pay. It's as simple as that. They will have to decide if they are willing to pay fair market money to LJ. If not and if he insists on fair market then this will get ugly. There could be some compromise that makes them both happy but we'll have to see if that exists. My guess is LJ will have to make more concessions than KC.Remember the Gates deal? SD played hardball wile Gates wanted to paid like a top TE? Well Gates got top TE guarenteed money but he had to compromise by doing a longer term which is what SD wanted. I can see something similar happening here only with bigger money involved due to the higher cap dollars.

Disagree strongly in both regards.LJ has never made it sound like Kansas City the city or the franchise is his long-term choice as a place to play. Hasn't he publicly said he didn't fit into the community in the past? If LJ sat the first half of the season he'd still have plenty of takers once he hits the market while KC would pretty much lose an entire season if LJ chose to sit. KC has more to lose in this situation. KC is more likely to bend imo. The Gates deal was different for several reasons;- part of the higher $ will be due to higher cap dollars as you mention but a much bigger difference is the fact LJ is a franchise RB. If he wants to be paid in the same ballpark as other franchise RB's(LT in particular) that's a huge departure from top TE $. A much bigger financial commitment especially with regard to signing bonus.- at the time of the Gates negotiation he had only one great year on his resume(and hadn't broken 1000 yards) compared to LJ's two years of domination. LJ's earned his $ more than Gates had at the time of his negotiation.- Gates was 25yo so SD was definitely interested in a long-term six year deal. Is it realistic to assume Gates would be playing at a high level at the ripe old age of 31 in the waning years of his contract? I think so. More likely than LJ will still be earning his $ at the age of 34. KC will be required to give LJ a giant signing bonus but realistically only has 2-3 more years of LJ at his prime to spread that huge signing bonus out.I'm very careful to avoid criticizing KC in this situation despite the fact LJ has earned his extension based on his play on the field. The team that LJ plays for next year is going to have to make a huge financial commitment for a guy that will be 29yo and will likely be declining in a year or two. IMO KC has already answered the question whether or not they are willing to pay what the market will be for LJ by not giving him his extension. The question is asked and answered.