Why can't these stinking people honor their contracts! (1 Viewer)

[az_prof]

Michael TurnerBeanie WellsAdrian WilsonAhmad BradshawDeAngelo HallEarly DoucetJames HarrisonCharles WoodsonBart ScottNick Barnettetc..etc...etcAll these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?

My understanding is that Beannie Wells was cut; so was Doucet; Bradshaw is a FA.The one you might complain about is Percy Harvin demanding a trade.On the other hand, there are many examples of the Teams breaking contracts and releasing players before the contract is complete.How about this? Contracts cannot be broken by team or player? Period. I would love to see this as it would force both sides to really think twice about the longterm implications of a contract. And it would hopefully result in stars staying with the same team longer, with much less drama.

 

[B-Deep]

Michael TurnerBeanie WellsAdrian WilsonAhmad BradshawDeAngelo HallEarly DoucetJames HarrisonCharles WoodsonBart ScottNick Barnettetc..etc...etcAll these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?

My understanding is that Beannie Wells was cut; so was Doucet; Bradshaw is a FA.The one you might complain about is Percy Harvin demanding a trade.On the other hand, there are many examples of the Teams breaking contracts and releasing players before the contract is complete.How about this? Contracts cannot be broken by team or player? Period. I would love to see this as it would force both sides to really think twice about the longterm implications of a contract. And it would hopefully result in stars staying with the same team longer, with much less drama.

Guaranteed contracts are a HORRIBLE idea

 

[comfortably numb]

I really dont think the educated fans get upset when a player holds out. Only sometimes when it is an idiot like Terrell Owens who signs a 7 year deal and then wants more money after the first year.

...

As for teams cutting players, when a player isn't worth what he is making he gets cut. When a player pisses a team off he gets cut. What's the problem exactly?

Part of this is understanding the structure of the deals, and I think the whole point of the OP. No one here is talking about what can and can't be done "legally" - but rather how the average fan perceives it. TO is a perfect example. He signed a 7 yr, $49m deal and that's what the fan thinks, and views him as greedy. But the reality is that his contract was especially backloaded (most NFL contracts are) and I believe even had very little guaranteed. Again, fuzzy on the numbers and couldn't find details in my brief search, but I believe it was something like $10m guaranteed and about $1m each the first two years of the contract. In later years of his contract, his salary would keep escalating up to $10-12m a year.

What this means is that everyone involved knows that it's not REALLY a 7yr, $49m contract. He was clearly either going to have to restructure or more likely be cut. I believe the common belief based on the deal structure that it was always, in reality, a 2yr/12m contract.

Again, I think the point of the OP was to point out the hypocrisy here. For the most part, the owners (who are richer than everyone) get a pass when they take action afforded to them by the CBA, but demonizes the player when he uses his available options. NFL players may be paid a lot, but their earning window is very small... certainly compared to the owners.

CorrectAnd I know this has been beat to death 100 times, so I apologize for clouding the pool.

But on a day when many players who are expecting to be making X and playing for X in 2013 suddenly get a termination letter or have to restructure a contract due to poor play in 2012 (i.e SHolmes) no ones is claiming why don't the owners honor the contract THEY signed.

Perhaps I don't understand the legalities of contract as a whole to grasp this concept, but when a player holds out for more money on a contract he signed, the fans think they are greedy, but when a owner cuts a player to save money it is simply just business.

I get it's how the game goes and I actually like it this way on both sides, but no one seems to have the same care when a player is set to make 5M this year is just cut.

I swear it's nothing personal, so don't take this as an internet dig, but the answer to all your questions is that you are just an idiot.I'm just keepin' it real -- try to take this as constructive criticism.

maybe in the future spend less time posting about things and spend more time reading about things.

I have no problem admitting you are smarter than me. I am not trolling. Just not seeing what I am missing.

 

[psychobillies]

Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?

when a player wants a new contract they are not being unreasonable, this is how the system worksbut when a player wants a new contract the team wants to save cash, s they are willing to let it look like the player is greedy. And fans look at the millions a player is making already and it seems obvious the player is just being greedy

the system works and works pretty well, many people just have a distorted view of it

correct, just seems one likes to hear when the player wants to end his current deal and start a new one, people get up in arms.

When a team wants to cut or renegotiate a deal it's business

No, it really isn't correct. As soon as a player is willing to return the pro rated portion of his bonuses for the amount of time left on a contract, then maybe they are being reasonable. They get enormous amounts of money up front that binds them to the team for whatever length of time they agreed to. When a team cuts a player with time left, they don't get the signing bonus back. I'm shocked that this concept still eludes people. It's really very simple.

the contract in now way obligates them to playchoosing not to play is their right

Tell that to Barry Sanders. They don't have to play, but what if Drew Brees took a check for 60 million, and just never showed up at camp? Don't you thimk they would have the right to sue him for the money back? What is Manning signs with Denver, takes the cash, and then promptly retires? Have you seen the penalties these guys pay during a hold out?

if the bonus is a signing bonus then by nature of signing they earned it

Really?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I really dont think the educated fans get upset when a player holds out. Only sometimes when it is an idiot like Terrell Owens who signs a 7 year deal and then wants more money after the first year.

...

As for teams cutting players, when a player isn't worth what he is making he gets cut. When a player pisses a team off he gets cut. What's the problem exactly?

Part of this is understanding the structure of the deals, and I think the whole point of the OP. No one here is talking about what can and can't be done "legally" - but rather how the average fan perceives it. TO is a perfect example. He signed a 7 yr, $49m deal and that's what the fan thinks, and views him as greedy. But the reality is that his contract was especially backloaded (most NFL contracts are) and I believe even had very little guaranteed. Again, fuzzy on the numbers and couldn't find details in my brief search, but I believe it was something like $10m guaranteed and about $1m each the first two years of the contract. In later years of his contract, his salary would keep escalating up to $10-12m a year.

What this means is that everyone involved knows that it's not REALLY a 7yr, $49m contract. He was clearly either going to have to restructure or more likely be cut. I believe the common belief based on the deal structure that it was always, in reality, a 2yr/12m contract.

Again, I think the point of the OP was to point out the hypocrisy here. For the most part, the owners (who are richer than everyone) get a pass when they take action afforded to them by the CBA, but demonizes the player when he uses his available options. NFL players may be paid a lot, but their earning window is very small... certainly compared to the owners.

CorrectAnd I know this has been beat to death 100 times, so I apologize for clouding the pool.

But on a day when many players who are expecting to be making X and playing for X in 2013 suddenly get a termination letter or have to restructure a contract due to poor play in 2012 (i.e SHolmes) no ones is claiming why don't the owners honor the contract THEY signed.

Perhaps I don't understand the legalities of contract as a whole to grasp this concept, but when a player holds out for more money on a contract he signed, the fans think they are greedy, but when a owner cuts a player to save money it is simply just business.

I get it's how the game goes and I actually like it this way on both sides, but no one seems to have the same care when a player is set to make 5M this year is just cut.

I swear it's nothing personal, so don't take this as an internet dig, but the answer to all your questions is that you are just an idiot.I'm just keepin' it real -- try to take this as constructive criticism.

maybe in the future spend less time posting about things and spend more time reading about things.

I have no problem admitting you are smarter than me. I am not trolling. Just not seeing what I am missing.

yeah, I was afraid you'd take that the wrong way.this is not an internet competition, I'm not propping myself up by standing beside a midget, or trying to insult you in any way --- I'm nearly as dumb as you are for wasting a couple minutes replying to this nonsense trolling.

it's not about me being any smarter than you -- it's that everyone is.

I know this one chick who doesn't follow football, and she'd have absolutely no clue about any of this.

in fact, she might even agree with everything you posted, but I wouldn't say she's dumb just because of that, since she doesn't know #### about the nfl.

you, on the other hand, have accumulated 11k posts in 10+ years of belonging to a message board dedicated to fantasy football, which further implies that you have followed football for 10+ years, and still have no idea wtf you are talking about.

after reading this board for 10+ years, and following the sport for 10+ years, you are basically the equal of that clueless chick.

the entire premise of this thread is nonsense, but even in that context.....even in that context....you picked santonio holmes out of 100 guys as your example??

you are a dumb person --- I am not insulting or offending you, but answering your questions.

all these problems and inequities exist in your mind.

take the time you would be making those 11k nonsense complaints and use it to read up on the subject, and all these problems and inequities will vanish.

problem solved.

 

[B-Deep]

Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?

when a player wants a new contract they are not being unreasonable, this is how the system worksbut when a player wants a new contract the team wants to save cash, s they are willing to let it look like the player is greedy. And fans look at the millions a player is making already and it seems obvious the player is just being greedy

the system works and works pretty well, many people just have a distorted view of it

correct, just seems one likes to hear when the player wants to end his current deal and start a new one, people get up in arms.

When a team wants to cut or renegotiate a deal it's business

No, it really isn't correct. As soon as a player is willing to return the pro rated portion of his bonuses for the amount of time left on a contract, then maybe they are being reasonable. They get enormous amounts of money up front that binds them to the team for whatever length of time they agreed to. When a team cuts a player with time left, they don't get the signing bonus back. I'm shocked that this concept still eludes people. It's really very simple.

the contract in now way obligates them to playchoosing not to play is their right

Tell that to Barry Sanders. They don't have to play, but what if Drew Brees took a check for 60 million, and just never showed up at camp? Don't you thimk they would have the right to sue him for the money back? What is Manning signs with Denver, takes the cash, and then promptly retires? Have you seen the penalties these guys pay during a hold out?

if the bonus is a signing bonus then by nature of signing they earned it

Really?

well...of courseif you are given a signing bonus for signing a contract

and you sign the contract

than yes, you have earned the bonus

likewise if you are given a roster bonus for being on the roster 4/1/2013 then if you are on the roster 4/1/2013 you have earned the bonus

it may have been stupid for a team to give you either bonus, but you earned them

 

[comfortably numb]

I really dont think the educated fans get upset when a player holds out. Only sometimes when it is an idiot like Terrell Owens who signs a 7 year deal and then wants more money after the first year.

...

As for teams cutting players, when a player isn't worth what he is making he gets cut. When a player pisses a team off he gets cut. What's the problem exactly?

Part of this is understanding the structure of the deals, and I think the whole point of the OP. No one here is talking about what can and can't be done "legally" - but rather how the average fan perceives it. TO is a perfect example. He signed a 7 yr, $49m deal and that's what the fan thinks, and views him as greedy. But the reality is that his contract was especially backloaded (most NFL contracts are) and I believe even had very little guaranteed. Again, fuzzy on the numbers and couldn't find details in my brief search, but I believe it was something like $10m guaranteed and about $1m each the first two years of the contract. In later years of his contract, his salary would keep escalating up to $10-12m a year.

What this means is that everyone involved knows that it's not REALLY a 7yr, $49m contract. He was clearly either going to have to restructure or more likely be cut. I believe the common belief based on the deal structure that it was always, in reality, a 2yr/12m contract.

Again, I think the point of the OP was to point out the hypocrisy here. For the most part, the owners (who are richer than everyone) get a pass when they take action afforded to them by the CBA, but demonizes the player when he uses his available options. NFL players may be paid a lot, but their earning window is very small... certainly compared to the owners.

CorrectAnd I know this has been beat to death 100 times, so I apologize for clouding the pool.

But on a day when many players who are expecting to be making X and playing for X in 2013 suddenly get a termination letter or have to restructure a contract due to poor play in 2012 (i.e SHolmes) no ones is claiming why don't the owners honor the contract THEY signed.

Perhaps I don't understand the legalities of contract as a whole to grasp this concept, but when a player holds out for more money on a contract he signed, the fans think they are greedy, but when a owner cuts a player to save money it is simply just business.

I get it's how the game goes and I actually like it this way on both sides, but no one seems to have the same care when a player is set to make 5M this year is just cut.

I swear it's nothing personal, so don't take this as an internet dig, but the answer to all your questions is that you are just an idiot.I'm just keepin' it real -- try to take this as constructive criticism.

maybe in the future spend less time posting about things and spend more time reading about things.

I have no problem admitting you are smarter than me. I am not trolling. Just not seeing what I am missing.

yeah, I was afraid you'd take that the wrong way.this is not an internet competition, I'm not propping myself up by standing beside a midget, or trying to insult you in any way --- I'm nearly as dumb as you are for wasting a couple minutes replying to this nonsense trolling.

it's not about me being any smarter than you -- it's that everyone is.

I know this one chick who doesn't follow football, and she'd have absolutely no clue about any of this.

in fact, she might even agree with everything you posted, but I wouldn't say she's dumb just because of that, since she doesn't know #### about the nfl.

you, on the other hand, have accumulated 11k posts in 10+ years of belonging to a message board dedicated to fantasy football, which further implies that you have followed football for 10+ years, and still have no idea wtf you are talking about.

after reading this board for 10+ years, and following the sport for 10+ years, you are basically the equal of that clueless chick.

the entire premise of this thread is nonsense, but even in that context.....even in that context....you picked santonio holmes out of 100 guys as your example??

you are a dumb person --- I am not insulting or offending you, but answering your questions.

all these problems and inequities exist in your mind.

take the time you would be making those 11k nonsense complaints and use it to read up on the subject, and all these problems and inequities will vanish.

problem solved.

thanks for the insults

just not seeing it though

Main part i'm bringing up is owners void contracts just as players want to void theirs.

No one ever cares when owners do it.

Holmes is the only example I used?

Holmes was going to make 11M this year.

7.5M guaranteed by NYJ if they cut him (minus a new team 2013 pay)

If Holmes was only guaranteed 1M this year he would have been axed and no one would care.

If he caught 18TDs he would probably be holding out for a new deal and people would complain he signed a new deal 2 years ago he should honor it.

 

[BroadwayG]

Why do all players hate the franchise tag?

 

[B-Deep]

Why do all players hate the franchise tag?

it is one yearif something bad happens they may not be able to sign another big contract

 

[BroadwayG]

Why do all players hate the franchise tag?

it is one yearif something bad happens they may not be able to sign another big contract

Wouldn't that be an ideal situation for a player? Perennially being near the top of your positional pay scale. Never having to worry about being underpaid or cut.

 

[dehaven123]

Why do all players hate the franchise tag?

it is one yearif something bad happens they may not be able to sign another big contract

Wouldn't that be an ideal situation for a player? Perennially being near the top of your positional pay scale. Never having to worry about being underpaid or cut.

signing bonus on a new deal is what they want, not the stress of being on a 1yr deal in a life threatening industry. in these players cases(franchise player candidates), signing bonus almost always exceeds the 1yr deal salary.

 

[BroadwayG]

Why do all players hate the franchise tag?

it is one yearif something bad happens they may not be able to sign another big contract

Wouldn't that be an ideal situation for a player? Perennially being near the top of your positional pay scale. Never having to worry about being underpaid or cut.

signing bonus on a new deal is what they want, not the stress of being on a 1yr deal in a life threatening industry. in these players cases(franchise player candidates), signing bonus almost always exceeds the 1yr deal salary.

I thought the players weren't interested in injury insurance money, they wanted to be able to void contracts.