Why I hate football players (1 Viewer)

[GridironMenace]

You have Desean Jackson holding out, Chris Johnson holding out. Osi Umenyiora acting like a complete jackhole. Courtney Finnegan walking out of camp. Players like Matt Forte threatening to hold out. I could go on and on. Since when is a 4 year deal a 3 year deal? What gives these divas the entitlement to demand a new contract 1 year before it expires? A 4 year deal is a 4 year deal. You get a ton of money upfront to play every year in that contract, so play it out. I'm just so sick of these morons.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

You have Desean Jackson holding out, Chris Johnson holding out. Osi Umenyiora acting like a complete jackhole. Courtney Finnegan walking out of camp. Players like Matt Forte threatening to hold out. I could go on and on. Since when is a 4 year deal a 3 year deal? What gives these divas the entitlement to demand a new contract 1 year before it expires? A 4 year deal is a 4 year deal. You get a ton of money upfront to play every year in that contract, so play it out. I'm just so sick of these morons.

Because the team can, at any time, terminate the contract if they so wish. It's not a two-way street.I would love to see a shift in contracts towards shorter 1-2 year deals being the norm to better reflect the changing landscape of NFL play.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

You have Desean Jackson holding out, Chris Johnson holding out. Osi Umenyiora acting like a complete jackhole. Courtney Finnegan walking out of camp. Players like Matt Forte threatening to hold out. I could go on and on. Since when is a 4 year deal a 3 year deal? What gives these divas the entitlement to demand a new contract 1 year before it expires? A 4 year deal is a 4 year deal. You get a ton of money upfront to play every year in that contract, so play it out. I'm just so sick of these morons.

So when Chris Johnson blows out his knee, he will get paid for those three years as well, correct?

 

[massraider]

People break contracts in almost every field that has contracts. Including NFL owners. Especially NFL owners.

Can I get a quick link to you complaining about teams cutting players before their contract is up? If no such link exists, than frankly, you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[bonesman]

:IBTL:

 

[Joe Bryant]

You have Desean Jackson holding out, Chris Johnson holding out. Osi Umenyiora acting like a complete jackhole. Courtney Finnegan walking out of camp. Players like Matt Forte threatening to hold out. I could go on and on. Since when is a 4 year deal a 3 year deal? What gives these divas the entitlement to demand a new contract 1 year before it expires? A 4 year deal is a 4 year deal. You get a ton of money upfront to play every year in that contract, so play it out. I'm just so sick of these morons.

Hi Gridiron,I hear you. But the way to think about it is that both sides effectively have the right to change the contract.A team can decide they don't want to continue paying a player at the agreed upon salary.The player can decide he doesn't want to continue playing at the agreed upon salary.In most cases, it works itself out pretty fairly. A team might get a year underpaying a guy and a guy may get a year of being overpaid by the team, but it usually evens out and it's usually a pretty even 2 way street.Don't let it bother you.J

 

[Novice2]

:IBTL:

A place to vent about rich people is needed.

 

[bonesman]

:IBTL:

A place to vent about rich people is needed.

damn RICHERS!

utrage:

 

[DaveGrumbles]

And no one should ever get divorced either. I mean they made a vow for life, right? People's minds change, their needs change...who knows? I've always found it strange that people get so worked up about the finances or personal decisions of strangers. If I feel that I have the leverage to increase my income during my prime earning years then that's a decision that I make for myself and my family. Why should that be any different for an athlete, actor, those jersey shore d-bags, or anyone other famous person? Who cares? I'm a football fan, not a 'complete strangers personal lives' fan. What these guys do on the field interests me, their financial decisions do not.

 

[JuSt CuZ]

:IBTL:

A place to vent about rich people is needed.

damn RICHERS!

utrage:

They are not called "Rich", they are called Job Creators.

 

[GridironMenace]

So when Chris Johnson blows out his knee, he will get paid for those three years as well, correct?

Because the team can, at any time, terminate the contract if they so wish. It's not a two-way street.

And I'm sick of this defense. NFL contracts are front loaded. They get a signing bonus because injuries can occur. That is the players' protection. By taking the signing bonus and settling for less yearly compensation, you, by signing the contract, are accepting the excessive guaranteed money with the full knowledge that you may get hurt and ownership may release you at any time. I am quite sure the owners would be willing to work out a deal in which they average out the signing bonus over the length of the deal, if the player wants more yearly salary. I'm also quite sure that the players would never do that.Also, I don't want to hear the injury defense. Injuries can occur at any time. Signing a new contract doesn't guarantee players that they won't get hurt. It just gives them more guaranteed money in case they do. By signing their previous contract aren't they accepting that same risk? Aren't they saying that they are willing to play 4 years (for example) and risk injury when they signed their current contract? I bet the Oakland Raiders wish they could get back all that cash they gave Jamarcus Russell. You think Osi Umenyiora is a top 5 DE and should be paid like it? Don't you think Albert Haynesworth owes Washington some money? You have players overvaluing themselves and sitting out demanding to receive something they aren't worth.Bottom line, is play out your damn contract. You'll get paid once your contract is up. Don't make ridiculous demands of an extension if the team doesn't want to sign you longterm. You signed a longterm deal to begin with, with an extraordinary amount of guaranteed money. You'll get another one when your contract is up. and if the team cuts you before your contract expires, then (1) you still got your guaranteed money over a shorter contract length and (2) you get your wish of becoming a FA.If players are so concerned about being paid what they are worth, then they should only sign 1 year deals. They can hit FA every year and break the bank every year. Problem solved.

 

[GridironMenace]

:IBTL:

A place to vent about rich people is needed.

damn RICHERS!

utrage:

They are not called "Rich", they are called Job Creators.

Don't roll your eyes papa smurf, they are job creators. Without those people, the middle class blue collar workers would be out of work. Without Joe and David risking the capitol they did starting this business, the rest of the contributors wouldn't have jobs. Without rich people buying plane and yachts the the people that make the parts to build the plane/yacht wouldn't have work. Keep increasing taxes on corporations so they can continue to take their jobs overseas. I don't want to get all political but this comment just rubbed me the wrong way. I can see that you've never owned any business in your life. You wouldn't have a job if your employer didn't risk money to start said business. [/rant]

 

[CalBear]

So when Chris Johnson blows out his knee, he will get paid for those three years as well, correct?

Because the team can, at any time, terminate the contract if they so wish. It's not a two-way street.

And I'm sick of this defense. NFL contracts are front loaded. They get a signing bonus because injuries can occur. That is the players' protection. By taking the signing bonus and settling for less yearly compensation, you, by signing the contract, are accepting the excessive guaranteed money with the full knowledge that you may get hurt and ownership may release you at any time.

Desean Jackson was a second-round pick, which means he didn't get much in the way of guaranteed money (or any other money). His four-year contract had a total of just over $3 million. He also had no opportunity to negotiate with other teams for his services at that time or at any time since then; if he had, he probably could have gotten $5 million a year or more.

I am quite sure the owners would be willing to work out a deal in which they average out the signing bonus over the length of the deal, if the player wants more yearly salary. I'm also quite sure that the players would never do that.

I'm sure the players would be fine with that if the contracts were guaranteed.

If players are so concerned about being paid what they are worth, then they should only sign 1 year deals. They can hit FA every year and break the bank every year. Problem solved.

Teams won't give one-year deals to stars they want to keep.

 

[coolnerd]

The answer is that people with use leverage when they have it. Athletes who are at the top end of their profession have leverage because they are considered highly skilled. they have a very short window to make what they can. In terms of taking cae of thier future and their family, using leverage is the responsible thing to do. Because most "normal" people don't many situations where they have a chance to use leverage or weight multiple offers, doesn't mean that people who do have less character or honor. Finally. I always amazed at people who hold individuals to standards of honor, but don'r ask the business involved to have the same if not better standards.

 

[VaTerp]

So when Chris Johnson blows out his knee, he will get paid for those three years as well, correct?

Because the team can, at any time, terminate the contract if they so wish. It's not a two-way street.

And I'm sick of this defense. NFL contracts are front loaded. They get a signing bonus because injuries can occur. That is the players' protection. By taking the signing bonus and settling for less yearly compensation, you, by signing the contract, are accepting the excessive guaranteed money with the full knowledge that you may get hurt and ownership may release you at any time. I am quite sure the owners would be willing to work out a deal in which they average out the signing bonus over the length of the deal, if the player wants more yearly salary. I'm also quite sure that the players would never do that.Also, I don't want to hear the injury defense. Injuries can occur at any time. Signing a new contract doesn't guarantee players that they won't get hurt. It just gives them more guaranteed money in case they do. By signing their previous contract aren't they accepting that same risk? Aren't they saying that they are willing to play 4 years (for example) and risk injury when they signed their current contract? I bet the Oakland Raiders wish they could get back all that cash they gave Jamarcus Russell. You think Osi Umenyiora is a top 5 DE and should be paid like it? Don't you think Albert Haynesworth owes Washington some money? You have players overvaluing themselves and sitting out demanding to receive something they aren't worth.

Bottom line, is play out your damn contract. You'll get paid once your contract is up. Don't make ridiculous demands of an extension if the team doesn't want to sign you longterm. You signed a longterm deal to begin with, with an extraordinary amount of guaranteed money. You'll get another one when your contract is up. and if the team cuts you before your contract expires, then (1) you still got your guaranteed money over a shorter contract length and (2) you get your wish of becoming a FA.

If players are so concerned about being paid what they are worth, then they should only sign 1 year deals. They can hit FA every year and break the bank every year. Problem solved.

:IBTL:

A place to vent about rich people is needed.

damn RICHERS!

utrage:

They are not called "Rich", they are called Job Creators.

Don't roll your eyes papa smurf, they are job creators. Without those people, the middle class blue collar workers would be out of work. Without Joe and David risking the capitol they did starting this business, the rest of the contributors wouldn't have jobs. Without rich people buying plane and yachts the the people that make the parts to build the plane/yacht wouldn't have work. Keep increasing taxes on corporations so they can continue to take their jobs overseas. I don't want to get all political but this comment just rubbed me the wrong way. I can see that you've never owned any business in your life. You wouldn't have a job if your employer didn't risk money to start said business. [/rant]

Impressive! Two rants equally full of BS! You should run for public office.

 

[[scooter]]

Since when is a 4 year deal a 3 year deal?

When the team cuts you?

 

[Joe Bryant]

So when Chris Johnson blows out his knee, he will get paid for those three years as well, correct?

Because the team can, at any time, terminate the contract if they so wish. It's not a two-way street.

And I'm sick of this defense. NFL contracts are front loaded. They get a signing bonus because injuries can occur. That is the players' protection. By taking the signing bonus and settling for less yearly compensation, you, by signing the contract, are accepting the excessive guaranteed money with the full knowledge that you may get hurt and ownership may release you at any time. I am quite sure the owners would be willing to work out a deal in which they average out the signing bonus over the length of the deal, if the player wants more yearly salary. I'm also quite sure that the players would never do that.Also, I don't want to hear the injury defense. Injuries can occur at any time. Signing a new contract doesn't guarantee players that they won't get hurt. It just gives them more guaranteed money in case they do. By signing their previous contract aren't they accepting that same risk? Aren't they saying that they are willing to play 4 years (for example) and risk injury when they signed their current contract? I bet the Oakland Raiders wish they could get back all that cash they gave Jamarcus Russell. You think Osi Umenyiora is a top 5 DE and should be paid like it? Don't you think Albert Haynesworth owes Washington some money? You have players overvaluing themselves and sitting out demanding to receive something they aren't worth.Bottom line, is play out your damn contract. You'll get paid once your contract is up. Don't make ridiculous demands of an extension if the team doesn't want to sign you longterm. You signed a longterm deal to begin with, with an extraordinary amount of guaranteed money. You'll get another one when your contract is up. and if the team cuts you before your contract expires, then (1) you still got your guaranteed money over a shorter contract length and (2) you get your wish of becoming a FA.If players are so concerned about being paid what they are worth, then they should only sign 1 year deals. They can hit FA every year and break the bank every year. Problem solved.

Are you as adamant that owners fulfill their end of the contract as well? In other words, whenever you hear of a team telling a player he must take a pay cut, do you feel the same was as you do when a player wants to renegotiate?J

 

[PewterFan]

If I'm Chris Johnson or DeSean Jackson I'd do the exact same thing and so would you, GM. While there are fine examples of some football players being foolish, this isn't one of them.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

So when Chris Johnson blows out his knee, he will get paid for those three years as well, correct?

Because the team can, at any time, terminate the contract if they so wish. It's not a two-way street.

And I'm sick of this defense. NFL contracts are front loaded. They get a signing bonus because injuries can occur. That is the players' protection. By taking the signing bonus and settling for less yearly compensation, you, by signing the contract, are accepting the excessive guaranteed money with the full knowledge that you may get hurt and ownership may release you at any time. I am quite sure the owners would be willing to work out a deal in which they average out the signing bonus over the length of the deal, if the player wants more yearly salary. I'm also quite sure that the players would never do that.Also, I don't want to hear the injury defense. Injuries can occur at any time. Signing a new contract doesn't guarantee players that they won't get hurt. It just gives them more guaranteed money in case they do. By signing their previous contract aren't they accepting that same risk? Aren't they saying that they are willing to play 4 years (for example) and risk injury when they signed their current contract? I bet the Oakland Raiders wish they could get back all that cash they gave Jamarcus Russell. You think Osi Umenyiora is a top 5 DE and should be paid like it? Don't you think Albert Haynesworth owes Washington some money? You have players overvaluing themselves and sitting out demanding to receive something they aren't worth.Bottom line, is play out your damn contract. You'll get paid once your contract is up. Don't make ridiculous demands of an extension if the team doesn't want to sign you longterm. You signed a longterm deal to begin with, with an extraordinary amount of guaranteed money. You'll get another one when your contract is up. and if the team cuts you before your contract expires, then (1) you still got your guaranteed money over a shorter contract length and (2) you get your wish of becoming a FA.If players are so concerned about being paid what they are worth, then they should only sign 1 year deals. They can hit FA every year and break the bank every year. Problem solved.

Are you as adamant that owners fulfill their end of the contract as well? In other words, whenever you hear of a team telling a player he must take a pay cut, do you feel the same was as you do when a player wants to renegotiate?J

 

[thayman]

If I'm Chris Johnson or DeSean Jackson I'd do the exact same thing and so would you, GM. While there are fine example of some football players being foolish, this isn't one of them.

I normally side with the owners on the subject of contract negotiations. However Johnson and Jackson have outplayed their contracts so much they deserve to be paid.

 

[SSOG]

And I'm sick of this defense. NFL contracts are front loaded. They get a signing bonus because injuries can occur. That is the players' protection. By taking the signing bonus and settling for less yearly compensation, you, by signing the contract, are accepting the excessive guaranteed money with the full knowledge that you may get hurt and ownership may release you at any time. I am quite sure the owners would be willing to work out a deal in which they average out the signing bonus over the length of the deal, if the player wants more yearly salary. I'm also quite sure that the players would never do that.

NFL contracts are front-loaded? So you're saying I've imagined all those contracts through the years that pay $1 million a year in base salary through the first couple of years, and $12 million a year in base salary through the last couple of years?Look, it's a common negotiating tactic for teams and players to agree to contracts that have unreasonably huge back-loaded salary numbers, specifically because it will force the owners to re-work the contract once those numbers come up. In other words, players and owners make deals based on the assumption that the contract is not worth the paper it's printed on, the assumption that the contract will be completely invalidated and open to renegotiation several years down the road. The owners know this, the players know this, the agents know this, the media knows this, the fans know this. That's why the guaranteed money is always emphasized- because ALL PARTIES INVOLVED acknowledge that everything else is open to renegotiation. And the party that initiates that renegotiation is far more likely to be the owners than the players.

I'm also far more sympathetic to players drafted outside the top half of the first round who are on their rookie deals and radically outperforming their contract. For one thing, they haven't had a huge payday, so if anything happens to them, they still shoulder a lot of risk. $300k or $500k is a huge salary, but it's not the kind of salary that will necessarily leave you set up for life, especially if you have been budgeting based on the assumption that you've got a much bigger payday on the way. Moreover, it's not like those rookies had a choice about the contract- the draft is not a free market. Those rookies could only negotiate with one team. You can't say that they signed a deal based on what they were worth when they were essentially just handed a contract and told "take it or leave it".

Also, I don't want to hear the injury defense. Injuries can occur at any time. Signing a new contract doesn't guarantee players that they won't get hurt. It just gives them more guaranteed money in case they do. By signing their previous contract aren't they accepting that same risk? Aren't they saying that they are willing to play 4 years (for example) and risk injury when they signed their current contract? I bet the Oakland Raiders wish they could get back all that cash they gave Jamarcus Russell. You think Osi Umenyiora is a top 5 DE and should be paid like it? Don't you think Albert Haynesworth owes Washington some money? You have players overvaluing themselves and sitting out demanding to receive something they aren't worth.

Flip it around. Don't you think Jamarcus Russell wishes he got the rest of the money that the Oakland Raiders promised to pay him in the contract that they signed? Don't you think Washington should still owe Haynesworth some of that money that they agreed to pay him? Signing a player to a big contract doesn't guarantee that a player will play at an elite level. When teams sign players, though, aren't they accepting the risk that that player will underperform? Why does that team get to then say that they no longer want to pay the player the amount they contractually agreed to pay him? Nobody forced the team to sign the contract.In reality, there are mechanisms whereby both players and owners can remedy any egregious discrepancies between pay and play. Owners can cut the players, and players can hold out. That's the system that both the owners and the players have agreed to use. If either side didn't like it, they are free to change it- players can demand fully guaranteed contracts, and owners can put in "no holdout" clauses. Neither party does that because both parties would rather just use the system in place than sacrifice resources in order to change it (a player would have to accept less money to get a fully guaranteed contract, while an owner would have to offer more money to get a player to accept a no-holdout clause).

 

[mr roboto]

I have an elite source at Fox Sports who said..

Ah hell, forget it.

 

[bonesman]

This has got to be a fishing trip. Who could be this hypocritical?........are you Mike Brown?

 

[urbanhack]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/08/05/sports/s130204D02.DTL

 

[RobertBobson]

I'm thinking of starting a thread "why I hate football fans" and linking this thread as exhibit A.

 

[GridironMenace]

So when Chris Johnson blows out his knee, he will get paid for those three years as well, correct?

Because the team can, at any time, terminate the contract if they so wish. It's not a two-way street.

And I'm sick of this defense. NFL contracts are front loaded. They get a signing bonus because injuries can occur. That is the players' protection. By taking the signing bonus and settling for less yearly compensation, you, by signing the contract, are accepting the excessive guaranteed money with the full knowledge that you may get hurt and ownership may release you at any time. I am quite sure the owners would be willing to work out a deal in which they average out the signing bonus over the length of the deal, if the player wants more yearly salary. I'm also quite sure that the players would never do that.Also, I don't want to hear the injury defense. Injuries can occur at any time. Signing a new contract doesn't guarantee players that they won't get hurt. It just gives them more guaranteed money in case they do. By signing their previous contract aren't they accepting that same risk? Aren't they saying that they are willing to play 4 years (for example) and risk injury when they signed their current contract? I bet the Oakland Raiders wish they could get back all that cash they gave Jamarcus Russell. You think Osi Umenyiora is a top 5 DE and should be paid like it? Don't you think Albert Haynesworth owes Washington some money? You have players overvaluing themselves and sitting out demanding to receive something they aren't worth.Bottom line, is play out your damn contract. You'll get paid once your contract is up. Don't make ridiculous demands of an extension if the team doesn't want to sign you longterm. You signed a longterm deal to begin with, with an extraordinary amount of guaranteed money. You'll get another one when your contract is up. and if the team cuts you before your contract expires, then (1) you still got your guaranteed money over a shorter contract length and (2) you get your wish of becoming a FA.If players are so concerned about being paid what they are worth, then they should only sign 1 year deals. They can hit FA every year and break the bank every year. Problem solved.

Are you as adamant that owners fulfill their end of the contract as well? In other words, whenever you hear of a team telling a player he must take a pay cut, do you feel the same was as you do when a player wants to renegotiate?J

No. If management is demanding a player to take a pay cut they are only doing so because of a few reasons: (1) the player is not performing up to their contract. If this is the case, then then the player can choose to restructure (if he doesn't think he has a decent value on the open market) or he can refuse to take a pay cut (if he gets waived then then he is a FA where he can make more signing bonus money). (2) they are asking the player to restructure to open more team cap room (that money is just differed and it usually comes with either a contract extension and/or more guaranteed money. Teams don't demand that good-great players take a pay cut. Perform up to your contract and you have nothing to worry about. Perform poorly, then you still stole that signing bonus and guaranteed money (you still got paid over the course of the contract). Everyone can ##### and moan about how NFL contracts aren't guaranteed, but yet the NFL is in a MUCH better position financially than the NBA, NHL and MLB because of it. The contracts of those sports are essentially bankrupting the sport because the money is fully guaranteed. Just look at the White Sox. They have Adam Dunn and Alex Rios who are playing so poorly that they are untradeable. The Cubs have wanted to get rid of Alphonso Soriano for years but can't find a trade partner due to his contract and him not living up to it. All sports would be better off with front loaded non-guaranteed contracts. It just rubs me the wrong way, when a guy like Andre Johnson signs a new 6 year deal and then 2 years into it was threatening to hold out because he wanted more.

 

[cobalt_27]

I have an elite source at Fox Sports who said..Ah hell, forget it.

still cracks me up. GM's Elite Source shtick

 

[redBourne]

Have we not had this conversation countless times before? Mr. GridironMenace, can you not just search for this very topic on this board, or even Google, and just follow the thread? You'll see both your side and 95% of the rest of societies point of view. There is no changing your stance, and there is no changing the point of view who follow the current system. Just let it go.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

So when Chris Johnson blows out his knee, he will get paid for those three years as well, correct?

Because the team can, at any time, terminate the contract if they so wish. It's not a two-way street.

And I'm sick of this defense. NFL contracts are front loaded. They get a signing bonus because injuries can occur. That is the players' protection. By taking the signing bonus and settling for less yearly compensation, you, by signing the contract, are accepting the excessive guaranteed money with the full knowledge that you may get hurt and ownership may release you at any time. I am quite sure the owners would be willing to work out a deal in which they average out the signing bonus over the length of the deal, if the player wants more yearly salary. I'm also quite sure that the players would never do that.Also, I don't want to hear the injury defense. Injuries can occur at any time. Signing a new contract doesn't guarantee players that they won't get hurt. It just gives them more guaranteed money in case they do. By signing their previous contract aren't they accepting that same risk? Aren't they saying that they are willing to play 4 years (for example) and risk injury when they signed their current contract? I bet the Oakland Raiders wish they could get back all that cash they gave Jamarcus Russell. You think Osi Umenyiora is a top 5 DE and should be paid like it? Don't you think Albert Haynesworth owes Washington some money? You have players overvaluing themselves and sitting out demanding to receive something they aren't worth.Bottom line, is play out your damn contract. You'll get paid once your contract is up. Don't make ridiculous demands of an extension if the team doesn't want to sign you longterm. You signed a longterm deal to begin with, with an extraordinary amount of guaranteed money. You'll get another one when your contract is up. and if the team cuts you before your contract expires, then (1) you still got your guaranteed money over a shorter contract length and (2) you get your wish of becoming a FA.If players are so concerned about being paid what they are worth, then they should only sign 1 year deals. They can hit FA every year and break the bank every year. Problem solved.

Are you as adamant that owners fulfill their end of the contract as well? In other words, whenever you hear of a team telling a player he must take a pay cut, do you feel the same was as you do when a player wants to renegotiate?J

No. If management is demanding a player to take a pay cut they are only doing so because of a few reasons: (1) the player is not performing up to their contract. If this is the case, then then the player can choose to restructure (if he doesn't think he has a decent value on the open market) or he can refuse to take a pay cut (if he gets waived then then he is a FA where he can make more signing bonus money). (2) they are asking the player to restructure to open more team cap room (that money is just differed and it usually comes with either a contract extension and/or more guaranteed money. Teams don't demand that good-great players take a pay cut. Perform up to your contract and you have nothing to worry about. Perform poorly, then you still stole that signing bonus and guaranteed money (you still got paid over the course of the contract). Everyone can ##### and moan about how NFL contracts aren't guaranteed, but yet the NFL is in a MUCH better position financially than the NBA, NHL and MLB because of it. The contracts of those sports are essentially bankrupting the sport because the money is fully guaranteed. Just look at the White Sox. They have Adam Dunn and Alex Rios who are playing so poorly that they are untradeable. The Cubs have wanted to get rid of Alphonso Soriano for years but can't find a trade partner due to his contract and him not living up to it. All sports would be better off with front loaded non-guaranteed contracts. It just rubs me the wrong way, when a guy like Andre Johnson signs a new 6 year deal and then 2 years into it was threatening to hold out because he wanted more.

 

[Johnny Ice]

So when Chris Johnson blows out his knee, he will get paid for those three years as well, correct?

Because the team can, at any time, terminate the contract if they so wish. It's not a two-way street.

And I'm sick of this defense. NFL contracts are front loaded. They get a signing bonus because injuries can occur. That is the players' protection. By taking the signing bonus and settling for less yearly compensation, you, by signing the contract, are accepting the excessive guaranteed money with the full knowledge that you may get hurt and ownership may release you at any time. I am quite sure the owners would be willing to work out a deal in which they average out the signing bonus over the length of the deal, if the player wants more yearly salary. I'm also quite sure that the players would never do that.Also, I don't want to hear the injury defense. Injuries can occur at any time. Signing a new contract doesn't guarantee players that they won't get hurt. It just gives them more guaranteed money in case they do. By signing their previous contract aren't they accepting that same risk? Aren't they saying that they are willing to play 4 years (for example) and risk injury when they signed their current contract? I bet the Oakland Raiders wish they could get back all that cash they gave Jamarcus Russell. You think Osi Umenyiora is a top 5 DE and should be paid like it? Don't you think Albert Haynesworth owes Washington some money? You have players overvaluing themselves and sitting out demanding to receive something they aren't worth.

Bottom line, is play out your damn contract. You'll get paid once your contract is up. Don't make ridiculous demands of an extension if the team doesn't want to sign you longterm. You signed a longterm deal to begin with, with an extraordinary amount of guaranteed money. You'll get another one when your contract is up. and if the team cuts you before your contract expires, then (1) you still got your guaranteed money over a shorter contract length and (2) you get your wish of becoming a FA.

If players are so concerned about being paid what they are worth, then they should only sign 1 year deals. They can hit FA every year and break the bank every year. Problem solved.

Are you as adamant that owners fulfill their end of the contract as well? In other words, whenever you hear of a team telling a player he must take a pay cut, do you feel the same was as you do when a player wants to renegotiate?J

No. If management is demanding a player to take a pay cut they are only doing so because of a few reasons: (1) the player is not performing up to their contract. If this is the case, then then the player can choose to restructure (if he doesn't think he has a decent value on the open market) or he can refuse to take a pay cut (if he gets waived then then he is a FA where he can make more signing bonus money). (2) they are asking the player to restructure to open more team cap room (that money is just differed and it usually comes with either a contract extension and/or more guaranteed money. Teams don't demand that good-great players take a pay cut. Perform up to your contract and you have nothing to worry about. Perform poorly, then you still stole that signing bonus and guaranteed money (you still got paid over the course of the contract). Everyone can ##### and moan about how NFL contracts aren't guaranteed, but yet the NFL is in a MUCH better position financially than the NBA, NHL and MLB because of it. The contracts of those sports are essentially bankrupting the sport because the money is fully guaranteed. Just look at the White Sox. They have Adam Dunn and Alex Rios who are playing so poorly that they are untradeable. The Cubs have wanted to get rid of Alphonso Soriano for years but can't find a trade partner due to his contract and him not living up to it. All sports would be better off with front loaded non-guaranteed contracts. It just rubs me the wrong way, when a guy like Andre Johnson signs a new 6 year deal and then 2 years into it was threatening to hold out because he wanted more.

X

 

[GridironMenace]

Have we not had this conversation countless times before? Mr. GridironMenace, can you not just search for this very topic on this board, or even Google, and just follow the thread? You'll see both your side and 95% of the rest of societies point of view. There is no changing your stance, and there is no changing the point of view who follow the current system. Just let it go.

You make it seem like I'm trying to change peoples' point of view when I'm not. I'm just statin the obvious, which is that contracts have guaranteed money for a reason. Ownership can do whatever they want to the player once that guaranteed money is paid. That's part of the agreement with NFL contracts. But holding out and wanting more money after you already got the agreed upon guaranteed money is not living up to your end of the bargain. There is nothing in the contract that states that NFL contacts are guaranteed. So owners aren't doing anything wrong by waiving players as they see fit. However, the contract states that 'X' player is willing to play for 'Y' years for 'Z' dollars. Players are doing a lot wrong by holding out and that is why they get FINED. Comprendé?

 

[redBourne]

Have we not had this conversation countless times before? Mr. GridironMenace, can you not just search for this very topic on this board, or even Google, and just follow the thread? You'll see both your side and 95% of the rest of societies point of view. There is no changing your stance, and there is no changing the point of view who follow the current system. Just let it go.

You make it seem like I'm trying to change peoples' point of view when I'm not. I'm just statin the obvious, which is that contracts have guaranteed money for a reason. Ownership can do whatever they want to the player once that guaranteed money is paid. That's part of the agreement with NFL contracts. But holding out and wanting more money after you already got the agreed upon guaranteed money is not living up to your end of the bargain. There is nothing in the contract that states that NFL contacts are guaranteed. So owners aren't doing anything wrong by waiving players as they see fit. However, the contract states that 'X' player is willing to play for 'Y' years for 'Z' dollars. Players are doing a lot wrong by holding out and that is why they get FINED. Comprendé?

If you are only stating the obvious.You are not trying to change anyone's opinion.You are not trying to change your own opinion.Then why did you put this topic up in a discussion forum? Sí, no entiendo.

 

[Joe Bryant]

So when Chris Johnson blows out his knee, he will get paid for those three years as well, correct?

Because the team can, at any time, terminate the contract if they so wish. It's not a two-way street.

And I'm sick of this defense. NFL contracts are front loaded. They get a signing bonus because injuries can occur. That is the players' protection. By taking the signing bonus and settling for less yearly compensation, you, by signing the contract, are accepting the excessive guaranteed money with the full knowledge that you may get hurt and ownership may release you at any time. I am quite sure the owners would be willing to work out a deal in which they average out the signing bonus over the length of the deal, if the player wants more yearly salary. I'm also quite sure that the players would never do that.Also, I don't want to hear the injury defense. Injuries can occur at any time. Signing a new contract doesn't guarantee players that they won't get hurt. It just gives them more guaranteed money in case they do. By signing their previous contract aren't they accepting that same risk? Aren't they saying that they are willing to play 4 years (for example) and risk injury when they signed their current contract? I bet the Oakland Raiders wish they could get back all that cash they gave Jamarcus Russell. You think Osi Umenyiora is a top 5 DE and should be paid like it? Don't you think Albert Haynesworth owes Washington some money? You have players overvaluing themselves and sitting out demanding to receive something they aren't worth.Bottom line, is play out your damn contract. You'll get paid once your contract is up. Don't make ridiculous demands of an extension if the team doesn't want to sign you longterm. You signed a longterm deal to begin with, with an extraordinary amount of guaranteed money. You'll get another one when your contract is up. and if the team cuts you before your contract expires, then (1) you still got your guaranteed money over a shorter contract length and (2) you get your wish of becoming a FA.If players are so concerned about being paid what they are worth, then they should only sign 1 year deals. They can hit FA every year and break the bank every year. Problem solved.

Are you as adamant that owners fulfill their end of the contract as well? In other words, whenever you hear of a team telling a player he must take a pay cut, do you feel the same was as you do when a player wants to renegotiate?J

No. If management is demanding a player to take a pay cut they are only doing so because of a few reasons: (1) the player is not performing up to their contract. If this is the case, then then the player can choose to restructure (if he doesn't think he has a decent value on the open market) or he can refuse to take a pay cut (if he gets waived then then he is a FA where he can make more signing bonus money). (2) they are asking the player to restructure to open more team cap room (that money is just differed and it usually comes with either a contract extension and/or more guaranteed money. Teams don't demand that good-great players take a pay cut. Perform up to your contract and you have nothing to worry about. Perform poorly, then you still stole that signing bonus and guaranteed money (you still got paid over the course of the contract). Everyone can ##### and moan about how NFL contracts aren't guaranteed, but yet the NFL is in a MUCH better position financially than the NBA, NHL and MLB because of it. The contracts of those sports are essentially bankrupting the sport because the money is fully guaranteed. Just look at the White Sox. They have Adam Dunn and Alex Rios who are playing so poorly that they are untradeable. The Cubs have wanted to get rid of Alphonso Soriano for years but can't find a trade partner due to his contract and him not living up to it. All sports would be better off with front loaded non-guaranteed contracts. It just rubs me the wrong way, when a guy like Andre Johnson signs a new 6 year deal and then 2 years into it was threatening to hold out because he wanted more.

Thanks.J

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

 

[massraider]

You know what really grinds my gears?

 

[B3TD]

So if a player underperforms his contract, they can ask him take a paycut or cut him, but if a player is greatly outperforming his contract and is a top player at his position, he shouldn't renegotiate to get money like the other top players are making?

Can I please have the last 5 minutes of life back? TIA

 

[renesauz]

If I'm Chris Johnson or DeSean Jackson I'd do the exact same thing and so would you, GM. While there are fine examples of some football players being foolish, this isn't one of them.

I have no problem with 3rd year players who have MASSSIVELY outplayed their rookie deals holding out. I don't always like it, but owners can and do dump under-performing over-paid players all the time. This is not a balance, but it helps.ETA: This doesn't mean I think players should hold out whenever they feel underpaid. There's a big differance between a 3rd or 4th year all-pro playing on a rookie deal worth under a Mil/yr. and a 6 year vet 2 years into a five year deal deciding he should have asked for more.

 

[SSOG]

You make it seem like I'm trying to change peoples' point of view when I'm not. I'm just statin the obvious, which is that contracts have guaranteed money for a reason. Ownership can do whatever they want to the player once that guaranteed money is paid. That's part of the agreement with NFL contracts. But holding out and wanting more money after you already got the agreed upon guaranteed money is not living up to your end of the bargain. There is nothing in the contract that states that NFL contacts are guaranteed. So owners aren't doing anything wrong by waiving players as they see fit. However, the contract states that 'X' player is willing to play for 'Y' years for 'Z' dollars. Players are doing a lot wrong by holding out and that is why they get FINED. Comprendé?

I'm just going to start quoting all of your posts and replacing "the owners" with "the players".I'm just stating the obvious, which is that contracts don't have "no holdout" clauses for a reason. Players can refuse to play for the price listed once the contract is signed. That's part of the agreement with NFL contracts. But cutting someone and wanting to pay them less money after you already agreed to pay them is not living up to your end of the bargain. There's nothing in the contract that states that NFL players can't hold out. So players aren't doing anything wrong by holding out as they see fit. However, the contract states that 'X' team is willing to pay for 'Y' years for 'Z' dollars. Owners are doing a lot wrong by cutting players and that is why they get CAP HITS. Comprendé?

 

[cobalt_27]

You make it seem like I'm trying to change peoples' point of view when I'm not. I'm just statin the obvious, which is that contracts have guaranteed money for a reason. Ownership can do whatever they want to the player once that guaranteed money is paid. That's part of the agreement with NFL contracts. But holding out and wanting more money after you already got the agreed upon guaranteed money is not living up to your end of the bargain. There is nothing in the contract that states that NFL contacts are guaranteed. So owners aren't doing anything wrong by waiving players as they see fit. However, the contract states that 'X' player is willing to play for 'Y' years for 'Z' dollars. Players are doing a lot wrong by holding out and that is why they get FINED. Comprendé?

I'm just going to start quoting all of your posts and replacing "the owners" with "the players".I'm just stating the obvious, which is that contracts don't have "no holdout" clauses for a reason. Players can refuse to play for the price listed once the contract is signed. That's part of the agreement with NFL contracts. But cutting someone and wanting to pay them less money after you already agreed to pay them is not living up to your end of the bargain. There's nothing in the contract that states that NFL players can't hold out. So players aren't doing anything wrong by holding out as they see fit. However, the contract states that 'X' team is willing to pay for 'Y' years for 'Z' dollars. Owners are doing a lot wrong by cutting players and that is why they get CAP HITS. Comprendé?