Players Holding Out

[beetlebum71]

Why are fans so quick to turn on a player who holds out for a better contract, but hardly ever treat front offices the same when they cit a guy halfway through his deal. It seems like fans expect players to honor their contract regardless of how unfair it may be, but don't hold owners and GMs to the same standard.

Why would people choose to pocket protect for billionaire owners, but not millionaire players?

[KevinBaconIsNotMyHero]

Why are fans so quick to turn on a player who holds out for a better contract, but hardly ever treat front offices the same when they cit a guy halfway through his deal. It seems like fans expect players to honor their contract regardless of how unfair it may be, but don't hold owners and GMs to the same standard.

Why would people choose to pocket protect for billionaire owners, but not millionaire players?

The story of America is people siding with management over labor. And individuals can decide for themselves whether that’s good, bad, or irrelevant. But it’s mostly true.

[Dude]

It pisses me off because of fantasy football. FIGURE IT OUT MELVIN!

[HeHateMe]

I will continue to say it, the runningbacks got absolutely screwed when the rookie scale salaries were introduced. The system had to get fixed because the Sam Bradford's of the world were paid too much before doing anything but rbs have such a short shelf life. I don't know the system and legalities enough to know what the right fix is but I never fault a rb like Bell or Ingram or Elliot who wants that money now. Maybe a fix is shorter rookie contracts but for more money and if a player hits certain escalators the salary gets bumped up automatically. I don't know... either way, I do not fault the players at all. Is it annoying as a fan? Sure, but these guys have performed well, their teams should compensate them or trade them.

[beetlebum71]

I will continue to say it, the runningbacks got absolutely screwed when the rookie scale salaries were introduced. The system had to get fixed because the Sam Bradford's of the world were paid too much before doing anything but rbs have such a short shelf life. I don't know the system and legalities enough to know what the right fix is but I never fault a rb like Bell or Ingram or Elliot who wants that money now. Maybe a fix is shorter rookie contracts but for more money and if a player hits certain escalators the salary gets bumped up automatically. I don't know... either way, I do not fault the players at all. Is it annoying as a fan? Sure, but these guys have performed well, their teams should compensate them or trade them.

Specific to Zeke is the fact that he might decide to smack his bitch up again and get suspended for a year. He had better make his paper now before she puts the dishes back in the cupboard wrong, again.

[B-Town]

I will continue to say it, the runningbacks got absolutely screwed when the rookie scale salaries were introduced. The system had to get fixed because the Sam Bradford's of the world were paid too much before doing anything but rbs have such a short shelf life. I don't know the system and legalities enough to know what the right fix is but I never fault a rb like Bell or Ingram or Elliot who wants that money now. Maybe a fix is shorter rookie contracts but for more money and if a player hits certain escalators the salary gets bumped up automatically. I don't know... either way, I do not fault the players at all. Is it annoying as a fan? Sure, but these guys have performed well, their teams should compensate them or trade them.

Specific to Zeke is the fact that he might decide to smack his bitch up again and get suspended for a year. He had better make his paper now before she puts the dishes back in the cupboard wrong, again.

Spousal abuse is so funny!

[Straight Edge Raven]

You signed a contract. If you're under a contract you should honor it. If the team wants to work with you on a new one great. If not....honor what you agreed to.

[Dude]

You signed a contract. If you're under a contract you should honor it. If the team wants to work with you on a new one great. If not....honor what you agreed to.

This would hold water if owners were held to the same standard.

[Angry Waters]

Why are fans so quick to turn on a player who holds out for a better contract, but hardly ever treat front offices the same when they cit a guy halfway through his deal. It seems like fans expect players to honor their contract regardless of how unfair it may be, but don't hold owners and GMs to the same standard.

Why would people choose to pocket protect for billionaire owners, but not millionaire players?

In the real world, I would typically side 90/10 with labor versus management. In the sports world, it's probably closer to 60/40. Specifically speaking about football, I have no problem with a player asking for a raise, if they've clearly out-performed their current deal. What I don't understand, though, is when a player is clearly delusional in their demands. In regards to Melvin Gordon, I believe the Chargers (without knowing the EXACT details--none of us know that) are offering him a NEW contract that is more than fair! He's a very nice RB. But he's not the guy that should be re-setting the bar. This whole "re-setting" the pay scale is a large part of the problem. Specifically speaking of Melvin Gordon, he should be making top 5 to 10 RB money--not Gurley money. Shame on him if he's going to be an idiot. To be honest, this may simply be a ploy for him to get out of training camp. He may have every intention of signing a re-worked deal before the start of the season. We'll see...

[Angry Waters]

I will continue to say it, the runningbacks got absolutely screwed when the rookie scale salaries were introduced. The system had to get fixed because the Sam Bradford's of the world were paid too much before doing anything but rbs have such a short shelf life. I don't know the system and legalities enough to know what the right fix is but I never fault a rb like Bell or Ingram or Elliot who wants that money now. Maybe a fix is shorter rookie contracts but for more money and if a player hits certain escalators the salary gets bumped up automatically. I don't know... either way, I do not fault the players at all. Is it annoying as a fan? Sure, but these guys have performed well, their teams should compensate them or trade them.

A lot of the blame lies with the body of the Players Union. There are a helluva lot more guys that make up roster spots 11-53 than the guys who make up the top 10--and take up the lion's share of the cap. The players, as a whole, are going to get their 55% (or whatever the percentage is) of the total NFL revenue pie. They need to do a better job amongst themselves of distributing said money. Maybe they need their OWN positional salary cap where a QB can only make...say...15% of the salary cap versus the 20+% some are now making. In my opinion, it's really the salary leap-frogging of average to below-average quarterbacks (the Staffords, Carrs, Cousins, etc... of the NFL world) that really hurt the market for the vast majority of good NFL players.

[KevinBaconIsNotMyHero]

You signed a contract. If you're under a contract you should honor it. If the team wants to work with you on a new one great. If not....honor what you agreed to.

Why aren’t teams held to that standard in football?

[whiskerbiscuit]

I will continue to say it, the runningbacks got absolutely screwed when the rookie scale salaries were introduced. The system had to get fixed because the Sam Bradford's of the world were paid too much before doing anything but rbs have such a short shelf life. I don't know the system and legalities enough to know what the right fix is but I never fault a rb like Bell or Ingram or Elliot who wants that money now. Maybe a fix is shorter rookie contracts but for more money and if a player hits certain escalators the salary gets bumped up automatically. I don't know... either way, I do not fault the players at all. Is it annoying as a fan? Sure, but these guys have performed well, their teams should compensate them or trade them.

I think the fourth year of a rookie should be a player option.

[beetlebum71]

I will continue to say it, the runningbacks got absolutely screwed when the rookie scale salaries were introduced. The system had to get fixed because the Sam Bradford's of the world were paid too much before doing anything but rbs have such a short shelf life. I don't know the system and legalities enough to know what the right fix is but I never fault a rb like Bell or Ingram or Elliot who wants that money now. Maybe a fix is shorter rookie contracts but for more money and if a player hits certain escalators the salary gets bumped up automatically. I don't know... either way, I do not fault the players at all. Is it annoying as a fan? Sure, but these guys have performed well, their teams should compensate them or trade them.

Specific to Zeke is the fact that he might decide to smack his bitch up again and get suspended for a year. He had better make his paper now before she puts the dishes back in the cupboard wrong, again.

Spousal abuse is so funny!

Fuck off , whiner. I was ripping Zeke, not making light of his actions.

[salamander]

Why are fans so quick to turn on a player who holds out for a better contract, but hardly ever treat front offices the same when they cit a guy halfway through his deal. It seems like fans expect players to honor their contract regardless of how unfair it may be, but don't hold owners and GMs to the same standard.

Why would people choose to pocket protect for billionaire owners, but not millionaire players?

This is weird to me as well (depending on the circumstances).

I think it all boils down to fans feeling like the team is "us" therefor they're holding out on "us".
(not my belief, just what I think the thought process is.)

[Straight Edge Raven]

You signed a contract. If you're under a contract you should honor it. If the team wants to work with you on a new one great. If not....honor what you agreed to.

Why aren’t teams held to that standard in football?

??? That's the contract the players association has with the teams. Contracts should absolutely be guaranteed.

[KevinBaconIsNotMyHero]

You signed a contract. If you're under a contract you should honor it. If the team wants to work with you on a new one great. If not....honor what you agreed to.

Why aren’t teams held to that standard in football?

??? That's the contract the players association has with the teams. Contracts should absolutely be guaranteed.

So we agree then. But owners certainly don’t. No way they want to have to stick to contracts they agree to.

[Phrooster]

Do we ever see a player giving money back cuz they underperformed a contract?player is under contract he should be held accountable to play it out .

[Dude]

Do we ever see a player giving money back cuz they underperformed a contract?player is under contract he should be held accountable to play it out .

Both parties should be bound by the contract then.

If a team can sign a player for 5 years but cut him after 2 when they underperform, then players should be able to leverage a strong season towards a new contract.

How is this even a debate?

[KevinBaconIsNotMyHero]

Do we ever see a player giving money back cuz they underperformed a contract?player is under contract he should be held accountable to play it out .

Teams cut players when they underperform. Like, do you pay attention to the NFL?

[mancini199]

You signed a contract. If you're under a contract you should honor it. If the team wants to work with you on a new one great. If not....honor what you agreed to.

This would hold water if owners were held to the same standard.

i think this is an unfair way to look at it...Player knows when he signs a NFL that they can be released..Thats what their guaranteed money is for...Players would be smarter to take a smaller overall total and worry only bout whats guaranteed

[KevinBaconIsNotMyHero]

You signed a contract. If you're under a contract you should honor it. If the team wants to work with you on a new one great. If not....honor what you agreed to.

This would hold water if owners were held to the same standard.

i think this is an unfair way to look at it...Player knows when he signs a NFL that they can be released..Thats what their guaranteed money is for...Players would be smarter to take a smaller overall total and worry only bout whats guaranteed

So let me get this straight...you're ok with a system where the upside is all on the owners side? If they sign a player and he overperforms his contract, fuck you, you signed the contract. If the player underperforms the contract, owners/executives are going to release that player and anything not guaranteed in said contract is not being paid to the player. You can totally have that opinion, I just want to make sure that's what you're saying.

[Silversword]

Why aren’t teams held to that standard in football?

??? That's the contract the players association has with the teams. Contracts should absolutely be guaranteed.

So we agree then. But owners certainly don’t. No way they want to have to stick to contracts they agree to.

Owners would be willing to guarantee contracts, but that would mean much smaller contracts and players aren't willing to make that sacrifice. This is NOT on the owners - it's just a reality of the sport.

[KevinBaconIsNotMyHero]

??? That's the contract the players association has with the teams. Contracts should absolutely be guaranteed.

So we agree then. But owners certainly don’t. No way they want to have to stick to contracts they agree to.

Owners would be willing to guarantee contracts, but that would mean much smaller contracts and players aren't willing to make that sacrifice. This is NOT on the owners - it's just a reality of the sport.

Where have you EVER seen this said? Is this real? Or just your thought? Because you might not be wrong, but I've never read or heard an owner say anything of the sort.

[Dude]

You signed a contract. If you're under a contract you should honor it. If the team wants to work with you on a new one great. If not....honor what you agreed to.

This would hold water if owners were held to the same standard.

i think this is an unfair way to look at it...Player knows when he signs a NFL that they can be released..Thats what their guaranteed money is for...Players would be smarter to take a smaller overall total and worry only bout whats guaranteed

Then players should be able to hold out if they feel they've out performed their contract.

[mancini199]

This would hold water if owners were held to the same standard.

i think this is an unfair way to look at it...Player knows when he signs a NFL that they can be released..Thats what their guaranteed money is for...Players would be smarter to take a smaller overall total and worry only bout whats guaranteed

So let me get this straight...you're ok with a system where the upside is all on the owners side? If they sign a player and he overperforms his contract, fuck you, you signed the contract. If the player underperforms the contract, owners/executives are going to release that player and anything not guaranteed in said contract is not being paid to the player. You can totally have that opinion, I just want to make sure that's what you're saying.

somewhat I am...Players sign big time contracts with all sorts of phony money in them to bloat the total number...Knowing all along theirs a good chance of never seeing all of it....right or wrong the player signed knowing all of that....kind of hard to side with someone who to change the deal after its made..

[mancini199]

This would hold water if owners were held to the same standard.

i think this is an unfair way to look at it...Player knows when he signs a NFL that they can be released..Thats what their guaranteed money is for...Players would be smarter to take a smaller overall total and worry only bout whats guaranteed

Then players should be able to hold out if they feel they've out performed their contract.

and they do

[Dude]

i think this is an unfair way to look at it...Player knows when he signs a NFL that they can be released..Thats what their guaranteed money is for...Players would be smarter to take a smaller overall total and worry only bout whats guaranteed

Then players should be able to hold out if they feel they've out performed their contract.

and they do

You might want to take a few steps back and see the post I responded to. I'm not sure what you're arguing now.

[DC4MVP]

I don't really have a problem with is given their career can literally end in one play. Running backs are certain fucked over in a hilarious way.

However, I hate it when the player jumps on social media and acts like an cock bag about it all. Running down his team/teammates, posting pictures of himself jet skiing while his teammates are in the middle of a game, posting pictures about being on vacation with a rapper mid-season, and asking for a trade/release via Twitter/social media.

Basically, I'm pointing at Le'veon Bell. The dude fucked over his teammates for months by playing his stupid games. Shit like that I find obnoxious and stupid and makes me hate the player.

I have no problem what players like Trent Williams and Gordon are doing. They're not jumping on Twitter and talking shit or being dickheads about it. If you're going to do it, be a fucking man about it and either tell the team what's going on or have your agent do it instead of acting like an immature child.

[mlhouse]

You signed a contract. If you're under a contract you should honor it. If the team wants to work with you on a new one great. If not....honor what you agreed to.

Why aren’t teams held to that standard in football?

Because much of a NFL contract is not guaranteed. IF the NFL had guarnteed contracts like othe sports, the face value of the contracts would drop significantly because of the injury risk.

But, all of this is meaningless because everyone knows that the real value of a NFL contract is in the guaranteed money at signing and other guarantees throughout hte contract. NFL players push up the present value of the contract with signing bonus because they understand the nature of the risks in their contracts.

The NFL CBA even puts value on this by allowing the cap figures of a signing bonus to be amortized over the course of the contract.

[KevinBaconIsNotMyHero]

You signed a contract. If you're under a contract you should honor it. If the team wants to work with you on a new one great. If not....honor what you agreed to.

Why aren’t teams held to that standard in football?

Because much of a NFL contract is not guaranteed. IF the NFL had guarnteed contracts like othe sports, the face value of the contracts would drop significantly because of the injury risk.

But, all of this is meaningless because everyone knows that the real value of a NFL contract is in the guaranteed money at signing and other guarantees throughout hte contract. NFL players push up the present value of the contract with signing bonus because they understand the nature of the risks in their contracts.

The NFL CBA even puts value on this by allowing the cap figures of a signing bonus to be amortized over the course of the contract.

Well because all of what you stated, don't be shocked when a player holds out. And you don't have to like it, or dislike it. But it's gonna happen.