Player Contracts: They can't have it both ways.

[Got_Wood]

So, recently there has been a trend of players holding out for more money while still under contract with their team (Jason Peters is a prime example of this). And now I see Andre Johnson is unhappy with his $60 million deal and still has 5 years left on his contract. It's becoming an epidemic in the NFL full of players that "need to feed their families." While I believe certain players deserve to be paid top dollar, there is a problem with their negotiating tactics.

 

You can't ask for a big signing bonus and a nice multi-year contract for stability, and then come back 2 years later after playing pro bowl level football and ask for more money. I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you want to be paid more as a player for better performance on the field, then you need to sign an INCENTIVE BASED CONTRACT. But players aren't willing to do that. They're getting the best of both worlds. They're signing contracts with HUGE guaranteed signing bonuses. And if their play on the field fails or they get injured, they still have their money. It's a win-win for the player. All the while, teams are being held hostage by star players with no choice but to pay the guy or lose him to some moronic team willing to pay a fortune for a diva and some marketing appeal.

 

When does the bubble burst?

[BillsFan74]

So, recently there has been a trend of players holding out for more money while still under contract with their team (Jason Peters is a prime example of this). And now I see Andre Johnson is unhappy with his $60 million deal and still has 5 years left on his contract. It's becoming an epidemic in the NFL full of players that "need to feed their families." While I believe certain players deserve to be paid top dollar, there is a problem with their negotiating tactics.

 

You can't ask for a big signing bonus and a nice multi-year contract for stability, and then come back 2 years later after playing pro bowl level football and ask for more money. I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you want to be paid more as a player for better performance on the field, then you need to sign an INCENTIVE BASED CONTRACT. But players aren't willing to do that. They're getting the best of both worlds. They're signing contracts with HUGE signing bonuses. And if their play on the field fails or they get injured, they still have their money. It's a win-win for the player. All the while, teams are being held hostage by star players with no choice but to pay the guy or lose him to some moronic team willing to pay a fortune for a diva and some marketing appeal.

 

When does the bubble burst?

 

Soon I think the owners are going to hammer the player in this negotiation.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I understand your point and many casual sports fans are frustrated by the idea of players not honoring their contracts, especially when there are many years left on the contract or in cases where the "ink is barely dry" on the contract.

 

But there are huge differences between the NFL and the other major professional sports:

 

Contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed (only the signing bonus portion is guaranteed).

 

NFL players have shorter careers than athletes in the other sports and more often, risk catastrophic and career-ending injury.

 

There is nothing preventing a team from terminating a player's contract who in the team's estimation, is no longer worth the money which his contract stipulates that he be paid. If he becomes less-productive and/or gets injured, they can cut him.

 

So, you're asking a player to honor a contract in a league where the team often doesn't honor that same contract.

 

With regard to your example of Andre Johnson, who is making $5.8 million per year, there are wide receivers in the NFL (Lee Evans among them) making $9 million per year. Now what if Johnson (who is now underpaid and will continue to be under the terms of his present contract) has a career debilitating injury from which he never truly recovers, or even worse, a career-ending injury?

 

In other sports, the injured player would still collect ALL the money on his contract, even if he were to never play again. In the NFL, Johnson could be cut and be owed NO MORE MONEY.

 

NFL players have very short careers. They play probably the most violent sport and they risk career-ending and catastrophic injuries more than players in other sports.

 

These are the compelling reasons that NFL players feel strongly that they must maximize their earnings, regardless of how the public feels about it.

 

IMO, no discussion of this issue is complete without considering the facts that:

 

A) NFL contracts are not guaranteed (even though they are in the NBA, NHL, and MLB)

B) NFL careers are much shorter than careers in the other major professional sports

 

If I were an NFL football player, I don't think I'd particularly care how the public reacted to my desire for more money…regardless of how many years remained on my contract (if I knew I was woefully underpaid).

 

Now Albert Haynesworth wanting to be traded out of Washington? I have a whole different take on that. He's getting ridiculous money. He needs to shut his mouth and do what the coaches tell him to do.

 

JaMarcus Russell? He needed to get off his lazy ass and lose some weight and study the playbook and act like what he was…the highest paid player on his team.

 

But Andre Johnson? The guy who works his ass off, plays through injuries, is a great teammate, leader, and one of the best players at his position? Andre Johnson who is one of the top two receivers in the game but who makes about half of what Larry Fitzgerald makes?

 

Sounds to me like he deserves a raise.

[peteski]

I believe that you should honor your contract. I am not saying that he shouldn't be able to re-negotiate his contract, but if he is under contract he should show up to all mandatory activities.

I think the NFL should have a league wide rule that nobody can renegotiate a contract if they are not at mandatory activities. All that does is hurt the team and their fans.

Prime example was Jason Peters' last year in Buffalo. He misses all of training camp and the pre season. He never recovered from that and he hurt his team.

If you are under contract show up and try to negotiate. You owe that to the team and yourself.

[C.Biscuit97]

I understand your point and many casual sports fans are frustrated by the idea of players not honoring their contracts, especially when there are many years left on the contract or in cases where the "ink is barely dry" on the contract.

 

But there are huge differences between the NFL and the other major professional sports:

 

Contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed (only the signing bonus portion is guaranteed).

 

NFL players have shorter careers than athletes in the other sports and more often, risk catastrophic and career-ending injury.

 

There is nothing preventing a team from terminating a player's contract who in the team's estimation, is no longer worth the money which his contract stipulates that he be paid. If he becomes less-productive and/or gets injured, they can cut him.

 

So, you're asking a player to honor a contract in a league where the team often doesn't honor that same contract.

 

With regard to your example of Andre Johnson, who is making $5.8 million per year, there are wide receivers in the NFL (Lee Evans among them) making $9 million per year. Now what if Johnson has a career debilitating injury from which he never truly recovers, or even worse, a career-ending injury?

 

In other sports, the injured player would still collect ALL the money on his contract, even if he were to never play again. In the NFL, Johnson could be cut and be owed NO MORE MONEY.

 

NFL players have very short careers. They play probably the most violent sport and they risk career-ending and catastrophic injuries more than players in other sports.

 

These are the compelling reasons that NFL players feel strongly that they must maximize their earnings, regardless of how the public feels about it.

 

IMO, no discussion of this issue is complete without considering the facts that:

 

A) NFL contracts are not guaranteed (even though they are in the NBA, NHL, and MLB)

B) NFL careers are much shorter than careers in the other major professional sports

 

If I were an NFL football player, I don't think I'd particularly care how the public reacted to my desire for more money…regardless of how many years remained on my contract.

 

Now Albert Haynesworth wanting to be traded out of Washington? I have a whole different take on that. He's getting ridiculous money. He needs to shut his mouth and do what the coaches tell him to do.

 

JaMarcus Russell? He needed to get off his lazy ass and lose some weight and study the playbook and act like what he was…the highest paid player on his team.

 

But Andre Johnson? The guy who works his ass off, plays through injuries, is a great teammate, leader, and one of the best players at his position? Sounds to me like he deserves a raise.

 

 

Well said. I think NFL players are underpaid. In the most physical and popular league in America, the idea of not having guaranteed contracts seems incredible. If a player goes about his business the right way (unlike Jason Peters), I will support the player's side 90% of the time.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I believe that you should honor your contract. I am not saying that he shouldn't be able to re-negotiate his contract, but if he is under contract he should show up to all mandatory activities.

I think the NFL should have a league wide rule that nobody can renegotiate a contract if they are not at mandatory activities. All that does is hurt the team and their fans.

Prime example was Jason Peters' last year in Buffalo. He misses all of training camp and the pre season. He never recovered from that and he hurt his team.

If you are under contract show up and try to negotiate. You owe that to the team and yourself.

And what if the player shows up in good faith, is undisputedly underpaid, and the team still refuses to re-negotiate?

[Buffalonian-at-Heart]

So, recently there has been a trend of players holding out for more money while still under contract with their team (Jason Peters is a prime example of this). And now I see Andre Johnson is unhappy with his $60 million deal and still has 5 years left on his contract. It's becoming an epidemic in the NFL full of players that "need to feed their families." While I believe certain players deserve to be paid top dollar, there is a problem with their negotiating tactics.

 

You can't ask for a big signing bonus and a nice multi-year contract for stability, and then come back 2 years later after playing pro bowl level football and ask for more money. I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you want to be paid more as a player for better performance on the field, then you need to sign an INCENTIVE BASED CONTRACT. But players aren't willing to do that. They're getting the best of both worlds. They're signing contracts with HUGE guaranteed signing bonuses. And if their play on the field fails or they get injured, they still have their money. It's a win-win for the player. All the while, teams are being held hostage by star players with no choice but to pay the guy or lose him to some moronic team willing to pay a fortune for a diva and some marketing appeal.

 

When does the bubble burst?

 

Well here's the flip side of the argument. The players contracts aren't guaranteed, and pretty much their only leverage is to be a pain in the neck. They're really aren't any advantages to holding out, because the fines would actually force the player to eventually show up. So to be a disruption is their only leverage.

 

If a player gets hurt, doesn't perform up to his contract, or gets to an age the owner no longer wants to pay them, they just cut them. Nothing lost except salary cap implications. But for all intents and purposes no out of pocket money. So conversely if the player plays above the current contract, that's his only time to strike. To get the signing bonus (up front money), and renegotiate at the peak of his talent.

 

Take Derek Jeter for a baseball example. The Yankees will have to take care of him late in his career because of all he's done in the past. He'll get a contract this off season that will pay him like a 25 year old prime player. Football players only have a small window to maximize their earnings and the window opens and closes a lot more suddenly especially if their skills start to erode.

 

So if Andre Johnson doesn't get his money now. At the back end of his 5 years and 60 mil remaining when he's say got 2 more years left on that contract, he'll be 32 and on the wrong side of 30 to get another contract worthy of his status among his piers. He has to get that money now.

 

What needs to happen is guaranteed contracts. It will settle down the holdouts, not completely but for the most part. Then because the contracts are guaranteed they will in turn be deals for less money. The theory will be take lesser contracts for them being guaranteed.

[Steely Dan]

So, recently there has been a trend of players holding out for more money while still under contract with their team (Jason Peters is a prime example of this). And now I see Andre Johnson is unhappy with his $60 million deal and still has 5 years left on his contract. It's becoming an epidemic in the NFL full of players that "need to feed their families." While I believe certain players deserve to be paid top dollar, there is a problem with their negotiating tactics.

 

You can't ask for a big signing bonus and a nice multi-year contract for stability, and then come back 2 years later after playing pro bowl level football and ask for more money. I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you want to be paid more as a player for better performance on the field, then you need to sign an INCENTIVE BASED CONTRACT. But players aren't willing to do that. They're getting the best of both worlds. They're signing contracts with HUGE guaranteed signing bonuses. And if their play on the field fails or they get injured, they still have their money. It's a win-win for the player. All the while, teams are being held hostage by star players with no choice but to pay the guy or lose him to some moronic team willing to pay a fortune for a diva and some marketing appeal.

 

When does the bubble burst?

 

I agree with that on a moral level but unfortunately life in the NFL is much different than life in other sports. I think some of this will be handled in the new CBA. I think the players will agree to a rookie wage scale and the NFL owners will agree to guaranteed contracts.

 

I think the NFL should also set up a more accessible salary arbitration for situations like this. I understand when a guy is woefully underpaid for his production and then he sees what Jamarcus Russell's getting paid. It has to piss you off on some level.

 

I think the best idea is to deal with the team while working out as much as possible with the team. Holding out should be the very, very, very last resort. JMO

 

One of the problems I see with performance based contracts is that it will make some guys "me" players instead of team players.

 

I believe that you should honor your contract. I am not saying that he shouldn't be able to re-negotiate his contract, but if he is under contract he should show up to all mandatory activities.

I think the NFL should have a league wide rule that nobody can renegotiate a contract if they are not at mandatory activities. All that does is hurt the team and their fans.

Prime example was Jason Peters' last year in Buffalo. He misses all of training camp and the pre season. He never recovered from that and he hurt his team.

If you are under contract show up and try to negotiate. You owe that to the team and yourself.

 

A lot of people on this board criticized the Bills for doing that but I agree 100% with how they handled that.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

The problem is contract dont mean anything, all these players want is guaranteed money. IMO get rid of the salary cap and just guarantee contracts. We would see smaller contracts.

 

Contracts now a days are just year to year.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

I understand your point and many casual sports fans are frustrated by the idea of players not honoring their contracts, especially when there are many years left on the contract or in cases where the "ink is barely dry" on the contract.

 

But there are huge differences between the NFL and the other major professional sports:

 

Contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed (only the signing bonus portion is guaranteed).

 

NFL players have shorter careers than athletes in the other sports and more often, risk catastrophic and career-ending injury.

 

There is nothing preventing a team from terminating a player's contract who in the team's estimation, is no longer worth the money which his contract stipulates that he be paid. If he becomes less-productive and/or gets injured, they can cut him.

 

So, you're asking a player to honor a contract in a league where the team often doesn't honor that same contract.

 

With regard to your example of Andre Johnson, who is making $5.8 million per year, there are wide receivers in the NFL (Lee Evans among them) making $9 million per year. Now what if Johnson (who is now underpaid and will continue to be under the terms of his present contract) has a career debilitating injury from which he never truly recovers, or even worse, a career-ending injury?

 

In other sports, the injured player would still collect ALL the money on his contract, even if he were to never play again. In the NFL, Johnson could be cut and be owed NO MORE MONEY.

 

NFL players have very short careers. They play probably the most violent sport and they risk career-ending and catastrophic injuries more than players in other sports.

 

These are the compelling reasons that NFL players feel strongly that they must maximize their earnings, regardless of how the public feels about it.

 

IMO, no discussion of this issue is complete without considering the facts that:

 

A) NFL contracts are not guaranteed (even though they are in the NBA, NHL, and MLB)

B) NFL careers are much shorter than careers in the other major professional sports

 

If I were an NFL football player, I don't think I'd particularly care how the public reacted to my desire for more money…regardless of how many years remained on my contract (if I knew I was woefully underpaid).

 

Now Albert Haynesworth wanting to be traded out of Washington? I have a whole different take on that. He's getting ridiculous money. He needs to shut his mouth and do what the coaches tell him to do.

 

JaMarcus Russell? He needed to get off his lazy ass and lose some weight and study the playbook and act like what he was…the highest paid player on his team.

 

But Andre Johnson? The guy who works his ass off, plays through injuries, is a great teammate, leader, and one of the best players at his position? Andre Johnson who is one of the top two receivers in the game but who makes about half of what Larry Fitzgerald makes?

 

Sounds to me like he deserves a raise.

 

my continued problem with this line of thinking is that it looks at each player's situation as if it's the only situation to be considered, ignoring the collective bargaining aspect of it.

 

to get to where you are at, you have to sidestep the contractual issues negotiated by union, the guaranteed money that the player's agent is able to negotiate based on the performance of said player, and revert to the old standard of "equity".

there is tremendous risk to the owner of the team as it relates to both production and injury to players. i can understand that some people want to take the side of the player, but at a minimum you have to recognize that every issue you outlined on behalf of the player exists for ownership as well.

 

put another way, it borders on the absurd to suggest that there are no guarantees, except the guarantees. you really see the players and their agents as unwitting pawns in the system?

 

please. the contract is what the contract is. the very violence of the game, and the popularity of the sport dictates that players take risks in exchange for potentially huge paydays.

 

have him sit. fine him for each day of mandatory team commitment he misses, and let the fans know the full story.

 

this is classless.

[Big Turk]

When does the bubble burst?

 

When the owners aren't able to tear up their contracts any time they want and pay them nothing...

[Steely Dan]

How about this idea. Rookies are given contracts based upon their field position and draft number. Money a lot smaller than they get now. Then all contracts, including rookie contracts are given a bonus based on how they perform. There's the problem though. How do you grade a blocking TE or OL? There are a lot of things that players can do that won't show up on a stat sheet. Also, as I asked above will receivers, QB's and RB's get pissed when they don't get the ball enough or are told by the doctor they can't play?

 

If the NFLPA and NFL can agree on a system I think it would be the best idea. A guy who has a top five season would get top five money. A guy with a poor season gets no bonus at all.

 

It's a very difficult idea to implement but it would be cool if they could do something like that.

 

Just a thought.

[JohnC]

I understand your point and many casual sports fans are frustrated by the idea of players not honoring their contracts, especially when there are many years left on the contract or in cases where the "ink is barely dry" on the contract.

 

But there are huge differences between the NFL and the other major professional sports:

 

Contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed (only the signing bonus portion is guaranteed).

 

NFL players have shorter careers than athletes in the other sports and more often, risk catastrophic and career-ending injury.

 

There is nothing preventing a team from terminating a player's contract who in the team's estimation, is no longer worth the money which his contract stipulates that he be paid. If he becomes less-productive and/or gets injured, they can cut him.

 

So, you're asking a player to honor a contract in a league where the team often doesn't honor that same contract.

 

With regard to your example of Andre Johnson, who is making $5.8 million per year, there are wide receivers in the NFL (Lee Evans among them) making $9 million per year. Now what if Johnson (who is now underpaid and will continue to be under the terms of his present contract) has a career debilitating injury from which he never truly recovers, or even worse, a career-ending injury?

 

In other sports, the injured player would still collect ALL the money on his contract, even if he were to never play again. In the NFL, Johnson could be cut and be owed NO MORE MONEY.

 

NFL players have very short careers. They play probably the most violent sport and they risk career-ending and catastrophic injuries more than players in other sports.

 

These are the compelling reasons that NFL players feel strongly that they must maximize their earnings, regardless of how the public feels about it.

 

IMO, no discussion of this issue is complete without considering the facts that:

 

A) NFL contracts are not guaranteed (even though they are in the NBA, NHL, and MLB)

B) NFL careers are much shorter than careers in the other major professional sports

 

If I were an NFL football player, I don't think I'd particularly care how the public reacted to my desire for more money…regardless of how many years remained on my contract (if I knew I was woefully underpaid).

 

Now Albert Haynesworth wanting to be traded out of Washington? I have a whole different take on that. He's getting ridiculous money. He needs to shut his mouth and do what the coaches tell him to do.

 

JaMarcus Russell? He needed to get off his lazy ass and lose some weight and study the playbook and act like what he was…the highest paid player on his team.

 

But Andre Johnson? The guy who works his ass off, plays through injuries, is a great teammate, leader, and one of the best players at his position? Andre Johnson who is one of the top two receivers in the game but who makes about half of what Larry Fitzgerald makes?

 

Sounds to me like he deserves a raise.

 

There is a solution to some of these contract issues. Make the first contract and even later contracts for that matter shorter in duration. So if a high draft pick or lower draft pick outperforms his contract like Andre Johnson then the contract can be adjusted to the market rate in due time. On the flip side, if a high pick such as JaMarcus Russell flops then his contract would be adjusted down after the contract expires.

 

The Haynesworth situation is not a Haynesworth problem-it is a Redskin organizational problem. They foolishly miscalculated on a very questionable character who it was risky to invest in. Haynesworth was a good but mercurial player (who had behavior issues) who then turned it on full throttle in his contract year. In his contract year he demonstrated that he was the most dominant defensive lineman in the league. That one year jump in performance in itself should have sent warning flags to bidding teams. The contract he was offered was foolishly constructed. It was front loaded so that a very questionable motivated player got his money upfront. The Skins structured the deal so no other team would dare match it or raise it. The Skins got the headache player they richly deserved.

 

The majority of people favor the owners over the players when it comes to compensating players. What isn't often mentioned is how much $$$ the owners make whether they win or lose. The product on the field can be garbage and they still will make a substantial profit. Ralph Wilson is a classic example of an owner who has shamelessly taken advantage of the no fail system without seriously bothering to compete.

 

The players are playing in a profession which more often than not prematurely cripples them. The players realize the risks but there should be no surprise when they try to get as much as they can while they can.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

There is a solution to some of these contract issues. Make the first contract and even later contracts for that matter shorter in duration. So if a high draft pick or lower draft pick outperforms his contract like Andre Johnson then the contract can be adjusted to the market rate in due time. On the flip side, if a high pick such as JaMarcus Russell flops then his contract would be adjusted down after the contract expires.

 

The Haynesworth situation is not a Haynesworth problem-it is a Redskin organizational problem. They foolishly miscalculated on a very questionable character who it was risky to invest in. Haynesworth was a good but mercurial player (who had behavior issues) who then turned it on full throttle in his contract year. In his contract year he demonstrated that he was the most dominant defensive lineman in the league. That one year jump in performance in itself should have sent warning flags to bidding teams. The contract he was offered was foolishly constructed. It was front loaded so that a very questionable motivated player got his money upfront. The Skins structured the deal so no other team would dare match it or raise it. The Skins got the headache player they richly deserved.

 

The majority of people favor the owners over the players when it comes to compensating players. What isn't often mentioned how much $$$ the owners make whether they win or lose. The product on the field can be garbage and they still will make a substantial profit. Ralph Wilson is a classic example of an owner who has shamelessly taken advantage of the no fail system without seriously bothering to compete.

 

The players are playing in a profession which more often than not prematurely cripples them. The players realize the risks but there should be no surprise when they try to get as much as they can while they can.

 

it's not a matter of favoring the owners, it's a matter of legalities. again, the whole issue of "fairness" is irrelevant, and pretty obviously most in the system see it that way. the players union is doing nothing to curb rookie salaries in favor of the older, established players.

 

in the end, i see a guy like andre johnson earning $30 mill in guaranteed numbers, and the argument that Ralph Wilson has benefited too richly is lost. Without guys like Ralph Wilson risking his money---regardless of the results of his particular franchise---Andre Johnson takes what he can get out of college, and I bet it's less than $30 mill. Good for him---it's $30 mill, but he ain't the game, and when he's done, or injured, it's like waiting in line for cheese at the deli---NEXT?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

my continued problem with this line of thinking is that it looks at each player's situation as if it's the only situation to be considered, ignoring the collective bargaining aspect of it.

One of my points is that the system needs to be improved. I believe that the next CBA will be a watershed negotiation…a big step in the right direction for both sides.

 

to get to where you are at, you have to sidestep the contractual issues negotiated by union, the guaranteed money that the player's agent is able to negotiate based on the performance of said player, and revert to the old standard of "equity".

 

Nothing wrong with equity. It's a better compass point than leverage.

 

there is tremendous risk to the owner of the team as it relates to both production and injury to players. i can understand that some people want to take the side of the player, but at a minimum you have to recognize that every issue you outlined on behalf of the player exists for ownership as well.

 

The billionaire businessman who (invariably) has a great education, and many powerful peers who can help him through any duress is at greater risk than the millionaire athlete who is (largely) without an education and whose support system is as fleeting and insubstantial as his career? I guess it depends upon who you have more sympathy for.

 

put another way, it borders on the absurd to suggest that there are no guarantees, except the guarantees. you really see the players and their agents as unwitting pawns in the system?

 

No, the players are not pawns. The history of any CBA is a process which evolves over time. Both sides are winners right now because they are both making good money. But it's a matter of fairness.

 

Owners can break contracts. Players are chastised, persecuted, and ostracized when they attempt to.

 

please. the contract is what the contract is. the very violence of the game, and the popularity of the sport dictates that players take risks in exchange for potentially huge paydays.

 

And who takes the bigger risk? The player who's livelihood can be taken from him in a single moment or the owner who can replace him with another modern-day gladiator?

 

have him sit. fine him for each day of mandatory team commitment he misses, and let the fans know the full story.

 

this is classless.

 

What is classless? The player who doesn't honor the contract or the owner that doesn't honor the contract?

You aren't likely to change my mind, nor I, yours.

 

But I have to say that I find your arguments to be completely uncompelling.

[GOBILLS78]

This thread was somehow lost in the netherlands of the Internet. It started as a Curt Flood blast-piece on a Phillies message board in 1969. Weird.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

You aren't likely to change my mind, nor I, yours.

 

But I have to say that I find your arguments to be completely uncompelling.

 

 

I can understand your inability to find my argument completely rational and even remotely compelling. Your argument is an emotional one, and emotion has nothing to do with it. I'm not being a hard-ass, it's just pretty clear to me that when Drew Rosenhaus sits down with the negotiating mgmt group from the team, he knows what he's doing. I don't see it remotely as an Oprah moment.

 

Would you at least spot me this----would you support (millionaire) Andre Johnson returning the unearned pro-rata share of his guaranteed bonus money to the (billionaire) owner as part of the re-negotiation? I'd assume if we're looking for equity, that is. Maybe guaranteed money needs to come off the table?

 

We do have some common ground, though. I'd concur with you, though maybe for different reasons, that the system is broken. I think it's onerous to all parties that such princely sums are paid to draft choices who haven't done a thing, at the expense of players who have earned their keep.

 

I'd be happy to see this type of thing end forever.

[K-9]

...There is nothing preventing a team from terminating a player's contract who in the team's estimation, is no longer worth the money which his contract stipulates that he be paid. If he becomes less-productive and/or gets injured, they can cut him.

 

So, you're asking a player to honor a contract in a league where the team often doesn't honor that same contract.

 

I can appreciate the point you're trying to make but just to be clear, there is a HUGE difference between a team cutting a player and not honoring his contract.

 

These guys know the score and I don't blame them for getting as much as they can for as long as they can but when they've outlived their production as a player, I don't fault any team for making cuts and getting new players to do the job.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[CazParker]

This thread was somehow lost in the netherlands of the Internet. It started as a Curt Flood blast-piece on a Phillies message board in 1969. Weird.

 

 

Actually it started with Cookie in '65 (as purportedly quoted in the Courier Express)

 

"Ralph got his - Where's mine?"

[The Dean]

it's not a matter of favoring the owners, it's a matter of legalities. again, the whole issue of "fairness" is irrelevant, and pretty obviously most in the system see it that way. the players union is doing nothing to curb rookie salaries in favor of the older, established players.

 

in the end, i see a guy like andre johnson earning $30 mill in guaranteed numbers, and the argument that Ralph Wilson has benefited too richly is lost. Without guys like Ralph Wilson risking his money---regardless of the results of his particular franchise---Andre Johnson takes what he can get out of college, and I bet it's less than $30 mill. Good for him---it's $30 mill, but he ain't the game, and when he's done, or injured, it's like waiting in line for cheese at the deli---NEXT?

 

 

Contracts will be "fair", and operate like "real contracts" when/if the NFL teams have to operate like other businesses. That is,

 

1. a.No draft. Players are free to negotiate with any team they like.

 

b. Also, no salary cap, no minimum or maximum salary rules (other than the minimum wage laws).

 

c. Players could be signed directly from High School, or junior high, or jail. Can't Dell hire anyone over the legal age to work? Well, why can't the Bills?

 

2. If player X signs a 3-year contract you have to pay him for those 3 years. You can cut him, but you still have to pay him. (Of course there are some situations that would void the contract, but you couldn't simply cut him because his play isn't as good as it was previously.)

 

3. At the end of the contract a player is free to negotiate with any team. Just like you can go to any job after your contract with one company expires. There could be a non-compete clause, I suppose, that could keep you out of the division or conference. But that would be part of the initial negotiation.

 

In other words, the NFL will never have "fair" or "real" contracts. And if they did, it would likely mean the end of the NFL in Buffalo and many other cities. The contract rules you see today are totally biased toward the owners, and many of the rules that are in place (salary cap, restricted free agency, etc) were put there by the owners to protect themselves from themselves.

 

Do NFL players make too much money? Probably. Do the owners make too much money? You be the judge. But don't cry for the NFL owners, or blame the players for the current system. If an owner doesn't like the contract he just cuts the player. What is the player to do if HE doesn't like the contract? The only option he has is to sit out, and you want to take that away too?