MDH Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 I am so tired of hearing the argument it is a one way street. Now, if no signing bonus was involved, I would agree. However that bonus is their guarantee. Lets not forget the player can always opt to play in Canada, or get another job, or just not play football if he does not feel he is fairly compensated. 374695[/snapback] I'm sorry, that signing bonus does not make the contract "guaranteed", the bonus is normally a pretty small fraction of the overall value of the contract (particularly for the non-superstar players). The majority of the players that hold out are draft picks playing under their first contract and most of these guys get jack **** for signing bonuses. The nature of football is such that your career can be over and done in a single moment, these guys should be doing whatever they can to make sure their futures are secure and if they're way outplaying their current contract the smart move is to try to renegotiate. If the team you're playing for refuses to do so, the best move for a player is to hold out. Claiming that the $300 k these draft picks get in signing bonus is a "guaranteed" part of their contract when a player is playing like a $5 million a year player is ridiculous. Why should the player be paid according to what people “thought” he'd do and not what he's actually doing? I see this complaint over and over again going the opposite way, when the player gets a huge contract before he does a thing, but when a 2nd rounder plays like a pro bowler and wants more money the fans claim he's "greedy." That being said, there are certainly instances when a player is just out and out wrong for holding out (the TO holdout comes to mind) but to just take the side of management every time against a player is ridiculous imo.
pkwwjd Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 On the surface I agree -- but on the other hand, the owners can cut you at any time and the contract becomes null and void... So it's definately a one-way street in that regard. CW 374501[/snapback] but you still receive your signing bonus -- that's your insurance. That's why players play for lower amounts but receive the S.B. "Nuts, I got cut this year, so I lose my 3.4 million (unless someone else signs me). But I received my 7.9 million when I signed the contract 3 years ago."
gantrules Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Shaun Alexander has been talking about this contract for at least two years. Why didn't Seattle wrap him up and make him happy if he puts people in the seats in the first place? If Alexander has a commitment to the fans then doesn't ownership have an obligation to pay the man that is putting the fans in the seats? If he holds out I'm on his side of the fence.
plenzmd1 Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 I'm sorry, that signing bonus does not make the contract "guaranteed", the bonus is normally a pretty small fraction of the overall value of the contract (particularly for the non-superstar players). The majority of the players that hold out are draft picks playing under their first contract and most of these guys get jack **** for signing bonuses. The nature of football is such that your career can be over and done in a single moment, these guys should be doing whatever they can to make sure their futures are secure and if they're way outplaying their current contract the smart move is to try to renegotiate. If the team you're playing for refuses to do so, the best move for a player is to hold out. Claiming that the $300 k these draft picks get in signing bonus is a "guaranteed" part of their contract when a player is playing like a $5 million a year player is ridiculous. Why should the player be paid according to what people “thought” he'd do and not what he's actually doing? I see this complaint over and over again going the opposite way, when the player gets a huge contract before he does a thing, but when a 2nd rounder plays like a pro bowler and wants more money the fans claim he's "greedy." That being said, there are certainly instances when a player is just out and out wrong for holding out (the TO holdout comes to mind) but to just take the side of management every time against a player is ridiculous imo. 374739[/snapback] Good points, and I should have qualified my statements to really be keying in on guys that are in or have signed their second contract. I totally agree with you on the 4th rounder that signed a five year deal coming out of college.
ganesh Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Holding out will be bad, when teams honor players contracts to the full. As long as teams can cut players and not honor contracts to the end of its life, then players have every right to hold out for the best money they can get. I used to think that players are greedy for doing that, but I realize that teams do the same.....espceially when they backload the contracts...
JimBob2232 Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 What would you people think if Payton Manning decided to hold out? He exceeded all expectations this year.
dave mcbride Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 shaun alexander is saying that holding out will be an option if he doesnt get that extra million or so. this is a slap in the face to the fans of seattle. if, and hopefully not if, willis holds out sometime in the future, this will be a slap in the face of buffalo. yes players should have rights, but holding out directly hits the fan, when the regular season starts. there has to be a different option. perhaps players that hold out should be fined 10,000 $ per game or something. 374496[/snapback] um, alexander ain't holding out. he's not even under contract. you've gotta be under contract to hold out ...
Adam Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 How about a lawsuit for failure to provide contracted services- causing irrovocable harm to the team
ganesh Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 What would you people think if Payton Manning decided to hold out? He exceeded all expectations this year. 375235[/snapback] If Peyton Manning thinks he is due more than the 30M signing bonus they gave him, then I am sure he and his agent will be sitting across Bill Polian talking contract extension.
Ramius Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 um, alexander ain't holding out. he's not even under contract. you've gotta be under contract to hold out ... 375273[/snapback] exactly, with alexander, they franchised him, and he hasnt signed the franchise tender...so he isnt under contract with the seahawks, but he cant seek other offers...
elcrusho Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 I thought you said ' Hiding Out ' That movie back in the 80's with Maxwell Houser hahaha
JimBob2232 Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 If Peyton Manning thinks he is due more than the 30M signing bonus they gave him, then I am sure he and his agent will be sitting across Bill Polian talking contract extension. Well the 30M is in the past now...what if he decides to hold out now and try to get even more money? He wont, because he is a better person than that. Look at the guys who are Holding out. They are egotistical maniacs. Owens, Alexander, et al. When the Bledsoes, Mannings, Favres and McNabbs of the world start holding out....then I will start to be concerned with the league structure. Until then...let these fools hold out. They are hurting themselves, and the game...
finknottle Posted July 6, 2005 Posted July 6, 2005 I'd like to see it written in the contract that a game held out is a game check lost, and I'd like to see that extended over the preseason too. A player who shows up two days before the opener (Hi Bruce!) and misses training camp should be seriously docked.
ganesh Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Well the 30M is in the past now...what if he decides to hold out now and try to get even more money? He wont, because he is a better person than that. Look at the guys who are Holding out. They are egotistical maniacs. Owens, Alexander, et al. When the Bledsoes, Mannings, Favres and McNabbs of the world start holding out....then I will start to be concerned with the league structure. Until then...let these fools hold out. They are hurting themselves, and the game... 375844[/snapback] The fact that Peyton has been compensated at the highest level ensures that he is not going to hold out....It is not true for the guys who are holding out...Terrel Owens is the best WR in the league...he makes many more big plays than Randy Moss...and he is not the highest paid WR in the league.... If Peyton did not get that deal for the 30M he definitely was going to hold out....Remember even our Jim Kelly was going to miss camp and it took a shake hand deal by RW to get him to camp and play during the pre-season.
Lori Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 If Peyton did not get that deal for the 30M he definitely was going tohold out....Remember even our Jim Kelly was going to miss camp and it took a shake hand deal by RW to get him to camp and play during the pre-season. 376137[/snapback] Yup.... and then, at the end of that year, they told Kelly he "wasn't in their plans for the future"...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 I think the ikey thing about the reality of all of this is that the current system between the NFL and NFLPA works pretty well. True the contracts are not guaranteed as they are in MLB and the players individually do not get as much as they can because of this. True that a player has the practical ability to hold out even when under contract and the result is often that he gets a renegotiated better deal for simply threatening this. However, NOTHING IN LIFE IS PERFECT, and if the partnership between the owners and players involes checks and balances which may create wrong things but generally allow a good product to be produced and avoids the worst acts by all but a few individuals that strkes me as pretty good or at least about the best that cam be done. The CBA has not only stood the test of time so far, but perhaps more important it has stood the test providing a framework for the owners an players to work out disagreements without the stoppages of the season as the CBA has been reworked by the parties and extended twice. In fact. the current drama and delay in redoing the CBA again is not a problem between the players and owners but a division among the owners between the haves and the have even more. Hold-outs are bad, owners walking away from agreements they have made is bad. However, the product as a whole is good and everyone is making far more $ than they deserve. Those who point out the obvious failings of the system are those who choose perfection over good and if either party took the same approach they would achieve neither perfection nor good as a result (see the NHL if you want an example).
Recommended Posts