How deep is Donahoe's love for Willis?

[todd]

NFL contracts are not guaranteed. When a player is cut, he gets nothing. His signing bonus still counts toward the salary cap.

When a player is trades, the team he is traded from eats what is left of the pro-rated signing bonus.

379571[/snapback]

 

 

A big SB is similar to a guarantee for a player. Essentially, a team is saying that they trust that they are a great player, and have faith that you will do well because we get penalizes against the cap if we cut you. So contracts are not guaranteed, but a big signing bonus makes it hard for a team to cut a player.

[IDBillzFan]

A big SB is similar to a guarantee for a player. Essentially, a team is saying that they trust that they are a great player, and have faith that you will do well because we get penalizes against the cap if we cut you. So contracts are not guaranteed, but a big signing bonus makes it hard for a team to cut a player.

379749[/snapback]

And this is a reason why I get on player's asses about loyalty. I recognize this is a two-way street, but look at Terrell Owens for a second. If memory serves, he got a $46M gig, including a $10M signing bonus. Ten million just to join the team, and the cogsucker wants MORE money?

 

The only way in hell I could even REMOTELY accept this thinking is if he caught the game-winning TD in the Super Bowl. But as it turns out, the team didn't even NEED him during their stretch to the championship.

 

If the team opted to CUT him, they'd still have to eat the $10M, so if opts to bail on the team, how come he can't eat the bonus money and give it back?

[smokinandjokin]

And this is a reason why I get on player's asses about loyalty. I recognize this is a two-way street, but look at Terrell Owens for a second. If memory serves, he got a $46M gig, including a $10M signing bonus. Ten million just to join the team, and the cogsucker wants MORE money?

 

The only way in hell I could even REMOTELY accept this thinking is if he caught the game-winning TD in the Super Bowl. But as it turns out, the team didn't even NEED him during their stretch to the championship.

 

If the team opted to CUT him, they'd still have to eat the $10M, so if opts to bail on the team, how come he can't eat the bonus money and give it back?

379769[/snapback]

 

Looking optimistically, I would hope Rosenhaus and Willis see their situation a little differently than T.O. The Bills drafted Willis in the 1st round when he said himself he was hoping for 3rd round and was dying at the thought of not getting drafted at all. On top of that, the Bills paid him similar, with incentives, to what he would have been paid as a top-5 pick. That was the most gruesome leg injury I have ever seen. You would hope Willis and his tool agent would show a little loyalty to the team that drafted him, paid him, and gave him a year to rehab. However, I know the flip side of the coin is, where is the loyalty when the running back turns 32, and you cut him? I can't answer that. But I would assume if Willis has an above average year in yardage and td's, the Bills will try to work out an extension with a nice signing bonus before Rosenhaus comes yaking on his cell phone.

[d_wag]

On top of that, the Bills paid him similar, with incentives, to what he would have been paid as a top-5 pick. 

379821[/snapback]

 

that's false.......as previously pointed out, the most he can make is 15.528M over 5 years.........the #5 pick in the draft last year (sean taylor) signed a deal that could have paid him 40M over 6 years........not even in the same ballpark.......

[The_Real]

Bills | Rosenhaus won't Push for McGahee Extension, Yet

Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:01:05 -0700

 

Adam Schefter, of NFL.com, reports agent Drew Rosenhaus is not expected to push for a contract extension for Buffalo Bills RB Willis McGahee, at least for this season. Rosenhaus has brought up the topic of a McGahee extension to the Bills, but he did nothing more than that. Should McGahee have the big year that many are expecting, the Bills can expect to hear from Rosenhaus shortly after the coming season.

379368[/snapback]

 

 

Did any of you guys read the article on Rosenhaus on ESPN? Willis said himself that the agent really doesn't have to push them to sign with him. They come because they know drew will make sure they get paid.

 

Don't blame Drew for doing his job. Blame owners who pay it and fans who spend the money to watch it and television that promotes it and shoe companies and athletic apparel and.....

 

If a player signs with DR they are all about getting paid. He's just a smart business man working in a lucrative field.

 

 

Jerry Maguire does not exist people.

 

 

t-r

[ganesh]

If Willis has a big year pay him and be done with it.

379423[/snapback]

 

I agree...If Willis has a great year, he needs to get paid....The only

problem is how the bills are going to fit McGahee, Clements and Eric Moulds

into that contract...Also McGee's contract might be up at that point too...and so

would London Fletcher....

[Mickey]

For the fans this is a real turnoff.Rookie contracts should at least run full term. How can we root for a team that drafts well and loses players due to contact squables. What kind of example does this set for our children?Just doent look like the NFL is heading in the right direction as far as this issue goes.

379720[/snapback]

What kind of example does it set for the kids to have an employee told which employer he can work for whether he likes it or not? I certainly understand the turn-off for the fans. We don't get paid to like our teams and to root for them through good times and bad. To us, part of the appeal of the game is loyalty to your team. We are deluding ourselves but willingly so. It is more fun to think of the team and the league that way even if the reality is all dollars and cents. One of the reasons, perhaps, that this kind of thing is so irksome to fans is because it forces us to face the uglier side of the game and threatens our idealistic view of the NFL.

 

The league simply has to strike a stable balance where we get enough of what we like to keep buying tickets and the players and owners get enought of what they want, profit, at the same time. The teams fight with players over holdouts and the like but it never goes nuclear. They stay out of court and the players do the same.

What makes a guy like TO dangerous is that he doesn't want to play the business end of the game by the unwritten rules. It has nothing to do with the specifics of his contract, every one knows they are only good for as long as neither side thinks they can do better. Even so, there are just some things you don't do as a player or as an owner. In TO's case, he is way overreaching, you simpy do not screw up as bad as he did last year in failing to file for free agency in time, get bailed out by a team who pays you mega bucks and then hold them up for more the very next year. What scares me about TO is that he is crazy enough to start a law suit.

[stuckincincy]

What kind of example does it set for the kids to have an employee told which employer he can work for whether he likes it or not?  I certainly understand the turn-off for the fans.  We don't get paid to like our teams and to root for them through good times and bad.  To us, part of the appeal of the game is loyalty to your team.  We are deluding ourselves but willingly so.  It is more fun to think of the team and the league that way even if the reality is all dollars and cents.  One of the reasons, perhaps, that this kind of thing is so irksome to fans is because it forces us to face the uglier side of the game and threatens our idealistic view of the NFL. 

 

The league simply has to strike a stable balance where we get enough of what we like to keep buying tickets and the players and owners get enought of what they want, profit, at the same time.  The teams fight with players over holdouts and the like but it never goes nuclear.  They stay out of court and the players do the same.

What makes a guy like TO dangerous is that he doesn't want to play the business end of the game by the unwritten rules.  It has nothing to do with the specifics of his contract, every one knows they are only good for as long as neither side thinks they can do better.  Even so, there are just some things you don't do as a player or as an owner.  In TO's case, he is way overreaching, you simpy do not screw up as bad as he did last year in failing to file for free agency in time, get bailed out by a team who pays you mega bucks and then hold them up for more the very next year.  What scares me about TO is that he is crazy enough to start a law suit.

380073[/snapback]

 

It's your generation, not mine. You have to deal with what you forged and prized...sorry that it comes back to bite.

[jad1]

It's your generation, not mine. You have to deal with what you forged and prized...sorry that it comes back to bite.

380075[/snapback]

 

Actually, the money chase has been around forever in the NFL.

 

There were bidding wars between the NFL and AFL in the 60s, the WFL in the 70s, and the USFL in the 80s. And the final bargaining chip was always the CFL.

 

Look back and you'll see that several Buffalo Bills of note in the 70s and 80s held out at one time or another.

 

This is really nothing new. In fact, since the overall number of holdouts are so much fewer in number compared to the old days, the NFL is going through a period of relative economic bliss.

[finknottle]

If Willis has a big year pay him and be done with it.

379423[/snapback]

 

If he has a big year, great. If he wants more money, make him somebody elses problem.

 

Put it another way: what percent of the cap would people here be comfortable with spending on the RB position?

[finknottle]

The player is no less committed than the teams are.  If a player performs poorly, he is gone.  If a player is not paid market value, he is gone.  If they hold out, they don't get paid and the team doesn't get the benefit of their performance.  The NFL has a virtual monopoly and the reason they never take player's to court on a breach of contract claim in a typical hold out situation is because they would lose and they know it.  Rather than have that precedent established ultimately leading to unlimited free agency, the teams deal with hold outs the way they always do.

This is a business and loyalty means about as much to players as it does to teams which is not at all.  The teams and the players basically just use whatever tools the CBA gives them to pursue their goals.  For now, neither wants to involve the courts and risk killing the golden goose.

 

Frankly, it is pretty much capitalism at its best.  The players balance the league's monopoly power with the CBA and, for the limited few who are the top performers, hold outs.  The result is about as free a labor market as you can have and still keep intact the team structure, league balance and the draft.  As much as it drives us all crazy sometimes, the NFL is a healthy, stable league with a great product and a decent enough bottom line.  I wouldn't mess with it.  The minute teams start clamping down too hard on hold outs, they would be inviting law suits whose results could make things much, much worse.

 

I think Willis should make as much money as he can while he can and he should do that by gaining lots and lots of yards.  If the price of having the top rusher in the league is a hold out and larger salary, there are worse fates.

379496[/snapback]

 

Why would they lose in court? Seems to me they would win. A player agrees to provide a service under the contract. The team can void it, or the player can void it by retiring. The disposition of the signing bonus depends on who voids it.

 

The fact that there is a string attached to the player voiding it - that he must retire, and is implicitely not a free agent - is not that unusual. Professional consultants often have similar contracts wherin instead of 'retiring' they instead have a no-compete clause extending some period of time and which prevents them from working for specified competing companies.

[Albany,n.y.]

Most of the trade Wilis group are forgetting one thing-Willis is going to be the main guy on offense, just like OJ was in the 70's. Ralph has already been through this with OJ and put up with his sh** until he was past his prime & traded him for a lot more than he was worth. Willis will get big $ his next contract, probably after this year and it will be done as a "salary cap saving" contract to avoid a bigger cap hit when his incentives kick in and inflate his 2006 cap #. Anyone who got their season ticket package last week should realize that the team is being marketed as Team Willis and when he has a big year he will be the main attraction. The Bills will be in no position from a PR standpoint to do anything but pay him, just like OJ in his prime. Any trade of Willis is about 5-8 years away.

[Arkady Renko]

I think he admires Willis' pitching ability, but since he's not a Marlins fan, he only keeps a passing interest in him.

[finknottle]

Here's a real-life scenario somewhat relevent to WM. You go to work for a company. They will pay for you to go to school for specialized training to get up to speed. Typically, if you quit within a specified period of time you are obligated to repay them. If they lay you off or cut you, you don't.

 

So what if you get the training, and pretty good, and now demand a raise? What if you hold out and refuse to show up for work? I contend that they can force you to repay the tuition, and the courts will back them up.

[Albany,n.y.]

Here's a real-life scenario somewhat relevent to WM. You go to work for a company. They will pay for you to go to school for specialized training to get up to speed. Typically, if you quit within a specified period of time you are obligated to repay them. If they lay you off or cut you, you don't.

 

So what if you get the training, and pretty good, and now demand a raise? What if you hold out and refuse to show up for work? I contend that they can force you to repay the tuition, and the courts will back them up.

380224[/snapback]

 

Not in the NFL, unless you signed a Rickey Williams-like contract, something no agent will ever do again.

[MartyBall4Buffalo]

Most of the trade Wilis group are forgetting one thing-Willis is going to be the main guy on offense, just like OJ was in the 70's.  Ralph has already been through this with OJ and put up with his sh** until he was past his prime & traded him for a lot more than he was worth.  Willis will get big $ his next contract, probably after this year and it will be done as a "salary cap saving" contract to avoid a bigger cap hit when his incentives kick in and inflate his 2006 cap #.  Anyone who got their season ticket package last week should realize that the team is being marketed as Team Willis and when he has a big year he will be the main attraction.  The Bills will be in no position from a PR standpoint to do anything but pay him, just like OJ in his prime.  Any trade of Willis is about 5-8 years away.

380210[/snapback]

 

Absolutly correct. This Is Willis Mcgahee's team, and if he has a big year he will be paid like it's his team. He'll be our benefit not someone else's "problem"

[Mickey]

Why would they lose in court?  Seems to me they would win. A player agrees to provide a service under the contract. The team can void it, or the player can void it by retiring. The disposition of the signing bonus depends on who voids it.

 

The fact that there is a string attached to the player voiding it - that he must retire, and is implicitely not a free agent - is not that unusual. Professional consultants often have similar contracts wherin instead of 'retiring' they instead have a no-compete clause extending some period of time and which prevents them from working for specified competing companies.

380209[/snapback]

The NFL has a monopoly. The "employers", the teams, act collusively. There is no competition for player's services. Their salaries are artificially suppressed because they can't just initially sign with the highest bidder. If you were graduating from college and interviewing for jobs, you could sign with the employer giving you the best offer. In the NFL, you have to go to the team that drafted you. You sign with them or you don't work. The collusive effect is to suppress player salaries below what they would otherwise command in an open market. That is why whenever their had been another league in existence, player salaries shoot up because of the real competition for players. The contracts drawn up in what is essentially an illegal system are probably not enforceable. Parties can't agree by contract to an illegality even if both are willing. If you hire someone to committ a crime for you and they fail to do so, you can't go after them for breach of contract.

 

Isn't obvious when you look at the number of breach of contract cases brought over hold outs? Tons of hold outs every year right? How many suits filed? Zero. Even disputes brought under the CBA are pretty rare.

 

The whole reason we have limited free agency in the NFL to start with is because the league saw the legal writing on the wall, they had no choice but to prevent unlimited free agency by giving the players limited free agency.

 

The conduct of the teams and the players involved in contract negotiations and what-not makes it pretty clear that neither the teams nor the players treat these contracts as binding beyond a certain point. In fact, given the meaning people normally give to the term "contract", these aren't contracts at all.

 

I could go on and on about contract law and the enforceability of contracts, recoverable damages and the like but the conduct of both the teams and the players make it clear that the parties to theses contracts themselves have a reached a general consensus as to their enforceability so I don't really think a explanation is needed to prove the point. If they could be enforced, the teams would enforce them. If they couldn't be breached without severe penalty, the players wouldn't hold out.

[Mickey]

Most of the trade Wilis group are forgetting one thing-Willis is going to be the main guy on offense, just like OJ was in the 70's.  Ralph has already been through this with OJ and put up with his sh** until he was past his prime & traded him for a lot more than he was worth.  Willis will get big $ his next contract, probably after this year and it will be done as a "salary cap saving" contract to avoid a bigger cap hit when his incentives kick in and inflate his 2006 cap #.  Anyone who got their season ticket package last week should realize that the team is being marketed as Team Willis and when he has a big year he will be the main attraction.  The Bills will be in no position from a PR standpoint to do anything but pay him, just like OJ in his prime.  Any trade of Willis is about 5-8 years away.

380210[/snapback]

My God, is there really a "trade Willis group" out there somewhere? Yikes.

[Mickey]

Here's a real-life scenario somewhat relevent to WM. You go to work for a company. They will pay for you to go to school for specialized training to get up to speed. Typically, if you quit within a specified period of time you are obligated to repay them. If they lay you off or cut you, you don't.

 

So what if you get the training, and pretty good, and now demand a raise? What if you hold out and refuse to show up for work? I contend that they can force you to repay the tuition, and the courts will back them up.

380224[/snapback]

Kudos on a very good analogy but it is just a little shy of being applicable to the NFL. Add in to your scenario that the company involved has colluded with all other conceivable employers for your particular skills to prevent you from signing with the highest bidder for your services in a free and open labor market and to artificially limit your compensation to a level significantly below what a free market would pay. You end up having no choice but to sign with them under the terms they offer. That is not a contract freely entered into and would not be enforceable.

[Mickey]

If he has a big year, great. If he wants more money, make him somebody elses problem.

 

Put it another way:  what percent of the cap would people here be comfortable with spending on the RB position?

380202[/snapback]

Are you saying that if he has a great year but wants more money, we should get rid of him so that he would be somebody elses problem?

 

Yeah, having a great running back, what a terrible problem that would be. The trophy goes to the best team, not to the team with the best balance sheet. Are we in this to win or to keep our cap numbers low so we are merely competitive?

 

People complain about the mess Butler left behind cap-wise but what everyone forgets is what we got in exchange for that which was lots and lots and lots and lots of winning. During his tenure we were in the playoffs 10 times and our record was 140-83. If that is the price of cap hell, give me more, give me more