BuffalOhio Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 This guy is scum. What ever happened to honoring your contract? It's only a matter of time before Willis does this, too
krazykat Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 This guy is scum. What ever happened to honoring your contract? It's only a matter of time before Willis does this, too 386780[/snapback] Yeah, and watch Henry light it up in Tennessee. A guy who was excited about playing for us and wouldn't have been a problem. Sounds like another one of TD's genius examples of vision.
eball Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 it's pretty simple, actually. i believe (although i admit, i haven't researched it) that most of rosenhaus' holdouts are players who just hired him after firing their old agents. why is that fact important? the old agent is the one who gets paid for the length of the player's contract. in order for rosenhaus to make a dime, he has to get a new deal for the player. simple math. new client = we need a new deal.
stuckincincy Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 This humidity is terrible - algae is blooming all over the place.
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 If I was a nfl player the first call I'd make is to find my agent...... ::ring....ring...ring:: "Excuse me Mr. Rosenhaus" Drew Rosenhaus is just doing his job. I have no problem with nfl players wanting money. The simple fact is every team pays their best players. Even NE. You can't stay competative and have a team full of players making veteran minimum salaries. Whether you like it or not it's not a privilege for a player to don the colors of the uniform. It's their job. NFL GM's don't honor contracts why the hell should players?
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Yeah, and watch Henry light it up in Tennessee. A guy who was excited about playing for us and wouldn't have been a problem. Or watch him not. Even though I was and still am a fan of Travis, I realized he had limitations. Sounds like another one of TD's genius examples of vision. Yeah, like that stupid Peerless Price thing. Should have paid him top dollar and kept him.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Rosenhaus is hired by the person holding out and that player deserves by far they blame rather than focusing on the the tool following their orders.
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 And teams don't come to players begging to restructure? What about honoring the contract? It works both ways folks.
krazykat Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Or watch him not. Even though I was and still am a fan of Travis, I realized he had limitations. Yeah, like that stupid Peerless Price thing. Should have paid him top dollar and kept him. 386820[/snapback] Or like that Bledsoe thing... Henry had nearly 2800 yards in his last two full seasons. Not too many RBs do that. Say what you want, but Willis needs to do that if he's to be better than Henry.
beerme1 Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Or like that Bledsoe thing... Henry had nearly 2800 yards in his last two full seasons. Not too many RBs do that. Say what you want, but Willis needs to do that if he's to be better than Henry. 386887[/snapback] Willis will have that and more by week 5
IDBillzFan Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 If I was a nfl player the first call I'd make is to find my agent...... ::ring....ring...ring::"Excuse me Mr. Rosenhaus" Drew Rosenhaus is just doing his job. I have no problem with nfl players wanting money. The simple fact is every team pays their best players. Even NE. You can't stay competative and have a team full of players making veteran minimum salaries. Whether you like it or not it's not a privilege for a player to don the colors of the uniform. It's their job. NFL GM's don't honor contracts why the hell should players? 386790[/snapback] You are right on many levels, but please show me an NFL GM who signs a player for seven years and after the first year says "Oh, we're paying you too much." It just does not happen. This all it simply comes down to this: If a team does not honor its contract, the player should just walk. If a player doesn't honor his contract, the team should walk. Look at what Philly is doing. They busted ass to get TO and paid him a crapload of cash for seven years, and less than 1/7th of the way in, he says he wants more. Iggles say "No way. See ya." Now who here thinks TO is going to get another contract like that with another team without it being backloaded? Anyone? Bueller? People need to stand up and say no. (Plus, the Iggles proved they didn't totally need TO to get them to the Super Bowl. And they certainly didn't need him to lose it.)
Beerball Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 He saved the life of a four year boy. 386793[/snapback] That and 20 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. He still has no soul. I hear the kid is suing the hospital, something about his jello being too warm.
bluv Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 You are right on many levels, but please show me an NFL GM who signs a player for seven years and after the first year says "Oh, we're paying you too much." It just does not happen. This all it simply comes down to this: If a team does not honor its contract, the player should just walk. If a player doesn't honor his contract, the team should walk. Look at what Philly is doing. They busted ass to get TO and paid him a crapload of cash for seven years, and less than 1/7th of the way in, he says he wants more. Iggles say "No way. See ya." Now who here thinks TO is going to get another contract like that with another team without it being backloaded? Anyone? Bueller? People need to stand up and say no. (Plus, the Iggles proved they didn't totally need TO to get them to the Super Bowl. And they certainly didn't need him to lose it.) 386988[/snapback] But it isn't that simple. The only reason a GM wouldn't do as you suggested is tbecause of a salary cap hit, for if they could they would. The worst is when they one year get a player to restructure then the next cut him so they can avoid paying them when the salary cap hit is the least. Face it every GM wants to have situation where they can get at least %85 of their productive players playing as either 2nd round players or lower who are cheaper or mid level veterans who have been cut and playing their butts of for a payday they will never get. Then when these players contracts come up they either cut them or let them go via free agent based on the market for a replacement; they want to continue this cycle of replacing players with similar free agents or cheap free agents (steals as most would say) every year; doesn't this sound like the Patriots model of success? If you were a player how would you feel for they get paid based more on potential than production. Take Ty Law he has busted his butt for the Pats year end and year out; they never wanted to up and redo his contract and give him his fair market value as the best CB in the game; he has threatened to hold out several times. Now once he gets hurt, he gets cut. Now since he can't get a big contract he has to take at least 2 years to prove himself and will become a steal to whatever team picks him up if he does so. And if he does come back to top form, once his contract is up he will not get that big payday for now he is considered too old while some young unproven 1st round DB gets 2-3 times the money he makes. Also ask Ande Reed how this felt as well.
PromoTheRobot Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Yeah, and watch Henry light it up in Tennessee. A guy who was excited about playing for us and wouldn't have been a problem. Sounds like another one of TD's genius examples of vision. 386782[/snapback] Well if you are so smart, what are next week's winning lottery numbers? Don't know? Well it's a little hard to predict the future, ain't it? Let's keep this post around till next year and we'll see how "smart" you look! PTR
IDBillzFan Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 But it isn't that simple. The only reason a GM wouldn't do as you suggested is tbecause of a salary cap hit, for if they could they would. The worst is when they one year get a player to restructure then the next cut him so they can avoid paying them when the salary cap hit is the least. Face it every GM wants to have situation where they can get at least %85 of their productive players playing as either 2nd round players or lower who are cheaper or mid level veterans who have been cut and playing their butts of for a payday they will never get. Then when these players contracts come up they either cut them or let them go via free agent based on the market for a replacement; they want to continue this cycle of replacing players with similar free agents or cheap free agents (steals as most would say) every year; doesn't this sound like the Patriots model of success? If you were a player how would you feel for they get paid based more on potential than production. Take Ty Law he has busted his butt for the Pats year end and year out; they never wanted to up and redo his contract and give him his fair market value as the best CB in the game; he has threatened to hold out several times. Now once he gets hurt, he gets cut. Now since he can't get a big contract he has to take at least 2 years to prove himself and will become a steal to whatever team picks him up if he does so. And if he does come back to top form, once his contract is up he will not get that big payday for now he is considered too old while some young unproven 1st round DB gets 2-3 times the money he makes. Also ask Ande Reed how this felt as well. 387013[/snapback] Good post. (The "enter" key would have made it a great post.) And I agree this is a two-way street. I guess maybe I'm caught up in the TO gig, which is more the exception than the rule. Still, I just think people need to say NO. When someone else says "do this or I'm gone," say goodbye.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 You are right on many levels, but please show me an NFL GM who signs a player for seven years and after the first year says "Oh, we're paying you too much." It just does not happen. This all it simply comes down to this: If a team does not honor its contract, the player should just walk. If a player doesn't honor his contract, the team should walk. Look at what Philly is doing. They busted ass to get TO and paid him a crapload of cash for seven years, and less than 1/7th of the way in, he says he wants more. Iggles say "No way. See ya." Now who here thinks TO is going to get another contract like that with another team without it being backloaded? Anyone? Bueller? People need to stand up and say no. (Plus, the Iggles proved they didn't totally need TO to get them to the Super Bowl. And they certainly didn't need him to lose it.) 386988[/snapback] Clearly there is a difference between a player who does not meet the terms of an agreement with the team and a GM and team who do not meet the original tems of their agreement. When player's holdout and fail to meet the terms of the agreement it violates the CBA and when GM/teams simply cut a player and thus fail to complete their agreement this action is within the context of the CBA. However, though their is a legal distinction between the two acts, there is a moral equivalency in that the two parties have reached an agremment and one side chooses not to follow it. My sense is that the "moral" culpability of the GM/team varies from case to case. In a case where a contract is clearly backloaded and a player's skills have clearly slid it actually would be unreasonable to insist that the team/GM has any moral duty to honor the contract. However, on the other end of the scale, there are players who still have something left in the immediate as players, who have expressed their willingness to take a paycut to stay with the team, and are pillars of the community which loses out when the player is forced to go because the team exercises its right under the CBA to go in another direction. For example. I think the case of Ruben Brown and the Bills is more like the latter case. His backloaded contract had a trigger for a signing bonus which the Bills decided not to pay him the money so they moved to cut him instead. The 2004 cap hit for cuttimg Brown was almost exactly the same as if they had paid him because when they cut him the out-year proration of the bonus already paid to him accelerated into the current year. Money is money and there was an additional payment the Bills were going to make if they kept him even though the cap hit would have been the same if they kept him (and thus no acceleration). However, Brown had publicly offered to take less money in bonus and essentially saved the Bills money in what they agreed to pay him. The benefit for Brown would have been he got to stay in Buffalo with his teammates and with a significant number of charities he has long supported with time and events such as organ transplantation. a scholarship program for Buffalo kids to go to college and his motorcycle rally. The interesting thing here is that the Bills decided not to meet the agreement because they chose not and not because they had to: 1. They at least had the same cap hit for cutting him as keeping him and actually RB said he was willing to create a cash savings for them by providing services for less money than they agreed to pay. 2. There is at least a credible case to be made that Brown would provide "adequate" services as he remains in the NFL, and had a record of achievement in the near past with the Bills. 3. The Bills obviously had a clear OL need and specifically a clear LG need as we were forced to start a player from the PS of another team and had to bench him as being inadequate. 4. There was a real reason for the Bills going in another direction despite their being no financial benefit to cutting Brown and there being a need for his services at LG which he credibly could fill and there ending up being no player actually developed to fill the LG role through playing last year and that real reason was that Ruben had puiblicly challenged the work of Kevin Killdrive and to some extent Ruel as being bad and hurting the team. He was correct and they were canned, but if you kill the old coaches then you must also be killed because if not folks will look to you when they disagree with the new coach. All in all, under the CBA it is understood that teams may no meet their obligations and stand up to their agreements so in now way did the Bills not follow the CBA. However, they also did what is the equivalent of a player holdout in failing to meet their obligation and agreement for reasons of convenience rather than putting the most competitive football team on the field last year. Would the Bills have been a better team in the first four games last year with RB playing LG rather than Smith? Who knows, but because the Bills decided not to use the CBA to not follow their agreement we will never really know.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Ty Law made 7.3 million dollars in salary last year (not counting earlier bonuses), without playing, and was due 12.5 million or something this year. He called a 4 year 26 million contract extention offer "an insult". That isn't having a big contract?
Gavin in Va Beach Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 He saved the life of a four year boy. 386793[/snapback] I hear he's kind to his mother as well...
Arkady Renko Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 I hear he's kind to his mother as well... 387078[/snapback] I hear he also tips 25% on average.
Recommended Posts