Hold Outs: the other side

[vegas55]

Marv Levy repeated the same thing you here just about every analyst say: the player holding out is destroying his chance to be a productive starter etc. It's always the player "hurting himself" There is another side to the story though; one you never hear. It's always the case that the holdout eventually signs, and it is true signing late may well cost him a chance to be a productive starter in his rookie year. But who is really getting hurt by that scenario? The player is still going to get paid for that year, whether he contributes or not. If he is a good player he will be a starter in years 2, 3, 4, & 5 and his hold out in his rookie year will be forgotten. Except the team pays him for 5 years, he only contributes in 4 of those years, his rookie season a complete washout hurts the team, the fans etc. but THE PLAYER STILL GETS HIS MONEY. Take Whitner for example - reports are that the sides are one million dollars apart. Over a 5 year contract, thats $200,000 a year. If he signs his contract so late that he cannot be contribute this year, the team will be paying him millions of dollars for a rookie year where he contributes zero. Paying him for 5 years when he only gives us 4. Not to mention pissing away a high draft choice in a year where we need all the talent we can get. Over what amounts to $200,000 per year. Not that the player is always right; just that teams (and analysts) should realize thats its not just the player who is getting hurt; in many cases the teams are shooting themselves in the foot by being penny wise but pound foolish.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Marv Levy repeated the same thing you here just about every analyst say: the player holding out is destroying his chance to be a productive starter etc. It's always the player "hurting himself"  There is another side to the story though; one you never hear. It's always the case that the holdout eventually signs, and it is true signing late may well cost him a chance to be a productive starter in his rookie year. But who is really getting hurt by that scenario? The player is still going to get paid for that year, whether he contributes or not. If he is a good player he will be a starter in years 2, 3, 4, & 5 and his hold out in his rookie year will be forgotten. Except the team pays him for 5 years, he only contributes in 4 of those years, his rookie season a complete washout hurts the team, the fans etc. but THE PLAYER STILL GETS HIS MONEY. Take Whitner for example - reports are that the sides are one million dollars apart. Over a 5 year contract, thats $200,000 a year. If he signs his contract so late that he cannot be contribute this year, the team will be paying him millions of dollars for a rookie year where he contributes zero. Paying him for 5 years when he only gives us 4. Not to mention pissing away a high draft choice in a year where we need all the talent we can get. Over what amounts to $200,000 per year. Not that the player is always right; just that teams (and analysts) should realize thats its not just the player who is getting hurt; in many cases the teams are shooting themselves in the foot by being penny wise but pound foolish.

735379[/snapback]

 

If he's nto starting, it means he doesn't reach performance goals which is indeed hurting himself. Not to mention the hit to his reputation as a solid character guy.