|
Post by flexspread on Apr 28, 2008 9:53:30 GMT -6
To all of the people who watched the draft this weekend there was an argument between Keyshawn Johnson and Steve Young about contracts with Chad Johnson being the one disputed. KJ said he is holding out because he isn't making enough money and SY said "he shouldn't have signed the contract then". I was wondering what your opinions are of this. I am old school in the fact that I think if you have a contract you should honor it. If it says 5 yrs for 5 mil, then you work there 5 years and get 5 mil. In the 5th year or before, if they want you longer, sign an extension. If they don't want you past that 5th year you are still obligated to play for them. If you aren't getting paid what you consider enough money, then that isn't the team's fault. If I just agreed to a one year contract for 50,000 and then a coach that I believe is worse than me signs a one year contract for $75,000 will I refuse to coach this year? Of course not. Will I be jealous, probably. I will then fulfill my obligation and use the $75,000 for potential leverage in order to get paid what I believe I am worth. The whole thing seems crazy to me.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 28, 2008 10:27:07 GMT -6
eh, there is a slight difference though..the contracts in the NFL are not "guaranteed", and are built on escalading scales to provide "cap relief" for your team. So, as your salary becomes a burden..OOPS..you get cut. You blow out a knee...eww..sorry, no money for you. So I don't really fault the player... the contracts are both essentially meaningless on both sides of the table when it comes to pay terms. The contracts are more just of a teams right to players now, rather than the specifics of the working enviornment of the contract.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Apr 28, 2008 11:07:11 GMT -6
Look at Ray Lewis or Brian Urlacher (more specifically).
4 years into their rookie deal, they resign to mega-contracts rewarding their production and paying them as the top player in the league at their position. The deal pretty much is just a big bonus check, because the deal is spaced out over a 10 year period, it is mainly just a way to provide up-front money by way of a signing bonus to reward play. I know we signed you to a $500k / season deal, but you've exceeded expectations so we'll give you $5M (for that body of work) and a raise of $1M a season provided you stay with us for another 5 seasons.....
at the time, they are compensated as the highest paid players.
Three years later, that "pay" is chicken feed and they are equating their current compensation (salary) with their 'worth' as a player. The lost numbers is the signing bonus.
Making $100k / year is one thing. Making $50k / year is another thing.
If you make $50k/ year, but I gave you $2M to sign with us....chances are, the money / compensation works itself out.
This actually has nothing to do with coaching, although it does parallel the "coaching salary" thread, and has more to do with fan discussions.
I really wouldn't mind if Cinci benches Johnson, (didn't Baltimore / Philadelphia threaten this a few years ago, too)...but I think the NFL is heading down an ugly slope. "Fair and Equitable" is being defined by a host of attorneys and the amount of control agents have on the sport is not good. If a player is signed for 5 years, and then they just want to play on a different team after 2 years....all they have to do is whine and pout and that contract becomes void? The amount of player movement in the professional ranks is moving in a direction that will ultimately ruin the sport, because it conflicts with the entire premise of the game of football. Having said that, I believe it may be the only way to ensure the game remains competitive and focussed on the TALENT, because there are many situations where the roster is determined by front office PR and GM favorites over actual player performance.
|
|
|
Post by k on Apr 28, 2008 11:37:45 GMT -6
If the team can decide not to pay a player and go after money already paid to the player for them deciding to retire I have no problem with players holding out etc.
If the teams can do that junk so can the players.
|
|
|
Post by flexspread on Apr 28, 2008 11:55:56 GMT -6
K, I think I need an example. To be honest, I try to follow NFL but with HS on fridays, College on Sat. and film on Sun. I don't watch a lot so I may be out of the loop. The only examples that I can think of in regards to a team getting money back is in Vick's case and in some of the retirement cases. If a player retires for injury reasons caused by football midway through the contract the team cannot reclaim some of the "guaranteed" money. If a player has 3 years left on his contract and retires because he doesn't want to play for a team, or gets hurt through an avenue that is not football (Robert Edwards was playing in a voluntary beach football game and got injured and the Patriots considered getting some of his bonus back but I don't believe they ever did) then he is breaching his contract and that guaranteed money is no longer guaranteed. The same thing with Vick. In his contract there was a clause that dealt with him getting arrested and the Falcons could have gone after some of his money but they chose not to.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 28, 2008 12:08:51 GMT -6
NFL teams can fire you at will. Who do you think has more leverage?
And in any event, there is nothing moral or spiritual or anything involved with a contract. It's a business deal between two people, based on a certain set of assumptions.
And another thing I hate is when a player holds out - which is their one friggin bargaining chip - and the fans and sports people say how they should just report to camp or whatnot. While it's definitely true that a player can do themselves more harm than good by holding out, what else do they have to work with? Emmitt Smith held out for two whole games if I remember correctly.
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Apr 28, 2008 12:21:58 GMT -6
flexspread,
Look at it this way. If a player signs a contract, and doesn't pan out, the team can release him. They can't come back after money already paid, but they don't have to pay the balance of the contract. So, the flip of that is if the player turns out to be producing at a higher level, then he can hold out. Everybody says "Honor the contract". You must understand that in every contract there is not only provisions for performance and pay, BUT also the "divorce settlement" is negotiated and factored in too as part of the contract. This is what coaches "buy outs" are. They're part of the contract. This is why for players the "up front" or "guarenteed" money is so hotly debated and negotiated, because the players contracts are one sided in favor of the owners, and there is no "buy out" so their only choice is to hold out.
|
|
|
Post by flexspread on Apr 28, 2008 14:11:19 GMT -6
And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the players are getting paid too much (although they do make an aweful lot), and I'm in favor of the ones doing the work getting the money over the guys who could afford to buy a team, as long as they still make some cash. My biggest problem is that if you root for a team, in my case the Vikings, the players change teams so often or hold out for more money, that I don't know who half of the players are. I guess I liked the days when you came up with a team and stayed with them until the end of your career. Then again, I can't seem to find someone who pays me millions of dollars to do a job so I don't have the first hand knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Apr 28, 2008 14:34:26 GMT -6
And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the players are getting paid too much (although they do make an aweful lot), and I'm in favor of the ones doing the work getting the money over the guys who could afford to buy a team, as long as they still make some cash. My biggest problem is that if you root for a team, in my case the Vikings, the players change teams so often or hold out for more money, that I don't know who half of the players are. I guess I liked the days when you came up with a team and stayed with them until the end of your career. Then again, I can't seem to find someone who pays me millions of dollars to do a job so I don't have the first hand knowledge. Love it or hate it, the NFL is the healthiest league of all the pro sports in America. Heck, the NHL struck for a year and not a soul missed it so far as I could tell. The NFL is America's new favorite pasttime. College football is close behind it. They must be doing something right to be making so much money and to be so popular. I can't say I claim an NFL team being that I'm Alabama. I follow Auburn players, and watch games for entertainment or something to do on sunday. It's a good product overall. The thing I hate is that there are some franchises not committed to winning but just turning a profit, or some that just haven't figured out the whole free agency/salary cap formula yet.
|
|
|
Post by tye2021 on Apr 28, 2008 17:22:43 GMT -6
I heard the discussion differently. (I could be wrong!!) But I thought that Steve Young was saying that Chad Johnson wanted to leave Cincy because It was a bad organization and that Keshawn Johnson was saying No, he wants more money. NOT that he isn't making enough but that he thinks that he's worth more based on what other guys are now making. Now on my opinion about guaranteed contracts. It will become even more difficult for teams to trade player. Regardless of who (team or player) requested said trade. If the player is making more than what teams think he is worth they will not trade for him unless he is willing to renegotiate the contract and in some cases take less money. And you know that most players ar not going to do that. It will also make it difficult to bring in free agents because money is tied into players you no longer want or have on your roster. I can understand a buy out clause for players you want to cut. For example, if a player still has 3 years left on his contract but you decide to cut him. You pay a percentage of the remaining contract. The percentage could be based on how long the player has been in the league. These are just examples: after 3-5 year player gets 30% after 6-8 years player gets 40% after 7-9 years player gets 50% after 10 seasons player gets the full balance of the contract Feel free to rip these percentages apart I'm just making it up as I type! Another option could be that the percentage of the buyout is negotiated between the owner and the players and is worked out before signing. I also think that there should be a rookie salary cap. This would help to avoid paying millions of dollars on a bust. The cap could be based on tier system. Meaning The number one draft pick gets a larger contract. 2-10 gets more that 11-20. Again just throwing out numbers as I type. Professional Sports is the only industry thats pays un unproven employee more than its already proven vets.
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Apr 28, 2008 17:34:21 GMT -6
Well if you retire from a 5 year contract after only 1 year played, and they gave you a signing bonus of 10 million, shouldn't they have the right to come after that 8 milion of that bonus that you didn't fill? And people are saying that there aren't guaranteed contracts, but there are guaranteed bonuses. A signing bonus is guaranteed money for the player. I hate Baseballs system of contracts. Barry Zito is one of the worst pitchers in baseball right now and the giants owe him 80 million dollars. They can't do anything to get rid of him. Why should they be stuck with a guy for that long who isn't performing. I like the NFL system. YOu play, you get paid, you stink, you get cut. Isn't that how it should be?
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Apr 28, 2008 17:44:09 GMT -6
Well if you retire from a 5 year contract after only 1 year played, and they gave you a signing bonus of 10 million, shouldn't they have the right to come after that 8 milion of that bonus that you didn't fill? And people are saying that there aren't guaranteed contracts, but there are guaranteed bonuses. A signing bonus is guaranteed money for the player. I hate Baseballs system of contracts. Barry Zito is one of the worst pitchers in baseball right now and the giants owe him 80 million dollars. They can't do anything to get rid of him. Why should they be stuck with a guy for that long who isn't performing. I like the NFL system. YOu play, you get paid, you stink, you get cut. Isn't that how it should be? Ah, but it isn't just guys who stink who get cut. Good, productive players get cut when they come to the part of the contract where they have a high salary. That contract was negotiated by the club and signed by the club but normally that's because they cynically knew that the played would be cut before he got the high salary.
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Apr 28, 2008 18:06:41 GMT -6
Right, but there signing bonus is always theres. So if they signed a 20 mil bonus, the club can't take any of that back if they get cut. ONly if they retire or get in trouble with the po po. When you are signing that contract you have to know that there is a reason they backload it. Thats why guys want so much money up front.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Apr 28, 2008 18:44:30 GMT -6
Right, but there signing bonus is always theres. So if they signed a 20 mil bonus, the club can't take any of that back if they get cut. ONly if they retire or get in trouble with the po po. When you are signing that contract you have to know that there is a reason they backload it. Thats why guys want so much money up front. Right. I don't really disagree with you. I'm conflicted with NFL contracts. Philosophically and ethically they just seem wrong. Realistically, I understand that they make sense because: A. They do get to keep the bonus and that's a lot of money. A $10 million bonus, which is a modest bonus these days, has a gut set for life if he's smart. B. The present system allows a team like Green Bay to be a contender or a champion. C. I used to feel sorry for veterans who lost their jobs because of the cap. I no longer do. Football is a young man's game. This game was not designed to be played by men with 30 year old bodies. Having careers cut short by the salary cap is not a bad thing in the long run. Anyway, that's how I feel.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 28, 2008 19:23:37 GMT -6
Well if you retire from a 5 year contract after only 1 year played, and they gave you a signing bonus of 10 million, shouldn't they have the right to come after that 8 milion of that bonus that you didn't fill? And people are saying that there aren't guaranteed contracts, but there are guaranteed bonuses. A signing bonus is guaranteed money for the player. I hate Baseballs system of contracts. Barry Zito is one of the worst pitchers in baseball right now and the giants owe him 80 million dollars. They can't do anything to get rid of him. Why should they be stuck with a guy for that long who isn't performing. I like the NFL system. YOu play, you get paid, you stink, you get cut. Isn't that how it should be? Right, but knowing that these guys are one injury or one mediocre season away from being on the street, then people should not complain when they hold out for maximum funds in the prime of their careers. If Robert Edwards blows out his knee, the Patriots pick up Antowain Smith and Laurence Mayoney and win three super bowls; Robert Edwards is out of the league. The risk spreading is different.
|
|
|
Post by jjkuenzel on Apr 29, 2008 0:19:44 GMT -6
I have zero problem with any football player trying to get every last dollar he can out of playing professional football. Like has been mentioned, there are no guaranteed contracts. The only guaranteed money is signing bonuses. The players earn every dollar that they get and I don't begrudge them one bit for trying to maximize it. There is a very limited earnings potential for these guys. Quite frankly, it is simple economics. The players want to get their highest market value. Teams on the other hand want to pay lowest market value.
Teams talk about loyalty and honoring the contracts that are signed. That is complete and total BS. Teams want to make it seem as though it is a two way street when it isn't at all. If a guy isn't performing or the team doesn't want to pay him, he gets his butt cut and he is out of a job regardless of what his contract says.
|
|
|
Post by flexspread on Apr 29, 2008 7:04:42 GMT -6
If you aren't performing shouldn't you get cut? I don't know many people who want to pay $60+ to see guys who aren't doing so well.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Apr 29, 2008 9:07:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Yash on Apr 29, 2008 9:56:13 GMT -6
1. these guys know that there is an injury risk when signing an NFL contract. They know the rules of the contract. 2. The majority of these guys are coming off of a college scholarship. If they are smart, they get a degree so they have something to fall back on afterwards. These guys have to understand that the career expectancy of an NFL player isn't very long. They know the risk, they accept it. How many other places do you get a pension plan after 3 years of service. Not very many.
|
|