Players & their Contracts.

[ATL96Steeler]

right. less years, less guaranteed money. That is the decision they have to make.
if they want to negotiate sooner. (next contract) They would have to take less guaranteed money.
or take the security of more guaranteed money & long terms.

What would be so much better.

Using that Mosley contract...instead of an $85 million contract...if they guaranteed him $51 mil...(which is what the team REALLY thinks he's worth) just make the contract $51 mil and the player gets $51 mil and now you haggle out the length of the contract. Maybe there are some incentive he can reach every yr of his contract to push it to say $60 mil total if met. The other $25 mil can be used on another player and the team doesn't have to fork over some huge signing bonus.

The point being, the contracts would be more in line with a player's true value...every now and then a team will miss on a player, but not often.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I like the way Pete Carroll does it, he refuses to negotiate with anyone unless they are on the final year of there contract, otherwise he totally ignores them... I understand if it's the final year, but with 2 years left on a contract you signed, STFU and play football ...

The Cowboys can thank the Rams for their problem with Zeke. They brought that status to light. That firm policy Pete uses covers 99% of contracts. These guys looking for new contracts with 2 or more years on it we probably can count on one hand for vet players. We know Antonio Brown, Julio, and the OT for the 'Skins are notable.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Right they want their top player so they cower and give in.. Set a new precedent you don't play you don't get paid, you don't play it does not count as a contract year. If a player wants out they will play out the terms of their contract and move on. The NFL is a next man up league and the next man is waiting with baited breath for that opportunity.

And this would likely lead to shorter term contracts.

Yeah, I've heard the hardline stance many times...it's sounds good, but it's just not conducive to winning. For this to work (and it can work), the overwhelming majority of teams would need to enforce it.

But if only a handful do it, and the other teams don't, it won't work...especially of the teams not doing it are winning.

 

[YankeeRebel]

Yeah, I've heard the hardline stance many times...it's sounds good, but it's just not conducive to winning. For this to work (and it can work), the overwhelming majority of teams would need to enforce it.

But if only a handful do it, and the other teams don't, it won't work...especially of the teams not doing it are winning.

It would take teams to enforce it but there are owners meetings where this is discussed, and if it's part of the new CBA then it can happen.

Again the players get shorter deals so they can renegotiate more often and owners get to take a har line on them if they choose to not show up. It's very doable

 

[ATL96Steeler]

It would take teams to enforce it but there are owners meetings where this is discussed, and if it's part of the new CBA then it can happen.

Again the players get shorter deals so they can renegotiate more often and owners get to take a har line on them if they choose to not show up. It's very doable

All true....collective effort.

But there is always a rogue team...now I use that term loosely, but I thought Kareem Hunt was going to be untouchable for at least a season or two...the Browns signed him knowing he has to sit 6 games.

The issue is, the owners are competitive people by nature (you don't get to billionaire status without that trait) many are more interested in winning than trying to control players...if you have the talent some team is willing to look the other way.

 

[Stomp]

Really don't think the teams care about this issue all that much or they would be fining the players more often when they hold out and fewer players would get new deals for doing it. If the league and teams do think its an issue its on them to negotiate harsher penalties during the next CBA, but I doubt that happens and if it does they'll likely have to make a big concession to make it happen(better retirement benefits would make the most sense imo).

"Running backs are easily replaceable" and "the players have no leverage when they are under contract", but for some reason the fans that constantly say this seem to get pretty upset about them holding out.

 

[Duffman]

Point is.
The players get to decide what they are signing..

Except they don’t, if a player signs a five-year deal and the team cuts him after three years how is that fair to the player?

If teams aren’t going to honor contracts they dish out, how can you expect players to honor the contracts they sign?

The reason players try to get more money upfront and more guaranteed is they know that in the back half of their contracts teams are going to try to screw them by cutting them early to save money.

 

[handicappers]

Football is a dying sport and I'm quite certain it's downfall will be partially because of contracts. Soon the only people capable of going to the games will be Corporations entertaining clients, many that aren't even football fans.

Also, parents are likely to stop letting their kids play football at a young age, prompting their kids to play more technical and popular sports like soccer. When this happens, USA will win the World Cup, and their star players will be the star athletes from that younger generation.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Really don't think the teams care about this issue all that much or they would be fining the players more often when they hold out and fewer players would get new deals for doing it. If the league and teams do think its an issue its on them to negotiate harsher penalties during the next CBA, but I doubt that happens and if it does they'll likely have to make a big concession to make it happen(better retirement benefits would make the most sense imo).

"Running backs are easily replaceable" and "the players have no leverage when they are under contract", but for some reason the fans that constantly say this seem to get pretty upset about them holding out.

I don't think teams care as much either, but I'm not sure if enforcing the fines would make a huge difference....two reasons.

1.) once a player feels they are under paid to the degree of sitting out, they're already conceding that they could lose some money before they gain any. The potential or even certainty of a fine I don't think will change anything.

2) we're really talking about a very small percentage of players that actually sit out with a contract year to year.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

The Cowboys can thank the Rams for their problem with Zeke. They brought that status to light. That firm policy Pete uses covers 99% of contracts. These guys looking for new contracts with 2 or more years on it we probably can count on one hand for vet players. We know Antonio Brown, Julio, and the OT for the 'Skins are notable.

A couple year back Kam wanted to restructure with a couple years left and he was ignored, ended up coming back after missing several games in the season... You gotta draw the line with these players within your program or you'll keep having the same problem, every top player will want to restructure early...

 

[ATL96Steeler]

A couple year back Kam wanted to restructure with a couple years left and he was ignored, ended up coming back after missing several games in the season... You gotta draw the line with these players within your program or you'll keep having the same problem, every top player will want to restructure early...

I remember that...SEA was willing to and did play without him.

But, that still didn't stop Earl Thomas from wanting his after he got a long term deal.

Bottom line...if a player feels underpaid, there are two options and to my knowledge...only two options...play or don't play.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

I remember that...SEA was willing to and did play without him.

But, that still didn't stop Earl Thomas from wanting his after he got a long term deal.

Bottom line...if a player feels underpaid, there are two options and to my knowledge...only two options...play or don't play.

True, but Earl was on his last year of his contract when he had his spat ... that's one of the reasons he flipped off Pete after he got hurt... I think they had already made the decision to move on without him, Earl knew it...

 

[ATL96Steeler]

True, but Earl was on his last year of his contract when he had his spat ... that's one of the reasons he flipped off Pete after he got hurt... I think they had already made the decision to move on without him, Earl knew it...

Maybe it’s (Pete’s MO) a deterrent, but it’s not that many league wide that try to do this...maybe the law of averages.

 

[jarntt]

A few points.

1...the NFL is a monopoly...there are no other league that pays anywhere near what the NFL pays so saying stuff like the player isn't forced to sign is short sighted....obviously no one is putting a gun to their head and saying sign this contract...but nobody with NFL level talent is going to play in the CFL or one of these upstart leagues and make a lot less...so the reality is, yes, they do have to sign it.

2...simply because a person sees or understands what the player is facing doesn't mean they are viewed as victims....if the players are victims, they are the victims of shitty union representation more than anything else.

3...contract term length...once the player has the money he wants, they are normally working with the team to spread that contract over a longer period to reduce the annual cap hit. I don't think any player would ever want a 5 or 6 yr deal, 3 yrs and get another signing bonus 3 yrs later works far better for the player.

4...BS...when a $25 mil contract truly means $25 mil to the player in the NFL...I would feel more like you do when it comes to hold outs, etc....so IMO...as pro sports leagues contracts go I view NFL contracts as BS. I don't like hold outs, nobody that likes the NFL likes it...but again, I understand, the player has two choices when they feel they are paid less than their performance should be paid...play, or not play.

Here's the fundamental difference that you and I have on this topic...regardless of how it's (CBA) slanted, you want the player to honor the contract...you agreed to the CBA, now honor it.

When $25 mil means $25 mil in the NBA, NHL, and MLB...it should also mean $25 mil in the NFL. As long as it does not, I support (note I said support, not like, not encourage) the player doing what they feel they need to do to get paid.

I don't really buy the monopoly angle because there are 32 independently operating teams. He specifically said after the first contract. So if you are an UFA you can sign with any of those 32 teams. When you are tagged that's a different story but the tag is top 5 money and then a 20% increase and then you are an UFA (No one gets tagged 3 times)

I also don't buy this BS about the guaranteed money TO THE DEGREE IT IS TOSSED AROUND. I get it and agree it's an issue for the players and am not saying it isn't and don't blame them for protecting themselves to a certain extent, but I think it is way overblown. The players aren't fighting for the idea of guaranteed money or fairness for their union. They just want money...they just want money, money, money.

Every single team in the league will give a star player like Zeke a 100% guaranteed contract in a millisecond if he accepts less total $'s to get it. It's a give and take. You want $56M over 4 years structured like most contracts with a little protection for the team if you suck down the road? Or do you want $44M over 4 years 100% guaranteed? Which do you think the player will pick? The owners are overpaying in part because they have an out that protects the long term health of their team. If the out disappears they are going to have to be a little more conservative with how much they are willing to pay. If they get stuck with 20% of their huge long term contracts being a problem, they can't carry that against their cap without tightening up.

The above leads into the contract term length. First off I think the players do want the 5 year over the 3 year because of the security, but that's another topic. So a lot of players sign a 5 year deal with a huge signing bonus right now and you are saying they would prefer a 3 year guaranteed deal, right?. That mostly is what they are signing in a way already. Look at most of these 5 year deals. Huge SB spread out over 5 years. First year and often times 2nd year salary guaranteed and often additional roster bonuses in those first two years that are spread out as well. Because of the cap it is seldom possible for a team to cut a guy that signs a mega deal after 1 or 2 years because the dead money is too high. It normally isn't practical to cut a guy until after the 3rd year. So what they are getting already is really not much different than a 3 year guaranteed contract with a huge SB up front. They just aren't getting a 5 year guaranteed contract.

 

[jarntt]

New CBA needs to punish holdouts more. The fines should be mandated by the league, not decided upon by the team. A portion of the signing bonus is also automatically returned and they aren't allowed to report until they pay it back.

Keep the rule that If you don't report to training camp you automatically don't get credit for a year of service towards UFA. But, none of this week 10 shit. Report by week 1 or your contract tolls and you repeat the year. Doesn't matter if you sign a new deal or even get traded, your contract still tolls. If players want to holdout and miss real games, then they do so knowing they are just screwing themselves because no matter what, they lose that year.

If they eventually want to report after missing week 1 these are some options:

- None, they can't. once they miss week one they are officially suspended for the year and can't play until the next season

- they are allowed to finish out the year and get paid a pro-rated amount as their contract dictates, but the next years contract is for the exact same base salary with no ability to negotiate or change

- in addition to their contract tolling, they forfeit the ability to be an UFA the year after and are instead treated as a RFA for the next season.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I don't really buy the monopoly angle because there are 32 independently operating teams. He specifically said after the first contract. So if you are an UFA you can sign with any of those 32 teams. When you are tagged that's a different story but the tag is top 5 money and then a 20% increase and then you are an UFA (No one gets tagged 3 times)

I also don't buy this BS about the guaranteed money TO THE DEGREE IT IS TOSSED AROUND. I get it and agree it's an issue for the players and am not saying it isn't and don't blame them for protecting themselves to a certain extent, but I think it is way overblown. The players aren't fighting for the idea of guaranteed money or fairness for their union. They just want money...they just want money, money, money.

Every single team in the league will give a star player like Zeke a 100% guaranteed contract in a millisecond if he accepts less total $'s to get it. It's a give and take. You want $56M over 4 years structured like most contracts with a little protection for the team if you suck down the road? Or do you want $44M over 4 years 100% guaranteed? Which do you think the player will pick? The owners are overpaying in part because they have an out that protects the long term health of their team. If the out disappears they are going to have to be a little more conservative with how much they are willing to pay. If they get stuck with 20% of their huge long term contracts being a problem, they can't carry that against their cap without tightening up.

The above leads into the contract term length. First off I think the players do want the 5 year over the 3 year because of the security, but that's another topic. So a lot of players sign a 5 year deal with a huge signing bonus right now and you are saying they would prefer a 3 year guaranteed deal, right?. That mostly is what they are signing in a way already. Look at most of these 5 year deals. Huge SB spread out over 5 years. First year and often times 2nd year salary guaranteed and often additional roster bonuses in those first two years that are spread out as well. Because of the cap it is seldom possible for a team to cut a guy that signs a mega deal after 1 or 2 years because the dead money is too high. It normally isn't practical to cut a guy until after the 3rd year. So what they are getting already is really not much different than a 3 year guaranteed contract with a huge SB up front. They just aren't getting a 5 year guaranteed contract.

Monopoly...ok..all 32 NFL teams are individual business. If DAL has a player under-contract or draft control and can't agree on a contract...they don't routinely make him available to the other 31 teams...so you either play for that team or your don't play in the NFL...call it whatever you want. The bottomline...there are no comparable paying leagues any where in the world to go play in.

Guaranteed...not quite understanding you here, but at the end of the day, yes, it's about money, money, money.

56/4 or 44/4 100%...assuming the 56/4 contract the player can get cut, you would have to make $44 mil in the 1st 3 yrs to take the higher contract. Because there I so much fluff (money that's never paid) in NFL contracts, if all deals were guaranteed absolutely the contract values would go down. The 5 yr deal you're speaking of...yep, the dead money hit normally drops dramatically after 3 yr....Those 2 yrs basically help the team spread the signing bonus, does little for the player.

5yr vs 3 yr...well stated. "This is mostly what they are signing in a way..." Instead of all this read between the lines stuff, a simple 3 yr contract, guaranteed, no huge signing bonus, maybe you give a team the 4yr option to keep FA service requirement to 4 yrs....players would get true market value contracts.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

New CBA needs to punish holdouts more. The fines should be mandated by the league, not decided upon by the team.

What are you willing to give up?

 

[jarntt]

Monopoly...ok..all 32 NFL teams are individual business. If DAL has a player under-contract or draft control and can't agree on a contract...they don't routinely make him available to the other 31 teams...so you either play for that team or your don't play in the NFL...call it whatever you want. The bottomline...there are no comparable paying leagues any where in the world to go play in.

Guaranteed...not quite understanding you here, but at the end of the day, yes, it's about money, money, money.

56/4 or 44/4 100%...assuming the 56/4 contract the player can get cut, you would have to make $44 mil in the 1st 3 yrs to take the higher contract. Because there I so much fluff (money that's never paid) in NFL contracts, if all deals were guaranteed absolutely the contract values would go down. The 5 yr deal you're speaking of...yep, the dead money hit normally drops dramatically after 3 yr....Those 2 yrs basically help the team spread the signing bonus, does little for the player.

5yr vs 3 yr...well stated. "This is mostly what they are signing in a way..." Instead of all this read between the lines stuff, a simple 3 yr contract, guaranteed, no huge signing bonus, maybe you give a team the 4yr option to keep FA service requirement to 4 yrs....players would get true market value contracts.

Monopoly: again he said after the first contract.

 

[jarntt]

What are you willing to give up?

testing for weed

 

[wazzu31]

The hard thing is NFL players are most selfish athletes in any American professional sport which is why they have by far the weakest union. Zeke should be honoring his contract but at the same get with the union and fight for others behind him don’t have to hold out. But the NFLPA will do what they always do and only look out for themselves at the current moment.