NBA OFF TOPIC THREAD

[fightinfunbags]

I’m the youngest of the boomers, but I’m never going to stand down to anyone that thinks they can tell me to shut my mouth, about anything. You appear to have reached the age where you think you can generalize about people, that won’t serve you well when you run into someone like me. Good luck thinking you know everyrhing about people,

K

 

[dtgold88]

Same. Cardinals are nothing without him.

Pay him or trade him

would think this could be the case but hasn't he kind of shit the bed down the stretch the last 2 seasons.....never mind his playoff performance last year.

 

[fightinfunbags]

No, you don't vrealize that this is on the players for not negotiating better and you are trtyinfg to move goalposts and pretgendthis is about whether or not the contracts are "fair". This is about honoring a legal, agreed to and signed contract. It doesn't matter if you, I,or anyone else thinks the contract is "fair". The only thing that matters is if the contract is legal.

You want to change the discussion because you know that a player refusing to play, has no legal leg to stand on. If you want to have a discussion that the contracts are "unfair", we can do that and I'd agree with you. But my answer to fixing it would still be...do a better job in the CBA. It's how NBA and MLB players have gotten the money and rights they have.

You admit the condition is unfair and yet you have a problem with players exercising leverage in the few cases where they have it to navigate a system you concede is unfair.

 

[fightinfunbags]

would think this could be the case but hasn't he kind of shit the bed down the stretch the last 2 seasons.....never mind his playoff performance last year.

Part of this is the Hopkins injury changing the entire dynamic of their offense.

 

[thunderc]

Basically if the Cardinals thought they had to have him they would be working harder to sign him. Are they wrong? It is possible that they are but it’s their decision to make. Murray shouid give them a deadline and then tell them he won’t negotiate after it. THAT is creating real leverage and at the same time being confident in your abilities. Someone is going to give him a contract after this season, no doubt about it.

 

[trojanfan12]

You admit the condition is unfair and yet you have a problem with players exercising leverage in the few cases where they have it to navigate a system you concede is unfair.

Didn't say I have a problem with it. I said that he is not honoring his contract and his team is., which is true and you have presented nothing to prove differently.

Ultimately, the fix for it remains the same...do a better job during CBA negotiations. The biggest problemfor the players is they have 53 man rosters and some of the guys on that roster don't make enough to weather a prolonged strike. Maybe the guys who are making the real money could set upna fund for the players whomake less to dip into so they can pay their bills during a longer holdout.

 

[dtgold88]

Did the Seahawks respect Bobby Wagner’s contract they committed to?

yes

 

[dtgold88]

He was set to make 20 million dollars in 2022 and he will make around 5 million dollars. This reply isn’t intellectually honest. The Seahawks like most NFL teams decided that they didn’t have to honor all of the years and money they promised. NFL teams regularly tear up contracts when it’s convenient for them.

You mean as agreed to in the CBA put together by the owners AND players?

 

[fightinfunbags]

Didn't say I have a problem with it. I said that he is not honoring his contract and his team is., which is true and you have presented nothing to prove differently.

Ultimately, the fix for it remains the same...do a better job during CBA negotiations. The biggest problemfor the players is they have 53 man rosters and some of the guys on that roster don't make enough to weather a prolonged strike. Maybe the guys who are making the real money could set upna fund for the players whomake less to dip into so they can pay their bills during a longer holdout.

My major issue is the demand for players to act in good faith without that expectation going both ways.

 

[fightinfunbags]

yes

They did not. He was due 20 million dollars according to the terms of his contract and he was cut so that the Seahawks did not have to pay him what he was owed. Now he will make 5 million dollars instead of the $20 million he agreed to in the contract he signed.

 

[dtgold88]

You don’t even realize that you’ve established my side of the argument. The contract itself is a slanted contract. In signing it, we all concur that the intent is owners to protect themselves. They don’t have to pay when a player outplays the terms and if the player falls short they get cut. The only factor in the dynamic to protect the player is the cap and the concept of dead money. Your response here reeks of Marie Antoinette’s let them eat cake (just negotiate a better system).

agreeing the CBA has some issues for the players is not establishing your side of the argument....at least in the sense you are trying to say an owner is not honoring the deal that was signed in releasing a player as he is allowed to do under terms of the contract (while paying the guaranteed portion).

 

[fightinfunbags]

You mean as agreed to in the CBA put together by the owners AND players?

Yes in that highly slanted dynamic that nearly all NFL fans agree is unevenly weighted and unfair.

 

[fightinfunbags]

agreeing the CBA has some issues for the players is not establishing your side of the argument....at least in the sense you are trying to say an owner is not honoring the deal that was signed in releasing a player as he is allowed to do under terms of the contract (while paying the guaranteed portion).

It absolutely is. If one establishes the conditions that set these terms are unfair then all that comes from that is unfairly created.

 

[dtgold88]

They did not. He was due 20 million dollars according to the terms of his contract and he was cut so that the Seahawks did not have to pay him what he was owed. Now he will make 5 million dollars instead of the $20 million he agreed to in the contract he signed.

correct....per his contract where he also agreed he can be released and not paid his $20 mil.

want to say he can hold out as it's his only form of leverage? That's fine, but the team has not broken the contract. The hold out does (and why he wont be paid while holding out).

 

[fightinfunbags]

correct....per his contract where he also agreed he can be released and not paid his $20 mil.

want to say he can hold out as it's his only form of leverage? That's fine, but the team has not broken the contract. The hold out does (and why he wont be paid while holding out).

The slanted market he signed the contract in never allowed for him to sign a contract that didn’t include those boiler plate provisions. That’s my entire point. The system is rigged against the player. There are a handful of players that only recently (and mostly QBs) that have been able to attain a contract that is fully guaranteed for the terms and years of the contract.

 

[dtgold88]

But you’re from a generation that has an entirely different mind set. No one cares if you “feel sorry” for anybody. Just shut your mouth when it comes to another man’s money and his ability to use his leverage to maximize his income. That’s it.

I mean, you are offering opinions about another man's money.

I think most get his only leverage might be sitting out...you are the only one who seems confused, though, when you think an owner releasing someone and not paying him (other than the guarantee) is breaking the contract when holding out is breaking the agreement (and why when holding out the player does not get paid).

 

[dtgold88]

I’m Gen X. I’m sorry that you don’t appreciate real talk. I just take issue with the generation that introduced the world to 50% of all marriages ending in divorce preaching to people about the integrity of their word and the sanctity of a contract.

This would make more sense if you, yourself, understood the contract and were not crying about it simply because the deals are not set up how you'd like them to be set up.

 

[fightinfunbags]

I mean, you are offering opinions about another man's money.

I think most get his only leverage might be sitting out...you are the only one who seems confused, though, when you think an owner releasing someone and not paying him (other than the guarantee) is breaking the contract when holding out is breaking the agreement (and why when holding out the player does not get paid).

I’m in no way confused. Since the beginning of this discussion I have focused on a slanted system that precludes the fact that these contracts are actually a two way street. I’ve argued against unfair characterizations of the character of Murray and others who exercise the only leverage they possess in this market. You guys are standing on the principles of legality. I’m saying that the system itself is slanted and unfair so while this may all be “legal” it doesn’t make the dynamic fair or just. Therefore, the lazy talk about “your name means something” “this is about integrity” is quite frankly bull shit.

 

[fightinfunbags]

This would make more sense if you, yourself, understood the contract and were not crying about it simply because the deals are not set up how you'd like them to be set up.

You mean something that is fair for all parties?

 

[bksballer89]

would think this could be the case but hasn't he kind of shit the bed down the stretch the last 2 seasons.....never mind his playoff performance last year.

Yep but he still a top 10 qb. Don't pay him and starting over won't be fun. Solid qbs are hard enough to fine and he is better than solid