I will NEVER understand this..

[Shorttynaz]

Darnell Dockett is griping about how he's been called the "most tenacious defensive lineman in the NFL" and wants to be paid like it. Problem is he's still got 2 years remaining on his current contract.

 

My question is - WHEN will this ever end? Not just with the Cardinals, but athletes in general. I don't get it - you signed your current f'ng contract. If you didn't agree to it then and didn't intend to live up to it, then why sign it? I mean it works both ways. What about the huge contract that the Cardinals gave Matt Leinart (6 years for roughly $50M). I don't hear him bitching about his contract - for obvious reasons. Teams get stuck with bad contracts and they too are stuck with them as well. Look at Jamarcus Russell. He got 6 years for roughly $60M - and Al Davis is stuck paying it regardless of how good or how poor the bum plays. I don't hear Al Davis complaining about how he wants Russell to sign a new contract to pay back some of the money he is stealing from the Grim Reaper.

 

I feel that if a player wants his deal redone then so be it. PAY BACK YOUR ENTIRE SIGNING BONUS from when you signed the contract - then by all means - get a new one.

 

LINK

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

Absolutely agree - I also believe in Insentient heavy contracts, much like I understand Crabtree signed.

Put up the big #'s and receive a big check , fall on your azz and you have to settle for only getting 30 million more than I earn

[Brentastic]

Darnell Dockett is griping about how he's been called the "most tenacious defensive lineman in the NFL" and wants to be paid like it. Problem is he's still got 2 years remaining on his current contract.

 

My question is - WHEN will this ever end? Not just with the Cardinals, but athletes in general. I don't get it - you signed your current f'ng contract. If you didn't agree to it then and didn't intend to live up to it, then why sign it? I mean it works both ways. What about the huge contract that the Cardinals gave Matt Leinart (6 years for roughly $50M). I don't hear him bitching about his contract - for obvious reasons. Teams get stuck with bad contracts and they too are stuck with them as well. Look at Jamarcus Russell. He got 6 years for roughly $60M - and Al Davis is stuck paying it regardless of how good or how poor the bum plays. I don't hear Al Davis complaining about how he wants Russell to sign a new contract to pay back some of the money he is stealing from the Grim Reaper.

 

I feel that if a player wants his deal redone then so be it. PAY BACK YOUR ENTIRE SIGNING BONUS from when you signed the contract - then by all means - get a new one.

 

LINK

See the problem is that it's not the same both ways. A team can cut a player and will only lose the guaranteed part of the contract plus any salary cap penalties - Al Davis could save a ton of money if he just cut Russell. A player doesn't have that leverage. At least that's how I understand it. Big J - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Shorttynaz]

See the problem is that it's not the same both ways. A team can cut a player and will only lose the guaranteed part of the contract plus any salary cap penalties

2 things..

 

#1 - After all, it is a business. Players don't HAVE to play in the NFL. If you're not happy, then by all means - find a new profession. Nobody is making you stay there. I mean the "fry guy" at McDonalds can go to his boss and tell him that he's the best fry guy on the face of the earth. No one can cook some fries like he can. He demands a raise. His boss laughs and says no. When I hired you, you agreed to be my fry guy for $7.00/hr. If you want more money, then maybe you should go and see if Burger King is hiring. Maybe this is a little far fetched for the fry guy never signed a contract, but still.. He agreed to take the job for $7.00/hr. Don't bitch about your pay afterwards if you knew what it was going to be before you started working.

 

and #2 - I suppose it's still in the players favor then if an owner cuts him.. I mean the ONLY protection a player should have is if he gets hurt. If you're cut cause you suck and don't warrant the millions that an owner is paying you - then more than likely you deserve to be cut. If you're cut cause you're hurt and taking up a roster space, THEN you should still get your money.

 

Once you're cut (and healthy), if you feel that you're worth more than what your previous team was willing to pay you then find a team who needs your services and willing to pay you what you want. If you're not happy with their offer, then don't sign it.

 

PERFECT example is DeAngelo Fall - I mean Hall. The Raiders gave him a rediculous contract and he wasn't playing like most other top paid corners were. So the Raiders cut him. What did he do? He felt that he was worth a big contract and went and found one in Washington.

 

I suppose the way this comes across to most people (like me) is..

 

S-T-F-U and live up to your end of the bargain. If you're not happy, then get to steppin. There's a TON of other players out there who would love to be in your position - more than likely for much less than you're getting.

[Easy n Dirty]

If you are going to hold the player to the terms of the deal, then it's only fair that the owner be held to it also - and this is not the case currently, where virtually all football contracts are not guaranteed, and teams can cut players at will if they are not living up to the level of play that was expected of them. So I have no problem with a player wanting to renegotiate his deal if he is outperforming it, to me this is simply the flip side of the team cutting underperforming players...with one caveat. When a team cuts a player, they have to eat the signing bonus, which can be substantial. So I agree with the point made in the original post that a player, when they renegotiate, should be forced to return the unamortized portion of their signing bonus (not the entire bonus, IMO) - although arguably this is built into the renegotiated terms.

 

Overall, if ownership refuses to be bound by the contract, I don't see how they can expect the player to be bound by it.

[kcmast]

If you are going to hold the player to the terms of the deal, then it's only fair that the owner be held to it also - and this is not the case currently, where virtually all football contracts are not guaranteed, and teams can cut players at will if they are not living up to the level of play that was expected of them. So I have no problem with a player wanting to renegotiate his deal if he is outperforming it, to me this is simply the flip side of the team cutting underperforming players...with one caveat. When a team cuts a player, they have to eat the signing bonus, which can be substantial. So I agree with the point made in the original post that a player, when they renegotiate, should be forced to return the unamortized portion of their signing bonus (not the entire bonus, IMO) - although arguably this is built into the renegotiated terms.

 

Overall, if ownership refuses to be bound by the contract, I don't see how they can expect the player to be bound by it.

Yes it is. The terms of the contracts say they can be terminated. So the owners are not "breaking" the contract.

Edited October 9, 2009 by kcmast

[Samson]

Sports-obsessed people (you and me) line the pockets of the owners, so they can afford to pay spoiled cry babies.

 

Sports-obsessed people (you and me) want our teams to win and pressure owners to doing what it takes to put the best possible talent on the field . . . including caving to demands for new contracts / trades.

[Jackass]

2 things..

 

#1 - After all, it is a business. Players don't HAVE to play in the NFL. If you're not happy, then by all means - find a new profession. Nobody is making you stay there. I mean the "fry guy" at McDonalds can go to his boss and tell him that he's the best fry guy on the face of the earth. No one can cook some fries like he can. He demands a raise. His boss laughs and says no. When I hired you, you agreed to be my fry guy for $7.00/hr. If you want more money, then maybe you should go and see if Burger King is hiring. Maybe this is a little far fetched for the fry guy never signed a contract, but still.. He agreed to take the job for $7.00/hr. Don't bitch about your pay afterwards if you knew what it was going to be before you started working.

 

and #2 - I suppose it's still in the players favor then if an owner cuts him.. I mean the ONLY protection a player should have is if he gets hurt. If you're cut cause you suck and don't warrant the millions that an owner is paying you - then more than likely you deserve to be cut. If you're cut cause you're hurt and taking up a roster space, THEN you should still get your money.

 

Once you're cut (and healthy), if you feel that you're worth more than what your previous team was willing to pay you then find a team who needs your services and willing to pay you what you want. If you're not happy with their offer, then don't sign it.

 

PERFECT example is DeAngelo Fall - I mean Hall. The Raiders gave him a rediculous contract and he wasn't playing like most other top paid corners were. So the Raiders cut him. What did he do? He felt that he was worth a big contract and went and found one in Washington.

 

I suppose the way this comes across to most people (like me) is..

 

S-T-F-U and live up to your end of the bargain. If you're not happy, then get to steppin. There's a TON of other players out there who would love to be in your position - more than likely for much less than you're getting.

 

 

People outside of sports agree to salaries all the time and then try to get raises based on their performance.

[rai]

I agree that it's rediculious for a player like Dockett ($22 million contract), Boldin (has $12 Million left on his contract) etc. to cry boo-hoo after they got a nice second contract. so they outplay the money the are getting that's the name of the game for a team to win my having more good players that are underpaid not the other way around.

 

But I have a side question I was thinging about.

 

What is a player like Desean Jackson who gets a rookie contract that is worth peanuts to do?. If he get injured he'd never get the second contract.

 

a young second round pick like Desean Jackson some punters are making more money than he is. has to walk around with a four leaf clover in his pocket hoping he does not get hurt until it's time to sign his next contract. this is very scary for a good guy like that.

 

I recall Brandon Marshall cut his arm real good. Fortunatly he was able to recover but it could just as easily have gone the other way and he'd be working at Walmart (or wherever he could catcha job). This is my concern with players the young guys than don't have multi-million dollar contracts.

 

I see DeSean has a $3 Million 4-year deal, that's not horrible by any means but just think it's something I would worry about if I was in that position because that's small money considering his upside.

 

This is why the players want these good second contracts because it's very good protection for them, but they should understand they are giving up some money (if they had waited to be a free agent) but they are getting good protection should they have an injury. So it's a good deal for both the team (get somewhat of a discount) and the player get fairly good contract for long-term. But then the player should nto want to rip up his contract if he could have got more as a free agent. That makes me mad as a fan.

Edited October 10, 2009 by rai

[HowboutthemCowboys]

People outside of sports agree to salaries all the time and then try to get raises based on their performance.

True. But why don't you "hold out" for more money and not report to work for a few weeks. Let me know how that works out for ya.

[Jackass]

True. But why don't you "hold out" for more money and not report to work for a few weeks. Let me know how that works out for ya.

 

Athletes have unique skill sets. If they could be replaced for less money then they would be. I can assure you that i have no unique skill sets.

[Shorttynaz]

People outside of sports agree to salaries all the time and then try to get raises based on their performance.

Well, then that's obviously the purpose of the contract. It's broken down to what you will be paid in year 1, 2, 3, etc. If you're not happy with the terms, then don't sign it.

 

I think HowBoutThenGowboys here stated it best.. Why don't you as an employee try to hold out and see how that works for ya.

 

Yes, I will agree that athletes have a unique skill set. But (in this case) Dockett is not the only capable defensive lineman in the NFL. There are plenty of quality athletes out there who would give just about anything to be given the opportunity he has benn given, and most all would take that opportunity in a heartbeat for less money. Players are talented, but they are also coached and taught as their career progresses. Yes, Dockett is good but.. that player on the practice squad who has yet to be given that opportunity may turn out to be better than Dockett given the opportunity.. You never know..

 

It all goes back to - if it's ALL LAID OUT IN FRONT OF YOU BEFORE YOU SIGN IT, then don't bitch about it after you sign it. If you think you're gonna be better in 3 years than you are now, well then don't sign a 6 year deal.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Shorttynaz

[Rovers]

No, the contract is not garanteed... so it gets front loaded with HUGH signing bonuses, so the players ARE getting paid. BIG money, up front. The late years of most contracts are for a lot less money. So, in a very real way, these contracts are garanteed. If a player gets cut before the end of the contract, he ends up making MORE money per year over the life of the contract when the up front money is taken into account.

 

Don't tell me that these contracts are in any way shape or form one sided... in fact, the teams take on more risk, as they have to shell out big bucks up front. If the player is a bust... who gets screwed? The TEAM.

[Jackass]

Well, then that's obviously the purpose of the contract. It's broken down to what you will be paid in year 1, 2, 3, etc. If you're not happy with the terms, then don't sign it.

 

I think HowBoutThenGowboys here stated it best.. Why don't you as an employee try to hold out and see how that works for ya.

 

Yes, I will agree that athletes have a unique skill set. But (in this case) Dockett is not the only capable defensive lineman in the NFL. There are plenty of quality athletes out there who would give just about anything to be given the opportunity he has benn given, and most all would take that opportunity in a heartbeat for less money. Players are talented, but they are also coached and taught as their career progresses. Yes, Dockett is good but.. that player on the practice squad who has yet to be given that opportunity may turn out to be better than Dockett given the opportunity.. You never know..

 

It all goes back to - if it's ALL LAID OUT IN FRONT OF YOU BEFORE YOU SIGN IT, then don't bitch about it after you sign it. If you think you're gonna be better in 3 years than you are now, well then don't sign a 6 year deal.

 

It's a free market. The team doesn't have to re-do the contract. But the player can certainly ask. Then the player can choose to play or not. The team is not guaranteeing anything in terms of length of contract. Certain players get a lot of guaranteed money but not everyone gets millions of dollars when they sign the contract.

[STL Fan]

I think the thing that bothers me the most about this is the very public way in which many players do it, trying to exert pressure on the team to re-up. If a player was over-performing his number and went privately to the team and said, "look, I love it here and would like to talk about extending my deal to stay here rather than becoming a free agent." It sounds completely different, doesn't it?

 

Owners have large egos and don't like to be publicly forced to do anything. Then if you approach the team and they drag their feet or refuse to re-negotiate, maybe you go public.