Big Ernie McCracken Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 http://larrybrownsports.com/football/marsh...steven-jackson/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 I am a Rams fan, and I see nothing wrong with what Faulk is saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 A little insight into the author from the article: The one thing is I side with Steven Jackson and almost all running backs who hold out for more money....I’m all for running backs holding out to get paid; they have to get their money before it’s too late. And I can’t believe that Marshall wouldn’t be on the side of the running back considering he did play the position. I guess he doesn't have much bias... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 I'm also for running backs getting raises if they perform. How they do it is the question. Show up Stephen and try and get a raise while in camp. Hold out ONLY if it's absolutely necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Show up Stephen and try and get a raise while in camp. Hold out ONLY if it's absolutely necessary. At what point is it absolutely necessary? I am sure Jackson is figuring that time is now, before suffering a fluke knee injury during camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 At what point is it absolutely necessary? I am sure Jackson is figuring that time is now, before suffering a fluke knee injury during camp. Jackson can get a policy from Lloyds of London or a similar carrier in the event of a career threatening or ending injury suffered during training camp. In the meantime, he can honor his existing contract and show good faith by reporting while negotiations proceed. He can always hold out as the season is about to commence, which would really put the screws to STL if THEY don't bargain in good faith - or he could just play through his existing contract and then piss on STL by walking away as a FA (or being franchised and being guaranteed to be paid the average of the top 5 RBs in the league - which ain't exactly chicken feed for one year's work either). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Jackson can get a policy from Lloyds of London or a similar carrier in the event of a career threatening or ending injury suffered during training camp. In the meantime, he can honor his existing contract and show good faith by reporting while negotiations proceed. He can always hold out as the season is about to commence, which would really put the screws to STL if THEY don't bargain in good faith - or he could just play through his existing contract and then piss on STL by walking away as a FA (or being franchised and being guaranteed to be paid the average of the top 5 RBs in the league - which ain't exactly chicken feed for one year's work either). All great points. That being said, why would anyone ever hold-out? No being a smart-ass...just wondering if you beleive there is ever a scenario where holdiong-out during training camp makes sense, based on your thoughts above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 All great points. That being said, why would anyone ever hold-out? No being a smart-ass...just wondering if you beleive there is ever a scenario where holdiong-out during training camp makes sense, based on your thoughts above. There are instances, though I believe they are the exception and not the rule. A good example would be a RB who was drafted in the 6th or 7th round and received a commesurate contract and then perfomed like a top 10 RB in the league from the onset and had a track record of doing so - say a couple of years' play. Rather than forcing the RB to honor the contract or to holdout, IMO the team ought to reward the player as well as thank their lucky stars for finding a player like this so late in the draft by rewriting a suitable contract. I'm no fan of applying "fairness" to contract negotiations - because factors like signing bonuses often get left out of "fairness" talks, but this would be one case where "fairness" clearly overwhelms other concerns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Faulk sounds arrogant and self-centered as hell. Not that that's shocking. And remember: we didn't land on no moon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 There are instances, though I believe they are the exception and not the rule. A good example would be a RB who was drafted in the 6th or 7th round and received a commesurate contract and then perfomed like a top 10 RB in the league from the onset and had a track record of doing so - say a couple of years' play. Rather than forcing the RB to honor the contract or to holdout, IMO the team ought to reward the player as well as thank their lucky stars for finding a player like this so late in the draft by rewriting a suitable contract. I'm no fan of applying "fairness" to contract negotiations - because factors like signing bonuses often get left out of "fairness" talks, but this would be one case where "fairness" clearly overwhelms other concerns. I guess thats where the ambiguity comes in....defining what is "fair". I am sure Jackson beleives that, based on how he has performed thus far, it would be "fair" for St. Louis to step-up and reward him with a new long-term deal. Simialrly, St. Louis surely beleives it would be fair for Jackson to honor his exisiting contract and report to work while they figure out his next extension. Both sides are right, and wrong.....problem is, both seem too stubborn to admit it. No sense in rehashing what has happened thus far...all we can evaluate are the two remaining options going forward: 1. Jackson reports to camp, and has faith they can get a deal done. 2. Jackson stays out, and waits for the deal to be executed before reporting....if nothing happens before Week 10, play out the remaining 6 games, and earn a huge paycheck next year on the FA market. Ball is definitely in Jackson's corner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 I guess thats where the ambiguity comes in....defining what is "fair". I am sure Jackson beleives that, based on how he has performed thus far, it would be "fair" for St. Louis to step-up and reward him with a new long-term deal. Simialrly, St. Louis surely beleives it would be fair for Jackson to honor his exisiting contract and report to work while they figure out his next extension. I guess I'd like to see STL step up in this case (in other words, this may qualify as one of those exceptions). Even though Jackson did sign a contract with a $4M signing bonus, it was a 5 year contract worth $3M in salary to go along with that $4M in bonus. I'd venture to say that Jackson has proven that he is more valuable to the team than the $1.7M in salary he will earn this year, and that $4M over 5 years is paltry for a stud RB like Jackson. The hangup might be that he's looking for AD money ($40M over 5 years, including a $17M signing bonus), and that might screw STL on their salary cap this year or in the next couple of years. I have no idea if that is the case, but it would make sense with no movement between he & the Rams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 I know they'll insure anything or anyone. I think you can get UFO Abduction Insurance even. However, I have to imagine it'd be insanely expensive for an NFL RB to get insurance. If he wanted to insure himself for $10mil, that'd probably cost $5mil? Any insurance/actuary people here? Should the player foot the bill? Depending on what a $10 million policy was designed to cover, it shouldn't cost anywhere near $5 million ... maybe not even $1 million. Here's my non-actuarial guess: $10 million policy that covers "career threatening" injuries to the ankles, knees, legs, hips, shoulders or head from 12:01am August 19, 2008 through 11:59pm September 1, 2008 with the following stipulations: a) Only one commercial flight during the period No contact sports allowed (i.e., he can report to camp, ride a bike, sit in the soaker tub, and sit in on meetings, etc) c) No other "dangerous" activities (skydiving, basketball, etc) Premium cost = $100,000 - $250,000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 As a Sjax owner this situation is now in a bad zone...I am a bit nervous now... Come on Chris Perry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 As a Sjax owner this situation is now in a bad zone...I am a bit nervous now... Come on Chris Perry it's not week 1 yet, I'm not worried... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pitbull739 Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 You sign the contract, you fulfill the contract. Holdouts for new contracts are BS no matter how you have performed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 He's worth a lot more than what he is being paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pitbull739 Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 He's worth a lot more than what he is being paid. So am I. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 So am I. So? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKIDKOKID Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 So am I. Well played sir! KO'd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 You sign the contract, you fulfill the contract. Holdouts for new contracts are BS no matter how you have performed. Let's supposed Jackson gets injured in camp and ends his career. Do you believe that St. Louis doesn't cut him and he lose out on his salary? But wait, the Rams signed a contract...of course teams never cut players whose careers are over even though they signed a contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimm74 Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 Let's supposed Jackson gets injured in camp and ends his career. Do you believe that St. Louis doesn't cut him and he lose out on his salary? But wait, the Rams signed a contract...of course teams never cut players whose careers are over even though they signed a contract. I do not have a dog in this fight, but this is usually addressed in the contract. This is why NFL teams are not being sued for breach of contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 I do not have a dog in this fight, but this is usually addressed in the contract. This is why NFL teams are not being sued for breach of contract. My view is that if contracts were guaranteed, then no way do I support a player holding out. Contracts are not guaranteed and therefore I do not blame a player for doing what he needs to do to obtain his coin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 My view is that if contracts were guaranteed, then no way do I support a player holding out. Contracts are not guaranteed and therefore I do not blame a player for doing what he needs to do to obtain his coin. Because contracts are not guaranteed, the players are overcompensated with large signing bonuses....if contracts were guaranteed, those astronomical signing bonuses we read about would be considerably lower. Players are getting paid, one way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 So am I. So go tell your boss that you intend to holdout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 Let's supposed Jackson gets injured in camp and ends his career. Do you believe that St. Louis doesn't cut him and he lose out on his salary? But wait, the Rams signed a contract...of course teams never cut players whose careers are over even though they signed a contract. Actually, per the CBA they would have to agree to an injury settlement in order to release Jackson in that event. And let's not delve into the "unfairness" of teams being allowed to cut players. It is a reasonable trade off for teams paying signing bonuses before a player ever plays a down for a team (unless you honestly expect a player to pay back the prorationed portion of his signing bonus if he gets hurt before his contract reaches full term), and a trade off that the league & the union agree is fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.