Holding out while still under contract

[thefuzz]

10 minutes ago, WUnderhill said:

I’m generally against breaching contracts. However, contracts usually include whatever penalty or recourse there is for breaching, so as long as the breaching party pays the damages or whatever it is without making everybody pay attorneys fees and whatnot for a judge to enforce the contract then it’s whatever. In the case of NFL players the only time it really feels slimy is when a player signs a long term deal and then wants to renegotiate before the end of the deal just because other salaries have gone up or the market has changed (see Zack Martin). Like you wanted the long term deal for security and the team wanted it to have a more team friendly contract at the end. If you wanted to renegotiate in a few years you should have signed a shorter contract.

This is why I'm against it.

You either want the most you can get, or you want long term security...but both typically don't play well in the sandbox together.

Either Kirk Cousins your contracts, or you can "be the highest paid X in the league" your contracts.

With 1st round rookies I can sort of have a different tune, as they are pretty much slotted, but then again, the team just made a MASSIVE investment in you, and likely liked you so much they locked in your 5th year option.

End of the day, know what each party can, and cannot do before signing your name.  That goes for military, mortgage, NFL, or your own job.

[LegioX]

I heard somewhere Burns is stand to lose close to 900k per game if he holds out 

[SCO96]

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

So you dont think that is in the terminology in the contract when he signs for being cut?  If a team broke a legit contract they would be sued to all hell.  The team words the contracts with terms like guaranteed money, outs etc.   You can argue semantics all day long but teams word contracts in their favor for the most part but the player still signs.

I actually see your point.

If I sign a 5 year/100mil contract with a guarantee of of $60 million over 3 years and get a large signing bonus up front, I wouldn't complain too much if I didn't see year 4. I would know going into the deal that once the guarantee was gone I'd be on thin ice so to speak.

I have no problem with players maximizing their revenue in general. My problem is with guys who want deals that take up nearly 20% the cap space for a single position and then complain about needing more help to perform better. If you demand anywhere from 25 to 50 million per season to play QB, pass rusher, or WR...how on earth do you expect the team to have solid depth from top to bottom? If you think you're worth that much, go out and earn the money and put the team on your back week in and week out.

If a GM paid top dollar to the three positions above almost half of your cap space would be gone before you could pay the other 50 players on the roster. The whole idea of having to win a SB while your QB is on a rookie deal seems backwards. It should easier to win a SB as a QB matures and hits his mid-late 20's. In the NFL it's harder because those guys take up so much cap space their teams will always having some glaring hole/weakness.

[bythenbrs]

2 hours ago, 4Corners said:

Nah man. You don’t know what you’re talking about. 

Please cite page and paragraph to support your argument.  I'll wait...

[4Corners]

20 hours ago, bythenbrs said:

At the base of capitalism is making good on a contractual promise.  Breaking a contract is definitely not capitalism.

Ok thanks Nerd

[csx]

20 hours ago, bythenbrs said:

At the base of capitalism is making good on a contractual promise.  Breaking a contract is definitely not capitalism.

Like the social contract lol

[MasterAwesome]

People here act like they're all for players getting their money...until said player fails to live up to their contract.  Then that money is the first thing people throw in their face: "overpaid", "cashed in and got lazy", etc.  Then y'all are all for the "big man" to cut players to save money lol.  You can act virtuous in principle but there's a very short leash from that virtue turning into callousness.

[rayzor]

teams can bench players for disagreements. 

it makes sense that when there is a contractual disagreements that the players can bench themselves. and it's not like it doesn't cost them, they have to pay fines/penalties for missing time. if they are ok with that then go ahead. it sucks for fans and teammates and coaches that are depending on them, but players have very few tools at their disposal aside from sitting out. 

do what you can when you have to.

[Luciu5]

Everything is in the contracts. It's a poo deal when there are no guaranteed monies, but a lot of fields have contracts like this. For example, I sign contracts everyday that says I dont' get paid if they dont' get paid. Cost of doing business.

That said, when there is guaranteed money involved, the team can terminate the contract, but with financial consequences. The player cannot "terminate" the contract, but they can stop working, and again there are financial consequences as well as a non-compete clause - they can't sign another contract in the NFL while still under contract. It is a two way street, just lopsided toward the employer (team), which is typical of employment contracts.

Nobody is forced to sign a contract. You can try to negotiate some of these clauses out that favor the team, but you won't. And you won't find another team to do so either in most cases. No trade clauses is an example of something (being traded) that favors the team that players have been able to successfully negotiate out of.

[bythenbrs]

3 hours ago, csx said:

Like the social contract lol

Define ‘social contract’.  

In litigation, which takes precedence, the theoretical concept of social contract or the legal contract to perform with signatures from the involved parties?  Asking for a friend…

 

[csx]

11 minutes ago, bythenbrs said:

Define ‘social contract’.  

In litigation, which takes precedence, the theoretical concept of social contract or the legal contract to perform with signatures from the involved parties?  Asking for a friend…

 

Show your friend a dictionary.

Finding some words saying contracts should be upheld doesn't erase the history of capitalists breaking them.

Edited September 7, 2023 by csx

[thefuzz]

3 minutes ago, csx said:

Show your friend a dictionary.

Finding some words saying contracts should be upheld doesn't erase the history of capitalists breaking them.

Ahhhhaahhahaaahahhaha.

 

[Martin]

2 hours ago, MasterAwesome said:

People here act like they're all for players getting their money...until said player fails to live up to their contract.  Then that money is the first thing people throw in their face: "overpaid", "cashed in and got lazy", etc.  Then y'all are all for the "big man" to cut players to save money lol.  You can act virtuous in principle but there's a very short leash from that virtue turning into callousness.

He is widely considered a top 5-10 player at his position, so he will be paid as a top 3 player this year and next year 2-3 players will overtake him, and then another 2-3 players the year after. That is the standard model in the NFL. He gets paid with the expectation that he will perform accordingly. If he underperforms everyone should feel free to complain. Fairly straightforward.

[Jackofalltrades]

Unfortunately it's how this business works. On one hand I think he should honor the contract he's currently under. If you're underpaid according to relevant metrics then the team benefits, but the other side of that is if the player is under-performing then the team should suck it up and honor the contract, too. 

That's not practical though, especially given the constraints of time and money. The team has to make the best use of it's cap, where as the player knows he's on borrowed time while playing a violent sport. Burns career could come to a sudden halt at really any time. So while I don't necessarily like it I understand that they are trying to cash in while they have the leverage to do so.