Deems May on WFNZ ~ "KK should hold out."

[thefuzz]

1:  As usual @CPantherKing has no idea what he is talking about.

2:  Does KK have 4 years of service yet?  If not, what could be the consequence to holding out this year....while under contract?

3:  Can KK afford to hold out?

 

Bottom line, we can control the rights to KK for the next two seasons while costing us about 15M or so...much less than the 50M or so that he will want guaranteed in the first 3 years.  I want him here long term, but not at the risk of hurting our chances at a Lombardi.

[csx]

While we may have some fans who do not see the reality around the situation I'm positive our FO knows that Short has no leverage to hold out before he gets 4 seasons accrued to be an unrestricted FA. He has 2 options. Sign an extension or play under his current contract and bet on himself. He has no leverage.

[tiger7_88]

17 hours ago, CPantherKing said:

When you run an organization on the foundation of doing 'business', then holdouts are a staple of a capitalist system. When a player exceeds their current value, and their market value via trade, release, or extension is substantially higher, then it is the responsibility of an agent to advise a player to holdout. The penalties with the agreed upon contract are substantially less compared to the payoff by exercising leverage a player has generated in the market.

If the player underperforms a contract, do they give money back?  

 

17 hours ago, CPantherKing said:

Contracts are meant to be broken in a capitalist system.

That's a ridiculous supposition.  What you are basically saying is "contracts mean nothing" and I don't think that is a supportable in a capitalist system for one little second.

[Frizzy350]

19 hours ago, Castavar said:

Absolutely. There is a reason the Pats have been successful for so long. BB implemented a system, they got an elite QB to run that system, and anybody who doesn't want to play in that system for a reasonable price can get the hell out. It just a matter of time until we get to have the success as them if Getts just stands firm. Yeah, it's going to suck to continue losing VERY good players, but it is not worth it at the cost of losing 5 other quality starters for one star player. They didn't win the superbowl every year (that's not the plan), the plan is to have the window open for long periods of time so you can HAVE A SHOT every year to win one, and they so happened to win 4.

So for me, if KK is asking for some ridiculous money that will hinder the team, let him walk.

Id rather have a roster filled top to bottom with guys who are considered top 10-20 in the league at their positions than a small handful of elite players with garbage surrounding them.

[thefuzz]

1 hour ago, csx said:

While we may have some fans who do not see the reality around the situation I'm positive our FO knows that Short has no leverage to hold out before he gets 4 seasons accrued to be an unrestricted FA. He has 2 options. Sign an extension or play under his current contract and bet on himself. He has no leverage.

CP says not to let facts get in the way of complete and total fabrication.

 

[The NFL Shield At Midfield]

2 hours ago, tiger7_88 said:

If the player underperforms a contract, do they give money back?  

 

That's a ridiculous supposition.  What you are basically saying is "contracts mean nothing" and I don't think that is a supportable in a capitalist system for one little second.

you laugh now, but wait till players in the NFL figure out that the contracts they signed are meant to be broken and are basically unenforceable.  it'll be pandemonium!  the entire team will hold out.

[CRA]

13 minutes ago, The NFL Shield At Midfield said:

you laugh now, but wait till players in the NFL figure out that the contracts they signed are meant to be broken and are basically unenforceable.  it'll be pandemonium!  the entire team will hold out.

NFL players and their agents have known that for a long time 

[thefuzz]

57 minutes ago, The NFL Shield At Midfield said:

you laugh now, but wait till players in the NFL figure out that the contracts they signed are meant to be broken and are basically unenforceable.  it'll be pandemonium!  the entire team will hold out.

I need to explain something to you really quickly.

Most NFL players aren't millionaires, in the technical sense of the word.  They pay at the highest tax bracket, most of them spend too much, and can't afford to "hold out" as you are saying.  

 

You hold out: 

1:  You may have to pay back portions of bonus money that has already been paid to you.

2:  You get fined up to 30k per day.

3:  You don't have 4 years of accrued service, and you hold out a year...well now you just lost a full year of service.

4:  You don't get game checks....what most of the NFL survives on.

 

The Bene's, Mayo's, Kliens, Worley's, type of players don't want to hold out...and they will pressure the NFLPA to do whatever it takes for them to get back on the field.

[The NFL Shield At Midfield]

i was being sarcastic but thanks for posting that.  maybe somebody will learn something.

[tiger7_88]

1 hour ago, The NFL Shield At Midfield said:

you laugh now, but wait till players in the NFL figure out that the contracts they signed are meant to be broken and are basically unenforceable.  it'll be pandemonium!  the entire team will hold out.

I'd also be willing to bet, cuz NFL teams aren't dumb, that contracts are written for a term of a number of years and not for a calendar period.

So (at least I'm betting) even if you "sit out" the last year of your contract, that only means you've extended your 4-year contract to 5-years because you are STILL bound by that last year of the contract.  That being the (assumed) case, "sitting out" a year of your current contract, especially while your prime years are ticking off, would be a really really really stupid move.