Holding out while still under contract

[4Corners]

7 minutes ago, bythenbrs said:

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

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

[JawnyBlaze]

Until a team is forced to honor a contract, I don’t fault a player for playing the same game. 

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, JawnyBlaze said:

Until a team is forced to honor a contract, I don’t fault a player for playing the same game. 

when has a team not honored a contract?

[TheBigKat]

Just now, mrcompletely11 said:

when has a team not honored a contract?

You’re joking right?

[JawnyBlaze]

Just now, mrcompletely11 said:

when has a team not honored a contract?

Any time they cut a player before his contract expires. 

[mrcompletely11]

2 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Any time they cut a player before his contract expires. 

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.

[Pejorative Miscreant]

1 hour ago, Wolfcop said:

I do not fault the player as long as he is being reasonable in negotiations. With the limited information we have, not sure that any of us can know the real answer to that question. 

 

1 hour ago, 4Corners said:

 It sucks if the player is on your team but these dudes have a very limited amount of time to make a shitload of generational wealth, and at what cost to their body and brains?

They are just being capitalists 

Yep.  This sums it up nicely.  I know people talk about honor and morals but at the end of the day it’s about maximizing wealth.  

[JawnyBlaze]

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.

You don’t think it’s in the NFLPA terminology to allow for holdouts?  Semantics or not, it’s all part of the game and player holdouts are no less honorable than releasing a player before the agreed upon time (outside of egregious circumstances like misconduct.)

[4Corners]

2 minutes ago, Pejorative Miscreant said:

 

Yep.  This sums it up nicely.  I know people talk about honor and morals but at the end of the day it’s about maximizing wealth.  

Yeah, the “honor” and “morales” stuff….LOFL he is a defensive end not a knight on the small council 

[WUnderhill]

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.

[mrcompletely11]

2 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.

excellent post

[tukafan21]

If it's a player still on a non first round rookie deal and is playing like an all pro or a vet on a low contract who's career took off after signing it, then I have no problem with them doing it because teams have no issue cutting you if you're not performing up to the contract.

But if it's a player on a 10-15 million a year deal who just wants a new contract to be paid 15+ a year, then no, I don't agree with them holding out.  You signed that huge deal, you need to honor it, if you wanted more, you should have asked for more at the time or wait until you can sign a new one.

This also is in regards to regular season hold outs, I have less of an issue when a player is going into the last year of his deal and he holds out of camp while negotiating.  That one makes sense as you don't want to risk injury in camp before you get the deal done, but then you gotta show up and play Week 1 if a deal isn't done yet.

I'm okay with not risking injury in pre-season/camp, but not once the season starts, especially if it's someone like Burns who would be getting $16 million for the season, you just gotta play out the contract or hope to get a new deal done during the season.

[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