PDA

View Full Version : Honor Your Contract?


Splat
08-07-2007, 07:51 PM
Ok I got in to it with some Chiefs fans about Larry Johnson holding out they said he should honor his contract I say teams don't honor contracts all the time how do you feel about this. I'm just using LJ as an example teams sign players to long term deals all the time and cut them half way threw and no body says any thing then a player holds out half way threw the deal and people freak out. If a team doesn't have to honor a deal why should a player?

P.S. I know I talked about LJ and the Chiefs but I just wanted to get your take on the NFL as a whole doing this so thats why I posted it in the main forum.

HerthaFootballFan
08-07-2007, 07:59 PM
I totally agree, that money isn't gauranteed and if a player is playing for well below what he's worth then it's unfair to expect him to readily risk his future.

Smooth Criminal
08-07-2007, 08:06 PM
I'm not against holdouts in most cases. When a player is underpaid and in the later year of the contract I think they are fine.

But when players already making a ton of money want a new deal while they have 3 and 4 years left I think is just wrong.

I take it case by case. With LJ I think the holdout is perfectly acceptable.

skinzzfan25
08-07-2007, 08:18 PM
I'm not against holdouts in most cases. When a player is underpaid and in the later year of the contract I think they are fine.

But when players already making a ton of money want a new deal while they have 3 and 4 years left I think is just wrong.

I take it case by case. With LJ I think the holdout is perfectly acceptable.

I agree, you see it a lot more in the NBA where veterans don't want to stick around while a team rebuilds. I don't blame them at all, they might as well make either really good money, or have the best opportunity to win. Especially if their having most of the workload dumped on them. LJ kinda reminds me of KG with the Timberwolves, except not as bad.

Oh, and grats on 4k post Smooth :P

Fitzgerald11
08-07-2007, 08:30 PM
No. LJ is worth much more than he's making. Sure, $6 million isn't chump change in life, but when you can make $50 million, you need to make it.

PalmerToCJ
08-07-2007, 08:44 PM
TJ Houshmandzadeh is underpaid and signed a new agent this year (Rosenhaus maybe, it was a big time guy)... He said it was just to get in more off field stuff which was the truth.

He said the reason he intended to honor his contract was because Jon Kitna had asked him if he would've been happy with that contract when he entered the league and he said yes, of course and that he would honor the life of it.

I understand some holdouts (Lance Briggs, wanted long term didn't get it... Although I know he wanted to cash in even more too) but in most cases I feel that you should honor the life of it. Right or wrong, I know the teams don't hold to the contracts but if you're a guy coming off a semi-breakout season and sign a longterm deal you sign the long term deal so you have some comfort and if you decline in ability (not to the point of getting cut of course) you still have a contract.

I understand the other side of the fence, I just feel you should honor what you negotiated for.

Splat
08-07-2007, 08:50 PM
I'm not against holdouts in most cases. When a player is underpaid and in the later year of the contract I think they are fine.

But when players already making a ton of money want a new deal while they have 3 and 4 years left I think is just wrong.

I take it case by case. With LJ I think the holdout is perfectly acceptable.

Thats what I'm trying to get threw there heads LJ got a seven year deal as a rookie he has played four years of the deal if things don't change he will make 1.9 million this year while Turner in SD a back up makes 2.5 thats not right.

Caddy
08-07-2007, 08:55 PM
Personally, I have no problems with players holding out. Situations and circumstances arise which do not conform with players current contract. A player should be allowed to question his contract.

ks_perfection
08-07-2007, 09:28 PM
I think Rookie deals are unfair to begin with, great for top picks, terrible for lower ones. LJ had no choice in his contract, as a rookie for his slot his salary and contract years were pre-determined.

PACKmanN
08-07-2007, 09:49 PM
If the player in his rookie contract and is playing in an elite level I think the gm should give the player a new contract. You never know when its your last game and you are giving the team 100% every play. You are turning yourself into an elite player so you can help the team win.

Fitzgerald11
08-07-2007, 11:29 PM
I'm glad they changed the rules. Picks 1-16 can only get at most a 6-year deal. Picks 17-32 can only get at most a 5-year deal. This would be LJ's last year.

LSUALUM99
08-08-2007, 12:24 AM
I personally think holding out while under contract is wrong. Players sign a contract and if the want to be paid based on their production they should sign an incentive laden contract.

They don't because if they have a bad year they don't exactly give the money back based on the terrible production. Teams can cut the player, but the guranteed money never goes back. If a player is not under contract and holds out I have no problem with that (Asante Samuel). Besides, most contracts are back loaded so that both the player and the team know that the 6 year extension is really a 3 year contract.

Jonathan_VIlma
08-08-2007, 01:15 AM
I agree with this post, although I am against rookie holdouts. It's ridiculous that Revis has broken the Jets streak of nine years getting their top pick in camp, and on the same side, Mangini and Tannebaum should lose the ego and give him his five year deal. You can't go all camp withput the guy you traded up to get.

bsaza2358
08-08-2007, 08:27 AM
In the end, holdouts end up hurting the players more than the team. When a player holds out, it allows backups to get time in front of the coaches. Moreover, it's very hard to stay in 100% football shape while holding out. In the end, the player may get his contract, but it will take him some time to get back to where he was. It could be damaging to him.

Jughead10
08-08-2007, 09:43 AM
I agree with this post, although I am against rookie holdouts. It's ridiculous that Revis has broken the Jets streak of nine years getting their top pick in camp, and on the same side, Mangini and Tannebaum should lose the ego and give him his five year deal. You can't go all camp withput the guy you traded up to get.

The Jets are wrong on this one. Everyone around where Revis was picked has received 5 year deals. Jets should just give in now and get him into camp ASAP.

bsaza2358
08-08-2007, 10:46 AM
At this point, it's not in either side's best interest to have the holdout go on any more. Revis has cost himself a chance to start the season as a starter, and the Jets haven't had a chance to get him into practices and drills. This is a bad situation.

Fitzgerald11
08-08-2007, 10:50 AM
I personally think holding out while under contract is wrong. Players sign a contract and if the want to be paid based on their production they should sign an incentive laden contract.

They don't because if they have a bad year they don't exactly give the money back based on the terrible production. Teams can cut the player, but the guranteed money never goes back. If a player is not under contract and holds out I have no problem with that (Asante Samuel). Besides, most contracts are back loaded so that both the player and the team know that the 6 year extension is really a 3 year contract.

Like he could have gotten a $50 million contract as the #27 pick.

Splat
08-08-2007, 11:03 AM
If a player is not under contract and holds out I have no problem with that.

If your not under contract how can you hold out you don't have a team?

Jughead10
08-08-2007, 11:05 AM
If your not under contract how can you hold out you don't have a team?

If you are franchised. Techinically I guess that is considered a hold out if you didn't sign the tag.

bsaza2358
08-08-2007, 11:07 AM
The Jets own Revis' rights, so he does have a team.

bsaza2358
08-08-2007, 11:08 AM
Under a franchise tag, the team still controls the players' rights, so, like a draft pick, the franchised player is still affiliated with the team.

Splat
08-08-2007, 11:09 AM
The Jets own Revis' rights, so he does have a team.

I'm not taking about rookies I'm taking about players that have proving what they can do I don't think rookies should have the right to hold out my self. If a player like Lj has out played his rookie deal I don't see why he can't ask for more money if he would have sucked they would have asked him to take a pay cut.

paladin
08-08-2007, 11:11 AM
If LJ wants to hold out for a better deal, he should. Let's say LJ demands $60 million (I just picked a random number). Some questions need to be answered at that point. Does the Chief's organization believe he's worth $60 million of production for the life of the contract? Do they believe that money can be better spent elsewhere? Does LJ believe he'll be able to consistently perform at a high enough level to merit $60 million over the life of the contract? If they agree on all of these points, they sign the man. Otherwise, part ways and hope he doesn't tear up your team too much next time you two meet.

LSUALUM99
08-08-2007, 11:17 AM
I'm not taking about rookies I'm taking about players that have proving what they can do I don't think rookies should have the right to hold out my self. If a player like Lj has out played his rookie deal I don't see why he can't ask for more money if he would have sucked they would have asked him to take a pay cut.

Any player that is not an UFA may or may not be under contract, but they can't go to another team.

The teams own their rights. If you don't sign your tender you can't just pack up and leave to go to another team.

If you 'outplay' your rookie contract then you get a big payday when you sign your second contract or you can ASK to renegotiate your deal. If the team choses to renegotiate then fine, but if they don't you shouldn't hold out.

You may ask, well why would any team offer to renegotiate then? Because in the long run the deal you sign will be less expensive than if you wait to hit the open market. Also, it may make the player less likely to sign with the same team regardless of money if they don't. The player still has leverage but I think they should play through their contract regardless.

princefielder28
08-08-2007, 11:18 AM
Holding out is never the right solution for a player looking for a new contract or a contract extension. For starters, it hurts the team b/c in most cases it is a player that will start and make a big time impact. Without him in camp the team can't create a chemistry or flow to their unit becuase an important piece is missing; there are the backups but they'll be replaced when he comes back and then they'll have to make adjustments to his style of play. Also the player is hurting himself becuase although he works out at a private facility he is not getting the reps or conditioning that his other teammates are getting that is setting them up to be successful for the game of football. Financially for players in LJ's case they are also losing money due to fines b/c they are not there participating, and they are costing themsleves there too. For a player to handle this right, they should go to management and present their concerns about how they are being treated financially. Nobody wins when a player holds out; the team is missing an important piece of the puzzle, the agent gets a bad rap for having a player that holds out, and the player loses the most by not being with the team and being fined.

Splat
08-08-2007, 11:20 AM
If LJ played out his rookie deal he would be 30 years old you really think any one would break the bank for 30 year old RB? To get mad at the guy for doing what you me or any one else would do is crap. If any one on here says they would not hold out after what he has done and what he is getting paid is lieing.

LSUALUM99
08-08-2007, 11:23 AM
I'm not lying. I would play out my contract. But on the other hand, I might not have been so stupid as to sign a rookie deal that puts me at 30 years old when it runs out without some serious escalators.

Fitzgerald11
08-08-2007, 11:24 AM
If LJ played out his rookie deal he would be 30 years old you really think any one would break the bank for 30 year old RB? To get mad at the guy for doing what you me or any one else would do is crap. If any one on here says they would not hold out after what he has done and what he is getting paid is lieing.

LJ has to think about the future, and that's what he's doing. I think he's got a good 4-5 years left since he's only 28 and has only carried the load for 3 seasons.

Splat
08-08-2007, 11:28 AM
I'm not lying. I would play out my contract.

There is no way if you played in the NFL and was top five at your position and backs ups on another team got paid more then you that you would be fine with it.

ks_perfection
08-08-2007, 11:30 AM
I'm not lying. I would play out my contract. But on the other hand, I might not have been so stupid as to sign a rookie deal that puts me at 30 years old when it runs out without some serious escalators.

But what choice did he have? His slot designated 6 years for a certain amount, the team wasn't going to put on huge escaltors just for him. If he sat out the season and KC didn't cave he'd be completely screwed next season, making alot less for just aslong of a deal.

LSUALUM99
08-08-2007, 11:45 AM
There is no way if you played in the NFL and was top five at your position and backs ups on another team got paid more then you that you would be fine with it.


Well lets see, did he have to give back the money he made as a rookie in 2003 with his whole 85 yards rushing for the season? Did he give back the money he made in 2004 with his 581 yards rushing for the season?

He was drastically overpaid for those two years. Why isn't anyone crying about that?

The bottom line is if I signed a contract I would honor it. I don't see why you think that is a lie. I expect people to honor their business arrangements with me, why wouldn't I honor mine with them.

He'll be 29 years old when he its the open market. He will sign a very nice deal with alot of signing bonus money and he should be fine with that. I know I would be.

LSUALUM99
08-08-2007, 11:47 AM
But what choice did he have? His slot designated 6 years for a certain amount, the team wasn't going to put on huge escaltors just for him. If he sat out the season and KC didn't cave he'd be completely screwed next season, making alot less for just aslong of a deal.

Why wouldn't the team put in huge escalators? Teams always prefer escalators to guarantees. If you're sure of your abilities why not forgoe some guarantees for performance escalators? If you chose to negotiate guaranteed money then you pay for in if you do turn out to be a top producer at your position. It's a professional gamble. He won his first two years when he had miserable production for a 1st round pick. He lost this year.

Splat
08-08-2007, 11:54 AM
Well lets see, did he have to give back the money he made as a rookie in 2003 with his whole 85 yards rushing for the season? Did he give back the money he made in 2004 with his 581 yards rushing for the season?

He was drastically overpaid for those two years. Why isn't anyone crying about that?

The bottom line is if I signed a contract I would honor it. I don't see why you think that is a lie. I expect people to honor their business arrangements with me, why wouldn't I honor mine with them.

He'll be 29 years old when he its the open market. He will sign a very nice deal with alot of signing bonus money and he should be fine with that. I know I would be.

But why should a player have to honor his deal if teams don't have to? If you don't live up to your deal they can cut,trade or ask you to take a pay cut. If they can do that I think it is only fair that you can ask for more money it should work both ways we just trading Ryan Sims for not living up to his rookie deal and people thought that was great but LJ asking for more money after out playing his and that is wrong?

LSUALUM99
08-08-2007, 11:59 AM
But why should a player have to honor his deal if teams don't have to? If you don't live up to your deal they can cut,trade or ask you to take a pay cut. If they can do that I think it is only fair that you can ask for more money it should work both ways we just trading Ryan Sims for not living up to his rookie deal and people thought that was great but LJ asking for more money after out playing his and that is wrong?


If honoring your deal seems so foreign, why not just have players sign a year-to-year contract? The bottom line is that teams can't just 'cut' a player when they pay lots of guaranteed money so that's not nearly the option you make it out to be. And players surely CAN hold out. I just think it's wrong and in most cases causes more harm to the player than good.

The reason teams can cut players (assuming the salary cap implications are limited, e.g. during the last year or so of a contract) is because there are only 32 teams but THOUSANDS of people willing to play for them. If LJ wanted to walk he could, but the league will get a replacement, he doesn't have a replacement league he can join.

The players learned long ago that since the league has the majority of the leverage they needed to form a union. So they did. The union negotiates the rules with the league and the CBA is agreed upon. LJ belongs to the NFLPA and should abide by their rules.

I think the bigger question is why do some players feel the rules don't apply to them, when they do apply to the other 1500 or so players in the NFL?

ninerfan
08-08-2007, 07:26 PM
The contract was good enough for him when he signed it, now honour the terms and stop being a whinging *****.

TheMadLionsFan
08-08-2007, 08:18 PM
The contract was good enough for him when he signed it, now honour the terms and stop being a whinging *****.

It was good enough because it was the standard contract for a 27th overall pick....do you really expect him to get 60 million based off that?.....he has outperformed his rookie contract.....he is underpaid....and the NFL is the most cut-throat of them.....get all you can can....If I was in my prime getting top five stats.....there is no way in hell I would spend the next three years of my prime making 2 million a year......especially when the contract was up I would be a 30 year old running back...for people who say they would honor this abomination of a contract.....shut up.....this is business....Customer Satisfaction comes second......personal satisfaction comes first....what is wrong with you people?!

Fitzgerald11
08-08-2007, 08:42 PM
Well lets see, did he have to give back the money he made as a rookie in 2003 with his whole 85 yards rushing for the season? Did he give back the money he made in 2004 with his 581 yards rushing for the season?

He was drastically overpaid for those two years. Why isn't anyone crying about that?

The bottom line is if I signed a contract I would honor it. I don't see why you think that is a lie. I expect people to honor their business arrangements with me, why wouldn't I honor mine with them.

He'll be 29 years old when he its the open market. He will sign a very nice deal with alot of signing bonus money and he should be fine with that. I know I would be.

1. You wouldn't be fine with making less money than a backup runningback. You would be holding out until you got what you deserved. Stop with the ********, you're not fooling anyone.

2. Every play could be your last. What if he doesn't make it to next season? Then what?

TimD
08-08-2007, 08:44 PM
pete kendall cost himself a starting spot

Smooth Criminal
08-08-2007, 10:06 PM
I definately don't see anything wrong with getting an extension to yuor deal to secure the future. With LJ he is in the last year of his deal and he is holding out not only for a raise but also to make sure he gets another deal with the Cheifs.

If anything it is good for the Cheifs because they are going to get him at less than what market value would be if they waited till after this season to sign him.

I'd prefer that the player still go to camp while trying to work out along term deal but that is really all the leverage the player has is to holdout so I'm not going to make judgement on him just because he is looking for more job security and using the only leverage he has.

LSUALUM99
08-09-2007, 01:16 AM
1. You wouldn't be fine with making less money than a backup runningback. You would be holding out until you got what you deserved. Stop with the ********, you're not fooling anyone.

2. Every play could be your last. What if he doesn't make it to next season? Then what?


1. He'll likely make way more money on the open market than with just an extension. The salary cap will increase again AND he'll be the best FA available in the entire open market.

2. Exactly, he could blow out a knee tomorrow, so why should his current team extend him? The team has the leverage, he doesn't. Using the injury argument only solidifies why the team SHOULD NOT renegotiate. Let's say he's injured. The team loses out on the deal, so they should not renegotiate. Let's say he's not injured, the team gets his production for the current, less inflated, salary, they should not renegotiate. The only reason they should renegotiate is that they want to keep him happy in the long term. RB's are not that hard to replace so keeping him happy isn't nearly as imperative as say keeping a QB, LT, CB, DE/OLB happy.

As for getting what you deserve...well, from a business point of view I think he is getting what he deserved. He was paid WAY above his production his first two years in the league yet no one here seems to think he should have given that money back.

Also, to the people that say 'it's business'. You clearly don't know the first thing about business. In the business world contracts are binding. The only time you have a chance to get out of them is if you have leverage. LJ has very little leverage. The league has all the leverage. That's why there is a player's union to begin with. You don't form a union or continue a union where the employees have the leverage, it's paradoxical.

Fitzgerald11
08-09-2007, 01:22 AM
1. He'll likely make way more money on the open market than with just an extension. The salary cap will increase again AND he'll be the best FA available in the entire open market.

2. Exactly, he could blow out a knee tomorrow, so why should his current team extend him? The team has the leverage, he doesn't.

As for getting what you deserve...well, from a business point of view I think he is getting what he deserved. He was paid WAY above his production his first two years in the league yet no one here seems to think he should have given that money back.

Also, to the people that say 'it's business'. You clearly don't know the first thing about business. In the business world contracts are binding. The only time you have a chance to get out of them is if you have leverage. LJ has very little leverage. The league has all the leverage. That's why there is a player's union to begin with. You don't form a union or continue a union where the employees have the leverage, it's paradoxical.

1. No he won't. At age 30, his value drops like a man jumping off of Mount Everest. Not only that, he isn't the best back in the league, but one of the best.

2. LJ will have the leverage when Kansas City's running game sucks. If they don't give him an extension, it shows that they think they can do better without him (which they can't), or they can replace him in the near future. And the only reason LJ sat on the bench his first two years in the league was a guy named Priest Holmes. Maybe you've heard o him. And if you know so much about business, where do you work? And as far as replacing LJ, name me somebody who can come in and match his production?

LSUALUM99
08-09-2007, 01:26 AM
1. No he won't. At age 30, his value drops like a man jumping off of Mount Everest. Not only that, he isn't the best back in the league, but one of the best.

2. LJ will have the leverage when Kansas City's running game sucks. If they don't give him an extension, it shows that they think they can do better without him (which they can't), or they can replace him in the near future.
And the only reason LJ sat on the bench his first two years in the league was a guy named Priest Holmes. Maybe you've heard o him. And if you know so much about business, where do you work?

I started at Price Waterhouse Coopers out of college but now I own my own consulting firm, that that it's relevant. So, where do you work?

I know that they had Priest. But, regardless of why he didn't have the production, the fact remains he had less than 700 total yards rushing in two years and yet still made 1st round pick money. That means he was over paid by a long shot.

Fitzgerald11
08-09-2007, 01:33 AM
I started at Price Waterhouse Coopers out of college but now I own my own consulting firm, that that it's relevant. So, where do you work?

I know that they had Priest. But, regardless of why he didn't have the production, the fact remains he had less than 700 total yards rushing in two years and yet still made 1st round pick money. That means he was over paid by a long shot.

Yeah, he was overpaid by maybe $1 million. Big ******* deal. That's not a longshot. And you basically are saying almost every first rounder is overpaid. They all come in their rookie year, make their seven figures, and don't do much their first year. Larry Johnson is being underpaid by about $45-50 million. And nobody was complaining about him being overpaid in his first couple of years because he was making about $1.5 million per year. Big ******* deal. He was being paid for the future. If he was making $10 million per year, then that's another story. Then he would be well overpaid. The point is, he deserves the extension, should eventually get it, and you can't name anyone who can legitimately replace him.

I'm 17, currently unemployed, and will be attending college in 2008.

LSUALUM99
08-09-2007, 01:40 AM
I think most 1st rounders are drastically overpaid. In fact, it seems to be the sentiment of this entire site that the money paid to players who have never played a down in the NFL is way disproportionate to what veterans get paid.

Also, I never said he shouldn't try to renegotiate his contract. I said that if I were in his position, I wouldn't hold out. I do not think that holding out is a good alternative for players. Renegotiating is perfectly within reason. But that requires both parties to open discussion. It's in the team's best interest if they want to keep the player long term. In those cases they will likely renegotiate (ala Tom Brady, Donald Driver or any of the many cases that it has occurred). It's pretty clear at this point, that KC hasn't deemed it in their own best interest to renegotiate. LJ doesn't have leverage in this deal.

Fitzgerald11
08-09-2007, 01:45 AM
I think most 1st rounders are drastically overpaid. In fact, it seems to be the sentiment of this entire site that the money paid to players who have never played a down in the NFL is way disproportionate to what veterans get paid.

Also, I never said he shouldn't try to renegotiate his contract. I said that if I were in his position, I wouldn't hold out. I do not think that holding out is a good alternative for players. Renegotiating is perfectly within reason. But that requires both parties to open discussion. It's in the team's best interest if they want to keep the player long term. In those cases they will likely renegotiate (ala Tom Brady, Donald Driver or any of the many cases that it has occurred). It's pretty clear at this point, that KC hasn't deemed it in their own best interest to renegotiate. LJ doesn't have leverage in this deal.

You said that you would play out the contract. That to me and probably everyone else implies that you think he should play out the contract and shouldn't renogotiate the contract.

LSUALUM99
08-09-2007, 01:47 AM
You said that you would play out the contract. That to me and probably everyone else implies that you think he should play out the contract and shouldn't renogotiate the contract.

Well, you may want to read the body of the first post of both the first poster and try reading my responses. You'd get a better understanding of what I said if you actually read the words rather than assuming you know without. I doubt that the majority of people on this forum would come to the same conclusion as you regarding my responses, had they read them.

Fitzgerald11
08-09-2007, 02:02 AM
Well, you may want to read the body of the first post of both the first poster and try reading my responses. You'd get a better understanding of what I said if you actually read the words rather than assuming you know without. I doubt that the majority of people on this forum would come to the same conclusion as you regarding my responses, had they read them.

You act like if LJ asks the Chiefs to renegotiate his contract and they say no, that's it. Quit complaining, and we'll deal with it later. If you were in that situation, you wouldn't honor your contract. You would hold out until you got what you wanted. You're not impressing anybody with that answer. You wouldn't wait until you're thirty and miss out on millions and millions of dollars uoi could have gotten when you were 28. And btw, he's not going to get at incentive laden contract at #27. Even if he did, it would be for basically nothing.

bsaza2358
08-09-2007, 08:44 AM
The NFL chose to go with non-guaranteed contracts. The players agreed to this and have extended the CBA twice since the first permutation. The fact that employment is basically "at will", means that players are going to do everything possible to get the most guaranteed and up front money that they can. These symptoms are caused by the system. I can't blame any side for holding out or cutting players. They all agreed to this system, so they obviously realized that they would have to deal with these kinds of issues.

In retrospect, I think it's better for the league to have it work this way. Teams can escape bad contracts and give as much money as possible to those who earn it. Sure, it creates some bad blood, but I firmly believe that the current system rewards the best operators and the best players.

Iamcanadian
08-10-2007, 05:24 AM
Holding out in TC doesn't mean squat. KC can if they want renegotiate otherwise LJ will be there on opening day anyways. He really has no recourse. A lot of veterans hate training camp and missing it won't affect LJ all that much.
The way the exhibition season works today, the vets rarely get to play as HC's don't want to expose them to injuries before the season starts. Most teams now have to work themselves into a cohesive team during the 1st 2 games of the regular season. Missing TC would only impact rookies or young QB's still learning their trade. Other than that, its impact is minimal.

duckseason
08-10-2007, 07:20 AM
I don't think rookies should have the right to hold out my self.

That doesn't make any sense. If a rookie isn't free to negotiate the best deal he possibly can, then teams would be free to just pay them however many pennies they felt like giving away that day. Rookie holdouts aren't always the result of a greedy or dumb player/agent. It's a two way street. There are two parties tugging on that money rope. The teams already have all the power and leverage (and money.) You're basically advocating slavery with that statement, if you really think about it. Owners draft the slaves, ship them to their home city, and then pay them what they choose to. No. The players should have every right to holdout until they feel they've received a fair deal.

duckseason
08-10-2007, 07:25 AM
Holding out is never the right solution for a player looking for a new contract or a contract extension. For starters, it hurts the team b/c in most cases it is a player that will start and make a big time impact. Without him in camp the team can't create a chemistry or flow to their unit becuase an important piece is missing; there are the backups but they'll be replaced when he comes back and then they'll have to make adjustments to his style of play. Also the player is hurting himself becuase although he works out at a private facility he is not getting the reps or conditioning that his other teammates are getting that is setting them up to be successful for the game of football. Financially for players in LJ's case they are also losing money due to fines b/c they are not there participating, and they are costing themsleves there too. For a player to handle this right, they should go to management and present their concerns about how they are being treated financially. Nobody wins when a player holds out; the team is missing an important piece of the puzzle, the agent gets a bad rap for having a player that holds out, and the player loses the most by not being with the team and being fined.
As a player, it would be foolish to exclusively look at it from a pure football standpoint. The NFL is big business. Players deserve their fair slice. If a player feels it's obvious he's not being compensated fairly, he would be wise to seek a remedy for that. If a team refuses to pay the man fairly, then the fault lies on them if said player misses valuable time at the facility. It's on them if the team suffers. It's the team that's usually throwing their weight around in these situations. The players are merely sticking up for themselves.

duckseason
08-10-2007, 07:42 AM
1. He'll likely make way more money on the open market than with just an extension. The salary cap will increase again AND he'll be the best FA available in the entire open market. So wouldn't the Chiefs be wise to lock him up as soon as possible?

2. Exactly, he could blow out a knee tomorrow, so why should his current team extend him? The team has the leverage, he doesn't. Using the injury argument only solidifies why the team SHOULD NOT renegotiate. Let's say he's injured. The team loses out on the deal, so they should not renegotiate. Let's say he's not injured, the team gets his production for the current, less inflated, salary, they should not renegotiate. The only reason they should renegotiate is that they want to keep him happy in the long term. RB's are not that hard to replace so keeping him happy isn't nearly as imperative as say keeping a QB, LT, CB, DE/OLB happy.
All those things you stated there are perfect examples of why it should be expected that a player in LJ's situation demand a deal that accurately reflects his current value. You seem to be only looking at this from the team's point of view. How can you say it's wrong to stick up for yourself financially or otherwise?

As for getting what you deserve...well, from a business point of view I think he is getting what he deserved. He was paid WAY above his production his first two years in the league yet no one here seems to think he should have given that money back.
No, he really wasn't overpaid at all. The team drafted him knowing that they had Priest Holmes. I'm sure LJ would have been more than happy to become a superstar in that offense from day 1. He came to work everyday. He was ready to play on a moment's notice. Hell, keeping him off of other teams' rosters was worth more than what he got.

Also, to the people that say 'it's business'. You clearly don't know the first thing about business. In the business world contracts are binding. The only time you have a chance to get out of them is if you have leverage. LJ has very little leverage. The league has all the leverage. That's why there is a player's union to begin with. You don't form a union or continue a union where the employees have the leverage, it's paradoxical.
Nice reasoning. The league has all the leverage, so LJ is the bad guy for seeking what he deserves based on market value. Like others have stated, the NFL is cutthroat. If you're not sticking up for yourself as a player, then they'll take as much out of you as they can while giving up as little as they can. I can't blame either side. Indeed, it's business. Not sure why you'd imply otherwise. There would be something wrong if we never heard about players demanding more money. There's always gonna be people tugging on both sides of the rope, and that's how it should be.

Addict
08-10-2007, 07:50 AM
LJ deserves a new contract, just like Dwight Freeney deserved one. Briggs in my opinion overplayed his hand, he's not as vital (AS vital, he's important, but not like LJ is) to his team's succes.

bsaza2358
08-10-2007, 08:09 AM
I don't blame LJ for taking this tact, but the Chiefs should have acted midseason to get this deal done. More responsible franchises pride themselves on getting deals done with players ahead of time to maximize their value and to keep relations strong.