2017 Predictions

[big9erfan]

So let's be specific..Aaron Donald got a $5.6 million signing bonus.  If he hurt himself in preseason of year one and that turned out to be a career ending injury he would get to keep the full $5.6 million.  That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.  No player ever says "Gee you know, I didn't really earn all the millions.  I think I'll give them back since I didn't contribute anything".  Same thing if he turned out to just be a marginal player. A team takes a chance on every player they sign.  Some work out and some don't. What people here are arguing is that the team should take the loss on every player that does not work out, and pay more than agreed to for every player that does.  From the player's perspective, they're delighted to earn several millions of dollars for a few months work if they have an injury or just plain suck, but they're unwilling to work -as promised in their contract, for the same amount if it turns out they are actually good.

[Forge]

Just now, big9erfan said:

So let's be specific..Aaron Donald got a $5.6 million signing bonus.  If he hurt himself in preseason of year one and that turned out to be a career ending injury he would get to keep the full $5.6 million.  That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.  No player ever says "Gee you know, I didn't really earn all the millions.  I think I'll give them back since I didn't contribute anything".  Same thing if he turned out to just be a marginal player. A team takes a chance on every player they sign.  Some work out and some don't. What people here are arguing is that the team should take the loss on every player that does not work out, and pay more than agreed to for every player that does.  From the player's perspective, they're delighted to earn several millions of dollars for a few months work if they have an injury or just plain suck, but they're unwilling to work -as promised in their contract, for the same amount if it turns out they are actually good.

That's not true though. The teams have avenues to go after that signing bonus...some choose to, some don't....

[big9erfan]

1 minute ago, Forge said:

I am good at my job, so I don't have to worry about that. But my employer doesn't get my signing bonus back if I suck at it and they end up firing me. Thats never been in any employment contract I've ever signed. Like I said before, If I voluntarily quit within a certain time frame, yes, I have to pay it back. But I have never had any other provision with regards to sign on bonus. Like I said, employers know the risk involved in this - but it's a marketing tactic to make themselves more appealing. 

And the player does have options - holding out. CBA doesn't strictly forbid hold outs, so they are working within the framework of the CBA. Just happens to be the only option that they have. 

Oh, and when my employer doesn't live up to what I feel that they should, yes, I hold them to it. When I feel that I'm underpaid or not getting what I should, I have no issues forcing their hand. My options are different than a players, obviously, but I take advantage of them. 

First of all, are you working with an employment contract, or are you an "at will" sort of employee.  Rules are totally different for the two. Also, are you in a union?  Ever worked with people who are in a union? Ever had to deal with a union?  Rules are also totally different for employees in a union. So let's compare apples to apples.  It is NOT the case in almost any union in America where employees starting out or early in their career gets paid the same as "veteran" employees.  That just doesn't happen, at least not often, with union wage scales.

[Forge]

1 minute ago, big9erfan said:

First of all, are you working with an employment contract, or are you an "at will" sort of employee.  Rules are totally different for the two. Also, are you in a union?  Ever worked with people who are in a union? Ever had to deal with a union?  Rules are also totally different for employees in a union. So let's compare apples to apples.  It is NOT the case in almost any union in America where employees starting out or early in their career gets paid the same as "veteran" employees.  That just doesn't happen, at least not often, with union wage scales.

But the union or CBA don't forbid holding out, and the CBA allows for rookie contracts to be renegotiated following the third year...he's working entirely within his rights in the union...

[big9erfan]

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

But the union or CBA don't forbid holding out, and the CBA allows for rookie contracts to be renegotiated following the third year...he's working entirely within his rights in the union...

Well of course they don't.  How could it? How can you force someone to work?  The point is that he is not living up to his contract.  Everyone has a right to not live up to a contract they signed. You can sign a contract to buy a car and then not make the payments.  You have the "right" to do that. That doesn't make it right ... how's that for a play on words?

[big9erfan]

From https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/pittsburgh-steelers-nfl-features-news-blog-long-form/2016/2/23/11064246/nfl-101-getting-a-grip-on-salaries-and-bonuses-in-the-modern-nfl   (my bolding)

 

Signing Bonus

 

A signing bonus is a lump sum of money to be paid to a player when he signs a contract.  This bonus is often a key aspect of contract negotiations, because it is the only truly guaranteed money in any contract.

[Forge]

50 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

Well of course they don't.  How could it? How can you force someone to work?  The point is that he is not living up to his contract.  Everyone has a right to not live up to a contract they signed. You can sign a contract to buy a car and then not make the payments.  You have the "right" to do that. That doesn't make it right ... how's that for a play on words?

Then the Rams should cut him. That'll teach him.

[Forge]

50 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

From https://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/pittsburgh-steelers-nfl-features-news-blog-long-form/2016/2/23/11064246/nfl-101-getting-a-grip-on-salaries-and-bonuses-in-the-modern-nfl   (my bolding)

 

Signing Bonus

 

A signing bonus is a lump sum of money to be paid to a player when he signs a contract.  This bonus is often a key aspect of contract negotiations, because it is the only truly guaranteed money in any contract.

 

Mainly, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue there...we have seen time and again teams get signing bonuses back...so it's not "truly guaranteed" if they retire. 

http://www.sfgate.com/49ers/article/49ers-suing-Aldon-Smith-for-unpaid-bonus-10897829.php

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/19570233/calvin-johnson-repaid-1-million-signing-bonus-detroit-lions

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/09/patrick-willis-justin-smith-retiring-from-49ers/ 

Quote

Willis, a first-round pick in 2007 who turned 30 in January, is under contract through 2016.  Smith is under contract through 2015.  Their retirements could result in the partial repayment of bonus money they both previously received; whether that issue will be pursued will be up the to 49ers.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/05/anthony-davis-will-pay-back-unearned-signing-bonus-money/

So yeah....

now, if you're arguing about the bonus if they suck, that's a different story. You could argue that a signing bonus isn't performance based - it's a bonus for coming to terms with the team and signing with them. AGain, a marketing tool to make the perspective employer more appealing. It has nothing to do with their on field performance. Do you think that their contract includes provisions for the signing bonus that states that it's tied to their level of play? Do you think that contracts specifically state what their "level of play" has to be? 

[Fureys49ers]

All I was really trying to get at is Donald will get paid, isn't living up to his word with the contract he initially signed and has to go through the same process every rookie in the year has to go through. He's not any different than anyone else in that department. 

1 hour ago, Forge said:

Then the Rams should cut him. That'll teach him.

I mean sure if they really want to hold their players to their word and prove a point sure. Donald has shown to through tantrums to be selfish while playing the game (kicked out of a game, unsportsmanlike penalties, acting out during a game when frustrated) and I don't expect him to be any different off field.  So while he's a great player he is not without headache. If they were to "just cut him" then or if any player were to get cut as long as there is still guaranteed money on their contract they are still getting paid by that team, no matter if it's all of it or half of it. A team is still having to pay for a player who didn't live up to his end of the contract. They agreed to said contract and therefor have to live up to their end of the agreement. Why are players not expected to do the same? I wouldn't be surprised if the Rams try to move him for a hefty haul. 

@big9erfan explained very well how a union is structured to function however and why the current CBA is the way it is now. 

The point I was making by bringing up Wilkerson, Suh and Shortt from earlier is that these guys were the same age Donald will be when his rookie contract is up. They still got huge contracts so the argument of Donald being 28 and teams will not factor in how many good years he has left when giving him a new contract isn't very accurate. And if he wanted to get another contract where he could show he's still dominating at a later age and get more guaranteed money then all he has to do is sign a 3 year deal much like NBA players do. If he doesn't want to do that for financial security reasons and possible injury, again this man is making millions and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year so give me a break with financial security, then that's up to him. Go sign your name next to a longer contract offer but don't whine and complain if you don't like it a year or two from then. Injuries happen in the NFL, unpredictable and prejudice against no one so to say "what if he is injured?" Doesn't hold much water to me. He could sign a JJ Watt signed contract and get hurt the next day where his career is over and still want his money cause it's what he's "earned" and that's the contract that was agreed to by whatever team offered it to him. So he expects NFL franchises to hold up to their end but he doesn't have to? The injury example can be played both ways, anyone who's in the NFL I would hope has an idea that an injury is a possibility. 

[Forge]

1 minute ago, Fureys49ers said:

All I was really trying to get at is Donald will get paid, isn't living up to his word with the contract he initially signed and has to go through the same process every rookie in the year has to go through. He's not any different than anyone else in that department. 

The main flaw with this is that Donald, nor any of the rookies "have" to go through that after their third year hits. 

[Fureys49ers]

1 hour ago, Forge said:

So yeah....

now, if you're arguing about the bonus if they suck, that's a different story. You could argue that a signing bonus isn't performance based - it's a bonus for coming to terms with the team and signing with them. AGain, a marketing tool to make the perspective employer more appealing. It has nothing to do with their on field performance. Do you think that their contract includes provisions for the signing bonus that states that it's tied to their level of play? Do you think that contracts specifically state what their "level of play" has to be? 

What he's trying to argue I believe is that the signing bonus is in fact guaranteed fully. 

Now in regards as to a signing bonus has nothing to do with a players on field performance I believe that's 100% wrong. Look at NFL contracts, who has the highest signing bonuses? The star players signing big contracts. Now look at UDFAs, who get the biggest signing bonuses? The UDFAs who the team feel have the best shot at making the team and prefer or like more than other players what they can do on he field. You don't offer a large signing bonus to a player who you don't think will perform well haha, especially if it's the only part of the contract that is truly guaranteed. In fact you don't offer them a contract at all. Teams aren't signing players just to sign them, they have to perform on the field.

[Fureys49ers]

8 minutes ago, Forge said:

The main flaw with this is that Donald, nor any of the rookies "have" to go through that after their third year hits. 

They do though because as @big9erfan fan touched on that's what the CBA states. Agreed on by the players. That's how a union works in that those rules are agreed to and in turn abided to by all players. Even the point brought up where veterans would be getting left overs once all these rookies made what they wanted. A union doesn't pay the new comer as much as a long timer for that reason, the long timer has time invested and has earned it. I know agreeing to, and sticking to your word carries very little weight now a days but for me that's my issue with it.

[y2lamanaki]

2 hours ago, big9erfan said:

How many contracts have you signed where you refused to live up to your end of the contract?

Plenty. I've cancelled phone contracts, cable contracts, satellite contracts, and gym membership contracts. 

Now the question for you - how many times have you signed a contract where you have exactly zero say in the amount of money you make, where you work, and how long you have to work there? Or a better question - how many times does the team honor the 4-year part of the contract? Did the Buccaneers honor their 4-year contract to McNichols? No? So why should the players with zero say in negotiations (other than minor language) honor their part?

[Forge]

Just now, Fureys49ers said:

What he's trying to argue I believe is that the signing bonus is in fact guaranteed fully. 

Now in regards as to a signing bonus has nothing to do with a players on field performance I believe that's 100% wrong. Look at NFL contracts, who has the highest signing bonuses? The star players signing big contracts. Now look at UDFAs, who get the biggest signing bonuses? The UDFAs who the team feel have the best shot at making the team and prefer or like more than other players what they can do on he field. You don't offer a large signing bonus to a player who you don't think will perform well haha, especially if it's the only part of the contract that is truly guaranteed. In fact you don't offer them a contract at all. Teams aren't signing players just to sign them. 

You offer more because of a competitive market for those services, but there isn't a level of play that is required for it. Try not to give a signing bonus and see how many free agents sign with you. You want them to sign there, the bonus is a way of making your employment offer more appealing to that person in comparison to other employers. You're not going to find me a contract where it says that they are offering that bonus based on a specific level of play. Yes, they can think that they are going to get that level of play, but that can also be a miscalculation by the employer. They do this all the time. 

 

[Fureys49ers]

1 minute ago, y2lamanaki said:

Plenty. I've cancelled phone contracts, cable contracts, satellite contracts, and gym membership contracts. 

Now the question for you - how many times have you signed a contract where you have exactly zero say in the amount of money you make, where you work, and how long you have to work there? Or a better question - how many times does the team honor the 4-year part of the contract? Did the Buccaneers honor their 4-year contract to McNichols? No? So why should the players with zero say in negotiations (other than minor language) honor their part?

This is the NFL, the best of the best of the best talent. Attrition is a very well known and big part of the NFL. All players known this going into it. And if they don't, I got nothing for them. That's just the way it works when it comes to this level of competition. I'm fairly certain the Bucs are still paying what they agreed to pay (guaranteed portion/signing bonus) to McNichols. Clearly he didn't live up to his side of the contract he signed with his performance on the field. He still made money for failing to uphold his end of the bargain.