2017 Predictions

[y2lamanaki]

17 minutes 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. 

2 hours ago, Forge said:

You don't know Donald will get paid. You cannot possibly know that. You do not know if he comes back and immediately suffers a career-ending injury. You don't know if his play suddenly drops. He is holding out because his value isn't going to get any higher. He is doing what is best for him. And again - the contract he initially signed at no point says "You must play every game without holding out" and he never got to negotiate his price. That was all set already. 

[Forge]

5 minutes ago, Fureys49ers said:

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.

But it doesn't. The cba doesn't forbid holdouts so far as I know (also agreed upon by big). If you can find where it does, by all means provide and I'm happy to take that back. They have the right to withhold their services and always have in order to enhance their position, starting after their third accrued season. 

[Fureys49ers]

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

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. 

 

That's kind of my point though, and in the case of a miscalculation the team still has to pay that player because that's what they agreed to. And why is there a competitive market for those player services? Because of what teams feel that player can provide on the field. Sure, maybe it's not written in a contract some where but it's common sense. 

[Fureys49ers]

1 minute ago, Forge said:

But it doesn't. The cba doesn't forbid holdouts so far as I know (also agreed upon by big). If you can find where it does, by all means provide and I'm happy to take that back. They have the right to withhold their services and always have in order to enhance their position, starting after their third accrued season. 

That's true, they have that right. Personally I lose great respect for that player and it speaks a lot to as what type of person that is.

[y2lamanaki]

5 minutes ago, Fureys49ers said:

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. 

2

This is the NFL, the best of the best of the best talent. Players wanting larger contracts is a very well known and big part of the NFL. All teams know 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 Donald knows he can lose game checks by sitting out. Clearly they didn't live up to their side of the contract they signed him to that in no way forbids the player from holding out to renegotiate after his first 3 years are complete. They can still withold money for not showing up to the negotiating table. 

[Fureys49ers]

3 minutes ago, y2lamanaki said:

You don't know Donald will get paid. You cannot possibly know that. You do not know if he comes back and immediately suffers a career-ending injury. You don't know if his play suddenly drops. He is holding out because his value isn't going to get any higher. He is doing what is best for him. And again - the contract he initially signed at no point says "You must play every game without holding out" and he never got to negotiate his price. That was all set already. 

I mean now we can just keep playing the what if game until we are both just tired of talking about it. If his play suddenly drops as you said then why the hell should he be getting paid? Donald personally never got to agree to but the players who agreed to the CBA did, the hundreds of players who have played before him, the players apart of the same union Donald finds himself in. 

[y2lamanaki]

1 minute ago, Fureys49ers said:

I mean now we can just keep playing the what if game until we are both just tired of talking about it. If his play suddenly drops as you said then why the hell should he be getting paid? Donald personally never got to agree to but the players who agreed to the CBA did, the hundreds of players who have played before him, the players apart of the same union Donald finds himself in. 

He shouldn't get paid if his play suddenly drops. That's the point of holding out now while your position is better than it will ever be. 

[Fureys49ers]

1 minute ago, y2lamanaki said:

This is the NFL, the best of the best of the best talent. Players wanting larger contracts is a very well known and big part of the NFL. All teams know 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 Donald knows he can lose game checks by sitting out. Clearly they didn't live up to their side of the contract they signed him to that in no way forbids the player from holding out to renegotiate after his first 3 years are complete. They can still withold money for not showing up to the negotiating table. 

As they should be, I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at. Players wanting larger contracts is a very well known and big part of the NFL? Me, you, them, the NFL knows this. And those players get paid, very wel, now and for always. 

[Forge]

2 minutes ago, Fureys49ers said:

That's kind of my point though, and in the case of a miscalculation the team still has to pay that player because that's what they agreed to. And why is there a competitive market for those player services? Because of what teams feel that player can provide on the field. Sure, maybe it's not written in a contract some where but it's common sense. 

They have to pay it because that's what they offered as an incentive for signing there to make their job more appealing. They could have offered nothing but salary and statistical bonuses and that way there would have been no risk. But again, it's a bonus for agreeing to the contract in the first place. Common sense doesn't hold water here. They know what the signing bonus is for; it's about risk appetite. I am very good at my job, I go somewhere else, get a signing bonus, but when I start at this new place, it turns out I'm not as good as most of the people they have working there. They aren't asking for that money back. 

Lets put it this way. Matt Stafford is the highest paid quarterback in the NFL. He has never been the best quarterback in the NFL, and likely never will be. If he's not, does he have to give some of his signing bonus back? Because the contract would suggest that they expect him to be the best quarterback in the NFL. What about a guy who looks primed to break out as he hits free agency. Has never been a great player, but he looks to be on the edge (think the everson griffin contract from a few years ago). The team pays him for what they think he's going to be moving forward, but he's never that. He never gets any better, but doesn't get worse. He just kind of is what he is. Does he have to pay some of that bonus back because he didn't "live up" to the team's expectations of what he was and what they were paying him to be? They did it because they had to because if they didnt, someone else would. Teams let people go and make those type of decisions all the time. It's not just him that drives the market - its the competitive marketplace with other teams. Should he be responsible for other teams driving prices up for his services? 

 

[Fureys49ers]

Just now, y2lamanaki said:

He shouldn't get paid if his play suddenly drops. That's the point of holding out now while your position is better than it will ever be. 

So he's supposed to be owed money for his play falling off when the team thought they were getting the player of old? How does that make any sense haha, he's supposed to be conning teams out of money in this scenario? And then act surprised is a team tries to protect itself?

[y2lamanaki]

4 minutes ago, Fureys49ers said:

As they should be, I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at. Players wanting larger contracts is a very well known and big part of the NFL? Me, you, them, the NFL knows this. And those players get paid, very wel, now and for always. 

Then what's your problem? If you understand this happens, and the teams understand this happens, and the players understand this happens, you shouldn't have much of an issue with any of them doing anything, should you?

[y2lamanaki]

2 minutes ago, Fureys49ers said:

So he's supposed to be owed money for his play falling off when the team thought they were getting the player of old? How does that make any sense haha, he's supposed to be conning teams out of money in this scenario? And then act surprised is a team tries to protect itself?

Colin Kaepernick made $39 million of his big $126 million. I think teams do just fine. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/colin-kaepernick-record-49ers-contract-2017-8

[Fureys49ers]

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

They have to pay it because that's what they offered as an incentive for signing there to make their job more appealing. They could have offered nothing but salary and statistical bonuses and that way there would have been no risk. But again, it's a bonus for agreeing to the contract in the first place. Common sense doesn't hold water here. They know what the signing bonus is for; it's about risk appetite. I am very good at my job, I go somewhere else, get a signing bonus, but when I start at this new place, it turns out I'm not as good as most of the people they have working there. They aren't asking for that money back. 

Lets put it this way. Matt Stafford is the highest paid quarterback in the NFL. He has never been the best quarterback in the NFL, and likely never will be. If he's not, does he have to give some of his signing bonus back? Because the contract would suggest that they expect him to be the best quarterback in the NFL. What about a guy who looks primed to break out as he hits free agency. Has never been a great player, but he looks to be on the edge (think the everson griffin contract from a few years ago). The team pays him for what they think he's going to be moving forward, but he's never that. He never gets any better, but doesn't get worse. He just kind of is what he is. Does he have to pay some of that bonus back because he didn't "live up" to the team's expectations of what he was and what they were paying him to be? They did it because they had to because if they didnt, someone else would. Teams let people go and make those type of decisions all the time. It's not just him that drives the market - its the competitive marketplace with other teams. Should he be responsible for other teams driving prices up for his services? 

 

My point of view, if the Lions didn't want to sign Stafford to that contract because he will never be the top QB in the NFL then they didn't have to. They could have let him walk and figured he wasn't worth the money. But they did, they signed him and will pay him regardless of how he plays or is even injured. They will have to live up to their side of the agreement.

[Forge]

1 minute ago, Fureys49ers said:

So he's supposed to be owed money for his play falling off when the team thought they were getting the player of old? How does that make any sense haha, he's supposed to be conning teams out of money in this scenario? And then act surprised is a team tries to protect itself?

Not at all - that's why teams cut players, de-escalate them, etc. His contract could be incentive laden. There are a lot of options in there that protect the team. Whether the player will agree to that is another story, but the option is there. 

The only money that they would be on the hook for is that signing bonus money, and again, I don't view that as a performance based thing. It's a marketing tool / incentive to sign that person. 

[Forge]

1 minute ago, Fureys49ers said:

My point of view, if the Lions didn't want to sign Stafford to that contract because he will never be the top QB in the NFL then they didn't have to. They could have let him walk and figured he wasn't worth the money. But they did, they signed him and will pay him regardless of how he plays or is even injured. They will have to live up to their side of the agreement.

Like we did with Kaepernick? Teams cut them all the time...they'll live up to the signing bonus portion of it, but again, not performance based to me, so they have no argument to make there. These contracts arent fully guaranteed. Maybe he sees every dime, maybe he doesn't. But you can't seriously tell me that teams are going to live up to their side of the agreement when the NFL jut cut 1200 people last week