2017 Predictions

[Fureys49ers]

1 minute ago, y2lamanaki said:

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

And so is Kaep, for really being a huge disappointment, he made 39 mil for really being a whole lot of nothing. I think he'll be just fine as well.

 

3 minutes ago, y2lamanaki said:

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?

The issue as I have stated over and over again is these players not upholding their end of the agreement. Not living up to their end of the bargain yet expecting the world and acting mistreated when a franchise tries to protect itself from players like Kaep, who earned 39 mil for very little production. 

[Fureys49ers]

6 minutes ago, Forge said:

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 

Yes I can tell you that. Because when the player signs that contract they can see the signing bonus, guaranteed money and still decide to sign that contract haha. They aren't walking blindly into this. They know that if they don't perform how much money they can be expecting if they are cut. The cutting of 1200 players, roster bubble players for about 90% of that number, know the attrition rate of the NFL and the risk they are taking. That example isn't really the same as Donald's. Again I'm not quite sure how you don't see these signing bonuses as performance based when Nick Mullins and Matt Stafford aren't getting the same signing bonus, want to know why? Or even Stafford and Hoyer, want to know why?

[Forge]

3 minutes ago, Fureys49ers said:

And so is Kaep, for really being a huge disappointment, he made 39 mil for really being a whole lot of nothing. I think he'll be just fine as well.

 

The issue as I have stated over and over again is these players not upholding their end of the agreement. Not living up to their end of the bargain yet expecting the world and acting mistreated when a franchise tries to protect itself from players like Kaep, who earned 39 mil for very little production. 

But teams don't always live up to their end of the bargain. 

What's the justification for cutting veterans who are just fine but the team wants to go through a youth movement? The team is living up to their end of the bargain then? 

[Forge]

1 minute ago, Fureys49ers said:

Yes I can tell you that. Because when the player signs that contract they can see the signing bonus, guaranteed money and still decide to sign that contract haha. They aren't walking blindly into this. They know that if they don't perform how much money they can be expecting if they are cut. The cutting of 1200 players, roster bubble players for about 90% of that number, know the attrition rate of the NFL and the risk they are taking. That example isn't really the same as Donald's 

So everyone who was cut wasn't living up to their end of the bargain? Everyone who was cut was clearly outplayed by someone else on the roster? 

YOu are saying that you have a problem with Donalds hold out because he's not living up to his end of the bargain, but the teams do...but clearly they don't always. 

[y2lamanaki]

3 minutes ago, Fureys49ers said:

The issue as I have stated over and over again is these players not upholding their end of the agreement. Not living up to their end of the bargain yet expecting the world and acting mistreated when a franchise tries to protect itself from players like Kaep, who earned 39 mil for very little production. 

1

It is befuddling to me that you think that teams cutting players - for whatever reason - is absolutely fine. But that players need to bow down to a team that they didn't choose, for money and a length of time they need to negotiate. 

[Fureys49ers]

Just now, Forge said:

But teams don't always live up to their end of the bargain. 

What's the justification for cutting veterans who are just fine but the team wants to go through a youth movement? The team is living up to their end of the bargain then? 

Not in terms of length of contract but in terms of money, yes they are. Because if that player has guaranteed money on his contract still then he is owed that when cut. Money if I'm not mistaken is what started this whole conversation, not sticking to the length of a contract.

[y2lamanaki]

7 minutes ago, Fureys49ers said:

And so is Kaep, for really being a huge disappointment, he made 39 mil for really being a whole lot of nothing. I think he'll be just fine as well.

 

But the team didn't live up to its end of the $126 million, did it? Sure, Kaepernick made a lot of money. But he signed for over 3x that amount.

And how about the Broncos with T.J. Ward? He seemed to be doing just fine. Are you okay with the team not living up to their end of the contract? 

[y2lamanaki]

1 minute ago, Fureys49ers said:

Not in terms of length of contract but in terms of money, yes they are. Because if that player has guaranteed money on his contract still then he is owed that when cut. Money if I'm not mistaken is what started this whole conversation, not sticking to the length of a contract.

That money is still owed? Then how is Kaepernick not getting the remaining $87 million on his contract?

[Forge]

Just now, Fureys49ers said:

Not in terms of length of contract but in terms of money, yes they are. Because if that player has guaranteed money on his contract still then he is owed that when cut. Money if I'm not mistaken is what started this whole conversation, not sticking to the length of a contract.

Not at all...maybe I'm arguing something different than you are...very possible...the posts have been flying fast and furious here haha. 

But I'm arguing on the basis that a team doesn't always hold up their end of the bargain - not just specifically in terms of guaranteed money. My point about guaranteed money was that it wasn't performance based, but rather marketing and incentive driven. 

[Fureys49ers]

6 minutes ago, y2lamanaki said:

That money is still owed? Then how is Kaepernick not getting the remaining $87 million on his contract?

Because what he agreed to didn't include that remaining 87 million as guaranteed. He knew full and well if he didn't perform to what was expected of him he would not see the full number of the contract just the guaranteed part. And yet he still signed to it, agreeing to it. 

 

 

Listen no one is holding a gun to the head of these players and making them play. 

9 minutes ago, y2lamanaki said:

It is befuddling to me that you think that teams cutting players - for whatever reason - is absolutely fine. But that players need to bow down to a team that they didn't choose, for money and a length of time they need to negotiate. 

It's part of the game, do I think it's always perfect? Absolutely not but it's a part of the game, don't like it? Again no one is forcing them to play, they are more than welcome to make a living doing something else. I just don't understand the pitty party that is thrown for these players. You know what I've done in the past when I didn't like a job for whatever reason, I left and went a different route. No one is saying they need to bow down to teams at all just like no one is telling them they need to play this game. If they are truly being so disrespected and treated so unfairly then they would move on one would think.

[y2lamanaki]

Just now, Fureys49ers said:

Because what he agreed to didn't include that remaining 87 million as guaranteed. He knew full and well if he didn't perform to what was expected of him he would not see the full number of the contract just the guaranteed part. And yet he still signed to it, agreeing to it. 

 

But did the team not agree to pay him $126 million? Yes or no?

[y2lamanaki]

1 minute ago, Fureys49ers said:

You know what I've done in the past when I didn't like a job for whatever reason, I left and went a different route.

Same here. When I didn't like AT&T, I left and worked for Verizon. So Aaron Donald should leave the Rams and go work for the 49ers?

[y2lamanaki]

3 minutes ago, Fureys49ers said:

I just don't understand the pitty party that is thrown for these players.

And I don't understand why pity parties are being thrown for billionaire NFL owners either. I'd throw one for the players before them. 

[Fureys49ers]

5 minutes ago, Forge said:

Not at all...maybe I'm arguing something different than you are...very possible...the posts have been flying fast and furious here haha. 

But I'm arguing on the basis that a team doesn't always hold up their end of the bargain - not just specifically in terms of guaranteed money. My point about guaranteed money was that it wasn't performance based, but rather marketing and incentive driven. 

And I agree with that, there are some cuts like veterans that you spoke in which I feel were unfair where the team didn't live up to  the contract. The only thing I was making mention on was the fact that they still got their guaranteed money of the contract that they agreed to. I still struggle to see how more guaranteed money for a player isn't performance based. It just seems all too obvious that the players with more guaranteed money are the stars, good and above average players in the league.  

[Forge]

Just now, Fureys49ers said:

Because what he agreed to didn't include that remaining 87 million as guaranteed. He knew full and well if he didn't perform to what was expected of him he would not see the full number of the contract just the guaranteed part. And yet he still signed to it, agreeing to it. 

 

 

Listen no one is holding a gun to the head of these players and making them play. 

It's part of the game, do I think it's always perfect? Absolutely not but it's a part of the game, don't like it? Again no one is forcing them to play, they are more than welcome to make a living doing something else. I just don't understand the pitty party that is thrown for these players. You know what I've done in the past when I didn't like a job for whatever reason, I left and went a different route. No one is saying they need to bow down to teams at all just like no one is telling them they need to play this game.

And that's why he's not  playing. If the rams are desperate to get him back, they'll cave. Or they can hold the line. 

Also, why does it have to be, "you can make a living doing something else"? He's operating within a framework that he's allowed to. He wants to enhance his position and he actually has the ability to do so.  I love my job...I push my position all the time. Last year, I went through a process with another company, got an offer, forced my company's hand. Got an 8K raise, 4 more vacation days and get to work from home. Did I do something wrong? Should I have instead said, "you know what, I don't think you're taking care of me as much as I should be taken care of, so I'm just going to quit"? 

I haven't heard him ask for pity. In fact, I haven't heard much of anything from Donald regarding this holdout. He's been very quiet and just gone about not playing so far as I know. Has he really spoken out about it?