2017 Predictions

[Forge]

Also, kudos to everyone involved in this debate for keeping it clean, intelligent, and without vitriol. 

That's why I Love this forum. We are never going to agree - I think it's a fundamental difference between the people in the way they think or perhaps their morals or whatever. But while the differences in thought behind this are notable, we are still being pretty easy going about it. 

So nice job everyone lol. 

[Fureys49ers]

1 minute ago, Forge said:

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? 

I don't believe he has said anything no, I was more referring to the pity party it seems some people and the media are throwing for him. 

As far as your job situation and the NFL, they have the ability to have a feel for what else is out there and field more offers, that's free agency. Are you on a year to year contract or something similar with your company that would prevent you from listening to others offers?

[Forge]

1 minute ago, Fureys49ers said:

I don't believe he has said anything no, I was more referring to the pity party it seems some people and the media are throwing for him. 

As far as your job situation and the NFL, they have the ability to have a feel for what else is out there and field more offers, that's free agency. Are you on a year to year contract or something similar with your company that would prevent you from listening to others offers?

I'm on a contract, I didn't have a non-compete at the time, so yeah, I could do that...which I understand that is not really an option that he has. But at the same time, I couldn't just hold out on my employer, they'd just laugh at me, but  he can. My point is more or less that we are both operating within the frame work that is set forth by our respective employers. I can go out and market myself, he can withhold his services completely. But both of us are just trying to enhance our overall position in life for the most part and get maximum value for ourselves. 

[Fureys49ers]

8 minutes ago, y2lamanaki said:

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

They did, and they both agreed that not all of it was guaranteed. What not having that be guaranteed means there's a possibility where he doesn't get it. So yes while that was the number agreed upon, both parties were aware that he's not guaranteed all of it.

7 minutes ago, y2lamanaki said:

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?

He can, as soon as his contract is up if that is what he wants. I'd hope he felt this way haha. 

6 minutes ago, y2lamanaki said:

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. 

This was not my intention at all to throw a pity party for owners. In fact I wasn't even arguing for owners favor in the least, more teams in general. Including other players who possibly signed with that team with the thought process that a player like Donald would be playing with them. Or a coach who thought he'd have Donald in his scheme. GMs who thought their team was squared away at DT with the thought of Donald being present. Those people have jobs on the line as well. I think in general the billions of dollars that are associated with the NFL would be a lot better spent outside of the NFL with all the world issues present today being honest. I was more speaking on the players who say pay me this cause that's what I'm worth, if my play falls off I still want top dollar and even though I agreed to a contract, which by joining the NFL and knowing the CBA Donald sort of did, they shouldn't have to stand by that agreement but then teams should be paying them more than the contract that they agreed to. 

[Fureys49ers]

5 minutes ago, Forge said:

I'm on a contract, I didn't have a non-compete at the time, so yeah, I could do that...which I understand that is not really an option that he has. But at the same time, I couldn't just hold out on my employer, they'd just laugh at me, but  he can. My point is more or less that we are both operating within the frame work that is set forth by our respective employers. I can go out and market myself, he can withhold his services completely. But both of us are just trying to enhance our overall position in life for the most part and get maximum value for ourselves. 

I feel ya, I guess more than anything the selfishness that is displayed by both parties leaves a bad taste in my mouth about a game I love and enjoy so much. This ugliness takes away from the beauty of it all. It's just hard for me to feel for Donald and the situation he finds himself in as 99.9% of the nation isn't afforded the luxuries he is even with his contract as is. And that's not just the money aspect, that's the entirety of the oppurtunities earned and given to these players from college on. 

[y2lamanaki]

5 minutes ago, Fureys49ers said:

I was more speaking on the players who say pay me this cause that's what I'm worth, if my play falls off I still want top dollar and even though I agreed to a contract, which by joining the NFL and knowing the CBA Donald sort of did, they shouldn't have to stand by that agreement but then teams should be paying them more than the contract that they agreed to. 

Well if the play falls off, as we have pointed out - teams do not have to pay that top dollar. So teams can get out from under that. So according to what you've been arguing, you shouldn't have a problem with that because the player can be cut if they aren't living up to their end of the bargain. Of course, players get cut in cost-saving maneuvers all of the time with no regard to their play on the field (like Ward, as I mentioned moments ago). Vance McDonald signed to play here for another 5 years, and the team decided he was moving to Pittsburgh with McDonald having no say in that either. So teams - they can do whatever they need to do to avoid living up to their end of the bargain. Why can't players?

And as for the rest of the team - the other players, the GMs, the coaches, etc. - as you have noted, this is the NFL. This is the best of the best, and players holding out is to be expected. So I don't see why you feel for them, if you don't feel for the player himself - the player who did not negotiate his contract, who did not get to choose where he wanted to play, and who has no decision on how long he has to play there. Kirk Cousins sure has not had a lot of say on where he gets to play and whether or not he can go to another team, has he?

[Fureys49ers]

1 hour ago, y2lamanaki said:

Well if the play falls off, as we have pointed out - teams do not have to pay that top dollar. So teams can get out from under that. So according to what you've been arguing, you shouldn't have a problem with that because the player can be cut if they aren't living up to their end of the bargain. Of course, players get cut in cost-saving maneuvers all of the time with no regard to their play on the field (like Ward, as I mentioned moments ago). Vance McDonald signed to play here for another 5 years, and the team decided he was moving to Pittsburgh with McDonald having no say in that either. So teams - they can do whatever they need to do to avoid living up to their end of the bargain. Why can't players?

And as for the rest of the team - the other players, the GMs, the coaches, etc. - as you have noted, this is the NFL. This is the best of the best, and players holding out is to be expected. So I don't see why you feel for them, if you don't feel for the player himself - the player who did not negotiate his contract, who did not get to choose where he wanted to play, and who has no decision on how long he has to play there. Kirk Cousins sure has not had a lot of say on where he gets to play and whether or not he can go to another team, has he?

Yes I don't have a problem with that if the player isn't living up to their part of the contract. I'm not sure teams are "getting out of it" though free and easy as you make it seem. They still have to pay the guaranteed money that is owed on the contract. Which is what I've been saying the whole time is known by both player and team at the point of the signing of the contract. Both parties know full well after the guaranteed money there is no guarantee so to speak. While I don't like how Ward was just dropped like that it happens, and if the player is still performing well, as Ward is he will have no problem getting work else where. So Ward is receiving 1.5 that was guaranteed on his contract left with the Broncos, now making 3 mil guaranteed with the ability to go up 4 mil with the Bucs. So he's being well taken care of. While the Broncos didn't hold true to the contract length, they are holding true to the amount of guaranteed money both parties, player and team, agreed upon. The money portion is the part I've been focusing on the whole conversation. Teams also have to deal with the repercussions of releasing leaders of teams like Ward was for the defense, other players see how he was treated and I can only assume this doesn't sit well with them. So while the Broncos are saving 4.5 mil with the release and feel they have the players on the roster to replace him they have to deal with some cons for not living up to their side of the deal by still paying Ward the guaranteed, agreed upon number to Ward and the teams reaction to said release.

I don't think holding out is necessarily a part of the NFL nor needs to be. It's merely a factor of greed and selfishness on both parties, player and team. With saying these players have no decision as where, how long and for how much they play for you make it seem as if these guys are some poor, optionless, abused people. These players decide to play in the NFL, aren't forced to. They literally don't have to play. If they feel the NFL is such a lost cause and not worth the time or effort and they will just be taken advantage of then they can choose to do something else haha. Just because there's some invested time that needs to be put in, for every player, as all unions work does not mean these guys will never get taken care of. Players being injured ending their careers before they ever make "real" money, which how much is "real" money when we are talking about more money than a very large percentage of the country make, is not all that common. 

As far as McDonald is concerned the Steelers have  agreed to take on that contract so financially nothing changes with his contract. Again I'm just talking about the money aspect. Should players never be traded? I don't know how to answer that one, its been happening for some time now so I doubt that changes. Now players can put a no trade clause into contracts like in the NBA and if they want to make sure they stay with that team then they shouldn't sign the dotted line until that part of the contract is included. Now these aren't too common in the NFL because players don't push for it and make it so, just as the fully guaranteed money in a contract. Again, MLB and NBA have no such rules in place but the players have made it so. 

Sure Kirk Cousins hasn't had much say in where he plays but he doesn't seem to be complaining much making over 50 mil the last two years fully guaranteed, talking about the money again as that's been my main focus. Players are more than welcome to keep doing this and in fact would be quite interesting if players continued with one or two year contracts, to see them paid the true value of their on field performance.

Im not an owner or anything haha and I'm not as cold hearted as to not feel for these players who don't have as much say in their careers as say the NBA but in order for there to be change with in a union, there are steps to be taken and ways to go about making change. Individual tantrums don't accomplish much in the long run or as a whole for the entirety of the player community. They just come off as selfish. That's where I feel for the other players on the team, you know, the ones who don't have the power or sway to make teams buckle. The ones that get cut at the drop of the hat without much consideration. Donald is showing that he cares for one person and one person entirely. Not the entirety of all the players in the NFL underminging the brotherhood that's supposed to bond all these people, present and future.

Now as I said earlier, I think the NFL, and some other professional sports as well, and everyone associated with it has become entirely too greedy and selfish. These people make much more money than is ever needed. I mean 90 million dollars? Not to be all world peace, love and pray or whatever it is but with the country and world having as many difficulties and people going through things not even comparable to arguing over millions some of the profit made could do a lot of good. I'm not saying these exceptional athletes should get paid dimes as they are making many sacrifices themselves to be where they find themselves at and work extremely hard but the amount of excess that there is that is divied up amongst a very small population in the NFL is disgusting. Here's an idea for Goodell, instead of trying to crack the whip on players who have gotten in trouble off field to look good to the public eye to make up for mishandled issues previously they use those profits to hell outside of the NFL. I'm talking from anywhere from schools and hospitals to former NFL players and the aftermath of playing. I mean Goodell makes 10s of millions of dollars and the owners of said teams are some of the richest people. 

[big9erfan]

5 hours ago, Forge said:

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

Actually, that might be a path to him getting his way.  They can, I believe, keep him on the team and just dock his pay for refusing to practice and play.  THAT would be the way to teach him

[big9erfan]

3 hours 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?

When you say you cancelled them, just curious, did the contract allow for cancelling it under certain conditions.  If so then you were following the terms of the contract not in violation of those terms.  I'm talking about failing to keep up your end of the agreement.  Did you sign up to make periodic payments and then simply stop paying?

People confuse cutting a guy with not living up to a contract.  They don't agree to pay a guy the money mentioned in the contract no matter what happens.  That's where things like signing bonuses and guaranteed money come into play.  McNichols got to keep  whatever guaranteed money was part of his contract (I kind of think his first year salary was guarantedd).  The full four years were not guaranteed. They agreed to play him a specified salary if they keep him on the team. In return he agrees to work for that salary if he remains on the team. I'm sure they paid him the full amount he was due under the terms of his contract.  If not, they'll be hearing from his lawyer ... and from the unioin. People keep wanting to equate cutting a guy with him refusing to work under the terms he agreed to. Those are two completely different issues.

As for the rest I think I'll just say for the third time - Unions! Love 'em or hate 'em.  EIther way is fine as long as one is consistent.  Can't love them when they get your suspension lifted and then hate them when they establish a wage scale.  Both wage scales and fighting to defend workers against alleged wrong doing are part of most union agreements.

[big9erfan]

3 hours 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. 

 

Of course the contract doesn't say that.  That doesn't make it untrue.  High picks get bigger signing bonues than 2nd rounders, who get more than lower guys.  Of course it is part of the compensation package.  And of course an anticipated level of play is very much taken into consideration. When they give a high first round pick a big signing bonus and little or nothing to a 7th rounder it's precisely because they expect the high first rounder to be a key contributor.  Many of you are arguing that if does in fact furn out to be a key contributor then he should get even more.  Maybe - in a non-union, open market system.  In fact, that's how it used to be.  IMHO the current system is better.

[Forge]

6 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

Of course the contract doesn't say that.  That doesn't make it untrue.  High picks get bigger signing bonues than 2nd rounders, who get more than lower guys.  Of course it is part of the compensation package.  And of course an anticipated level of play is very much taken into consideration. When they give a high first round pick a big signing bonus and little or nothing to a 7th rounder it's precisely because they expect the high first rounder to be a key contributor.  Many of you are arguing that if does in fact furn out to be a key contributor then he should get even more.  Maybe - in a non-union, open market system.  In fact, that's how it used to be.  IMHO the current system is better.

The system allows him to renegotiate after his third accrued season. That's what he's doing. And he's using the only leverage he has - holding out. Also not forbidden by the CBA. He's 100% within the rules. He's not doing anything wrong. If they didn't want this to happen, they shouldnt' have given first rounders the opportunity to renegotiate after year 3. 

[big9erfan]

3 hours ago, Fureys49ers said:

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.

A guy agrees to dig a ditch for a particular price around my property to protect it from water in case of heavy rains. He gives me his word he'll get the job done in a few days.  He gets halfway done and unexpectedly the forecast is for very heavy rains in a few days.  He comes to me and says he wants a whole lot more money to finish the job because with the rains on the way he can make more money doing the same work for someone else who will pay him more. Unless the contract holds him liable for damages should he fail to finish the job then he can do that. I mean he can do t hat no matter what the contract says. I can't force him to work. It is his right to "hold out" his services now that he knows he can get more for them somewhere else. But it speaks a lot to what type of person that kind of guy is.

Honestly, if this weren't being discussed in the context of the big,.bad NFL executive and greedy team owners would any one argue so hard for a guy's "right" to screw over his employer - and let's be clear that by refusing to work for the salary he agreed to work for he IS hurting his employer. 

[big9erfan]

3 hours 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 

This argument has been made repeadtedly in this thread.  Exactly what part of an NFL player's contract forbids a team to cut a guy?  The salary is what he gets paid IF the team keeps him on the team. In signing the contract he agrees to work for that amount if he makes the team.

[big9erfan]

3 hours ago, 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? 

I'm sure that must happen but can you give me some examples.  With every guy having access to his union rep and to a lawyer I doubt it happens very often.

[Forge]

Just now, big9erfan said:

This argument has been made repeadtedly in this thread.  Exactly what part of an NFL player's contract forbids a team to cut a guy?  The salary is what he gets paid IF the team keeps him on the team. In signing the contract he agrees to work for that amount if he makes the team.

And what part of the players contract forbids him from holding out?