Trent Williams said the growth on his head was misdiagnosed and he had cancer

[MikeT14]

15 hours ago, offbyone said:

This is completely untrue.  Teams always honor contracts, the contracts just have exit options.  If a player wants an all guaranteed contract he can ask for it, that doesn't mean he will get it.

It is not "completely untrue" when you go on to defend my point by explaining how they get out of contracts. 

[MKnight82]

15 hours ago, offbyone said:

This is completely untrue.  Teams always honor contracts, the contracts just have exit options.  If a player wants an all guaranteed contract he can ask for it, that doesn't mean he will get it.

If teams don’t have to honor the non gauranteed part of the contract why do players?  

[RSkinGM]

2 hours ago, MKnight82 said:

If teams don’t have to honor the non gauranteed part of the contract why do players?  

Come on man- That's just how the contract is written and the player signed it . IF-- you play for us ( at the end of this contract ) we'll pay you XXXX dollars but we won't guarantee that we'll want you at that price . Take it or leave it. 

[MKnight82]

1 minute ago, RSkinGM said:

Come on man- That's just how the contract is written and the player signed it .

The team signed it too.  Why don't they have to honor the whole contract but players are expected to?  

[RSkinGM]

2 minutes ago, MKnight82 said:

The team signed it too.  Why don't they have to honor the whole contract but players are expected to?  

Because it's business. The player signed the damn thing- he knows most likely it won't be honored  when he signs it. The team takes a huge risk guaranteeing the first years of the deal .. HUGE ( See A Smith/Redskins ) Their "payback" for taking on the risk is the non-guarnteed part. 

[MKnight82]

2 minutes ago, RSkinGM said:

Because it's business.

Isn't it just business when the player holds out for a new contract?  

2 minutes ago, RSkinGM said:

The player signed the damn thing

So did the team.

2 minutes ago, RSkinGM said:

he knows most likely it won't be honored  when he signs it.

Then why should he honor it? 

2 minutes ago, RSkinGM said:

The team takes a huge risk guaranteeing the first years of the deal .. HUGE ( See A Smith/Redskins ) Their "payback" for taking on the risk is the non-guarnteed part.

The logic here doesn't make any sense.  Typically the end of contracts escalate to where the cap hit is so high the team gains nothing from keeping them on the roster.  There's no "payback", teams just end up cutting the player and that player moves on.  The only part of a contract that 90% of players usually play through is the guaranteed money portion.  Both sides know it.   

[RSkinGM]

5 minutes ago, MKnight82 said:

Isn't it just business when the player holds out for a new contract?  

So did the team.

Then why should he honor it? 

The logic here doesn't make any sense.  Typically the end of contracts escalate to where the cap hit is so high the team gains nothing from keeping them on the roster.  There's no "payback", teams just end up cutting the player and that player moves on.  The only part of a contract that 90% of players usually play through is the guaranteed money portion.  Both sides know it.   

I don't see it your way - I'll leave it at that . 

[offbyone]

4 hours ago, MikeT14 said:

It is not "completely untrue" when you go on to defend my point by explaining how they get out of contracts. 

But they aren't getting out of the contract.  The contract stipulates they can trade or release the player.  The contract stipulates what monies are guaranteed. 

Try this analogy....If you own a house and are still paying your mortgage off, but then sell the house to someone else is that reneging on your contract?  No.  You just traded it to someone else.  As long as you paid the required mortgage off, you aren't getting out of your contract, you are just executing it differently.

 

4 hours ago, MKnight82 said:

If teams don’t have to honor the non gauranteed part of the contract why do players?  

Because that is how the contract is written.  Plenty of player contracts have no trade clauses.  Players could demand a contract where they can walk after any season.  The problem is it would make them very unappealing to teams and so while a team might sign a contract like that it would be for less money. 

It might seem unfair, but these players are getting paid many many times the national average income.  So this is the sacrifice they are making.  They can go get another job though, no one is forcing them to be football players.  

 

 

[MKnight82]

1 minute ago, offbyone said:

Try this analogy....If you own a house and are still paying your mortgage off, but then sell the house to someone else is that reneging on your contract?  No.  You just traded it to someone else.  As long as you paid the required mortgage off, you aren't getting out of your contract, you are just executing it differently.

This is a seriously bad analogy.  You own your house.  Your house has no say in that agreement whatsoever.  The teams don't own the players.  

3 minutes ago, offbyone said:

Because that is how the contract is written.  Plenty of player contracts have no trade clauses.  Players could demand a contract where they can walk after any season.  The problem is it would make them very unappealing to teams and so while a team might sign a contract like that it would be for less money. 

You answered your own question here.  There are probably 20 players in the league with enough power to demand a no trade clause (which are extremely rare in football, much more common in Baseball where the union is a lot more powerful), and they are probably all QBs.  

4 minutes ago, offbyone said:

It might seem unfair, but these players are getting paid many many times the national average income.  So this is the sacrifice they are making.  They can go get another job though, no one is forcing them to be football players.  

Ya and Dan Snyder is worth a ton more than the players.  Why do people come to his defense in terms of these contracts and not the players?  

[MikeT14]

12 minutes ago, offbyone said:

But they aren't getting out of the contract.  The contract stipulates they can trade or release the player.  The contract stipulates what monies are guaranteed. 

Try this analogy....If you own a house and are still paying your mortgage off, but then sell the house to someone else is that reneging on your contract?  No.  You just traded it to someone else.  As long as you paid the required mortgage off, you aren't getting out of your contract, you are just executing it differently.

 

I don't think I'm even going to call this apples to oranges.

[offbyone]

37 minutes ago, MKnight82 said:

This is a seriously bad analogy.  You own your house.  Your house has no say in that agreement whatsoever.  The teams don't own the players.  

You answered your own question here.  There are probably 20 players in the league with enough power to demand a no trade clause (which are extremely rare in football, much more common in Baseball where the union is a lot more powerful), and they are probably all QBs.  

Ya and Dan Snyder is worth a ton more than the players.  Why do people come to his defense in terms of these contracts and not the players?  

Sorry, I guess my analogy sucked, I couldn't think of a better one.  Teams own contracts for players, not the players.  The players can obviously opt out at anytime by retiring or refusing to play as we have seen several do in recent years.

I disagree with the number of players.  I bet almost every player could get a no-trade clause in their contract if they were willing to accept a much smaller dollar value contract.  The contradictory issue here is that the most important thing to players seems to be money.  And if they let money be the most important then they don't have leverage to get no trade clauses, less guarantee, etc.  

This has nothing to do with Dan Snyder.  This is how the nfl works.  Frankly, I have zero sympathy for the players when they are making millions of dollars to play a game.  Many of us are athletes on a lesser level or weekend warrior type athletes who beat the crap out of our bodies for nada.  We are getting far off the topic here though...

 

Sadly, the Trent Williams could have been simply a contractual issue and fit into our debate above.  All he had to do was say I demand a new contract with more guaranteed and at worst we would have called him a prima-donna and lumped him in with so many other NFL players.  Many of us would have just said, he is a core redskin, lets extend him and make him a redskin for life along with giving him a pay bump.  

Instead, it seems he uses his cancer diagnosis and slanders a group of people to gain leverage on a contract negotiation or to try and get out of a contract.  I understand the redskins are probably a crap organization to work for, but cmon this is a bad look in any situation.  

[ARTMONK HOF]

The front office of this organization is the worst, joke of the league but If Trent is in the right why doesn’t he want an investigation of the matter. If he is trying to gain an advantage from his illness, to me it shines a bad light on him on how he’s handling the situation. 

[naptownskinsfan]

I do feel for the players who are entering the professional sports leagues on entry level contracts.  Especially in baseball.  These guys have no say in their contracts, as the NFLPA (and other PA's) are negotiating for their current members, and not the guys still in college or playing in high school.  So if a guy like EE or Melvin Gordon are holding out, I completely get it, even though the team holds most of the power.  LeVeon Bell too, since his franchise tags were on the heels of his rookie contract.  I know I mentioned a ton of RBs, but this goes for any position on the football field.  

I get a bit more upset when guys hold out when they already received their big contract.  The players and agents agree to these contracts.  They know that, around halfway through the contract, the guaranteed money stops and it's essentially "perform or get cut."  That is something that the players can change, but at the next collective bargaining cycle.  

Trent Williams is an exception.  Despite some recent injury concerns, he's still performed at a high level and earned his contract.  A guy like Paul Richardson is likely going to be cut next year after most of the guaranteed money is over, because he isnt producing.  

However, we are comparing these guys to billionaire owners.  These players are playing a game, yes, but a game where serious consequences can happen- see CTE, Alex Smith injury, etc.  Get your share of the money while you can, whether it's Richardson cashing in on one good year, or Williams trying to get one last contract.  It won't hurt the owners or the NFL one bit.  

[Thaiphoon]

On 11/5/2019 at 8:58 PM, naptownskinsfan said:

I do feel for the players who are entering the professional sports leagues on entry level contracts.  Especially in baseball.  These guys have no say in their contracts, as the NFLPA (and other PA's) are negotiating for their current members, and not the guys still in college or playing in high school.  So if a guy like EE or Melvin Gordon are holding out, I completely get it, even though the team holds most of the power.  LeVeon Bell too, since his franchise tags were on the heels of his rookie contract.  I know I mentioned a ton of RBs, but this goes for any position on the football field.  

I get a bit more upset when guys hold out when they already received their big contract.  The players and agents agree to these contracts.  They know that, around halfway through the contract, the guaranteed money stops and it's essentially "perform or get cut."  That is something that the players can change, but at the next collective bargaining cycle.  

Trent Williams is an exception.  Despite some recent injury concerns, he's still performed at a high level and earned his contract.  A guy like Paul Richardson is likely going to be cut next year after most of the guaranteed money is over, because he isnt producing.  

However, we are comparing these guys to billionaire owners.  These players are playing a game, yes, but a game where serious consequences can happen- see CTE, Alex Smith injury, etc.  Get your share of the money while you can, whether it's Richardson cashing in on one good year, or Williams trying to get one last contract.  It won't hurt the owners or the NFL one bit.  

My thing is just be honest about it.

You want more $??

Okay. Say that.

Dont be a coward about it and throw others under the bus as the reason why you're holding out.

 

As for them changing contracts, if they do it at the next CBA, and spread the guaranteed $ across all years of all contracts, watch the amount of guaranteed $ go down. It's why the players (as a whole) are okay with the system until they are in Trent's position and then they want to cry foul. Not getting any sympathy from me here.

[Matts4313]

On 11/5/2019 at 11:48 AM, MKnight82 said:

This is a seriously bad analogy.  You own your house.  Your house has no say in that agreement whatsoever.  The teams don't own the players.  

Your agreement isnt with your house, its with a bank. And just like a NFL owner, the bank has privileges. Like foreclosing (cutting a player) if fail to pay (perform poorly). 

On 11/5/2019 at 11:48 AM, MKnight82 said:

You answered your own question here.  There are probably 20 players in the league with enough power to demand a no trade clause (which are extremely rare in football, much more common in Baseball where the union is a lot more powerful), and they are probably all QBs.  

A no trade clause doesnt fix players getting cut when the problem is performance and value. That and players some control over trades even with a no trade clause.

On 11/5/2019 at 11:48 AM, MKnight82 said:

Ya and Dan Snyder is worth a ton more than the players.  Why do people come to his defense in terms of these contracts and not the players?  

Because its not snyder. Its the CBA. This is what the players agreed too. If a team cuts a player, there is very little consequence. If a player holds out, there is financial and career consequences. This is what the players, their lawyers, their union reps all negotiated and agreed too.