With Bruce gone

[turtle28]

1 hour ago, offbyone said:

Teams always honor contracts, it is the players who don't.  Teams don't hold out, players do.  

This is what Dead Cap space represents.  It is the money still owed to a player per the contract when the player is released before the contract expires.

Team's cut players. Basically what Trent did was equivalent to what a team will do to a player. He cut off his season, like the team would cut a player when there are years left on their contract.
 

Contracts need to be guaranteed. The NFL has the most screwed up contract system and it's the most dangerous sport to play. If I was the players, I’d strike for guaranteed contracts.
 

If that means all they contracts get are shortened and the players will only get the say $40 million guaranteed over the 3 years of a contract - or $84 million and then become a free agent again - instead of signing a 5-year $60 million contract with $40 million in guaranteed, so be it. That’s better for the players too bc they have shorter contract and more bites of the apple in free agency. Kirk played his deal and the NFL contract structure so smart, every player should do it!

Edited January 7, 2020 by turtle28

[Skins212689]

8 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

Team's cut players. Basically what Trent did was equivalent to what a team will do to a player. He cut off his season, like the team would cut a player.

Some who are injured as well. Do people forget why the league has become softer these days? Because the leauge left thousands of player's without the proper Medical Attention they needed and then left the Player's alone to figure out what a Concussion was and unable to do normal daily activities. 

I don't feel sorry for none of these 32 Billionaires who has to give Guaranteed money to the Player's. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Skins212689

[Thaiphoon]

1 hour ago, MKnight82 said:

In your example the $20 mil is a signing bonus that both sides agreed to.  I don't see why that impacts anything 5 years down the road.  I

And why do teams offer it in the first place? Because they cut players. It gives the players a guaranteed income. That's my point.

Quote

I'd like to also point out that Trent Williams was given a $8.5 mil SB, not $20 mil. 

Sure. But he had $30M fully guaranteed regardless. But this is just an example.

Quote

I think this is a ridiculous point considering the player is risking his actual physical well being to play for the organization under the contract and the only risk the organization has is losing some money.  Its not the same risk.  

Never said the risk was the same. We're not talking about the risk being the same. We're talking about honoring the contracts. Which you have linked the two (player and team) as equal partners and equal expectations. Just following your ground rules. Additionally, the risk to the player's body is ALSO a reason why contracts have guarantees. For example = Alex Smith will get all of the guaranteed $ he is entitled to in his contract. Even if he never plays another down.

Quote

No, because NFL teams already have a ridiculous amount of power over the players.  MLB and NBA contracts are fully guaranteed.  MLB and NBA players cannot be franchise tagged.  And NFL organizations make A LOT more money than MLB and NBA teams.  And again, the player laid his actual physical well being on the line, the only thing the organization is risking is probably 0.5% of their budget that year.  

And...if the players want to play another 80 or so games in the year and the season go from April to October, maybe they can also have fully guaranteed contracts. Or maybe contracts will eventually get to guaranteed fully (like Kirk's). The league evolves with contracts and pretty much every time it is to the benefit of the player financially.

Quote

Correct, but that player will not receive any of the nonguaranteed contract money.  So essentially, the organization is saying the nonguaranteed money means nothing and they can remove that player at any time with no repercussion.  In this situation, why should the player honor the contract at that point either?  That is where Trent's contract is at.  

But the player pockets ALL of the guaranteed $$ from the previous organization and can still go to work for another organization. Meanwhile the team MUST accelerate guaranteed money off their books that year (or split in a June 1st cut). It's a heads I win, tails you lose situation with the team holding the bag. As for the player honoring the contract, it's because the player already got his guaranteed money. If you go by your logic, then teams should go back to only paying salary and no guaranteed money (or only pay the guaranteed money once the player has played most of his contract). Think that will go over with the NFLPA? Me either.

Quote

It sounds silly to me that you're trying to compare the organization's position to an individual players.  Again, they are the one risking their body on every snap.  

Actually, you are comparing them by saying that if the "team doesn't honor it, why should the player?". I'm merely explaining why and how a team is honoring the contract with the player. You don't like the example, then stop lumping them together as two equal sides of the contract that must use the same levers available to the other side. 

Quote

No teams only pay for guaranteed money and then typically dump a player.  When the player's guaranteed money is up why should the player honor that contract either?  That is the situation Trent is in.

Not necessarily so. Players that do well get their contracts extended before their current one is up (or tagged per the CBA and even then its a pretty generous tag with escalations that benefit the player - see: Cousins, Kirk). If they don't they get to go to FA and make more $$. This is a win-win for the player.

Okay...so you don't like that teams can cut players in the "out years" even though that's when the team is actually benefitting financially from the player in terms of the cap. 

Fine, I'll make you a deal. No player can get cut without the team paying out all of their contract. Welcome to the world of shorter contracts. And welcome to the world of non-guaranteed $$ in the contracts (where they only have yearly salaries). Also...since you think both sides should honor their contracts the same way (since it's perfectly acceptable to hold out for more money when you're under contract), then when the player under performs, the team gets to take back money from him. Also, when the player misses games for any reason, the team gets to not pay them their salary for those games (only workman's compensation). And finally, the player never gets to end his contract mid-contract by announcing his retirement. All players must play all the years in their contract. Period. 

Still want to take that deal? Because that's what the whole "the teams don't honor their contracts, why should the players?" gets you.

[Thaiphoon]

1 hour ago, turtle28 said:

Team's cut players. Basically what Trent did was equivalent to what a team will do to a player. He cut off his season, like the team would cut a player when there are years left on their contract.

That's why contracts have signing bonuses and other guaranteed money. Because teams can cut players that they feel are not earning their contract. Guaranteed $ is also put in there because players do get injured ( a la Alex Smith) and there should be a way for the player to have some financial security in the contract. 

Quote

Contracts need to be guaranteed. The NFL has the most screwed up contract system and it's the most dangerous sport to play. If I was the players, I’d strike for guaranteed contracts.

They will never get them in a strike. That kind of thing is going to happen eventually and it's going to happen as one owner wants a player badly. Kirk is an outlier but by no means is his contract the last fully guaranteed contract. I'd say in 10 years, we're gonna see quite a few of them in the league.
 

Quote

If that means all they contracts get are shortened and the players will only get the say $40 million guaranteed over the 3 years of a contract - or $84 million and then become a free agent again - instead of signing a 5-year $60 million contract with $40 million in guaranteed, so be it. That’s better for the players too bc they have shorter contract and more bites of the apple in free agency. Kirk played his deal and the NFL contract structure so smart, every player should do it!

It will mean shorter contracts, I agree. But wave bye-bye to huge contracts. And wave bye-bye to players getting paid for missing games. And wave bye-bye to players retiring any time they want. If the team must "honor a contract" to the very last game. So should the player.

Also, "more bites at the apple" also means that players become more expendable, not less.

[bigdog44]

I’m not going to say the players or the owners are right or wrong and here’s why; outside of Quarterback it’s dog gone impossible to determine future value in football. 
Take baseball, which is such an individual sport, outside of protection in the lineup there’s very little outside determining factors which influence a hitter. Basically if healthy, a hitter is going to hit. On to pitching, defense and run support help but a pitcher is going to pitch, just ask the Mets. 
Basketball, shooters are gonna shoot. 2 shooters? Your contending. 3? Your Golden State. 
Back to football. Take the cornerback position. Young corner on his first contract: playing great his first couple years, now it’s time to pay. In order to pay you cut your solid DT, which allows the other team to run more effectively and open their playbook against your defense, putting more stress on your CBs. Also you couldn’t pay a big time pass rusher because of this corner. Now in 3rd and long your rush can’t get home, forcing your corner to cover longer (assuming man coverage) which will eventually lead to him getting beat. The next season you want to help your corner who you made a massive investment in so you go all in and spend on a pass rusher. In turn you had to let your star MLB walk, who always had your defense in the right calls. Now your defense is a mess and your corner is an overpaid bum

i know I drastically oversimplified this, but you could make this case at every position on a football team. The balance is so delicate I get why teams are reluctant to guarantee the whole contract outside of the QB position. I also totally get the players stance of risking their necks while for most a good 60% of their income (the non guaranteed) could be gone once they’re deemed expendable. Or the lower round picks who ball out early In their careers for very little money compared to their veteran counterparts as their teams try to stall as much as they can before committing. This is especially true with running backs and it’s a damn shame. With the new CBA coming up it will be very interesting to see where salary structure is heading. Last time the big fight was over percentage of revenue. I Think they came real close to splitting it 50/50. It just seems like one system satisfying everyone is impossible to fathom

[turtle28]

49 minutes ago, bigdog44 said:

I’m not going to say the players or the owners are right or wrong and here’s why; outside of Quarterback it’s dog gone impossible to determine future value in football. 
Take baseball, which is such an individual sport, outside of protection in the lineup there’s very little outside determining factors which influence a hitter. Basically if healthy, a hitter is going to hit. On to pitching, defense and run support help but a pitcher is going to pitch, just ask the Mets. 
Basketball, shooters are gonna shoot. 2 shooters? Your contending. 3? Your Golden State. 
Back to football. Take the cornerback position. Young corner on his first contract: playing great his first couple years, now it’s time to pay. In order to pay you cut your solid DT, which allows the other team to run more effectively and open their playbook against your defense, putting more stress on your CBs. Also you couldn’t pay a big time pass rusher because of this corner. Now in 3rd and long your rush can’t get home, forcing your corner to cover longer (assuming man coverage) which will eventually lead to him getting beat. The next season you want to help your corner who you made a massive investment in so you go all in and spend on a pass rusher. In turn you had to let your star MLB walk, who always had your defense in the right calls. Now your defense is a mess and your corner is an overpaid bum

i know I drastically oversimplified this, but you could make this case at every position on a football team. The balance is so delicate I get why teams are reluctant to guarantee the whole contract outside of the QB position. I also totally get the players stance of risking their necks while for most a good 60% of their income (the non guaranteed) could be gone once they’re deemed expendable. Or the lower round picks who ball out early In their careers for very little money compared to their veteran counterparts as their teams try to stall as much as they can before committing. This is especially true with running backs and it’s a damn shame. With the new CBA coming up it will be very interesting to see where salary structure is heading. Last time the big fight was over percentage of revenue. I Think they came real close to splitting it 50/50. It just seems like one system satisfying everyone is impossible to fathom

Sounds like the Redskins after they stupidly overpaid Norman. Now, their two former young corners and their young pass rusher who - should’ve been playing with their 3 young great DL this year - are playing in the NFL Divisional Round of the playoffs but for other teams.