UPDATE: Morgan Moses Released! Geron Christian too!

[turtle28]

 

[turtle28]

2 hours ago, offbyone said:

You are simply wrong.  Teams don't break contracts.  If they release players it is allowed in the contract.  If they trade players it is because there isn't a no trade clause.  etc.  Players choose to sign these contracts knowing this.  Just like most people sign contracts with employers where they can terminate without cause at any time.  No one is forcing people to agree to these terms.    If people or players don't think it is fair, then they shouldn't sign the contract.  

Cutting a player is breaking a contract. Sure it’s allowed, but it’s still breaking a contract. 

[Thaiphoon]

4 hours ago, e16bball said:

This really isn’t true, though.

The team agreed to pay them all the guaranteed money no matter what, and to pay them the other money as long as they’re on the roster. That’s what they’re contractually obligated to do. That’s how all NFL player contracts work. 

In return, the player agreed that they will play for the team at the bargained-for salary in each season encompassed by the contract, if the team chooses to keep them on the roster. 

In only one of those scenarios is a party breaking the contract, and that is the scenario where the player refuses to play for the agreed-upon salary. A team cutting a player is totally in keeping with the contract. They can’t renege on money owed to the player (without cause). They can’t try to get back bonus money they already paid the player (without cause). They have to pay the player every cent they agreed to pay him — it’s just that the standard NFL player contract has what amounts to a built-in team option. 

Players are under absolutely no requirement to sign a standard contract with only a portion of the money guaranteed. Kirk Cousins, as much as I don’t care for the guy, should have been a trend-setter in the area of demanding fully (or at least more) guaranteed contracts. But they continue to accept these big deals with lots of non-guaranteed money, willingly — and then they come back and cry later about none of their money being guaranteed. And threaten to break the contract if the team doesn’t tear it up and give them something new. It’s dirty pool, in my opinion. 

I don’t care that much, because I feel as though most NFL players lack equal leverage and negotiating power when compared to the team, so I think the terms are a little uneven because the balance of power is a little uneven. But still, technically at least, these players are breaking the contracts in a way that the teams just aren’t.

Was literally coming to say this exact thing. I do A LOT of contracts in my day job. I'm not my company's General (or Executive) Counsel, but I do have input into, and understand every part of, the contracts that I deal with. You're spot on here. The teams pay the guaranteed money as that is what is agreed to. The player will continue to collect the guaranteed $ as long as the contract terms stipulate (some contracts are a set sum each month, year, etc...). Both sides can be "punished" for failure to adhere to the full length of the contract. The player can be fined, miss game checks, etc... for not showing up when he is required. The team must eat up all the guaranteed $ that remains on the contract if they cut him. 

These are all grown men, who willingly entered into a contract where they don't have guaranteed money and are only paid if they make the roster. Well, if you play like crap, you're not making the roster and I shouldn't have to pay you all 5 years of guaranteed $ because we had to replace you.

Do I mind if a player gets a fully guaranteed contract? Not at all. The team agreed to it. The player agreed to it. Both are happy. Both should honor it. Both also have punishments if they break/end it.

I feel the same way with the non-guaranteed contracts. If it is broken/ended by either side, they have punishments. But it's not the same. A player holds out (therefore in breach of contract), the team must find a replacement that will play up to their level. The player can also retire at any time. Meanwhile the team must hold onto the salary cap and roster spot for the player (until they designate them as "Left the team"). And the team must be ready to pay the guaranteed money regardless of the hold out (depending upon contract language). If the team decides to move on from the player, they must still honor all of the guaranteed $ they agree to. But just like the player holdout, if the player is not on the field, playing for the team, they don't collect a paycheck. And here's the benefit to the player that the team doesn't get. The player can move on to the next team and play for them the very next day (whereas the team must still hold a roster spot open for the player if they hold out). I could go on and on about this, but the fact remains IMHO that yes the two sides can end the agreement and end the contract early. But they are not the same at all in how they do it and the punishments that entail as a result. 

 

Also...

What the proponents of "all contracts should be guaranteed" are going to do, if they get their way, is to end up getting most players 2 year contracts, tops (no more 6 year deals for free agents). Because the owners are NOT going to give up 75-85+% of the revenues to the players. And the only way to keep costs down is to minimize the length of the contracts so that production will match the guaranteed $$.

Now...guaranteed contracts might, at first blush, be good for players as it will allow them to move more frequently. It might also be a curse in disguise. Because instead of the huge amount of $, if the contracts are guaranteed, the owners will pay less in total dollars for these 2 year contracts. So you'll have more frequent contracts, but the $ will be much, much, less and then the teams will have even less incentive to hang onto a player who isn't producing or is borderline. So instead of players getting to gel with a team and for teams to assemble a roster where they can put together a team that can be a perennial playoff team, there will constantly be a 2 year turnover of the roster. And many people might say there's turnover now. That's true. There is. But it's usually a few players at a time. I'm talking half (or more) of the roster getting new contracts every year (1/2 one year, 1/2 the other year and each one is on a 2 year rotation). Now, you're gonna have the Mahomes, Rodgers, etc... still getting more than a 2 year contract as they will identify the ones that are franchise cornerstones and do longer contracts. Detractors of my prediction will say that's what happens now. Which is true. But it also happens with other players. Other players get 5,6,7 year deals. What will happen when all contracts are guaranteed is that the haves and have-nots will be even more divided. 

So it will end up being bad for the teams and, most of, the players.

[4209]

35 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

Interesting time to cut them, I thought it would be better to keep them around for competition this training camp but I don’t have a problem with it.

We have guys they like better like Leno, Lucas and Cosmi.

Cutting Moses opens up $7.5 million in cap space so we have $20 million in cap space now. If we are able to sign Jon Allen and Scherff to new deals that should open up another $5-10 million in cap space too. Maybe they already have a FA available in mind that they’d like to sign or they’re freeing up space in case someone comes available like one of the QBs that we could trade for.

https://thespun.com/nfl/afc-south/houston-texans/teams-mentioned-washington-miami-las-vegas-deshaun-watson-trade

3 Teams Reportedly Being Mentioned Most For Deshaun Watson Trade

 You would think he could go to prison but there are are strange things going on about some kind of settlement however the NFL could ban him a yr ouch!!!!!!

[Thaiphoon]

42 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

Cutting a player is breaking a contract. Sure it’s allowed, but it’s still breaking a contract. 

Draw a distinction between terminating and breaking (as in breaching) a contract. Those are not the same things.

In one of my contracts, if we do not hit our metrics after the base year, the client can decline to pick up the options. The options are in the contract. Also, if we do so poorly in the base year, the client can decide to move on from us and go with another company. Or they can claw back money from us.

If we get paid and then refuse to do the work, we are in breach. Which is not the same thing as terminating the contract. 

[turtle28]

1 minute ago, 4209 said:

https://thespun.com/nfl/afc-south/houston-texans/teams-mentioned-washington-miami-las-vegas-deshaun-watson-trade

3 Teams Reportedly Being Mentioned Most For Deshaun Watson Trade

 You would think he could go to prison but there are are strange things going on about some kind of settlement however the NFL could ban him a yr ouch!!!!!!

That would make sense. I can’t say what will happen w/ Watson accusations are just that w/o proof. To me it’s more poor judgement by Watson using Instagram for massages, the Instagram “influencers” shall we call them are just out there looking to make $ off men. Athletes and celebrities have to be especially careful when meeting them. 

[turtle28]

1 minute ago, Thaiphoon said:

Draw a distinction between terminating and breaking (as in breaching) a contract. Those are not the same things.

In one of my contracts, if we do not hit our metrics after the base year, the client can decline to pick up the options. The options are in the contract. Also, if we do so poorly in the base year, the client can decide to move on from us and go with another company. Or they can claw back money from us.

If we get paid and then refuse to do the work, we are in breach. Which is not the same thing as terminating the contract. 

You can use whatever fancy terms you want. You’re not changing my opinion.

[Thaiphoon]

2 hours ago, MikeT14 said:

I think you’re misinterpreting what I am saying. Players holding out for more (if their value deems it), shouldn’t be any different than a team cutting someone for not fulfilling it. I’m much better at my job than I was 5 years ago and should be compensated as such. I think that’s a fair ask. If it’s so simple for them to remove it it should be so simple for them to change itIf it’s so simple for them to remove it it should be so simple for them to change it. But they don’t. 
 

also just because something is allowed I still don’t see how you aren’t breaking it?

I have zero problems with players wanting more $$ as they increase their value. But holding out and not showing up is breaching (re: breaking). If you don't want teams cutting players or coming back to players demanding $ back for non/under-performance, then players shouldn't be allowed to hold out. If one can refuse to honor the contract to get more $$ then the other can cut the player (or come after $ already paid) if they end up not being worth it.

[Thaiphoon]

3 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

You can use whatever fancy terms you want. You’re not changing my opinion.

I know you're not. The point is that cutting and termination of the contract is at will. That is part of the contract language. At no point in time does the contract allow a player to hold out and request more money once the guaranteed money runs out. 

One is in the contract. One is not.

[MikeT14]

Just now, Thaiphoon said:

I have zero problems with players wanting more $$ as they increase their value. But holding out and not showing up is breaching (re: breaking). If you don't want teams cutting players or coming back to players demanding $ back for non/under-performance, then players shouldn't be allowed to hold out. If one can refuse to honor the contract to get more $$ then the other can cut the player (or come after $ already paid) if they end up not being worth it.

I gotta come back to this, but I have no problems with cutting players or players holding out. I think that’s the point I’m not making. This is a different beast with the NFL than real life. So siding with the owners doesn’t make sense to me. There almost shouldn’t be sides. 

[Thaiphoon]

Okay...all THAT ^^^ being said. 

This is a STOOPID move by WFT. Yet again we get ZERO value out of a piece we could've traded for SOMETHING. Instead we get zippy.

[lavar703]

9 minutes ago, 4209 said:

https://thespun.com/nfl/afc-south/houston-texans/teams-mentioned-washington-miami-las-vegas-deshaun-watson-trade

3 Teams Reportedly Being Mentioned Most For Deshaun Watson Trade

 You would think he could go to prison but there are are strange things going on about some kind of settlement however the NFL could ban him a yr ouch!!!!!!

He’s not going to prison. It will probably be settled soon and they’ll trade him. If the trade I saw of two first round picks plus Sweat and McClaurin is what actually gets offered and traded I’d be done with this franchise. That would be enough to get me to say goodbye. 

[turtle28]

2 minutes ago, Thaiphoon said:

Okay...all THAT ^^^ being said. 

This is a STOOPID move by WFT. Yet again we get ZERO value out of a piece we could've traded for SOMETHING. Instead we get zippy.

I bet no one wanted to trade for his contract. 

[Thaiphoon]

1 minute ago, MikeT14 said:

I gotta come back to this, but I have no problems with cutting players or players holding out. I think that’s the point I’m not making. This is a different beast with the NFL than real life. So siding with the owners doesn’t make sense to me. There almost shouldn’t be sides. 

I'm not necessarily siding with anyone. Just pointing out that the two aren't the same IMHO. One is breaching and one is following the contract per the language in the contract (that the player agreed to) and per the language in the CBA (that the NFLPA agreed to).

If a player wants to get more money and thinks breaching the contract is the way to go, then more power to him. It sucks as a fan to see it, but I understand it. Same with a team if they want to cut a player who isn't producing up to par or is no longer in their plans.

[Thaiphoon]

1 minute ago, turtle28 said:

I bet no one wanted to trade for his contract. 

Yeah, but it's not a large contract. That's the thing. He was SUPER affordable and a decent RT. At the most, we could've held onto him until preseason and seen if a OT went down and did the trade then.

We literally suck at being able to sell high.