Roquan Smith - ILB #8 overall

[51to54]

4 hours ago, Sugashane said:

If do then I stand by the Bears not signing him yet and blackmailing that agency's players from here on out. 

 

You get paid to play, if you get caught doing anything illegal that is on you and you should lose money for it. 

Following up on one of my earlier posts on this, it's hard to keep from a helmet to helmet hit with the speed and change of direction of the average NFL player times two as you have the defender closing on the ball carrier. Fully back a player not wanting to lose guaranteed money over the helmet rule. However, if you don't want to lose G money getting caught screwing a goat at a petting zoo, don't screw goats. Sheesh.

[Sugashane]

7 hours ago, 51to54 said:

Following up on one of my earlier posts on this, it's hard to keep from a helmet to helmet hit with the speed and change of direction of the average NFL player times two as you have the defender closing on the ball carrier. Fully back a player not wanting to lose guaranteed money over the helmet rule. However, if you don't want to lose G money getting caught screwing a goat at a petting zoo, don't screw goats. Sheesh.

This analogy made me actually LOL. Well done. 

[AZBearsFan]

7 hours ago, 51to54 said:

Following up on one of my earlier posts on this, it's hard to keep from a helmet to helmet hit with the speed and change of direction of the average NFL player times two as you have the defender closing on the ball carrier. Fully back a player not wanting to lose guaranteed money over the helmet rule. However, if you don't want to lose G money getting caught screwing a goat at a petting zoo, don't screw goats. Sheesh.

We’ve reached the stage of this thing where everyone is frustrated and now they’re using the media to try to swing public perception in their favor to pressure the other side to caving. When the Bosa negotiations reached this stage (with the same agency) it took fresh eyes to get it done - they had to have another agent help take this across the finish line. Hopefully if that’s what this is going to take we reach that place here in the next few days. 

[topwop1]

11 hours ago, pigsooie5 said:

Bar none, and I mean bar none, the WORST move by Ryan Pace since he’s become GM. I don’t care if Roquan signs tomorrow. Replacing arguably the best in the business in Cliff Stein with your      buddy Joey Laine is inexcusable. 

Not sure if serious but are you actually calling out Joey Laine saying this is all his and Pace's fault?  Because I don't recall Pace and his management team ever having any issues signing other draft picks and free agents since they've been here on the job. 

This seems like a planned negotiation tactic by Smith's agents to try and set a new precedent and raise the bar for future NFL draft picks. It's just too bad it had to be Roquan of all draftees and now the Bears are the ones who look bad in all this in the public eye. 

[IronMike84]

Everything that’s holding up this deal is just a precursor to what’s going to be a very ugly CBA negotiation in 2021. It’s going to make 2011’s negotiations look like a fun little playdate in the sandbox.

[Nads786]

40 minutes ago, IronMike84 said:

Everything that’s holding up this deal is just a precursor to what’s going to be a very ugly CBA negotiation in 2021. It’s going to make 2011’s negotiations look like a fun little playdate in the sandbox.

Yep I totally agree here. I could easily see the 2021 NFL season as a lock out year. 

[JBURGE]

I feel for you guys. This whole thing sounds incredibly frustrating. If it's true that Tremaine Edmunds got the verbiage in his deal I can't see how this hasn't been done already 

[blkwdw13]

18 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

I feel for you guys. This whole thing sounds incredibly frustrating. If it's true that Tremaine Edmunds got the verbiage in his deal I can't see how this hasn't been done already 

See what verbiage are you talking about the one about the helmet to helmet fines or the one about the off the field stuff. The helmet to helmet stuff the reports have said the Bears already gave into that before camp started. The off the field stuff no player deserves that and they should never give into that. 

[JBURGE]

20 minutes ago, blkwdw13 said:

41 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

I feel for you guys. This whole thing sounds incredibly frustrating. If it's true that Tremaine Edmunds got the verbiage in his deal I can't see how this hasn't been done already 

See what verbiage are you talking about the one about the helmet to helmet fines or the one about the off the field stuff. The helmet to helmet stuff the reports have said the Bears already gave into that before camp started. The off the field stuff no player deserves that and they should never give into that. 

I did not know that Roquon was asking for off the field immunity.... Is that the case? He doesn't want to lose his gtd money if he gets suspended for personal conduct?

If that's true then screw that lol

[Sugashane]

41 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

I did not know that Roquon was asking for off the field immunity.... Is that the case? He doesn't want to lose his gtd money if he gets suspended for personal conduct?

If that's true then screw that lol

 

That's exactly what it sounds like too. I think this is more CAA trying to set a new precedent and using Smith as the puppet.

F--- them. lol

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

Do players have agents before or after the draft?  If I was a front office I would certainly take this agency into account on future players.

[IronMike84]

51 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

 

That's exactly what it sounds like too. I think this is more CAA trying to set a new precedent and using Smith as the puppet.

F--- them. lol

“Precedent” is really the key here.

As David Haugh reported yesterday: ”But Smith remains away from training camp because his representatives at CAA Football have insisted the Bears go even further and include contract language protecting the player from discipline for behavior outside the realm of a football play. The Bears’ reluctance to do so revolves around their fear of setting a precedent for future contracts and has nothing to do with concerns about Smith’s character, the source said.”

This whole thing goes both ways. Trumaine Edmunds and the Bills found common ground on the guarantees regarding the helmet issue, so shouldn’t Roquan and the Bears?

Now turn it around. If Roquan and the Bears agree to protected guarantees for behavioral issues—because he’s a super high-character guy and they have no reason to believe he’ll be a problem off the field—what kind of message does it send when a team agrees to that kind of deal with a player who does have an off the field incident on the level of Ray Rice or James Hardy, who does need to be suspended indefinitely, yet the contract language says that team still needs to pay out his guarantees? That’s the issue. 

[Sugashane]

2 hours ago, IronMike84 said:

“Precedent” is really the key here.

As David Haugh reported yesterday: ”But Smith remains away from training camp because his representatives at CAA Football have insisted the Bears go even further and include contract language protecting the player from discipline for behavior outside the realm of a football play. The Bears’ reluctance to do so revolves around their fear of setting a precedent for future contracts and has nothing to do with concerns about Smith’s character, the source said.”

This whole thing goes both ways. Trumaine Edmunds and the Bills found common ground on the guarantees regarding the helmet issue, so shouldn’t Roquan and the Bears?

Now turn it around. If Roquan and the Bears agree to protected guarantees for behavioral issues—because he’s a super high-character guy and they have no reason to believe he’ll be a problem off the field—what kind of message does it send when a team agrees to that kind of deal with a player who does have an off the field incident on the level of Ray Rice or James Hardy, who does need to be suspended indefinitely, yet the contract language says that team still needs to pay out his guarantees? That’s the issue. 

 

I've always been in favor of players losing money when they have a Rice/Hardy/Vick instance. I'm an independent contractor, I understand if I get a DUI then I am REALLY going to hinder my earnings or make life much harder for myself. As an adult, I accept that without issue. I am not going to feel sorry for them getting a massive amount of money to play football, but losing it due to domestic violence or whatever.

 

Now for innocent issues, getting hit by another driver or heart attacks, etc. That is not something that should actively penalize the player IMO. I have no issue honoring a contract, but it has to assume the player will not act like an idiot on or off the field. If you get popped for PEDs for example, you don't deserve the pay for the days you missed. If you get suspended for dogfighting, any remaining guarantees you were going to make while serving time should be forfeited.

 

Now when past players were paid still due to contract language, there is nothing I could do about that. But I would refuse to add that language in for any player. Call it an "Act of an Idiot" or whatever, but those kind of things should not only stop the pay,  but also allow the team to destroy the contract without penalty IMO. they should be able to find common ground, but that assumes that CAA is willing to move forward from their initial stance. I don't do twitter or anything so I have absolutely no clue where they are in talks or anything. I just get information from here or a few sites. But I have no sympathy for a player saying "I may act like a fool and get into severe legal trouble, but I want paid the same even if I do." I wouldn't have a need for it, so I am just confused to why so many would.

[Sugashane]

3 hours ago, RunningVaccs said:

Do players have agents before or after the draft?  If I was a front office I would certainly take this agency into account on future players.

Most do before the draft. I said previously I would pretty much blacklist them. No reason to deal with this nonsense.

[dll2000]

We still aren't getting whole story.

No one in football, or sports or entertainment is going to give a contract without a moral or conduct clause completely.  Baseball players have them, Basketball players have them, Actors have them even though contracts are "fully guaranteed".  The guarantees are performance based.  If actor/player is performing or willing to perform then they get paid even if they suck.  

They don't in most cases get all the money yet owed on a contract if they rob a bank or tweet about the joy of raping babies and can't fulfill their contract or nobody wants them to due to public anger.  That can't be what they are fighting to remove, just the extent of set offs or how much money paid up front after said infractions are committed can be recouped.   

Problem is NFL contracts are traditionally front loaded (guaranteed money anyway  - sometimes big pretend money is loaded into the back of a long deal that will never be paid) because players get hurt or cut often.  For example you could a sign a 10 mill contract for 10 years (just to keep numbers round) you might be paid 7 million at signing with 3 mil paid out over rest of contract for next 10 years.  Question is how much of 7 million do you owe back to employer if you rob a bank in year 5?  Even if the 7 mil was "guaranteed."  That is likely the argument at hand. The guarantee part is usually meant to protect player against an injury or diminished performance, not moral turpitude.  If you suck in year 5 and get cut, then they just don't owe you the balance of the 3 million not yet paid, but team can't touch the 7 mil paid.   If you rob a bank they may want a big percentage of that 7 mil back.  There are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of that coin and that is what I think the holdout is about.   

On one hand if Bears can't recoup per contract then they may not want to put a bunch of money up front that they can't get back if player slaps his girlfriend on video in year 3 and gets suspended for a year.  In that case they would rather pay out contract each year evenly or back load it.   From Smith/player/agent perspective the contract wasn't guaranteed past signing bonus or guaranteed years, so as long as I performed and didn't act up off field for some portion of contract or during the guaranteed years I should keep that money.   That is not an unreasonable argument.  From team perspective they may not have wanted to risk so much up front without added protection. 

So you say, that's all well and good for a long deal that isn't mostly guaranteed, but the first four years of a first round deal is all guaranteed anyway!  Or just pay it evenly each year.  Then if he gets suspended for a year he loses an even amount and nobody is out unfairly.  Everybody is happy.  Two problems, one with slotting payout rules that may not be possible I don't really know and two there is time value to money.  So people want as much up front as possible.  So everybody isn't happy.   (Even though players don't invest it all right away and instead buy depreciating items like jewelry and cars, so in reality that is a moot point, but it doesn't make point less true.)   Well pay him the usual  more upfront and just prorate the suspension then!  That is what they are (likely) arguing about.  Agents don't want an even proration of paid out money for a suspension.  They may even say you get none of it back.  Bears are balking.   

You might say players get hurt, like Kevin White, and you just have to eat that money.  You take the risk.  Do the same for conduct.  True, but they view it differently and they simply don't want to for health of the game.  They want a strong disincentive for bad behavior off field.  

There are also other conduct protections besides off field behavior.  If you got paid regardless, if you are that kind of person, why show up for bad weather practices or promotional events or late night/early meetings?  There is always extra protections in place and no is going to go to the mat over them because its a waste of time.  

Until or if we see actual contract language its all speculation and he said she said in the media.  

 I do get player anger over the injustice of some of suspensions without evidence, based on hearsay or an accusation and without valid appeal, in other words the kangaroo court of Goodell, but that is CBA stuff .   That is what Union should fight over.  Independent arbitrators to decide off field issues based on informal evidence and incidents based on clear rules of misconduct.  Not just Goodell decides based on media outcry and that is that.  

The helmet to helmet suspension is another matter.  That is an on field infraction.  Still every NFL article ever says suspensions are unpaid because they talk about player losing X amount of money for missing games.  I don't think a team can pay you during a suspension or can pay your fines for you.   I remember when this started years and years ago and Goodell was issuing fines for just hard hits and some owners were saying they would pay the fine and there were articles saying they couldn't.   

As far as there being a lockout (league) or a strike (players), players are always going to lose in NFL.  Majority of members have 3 year careers and can't sit out of game for 2 years for future players benefit.  They would be making ultimate sacrifice which is a lot to ask.   Most NFL players also have no spending discipline at all.   They buy houses, cars, designer jewelry, designer clothes, lavish vacations and crazy club service for themselves and family and friends on their rookie contracts and credit from banks or agents.  Many end up filing bankruptcy without a lockout or a strike or just go bankrupt.   Baseball and NBA are tougher because of longer careers and have more money.  More members 5 or 6 years in are willing to sit out for an extended period of time, can survive it, and owners as a group aren't as wealthy and willing to absorb losses in the fight collectively.   

People ***** about current contract, but salaries are bigger than they have ever been and have been rising at a huge percentage yearly.  Players still get lions share of NFL revenue whatever that may be.  Who knows what future holds between direct streaming and cable cutting.  I personally watch on GamePass.   It just gets split a lot more ways because football is a lot of people on one team.