Wilfork speaks

[patchick]

One other thing, the day two draftee has a contract that ends after 3 years and he cashes in bigtime.

You've made a lot of good points, though I don't think you can compare contracts before and after the new contract-length limits went into effect. (E.g., didn't Samuel sign a 4-year day two contract?)

I'm not really trying to slam Vince; the fact that he signed for 6 years is certainly an ameliorating factor. But on the flip side, he has to recognize the realities that his is under contract, that the Pats have the franchise tag (and maybe 2 of them) available, and that extending prior to a potential uncapped year is a whole different kettle of fish from past extentions. Which brings us to another comment you made...

But, that doesn't mean I would sign him this year. I would simply have a talk with him and tell him that the CBA issue is huge for future planning, and that if the CBA were not expiring, then they would certainly sign Vince this year. The fact is, the Patriots could be in the position of signing Vince at a much higher rate than other teams that will try to lure him.

They may well have told him this already, a hundred different ways. I can't imagine that Vince and his agent don't know the CBA situation. It doesn't change what they want, or why they want it...in fact, if your last sentence is true it should only make them dig in their heels with greater urgency.

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree with you on Brady not holding the team up for more money but you can't compare what he did back then to Vince's situation. First off, Brady had a three year deal. He needed his third year to make him a bonafide star even after leading the Patriots in his second year to a SB victory. That means Brady knew he was going to cash in right away, and that making a peep after replacing Bledsoe with the Patriots holding the reins back on their offense would have been counterproductive. Players with 3 year rookie contracts are going to cash in, especially if they become stars, whereas the Pro Bowlers with 6 year contracts are going to complain, inevitably.

Could you please show me a picture of the gun they held to Wilfork's head in order to get him to sign that contract?

If not, maybe Vince could talk to players like Robert Gallery and Reggie Williams and have them give back millions that they weren't worth so that Mr. Wilfork could get a cut of that. You know, to feed his family, because he's clearly starving on the paltry millions he's been forced to live on since agreeing to that contract.

I don't begrudge these people their money. I think they should try to get every dollar they can, if that's how they define happiness and self-worth. However, once they've signed the deal, I don't want to hear any complaints and I don't want to watch any of the nonsensical press moments or hear about missed mandatory practices or any other kind of holdout. They need to keep their mouths shut about the contract and do their job. If they think the team is hosing them, the easy solution is to simply not re-sign with them when free agency comes up.

 

[Mark Morse]

Vince is the first victim of the CBA. Its his misfortune to have the 6th year when others don't, and its his misfortune of being up against the Uncapped year. He will get franchised (at $6M a year thats a bargain) in an uncapped year and the Patriots know it. He doesn't like it but thats what it is ... he can thank his Union for this.

Note to Players Union ... get this thing done and avoid the uncapped year. You don't like the 18 game schedule, then propose some givebacks that will satisfy the owners and then get some of these situations like Vince Wilfork resolved. I don't like payiing full price for pre-season games when I am not getting full price players. I see players that may never where the uniform during regular season but I have to pay regular season prices.

 

[patchick]

Could you please show me a picture of the gun they held to Wilfork's head in order to get him to sign that contract?

Sure! Just look for a photo of the other 2004 Pats first-round pick fighting tooth and nail against the sixth year, holding out well into training camp, being completely stonewalled by the Pats, and finally admitting defeat and having to fire his agent to get a deal done.

To be fair to Vince, he really had no choice about the 6th year.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sure! Just look for a photo of the other 2004 Pats first-round pick fighting tooth and nail against the sixth year, holding out well into training camp, being completely stonewalled by the Pats, and finally admitting defeat and having to fire his agent to get a deal done.

To be fair to Vince, he really had no choice about the 6th year.

Sure he did. Not all players gave in to that 6th year..

 

[Miguel]

Sure he did. Not all players gave in to that 6th year..

to teams that did not have a policy of signing their 1st round draft picks to 6-year deals. What choice did Wilfork have in the length of the contract once he was drafted by the Patriots???

 

[patchick]

Sure he did. Not all players gave in to that 6th year..

...because not all teams played hardball like the Pats. Which is why I referenced Watson's failed fight.

 

[Deus Irae]

to teams that did not have a policy of signing their 1st round draft picks to 6-year deals. What choice did Wilfork have in the length of the contract once he was drafted by the Patriots???

He could have refused to sign a 6 year contract.

 

[Miguel]

He could have refused to sign a 6 year contract.

And since the Patriots were not going to cave on their position that would have meant sitting out his rookie year. When was the last time a rookie held out the entire year when he did not have a 2nd sport to fall back on???

 

[Miguel]

His rookie deal had upwards of $9M in escalators in the final two seasons. If he needed to make more maybe he should have made it his mission to have earned more of them.

And he could have done this how???

 

[Deus Irae]

And since the Patriots were not going to cave on their position that would have meant sitting out his rookie year. When was the last time a rookie held out the entire year when he did not have a 2nd sport to fall back on???

You claiming that the Patriots wouldn't have caved is not the same as the team being put into that situation and not caving. But, that's besides the point.

As you point out, he could have sat out his rookie year. That would have put him back into the draft, and he could have worked out a deal with the team who drafted him at that time.

None of this involves forcing Wilfork to do something by threat of physical or emotional harm. Instead, it's using the CBA and contract law to, essentially, play a game of chicken. Both Watson and Wilfork blinked first, that's all.

 

[upstater1]

You've made a lot of good points, though I don't think you can compare contracts before and after the new contract-length limits went into effect. (E.g., didn't Samuel sign a 4-year day two contract?)

I'm not really trying to slam Vince; the fact that he signed for 6 years is certainly an ameliorating factor. But on the flip side, he has to recognize the realities that his is under contract, that the Pats have the franchise tag (and maybe 2 of them) available, and that extending prior to a potential uncapped year is a whole different kettle of fish from past extentions. Which brings us to another comment you made...



They may well have told him this already, a hundred different ways. I can't imagine that Vince and his agent don't know the CBA situation. It doesn't change what they want, or why they want it...in fact, if your last sentence is true it should only make them dig in their heels with greater urgency.

We largely agree.

It's a tough situation.

I see both points of view.

I would not be taking sides in this one, even as a fan of the Patriots.

 

[upstater1]

Could you please show me a picture of the gun they held to Wilfork's head in order to get him to sign that contract?

If not, maybe Vince could talk to players like Robert Gallery and Reggie Williams and have them give back millions that they weren't worth so that Mr. Wilfork could get a cut of that. You know, to feed his family, because he's clearly starving on the paltry millions he's been forced to live on since agreeing to that contract.

I don't begrudge these people their money. I think they should try to get every dollar they can, if that's how they define happiness and self-worth. However, once they've signed the deal, I don't want to hear any complaints and I don't want to watch any of the nonsensical press moments or hear about missed mandatory practices or any other kind of holdout. They need to keep their mouths shut about the contract and do their job. If they think the team is hosing them, the easy solution is to simply not re-sign with them when free agency comes up.

But Wilfork isn't Reggie Williams. Isn't that the point?

And Gallery didn't sign a 6 year deal. Which Wilfork had to sign, really, or else sit out the year.

 

[upstater1]

You claiming that the Patriots wouldn't have caved is not the same as the team being put into that situation and not caving. But, that's besides the point.

As you point out, he could have sat out his rookie year. That would have put him back into the draft, and he could have worked out a deal with the team who drafted him at that time.

None of this involves forcing Wilfork to do something by threat of physical or emotional harm. Instead, it's using the CBA and contract law to, essentially, play a game of chicken. Both Watson and Wilfork blinked first, that's all.

That's nuts. You're advocating that he should have sat out a season.

What's the difference between sitting out in 2004 and sitting out in 2009?

Why would it have been an option in 2004? But not one in 2009?

 

[BradyFTW!]

That's nuts. You're advocating that he should have sat out a season.

What's the difference between sitting out in 2004 and sitting out in 2009?

Why would it have been an option in 2004? But not one in 2009?

Because in the scenario that Deus pointed out, he wouldn't have signed a contract, so sitting out that season wouldn't have been violating the contract that he never signed. Since he did sign that contract, and is under contract for 2009, he ought to just shut up and honor it.

 

[Horace's Ivories]

you have a problem as soon as a player starts refering to himself in the third person

 

[upstater1]

Because in the scenario that Deus pointed out, he wouldn't have signed a contract, so sitting out that season wouldn't have been violating the contract that he never signed. Since he did sign that contract, and is under contract for 2009, he ought to just shut up and honor it.

There's a CBA involved. All contracts under that CBA fall under a whole other category than any legal contract between two individual people. This isn't like the kind of contract you sign with an employer. This is a contract mediated by a union. In fact, Wilfork could even argue that the latter CBA ending onerous 6 year contracts means that his rights have been impinged upon.

Let me give you an example. I once had a contract I signed with an employer who paid me a certain amount for three years. This was done under the CBA done between my employer and the union I joined after being hired. At a certain point, I asked to end the contract and my employer agreed, so that I could take a position with less pay. The union wouldn't let me do it. Why? They did not want to set a precedent of employees moving to new positions for less money unless they were moving into administration (i.e. no longer covered b y the union). The point is, the CBA makes these contracts a little less than the type of contracts that are negotiated all the time when a CBA isn't involved. You're supposed to honor those kinds of contracts. In a CBA, you're supposed to honor the CBA. By sitting out, Wilfork is still within his rights in the CBA.

Let me give you another example: when Cassel's contract ran out this year, he was franchised by the Patriots. Can you imagine in the business world if your employer could force you to only work for them for a year if you wanted to continue in that line of work or industry? Such things don't exist.

Wilfork isn't doing anything that's not already envisioned by the CBA. If he leaves work for a year, then his team still keeps his rights, he doesn't get paid. I could do the same thing if I wanted (for a limited time of 6 months) and my employer couldn't do a thing about it either. I could take a leave of absence. Am I breaking my contract by refusing to work for 6 months?

No, that option is available to me in the CBA where I work. I won't get paid, but that's my decision. If Vince doesn't want to get paid, that's his decision, and it's legal under the terms of the CBA. The Patriots can't do a thing about it. It's no difference than any union worker who goes on leave at any job in America.

 

[Deus Irae]

But Wilfork isn't Reggie Williams. Isn't that the point?

And Gallery didn't sign a 6 year deal. Which Wilfork had to sign, really, or else sit out the year.

No, that's not the point. The point is that these players want to adjust their contracts upward when they 'outplay' them, but they don't want to take cuts when they don't. Gallery hasn't lived up to his status, and neither has Williams. Let them give some of that money that they didn't live up to to the players who earned it.

Or, and here's a radical idea, the players could make sure that the NFLPA holds out for changes in the CBA when the two sides meet to hammer out a new deal, instead of violating the contracts they've already agreed to.

 

[Deus Irae]

There's a CBA involved. All contracts under that CBA fall under a whole other category than any legal contract between two individual people. This isn't like the kind of contract you sign with an employer. This is a contract mediated by a union. In fact, Wilfork could even argue that the latter CBA ending onerous 6 year contracts means that his rights have been impinged upon.

Let me give you an example. I once had a contract I signed with an employer who paid me a certain amount for three years. This was done under the CBA done between my employer and the union I joined after being hired. At a certain point, I asked to end the contract and my employer agreed, so that I could take a position with less pay. The union wouldn't let me do it. Why? They did not want to set a precedent of employees moving to new positions for less money unless they were moving into administration (i.e. no longer covered b y the union). The point is, the CBA makes these contracts a little less than the type of contracts that are negotiated all the time when a CBA isn't involved. You're supposed to honor those kinds of contracts. In a CBA, you're supposed to honor the CBA. By sitting out, Wilfork is still within his rights in the CBA.

Let me give you another example: when Cassel's contract ran out this year, he was franchised by the Patriots. Can you imagine in the business world if your employer could force you to only work for them for a year if you wanted to continue in that line of work or industry? Such things don't exist.

Wilfork isn't doing anything that's not already envisioned by the CBA. If he leaves work for a year, then his team still keeps his rights, he doesn't get paid. I could do the same thing if I wanted (for a limited time of 6 months) and my employer couldn't do a thing about it either. I could take a leave of absence. Am I breaking my contract by refusing to work for 6 months?

No, that option is available to me in the CBA where I work. I won't get paid, but that's my decision. If Vince doesn't want to get paid, that's his decision, and it's legal under the terms of the CBA. The Patriots can't do a thing about it. It's no difference than any union worker who goes on leave at any job in America.

But your argument keeps coming down to one thing: Screw the CBA that we agreed to play by. And you're deliberately taking set fines as if they excuse behaviors, when they do just the opposite. OF COURSE you're violating your contract if you refuse to work for 6 months. That's why there are penalties built in when you do it.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

As a fan I have one concern - the Pats winning the Super Bowl without the players using illegal drugs, or the players being a bunch of thugs (criminals), or the coach or his staff pulling any crap which distracts from the pure joy of watching the Pats win football games.

I like the way Fat Vince plays the nose: he's tough, talented, and committed. But if he interferes with fan objective number 1 - winning the SB - then he can cry a river some where else. He's made millions, many millions more await him for playing a game whether he gets a new deal right now or not. If he thinks he's going to get me or 99% of the logical fans out there to feel sorry for his situation in this day and economic age then he's moving to exactly the fantasy land where far too many of these dudes spend their careers, and not many residing there turn out as winners...

You're right Vince, it is a business and it is tough, so do the tough and businesslike thing by shutting up and going to work. Geez...