a lot of people have trouble following it, which is why these discussions are always entirely pointless.
novascotia beat me to it, but I'll explain it again for all the good it will do.
when they sign these contracts you have it in your head that the player is guaranteed this future money, when this is not typically the case.
there are some situations where money is guaranteed, and that money is paid out --- I doubt there are many examples of owners guaranteeing money and not paying.
you have confused this with the more common contract which is not guaranteed.
what this means is that I, as an owner, sign you, as a player, to a 5m dollar deal (not guaranteed) for next year.
this is not a promise to pay you 5m dollars next year, but rather a contractual agreement in which I promise to pay you at that pay rate IF you are playing for me next year.
nowhere in that contract does it promise you a spot on the roster.
hopefully you can follow that logic, but if not don't worry --- as I said, this is entirely pointless.
ps
there are plenty of examples of guys who get fat bonuses and 'underperform' the guarantees and bonus money --- I doubt many of them pay that back, and I'm pretty sure they all collect it, although I'm not sure if al davis ever got anywhere suing jamarcus russell, or whatever that freak was doing.
That can easily be framed in the other direction, too. When a player signs a contract, he is not guaranteeing that he will report. The contract stipulates that,
if he reports, it will be for X compensation. If he does not, then he will be fined accordingly. Holdout provisions are written into the CBA and the players' contracts just like provisions for terminating contracts are, aka fines and, in extreme cases, losing a year toward free agency. They are both part of the negotiating process, and both are valid. The holdout isn't 'breaking' the contract any more than the team that cuts players is.
These conversations are pointless because there's a lot of people out there who, for some strange reason, insist on seeing only half of the picture. The same arguments that have been made in this thread for why it's okay for teams to cut players can, universally, be used to support the players' right to hold out. The key, as Patjew pointed out, is to do it unemotionally and without acrimony. It's a business decision; nothing more, nothing less.
could you cite us some examples of teams not honoring contracts?
Could you cite some examples of players not honoring contracts? Keeping in mind that holding out doesn't constitute "not honoring a contract" any more than cutting a player does?
also , isn't it in the terms of the contract that the team may release you at any time?
is it in the terms of the contract that you are allowed to hold out for a new contract before the current one is done?
Short answer: yes. As in there are predetermined penalties re: the players' compensation and progress towards free agency, and the player, by holding out, agrees to pay those penalties.
On a side note, have all of you guys seriously never paid an early termination/cancellation fee? I paid one just last month because I found a better deal that made the cancellation fee on my cable bill worth absorbing. I suppose that makes me a dishonorable person, though, since I signed the dotted line and didn't fulfill the full year that I "promised"
