Branch not a man of his word

[spacecrime]

Lets get a few things straight.

1) WMG ADMITED that the last year of his contract was a bogus year. So, how is cutting that bogus year NOT living up to his contract?

2) Ty Law ASKED to be released. The Patriots obliged him.

3) Dwayne Starks and Ty Poole didn't live up to their contracts.

Sorry, Spacecrime, but you are reaching.

Let's get the question straight first of all:

Actually, if anybody has an unfair upper hand, it's the PLAYERS !! They are the ones who are constantly putting pressure on the teams to let them out of their contracts - and many many succeed in doing so !! !! On the other hand, name me even JUST ONE player where the team didn't live up to the contract when it was all lopsided in the player's favor ?? You CAN'T name one.

Now you are saying that the team lived up to WMG's contract? When WMG admitted it was a bogus year, he was stating that he did not expect the patriots to honor that year. Ands they didn't. Slice it anyway you want, but the contract said this many years and this much money. The Patriots ended the contract without fulfilling all of it. It was their right, but you cannot say that teams always honor the contracts.

Again, I'm not saying that the Patriots should have honored the contract. I'm responding to comments that the teams always honor contracts even when they are in the players favor.

BTW, Starks and Poole did live up to their contracts. Their performance probably did not live up to your expectations, perhaps, but they lived up to the contract. The patriots did not.

Why is this so hard to accept?

 

[arrellbee]

Are you serious? They cut each player rather than live up to the last year of the contract.

WMG's contrtact called for him to receive about $8 million dollars this year. Instead the pats cut him.

For Ty Law, it was about $12 million last year.

This year they also cut Dwayne Starks and Tyrone Poole, preferring not to pay them the rest of their contracts.

I'm puzzled. What don't you get about how the Players Association negotiated the contract structure that is in use ?? ?? ?? The CONTRACT consists of a signing bonus which is paid immediately in total and can't be taken back unless the player violates terms in the contract such as getting injured in contract proscribed dangerous extracurricular activities, taking dope, or the like. The tradeoff to that guaranteed up front money is that the length of the contract is at the total discretion and control of the team. They can cut a player at any time - all perfectly according to the contract that the Players Association negotiated as the standard contract structure. For the years that the team keeps the player on the roster, the contract spells out that they must pay him the agreed upon salary for that year - they have no choice about that. For the Pats to decide to exercise their sole option to terminate the contract at any point is absolutely 100% their contractual right. The years of the contract are not even considered in the slightest by ANYBODY to be a 'commitment' on the part of the team or something they have to 'live up to'. The only commitment the team has made according to the contract is, if they chose to keep the player, they must pay the salary agree upon for that year in the contract. So from what viewpoint do you talk about 'not living up to the contract' ??

Maybe I am guessing wrong, but if you think there is some 'moral' commitment that the team is supposed to live up to, that has nothing to do with it. Maybe you would want the contracts to be structured differently, but that's not how the contract structure was negotiated in the collective bargaining agreement - and that structure totally defines what is fair and owed or not owed.

Furthermore, that's why you hear so much discussion, including many threads on this board, about how the total value of the contracts that the agents and players like to throw around for status and ego is fairly meaningless in many if not most cases. Typically, in order to get the 'status' of large total money, the agent negotiates a contract which includes large salaries in the last years of the contract which, as is completely understood by all parties, makes it almost a 100% certainty that the team will cut the player before having to pay out those exorbitant salaries. There is no misconception on the part of the agents - whether any players have been led to believe that they will not be cut before reaping those windfalls is anybody's guess I suppose.

Ty Law's contract, for sure, was a perfect example of one of those contracts with ridiculous backloaded salaries. Who would ever pay $10M salary (or whatever it was to be) to ANY cornerback ?? The surprise wan't that the Patriots cut him before that last year, but probably that they would pay him something like $7.5M the last year he did play. Willie McGinest was perhaps not so clear cut because of numerous restructures, but his backloaded salary for that last year also put him into that same category.

PS There are certainly other mechanics such as roster bonuses, incentive bonuses, option bonuses, etc. that are in the picture, but not necessary to include in this discussion.

 

[spacecrime]

We go through this every year. The players know that their contracts amount to a signing bonus and a series of one year contracts that each have a team option. That's all that needs to be said.

Yes, thank you. Teams can and do end contracts all the time when the contracts turn out to be in the players favor and not the teams.

The players, however, cannot do this.

Not saying it's right or wrong, but it is what it is

 

[Pats726]

Calm down.....it is simple negotiating.

Simply negotiating....OK..so does that mean that ANYTHING can and should be done..IN negotiations?? IS there a line that should NEVER be crossed?? If so where is that line..or does that depend?? Should be easy to explain if it's that simple..

 

[spacecrime]

I'm puzzled. What don't you get about how the Players Association negotiated the contract structure that is in use ?? ?? ??

I get it perfectly well. The teams do not have to live up to the contracts. And they often do not. This is what I said multiple times. Teams end contracts when they want, whcih is when they get lopsided in the players favor.

I thought everyone knew and understood this until I read your post:

Actually, if anybody has an unfair upper hand, it's the PLAYERS !! They are the ones who are constantly putting pressure on the teams to let them out of their contracts - and many many succeed in doing so !! !! On the other hand, name me even JUST ONE player where the team didn't live up to the contract when it was all lopsided in the player's favor ?? You CAN'T name one.

 

[arrellbee]

Simply negotiating....OK..so does that mean that ANYTHING can and should be done..IN negotiations?? IS there a line that should NEVER be crossed?? If so where is that line..or does that depend?? Should be easy to explain if it's that simple..

It is simple, isn't it ? I'm not trying to be funny or anything. It just seems that it is simplY:
The player wants to be paid a certain amount.
The team only wants to pay a certain amount.
(With whatever complicated mechanics 'paid' turns out to consist of)
If the player asks for more than the team has offered, the process possibly enters into a 'negotation' where, by WHATEVER discussions or actions or statements or media leaks get involved, the team tries to get the player to come down and the player tries to get the team to offer more.
The simple part finishes up with:
They reach and agreement and the player signs.
or
they can't reach an agreement and the player doesn't sign.

The WHATEVER can, of course, be very long and complex and perhaps even acrimonious. I don't think there are any ground rules whatsoever about how the parties should act during 'WHATEVER'. But they either reach an agreement or they get tired and quit.

Seems simple to me, but maybe I'm not looking at it like I should. Or I may have missed your point altogether.

 

[spacecrime]

I don't think there are any ground rules whatsoever about how the parties should act

A player's body slamming of the owner for the purpose of emphasizing a point is generally discouraged. Likewise, owners are discouraged from cutting off the head of the player's horse (or family pet) and leaving it in the bed.

 

[arrellbee]

I get it perfectly well. The teams do not have to live up to the contracts. And they often do not. This is what I said multiple times. Teams end contracts when they want, whcih is when they get lopsided in the players favor.

I thought everyone knew and understood this until I read your post:

Well, you simply don't get it at all. The contract does NOT require that they 'live up to' or 'honor' ANY years. You are really confusing what is the team's sole option with somehow or another thinking that this is a contractual obligation. "Live up to" means they have to meet the exact written terms of the contract. The exact written terms of the contract says they have complete choice as to whether they keep the player or let him go at ANY time. Totally their choice. The player has no legal right to be retained by the team and paid for any of the years of the contract. You are really confused about 'live up to'. As I explained in probably much too much detail, it has nothing to do with 'the player's favor'. It is a simple business decision on the part of the team. If they want to keep the player, they pay him the agreed amount for the year. If they don't want to pay that amount, they cut him and they don't have him to help the team. The player's right is to be paid the amount agreed upon when the contract was signed IF they keep him.

I'll say again. That may not be how you think the contracts should be structured, but that means nothing. What matters is how the Players Association agreed that the contracts should be structured. What they agreed to totally defines fair and equitable. You can't superimpose your judgment on what they agreed was a fair contract structure. Like I said in the previous post, if you are upset with how the contracts work, you don't get to think the teams are 'unfair' - you have to be upset with the Players Association for making the judgment that this contract structure is good for the players and reaching agreement with the teams to write contracts that way.

 

[arrellbee]

A player's body slamming of the owner for the purpose of emphasizing a point is generally discouraged. Likewise, owners are discouraged from cutting off the head of the player's horse (or family pet) and leaving it in the bed.

We are in complete agreement on that !!

 

[arrellbee]

the contract said this many years and this much money.

Actually, looking back at what you posted while I was typing a reply, this statement of yours is the crux of the matter.

The contract does NOT NOT NOT say "this many years and this much money". What is says is, as BelichickFan stated so well,
"a series of one year contracts that each have a team option".

ALL YEARS of a contract are OPTION years for the team. There is NOTHING in the contract that even comes close to implying that the player should even EXPECT any of the years at all !! Or to put it another way, what the contract says is IF the team choses to keep the player, this is what he will be paid for the year. Totally IF with absolutely no element of SHALL.

 

[mavfan2390]

On the other hand, name me even JUST ONE player where the team didn't live up to the contract when it was all lopsided in the player's favor

You stated that Poole and Starks didn't live up to their contract, but that was your point. Those are two very good examples, and theres thousands more.

 

[DaBruinz]

Let's get the question straight first of all:

Actually, if anybody has an unfair upper hand, it's the PLAYERS !! They are the ones who are constantly putting pressure on the teams to let them out of their contracts - and many many succeed in doing so !! !! On the other hand, name me even JUST ONE player where the team didn't live up to the contract when it was all lopsided in the player's favor ?? You CAN'T name one.

Now you are saying that the team lived up to WMG's contract? When WMG admitted it was a bogus year, he was stating that he did not expect the patriots to honor that year.

No. What he was saying is that He and the Patriots had agreed that the final year was fake and didn't really exist and that he knew it had just been there for accounting purposes.

Ands they didn't. Slice it anyway you want, but the contract said this many years and this much money. The Patriots ended the contract without fulfilling all of it. It was their right, but you cannot say that teams always honor the contracts.

I will slice it the only way there is to slice it. It was a year that BOTH parties agreed would never be followed up on by EITHER side.

I never said that teams ALWAYS honor the contracts, though I believe that the guaranteed signing bonus that the players get is in lieu of guaranteed contracts.

Also, I believe that the Patriots are one of the fairer teams when it comes to contracts. Other than Brown and Willie Mac, the Patriots haven't cut a player who hasn't asked to be cut (Ty Law) or has been performing up to their standards. Even Lawyer Milloy wasn't performing up to the Patriots standards when he was cut in the last year of his contract.

Again, I'm not saying that the Patriots should have honored the contract. I'm responding to comments that the teams always honor contracts even when they are in the players favor.

BTW, Starks and Poole did live up to their contracts. Their performance probably did not live up to your expectations, perhaps, but they lived up to the contract. The patriots did not.

Why is this so hard to accept?

No, sorry, Starks and Poole did NOT live up to their contracts. How could they have? They didn't play. Their contracts were paying them for being able to PLAY for a full year. Neither of them did that. Not Poole for the last 2 years and not Starks for the year he was here. That is not living up to your contract.

Why is that so hard to accept?

 

[spacecrime]

Well, you simply don't get it at all. The contract does NOT require that they 'live up to' or 'honor' ANY years. You are really confusing what is the team's sole option with somehow or another thinking that this is a contractual obligation. "Live up to" means they have to meet the exact written terms of the contract. The exact written terms of the contract says they have complete choice as to whether they keep the player or let him go at ANY time. Totally their choice. The player has no legal right to be retained by the team and paid for any of the years of the contract. You are really confused about 'live up to'. As I explained in probably much too much detail, it has nothing to do with 'the player's favor'. It is a simple business decision on the part of the team. If they want to keep the player, they pay him the agreed amount for the year. If they don't want to pay that amount, they cut him and they don't have him to help the team. The player's right is to be paid the amount agreed upon when the contract was signed IF they keep him.

I said this about eight times already, but with fewer words. A team can cut a player any time they want. It is their right. This is what I have been saying over and over again.

I'll say again. That may not be how you think the contracts should be structured, but that means nothing.

I give up. Did aqua4ever4 steal your login password?

I never said that contracts should be this way or that way or any way.

Only that teams sometimes release players in (for example) year 4 of a 5 year contract.

I have no opinion on whether or not this is right.

I don't know why I'm even responding as I'm sure you will tell me again that teams can cut players even if I think contracts are made the way I thnk they should be.

 

[spacecrime]

No, sorry, Starks and Poole did NOT live up to their contracts. How could they have? They didn't play. Their contracts were paying them for being able to PLAY for a full year. Neither of them did that. Not Poole for the last 2 years and not Starks for the year he was here. That is not living up to your contract.

Why is that so hard to accept?

I was confused. I didn't realize the contracts stated that they had to be on the field. I guess I just didn't think of Harrison and Seymour and Law and Colvin as not living up to their contracts.

 

[spacecrime]

I re-read the posts and I see the problem:

Let me make one thing as crystal clear as I can.

Actually, if anybody has an unfair upper hand, it's the PLAYERS !! They are the ones who are constantly putting pressure on the teams to let them out of their contracts - and many many succeed in doing so !! !! On the other hand, name me even JUST ONE player where the team didn't live up to the contract when it was all lopsided in the player's favor ??

As I explained in probably much too much detail, it has nothing to do with 'the player's favor'. .

Well, you simply don't get it at all.

I do now, and I've lost interest. Good night.

 

[DaBruinz]

I was confused. I didn't realize the contracts stated that they had to be on the field. I guess I just didn't think of Harrison and Seymour and Law and Colvin as not living up to their contracts.

I'm sorry. I was confused. I didn't realize that teams just gave out contracts to players so they could sit in the stands and do absolutely nothing to help the team. Usually, that is how it works. You get a contract to play and perform to a level that is expected of you.

BTW, Why do you mention Harrison, Seymour, Law and Colvin? Because they got injured but still performed at other times during their contracts?

What you obviously aren't grasping, Spacecrime, is that teams are allowed to judge players based on their performance and cut them if they feel their performance isn't up to par. Just like any other business. And that includes contractors. If your work isn't up to par, you can expect to be replaced. That's life.