atlpatsfan said:
I have been reading all the posts about Branch and hear a lot of people talking about how he should do the right thing and live up to his contract. How "in the real world" people sign contracts and then honor them.
Well, news flash people THIS ISN'T THE REAL WORLD. This is the NFL.
I was raised on a small New Hampshire town by working class parents and they taught me that a man lives by his word. They also taught me that if the people you sign a contract with don't have to honor it then neither do you. Let be fair to the players, they are million dollar crybabies but they do have a point. Any player can be cut from any team at any time for any reason, whether they are under contract or not. Teams cut players who are honoring thier contracts all the time, just to save money. Is that fair to someone under contract?
If the teams don't have to honor a contract why do the players?
Just my two cents.
There have been several replies trying to explain why a team cutting a player is:
IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM not living up to or 'honoring' the contract.
Not even IN THE SLIGHTEST any 'moral' obligation.
As explained, this type of contract is structured where the player gets guaranteed money. Believe you me, there has NEVER been a case where the player hasn't gotten that money as owed him by the contract terms. THIS is the obligation of the team and is exactly and ONLY what it is they have to HONOR.
On the other hand, the landscape is littered with players who have taken the up front money and then violated the contract (eg Kellon Winslow and Ricky Williams) and haven't been made to repay the up front money that is their 100% contractual obligation to return in order to HONOR the contract. The landscape is littered with players who refused to honor their contracts and forced the teams to trade them or tender more favorable contracts.
Perhaps it would make it more understandable - - are you aware what an OPTION contract is ? To briefly recap, in an option contract up front money is paid and is NOT refundable for the right to later purchase a commodity for stipulated terms. The person entering into the contract completely fulfills their obligation to HONOR the contract by making the payment. They have NO obligation to HONOR anything else such as ultimately purchasing the commodity. On the other hand, the person giving the option contract, DOES have an absolutely iron clad legal obligation to HONOR the contract if the person with the option wants to buy the commodity. If they refuse, they are breaking the legal terms of the contract and, in the terms we like to throw about, are not HONORING the contract.
NFL player contracts are an exact analogy. The signing bonus money is the only thing that the teams have any legal or responsible obligation to HONOR. PERIOD. In return for that payment, the player agrees to one or more years of options which the team can exercise - at its SOLE discretion. The player has no right to have any expectation whatsoever at that point as to whether the team exercises the option or not. The player has sold any right of expectation for the up front money which was the team's only obligation. So ANY cut of a player has NOTHING to do with HONORING the contract. It's simply exercising a right that the team ALREADY PAID FOR.
Somehow or another, the aspect of - "well he isn't getting paid what he is worth" always creeps in. This is meaningless nonsense in the terms of an option contract. The contract was agreed upon by both parties and both took a gamble. The team gambles that the the player will be worth the money agreed to for each option year. If the player isn't worth it, the team loses their up front money which they do not get value for. The player trades off getting an amount of up front money that will make it worth his while to perform for the option money that he has agreed to for each year of the contract. Part of his tradeoff is that he gets the up front money whether he is worth anything or not - and the flipside is that if he turns out to be a superstar, he still has to honor his contract for the money agreed for each year.
There is another aspect which I absolutely cannot fathom. And that is another thing that creeps in - "the player was coerced into accepting an option contract that was not to his advantage". Actually, this may be the case in the NFL. But it is not the TEAMS who are responsible for this inequity (IF IF IF there is any), it is the PLAYERS' UNION !! !! !! In the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), the players' union negotiated and agreed to the WHOLE contract structure - the number of years AND the amount of money that can be paid to the rookies. The PLAYERS' UNION set these ground rules. If one were cynical, one would say that the reason they are quite comfortable with the rookie contract structure is that it leaves more money for the veterans !! !! !! If there is ANY gripe, it should be directed SOLELY toward the players' union.
Hopefully this helps put this whole thing into perspective.
