OT: Would you ever hold out?

[BradyFTW!]

I'll be more than happy to just as soon as you cite an example of me making that claim.

let me get a snickers.

like I have said -- pointless.

(although, in this particular case I'm sure there are a few examples of players violating contracts, but that's beside the point)

That's the point. Players honor their contracts to exactly the same extent that teams do. Sometimes teams cut players, and sometimes players hold out; both are valid tactics, the ramifications of which are spelled out ahead of time in the contracts and the CBA.

Look at Logan Mankins. He chose not to report last year, and as a result he ended up with a lower tender, he was fined for all of the time that he missed, and he eventually reported when he did because he was required to do so in order to accrue a year towards free agency. He was honoring his contract to exactly the same extent that the Patriots honored Ty Warren and TBC's last month.

 

[BradyFTW!]

ok, once again people are determined to prove some kind of equivalency between 2 completely different things for no reason other than to win an internet argument, or whatever this is.

you say that both these things are identical, but while the player doles out performance each year to the owner on a 'pay as you go' basis, the owners often frontload contracts with a bunch of fat cash.

And the teams recognize, even as they are paying those signing bonuses, that holdouts are a distinct possibility. A team that is adamant about avoiding that can always choose to exclusively offer one-year and/or no-guaranteed-money contracts. Of course, they would never attract premium talent, since other teams would be wlling to guarantee money, but that's the name of the game. It's not the players' fault that some owners spend stupidly.

Giving a player a huge signing bonus then complaining when he holds out makes exactly as much sense as players signing backloaded deals and then complaining when they get cut the day before they're due a huge roster bonus. In both cases, it's their fault for not seeing it coming, since the other side is acting according to provisions that were accounted for and agreed upon as part of the contract itself.

 

[jcdavey]

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 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?



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"

well then, if holding out is covered in the contract, then it's totally legit...cool

i wouldn't do it, but if it's in their contracts, good for them, that makes it alot more legit, IMO

 

[patsfan-1982]

i said no but i can under stand why players hold out just look at DeSean Jackson he's been one of the best WR's in the NFL over the last 3 years and he's set to make $500,000 and Plaxico Burress who has been in jail for the last 2 years and only had 400 yerds he's last year in the NFL is makeing 3 million this year

 

[patchick]

Holding out is no more or less allowed than cutting players is. There are provisions in the CBA and in the contracts themselves for what happens in the event of a holdout, just as there is in the event that a player is cut. The penalties for holding out are pre-established for exactly this reason.

People make this argument every year, and I'm amazed by it every year. Let me re-write your exact words in a different legal/contract situation:

"Robbery is no more or less allowed than shopping is. There are provisions in the law for what happens in the event of a robbery, just as there are in the event that you make a purchase. The penalties for robbery are pre-established for exactly this reason."

Penalties are established for holdouts because holdouts aren't allowed.

 

[eom]

People make this argument every year, and I'm amazed by it every year. Let me re-write your exact words in a different legal/contract situation:

"Robbery is no more or less allowed than shopping is. There are provisions in the law for what happens in the event of a robbery, just as there are in the event that you make a purchase. The penalties for robbery are pre-established for exactly this reason."

Penalties are established for holdouts because holdouts aren't allowed.

looool /thread

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Sure I would. If I thought that my market value had increased significantly beyond what it was anticipated to be when I signed and that the team should recognize that, then I would hold out. I'd do it only as a last resort and with regret, but I'd feel that I have to look out for my own best interests in a profession where the average career is 3.7 years. I'd approach the team quietly first and wouldn't negotiate through the press, but I'd be ready to hold out.

"You should have thought of that when you signed your contract."

Well, in an ideal world, that's right but most of us live in messy worlds where "stuff happens" and situations change. As an NFL player, I'd be in a profession where most players expect a handful or so of prime years. I'd have every right to try to maximize the economic benefit of those years. If some media or fans who don't know me thought I owed it to them to play at a lower salary than I'm worth because they don't have the same option in their own lives, well, that's too bad, but I'm living my life not their's.

 

[eom]

Sure I would. If I thought that my market value had increased significantly beyond what it was anticipated to be when I signed and that the team should recognize that, then I would hold out. I'd do it only as a last resort and with regret, but I'd feel that I have to look out for my own best interests in a profession where the average career is 3.7 years. I'd approach the team quietly first and wouldn't negotiate through the press, but I'd be ready to hold out.

"You should have thought of that when you signed your contract."

Well, in an ideal world, that's right but most of us live in messy worlds where "stuff happens" and situations change. As an NFL player, I'd be in a profession where most players expect a handful or so of prime years. I'd have every right to try to maximize the economic benefit of those years. If some media or fans who don't know me thought I owed it to them to play at a lower salary than I'm worth because they don't have the same option in their own lives, well, that's too bad, but I'm living my life not their's.

Sounds to me like what you should have your agent negotiate is nothing but one year deals so every year you can get that raise as your value goes up.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

People make this argument every year, and I'm amazed by it every year. Let me re-write your exact words in a different legal/contract situation:

"Robbery is no more or less allowed than shopping is. There are provisions in the law for what happens in the event of a robbery, just as there are in the event that you make a purchase. The penalties for robbery are pre-established for exactly this reason."

Penalties are established for holdouts because holdouts aren't allowed.

That really misconstrues the original statement. Both cutting and holding out are provided for because both are anticipated as being, from time to time, in the best economic interest of, on the one hand, the team, and on the other hand, a player. It's not "robbery." It's exercising a right and accepting the potential benefits thereof as well as its potential penalties.

In a game in which much if not most contract money is not guaranteed, the right of an outstanding player to hold out when his market value exceeds his contract value is an important part of the balance that is needed for the NFL to be as successful as it is.

In the final analysis, the team holds all of the economic power over a signed player; this is one of the few and legitimate ways in which a player can push a situation that he feels needs to be recognized and resolved.

 

[patchick]

That really misconstrues the original statement. Both cutting and holding out are provided for because both are anticipated as being, from time to time, in the best economic interest of, on the one hand, the team, and on the other hand, a player. It's not "robbery." It's exercising a right and accepting the potential benefits thereof as well as its potential penalties.

In a game in which much if not most contract money is not guaranteed, the right of an outstanding player to hold out when his market value exceeds his contract value is an important part of the balance that is needed for the NFL to be as successful as it is.

In the final analysis, the team holds all of the economic power over a signed player; this is one of the few and legitimate ways in which a player can push a situation that he feels needs to be recognized and resolved.

I'm not attacking holdouts, just attacking the idea that the existence of penalties for something means it's "allowed!" The penalties exist to punish what's NOT allowed under the agreement.

 

[eom]

That really misconstrues the original statement. Both cutting and holding out are provided for because both are anticipated as being, from time to time, in the best economic interest of, on the one hand, the team, and on the other hand, a player. It's not "robbery." It's exercising a right and accepting the potential benefits thereof as well as its potential penalties.

In a game in which much if not most contract money is not guaranteed, the right of an outstanding player to hold out when his market value exceeds his contract value is an important part of the balance that is needed for the NFL to be as successful as it is.

In the final analysis, the team holds all of the economic power over a signed player; this is one of the few and legitimate ways in which a player can push a situation that he feels needs to be recognized and resolved.

Yeah, if the 2 #ituations are so equal why aren't there fines spelled out in the cba for owners when players are cut?

Patchick has been dead on right in this thread.
When you give a player the option on a 5 yr deal of getting paid 5m in salary each year or 20m up front as a bonus and 1m salary each year and he chooses the latter so he can pocket the bonus and hold out in year 2 ---- that's robbery.

Although, I'm not stupid enough to expect any 'pro hold out' or 'anti owner' crowd to acknowledge anything contrary to what they already have convinced themselves of.

 

[Synovia]

That really misconstrues the original statement. Both cutting and holding out are provided for because both are anticipated as being, from time to time, in the best economic interest of, on the one hand, the team, and on the other hand, a player. It's not "robbery." It's exercising a right and accepting the potential benefits thereof as well as its potential penalties.

Right, but there's no penalty clause for cutting a player. Its not a violation of the contract. There is a penalty clause for holding out.


I still don't think there's anything wrong with it, but it IS violating the contract.

 

[fnordcircle]

could you cite us some examples of teams not honoring contracts?

Every player ever cut before the end of his contract.

This argument always comes down to selfishness on the part of fans. We have a reason to root for the team over the player - the team getting a player at a bargain or cutting a player who is underperforming benefits us - the fans. So that, invariably, seems to color how some people view a player.

Meanwhile it is players who are sacrificing their bodies, dying at an early age (averaged out) and doing it all in a league where their career and dreams can come crashing down in a moment's notice and they'll be cast aside like that.

Teams do everything they can to improve their financial situation, players should to.

Thank God none of you are policy makers with regard to labor law.

 

[Wolfpack]

No it doesn't. A player can't have his contract changed. He can be cut because his contract is not guaranteed. He can be asked to take a pay cut to avoid getting cut. But that is up to the player.

Um, you disagreed with me but then totally reinforced the point I was making.

A contract in the NFL is a one-way obligation. Sometimes a player's only leverage is to hold out. I think hypothetical questions like these are silly because while it's easy to get on a high horse and say "I would never hold out!" none of us really have any clue what we would actually do.

I gotta say if I was some 5th round draft pick making $350,000 a year for the next 3 years and then went out and rushed for 1,900 yards, I'd strongly consider it.

 

[Wolfpack]

To me, $600,000 is more than enough to play a game that I'd play for fun anyway. Anyone who thinks they "deserve" seven figures for playing a sport is a spoiled brat.

Of course, I wouldn't be counting on football to pay for my retirement. That's why you develop other skills and interests.

That's very easy to say when you aren't actually in the situation, but I highly doubt you'd be so content if you were generating $300 million in revenue for your employer while that same employer paid his entire workforce roughly $25 million (with no other major expenses for that employer).

 

[The Scrizz]

btw, scrizz - nobody cares about your bitterness towards people who make more money than you.

if millions of people around the globe stayed home on sundays to watch you on tv doing your job you might get some equivalent salary.
you'd get destroyed in the nfl, so maybe keep whatever job you've got and quit crying about it.

Who said I'm bitter arsehole? I probably make a hell of a lot more than most. I simply said I have no sympathy for someone just because he makes 'the NFL minimumum' which is still about 6 times what the median household makes per year. I'm happy for anybody to make as much as they can. And guess what? I don't even think that they should be taxed at a higher rate than I am!

If you're so much of a fan-boy that you'll support a player whatever he does because he can catch a ball, that's you're prerogative. You sound pretty stupid though when you call me out when you completely miss my point.

 

[The Scrizz]

Every player ever cut before the end of his contract.

This argument always comes down to selfishness on the part of fans. We have a reason to root for the team over the player - the team getting a player at a bargain or cutting a player who is underperforming benefits us - the fans. So that, invariably, seems to color how some people view a player.

Meanwhile it is players who are sacrificing their bodies, dying at an early age (averaged out) and doing it all in a league where their career and dreams can come crashing down in a moment's notice and they'll be cast aside like that.

Teams do everything they can to improve their financial situation, players should to.

Thank God none of you are policy makers with regard to labor law.

Being able to cut the player is PART OF THE CONTRACT.

See their is this BIG contract called the Collective Bargaining Agreement which lays out what can be in the individual contracts of the players.

The current policy makers on labor law are a joke, the posters on here couldn't do much worse.

 

[The Scrizz]

Um, you disagreed with me but then totally reinforced the point I was making.

A contract in the NFL is a one-way obligation. Sometimes a player's only leverage is to hold out. I think hypothetical questions like these are silly because while it's easy to get on a high horse and say "I would never hold out!" none of us really have any clue what we would actually do.

I gotta say if I was some 5th round draft pick making $350,000 a year for the next 3 years and then went out and rushed for 1,900 yards, I'd strongly consider it.

No, a contract is not a one-way obligation. Both sides have to fulfill the terms of that contract. In the NFL, players can try for as much guaranteed money as possible, but if they had held out for completely guaranteed contracts there wouldn't be training camps open right now.

BTW, 90% of the jobs in the world are one-way obligations.

 

[TruthSeeker]

That's the point. Players honor their contracts to exactly the same extent that teams do. Sometimes teams cut players, and sometimes players hold out; both are valid tactics, the ramifications of which are spelled out ahead of time in the contracts and the CBA.

Look at Logan Mankins. He chose not to report last year, and as a result he ended up with a lower tender, he was fined for all of the time that he missed, and he eventually reported when he did because he was required to do so in order to accrue a year towards free agency. He was honoring his contract to exactly the same extent that the Patriots honored Ty Warren and TBC's last month.

Actually, BradyFTW, you have it wrong. Simply because there are penalties specified in the contract does not mean that the party does not have an obligation to fulfill his or her commitment. That obligation exists whether are not penalties are specified.

I'll also note that Logan Mankins was not under contract last year until he signed his tender and was, of course, not fined as a fine assumes that there is a contract in place.

 

[fnordcircle]

Being able to cut the player is PART OF THE CONTRACT.

To be more precise, the labor rules that the players and teams agreed to allow the teams to cut players and not pay the non-guaranteed portion of the contract.

Just like the labor rules that the players and teams agreed to allow players to hold out without being taken to court, or expelled from the NFL for life. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, you 'the players are so selfish' people seem to conveniently forget this.

Also, whose life is thrown into more turmoil? The bubble guy who gets cut after having banked maybe 100k or the team who has a player hold out?

That anyone is siding with the billionaires on this topic is mind-boggling to me unless I chalk it up to self-interest.