People Who Hold Out = Scum

[Keegs]

Ive said if before (and I got railed on for it here) and I'll say it again. Branch is not bigger than this team. If he doesn't agree to terms and get back in camp, BB needs to trade this guy and move on. Since when did Branch turn into Jerry Rice? The hell with him.

I agree 100%.

Prepare to get your nuts cut off tho for suggesting that Branch is traded. I did and people on here were crying about it for 24 hours.

 

[JoeSixPat]

People Who Hold Out = Scum

Can I get you on the phone with my wife?

 

[letekro]

In any other business in the civilized world if you signed a contract and then didn't hold up your end of the bargain you'd get sued for breach of contract. Can some legal scholar explain to me why this isn't an option for these primadonnas?

Umm, these guys' minds are, for the most part, not going to get them very far. Their bodies are what earn them income. If they buck the odds and manage to stay healthy for 10-12 years, they can make enough money to last a lifetime. If however, they are not first-round picks, and thus do not receive the concomitant huge signing bonus, they have the specter of career-ending injury hanging over them every day until their big pay day. Guaranteed money is what all these guys are looking for b/c it literally could end any day. How many other professions deal with these circumstances? And do not suggest cops/firemen - the likelihood of suffering a career ending injury in either one of those fields is miniscule when compared to that of a football player.

 

[PlattsFan]

Boy, you must of really lit into Bill Belichick and the Patriots last year when they violated the sanctity of Troy Brown's contract by cutting him! You must have just spared no mercy, considering Troy Brown has been the ultimate team guy and loyal Patriot, and the team just hacked off his contract.

If you didn't, then you shouldn't talk about the sanctity of contracts in the NFL. Players can get cut at any moment. Contracts mean nothing to the teams. But players are scum for exercising the one form of leverage they have?

 

[Gopats!!!]

I can't stand hold outs, and I think players who hold out are generally greedy jerks putting themselves before the team. I especially don't understand rookies that hold out. They haven't proven anything and they know basically how much money they are going to be getting. I know Watson last year didn't want to sign a 5 year contract, but it was either that or sit out.

As for Branch, it's a joke!! He's not a true gamebreaking WR. I believe everyone (including him) have admitted this. Without a decent #2 he can be shut down. He is not T.O., Moss, or one of those guys that can change the game. The reply is usually "He's the Patriot's #1". To me that doesn't mean he should be overpaid. From everything I have heard the Patriots are making him a very good offer. Players that try sqeezing every cent out of the team make me sick. The whole time they say, "It's not about the money", "I don't have to be the highest paid", etc. It's all a load of crap. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Michigan Dave]

Wow. In a system such as the NFL, the holdout is necessary because it's the only leverage the player can have. There are some legit holdouts (Branch, for example, should be holding out. He needs a new deal. He is underpaid) and some ridiculous holdouts. It's a business, and needs to be looked at as such. The players have a small window to make as much money as possible, and then they are done. A guy like Deion holding out for a huge raise that frankly, he deserves, is fine by me. As long as he's on the field by week 1, I'm good. And if it means he gets signed to a longterm deal, I'm even better. You can't look at the NFL like any random 9-5 job.

 

[Gopats!!!]

To me, the way to solve the whole "contracts mean nothing" issue is to have all contracts performance based.

Everyone in the NFL makes the same, and then earn bonuses based on their play.

Then, make the contracts concrete, unable to be terminated without both the players consent and the team's.

Otherwise, the team needs to be able to get rid of dead weight to get under the salary cap, throw in dummy years, etc

I know my idea would never be accepted by the players union, but it would be nice.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Michigan Dave-

I agree with you. I think this thread is weak.

 

[Michigan Dave]

To me, the way to solve the whole "contracts mean nothing" issue is to have all contracts performance based.

Everyone in the NFL makes the same, and then earn bonuses based on their play.

Then, make the contracts concrete, unable to be terminated without both the players consent and the team's.

Otherwise, the team needs to be able to get rid of dead weight to get under the salary cap, throw in dummy years, etc

I know my idea would never be accepted by the players union, but it would be nice.

No, it wouldn't be nice. Much like the majority of the workforce doesn't want a commission-based pay structure, asking NFL players to pay for a base pay is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with the economical structure of the league, especially the way guys are paid. Holdouts happen. A player can't "quit" and go to another team until he's a free agent, so this is a way for them to maximize their earnings, and still play for the same team. Holding out for a veteran is not detrimental at all. It isn't the 60s where players got fat and drunk in the offseason (the entire reason training camp was implemented), today's player is working out 12 months a year.

 

[Michigan Dave]

Michigan Dave-

I agree with you. I think this thread is weak.

I have a lot of friends in the league, so I'm a complete player advocate. I can't help it. If we were in their shoes, we would be getting the same advice and making the same choices.

 

[Gopats!!!]

Wow. In a system such as the NFL, the holdout is necessary because it's the only leverage the player can have. There are some legit holdouts (Branch, for example, should be holding out. He needs a new deal. He is underpaid) and some ridiculous holdouts. It's a business, and needs to be looked at as such. The players have a small window to make as much money as possible, and then they are done. A guy like Deion holding out for a huge raise that frankly, he deserves, is fine by me. As long as he's on the field by week 1, I'm good. And if it means he gets signed to a longterm deal, I'm even better. You can't look at the NFL like any random 9-5 job.

I'm not privy to the negotiations, but from all reports the Patriots ARE offering him a huge raise/signing bonus/etc and he still refuses to play.

Maybe he has the Napoleon Complex.

 

[Michigan Dave]

I'm not privy to the negotiations, but from all reports the Patriots ARE offering him a huge raise/signing bonus/etc and he still refuses to play.

He has the Napoleon Complex.

We don't know what the numbers are, or how they work out. Remember, a huge raise still may not put him near the other players in the league with comparable performance. To make the (weak) parallel to everyday business, if you were performing at a top-level position for an organization, and you were significantly underpaid, and offered a nice raise, but one not close to others in your position throughout the industry, you would probably want to continue negotiations, right? That's all it is. It's not a napoleon complex, it's not arrogance, selfishness, or spite for the Patriots. It's just Deion doing the smart thing and getting his contract taken care of while he still has a lot of leverage.

 

[bucky]

That's my personal opinion, I've ALWAYS hated hold outs, they're scum in my book. In any other business in the civilized world if you signed a contract and then didn't hold up your end of the bargain you'd get sued for breach of contract. Can some legal scholar explain to me why this isn't an option for these primadonnas?

I wish all GMs would act as the Ottawa Senator's GM acted with Alexei Yashin. They refused to trade him and he ended up sitting a whole year because they also refused to let him play for any other team. (he did practice with a team in Switzerland cuz you can't stop someone from practicing.)

Take a hard line is what I say, if all the GMs in all the sports decided they'd had enough and stopped negotiating with these scum the hold outs would stop pretty damn quick. I say if Branch or anyone else doesn't want to play for this team they can rot on the sidelines for all I care, I would be 1000% behind management.

You're probably a pretty piss-poor business man/woman. That's OK. Remember, the NFL is 1 huge business.

In this case, I have absolutely no problem with Branch holding out because 1) He won't get injured, 2) He already knows the offense and has his timing with Brady down Pat, 3) Branch has never had conditioning issues, and 4) It might result in a long term contract, which I would like to see as a fan. Whether that happens or not, I'm sure Branch will be back with the team before the season starts and once he comes back, it won't take him more than 1 week to be the #1 WR on this team again.

 

[mcbee]

I don't hate Branch necessarily, but I think they should let him sit once he shows up. What are their options? Can they do something to keep this year from counting against his contract? So he is in the same position next year?

Suppose Branch is a legitimate 20M signing bonus guy. Should he play this year for 1M? If he is injured he gets NOTHING in signing bonus and his career is over. Or should he sit out and then collect 20M next year? If it were me, I wouldn't risk it. Maybe there's an insurance policy that could cover it, but the premium would probably be at least 1M, which is what he's getting this year. So from that point, the Pats could up his salary this year a bit until it's worth it to him. Either that or trade him now.

From Branch's point, you can't blame him. IT's not about being 'underpaid' even, it's just that he makes more money by sitting (expected value wise). If there's a 10% chance of a career ending injury, why risk it?

As far as "NFL teams don't honor contracts by cutting players", that isn't really true. The CONTRACT means the NFL team gets his services and IF they want to keep him off the FA market they have to pay him the agreed amount. If they are content to have him on the FA market, they cut him. That's the way the contract is worded, basically. It's non-guaranteed. So by cutting a player the team is not "not honoring" the contract. They are honoring it.

 

[godef]

I understand your position. But, do you also hate front offices that cut players before their contracts are up?

The point being, for the front office to be able to do that, the players then must also have the option to walk away from a contract and not be sued.

Of course, they can't play anywhere else, but it can be *legally* used by the player as leverage to get the club to agree to restructing the said contract.

But as IUCPF implies, this is not any different than a club summarily cutting a player and cutting his pay.

And note that, unlike "other businesses", the playing field (no pun intended) is already unbalanced from the get-go. In what other business are people restricted to negotiating with one organization for *any* amount of time? Dieon had no such choice, and thus was compelled to sign a 5-year contract with the Pats or else not be able to play for a year (a long time for a player in his physical prime). I'd have to question the legal validity of the $14K-a-day penalty that is imposed.

 

[godef]

The rule about cutting players is known to both sides, but I see a trend developing where players are getting grossly underpaid, like Branch. I think the rules of the CBA will be ammended to adapt to both tactics, and it will add to more stable rosters. I'm getting tired of losing players like Givens and Law and seeing these holdouts because of these rules.

"Grossly underpaid"?!? Oh please, this is only in the relative sense. I empathize with Nova to the entent that all pro sport athletes are grossly OVERPAID (as well as various CEO's etc).

Bottom line is that it's all business-as-usual as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Miguel]

Amen Brotha. I'm still waiting for the CBA to say that rookie contracts can not be renegotiated a la NBA (actually the NBA does this for ALL contracts). But I guess it's a pipe dream because the players union would never allow it. How can players that earn money most people can only dream of hold out for more and more? Selfishness is disgusting.

FYI - Rookie contracts can now not be renegotiated during the 1st 2 years of the contracts.

 

[mgteich]

Branch will likely not play the preseason. As last year, the team will be too afraid of injury. This is not much a recommendation to hand a player $20M, and hope he stays healthy and productive.

I don't like holdouts at all, But I do understand them for NFL stars, keys to the success of their teams. On the other hand, I understood Watson's holdout over the 6th year. The CBA eventually took care of the issue. I understood Seymour. It seems his holdout wasn't as much about being underpaid, as it was wanting to sign a long-term deal and have it done before the season started.

SOME THOUGHTS
1. Branch is NOT Seymour.
2. Branch is NOT a premier player, one who can carry a team.
3. The Patriots have no intention of paying Branch what Branch's agent thinks he can get next year in free agency, or anywhere close.
4. The Patriots have a salary structure and make exceptions for exceptional players. Branch doen't qualify.
5. Player get signing bonuses at the start of their contracts, remember those?
They are larger depending on when the player is drafted and the length of the contract. Branch had no trouble taking his bonus.
6. Branch has every right to hold out, and the Patriots have their rights under the CBA. If the Patriots are doing fine at WR at Week 10, he'll sit until the end of the season. If Branch thinks he's worth more having held out, and then producing little for the season, then he is getting bad advice.
7. Yes, I'd like Branch to sign a reasonable long-term deal with the Patriots, but my fear will always be that he will get injured. In any case, we shouldn't (and likely won't) overpay. What I would much rather see is Caldwell and Jackson looking awesome in camp and through the preseason, Troy being Troy and some contribution from one of the rest. This would greatly help the team's negotiating position.
8. It does not help the team to greatly overpay an individual player, unless he is critical to the team. I know the salary cap monies look tempting, but we are not discussing a one-year contract. I would much rather pay $10M of Seymour's bonus this year instead of next (he will likely get $6.6M even without any renegotiation.
9. And yes, I also almost always favor the players in disputes.

 

[ilduce06410]

Free Troy Brown!

Boy, you must of really lit into Bill Belichick and the Patriots last year when they violated the sanctity of Troy Brown's contract by cutting him! You must have just spared no mercy, considering Troy Brown has been the ultimate team guy and loyal Patriot, and the team just hacked off his contract.
If you didn't, then you shouldn't talk about the sanctity of contracts in the NFL. Players can get cut at any moment. Contracts mean nothing to the teams. But players are scum for exercising the one form of leverage they have?

troy DID get screwed last summer.
i can't figure out how he took the humiliation (not to mention the $) and came back anyway. he must have known it was coming or something. he loves the game, he loves the patriots, but something's not ridht
where are cafardo and poison joe on this one?

 

[VJCPatriot]

I think if the Pats are offering 6M per year as rumored Branch doesn't have a leg to stand on if he's still holding out.