Wilfork speaks

mgteich · Jun 4, 2009

1) So everything will be OK for the ONE team that wins the Super Bowl, for those players on that team that happen to have their contract up?

2) So, when we win the Super Bowl, Kraft will make it up to Wilfork? How, by franchising him at 75% of what he's worth? Or by offering what Kraft thinks is fair, letting him go, and then having fans say how great the owners are and how unfair Wilfork is not to take a discount to play for the patriots?

3) It is NOT an acceptable strategy for players to be underpaid in the hope that they win the Super Bowl and that then the owner, out of his good heart, will decide to reward the players.

4) When it is the team's interest, Kraft will adjust rookie contracts and sign extensions. Seymour was extended. I think Warren and Koppen were also. Branch tried the same, and found that the team thought he wasn't worth the money, and so Branch STILL GOT HIS MONEY, only from somewhere else. Apparently, trying to get your rookie contract revised is only OK when the fans think it is OK.

5) What part of "this is a business" do you not understand?

Okay?

Okay?

Patjew said:
Vince, my BFF, just come to practice, win the mother****ing Bowl, and everything will work out.

Okay?

Okay.

Miguel · Jun 4, 2009

TheGodInAGreyHoodie said:
If we lived in an uncapped world or if Kraft was bumping against the league salary min every year so he could pocket the difference, I would agree.

Whether Wilfork doesn't get an extra $6 million this year, doesn't mean Kraft doesn't buy a sailboat, the team uses it on other players.

In baseball or when discussing what % of revenues should go to the cap that agruement makes sense. In this context it doesn't.

I must not have been clear. Rich players are ripped for wanting more money when the money they have is a lot more than what the general public has. Owners are not ripped when they engage in activities that will further increase their substantial wealth.

TruthSeeker · Jun 4, 2009

tombonneau said:
I fully understand that as contracts are written teams can cut players as they please and only be on the hook for the signing bonus. I get it. Players get it.

Hopefully this means that we won't here any more statements that indiccate you don't get it.

tombonneau said:
I just think that it's funny that when a player sees the contract as no longer in his favor, people think he has no recourse and its too bad he shouldn't have signed the contract.

Just like we think owners have no recourse but to honor the contract when it doesn't favor them (e.g. paying guaranteed money to a player not performing at the expected level).

I get it from your perspective as well. You think the structure is unbalanced and unfair to individual players. But, on the other hand, it is very fair to the aggregate of players who, much more so than in other sports, actually get paid for performance. It's not like the NBA where salary dumps happen by trading players to other teams or baseball where players are getting $10 million a year but would be getting $3 million a year based on production - all because they signed for guaranteed money 3 years ago.

Deus Irae · Jun 4, 2009

upstater1 said:
I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying you have to honor the CBA.

I can leave work just like Wilfork can if I'm willing to not be paid, but I can't be fired for it. Why? Not because of my contract. But because of my union's CBA.

I'm not saying screw the CBA. I'm saying HONOR the CBA which allows you to leave work if you'll forego pay.

No, you're saying screw the CBA. What you're pretending is that the CBA 'allows' certain actions. You're deliberately conflating things. If you get caught speeding in your state, you pay a fine. The amount of that fine is spelled out, based upon miles per hour, work zone, etc...

Are you seriously trying to pretend that such a situation means that you're actually allowed to speed?

Synovia · Jun 4, 2009

mgteich said:
1) So everything will be OK for the ONE team that wins the Super Bowl, for those players on that team that happen to have their contract up?

2) So, when we win the Super Bowl, Kraft will make it up to Wilfork? How, by franchising him at 75% of what he's worth? Or by offering what Kraft thinks is fair, letting him go, and then having fans say how great the owners are and how unfair Wilfork is not to take a discount to play for the patriots?

3) It is NOT an acceptable strategy for players to be underpaid in the hope that they win the Super Bowl and that then the owner, out of his good heart, will decide to reward the players.

4) When it is the team's interest, Kraft will adjust rookie contracts and sign extensions. Seymour was extended. I think Warren and Koppen were also. Branch tried the same, and found that the team thought he wasn't worth the money, and so Branch STILL GOT HIS MONEY, only from somewhere else. Apparently, trying to get your rookie contract revised is only OK when the fans think it is OK.

5) What part of "this is a business" do you not understand?

Okay?

Okay?

The CBA. If Wilfork/etc, don't like the fact that they can be franchised, they shouldn't have signed a contract saying they could.

mgteich · Jun 4, 2009

The market and compensation plan seem to work well in the NFL, except for rookie contracts.

Yes, there needs to be some beeing up of the injury and pension plans, but the situation seems to work well. Every few years the CBA is tweaked, but the basic elements remain: the draft, free agency rules and a certain percentage of revenue to the players.

Set 4-year contracts (1st round) and 3-year contracts thereafter would be a great step forward. These set contracts would include incentive bonuses and signing bonuses. The may even be the ability to choose among two or three contracts.

The draft, the first contract, franchise, and the fixed percentages of revenue (through the salary cap) are what makes the system work for the owners.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie · Jun 4, 2009

Miguel said:
I must not have been clear. Rich players are ripped for wanting more money when the money they have is a lot more than what the general public has. Owners are not ripped when they engage in activities that will further increase their substantial wealth.

Hmm..... Not sure if that is true. Everytime Kraft raises ticket prices, I see threads trashing him.

Deus Irae · Jun 4, 2009

TheGodInAGreyHoodie said:
Hmm..... Not sure if that is true. Everytime Kraft raises ticket prices, I see threads trashing him.

There are a lot more players, and they make their moves more publicly. It feeds the perception. Personally, I rail against the owners all the time.

patchick · Jun 4, 2009

mgteich said:
Set 4-year contracts (1st round) and 3-year contracts thereafter would be a great step forward. These set contracts would include incentive bonuses and signing bonuses. The may even be the ability to choose among two or three contracts.

I worry about making rookie contracts too short because football leans so heavily on training players into team-specific roles, schemes and techniques. (Presumably why player trades are so much rarer than in baseball and basketball.)

How about using final arbitration years to avoid the "outplayed his contract" syndrome?

Deus Irae · Jun 4, 2009

One thing that's being overlooked here is that there is already a mechanism in place that pays players who outperform their contracts. There's the performance pay system.

jmt57 · Jun 4, 2009

After reading this article, I get a different perspective on Wilfork's feelings about the upcoming season and the contract negotiations.

Wilfork hints at holdout by Shalise Manza-Young from the Providence Journal.

While it's assumed that he's doing so as a form of protest over the progress of contract extension negotiations, Wilfork said not to read too much into it.

"My absence doesn't mean anything. I'm pretty sure the ball is going to roll with me or without me, that's the nature of the business," he said. "But one thing I can assure you all is that I will be playing this season as a New England Patriot unless something changes.

"I'm looking forward to the season. I'm getting better. Just because you don't see me, I'm working. I'm getting better. I'm taking care of my business and what I can take care of and I'm going forward. I'm staying positive about the whole situation no matter how rough it may get.

I'm not going to copy and paste the whole article, but after reading it I get the impression that some of us may be over-reacting to the contract negotiations and assuming the worst far too soon.

BradyFTW! · Jun 4, 2009

IMO, it's pretty much impossible to outplay a contract to the point where a team should be compelled to tear it up. You sign it, you play for it. End of story. The only time that a team "should" tear up the final year of a contract is if it makes the business decision that it is in its best interest to do so: i.e., when it decides that paying that much more money this season is a worthwhile tradeoff for extending a player that is vital to the team's success.

If the Patriots have decided that that's not the case with Wilfork, then I am 100% fine with that. If he didn't want to live up to the terms of contract, then he shouldn't have signed it. And if the Pats decide that he's not worth what he's asking for, they will replace him, and/or make him sit out and/or franchise him to keep his rights.

Brady-To-Branch · Jun 4, 2009

Translation from playerspeak into english:

"I'm not worrying about it, time will tell, whenever I do decide to show up, I'll show up."
TRANSLATION: My agent is telling me to hold out and I'm prepared for it.

"I'm a professional, just b/c you don't see me, I'm always working."
TRANSLATION: I'll holdout as long as possible, but have the common sense to stay in shape, so I'll be ready by week 10. I know the system and can immediately step in once I'm back.

"I'm different."
TRANSLATION: I'm no different from any other high profile player who's being forced to play under a sixth season of my rookie deal with the prospect of being tagged for 2010.

"They (my teammates) understand what's going on, you guys (media) understand what's going on."
TRANSLATION: Do I have to spell it out for you? I'm holding out b/c contract talks have failed and both sides are far apart.

"Everybody's making these assumptions why I'm not here... keep guessing."
TRANSLATION: Technically, these OTAs are voluntary and I'm not admitting to anything. I'm just talking to you b/c I'm trying to project a positive image for when my holdout does become official.

"It is what it is. I'm not losing any sleep."
TRANSLATION: At this point the team isn't going to pay me what I want and I expect to be elsewhere next year. I'm just hoping my holdout will convince the team to waive their right to tag me so that I can explore the market unfettered. If not, expect my holdout to last to week 10.

I don't blame Vince for holding out. In his shoes, I'd do the same. OTOH, the Pats have to tag him, even if it means holding out to week 10. They can't have him going to a divisional or conference rival in 2010 sans compensation. Tagging him means the worst case scenario would be getting a #1 pick (SF?) and having him safely out of the AFC.

mgteich · Jun 4, 2009

Well done, except for the analysis at the end.

1) You are willing to have Wilfork not practice and show for the 10th game of this year AND NEXT?
I believe that he needs to show up before Game 6, but the point is the same.

2) You believe that the team MUST not give him anything this year and MUST franchise him next year in the hope that Wilfork agrees to a trade with SF?

3) BTW, how much did Carolina get for Peppers?

Brady-To-Branch said:
Translation from playerspeak into english:

"I'm not worrying about it, time will tell, whenever I do decide to show up, I'll show up."
TRANSLATION: My agent is telling me to hold out and I'm prepared for it.

"I'm a professional, just b/c you don't see me, I'm always working."
TRANSLATION: I'll holdout as long as possible, but have the common sense to stay in shape, so I'll be ready by week 10. I know the system and can immediately step in once I'm back.

"I'm different."
TRANSLATION: I'm no different from any other high profile player who's being forced to play under a sixth season of my rookie deal with the prospect of being tagged for 2010.

"They (my teammates) understand what's going on, you guys (media) understand what's going on."
TRANSLATION: Do I have to spell it out for you? I'm holding out b/c contract talks have failed and both sides are far apart.

"Everybody's making these assumptions why I'm not here... keep guessing."
TRANSLATION: Technically, these OTAs are voluntary and I'm not admitting to anything. I'm just talking to you b/c I'm trying to project a positive image for when my holdout does become official.

"It is what it is. I'm not losing any sleep."
TRANSLATION: At this point the team isn't going to pay me what I want and I expect to be elsewhere next year. I'm just hoping my holdout will convince the team to waive their right to tag me so that I can explore the market unfettered. If not, expect my holdout to last to week 10.

I don't blame Vince for holding out. In his shoes, I'd do the same. OTOH, the Pats have to tag him, even if it means holding out to week 10. They can't have him going to a divisional or conference rival in 2010 sans compensation. Tagging him means the worst case scenario would be getting a #1 pick (SF?) and having him safely out of the AFC.

upstater1 · Jun 4, 2009

Synovia said:
The NFL players receive more than 50% of total revenue. If you can find a single other business market where that is the case, I'll be amazed.

BradyFTW! said:
IMO, it's pretty much impossible to outplay a contract to the point where a team should be compelled to tear it up. You sign it, you play for it. End of story. The only time that a team "should" tear up the final year of a contract is if it makes the business decision that it is in its best interest to do so: i.e., when it decides that paying that much more money this season is a worthwhile tradeoff for extending a player that is vital to the team's success.

If the Patriots have decided that that's not the case with Wilfork, then I am 100% fine with that. If he didn't want to live up to the terms of contract, then he shouldn't have signed it. And if the Pats decide that he's not worth what he's asking for, they will replace him, and/or make him sit out and/or franchise him to keep his rights.

This is his rookie contract.

By not singing it as a rookie, he would have never been a Patriot. He would have played for another team, and this conversation would be moot. The fact is, there aren't many rookies in NFL history with a 6 year contract. Wilfork is one of the few.

What options do rookies have when they are offered a contract?

There are only 2: sign the contract, or go into the draft again the following year.

Those are your options. So you're saying that he should have declined to play for the Patriots if he intended not to live up to the contract.

Just wondering: what makes Wilfork any different than Warren who was extended prior to his deal running out?

Brady-To-Branch · Jun 4, 2009

mgteich said:
Well done, except for the analysis at the end.

1) You are willing to have Wilfork not practice and show for the 10th game of this year AND NEXT?
I believe that he needs to show up before Game 6, but the point is the same.

"Willing" is irrelevant. If Vince is committed to holding out that long and the Pats are concerned about giving a player with weight concerns a blockbuster, long term deal, then holding out to week 10 is an eventuality.

I think the preseason games are totally unnecessary. Vetrean players can step right in after camp and play. Brady was GTG w/o any meaningful preseason play, before his knee injury, a year ago.

mgteich said:
2) You believe that the team MUST not give him anything this year and MUST franchise him next year in the hope that Wilfork agrees to a trade with SF?

The Pats know what Vince is worth to them. If they re-sign him for Y dollars, great. If Vince wants more than that, I would endure what comes. I just threw SF out there b/c they seem to be a logical choice. I'm sure that there are plenty of teams that would want Vince, 4-3 teams too.

mgteich said:
3) BTW, how much did Carolina get for Peppers?

Apples and oranges. Peppers is coming off a great season after a bad one 2 years ago. Peppers is almost 2 years older and plays DE. Vince is a proven 3-4 NT. That kind of player will certainly fetch a #1. If the Pats let Vince walk, they'll only get, at best, an end 3rd rounder.

To clarify, I want Vince to stay. If the Pats feel he's worth the money, so be it. If not, I would hope the Pats would stay the course and keep the tag handy and make him play in the NFC. Vince is a market commodity.

What I don't want to see is Vince leave like Asante did, with little or no compensation.

upstater1 · Jun 4, 2009

TruthSeeker said:
Hopefully this means that we won't here any more statements that indiccate you don't get it.

Just like we think owners have no recourse but to honor the contract when it doesn't favor them (e.g. paying guaranteed money to a player not performing at the expected level).

I get it from your perspective as well. You think the structure is unbalanced and unfair to individual players. But, on the other hand, it is very fair to the aggregate of players who, much more so than in other sports, actually get paid for performance. It's not like the NBA where salary dumps happen by trading players to other teams or baseball where players are getting $10 million a year but would be getting $3 million a year based on production - all because they signed for guaranteed money 3 years ago.

Is there a middle ground for your argument?

Surely, players with more guaranteed money should accept that there's a tradeoff. I agree with you there.

BUT, there's a reason the NFL changed the rookie contract year length a few years ago. It's because Pro Bowl players drafted in the later rounds were making twice as much money (over the first 6 years) as Pro Bowl players drafted in the early rounds.

The NFL recognized it was being unfair to 1st round draft picks with long contracts, so it abandoned the practice. This doesn't mean that Vince should be rewarded with a contract that matches what the 3rd year Pro Bowler with an expired contract is getting. Vince had guaranteed money, the other guy didn't. That counts for something. But the chasm between a 3 year contract and a 6 year contract is huge. You have to at least meet each other half way, both player and team.

I'm still not advocating that the Patriots sign Vince this year, however, not with an uncapped year coming up.

upstater1 · Jun 4, 2009

Deus Irae said:
No, you're saying screw the CBA. What you're pretending is that the CBA 'allows' certain actions. You're deliberately conflating things. If you get caught speeding in your state, you pay a fine. The amount of that fine is spelled out, based upon miles per hour, work zone, etc...

Are you seriously trying to pretend that such a situation means that you're actually allowed to speed?

I'm comparing apples to apples, you're comparing criminal law to union contracts.

I'm saying that under the CBA, something like leaving work is already considered part of the agreement. Just like in my job, I can leave work as per the union contract. I won't get paid, but that's my choice.

That doesn't mean I'm not honoring the CBA. I am. The CBA makes provisions for people leaving work. If it didn't, then the Patriots could take drastic action like demanding that Wilfork return the pro-rated portion of his signing bonus.

But the Patriots aren't even allowed to do that. It's not within the Patriots' rights per the CBA. This means that players are protected to a certain extent by a contract they made with the owners that allows them to hold out without the owners' ability to take drastic action against them. Essentially, the owners have a franchise tag (a mechanism that exists in no other field) and the players have holdouts. That's how it's always been in the last several CBAs.

upstater1 · Jun 4, 2009

Deus Irae said:
One thing that's being overlooked here is that there is already a mechanism in place that pays players who outperform their contracts. There's the performance pay system.

That system has Ben Watson and others getting more in incentive pay than Wilfork.

RayClay · Jun 4, 2009

Brady-To-Branch said:
Translation from playerspeak into english:

"I'm not worrying about it, time will tell, whenever I do decide to show up, I'll show up."
TRANSLATION: My agent is telling me to hold out and I'm prepared for it.

"I'm a professional, just b/c you don't see me, I'm always working."
TRANSLATION: I'll holdout as long as possible, but have the common sense to stay in shape, so I'll be ready by week 10. I know the system and can immediately step in once I'm back.

"I'm different."
TRANSLATION: I'm no different from any other high profile player who's being forced to play under a sixth season of my rookie deal with the prospect of being tagged for 2010.

"They (my teammates) understand what's going on, you guys (media) understand what's going on."
TRANSLATION: Do I have to spell it out for you? I'm holding out b/c contract talks have failed and both sides are far apart.

"Everybody's making these assumptions why I'm not here... keep guessing."
TRANSLATION: Technically, these OTAs are voluntary and I'm not admitting to anything. I'm just talking to you b/c I'm trying to project a positive image for when my holdout does become official.

"It is what it is. I'm not losing any sleep."
TRANSLATION: At this point the team isn't going to pay me what I want and I expect to be elsewhere next year. I'm just hoping my holdout will convince the team to waive their right to tag me so that I can explore the market unfettered. If not, expect my holdout to last to week 10.

I don't blame Vince for holding out. In his shoes, I'd do the same. OTOH, the Pats have to tag him, even if it means holding out to week 10. They can't have him going to a divisional or conference rival in 2010 sans compensation. Tagging him means the worst case scenario would be getting a #1 pick (SF?) and having him safely out of the AFC.

Pretty much. His agent has told him to hold out in a public manner. His agent is keeping quiet.

Everybody likes Vince and his agent staying quiet should make for amicable negotiations. I personally hope they sign or extend him (they don't have to tear anything up).

They can franchise him and make him play for less than his market value. Don't know that they can make him play all out. It's a pretty brutal position and many who fail simply aren't willing to take the punishment. He shows up, he still gets paid.

Wilfork speaks

PatsFans.com Veteran

Patriots Salary Cap Guru

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Veteran

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Moderatrix

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Moderator

Goodell sucks

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

PatsFans.com Veteran

Hall of Fame Poster

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Hall of Fame Poster

Hall of Fame Poster

Hall of Fame Poster

Hall of Fame Poster

Similar threads