Gronk Reportedly Still Undecided On Playing Next Year:

[Hyped]

He has been for months. On Twitter. Haven’t you heard?

You mean, "Be Happy & Be Free Danny"??? and post-SB, "I don't know...."???

That's NOTHING. Kraft even said that Gronk was working out at the Stadium a few weeks back. Also, there's "open communication".

We will definitely KNOW one way or another during the draft, IMO.

 

[Deus Irae]

Gronk got a long term deal with a lot up front due to his injury history now that he had a healthy year, he want a new deal.

He should finish his contract that he WANTED to cover him in the case of a career ending injury. He is great but he hasn't been available much of the time especially in the playoffs.

Ok, but let's then be consistent. Teams sign contracts, and then cut players without giving them full remuneration for the years on the deal. They should pay out for every year of every contract. Every deal should be fully guaranteed, and every deal should require player permission for trades.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Ok, but let's then be consistent. Teams sign contracts, and then cut players without giving them full remuneration for the years on the deal. They should pay out for every year of every contract. Every deal should be fully guaranteed, and every deal should require player permission for trades.

Totally agree. This would make teams a lot more strategic on signing players knowing the consequences of it blowing up in their face. In addition, players can't complain after a few years and ask for a raise. Everybody is locked in. You think Miami really would've signed Suh to that massive contract a few years ago? Maybe, as they've shown to be pretty stupid in the past.

This is the one of the few things the NBA does well. If a team screws up and is on the hook for an entire contract, their only option is to trade him (if he agrees assuming he has the no trade clause). I'm surprised the NFL doesn't have that which should be negotiated in the next bargaining agreement.

Now this is unrelated, but another thing that bothered me this offseason was the Jarvis Landry situation in Miami. From my understanding, you can only "Franchise Tag" a player if you have the intention of signing them to a long term contract. However, Miami came out right away after tagging him and said they were looking to trade him. Obviously Landry didn't mind getting traded to the Browns but how does the NFL let this slide? Same thing when NE tagged Cassel, everyone knew they weren't going to sign him to a long term deal.

 

[Deus Irae]

Totally agree. This would make teams a lot more strategic on signing players knowing the consequences of it blowing up in their face. In addition, players can't complain after a few years and ask for a raise. Everybody is locked in. You think Miami really would've signed Suh to that massive contract a few years ago? Maybe, as they've shown to be pretty stupid in the past.

This is the one of the few things the NBA does well. If a team screws up and is on the hook for an entire contract, their only option is to trade him (if he agrees assuming he has the no trade clause). I'm surprised the NFL doesn't have that which should be negotiated in the next bargaining agreement.

I'm actually fine with non-guaranteed contracts. I just find it ridiculous that people want to hold players to phantom years when those years are bargains for the team, or complain that the players want to renegotiate, while they give a pass to teams doing the same thing.

Players have to take pay cuts and/or get axed with great frequency. How often do teams approach a player and say "Hey, you outperformed your deal, so we want to give you a bump in pay for this year, just to show our appreciation."?

 

[patsfan13]

Ok, but let's then be consistent. Teams sign contracts, and then cut players without giving them full remuneration for the years on the deal. They should pay out for every year of every contract. Every deal should be fully guaranteed, and every deal should require player permission for trades.

You want up front guarantees to hedge your injury risk, then you sacrifice some money. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[blackglass3]

This is an honest question, I am really curious: Has Jeff Howe ever been wrong about something Pats related? Because he seems to have a rock solid source, as far as I remember anyway.

 

[Deus Irae]

You want up front guarantees to hedge your injury risk, then you sacrifice some money. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

That's a ludicrous (non)response to what I'd posted.

 

[RobertWeathers]

This is an honest question, I am really curious: Has Jeff Howe ever been wrong about something Pats related? Because he seems to have a rock solid source, as far as I remember anyway.

Hes more right that hes wrong. That much is for sure.

 

[lancerman]

Its posturing. Nothing more.

The acquiring team will talk to Gronk, offer him a new deal, away from Bill and he'll play down the retirement talk as a negotiating ploy

He doesn’t have to talk to anybody. If the Patriots can’t trade him they cut him for nothing and he negotiates a new contract.

 

[RobertWeathers]

He doesn’t have to talk to anybody. If the Patriots can’t trade him they cut him for nothing and he negotiates a new contract.

Yes but it is in the best interest of the team to ensure they receive value in a trade therefore it behooves them to facilitate a discussion between the team and Gronk.

 

[lancerman]

Yes but it is in the best interest of the team to ensure they receive value in a trade therefore it behooves them to facilitate a discussion between the team and Gronk.

It is but it’s in his interest to not play ball

 

[RobertWeathers]

It is but it’s in his interest to not play ball

Not if wants to leave town.

 

[patsfan13]

That's a ludicrous (non)response to what I'd posted.

The subject of THIS thread is Gronk wanting to re do his current deal, NOT what the pay structure of the NFL should be.

 

[kennyb]

Ok, but let's then be consistent. Teams sign contracts, and then cut players without giving them full remuneration for the years on the deal. They should pay out for every year of every contract. Every deal should be fully guaranteed, and every deal should require player permission for trades.

I hate when people trot out the "teams can cut players so they're not living up to the contract" canard. They are living up to the contract. They can cut players per the contract. That'd how it's structured. Players know that. If the contract allows a team to do something then it's not violating the contract if they do it.

If contracts were guaranteed they'd look different- shorter and for less money. There'd be less money as teams would be on the hook for waived contracts.
The team risks guaranteed money up front and gets options. If gronk had been injured and retired or cut years ago the team would be out its guaranteed money. They took the risk. Gronk in exchange signed up for latter years at cheap rates.

So stop with the "why should gronk have to live up to the contract when the team doesn't" idiocy. It's the argument of morons.

 

[IcyPatriot]

When does this thread reach 'MEGA' status?

 

[RobertWeathers]

When does this thread reach 'MEGA' status?

I dunna know. Maybe there is some kind of imaginary threshold for # of threads spawned and merged into the original thread?

Maybe the over/under is 3 merges?

This one is getting close.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I hate when people trot out the "teams can cut players so they're not living up to the contract" canard. They are living up to the contract. They can cut players per the contract. That'd how it's structured. Players know that. If the contract allows a team to do something then it's not violating the contract if they do it.

If contracts were guaranteed they'd look different- shorter and for less money. There'd be less money as teams would be on the hook for waived contracts.
The team risks guaranteed money up front and gets options. If gronk had been injured and retired or cut years ago the team would be out its guaranteed money. They took the risk. Gronk in exchange signed up for latter years at cheap rates.

So stop with the "why should gronk have to live up to the contract when the team doesn't" idiocy. It's the argument of morons.

I agree with your overall premise.

I don't agree with the bold.

When it comes to player's salaries, I think owners are too much blinded by ego and competitiveness to control themselves.

 

[Deus Irae]

I hate when people trot out the "teams can cut players so they're not living up to the contract" canard. They are living up to the contract. They can cut players per the contract. That'd how it's structured. Players know that. If the contract allows a team to do something then it's not violating the contract if they do it.

If contracts were guaranteed they'd look different- shorter and for less money. There'd be less money as teams would be on the hook for waived contracts.
The team risks guaranteed money up front and gets options. If gronk had been injured and retired or cut years ago the team would be out its guaranteed money. They took the risk. Gronk in exchange signed up for latter years at cheap rates.

So stop with the "why should gronk have to live up to the contract when the team doesn't" idiocy. It's the argument of morons.

Players can hold out. Players can contemplate retirement. Players can refuse to join up in off season activities. That sort of stuff is covered under one or both of the general law and the CBA. So stop with the "I hate when people trot out the "teams can cut players so they're not living up to the contract" canard" crap on this subject. It's the argument of idiots.

And, in this case, it's an especially poor argument because of what I'd posted and you quoted:

Ok, but let's then be consistent. Teams sign contracts, and then cut players without giving them full remuneration for the years on the deal. They should pay out for every year of every contract. Every deal should be fully guaranteed, and every deal should require player permission for trades.

That does not say that the owners are doing something they aren't allowed to and are violating the contract, but that the contracts should be fully guaranteed, which is obviously not the same thing. So your post was not only the argument of idiots, it was a straw man argument as well.

 

[kennyb]

No, you said that one should "be consistent" and demand teams pay out contracts. That's now that you're insisting that, based on today's contracts, not some theoretical future world where contracts are guaranteed. Today's contracts wouldnt look as they do in your future world.

So once again, you are wrong. To be consistent, both sides need to live up to the contract yes, but cutting a player is not "not living up to tbe contract". Refusing to give guaranteed money already contracted for would be. It's embarassing i have to explain this, but there you are.

 

[lancerman]

Not if wants to leave town.

If the contract is the issue he's not going to want to play somewhere else under the same contract. He's better off forcing a release however he can get it. If that's holding off all off season to be a distraction and making himself toxic to trades that's the path.

Also I don't think Gronk would have high trade value even without this. He's played 8 seasons, had multiple surgeries, just had a high profile concussion, is viewed as an injury risk and has not had a reputation for being the most available player and he's been flashing the Hollywood/WWE card and talking retirement. How much would you trade for that guy?

A late first maybe is the highest value I could see him going for. And that's a best case scenario.