When is a player morally entitled to be let out of his contract?

[mgteich]

1) I was talking about a 2012 first, a sarcastic reference to the Seymour trade. A 2011 2nd or 3rd seems more reasonable. His new team would get his services from mid-August onward.

2) As with Branch, Mankins' agent could be allowed to negotiate with teams in early August with the condition that we get a 2011 2nd round choice. If this fails, we could accept less in a second round of negotiations.

3) I think that Mankins could find some team that will want him more than the patriots do.

Can we really get a first for him if we "own" him for only a fraction of a year? If I'm the other end of this trade, I'm giving up a first for about 10 games of Mankins, plus having to pay him big money for any years beyond that. Still, you could be right in a Deion Branch sort of way....

 

[PatsFanSince74]

morally entitled....?

lolz -- is this a joke thread?

Was Brady entitled to a new contract after SB XXXVI?

 

[eom]

A team can cut a player anytime they want. So, I never fault players when they decide to hold out.

I don't see any fan complain when the team is not holding their end of the deal and cut a player 3 years before the end of the contract. However, when a player decides to do the same thing, all of sudden you start hearing, he signed the contract, he should playe it out. Definition of Hypocracy if there ever was one.

This is the nature of contracts in the NFL. If you are fine with teams cutting players that don't perform before the term of their contract, you shouldn't complain when players want to hold out for when they outperform their contract. This also applies to RFAs, Franchise tags....

I haven't read the last 2 pages yet, so maybe somebody's already corrected you, but this is the kind of nonsensical stuff that always comes up in these dozens of contract threads.
somebody always wants to 'simplify' things with some kind of analogy, but just ends up confusing themselves even more because they don't really understand what they're talking about.

the way it works in the nfl is the players negotiate an AGREEMENT with the owners, and in this agreement is a lot of language about the terms of the contracts that these players enter into with the owners.

in the previous cba, the way contracts were created was that the owners agreed to pay X dollars to the guy IF he was still under contract with the club in whatever year --- there is no guarantee that money will be paid out, unless it's GUARANTEED salary.
if I sign a 3 year deal with a guy for ordinary salary of 5m/yr, nowhere in any contract or agreement am I guaranteeing him a spot on my club in year 3 --- if, however, he IS on the club in year 3 I am contractually obligated to pay him the 5m.

to get back to your mixed up analogy --- the club would be reneging on that contract only if they let the guy play for them in year 3 and then refused to pay him --- when does this happen?

getting cut has nothing to do with anything.
they don't sign contracts with these guys guaranteeing them spots on any roster.

do you not understand that?

if you want to talk about hypocrisy, then if you are fine with a guy holding out for more money when he 'overperforms' a deal, then you should also be the first to expect the player to return signing bonuses and take voluntary pay cuts when they 'underperform' --- when does that happen?

 

[Deus Irae]

if you are fine with a guy holding out for more money when he 'overperforms' a deal, then you should also be the first to expect the player to return signing bonuses and take voluntary pay cuts when they 'underperform' --- when does that happen?

This is partially inaccurate. The equivalency is the players asking for more money and the teams asking the player to take less money. Both are adjustments to future earnings. The signing bonus is a different animal.

And, as we all know, teams 'request' that players take pay cuts with some regularity.