Digs reports

[inkfreq]

Play poorly and they can end the contract. You don't keep a shit player just because you have a contract. It's not how contracts work. Performance is a huge factor.

And as a player, you don't play at Pro Bowl level to be payed as a backup, so when the player wants out, why don't they have that option?

Because it's not an equitable system for all parties. And you would have to be deluding yourself to think it is.

 

[tomdalton22]

And as a player, you don't play at Pro Bowl level to be payed as a backup, so when the player wants out, why don't they have that option?

Because it's not an equitable system for all parties. And you would have to be deluding yourself to think it is.

they can sign one year contracts just like Darrel Revis.

 

[inkfreq]

they can sign one year contracts just like Darrel Revis.

If you sign a legal contract to purchase a car, and the contract says your payment is $450 a month, and a year later the bank says "Oh, you made all your payments on time, and you've been a great customer.... your payment is going to be $800 a month now", you would go to court in a heart beat.

Because both sides of a contract are required to live by the terms of the contract.

It's not a question of the length of the deal, or how much money they do make per year, the argument here is that teams expect a player to live up to their contract, but the team doesn't have to.

And they have the legal right, but they can't exactly whine when the players treat them exactly how the team treats the players.

 

[tomdalton22]

If you sign a legal contract to purchase a car, and the contract says your payment is $450 a month, and a year later the bank says "Oh, you made all your payments on time, and you've been a great customer.... your payment is going to be $800 a month now", you would go to court in a heart beat.

Because both sides of a contract are required to live by the terms of the contract.

It's not a question of the length of the deal, or how much money they do make per year, the argument here is that teams expect a player to live up to their contract, but the team doesn't have to.

And they have the legal right, but they can't exactly whine when the players treat them exactly how the team treats the players.

you kind of have that analogy backwards. In your case the bank is the player and the team is the car buyer. The car buyer (the team) has a contract that states he only has to pay $400 a month. The player (the bank) now wants $800 a month.

As far as the team living up to they contract...they are. It is written into the contract that the player can be cut and the only money they get is the guaranteed money. It really isn't that complicated.

 

[tonyballs]

Why? Why are you two fucknuts ruining every thread?

Start your own thread where you can fight like 8 year olds til your hearts content.

"Great job, Mayhew!"

"He didn't do anything!"

"Uh-huh!"

"Nuh-uh!"

"Yuh-huh!"

"Nuh-uh!"

It's pathetic.

Lmfao

 

[tonyballs]

Did he really outplay his contract though? He was benched in one of the biggest games of his career and played poorly down the stretch. I like what Digs brings to the table, but he's old as dirt and there are some youngins gunning for his job now. I wouldn't give him a dime more....

 

[boogerlovejoy]

Did he really outplay his contract though? He was benched in one of the biggest games of his career and played poorly down the stretch. I like what Digs brings to the table, but he's old as dirt and there are some youngins gunning for his job now. I wouldn't give him a dime more....

My opinion of NFL contracts is this....

They should be guaranteed. Because of the relatively short shelf life of an NFL player and the toll it can take on a person over their lives......NFL contracts SHOULD be guaranteed.

I would love to see the NFL go with an NBA like system where you can pay a player more to keep him (Larry Bird rule). Shorter, 2 year or 3 year GUARANTEED contracts with the ability to pay a player more than other teams can once he hits free agency. Players have some power in the ability that the contract is guaranteed and they still can be free agents a couple times in their careers. The teams retain some power with shorter contracts (if players don't play to their $$ amount) and the ability to keep players with the franchise tag and the Larry Bird rule.

Just my opinion.

Like Ink.....I don't really like the fact that most players have little power. Guys with massive contracts have it (see: Suh, Ndamakong) but most players like Diggs have little. However, when you sign a two year deal.....I have little sympathy for a player. It was his decision, it isn't long term, and he didn't magically become Eric Berry in a year. He played slightly better than his pay.....do it again and he'll be rewarded by getting another contract somewhere.

 

[mhughes0021]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEB7WbTTlu4

 

[tonyballs]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEB7WbTTlu4

YES!!! Lol

 

[mhughes0021]

YES!!! Lol

Digs is definitely better than a "dump in a box and mark it guaranteed" but he does have his limitations in the pass game. Austin and the dline last year did a good job masking them. Hopefully we get the same this year.

 

[inkfreq]

My opinion of NFL contracts is this....

They should be guaranteed. Because of the relatively short shelf life of an NFL player and the toll it can take on a person over their lives......NFL contracts SHOULD be guaranteed.

I would love to see the NFL go with an NBA like system where you can pay a player more to keep him (Larry Bird rule). Shorter, 2 year or 3 year GUARANTEED contracts with the ability to pay a player more than other teams can once he hits free agency. Players have some power in the ability that the contract is guaranteed and they still can be free agents a couple times in their careers. The teams retain some power with shorter contracts (if players don't play to their $$ amount) and the ability to keep players with the franchise tag and the Larry Bird rule.

Just my opinion.

Like Ink.....I don't really like the fact that most players have little power. Guys with massive contracts have it (see: Suh, Ndamakong) but most players like Diggs have little. However, when you sign a two year deal.....I have little sympathy for a player. It was his decision, it isn't long term, and he didn't magically become Eric Berry in a year. He played slightly better than his pay.....do it again and he'll be rewarded by getting another contract somewhere.

I really don't mind that the money isn't guaranteed. The players know it going in, and if they don't, they need a better lawyer and agent.

What bothers me is the two faced stance from the teams. If a team overpays a guy and then wants out of it down the road, they can get out of it. But if the player wants more money, the team spouts this "Honor the agreement" crap.

I don't even care that teams don't have to honor all the years of a contract. But don't cry about it when the player wants more money if you have the ability to cut him any time you want to play him less money.

The teams have 100% of the power, yet try to play the victim any time the player acts like the team acts.

 

[boogerlovejoy]

I really don't mind that the money isn't guaranteed. The players know it going in, and if they don't, they need a better lawyer and agent.

I get that, but you could say the same thing about the contract too. They know they can be cut at any time before they sign the deal. They know the power they will or won't have during the course of the contract term before they sign it.

It's because of the violent nature of the game that I think contracts should be guaranteed. Players, like Jahvid Best for example, are sometimes one play away from the end of their football careers.......sometimes before they hit the age of 25.

There are few professions that exist where the same could be said.

 

[mhughes0021]

I get that, but you could say the same thing about the contract too. They know they can be cut at any time before they sign the deal. They know the power they will or won't have during the course of the contract term before they sign it.

It's because of the violent nature of the game that I think contracts should be guaranteed. Players, like Jahvid Best for example, are sometimes one play away from the end of their football careers.......sometimes before they hit the age of 25.

There are few professions that exist where the same could be said.

you don't make all contracts guaranteed because less than 1% of the employees come into the league with a mush brain and get put behind one of the worst running olines in the game. There should have been protocals in place to keep him from being on the field....and the NFL is dumb so there weren't any. Every player has a right to guaranteed money. That's why its called negotiating. If they agree to accept a deal with little to no guaranteed money that's on them. Rarely am I on the side of the company...but I just have to be on this issue. If you want to bet on yourself then just do what darelle revis does. That way you can get a signing bonus (guaranteed typically) and guaranteed money every year of your playing career.

I understand that the premise of this argument is for the few players that manage to outplay their contract. But what usually happens to those players? Chris Johnson anyone? Handicapped the titans for a half decade. Russel Wilson is an example....hes exceeded expectations and his team has made a ton of moves to accommodate him and hes in the process of negotiating a new contract. Every situation is different. Were talking about an over the hill safety that had 1 good year and is more than likely going to regress fevery single year from here on out. A safety. You let him hold out and if h doesn't come back you play a round 3 corner over him lol. And once he realized that...he came back. This "good job mayhew" crap I saw is entirely bs lmao.

 

[tomdalton22]

I get that, but you could say the same thing about the contract too. They know they can be cut at any time before they sign the deal. They know the power they will or won't have during the course of the contract term before they sign it.

It's because of the violent nature of the game that I think contracts should be guaranteed. Players, like Jahvid Best for example, are sometimes one play away from the end of their football careers.......sometimes before they hit the age of 25.

There are few professions that exist where the same could be said.

I think the exact opposite. I think due to the chance that a player can get injured the contracts should not be guaranteed. If a player gets injured and can't play why should the team have to be stuck with a huge contract?

 

[tomdalton22]

look at Michael Bennett of the Seahawks. He signed a 4 year deal prior to the 2014 season. He got his $8M signing bonus and a $2M salary in 2014. He is due $6M this year but he is going to hold out for a new deal because he thinks he deserves more. WTF?

 

[inkfreq]

I think the exact opposite. I think due to the chance that a player can get injured the contracts should not be guaranteed. If a player gets injured and can't play why should the team have to be stuck with a huge contract?

For the same reason if you and I are injured on the job, we get workman's comp and disability from the employer. In fact, if it's a permanent injury, there is going to be a settlement before you get the big pay day in court.

These players are employees of the club. If they are seriously injured on the job, there is nothing for them at the end of the day. They won't even get workman's comp and disability because they are legally private contractors.

Sorry, but it's wrong for an employer to put you in a high risk job, and then walk away from you when you are injured. It's not allowed to happen to any worker in America, so why should we think it's okay in the NFL?

 

[inkfreq]

look at Michael Bennett of the Seahawks. He signed a 4 year deal prior to the 2014 season. He got his $8M signing bonus and a $2M salary in 2014. He is due $6M this year but he is going to hold out for a new deal because he thinks he deserves more. WTF?

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks-team-transactions?season=2015&type=3

And here's all the guys the Seahawks had a contract with, and then terminated that contract.

They cut these guys (deserved or not) for money reasons. How is Michael Bennet acting any differently by demanding more money to play?

Now the Seahawks have to decide if he's worth giving more money to, or if it's time to release him, or sit back and do nothing and wait for him to show up like the Lions did with Digs.

He's exercising a choice. They are exercising a choice. My entire point is, it's business with each side trying to get what they can out of the other, and if one can do it, the other can. That's fair.

 

[tomdalton22]

For the same reason if you and I are injured on the job, we get workman's comp and disability from the employer. In fact, if it's a permanent injury, there is going to be a settlement before you get the big pay day in court.

These players are employees of the club. If they are seriously injured on the job, there is nothing for them at the end of the day. They won't even get workman's comp and disability because they are legally private contractors.

Sorry, but it's wrong for an employer to put you in a high risk job, and then walk away from you when you are injured. It's not allowed to happen to any worker in America, so why should we think it's okay in the NFL?

The fact that they don't get any compensation if they are injured is on the NFLPA.

 

[tomdalton22]

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks-team-transactions?season=2015&type=3

And here's all the guys the Seahawks had a contract with, and then terminated that contract.

They cut these guys (deserved or not) for money reasons. How is Michael Bennet acting any differently by demanding more money to play?

Now the Seahawks have to decide if he's worth giving more money to, or if it's time to release him, or sit back and do nothing and wait for him to show up like the Lions did with Digs.

He's exercising a choice. They are exercising a choice. My entire point is, it's business with each side trying to get what they can out of the other, and if one can do it, the other can. That's fair.

The difference is the teams are not breaking the terms of the contract...the players are.

 

[inkfreq]

The difference is the teams are not breaking the terms of the contract...the players are.

Legally speaking, they aren't.

The players have until Aug. 5 each year to report or lose a year of accrued time. They can also be fined 30K per day they miss, and 70K for missing any mandatory camp.

That they have a clause built in that allows them to holdout is on the NFL who gave it to them in the CBA. There is no violation of their contract so long as the CBA allows for it.

And in the case of players like Digs, he reported for OTAs and skipped voluntary workouts... which is 100% his right. OTAs are technically voluntary too, so had h chose not to report until training camp, he still would be within the terms of his contract.