Mr. WEO Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Cool story. Now the reality of the situation is what does khan gain by sticking it to him 100% A reputation of a guy that will screw overachievers if the try to stand up for themselves? A media circus? His best player even more disgruntled? Khan won, mjd swallowed his pride. Based on nfl norms, him saying "oh yea I'll be taking a quarter of your salary too" would be over the top. MJD already surrendered the 1.2 million, essentially, when he willfully decided no to come to camp. Khan didn't "win" anything--his best player missed all of camp because he wanted to tear up a contract with not one but 2 years left on it. Missing camp hurt the offense. He has to take the 1.2 million from MJD. This guy accepted a fair contract. He agreed to a $30,000 fine when he no-showed. Behavior like this can't be rewarded--especially when MJD himself weighed the likelihood of a successful holdout vs a hefty fine if he failed. Amazingly, he guessed he could squeeze a new contract out of the new owner. Well, he guessed wrong and he should pay. Maybe he can squeeze it out of his agent, who supported this retarded holdout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Doug Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Let him role the dice. Some win (Peters), some lose (Crabtree). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreakPop Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 He's not the guy you make an example of, unless you don't see a future with him. This could be a big distraction, or it could disappear. Neither side benefits from this escalating. Both would be wise to lay it to rest now. That means mjd shows up, and khan welcomes him back. The fine produces very little good here. The guy already swallowed his pride. Yes he is. He signed the deal, he should honor the deal. If he didn't like the deal 3 years ago he shouldn't have agreed to it. What pride is there to swallow? MJD created the whole situation all by himself, Khan isn't doing anything wrong, he is only enforcing the rules that MJD agreed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) Yes he is. He signed the deal, he should honor the deal. If he didn't like the deal 3 years ago he shouldn't have agreed to it. What pride is there to swallow? MJD created the whole situation all by himself, Khan isn't doing anything wrong, he is only enforcing the rules that MJD agreed to. The per year average on the deal barely gets him in the top 10, and the next few years he will be well lower than his peers. Heck, his 3 highest paying years arent even noteworthy in salary. In his first 3 years of it he has been an all pro every year, his second year he played on a badly injured knee (still had 4.4 per, 1600 yards from scrimmage, and a ton of touches despite a torn minuscus), last year he led the league in rushing with no help and near 400 touches (often a career killer). He's been the saving grace and face of a bad franchise that has been sinking. Top backs, even with little leverage (see forte) got 8+ per year. With AD, cj2k, foster, McCoy, Ray rice all getting more than fortes 8 per. Steven Jackson is over 7 and can void low paying years bumping the average up to 10m. I'm not crying for mjd here, but he's done everything asked of him and I don't think it's crazy for him to want to renegotiate here. Looking at 9m for the next 2 years, while his peers average that for the life of their deals. The last 3 years he's averaged over 350 touches, and like 1700 yards from scrimmage. There's no way he holds up long term if they work him like that, so I'd, in his shoes, want to get paid in line with the premier backs if the plan is to run me into the ground. The easy answer wouldve been to tag an extra year on and try to keep him at the 7m average of the first 3 years for the next 3, be in spitting distance of rice, forte and foster, while writing in some protections against future holdouts. At this point, you tell the guy "you know what, come back to work and let's start with a clean slate and we can re-visit the money next year" or you try to trade him. You don't tell him to get hiss butt back on the field and that he won't be getting paid for the next month while he's at it. It's just the right way to do it if you want positivity in the building. This isn't the guy that opted for a huge bonus and low salary and is now complaining about his salary after pocketing huuuuuge money. He's paid a lot, but not in line with his peers, even in his highest paying and their low paying years. He's a great player, he's well respected around the league, and yes, he's known to be underpaid - not the ideal case for who gets made an example of. Edited September 4, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 The per year average on the deal barely gets him in the top 10, and the next few years he will be well lower than his peers. Heck, his 3 highest paying years arent even noteworthy in salary. In his first 3 years of it he has been an all pro every year, his second year he played on a badly injured knee (still had 4.4 per, 1600 yards from scrimmage, and a ton of touches despite a torn minuscus), last year he led the league in rushing with no help and near 400 touches (often a career killer). He's been the saving grace and face of a bad franchise that has been sinking. Top backs, even with little leverage (see forte) got 8+ per year. With AD, cj2k, foster, McCoy, Ray rice all getting more than fortes 8 per. Steven Jackson is over 7 and can void low paying years bumping the average up to 10m. I'm not crying for mjd here, but he's done everything asked of him and I don't think it's crazy for him to want to renegotiate here. Looking at 9m for the next 2 years, while his peers average that for the life of their deals. The last 3 years he's averaged over 350 touches, and like 1700 yards from scrimmage. There's no way he holds up long term if they work him like that, so I'd, in his shoes, want to get paid in line with the premier backs if the plan is to run me into the ground. The easy answer wouldve been to tag an extra year on and try to keep him at the 7m average of the first 3 years for the next 3, be in spitting distance of rice, forte and foster, while writing in some protections against future holdouts. At this point, you tell the guy "you know what, come back to work and let's start with a clean slate and we can re-visit the money next year" or you try to trade him. You don't tell him to get hiss butt back on the field and that he won't be getting paid for the next month while he's at it. It's just the right way to do it if you want positivity in the building. This isn't the guy that opted for a huge bonus and low salary and is now complaining about his salary after pocketing huuuuuge money. He's paid a lot, but not in line with his peers, even in his highest paying and their low paying years. He's a great player, he's well respected around the league, and yes, he's known to be underpaid - not the ideal case for who gets made an example of. This is the insanity of it. Why should a player get to decide he's outperformed his contract? It doesn't matter what other players got until his contract is up. If the players want this ability then pay the fines ta the least. Maybe the owners should get the right to 'lockout' an under-performing player and not pay him. Let's see how that goes over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) This is the insanity of it. Why should a player get to decide he's outperformed his contract? It doesn't matter what other players got until his contract is up. If the players want this ability then pay the fines ta the least. Maybe the owners should get the right to 'lockout' an under-performing player and not pay him. Let's see how that goes over. You mean like cutting them? Or were you meaning more like thigpen getting his pay cut? Happens a lot more often than hold outs, and goes over just fine. Edited September 4, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreakPop Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 The per year average on the deal barely gets him in the top 10, and the next few years he will be well lower than his peers. Heck, his 3 highest paying years arent even noteworthy in salary. In his first 3 years of it he has been an all pro every year, his second year he played on a badly injured knee (still had 4.4 per, 1600 yards from scrimmage, and a ton of touches despite a torn minuscus), last year he led the league in rushing with no help and near 400 touches (often a career killer). He's been the saving grace and face of a bad franchise that has been sinking. Top backs, even with little leverage (see forte) got 8+ per year. With AD, cj2k, foster, McCoy, Ray rice all getting more than fortes 8 per. Steven Jackson is over 7 and can void low paying years bumping the average up to 10m. I'm not crying for mjd here, but he's done everything asked of him and I don't think it's crazy for him to want to renegotiate here. Looking at 9m for the next 2 years, while his peers average that for the life of their deals. The last 3 years he's averaged over 350 touches, and like 1700 yards from scrimmage. There's no way he holds up long term if they work him like that, so I'd, in his shoes, want to get paid in line with the premier backs if the plan is to run me into the ground. The easy answer wouldve been to tag an extra year on and try to keep him at the 7m average of the first 3 years for the next 3, be in spitting distance of rice, forte and foster, while writing in some protections against future holdouts. At this point, you tell the guy "you know what, come back to work and let's start with a clean slate and we can re-visit the money next year" or you try to trade him. You don't tell him to get hiss butt back on the field and that he won't be getting paid for the next month while he's at it. It's just the right way to do it if you want positivity in the building. This isn't the guy that opted for a huge bonus and low salary and is now complaining about his salary after pocketing huuuuuge money. He's paid a lot, but not in line with his peers, even in his highest paying and their low paying years. He's a great player, he's well respected around the league, and yes, he's known to be underpaid - not the ideal case for who gets made an example of. When MJD signed a 5 year contract for $30, he was not the featured back yet, as he was splitting carries with Fred Taylor. He had yet to gain over 1000 yards or have over 200 carries. Yet at the time Jax paid him top back money despite not proving he could carry the load, with a front loaded contract that was team/cap friendly the last 2 years. Now we speed forward 3 years or actually his 4th and 5th year of the contract and he cries he wants more money. Gee, got a big signing bonus with a front loaded ($21million over the first 3 years) and now holds out. No effing way, he wanted a lot up front or early in the contract and Jax did that for him, now it is time for him to be a man and honor the last 2 years. If the contract had been reversed would he still have wanted to hold out, no way. He needs to shut up and just run the ball. Jax already did take care of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 When MJD signed a 5 year contract for $30, he was not the featured back yet, as he was splitting carries with Fred Taylor. He had yet to gain over 1000 yards or have over 200 carries. Yet at the time Jax paid him top back money despite not proving he could carry the load, with a front loaded contract that was team/cap friendly the last 2 years. Now we speed forward 3 years or actually his 4th and 5th year of the contract and he cries he wants more money. Gee, got a big signing bonus with a front loaded ($21million over the first 3 years) and now holds out. No effing way, he wanted a lot up front or early in the contract and Jax did that for him, now it is time for him to be a man and honor the last 2 years. If the contract had been reversed would he still have wanted to hold out, no way. He needs to shut up and just run the ball. Jax already did take care of him. And he proved to be worth even more than the front loaded portion, yet alone the "team friendly" last two years. I often agree with this point when guys get huge bucks upfront, but he didn't get monopoly money at any point. 7 per is fair, if not under paid based on his actual performance. This isn't revis getting huuuuuuuge money upfront to the tune of 16+ per for 2 years then complaining hell only see 8 this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreakPop Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 The per year average on the deal barely gets him in the top 10, and the next few years he will be well lower than his peers. Heck, his 3 highest paying years arent even noteworthy in salary. In his first 3 years of it he has been an all pro every year, his second year he played on a badly injured knee (still had 4.4 per, 1600 yards from scrimmage, and a ton of touches despite a torn minuscus), last year he led the league in rushing with no help and near 400 touches (often a career killer). He's been the saving grace and face of a bad franchise that has been sinking. Top backs, even with little leverage (see forte) got 8+ per year. With AD, cj2k, foster, McCoy, Ray rice all getting more than fortes 8 per. Steven Jackson is over 7 and can void low paying years bumping the average up to 10m. I'm not crying for mjd here, but he's done everything asked of him and I don't think it's crazy for him to want to renegotiate here. Looking at 9m for the next 2 years, while his peers average that for the life of their deals. The last 3 years he's averaged over 350 touches, and like 1700 yards from scrimmage. There's no way he holds up long term if they work him like that, so I'd, in his shoes, want to get paid in line with the premier backs if the plan is to run me into the ground. The easy answer wouldve been to tag an extra year on and try to keep him at the 7m average of the first 3 years for the next 3, be in spitting distance of rice, forte and foster, while writing in some protections against future holdouts. At this point, you tell the guy "you know what, come back to work and let's start with a clean slate and we can re-visit the money next year" or you try to trade him. You don't tell him to get hiss butt back on the field and that he won't be getting paid for the next month while he's at it. It's just the right way to do it if you want positivity in the building. This isn't the guy that opted for a huge bonus and low salary and is now complaining about his salary after pocketing huuuuuge money. He's paid a lot, but not in line with his peers, even in his highest paying and their low paying years. He's a great player, he's well respected around the league, and yes, he's known to be underpaid - not the ideal case for who gets made an example of. Well as far as that comment, I could only find 4 guys paid more than MJD for this year, S Jackson, A Peterson, C Johnson, and D McFadden, and before this year $21 million over 3 years is $7 million. Not too many RBs making more than that per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) Well as far as that comment, I could only find 4 guys paid more than MJD for this year, S Jackson, A Peterson, C Johnson, and D McFadden, and before this year $21 million over 3 years is $7 million. Not too many RBs making more than that per year. Forte is 8 per Rice is 8 per McFadden is on a well payed rookie deal (not sure his escalators to give a simple per year), but well more than mjd Jackson is on a shade under 8 per deal Cj2k is 13+ per Peterson is 10+ regardless of when that deal gets cut Foster is 8.5 per McCoy is 9 per Deangelo Williams is 8 per Marshawn is 8 per that's 10 guys that I came up with that have a contract in hand today worth 2+ per year more than mjd, and 1+ per year than his "front loaded" section. Heck - even frank gore has a higher yearly average over the length He's sitting with turner, or Charles as his peers currently. Mjd getting 7 was a fair deal the last 3 years. It wasn't overpaying him upfront to save on the back (again, ala revis). To get him in the 7-8 ballpark the next 2 years instead of 4.5 isn't crazy. I'm not crying for poor mjd, but it's pretty reasonable for him to want more. I lied earlier when I said barely top ten, his 3 front loaded years put him at 12th (with guys i could think of off hand) and his full length average into the teens atleast on per year average (13 based on the above list) Edit: Jonathan Stewart at 7+, puts him at 14 for contract per year average. Can we atleast see why he'd be frustrated after leading the league in rushing, while being a receiver and totaling 400 touches last year and playing the year before injured? He's showing up, he's playing and I don't love holdouts but he's not just being a prick by wanting more money than 4 and 5 the next two years, after proving to easily be worth the 7 he got early in the deal. Edited September 4, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsSD Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 So when a player underperforms and is cut that is okay? If a player outperforms and holds out that is bad? I am glad that most of this board sides with the billionaire in the luxury box over the millionaire on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) So when a player underperforms and is cut that is okay? If a player outperforms and holds out that is bad? I am glad that most of this board sides with the billionaire in the luxury box over the millionaire on the field. What I'm getting a hint of is not realizing how low on the list he is pay wise. Yes, 4-5m is a lot, as is the 7 but it's still not prime time dollars given his primetime play. I don't think many grasp that 7 was fair and 4-5 is drastically under market value. He was given a contract on potential and totally lived up to that potential and then a lot more. Edited September 4, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreakPop Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Forte is 8 per Rice is 8 per McFadden is on a well payed rookie deal (not sure his escalators to give a simple per year), but well more than mjd Jackson is on a shade under 8 per deal Cj2k is 13+ per Peterson is 10+ regardless of when that deal gets cut Foster is 8.5 per McCoy is 9 per Deangelo Williams is 8 per Marshawn is 8 per that's 10 guys that I came up with that have a contract in hand today worth 2+ per year more than mjd, and 1+ per year than his "front loaded" section. Heck - even frank gore has a higher yearly average over the length He's sitting with turner, or Charles as his peers currently. Mjd getting 7 was a fair deal the last 3 years. It wasn't overpaying him upfront to save on the back (again, ala revis). To get him in the 7-8 ballpark the next 2 years instead of 4.5 isn't crazy. I'm not crying for poor mjd, but it's pretty reasonable for him to want more. I lied earlier when I said barely top ten, his 3 front loaded years put him at 12th (with guys i could think of off hand) and his full length average into the teens atleast on per year average In 2009 when he signed his contract, Darren Sproles of all people and Steven Jackson were the only RBs getting more in base salary. With bonus it made him top guy. So MJD was getting paid and paid as the top back. Check it out. I can't find any other years salaries. http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/position/RB/2009-10 Is the rest of the league just supposed to stop paying their guys because MJD won't be the highest paid anymore. I don't think so. He got his money up front like he wanted, Jax did him good in 2009. If he didn't agree, he didn't have to sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) In 2009 when he signed his contract, Darren Sproles of all people and Steven Jackson were the only RBs getting more in base salary. With bonus it made him top guy. So MJD was getting paid and paid as the top back. Check it out. I can't find any other years salaries. http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/position/RB/2009-10 Is the rest of the league just supposed to stop paying their guys because MJD won't be the highest paid anymore. I don't think so. He got his money up front like he wanted, Jax did him good in 2009. If he didn't agree, he didn't have to sign. No, but it's reasonable to revisit it if he is a 3 time all pro and the reigning rushing champion with a dozen guys being paid more before even going into the team friendly section (note it was never unfriendly, in hindsight the last 3 were very fair to each). I don't love the holdout but I also think that common sense said they hammer something out in April, and at this point try to put this behind them instead of taking a quarter of his salary. Edited September 4, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreakPop Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 No, but it's reasonable to revisit it if he is a 3 time all pro and the reigning rushing champion with a dozen guys being paid more before even going into the team friendly section (note it was never unfriendly, in hindsight the last 3 were very fair to each). I don't love the holdout but I also think that common sense said they hammer something out in April, and at this point try to put this behind them instead of taking a quarter of his salary. OMG, you just don't get it do you. Impossible to talk sense to you. I'm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsSD Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 OMG, you just don't get it do you. Impossible to talk sense to you. I'm done. Please give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brainiac72 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Similar to Peters in almost every way. No sympathy because good money was awarded before they proved it. Risk on management side, so they should reap some reward for that. What was gained is the same as usual... you hold out 1 year earlier than a deal is reasonably expected, then report with understanding you're serious and it will get addressed next season with ONE year left. They almost certainly will (barring injury or terrible season) now. It's a proactive approach, so you don't have to spring it on them next year and they've had a year to get used to the idea that they should pony up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Similar to Peters in almost every way. No sympathy because good money was awarded before they proved it. Risk on management side, so they should reap some reward for that. What was gained is the same as usual... you hold out 1 year earlier than a deal is reasonably expected, then report with understanding you're serious and it will get addressed next season with ONE year left. They almost certainly will (barring injury or terrible season) now. It's a proactive approach, so you don't have to spring it on them next year and they've had a year to get used to the idea that they should pony up. I'll agree to an extent. I think this one should have been far easier to avoid. The jags are 30 mil under the cap, the gap was smaller, and the player very proven. Use it as a chance to lock him down for his career instead of turning things bitter. It really shouldn't have been hard to tack a year or two on the back end, get his average up a bit- show him, his teammates and the fans some good faith.... Regardless of what you think of the fine, it's amazing how easily this could've been avoided had there been some desire to work together instead of the 100% firm stance. Turn it into a 3-4 year deal worth something in the 20s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 (edited) And he proved to be worth even more than the front loaded portion, yet alone the "team friendly" last two years. I often agree with this point when guys get huge bucks upfront, but he didn't get monopoly money at any point. 7 per is fair, if not under paid based on his actual performance. This isn't revis getting huuuuuuuge money upfront to the tune of 16+ per for 2 years then complaining hell only see 8 this year. He is not 'worth' more than his contract. It's a contract. Players can give up guaranteed money in their contracts if they don't want to play them out. Edited September 4, 2012 by jeremy2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rstencel Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Personally i say they have to hold him and any other holdouts to the fines, or will see more and more people holdout. Are there players out there making more, yes, but he put his time into holding out knowing there would be fines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts