What RB cracks first?

[machine gun kelly]

Well Bell will never get that $14 million back, and ended up accepting less in NY than Pittsburgh offered the year before he held out.  You’d think these guys would learn their lesson.  The worst mistake these teams can make is forgiving these TC fines when they probably crack by the beginning of the season.

[dave mcbride]

12 hours ago, mrags said:

Contracts are contracts. You sign it. You deal with it. This holding out crap has to stop. Don’t sign a contract for the number of years they offer you then. 

You have no wiggle room with rookie contracts anymore - they’re slated. He has vastly outperformed the contract.

[MAJBobby]

16 hours ago, Chicharito said:

So who do you guys think cracks first. Gordon or Zeke? I don’t get leaving millions of dollars Just laying out to dry. That’s me though! You signed the contract honor what you signed.

 

Teams sign Contracts too. Should they NOT honor them as well?  That argument holds ZERO water. So who cracks first?

 

Probably Gordon because as of right now there is a good RB already behind him. Lowering his leverage. 

 

Though if Dallas goes out and signs Theo Riddick after his release today they could also cut into Zeke leverage as well. 

[cage]

13 hours ago, mrags said:

Contracts are contracts. You sign it. You deal with it. This holding out crap has to stop. Don’t sign a contract for the number of years they offer you then. 

 

Aren't both playing on their rookie deals?  There's not much bargaining power there anymore when they sign ($ or years).  Rightly so, as the previous approach paid too much to rookies who hadn't done anything on the field yet (w/ a +50% bust rate).  As first round picks, they're in a bit of a unique position where the 5th year option for the team penalizes RBs especially hard.  RBs being so discardable, If either tore an ACL this year, they would forego their single, solitary chance at a big payday.  I really can't blame them for wanting this resolved now.  

[Punching Bag]

16 hours ago, That's No Moon said:

When the teams start honoring the contracts they hand out I'll be on board. Until then the players need to get paid as much as they can while they can.

 

They do honor them.  The ability to release them is part of contract and why they get signing bonuses.  If they do not like it they should fire their union, the NFLPA, and start a new one.

 

11 hours ago, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

So if a team can franchise tag a player after he "honors his contract" with a designation he can only sign with them, on their terms.. effectively extending the contract he worked so hard to honor, why can't that player similarly seek a contract on their terms a year earlier? Why do contracts only have to be honored by the player while teams can cut him showing no such honor? Contract is a promise of future services for money. Either side can dispute if they aren't getting what they signed.

 

Because their union negotiated that wanting higher percentage of the pie.

 

Again blame the NFLPA.

11 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Rookies don't have that kind of negotiating power with the rookie wage scale.

 

Take it up with their labor union representatives. 

10 hours ago, mrags said:

Well they can hold out and not report and make nothing and use their degree in basket weaving to see if they can get a job making more money 

Yes holdout and come back in week 10 out of shape and sync but collect a full year's seniority.  The NFL owners really messed up on negotiating that part of contract.

[mrags]

2 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

You have no wiggle room with rookie contracts anymore - they’re slated. He has vastly outperformed the contract.

Welcome to the nfl rookie. We have rules in place for a reason. Don’t like it, there’s always that basket weaving degree you have. 

2 hours ago, cage said:

 

Aren't both playing on their rookie deals?  There's not much bargaining power there anymore when they sign ($ or years).  Rightly so, as the previous approach paid too much to rookies who hadn't done anything on the field yet (w/ a +50% bust rate).  As first round picks, they're in a bit of a unique position where the 5th year option for the team penalizes RBs especially hard.  RBs being so discardable, If either tore an ACL this year, they would forego their single, solitary chance at a big payday.  I really can't blame them for wanting this resolved now.  

Waaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

 

play baseball instead 

[cage]

58 minutes ago, mrags said:

Welcome to the nfl rookie. We have rules in place for a reason. Don’t like it, there’s always that basket weaving degree you have. 

Waaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

 

play baseball instead 

 

not a convincing argument...

[mrags]

6 minutes ago, cage said:

 

not a convincing argument...

Neither is holding out of a contract that you signed 

Edited July 27, 2019 by mrags

[buffalobloodfloridahome]

This is not all that different with the success teams are having with Rookie QB contracts and how much money they save. The way the draft is structured and what the player gets paid by when he was drafted has given teams a huge advantage over the players now especially running backs. Look at how the patriots seemingly draft a new rb every year and when they want a contract the patriots send them packing. We are in a passing league now and the running back position has been seriously devalued and most teams don't have a every down back they do it by committee. It's a shame to see the end of an era we will not see the Emmitt Smiths and Ladanian Tomlinsons anymore they are ghosts now.

[GoBills808]

7 minutes ago, buffalobloodfloridahome said:

This is not all that different with the success teams are having with Rookie QB contracts and how much money they save. The way the draft is structured and what the player gets paid by when he was drafted has given teams a huge advantage over the players now especially running backs. Look at how the patriots seemingly draft a new rb every year and when they want a contract the patriots send them packing. We are in a passing league now and the running back position has been seriously devalued and most teams don't have a every down back they do it by committee. It's a shame to see the end of an era we will not see the Emmitt Smiths and Ladanian Tomlinsons anymore they are ghosts now.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Edited July 27, 2019 by GoBills808

[Mr. WEO]

20 hours ago, That's No Moon said:

When the teams start honoring the contracts they hand out I'll be on board. Until then the players need to get paid as much as they can while they can.

 

Those contracts say the player may be cut or traded before the contract expires.  So what is it that you’re talking about?

[cage]

2 hours ago, mrags said:

Neither is holding out of a contract that you signed 

 

They both have over performed their rookie contracts.  They both have leverage now and should use it given how perilous the opportunity is for RB in this league.  They're in their prime and the time to pay them is now.  That's the bottom line.

 

[BullBuchanan]

On 7/26/2019 at 4:02 PM, Johnny Hammersticks said:

 

Perhaps not released, but do you think they’ll succumb to his demands?  Particularly given Rivers’ comments to the media this week?   Sounds like he does not have the support of the locker room, and RB’s just don’t get paid the same way anymore (with Bell being an outlier).  The play seems to be to let your RB play out their rookie deal and then move on.

It's their choice whether they want to pay him or lose him for little to no value. I don't blame these RBs at all. I'd hold out immediately after a good season for more guaranteed $. The writing is on the wall that these teams abuse them time and time again, so you have to do the same as a player. Gotta get yours.

[mrags]

6 hours ago, cage said:

 

They both have over performed their rookie contracts.  They both have leverage now and should use it given how perilous the opportunity is for RB in this league.  They're in their prime and the time to pay them is now.  That's the bottom line.

 

Bottom line is they signed contracts and should honor them. If not, they can hold out and waste a year if their careers like that douche Bell. 

 

I hope they get their contracts and have career ending injuries. 

[Bing Bong]

On 7/26/2019 at 10:56 PM, Augie said:

I honestly don’t mean this in a bad way, but I’m guessing you have zero knowledge of contract law. The player agreed to this when they signed the deal. DONE. Get over it. 

SMH if you think this is about contract law. A contract is an agreement of fees for services. That's it... you're also allowed to re-negotiate contracts during it's length by holding out, or other means. The team agreed to this when they offered the deal. DONE. Get over it.

 

Fees for services. Both sides can get together to bang out a new one and it happens all the time.. in any profession. In many rarely is a contract honored, expected to be honored, nor is there any moral outrage when a contract is not honored. Stop assigning moral outrage to a piece of paper that more often than not does not reflect what will actually happen over the term.

 

On 7/26/2019 at 9:49 PM, Augie said:

No. That is NOT how contracts work. You don’t make a new one or terminate, the deal still stands. The TEAM owns the rights. No play, no pay.  Your view would be the exact opposite of a contract. 

The deal doesn't stand when you re-negotiate! Yes the last contract is binding.. until nixed by new negotiations. You understand that more often than not contracts do not end up at the originally agreed to length, original agreed to amount, a contract is really just telling you how much somebody is making at the very present. You and I both know this is very poor reflection of what earnings will actually be 5 years later on a 5 year deal. Because the team terminates the contract. Because both team and player will likely want a new mutual contract by then. Because the player no longer wants to play anymore. Fees for services.

 

You can't coerce a contract to be performed.

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

SMH if you think this is about contract law. A contract is an agreement of fees for services. That's it... you're also allowed to re-negotiate contracts during it's length by holding out, or other means. The team agreed to this when they offered the deal. DONE. Get over it.

 

Fees for services. Both sides can get together to bang out a new one and it happens all the time.. in any profession. In many rarely is a contract honored, expected to be honored, nor is there any moral outrage when a contract is not honored. Stop assigning moral outrage to a piece of paper that more often than not does not reflect what will actually happen over the term.

 

The deal doesn't stand when you re-negotiate! Yes the last contract is binding.. until nixed by new negotiations. You understand that more often than not contracts do not end up at the originally agreed to length, original agreed to amount, a contract is really just telling you how much somebody is making at the very present. You and I both know this is very poor reflection of what earnings will actually be 5 years later on a 5 year deal. Because the team terminates the contract. Because both team and player will likely want a new mutual contract by then. Because the player no longer wants to play anymore. Fees for services.

 

You can't coerce a contract to be performed.

 

The team is under NO obligation to re-negotiate. If the player wants to sit, he can do so without pay. If the team decides it’s worth it, they can elect to re-negotiate. The player cannot make the team do this. It’s simple, really. 

[Bing Bong]

8 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

The team is under NO obligation to re-negotiate. If the player wants to sit, he can do so without pay. If the team decides it’s worth it, they can elect to re-negotiate. The player cannot make the team do this. It’s simple, really. 

They re-negotiate to retain players.

 

I mean obviously Zeke and Gordon have little recourse here. But FOH with knowing contract law lol. Contract law can't coerce these guys into doing anything should they want to hold out. Players can win these if the team wants to maintain a positive future relationship within a reasonable amount. I don't particularly care but my opinions on RB contracts don't have anything to do with dry contract law. If the Hulk is a RB, he gets extended to what he wants because he's so good whoever has him pays no one else and watches Hulk smash. Hulk's leverage makes his holdout more impactful.

Edited August 5, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[BullBuchanan]

On 7/26/2019 at 3:31 PM, Chicharito said:

So who do you guys think cracks first. Gordon or Zeke? I don’t get leaving millions of dollars Just laying out to dry. That’s me though! You signed the contract honor what you signed.

This is hilariously out of touch. Do you say the same thing to the owners who cut talent mid-way through contracts?
 

I'm all for these guys getting their money, because the owners will give them the least amount they have to. Holding out is their only option.

[Bing Bong]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

This is hilariously out of touch. Do you say the same thing to the owners who cut talent mid-way through contracts?
 

I'm all for these guys getting their money, because the owners will give them the least amount they have to. Holding out is their only option.

I don't understand the moral outrage assigned to completing a really dry piece of paper. This isn't some romantic use of honor. It's a contract detailing money in exchange for service. "But what about the honor!"

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

On 7/26/2019 at 4:31 PM, Chicharito said:

So who do you guys think cracks first. Gordon or Zeke? I don’t get leaving millions of dollars Just laying out to dry. That’s me though! You signed the contract honor what you signed.

 

Because:

1) Le’veon set a new precedent.

 

2) RB life spans are so short

 

their agents are always going to push this way going forward until it backfires on one of these guys. 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

The team is under NO obligation to re-negotiate. If the player wants to sit, he can do so without pay. If the team decides it’s worth it, they can elect to re-negotiate. The player cannot make the team do this. It’s simple, really. 

 

Contract law doesn't apply in sports.  Sure in theory it does, but reality is something else!

[LSHMEAB]

I don't think Zeke will blink. He's got the upper hand.

 

If one of them is going to crack, it'll be Gordon. 

On 7/27/2019 at 7:42 PM, mrags said:

Bottom line is they signed contracts and should honor them. If not, they can hold out and waste a year if their careers like that douche Bell. 

 

I hope they get their contracts and have career ending injuries. 

Bell got paid, so whatever they think of his antics, it worked out for him.

 

And you seem to be missing the fact that the team also agreed to the contract; so I have to assume you're also against a team cutting a player before his contract expires, correct?

[mrags]

7 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

I don't think Zeke will blink. He's got the upper hand.

 

If one of them is going to crack, it'll be Gordon. 

Bell got paid, so whatever they think of his antics, it worked out for him.

 

And you seem to be missing the fact that the team also agreed to the contract; so I have to assume you're also against a team cutting a player before his contract expires, correct?

Bell didn’t get anything. He got paid no more than what he would have played for under his tag. Everyone wants to talk about how short of a lifespan a RB has in their career, but then want to justify them sitting out and missing a year of their career? Youve got to be kidding me. You people must be a special kinda of stupid. 

 

And I am not missing anything about the teams signing the contracts. The teams and the players are agreeing to the guaranteed money. That’s on the player. If they think they are worth more, or should be worth more, then they should ask or demand more in guaranteed money. 

 

If were here arguing about the rookie contracts, then it’s also the players fault because they voted for that in the CBA. And don’t get it confused, everyone wanted it at the tome. Owners, and players both. 

[LSHMEAB]

2 minutes ago, mrags said:

Bell didn’t get anything. He got paid no more than what he would have played for under his tag. Everyone wants to talk about how short of a lifespan a RB has in their career, but then want to justify them sitting out and missing a year of their career? Youve got to be kidding me. You people must be a special kinda of stupid. 

 

Number of carries/usage is most definitely one factor in the overall lifespan of a RB's career. I don't like to throw out singular names because it's anecdotal, but FredEx comes to mind. Bell didn't want to risk injury on a one year deal, got to choose his team, and got paid. I'm not sure how he lost. It's fair to critique the way he went about his business, but the maneuver basically worked.

 

You make a strong point about GUARANTEED DOLLARS in a contract as a counter to the argument of "if a team can cut a player, the player has every right to hold out." I still don't personally have a problem with a player attempting to maximize his earnings, but I'll call a strong case when I see it.

[mrags]

2 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Number of carries/usage is most definitely one factor in the overall lifespan of a RB's career. I don't like to throw out singular names because it's anecdotal, but FredEx comes to mind. Bell didn't want to risk injury on a one year deal, got to choose his team, and got paid. I'm not sure how he lost. It's fair to critique the way he went about his business, but the maneuver basically worked.

 

You make a strong point about GUARANTEED DOLLARS in a contract as a counter to the argument of "if a team can cut a player, the player has every right to hold out." I still don't personally have a problem with a player attempting to maximize his earnings, but I'll call a strong case when I see it.

There’s zero case for it. If you get hired at an office or McDonalds flipping burgers for $15/hr. Doesn’t matter. You get hired at that rate and when your evaluation is due and time for a raise you will either get one or you won’t. I’d imagine fast food places give evaluations every 3-6 months. Make your case then. Maybe you will get promoted to the fryers. Or maybe a cashier. Earning the extra .50/hour. If you work in an office, it’s probably a year you’ll be waiting. Good luck with everything. 

 

As as far as an nfl player, they sign a contract and when the contract is up they can renegotiate a new contract. Until that tome comes, if the team they play for doesn’t want to renegotiate, they are not only not required to, they are right. That player is under contract and that’s it. 

[nucci]

On 7/26/2019 at 5:38 PM, I am the egg man said:

It's not a Bills issue, so who really cares in here ?

we discuss NFL issues here as well....not sure why you don't know that

On 7/26/2019 at 9:09 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'm thinking Gordon

I think Zeke is more of the offense.  He's also a bit more nutz IMO (sorry @CowgirlsFan)

 

 

Team does honor it.  The options and actions open to both are spelled out in the contract.  You and the players may not LIKE those options as they tend to favor the team (team has the right to cut the player) but I've never heard of a team not honoring a contract.  If the player gets injured after he signs and the contract is guaranteed for injury, the team pays.  See Wood, Eric.  If the salary is guaranteed and the team cuts the player after he's been here 2 weeks, the team pays.  See Coleman, Corey.

 

 

why not just say Eric Wood and Corey Coleman? Are you Bills Fan, Hapless?

[LSHMEAB]

13 minutes ago, mrags said:

There’s zero case for it. If you get hired at an office or McDonalds flipping burgers for $15/hr. Doesn’t matter. You get hired at that rate and when your evaluation is due and time for a raise you will either get one or you won’t. I’d imagine fast food places give evaluations every 3-6 months. Make your case then. Maybe you will get promoted to the fryers. Or maybe a cashier. Earning the extra .50/hour. If you work in an office, it’s probably a year you’ll be waiting. Good luck with everything.  

Talk about apples and oranges. That McDonald's/office employee has virtually no leverage. We're talking about premiere/very difficult to replace athletes. Pretty sure McDonald's workers' don't even have contracts, but I would certainly advise Timmy working the register to think twice before demanding a raise unless he has a better offer on the table from Sonic.

[mrags]

2 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

Talk about apples and oranges. That McDonald's/office employee has virtually no leverage. We're talking about premiere/very difficult to replace athletes. Pretty sure McDonald's workers' don't even have contracts, but I would certainly advise Timmy working the register to think twice before demanding a raise unless he has a better offer on the table from Sonic.

Unfortunately Bell didn’t have any leverage either. Didn’t work out for him very well apparently. He ended up on a worse team, in a worse situation, with the same amount of money he would have made in Pittsburgh. 

[nucci]

On 7/27/2019 at 9:42 PM, mrags said:

Bottom line is they signed contracts and should honor them. If not, they can hold out and waste a year if their careers like that douche Bell. 

 

I hope they get their contracts and have career ending injuries. 

Why? They're both great players to watch

31 minutes ago, mrags said:

There’s zero case for it. If you get hired at an office or McDonalds flipping burgers for $15/hr. Doesn’t matter. You get hired at that rate and when your evaluation is due and time for a raise you will either get one or you won’t. I’d imagine fast food places give evaluations every 3-6 months. Make your case then. Maybe you will get promoted to the fryers. Or maybe a cashier. Earning the extra .50/hour. If you work in an office, it’s probably a year you’ll be waiting. Good luck with everything. 

 

As as far as an nfl player, they sign a contract and when the contract is up they can renegotiate a new contract. Until that tome comes, if the team they play for doesn’t want to renegotiate, they are not only not required to, they are right. That player is under contract and that’s it. 

Don't compare a regular job to being a professional athlete. It doesn't work

[mrags]

3 minutes ago, nucci said:

Why? They're both great players to watch

Don't compare a regular job to being a professional athlete. It doesn't work

Neither did holding out for Bell

[nucci]

Just now, mrags said:

Neither did holding out for Bell

I wasn't talking about that...you mentioned you wanted both to suffer career ending injuries

[mrags]

3 minutes ago, nucci said:

I wasn't talking about that...you mentioned you wanted both to suffer career ending injuries

Sure. I don’t like money grubbing, entitled people. Especially athletes. 

[nucci]

Just now, mrags said:

Sure. I don’t like money grubbing, entitled people. Especially athletes. 

so you wish bad things to happen to them?

[mrags]

7 minutes ago, nucci said:

so you wish bad things to happen to them?

Their careers could end tomorrow and I couldn’t care less 

[Augie]

3 hours ago, BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P said:

 They re-negotiate to retain players.

 

I mean obviously Zeke and Gordon have little recourse here. But FOH with knowing contract law lol. Contract law can't coerce these guys into doing anything should they want to hold out. Players can win these if the team wants to maintain a positive future relationship within a reasonable amount. I don't particularly care but my opinions on RB contracts don't have anything to do with dry contract law. If the Hulk is a RB, he gets extended to what he wants because he's so good whoever has him pays no one else and watches Hulk smash. Hulk's leverage makes his holdout more impactful.

 

A) The team has the option to re-negotiate. They are under no obligation whatsoever to do so. 

B) The player has every right to sit out. They just don’t get paid or accumulate the year of service. No “coercing” here, play and make money, sit on the couch and miss the pay checks. Maybe the team decides to renegotiate, maybe they don’t. 

 

I have to believe you’re just kidding at this point, so I’ll step out. 

[Augie]

1 hour ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

Contract law doesn't apply in sports.  Sure in theory it does, but reality is something else!

 

What is that thing they sign that lays out the terms? Before anybody gets paid.  It might be monkeyed with in sports more than some other fields, but it is VERY applicable, particularly because of disputes like this. The contract lays out the rules of how this game is played. It’s not just in theory, it’s the rules the dispute is played by.   

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

It's tough - the Cowboys rely on zeke more and it'd likely be no new money in 2019 anyway.  His option year is set at around 10mil, but he'll want to be highest paid at his position, so i would guess 16per year?  But looking at Dak going from 2 mil to 30 mil, and Cooper looking for 20... gonna be tough to come up with the 55+ needed for all 3.  Zekes not even in his option year yet either... Just a mess.  You hit on a 4th round QB but when it comes time to pay him you have to gut the team it seems like.  

 

Gordon's interesting because... he's a good player, but hes not even close to as good as elliot.  Worse YPC... Comparable Receiving numbers... More Miles... Missed time with injuries in 3/4 years... 1 1000 yard season.  So its hard to evaluate where he should be paid honestly.  Somewhere in the AAV between freemans 8.25 and Johnsons 13 - either way its more than the 5 he's set to make this year. 

 

Both are looking for large guarantees - but i tried to simplify and look at the AAV

Edited August 5, 2019 by dneveu

[MR8]

Zeke has more leverage as a producer for their offense, but less as a player because of where he is on his rookie deal, and how short he's bee in in the league... I think he'll report sooner... he has too much time left, and the team will tell him they'll pick up his option after this year giving him a massive raise and they'll discuss in good faith, HOWEVER they simply can't afford to give him the money now.  As a guy still early on a rookie deal he can sit, but it's not a precedent that is going to be made, no team is going to let a rookie hold the hostage when they fought to have a rookie pay scale.   

 

Gordon is also very young, but he has more leverage from the stand point of time in the league and having THAT particular leg to stand on... but with Eckler in LA, they have another completely viable back, and their offense runs through Rivers and those WRs more than Gordon... he's amazing but he's a complimentary piece... he's not "the show" like Zeke is.... I honestly think they don't feel a drop off having Eckler be the guy instead...

 

I think Gordon holds out until week 6... the question is do they trade him or just let him sit?  

 

I think Zeke reports for week 1. 

[Bing Bong]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

A) The team has the option to re-negotiate. They are under no obligation whatsoever to do so. 

B) The player has every right to sit out. They just don’t get paid or accumulate the year of service. No “coercing” here, play and make money, sit on the couch and miss the pay checks. Maybe the team decides to renegotiate, maybe they don’t. 

 

I have to believe you’re just kidding at this point, so I’ll step out. 

----->  C) Both teams and players have leverage in negotiations <----

 

This isn't rocket science man. There's no obligation, but it's just an inherent part of teams trying to build good football rosters. What am I kidding about lol. Humor me, I agree with A) and B). Teams don't do anything against their interest BUT.. neither do players. Right? Cause there's 2 sides inking all these deals? 

 

All I am asking is that you believe a team is affected.. in any way.. by the player's side of the bargaining table. Because my talking points were always based on the silly notion players have leverage. And you seem to keep refuting that with "no contract power = no leverage" - Just because players can not change their own contracts means they have no influence on what their contracts might become? 

 

If you feud in contract disputes often, the player seeks FA. If you lose games, as too many players hold out, you may have your hand forced to re-negotiate. A player may simply be unhappy with his deal, be a locker room cancer, under-perform. Ultimately you'd be a crappy team if you can't negotiate for your own interests of acquiring and retaining good players. 

 

If Zeke holds out first 3 weeks, Cowboys go 0-3, Zeke may re-sign at some point halfway. It's a game of chicken and I just want to make sure you're acknowledging with me that Zeke has just a sliver of leverage. Whatever leverage you want to assign him, but Zeke has some impact on how he gets paid lol. Contract law has nothing to do with this: are the cowboys the exact same team without Zeke? Noooooooo. <-- that's leverage.

Edited August 5, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P

[Bing Bong]

4 hours ago, Augie said:

 

The team is under NO obligation to re-negotiate. If the player wants to sit, he can do so without pay. If the team decides it’s worth it, they can elect to re-negotiate. The player cannot make the team do this. It’s simple, really. 

So you're just ignoring the demand side of the equation. Does the customer set a price to buy at? No technically the seller sells at the price to sell at. 

 

Does this mean the customer has no influence on the price? No, the price is really dictated by the free market.

 

NFL teams operate in a free market. Provided they want to win just like a seller wants a profit. why do players demand and get trades despite no obligation from the team to make that trade..  because the player has influence.. or leverage on the team to make that happen. Just because teams dictate the contracts doesn't mean they can operate with impunity given they have an ulterior motive to win.

Edited August 5, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P