What RB cracks first?

[Augie]

Of course a player has some leverage. I never said they didn’t. How much? You’ll find out by sitting. Both sides are using the options available to them by way of the contract. 

[Punching Bag]

5 hours 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.

 

Of course not. It is part of contract that players can be cut.  It is NOT part of contract that a player can hold out without penalty nor renegotiate contract unless GM agree.  If GM wants player to take a cut and refuses the team has the option of trading player (if not no-trade clause in contract) or cutting player making player free agent or subject to contract being assumed by another team.

 

And I am all for owners making players pay fines repeatedly when they hold out.  

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

2 hours ago, Augie said:

 

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.   

 

So then explain to me why these guys are holding out then since sounds like they don't have a leg to stand on.  It's applicable until the second the player holds out.  Why doesn't their respective teams sue all these hold outs for breach of contract if it were so cut and dry as you seem to state?   They were even talking last week on ESPN.  So the one small piece of leverage the teams have is to fine the players for holding out.  From what they said on the radio and these are ex players talking, the fines mysteriously disappear once the player comes back to camp.

[Augie]

5 hours ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

So then explain to me why these guys are holding out then since sounds like they don't have a leg to stand on.  It's applicable until the second the player holds out.  Why doesn't their respective teams sue all these hold outs for breach of contract if it were so cut and dry as you seem to state?   They were even talking last week on ESPN.  So the one small piece of leverage the teams have is to fine the players for holding out.  From what they said on the radio and these are ex players talking, the fines mysteriously disappear once the player comes back to camp.

 

Because it’s not breach of contract, I’ll assume. (I’m not playing an attorney on the internet.) They can’t force the player to play, but the owners are allowed to fine per the contract (not sue).  It’s not the one small piece of leverage the team has, however. The player wants to be PAID, and that doesn’t happen if he doesn’t show up. There’s also the player losing a year of service if they don’t show by a certain date (I’ll let someone more knowledgeable speak to that). 

 

As part of the kiss and make up, the fines are often waived, because the contract says they can do that. The player’s leverage is that the team wants what they can do for the team on the field. 

 

 

.

Edited August 6, 2019 by Augie

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

2 hours ago, Augie said:

 

Because it’s not breach of contract, I’ll assume. (I’m not playing an attorney on the internet.) They can’t force the player to play, but the owners are allowed to fine per the contract (not sue).  It’s not the one small piece of leverage the team has, however. The player wants to be PAID, and that doesn’t happen if he doesn’t show up. There’s also the player losing a year of serviced if they don’t show by a certain date (I’ll let someone more knowledgeable speak to that). 

 

As part of the kiss and make up, the fines are often waived, because the contract says they can do that. The player’s leverage is that the team wants what they can do for the team on the field. 

 

 

.

 

Sure sounds like breach of contract IF and a big if it's a cut and dry as you're arguing.  I'm not an attorney either, but the one thing I do know based on observation over the past 10, 20, 30 years. Contract law and sports teams; don't try and talk about the two of them together.  It a different world.

 

Yes I get  it, the player doesn't get paid.  In this same conversation I heard on the radio about the fines disappearing, they also commented how it's much different for the player to not show up week 1 and miss a game check.   That's where the rubber tends to meet the road.

 

Kind of funny you mention player losing a year of service.  That's always been a pet peeve of mine.  The player sits out until I believe it's around week 10 or 12, then shows up completely out of game shape and useless to the team for the remainder of the year.  But the team has no leverage other than to cut him.  I'd like to see the next CBA if the player doesn't report week one, he loses the year of service, or after week 1, the team can tell the player, "it's nice that you now want to report, don't bother, we'll see you next summer"   If the team is in a playoff race, they may take him, if not let him sit, but still own his rights.  Highly unlikely this will ever happen, but would love to see something along those lines.

[Augie]

6 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

Sure sounds like breach of contract IF and a big if it's a cut and dry as you're arguing.  I'm not an attorney either, but the one thing I do know based on observation over the past 10, 20, 30 years. Contract law and sports teams; don't try and talk about the two of them together.  It a different world.

 

Yes I get  it, the player doesn't get paid.  In this same conversation I heard on the radio about the fines disappearing, they also commented how it's much different for the player to not show up week 1 and miss a game check.   That's where the rubber tends to meet the road.

 

Kind of funny you mention player losing a year of service.  That's always been a pet peeve of mine.  The player sits out until I believe it's around week 10 or 12, then shows up completely out of game shape and useless to the team for the remainder of the year.  But the team has no leverage other than to cut him.  I'd like to see the next CBA if the player doesn't report week one, he loses the year of service, or after week 1, the team can tell the player, "it's nice that you now want to report, don't bother, we'll see you next summer"   If the team is in a playoff race, they may take him, if not let him sit, but still own his rights.  Highly unlikely this will ever happen, but would love to see something along those lines.

 

It’s not breach of contract, I’d say, because the contract allows them to not play. You can’t MAKE a guy show up and play a violent sport against his will. If he doesn’t show, he doesn’t get paid. Fair enough.  It’s not a sale of property or non-compete clause. You don’t HAVE TO go to work tomorrow, but you may not be paid if you don’t.

 

I don’t think you understand my point. The contract covers all these points. You may not like them, but it’s what has been negotiated. You may not think it’s fair....but that doesn’t matter. The CBA between NFL and NFLPA  counts, and the team/player contract spell out what can and cannot happen, for the most part. 

[Augie]

5 hours ago, MR8 said:

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. 

 

Zeke also has the whole knucklehead issue working against him. He’s cutting ahead of guys who are one year early for a deal (while he’s TWO years out), and you never know when he might get suspended. Even his own father questioned his maturity and ability to manage fame and money. 

 

I don’t know if I’d trust Zeke after a big payday, despite his immense talent. 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

It’s not breach of contract, I’d say, because the contract allows them to not play. You can’t MAKE a guy show up and play a violent sport against his will. If he doesn’t show, he doesn’t get paid. Fair enough.  It’s not a sale of property or non-compete clause. You don’t HAVE TO go to work tomorrow, but you may not be paid if you don’t.

 

I don’t think you understand my point. The contract covers all these points. You may not like them, but it’s what has been negotiated. You may not think it’s fair....but that doesn’t matter. The CBA between NFL and NFLPA  counts, and the team/player contract spell out what can and cannot happen, for the most part. 

 

OK if the standard NFL contract allows a person not to play, then agree not breach.

 

Well from what I read of the original posts (which by now don't even recall the exact thing,) you were stating that based on simple contract law the player signed the contract so he needs to honor it.  And my point is contract law and the NFL don't go together.  Do I like it no, but have learned to accept it.

 

Admittedly it is a sticky slope with non guaranteed contracts that allow the player to be cut anytime and the average career only being around 3 seasons.

[Augie]

2 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

OK if the standard NFL contract allows a person not to play, then agree not breach.

 

Well from what I read of the original posts (which by now don't even recall the exact thing,) you were stating that based on simple contract law the player signed the contract so he needs to honor it.  And my point is contract law and the NFL don't go together.  Do I like it no, but have learned to accept it.

 

Admittedly it is a sticky slope with non guaranteed contracts that allow the player to be cut anytime and the average career only being around 3 seasons.

 

No problem, he’s well within his rights to not show up. I have zero problem with that. Of course if you don’t show up, you don’t get paid, and you don’t get that year of service (by whatever date that is). He is trying to play chicken with them. I’d say don’t pay him, but that’s me. (TOTALLY different discussion.) I have no horse in this race. Maybe I wasn’t clear earlier. If so, my bad. Have a nice night! 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Just now, Augie said:

 

No problem, he’s well within his rights to not show up. I have zero problem with that. Of course if you don’t show up, you don’t get paid, and you don’t get that year of service (by whatever date that is). He is trying to play chicken with them. I’d say don’t pay him, but that’s me. (TOTALLY different discussion.) I have no horse in this race. Maybe I wasn’t clear earlier. If so, my bad. Have a nice night! 

 

I agree I wouldn't pay him either mainly due to all the off field issues the guy has had. But the other side of it is he's a big part of the offense, without him, my guess is Dak will look very 2nd rate.  Puts the Cowgirls in a tough spot.  In San Diego Rivers will be fine without Gorden, better with him and Super Bowl contender with him, but they'll still be OK without.  Dallas will likely go down the tubes without Elliott and Jason Garrett may as well start packing up his office now.

 

Have a good one!

[Augie]

8 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

I agree I wouldn't pay him either mainly due to all the off field issues the guy has had. But the other side of it is he's a big part of the offense, without him, my guess is Dak will look very 2nd rate.  Puts the Cowgirls in a tough spot.  In San Diego Rivers will be fine without Gorden, better with him and Super Bowl contender with him, but they'll still be OK without.  Dallas will likely go down the tubes without Elliott and Jason Garrett may as well start packing up his office now.

 

Have a good one!

 

The Cowboys have a handful of guys one year from a deal. Zeke is TWO years away. I don’t trust the greedy guy in a hurry who has a history of trouble. Bad optics for the locker room, and bad for the cap if/when he lets you down. He has repeatedly demonstrated he can’t be trusted. Make him prove he’s grown up. He’ll come in, he was a high pick and is scheduled to make millions even on his rookie deal. 

 

But this is the OTHER discussion. ?

Edited August 6, 2019 by Augie

[BullBuchanan]

4 hours ago, Limeaid said:

 

Of course not. It is part of contract that players can be cut.  It is NOT part of contract that a player can hold out without penalty nor renegotiate contract unless GM agree.  If GM wants player to take a cut and refuses the team has the option of trading player (if not no-trade clause in contract) or cutting player making player free agent or subject to contract being assumed by another team.

 

And I am all for owners making players pay fines repeatedly when they hold out.  

Yet you act like it's some moral injustice that they don't show up to play.  RBs in particular provide extremely high value over extremely short windows. They have to take advantage before what happened to Gurley and countless other backs inevitably happens to them. If the league wants to fix it, which they don't, they'd do fully guaranteed contracts liek every other sport. It's funny watching the richest sports league act like the poorest.

[mannc]

On 7/26/2019 at 1:31 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.

Silly.  Gordon is JAG compared to Elliott.  I might give up a fourth for him and LA knows he’s easily replaceable.

[LSHMEAB]

1 hour ago, mannc said:

Silly.  Gordon is JAG compared to Elliott.  I might give up a fourth for him and LA knows he’s easily replaceable.

Yeah. He's averaged over 4 YPC once in his four seasons and that was with Anthony Lynn. The Anthony Lynn who made Gillislee look like a stud. He'll probably show up without a deal before the season starts. Zeke; not so much.

[Chicken Boo]

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

You signed the contract honor what you signed.

 

You mean, like the teams honor them?  Please.

[Chicharito]

7 hours ago, Chicken Boo said:

 

You mean, like the teams honor them?  Please.

For the most part they do. Players get guaranteed money up front. That is what they want. Front loaded contracts. Then when the money is lower in the backend they a) hold out because now it’s not enough b) don’t live up to the contract and are released. What am I missing here?

[Chicken Boo]

On 8/6/2019 at 3:57 PM, Chicharito said:

For the most part they do. Players get guaranteed money up front. That is what they want. Front loaded contracts. Then when the money is lower in the backend they a) hold out because now it’s not enough b) don’t live up to the contract and are released. What am I missing here?

 

First off, these are RBs still on their garbage rookie deals.  

[Chicharito]

3 hours ago, Chicken Boo said:

 

First off, these are RBs still on their garbage rookie deals.  

And their has to be a rookie contract due to players not living up to the contracts the owners were handing out as they were busts. Zeke is one more arrests from getting the boot from goodell anyway. I wouldn’t pay him either.