Clayton talks Henry

[BillsFanForever19]

For what the Bills did for him, I don't see any loyalty in him whatsoever, that's why I really don't like the kid that much.

343370[/snapback]

 

I don't believe in this statement. I hear it a lot though.

 

Everyone makes it sound like we did Willis this great favor for drafting him and he owes us. Like Willis wasn't going to be picked a few picks later! Oakland was sitting there in the 1st EXPECTING to pick him. There were others who were willing to trade up.

 

He was going to get picked in the 1st. Maybe not as high as #23; but to say he owes us because we picked him 3-5 picks ahead of everyone is a crock.

[BADOLBILZ]

Excellent point by Clayton, I also get nervous with a reconstructed knee (fingers crossed) but Locking up Willis should be a #1 priority for this team.

343023[/snapback]

 

Willis is as locked up as you would want a RB to be. Three years is an eternity for a ball carrier.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

So you think the idea of asking for a raise after a particulary well done job is some sort of unheard of ridiculous exercise?

I don't know. A contract IS a contract. And players don't voluntarily GIVE UP money after a particularly bad job, do they? And with the system the way it is now, even if they DO do a bad job and get cut, their bonus money has already been paid to them.

[airhunter11]

if a tree fell in the woods, and it landed on mark clayton

would anyone care?

343772[/snapback]

 

The Baltimore Ravens might care.........

[disco]

I don't know if anyone caught this or not. But on the "Inside the Huddle" segment of Sportscenter at 6 today, Jon Clayton was talking about the Titans RB situation.

 

He said that with Chris Brown injured, they really want to have Travis Henry. When Brown comes back, he and Travis would share the duties. But this is where it gets interesting......

 

Clayton said that the Titans seem to think that Donahoe will not trade Travis until they sign McGahee to a long-term deal!

 

That's a side of this that I never looked at and it makes perfect sense!

343008[/snapback]

 

I don't think his logic makes any sense. We only know ONE thing for certain:

Henry will NOT be a Bill past this season.

 

You either trade him now and get some value or let him walk as a FA next year. The situation is the same if McGahee is signed for 3 years or 10.

[plenzmd1]

The players would respond that the NFL has a monopoly, a likely illegal one at that.  Neither side ever wants that decided in court.  That is why the league and the teams do not take these guys to court when they hold out and breach their contract.  The breach of an illegal contract is not an actionable breach.  You and I can quit our jobs and work for another company any time we want.  These guys can't because the teams do not function as separate competetive businesses.  The league functions as one big company and their labor practices are openly collusive.

 

If such a clause as you suggested were actually used, players would not sign the contracts or would bring on litigation challenging the NFL's lack of free agency as monopolistic, anti-competetive and collusive.

 

Hold outs are nothing new.  They happen over and over and over and the reason the teams do nothing about is because at this point, they know that is how the game is played.

343768[/snapback]

 

The way I understand it, MLB has the only legally sanctioned monoply by way of their antitrust exemption.

 

Also, I do not believe that their contracts are illegal. The lanquage of contracts, the draft, FA system etc have been collectively bargained for between the union and management. While you and I may be able to quit our jobs and move, 99% of us do not have personal services contracts with our employers. I think a better point however is when a comapny gives you a moving allowance. It is often stated in a written aggreement that if you leave the company within a year, all such expences are then payable back to the company. That to me is very similar to a signing bonus. After all, a seven year deal in the NFL is nothing but a series of 7 one year contracts.

 

So maybe the lanquage could read something to the effect that if player voluntarily leaves the team, some portion of this bonus is due back to the team. Obviosly, this type of lanquage is legal as we have seen in the Ricky Williams case. Say what you will about the Felons, at least they had the foresight to see that dude was a flake, and protected themselves in case he flipped out. Why can't that type of clause become standard ?

Especially when Drew Rosenhaus is the agent!!!!!!!!!