What's your opinion on hold outs?

As long as the owners dont have to honor those same contracts and can cut players without having to pay them, I have no problem with the players holding out

he thought it was good contract when he signed it 3 years ago---honor your signature

quote:

---

he thought it was good contract when he signed it 3 years ago---honor your signature

---

frick that. Guys like Chris Johnson out play their contracts. You're telling me Johnson should honor his contract after rushing for 2K yards and making about $500K last year? He's one of the best RBs in the league and should be paid like it.

With the window being so small for NFL players (especially RBs) to make their money, I side with the players on this for the most part. Unless it's an issue like what TO did to the Eagles. Alot of these guys end up with chronic health problems after their playing careers and deserve to make as much money as possible.

Well that's the ideal scenario, but what if revis or johnson blow their knee out at practice while negotiating? They're fricked

I also don't have an issue with rookies holding out for more guaranteed money, especially if they're being low-balled like Jamarcus was a few years back...now they're making too much, but that's for a different thread

Revis is the best CB in the league, therefore should be the highest paid CB in the league. He is underpaid.

quote:

---

Well that's the ideal scenario, but what if revis or johnson blow their knee out at practice while negotiating? They're fricked

---

I get that, but for PR purposes, it's better to work through it rather than holding out. And yes, these guys deserve more money up front for many of the reasons cited.

I just wish that more fans realized that the owners are more greedy than the players.

quote:

---

As long as the owners dont have to honor those same contracts and can cut players without having to pay them, I have no problem with the players holding out

---

ditto

quote:

---

As long as the owners dont have to honor those same contracts and can cut players without having to pay them, I have no problem with the players holding out

---

This

quote:

---

I generally don't have an issue with NFL players holding out for more money, if they deserve it.

---

As everyone else says, owners brought this on themselves when they established a CBA that didn't include guaranteed contracts in the American professional sport w/ the highest risk of injury. (Although I read something a while back that b/c of the numbers of players on an NFL team and the risk of injury, guaranteed contracts are just not economically feasible, so maybe it's a calculated choice.)

The complicated thing about playing/practicing while holding out as some are suggesting is the Javon Walker possibility--for those who don't remember, Javon was looking for a new deal after he'd had a career year so he was holding out. The ever classy, one of the guys, kid having fun out there Brett Favre came out publicly and called out Walker for "not being there for his team" or some cliched line like that (oh, the irony). Anyway, predictably, Javon shreds his knee in the meantime before getting his new deal and is never the same again.

quote:

---

I do find it annoying that guys are saying 5 million bones isn't enough, I want 10, but I also understand the nature of NFL contracts and the shelf life of players.

---

I don't understand why people find this annoying. Everyone should have a right to seek what they are worth on the market. I would understand if they'd signed guaranteed contracts for the $5 mil, but when there isn't guaranteed money, it is incumbent on the players to maximize their earning potential, just like the owners. Don't be offended by the high scale. It's about what they're earning versus what the market dictates they are worth. If you signed up for a job to make $100K and the market dictated that professionals w/ similar qualifications and skills to you are making $200K, suddenly $100K would not seem like enough. Since you aren't bound by a guaranteed contract, you would be irresponsible to say that $100K is "enough." At the same time, a really poor Romanian family would probably find you're insistence that $100K isn't "enough" and you need $200K "offensive," "greedy," and/or "disgusting." It's the principle and not the relative scale that should be the focal point of the issue.

quote:

---

I also don't pity a player if they sign a shitty contract and then throw a fit when they want more.

---

Again, this is the situation that happens when the NFL doesn't have real contracts. The term "contract" refers to the parameters of employment but the length of time is a myth. In the NBA and MLB, there is value in a player signing a long term deal b/c you trade flexibility for security. There is value to both sides in the mutual commitment for a period of time. The NFL has no such benefit or security so the players get no value in return for their commitment of time. Essentially, NFL contracts are just there to define what a player is to be paid while the player is playing under this particular contract. The length of time is a mere fiction for cosmetic purposes.

/end manifesto.

quote:

---

I don't understand why people find this annoying.

---

by annoying i mean essentially saying 5M is not enough when most people will never see 5M

i totally understand your argument about getting paid market value and agree...just the fact that a person says that amount of money is enough kinda makes me cringe