RE: RE:NFL News (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message


Jim Frenette -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/6/2010 1:33:21 PM)

While watching KFFL yesterday and today, the Dolphins kept releasing and adding players all day like a rebuilding year




thebigo -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/6/2010 2:02:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

I don't have any problem with football contracts being torn up to give the player more money. Since NFL contracts are not guaranteed, unless you are TJH, then they are one-sided in the owner's favor. When a player gets some leverage he needs to use it.

If football teams honored contracts they gave to players then I would agree with Fargo.


They do honor the contracts.

Not true at all.

They cut players and cancel the contract whenever they feel like it.


It's actually written in the contracts that they can do that.




Jim Frenette -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/6/2010 2:27:36 PM)

Ravens trade Clayton to Rams for conditional draft pick




John Childress -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/6/2010 2:32:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

I don't have any problem with football contracts being torn up to give the player more money. Since NFL contracts are not guaranteed, unless you are TJH, then they are one-sided in the owner's favor. When a player gets some leverage he needs to use it.

If football teams honored contracts they gave to players then I would agree with Fargo.


They do honor the contracts.

Not true at all.

They cut players and cancel the contract whenever they feel like it.


It's actually written in the contracts that they can do that.

We all know that but that doesn't change the point. It is a 1 sided contract and anytime a good player has a chance to stick it to ownership I am on his side.

Players careers are over in a few short years and many are left with lifelong disability.

If Revis sucked he would be cut and not earn another dollar. The team would not "honor" his contract.




thebigo -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/6/2010 6:32:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

I don't have any problem with football contracts being torn up to give the player more money. Since NFL contracts are not guaranteed, unless you are TJH, then they are one-sided in the owner's favor. When a player gets some leverage he needs to use it.

If football teams honored contracts they gave to players then I would agree with Fargo.


They do honor the contracts.

Not true at all.

They cut players and cancel the contract whenever they feel like it.


It's actually written in the contracts that they can do that.

We all know that but that doesn't change the point. It is a 1 sided contract and anytime a good player has a chance to stick it to ownership I am on his side.

Players careers are over in a few short years and many are left with lifelong disability.

If Revis sucked he would be cut and not earn another dollar. The team would not "honor" his contract.


$15M for 2 years work? For a player that "sucked"? Doesn't seem half bad.




John Childress -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/6/2010 6:35:35 PM)

quote:

Revis certainly played himself into the upper stratosphere of all NFL players last year, shutting down receivers like Randy Moss, Andre Johnson and Chad Ochocinco; no wideout he played had a 50-yard day. And in the AFC divisional playoff upset of San Diego, Revis allowed one completion by Philip Rivers all day -- for minus-four yards. I believe he's a top-five NFL player right now, and I'd put only Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees over him in current value. The game is all about moving the chains with the short and intermediate passing game, and Revis and Nnamdi Asomugha of the Raiders are by far the two best players at clamping down good receivers and preventing teams from throwing at one side of the field.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/09/05/mmqb/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin#ixzz0ynNYdsOv

He deserves every penny




John Childress -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/6/2010 6:40:02 PM)

In 1996, when Batch was a quarterback at Eastern Michigan, his younger sister, Danyl Settles, was killed in the crossfire between rival gangs in the rough Pittsburgh neighborhood of Homestead, where the family grew up. Batch was drafted by Detroit in 1998 and played there for parts of four seasons. When the Lions let Batch go in 2002, the Steelers signed him as a backup. Knowing he was moving back home, he decided he had to do something about the hopelessness and violence that plagued the neighborhood where he was raised.

He started a summer basketball program for the boys and girls in town. The program began the Monday after school let out and ran until the weekend before football practice began in late July. It was a bridge, in essence, to keep kids with nothing to do off the streets. And there were a couple of wrinkles. Whereas kids in the Steel Valley School District had to have a 2.0 grade-point average to play sports, Batch made it 2.2 -- so kids would know it's a privilege, and not a right, to play in his league. And he coupled educational opportunities with the sport. Batch put computers in his foundation office in Homestead and set up a place for kids to have an after-school program -- in a community with no YMCA or Boys and Girls Club. He partnered with Carnegie Mellon University to begin taking 15 students a summer to the university to work with architecture professors to see if any of the students might have an architectural bent.

This year, 353 boys and girls, from grade school through high school, played in the Batch basketball league. All had the grades to play -- some because Batch is good friends with the high school guidance counselor, who goes to the kids on the borderline at the end of the third term and tells them: No 2.2, no basketball for you this summer.

When I visited Steelers camp in Latrobe, Pa., this summer, Batch told me about all of this, and I said to him, "You could easily be like so many other players -- just take your money, live the good life, buy a house in Boca and move there. Why didn't you do it?''

"Because I never want another family to feel the way my family did,'' Batch said. "Nothing existed there. If the kids have nothing to do, they all go hang out on one block until the cops tell them to move along. Then they just go find another block. They need something to do, something positive. I want them to understand that sports and education can go hand in hand. You've got to be good to be able to do the other.''


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/09/05/mmqb/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin#ixzz0ynOrwEMI




hrerikl -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/6/2010 11:25:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

I don't have any problem with football contracts being torn up to give the player more money. Since NFL contracts are not guaranteed, unless you are TJH, then they are one-sided in the owner's favor. When a player gets some leverage he needs to use it.

If football teams honored contracts they gave to players then I would agree with Fargo.


They do honor the contracts.

Not true at all.

They cut players and cancel the contract whenever they feel like it.


It's actually written in the contracts that they can do that.

We all know that but that doesn't change the point. It is a 1 sided contract and anytime a good player has a chance to stick it to ownership I am on his side.

Players careers are over in a few short years and many are left with lifelong disability.

If Revis sucked he would be cut and not earn another dollar. The team would not "honor" his contract.


The team gives a bunch of money up front in order for the right to cut the player later. If the player wanted all the money garaunteed, he could likely have it. It would just be a much smaller contract. The team did exactly what they said they would do in the contract. The player did not honor his word. Revis could have easily probably negotiated a 15 million dollar contract with every year garaunteed if he had wanted to negotiate that. Instead he negotiated a 30 million dollar contract with only 11 million garaunteed.

If you contract with somebody to pave your driveway and it includes a clause that you can have him stop within the first week but he gets to keep the 33% deposit you paid up front. If you exercise that clause you are still acting according to the contract.

If he takes your thirty three percent deposit, does a quarter of the job, and then holds out for more money, you have every right to be pissed. The fact you both signed a contract that you can cancel does not mean he is justified in not honoring the contract he signed.

I have no issues with players not under contract holding out. This includes rookies, UFA, RFA, Franchise, and other tagged players. Those guys should hold out until they get a contract they are willing to honor.




John Childress -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/7/2010 6:58:15 AM)

"The Player does not honor his word" and neither does the team. The team signs a guy for 5years but cuts him in 2.

You take a job at the local company making $75,000. Another company offers you $125,000 - you leave.

Revis is by far the best CB in the NFL and he earned that money. I am happy for him.




John Childress -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/7/2010 9:21:36 AM)

Washington considering trading Haynesworth back to Titans according to mort




hrerikl -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/7/2010 2:30:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

"The Player does not honor his word" and neither does the team. The team signs a guy for 5years but cuts him in 2.

You take a job at the local company making $75,000. Another company offers you $125,000 - you leave.

Revis is by far the best CB in the NFL and he earned that money. I am happy for him.

It depends if I take a contract with a Company for 3 years and a a third of the money up front money in consideration to being there for three years, I don't leave.  If I did I could be sued for breach of contract. 

The team doesn't sign a guy for 5 years, they give A guy a contract with a signing bonus in exchange for the rights to his services at a specified additional compensation for certain number of years and the right to terminate his services sooner.  There is no where that a team agress to not cut a player in fact the team and player agree that he can be cut in the contract.  I have never seen a team break a contract.  If they did, I am sure the NFL would not allow it.  Like I said, if the player wanted his full contract garaunteed, he could likely have it, it would just be for a much lower number  and no player wants that.

What does the team agree to that they do not honor?  They certainly don't agree not to cut the player.  They even put specific language theat the team and player agree to in the contract as to what happens (what money is due) if such a cut occurs.




John Childress -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/7/2010 3:00:13 PM)

There is no where that a team agress to not cut a player in fact the team and player agree that he can be cut in the contract.

Right

And the player has the right to not come in to play unless he gets more money. You do believe in capitalism and not slavery, right? No team owns a player. He can choose to sit home and if the team wants him they can step up to the plate and pay him.




Jim Frenette -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/7/2010 3:22:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

There is no where that a team agress to not cut a player in fact the team and player agree that he can be cut in the contract.

Right

And the player has the right to not come in to play unless he gets more money. You do believe in capitalism and not slavery, right? No team owns a player. He can choose to sit home and if the team wants him they can step up to the plate and pay him.


Then why do we see teams all the time fine players for missing camp?




David Levine -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/7/2010 3:24:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim Frenette

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

There is no where that a team agress to not cut a player in fact the team and player agree that he can be cut in the contract.

Right

And the player has the right to not come in to play unless he gets more money. You do believe in capitalism and not slavery, right? No team owns a player. He can choose to sit home and if the team wants him they can step up to the plate and pay him.


Then why do we see teams all the time fine players for missing camp?


Just because he has the right to do it doesn't mean there aren't consequences.




John Childress -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/7/2010 4:42:29 PM)

If the players is good enough, the team eats the fine anyway!

Revis picked up tens of millions of extra dollars. I don't think the fine is significant. The Jets are probably paying for it.




hrerikl -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/7/2010 5:00:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

There is no where that a team agress to not cut a player in fact the team and player agree that he can be cut in the contract.

Right

And the player has the right to not come in to play unless he gets more money. You do believe in capitalism and not slavery, right? No team owns a player. He can choose to sit home and if the team wants him they can step up to the plate and pay him.


Nope,

  The player agrees not to do this in the contract.  It has nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with honoring your word and doing the work you have already been partially paid for in terms of a signing bonus in exchange for working future years at an agreed upon rate unless the team terminates the contract according to terms agreed upon by player and team in which case the player gets to keep all his prepayment without even having to do any more work.  Not sure what slavery has to do with this.

The fact is the team can go after prorated portions of the Signing bonus when the player breaks the contract as a penalty for the player breaking the contract.  The NFL would never let a team break the contract.  (Like if Seattle tried not to pay T.J. according to the terms of his contract.)  Several players have broken their word and not done what they contracted themselves to do.

I don't really like that.

Vincent Jackson -  Not under contract and is well within his rights to hold out IMO.
Terrell Revis --  Agreed to and signed a contract that he is not honoring.

Like I said, if I pay someone a third of a contract up front to build a house and he is under a contract that specifies that if I fire him he gets to keep the whole upfront money but otherwise he has to finish the whole job at a certain rate.  I would be pissed if that person does a quarter of the full job and then tries to hold out for more money after taking all the upfront money and not completing the job.

That is basically how most of these NFL contracts are structured and it has nothing to do with slavery.




John Childress -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/7/2010 5:40:14 PM)

The player agrees not to do this in the contract.

Bull

It is the American system to be able to sell your services to the highest bidder. That is life. The player can come in and play for a substandard contract or he can hold out to get more money. He is risking fine, suspension, etc. but that is his choice. There is nothing dishonorable about holding out. That is capitalism.

DeSean Jackson will be the next holdout. Next year the Eagles will tear up his contract and give him a new one or he won't play.




hrerikl -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/7/2010 7:07:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

The player agrees not to do this in the contract.

Bull

It is the American system to be able to sell your services to the highest bidder. That is life. The player can come in and play for a substandard contract or he can hold out to get more money. He is risking fine, suspension, etc. but that is his choice. There is nothing dishonorable about holding out. That is capitalism.


The player is not providing services he has agreed to and already been partially paid for.  He is breaching his word that he signed in the contract.  I appreciate the debate, but I disagree with you on this one.  How would you react to the house analogy above.  Breaching a contract if the cost/penalty of doing so is cheaper than honoring it, may be common in capitalism, but it doen't make it right.  In some cases players negotiate the right to terminate the contract themselve if certain conditions are met.  It sounds like you are saying they have this right at any time weather those conditions are met anyway.  Why even negotiate the right to void the contract by the player if they meet certain escalators or just if they want to (in other cases) if they have that right anyway without negotiating it.




SoMnFan -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/8/2010 6:38:02 AM)

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings?year=2010&week=1

Packers slide into our #3 spot, we slide down to #5 (without playing a game yet, btw ) [&o]
Has a team ever gotten more hype for a pre-season than this Green Bay squad?
I don't usually have the same level of hatred for them as most on here ..... but I'm getting there in a hurry. Punks. [X(]




John Childress -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/8/2010 7:43:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoMnFan

http://espn.go.com/nfl/powerrankings?year=2010&week=1

Packers slide into our #3 spot, we slide down to #5 (without playing a game yet, btw ) [&o]
Has a team ever gotten more hype for a pre-season than this Green Bay squad?
I don't usually have the same level of hatred for them as most on here ..... but I'm getting there in a hurry. Punks. [X(]


Since it has been 6 years since we had a repeat champion the guessers want to pick someone new. Most of them did not pick the Saints either.

Green Bay was explosive and sexy last year. They allegedly added some improvements so they become the pick.

They have shied away from Dallas after the butt whipping the Vikes put on them. They don't believe in ATL yet either.




John Childress -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/8/2010 7:45:21 AM)

What isn't right is how the NFL uses up these players and discards them like trash at the end of their playing time. Sure, the players' union is partly to blame also for not negotiating real pensions. But the bottome line is that players are usually beat up and hurt when they get done.

While they have the chips in their hand they deserve to get every penny they can.




Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/8/2010 9:15:59 AM)

Heard on Mike and Mike this morning that Tom Brady is about to sign a big extention.

Well, I will admit I was wrong there.  Never thought the Pats would offer any aging superstar with declining skills a longterm high dollar deal.  Guess there is an exception to every rule. 




John Childress -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/8/2010 9:31:19 AM)

I have maintained all along that neither Brady or McNabb make sense here.

If McNabb plays well this year then Washington re-signs him. If he doesn't, why would we want him?




Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/8/2010 9:44:52 AM)

Brady would have made sense if he wasn't extended.

McNabb only makes sense in coming here because of being "reunited" with Chillidog.  In any case if we were to get him...we will need to get TWO QBs, because McNabb is pretty much guaranteed to miss a few games. 




John Childress -> RE: RE:NFL News (9/8/2010 9:58:52 AM)

I think McNabb developed himself physically in the wrong direction. He used to be much more elusive. He added weight to better take the pounding where I think he should have gone the other way to avoid more hits.




Page: <<   < prev  189 190 [191] 192 193   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode