It's Rosenhaus

[Daseal]

These guys are just making financial decesions and negotiations for themselves. Yes, they signed a contract. However, Sean Taylor is one play away from not having a job or half the physical talent he has now. What happened to Theisman, and to many other players whos careers ended prematurely could happen to anyone. We knew he wasn't happy with his deal right after he signed. He got somewhat shafted on his contract to begin with, and we can restructure it and keep him happy. I have a feeling players will be more willing (moreso than their agents, I assure you) to help a team out if the team helps them out.

If a team wants to constantly renegotiate contracts, then why shouldn't players, unhappy with their contract, at least get it looked at? Would we be happy at players (for instance Samuels last year) when we ask to renegotiate and he says "No thanks." He renogitated. Luckily for him he got a bigger SB, but Ramsey, Jansen, Wynn, and others all renegotiated their contracts for either the same amount or slightly more. Most importantly giving the skins cap relief.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Daseal

These guys are just making financial decesions and negotiations for themselves. Yes, they signed a contract. However, Sean Taylor is one play away from not having a job or half the physical talent he has now. What happened to Theisman, and to many other players whos careers ended prematurely could happen to anyone. We knew he wasn't happy with his deal right after he signed. He got somewhat shafted on his contract to begin with, and we can restructure it and keep him happy. I have a feeling players will be more willing (moreso than their agents, I assure you) to help a team out if the team helps them out.

If a team wants to constantly renegotiate contracts, then why shouldn't players, unhappy with their contract, at least get it looked at? Would we be happy at players (for instance Samuels last year) when we ask to renegotiate and he says "No thanks." He renogitated. Luckily for him he got a bigger SB, but Ramsey, Jansen, Wynn, and others all renegotiated their contracts for either the same amount or slightly more. Most importantly giving the skins cap relief.

It is true they are 1 play away from a career ending inury, but that's why they get signing bonus's, what was Taylors? Around 10 mil or there about's, that should be more than enough to cover any injury.

[joecrisp]

Originally Posted by Daseal

These guys are just making financial decesions and negotiations for themselves. Yes, they signed a contract. However, Sean Taylor is one play away from not having a job or half the physical talent he has now. What happened to Theisman, and to many other players whos careers ended prematurely could happen to anyone. We knew he wasn't happy with his deal right after he signed. He got somewhat shafted on his contract to begin with, and we can restructure it and keep him happy. I have a feeling players will be more willing (moreso than their agents, I assure you) to help a team out if the team helps them out.

If a team wants to constantly renegotiate contracts, then why shouldn't players, unhappy with their contract, at least get it looked at? Would we be happy at players (for instance Samuels last year) when we ask to renegotiate and he says "No thanks." He renogitated. Luckily for him he got a bigger SB, but Ramsey, Jansen, Wynn, and others all renegotiated their contracts for either the same amount or slightly more. Most importantly giving the skins cap relief.

It's not the Redskins' fault Sean Taylor flip-flopped on his agents and then proceeded to sign a deal he wasn't happy with. Sure, he's young and stupid, but that doesn't mean he gets a do-over every time he screws up (oops, wait a minute, we're talking about pro athletes here, aren't we?). Regardless, if he plays to the level he's capable of playing, he makes a ton of money, based on the incentives built into his current contract. If he gets hurt and can't play anymore, then he needs to be responsible enough to make that rookie signing bonus last until he can find another source of income. It always goes back to the fact that these guys put their signature on the contract. If they knew going in they were going to want more money (which apparently was the case with Sean Taylor and Terrell Owens), then they shouldn't have agreed to the terms of the deal they signed to begin with. I thought the modus operandi was always to hold out until you get the terms you want. That's been standard operating procedure since free agency started. Where's Sean Taylor been the past 13 years?

So teams renegotiate contracts all the time-- that's true. But it's not like players don't benefit from that process. The main reason players agree to renegotiate (or "help out the team"), is because the team helps them out by giving them more guaranteed money, which is then prorated over the course of the contract for salary cap purposes. Generally, when players refuse to renegotiate (which is what Chris Samuels did prior to last season), it's because the team isn't offering them enough guaranteed money. You used Chris Samuels as an example of a player "helping out the team." Well, look at how much guaranteed money Samuels got for "helping out the team"-- just slightly less than what Seattle's Walter Jones received for signing a new long-term deal. The other guys you mentioned may have agreed to about the same amount of total money that was in their original deals, but I'm sure they got enough of that money guaranteed to make it worth their while to "help out the team". It's not like these guys are saints making some altruistic sacrifice to "help out the team" when the team asks them to renegotiate.

If players are going to refuse to play on the contracts they signed less than a year ago, then teams are going to simply have to let them sit, and let them lose game checks. Otherwise, Pandora's box will never be closed, and a new CBA will be even tougher to complete prior to the uncapped year in 2007. If the uncapped year comes to pass, the NFL will be on a slippery slope towards a labor lockout.

[SantanaMan]

Someone mentioned a cap on players contracts earlier - fine in theory, but you would still need a cap for total team salary, otherwise whats to stop one fo the richest teams signing 53 players at the max-contract salaries whilst a small market team could not keep up.
The salary cap is there to create parity amongst all the markets.
What I can see happening during negotiations for the new CBA is that contracts cannopt be reworked for 2, maybe 3 years from the date of signing - that way we will see less of these "one year wonders" holding out and players who have played well over those 2 or 3 years can then negotiate for better salaries. This would also mean teams could not decrease said salaries in those 2 or 3 years either.

The NFL has that program anyway where they pay bonus money to players who outperformed their contracts in a particular season.

[joecrisp]

That sounds like a viable solution, SantanaMan. Let's hope there's something like that in the next CBA. This is definitely a situation that needs to be addressed.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SantanaMan

What I can see happening during negotiations for the new CBA is that contracts cannot be reworked for 2, maybe 3 years from the date of signing - that way we will see less of these "one year wonders" holding out and players who have played well over those 2 or 3 years can then negotiate for better salaries. This would also mean teams could not decrease said salaries in those 2 or 3 years either.

This does sound good and something they should have considered sooner! I mean, you guys remember the days when a contract was actually a binding agreement?