Official Cuts from Around the NFL Thread

[44 goes 50 gut]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I really hope they don't.

Why? Who can blame any NFL player trying to get paid more when teams are so avid to use them up and throw them on the trash heap, even if they're fan favorites?

The teams don't have to abide by their own contracts except for guaranteed money... Why should players be bothered to?

I think the next CBA players should hold out to break non-guaranteed contracts. Might not be best for the game (because it would lower competition for roster spots and that would be a shame), and it definitely wouldn't be best for owners who can basically discard any player the moment they've used them up, but it would be the right thing for the players.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by 44 goes 50 gut

Why? Who can blame any NFL player trying to get paid more when teams are so avid to use them up and throw them on the trash heap, even if they're fan favorites?

The teams don't have to abide by their own contracts except for guaranteed money... Why should players be bothered to?

I think the next CBA players should hold out to break non-guaranteed contracts. Might not be best for the game (because it would lower competition for roster spots and that would be a shame), and it definitely wouldn't be best for owners who can basically discard any player the moment they've used them up, but it would be the right thing for the players.

I don't have a problem with him holding out. But he should face the consequences of doing so.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I don't have a problem with him holding out. But he should face the consequences of doing so.

So what consequences do the owners have when they cut the player before the contract is up?

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

So what consequences do the owners have when they cut the player before the contract is up?

taking the cap hit from going out and getting a better player for more money....

[MTK]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

So what consequences do the owners have when they cut the player before the contract is up?

That's the game. Nobody said it's fair.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

So what consequences do the owners have when they cut the player before the contract is up?

None, because that's what was negotiated in the CBA.

What consequence does the player have to face when he signs a contract with a fat roster bonus and then his production drops off.

[44 goes 50 gut]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

None, because that's what was negotiated in the CBA.

So does that make it right? It seems like (and hey maybe I'm reading you wrong) these two posts you're arguing that because the status quo exists. That justifies it and makes it right. The owners use players up and toss them away with Fans such as yourself applauding. While smarter players who try and leverage their abilities and hold out, are hated on by fans because "they are breaking their contract".

Sorry but I'm not going to base my sympathies on the letter of the CBA without bothering to think about it.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

What consequence does the player have to face when he signs a contract with a fat roster bonus and then his production drops off.

The team can and often does renegotiate the contract downward. Of course the player can simply be cut without pay beyond any guaranteed money... I'm sure you're not genuinely meaning to ask that question and you had some point in mind but I'm not sure what it is?

Does it happen in a few select high profile cases that Players get the better of ownership? Sure, but for every Haynesworth or Deon Sanders making an owner look like an idiot (or proving him to be one), there's a dozen lesser players who spend the rest of their lives with messed up knees, a limp, post concussion syndrome, early onset arthritis etc. and all they got was a thank you and a bus ticket, or at best a pennies on the dollar injury settlement.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 44 goes 50 gut

So does that make it right? It seems like (and hey maybe I'm reading you wrong) these two posts you're arguing that because the status quo exists. That justifies it and makes it right. The owners use players up and toss them away with Fans such as yourself applauding. While smarter players who try and leverage their abilities and hold out, are hated on by fans because "they are breaking their contract".

Sorry but I'm not going to base my sympathies on the letter of the CBA without bothering to think about it.

Don't know how smart MJD's holdout was, he gained nothing, hurt his public image, is behind in conditioning and learning the playbook.

Never said anything about "hating" MJD. Just saying if a player(likely under agent advice) is going to pull a hold-out make sure he's got leverage to make it work. And the "evil" owners "throwing away" players line is tired. The coaches are the ones who make the cut decisions. In a violent game like football, no way there will ever be guaranteed contracts.

The team can and often does renegotiate the contract downward. Of course the player can simply be cut without pay beyond any guaranteed money... I'm sure you're not genuinely meaning to ask that question and you had some point in mind but I'm not sure what it is?

Never heard of a team negotiating a contract downward? Example?

[44 goes 50 gut]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Don't know how smart MJD's holdout was, he gained nothing, hurt his public image, is behind in conditioning and learning the playbook.

Never said anything about "hating" MJD. Just saying if a player(likely under agent advice) is going to pull a hold-out make sure he's got leverage to make it work. And the "evil" owners "throwing away" players line is tired. The coaches are the ones who make the cut decisions. In a violent game like football, no way there will ever be guaranteed contracts.

Never heard of a team negotiating a contract downward? Example?

Never heard of renegotiating for less money/cap hit?

I think the throw away line is shiny and evocative, so there we are... The fact of the matter is RB's in the NFL suffer rather severe punishment, and are usually discarded before they are 30 or much older. For that reason alone I can't blame a player for looking after his bottom line, even if like MJD he's unsuccessful.

Carson Palmer the same deal but for different reasons, he was apparently sick of playing for a losing franchise and an idiot owner, he took it further than MJD and he got his way onto a different franchise that he was obviously willing to play for to get the trade done (even if you want to say he jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire LOL).. You could say Palmer got out of Cincy, and that much at least was a "win" for him.

Point is the collusive NFL ownership group does not deserve player loyalty... Because they exhibit next to no loyalty themselves. Besides some token number retirement or a ring of fame, even the very greatest players for the team rarely get any loyalty. See Peyton Manning...

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I don't have a problem with him holding out. But he should face the consequences of doing so.

Yep, or else everyone would 'hold out' just so that they can miss training camp and no have to pay a fine for missing work.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

Yep, or else everyone would 'hold out' just so that they can miss training camp and no have to pay a fine for missing work.

Well, "everyone else" is not MJD. Let's think who could possibly get away with that on the Skins - certainly not any of the current backs. Orakpo? maybe. Anybody else? Moss? nope. Hankerson? nope.

To a certain extent it's one of the perks of being a star player. "Okay, you hold out, we waive the fines. If you suck b/c of the holdout, however, you will get cut/traded/go away next year so you better make sure you know what you are doing."

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 44 goes 50 gut

Why? Who can blame any NFL player trying to get paid more when teams are so avid to use them up and throw them on the trash heap, even if they're fan favorites?

The teams don't have to abide by their own contracts except for guaranteed money... Why should players be bothered to?

The teams have to abide by the contract language that was negotiated into the CBA....and they do. Each contract contains language that the team can cancel the contract at any time, particularly for the team having another player that performs better. The fines levied on MJD were also something negotiated into the CBA. They're to prevent players who sign contracts with large up-front bonuses from holding out.

I think the next CBA players should hold out to break non-guaranteed contracts. Might not be best for the game (because it would lower competition for roster spots and that would be a shame), and it definitely wouldn't be best for owners who can basically discard any player the moment they've used them up, but it would be the right thing for the players.

Good luck with that.....9 years from now.

[44 goes 50 gut]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The teams have to abide by the contract language that was negotiated into the CBA....and they do. Each contract contains language that the team can cancel the contract at any time, particularly for the team having another player that performs better. The fines levied on MJD were also something negotiated into the CBA. They're to prevent players who sign contracts with large up-front bonuses from holding out.

Good luck with that.....9 years from now.

I'm not sure whats more disconcerting in your post. Wishing me luck on a NFLPA matter, or the pointless lecture on the incredibly obvious.