Things it is ok to do: 1) A team may ask an aging veteran who cannot physically produce at a high level any longer to take a pay cut or face release, even if a contract has been signed. 2) A team may cut an otherwise productive player because he no longer fits into the team philosophy, regardless of said contract. 3) A team may cut a player because his contract costs too much against the cap. Things it is NOT ok to do: 1) A player may not be upset. Ever. They get paid more than us regular folk, so they are without problems in the world. 2) A player who gets less playing time regardless of ability AND knows that his contract will NOT be honored after the upcoming season is NOT allowed to ask for the wages he will lose after the upcoming season. 3) A player may not ever voice distress about his role, because, like I've said, he makes more than us and is therefore beyond requesting money. No matter what, he is being paid fairly. Feel free to merge or delete, I'm blowing off steam.:bang2: EDIT: I don't think the Cowboys should budge. Don't get me wrong - a front office can NEVER budge in contract disputes. I am just sick that one of the best players we've had in the last decade is all of a sudden getting such a horrible rap. I understand both sides in this argument. Both sides have a point. It's now up to both sides to reach a verbal agreement that pleases greg, but doesn't force the Boys to set a financial precedent.