Archer: Mincey 2015 contract redone

[JoeKing]

It's personal to the players. Especially the guys on low deals that see they can get a pay bump if they do step up.


Evidently Mincey was close to a lot of incentives and barely missed them so he didn't get the extra pay.


Also, we may be able to extend Mincey and what a player that would be to have on the cheap for 2 more years.

...but that's not what I said. Players can make anything personal should they choose to. Mincey did fall short of an incentive in his contract so there was nothing wrong with him not getting it... yet the FO threw the dog a bone and gave the incentive pay to him any after he held out of TC to get it. The FO even waived the fine for him missing TC days. So you can't imply the FO is being unfair. He may get an extension but at already 31 yrs old, "the cheap" that you mention is "the norm" and not a big deal.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You just described every holdout ever.

This might be true but the other side of that is that it doesn't guarantee that he will not hold out next year or that some other player wont etc. Yeah, that's every holdout but what does it matter? It's not as if there will be no holdouts ever, even if you pay players. Every situation is different.

 

[CCBoy]

CCBoy your one my favorite posters but I need some interpretation on this one

No problem here. Both were references to events in the news about now, They reflect where an element in play is just plucked out, what is a functional picture, turns to a degree of chaos instead.

The Lion reference was where an American hunter lured a 'movie star' lion off a refuge and then killed him. Cherry picking a theoretical reason for failure, as with the lion, kills the animal out of his environment. Saying a change in salary with Mincey is going to kill the picture of a Dallas cap, is instead an irony pointed towards with the Clarence the Lion comparison. Taking something out of the picture of a protected, but functional boundary, sometimes kills a topic, and in a similar manner to Clarence.

The interplay of the developing Dallas defense, is as interdependent now, upon both the coaches and the strong players from just last season. The series of Naked and Afraid, presents participants with extreme environmental elements that depend upon a couple of necessary elements. Those being a fire starter and weapon/chopping tool, for survival. If one participant removes a fire starter, and goes his own way, then the survival of the other participant becomes extremely difficult and fragile.

Well, if this defensive unit, who is presently built upon members from last season, when the survival of a defensive unit came out of a survival mode from 2013, I wouldn't rush to discount the relationship for survival of a key element that today's continued enviornment persisted from. Marinelli chose the player, because Mincey was an element for the survival of his own defense.

I'm not going to discount contribution by Mincey and how he interacts positively in a whole picture, simply because I can instead state that the sky is falling...but with a little verbal play added as well.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

This might be true but the other side of that is that it doesn't guarantee that he will not hold out next year or that some other player wont etc. Yeah, that's every holdout but what does it matter? It's not as if there will be no holdouts ever, even if you pay players. Every situation is different.

Ahhh the infamous strawman slippery slope argument.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Ahhh the infamous strawman slippery slope argument.

Ahhh,,, A pot, kettle moment. Those are always pretty cool when you see it right?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Ahhh,,, A pot, kettle moment. Those are always pretty cool when you see it right?

Yup.

 

[xwalker]

Sets a very bad precedent IMO.

I understand the concern; however, I think there will be very few players in these situations of being way underpaid relative to their performance. Mincey and Scandrick were underpaid. Scandricks's annual average is still below several CBs that are not even full time starters. Mincey was a starter all of last season but was being paid less than many backups. Also, I don't foresee many players with the missed incentive issue that Mincey had. Young players like Zack Martin can't have their contracts redone until they are almost to free agency, so I don't see that group of players being a problem. Any players that have not been or don't project to be starters won't be a problem. That just leaves a very small group of possible players that would even be in position to request a raise.

The criteria:

Not on a rookie contract.
Was a starter the previous year and/or projects to be a starter in the current year.
Signed the original contract 1 or more years ago.
Is being paid well below average.

In scanning through the roster for possibilities:
Rolando McClain: Does not meet the criteria because he just signed this off-season and is a free agent next year.

Corey White: If he had signed a multi-year contract and became the Nickel CB or starting Safety, then he would fit the criteria, except he is a free agent next year.

Jasper Brinkley: If McClain flakes out and Brinkley becomes the starter this season, then he might have claim next year; however, even if he is the starter in the base, he would likely not play Nickel and his snaps would be less than 50% which is not really a true starter.

I just can't find any candidates for this problem next year. Brinkley is the closest and he would need to play more than 50% of the defensive snaps to have a claim. Also, he is already being paid more than Mincey at a position that averages well below what Mincey's position averages.

The vast majority of players that are likely to out-play their contract are on their rookie deals and don't have the option to renegotiate until the year before they are to become a free agent. If they are only a year away from FA, then the team is likely trying to re-sign them anyway.

 

[CCBoy]

I understand the concern; however, I think there will be very few players in these situations of being way underpaid relative to their performance. Mincey and Scandrick were underpaid. Scandricks's annual average is still below several CBs that are not even full time starters. Mincey was a starter all of last season but was being paid less than many backups. Also, I don't foresee many players with the missed incentive issue that Mincey had. Young players like Zack Martin can't have their contracts redone until they are almost to free agency, so I don't see that group of players being a problem. Any players that have not been or don't project to be starters won't be a problem. That just leaves a very small group of possible players that would even be in position to request a raise.

The criteria:

Not on a rookie contract.
Was a starter the previous year and/or projects to be a starter in the current year.
Signed the original contract 1 or more years ago.
Is being paid well below average.

In scanning through the roster for possibilities:
Rolando McClain: Does not meet the criteria because he just signed this off-season and is a free agent next year.

Corey White: If he had signed a multi-year contract and became the Nickel CB or starting Safety, then he would fit the criteria, except he is a free agent next year.

Jasper Brinkley: If McClain flakes out and Brinkley becomes the starter this season, then he might have claim next year; however, even if he is the starter in the base, he would likely not play Nickel and his snaps would be less than 50% which is not really a true starter.

I just can't find any candidates for this problem next year. Brinkley is the closest and he would need to play more than 50% of the defensive snaps to have a claim. Also, he is already being paid more than Mincey at a position that averages well below what Mincey's position averages.

The vast majority of players that are likely to out-play their contract are on their rookie deals and don't have the option to renegotiate until the year before they are to become a free agent. If they are only a year away from FA, then the team is likely trying to re-sign them anyway.

X, sometimes it's very easy to miss a loyal Cowboy that both loves the game and tries to help his team in a realistic cap picture.

 

[conner01]

Don't know where you guys come up with this stuff
Sets a bad precedent and you don't pay past performance
Mincey knew that the team going all in this year and that hardy was out first 4 weeks so he essentially blackmailed the team into getting more money

So by that theory no player should ever be signed till he reaches free agency
Players want as much as they can get
Owners want them as cheap as they can get them
Both sides do what's in their both interest
That's just the reality of the business

 

[pansophy]

No, it isnt. Opens the flood gates.

I don't know about that. Players know the cap and whether a team can afford to pay or not. Notice that he didn't hold out until Dez was signed. We sign Dez and a lot of cap space opens up. It's an opportunity for us to lock him up for another year as well.

If teams can cut a guy for underperforming I don't see it as unfair for a guy to ask for more money when he is outperforming his contract. Treating your players fairly can only help the locker room.

 

[The Quest for Six]

Sets a very bad precedent IMO.

I believed he missed the 500,000 bonus money for this year by five snaps, so they decided to give it to him, hardly a bad precedent IMO and the talk is about extending him one more year, he doesn't make big money at all...... this isn't the Ratliff extension who still have two and a half years left on his prior deal, that was a bad precedent...

 

[guag]

is rat still playing

Last I heard he was still with the Bears.

 

[Crown Royal]

Option 1) A valuable (if rotational) depth player holds out of camp and doesn't report, negatively affecting your depth and possibly hurting your overall ability to win (we can argue about his quality all day, but his 6 sacks in 2014 were DIRT CHEAP). You risk going into the season with Hardy and two very young players you know nothing about in order to keep precedents a certain way. Maybe the guy reports, but who knows whether he plays interested or hurts your locker room with his belly aching about missing a 500k bonus on 11 plays.

OUTCOME - You've set a strong but possibly negative precedent, but very likely hurt your team overall.

Option 2) A valuable (if rotational) depth player is paid the $500k bonus he would have earned if he had played an extra 11 snaps the year before. He is recognized for his contribution to the team and continues to come to work happy every single day, plays hard and helps the young players improve. He has another year of potential security. Our cap is not hurt, however, it does show other players that you can demand additional cash and, if you are valued at that amount, receive it.

OUTCOME - You've kept an important cog happy and motivated to play well, you continue to be competitive with all the pieces on your team and you show players that you pay for good work. Unfortunately, you also create the possiblility that players are more likely to demand changes to their wage in future scenarios, even when leverage is low.









Personally I prefer OUTCOME 2 - I consider a player being useful pretty good leverage, and Mincey is still a useful player.

 

[Doomsday101]

Option 1) A valuable (if rotational) depth player holds out of camp and doesn't report, negatively affecting your depth and possibly hurting your overall ability to win (we can argue about his quality all day, but his 6 sacks in 2014 were DIRT CHEAP). You risk going into the season with Hardy and two very young players you know nothing about in order to keep precedents a certain way. Maybe the guy reports, but who knows whether he plays interested or hurts your locker room with his belly aching about missing a 500k bonus on 11 plays.

OUTCOME - You've set a strong but possibly negative precedent, but very likely hurt your team overall.

Option 2) A valuable (if rotational) depth player is paid the $500k bonus he would have earned if he had played an extra 11 snaps the year before. He is recognized for his contribution to the team and continues to come to work happy every single day, plays hard and helps the young players improve. He has another year of potential security. Our cap is not hurt, however, it does show other players that you can demand additional cash and, if you are valued at that amount, receive it.

OUTCOME - You've kept an important cog happy and motivated to play well, you continue to be competitive with all the pieces on your team and you show players that you pay for good work. Unfortunately, you also create the possiblility that players are more likely to demand changes to their wage in future scenarios, even when leverage is low.









Personally I prefer OUTCOME 2 - I consider a player being useful pretty good leverage, and Mincey is still a useful player.

I agree however I think what he also wanted was the contract to be extended beyond this season and that was not given too him. Frankly was glad to see him get the 500,000 that he missed on by just 11 snaps. I'm glad he is back in camp I think he will be a big help to this defensive unit both at DE and DT

 

[Proximo]

The dude got an extra 500,000 dollars added to his 2015 salary, and apparently he missed out on that exact same amount in the form of a 2014 "playing time" bonus, which he reportedly missed by something like 11 snaps. The Cowboys were trying to "make that right" and reward his play by doing this deal.

Anyone talking about this setting precedents or opening the flood gates is seriously reaching.

 

[btcutter]

Has that been in doubt up until this point?

What this really shows is you can be average to decent and demand money.

And get it.

I am sure that makes Jerry and Stephen the belles of the free agent ball.

yes, it was in doubt after the Murray contract. I am sure many players were thinking the guy ran his heart out and Dallas won't pay him...

 

[big dog cowboy]

I am sure many players were thinking the guy ran his heart out and Dallas won't pay him...

The players who might have thought that at first probably understood the Cowboys stance after seeing what Murray got.

 

[Craig]

Im fine with this. Hes worth it. Its not a huge investment to do right by him.