beware_d-ware
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 7,485
- Reaction score
- 9,118
The *deal* generally contains guaranteed years and non-guaranteed years, the latter being years the team has the option to keep the player or not.
Teams have to honor the guaranteed years. And no one doubts this. The optional years are just that - optional. Teams declining to continue with that option are not failing to honor a deal.
Technically, a player holding out probably is in breach of contract, for which the CBA defines remedies. The owners are not in breach by cutting a player to non-guaranteed years - that is their right under the contract.
I get it a little. People are projecting their own values for keeping a contract to the situation. If you're not a big wheeler dealer, you probably view a contract as a deal between people making a good faith effort to fulfill the terms and expectations. A handshake and honest intentions. If I cut you off from an ongoing deal to squeeze you the moment I have leverage, you will view me as a jerk, whether or not technically there is nothing in the contract that prevents me from doing this.
Zeke is squeezing when he has leverage. Kind of jerky. But college players had no representation during CBA negotiations, and so were screwed by their rookie deals. That's also rather jerky.
So that's the way it works in the NFL. It's not the handshakes and goodwill realm of contracts. It's the squeeze the other side when you have the advantage realm of contracts.
I think Jerry, and others, gloss over the NFL structurally screwing rookies, and want to make it all handshakes and goodwill *after* rookies get screwed. I'm sure they do. But there's no reason to expect players coming into the league with a kick in the teeth to simply take it and not press *their* advantage when they get one. What goes around, comes around.
Very well said.