Contract games

[AstroPilota]

Up front disclaimer - I am NOT defending the way both the Lamb and Prescott contract situations are being handled, by either side, just trying to think about it rationally. I see over and over the comments about how the front office drags their feet with these contracts. From the front office point of view, I can understand the reluctance of signing a player to a new contract early - only to have that player turn around and hold out on them a couple years later. With that fear in the back of their mind - how can they confidently juggle the salary cap? I believe a large part of the problem is media-driven, a good player knows that having that star on the helmet automatically makes them worth more. They know the media will blow and spin everything.

Lamb probably feels he's as good as Jefferson or Hill, maybe better, I won't get into that in this post. But ponder this - how good would Jefferson have looked with that rookie QB? How good will Jefferson look with Darnold? How good would Lamb look with Rush or Lance? Getting the Lamb deal done with both the Prescott and the looming Parson contract on the horizon has got to be very difficult. Plus there are other guys on the team - remember them? It's a lot more difficult than us keyboard-warriors think.

It obviously takes both sides to agree. I don't think a single person on this forum knows much true detail what either side is demanding. It's too easy to bash either side from our point of view. However - I'm old-school and believe you honor what you happily sign. Lamb will be taken care of, he's under contract and should be out there with his team mates! I'm afraid Parson is going to ask for the moon, but for now, he appears content to just play the contract he signed and then will try to stick it to them come renew time (just like Prescott did), and when you are due to become a free-agent, that's a fair tactic even if we as fans don't like the results.

So ask yourself - if you were the owner of an NFL team, would you be apprehensive about redoing a player's contract early with the fear of that player still holding out on you before the new contract expires? I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how cases like this stay out of the court of law.

 

[Brax]

Up front disclaimer - I am NOT defending the way both the Lamb and Prescott contract situations are being handled, by either side, just trying to think about it rationally. I see over and over the comments about how the front office drags their feet with these contracts. From the front office point of view, I can understand the reluctance of signing a player to a new contract early - only to have that player turn around and hold out on them a couple years later. With that fear in the back of their mind - how can they confidently juggle the salary cap? I believe a large part of the problem is media-driven, a good player knows that having that star on the helmet automatically makes them worth more. They know the media will blow and spin everything.

Lamb probably feels he's as good as Jefferson or Hill, maybe better, I won't get into that in this post. But ponder this - how good would Jefferson have looked with that rookie QB? How good will Jefferson look with Darnold? How good would Lamb look with Rush or Lance? Getting the Lamb deal done with both the Prescott and the looming Parson contract on the horizon has got to be very difficult. Plus there are other guys on the team - remember them? It's a lot more difficult than us keyboard-warriors think.

It obviously takes both sides to agree. I don't think a single person on this forum knows much true detail what either side is demanding. It's too easy to bash either side from our point of view. However - I'm old-school and believe you honor what you happily sign. Lamb will be taken care of, he's under contract and should be out there with his team mates! I'm afraid Parson is going to ask for the moon, but for now, he appears content to just play the contract he signed and then will try to stick it to them come renew time (just like Prescott did), and when you are due to become a free-agent, that's a fair tactic even if we as fans don't like the results.

So ask yourself - if you were the owner of an NFL team, would you be apprehensive about redoing a player's contract early with the fear of that player still holding out on you before the new contract expires? I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how cases like this stay out of the court of law.

You shouldn’t have any problems with any player holding out, they can’t play elsewhere and they don’t get paid during the holdout. Everyone has a right to decide what they want to do. It’s no different than if a player gets injured it’s just the next guy up. The team has multiple options when a player holds out it’s up to them what they want to do

 

[sunalsorises]

It takes both sides to close the deal. A contract signed now won't be worth the same next year so there is incentive for players to wait as long as possible. However, players also have to factor the money they lose while waiting that extra year to sign. In other words, Dallas probably offered Lamb an extension last year and Lamb decided to wait to maximize his money.

As far as the rookie deal, players are more or less forced to sign the deal as is. There is some negotiating over contract details but the money is basically set. It seems reasonable that players can hold out if they "out perform" the rookie deal.

Dak didn't really play games with his contract. He didn't hold out. He signed the franchise tag and played on it. He just has a really good agent that got him a really good deal.

Zeke, on the other hand, wanted his contract redone early and had to hold out to do it. Turns out that was smart on Zeke's part. He got his new contract when he was at his most valuable.

For the most part, players follow the advice of their agents who know when to hold out, when to wait, and when to sign.

 

[stilltheguru]

Up front disclaimer - I am NOT defending the way both the Lamb and Prescott contract situations are being handled, by either side, just trying to think about it rationally. I see over and over the comments about how the front office drags their feet with these contracts. From the front office point of view, I can understand the reluctance of signing a player to a new contract early - only to have that player turn around and hold out on them a couple years later. With that fear in the back of their mind - how can they confidently juggle the salary cap? I believe a large part of the problem is media-driven, a good player knows that having that star on the helmet automatically makes them worth more. They know the media will blow and spin everything.

Lamb probably feels he's as good as Jefferson or Hill, maybe better, I won't get into that in this post. But ponder this - how good would Jefferson have looked with that rookie QB? How good will Jefferson look with Darnold? How good would Lamb look with Rush or Lance? Getting the Lamb deal done with both the Prescott and the looming Parson contract on the horizon has got to be very difficult. Plus there are other guys on the team - remember them? It's a lot more difficult than us keyboard-warriors think.

It obviously takes both sides to agree. I don't think a single person on this forum knows much true detail what either side is demanding. It's too easy to bash either side from our point of view. However - I'm old-school and believe you honor what you happily sign. Lamb will be taken care of, he's under contract and should be out there with his team mates! I'm afraid Parson is going to ask for the moon, but for now, he appears content to just play the contract he signed and then will try to stick it to them come renew time (just like Prescott did), and when you are due to become a free-agent, that's a fair tactic even if we as fans don't like the results.

So ask yourself - if you were the owner of an NFL team, would you be apprehensive about redoing a player's contract early with the fear of that player still holding out on you before the new contract expires? I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how cases like this stay out of the court of law.

So Mr. Old school. If you currently have a 3 year contract with your job, and the job hires new employees whose contracts double your amount for the same work you'd honor that contract?

 

[Flamma]

So ask yourself - if you were the owner of an NFL team, would you be apprehensive about redoing a player's contract early with the fear of that player still holding out on you before the new contract expires? I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how cases like this stay out of the court of law.

Besides Zach Martin, how often does this happen? When was the last time a Cowboys has done this? We're not talking rookie contracts, right? Because no player happily signs a rookie deal. They happily sign contracts after the rookie deal. What are you actually saying here?

 

[ChronicCowboy]

Signing elite talent is important. Lamb and Parsons are worth big money. It’s when you give moderate talent big contracts that issues arise. The contracts given to players like Steele and Donovan Wilson are just as prohibitive as giving Dak top QB money.

 

[AstroPilota]

So Mr. Old school. If you currently have a 3 year contract with your job, and the job hires new employees whose contracts double your amount for the same work you'd honor that contract?

Yes. Then after my contract expires, I either get what I can renegotiate for, or move along. Salary compression has been around forever.

 

[stilltheguru]

Yes. Then after my contract expires, I either get what I can renegotiate for, or move along. Salary compression has been around forever.

Sure you would. What is the top reason that you have that mindset?

 

[AstroPilota]

Sure you would. What is the top reason that you have that mindset?

Absolutely! Because breaking a contract signed in good faith is a douchebag move. I have no problem with a player voicing his displeasure, and even asking for a renegotiation. But outright refusing to go to work is childish.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

Absolutely! Because breaking a contract signed in good faith is a douchebag move. I have no problem with a player voicing his displeasure, and even asking for a renegotiation. But outright refusing to go to work is childish.

Teams break contracts all the time for every and any reason they choose. Where is the honor there?

 

[AstroPilota]

Teams break contracts all the time for every and any reason they choose. Where is the honor there?

How so?

 

[Flamma]

Teams break contracts all the time for every and any reason they choose. Where is the honor there?

Contracts are at will. They are not breaking any details in the contract.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

Contracts are at will. They are not breaking any details in the contract.

It allows a team to go back on an agreement with a player; they are completely at the team’s advance. Holding out is pulling from this advantage

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

How so?

“I know we have it in writing that we’ve agreed to continue to pay you for the next 3 years, but we changed our minds since we like this other player better.”

But a player cannot go to a team and say, “I know I’ve agreed to play for you for the next 3 years, but this other team is offering me a better deal.”

Teams can break terms, players can’t. That is what leads to holdouts

 

[Flamma]

It allows a team to go back on an agreement with a player; they are completely at the team’s advance. Holding out is pulling from this advantage

It's pretty much like many jobs. You have an agreement for as long as you are there or needed. But yeah, I guess a player can walk based on that same concept.

 

[Rockport]

“I know we have it in writing that we’ve agreed to continue to pay you for the next 3 years, but we changed our minds since we like this other player better.”

But a player cannot go to a team and say, “I know I’ve agreed to play for you for the next 3 years, but this other team is offering me a better deal.”

Teams can break terms, players can’t. That is what leads to holdouts

It’s the NFL which is a meritocracy. You want them to keep the player knowing there‘s a better one willing to sign?

 

[Flamma]

“I know we have it in writing that we’ve agreed to continue to pay you for the next 3 years, but we changed our minds since we like this other player better.”

But a player cannot go to a team and say, “I know I’ve agreed to play for you for the next 3 years, but this other team is offering me a better deal.”

Teams can break terms, players can’t. That is what leads to holdouts

I don't agree with the bold. No team agreed to pay the player for the next 3 years. They agreed to pay the player a certain amount if he's there the next 3 years.

 

[stilltheguru]

The semantics being used in here is pretty hilarious.

 

[Coogiguy03]

Up front disclaimer - I am NOT defending the way both the Lamb and Prescott contract situations are being handled, by either side, just trying to think about it rationally. I see over and over the comments about how the front office drags their feet with these contracts. From the front office point of view, I can understand the reluctance of signing a player to a new contract early - only to have that player turn around and hold out on them a couple years later. With that fear in the back of their mind - how can they confidently juggle the salary cap? I believe a large part of the problem is media-driven, a good player knows that having that star on the helmet automatically makes them worth more. They know the media will blow and spin everything.

Lamb probably feels he's as good as Jefferson or Hill, maybe better, I won't get into that in this post. But ponder this - how good would Jefferson have looked with that rookie QB? How good will Jefferson look with Darnold? How good would Lamb look with Rush or Lance? Getting the Lamb deal done with both the Prescott and the looming Parson contract on the horizon has got to be very difficult. Plus there are other guys on the team - remember them? It's a lot more difficult than us keyboard-warriors think.

It obviously takes both sides to agree. I don't think a single person on this forum knows much true detail what either side is demanding. It's too easy to bash either side from our point of view. However - I'm old-school and believe you honor what you happily sign. Lamb will be taken care of, he's under contract and should be out there with his team mates! I'm afraid Parson is going to ask for the moon, but for now, he appears content to just play the contract he signed and then will try to stick it to them come renew time (just like Prescott did), and when you are due to become a free-agent, that's a fair tactic even if we as fans don't like the results.

So ask yourself - if you were the owner of an NFL team, would you be apprehensive about redoing a player's contract early with the fear of that player still holding out on you before the new contract expires? I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how cases like this stay out of the court of law.

This is what I've been saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It goes to when people say also that "we should have signed them earlier and saved money!" What good is that if they're going to see another player do well at their position only to say to the front office AFTER getting a big payday that "i'm going to hold out, i'm underpaid!"

 

[Coogiguy03]

Signing elite talent is important. Lamb and Parsons are worth big money. It’s when you give moderate talent big contracts that issues arise. The contracts given to players like Steele and Donovan Wilson are just as prohibitive as giving Dak top QB money.

Lamb maybe, Micah is a ghost that is hanging off of a great rookie campaign