Holdouts... players crying about salaries etc...

[Stautner]

I also have no problem with a player holding out if he is not under contract, unless he is a rookie, rookies ALWAYS suffer when they are not in camp on time. If you have a contract then be a man and live up to it.

I don't really have a problem with rookies holding out, although I definitely agree with your point that it hurts them and their short term chances to learn and earn some playing time.

Players have to use whatever leverage they can when negotiating a contract, but rookies need to be reasonable about it and realize that the miss opportunityes, and its even possible they may actually lose money when they renogotioate a few years down the road if they miss opportunities from the beginning.

 

[Doomsday101]

As I said earlier I do not begrudge these player the money they make but by the same token I don't want to hear them crying and complaining about money. If you don't like the millions you’re getting in the NFL you can always put your college education to work and go get an every day job.

 

[jterrell]

You know i know the NFL is more business orientated now these days but does anybody think it is a disgrace to the legends of the game that played in a time were money was not the most important thing... they played for the shirt on their back.. these holdouts are ridiculous and i honestly the think the old time greats are just disgusted about how these players act now.. guys back then were getting paid 27,000 a year at the most back then but they played their butts off.. im not saying the all players now don't but some just show no effort at all and always complain

If no one ever struck, complained or held out then salaries wouldn't rise.

The fact is some schmo who holds out and gets an extra 5 million out of it becomes the new starting point for the next contract.

The vast majority of people want to be compensated at the maximum rate for their efforts. The NFLPA is probably encouraging guys to hold out. It meddles a lot on contracts but the single contracts do affect untold others.

Its not a fun fact of life for us as fans but it is what it is.

Its not like Jerry Jones was going to charge less for luxury boxes at the new stadium because Greg Ellis was underpaid. And the NFL/Fox is not going to show less commercials/ads during games.

I have worked at some places who underpaid by a fair bit. If no one ever talked about it, threw tantrums or left for better paying jobs a few folks would sit their and take their underpayment eternally. 10 years from now their loyalty could very well be rewarded with a change in direction by the company and a pink slip. No one has your best interest at heart in business except you. The NFL is a business. A very big business.

 

[THUMPER]

As I said earlier I do not begrudge these player the money they make but by the same token I don't want to hear them crying and complaining about money. If you don't like the millions you’re getting in the NFL you can always put your college education to work and go get an every day job.

I stopped watching baseball after the 1994 strike because that strike was about nothing but the players wanting more millions. I had been a lifelong Dodgers fan but have only watched one game since then (my brother bought tickets to a game when I went out to visit, it would have been rude to turn him down).

I do begrudge the players the money they are getting paid, but I also begrudge the owners. There simply shouldn't be that much money in sports or entertainment. That money comes from advertisers who jack up the prices of their goods and services to pay for the ads. The TV money all comes from them and indirectly, from us, whether we support the sport or not. I don't watch hockey or baseball yet I still pay for them through whatever goods and services I purchase that pay for the ads.

Don't get me wrong, I love football and nothing is going to make me stop watching it. Well almost nothing anyway, if the Cowboys went belly up and dissolved then I would lose interest immediately but since that won't ever happen...

Nothing is going to change so there's no use complaining about it but I thought I would state my opinion anyway.

 

[Doomsday101]

I stopped watching baseball after the 1994 strike because that strike was about nothing but the players wanting more millions. I had been a lifelong Dodgers fan but have only watched one game since then (my brother bought tickets to a game when I went out to visit, it would have been rude to turn him down).

I do begrudge the players the money they are getting paid, but I also begrudge the owners. There simply shouldn't be that much money in sports or entertainment. That money comes from advertisers who jack up the prices of their goods and services to pay for the ads. The TV money all comes from them and indirectly, from us, whether we support the sport or not. I don't watch hockey or baseball yet I still pay for them through whatever goods and services I purchase that pay for the ads.

Don't get me wrong, I love football and nothing is going to make me stop watching it. Well almost nothing anyway, if the Cowboys went belly up and dissolved then I would lose interest immediately but since that won't ever happen...

Nothing is going to change so there's no use complaining about it but I thought I would state my opinion anyway.

I agree with you, I think these players and owner vastly over priced the product and the scary thing is there is no end in sight. What did it for me and baseball is when they went on strike and the WS was cancelled. I figured if they don't give a damn about the championship why should I?

 

[MCowboys]

I am more understanding of the guy who is holding out to get the bigger contract before he signs than the guy who is already under a contract, but holds out for a new one.

What about Larry Johnson? He's under contract but if he doesn't hold out, the Chiefs will give him another 400+ carries which will destroy him as a player or end his career. Isn't he obligated to get the money when he can. Chances are he won't get much money next year when he's a free agent and he won't have much left. If he got paid now, the Chiefs would also be much more likely to give him a lighter workload which would extend his career. That is why I personally think it is stupid to condemn all players for holding out without looking at their situations.

 

[Stautner]

I stopped watching baseball after the 1994 strike because that strike was about nothing but the players wanting more millions. I had been a lifelong Dodgers fan but have only watched one game since then (my brother bought tickets to a game when I went out to visit, it would have been rude to turn him down).

I do begrudge the players the money they are getting paid, but I also begrudge the owners. There simply shouldn't be that much money in sports or entertainment. That money comes from advertisers who jack up the prices of their goods and services to pay for the ads. The TV money all comes from them and indirectly, from us, whether we support the sport or not. I don't watch hockey or baseball yet I still pay for them through whatever goods and services I purchase that pay for the ads.

Don't get me wrong, I love football and nothing is going to make me stop watching it. Well almost nothing anyway, if the Cowboys went belly up and dissolved then I would lose interest immediately but since that won't ever happen...

Nothing is going to change so there's no use complaining about it but I thought I would state my opinion anyway.

I think you have a skewed view to a degree.

First, it makes no sense to in one breath say the players are all to blame for teh 1994 strike then to say you begrudege the owners as well. They both played a part.

Second, why begrudege the owners for the money - after all they are in business to make money, right?

Third, the advertisers are not the ones responsible for the money in sports - we are. If the fans weren't willing to fork over money the advertisers would have no one to sell to. The TV station wouldn't air it if we didn't watch. Cable stations wouldn't carry ESPN if we weren't willing to pay for it. Stores wouldn't sell jerseys if we didn't buy it. It's our desire to watch the sport and pay the prices that fuels the money in sports.

Finally, I'm curious why a lifelong baseball fan would stop watching that game, but not stop watching football even though the same issues exist.

 

[joseephuss]

What about Larry Johnson? He's under contract but if he doesn't hold out, the Chiefs will give him another 400+ carries which will destroy him as a player or end his career. Isn't he obligated to get the money when he can. Chances are he won't get much money next year when he's a free agent and he won't have much left. If he got paid now, the Chiefs would also be much more likely to give him a lighter workload which would extend his career. That is why I personally think it is stupid to condemn all players for holding out without looking at their situations.

I am not condemning anyone. Nor am I just generalizing. Each situation is different and each player has a right to try and get what they can even if they are under contract. I just am less understanding of a guy who signed a contract and then wants more because he exceeded expectations on the field. Larry Johnson did that. If he knew he was better than the original contract he signed, then he should not have signed it. Same thing happened to T.O. when he went to Philly. One year and he wanted to re-work the deal.

I get that LJ wants more money. How about paying some of the money back from his rookie year? He only touched the ball 21 times that season(20 carries, 1 reception). I understand and can appreciate what he is trying to do, but at the same time I don't feel sorry for him.

I don't know if the chances are that Johnson will get less money next season as a free agent. The concern is if he gets injured this season. That is a legitimate concern. Barring injury, he will make a fortune next year.

 

[Doomsday101]

I am not condemning anyone. Nor am I just generalizing. Each situation is different and each player has a right to try and get what they can even if they are under contract. I just am less understanding of a guy who signed a contract and then wants more because he exceeded expectations on the field. Larry Johnson did that. If he knew he was better than the original contract he signed, then he should not have signed it. Same thing happened to T.O. when he went to Philly. One year and he wanted to re-work the deal.

I get that LJ wants more money. How about paying some of the money back from his rookie year? He only touched the ball 21 times that season(20 carries, 1 reception). I understand and can appreciate what he is trying to do, but at the same time I don't feel sorry for him.

I don't know if the chances are that Johnson will get less money next season as a free agent. The concern is if he gets injured this season. That is a legitimate concern. Barring injury, he will make a fortune next year.

Funny thing is how many times does a player give money back when he does not live up to the contract? They all want it after a big season but I don't see anyone telling the owner "hey I did not have as good of season as expected here is some money back" :laugh2:

 

[Stautner]

Funny thing is how many times does a player give money back when he does not live up to the contract? They all want it after a big season but I don't see anyone telling the owner "hey I did not have as good of season as expected here is some money back" :laugh2:

And that's exactly the point.

The players expect this to be a one sided deal - the owners are supposed to pay up when they suck and pay up more when they play well.

They expect the contract to go out the window only when it suits them.

 

[Verdict]

The whining of players like Greg Ellis wears me slick. On one hand, he signed the contract and should play it out. I realize there is another side of the coin though. If a player substantially overplays his contract I can understand why he would want a new contract. He is not however entitled to a new contract.

The wild card in this scenario is what I would refer to as leverage. While a player is not entitled to a new contract, the greater the extent that he overplays his contract, the more leverage he has. In Ellis case, in my view, he has no leverage. He is coming off of an injury and there is no way of knowing if he will ever play again, and if so, how effective he will be.

Although it is not a player's right to hold out and not play, there is nothing an owner can do, really, if a player decides he is willing to hold out. If an owner has a player that is worth a lot more money, then he has leverage to a degree. For instance, Tony Romo, is the player penciled in as the starter for the Cowboys at QB this year. He will start. He will be paid a pitance compared to other starters. He could threaten to hold out and it would hit the Cowboys right where it hurts. They would be forced to pay him more this year. They would just waive bye to Ellis if he held out for the year.

 

[joseephuss]

Funny thing is how many times does a player give money back when he does not live up to the contract? They all want it after a big season but I don't see anyone telling the owner "hey I did not have as good of season as expected here is some money back" :laugh2:

That is why many thought it was refreshing that Marco Riveria offered to pay back money after he first hurt his back shortly after signing with Dallas.

I liked when Ricky Williams signed a largely incentive laden contract when he first signed with the Saints. Probably not a smart move on his part, but it was kind of cool.

 

[peplaw06]

I'm racking my brain trying to figure why a player (not a rookie) who is NOT under contract would have to "hold out?" Wouldn't he just be a "free agent?"

 

[joseephuss]

The whining of players like Greg Ellis wears me slick. On one hand, he signed the contract and should play it out. I realize there is another side of the coin though. If a player substantially overplays his contract I can understand why he would want a new contract. He is not however entitled to a new contract.

The wild card in this scenario is what I would refer to as leverage. While a player is not entitled to a new contract, the greater the extent that he overplays his contract, the more leverage he has. In Ellis case, in my view, he has no leverage. He is coming off of an injury and there is no way of knowing if he will ever play again, and if so, how effective he will be.

Although it is not a player's right to hold out and not play, there is nothing an owner can do, really, if a player decides he is willing to hold out. If an owner has a player that is worth a lot more money, then he has leverage to a degree. For instance, Tony Romo, is the player penciled in as the starter for the Cowboys at QB this year. He will start. He will be paid a pitance compared to other starters. He could threaten to hold out and it would hit the Cowboys right where it hurts. They would be forced to pay him more this year. They would just waive bye to Ellis if he held out for the year.

The good thing about Ellis is that he at least is out there practicing. Well, not now because he is still recovering from injury, but he did make an attempt. Strahan is not in camp. Both types can wear on you, but there are different levels.

 

[Doomsday101]

I'm racking my brain trying to figure why a player (not a rookie) who is NOT under contract would have to "hold out?" Wouldn't he just be a "free agent?"

If he is unrestricted your right he does not have to hold out he is free to talk with who ever he would like. Restricted FA that is a bit different.

 

[joseephuss]

I'm racking my brain trying to figure why a player (not a rookie) who is NOT under contract would have to "hold out?" Wouldn't he just be a "free agent?"

The team still holds his rights, so he is not a free agent.

I do laugh when they say a "hold out" only applies to a guy who is already under contract. It is holding out for more money in either situation. The owners are also holding out signing a contract to pay less money.

 

[Stautner]

I'm racking my brain trying to figure why a player (not a rookie) who is NOT under contract would have to "hold out?" Wouldn't he just be a "free agent?"

Yes, he is - holding out really isn't the right term for it. Like a hold out the player simply doesn't show up at camp and forces the team to live without him, but there is no leverage for the team because the player can always take his talents elsewhere.

Both ways it involves the player witholding his services - it' just a matter of who has the leverage.

 

[Doomsday101]

The whining of players like Greg Ellis wears me slick. On one hand, he signed the contract and should play it out. I realize there is another side of the coin though. If a player substantially overplays his contract I can understand why he would want a new contract. He is not however entitled to a new contract.

The wild card in this scenario is what I would refer to as leverage. While a player is not entitled to a new contract, the greater the extent that he overplays his contract, the more leverage he has. In Ellis case, in my view, he has no leverage. He is coming off of an injury and there is no way of knowing if he will ever play again, and if so, how effective he will be.

Although it is not a player's right to hold out and not play, there is nothing an owner can do, really, if a player decides he is willing to hold out. If an owner has a player that is worth a lot more money, then he has leverage to a degree. For instance, Tony Romo, is the player penciled in as the starter for the Cowboys at QB this year. He will start. He will be paid a pitance compared to other starters. He could threaten to hold out and it would hit the Cowboys right where it hurts. They would be forced to pay him more this year. They would just waive bye to Ellis if he held out for the year.

If a player is under contract and is holding out the team can fine that player every day he misses.

 

[peplaw06]

If he is unrestricted your right he does not have to hold out he is free to talk with who ever he would like. Restricted FA that is a bit different.

Restricted FAs are still under contract, no?

The team still holds his rights, so he is not a free agent.

I do laugh when they say a "hold out" only applies to a guy who is already under contract. It is holding out for more money in either situation. The owners are also holding out signing a contract to pay less money.

How can a team hold the rights to a guy who is not under contract? That is, unless he's a rookie, which is obvious.

And yeah, it bugs me that owners seem to escape all criticism from these contract disputes. The players are money grabbing and selfish. The owners are just "doing business."

 

[Doomsday101]

Restricted FAs are still under contract, no?

How can a team hold the rights to a guy who is not under contract? That is, unless he's a rookie, which is obvious.

Players become restricted free agents when they complete three accrued seasons and their contract expires. Unrestricted free agents have completed four or more accrued seasons with an expired contract.