Honor the contract garbage

[GhostOfPelluer]

The idea that the player should have to honor the contract is garbage. It's not a free market system. It's not like the player has another league they are welcome to ply their world class trade in. If they don't want to sign a 4-year contract (with a 5th year option) as a rookie first round pick they don't have any recourse. And if you are a running back, your limited peak may not coincide with a second contract - which is what most players are playing for. The system is completely rigged toward the owners and the CBA will always be that way in this sport because players have too short a life span and too few years to earn peak salary for any effective recourse to force a more equitable CBA.

If they want to hold out, it sucks as a fan but the NFL is a business more than a sport and I can't begrudge a player trying to maximize their worth in a system that is not exactly fair. Players should use whatever means available (of course if Zeke weren't such a knucklehead he'd be easier to side with and would be truly trying to maximize his earning potential, but that's a different argument). A hold out is one of the few means they have.

 

[dckid]

To be honest, the move had never added up to me from the day they made it. I was never on the "draft Zeke!" bandwagon. Not because he wasn't obviously a great player, but because the Cowboys made their investment already, in the offensive line. The "plan" was to have a dominant line that made running backs, so you wouldn't need to invest so heavily in a superstar at the position. The same plan that Super Bowl winning teams are making.

But then, on top of investing three 1st round picks in the line, they decided to use the best pick they had in decades on a running back. Overkill.

And, as good as Elliott has been, he's never surpassed the year that third round pick Demarco Murray had in 2014. Anyone care to call that great return on investment? No, didn't think so.

Agree with you on the team building aspect. The stack concept the Cowboys used might have been successful if they were able to make a championship game or SB, but our coaching and scheme prevented that.
From a long term success perspective another player would have been optimal.
I know you and I disagree on Dak's value but i'm glad we see this aspect of team building from the same lens.
Going back to Murray's 2014 season, that was an amazing accomplishment. Murray did not get the credit he deserved as not many around the NFL considered him elite. Even I thought he would pick the wrong hole and everyone remembers his fumble in the divisional game that Peppers caused.

 

[Batman1980]

I am done with crybaby Elliott on the team so yes I consider him disposable.

 

[ChuckA1]

I am kind of confused by your post a little bit. The contract cuts both ways. Owners can cut a player anytime they want, the only impact for the team is the dead money. The players risks not getting paid the salary for when he holds out.
In the Zeke situation, I understand both sides of the argument.
Zeke's perspective: He doesn't buy the argument that RB's are a replaceable position, and they matter to winning. Why did the Cowboys draft me at #4 if they didn't want to offer me a second contract? The success of the team relies on him much more than Dak or other players.

I kinda think Zeke's off-field antics have lowered the FO's opinion of signing him to a huge second contract without lots of protection. It may not be the amount of the offer that Zeke is balking at, it may be the lack of a huge guaranteed amount due to his immaturity.

 

[GenoT]

Been following pro football since the early ‘60s.

At that time, the players had virtually no leverage when dealing with the owners; all players were indentured under non-guaranteed contracts and either accepted the offered/current contract or they retired (btw...the average NFL contract in that era paid average skilled-worker wages).

Virtually all players worked alternative jobs in the offseason, while the owners — just like today — were some of the 1%’ers of their era.

The players today deserve everything they can get...and honoring an NFL contract has NOTHING to do with it.

 

[Stash]

Agree with you on the team building aspect. The stack concept the Cowboys used might have been successful if they were able to make a championship game or SB, but our coaching and scheme prevented that.
From a long term success perspective another player would have been optimal.
I know you and I disagree on Dak's value but i'm glad we see this aspect of team building from the same lens.
Going back to Murray's 2014 season, that was an amazing accomplishment. Murray did not get the credit he deserved as not many around the NFL considered him elite. Even I thought he would pick the wrong hole and everyone remembers his fumble in the divisional game that Peppers caused.

And that fumble is what the uninformed will try to bring up in a weak effort to undermine Murray and what he accomplished in Dallas. And it clearly shows their desperation. The fact is, if I remember correctly, Murray had a better yards per carrying average for several seasons than Zeke's' best, which I believe was 5.1 YPA during his rookie season which has declined since then.

 

[atlantacowboy]

I am kind of confused by your post a little bit. The contract cuts both ways. Owners can cut a player anytime they want, the only impact for the team is the dead money. The players risks not getting paid the salary for when he holds out.
In the Zeke situation, I understand both sides of the argument.
Zeke's perspective: He doesn't buy the argument that RB's are a replaceable position, and they matter to winning. Why did the Cowboys draft me at #4 if they didn't want to offer me a second contract? The success of the team relies on him much more than Dak or other players.
Plus Jerry is old and he will not see another SB if this latest iteration of the Cowboys don't get there.

Cowboys perspective: We drafted you because we thought you were a good player. You have two years left. The Gurley contract was absurd and we should have drafted Ramsey ( I added the Ramsey part).
Hold out. We will not pay you Gurley's contract number. We have offered you a deal and you want to break the bank.

I bet we would not have picked him him #4 if we knew his rookie contract was only going to be good for 3 years.

 

[Jake]

I kinda get tired of people who say that the only ones who are said to have to honor the contract are the players.

This is a complete fallacy. The contract allows for a player to be cut, that is the reason for the signing bonus and guaranteed money That is how the owners honor the contract according to the CBA. If you don't like the CBA, then fine, but you cannot say that the only ones expected to honor the contract are the players.

Sure I can - the only ones expected to honor contracts are the players. Don't confuse legal with honorable. Just because owners can tear up contracts whenever they like doesn't make it fair, so the few players who have the leverage to tell the team to shove it don't bother me at all. And we've already seen Zeke has leverage, the only question being how much.

If Zeke "has no leverage", as I've read here several times, he'd already be cut. Owners wouldn't be patient with most players holding out, but don't confuse that patience with being nice. They're patient for their own self-interests, just like the players who are holding out, but you're only mad at one of them.

 

[Batman1980]

I bet we would not have picked him him #4 if we knew his rookie contract was only going to be good for 3 years.

I certainly would not have. Actually I wouldn't have picked him 4th overall to begin with unless he was the next Tony Dorsett or Barry Sanders.

 

[Tooter_Magee]

Maybe I"m blind but...where is the "like" button?
I've used it before but now it doesn't show up anywhere that I can see.

 

[aikemirv]

I'm talking about the entirety of the contract. All of the terms, not just some. Where a 5-year deal is actually a 5-year deal. It's not hard to figure out.

No, it is hard to figure out what your saying because you are operating in some ficticious land, not real world contract language. If I make a contract with Anthem that guarantees me a rate for 5 years here but I can opt out after 3 years if I get a better deal and I opt out, I have honored the contract. An NFL contract with a signing bonus and guaranteed money is not different!

 

[Denim Chicken]

Zeke "has no leverage", as I've read here several times, he'd already be cut.

That's a silly statement considering that is exactly what Zeke would want. The leverage is with the team because they effectively control Zeke ability to not hit free agency.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

Its the perfect time. He knows without him Dak Sucks so Holdout before they pay Dak.

Forces the issue. Jerry will have egg on his face if he pays Dak a huge contract and struggles (Which they will) without Zeke. . . The whole Country will have to finally come to the realization of the Value of Zeke.

If Zeke plays and Dak Shines this year, then it will be used against Zeke. . . The talking point will be that Zeke is not as important as he believes. That the Cowboys were right in paying Dak because of the importance of the QB position.

This will force the issue because it will leave the Cowboys Exposed . . . the RB's backing up are talented but its their durability that is in question. I've seen RB's like this break down after 1 or 2 games after taking the lead role

It was a Genius move to do it 2 years early and after the draft. In our offense you need a high pick 1-3 rd RB that can hold up.

We will see how it turns out. I don't agree that the Cowboys will struggle without Zeke. They will struggle if they can't run the ball, but Zeke is not the only person that can run. The OL seems healthy and if that is the case, they should return to form and be the best or at least top 3 OL in the league. McFadden ran for a 1000 yards in 10 games with NO QB whatsoever. And I am not a big fan of Daks but he is 1000 x better than any QB we trotted out in 2015. I agree and I said it before on here, if the boys are 4-0 or 3-1, zeke will report without a new contract because he will have lost any leverage he may have now,, but if they go 500 or less in those first 4 games, Zeke will be the highest paid RB in the NFL by week 5. And the contract for Dak comes into question.

 

[aikemirv]

The idea that the player should have to honor the contract is garbage. It's not a free market system. It's not like the player has another league they are welcome to ply their world class trade in. If they don't want to sign a 4-year contract (with a 5th year option) as a rookie first round pick they don't have any recourse. And if you are a running back, your limited peak may not coincide with a second contract - which is what most players are playing for. The system is completely rigged toward the owners and the CBA will always be that way in this sport because players have too short a life span and too few years to earn peak salary for any effective recourse to force a more equitable CBA.

If they want to hold out, it sucks as a fan but the NFL is a business more than a sport and I can't begrudge a player trying to maximize their worth in a system that is not exactly fair. Players should use whatever means available (of course if Zeke weren't such a knucklehead he'd be easier to side with and would be truly trying to maximize his earning potential, but that's a different argument). A hold out is one of the few means they have.

I don't have a problem with that perspective at all. The players have 2 options to force a better situation, 1) a holdout as a group (strike) or 2) holdout as an individual player.

You just cannot say that the player is "honoring the contract" or they should not have to because the owners don't. That is factually false!

 

[dckid]

I bet we would not have picked him him #4 if we knew his rookie contract was only going to be good for 3 years.

I am just not a fan of drafting an RB, when we had so many holes that needed to be addressed. DE, CB much better values @ top 5 pick

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

I don't have a problem with that perspective at all. The players have 2 options to force a better situation, 1) a holdout as a group (strike) or 2) holdout as an individual player.

You just cannot say that the player is "honoring the contract" or they should not have to because the owners don't. That is factually false!

It may be semantics but I disagree. Just because it is allowed within the framework of the CBA for teams to cut players in the middle of a contract doesn't mean they are honoring the contract. Otherwise they'd be framed differently. For instance, rather than a 3-year contract, it might be a 2-year contract (guaranteed money) with a team option for the third year. Or a 1-year contract with two years of team options. But in either case the player is tied to the team until the contract runs out or the team cuts (or trades) them.

 

[Bob-Lillys-War]

A trade must be considered .
Zeke is clearly not even negotiation while in TC . He is in Cabo not willing to even show up .

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

FWIW, I don't think Zeke will skip his paycheck - I bet he's back for Week 1.

 

[droopdog7]

Can't read the entire thread but not only does the contract allow for players to be cut, the guaranteed money is built into the signing bonus. Players keep that money when they are cut and team have to deal with dead money as well.

 

[dckid]

And that fumble is what the uninformed will try to bring up in a weak effort to undermine Murray and what he accomplished in Dallas. And it clearly shows their desperation. The fact is, if I remember correctly, Murray had a better yards per carrying average for several seasons than Zeke's' best, which I believe was 5.1 YPA during his rookie season which has declined since then.

I see what your saying and I still think Zeke is the better player. Would I be happy with a Murray type this year? Yes I would.
In fact we could have signed Coleman from Atlanta and had our way above replacement level player in case Zeke got out of control. But we all have to realize our FO still plays checkers.