What is your contract-years-remaining limit on player hold-outs?

[Reality]

First, let me say I am all for players getting the most money they can because their careers are short and a fluke injury could end their career or a random injury could negatively impact their future earnings.

My question to everyone (and I am being serious, there is no agenda behind this), at what point do you think the player is wrong to hold out?

So, for example, Lamb is going into his final contract year, with one injury he is likely to get a sub-market value contract offer in 2025 or he has to play on a one-year-prove-it contract just to get back "in the contract game".

The risk is very obvious and that combined with him playing on a pre-defined rookie contract makes it understandable that he wants a new contract before taking the field.

What happens when a player holds out with 2 years remaining on their contract? For example, Parsons has 2 years remaining on his contract and let's say he decides to hold out. Is he justified?

If so, why not hold out with 3 years remaining? What about 4 years remaing, assuming they are playing on a 5-year or 4-year-with-5th-option contract?

Again, I have no agenda in asking this as I would like to hear what people think.

 

[DogFace]

First, let me say I am all for players getting the most money they can because their careers are short and a fluke injury could end their career or a random injury could negatively impact their future earnings.

My question to you and everyone (and I am being serious, there is no agenda behind this), at what point do you think the player is wrong to hold out?

So, for example, Lamb is going into his final contract year, with one injury he is likely to get a sub-market value contract offer in 2025 or he has to play on a one-year-prove-it contract just to get back "in the contract game".

The risk is very obvious and that combined with him playing on a pre-defined rookie contract makes it understandable that he wants a new contract before taking the field.

What happens when a player holds out with 2 years remaining on their contract? For example, Parsons has 2 years remaining on his contract and let's say he decides to hold out. Is he justified?

If so, why not hold out with 3 years remaining? What about 4 years remaing, assuming they are playing on a 5-year or 4-year-with-5th-option contract?

Again, I have no agenda in asking this as I would like to hear what people think.

I guess holding out even after your first year of a contract is ok if you think you can get more. It’s excessive for sure, but not as excessive as billionaires unironically setting a cap on the money they can make.

Now, I do get that the cap is better for competition and possibly the league, but if this is a capitalist system I guess any leverage a person has to make more money is leverage they are free to use. Though, there is risk and at some point blowback.

 

[JoeKing]

Unless it is your final contract year, holding out is not recommended, IMHO.

 

[John813]

To me, it depends on how aggressive the agent is and what's the long term plans for said player?

For Parsons, I think he is a re-sign/core guy.
Now if his agent went all Watson and wanted an absurd amount guaranteed then I would explore trading him.

Players have the right to request an extension after 3 years in the NFL. So, I think it's justified for players to ask for a raise, even if under contract for a few years.
And I think at times it's benefitual to the team to re-sign guys early that you think are legit stars, as each year their price tag goes up.

 

[charron]

As a fan I support players trying everything they can to make the most money possible.

If I was an owner I wouldn't deal with any player holding out.

 

[TwentyOne]

First, let me say I am all for players getting the most money they can because their careers are short and a fluke injury could end their career or a random injury could negatively impact their future earnings.

My question to everyone (and I am being serious, there is no agenda behind this), at what point do you think the player is wrong to hold out?

So, for example, Lamb is going into his final contract year, with one injury he is likely to get a sub-market value contract offer in 2025 or he has to play on a one-year-prove-it contract just to get back "in the contract game".

The risk is very obvious and that combined with him playing on a pre-defined rookie contract makes it understandable that he wants a new contract before taking the field.

What happens when a player holds out with 2 years remaining on their contract? For example, Parsons has 2 years remaining on his contract and let's say he decides to hold out. Is he justified?

If so, why not hold out with 3 years remaining? What about 4 years remaing, assuming they are playing on a 5-year or 4-year-with-5th-option contract?

Again, I have no agenda in asking this as I would like to hear what people think.

I seriously cant find any kind of argument that a player should get the most money he can. Of course other than being unmoralic, ascoial or greedy.

And because their careers are short is not an argument for me. There are other jobs that have short careers. Then the result will be: after your career go learn something else and back to work again.

The common nfl player usually earns enough money during his rookie deal. At least so much he doesnt have to work any more his whole life.

The rest of the players still will have enough money to invest into education to learn a new job. Well most have a good college degree anyways.
Then go find a job and work there for the rest of your life. Most people do that. AFAIK There is no law that forbids a former pro football player to work after his career.

And spare me (not you reality) with the narrative "i have a family to feed". Well good then, another reason to find a new job after your career!


To come back to your question: To me holding out is not easy to answer.

Short would be: for me its ok when the player holds out at the end of his final contract. That means somewhere near the last part of the last year of his contract.

But then there are also players like for instance Prescott, who i would never give the ok that he was/is holding out. The guy earned enough money so that he or his children have never to work again. There is no reason to hold out other than being greedy.
But as long as society supports this kind of behaviour and does not question it at least players will do it without any kind of wrong feelings.

Well, a good social climate is like peace: it is not given by itself. You (people) have to work for it to have it.

 

[Coogiguy03]

First, let me say I am all for players getting the most money they can because their careers are short and a fluke injury could end their career or a random injury could negatively impact their future earnings.

My question to everyone (and I am being serious, there is no agenda behind this), at what point do you think the player is wrong to hold out?

So, for example, Lamb is going into his final contract year, with one injury he is likely to get a sub-market value contract offer in 2025 or he has to play on a one-year-prove-it contract just to get back "in the contract game".

The risk is very obvious and that combined with him playing on a pre-defined rookie contract makes it understandable that he wants a new contract before taking the field.

What happens when a player holds out with 2 years remaining on their contract? For example, Parsons has 2 years remaining on his contract and let's say he decides to hold out. Is he justified?

If so, why not hold out with 3 years remaining? What about 4 years remaing, assuming they are playing on a 5-year or 4-year-with-5th-option contract?

Again, I have no agenda in asking this as I would like to hear what people think.

Same with signing a deal then years into the contract holding out because you want more money. I mean damn you have the guaranteed money, why are you asking for more!? Pretty soon you will see that lol holding out at any part of the contract, it's getting old

 

[Coogiguy03]

To me, it depends on how aggressive the agent is and what's the long term plans for said player?

For Parsons, I think he is a re-sign/core guy.
Now if his agent went all Watson and wanted an absurd amount guaranteed then I would explore trading him.

Players have the right to request an extension after 3 years in the NFL. So, I think it's justified for players to ask for a raise, even if under contract for a few years.
And I think at times it's benefitual to the team to re-sign guys early that you think are legit stars, as each year their price tag goes up.

No no no not in Dallas we say we don't like spending out big money and don't want to reset the market, and end up resetting the market because deadlines make deals

 

[Hawkeye0202]

Just my take but it depends on how well you have played on your rookie contract. Keep in mind a rookie can't be extended until he has completed his third year. So a holdout before then makes no sense at all. Any rookie who elevates their game to the top 5-10 of their position within the first 3 years deserves an immediate extension.

• Parsons has made ALL-PRO in each of his first years. IMO he has outplayed his rookie contract. The Cowboys are lucky he is playing this year (the final year of his rookie deal, except for the 5th year option) without a holdout.

So to me, it's all about how well they outplay their rookie contract.

 

[Hawkeye0202]

Same with signing a deal then years into the contract holding out because you want more money

Oh please.....show me the last player to do this. There MAY be a few but nowadays players DO honor their contracts, especially the guaranteed years. Generally speaking, they want a new or restructured deal after all guaranteed money is paid. In other words, when we hear the 5-year deal, 3 years guaranteed, the player will likely want new money after year three.

 

[CWR]

First, let me say I am all for players getting the most money they can because their careers are short and a fluke injury could end their career or a random injury could negatively impact their future earnings.

My question to everyone (and I am being serious, there is no agenda behind this), at what point do you think the player is wrong to hold out?

So, for example, Lamb is going into his final contract year, with one injury he is likely to get a sub-market value contract offer in 2025 or he has to play on a one-year-prove-it contract just to get back "in the contract game".

The risk is very obvious and that combined with him playing on a pre-defined rookie contract makes it understandable that he wants a new contract before taking the field.

What happens when a player holds out with 2 years remaining on their contract? For example, Parsons has 2 years remaining on his contract and let's say he decides to hold out. Is he justified?

If so, why not hold out with 3 years remaining? What about 4 years remaing, assuming they are playing on a 5-year or 4-year-with-5th-option contract?

Again, I have no agenda in asking this as I would like to hear what people think.

I think the first contract is the one the player needs to get right, hold out or do whatever is necessary.

If the player is rewarded and paid well I'd like some degree of flexibility from the players during the second deal.

There's a lot of context though. For example anyone holding out after that playoff embarrassment is going to irritate me. It's not fair, I understand that. It's also not fair how they embarrassed me.

There's also context from the FO/coaching. Why would a player be flexible if management isn't improving the team anyway?

To summarize, there isn't a right answer, and my thoughts and emotions on the issue will not be grounded in anything tangible. I think its just a mess when you aren't winning and nothing is acceptable at that point. The last thing we want to see is a bunch of rich guys arguing over the money we fund them with to lose.

 

[sunalsorises]

Individual contract negotiations within a union is strange. Usually the union negotiates contracts and everyone is slotted in according to parameters also established in union negotiations. Renegotiating a contract should also be governed by union policies.

The union has already done this for rookie deals. Players are slotted in according to draft position.

I guess to answer the question, I'd like to see the union handle this and not leave it to a player to have to hold out.

 

[shabazz]

After one has repeatedly gotten the bag, I believe holding out at any point is a bad look. The Martin hold out was ridiculous but it worked.

Love holding out but Dak showing up makes perfect sense as Love has yet to be paid

Micah not holding out so it's a moot point

 

[shabazz]

Individual contract negotiations within a union is strange. Usually the union negotiates contracts and everyone is slotted in according to parameters also established in union negotiations. Renegotiating a contract should also be governed by union policies.

The union has already done this for rookie deals. Players are slotted in according to draft position.

I guess to answer the question, I'd like to see the union handle this and not leave it to a player to have to hold out.

Unfortunately I've worked within a union framework for many years and I'd trust individual agents to better represent the players than any collective can

Unions have been bought and sold by corporations for as long as they've been around and are rife with corruption

 

[AstroPilota]

Nobody is forcing these guys to play football. If they don't like the pay, they can apply for employment at the local fast food establishment and see how that works out (not belittling fast-food workers - just an example). You sign a contract - you honor your word. EVERY SINGLE ONE of these guys were all smiles when they signed. They need to grow up and be like the rest of the working world. When the contract expires - you are free to hold out for all you want and hope for the best. Nobody's career is guaranteed. Why should the courts allow a pro athlete to waffle on his contract when they won't allow you or I to do so?

The problem is that a pro football team is a toy to the owners, and most of the them are too emotionally attached to their players. It's going to take 1 or 2 owners with some hair on their ballz to bite the bullet, let the players default on their contract, and perhaps have a miserable season to break this asinine chain of players acting like 2 year-old spoiled kids.

I've been a Cowboys fan since the early 70's. I've seen some pretty bad teams over those years and am perfectly willing to sacrifice another year to flush a few prima donnas and right the ship.

 

[sunalsorises]

Unfortunately I've worked within a union framework for many years and I'd trust individual agents to better represent the players than any collective can

Unions have been bought and sold by corporations for as long as they've been around and are rife with corruption

That very well might be true. In the case of the NFL, they need the union to avoid being a monopoly so it's a bit artificial in that sense. It's a strange hybrid model that doesn't really work. Either the union should be negotiating all player contracts like they do with the rookies or the agents should handle everything including player safety and practice time. The union just seems to serve a strange purpose in the NFL.

 

[Diehardblues]

First, let me say I am all for players getting the most money they can because their careers are short and a fluke injury could end their career or a random injury could negatively impact their future earnings.

My question to everyone (and I am being serious, there is no agenda behind this), at what point do you think the player is wrong to hold out?

So, for example, Lamb is going into his final contract year, with one injury he is likely to get a sub-market value contract offer in 2025 or he has to play on a one-year-prove-it contract just to get back "in the contract game".

The risk is very obvious and that combined with him playing on a pre-defined rookie contract makes it understandable that he wants a new contract before taking the field.

What happens when a player holds out with 2 years remaining on their contract? For example, Parsons has 2 years remaining on his contract and let's say he decides to hold out. Is he justified?

If so, why not hold out with 3 years remaining? What about 4 years remaing, assuming they are playing on a 5-year or 4-year-with-5th-option contract?

Again, I have no agenda in asking this as I would like to hear what people think.

It all depends on the circumstances which would evolve around the level of talent and importance to the teams success.

For example if the Cowboys resign Dak then Lambs value to Daks success become that much more important but if we decide we are letting Dak walk then the importance of Lamb playing becomes much less important.

Similar to when Zeke had us over a barrel. We certainly didn’t want him to sit out when we thought how critical having a strong running game meant to Daks success during a time we were trying to validate resigning Dak to another contract.

And probably why we’ve held out resigning Lamb until we can see where Daks contract is heading.

As far as Parsons , again we are probably waiting to see what we do with Dak and Lamb as they are the more immediate priorities. And I’d think if we resign both of them then we’d begin to see if we have enough Cap space to offer Parsons a huge deal this year which might even come during the season.

But if don’t resign Dak and or Lamb who knows, Parsons might decide he wants to move on especially if this season implodes . Regardless I’d argue a deal with Parsons needs to be done before next season or he’s likely to hold out and or simply decide he’ll go in FA.

 

[McKDaddy]

If you are under contract, I don't see anything that gives you the right to hold out. Especially if you are on a first round pick contract or on a second contract.

If anything, the guys who aren't drafted in the first but who earn starter or significant roles are the ones who should have the right to terminate the contract & get something resembling their actual value after say two seasons.

Of course, if at the end of the year all players were compensated based on their actual playing time & production, it would largely remove reasons for players to hold out.

 

[shabazz]

That very well might be true. In the case of the NFL, they need the union to avoid being a monopoly so it's a bit artificial in that sense. It's a strange hybrid model that doesn't really work. Either the union should be negotiating all player contracts like they do with the rookies or the agents should handle everything including player safety and practice time. The union just seems to serve a strange purpose in the NFL.

On the whole, the present hybrid system seems to suit the players quite well.

The generational wealth that the workers are currently getting is unprecedented

 

[MyFairLady]

Depends entirely on the player IMHO. Is that player 100% dedicated to football? Is that player a leader on your team? Is that player the hardest worker on the team? Is that player the most prepared on the team? Is that player setting the bar for what is acceptable as a player on the team? Is that player holding his teammates accountable? Is that player elevating his play in big games?

IMHO if the answer to those questions are not a resounding yes then I would never extend them. This type of player only gets worse after they get paid. Milk their best years then let them walk. This was Dez and Zeke and D Flaw. This is Diggs now and will soon be Parsons.

I feel like Lamb is the only one that fits the bill. I would resign him. Make him our Irvin. Tear down the trash and build around him. The danger is that Lamb may have been exposed to the taint already for too long.