Zack Martin does not report to camp

[AbeBeta]

They have to do this at some point. His 2024 cap hit is double this year's hit. They would be coming to him about an extension before next season for sure -- this move is all about there being some urgency to getting the new deal done before he risk injury in 2023. It is a no brainer. He's not shown an signs of a decline with age and OL often play deep into their 30s.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They have to do this at some point. His 2024 cap hit is double this year's hit. They would be coming to him about an extension before next season for sure -- this move is all about there being some urgency to getting the new deal done before he risk injury in 2023. It is a no brainer. He's not shown an signs of a decline with age and OL often play deep into their 30s.

I think that is what this is about an not about the money. He wants a contract that keeps him in Dallas not be a lame duck.

 

[Reid1boys]

It is close because the player is allowed to hold out contractually. They just have to pay 50,000 a day to do it. They get it all back when they sign the new deal anyway.

Yes, I've seen a team refuse to pay a player's salary 100's if not 1000's of times. It's called "cutting a player" who is under contract.

Lastly, I will never understand why people are so pro owner when it comes to the distribution of money generated. I remember "lock outs" in sports that delayed seasons and fans over and over screamed "The players are too greedy". A lock out is when the owners shut down work. It's literally like you going to work one day and your building has chain linked locks on the door with a message on the door saying "Go home. We are not open for business and you're not getting paid" and then people calling you greedy. We have some bizarre fascination with the Uber rich in our country and literally turn our backs on the people who do the actual work. Jerry isn't out there damaging his brain and health for money.

You clearly do not understand contracts.
and NO, players will no longer be allowed to get the money they were fined back when they signed. That is also now in the actual contract. Fined amounts are no longer allowed to be returned to the players starting this year.
And no, they are not allowed to hold out when they have a SINGED CONTRACT.... if they were "Allowed," to do it they wouldn't be getting fined 50k a day.

and no, you have never seen a team refuse to pay a player UNDER CONTRACT. When a team "Cuts," a player, those terms (getting cut) are part of the contract, so when the team cuts a player, they are doing something that is allowed UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. Teams are not allowed to say, well we are going to keep you on the team, but you didnt play well last year so we are gonna cut your salary in half. When the team cuts a player they are no longer under contract, thus they dont get paid.

I am not pro owner, I am pro contract. I am pro doing what you signed up to do. Martin signed a deal and he was perfectly happy with the terms of that deal. Now in the middle of the deal, he has changed his mind and wants the team to acquiesce to his desire to get paid more money. I m not for that.

 

[Captain-Crash]

"you get that money boy."

 

[BlindFaith]

You clearly do not understand contracts.
and NO, players will no longer be allowed to get the money they were fined back when they signed. That is also now in the actual contract. Fined amounts are no longer allowed to be returned to the players starting this year.
And no, they are not allowed to hold out when they have a SINGED CONTRACT.... if they were "Allowed," to do it they wouldn't be getting fined 50k a day.

and no, you have never seen a team refuse to pay a player UNDER CONTRACT. When a team "Cuts," a player, those terms (getting cut) are part of the contract, so when the team cuts a player, they are doing something that is allowed UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. Teams are not allowed to say, well we are going to keep you on the team, but you didnt play well last year so we are gonna cut your salary in half. When the team cuts a player they are no longer under contract, thus they dont get paid.

I am not pro owner, I am pro contract. I am pro doing what you signed up to do. Martin signed a deal and he was perfectly happy with the terms of that deal. Now in the middle of the deal, he has changed his mind and wants the team to acquiesce to his desire to get paid more money. I m not for that.

The point about player performance is spot on. Yes, teams cut players. And yes, players quit on teams and lose the desire to play. But would they agree to a pay cut?
How many players would be up for signing 1 year contracts? ZERO. They love those multi year deals with guaranteed, up front money. And they should. But quit complaining when three years in, your base isnt in line with others. You already got yours and hopefully invested it wisely.
And if next year rolls around and you get cut because that backloaded contract isnt feasible for the team, you move on. Thats the nature of the league.

 

[SuperBowlz]

The point about player performance is spot on. Yes, teams cut players. And yes, players quit on teams and lose the desire to play. But would they agree to a pay cut?
How many players would be up for signing 1 year contracts? ZERO. They love those multi year deals with guaranteed, up front money. And they should. But quit complaining when three years in, your base isnt in line with others. You already got yours and hopefully invested it wisely.
And if next year rolls around and you get cut because that backloaded contract isnt feasible for the team, you move on. Thats the nature of the league.

Why quit complaining? We all know it's a business. If the Cowboys don't like what Zack is doing they can cut him. It's a business move on Zacks part.

 

[SuperBowlz]

You clearly do not understand contracts.
and NO, players will no longer be allowed to get the money they were fined back when they signed. That is also now in the actual contract. Fined amounts are no longer allowed to be returned to the players starting this year.
And no, they are not allowed to hold out when they have a SINGED CONTRACT.... if they were "Allowed," to do it they wouldn't be getting fined 50k a day.

and no, you have never seen a team refuse to pay a player UNDER CONTRACT. When a team "Cuts," a player, those terms (getting cut) are part of the contract, so when the team cuts a player, they are doing something that is allowed UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. Teams are not allowed to say, well we are going to keep you on the team, but you didnt play well last year so we are gonna cut your salary in half. When the team cuts a player they are no longer under contract, thus they dont get paid.

I am not pro owner, I am pro contract. I am pro doing what you signed up to do. Martin signed a deal and he was perfectly happy with the terms of that deal. Now in the middle of the deal, he has changed his mind and wants the team to acquiesce to his desire to get paid more money. I m not for that.

You make a ton of good points. But when it comes down to it, this is a business. If the Cowboys don't like Zacks demands they can let him go. That is the leverage that Zack has in this business. That is how business works and the rich have been sticking it to the worker since our country started. I like seeing the worker understand their power.

 

[Reid1boys]

Why quit complaining? We all know it's a business. If the Cowboys don't like what Zack is doing they can cut him. It's a business move on Zacks part.

Cut him??? Why, they have him under contract for a few more years. If they dont like what hes doing, no need to cut him.... just let him rack up massive amounts of fines and then he starts missing game checks. Pretty simple.

 

[Reid1boys]

You make a ton of good points. But when it comes down to it, this is a business. If the Cowboys don't like Zacks demands they can let him go. That is the leverage that Zack has in this business. That is how business works and the rich have been sticking it to the worker since our country started. I like seeing the worker understand their power.

Zack only has leverage if the team allows him to have leverage. If I were the owner, Id make it clear to EVERY PLAYER when we sit down to sign the contract. Id say to them.. now this deal is a deal, and I will not be renegotiating your deal until the years are up. Obviously, that wouldnt include me going to you to see if an extension was beneficial to both you and I, but if you come back to me 3 years into a 5 year deal asking for more money, I will not negotiate with you. Now before you sign this here deal that is worth a boatload of money, do you understand this point Im making to you????

 

[BlindFaith]

Why quit complaining? We all know it's a business. If the Cowboys don't like what Zack is doing they can cut him. It's a business move on Zacks part.

Dude is under contract. Thats why. Retire then and pay back that bonus money. Or sit out the year and pay the NFL 10mil in fines.

Or be a leader and help this team to a superbowl.

 

[BlindFaith]

You make a ton of good points. But when it comes down to it, this is a business. If the Cowboys don't like Zacks demands they can let him go. That is the leverage that Zack has in this business. That is how business works and the rich have been sticking it to the worker since our country started. I like seeing the worker understand their power.

While I generally agree, this is a GAME. This isn't real life. The same rules don't apply.

If I went in and asked my boss for a 20% raise, hed say no. I could quit or keep working. Why is this any different? Except for the fact he got money up front. Let him retire and pay back the unearned money. The cowboys would still have his rights. So he could only play if they traded him. Or he could come back and half arse it and force them to cut him. Not a good look for a guy potentially HOF bound.

 

[Verdict]

If the Cowboys are relying on Tyron Smith for anything, it’s a mistake