Warning, this is a half-baked reaction but it's been building for a while and it's boiling up... Is it just me or does anyone else have a problem with this? Players having more control is one thing but what's the point of signing contracts if players can just refuse to show up and 'demand a trade'? Dude, no one forced you to sign any contracts. Honour your word. If you're good you'll get paid regardless. Even rookie contacts where it seems players are 'forced' to sign aren't that way. You don't want to sign you don't sign. You're a rookie. Teams are taking a risk on you. Making an investment. Giving you your shot. Show up. Play hard. Get paid. And when that contract is up, reap the rewards.
All of this goes out the window though when the teams, themselves, don't honor their contracts. I think the "demanding to be traded" is more a demand for transparency. If a team is being shady about communicating their future plans with the player, this is the only move they have to extract that information, really.
Can you clarify? How is not communicating future plans a failure to honour a current contract? Obviously I'm not suggesting that's the right way to operate. Nevertheless, if a franchise wants to keep things quiet, unless the contract specifies that they need to agree things with the player, that's a different question. There are 'no trade' clauses that can be built into contracts, although it's the top dogs who usually get those. Regardless, signing a contract and then basically ignoring it, demanding more, is wrong in my opinion. It's dishonourable, and it sucks - whether that be the franchise or the player. It's just that right now there seems to be a lot of this going wrong and it makes me wonder how a franchise is supposed to be able to build if they can't even count on their best players to honour their contracts?
It's just the way NFL contracts are- the teams themselves don't have to honor them. The Chargers could have cut Melvin Gordon 2 years ago if they wanted. And that's fine I guess, nature of the business and all that, but I think the players want to know where they're going to spend their immediate futures. It's not necessarily about honoring the current contract, it's the refusal to begin any communication on the next contract (or lack thereof) that is, most likely, pissing players off. It's the difference between Xavien Howard showing up for camp, knowing that the Dolphins were working with his agents, for better or worse, on his foreseeable future. It could have not worked out, but there was a dialogue there, there was action. This Gordon situation sounds like the Chargers haven't even reached out to feel out where his representation stands for when next season is over. That's going to lead to a very rapid and tumultuous offseason for Gordon, who I'm sure feels like he deserves better after already out-performing his rookie contract. Know what I mean? Am I off my gourd?
I don't have an issue with it. Let's say you sign a 4 year contract. The team doesn't have to "honor" that time frame. I don't see it as any different on the players' side.
It's not exactly the same in my eyes. If you sign a contract without a no trade clause you understand you could be traded. What you're guaranteed is that you're going to be paid a certain amount of money for those years of playing. If a team trades a player they know they're still going to get paid that amount. Obviously, treating a player well is important, but the team has multiple things to focus on in maintaining and building the franchise, the players, essentially, sells their own ability to the team. Obviously, being moved to a different part of the country includes some upheaval for the players and any family they have. However, moving is part of life in the NBA. For the team, they're trying to build something, and having players, particularly the centrepiece players, bail part way through can wreak havoc on those plans. For fans of franchises that are hoping to see their teams come together and succeed it sucks to see those efforts derailed. You want flexibility build it into the contract, but if you give your word, then honour it. Let the team know you'll be there for them, for your teammates, the franchise and the fans, as you agreed to be. That's the right way to operate in my mind.
But that's the issue. The team can cut a player and he won't be paid the amount of money for the years the team agreed to. In the NFL. unlike the NBA, the guarantees are a small percentage of the deal. If all the money was guaranteed then I'd agree with you that the player should honor his word. But as it stands the team can refuse to pay the player (cut him and not pay him anything else), basically not honoring their part of the contract. IMO that's the same thing as the player refusing to play and not honoring his part of the contract.
Two things: 1 - If the contract states guaranteed vs. not, then that IS part of the contract and remains a possibility. But a player simply refusing to engage is not the same thing. 2 - The players demanding trades or refusing to do whatever aren't typically the low end players, it's the top-end stars. It's not as though the fear is that the teams aren't going to pay them, it's that they've decided that they now want more money than was agreed and they want to hold the team hostage to some extent. Maybe the PA(s) and League(s) need to rework things so that it better facilitates these questions. I get the business side, but there's also the fundamental team side of this, the fans, and I think it's that end that's getting the bad end of things. I feel I've actually seen more of this in the NBA than the NFL, at least recently, but I suspect it's only going to become more of an issue everywhere.
1. I don't see a difference. A rudimentary construction of any contract is that both parties agree to do something in exchange for something else. The team agrees to pay the player X amount for X amount of years. The player agrees to train and play for X amount of years. In the NFL, the team can basically walk away and not do what they promised. You're saying when the team does it, it's okay. But if the player does the same thing you're claiming he's not honoring his word. 2. There's a greater in-balance of power with the low end players. They can't demand anything or walk away b/c they're easily replaced. When the team decides to not honor their word, those players are just screwed. And that's what happens far more often than any other scenario. It's just that since they're low end players nobody cares.
Also, Melvin Gordon signed a rookie contract. He cannot even negotiate those. His contract is going to pay him $5.6 million. His market value is between $10 to $15 million. He is being paid half his value on a contract he did not have a choice to sign, other than, "if you want to play in the NFL you have to sign it." Who on this board would want to honor a contract when you are in high demand that is half to one-third their value?
1 - I am saying it's different. The team isn't saying they won't trade him, unless there's a no trade clause, they're asking him to play for them for so many year for so much money. Part of the team's job, however, is to manage players, contracts, and bring together the best players possible to win - that's not something the player has to do. So all players sign contracts knowing that. Then based on that agreement the team can then manage all their other players and attempt to bring it all back together. If a player demands more or doesn't want to do their job, then it potentially hinders the whole team. The team aren't doing anything the player didn't agree to. The player is. It is different. I understand why a player might want more, but I'm saying they should consider the bigger picture, and honour their commitment to the team. It's hard enough getting the balance right as it is, having players demand trades or more money, or both, is unexpected and can screw with the team plans. That should be borne in mind. 2 - It's not low-end players who are demanding trades. It sounds rough, but if they're not that great, well that's just life. Lots of people have less opportunity because they're not as good at what they do as others. Doesn't stop anyone from working hard and doing a good job. But my beef isn't with those guys, it's with the stars who make these demands.
