New Starting Safety?

A player who makes it to his second contract has earned well over a million dollars at that point, even at league minimum. A lifetime's worth of money for most people. I'm not going to feel sorry for anyone because they aren't quite as rich as they may feel that they should be. Chancellor, in particular, has made about 15 million dollars already in his career. He's hardly struggling to get by. He's also due to make about 16 more over the next three seasons, before he would even be 30 years old, and if Seattle were to cut him, he'd likely sign on with someone else. I cannot and will not get behind a cause like that.

 

No one is asking you to feel sorry for them.

 

I don't think he's as great as you think or that his impact has been as big, but that is beside the point. If I signed a contract, I would expect my employer to comply with it and I would expect to be required to comply with it too. He is not justified in expecting to be paid a single cent more than the contract he agreed to says he should be paid. To expect otherwise is simply stupid. And to damage the team by holding out while doing so is pathetic.

 

That is part of the contract. There is nothing unusual about a term like that. Anyone who signs such a contract should be prepared for that possibility. In exchange for that, the player gets millions of dollars up front, before he plays another down. He can suck from that time forward but will get to keep those millions. If the argument is those millions weren't enough, the player and his agent should have bargained for more.

 

Nah, I'll pay you exactly what you and I agreed I'd pay you. Not a penny more.

 

Contracts can always be renegotiated.

 

With the talent they have at Seattle, this is going to be an annual event for a little while.

 

Only if both sides agree to it. If he was going into the last year of the deal and I wanted to extend it, I'd consider renegotiating. But not with 3 years left. Sets a very bad precedent and will cause every player who thinks he should be paid more to hold out and expect a bigger contract. There is a salary cap. Every dollar you spend on one player means you have a dollar less to spend on others.

 

True, however by his contract he can hold out and accept the penalties.

I would. It would set the precedent that hard work and dedication and excellence are rewarded.

 

I'm sure everyone in this thread will have the exact same views on player contracts and the salary cap in one year when Ndamukong Suh's 2016 contract spike is perceived to prevent the Dolphins from signing Free Agent Who Will Take Us Over The Hump X.

 

I'm kinda torn on this one, because I've always believed players should be paid based on their value to the team/league. Have something like a minimum salary with potential big bonuses at the end of the year if they MVP it up...but I realize this could be VERY problematic with the subjectivity involved from the team/coaches/etc.

But just because I dislike Seattle, I hope he does hold out, and the Seachickens DON'T redo his deal. Win-win for everybody outside Seattle.

 

How many are smart though (financially)? So many lose it all or lose much of what they once earned after retiring from the NFL because of the extravagant lifestyles they choose with little regards to the future. So while you might be financially smarter if you were in their situation, it's hard to morally support a typical highly paid athlete when they act like they aren't being paid enough.

Personally, I have little sympathy for greedy players (talking only about the ones that get paid millions) or greedy owners. Both those groups have shown they're willing to satisfy their greed even if it hurts us fans, most infamously demonstrated through that player strike in 1982 that cut short the NFL season to 9 regular season games (there was a second player strike in 1987 that cut the season short by a game too).

So while this discussion is just about one player, keep in mind that when enough players think like this, it's us fans that get hurt.

 

I have little sympathy for the players. Even a rookie minimum contract could set them up pretty well for life if they are smart about it. They want some real action? Let them join the military or become a firefighter or police officer for crap pay.

 

Sure, one can choose to accept the consequences of not honoring one's contract.

Hard to see how a refusal to even show up at work represents a showing of hard work and dedication and excellence.

 

He already displayed it.

 

This is just jealousy.

 

And he got paid handsomely for it. He was just doing his job. He should continue to do that, rather than hurt his team and teammates so that he can scrape up every last cent he can possibly get.

 

There might be some jealousy, but that's not it or even most of it. Some people believe that if you make a promise or a deal you should live up to it. Others don't, I guess. Yes, everyone can accept the consequences of breaking their promises or agreements, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to cheer them on for it.

If you hired someone to paint your house for $1500 and you signed a contract and shook hands on it, you would expect them to do it for that price. If the painter came back and said he now wants an extra $1500, would you be happy about it and praising him for getting every cent he can from you? Sure, his doing that would be a breach of the agreement and he can choose to breach and accept the consequences, but it that something he should be praised for? Is someone who criticizes him for it just doing it because he is jealous?

 

He was doing his job. Now is renegotiating his contract. It happens all the time in business.

 

Depends on the situation and the reasons. Nothing is so cut and dry.

And for the other people who are not me or him who criticizes, plainly, it is none of their business.

 

That is a terrible analogy, and your first statement is quite ironic in that players are expected to adhere to a "promise" but the team is not.

Also, I enjoy how several folks are saying things like "if they were smart" and forgetting that in many cases these are KIDS coming into the league, often from underprivileged homes, undereducated. You really expect the first act of such a person to be opening a 401k? I know it can be annoying to see someone blow millions when we see a fraction of that, but look at lotto winners and how they do. Similar situation - these people DO NOT UNDERSTAND money and economics.

Bottom line, they are absolutely taken advantage of by the league and owners. They put down their health in exchange for displaying singular talent and receive a large sum of money. I don't see how anyone can say they should under no circumstances seek to maximize their earnings.

 

It is also pretty ignorant. There are a lot of smart people who are really bad at dealing with money. That is just one skill.

 

The team is absolutely expected to adhere to their promise to pay the player and all of the other promises in the contract and the CBA. If the player played and the team simply refused to pay for work performed while the contract is in effect, everyone would be all over the team and the team would be rightfully criticized. The contract gives the team a right to terminate, so terminating is in accordance with the contract.

Not sure what you mean by "these people." Certainly, many of them do understand money and economics and live very comfortable lives long after their playing careers end.

They are not taken advantage of. They are paid massive amounts of money. They do what they do quite willingly, as they are living out their dreams and the dreams of millions of other people who simply don't have the talent to do what they do. Every single one of these players has the option of not playing and getting a "regular job." Very, very few of them take that option. Why? Because the NFL options is soooo much better. They are free to seek to maximize their earnings and part of that should be actually showing up to work then they are under contract. Or sign shorter contracts if they think they are an ascending player who will make more in the long run if they do a short-term deal now and then a bigger deal when it is done.

Not sure why the analogy is so terrible. That is what Chancellor is doing -- he agreed to play under the terms of his current contract just as the painter agreed to paint the house under the terms of that contract.

 

I think it goes without saying that those who say that mean "if they were smart about the money."

 

Unless those people are on the jury in the trial of your breach of contract case. And even if they are not, they are free to express their opinions just like we are all free to express out opinions about Chancellor's situation.

 

And this is just a condescending comment, which means to speak down to.

 

The failure rate is staggering though. And there are all kinds of rookie development seminars, etc. It's really sad.

Agreed.

 

It's not a comparable situation in the least - it is a terrible analogy. Here is a slightly better one, though still off. You hire a fairly new painter (artistic, not house) to paint a portrait of everyone in your family for a really cheap sum as he is unknown and fresh out of art school. He gets through 1-2 of them before everyone suddenly understand that this artist is AMAZINGLY good. He has offers pouring in from all over willing to pay him more than your original contract with him, so he renegotiates trying to get more out of you.

Athletics does not in the least really lend itself to comparisons with "regular" jobs, sorry.

And NFL teams make a contract. Why is it OK for them to cut a player, but not ok for the player to seek more money?

NFL is a dangerous and violent game. The next play easily could be your last. Faulting a player for attempting to maximize their unique skill in the very limited timeframe they have to do it is strange. Question, do you also support the NCAA trying to withhold as much money from college athletes as it possibly can while it rakes in money?

Why exactly are we supposed to cry for NFL teams whose owners make more than the entire team combined?

 

No, it is a judgement. Not talking down or up.

 

They way people talk about athletes, no I do not think it goes without saying.

 

The only two posters that made statements about being "smart" in this context before texanphinatic and you argued "smart" should be context-specific, were me and 77FinFan.

Look back at my post and I explicitly talk about "smart" being financially smart. 77FinFan said "Even a rookie minimum contract could set them up pretty well for life if they are smart about it." There is no question the context of that statement implies it's about being financially smart, so I think this criticism by the two of you is off base (I should add that in texanphinatic's case, the criticism is about why they are not financially smart, but that has no direct bearing on the arguments we made).

 

This is more of a generality beyond this thread.

 

..

Really? I agree, what a scumbag.

 

It has every bearing. You are operating in a theoretical world. I am operating in reality.

Quite a few people seem to be of the opinion "they make more than I do, so that's already enough. They should not ask for more, and if they do, I am against them." It's the same kind of sentiment against minimum wage increase.

 

I'm not arguing you're wrong about their background being a reason they don't invest wisely. I'm saying that has no bearing on my argument. As I said in post #57, even if someone else were to invest more wisely in their situation, I'd still not support their behavior. So for that part of the argument (first paragraph), I'm saying their background doesn't matter.

I think you can see that the rest of post #57 stands regardless of what the cause for the greed is. It doesn't even matter there whether people are well trained in finance or not.

 

We all risk our health every day...how bout this...give him more money again and if he is having a down year..let him pay the money back. They will not do that now...Will they?

 

I don't think the NFL market has matured yet. We continue to see unprecedented moves every year and no one seems to understand how to optimize money-making. I think it's a fascinating experiment that's still underway. After all, free agency has only been in existence a few short decades. When a new record is set every year or two, that shows you the workers in that market are still readily gaining ground against the employers and that the balance is still not where it should be.

Back when Revis was with the Jets he was criticized for asking too much of his team. I have mixed feelings about that because as a human being I recognize loyalty as a positive trait, but as a self-interested money-maker I understand full well that loyalty for the sake of appearances is not necessarily a good thing in terms of optimal profit. Further, experience shows that all employees really only have one good chance to negotiate which is when they're hired. After that, the growth in earnings will be limited to small raises and insignificant cost-of-living increases.

I think what CC is doing here is probably what many players will do in the future and what may become the norm with the top-end talent and biggest money-makers who can increase their earnings by hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars just by applying a little extra pressure where they can. For example, if you're a player like CC and you know that your team is heading into the regular season $4M under the cap, that's wasted money they could be paying you.

There is really no justification for teams not spending 100% of the cap every year. If you're that player, you are going to look at that and think, 'well if I threaten to sit out, maybe they'll agree to pay me that $4M instead of just writing it off!'

At the end of the day, it's only the salary cap that makes this a questionable moral move. If there was no salary cap, then what CC is doing would ultimately help the earning power of every other player. The fact there is a salary cap means that you have to rob from Peter to give to Paul.

That said, I doubt CC is going to agree to effectively make his team worse for the sake of making more money. Most dominant athletes want to win and fully expect that money will come with winning.

 

Based on my reading of most arguments on both sides of the argument, I don't think salary cap matters to most posters. Well, if I'm wrong then posters should tell me that they'd change their stance if a salary cap did not exist (I'd actually be interested to know).

In any case, I'm not changing my stance even without a salary cap because as I pointed out in post #57, it's not just Peter and Paul, but us fans that matter here. And you get enough of a disagreement between Peter and Paul and they start robbing from the fans (by not playing the games!).