Contract Hold Outs

[dsallupinyaarea]

I've always wondered why players, who are under contract, get such a bad wrap for holding out for more money when they've outperformed their contract. Teams cut players, who are under contract, all day long that under-perform their contracts. Isn't that the same thing?

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

I could very well be wrong about this, but I think a lot of people just get mad because it hurts their team and the fact that the player agreed to the contract already and should respect it. Not to mention the fact that they're saying that getting 5 million dollars in one year isn't enough.

[dsallupinyaarea]

But when a team cuts a player under contract why aren't they treated with the same judgement. They agreed to a contract and they should honor it. It seems like a bit of a double standard.

[metallicatz]

I don't have a problem with players holding if they are paid way below their production AND have been doing it on a consistent basis for a few seasons or so. Where I run into problems with it is when a player has 1 great year and thinks his paycheck should be tops in the league. I also have no respect for players that hold out for a contract, get it, and then hold out again a year or two later for another one.

As for the argument about player shelf life, It's not the NFL teams' responsibility to set these players up for life. Players of yesteryear had to figure out a career for themselves after football. If this current crop of players don't like the way the system is set up...they can try their hand at alternative means of employment. Most end up broke anyway a few short years out of the league. It's not the NFL's responsibility to compensate for the stupidity factor in many of these players as far as fiscal responsibility. Playing in the NFL is a priveledge, not an entitlement. Enjoy the paycheck while you can get it, but plan for life after football.

[dsallupinyaarea]

Quote: Originally Posted by metallicatz

I don't have a problem with players holding if they are paid way below their production AND have been doing it on a consistent basis for a few seasons or so. Where I run into problems with it is when a player has 1 great year and thinks his paycheck should be tops in the league. I also have no respect for players that hold out for a contract, get it, and then hold out again a year or two later for another one. As for the argument about player shelf life, It's not the NFL teams' responsibility to set these players up for life. Players of yesteryear had to figure out a career for themselves after football. If this current crop of players don't like the way the system is set up...they can try their hand at alternative means of employment. Most end up broke anyway a few short years out of the league. It's not the NFL's responsibility to compensate for the stupidity factor in many of these players as far as fiscal responsibility. Playing in the NFL is a priveledge, not an entitlement. Enjoy the paycheck while you can get it, but plan for life after football.

I understand all of that. The question still stands though. Isn't is a double standard that teams can cut a player for under-performing and no one cares, but we criticize players who hold out because they over-performed their contract?

[ProfessaPackMan]

Quote:

I don't have a problem with players holding if they are paid way below their production AND have been doing it on a consistent basis for a few seasons or so. Where I run into problems with it is when a player has 1 great year and thinks his paycheck should be tops in the league. I also have no respect for players that hold out for a contract, get it, and then hold out again a year or two later for another one.

My sentiments exactly.

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

I don't know because if a team cuts the player, they can still play with someone else. If Revis holds out, there just is no Revis on that team. A player that's released can get money elsewhere. A team that has their star hold out can't really replace them.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Yeah...THAT Guy

I don't know because if a team cuts the player, they can still play with someone else. If Revis holds out, there just is no Revis on that team. A player that's released can get money elsewhere. A team that has their star hold out can't really replace them.

Very good point. I think people want to compare this to the business world, or the normal world. Well in business you can get fired but you can't demand a raise when you do well on a project with the threat of not doing any more work if you don't get it. You can, but chances are you'll end up fired anyway. There's a hierarchy that no one wants to respect. The players are not on the same level as the owner, they work for him/her. So there is a difference between an owner or coach cutting a player whenever they want and a player demanding more money whenever they want. The difference between the NFL and the business world is that players have more leverage than the average Joe but that doesn't make it less of a **** move (imo). You bring in the shelf life and chance of injury which also make sense, but it's rare that a hold out isn't making enough money to live comfortably on if that were to happen.

This year is a little different bc of the unsettled future of the league and different rules that screwed over players like Vincent Jackson, but guys like Revis and Chris Johnson are trying to cash in a lottery ticket IMO. And I don't like the trend of having a big year and trying to cash in on it before maybe your true colors shine through (if it's not that then honor it or put a string of years on the level you're trying to get paid together and then talk to me).