#1 Threat to the Miami Dolphins

[Feverdream]

The "they are under contract so they should just play" ship sailed about 20+ years ago. NFL teams have absolutely no obligation to honor a contract for its full term, why should a player?

We've already answered this a dozen times...

Because the player's contract with the NFL gives the owners this right.

You can argue about how it 'should be', but the players themselves agreed to this when they signed the CBA.

 

[Mnchstrcityblues79]

We've already answered this a dozen times...

Because the player's contract with the NFL gives the owners this right.

You can argue about how it 'should be', but the players themselves agreed to this when they signed the CBA.

Yes but we are talking specifically about X who did not agree to some arbitrary wage structure that the the front office will now argue must remain in place. The front office should have foreseen (and I image did foresee) that the teams best player will be upset if you pay an inferior player more even if the aforementioned was obtained against the inflation of the open market.

 

[superphin]

 

[Feverdream]

Yes but we are talking specifically about X who did not agree to some arbitrary wage structure that the the front office will now argue must remain in place. The front office should have foreseen (and I image did foresee) that the teams best player will be upset if you pay an inferior player more even if the aforementioned was obtained against the inflation of the open market.

Oh but he did.

He is a voting member of the organization that negotiates these rules.

 

[Mnchstrcityblues79]

Oh but he did.

He is a voting member of the organization that negotiates these rules.

He is not a voting member of the front office. This "pay structure" you fear will be upturned is a creation of the Miami front office, not of any agreement between the NFL and the players. So unless you are arguing X is a party to negotiations between the front office and all other players contracted to Miami then no, no he is not a voting member of the organization that negotiated these "rules."

 

[EasyRider]

For a minute there I thought you were gonna blame Tua

 

[Mark_J]

Yes but we are talking specifically about X who did not agree to some arbitrary wage structure that the the front office will now argue must remain in place. The front office should have foreseen (and I image did foresee) that the teams best player will be upset if you pay an inferior player more even if the aforementioned was obtained against the inflation of the open market.

When Byron Jones was signed, no one forsaw that X would have a better season. It's easy to call Jones 'inferior' in hindsight but will you be able to make the same statement at the end of this year?

X signed a contract that made him the highest paid CB in the league, looking over his career stats he's only had a single season where he could (arguably) be called the best CB in the League. He owes us more than one great year...

 

[Mach2]

The "they are under contract so they should just play" ship sailed about 20+ years ago. NFL teams have absolutely no obligation to honor a contract for its full term, why should a player?

Show me an instance where a team didn't honor the terms of a contract.

I'll wait.......

 

[Mnchstrcityblues79]

Show me an instance where a team didn't honor the terms of a contract.

I'll wait.......

Oh, thats right, the Players Association "negotiated" and "agreed" to allow for Teams to unilaterally terminate a contract. You are technically correct. Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

 

[Mnchstrcityblues79]

I do find it funny how quickly fans turn on players as soon as someone else's money is at issue.

Prior to holding out: "X is the best!"

During a hold out: "X only really had one good year ..."

Following a hold out: "X better be better than he's ever been!"

 

[Mach2]

Oh, thats right, the Players Association "negotiated" and "agreed" to allow for Teams to unilaterally terminate a contract. You are technically correct. Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Have you actually read the CBA, as it pertains to player contracts?

I would guess no, since what you are saying (teams can unilaterally terminate a contract) is not, to my knowledge/recolection, addressed in anything close to those terms.

 

[Mnchstrcityblues79]

Have you actually read the CBA, as it pertains to player contracts?

I would guess no, since what you are saying (teams can unilaterally terminate a contract) is not, to my knowledge/recolection, addressed in anything close to those terms.

Article 4, Section 5(d)

In addition to any rights a Club may presently have under the NFL Player Contract, any Player Contract may be terminated if, in the Club’s opinion, the player being terminated is anticipated to make less of a contribution to the Club’s ability to compete on the playing field than another player or players whom the Club intends to sign or at-tempt to sign, or another player or players who is or are already on the roster of such Club, and for whom the Club needs Room. This Subsection shall not affect any Club or Club Affiliate’s obligation to pay a player any guaranteed consideration.

 

[39wildman]

K.c,buffalo, ravens,steelers browns,ind,tenn,den,raiders and N.E.

 

[Mach2]

Article 4, Section 5(d)

In addition to any rights a Club may presently have under the NFL Player Contract, any Player Contract may be terminated if, in the Club’s opinion, the player being terminated is anticipated to make less of a contribution to the Club’s ability to compete on the playing field than another player or players whom the Club intends to sign or at-tempt to sign, or another player or players who is or are already on the roster of such Club, and for whom the Club needs Room. This Subsection shall not affect any Club or Club Affiliate’s obligation to pay a player any guaranteed consideration.

Yes, the team still has to pay any gauranteed $, as contactually obligated.

You are proving my point. Most NFL contracts are not, by the terms of the contract, fully gauranteed. Therefore, they are not "unilaterally terminating" the contract. They are just exercising one of the contractual options.

Look, these are very specifically worded agreements, poured over by contract attourneys from both sides.

Let's not act like everyone involved doesn't understand the ramifications.

If you are argueing that it isn't fair, thats fine, but don't try to argue teams are breaking the letter of contract law. It just simply isnt true.

 

[Mnchstrcityblues79]

Yes, the team still has to pay any gauranteed $, as contactually obligated.

You are proving my point. Most NFL contracts are not, by the terms of the contract, fully gauranteed. Therefore, they are not "unilaterally terminating" the contract. They are just exercising one of the contractual options.

Look, these are very specifically worded agreements, poured over by contract attourneys from both sides.

Let's not act like everyone involved doesn't understand the ramifications.

If you are argueing that it isn't fair, thats fine, but don't try to argue teams are breaking the letter of contract law. It just simply isnt true.

This is 100% incorrect. If I contract with you to pay you $10 a week to post on this message board - guaranteed money or not - and I then, without your agreement outside of any rights established in the contract, say "I am not paying you $10 a week to post on this message board and you are free to post elsewhere but you will not be posting here" irrespective of whether I can or not legally, I have unilaterally terminated the contract. This a is common and simple idea under contract law.