Benardrick McKinney restructure | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Benardrick McKinney restructure

GRYPHONK said:
And that's logic could follow with Howard after a season as well.

Still it doesn't address the concern of every player deciding they can get more.

Sanders is a kicker.. ok bye. How many wins did he help us get last year?

Mckinney restructured by the teams request. Doesn't matter who requested it. He decides next year he wants more.


What about every player?

If we set the precedent that length of contract is irrelevant for a restructure, expect to renegotiate every contract almost every year.

Some could argue Sanders was almost as responsible for the Phil's success as the defense. If he doesn't keep hitting those 50 yards and isn't so reliable, we would never have been in the playoff hunt.

Like I said, we have alot of 1 and 3 year contracts. So that may be there goal.

But a 3 year contract and 4 or 5 should not be renegotiated on the same timeliness.

It makes contracts irrelevant
Click to expand...
You nailed the truth of the NFL with your last statement.

Contracts are irrelevant in the NFL. We'll put!
 
SCOTTY said:
Without researching, I would assume the vast majority of restructures impact the total money of the contract as well, either more or less. I feel very few restructures simply move the same exact amount of money. Some do but I would say most don't.
Click to expand...
It can typically only be a pay cut by adding years, spreading the same money (technically) to the future. In that case, usually the gauranteed money is raised, or it would be dumb for the player to do it, unless he believes he is going to be cut. Albert Wilsons restructure is a good example of this and in reality, it is a pay cut.

Other times, players restructure to benifit the team's cap situation. That just moves money down the road, but still usually means more gauranteed money.

I don't know which is more prevalent, but in any case, a restructure is always the same total (but not necessarily real) money. The money is just being "restructured" as to the due date, or portion gauranteed. It is still considered the original contract.

I doubt X's agent will accept any restructure period. He would not make a dime on that, as that deal was done with his previous agent.
 
GRYPHONK said:
Sanders is a kicker.. ok bye. How many wins did he help us get last year?
Click to expand...

You post comes across like Howard. Why whould the kicker get paid? Lol..he's not as important as me.
 
I’d keep his contract intact and add a bonus to it, say $500,000 per interception. Now go make your money big boy.
 
Last edited:
ANUFan said:
Nothing, IMO, suggest X and his agent will be content with “give a little!” Giving a little is more than reasonable and If that’s all it took then X would have shown up to camp.

No! No! This is get as much as you can no matter what. A striaght type of money grab. This is, I won’t be content, until I’m the highest paid CB on the league and top in the entire NFL on defense. If I have an even better season next year then I expect a pay rise. If i suck? Will you know how that goes..
Click to expand...

Which is why I said "Since that hasn't happened, I suspect it's significantly more than $2mm."
 
SCOTTY said:
I don't agrue the slippery slope fallacy. That's all it is. It's not an argument. Holdouts have existed for decades. X did not just invent this situation. As much as everyone wants to freak out about it being only 1 year. There are hold out every year, for all types of reasons.
Click to expand...
I agree that the slippery slope arguement is more of a convenient talking point than anything else. I think teams are capable of assessment on a case by case basis. Reality is, X just doesn't have any leverage here, and as any negotiator will tell you, that is all that matters.
SCOTTY said:
You nailed the truth of the NFL with your last statement.

Contracts are irrelevant in the NFL. We'll put!
Click to expand...
I don't see contracts as irrelevant at all. They are just flexible, and most are not "iron clad", in the sense that there are variables.

That's just the reality of contracts. All contracts beyond the most basic have clauses/requirements/if-thens built into them.

Both sides have high priced, top quality contract law experts combing through every minor detail. To say thet are irrelevant is just not true.

Now if you want to say teams/owners have a monopoly that borders on collusion, there is a case to be made there. That case isn't very strong though, because of the reality of revenue sharing, not to mention the fact that the CBA was ratified, under no duress, by the players themselves as a whole.
 
fansinceGWilson said:
I'm in the 'give a little' camp. If it takes $2mm to get it resolved, do it. (Since that hasn't happened, I suspect it's significantly more than $2mm.) AND/OR, as you say, he wants a LOT guaranteed.
Click to expand...

nf-iRj.gif
 
lurking said:
I’d keep his contract in tact and add a bonus to it, say $500,000 per interception. Now go make your money big boy.
Click to expand...
You don't reallt believe X, or his agent, would agree to any such thing do you?

Sometimes it's fun just to say things I guess........I'm going on the senior PGA tour.....

Edit: I'll be "that guy".......intact is one wo rd......
 
GRYPHONK said:
My only concern is this.

Baker, Sanders, Mckinney all go on to have career years.

Based on giving a little extra to Howard.. why would every other player on the team not feel they could get a little bit more every season they play good?

Way to soon for just a little more.

If that's the case, Miami might as well just do 2 year contracts and do extensions based on that first year.

With all their 1 and 3 yr contracts that may be their goal actually lol
Click to expand...

You won't like my answer. There are VERY few top 5 players on any team. If Baker or anyone else play at top 5 level (not 'career years') and want $2mm more, I'd entertain the request. Notice the word "entertain." I realize the weakness in that position - 'I was top 5 again THIS year, so let's negotiate again.' At some point the GM has to close the candy shop. But, like everyone here, every position has it's flaws.
 
Mach2 said:
You don't reallt believe X, or his agent, would agree to any such thing do you?

Sometimes it's fun just to say things I guess........I'm going on the senior PGA tour.....
Click to expand...

Hell even Deion Sanders left Atlanta.
 
Mach2 said:
I agree that the slippery slope arguement is more of a convenient talking point than anything else. I think teams are capable of assessment on a case by case basis. Reality is, X just doesn't have any leverage here, and as any negotiator will tell you, that is all that matters.

I don't see contracts as irrelevant at all. They are just flexible, and most are not "iron clad", in the sense that there are variables.

That's just the reality of contracts. All contracts beyond the most basic have clauses/requirements/if-thens built into them.

Both sides have high priced, top quality contract law experts combing through every minor detail. To say thet are irrelevant is just not true.

Now if you want to say teams/owners have a monopoly that borders on collusion, there is a case to be made there. That case isn't very strong though, because of the reality of revenue sharing, not to mention the fact that the CBA was ratified, under no duress, by the players themselves as a whole.
Click to expand...
It's Saturday morning word play with Mach 😀

I'm not going to debate the meaning of irrelevant with you. Especially when you go on to state they are flexible and not iron clad.

The truth is in the NFL contract are worth only the piece of paper they are written on. Valid contracts are moved, voided, fulfilled, traded, restructured all the time, with all type of restrictions. How many times is it said, you can't move that contract.? But then there it goes. How did NO get under the salary cap?? We can keep going back and forth. Yes, there has to be some type of legal foundation...so contracts exist. But as a cartel that boarders a monopoly, teams do what they want with contracts as they see fit. There is little to no penalty once the meager G money is settled. And the G money compared to total contract is minimal overall in the NFL.
 
ANUFan said:
You post comes across like Howard. Why whould the kicker get paid? Lol..he's not as important as me.
Click to expand...
My point was to sound like Howard in that moment.

I personally find it to be a ridiculous argument so early in a contract.
 
SCOTTY said:
You nailed the truth of the NFL with your last statement.

Contracts are irrelevant in the NFL. We'll put!
Click to expand...
Lol nicely done

This is where we disagree.

A contract is not irrelevant nor should it be. I will personally never understand this new age way of thinking.

I am not saying you are new age. But the idea that a contract is irrelevant is a popular thing these days specifically with young people.

I just will never understand. It's simple for me, if u don't like it don't sign it. If you do, the live up to it and don't cry later when you yourself signed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom