Benardrick McKinney restructure | Page 4 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Benardrick McKinney restructure

fansinceGWilson said:
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.
Click to expand...
See there is I guess what my issue is.

If Howard had simply asked or requested a raise I would have no problem.

I believe he should live up to his contract. But I will never say he can't ask for a raise or what he thinks he's worth. Even after 1 year.

But a request or asking is different then throwing your teammate under the boss, telling the world Jones ain't worth that contract and telling the world you were going to make Miami pay for having the nerve to pay someone inferior than him more money.

That is where I lose all sympathy or willingness to appease Howard's demand.

Remember, I'm old school lol. It's not what you say it's how you say it

Also, I like your answer. It gets to the point of my concern with revolving door negotiating. I also understand that point.
 
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...
I do want to follow up on your last statement "the cba was ratified under no duress as a whole"
What really is the implication there? Because it's not like the player voted 100% to ratify. As a matter of fact it passed only 1019 to 959. So there is still a lot of debate among players. But it is a simple majority vote and it passed.

It's not just player vs team. There are many sides. But only one league. So at least they play while they fight over money.
 
GRYPHONK said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't understand the line of thought of contract irrelevance either.

NFL contracts (like any well written contract) are very specific. Every possibility is addressed, and both parties understand (or should) what those possible eventualities may be.
 
Mach2 said:
I don't understand the line of thought of contract irrelevance either.

NFL contracts (like any well written contract) are very specific. Every possibility is addressed, and both parties understand (or should) what those possible eventualities may be.
Click to expand...
Exactly
Both sides know the parameters. A player knows he could be cut at anytime. He knows he could be traded. Unless you have a no trade clause. The teams also know the penalty they will pay if they cut or trade said player.

A player (howard) also knows he signed a contract getting alot of money early, and after a year nothing was guaranteed.

If he wanted it guaranteed he should have negotiated it that way.

The Dolphins were willing to make him the highest paid CB. I highly doubt they would have declined giving him more guaranteed AT THE TIME.

You don't like what your teammate is getting paid is not justification for me personally to renegotiate so early.

I am sure there was 5 or 6 CBS who's eyebrows raised when he got that contract. I don't remember seeing the top 5 CBS asking for new contracts because of it
 
Mach2 said:
Doubtful. I think you, and some others, either do not understand the situation with X, or are grasping at staws.

A few million in cap space is irrelevant.

Scenario 1, the Phins are taking a hard line stance against a new contract, so early in the current deal.

Scenario 2, I think it's fairly obvious that X not only wants top corner pay, he wants a subtantial part of the $ gauranteed for future years.
Click to expand...
The real issue with paying X is that is sets the precedent. Baker for instance could demand more money next year since Fred Warner got paid much more a few weeks after him. We can't afford to start renegotiating contracts right after they are signed, otherwise everyone will want to do it.

X has no leverage, we simply tell him to show up, or find a trade partner willing to give up something massive for him. If he doesn't, we send him a 5 day letter, which means he has 5 days to come to camp, or they sideline him for the year, and pay him nothing. He will basically have forfeited his salary, and tolled his contract. That's the worst case scenario for him, and he can't afford for it to happen.
 
SCOTTY said:
I do want to follow up on your last statement "the cba was ratified under no duress as a whole"
What really is the implication there? Because it's not like the player voted 100% to ratify. As a matter of fact it passed only 1019 to 959. So there is still a lot of debate among players. But it is a simple majority vote and it passed.

It's not just player vs team. There are many sides. But only one league. So at least they play while they fight over money.
Click to expand...
That's why I said "as a whole".

That is the nature of having a union. In exchange for the security and protections the union affords, players are bound to the will of (in this case) the majority.

The CBA addresses a lot of issues. I would imagine, much like politics, there are a number of "single issue" voters, and those issues vary by the player. It would be hard to get a 80% vote on toilet paper over/under installation, let alone a complex multi billion dollar agreement that the vast majority are ill equipped to understand the big picture ramifications thereof.

Not trying to be arguementative here.....lol....just pointing out that different groups of players have varying interests in what is important to them, and it seems like there is more disagreement on things like padded practices, mandatory camps, etc, rather than the way contracts are handled.
 
McKinney's salary is only 7M this year, so there really isn't a lot of money available-- even if we wanted to spend it. He is signed through 2023 at rates that do not need to be addressed at this point, nor does he need to be extended, since he is already 29 years old.

About the best we could do in a restructure would be to convert some of his salary into bonus and kick his cap hit down the road into future years. I could see this if we needed the money to sign the rookies, or to sign a FA that we REALLY needed, but I don't think either is the case right now.

I think this was a bogus story, but we really won't know for a couple of days.
 
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...
my point is that restructuring doesn't really help the team in the long run and you do a few of those and end up in cap hell as we did a few years ago.
 
Danny said:
my point is that restructuring doesn't really help the team in the long run and you do a few of those and end up in cap hell as we did a few years ago.
Click to expand...
It depends on the situation, but you are right. As a rule it's just kicking the can.

A steadily rising cap mitigates the downside to an extent but too much of it and sooner or later the house of cards will collapse.

One instance where it's a relatively safe move is if you have a young top tier QB. Sure you impact the future cap, but short of a career ending injury you aren't looking at massive dead money.
 
fansinceGWilson said:
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.
Click to expand...
Once the Dolphins open that Pandora box, they aren’t going to be able to close it. It is one thing to restructure a contract with one or possibly two years left but a player with four years left on his contract is a different situation.

While Howard certainly had a career year in 2020. The fact is he has had numerous injuries in the last 5 years and he has only had 2 really good seasons out of the 5 years he has played for the Dolphins. I certainly don’t blame him for wanting more money but I will be very surprised if the front office caves to his demands. I suspect they are presently looking to see which team is willing to give them the best offer for Howard.

Personally I would love to see Howard as a Dolphin in 2021 and beyond but with camp opening next week and if he does hold out as anticipated, I think he will be traded before the season starts.
 
1972forever said:
Once the Dolphins open that Pandora box, they aren’t going to be able to close it. It is one thing to restructure a contract with one or possibly two years left but a player with four years left on his contract is a different situation.

While Howard certainly had a career year in 2020. The fact is he has had numerous injuries in the last 5 years and he has only had 2 really good seasons out of the 5 years he has played for the Dolphins. I certainly don’t blame him for wanting more money but I will be very surprised if the front office caves to his demands. I suspect they are presently looking to see which team is willing to give them the best offer for Howard.

Personally I would love to see Howard as a Dolphin in 2021 and beyond but with camp opening next week and if he does hold out as anticipated, I think he will be traded before the season starts.
Click to expand...
IMO the issue isn’t even about giving X more money or it setting a precedent to the team that they can renegotiate contracts they (essentially) just signed. It’s more that he reacted petty as heck when the Dolphins signed Jones to a more lucrative contract than him in 2020. Instead of being happy for a fellow teammate he wanted to make the team pay for the insult to his massive ego. His willingness to hold out in a year where franchises clearly don’t have the salary cap space (due to Covid) to make big moves is a simple FU to the team. He could have asked for a raise, or more guaranteed money, next year when the salary cap sky rockets and the team would have almost certainly granted it. At this point the whole situation comes off as him wanting to make the team “pay” for damaging his fragile ego.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom