Reggie Howard opposite of T.O.

[Dphins4me]

Easily addressed- part of the compensation package includes a disability insurance policy, paid for by the team. Now if Peyton goes down, he and his family are cared for, and the team is off the hook.

That would be an idea, but wonder what the premiums would cost?

Other than injury, why do you feel that guaranteeing contracts would "kill the sport?" Basketball contracts(not to mention every other contract in the real world) are guaranteed, within certain fair limitations.

The difference with football & every other sport. No one is going to be hitting them at work. Football is violent & if contracts were guaranteed then players would not hit as hard because they know they will get paid no matter what.

 

[islandah]

That would be an idea, but wonder what the premiums would cost?


The difference with football & every other sport. No one is going to be hitting them at work. Football is violent & if contracts were guaranteed then players would not hit as hard because they know they will get paid no matter what.

Premiums would cost what they cost. If you engage in a dangerous career, not having disability insurance costs a lot more! If you said to a player, take less in salary(that you'll be guaranteed to get over the length of your contract), but if you're injured (playing this violent game) you will be cared for, they'd take it.

As far as players not hitting as hard, I think that's not an issue for 2 reasons. 1. Incentives. and remember, contracts would be shorter so players would always be playing for their next contract. And it better be a good one, cuz it's guaranteed and they're going to have to live with it.

and 2. Players play /heat of the battle, etc. You can't tell me Zach would lay off a hit in the heat of the game because he knows his contract's guaranteed. Especially if he knows he's up for a new contract next year.
Right now, players can be fined huge amounts of money for illegal hits, and yet they still happen regularly. Why? Passion for the game. Guaranteed salaries won't change that.

 

[Dphins4me]

As far as players not hitting as hard, I think that's not an issue for 2 reasons. 1. Incentives.

Incentives would not work. Once a player reach a point of a point of happiness with his money then incentives will not work. I think in business it was call the X theory, but I might be wrong on that one. Its been a loooooong time since I studied it.

and remember, contracts would be shorter so players would always be playing for their next contract. And it better be a good one, cuz it's guaranteed and they're going to have to live with it.

Why would contracts be shorter? Plus it would be just like in other sports.

Player would simply take it easier at the beginning of the deal & then in the last year play hard to get a new deal.

and 2. Players play /heat of the battle, etc. You can't tell me Zach would lay off a hit in the heat of the game because he knows his contract's guaranteed. Especially if he knows he's up for a new contract next year.

You said it. In the last year he would play hard.

Look at Greg Wesley. He went from hard hitting safety to let play flag football after signing his big deal last year. KC had to bring in Knight to push him.

Right now, players can be fined huge amounts of money for illegal hits, and yet they still happen regularly. Why? Passion for the game. Guaranteed salaries won't change that.

Handful. With every rule you have the exceptions to the rule. Its basically always the same players getting in trouble for the hits.

 

[Dphins4me]

With all the T.O. talk, we know that his issue is that he feels he out-performed his contract and since management doesn't have to guarantee/ live up to their end, why shouldn't he be able to renegotiate.

Well, isn't Reggie Howard the flip side of the same coin? He was given way too big a contract by the last regime and has under-performed. He can't even break the starting line-up ahead of a 4th round draft pick rookie. Any reason we're not asking him to take a pay cut? Is it 'cuz we're too thin at CB and can't afford to rock the boat? It just drives me crazy to know how highly the guy gets paid and counts against our cap, yet how relatively little he contributes to our success.
Or did I miss something that explains it?

While I do not agree with TO since he signed his deal just last year, I do agree with player like Hines Ward.

The Howard situation is why TO is doing what he is doing. Teams can let a player go at any point & the contract is done. It does not matter if you are worthy of that deal or not. If teams think they can get by with a lesser & cheaper player then you, then you can be cut. No reason needs to be given.

Howard made the best move for Howard, just as Miami will make the best move for Miami. Howard knew Miami most likely could not afford to cut him, so he declined the paycut. Its a business & this Howard does not have the team mentality is BS. No player does anything soley for the team when it comes to pay. If they reduce their salary then they get something in return.

Players have to get what they can when they can. Majority of the time teams holds most of the cards.

 

[islandah]

While I do not agree with TO since he signed his deal just last year, I do agree with player like Hines Ward.

The Howard situation is why TO is doing what he is doing. Teams can let a player go at any point & the contract is done. It does not matter if you are worthy of that deal or not. If teams think they can get by with a lesser & cheaper player then you, then you can be cut. No reason needs to be given.

Howard made the best move for Howard, just as Miami will make the best move for Miami. Howard knew Miami most likely could not afford to cut him, so he declined the paycut. Its a business & this Howard does not have the team mentality is BS. No player does anything soley for the team when it comes to pay. If they reduce their salary then they get something in return.

Players have to get what they can when they can. Majority of the time teams holds most of the cards.

So it's OK after a certain amount of time has passed, but not 1 year. 2 Years? Who decides? The contract is either valid and binding to both sides or it's not.

You contradict yourself when you say your last statement, but that T.O. is wrong.

And you make my point when you say that the Howard situation is why TO is doing it- i.e., the fact that contracts are not guaranteed.

I agree you can't ask a player in this day and age to have team loyalty, unless it's a Zach-type player that wants to end his career with you.

 

[Dphins4me]

So it's OK after a certain amount of time has passed, but not 1 year. 2 Years? Who decides? .

Yea, its ok. However, its not ok for a player to want to redo his deal after just one year, especially when they get a large signing bonus the previous year.

Both the player & team decide.

The contract is either valid and binding to both sides or it's not.

The contract is valid, its just one side is expect to honor it while the other side is not. Teams are not expected to honor a contract.

You contradict yourself when you say your last statement, but that T.O. is wrong..

How did I contradicted myself? I do not blame TO for asking, I just do not think its a valid for him too. He is getting equal value.

TO got a 10 million signing bonus just last year. So that means last year TO got 10 million plus whatever his salary was. This year he gets his salary. So even if its the vet minimum for both year it would be 11 million for 2 years. That is 5.5 million per & its probably more since I doubt he gets the minimum. That is equal value for TO.

Come next year it may not be. TO may have out performed his current deal.

Ward has far outplayed his current deal & should be rewarded with a new deal. He signed his deal back in '01 & got a 2.5 million signing bonus. That means with his salary & bonus he is worth about 2.5 million this year. That is under value for Ward.

All Ward is asking for a fair market value, TO wants more than fair market value.

There in lies the difference.

And you make my point when you say that the Howard situation is why TO is doing it- i.e., the fact that contracts are not guaranteed..

I agree with why TO is doing it. It does not hurt to ask in TO case. If will not get it, if you do not ask for it.

I agree you can't ask a player in this day and age to have team loyalty, unless it's a Zach-type player that wants to end his career with you.

We will see how badly Zach wants to finish his career with Miami, come next offseason. This is his last in a Miami uniform, unless he takes a large paycut.

Every player wants to end their career with their orginal team. However, most every player will play for another team if given the chance.

 

[islandah]

The contract is valid, its just one side is expect to honor it while the other side is not. Teams are not expected to honor a contract.


How did I contradicted myself? I do not blame TO for asking, I just do not think its a valid for him too. He is getting equal value.

All Ward is asking for a fair market value, TO wants more than fair market value.

There in lies the difference.

We will see how badly Zach wants to finish his career with Miami, come next offseason. This is his last in a Miami uniform, unless he takes a large paycut.

Every player wants to end their career with their orginal team. However, most every player will play for another team if given the chance.

Sorry, I don't know how to quote a portion, answer it, then quote another portion and so on, so I'll just go in order.:)

If one side is expected to honor it and one side is not, it is not a "valid" contract, IMO. IMO, valid=binding.

As long as you think he has the right to ask, but just think he's incorrect, then you're right, you didn't contradict yourself. I just think it's a silly system:The owner's say: "We're gonna pay you this upfront money and sign this contract for x years. As long as you play at or above our expectations, we'll honor it, but if, in our opinion, you slip below, we'll cut you or force you to renegotiate."

The player says: "I'll take this upfront money and sign this contract for x years. As long as I play at or below that level, I'll continue to take your money. But if, in my opinion, I play better, I'll hold out, distract your team, and demand to renegotiate."

Why have these contracts at all? Take the signing bonus and have a handshake agreement. It means virtually the same!

As for Zach, I agree. Look at Seau next to him. But Marino turned down Pittsburgh and Minnesota, so you never know. Maybe he was the last. Still can't shake the image of Montana in a Chiefs uniform-just doesn't feel right.

 

[zephon]

Guaranteeing contracts would kill the sport...What would the Colts do if Peyton sustained a career ending injury...continue to pay him ?? I do agree that something needs to be done with the rookie contracts, but again you have the injury situation, except that it would be for the player, not the team...if R. Brown got a minimum contract, then blew out knees in successive years (ala Yatil Green)...would that be totally fair to him ?? Not really, it's part of life, but it wouldn't be fair to him..

I don't think that ALL rookies should make the rookie min. but the plan that the owners have discussed and are presenting to the NFLPA seems like the perfect thing to me.

It's simply a TRUE draft pick slotting sytem. I know they have that now with a draft pick "salary cap" but my understanding is that it'll be very similar to the NBA and the way they truly slot their draft picks. There is no bargaining for the 1st round and they are guaranteed for 3 years. Of course none of the contracts are for more than 3 years but then that's where their restricted FA kicks in.

I think it could be translated into the NFL in a similar manner using 5 year contracts instead of the 3 for the NBA. While only the top 5 in the daft are normally the only ones who previously signed for 7 years, dropping it to 5 would likely make the players association happy.

My plan is that all 7 rounds of draft picks are automaticly contract slotted, with contacts guaranteed for rounds 1 thru 3(this would make the NFLPA very happy and they have to feel like they get something). The # of years breaks down as: Rounds 1 & 2: 5 years.....Round 3: 4 years....Rounds 4-7 (non guaranteed) 3 years.

one side note to guaranteeing (sp?) the first 3 rounds...teams will concentrate even harder on who they're going to take so guys like a Lawrence Phillips will be even less likely to be drafted in the 1st 3 rounds.

Now I know this isn't a cure-all and rookie salaries (and there signing bonuses) are going to drop dramaticly but that extra money can be spent on vet. players who have already proven themselves on the field at this level. IF the players can be convinced of that.....then it might actually work (but the agents will fight it tooth and nail).

 

[WitheringPlant]

Easily addressed- part of the compensation package includes a disability insurance policy, paid for by the team. Now if Peyton goes down, he and his family are cared for, and the team is off the hook.

Other than injury, why do you feel that guaranteeing contracts would "kill the sport?" Basketball contracts(not to mention every other contract in the real world) are guaranteed, within certain fair limitations.

Hate to break it to ya, but basketball is basically a "killed sport."
At least the NBA anyway...

 

[islandah]

Hate to break it to ya, but basketball is basically a "killed sport."
At least the NBA anyway...

Is that due to guaranteed contracts?

 

[Dphins4me]

Sorry, I don't know how to quote a portion, answer it, then quote another portion and so on, so I'll just go in order.:)

When you quote a post there is something at the beginning & the quote thing at the end. Anything in between is put up as quote by the poster you are replying to.

If you click quote on this post just look at the beginning & the end.

So each time you just put those two things in between what you wish to quote & then respond to it.

If one side is expected to honor it and one side is not, it is not a "valid" contract, IMO. IMO, valid=binding.

I agree.

As long as you think he has the right to ask, but just think he's incorrect, then you're right, you didn't contradict yourself. I just think it's a silly system:The owner's say: "We're gonna pay you this upfront money and sign this contract for x years. As long as you play at or above our expectations, we'll honor it, but if, in our opinion, you slip below, we'll cut you or force you to renegotiate."

The owners probably feel they give most of the money up front so cutting a player only hurts them and not the player.

I think the proper thing is the give the teams a date that they can cut a player, before a season. What teams do is sometimes wait till its too late in the offseason for a player to get fair market value & then cut him inorder to get him to sign a lesser deal..

That is why you see franchise players signing their deal ASAP so teams cannot pull the offer later when other teams have spent their money.

The player says: "I'll take this upfront money and sign this contract for x years. As long as I play at or below that level, I'll continue to take your money. But if, in my opinion, I play better, I'll hold out, distract your team, and demand to renegotiate."

Its not fair for the player either to sign a deal when they have not become as good as they end up being, and still playing under the old deal, when teams can cut you when you are not as good as you once were.

It works both ways & really both know the system.

Why have these contracts at all? Take the signing bonus and have a handshake agreement. It means virtually the same!

Agree.

As for Zach, I agree. Look at Seau next to him. But Marino turned down Pittsburgh and Minnesota, so you never know. Maybe he was the last. Still can't shake the image of Montana in a Chiefs uniform-just doesn't feel right.

Marino was at the end of his career. If Zach is let go next year, he can still play for some team a few more years, so you will see him in another uniform.

I do not like the current system as a whole. I wished the NFL would reward the teams that draft well by letting them resign their players with discounted salary cap.

 

[CrazyCarl]

Just throwing this out there...

TO and Reggie Wayne had nearly identical seasons, I dont see Reggie Wayne demanding to be paid like one of the top recievers in the league..

 

[Dphins4me]

TO and Reggie Wayne had nearly identical seasons, I dont see Reggie Wayne demanding to be paid like one of the top recievers in the league..

Reggie Wayne also has Harrison on the other side. Wayne is the No. 2 Wr.

That is why Walker is complaining. He is the Packs No. 1 guy.

It makes a difference.

Sometimes when No. 2 go out on their own they find out being the man is a whole lot different. Alvin Harper is a great example.

 

[inFINSible]

I thought this thread was going to be about what would happen if Howard was lined up opposite T.O......*shudder*

 

[VanDolPhan]

Howards deal isn't as large as everyone thinks it is.

His contract was like the 12th in FA as far as the CB's went that offseason.

$4 million signing bonus. $535,000 base salary for 2004 and $1 million for this year.

So basically $2.75 million a year for those 2 years if he's cut after next. Not exactly big time money. He was paid "adequate starter" money but didn't play adequately.