ARI Dockett Wants a New Contract, ARI A. Smith to be traded?

[ICON]

Yep its true. He was given a new contract a year or two ago but he feels like he's underpaid.

Rotoworld wrote:
Dockett got a new deal two winters ago, but now feels he's underpaid. He's coming off a Pro Bowl-type campaign in his first year as a 3-4 end. The Cards have other players (Karlos Dansby, Anquan Boldin) they'll likely address first.



Also Cardinals DE Antonio Smith wants to be traded.
Rotoworld wrote:

Smith will skip Arizona's offseason program. The Cards gave Smith a lofty first-round tender for $2.017 million, but that apparently wasn't enough. Due to the team's cap issues, Smith likely realizes he won't get an extension soon.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/02/dockett-smith-staying-away-from-cards-workouts/

[Northman]

They must be pissed that Matt gets more girls than them in the Hot Tub. lmao

[Doggcow]

Shut up dickwad, you signed the contract, end of story.

[nickademus]

Shut up dillwad, you signed the contract, end of story.

but if he underpreformed he would be asked to take less right? if he thinks he can get more he should because as soon as he slips you know he will get cut. I hate this line of thought that all hold outs are the players fault. immature fans see it that way but why should teams have all the leverage?

[FireFly]

but if he underpreformed he would be asked to take less right? if he thinks he can get more he should because as soon as he slips you know he will get cut. I hate this line of thought that all hold outs are the players fault. immature fans see it that way but why should teams have all the leverage?

I think in alot of cases like this, where the players underperform they don't accept taking a pay cut ala J. Walker. IMO the contract should be binding both ways. Both parties sign it. Both parties should wear it for the duration of the contract. I have no problem with base salary being converted into a pro ratable bonus in the later years of course.

If the player signs a contract and underperforms, they should be protected by that contract; even if they are cut, alot of the money is often in the form of a bonus which there is NO way they would ever pay back. If the player performs well, good for them. That's why the team gave them a contract in the first place! They should be demanding more.

If they demand and get more after one stellar season and then fall back into medioricty, how many of them will give the money back?

[Lestat]

if i saw Tommy fvkcing Kelly get paid that much $$$ i'd be danged if i didn't get a new deal

[peacepipe]

Shut up dillwad, you signed the contract, end of story.
Does the same go for owners?

[Doggcow]

but if he underpreformed he would be asked to take less right? if he thinks he can get more he should because as soon as he slips you know he will get cut. I hate this line of thought that all hold outs are the players fault. immature fans see it that way but why should teams have all the leverage?

He signed the contract. What is a man worth, if his word is worth nothing? Please explain? If he was underperforming he wouldn't HAVE to take the pay cut, see Robertson and Walker. Teams pay the players, they should have more leverage. When he owns his own organization he can take whatever cut he likes. Until then, man up, play out your contract, then get a bigger one once the ONE YOU SIGNED WITHOUT A GUN TO YOUR HEAD or anything of the like.

Seriously these crybabies need to stfu, there are tons of people that would be more than content to make x-million dollars a year, you can pay your food bill, just put off getting that house in malibu for a couple years.

[peacepipe]

He signed the contract. What is a man worth, if his word is worth nothing? Please explain? If he was underperforming he wouldn't HAVE to take the pay cut, see Robertson and Walker. Teams pay the players, [B]they should have more leverage. When he owns his own organization he can take whatever cut he likes. Until then, man up, play out your contract, then get a bigger one once the ONE YOU SIGNED WITHOUT A GUN TO YOUR HEAD or anything of the like.

Seriously these crybabies need to stfu, there are tons of people that would be more than content to make x-million dollars a year, you can pay your food bill, just put off getting that house in malibu for a couple years.But that owner can't make a penny without the players.
Unfortunatly ONLY a few can play at that level,which gives the players the leverage.

[Pat Bowlen]

Does the same go for owners?
Hell no. That wouldn't be fair at all.