PDA

View Full Version : Outplaying your Contract-


rugbythug
06-16-2009, 07:45 AM
The only way you outplay your contract is by completing the terms required. IE years. Marshall has not outplayed his contract. He will have after this season.

bronco_boi_5280
06-16-2009, 07:47 AM
Silly.

worm
06-16-2009, 07:49 AM
The only way you outplay your contract is by completing the terms required. IE years. Marshall has not outplayed his contract. He will have after this season.

And this is why you bag groceries at King Soopers and are not employed in a Front Office of a professional sports team.

bronco_boi_5280
06-16-2009, 07:50 AM
Zing!

Kaylore
06-16-2009, 08:04 AM
I disagree. I think if a player's production exceeds his contract he should hold out and get more money. He risks his well-being every time he plays.

vancejohnson82
06-16-2009, 08:09 AM
I disagree. I think if a player's production exceeds his contract he should hold out and get more money. He risks his well-being every time he plays.

I completely agree....

However, said player needs make sure he/she can be on the field to help the team and validate his worth. Possible suspensions effect any type of deal....and not being at OTAs can also effect his production in this coming year

rugbythug
06-16-2009, 08:15 AM
And this is why you bag groceries at King Soopers and are not employed in a Front Office of a professional sports team.

Nice, attack the person. Good Shot. I am as successful as any other poster on here however.

bronclvr
06-16-2009, 08:15 AM
I completely agree with Kaylore, however I also believe BMarsh has a responsibility to be in Camp for the Rookies, and to be a better example if he wants more Money-there are better ways to handle this (it's called 'Class'), and putting it out in the Media isn't one of them-

rugbythug
06-16-2009, 08:16 AM
I disagree. I think if a player's production exceeds his contract he should hold out and get more money. He risks his well-being every time he plays.

I disagree. Just because those type's get more pub does not mean they are more successful at getting paid. You catch flies with honey not vinegar.

Beantown Bronco
06-16-2009, 08:19 AM
The only way you outplay your contract is by completing the terms required. IE years.

How on Earth you ever came to this conclusion I'll never know. If your sole focus is "years", then wouldn't it make sense that the following would be true:

1. Underplaying your contract = not fulfilling every year of the contract.
2. Playing your contract = fulfilling every year....no more, no less.
3. Outplaying your contract = playing beyond the years specified in the contract.

rugbythug
06-16-2009, 08:25 AM
How on Earth you ever came to this conclusion I'll never know. If your sole focus is "years", then wouldn't it make sense that the following would be true:

1. Underplaying your contract = not fulfilling every year of the contract.
2. Playing your contract = fulfilling every year....no more, no less.
3. Outplaying your contract = playing beyond the years specified in the contract.

Why Yes Beantown that is correct.

1. Try retiring or going to prison with time left on your contract. The team goes back and tries to get your signing bonus. Examples. Barry Sanders, Mike Vick

2. When you fulfill your contract it is then ended. You can not play past it because it no longer exsists.

TonyR
06-16-2009, 08:32 AM
I think if a player's production exceeds his contract he should hold out and get more money. He risks his well-being every time he plays.

Agree, but Brandon Marshall is currently in no position to do so because of his health issues and, even more so, his legal issues. As I've stated numerous times the last couple of days, I agree that he deserves a new deal but only after those issues have been resolved. His timing is poor and he has very little leverage.

Marshall Doesn’t Have Much Leverage
Posted by Mike Florio on June 15, 2009, 11:02 p.m. EDT

As rumors fly that Broncos receiver Brandon Marshall will continue to push for a trade, there are a couple of key points that he needs to keep in mind.

First, he’s not a quarterback. Though Jay Cutler was able to talk (or, more accurately, not talk) his way out of town, the Broncos might be more willing to tolerate a wideout who doesn’t want to be there.

Second, Marshall has no leverage.

None.

He’s signed through 2009. And while the financial penalties arising from his decision to bail on a mandatory minicamp are manageable, the consequences of a training-camp holdout would be more dire — starting at more than $90,000 for the first day and increasing at roughly $17,000 per day thereafter.

And then there’s the requirement that a player under contract report 30 days before the start of the regular season or forfeit a year of accrued service. This would prevent Marshall from becoming an unrestricted free agent in 2010, since he would have only three years, not four. (Of course, Marshall also won’t be an unrestricted free agent if he shows up and if there’s no CBA extension by next March. Still, that factor falls beyond his control; blowing his shot at unrestricted free agency due to a training-camp holdout would be on Marshall, and/or his agent.)

So even though Marshall might huff and/or puff about wanting out, he might blow his own house down if he tries to force the team’s hand by staying away from training camp.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/06/15/marshall-doesnt-have-much-leverage/

Beantown Bronco
06-16-2009, 08:36 AM
Why Yes Beantown that is correct.

1. Try retiring or going to prison with time left on your contract. The team goes back and tries to get your signing bonus. Examples. Barry Sanders, Mike Vick

2. When you fulfill your contract it is then ended. You can not play past it because it no longer exsists.

So now you just contradicted yourself. In the first post, you said it was possible to outplay your contract. Now you are saying you can't. Odd.

rugbythug
06-16-2009, 08:41 AM
So now you just contradicted yourself. In the first post, you said it was possible to outplay your contract. Now you are saying you can't. Odd.

Reading comprehension not what it used to be. OutPlay Contract= on this board. Play beyond what money is being received.

Outplay Contract=In Reality. Play beyond the period set in the contract. Once that period is fulfilled you have outplayed the contract. And begin a new one. To my knowledge you can not play in the NFL with out a contract.

Beantown Bronco
06-16-2009, 08:56 AM
Reading comprehension not what it used to be.

Neither is writing, apparently. Go back and read your posts again. I'm simply pointing out what you wrote without any interpretation or altering of words.

OutPlay Contract= on this board. Play beyond what money is being received.

Outplay Contract=In Reality. Play beyond the period set in the contract. Once that period is fulfilled you have outplayed the contract. And begin a new one. To my knowledge you can not play in the NFL with out a contract.

So, if I looked around, I would not find a single instance of an owner, GM or coach saying a player outplayed their contract before it expired?

skpac1001
06-16-2009, 08:59 AM
The only way you outplay your contract is by completing the terms required. IE years. Marshall has not outplayed his contract. He will have after this season.

I agree. If a contractor submitted a bid that you accepted and was hired for your house and did a good job on half then refused to finish on the grounds that he did a better job then you expected and is retiring soon so he needs to make more money now, I wonder how many on here would support him.

BroncoMan4ever
06-16-2009, 09:01 AM
I disagree. I think if a player's production exceeds his contract he should hold out and get more money. He risks his well-being every time he plays.

i agree completely. a player should be paid based on what he is worth. and Marshall is the most important part of the receiving corps. without him drawing double teams, everyone elses numbers will go down, without him on the field more attention will be paid to the running game and as a result it will suffer. he is very important to the team and because of that, deserves more money.

Beantown Bronco
06-16-2009, 09:05 AM
I agree. If a contractor submitted a bid that you accepted and was hired for your house and did a good job on half then refused to finish on the grounds that he did a better job then you expected and is retiring soon so he needs to make more money now, I wonder how many on here would support him.

Is it standard in that arena (general contracting) for a homeowner to pay more money for better than expected work? Nope. Can a homeowner simply tell the contractor to go home and not pay him for the rest of his work if he doesn't want to....and NOT expect to be sued? Nope.

Is it common and even expected in the NFL common for teams to renegotiate with their top performers before their current contract expires? You bet. Can the team simply cut and stop paying said contract player before their current contract expires with no repurcussions? You bet.

Bad analogy.

Lolad
06-16-2009, 09:07 AM
I completely agree with Kaylore, however I also believe BMarsh has a responsibility to be in Camp for the Rookies, and to be a better example if he wants more Money-there are better ways to handle this (it's called 'Class'), and putting it out in the Media isn't one of them-

I haven't seen BMarsh on TV stating he's holding out or wants to be traded. It's somebody in Bowlens office who put it out in the media

skpac1001
06-16-2009, 09:14 AM
i agree completely. a player should be paid based on what he is worth. and Marshall is the most important part of the receiving corps. without him drawing double teams, everyone elses numbers will go down, without him on the field more attention will be paid to the running game and as a result it will suffer. he is very important to the team and because of that, deserves more money.

The problem is that you can't tell for sure what he is worth next year and however many years after that. If he gets suspended or injured next season he will be paid far more then he is worth that season. Besides, if everyone is paid what they are worth, wouldn't Clady have a decent case for making as much as Marshall? Hillis would need a raise, Harris, Kuper, and the cap gets closer and closer.
its a fact of life in the salary cap era that either you have little talent on your team, or some of your talent is underpaid temporarily, but you can't have a stocked team that has everyone paid at market level.

rugbythug
06-16-2009, 09:20 AM
Neither is writing, apparently. Go back and read your posts again. I'm simply pointing out what you wrote without any interpretation or altering of words.



So, if I looked around, I would not find a single instance of an owner, GM or coach saying a player outplayed their contract before it expired?

I don't care what people either the player or the GM say about the contract. I am only taking the side of the contract. It is what it is. Marshall's is a Contract for a period of time specifying payment for that time period. It can be broken by one side only.

TonyR
06-16-2009, 09:29 AM
i agree completely. a player should be paid based on what he is worth. and Marshall is the most important part of the receiving corps. without him drawing double teams, everyone elses numbers will go down, without him on the field more attention will be paid to the running game and as a result it will suffer. he is very important to the team and because of that, deserves more money.

His "worth" and what he "deserves" aren't the issues. The issues are his current injury and legal situations. You don't give him more $ until those are resolved. This is very simple. If he's not on the field he's not worth very much. I can't explain this any more simply or succinctly.

skpac1001
06-16-2009, 09:38 AM
Is it standard in that arena (general contracting) for a homeowner to pay more money for better than expected work? Nope. Can a homeowner simply tell the contractor to go home and not pay him for the rest of his work if he doesn't want to....and NOT expect to be sued? Nope.

Is it common and even expected in the NFL common for teams to renegotiate with their top performers before their current contract expires? You bet. Can the team simply cut and stop paying said contract player before their current contract expires with no repurcussions? You bet.

Bad analogy.

Teams and homeowners renegotiate when it is to their benefit and don't when it is to their benefit. As far as teams cutting players who are good performers but cost too much, yes the analogy breaks down there, but it doesn't change the point the analogy made. Players and agents are not stupid and price the contracts and specifically the signing bonuses according to the teams having this ability. Its a risk/reward situation for players, and one the players union agreed to for good reason.

Kaylore
06-16-2009, 09:41 AM
I completely agree....

However, said player needs make sure he/she can be on the field to help the team and validate his worth. Possible suspensions effect any type of deal....and not being at OTAs can also effect his production in this coming year

I completely agree with Kaylore, however I also believe BMarsh has a responsibility to be in Camp for the Rookies, and to be a better example if he wants more Money-there are better ways to handle this (it's called 'Class'), and putting it out in the Media isn't one of them-
Agree, but Brandon Marshall is currently in no position to do so because of his health issues and, even more so, his legal issues. As I've stated numerous times the last couple of days, I agree that he deserves a new deal but only after those issues have been resolved. His timing is poor and he has very little leverage.

Marshall Doesn’t Have Much Leverage

All three of you are arguing about Marshall's leverage. I never disputed he has issues there. I'm just speaking to this ridiculous idea that the only way to "outplay" your contract is to count years. The organization can cut a player any time and isn't required to pay the years left on their contract. That completely invalidates the point. Players have a skill and the more productive you are the more value that skill has. You should do whatever you need to to get fair value for the skill you provide when your payment does not equal your value.

That doesn't mean I think Marshall's justified and it doesn't mean I think he can win this. I was speaking to Rugbythug's original point.

I disagree. Just because those type's get more pub does not mean they are more successful at getting paid. You catch flies with honey not vinegar.

Your analogy doesn't make any sense in this instance. Marshall isn't trying to lure a variety of suitors in or "catch flies" as it were. He's under contract and wants to get paid for what his worth is. He's probably concerned about his injury and the new CBA and believes he can force the issue. That process of getting more money is in no way like trying catch flies or any other kind of insect.

gyldenlove
06-16-2009, 09:43 AM
Why Yes Beantown that is correct.

1. Try retiring or going to prison with time left on your contract. The team goes back and tries to get your signing bonus. Examples. Barry Sanders, Mike Vick

2. When you fulfill your contract it is then ended. You can not play past it because it no longer exsists.

I wonder if the Raiders feel the same way about that, I bet they think that Jamarcus is not really living up to his contract, but I am just guessing.

rugbythug
06-16-2009, 09:49 AM
All three of you are arguing about Marshall's leverage. I never disputed he has issues there. I'm just speaking to this ridiculous idea that the only way to "outplay" your contract is to count years. The organization can cut a player any time and isn't required to pay the years left on their contract. That completely invalidates the point. Players have a skill and the more productive you are the more value that skill has. You should do whatever you need to to get fair value for the skill you provide when your payment does not equal your value.

That doesn't mean I think Marshall's justified and it doesn't mean I think he can win this. I was speaking to Rugbythug's original point.



Your analogy doesn't make any sense in this instance. Marshall isn't trying to lure a variety of suitors in or "catch flies" as it were. He's under contract and wants to get paid for what his worth is. He's probably concerned about his injury and the new CBA and believes he can force the issue. That process of getting more money is in no way like trying catch flies or any other kind of insect.

Money=Flies

Play Ball you Make more money than if you don't. TO would have made more being a good team player than he has.

Kaylore
06-16-2009, 09:57 AM
Money=Flies

Play Ball you Make more money than if you don't. TO would have made more being a good team player than he has.

That still doesn't make any sense. Money isn't in any way like buzzing insect that need to be lured in by playing nice. You get money in this world by being smart, working hard and being tough in negotiations. You could argue that Brandon has fulfilled two of those three criteria. If you want a raise in this world you have to go ask for it.

And your example of TO is ridiculous because it only proves my point. TO has made a lot of money, more than most of the receivers in the NFL, because he was productive and had a strong negotiator. From signing bonuses alone he'll be set up for life - all this in spite of him being an annoyance. Saying "he could have made more" is speculative at best. If anything, the repeated contracts he's signed have given him more money because of all the repeat signing bonuses.

rugbythug
06-16-2009, 10:01 AM
That still doesn't make any sense. Money isn't in any way like buzzing insect that need to be lured in by playing nice. You get money in this world by being smart, working hard and being tough in negotiations. You could argue that Brandon has fulfilled two of those three criteria. If you want a raise in this world you have to go ask for it.

And your example of TO is ridiculous because it only proves my point. TO has made a lot of money, more than most of the receivers in the NFL, because he was productive and had a strong negotiator. From signing bonuses alone he'll be set up for life - all this in spite of him being an annoyance. Saying "he could have made more" is speculative at best. If anything, the repeated contracts he's signed have given him more money because of all the repeat signing bonuses.

You get ahead in this world by making people want to pay you a lot of money. TO Made 30 million from the cowboys. Not much more than his eagles deal. And then got booted from there. I would be willing to bet Rod will end up having made more than TO while not being as good a player.

Traveler
06-16-2009, 10:01 AM
And your example of TO is ridiculous because it only proves my point. TO has made a lot of money, more than most of the receivers in the NFL, because he was productive and had a strong negotiator. From signing bonuses alone he "should be" set up for life - all this in spite of him being an annoyance. Saying "he could have made more" is speculative at best. If anything, the repeated contracts he's signed have given him more money because of all the repeat signing bonuses.

Totally agree with your point, but had to fix one small thing.

skpac1001
06-16-2009, 10:05 AM
All three of you are arguing about Marshall's leverage. I never disputed he has issues there. I'm just speaking to this ridiculous idea that the only way to "outplay" your contract is to count years. The organization can cut a player any time and isn't required to pay the years left on their contract. That completely invalidates the point. Players have a skill and the more productive you are the more value that skill has. You should do whatever you need to to get fair value for the skill you provide when your payment does not equal your value.


I think individual players make considerably more as compensation for the risk of getting cut early, (if contracts were guaranteed the pie would not be any bigger, but the slices smaller since many cut or nonactive players would have slices, also obviously GM's would be more hesitant since penalties for mistakes would be far higher), so from my perspective it doesn't change things, in fact it helps those who actually are playing be better compensated for the health risks they are taking.

Beantown Bronco
06-16-2009, 10:10 AM
You get ahead in this world by making people want to pay you a lot of money. TO Made 30 million from the cowboys. Not much more than his eagles deal. And then got booted from there. I would be willing to bet Rod will end up having made more than TO while not being as good a player.

Rod "only" made about $40-50 mil his entire career. TO will beat him easily.

rugbythug
06-16-2009, 10:21 AM
http://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=3321

His last Contract was for 40 million. You also would need to adjust for Contract Inflation

BroncoMan4ever
06-16-2009, 10:39 AM
The problem is that you can't tell for sure what he is worth next year and however many years after that. If he gets suspended or injured next season he will be paid far more then he is worth that season. Besides, if everyone is paid what they are worth, wouldn't Clady have a decent case for making as much as Marshall? Hillis would need a raise, Harris, Kuper, and the cap gets closer and closer.
its a fact of life in the salary cap era that either you have little talent on your team, or some of your talent is underpaid temporarily, but you can't have a stocked team that has everyone paid at market level.

you say there is risk in him being injured or suspended. it is the same for every player in the league. there is a risk, hell every one of our draft picks this year can sustain season ending injuries right after they sign with the team. all of them can turn out to be thugs and get suspensions, there is risk in everyone you sign. however unlike the vast majority of players, Marshall has proven how good he is and can be, and is grossly underpaid for that, regardless of the so called risk.

Marshall has shown consistency that he is going to get 100+ catches and over 1300 yards receiving and is proven that he is one of the best WRs in the league, being paid like a number 3 receiver.

all the other guys you mentioned have at best 1 solid year as contributors to the team, and outside of the 1 year, have not established what kind of players they will be.

Clady is getting paid like a 1st round pick which is good money, and in line with what a player with his experience and draft position makes. and unlike Marshall has only 1 year under his belt. it is unknown if last season was a fluke or a sign of greatness to come.

Harris and Kuper are in the same boat as Clady. they have 1 good year as starters and it is unknown if those are fluke seasons, so they do not have the necessary production to say they deserve a raise.

and with Hillis, i love the guy, and think he is awesome, but he has 6 games in which he was a factor, and a season ending injury on his resume. that is not deserving of anything more than a shot at making the team this season.

Beantown Bronco
06-16-2009, 10:41 AM
http://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=3321

His last Contract was for 40 million. You also would need to adjust for Contract Inflation

I know his contracts. He signed a 6 year, 20 mil in 1999 that was renegotiated in 2002 for the 7 year 41 mil deal you referenced. Before that, he made less than $5 mil off his rookie deal.

Hence, my total of $40-50 mil in compensation. Remember: he didn't collect all of that 1999 contract (it was torn up half way through) or the 2002 contract (he retired 2 years early).

And your original post made no mention of inflation, so why do I "need to adjust" for anything? Your criteria was clear.....and using that criteria, TO has already surpassed Rod's earnings.

BroncoMan4ever
06-16-2009, 10:42 AM
http://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?t=3321

His last Contract was for 40 million. You also would need to adjust for Contract Inflation

true 7 years at 40million in 2002, is basically the equivalent of 7years and 60million now.

BroncoMan4ever
06-16-2009, 10:50 AM
His "worth" and what he "deserves" aren't the issues. The issues are his current injury and legal situations. You don't give him more $ until those are resolved. This is very simple. If he's not on the field he's not worth very much. I can't explain this any more simply or succinctly.

injuries are a bull**** reason with marshall. he has missed 1 game because of injury his rookie year, almost cut his damn arm off and didn't miss a game because of it. the hip will be healed fine, because he won't rehab with the morons on staff, so injury concern is bull****.

and at worst if anything happens with the legal issue next month, it is at most 8 games. i think 8 games without him, is fine if it means he is locked up and happy for the next 5+ years. 1 rebuilding season with him missing a few games because of suspension is excusable if we have him with no worries for years to come on more competitive teams.