"Holdout" news of Earl Thomas

[kidhawk]

Stunning lack of knowledge regarding contract law displayed in both of these posts.

It's quite literally impossible to know what the legalities of a contract are that you've never seen. When it comes to contracts like this, we can only speak in generalities, because only a small number of people are actually privy to the exact wording in the document. Heck, I'd bet a large contingent of the players don't know exactly what's going on with their contracts, that's why they pay agents and the like to take care of those issues and explain to them what they need to know.

 

[Chapow]

Players have no ethical obligation to honor their contract.

The idea that ET, or any player, should honor their contract is dated and ridiculous.

People break contracts in business ALL THE TIME. There are terms in the contract that deal with what happens when a contract is fulfilled and those are the limitations you are bound to. Everything else is fair game.

Next time a team releases a player with years still on their contract, please see if you hold them to the same weird standard some of you think that players should be stuck to.

Great post.

Weird that so many fans expect players to just shut up and play out their contracts, but apparently it doesn't bother them at all when a team cuts a guy with time still left on his contract.

If it is so important that contracts be honored, it should go both ways. Why do teams get a pass and players don't?

Stunning lack of knowledge regarding contract law displayed in both of these posts.

Stunning amount of condescension and smuggery in such a short post.

If you think our lack of knowledge is so stunning, why you don't contribute something to the conversation besides a drive by sniping?

 

[TwistedHusky]

Most contracts have an entire section devoted to what happens if you fail to perform or walk away from a contact. They usually also have very specific definitions of what constitutes a breach and what the penalties are.

I am certain his would have something in there that covers this, and therefore as long as he sticks with what the contract allowed and enforces, or he pays the appropriate penalty (since obviously if he CAN 'break' his contract then clearly they cannot enforce specific performance can they?) - then it shouldn't matter.

But my statement was very different from focusing on his legal obligation, so the response with the quip about contract law shows a stunning lack of reading comprehension if anything. He is under no ETHICAL obligation to abide by his contract.

Just as I have no problem with someone breaking their mortgage contract by sending 'Jingle Mail' back, I certainly don't begrudge him deciding he wants a better deal and refuses to play by holding out if he does not receive it His health is the one at risk and his option to decide not to participate is his, financial penalties might be a part of the consequence of that decision but those are his to make.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Most contracts have an entire section devoted to what happens if you fail to perform or walk away from a contact. They usually also have very specific definitions of what constitutes a breach and what the penalties are.

I am certain his would have something in there that covers this, and therefore as long as he sticks with what the contract allowed and enforces, or he pays the appropriate penalty (since obviously if he CAN 'break' his contract then clearly they cannot enforce specific performance can they?) - then it shouldn't matter.

But my statement was very different from focusing on his legal obligation, so the response with the quip about contract law shows a stunning lack of reading comprehension if anything. He is under no ETHICAL obligation to abide by his contract.

Just as I have no problem with someone breaking their mortgage contract by sending 'Jingle Mail' back, I certainly don't begrudge him deciding he wants a better deal and refuses to play by holding out if he does not receive it His health is the one at risk and his option to decide not to participate is his, financial penalties might be a part of the consequence of that decision but those are his to make.

You're overthinking it.

It's very clear in the CBA, if the player wants to hold out, they have to come back by week 7 (as Duane Brown did) in order for the current year to count on their current deal.

So if Earl doesn't get an extension and we can't find a suitable trade partner, then he'll probably hold out til week 7 and then play out his current contract minus six game checks.

 

[kidhawk]

Most contracts have an entire section devoted to what happens if you fail to perform or walk away from a contact. They usually also have very specific definitions of what constitutes a breach and what the penalties are.

I am certain his would have something in there that covers this, and therefore as long as he sticks with what the contract allowed and enforces, or he pays the appropriate penalty (since obviously if he CAN 'break' his contract then clearly they cannot enforce specific performance can they?) - then it shouldn't matter.

But my statement was very different from focusing on his legal obligation, so the response with the quip about contract law shows a stunning lack of reading comprehension if anything. He is under no ETHICAL obligation to abide by his contract.

Just as I have no problem with someone breaking their mortgage contract by sending 'Jingle Mail' back, I certainly don't begrudge him deciding he wants a better deal and refuses to play by holding out if he does not receive it His health is the one at risk and his option to decide not to participate is his, financial penalties might be a part of the consequence of that decision but those are his to make.

You're overthinking it.

It's very clear in the CBA, if the player wants to hold out, they have to come back by week 7 (as Duane Brown did) in order for the current year to count on their current deal.

So if Earl doesn't get an extension and we can't find a suitable trade partner, then he'll probably hold out til week 7 and then play out his current contract minus six game checks.

Well, minus 6 game checks plus whatever fines he incurs for missing training camp and other mandatory sessions.

Either way, I think we are getting WAY ahead of ourselves. We have a long time for them to do what they are going to do before it even comes down to this. The likelihood of a holdout is very small IMO. We'll either trade him (and I'm certain there are willing partners) or we'll extend him. They've got a history of negotiating extensions when it comes to the final year of a contract, so I'm not overly concerned about a holdout at this point.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

They've got a history of negotiating extensions when it comes to the final year of a contract, so I'm not overly concerned about a holdout at this point.

That's what I'm afraid of.

Love Earl, but this is where the buck has to stop if we want to stop getting into bad extensions that bite us in the butt 2-3 years later crippling our cap.

Find the best trade partner, get as many picks as possible, and get back to the young nasty hungry defense Pete and John know how to build.

Paying Earl 15M+ and hoping he doesn't continue to miss games for the next 3-4 years would be a mistake.

 

[kidhawk]

They've got a history of negotiating extensions when it comes to the final year of a contract, so I'm not overly concerned about a holdout at this point.

That's what I'm afraid of.

Love Earl, but this is where the buck has to stop if we want to stop getting into bad extensions that bite us in the butt 2-3 years later crippling our cap.

Find the best trade partner, get as many picks as possible, and get back to the young nasty hungry defense Pete and John know how to build.

Paying Earl 15M+ and hoping he doesn't continue to miss games for the next 3-4 years would be a mistake.

I'm sure you're being overly dramatic with the $15 million number, because there's just no way he sees that average figure, but you just can't replace a guy like Earl very easily. It obviously comes down to the money, and I am for keeping him if the contract is reasonable, but that's another item we have no clue what either side is considering at this time. If they sign him to a more back heavy deal, then great for us, but if they sign him to a front heavy deal, then it wouldn't be all that great. A talent like ET comes to your team maybe once a decade (if you're lucky). I wouldn't walk away from him without at least trying to fit him into our team responsibly(financially speaking).

 

[LolaRox]

They've got a history of negotiating extensions when it comes to the final year of a contract, so I'm not overly concerned about a holdout at this point.

That's what I'm afraid of.

Love Earl, but this is where the buck has to stop if we want to stop getting into bad extensions that bite us in the butt 2-3 years later crippling our cap.

Find the best trade partner, get as many picks as possible, and get back to the young nasty hungry defense Pete and John know how to build.

Paying Earl 15M+ and hoping he doesn't continue to miss games for the next 3-4 years would be a mistake.

Are you sure they know how to repeat the success they had with the LOB or how to build a young nasty defense? The haven't drafted a pro-bowl/all-pro player since 2012. Maybe Frank can get there, but who else? Reed? It's too early to tell for Shaq or any of the players drafted last year, but they haven't shown it so far (not saying they won't get there).

It just seems that a lot of people here think John and Pete can easily just replace these players even though they haven't shown they can.

 

[kidhawk]

They've got a history of negotiating extensions when it comes to the final year of a contract, so I'm not overly concerned about a holdout at this point.

That's what I'm afraid of.

Love Earl, but this is where the buck has to stop if we want to stop getting into bad extensions that bite us in the butt 2-3 years later crippling our cap.

Find the best trade partner, get as many picks as possible, and get back to the young nasty hungry defense Pete and John know how to build.

Paying Earl 15M+ and hoping he doesn't continue to miss games for the next 3-4 years would be a mistake.

Are you sure they know how to repeat the success they had with the LOB or how to build a young nasty defense? The haven't drafted a pro-bowl/all-pro player since 2012. Maybe Frank can get there, but who else? Reed? It's too early to tell for Shaq or any of the players drafted last year, but they haven't shown it so far (not saying they won't get there).

It just seems that a lot of people here think John and Pete can easily just replace these players even though they haven't shown they can.

Honestly, players like Sherman & Thomas are generational players. We may be able to still have a good defense under Pete, but there's very little chance of getting equally talented players immediately upon losing them.

 

[Popeyejones]

Honestly, players like Sherman & Thomas are generational players. We may be able to still have a good defense under Pete, but there's very little chance of getting equally talented players immediately upon losing them.

Seriously.

Do people think the Broncos should trade Von Miller because he's getting older and slowing down? How about the Falcons and Julio Jones?

Like Earl Thomas, both of those guys are 28 years old too. Both of 'em make more money than Thomas also (Miller literally makes twice as much as Thomas).

You just don't move on from 28 year old All Pros. I guess it has happened, but it doesn't make much sense.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

With a strong possibility that Kam, Bennett, Sheldon R. all won't be back, some cap room should come available. Let alone Avril. IF cap space can work out, hell yes you get him re-signed. He's one of the best Safeties in the history of the game.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Do people think the Broncos should trade Von Miller because he's getting older and slowing down? How about the Falcons and Julio Jones?.

I bet if you went to Bronco and Falcon fan sites, there would absolutely be people saying this.

Every player, even the best players in the league get to the point in their career where their team has to determine whether their salary justifies their play, and potential for injury.

It's pretty simple with Earl, is he worth 15M a year at age 29 with his injury history the past three years? Maybe if we had a more cap space and not a history of bad extensions I'd say yes.

But we don't have either.

 

[kidhawk]

Do people think the Broncos should trade Von Miller because he's getting older and slowing down? How about the Falcons and Julio Jones?.

I bet if you went to Bronco and Falcon fan sites, there would absolutely be people saying this.

Every player, even the best players in the league get to the point in their career where their team has to determine whether their salary justifies their play, and potential for injury.

It's pretty simple with Earl, is he worth 15M a year at age 29 with his injury history the past three years? Maybe if we had a more cap space and not a history of bad extensions I'd say yes.

But we don't have either.

First of all, I'm not sure where you keep coming up with the $15 million figure. Berry (which is the current benchmark) is only getting $13 million. Going $2 million per year over that is a bit high I believe. It'd be more likely to be in the under $14 million range.

Second, it's all about structure. You give the man a signing bonus and minimal salary early and create a higher back end of the contract allowing you an out if he isn't still performing. Just because the deal averages (let's say) $14 million at first glance, doesn't mean it actually pays that over the actual term he's here.

Basically, we can't say he's going to be overpriced until we see a deal. Honestly, there are two pieces of the defense that I don't believe we can do without and that's Earl and Bobby. They are only 1 year different in age, and Wagner has also had some injury issues lately. He's due $12 million this year and $12.5 next year before becoming a free agent. Earl is worth that easily IMO

 

[Popeyejones]

Do people think the Broncos should trade Von Miller because he's getting older and slowing down? How about the Falcons and Julio Jones?.

I bet if you went to Bronco and Falcon fan sites, there would absolutely be people saying this.

Every player, even the best players in the league get to the point in their career where their team has to determine whether their salary justifies their play, and potential for injury.

I think we'd probably have to go to Broncos and Falcons fan sites to find out (and neither of us care enough to do so), but personally I'd be really surprised if there were a bunch of Bronco and Falcons fans arguing that their teams should trade Miller or Jones, and that's even with their higher salaries.

And of course totally agreed that everyone gets to a point in their career where a team has to question if their play justifies their salary, I just in no way think that someone's age 28 season is when people start making that calculation. I think we'd be hard pressed to come up with an age that isn't 28 that's generally thought of as being squarely in the heart of a player's prime.

And there aren't many examples of multiple All Pros right in their primes that are getting cast off or traded. In the last 10-15 years literally the only one I can think of is Ndamukong Suh. Maybe there's one or two more? It just doesn't happen. When you have an All Pro in his prime you hang on to him, and pay him what he's worth to do so.

 

[Seymour]

Do people think the Broncos should trade Von Miller because he's getting older and slowing down? How about the Falcons and Julio Jones?.

I bet if you went to Bronco and Falcon fan sites, there would absolutely be people saying this.

Every player, even the best players in the league get to the point in their career where their team has to determine whether their salary justifies their play, and potential for injury.

It's pretty simple with Earl, is he worth 15M a year at age 29 with his injury history the past three years? Maybe if we had a more cap space and not a history of bad extensions I'd say yes.

But we don't have either.

Agree, you find this on any board.

Or how bout the Dolphins trading Ndamukong Suh?

http://finheaven.com/threads/ndamukong-suh.345517/

 

[Seymour]

Do people think the Broncos should trade Von Miller because he's getting older and slowing down? How about the Falcons and Julio Jones?.

I bet if you went to Bronco and Falcon fan sites, there would absolutely be people saying this.

Every player, even the best players in the league get to the point in their career where their team has to determine whether their salary justifies their play, and potential for injury.

It's pretty simple with Earl, is he worth 15M a year at age 29 with his injury history the past three years? Maybe if we had a more cap space and not a history of bad extensions I'd say yes.

But we don't have either.

First of all, I'm not sure where you keep coming up with the $15 million figure. Berry (which is the current benchmark) is only getting $13 million. Going $2 million per year over that is a bit high I believe. It'd be more likely to be in the under $14 million range.

Second, it's all about structure. You give the man a signing bonus and minimal salary early and create a higher back end of the contract allowing you an out if he isn't still performing. Just because the deal averages (let's say) $14 million at first glance, doesn't mean it actually pays that over the actual term he's here.

Basically, we can't say he's going to be overpriced until we see a deal. Honestly, there are two pieces of the defense that I don't believe we can do without and that's Earl and Bobby. They are only 1 year different in age, and Wagner has also had some injury issues lately. He's due $12 million this year and $12.5 next year before becoming a free agent. Earl is worth that easily IMO

Although I agree in general with this. Looking at Kams deal that averages $12M, Earl is certain to want more than that. $13-15M is not out of the question (when you consider what someone else may pay).

 

[kidhawk]

Although I agree in general with this. Looking at Kams deal that averages $12M, Earl is certain to want more than that. $13-15M is not out of the question (when you consider what someone else may pay).

Barry is the highest paid Free Safety in the game, so that is a pretty good barrier to break. And he's at $13 million. $2 million over that would be alot at this time. Of course once free agency starts and money starts flowing, the numbers may well rise, but we may be in talks with his agent right now, and we'd likely have no clue. It just seems to me that saying $15 million as if it's a given is a bit of a stretch.

 

[Seymour]

Although I agree in general with this. Looking at Kams deal that averages $12M, Earl is certain to want more than that. $13-15M is not out of the question (when you consider what someone else may pay).

Barry is the highest paid Free Safety in the game, so that is a pretty good barrier to break. And he's at $13 million. $2 million over that would be alot at this time. Of course once free agency starts and money starts flowing, the numbers may well rise, but we may be in talks with his agent right now, and we'd likely have no clue. It just seems to me that saying $15 million as if it's a given is a bit of a stretch.

Agree. $15M would be an inflated price in a FA bid war, and $12-$13M is prob. closer to his market value. Earls eyes are pretty big though, so no telling what he expects. The bigger problem may actually be how many years and what guarantee.

 

[kidhawk]

Although I agree in general with this. Looking at Kams deal that averages $12M, Earl is certain to want more than that. $13-15M is not out of the question (when you consider what someone else may pay).

Barry is the highest paid Free Safety in the game, so that is a pretty good barrier to break. And he's at $13 million. $2 million over that would be alot at this time. Of course once free agency starts and money starts flowing, the numbers may well rise, but we may be in talks with his agent right now, and we'd likely have no clue. It just seems to me that saying $15 million as if it's a given is a bit of a stretch.

Agree. $15M would be an inflated price in a FA bid war, and $12-$13M is prob. closer to his market value. Earls eyes are pretty big though, so no telling what he expects. The bigger problem may actually be how many years and what guarantee.

I agree. I think anything higher than Barry will get the deal done, depending on structure and guarantees. That will be the part that will make or break the deal for both sides. Hopefully we get it done, because replacing both Safeties is not something I look forward to trying to do in the same off season.

 

[Seymour]

Although I agree in general with this. Looking at Kams deal that averages $12M, Earl is certain to want more than that. $13-15M is not out of the question (when you consider what someone else may pay).

Barry is the highest paid Free Safety in the game, so that is a pretty good barrier to break. And he's at $13 million. $2 million over that would be alot at this time. Of course once free agency starts and money starts flowing, the numbers may well rise, but we may be in talks with his agent right now, and we'd likely have no clue. It just seems to me that saying $15 million as if it's a given is a bit of a stretch.

Agree. $15M would be an inflated price in a FA bid war, and $12-$13M is prob. closer to his market value. Earls eyes are pretty big though, so no telling what he expects. The bigger problem may actually be how many years and what guarantee.

I agree. I think anything higher than Barry will get the deal done, depending on structure and guarantees. That will be the part that will make or break the deal for both sides. Hopefully we get it done, because replacing both Safeties is not something I look forward to trying to do in the same off season.

Ya, it could come down to choosing between Earl and Sherm though I think. I doubt we keep both. Sherm having the other foot operated on isn't helping him and his $13M so I'd lean toward Earl also, but that entirely depends on how long. Tough call either way though. Sherm was a better trooper last year and Earl is now walking the line of playing the village idiot with his chatter and Boys love.