MMQB: In defense of Kam Chancellor

[Hawkpower]

Now, look at how Kam is screwing over Seahawks fans and players by not honoring a contract that he signed.

5th round pick lost to pick up a safety because Kam isn't here. We were desperate and had to overpay.

Possibly 1 or 2 games lost that could effect whether or not Seahawks make the playoffs. That's money his teammates lose because each playoff game has extra pay.

The constant shuffling of back up players in to positions where they're not used to playing, then other players risking injury by trying to do too much.

Contract money that is tied up with Kam is money that the Seahawks are not able to spend on a replacement. Who was let go in order to pay Kam's current contract?

When the Seahawks cut players because of performance and salary cap reasons did you criticized the team for not HONORING the contract? If you did, at least you are not biased.

At the end of the day the team ultimately can’t force the player to do the one thing the team wants the player to do most: show up and play. If a player wants to retired before the contract ends, he can do that. A player holding out to get higher salary is similar to the team threatened to cut a player unless the player is willing to re-work the contract at lower salary.

This is the business between the NFL and the players. To complain Kam is screwing over Seahawks fans is ridiculous.

Haha Kam signed up to post on .Net

Got nothing else to do I guess.

Hey buddy, we could use you on the field. Time to end this ridiculousness.

 

[Redsand187]

Now, look at how Kam is screwing over Seahawks fans and players by not honoring a contract that he signed.

5th round pick lost to pick up a safety because Kam isn't here. We were desperate and had to overpay.

Possibly 1 or 2 games lost that could effect whether or not Seahawks make the playoffs. That's money his teammates lose because each playoff game has extra pay.

The constant shuffling of back up players in to positions where they're not used to playing, then other players risking injury by trying to do too much.

Contract money that is tied up with Kam is money that the Seahawks are not able to spend on a replacement. Who was let go in order to pay Kam's current contract?

He doesn't have to show up for any reason. He is still honoring his contract, he's just not playing. In reality, the contract is more a guarantee that a player will only play for the signed team unless they choose otherwise. It's not an agreement of slavery that requires a player to report and play no matter what.

If Kam's absence is hurting the team by costing them a pick, losing games, missing part or all of the post season, causing role shifting... then doesn't that fully justify that Kam is worth the "petty," difference? They pay Kam an extra $900,000 and they make it to the playoffs, they recoup that 100 fold in cash and brand value.

It's a business. Kam's contribution is more valuable than his pay and requested "raise." The Seahawks don't need to pay him, but they are losing more value than they are gaining by not paying.

It's would be like the tire industry all got together and decided to raise the price of tires 10%. Ford decided they'd rather build cars without tires than pay the increase.
Can they do it? Yes.
Will all of Ford's competitors benefit and win part of Ford's market share? Yes.
Will it ultimately hurt Ford more than it would to pay that 10% increase? Yes.
If they did pay, is it possible the windshield wiper manufactures try and pull the same stunt next year? Probably.

The whole "next man up," sounds great in theory. But obviously it only works when you have incredible talent on the sidelines. All of that incredible depth is gone due to the success of the team in the past years, that talent walked out the door and into bigger paydays. Kam knows this, and he's using it to his advantage. Every play that passes, Kam's value increases because it's obvious there isn't a player on the team that can fill his shoes.

The question is, what is the purpose of being a team in the NFL? If you say it's to win games, then you do what it takes to win games. As said before, the window is closing for this team to build a dynasty, and it's agreed that Kam needs to be there to do that. Who benefits from a dynasty? Not Kam. The Seahawks.

Sure it sucks that other players might use this tactic to their advantage, but that's the price you pay. You have to take it season by season, game by game, day by day. If you aren't making sure you are winning now, who cares about the future? If ultimately the team ends up to be a .500 in a year or two team and a player holds out for more money who cares? You suck with him, you'll suck without him. The only way you have to worry about being held hostage by a player is when they are a key to your success. When you have no success, you can't be held hostage.

So the principal that JS has makes sense in theory, but not in reality.

 

[rideaducati]

The author of this article is way off base. He has the misconception that teams just tear up contracts when they release a player. This is simply not the case. A portion of that contract is guaranteed by the team, even if the player gets injured and never plays a single snap. Moreover if the player is injured they are also given injury settlements for a certain amount of time, or until that player is picked up by another team. If teams just tore up contracts, I can guarantee that there would be legal repercussions, and as you can see that is not the case. Teams still have obligations to fulfill even after they cut players. That is where the "dead money" stems from in the salary cap era.

I'm sorry, but I do not feel an ounce of sympathy for Chancellor, playing for more money than most of us will ever see in our lifetime. Even if he suffered a career ending injury he would end up with around 17 million or so, plus injury settlements. Every day there are people working dangerous jobs, for mere crumbs. They are risking their well-being and quality of life just to get keep a roof over their heads. Kam Chancellor is acting like a spoiled, entitled brat right now, and this article did a poor job of defending his childish behavior.

Are you guys serious? The issue cannot be compared to getting paid out for an injury. The player is out the remainder of his contract. He signs for four years and gets injured year one, he is out the remainder of the contract. They don't guarantee the future, they don't hand out fully guaranteed contracts like candy. He gets part of that guarantee for each year he plays out.

That's it. That year.

For Example:

For example, David Akers signed a three-year, $9 million contract with the San Francisco 49ers before the 2011 season. The team paid a $1.7 million signing bonus to Akers. That money was guaranteed. He received it up front. The 49ers also paid $1.3 million in salary to Akers for the 2011 season, plus another $3 million in salary to him last season. Akers was scheduled to earn the remaining $3 million via salary for the 2013 season, but he will not get that money because the 49ers released him Wednesday.

So, the three-year, $9 million deal Akers signed wound up being a two-year deal for $6 million, plus a relatively small amount earned through incentives.

That's not a real contract when one side can just opt out of it any one year and the other can't. Kam Chancellor is opting out of the remaining years of his contract. But he can't, can he? They can dump him and make his position available to anybody but he can't just leave the team and go play for someone else. That contract only binds him. And why should he be bound to those terms?

The next two years aren't guaranteed to him. Why should he be guaranteed to Seattle? They can change their mind due to injury. He can change his due to risk.

The NFL doesn't want players to be able to rip up their contracts anytime they want, but they don't want to fully guarantee contracts either. Let's suppose for a moment that the NFL HAD TO fully guarantee their contracts. What would the GM do then? Well, he'd sign more short term contracts for the average players. But would he sign Wilson, Manning, Rodgers to short term deals? No. How about ET, Sherman and Kam? Pete wouldn't want to keep his core? yes, he would.

So what happens then, if Kam, or Manning or whoever gets injured? You can't pay his replacement? Well, yes, you can, just a lot less. Teams could only take on certain numbers of injury to their key players before they'd have no room to afford more players. So they'd pay all the players less so as to have a bank for injured players.

Which means either all the players get a little bit less so all the injured players get more, or they renegotiate the cap with the union so the teams also carry some of that load.

Personally, considering what the NFL already owes the old guys with their injuries, and the injuries these players are currently sustaining, I have no problem with the NFL being forced to fully guarantee their contracts or allow players to walk out of them just like the team can.

No team can just rip up a contract. Get that through your head. NO TEAM CAN JUST RIP UP A CONTRACT.

Kam agreed to play for the amount on his contract which then allowed the team to budget that amount into the salary cap. Kam then quit and demanded more money.

 

[libertforever12]

The author of this article is way off base. He has the misconception that teams just tear up contracts when they release a player. This is simply not the case. A portion of that contract is guaranteed by the team, even if the player gets injured and never plays a single snap. Moreover if the player is injured they are also given injury settlements for a certain amount of time, or until that player is picked up by another team. If teams just tore up contracts, I can guarantee that there would be legal repercussions, and as you can see that is not the case. Teams still have obligations to fulfill even after they cut players. That is where the "dead money" stems from in the salary cap era.

I'm sorry, but I do not feel an ounce of sympathy for Chancellor, playing for more money than most of us will ever see in our lifetime. Even if he suffered a career ending injury he would end up with around 17 million or so, plus injury settlements. Every day there are people working dangerous jobs, for mere crumbs. They are risking their well-being and quality of life just to get keep a roof over their heads. Kam Chancellor is acting like a spoiled, entitled brat right now, and this article did a poor job of defending his childish behavior.

Are you guys serious? The issue cannot be compared to getting paid out for an injury. The player is out the remainder of his contract. He signs for four years and gets injured year one, he is out the remainder of the contract. They don't guarantee the future, they don't hand out fully guaranteed contracts like candy. He gets part of that guarantee for each year he plays out.

That's it. That year.

For Example:

For example, David Akers signed a three-year, $9 million contract with the San Francisco 49ers before the 2011 season. The team paid a $1.7 million signing bonus to Akers. That money was guaranteed. He received it up front. The 49ers also paid $1.3 million in salary to Akers for the 2011 season, plus another $3 million in salary to him last season. Akers was scheduled to earn the remaining $3 million via salary for the 2013 season, but he will not get that money because the 49ers released him Wednesday.

So, the three-year, $9 million deal Akers signed wound up being a two-year deal for $6 million, plus a relatively small amount earned through incentives.

That's not a real contract when one side can just opt out of it any one year and the other can't. Kam Chancellor is opting out of the remaining years of his contract. But he can't, can he? They can dump him and make his position available to anybody but he can't just leave the team and go play for someone else. That contract only binds him. And why should he be bound to those terms?

The next two years aren't guaranteed to him. Why should he be guaranteed to Seattle? They can change their mind due to injury. He can change his due to risk.

The NFL doesn't want players to be able to rip up their contracts anytime they want, but they don't want to fully guarantee contracts either. Let's suppose for a moment that the NFL HAD TO fully guarantee their contracts. What would the GM do then? Well, he'd sign more short term contracts for the average players. But would he sign Wilson, Manning, Rodgers to short term deals? No. How about ET, Sherman and Kam? Pete wouldn't want to keep his core? yes, he would.

So what happens then, if Kam, or Manning or whoever gets injured? You can't pay his replacement? Well, yes, you can, just a lot less. Teams could only take on certain numbers of injury to their key players before they'd have no room to afford more players. So they'd pay all the players less so as to have a bank for injured players.

Which means either all the players get a little bit less so all the injured players get more, or they renegotiate the cap with the union so the teams also carry some of that load.

Personally, considering what the NFL already owes the old guys with their injuries, and the injuries these players are currently sustaining, I have no problem with the NFL being forced to fully guarantee their contracts or allow players to walk out of them just like the team can.

No team can just rip up a contract. Get that through your head. NO TEAM CAN JUST RIP UP A CONTRACT.

Kam agreed to play for the amount on his contract which then allowed the team to budget that amount into the salary cap. Kam then quit and demanded more money.

You can play with the meaning of "rip up a contract", but at the end outside of injury or death a team can cut a player before the contract ends but the player have no way of getting out of a contract. This is what we meant unfair.

 

[rideaducati]

The author of this article is way off base. He has the misconception that teams just tear up contracts when they release a player. This is simply not the case. A portion of that contract is guaranteed by the team, even if the player gets injured and never plays a single snap. Moreover if the player is injured they are also given injury settlements for a certain amount of time, or until that player is picked up by another team. If teams just tore up contracts, I can guarantee that there would be legal repercussions, and as you can see that is not the case. Teams still have obligations to fulfill even after they cut players. That is where the "dead money" stems from in the salary cap era.

I'm sorry, but I do not feel an ounce of sympathy for Chancellor, playing for more money than most of us will ever see in our lifetime. Even if he suffered a career ending injury he would end up with around 17 million or so, plus injury settlements. Every day there are people working dangerous jobs, for mere crumbs. They are risking their well-being and quality of life just to get keep a roof over their heads. Kam Chancellor is acting like a spoiled, entitled brat right now, and this article did a poor job of defending his childish behavior.

Are you guys serious? The issue cannot be compared to getting paid out for an injury. The player is out the remainder of his contract. He signs for four years and gets injured year one, he is out the remainder of the contract. They don't guarantee the future, they don't hand out fully guaranteed contracts like candy. He gets part of that guarantee for each year he plays out.

That's it. That year.

For Example:

For example, David Akers signed a three-year, $9 million contract with the San Francisco 49ers before the 2011 season. The team paid a $1.7 million signing bonus to Akers. That money was guaranteed. He received it up front. The 49ers also paid $1.3 million in salary to Akers for the 2011 season, plus another $3 million in salary to him last season. Akers was scheduled to earn the remaining $3 million via salary for the 2013 season, but he will not get that money because the 49ers released him Wednesday.

So, the three-year, $9 million deal Akers signed wound up being a two-year deal for $6 million, plus a relatively small amount earned through incentives.

That's not a real contract when one side can just opt out of it any one year and the other can't. Kam Chancellor is opting out of the remaining years of his contract. But he can't, can he? They can dump him and make his position available to anybody but he can't just leave the team and go play for someone else. That contract only binds him. And why should he be bound to those terms?

The next two years aren't guaranteed to him. Why should he be guaranteed to Seattle? They can change their mind due to injury. He can change his due to risk.

The NFL doesn't want players to be able to rip up their contracts anytime they want, but they don't want to fully guarantee contracts either. Let's suppose for a moment that the NFL HAD TO fully guarantee their contracts. What would the GM do then? Well, he'd sign more short term contracts for the average players. But would he sign Wilson, Manning, Rodgers to short term deals? No. How about ET, Sherman and Kam? Pete wouldn't want to keep his core? yes, he would.

So what happens then, if Kam, or Manning or whoever gets injured? You can't pay his replacement? Well, yes, you can, just a lot less. Teams could only take on certain numbers of injury to their key players before they'd have no room to afford more players. So they'd pay all the players less so as to have a bank for injured players.

Which means either all the players get a little bit less so all the injured players get more, or they renegotiate the cap with the union so the teams also carry some of that load.

Personally, considering what the NFL already owes the old guys with their injuries, and the injuries these players are currently sustaining, I have no problem with the NFL being forced to fully guarantee their contracts or allow players to walk out of them just like the team can.

No team can just rip up a contract. Get that through your head. NO TEAM CAN JUST RIP UP A CONTRACT.

Kam agreed to play for the amount on his contract which then allowed the team to budget that amount into the salary cap. Kam then quit and demanded more money.

You can play with the meaning of "rip up a contract", but at the end outside of injury or death a team can cut a player before the contract ends but the player have no way of getting out of a contract. This is what we meant unfair.

Well they can only put the "out" into the contract before the contract is signed or they wouldn't have an "out". All players are made aware of these things before they sign the damn contract. If players don't want the team to have an out in the contract, they should not sign a contract that has one in it, not sign it which makes it binding and then quit and demand that the contract be changed. Contracts don't work that way...ANYWHERE.

 

[libertforever12]

No team can just rip up a contract. Get that through your head. NO TEAM CAN JUST RIP UP A CONTRACT.

Kam agreed to play for the amount on his contract which then allowed the team to budget that amount into the salary cap. Kam then quit and demanded more money.

You can play with the meaning of "rip up a contract", but at the end outside of injury or death a team can cut a player before the contract ends but the player have no way of getting out of a contract. This is what we meant unfair.

Well they can only put the "out" into the contract before the contract is signed or they wouldn't have an "out". All players are made aware of these things before they sign the damn contract. If players don't want the team to have an out in the contract, they should not sign a contract that has one in it, not sign it which makes it binding and then quit and demand that the contract be changed. Contracts don't work that way...ANYWHERE.

One way is to put an "out" into to the contract. The other way is just don't show up. It is amazing how some people don't know how the real world works.

 

[rideaducati]

No team can just rip up a contract. Get that through your head. NO TEAM CAN JUST RIP UP A CONTRACT.

Kam agreed to play for the amount on his contract which then allowed the team to budget that amount into the salary cap. Kam then quit and demanded more money.

You can play with the meaning of "rip up a contract", but at the end outside of injury or death a team can cut a player before the contract ends but the player have no way of getting out of a contract. This is what we meant unfair.

Well they can only put the "out" into the contract before the contract is signed or they wouldn't have an "out". All players are made aware of these things before they sign the damn contract. If players don't want the team to have an out in the contract, they should not sign a contract that has one in it, not sign it which makes it binding and then quit and demand that the contract be changed. Contracts don't work that way...ANYWHERE.

One way is to put an "out" into to the contract. The other way is just don't show up. It is amazing how some people don't know how the real world works.

What kind of real World are you talking about? In my real World, if I want to make more money in the only profession I know, I have to actually work. Is it different in your World? Kam signed a contract, so it's not like he can just go get another job in the same profession and if he wants to make money, he has to work somewhere. He isn't going to find a better paying job.

 

[Hawkpower]

The author of this article is way off base. He has the misconception that teams just tear up contracts when they release a player. This is simply not the case. A portion of that contract is guaranteed by the team, even if the player gets injured and never plays a single snap. Moreover if the player is injured they are also given injury settlements for a certain amount of time, or until that player is picked up by another team. If teams just tore up contracts, I can guarantee that there would be legal repercussions, and as you can see that is not the case. Teams still have obligations to fulfill even after they cut players. That is where the "dead money" stems from in the salary cap era.

I'm sorry, but I do not feel an ounce of sympathy for Chancellor, playing for more money than most of us will ever see in our lifetime. Even if he suffered a career ending injury he would end up with around 17 million or so, plus injury settlements. Every day there are people working dangerous jobs, for mere crumbs. They are risking their well-being and quality of life just to get keep a roof over their heads. Kam Chancellor is acting like a spoiled, entitled brat right now, and this article did a poor job of defending his childish behavior.

Are you guys serious? The issue cannot be compared to getting paid out for an injury. The player is out the remainder of his contract. He signs for four years and gets injured year one, he is out the remainder of the contract. They don't guarantee the future, they don't hand out fully guaranteed contracts like candy. He gets part of that guarantee for each year he plays out.

That's it. That year.

For Example:

For example, David Akers signed a three-year, $9 million contract with the San Francisco 49ers before the 2011 season. The team paid a $1.7 million signing bonus to Akers. That money was guaranteed. He received it up front. The 49ers also paid $1.3 million in salary to Akers for the 2011 season, plus another $3 million in salary to him last season. Akers was scheduled to earn the remaining $3 million via salary for the 2013 season, but he will not get that money because the 49ers released him Wednesday.

So, the three-year, $9 million deal Akers signed wound up being a two-year deal for $6 million, plus a relatively small amount earned through incentives.

That's not a real contract when one side can just opt out of it any one year and the other can't. Kam Chancellor is opting out of the remaining years of his contract. But he can't, can he? They can dump him and make his position available to anybody but he can't just leave the team and go play for someone else. That contract only binds him. And why should he be bound to those terms?

The next two years aren't guaranteed to him. Why should he be guaranteed to Seattle? They can change their mind due to injury. He can change his due to risk.

The NFL doesn't want players to be able to rip up their contracts anytime they want, but they don't want to fully guarantee contracts either. Let's suppose for a moment that the NFL HAD TO fully guarantee their contracts. What would the GM do then? Well, he'd sign more short term contracts for the average players. But would he sign Wilson, Manning, Rodgers to short term deals? No. How about ET, Sherman and Kam? Pete wouldn't want to keep his core? yes, he would.

So what happens then, if Kam, or Manning or whoever gets injured? You can't pay his replacement? Well, yes, you can, just a lot less. Teams could only take on certain numbers of injury to their key players before they'd have no room to afford more players. So they'd pay all the players less so as to have a bank for injured players.

Which means either all the players get a little bit less so all the injured players get more, or they renegotiate the cap with the union so the teams also carry some of that load.

Personally, considering what the NFL already owes the old guys with their injuries, and the injuries these players are currently sustaining, I have no problem with the NFL being forced to fully guarantee their contracts or allow players to walk out of them just like the team can.

No team can just rip up a contract. Get that through your head. NO TEAM CAN JUST RIP UP A CONTRACT.

Kam agreed to play for the amount on his contract which then allowed the team to budget that amount into the salary cap. Kam then quit and demanded more money.

You can play with the meaning of "rip up a contract", but at the end outside of injury or death a team can cut a player before the contract ends but the player have no way of getting out of a contract. This is what we meant unfair.

Thanks Kam.

 

[Cartire]

You can play with the meaning of "rip up a contract", but at the end outside of injury or death a team can cut a player before the contract ends but the player have no way of getting out of a contract. This is what we meant unfair.

Thats part of the contract. Why is this so hard to understand. If the player doesnt want the team to have that option, then he needs to negotiate that into his contract. But since the market wont allow it, (because there will always be a talented player willing to take less), the player just isnt going to get it.

This isnt about fair. This is about an employer giving a contract to an employee and the employee signing it.

In the contract, it stipulates how much the player will make regardless and how much he'll make if he remains with the team for the lifetime of the contract.

 

[chris98251]

One little thing about contracts, Employers break them all the time, thats the biggest issue with most Sports figures, in fact in business in general thats what happens, everytime you take a job you sign a contract. The employer wanst gaurentees and also many times non compete clauses to limit your future employment should they break the contract and cut you loose.(most of these stipulations are illegal by the way but are in the employment contract to limit competitive advantage should you get fired for casue or let go for no cause) The Corperations and or Leagues pull the strings, when a player or an employee bucks the system most businesses want to make an example of you to keep the other lemmings in line.

 

[libertforever12]

You can play with the meaning of "rip up a contract", but at the end outside of injury or death a team can cut a player before the contract ends but the player have no way of getting out of a contract. This is what we meant unfair.

Thats part of the contract. Why is this so hard to understand. If the player doesnt want the team to have that option, then he needs to negotiate that into his contract. But since the market wont allow it, (because there will always be a talented player willing to take less), the player just isnt going to get it.

Thats part of the contract. Why is this so hard to understand. If the team doesn't want the player to hold out, then the team needs to negotiate that into the contract (for exmample Kam would owe the team $100 billion if he holds out). But since the market won't allow it (because there will always be another team willing to pay more), the team just isn't going to get it.

This isnt about fair. This is about an employer giving a contract to an employee and the employee signing it.

In the contract, it stipulates how much the player will make regardless and how much he'll make if he remains with the team for the lifetime of the contract.

This isn't about fair. This is about an employer giving a contract to an employee and the employee signing it.

In the contract, it stipulates how severe the penalties are for holding out and how much the team will pay if the player remains with the team for the lifetime of the contract.

Obviously, the CBA restrict the penalties, but that is also results from negotiation between the NFL owners and NFLPA.

 

[morgulon1]

Yep, and the contract allows this to happen... gotta read the WHOLE contract, hot just the MMQB article.

The NFL contract is most certainly a CONTRACT. Nya, nya, nya. Duh.

I disagree. It is an "agreement" that can be cancelled by the NFL team at any time they see fit. The NFL has a policy in place to discourage this ( the cap hit) but it still happens.

Now, MLB. That is a contract.

 

[Cartire]

Yep, and the contract allows this to happen... gotta read the WHOLE contract, hot just the MMQB article.

The NFL contract is most certainly a CONTRACT. Nya, nya, nya. Duh.

I disagree. It is an "agreement" that can be cancelled by the NFL team at any time they see fit. The NFL has a policy in place to discourage this ( the cap hit) but it still happens.

Now, MLB. That is a contract.

The termination of the contract is written into the contract. ITs not an agreement, its a contract.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Yep, and the contract allows this to happen... gotta read the WHOLE contract, hot just the MMQB article.

The NFL contract is most certainly a CONTRACT. Nya, nya, nya. Duh.

I disagree. It is an "agreement" that can be cancelled by the NFL team at any time they see fit. The NFL has a policy in place to discourage this ( the cap hit) but it still happens.

Now, MLB. That is a contract.

Semantics.

The players sign a "contract,"..........so it IS a contract. That's why this was called a contract hold out, not an agreement holdout.

The loose terms of the contract doesn't negate it from being a contract. You play football for us, and we'll give you this big wheel barrel full of money every week. Contract.

 

[morgulon1]

In the NFL, contracts can be terminated so in the truest sense of the word, it is an agreement. I don't give a FF what other people call them.

An NFL coach? That's a contract. Pete Carroll signs a five year "contract" to coach Seattle. The team fires him after year two. Seattle honors the "contract" and pays him the remaining three years.

Listen it is a flawed system IMHO. I believe the NFL should adapt a year by year model where every players compensation is based off the previous years performance. It would be better for both parties. It would prevent players from going into cruise control mode after the big deal and it would also make players who improve get paid for their superior effort accordingly . It would also do away with "cap hell" .

So, just because the NFL network says it a contract doesn't make it so .

 

[BadgerVid]

This was an interesting article I just came across on MMQB.

No, in the NFL, a contract is not a contract. Some fans think NFL contracts are like retail transactions, wherein a price is set, goods or services exchange hands, and the seller has no more right to recall the half-eaten apple than the buyer has call to negotiate a better deal on the apple after he’s bitten into it.

This is a list of people the Seahawks have waived or released with time and cash remaining on their contracts in the calendar year 2015. This is typical of all 32 teams:

Robert Turbin. Will Blackmon. Anthony McCoy. Tyrell Adams. RaShaun Allen. R.J. Archer. Obum Gwacham. Keenan Lambert. Ronald Martin Jr. T.Y. McGill. Douglas McNeil III. KeaVon Milton. Ryan Murphy. Will Pericak. Eric Pinkins. Terry Poole. Alex Singleton. Kevin Smith. Rod Smith. Julius Warmsley. Kasen Williams. Lemuel Jeanpierre. D’Anthony Smith. Jesse Davis. George Farmer. Deshon Foxx. Deontay Greenberry. Keelan Johnson. Quayshawn Nealy. Greg Scruggs. Ty Zimmerman. Brandon Cottom. Triston Wade. Jake Waters. Jeremy Crayton. Robert Smith. Tony McDaniel. Ryan Robinson. Tory Slater. Demitrius Bronson. Nate Isles. C.J. Davis. Justin Renfrow. Mike Taylor. Jared Wheeler. Mike Zimmer. Luke Ingram. Zach Miller. Jesse Williams. Garrett Scott.

...Such is the kind of pact that Kam Chancellor wants to amend—the kind that can be ripped up if the employee sprains his ankle.

There's a lot more food for thought in the article. I suggest some of you go read it.

I think the author possibly needs to read an NFL contract.

The contract grants exclusive "rights" to a player's services for it's stated duration. In return, the player receives a certain amount of his payment at the time of signing that is his to keep regardless of whether the team chooses to exercise that right to services for the entire term or not. In addition the team agrees to pay additional amounts if they choose to retain the player on their roster past certain dates rather than "waiving" those rights and releasing the player to play for whomever will hire them.

The contract does not include a "right to employment" for the player, it merely acts effectively as an option on the player's services for it's duration in return for whatever guaranteed amount is paid and an agreement on what the player will receive should the team choose to exercise that option by putting the on the roster.

Just sayin'...

 

[Cartire]

I think the author possibly needs to read an NFL contract.

The contract grants exclusive "rights" to a player's services for it's stated duration. In return, the player receives a certain amount of his payment at the time of signing that is his to keep regardless of whether the team chooses to exercise that right to services for the entire term or not. In addition the team agrees to pay additional amounts if they choose to retain the player on their roster past certain dates rather than "waiving" those rights and releasing the player to play for whomever will hire them.

The contract does not include a "right to employment" for the player, it merely acts effectively as an option on the player's services for it's duration in return for whatever guaranteed amount is paid and an agreement on what the player will receive should the team choose to exercise that option by putting the on the roster.

Just sayin'...

Thats a good way of putting it. The contract is not a right of employment. Its the details of your employment, while you're employed. It includes guarantees, salary pay and clauses for termination. Those clauses stipulate that a team can choose to terminate the contract at any time. But they also are responsible for the guarantees even if they havent been paid out. Thats the deal. Otherwise, the contract stipulates the clients pay while with the team.

The player, if he wanted too, could value himself highly, and negotiate a no-trade clause, and guarantees throughout the life of the contract, but teams arent going to do it. And guess what, its the teams right, because they are the employer. The player doesnt have to sign the contract. He doesnt have to play for the team. He can go home and flip burgers or sale cars all day long. But he chooses to go with the contract the team will allow. So thats on him. The team has to sign someone to play the for the team. So they are going to take the best player for the best value. And they get to choose who they WANT and to sign and for how much, but its the players who ultimately get to decide IF they want to sign.

 

[libertforever12]

I think the author possibly needs to read an NFL contract.

The contract grants exclusive "rights" to a player's services for it's stated duration. In return, the player receives a certain amount of his payment at the time of signing that is his to keep regardless of whether the team chooses to exercise that right to services for the entire term or not. In addition the team agrees to pay additional amounts if they choose to retain the player on their roster past certain dates rather than "waiving" those rights and releasing the player to play for whomever will hire them.

The contract does not include a "right to employment" for the player, it merely acts effectively as an option on the player's services for it's duration in return for whatever guaranteed amount is paid and an agreement on what the player will receive should the team choose to exercise that option by putting the on the roster.

Just sayin'...

Thats a good way of putting it. The contract is not a right of employment. Its the details of your employment, while you're employed. It includes guarantees, salary pay and clauses for termination. Those clauses stipulate that a team can choose to terminate the contract at any time. But they also are responsible for the guarantees even if they havent been paid out. Thats the deal. Otherwise, the contract stipulates the clients pay while with the team.

The player, if he wanted too, could value himself highly, and negotiate a no-trade clause, and guarantees throughout the life of the contract, but teams arent going to do it. And guess what, its the teams right, because they are the employer. The player doesnt have to sign the contract. He doesnt have to play for the team. He can go home and flip burgers or sale cars all day long. But he chooses to go with the contract the team will allow. So thats on him. The team has to sign someone to play the for the team. So they are going to take the best player for the best value. And they get to choose who they WANT and to sign and for how much, but its the players who ultimately get to decide IF they want to sign.

A contract is realy NOT a MORAL agreement that says “I will show up no matter what and if I don’t, then I’m a greedy selfish bad person”.

A contract is a businees agreement which states the terms of compensation IF a player chooses to play and IF a team chooses to keep him on the roster, and what happens IF either party freely chooses not to.

Players are just as free to hold out their services for a better offer as teams are to cut players and offer to bring them back at a lower salary. The agreement never says the player has to play no matter what. The decision to not play can he health, financial, family, personal, religious, and etc reasons.

 

[Cartire]

I think the author possibly needs to read an NFL contract.

The contract grants exclusive "rights" to a player's services for it's stated duration. In return, the player receives a certain amount of his payment at the time of signing that is his to keep regardless of whether the team chooses to exercise that right to services for the entire term or not. In addition the team agrees to pay additional amounts if they choose to retain the player on their roster past certain dates rather than "waiving" those rights and releasing the player to play for whomever will hire them.

The contract does not include a "right to employment" for the player, it merely acts effectively as an option on the player's services for it's duration in return for whatever guaranteed amount is paid and an agreement on what the player will receive should the team choose to exercise that option by putting the on the roster.

Just sayin'...

Thats a good way of putting it. The contract is not a right of employment. Its the details of your employment, while you're employed. It includes guarantees, salary pay and clauses for termination. Those clauses stipulate that a team can choose to terminate the contract at any time. But they also are responsible for the guarantees even if they havent been paid out. Thats the deal. Otherwise, the contract stipulates the clients pay while with the team.

The player, if he wanted too, could value himself highly, and negotiate a no-trade clause, and guarantees throughout the life of the contract, but teams arent going to do it. And guess what, its the teams right, because they are the employer. The player doesnt have to sign the contract. He doesnt have to play for the team. He can go home and flip burgers or sale cars all day long. But he chooses to go with the contract the team will allow. So thats on him. The team has to sign someone to play the for the team. So they are going to take the best player for the best value. And they get to choose who they WANT and to sign and for how much, but its the players who ultimately get to decide IF they want to sign.

A contract is realy NOT a MORAL agreement that says “I will show up no matter what and if I don’t, then I’m a greedy selfish bad person”.

A contract is a businees agreement which states the terms of compensation IF a player chooses to play and IF a team chooses to keep him on the roster, and what happens IF either party freely chooses not to.

Players are just as free to hold out their services for a better offer as teams are to cut players and offer to bring them back at a lower salary. The agreement never says the player has to play no matter what. The decision to not play can he health, financial, family, personal, religious, and etc reasons.

Hmmmm.....

Dude, no one is arguing with you that Kam could choose not to play his contract and "hold out". But were not wrong in saying hes stupid. He's in a union. That means hes subject to the fines and penalties his union agreed too. So this guy that thought he could "hold out", could. But guess what, its stupid. And we all know that. And the team knows that. And his teammates know that. Thats why no one has done it since the new CBA. Thats why its his fault and his stupidity for even doing it.

Hes in a contract. He agreed to play in that contract. He chose not too, and therefor, doesnt get his money. And, per his Union approved contract, has to pay fines. His choice. Stupid one. The team has a choice too. They can release next year and no owe him anymore besides dead money already paid out. Per the contract. They could have released him this year too. They would have owed him money. Thats per the contract. If they cut him this year, IE. Their Choice, they would still owe him his salary. But they didnt. He chose to hold out instead and not play. Dumb. On him. Doesnt matter what he think his worth is. He chose the wrong time. And everyone in the world knew it.

 

[Hawkpower]

I think the author possibly needs to read an NFL contract.

The contract grants exclusive "rights" to a player's services for it's stated duration. In return, the player receives a certain amount of his payment at the time of signing that is his to keep regardless of whether the team chooses to exercise that right to services for the entire term or not. In addition the team agrees to pay additional amounts if they choose to retain the player on their roster past certain dates rather than "waiving" those rights and releasing the player to play for whomever will hire them.

The contract does not include a "right to employment" for the player, it merely acts effectively as an option on the player's services for it's duration in return for whatever guaranteed amount is paid and an agreement on what the player will receive should the team choose to exercise that option by putting the on the roster.

Just sayin'...

Thats a good way of putting it. The contract is not a right of employment. Its the details of your employment, while you're employed. It includes guarantees, salary pay and clauses for termination. Those clauses stipulate that a team can choose to terminate the contract at any time. But they also are responsible for the guarantees even if they havent been paid out. Thats the deal. Otherwise, the contract stipulates the clients pay while with the team.

The player, if he wanted too, could value himself highly, and negotiate a no-trade clause, and guarantees throughout the life of the contract, but teams arent going to do it. And guess what, its the teams right, because they are the employer. The player doesnt have to sign the contract. He doesnt have to play for the team. He can go home and flip burgers or sale cars all day long. But he chooses to go with the contract the team will allow. So thats on him. The team has to sign someone to play the for the team. So they are going to take the best player for the best value. And they get to choose who they WANT and to sign and for how much, but its the players who ultimately get to decide IF they want to sign.

A contract is realy NOT a MORAL agreement that says “I will show up no matter what and if I don’t, then I’m a greedy selfish bad person”.

A contract is a businees agreement which states the terms of compensation IF a player chooses to play and IF a team chooses to keep him on the roster, and what happens IF either party freely chooses not to.

Players are just as free to hold out their services for a better offer as teams are to cut players and offer to bring them back at a lower salary. The agreement never says the player has to play no matter what. The decision to not play can he health, financial, family, personal, religious, and etc reasons.

Then why are there fines levied against you then?