NFL Teams honor contracts

[Shadowhawk]

Yep, I am tired of the players saying "but they can cut us, so why can't we hold out?"

Um, because the contract is structured so that the team can cut you at any time. If you would actually read the contract you just signed, Doug, maybe you would know that.

Pocketprotector nailed it: the team can cut the player at any time, as long as they pay the guaranteed portion. That's all they signed to in the contract.

There is actually a bit of a check on teams from signing and cutting players willy-nilly: cap penalties. Seattle could not have cut Marshawn Lynch after, say, one year was done on his deal without giving up a lot of cap room. If for some bizarre reason Seattle wanted to cut Percy Harvin today they would be unable to do so, because the guaranteed money that would normally be prorated through the first five years of the deal would then hit this year and put us over the cap. So there are some cases in which teams cannot cut players any time they would like to. (Hell, we probably wouldn't have been able to dump T. J. Houshmandzadeh after only one season if 2010 had not been an uncapped year.)

Also, contracts are not guaranteed but the usual tradeoff for that is the player getting more money up front. So while players run the risk of being cut toward the end of their contracts, they get more money at the beginning of the deal than they probably would if the contract was fully guaranteed.

So the current contract structures do have some benefits to the players.

You obviously did not read my whole post.

Actually I did and was trying to expand on the point about the cap preventing teams from just cutting players whenever they wanted.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

No I don't think there is any such thing as a player "over performing" . They do the job they were hired to do or they don't . If they do their job very well then they increase their value to the team come contract time. If they fail to perform in the short term they still get paid because they have a contract. If they fail to preform over the long term then they might get cut or moved. Harvin got paid last season but had no impact on it. He didn't give money back to the team. This season he is going to have a chance to show why he is worth that contract and the money it paid him to be a non factor last season. However another 26 play season from him would be a breach of contract type situation after which he would likely be let go.
Lynch has lived up to his contract so far. He already has a very good contract. He probably doesn't understand it though. He probably has no real understanding of how much his agent takes or how much his tax load is. Hopefully the office will be able to move some things around and make Lynch happy enough to play his contract. If he doesn't then the office has to cut him.

I wish we could get a stat like WAR in football because I think it would be easier to knock down this argument (which I disagree with) if we had a stat like that.

There is definitely a thing such as "overperforming," I think. Look at Russell Wilson. He made what, 600K last year? Do you REALLY believe that his value to the team was 600K because that's what he was paid and he fulfilled the baseline amount of production to make paying him 600K worth it?

Let's put it another way. In a free market, do you think that what Russell Wilson produced on the field last year would go for 600K? If not, and you think it would go for much more than that, he is by definition overperforming his contract.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Some of those that got a second contract work on a performance based incentive portion of their payment as well as the garanteed monies. So did they work to the extent of their contract??? pretty much yes. They fulfilled their SECOND contract minimum necessities to be paid. I hope training camp was good today, I heard some of it on EXPN Radio...I was working my booty off.

 

[scutterhawk]

How I look at it, when a team and player sign a contract between each other, the value of the contract is based on past and (mostly) future production.

When a player does not meet the expectations of his contract, a team will cut him, but if he plays ABOVE that level of expectation what is he suppose to do? Just say, hey boss I know I could be cut at any time for not playing up to my contract, but hey enjoy the added value of my talents for free..No.

No, you say "Hey Boss, I'm seeing to it that you are getting a player who stands by his WORD, and you have my name on that contract to prove that I'm going to give you 100% commitment".
I believe that Marshawn and his agent signed an contract AGREEMENT.
What the hell good is signing a contract if you don't really intend, nor have any intentions to live up to it's parameters.
It's Marshawn's signature that is on that dotted line.

 

[scutterhawk]

What point are you making here? There's a well established culture in the NFL of players holding out and teams cutting players at-will. Whether you think a player is being unreasonable in requesting a raise or guaranty is dependent upon the circumstances. Don't pretend that the make-up of the deal grants one side moral superiority over the other.

It's all about that inaction boss.
Marshawn shouldn't have signed the contract if he didn't really agree to it.
Schneider and the Seahawks have lived up to their end of THAT contract.
Is a contract even worth the paper it's written on?

 

[General Manager]

I agree with Salk if this is just about moving some money from next year to this year just do it, your not giving him more money just moving it around and both sides know this is his last year.

 

[General Manager]

Let us clear something up. With Marshawn holding out for 20 more lambos and Doug expressing the righteous outrage of the 'working class' I feel to compelled to put an end to a certain misconception.

When a player holds out we always hear this tired cliche, 'if NFL teams do not honor contracts, why should players be expected to?'

Well folks, NFL teams DO honor the contracts they sign with players. Part of the contract is the understanding that when a player signs, it is the guaranteed portions of a contract which are untouchable, and the non-guaranteed portions depend up the player making the roster. This sort of contract structure is a necessity given the violent nature of the NFL and the salary cap. This is not a conspiracy on part of the owners to screw over the poor players.

A player holding out is not the equivalent of a team cutting a player. A player holding out is more like a team or owner denying a player access to the facilities and medical staff in order to pressure them into returning a portion of their guaranteed money.

That non guaranteed money isn't written in there for shits and giggles that's real money that they won't have if cut. Get real. Holding out is there only leverage and in some cases it's reasonable.

 

[scutterhawk]

Let us clear something up. With Marshawn holding out for 20 more lambos and Doug expressing the righteous outrage of the 'working class' I feel to compelled to put an end to a certain misconception.

When a player holds out we always hear this tired cliche, 'if NFL teams do not honor contracts, why should players be expected to?'

Well folks, NFL teams DO honor the contracts they sign with players. Part of the contract is the understanding that when a player signs, it is the guaranteed portions of a contract which are untouchable, and the non-guaranteed portions depend up the player making the roster. This sort of contract structure is a necessity given the violent nature of the NFL and the salary cap. This is not a conspiracy on part of the owners to screw over the poor players.

A player holding out is not the equivalent of a team cutting a player. A player holding out is more like a team or owner denying a player access to the facilities and medical staff in order to pressure them into returning a portion of their guaranteed money.

That non guaranteed money isn't written in there for shits and giggles that's real money that they won't have if cut. Get real. Holding out is there only leverage and in some cases it's reasonable.

So, contracts are for "shits and giggles"?, why even bother with having them, or asking for a signature of good faith in the first place, especially if you MAY have no intentions of fulfilling them?
Contracts are suppose to be legal and binding, not like a handshake, where you'd maybe expect reneging could take place .

 

[pocketprotector]

I agree with Salk if this is just about moving some money from next year to this year just do it, your not giving him more money just moving it around and both sides know this is his last year.

If you plan on cutting him next year, then moving money from next year to this year leaves less money to re-sign Wilson.

 

[EntiatHawk]

Some parts of contracts are "Shits and giggles", how many contracts have you seen that are loaded in the final year you know the team will not pay? There are many. Some of this game is to make the player's contract even look bigger, a PR move. Part of this is that they "Player and Team" know there will be reworking the deal in the final year and that money get moved. The only thing that is guaranteed is the guaranteed monies. Everything after that is negotiable.

Lets face it this is because Marshawns is at the end of the big money part and he knows it. If he and his agent were a bit smarter about this they would of gone to the team and see if they could move some money while he has showed up in camp. By pulling a "hold out" it changes the landscape of the deal and may put the Hawks in a no deal situation because they do not want to set a precedent for doing this.

Put everything in a place it really should not be.

 

[brimsalabim]

No you don't get it smelly. Teams are paying for a players maximum effort. They don't write the contracts based on half ass effort. The reward for performing well comes from the next contract.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Honoring a contract is a cute concept.

Contracts are honored when they are fair, when they are not one party usually has the right to walk away. Most contracts have a provision for failure by one side or the other. As long as you abide by those terms, you aren't doing anything unethical.

I find it hilarious and naive that people think that these teams honor all their business contracts. You perform to the contract or you are subject to the penalties defined in the contract. Businesses walk away from contractual obligations all the time, so long as the penalties are less than the cost of continuing.

Contracts are not supposed to be a mechanism to permanently disadvantage one party vs the other. They are supposed to be a means by which roles, rights, expectations, payment and provisions of same are defined.

In the height of the housing crisis, plenty of wealthy people "lost" their homes. However, you would notice that many continued to be wealthy. They did not "lose" them, they decided that the cost of continuing to pay off the home was more that it was worth to simply let the bank take it back.

The more significant issue is that Marshawn is in a situation where he has a limited time during which he is effective, and the greater the amount he is asked to carry, the greater the chance of injury and even longterm disability. (See Earl Campbell). So yes, he might have realized that his health or even the long term effects of his continued use, are worth more than what the current contract provides.

Companies break agreements all the time, so long as it is financially advantageous. I don't understand why anyone would think football as a business would work so differently than every other business.

 

[impacthawk]

To me this comes down to a player not honoring a contract....bottom line. To look at it any other way is just skewing the facts. The player at the time the contract is signed is in control of all of the following: Total amount, length of contract and guaranteed amount of contract, plus or minus other miscellaneous incentives. These are structured from a risk / reward point of view. When Marshawn signed the contract, he and his representatives negotiated in good faith a deal that would give him maximum value, while mitigating as much risk away from him as possible. He received both the contract length he wanted vs. Possible more $$$ for shorter length, and a higher guarantee amount that was front loaded to provide more money up front. He signed the contract he negotiated and the team has fulfilled it's obligations and in no way breached the contract. Now......in any other business deal, if an employee with such value to an organization were to not show up at work and demand to get paid more to come back, he would be accused of extortion and a lawsuit would ensue to terminate contract and determine damages.

We can all be sympathetic to a great football player.....but almost all employees are at will employees and can be terminated at any time for any reason. Real world shit. He should play his contract out, and the next time he negotiates, he can use the lessons he has learned and incorporate them into the new deal.

Can you all imagine how the world would look if we all got to do what Lynch is doing right now? Not good.

 

[chris98251]

To me this comes down to a player not honoring a contract....bottom line. To look at it any other way is just skewing the facts. The player at the time the contract is signed is in control of all of the following: Total amount, length of contract and guaranteed amount of contract, plus or minus other miscellaneous incentives. These are structured from a risk / reward point of view. When Marshawn signed the contract, he and his representatives negotiated in good faith a deal that would give him maximum value, while mitigating as much risk away from him as possible. He received both the contract length he wanted vs. Possible more $$$ for shorter length, and a higher guarantee amount that was front loaded to provide more money up front. He signed the contract he negotiated and the team has fulfilled it's obligations and in no way breached the contract. Now......in any other business deal, if an employee with such value to an organization were to not show up at work and demand to get paid more to come back, he would be accused of extortion and a lawsuit would ensue to terminate contract and determine damages.

We can all be sympathetic to a great football player.....but almost all employees are at will employees and can be terminated at any time for any reason. Real world shit. He should play his contract out, and the next time he negotiates, he can use the lessons he has learned and incorporate them into the new deal.

Can you all imagine how the world would look if we all got to do what Lynch is doing right now? Not good.

Yeah, a lot less Golden Parachute Board of Directors and Executives pulling down obscene amounts of money and then claiming poverty because of the people making 26 bucks or less an hour.

 

[hawknation2014]

It works both ways. Teams have the right to unilaterally terminate contracts by releasing players. We saw that this off-season with both Clemons and Bryant. We also saw Zach Miller forced to cut his salary in half in order to avoid being cut. Some have speculated that Lynch's contract was headed for this same situation next year.

Players also have the right to pay a fine instead of attending practices in the hope of getting a better contract. Jamaal Charles successfully used this strategy to improve his contract this week. Walter Jones did this successfully in both 2004 & 2005. This is not slave labor; no player has a gun to his head forcing him to play football. If he wants to risk losing money and practice time for the possibility of getting a better deal, that is his prerogative. The window of opportunity to make as much money as they can in the game is incredibly short, as players get hurt every day, are aged out of the game, or are simply cut to make room for younger, cheaper alternatives.

Unfortunately for Lynch, it sounds like Carroll and Schneider are prepared to play hardball. That is the tone you have to set going into these negotiations. The best case scenario, IMO, would be to restructure Lynch's deal to move all or part of the $2 million roster bonus he was set to receive next season into this year's salary. That would give Lynch more money upfront without actually increasing the size of his deal. It would also make Lynch's 2015 cap hit more palatable, alleviating some of his concerns that the team would release him after this year.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

No you don't get it smelly. Teams are paying for a players maximum effort. They don't write the contracts based on half ass effort. The reward for performing well comes from the next contract.

No, I get "it," if "It" means the concept of value, but then again, this is stuff anyone who has taken an Econ 101 course would know.

 

[sc85sis]

To me, it's simple. Pete and John would quite likely love to give Marshawn a raise, but they can't. They have a plan that is in the best interest of the TEAM, not just one player. The salary cap is a reality they can't ignore. If they give 'Shawn more money now, it comes at the expense of someone else needed on the team.

Whom should they let go next year because they paid 'Shawn? Bobby? KJ? Malcolm? Maxwell?

That's what Marshawn is ignoring right now. It's understandable from his standpoint, but it's also understandable from John and Pete's.

The team is more important that any single player.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

I guess I should elaborate because my point seemed flippant, which it wasn't meant to me.

Brimsalabim, your premise is all wrong. Teams don't pay for "effort." Teams pay for "production."

Let's put it this way. If a player gives max effort, but doesn't produce, the player is gone. Likewise, if a player coasts sometimes but produces lots of value to the team (see Randy Moss as Exhibit A), the team pays him.

When a player produces and the team pays below value for that production, indeed a player has overperformed his contract.

Again, you have to consider the typical cost on the free market for production. If Russell Wilson was placed onto the free market right now, he wouldn't make only 817,302, which is the value of his contract for this year. He would be given an AAV of 20M a year rather than 650K a year because teams value QB production like his at about 20M a year.

You are starting with incorrect premises about how teams make business decisions, unfortunately.

 

[scutterhawk]

I guess I should elaborate because my point seemed flippant, which it wasn't meant to me.

Brimsalabim, your premise is all wrong. Teams don't pay for "effort." Teams pay for "production."

Let's put it this way. If a player gives max effort, but doesn't produce, the player is gone. Likewise, if a player coasts sometimes but produces lots of value to the team (see Randy Moss as Exhibit A), the team pays him.

When a player produces and the team pays below value for that production, indeed a player has overperformed his contract.

Again, you have to consider the typical cost on the free market for production. If Russell Wilson was placed onto the free market right now, he wouldn't make only 817,302, which is the value of his contract for this year. He would be given an AAV of 20M a year rather than 650K a year because teams value QB production like his at about 20M a year.

You are starting with incorrect premises about how teams make business decisions, unfortunately.

So....Are you saying that Russell Wilson should just say to hell with playing for peanuts, and hold out for that $20 million?

 

[Smelly McUgly]

No. Per the CBA, Wilson can't extend his contract until after the season.

If per the CBA he was allowed to hold out, he should DEFINITELY do it if the Seahawks were not giving him a new contract, though in that alternate reality, they would have already locked him up long-term.

Note that I am not thrilled that a player is holding out because of course I want my team to have the best players show up and play, but financially, it doesn't make sense for a player to play below his market value.

I also want to note that this does not quite fit Lynch's situation, which is less about playing for below market value and is more about wanting to get something out of that last year of the contract that we all know he's never going to see. This discussion about playing over the value of the contract sort of split off from the main post.