MMQB: In defense of Kam Chancellor

SalishHawkFan

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
5,872
Reaction score
0
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.
 

Rocket

Active member
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Messages
3,056
Reaction score
0
Location
The Rain Forest
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.
 

Hawkstorian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
4,899
Reaction score
608
Location
Spokane
So tired of this side of the argument. Every deal comes with some guaranteed and some non-guaranteed money. This was all known when signed.

If the player "sprains his ankle" there are dollars to compensate that player.

If he wants a "list" how about a MUCH LONGER list of players who had non-guaranteed dollars who showed up for training camp and are currently playing and currently getting their paychecks.

Including Robert Turbin, who was waived but also claimed and getting paid by Cleveland.

AND OH BY THE WAY Kam's salary WAS guaranteed in 2015.

Kam can sit for the rest of his life, I'll never support his stupid holdout even if the Seahawks never win another game.
 

Sports Hernia

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,755
Reaction score
3,372
Location
The pit
Rocket":uyjyk8x3 said:
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.
Brother Rocket is correct! :thirishdrinkers:
 

Spin Doctor

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
5,235
Reaction score
2,158
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.
 

Hawks46

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,498
Reaction score
0
This article is very simplistic and tells the story from one side.

How many times have players been hurt, and IR'd for an entire year, and still get paid ? It's not the player's fault they got hurt, but they got paid their entire salary anyways. This is why NFL contracts are structured the way they are: they have to be able to save money when they need to as they're paying tons of guys sitting on the sidelines at varying times.

Anyone here been hurt on the job ? If you can't work, you don't get paid. Then if you're lucky you get worker's comp, which is typically 25-30% of an average family wage job.

Football is a violent sport and I don't blame these guys for getting all the money they can. They get hurt a lot, but they also get paid a lot for getting hurt, and they get paid a lot WHILE they're hurt.
 

joeseahawks

New member
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
2,248
Reaction score
0
Location
NC
Interesting article.
Now , can Kam rejoin his brothers on the field this week?
 

WilliamCooper

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2015
Messages
861
Reaction score
11
1. Kam knew that going into the deal. He knew the way the CBA works an now he wants a bail out. If he sucked after the deal, could the Hawks demand that guaranteed money back? Of course not.

2. The sprained ankle comment is garbage. The Hawks still have to pay injury settlements.

3. If you want guaranteed contracts: (a) make your Union negotiate it in your CBA or (b) simply sign one year deals that are guaranteed.
 

Cartire

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
4,580
Reaction score
0
Wonder what his agent had to do to get this drivel posted.

At least the majority of the comments on it understand its a ruse.
 

RussB

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
2,589
Reaction score
1
Location
Spokane, WA
He bailed on his teammates over money....didnt even read the useless article its pointless
 
OP
OP
SalishHawkFan

SalishHawkFan

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
5,872
Reaction score
0
Spin Doctor":2xn75e4b said:
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.
 

Cartire

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
4,580
Reaction score
0
SalishHawkFan":hpjhlyl2 said:
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.

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.

Not all contracts are the same. Some payout year to year guarantees if the player is on the 53 on a certain day. Some have guarantees for multiple years from day one. The contracts will have injury stipulations. If a player is injured year 1, he'll most likely go on IR and remain with the team getting his guaranteed for injury. Or, the team could choose to settle with the player, and the amounts stipulated by the NFLPA-approved CBA, and the contract the player signed, will be paid out.

This is all in the contract. This isnt a one side thing. This is a player agreed contract. All these scenarios are in there.

And you are right, he can change his mind and holdout due to risk, IE, choosing not to play for the team. But he then runs the risk of the associated fines that his union voted for and agreed upon. He's subject to forfeiture of pay and past bonuses. Its his choice. He chose to exercise those options. The ones that make him give back money. Its a dumb choice.

Now if you want to argue for some sort of pension or insurance for players, sure. But its not a CBA thing right now, so your argument is with the NFLPA. But contracts are contracts. And a team has the right to cut a player, and must follow the agreed upon fees that come with that.

If you want fully guarantee contracts, (youre not going to get that), then you can argue that every player going into free agency needs to resist signing unless thats what their contract gives them. But they wont do that. So its kinda the players fault.
 

Hawkpower

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
3,525
Reaction score
852
Location
Phoenix az
SalishHawkFan":k09c0g83 said:
Spin Doctor":k09c0g83 said:
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.



Lol, well at least you are putting up a good, if not incredibly weird fight here.

You, Kam, and the author of this article against the world.

Guess somebody has to defend an undefendable point right?
 

chrispy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
1,070
Reaction score
1,105
Kam has as much of a right to sit at home and not play as the Seahawks have not to pay him more. They're both exercising their rights as explained in the contract they both signed.

Kam's holdout may cost him, but that's his choice. I wish he was playing, but I'm not going to pass judgement on him as a person. None of us should unless we have a personal explanation from Kam.

Frankly, I think the Bears require more urgent attention....
 

Hawkpower

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
3,525
Reaction score
852
Location
Phoenix az
chrispy":1lyzhapw said:
Kam has as much of a right to sit at home and not play as the Seahawks have not to pay him more. They're both exercising their rights as explained in the contract they both signed.

Kam's holdout may cost him, but that's his choice. I wish he was playing, but I'm not going to pass judgement on him as a person. None of us should unless we have a personal explanation from Kam.

Frankly, I think the Bears require more urgent attention....




HIs "personal explanation" is calling the organization "petty," blasting people on twitter and insinuating that he has been massively wronged with his cryptic quotes.

There is no hidden sad mystery here. If it was some personal issue that we should all be compassionate about, there were 49 other ways he would have gone about this.

This is about greed and stubborn pride, pure and simple.
 

MVP53

New member
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
294
Reaction score
0
WilliamCooper":2jpbetyw said:
1. Kam knew that going into the deal. He knew the way the CBA works an now he wants a bail out. If he sucked after the deal, could the Hawks demand that guaranteed money back? Of course not.

2. The sprained ankle comment is garbage. The Hawks still have to pay injury settlements.

3. If you want guaranteed contracts: (a) make your Union negotiate it in your CBA or (b) simply sign one year deals that are guaranteed.

Or learn to hit a frickin curve ball and play 2B for the Mariners.
 
Top