No, what I meant is Blackmon's deal, structurally, is way different than what the Cards are offering.

Not sure that there's endless ways to structure a contract under the CBA that can satisfy and "protect" both sides, but I'm quite positive they'll work it out. Of course the agent is going to be gunning for as much "up front" money as he can possibly get for his client (and himself). The agent sure doesn't want to wait to get paid... the concerns of him coming away with nothing when the Badger inevitably eff's-up are just as valid as the teams.

LawlessHawk wrote:Not sure that there's endless ways to structure a contract under the CBA that can satisfy and "protect" both sides, but I'm quite positive they'll work it out. Of course the agent is going to be gunning for as much "up front" money as he can possibly get for his client (and himself). The agent sure doesn't want to wait to get paid... the concerns of him coming away with nothing when the Badger inevitably eff's-up are just as valid as the teams.

Nobody forces him to take the guy on as a client. If the risk vs reward is too much, spend your time on other clients. He took the kid on and should have known by then exactly the risk he was getting into. And if the agent is so worried about him offending again, then that's even more reason for the Cardinals to be wary in the way they structure his deal.

kidhawk wrote:

LawlessHawk wrote:Not sure that there's endless ways to structure a contract under the CBA that can satisfy and "protect" both sides, but I'm quite positive they'll work it out. Of course the agent is going to be gunning for as much "up front" money as he can possibly get for his client (and himself). The agent sure doesn't want to wait to get paid... the concerns of him coming away with nothing when the Badger inevitably eff's-up are just as valid as the teams.

Nobody forces him to take the guy on as a client. If the risk vs reward is too much, spend your time on other clients. He took the kid on and should have known by then exactly the risk he was getting into. And if the agent is so worried about him offending again, then that's even more reason for the Cardinals to be wary in the way they structure his deal.

Very true. But come on man, we know they're all greedy basta'ds. I didn't bother to look at who his agent is, but I'd bet most all of them wouldn't turn down any client, let alone one with as much potential publicity tied to them as this one has.

The Cards shouldn't have drafted him if they were going to shortchange his contract. No guaranteed money means even if he does go clean and minds his Ps and Qs and turns into a good player, if he goes down with injury, the Cards can just screw him. I actually hope the NFL and PA force the Cards to pay him a competitive contract based on where they drafted him. They (and the other 31 teams along with anyone remotely interested in the draft) knew exactly what they drafted, I don't feel sorry for them in the slightest.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but if any player goes down with injury, doesn't the team have to come to an injury settlement with the player?

Only if they release him within the same football year he sustained the injury. If he's out 6 games, he'd be up the creek. Guaranteed money at least gives them a check if they need to miss an extended period of time.

Say he misses weeks 2-10 due to injury. Arizona could release him after the 2014 football year begins and not bother to pay him for the games he missed, or an injury settlement.

pehawk wrote:I love the "he can get guaranteed paycheck for every game" nonsense. It's entirely ignorant to the NFL CBA and business model. The game comes with inherent risks. Guaranteed money is the ONLY reward for taking those risks. If Mathieu gets paralyzed in the first preseason game, that's it, he gets nothing.

And NONE of you saying that the Cardinals are right, would take a fiscal deal less than your peers. Even if you’re a garbage man, you're not going to say "hmm, okay, I'll take less than what you pay everyone else". And chances are you cant get paralyzed doing your job...Mathieu can.

There are a lot of jobs where people get injured or paralyzed, they have no guaranteed money, why should nfl players get it? Look at how that worked out for the raiders and jamarcus...

I don't see the players as any different than anyone else. I have been injured on the job and got little to nothing for my pain. I have friends who have been injured on construction jobs, a guy who was paralyzed playing hockey.

Why should NFL players get anymore of a guarantee than the average working man or woman who will never see the kind of fame and money that someone who has the best job in the world will see? What makes them so special?

I think AZ is doing the right thing considering what a loser this guy is. But they were foolish to pick him. Either way, Matheiu has done NOTHING to earn guaranteed money and has EARNED the reputation he has so he has no one to blame but himself, well and Jamarcus Russell.

IIRC Mathieu tested positive for SYNTHETIC MARIJUANA substances (i.e. K2, Spice, Kush) which is not only THC but synthetic substances that mimic THC, cocaine and uppers depending on the brand. These synthetics are 6x more potent than marijuana and some have hallucinogenic properties. Many states don't have regulations covering these substances that are made in third world countries and sold in smoke shops and over the internet. CD treatment won't necessarily address these newer drugs and there is NO guarantee that his play will be the same since he's been out of football and clean.

What's we should really be concerned with is that Spencer Ware and Tharold Simon (his LSU teammates) also tested positive for the same. Have they been clean and will they get guaranteed money?

And yes the Cardinals are doing the right thing. Incentives should be key and guarantees will come later with future contract. For Mathieu to be a HOF player some day he'll need to stay clean and work his tail off ( i.e. Cris Carter).
IMO he should be grateful he was picked in the 3rd.

Lady Talon wrote:Only if they release him within the same football year he sustained the injury. If he's out 6 games, he'd be up the creek. Guaranteed money at least gives them a check if they need to miss an extended period of time.

Say he misses weeks 2-10 due to injury. Arizona could release him after the 2014 football year begins and not bother to pay him for the games he missed, or an injury settlement.

Can't they write in a provision staying that the money is guaranteed in case of injury but forfeited if he gets busted for taking drugs again? I seem to recall that it's been done before, or something similar.

I'm just glad Seattle didn't draft him. Let Arizona deal with this.

There is a contingency for injury, you see it every year during training camp with the Seahawks. "Player X was released after getting treatment and getting an "injury settlement."

His signing bonus was fully garunteed ar 600, 000. Not to shabby. More than he deserves.


Edit per Schefter his bonus is 260, 000. A different number than first reported.

taz291819 wrote:I don't disagree with the Cards at all. I wouldn't guarantee him any money either. Yes, he'll get a signing bonus, but he has to earn the rest. It's basically, don't smoke weed, and you'll get paid.

The guy made his bed, now he has to deal with the consequences.

Plus One. Good God people, Tyrann has earned NOTHING except to be signed to a contract with zero guaranteed money. He earned that by his foolish actions.

And there is nothing wrong with zero guaranteed money, if it's good enough for Revis, it's good enough for Matheiu, the miscreant is lucky he got drafted, he needs to quit his crying and accept his circumstances.

He was given every opportunity at LSU, and now he's been given one more, and certainly more than those other kids in the draft that went through college, kept their act together but still didn't get drafted. How much are they going to get paid? Nothing. They would give anything, and already gave up a lot to live their dream, but instead it's being giving to a loser that has hurt who knows how many people?

He's a piece of garbage who gets to break all the rules but still be given a spot where he is looked up to, all because he can play a game...

He got $260 up front, and the remaining $600k is payable every year over the life of the contract. That's fair.

I love how we all judge kids. Kids are kids and make stupid decisions. Except for ivotuk, apparently?

I just read the whole thread, and honestly I'm surprised at how wound up people have gotten over this. I just don't see the big deal. The Tweetybirds invested a 3rd round draft pick in the guy. If he busts, they're out that 3rd round pick -- not chump change. Given his history, there's a better than average chance that he is going to cost them a roster spot during games -- also not chump change. They'd be idiots not to take whatever steps they deemed necessary to protect their investment and mitigate the possibility of future damages based on the increased risk.

This isn't about punishing him for past "stupid decisions", and it's not about offering a "substandard contract" or anything else. It's about negotiating and protecting their interests. It's a simple fact that Mathieu just doesn't have much negotiating leverage. The CBA took care of most of it, and what little there otherwise would have been went up in smoke over the past several years.

He got a nice signing bonus. Does that make you happy, those of you who thought he should get a guarantee of some sort?

I dont know, BlueTalon. I just am going to always go in favor of the guy risking bodily harm, for my amusement, over Bidwell. Maybe I'm odd that way, but that's me.

And, just as the Cards have a right so does every player. They have the right to negotiate equal to, or maybe even above their peers. Again, you cant look at the dollar amount, look at it relatively. You'd want fair based on your peers, in your profession, just like Honey Badger.

I AM looking at it relatively. There is no perspective from which rewarding the guy with a guaranteed contract makes any sense whatsoever, except Mathieu's and his agent's and a bunch of NETers'.

I'm not begrudging him the right to negotiate. I'm saying he has no leverage in negotiations. He can WANT the same as what all his peers are getting, but he didn't DO the same things they did to get to that position. The rest of them busted their butts, and managed to not get kicked out of school for multiple drug violations. The Tweeties aren't punishing him for his past, he's doing that all by himself. The Tweeties are protecting their own future as best they can given the circumstances.

I'm not a Bidwill fan, but I'm not swayed by the "bodily harm" argument either. There's nothing about it that implies the Cards or any other team shouldn't protect their own interests when dealing with knuckleheads.

Look at it this way. If you were his peer, and you busted your ass to play for four years at the same college and graduate, would you look at his situation and think, "Gee, I hope he gets what I get"? Or would it be more like "WTF? I busted my ass and kept my nose clean, and this druggie gets the same as what I get? I deserve more than him!"

BlueTalon wrote:I AM looking at it relatively. There is no perspective from which rewarding the guy with a guaranteed contract makes any sense whatsoever, except Mathieu's and his agent's and a bunch of NETers'.

I'm not begrudging him the right to negotiate. I'm saying he has no leverage in negotiations. He can WANT the same as what all his peers are getting, but he didn't DO the same things they did to get to that position. The rest of them busted their butts, and managed to not get kicked out of school for multiple drug violations. The Tweeties aren't punishing him for his past, he's doing that all by himself. The Tweeties are protecting their own future as best they can given the circumstances.

I'm not a Bidwill fan, but I'm not swayed by the "bodily harm" argument either. There's nothing about it that implies the Cards or any other team shouldn't protect their own interests when dealing with knuckleheads.

Look at it this way. If you were his peer, and you busted your ass to play for four years at the same college and graduate, would you look at his situation and think, "Gee, I hope he gets what I get"? Or would it be more like "WTF? I busted my ass and kept my nose clean, and this druggie gets the same as what I get? I deserve more than him!"

To me how he got there is irrelevant. He was deemed a 3rd round pick by a team taking into consideration all of his transgressions. If at the point their pick came up he didn't meet their requirements for how players picked at that spot are paid then they shouldn't have drafted him.

He was talented enough and had shown enough to get picked in the 3rd round, so he has earned something. He should get paid similarly to other 3rd round picks with the same amount of guaranteed money.

Here are the two perspectives that make sense:

Draft him in the 3rd and pay him similarly to other 3rd round picks, both in pay and structure.
Don't draft him in the 3rd round.

That's it.

I'd be really interested to see what you guys would actually do if it was you writing the checks.

If I didn't want to pay him the going rate, I wouldn't draft him in the 3rd round. Either he is worth a 3rd round pick or he isn't. Those decisions aren't just based on talent. You have to factor in everything.

BlueTalon wrote:I'd be really interested to see what you guys would actually do if it was you writing the checks.

I'd be interested to see what you would actually say if it was you receiving the checks. Not being a smartass (okay, a little), you'd have a different perspective. No one takes less, willingly, than their peers. Unless they have to. And, in a negotiation, Mathieu didn't have to.

Anyone who says different is lying.

I have been in a situation where I represented a gamble for the organization signing me, and I did take less than my peers. I didn't want to. I simply didn't have any leverage in that situation. My choice came down to taking the deal or walking away, and I wanted the deal more than I wanted to walk away.

I never said anything about Mathieu willingly accepting less than his peers -- and the fact is that he won't get any less than his peers if he keeps his nose clean. That's what's ridiculous to me about this situation. You guys are talking like he is actually going to be paid significantly less than his peers, when that's not the case at all. (He even gets a bonus, which is guaranteed money.) The difference is that he has a track record that makes him less than trustworthy, and the Tweeties want to ensure his good behavior as best they can by giving him a strong financial incentive. He only makes less than his peers if he's a bonehead.

Mathieu isn't holding any cards here. If the Tweeties are smart, they will either offer a contract with no guarantees other than a signing bonus, or any guarantees will have drug-related nullification clauses. Mathieu can choose to play hardball if he wants, but ultimately his choice will be to take the deal or sit out. Maybe he pulls a Crabtree, where he sits out long enough to make a point, and ends up signing a contract that has a tiny little guarantee in it so he and his agent can say he won. (I would absolutely love to see this scenario!)

BlueTalon wrote:I'd be really interested to see what you guys would actually do if it was you writing the checks.

I wouldn't draft him in the 3rd round if I wasn't comfortable giving him a typical 3rd rounder deal. Either you grab him worried others might snatch him up and pay the price, or you wait and take the risk and see if he's there where you feel comfortable. I don't see a lot of complexity in not having your cake and eating it, too.

Your position seems theoretical to me, in an ideal-world sort of way. As far as I know, the CBA governs the rookie pay scale, but doesn't say anything about rookie contract guarantees, which leaves them entirely within the realm of negotiation. What should happen, in your opinion, is neither what should happen or will happen, in my opinion.

BlueTalon wrote:I have been in a situation where I represented a gamble for the organization signing me, and I did take less than my peers. I didn't want to. I simply didn't have any leverage in that situation. My choice came down to taking the deal or walking away, and I wanted the deal more than I wanted to walk away.

I never said anything about Mathieu willingly accepting less than his peers -- and the fact is that he won't get any less than his peers if he keeps his nose clean. That's what's ridiculous to me about this situation. You guys are talking like he is actually going to be paid significantly less than his peers, when that's not the case at all. (He even gets a bonus, which is guaranteed money.) The difference is that he has a track record that makes him less than trustworthy, and the Tweeties want to ensure his good behavior as best they can by giving him a strong financial incentive. He only makes less than his peers if he's a bonehead.

Mathieu isn't holding any cards here. If the Tweeties are smart, they will either offer a contract with no guarantees other than a signing bonus, or any guarantees will have drug-related nullification clauses. Mathieu can choose to play hardball if he wants, but ultimately his choice will be to take the deal or sit out. Maybe he pulls a Crabtree, where he sits out long enough to make a point, and ends up signing a contract that has a tiny little guarantee in it so he and his agent can say he won. (I would absolutely love to see this scenario!)

It's not about what his actual contract came out to be, I've been arguing just on the principal that it's silly for a team to use a reasonably high pick on a player and then think they can leverage him like a UDFA. You have a choice not to have guaranteed money tied to a risky guy, to not have to pay him the type of guaranteed money typical of a 3rd round pick, that choice comes....in the 3rd round. Don't pick him.

The obvious difference between your situation and this is that your rights to be hired weren't drafted by that company, you may have not been in a position of strength, but you were free to go elsewhere if you didn't like their terms. Mathieu isn't, he's working in a cartel of 30 businesses that collude to fix the market, etc. If he were an UDFA, you'd probably see none of us complaining about what the Cards wanted to do. That's exactly what UDFA is for, low risk moves for guys that have a lot of red flags.

BlueTalon wrote:Your position seems theoretical to me, in an ideal-world sort of way. As far as I know, the CBA governs the rookie pay scale, but doesn't say anything about rookie contract guarantees, which leaves them entirely within the realm of negotiation. What should happen, in your opinion, is neither what should happen or will happen, in my opinion.

That's fine. I think if you want to make an investment, make the investment. Don't draft a guy in a range you aren't comfortable with.

Mathieu is free to go elsewhere too. He can even play football if he wants to. He just isn't going to do it in the NFL this year if he chooses not to sign his deal with the Cards, or with a team that trades for his rights.

Is it fair? No. Is it collusion? Yes. But the CBA makes it legal, and until the CBA dictates what guarantees contracts will have, then what guarantees they should have will be dictated by other things.


I understand your principled argument. And I like principled arguments. I just think this is a case of conflicting principles.

BlueTalon wrote:Mathieu is free to go elsewhere too. He can even play football if he wants to. He just isn't going to do it in the NFL this year if he chooses not to sign his deal with the Cards, or with a team that trades for his rights.

Is it fair? No. Is it collusion? Yes. But the CBA makes it legal, and until the CBA dictates what guarantees contracts will have, then what guarantees they should have will be dictated by other things.


I understand your principled argument. And I like principled arguments. I just think this is a case of conflicting principles.

He signed his deal, no?

CALIHAWK1 wrote:He signed his deal, no?

Quite possibly. I haven't been paying attention.

Yes, he's signed

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/93060 ... -cardinals