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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
BlueTalon wrote:I'd be really interested to see what you guys would actually do if it was you writing the checks.
BlueTalon wrote:I'd be really interested to see what you guys would actually do if it was you writing the checks.
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!)
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.
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.
CALIHAWK1 wrote:He signed his deal, no?
It is currently Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:48 pm