Mathieu should refuse deal to sign with cards

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics and matters of interest here. RATING: PG-13
  • I don't see anything wrong with it. Matter of fact I would probably do the same.
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9303
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


  • The cardinals essentially are doing him a disservice by drafting him, and then refusing to give him any guaranteed money.

    If they wouldn't have drafted him, surely another team would have, and would have given him some guaranteed money.

    You're essentially saying it's ok for an NFL team to take money out of a rookie's pocket if they choose to do so by drafting them and offering them a sub-par contract.

    If you want to build in drug/behavior-related clauses into a contract that is one thing for someone with a history, but to say 0 guaranteed money is just a petty way to exert your authority over a player before he even gets to your facility because you think your'e doing him a 'favor'.

    Sorry, this perception that he needs 'favors' or some chairty or some pity to find a job in the NFL is ridiculous. He wouldn't have lasted past the 4th round, maybe not the third, if Arizona hadn't picked him up.
    Image
    User avatar
    Hawknballs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2821
    Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:51 am


  • Hawknballs wrote:The cardinals essentially are doing him a disservice by drafting him, and then refusing to give him any guaranteed money.

    If they wouldn't have drafted him, surely another team would have, and would have given him some guaranteed money.

    You're essentially saying it's ok for an NFL team to take money out of a rookie's pocket if they choose to do so by drafting them and offering them a sub-par contract.

    If you want to build in drug/behavior-related clauses into a contract that is one thing for someone with a history, but to say 0 guaranteed money is just a petty way to exert your authority over a player before he even gets to your facility because you think your'e doing him a 'favor'.

    Sorry, this perception that he needs 'favors' or some chairty or some pity to find a job in the NFL is ridiculous. He wouldn't have lasted past the 4th round, maybe not the third, if Arizona hadn't picked him up.


    Your anger stems from your assumption that another NFL team would have given him guaranteed money or that he wouldn't have fallen further in the draft. The first assumption is likely very untrue - I can't imagine many teams were going to throw guaranteed money at him, or if they did, it was going to be a lot lower given his draft slot AND backed by the ability of the team to withdraw the guaranteed money if Mathieu failed drug tests which would amount to the same thing. As to his falling further in the draft, who knows, but considering how far someone like Quinton Patton fell, it's not unrealistic to think Tyrann would have dropped another round or more.
    Super Bowl Champions XVLIII

    RIP Radish: Check your PMs. Upper right corner.
    User avatar
    Sarlacc83
    * NET Philistine *
     
    Posts: 15475
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
    Location: Portland, OR


  • Hawknballs wrote:The cardinals essentially are doing him a disservice by drafting him, and then refusing to give him any guaranteed money.

    If they wouldn't have drafted him, surely another team would have, and would have given him some guaranteed money.

    You're essentially saying it's ok for an NFL team to take money out of a rookie's pocket if they choose to do so by drafting them and offering them a sub-par contract.

    If you want to build in drug/behavior-related clauses into a contract that is one thing for someone with a history, but to say 0 guaranteed money is just a petty way to exert your authority over a player before he even gets to your facility because you think your'e doing him a 'favor'.

    Sorry, this perception that he needs 'favors' or some chairty or some pity to find a job in the NFL is ridiculous. He wouldn't have lasted past the 4th round, maybe not the third, if Arizona hadn't picked him up.


    Wrong.

    If another team drafted him, say, in the 4th round, he would be making LESS than he would with the Cards - regardless of the guaranteed money. The only issue is when it is delivered to him. That's not a disservice... it's just business.

    Consider it this way. If you order a widget from a company and tell them you'll pay them $100 dollars for it when it's delivered, is that a disservice compared to another customer who would give the company $60 for the same widget, but be willing to pay $30 of it up front? I don't think it is. And it would be good business sense for you to only pay after delivery if the company has earned a reputation for failing to deliver products before.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8226
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


  • Hawknballs wrote: He shouldn't be pre-penalized by the team that drafts him for things he *might* do wrong in the NFL, and it's not that teams place to punish him for past crimes.


    He was drafted on "past accomplishments", why shouldn't they also consider "past crimes"?
    And this post is not directed at anyone personally.
    User avatar
    DTexHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4169
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am


  • the problem with your widget example is that you make it sound as if everyone has a choice, that's my issue here. Being drafted shouldn't be a net "punishment". There is no way of knowing if Matheiu would have been drafted with the very next pick. We will never know, because he was drafted by the cardinals and then offered a sub-standard contract. As I stated there are a number of ways they could and will build drug-testing policies into his contract. Starting off with a 0 guarantee contract is just a weak move by an intimidated organization trying to overcompensate. How many millions have the dumped into bad QB play, but they are going to cheap out on a guy who's been nothing but a playmaker on the field but likes to smoke weed? Unnecessary over-reaction by an insecure franchise. If that is the way you need to do business, don't draft questionable guys.

    Also, I have no 'anger'. . . not sure where that assumption came from. I just think it's a petty move by the cards ownership. That doesn't make me angry.
    Image
    User avatar
    Hawknballs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2821
    Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:51 am


  • Hawknballs wrote:the problem with your widget example is that you make it sound as if the customer has a choice, that's my issue here. Being drafted shouldn't be a net "punishment". There is no way of knowing if Matheiu would have been drafted with the very next pick. We will never know, because he was drafted by the cardinals and then offered a sub-standard contract. As I stated there are a number of ways they could and will build drug-testing policies into his contract. Starting off with a 0 guarantee contract is just a weak move by an intimidated organization trying to overcompensate. How many millions have the dumped into bad QB play, but they are going to cheap out on a guy who's been nothing but a playmaker on the field but likes to smoke weed? Unnecessary over-reaction by an insecure franchise. If that is the way you need to do business, don't draft questionable guys.

    Also, I have no 'anger'. . . not sure where that assumption came from. I just think it's a petty move by the cards ownership. That doesn't make me angry.


    The team is the customer, not the player. Just for clarification's sake. And that lack of choice is just the entry fee for the privilege of playing in the NFL. Players understand it, teams understand it. Similarly, teams don't get to just go make an offer to any incoming rookie they want, even if they want to make a better offer to a guy... they can only make offers to their draft choices and undrafted players. So the limitations go both ways, at least in part.

    And Mathieu isn't being punished, man. The rumor is that his contract is going to contain some different elements due to his unique situation and past. He's still going to get a contract, and he'll earn every bit of it as long as he keeps himself out of trouble.

    As for your little "cheap out on him because he likes to smoke weed" line? Please. Don't peddle that lame garbage. There's a difference between a guy who "likes to smoke weed" and a guy who claimed he failed at least 10 drug tests and got his playmaking ass kicked off his college team due to a chronic (heh) inability to stay clean. That's beyond "likes to smoke weed" and verges on addiction/dependency. You tell me how well giving a bunch of money up front to an addict sounds.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8226
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


  • If they are worried he's an addict, don't draft him. Why would you draft someone you are that worried about, in the third round? Obviously it's a risk that is worth while for them, but that's just what it is, a risk, and while you can structure a contract to protect yourself, you also don't have to leap right into a 0-guarantee contract.
    Image
    User avatar
    Hawknballs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2821
    Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:51 am


  • Many teams fail at the draft, Cards are no exception. My basis was like yours, but if it's normal business the way they're handling this, i guess that's what it is
    |~=[==~||~==]=~|
    ||Tfs LnD ] [ HAWKS||
    RIP BFS. He was kind of a douche, but he was our kind of a douche.
    User avatar
    ClumsyLurk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1702
    Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm


  • Hawknballs wrote:If they are worried he's an addict, don't draft him. Why would you draft someone you are that worried about, in the third round? Obviously it's a risk that is worth while for them, but that's just what it is, a risk, and while you can structure a contract to protect yourself, you also don't have to leap right into a 0-guarantee contract.


    You draft someone you are that worried about because you think they have that much talent. If he proves to be worthwhile, he earns all the money in his contract, guaranteed or not, and likely earns some definitely guaranteed money in his 2nd deal. If he proves to be too much of a risk and a detriment to the team, the team is only out the draft pick and whatever they've paid him to that point. Seems fair to me, given Mathieu's skillset and past. I imagine if he was LESS of a risk, the Cards wouldn't leap right to a zero guarantee... but that's not the case.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8226
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


  • volsunghawk wrote:
    Hawknballs wrote:If they are worried he's an addict, don't draft him. Why would you draft someone you are that worried about, in the third round? Obviously it's a risk that is worth while for them, but that's just what it is, a risk, and while you can structure a contract to protect yourself, you also don't have to leap right into a 0-guarantee contract.


    You draft someone you are that worried about because you think they have that much talent. If he proves to be worthwhile, he earns all the money in his contract, guaranteed or not, and likely earns some definitely guaranteed money in his 2nd deal. If he proves to be too much of a risk and a detriment to the team, the team is only out the draft pick and whatever they've paid him to that point. Seems fair to me, given Mathieu's skillset and past. I imagine if he was LESS of a risk, the Cards wouldn't leap right to a zero guarantee... but that's not the case.

    Is this normal for draft prospects though? I understand guys who've been in and out of the NFL and are free agents... But a draft pick?
    |~=[==~||~==]=~|
    ||Tfs LnD ] [ HAWKS||
    RIP BFS. He was kind of a douche, but he was our kind of a douche.
    User avatar
    ClumsyLurk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1702
    Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:08 pm


  • Why are we saying he has no choices? The CFL is always looking for talented players. I don't believe there's a CFL rule that states NFL drafted players can't sign with CFL teams is there? IIRC it's happened before that a drafted player crossed the border to play there instead of the NFL (although it's a rarity)

    The guy isn't getting screwed (well except for the fact he's stuck in the cardinals franchise for at least 3 years). He'll get paid a game check for each and every game he's on the roster. He hasn't earned anything more and it's a risk to give him more given his history.

    I'm sure they'll work out a contract with lots of personal clauses in there and it will get done, it'll just take some time.
    Image

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 14195
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • ClumsyLurk wrote:
    volsunghawk wrote:
    Hawknballs wrote:If they are worried he's an addict, don't draft him. Why would you draft someone you are that worried about, in the third round? Obviously it's a risk that is worth while for them, but that's just what it is, a risk, and while you can structure a contract to protect yourself, you also don't have to leap right into a 0-guarantee contract.


    You draft someone you are that worried about because you think they have that much talent. If he proves to be worthwhile, he earns all the money in his contract, guaranteed or not, and likely earns some definitely guaranteed money in his 2nd deal. If he proves to be too much of a risk and a detriment to the team, the team is only out the draft pick and whatever they've paid him to that point. Seems fair to me, given Mathieu's skillset and past. I imagine if he was LESS of a risk, the Cards wouldn't leap right to a zero guarantee... but that's not the case.

    Is this normal for draft prospects though? I understand guys who've been in and out of the NFL and are free agents... But a draft pick?


    Why does it have to be normal? How many draft prospects have we seen like Mathieu? How many guys who got kicked off their college teams for repeated drug offenses have been drafted? I'd argue that there's very little "normal" about Mathieu, so adhering to tradition might not be the right play here.
    Image

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    volsunghawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8226
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
    Location: Right outside Richard Sherman's house


  • RW technically didn’t get guaranteed money... He did receive a signing bonus (620K) but that was it. 4 years for 3 mil. What is there to complain about? Prove yourself and make bank your second contract.
    User avatar
    Hawksfan78
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 123
    Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 7:13 am


  • a signing bonus is guaranteed money. That's pretty m uch what we're talking about. There are any number of bonuses that count as guaranteed money once the requirements of the bonus are met, one of them is signing, others are roster bonuses for being on the team at a certain date. All of which are pretty typical for rookies.
    Image
    User avatar
    Hawknballs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2821
    Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:51 am


  • Hawknballs wrote:a signing bonus is guaranteed money. That's pretty m uch what we're talking about. There are any number of bonuses that count as guaranteed money once the requirements of the bonus are met, one of them is signing, others are roster bonuses for being on the team at a certain date. All of which are pretty typical for rookies.


    You know what else is guaranteed? The paycheck you get for playing each game in the NFL. You play a game, you get paid a game check. Complaining because you want guarantees BEFORE you've done anything for the team that did you the favor of drafting you, is BS. If he thinks he's worth so much, let him play in the CFL.
    Image

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 14195
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • kidhawk wrote: Complaining because you want guarantees BEFORE you've done anything for the team that did you the favor of drafting you, is BS.


    Except that in this case you'd only be arguing on behalf of what is normal and expected, and in this case it's not called "complaining", it's called "negotiating"...but yes otherwise spot on.
    Image
    User avatar
    Hawknballs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2821
    Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:51 am


  • Hawknballs wrote:
    kidhawk wrote: Complaining because you want guarantees BEFORE you've done anything for the team that did you the favor of drafting you, is BS.


    Except that in this case you'd only be arguing on behalf of what is normal and expected, and in this case it's not called "complaining", it's called "negotiating"...but yes otherwise spot on.


    Of course the guy is going to want to negotiate for all he can and I don't begrudge that, but some people seem to begrudge the team for doing the same thing.
    Image

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 14195
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • First, it's been reported that the Cards aren't necessarily not giving him a signing bonus. The guaranteed part is different, not including the signing bonus.

    But yeah, he should refuse to sign regardless, and then he'll sit out of the NFL for the year and not make a penny. If he doesn't sign, he sits, doesn't get paid, can't do anything about it, and has to hope someone drafts him next year. The Cards have the rights to him until next year's draft.
    User avatar
    taz291819
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 3536
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:16 pm
    Location: Huntsville, Al


  • There is absolutely nothing wrong with what the Cardinals are doing. The concept that the Cards shouldn't have drafted him if they didn't want to promise him any money is absurd. If Mathieu really intends to change his ways and to show up and work hard, then there shouldn't be an issue with the money being guaranteed or not because he'll earn it.

    A legitimate chance to play in the NFL is what the Cardinals have given Mathieu and that is far more than he deserves given his past. If he wanted to be treated the same as most other players maybe he should have made the choices of most other players who have shown their work ethic and dedication, and who weren't kicked off of their college team for repeated violations. He hasn't been able to keep promises he's made to his teams in the past, so now he has to deal with not being promised anything until he does show he's willing to put the effort in.

    Also, saying another team would have given him guaranteed money or drafted him is all just conjecture. He got a chance to compete in the NFL and earn a decent salary being a 2nd day pick. He needs to step up and show he deserves that money by working hard. Crying about the salary you're offered first thing after you're lucky to be drafted isn't a good look.
    HolyEffinMoses
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 27
    Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:33 pm


  • the kid is a chowder head and is lucky he was even drafted after getting kicked off his college team. I wouldn't give him any guaranteed money either.
    Image
    "God Bless Russell Wilson"
    User avatar
    Chukarhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1657
    Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:14 pm


  • To all you knuckleheads who are saying "I wouldn't give him any guaranteed money either," then you shouldn't/wouldn't draft him. If you think a guy is only worth a totally non-guaranteed contract, don't draft him in a position where a contract with guaranteed money is the norm. You wait or you pay, simple as that. You can't have your cake and eat it, too (assuming Honeybadger didn't eat it when he got the munchies).
    User avatar
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2836
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • pinksheets wrote:To all you knuckleheads who are saying "I wouldn't give him any guaranteed money either," then you shouldn't/wouldn't draft him. If you think a guy is only worth a totally non-guaranteed contract, don't draft him in a position where a contract with guaranteed money is the norm. You wait or you pay, simple as that. You can't have your cake and eat it, too (assuming Honeybadger didn't eat it when he got the munchies).


    This is exactly right. Part of when you are making an assessment of whether to pick a player in a given is the guaranteed money you are going to give him. If they didn't want to pay it, then they shouldn't have drafted him in that spot.

    Is it confirmed they want to do this or is it just a rumor. If they did this I find it a terrible way to start off with the kid.
    User avatar
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1218
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:48 am


  • 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.
    @ryanadamdavis
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10544
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • I believe that the Cards have every right to do with Mathieu as the Jags did wiith Justin Blackmon.

    The club has a right to protect themselves.
    your Superbowl XLVIII Champion Seattle Seahawks.. how sweet is that!!
    User avatar
    onanygivensunday
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3106
    Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:59 am


  • onanygivensunday wrote:I believe that the Cards have every right to do with Mathieu as the Jags did wiith Justin Blackmon.

    The club has a right to protect themselves.


    They're not offering anything close to what the Jags offered Blackmon. Just saying.
    @ryanadamdavis
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10544
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • They can protect themselves by not drafting a guy they are so concerned with.
    User avatar
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2836
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


  • pinksheets wrote:To all you knuckleheads who are saying "I wouldn't give him any guaranteed money either," then you shouldn't/wouldn't draft him. If you think a guy is only worth a totally non-guaranteed contract, don't draft him in a position where a contract with guaranteed money is the norm. You wait or you pay, simple as that. You can't have your cake and eat it, too (assuming Honeybadger didn't eat it when he got the munchies).


    Man, if there were recs at .net every post you make would be green. Nailed it.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11284
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • bigtrain21 wrote:This is exactly right. Part of when you are making an assessment of whether to pick a player in a given is the guaranteed money you are going to give him. If they didn't want to pay it, then they shouldn't have drafted him in that spot.

    Is it confirmed they want to do this or is it just a rumor. If they did this I find it a terrible way to start off with the kid.


    SI's Peter King reported it, but Mathieu's agent is saying they haven't had contract discussions yet and they would refuse the deal if it had no guaranteed money.

    Its all just hyped up drama right now. They're more than likely going to find a contract that protects the team and still gets Mathieu something guaranteed.
    HolyEffinMoses
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 27
    Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:33 pm


  • pehawk wrote:
    onanygivensunday wrote:I believe that the Cards have every right to do with Mathieu as the Jags did wiith Justin Blackmon.

    The club has a right to protect themselves.


    They're not offering anything close to what the Jags offered Blackmon. Just saying.

    That goes without saying.

    Blackmon was drafted #5 overall and Mathieu was drafted in the 3rd round.

    All I'm saying is JAC put a clause in Blackmon's contract that protects them from paying all the guaranteed money to Blackmon in the event he doesn't stay clean, which he hasn't. Whether or not JAC exercises that out by cutting him is a topic for anther discussion.

    ARI can do the same with Mathieu. That's all I'm saying.
    your Superbowl XLVIII Champion Seattle Seahawks.. how sweet is that!!
    User avatar
    onanygivensunday
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3106
    Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:59 am


  • No, what I meant is Blackmon's deal, structurally, is way different than what the Cards are offering.
    @ryanadamdavis
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10544
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • 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.
    Image

    "Everyone has a plan... until they get punched in the face." -- Mike Tyson on the 2014 Seattle Seahawks.
    User avatar
    LawlessHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1153
    Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:50 am
    Location: Tonasket, WA to Temecula, CA


  • 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.
    Image

    :les: Check your PM's....We miss you :les:
    User avatar
    kidhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 14195
    Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • 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.
    Image

    "Everyone has a plan... until they get punched in the face." -- Mike Tyson on the 2014 Seattle Seahawks.
    User avatar
    LawlessHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1153
    Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:50 am
    Location: Tonasket, WA to Temecula, CA


  • 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.
    Last edited by Russell Wilson on Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:20 pm, edited 29-3 times in total.
    Last edited by NFC Champion Russell Wilson on Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:14 pm, edited 23-17 times in total.
    Last edited by World Champion Russell Wilson on Sun Feb 2, 2014 7:14 pm, edited 43-8 times in total.
    User avatar
    Lady Talon
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 757
    Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:55 am


  • 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?
    FIRE CABLE!
    Image
    User avatar
    BASF
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1542
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:07 pm


  • 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.
    Last edited by Russell Wilson on Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:20 pm, edited 29-3 times in total.
    Last edited by NFC Champion Russell Wilson on Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:14 pm, edited 23-17 times in total.
    Last edited by World Champion Russell Wilson on Sun Feb 2, 2014 7:14 pm, edited 43-8 times in total.
    User avatar
    Lady Talon
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 757
    Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:55 am


  • 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.
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8758
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


  • 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?
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 776
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


  • 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.
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 776
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


  • 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.
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1301
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


  • 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."
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8758
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


  • 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.
    User avatar
    CALIHAWK1
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
    *PLATINUM SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 9303
    Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:00 pm
    Location: Is Everything


  • 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...
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8758
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


  • 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?
    @ryanadamdavis
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10544
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • 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?
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7448
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


  • 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.
    @ryanadamdavis
    User avatar
    pehawk
    * Report Button *
     
    Posts: 10544
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:08 pm


  • 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!"
    49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
    49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.
    User avatar
    BlueTalon
    * NET Curmudgeon *
    * NET Curmudgeon *
     
    Posts: 7448
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
    Location: Eastern Washington


  • 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.
    User avatar
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1218
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:48 am


  • 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.
    User avatar
    pinksheets
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2836
    Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:47 pm
    Location: Seattle


Next


It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:39 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
  • Who is online