Mathieu should refuse deal to sign with cards

OP
OP
Hawknballs

Hawknballs

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
837
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.
 

Sarlacc83

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
17,110
Reaction score
1
Location
Portland, OR
Hawknballs":sp7vxnjt said:
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.
 

volsunghawk

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,860
Reaction score
0
Location
Right outside Richard Sherman's house
Hawknballs":2e2k4y99 said:
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.
 

DTexHawk

New member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
3,924
Reaction score
0
Hawknballs":1ykrcfcs said:
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"?
 
OP
OP
Hawknballs

Hawknballs

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
837
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.
 

volsunghawk

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,860
Reaction score
0
Location
Right outside Richard Sherman's house
Hawknballs":1rtxkjrs said:
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.
 
OP
OP
Hawknballs

Hawknballs

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
837
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.
 

ClumsyLurk

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
1,738
Reaction score
0
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
 

volsunghawk

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,860
Reaction score
0
Location
Right outside Richard Sherman's house
Hawknballs":o75n021j said:
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.
 

ClumsyLurk

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
1,738
Reaction score
0
volsunghawk":nff88amr said:
Hawknballs":nff88amr said:
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?
 

kidhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
22,900
Reaction score
2,645
Location
Anchorage, AK
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.
 

volsunghawk

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,860
Reaction score
0
Location
Right outside Richard Sherman's house
ClumsyLurk":1g5e6gi0 said:
volsunghawk":1g5e6gi0 said:
Hawknballs":1g5e6gi0 said:
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.
 

Hawksfan78

New member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
359
Reaction score
0
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.
 
OP
OP
Hawknballs

Hawknballs

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
837
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.
 

kidhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
22,900
Reaction score
2,645
Location
Anchorage, AK
Hawknballs":3ejh0ol8 said:
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.
 
OP
OP
Hawknballs

Hawknballs

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
4,430
Reaction score
837
kidhawk":68o08f3n said:
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.
 

kidhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
22,900
Reaction score
2,645
Location
Anchorage, AK
Hawknballs":4zwmemq3 said:
kidhawk":4zwmemq3 said:
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.
 

taz291819

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,626
Reaction score
0
Location
Huntsville, Al
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.
 

HolyEffinMoses

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
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.
 
Top