Julio Jones Thread: Traded to Tennessee

[Pullo Vision]

The system basically allows a player to act like a whiny little baby and hold out of a contract they agreed to play for... It's not as if they were strong-armed into it. Julio wasn't forced into his current contract. The system needs to hold the player accountable to a point as well. I have no problem doing away with option years provided that the CBA makes it impossible for players to also hold out. There is an accountability element on the player's side that's missing.

Teams can get out of deals if they believe a player is underperforming, but contracts aren't structured in such a way where players can get out if they're underpaid. It needs to cut both ways. The easy solution is players negotiate more player options like the de facto options Cult mentioned.

If I were negotiating my contract, every year I'd have an option and I'd have a no-trade clause I could choose to waive. I'd want more control over my fate.

[Pullo Vision]

The contracts are being honored. It says in the contract they can be cut.

Teams can terminate a contract for whatever reason- locker room culture, performance to pay ratio, whatever. Why don't players have the option to germinate a contract whenever?- maybe they don't like the team direction, or believe they're underpaid, want to play in a warmer/cooler/domed stadium, whatever.

Either both sides should have the right, or neither.

[skip]

Teams can get out of deals if they believe a player is underperforming, but contracts aren't structured in such a way where players can get out if they're underpaid. It needs to cut both ways.

Sure, but that's what needs to be negotiated up front on the part of the player. It's not ownership's fault that a player agrees to the deal. There is nothing forcing a player to sign a deal they don't like. Julio agreed to play for 6 years with a set amount of guaranteed money and yearly salaries. If he didn't build in a clause or options that somewhere in the middle of the contract that he gets to re-negotiate the deal, then how is that the fault of the owner? By definition, the player is the one in violation of the contract by a hold out.

[Pullo Vision]

Teams can get out of deals if they believe a player is underperforming, but contracts aren't structured in such a way where players can get out if they're underpaid. It needs to cut both ways.

Sure, but that's what needs to be negotiated up front on the part of the player. It's not ownership's fault that a player agrees to the deal. There is nothing forcing a player to sign a deal they don't like. Julio agreed to play for 6 years with a set amount of guaranteed money and yearly salaries. If he didn't build in a clause or options that somewhere in the middle of the contract that he gets to re-negotiate the deal, then how is that the fault of the owner? By definition, the player is the one in violation of the contract by a hold out.

Completely agree- Julio signed the contract. He wasn't forced, and holding out would be a violation of it.

But, what about Dallas and their violation of Dez? They agreed to that contract- certain number of years, certain amount over that time. They weren't forced to do it. Yet, when it didn't suit them anymore, they chose not to honor that contract, the one they weren't coerced into signing.

How is it that a team can rip up a contract but a player can't? One can argue that's the way the system is, and I'd counter that's an example of how the current system is unequal. It would be like a husband being able to file for a divorce, but not the wife- which is the case in some areas.

Again, if one party can do it (terminate a contract), both should be able to, or neither.

[skip]

Again, if one party can do it (terminate a contract), both should be able to, or neither.

We will have to disagree. If your method is allowed, the league would be utter chaos. Players would be constantly jumping ship to go to new clubs. That's unacceptable. I would never want to see a system that allowed the player to just rip up their contract because they are unhappy.

I think there are issues with the current system, but I don't know the solution. Fully guaranteed contracts are reasonable if and only if it includes incentives (and penalties) for performance.

[Lotto4Life]

Teams can get out of deals if they believe a player is underperforming, but contracts aren't structured in such a way where players can get out if they're underpaid. It needs to cut both ways.

Sure, but that's what needs to be negotiated up front on the part of the player. It's not ownership's fault that a player agrees to the deal. There is nothing forcing a player to sign a deal they don't like. Julio agreed to play for 6 years with a set amount of guaranteed money and yearly salaries. If he didn't build in a clause or options that somewhere in the middle of the contract that he gets to re-negotiate the deal, then how is that the fault of the owner? By definition, the player is the one in violation of the contract by a hold out.

Completely agree- Julio signed the contract. He wasn't forced, and holding out would be a violation of it.

But, what about Dallas and their violation of Dez? They agreed to that contract- certain number of years, certain amount over that time. They weren't forced to do it. Yet, when it didn't suit them anymore, they chose not to honor that contract, the one they weren't coerced into signing.

How is it that a team can rip up a contract but a player can't? One can argue that's the way the system is, and I'd counter that's an example of how the current system is unequal. It would be like a husband being able to file for a divorce, but not the wife- which is the case in some areas.

Again, if one party can do it (terminate a contract), both should be able to, or neither.

It's in the contract that the team can rip up the contract. The players haven't put into their contracts that they can rip up the contract. Therefore, they are honoring the contract.

[Phaded]

Now that he is holding out they are apparently open to negotiating. lol

Regardless of who is at fault and who has certain rights - I think we can probably all agree that the overall system is pretty broken.

[Pullo Vision]

Again, if one party can do it (terminate a contract), both should be able to, or neither.

We will have to disagree. If your method is allowed, the league would be utter chaos. Players would be constantly jumping ship to go to new clubs. That's unacceptable. I would never want to see a system that allowed the player to just rip up their contract because they are unhappy.

I think there are issues with the current system, but I don't know the solution. Fully guaranteed contracts are reasonable if and only if it includes incentives (and penalties) for performance.

I'm curious about your view on teams not honoring the contracts they chose to sign, especially given your apparent moral viewpoint about players keeping true to the contracts they sign. Seems to be a disconnect there.

The idea was both parties or neither. Since you see both parties have that power, what about neither? How would league business change if teams weren't allowed to rip up a contract for whatever reason they gave/fabricated, if they had to honor contracts thru signed to the end?

Also curious about your view on a player putting in numerous player options to mimic the outs a team has in a contract. Like adjusting the portion of a contract that's guaranteed, player options are an accepted tool within the current system.

[Lotto4Life]

I'm curious about your view on teams not honoring the contracts they chose to sign, especially given your apparent moral viewpoint about players keeping true to the contracts they sign. Seems to be a disconnect there.

The teams are honoring the contracts they sign.

[Pullo Vision]

Sure, but that's what needs to be negotiated up front on the part of the player. It's not ownership's fault that a player agrees to the deal. There is nothing forcing a player to sign a deal they don't like. Julio agreed to play for 6 years with a set amount of guaranteed money and yearly salaries. If he didn't build in a clause or options that somewhere in the middle of the contract that he gets to re-negotiate the deal, then how is that the fault of the owner? By definition, the player is the one in violation of the contract by a hold out.

Completely agree- Julio signed the contract. He wasn't forced, and holding out would be a violation of it.

But, what about Dallas and their violation of Dez? They agreed to that contract- certain number of years, certain amount over that time. They weren't forced to do it. Yet, when it didn't suit them anymore, they chose not to honor that contract, the one they weren't coerced into signing.

How is it that a team can rip up a contract but a player can't? One can argue that's the way the system is, and I'd counter that's an example of how the current system is unequal. It would be like a husband being able to file for a divorce, but not the wife- which is the case in some areas.

Again, if one party can do it (terminate a contract), both should be able to, or neither.

It's in the contract that the team can rip up the contract. The players haven't put into their contracts that they can rip up the contract. Therefore, they are honoring the contract.

Um, no. I bet you neither of us have seen an NFL contract, but I also bet this isn't it at all. The CBA would dictate the rules for terminating a contract, specifically the cap impact of doing so before the contract ends. It would factor in things like guaranteed money.

Do you really think the idea it simply hasn't been "put into a contract" is the only issue? Do you honestly believe that an NFL team would agree to a contract if the player put forward a proposal that allowed them to rip it up? Even if the player was offering a below market rate?

No. The NFL's teams have a non-reciprocal advantage and they'd try to maintain/protect it. I really think player options are the key. What if Dez had told Baltimore he liked their rumored 3year 22 million dollar contract but countered with putting in a player option after the 1st year. Would the Ravens have accepted?

[skip]

Again, if one party can do it (terminate a contract), both should be able to, or neither.

We will have to disagree. If your method is allowed, the league would be utter chaos. Players would be constantly jumping ship to go to new clubs. That's unacceptable. I would never want to see a system that allowed the player to just rip up their contract because they are unhappy.

I think there are issues with the current system, but I don't know the solution. Fully guaranteed contracts are reasonable if and only if it includes incentives (and penalties) for performance.

I'm curious about your view on teams not honoring the contracts they chose to sign, especially given your apparent moral viewpoint about players keeping true to the contracts they sign. Seems to be a disconnect there.

The idea was both parties or neither. Since you see both parties have that power, what about neither? How would league business change if teams weren't allowed to rip up a contract for whatever reason they gave/fabricated, if they had to honor contracts thru signed to the end?

Also curious about your view on a player putting in numerous player options to mimic the outs a team has in a contract. Like adjusting the portion of a contract that's guaranteed, player options are an accepted tool within the current system.

I don't think the issue should be "black and white" as in "both or neither". Are you suggesting that in business that an employee should have the same bargaining power as the employer at the table? I don't. If I'm the owner of the business, I'm paying for performance. If my employee fails to live up to their end, I should be able to terminate. I want my team to have the ability to end contracts rather than be saddled with players undeserving of them.

The player's bargaining chip when negotiating a contact is guaranteed money and player options. If they did an effective job in negotiation, they got as much as they could in those guarantees so there should be no issue if a team terminates before the contract end - the player gets that guaranteed money regardless. Ideally they also negotiated player options, though they don't happen as often. I'd suggest the issue at play is the length of the contracts being accepted. There already is accountability on the part of the team to pay out all of the guaranteed money.

[ArrylT]

https://deadspin.com/why-only-the-nfl-d ... 1797020799

includes this tidbit

"One other factor that keeps owners from doling out guarantees is an arcane CBA rule mandating that any fully guaranteed money be placed into escrow at the time of signing. This means that even if the guarantees are paid to the player over the course of one, two, or even three years, ownership still must place all of that guaranteed money into a separate bank account."

https://www.selflender.com/blog/nfl-pla ... ained.html

includes

"The Standard Player Contract is only 25 paragraphs long! You can read the thing in one sitting and begin a career as an agent. Helpful hint: Section 5 lists yearly salaries."

https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/201 ... -contracts

basic contract primer

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2018/7/10/ ... t-cba-2021

One Players thoughts on contracts

Some articles on contracts

[Bot101]

And he’s back already. Everyone can stop holding their breath.

[ArrylT]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... -contract/

Says they came to an agreement to discuss an "adjustment".

[Csl312]

The thing about all this contract stuff is that there is essentially collusion on the part of ownership to keep certain aspects of contracts consistent across the league. I didn't know about that escrow thing thanks ArryIT! That definitely isn't helping matters.

But to suggest players just need to negotiate better deals is disingenuous. There isn't a single team out there that is willing to set the precedent of multiple player outs the way ownership has multiple outs in a contract. Also there is almost no other labor market that operates the way pro sports do, it's not really possible to compare this situation to other employer employee relationships.