iuswingman
-
Posts
318 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by iuswingman
-
-
4 minutes ago, Superman said:
Are you really arguing that if a team misses on a single draft pick, the team experiences a loss in revenue?
If Taylor sucked instead of played well, then do you think that wouldn't have had any effect?
Of course, in that scenario he probably wouldn't be crying like a baby over making $4 million either.
Generally, a single miss isn't going to have a great effect....many misses would.
-
Just now, Superman said:
Okay but they're going to draft someone. That investment is getting made no matter what, and they're spending within a certain range over a period of time, due to CBA rules. That's why I say the owners' investment and their slice of the pie isn't really affected by how much any individual player is making, even if that player doesn't live up to the contract. Over time, it all balances out.
Even the Rams, the poster child for going all in and spending cash over cap. From 2020 to 2023 (as of right now), they have spent $771m in cash, but the cumulative cap for those four years is $814m. Just illustrating that the cap keeps the owners solvent.
Again, not arguing the merits. I'm saying that players use whatever avenues they can to maximize their earnings, and they do so because the rules strongly favor the teams over any individual player. The team has the unilateral right to terminate a contract early (unless the player negotiates an option), and they use that right frequently. Because it's a contractual right, we tend to treat it differently than if a player decides to hold out, even though it's fundamentally the same thing.
To the bolded, when a team cuts a player, or goes to him to reduce his compensation, they're saying 'we think you're worth less, we don't care what you signed.'
And in both cases, those actions are taken and governed by leverage, which in almost every case the team has far more leverage than the player.
This is just devil's advocate. I'm not defending or promoting player holdouts. I'm just pushing back against this 'honor your contract' narrative, because again, I think it's narrow in focus.
You're completely ignoring that if the players %s the bed after the team drafts them, then the team doesn't do as well which could lead to loss of ticket/merchandise sales (if team starts losing because of it) etc.
Contracts generally stipulate that teams can cut a player. Do you have any links to teams telling a player a "contract be damned, we're doin this anyway" scenario? I'm guessing not.
-
5 minutes ago, Superman said:
I'm not suggesting that every player should get what they want in salary. The point of my response to you is that the owners' share doesn't change because Player A gets a big contract. Player B just gets less. The owners' share stays the same. So this talk about the owners wanting to protect their investment doesn't hit home for me.
And in the bigger picture, my point was that players are generally limited in their ability to maximize their earnings in the NFL, so the 'honor your contract' response definitely seems like a miss.
I get that and even explained that in previous posts.
Their investment is drafting or signing a player that may be hit or miss. They spend time and money getting said players to improve and put them in position to do well. It's an investment in that player over other players that were available.
There is generally a limit to everyone's ability to maximize their earning regardless of occupation. People should still honor their contract. In what world should it be ok to say "well, i think i'm worth more, I don't give a crap what I signed"
-
2 minutes ago, DougDew said:
There was a discussion about this a few pages back, but I believe the gist of it is that once JT comes off of PUP AND is activated for any game the remainder of the season, he becomes a FA. The number of plays he plays is not relevant.
Releasing from PUP means that he is healthy. Its assumed that a healthy player wants to play and a HC wants to play a healthy player. So if JT dogs during practice, never gets in game shape, SS can simply leave him inactive for the games, and then his contract would roll over to next year.
There is an incentive for JT to practice well enough to be considered for activation in the eyes of SS.
but after he is in for 1 play, then the incentive is gone. Doesn't seem like a very good setup.
-
2 hours ago, Superman said:
Owners have plenty of protection.
The increases in player compensation are a direct reflection of the increases in league revenue, which is what the salary cap is based on. The owners benefit from these increases just like the players do. And when there are drastic increases in pay at specific positions, it comes at a cost to players at other positions. For example, QB pay has exploded in relation to the salary cap, but RB pay has contracted. Those increases do not come at a cost to the owners. They continue to get their same slice of the pie.
so you think the pie should increase more than it already does so that every player can get what they want in salary? Doesn't seem sustainable.
The owners don't have plenty of protection. the only thing they are protected by is the salary cap, which is necessary to keep salaries somewhat under control and create an even playing field. It would suck if one team was allowed to buy an all-star team.
-
1 hour ago, Superman said:
Butting in, but I happen to think this discussion is only glancing at the main issue. The NFL CBA, NFL contracts, and the general business model of the NFL greatly favors the owners over the players. Whether that's good, bad, or indifferent, it's the way it is.
So a discussion about 'honoring the contract' and whatnot is not really getting at the heart of the matter. Saying 'teams get stuck with bad contracts sometimes' so that makes it "fair and equitable" is rationalizing around the fact that teams almost(?) always have the upper hand in contract negotiations.
As it relates to this situation, the Colts have benefited greatly from the fact that the CBA requires a drafted player to sign a four year contract for a predetermined value, and does not allow the player to renegotiate that contract until after three years. So coming off of 2021, when JT's value was at its highest point, and he probably could have earned 10 times what he made that season on the open market, there was no discussion to be had.
And now, when JT is eligible for an extension, the Colts still have him over a barrel contractually, and he has no leverage. It's him taking all the risk by playing out the final year of his contract, and even if he has an amazing season, the Colts can still tag him. The tag, by the way, artificially limits the earning potential of the best players in the league, thereby reducing the market value and the future value of the tag for players at the same position. And because NFL precedent limits contract guarantees, the team can limit their exposure year by year by terminating the contract at their own discretion, with few limitations.
So everything benefits the team and gives them the upper hand, while the player gets told to 'honor their contract.' It's a very small percentage of NFL players -- basically really good QBs, and maybe a few other veteran star players at other positions -- who even come close to having any leverage.
I'm not arguing about the merits of any of this, simply stating that it's the way it is. And when these conversations start circling around fairness and what's equitable and risk and obligation, I think it gets lost in the shuffle that the CBA and contracts and negotiations are not about fairness, equity, etc., they aren't even really about value or worth. Negotiations are about leverage, above anything else. And most players have little to no leverage, and just have to grab whatever slice of the pie they can when the opportunity comes along.
None of this should be taken as my support for Jonathan Taylor, or approval for how he's handled this situation. I think the Colts have handled this situation as best as they could (aside from a PR slip up from Irsay), and I think all the negativity and acrimony has come from Taylor and his side. I don't think the Colts have done anything wrong or inappropriate, and Taylor's side has greatly misplayed their hand. But I don't think 'honor your contract' is a genuine response.
Yet new records are broken regularly on how much players are getting paid.
With that kind of money flowing, owners want some protection on their investment, hence rookie contracts and franchise tags, which still pay players handsomely based on positional value.
-
2 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:
Good argument. You won the internet! Lol.
Exactly! you get it!
Lol that wasn't my whole post and the poster you said got it was saying what i had said.
-
4 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:
You definitely did miss my point if that is what you think it is.
You got it above but now lost it again. lol.
Time to move on.
probably because you had no point.
Taylor signed a contract, He isn't done with that contract. He is currently making more money per year than most people could ever dream of making.
Why anyone would feel sorry for Taylor is crazy and what an owner makes is immaterial and that is what people are trying to explain to you.
Hence, you had no valid point, even though you really wanted a "gotcha' moment.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:
You missed my point. You said part of the reason you don't care is that players are making millions. So are the owners. That shouldn't have an effect on the issue of holding out or paying more.
I didn't miss your point. Owners aren't complaining about how much money they are making so your comparison right off the bat is apples to oranges.
How much money they are spending on player salaries is controlled by the salary cap so I was addressing the ridiculousness of that part of your point.
-
28 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:
How do you feel about those making billions complaining about what they have to pay?
They have this thing called the salary cap. They are paying the same regardless.
Why should I root for the rb to get a bigger piece of the pie?
My complaint with owners would be why do taxpayers have to pay for the stadiums so they can pocket the profit..but that is a whole different discussion
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Fluke_33 said:
Oh boy. There is no point in arguing here. We are too far apart on basics.His post was spot on.
Personally, I will never feel sorry for someone making millions per year and complaining about it, especially when they refuse to honor the contract they signed. No one forced Taylor to come to the NFL and rookie contracts are pretty cut and dry on what they make.
If there is proof he faked the injury, then hopefully the NFL comes down hard on him. That crap is despicable.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:
The conversation was about honoring contracts and why its ok for NFL owners not honor a contract but not for a player.
As far as "bad performance", many NFL players get terminated and didn't have bad performance. They often get released because their contracts escalate in pay the last year or two and teams don't want to pay the increased salary(and often they never intended to at the signing) and will often replace the player with a player making rookie/veteran minimum.
Professional sports is different than the workplace of average people.....But the NFL is different than other sports like the MLB and NBA, who fully honor and guarantee the contracts they sign and agree to with the occasional Buy Out option after a specific year in the length of the contract.
I almost always side for the player who is trying to get paid a X amount of millions to take care of himself and families for the rest of their life and risk injuries/post concussion syndromes later in life RATHER than owners who are BILLIONAIREs and spend more on a plane, yacht, or private collection of whatever tickles their fancy than a deserving players contract.
But at the end its just business for both sides but other sports fully guarantee the players salaries/contracts as far as I know.
Nfl teams are honoring contracts because it allows them to cut players early.
Maybe players should argue how unfair that is prior to signing it rather than complain partway through after signing it.
-
1
-
-
-
5 minutes ago, chad72 said:
You’re basically saying the same thing as @csmopar that it belongs “somewhere” for folks to learn from history’s mistakes, just like the Holocaust, just not erased like it never happened.I wasn't sure what he was referring to in the last part of his post. I was just replying with where I drew the line.
-
You guys really need to work on your civil war era speak lol
-
1 minute ago, csmopar said:
My daughters class isn’t teaching the civil war era at all anymore. It’s sad.
That is crazy. I wish history was taught as accurate as possible with the facts as we know it (good and bad).
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, csmopar said:
It’s always been union. Which is fine with me. Personally, I wouldn’t care if it was a confederate uniform. As racist and brutal of a time that was for my ancestors, we can’t pretend it didn’t happen by erasing all traces of it as some in the media and the world wishes we could do.
I think most just think confederates info belong in museums and history books...not as statues or names of places, which is something done usually to honor something or someone.
-
4
-
-
6 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:
I'm sure some media *hat is going to call him a racist or something for wearing a Union uniform...........state of our society now!
Um. Union was the north. If he was wearing a confederate uniform then you would have a point.
-
54 minutes ago, J@son said:
you think the Colts are trying to put pressure on JT by bringing in JJ Taylor for a workout? lol
I think they should give him Taylor's number and he could just wear his jersey. When JJ leaves or retires, we could retire the number in his honor instead lol
-
30 minutes ago, smittywerb said:
I’d assume what the nfl said was sort of a warning. But behind closed doors they probably have enough info to make that claim. You can’t just say someone is lying when it comes to contractual obligations without proof or good knowledge. The most notable running back who hasn’t played because he’s “injured” and also in a contract dispute is JT. Yes, there hasn’t been any definite filings based upon what the NFL said, I’m just inferring.The NFL is going up against the NFLPA. Yea, JT is indirectly involved given his high profile faking of an injury but I don't see any avenue where he would get a pay day in court if he indeed was injured.
-
8 hours ago, smittywerb said:
Ooof. NFL wouldn’t make a claim like that if they didn’t have proof because if JT can prove he’s indeed injured that is a big lawsuit payday for him.
Welp, the clock is ticking. JT better prove he’s injured (which hurts his stock and also chance for bigger payday) or play.
I'm not sure I follow how it would be a big lawsuit pay day for JT if he proves that he is injured. Who has done anything illegal? NFL didn't even mention anyone by name or even an exact injury if thinking HIPAA violation.
Taylor should have proven he was injured to begin with when the Colts requested him to get a physical. Declining to take a physical looks just as guilty as pleading the fifth.
-
39 minutes ago, krunk said:
Cam could play that physical style like that. Richardsons body is telling him early that may not be the type of style that's fit for him. It's no knock on his toughness. He is getting shaken up with every direct collision. He needs to slide and avoid more.
I'm just saying it could be possible that he ignored or played through concussion symptoms back then because we didn't treat it as seriously.
-
1 hour ago, esmort said:
I don't get everyone complaining about the hit. "The defender should have pulled up" garbage. As defenders if you have a chance to hit the QB you take it.
They water down the league every year with new protect the players rules. It's making the game less entertaining. Pretty soon they will have the QBs bubble wrapped.
I think NFL can be entertaining while still trying to prevent injury as much as possible.
-
10 minutes ago, krunk said:
he is learning early he is no Cam Newton when it comes to durability
Would Cam Newton even be Cam Newton? I am guessing they are taking concussions more seriously now and making sure players aren't just ignoring them.
Jonathan Taylor comments on his contract/Request trade (Merge)
in Colts Football
Posted
Nope, since at the end of the day, it is still a contract signed. Taylor is in the wrong for pouting over it.