Amen!

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

If things swing too far the other way you have situations like in the NBA where superstars can hold franchises hostage because they want to leave or only go somewhere specific. While I'll always be on the players' side in those disputes, I'd hate to see the NFL reach that level on a wide scale.

Players don't hold NBA teams hostage. Owners let themselves be held hostage. They take the short term view instead of the long one. If, say NO, had told AD you're playing for us no matter what, no more hostage. Sure the team might have a poisonous locker room and will probably lose. But long term, the message is sent. AD can be mature about it and not hurt his rep for when FA comes. Or he can pout, sabotage the team and destroy his value on the market. If every franchise took that tactic, players forcing trades would end. Instead, they let PG13 put demands on them one year after signing on the line. That is the owners fault.

I understand why owners concede and try to make lemons out of lemonade (Which OKC & NO did very well BTW). But in the long run, ownership is doing themselves a disservice.

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Players don't hold NBA teams hostage. Owners let themselves be held hostage. They take the short term view instead of the long one. If, say NO, had told AD you're playing for us no matter what, no more hostage. Sure the team might have a poisonous locker room and will probably lose. But long term, the message is sent. AD can be mature about it and not hurt his rep for when FA comes. Or he can pout, sabotage the team and destroy his value on the market. If every franchise took that tactic, players forcing trades would end. Instead, they let PG13 put demands on them one year after signing on the line. That is the owners fault.

I understand why owners concede and try to make lemons out of lemonade (Which OKC & NO did very well BTW). But in the long run, ownership is doing themselves a disservice.

The alternative is playing hardball with these players, letting them ride the bench while inevitably getting booed on a nightly basis at home games, and making your team look like a really bad option to any prospective free agent. Even if every team/owner took that stance, all it does is provide a team/owner that is willing to break the status quo an easy run at players that don't want to play for a team that would do that sort of thing.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

The alternative is playing hardball with these players, letting them ride the bench while inevitably getting booed on a nightly basis at home games, and making your team look like a really bad option to any prospective free agent. Even if every team/owner took that stance, all it does is provide a team/owner that is willing to break the status quo an easy run at players that don't want to play for a team that would do that sort of thing.

They can make an "easy run" only if they are FA's. What another owner does is of no consequence if the player is under contract.

Getting booed means nothing to me. Jesus was perfect and people killed him. So I'm under no delusion that I can satisfy the populace. The only thing I can control is my own happiness. And if I'm a billionaire owner, the last thing I'm concerned w/is public outcry. Sure some FA's will want to avoid me, But you know what? I'm not interested in getting into a committed relationship w/any one who on going in is worried about how they are going to get out of it. So that makes it a win-win for me.

[damientheomen3]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

They can make an "easy run" only if they are FA's. What another owner does is of no consequence if the player is under contract.

Getting booed means nothing to me. Jesus was perfect and people killed him. So I'm under no delusion that I can satisfy the populace. The only thing I can control is my own happiness. And if I'm a billionaire owner, the last thing I'm concerned w/is public outcry. Sure some FA's will want to avoid me, But you know what? I'm not interested in getting into a committed relationship w/any one who on going in is worried about how they are going to get out of it. So that makes it a win-win for me.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant it'd be ****ty for the owners to leave a player in a position to get booed by the home crowd every night.

I'll agree to disagree here. I just don't think setting players up to be ridiculed because they want out is a good look on any front, and I believe any team that would take part in that type of behavior in the long run would be doing so at their own detriment.

Not that basketball is relevant to the matter at hand in this thread, but I took us down that rabbit hole. Sounds like Zeke and Dallas are close to a deal though, can't wait to see how much they're hampering their future maneuverability by signing him!

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by damientheomen3

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant it'd be ****ty for the owners to leave a player in a position to get booed by the home crowd every night.

I'll agree to disagree here. I just don't think setting players up to be ridiculed because they want out is a good look on any front, and I believe any team that would take part in that type of behavior in the long run would be doing so at their own detriment.

Not that basketball is relevant to the matter at hand in this thread, but I took us down that rabbit hole. Sounds like Zeke and Dallas are close to a deal though, can't wait to see how much they're hampering their future maneuverability by signing him!

No probs. I don't think any of us was trying to convince the other, just stating our opinions. I just believe a contract should be a contract. Its why I took the position I did about Luck, about Zeke, about the owners and about NBA players. The chaos occurs because neither side feels obligated to keep their word.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

That's not much leverage. That's perceived leverage. Zeke's option is to play for something or sit for nothing. He is hoping JJ makes the choice to give him a raise & extension. But Zeke can't shop himself anywhere. He can't force JJ's hand. All Elliot did was serve into JJ's end of the court. It is up to JJ whether to play the match or not.

Any person that tells me they would be ok w/being forced to take a smaller amount even though they knew they could get more is lying to me.

Zeke got a huge contract because that is what he was worth to the Cowboys. That is leverage. No Zeke, no chance at a championship. Everyone knew this, so market value be damned.

Don't take this the wrong way and think this sets a RB market value, it does not. You won't see Gordon getting this because he is replaceable, Zeke is not.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Zeke got a huge contract because that is what he was worth to the Cowboys. That is leverage. No Zeke, no chance at a championship. Everyone knew this, so market value be damned.

Don't take this the wrong way and think this sets a RB market value, it does not. You won't see Gordon getting this because he is replaceable, Zeke is not.

Sorry. But I can't believe there is any multi time Pro Bowl RB on his 1st deal that wouldn't hold out after 3 seasons under the current CBA. Zeke didn't sit out because JJ wants a ring. He may have known that was card in his favor. But he would have done so regardless if he was on the Boys or the Bucs. Every agent would advise him to do so. If JJ was less competitive like some of these other owners, Zeke would be playing under his original deal or asking Le'Veon Bell where are the best clubs in South Beach. JJ's hand was never forced by Zeke. That's not leverage.

[thehef]

So if I'm understanding Elliot's complicated deal... despite how it's reported he's actually got a 4-year deal for a total of $50m, with everything else after 4 years being the team's option. (The team also has the option of cutting him loose after two years and $38m, so I guess that means the team holds his options for years 3 and 4 for a mere total of approx $12m... which means to me that if he is a beast in years one and two, the deal will be a steal from a team perspective for years 3 and 4, which could mean another hold out...)

[Reed]

His new contract does have 50 million dollars guaranteed!!! Not bad for someone with no leverage. Does ANY lineman have anything like that?

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Sorry. But I can't believe there is any multi time Pro Bowl RB on his 1st deal that wouldn't hold out after 3 seasons under the current CBA. Zeke didn't sit out because JJ wants a ring. He may have known that was card in his favor. But he would have done so regardless if he was on the Boys or the Bucs. Every agent would advise him to do so. If JJ was less competitive like some of these other owners, Zeke would be playing under his original deal or asking Le'Veon Bell where are the best clubs in South Beach. JJ's hand was never forced by Zeke. That's not leverage.

Agreed. I was referring only to why the Cowboys signed him.

Originally Posted by thehef

So if I'm understanding Elliot's complicated deal... despite how it's reported he's actually got a 4-year deal for a total of $50m, with everything else after 4 years being the team's option. (The team also has the option of cutting him loose after two years and $38m, so I guess that means the team holds his options for years 3 and 4 for a mere total of approx $12m... which means to me that if he is a beast in years one and two, the deal will be a steal from a team perspective for years 3 and 4, which could mean another hold out...)

He held out for 15 million more for all intents and purposes. Previously he was guaranteed around 35 Mil. He would have actually made 60 million had he played out his rookie deal and two franchise tags barring injury. But that's the catch, barring injury.

Right now I don't see Zeke on the Cowboys past 2022. I don't see the Cowboys taking a 15 million dollar cap hit on a 28 year old RB. The guaranteed money is over by then as well.