The whole system is a mess. It's bizarre, unpredictable and disorganized to the point where it really doesn't benefit either side. What I'm talking about, of course, is the system for NFL player contracts. Unlike most major sports, the NFL does not give out fully guaranteed contracts. While we watch NBA teams like the Knicks be burdened for years by cap killing contracts (yes, that would be you, Eddy Curry), NFL owners need not worry as much about their bad signings. If they don't work out, they can just get rid of them, while only paying a portion of the original contract. This sounds like it would be fantastic from the owner's point of view, but it doesn't always work out that way. In some cases the lack of financial security drives the players into a situation where a combination of uncertainty and greed leads to a scenario that ends up hurting both sides - a Hold Out.
A Hold Out occurs when a player determines his worth to the team does not match the contract he's currently under. So despite the fact that the player has a signed contact stating he will work for a certain amount of money, the player refuses to join the team until the owner gives into his demands for a new contract. It's basically the business equivalent of throwing a hissy fit. Generally a Hold Out will begin in training camp and often gets resolved before the season starts once both sides eventually come to an agreement. Sometimes it can get ugly. In these cases, the player and ownership are both entrenched in their positions and refuse to budge, which can lead to the player sitting out games once the season starts. If they don't rejoin the team by Week 10 of the regular season then they won't receive credit for playing that season, which means they have to wait an extra year before they are eligible to become a free agent.
When the situation escalates to the point of missing games, nobody wins. The player still isn't getting their new contract and in fact is losing money by missing games and possibly even being charged fines by the team. Generally it's a star player that is holding out (why would a lower level player bother trying to hold out when they are easily replaceable and have no chance of having their demands met?), so the Hold Out has a negative impact on the team as well. They have a hole to fill, which likely will be plugged with a less talented player. Depending on the player's position and the team's depth in that area, this will likely weaken the team and make it harder for them to win games. The best way to resolve this if neither side is willing to give in is to try to meet somewhere in the middle, but unfortunately these compromises don't always happen.
The Patriots currently find themselves in such a predicament with Left Guard Logan Mankins. The two time Pro Bowler is a key member of the offensive line that does such a great job of protecting Tom Brady. His value to the team is immeasurable, and unfortunately he knows it. He has refused to sign the $3.36 Million tender the team has offered and is prepared to sit out until his demands are met. Despite the fact that the team could have refused to pay him any more than that tender offer, they attempted to re-negotiate a long term contract with their star Guard that would be worth over $7 Million per year. Mankins rejected the offer, demanding a contract similar to the 7 year, $56.7 Million contract signed earlier this year by New Orleans Saints Guard Jahri Evans. Mankins claims to have enough money saved in the bank that he has no concerns about sitting out the entire season. His hope is that the new Collective Bargaining Agreement set to be negotiated after this season will result in him being able to become a free agent after this season, regardless of if he plays a game this year or not, at which point he will likely be able to demand a larger contract on the open market. Meanwhile, the Patriots have a big hole to fill in their offensive line (which already has taken another hit from an injury to Nick Kaczur), so they can't afford to be without him.
The Jets have their own problems with their star Corner Back Darrelle Revis. Last year Revis made headlines as the leagues premier shut down Corner by holding big names such as Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Steve Smith and Andre Johnson to sub-par games (by their standards). "Revis Island" became a place no Wide Receiver wanted to take a vacation to. Revis is set to make only $1 Million this season, which in his mind is ridiculous for a player of his caliber, considering the value he brings to the team in helping give the Jet's the leagues best defense. Revis wants to become the leagues highest paid Corner Back. He turned down a generous 10 year, $100 Million offer that would have given him the largest contract of anyone at his position. His reasoning was because the per year salary did not come close to the 3 year, $45.3 Million deal Oakland gave to Nnamdi Asomugha. If you can't live off $100 Million for the rest of your life then something is wrong. In this case it's not a situation where Revis is concerned about not being able to afford the luxuries he desires, it's the principal of the thing. He believes he is the leagues best player at his position, so he wants to have the highest salary amongst players at his position.
Here's the flaw in that logic though, and where the owners have a legitimate gripe. Just because Oakland's owner (crypt keeper look-a-like Al Davis) was dumb enough to overpay Asomugha, doesn't mean the Jet's need to be equally irresponsible with their spending. Sure, those players are very talented and vital to their team's success (ok, so even with Asomugha, the Raidors don't have much success), but that doesn't mean a team has to break the bank to sign them. There's still a little thing called the Salary Cap that prevents them from spending freely. Signing one player to that much money limits the available resources to pay other players, which means keeping that one player may mean letting two or three other players go, creating more holes. Teams are faced with the tough choice of determining if keeping their star is worth weakening the team in other areas. It's not about the owner thinking the player isn't worth it, it's that they can't afford to pay them that much without taking away from other players on the team. It's not like in MLB where some owners refuse to give out big salaries so that they can end up pocketing more money (wait, you're saying that's why the Pirates and Royals have been terrible for so long?!). Sometimes players seem to forget that and their greed leads to them thinking that teams should give them the salaries they want, regardless of the consequences to the rest of the team.
Granted this year things are a little different, due to the upcoming CBA negotiations resulting in this year being an un-capped year. Teams are technically allowed to spend as much as they want this year, but most teams are cautious about giving out long term contracts because they assume the cap will be back in effect next year and the uncertainty of what that cap level will look like makes them hesitant to potentially burden themselves down the line by giving out too many big contracts. The Jets are one team that seems willing to take some risks by going all in this season, knowing they may have to pay for it later, but so far they haven't extended that to the outrageous contract Revis has demanded.
Sometimes Hold Outs are seen in different variations. Brett Favre has mastered the "Retirement Hold Out" as a way to dodge the exhausting effort of training camp. The 40 year old QB announced that he was contemplating retirement for the 3rd straight offseason, yet everyone knew that wasn't really the case. To the shock of nobody, Favre returned to the Vikings by the 2nd week of the pre-season. He even managed to get them to pay him an extra $2 million on top of the contract he already had in place for this season as a little incentive to return. Favre was never going to retire (in fact, he actually may never retire), he was just holding out so that he didn't have to show up to training camp, could bask in some extra media attention (he was secretly pissed that LeBron James stole so many headlines this summer) and have the Vikings throw a little extra money his way. A plan that the veteran played to perfection. The Vikings had no choice but to play along and allow themselves to be held hostage by Favre's flip flopping decision making. When the alternative is to turn over a team with championship aspirations to Tavarious Jackson, you can understand why they were willing to put up with the Favre drama.
The situation in San Diego is another interesting twist on Hold Outs. Vincent Jackson was amongst the leagues top receivers last season. He's the type of big, fast and physical receiver that most teams covet. Not surprisingly, Jackson wants more money, but the Chargers have no interest in giving him more. For one thing, Jackson is suspended for the first 4 weeks of the regular season for violating league policy. Why should he get a raise if he's missing 25% of the season? Rumor has it that the other reason is that the Chargers don't see Jackson in their long term plans anyway, so they have no desire to give him the extension he wants. Yes, he is underpaid for the production he provides while on the field, but the Chargers think they have the depth at WR to run their offense effectively without him. As far as they are concerned, he needs them more than they need him. In this scenario, a trade seems likely. It's possible Jackson may not play at all this season unless he is traded. The problem is that most teams know the position the Chargers are in and may try to acquire him at a discount price, so long as they are willing to put up the money to keep Jackson happy. So not only are their trade partners limited to teams that can afford such an extension, but they may be selling low on a Pro Bowl caliber talent.
I can see the arguments players are making to support their side. Football is a physical game, where the next play could potentially be their last. There is also only a limited window where they are at their peak and can demand a high contract. Most people retire at around 65 years old, but the career of a football player is usually over in their mid-30's, or earlier. They need to make as much money as they can in a limited window of years. Of course these star players that are holding out are already getting multi-million dollar contracts, so even if they don't get the pay raise they asked for they should still have more money to live on for the rest of their lives than what the average person will make in several lifetimes worth of working a full time job. The defense that these players can't provide for their family and feed their kids on "only" $1 million per year is insane, but that's not really what it's about for them. Part of it has to do with respect. If you're good at your job you believe you should be compensated appropriately for it, especially in regards to your peers that contribute at a similar level. It would be no different for you at your job.
So if both sides make a fair argument then how do we settle these differences? The answer isn't about picking a side, it's about changing the flawed system that allowed this situation to occur in the first place. You don't see stars holding out and refusing to play in the NBA. Well, maybe Ricky Rubio, who was drafted by Minnesota but has thus far stayed in Europe to avoid playing for them, but that's a different story. You can't blame a guy for not wanting to play in a frozen tundra city for a dysfunctional Timberwolves team that is already loaded with a bunch of mediocre players that happen to play the same position that he does (KHAAAAN!!!). Like I said, totally different situation. The major difference between the NFL and other pro sports that has allowed Hold Outs to become an issue is the problem of having non-guaranteed contracts.
The owners don't want to give guaranteed contracts because it gives them an escape clause if a player becomes a bust or has a career ending injury. It's safer for them to hand out these big checks if they have the assurance that if it doesn't work out they can tear up the contract, cut their losses by only paying a portion of what the agreed on, and move on. The problem is that this lack of security is a problem for the players, and they've found a loop hole to turn it around against the owners by holding out. The players know their owners have the power to tear up an existing contract and replace it with a better one. You can't do that in other sports unless it involves an extension, which never happens unless the player is in the last year of the existing contract. In football, the player could be several years away from free agency but decide they want more money, so they Hold Out in an attempt to get it. If contracts were guaranteed then they would not have that kind of leverage. They would be more secure in knowing that they won't get cut without being paid the majority of their contract, but they also would be held to that contract without the ability to Hold Out.
Owners would have a hard time agreeing to this, but considering many of these large contracts are heavily front loaded and include large roster bonuses that are guaranteed, the benefits far outweigh their reasons for keeping the current system. To compromise, the new CBA could include a lower salary cap. Players could agree to take less for their contracts in exchange for getting the security of a guaranteed contract. That seems fair to both sides. What the owners need to realize is that when their star players Holds Out, he's not just Holding Out on them and the team, they are Holding out on the fans as well. If they aren't back on the field during the season then fans are deprived of getting to see them play. It also weakens the team, which could result in less wins and make championship dreams more of a long shot. Fans are the ones stuffing the owners wallets, so if they aren't happy then the owners suffer in the long run anyway.
We can only hope that during the next CBA negotiations they are able to compromise on a new system that prevents Hold Outs from being an annual issue. Even in cases where the issue eventually gets resolved, nobody really wins. Owners often have to overpay a player to keep them happy and get them back on the field. If a player misses time he may be losing money for each practice or game they miss, and the practice time they miss could impact their ability to catch up and contribute when they do return, which further hurts them and the team. Most importantly, the fans are the ones that lose. They are the ones that miss out on seeing their beloved stars on game day. What these players need to realize is that they aren't just effecting the owners and the teams with their Hold Outs, they are effecting their fans as well. They are Holding Out on all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment