PDA

View Full Version : Fatlock agrees with T.O. on....


Kerberos
07-28-2005, 08:09 PM
....Wanting a new contract.

Fatlock says that the man needs to be paid! WTF?


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=whitlock/050728


By Jason Whitlock
Special to Page 2

You know, in just about every professional sport that matters in the U.S., a superstar athlete can get away with loafing without damaging his or her reputation.

The lone exception is professional football. You don't play hard in football, ask any coach, and it's a recipe for getting hurt. You take a play off, you earn a lazy rep, you risk turning off your fan base, you flirt with incurring the wrath of your teammates.

Professional football leaves little wiggle room in terms of effort. That's why we love the sport. That's why the NFL is king. You don't give your best effort on a consistent basis, you get cut. You get cut, you don't get paid.

In baseball, Barry Bonds can jog down the first-base line on nearly every ground ball. No biggie.

If Phil Mickelson wants to spend two weeks in Hawaii with the wife and kids rather than grind it out on the PGA Tour, so what? A top golfer only needs to compete in 15 events per year.

In basketball, Shaq can conserve energy for the fourth quarter or a playoff run if that's what he chooses. We've come to expect it.

In tennis, Maria Sharapova or the Williams sisters can play when they want to. Skip a major championship because of a tummy ache? You go, girl. She'll make up for the lost dollars with a couple of fat appearance fees.

On the racetrack, who knows how hard Dale Jr. is trying week in and week out? We can't really see inside the car, and we definitely can't see what's going on inside Junior's helmet.

We don't watch hockey on TV, so no one really knows who's mailing it in on the ice.

Football players live under an unusual microscope. They're huge stars, performing in the league that matters most to advertisers, and they're under -- by far -- the most performance pressure of any group of athletes. The threat of injury is constant in this violent contact sport.

If any group of athletes needs guaranteed contracts, it's NFL players. Their careers are short. Far more so than baseball or basketball players, NFL players suffer long-term damage to their bodies. Football players take the most risks, get the smallest rewards, contribute to the biggest game and have the least financial protection.

I bring all this up to help you understand what is going on in the mind of Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver Terrell Owens, the man in desperate need of a new contract. T.O. is underpaid. And worse, compared with other high-profile, TV-ratings-driving professional athletes, the contract Owens signed a year ago isn't worth the paper it's written on if Owens' play somehow slips.

If T.O. underperforms or his market value drops, the Eagles can force Owens to take a pay cut or cut him and void his contract. NFL teams do it all the time.

That's why it's inappropriate to be upset with Owens and his agent, Drew Rosenhaus, for threatening to disrupt Philadelphia's training camp with a holdout or in-camp protest.

You say no one forced Owens to sign the contract he inked with the Eagles just one year ago, after forcing the Baltimore Ravens to hand over his services to Philly. You're right. But as long as the contract can be voided by the team, then T.O. should retain the right to breach his contract when he feels he has outperformed it. That's only fair.

I say this realizing that guaranteed contracts would ruin professional football. Signing bonuses have damaged the game already.

A player with a guaranteed contract is a lot less likely to take the normal risks your average NFL player takes on a daily basis. High-speed collisions just aren't all that exciting or inviting in year two of a guaranteed five-year contract that pays $2 million a season. You follow?

A couple of years ago, the Kansas City Chiefs thought they had the hardest-hitting, best young safety in football in Greg Wesley. Last year, Wesley inked a new contract and received a $6 million to $7 million signing bonus. He played two-hand touch all season, and the Chiefs had to sign free-agent safety Sammy Knight this offseason to motivate Wesley.

What we have here is an ugly catch-22. The very thing that makes the NFL strong -- no guaranteed contracts -- is totally unfair to the league's players.

T.O. is a gigantic star in a league that dwarfs the NBA. He's a contemporary of Shaq and Allen Iverson and Tim Duncan. But T.O. has a contract that will deliver him far less money than the contract Austin Croshere holds.

You see why T.O. is angry? You see why half of Rosenhaus' clients are in some sort of contract dispute?

I don't blame 'em. And I don't blame NFL owners for denying their players guaranteed contracts. If the money were guaranteed, the games would look like the Pro Bowl competition in Hawaii, where running backs dash to the sideline shortly after being handed the ball.

Eventually, the league and its players are going to have to reach some kind of contract compromise. NFL players won't tolerate this situation forever. You'll hear more whining and moaning from players foolishly comparing their situation to "slavery."

T.O. might start the movement this fall. If and when Owens reports to training camp, I expect him to be a disruptive force with his mouth and actions. He's crazy enough -- or should I say bold enough? -- to take on his teammates. He already has taken verbal shots at Donovan McNabb.

What's the solution?

I've said this before, so I'll say it again. Some enterprising, visionary sports league is going to figure out a way to tie a significant chunk of player salaries to winning and losing. You could guarantee a player's base salary, then have him earn additional money based on how many games his team wins.

My plan might not make T.O. happy. The biggest NFL stars still wouldn't make as much money as an NBA or MLB player -- NFL rosters are too large -- but the overwhelming majority of football players would enjoy having a little more financial security.

Saulbadguy
07-28-2005, 08:11 PM
IMO, TO should get paid. He is still an ass though, and is going about this the wrong way.

BigRedChief
07-28-2005, 08:23 PM
He has a point. Why doesn't the player have the right to ask for money after a good year? Why don't the owners honor the contract if a player has a bad year? The NFL owners can force a player to take less money or get cut after a bad season. Happens every year. The next play their career could be over. I'm on the players side on this issue.

Kerberos
07-28-2005, 08:29 PM
He has a point. Why doesn't the player have the right to ask for money after a good year? Why don't the owners honor the contract if a player has a bad year? The NFL owners can force a player to take less money or get cut after a bad season. Happens every year. The next play their career could be over. I'm on the players side on this issue.


As I see BOTH sides of the fence... as a TICKET buying FAN every year I shell out MORE and MORE money because of GREED.

When The F*** does it stop?

I would like security as much as the next guy ... but Fortheloveofgod it seems to be a greed of monumental proportions that is going to RUIN football for EVERYONE except the rich!

But hey ... WTFDIK?


:D


.

milkman
07-28-2005, 10:01 PM
I agree with Whitlock.
Players can be cut for poor performance, if it doesn't hurt the team's cap situation.

Why shouldn't a player get more if his play exceeds his pay, relative to other players in his position.

But I don't see any way that contracts can be tied to a team's wins and losses.

Football, more than any other sport, is a team sport.

A player can be the very best at his position, but be surrounded by mediocre talent, which can only produce a mediocre team.

BigRock
07-28-2005, 10:13 PM
I've said this before, so I'll say it again. Some enterprising, visionary sports league is going to figure out a way to tie a significant chunk of player salaries to winning and losing. You could guarantee a player's base salary, then have him earn additional money based on how many games his team wins.

Didn't the XFL do that? I remember something about them getting more money for winning.

KCChiefsMan
07-28-2005, 10:23 PM
didn't TO agree to that $49 mil contract last year? I used to like him because it seemed like in SF that he wanted to win more than anything, now I totally hate the guy. You can't just sign a huge contract and the year after it not honor it because you're not the highest paid player in the league and he shouldn't be

Valiant
07-28-2005, 10:27 PM
IMO, TO should get paid. He is still an ass though, and is going about this the wrong way.


Paid what??? He is already in the top five for WR... Hell, Fatlock already said it, you give players big contracts and the majority of them will get lazy... Are you telling me these NFL players cannot support their families with millions of dollars??? Is it anyone else's fault that these ****ers overspend their money and need more???

There is no way to do what the players want with salary caps... Hell I would be for this if players were not so damn greedy. Make contracts binding, that way a team or player cannot reneg or ask for a new contract every few years...


The perfect way for fans, all-stars and owners would be pay all players a flat wage(cheap-decent) and then players earn their money strictly thru performances, playoffs, superbowl, probowl... But I think most players would have a problem giving their all 24-7...

Valiant
07-28-2005, 10:31 PM
He has a point. Why doesn't the player have the right to ask for money after a good year? Why don't the owners honor the contract if a player has a bad year? The NFL owners can force a player to take less money or get cut after a bad season. Happens every year. The next play their career could be over. I'm on the players side on this issue.



You forget most of these players get fatass signing bonuses if they are talented starters.. If they get cut that 6million dollar bonus is all work-free and you can jump on with another team and get another signing bonus, and a new contract... They are ****ing crybabies...

Tuckdaddy
07-28-2005, 11:42 PM
T.O is not like Walker and Ward. He is already a very rich man. He is being a complete asshole. 49 million dollar deal is not enough? What a prick!

Walker and Ward have a case IMHO. They make peanuts for what they have done for their teams. They deserve to be taken care of. Especially Ward. 4 straight pro bowls but Johnny Morton makes more money?

milkman
07-30-2005, 06:55 PM
T.O is not like Walker and Ward. He is already a very rich man. He is being a complete asshole. 49 million dollar deal is not enough? What a prick!

Walker and Ward have a case IMHO. They make peanuts for what they have done for their teams. They deserve to be taken care of. Especially Ward. 4 straight pro bowls but Johnny Morton makes more money?

I haven't re-read the article, or the posts, so I am not certain I know what I'm talking about.

I know, you say I never know what I'm talking about, but that's an entirely separate issue.

However, if by "Walker", you mean Javon Walker, then I would disagree that he has a case.
The guy finally had one good season, after a couple of rather lackluster season.
Do it for them again, then maybe you have a case.

CHIEF4EVER
07-30-2005, 07:02 PM
The perfect way for fans, all-stars and owners would be pay all players a flat wage(cheap-decent) and then players earn their money strictly thru performances, playoffs, superbowl, probowl... But I think most players would have a problem giving their all 24-7...

Unfortunately, the NFLPA would never go for that. They want to get as much up front money as possible for their players.

stevieray
07-30-2005, 07:04 PM
TO deserves more for doing what's he supposed to do?

If this attitude becomes more prevelant, it will end professional sports.

CHIEF4EVER
07-30-2005, 07:09 PM
I haven't re-read the article, or the posts, so I am not certain I know what I'm talking about.

I know, you say I never know what I'm talking about, but that's an entirely separate issue.

However, if by "Walker", you mean Javon Walker, then I would disagree that he has a case.
The guy finally had one good season, after a couple of rather lackluster season.
Do it for them again, then maybe you have a case.

Was Jevon Walker rushing to the front office with a bag of cash from his big rookie signing bonus to pay the team back for sucking his first 2 years? Nope. I agree with you, show it 2 years in a row then it may be time to talk. There are a lot of people who have been to the Pro Bowl 1 time in a row.

morphius
07-30-2005, 07:26 PM
My issue was that TO went to the team last year, always talking about how he was the best WR in the NFL. So, if he was already the best WR in the NFL why did he settle for the contract last year, much less a multi-year deal? If he had been in the contract for a couple years and had a few years left, then I could understand it. If his contract was one that exploded next year so that he knew he would be cut, then I could see that. But one year into a contract that he signed after already being one of the best in the NFL? He put his own ass in the situation! Heck, lets not forget that he signed to play with a team that is known to not give into this crap, and does not normally pay big money to players, and he actually CHOSE this team.

CHIEF4EVER
07-30-2005, 07:33 PM
My issue was that TO went to the team last year, always talking about how he was the best WR in the NFL. So, if he was already the best WR in the NFL why did he settle for the contract last year, much less a multi-year deal? If he had been in the contract for a couple years and had a few years left, then I could understand it. If his contract was one that exploded next year so that he knew he would be cut, then I could see that. But one year into a contract that he signed after already being one of the best in the NFL? He put his own ass in the situation! Heck, lets not forget that he signed to play with a team that is known to not give into this crap, and does not normally pay big money to players, and he actually CHOSE this team.

Actually, Philly quasi-rescued TO. He signed with Philly because he didn't want to go to the Ravens. PLUS, the NFLPA ADVISED HIM AGAINST signing the contract. Thirdly, he has absolutely NO LEVERAGE. The Iggles got to the playoffs without him, got to the SB without him. He is 1 year into a 7 year deal. If he sits out, he still has 6 years left on his deal and he makes no money this year to boot. He needs to get to TC, play like a fiend this season and then return to the bargaining table next year.

morphius
07-30-2005, 07:57 PM
Actually, Philly quasi-rescued TO. He signed with Philly because he didn't want to go to the Ravens. PLUS, the NFLPA ADVISED HIM AGAINST signing the contract. Thirdly, he has absolutely NO LEVERAGE. The Iggles got to the playoffs without him, got to the SB without him. He is 1 year into a 7 year deal. If he sits out, he still has 6 years left on his deal and he makes no money this year to boot. He needs to get to TC, play like a fiend this season and then return to the bargaining table next year.
Actually they didn't resucue him, it was the team he wanted to play for. He had been working on a deal with them when he got traded to the Ravens, if I remember correctly.

CoMoChief
07-30-2005, 08:07 PM
I think next season the NFL's collective bargaining agreement is going to be very interesting because of issues like this.

CoMoChief
07-30-2005, 08:14 PM
Actually, Philly quasi-rescued TO. He signed with Philly because he didn't want to go to the Ravens. PLUS, the NFLPA ADVISED HIM AGAINST signing the contract. Thirdly, he has absolutely NO LEVERAGE. The Iggles got to the playoffs without him, got to the SB without him. He is 1 year into a 7 year deal. If he sits out, he still has 6 years left on his deal and he makes no money this year to boot. He needs to get to TC, play like a fiend this season and then return to the bargaining table next year.


How can anyone say that the Eagles got to the playoffs without TO?!?! Thats just rediculous IMO. Donovan McNabb had a career year last season only to be overshadowed by Manning and Culpepper simply because of TO. With TO their running game improved, and they had that deep threat that any team would like to have. In many of the reg season games last year, TO was simply dominant. I hate the fact that he is going about this through the media and the public, and I think he's an asshole but the man does deserved to be paid like he's the best WR in the game, well because he is. Now, the Eagles did manage to get by in the playoffs without TO, but there wasn't one good team in the NFC last season other than the Eagles. Falcons are overrated, Rams suck, Seahawks were garbage, as were the Packers towards the end of the year. Minnesota had no defense last season. The reason why the Eagles made it to the SB last year is because the NFC was garbage.

milkman
07-30-2005, 08:20 PM
How can anyone say that the Eagles got to the playoffs without TO?!?! Thats just rediculous IMO. Donovan McNabb had a career year last season only to be overshadowed by Manning and Culpepper simply because of TO. With TO their running game improved, and they had that deep threat that any team would like to have. In many of the reg season games last year, TO was simply dominant. I hate the fact that he is going about this through the media and the public, and I think he's an asshole but the man does deserved to be paid like he's the best WR in the game, well because he is. Now, the Eagles did manage to get by in the playoffs without TO, but there wasn't one good team in the NFC last season other than the Eagles. Falcons are overrated, Rams suck, Seahawks were garbage, as were the Packers towards the end of the year. Minnesota had no defense last season. The reason why the Eagles made it to the SB last year is because the NFC was garbage.

So, in all likelyhood, the Eagles would have made it to the playoffs, and to the SB without TO.

And it is also very likely that they can get there again this year without him, which means that he has no leverage.