CJ2K's holdout

[aaawall91]

I'm a firm believer in incentive-based contract for ROOKIES.

Other than that I'm okay with the system as is.

Although I'm not a huge fan of teams being able to cut there losses with a player at any time, there really isn't much of a way around that in the NFL due to the nature of the game.

[Kareighuis]

I'm a firm believer in incentive-based contract for ROOKIES.

Other than that I'm okay with the system as is.

Although I'm not a huge fan of teams being able to cut there losses with a player at any time, there really isn't much of a way around that in the NFL due to the nature of the game.

I agree with everything but that last part. If a player can have his contract, agreed to in good faith, revoked at any time by the other party without his agreement, there MUST be a similar power available for the player's side. Holding out is a bad counter-weight, because team's can fine them for not being present, which defeats the whole purpose of holding out. That would be like saying, if a player holds out because the team won't pay him the going rate, then the contract (or that year's portion) becomes guaranteed.

[joejlitz]

I'm a firm believer in incentive-based contract for ROOKIES.

Other than that I'm okay with the system as is.

Although I'm not a huge fan of teams being able to cut there losses with a player at any time, there really isn't much of a way around that in the NFL due to the nature of the game.

I agree with everything but that last part. If a player can have his contract, agreed to in good faith, revoked at any time by the other party without his agreement, there MUST be a similar power available for the player's side. Holding out is a bad counter-weight, because team's can fine them for not being present, which defeats the whole purpose of holding out. That would be like saying, if a player holds out because the team won't pay him the going rate, then the contract (or that year's portion) becomes guaranteed.

I get your point. But if star players on my team could leave anytime they wanted to (and they routinely did), I don't think I would be able to really connect with the team and therefore probably wouldn't watch with the passion and fervor that I do. Turn in my season tickets. TV ratings down. Etc.

[moochman]

I'm a firm believer in incentive-based contract for ROOKIES.

Other than that I'm okay with the system as is.

Although I'm not a huge fan of teams being able to cut there losses with a player at any time, there really isn't much of a way around that in the NFL due to the nature of the game.

I agree with everything but that last part. If a player can have his contract, agreed to in good faith, revoked at any time by the other party without his agreement, there MUST be a similar power available for the player's side. Holding out is a bad counter-weight, because team's can fine them for not being present, which defeats the whole purpose of holding out. That would be like saying, if a player holds out because the team won't pay him the going rate, then the contract (or that year's portion) becomes guaranteed.

I get your point. But if star players on my team could leave anytime they wanted to (and they routinely did), I don't think I would be able to really connect with the team and therefore probably wouldn't watch with the passion and fervor that I do. Turn in my season tickets. TV ratings down. Etc.

So you think that Spiller would make more or less than a RB taken three picks later? The team that picks you provides the environment for success, so how could you base a contract on your success? While I acknowledge that the current system is flawed, it is far and away better than other sports. And surely better than pay for play, incentive based contracts.