Labor negotiations

[Larry]

The (incredibly repetitive) threads about BDWs salary have led me to an question that perhaps belongs better in Tailgate, but is at least football related.

Why is it, when a team thinks a player's contract-determined salary is too high, that hundreds of fans will immediatly determine that the player in question is a selfish, greedy, anti-team bum, if the player fails to volunteer for a paycut?

But, if the player thinks he's worth more than the amount in the contract, then the attitude is "tough noogies, you signed the contract"?

I sort-of thought the idea was, a contract was binding on both parties. When did it become a case of the salary put on the paper is only a maximum salary?

(Note: This isn't a "do you think BDW's worth $3.5M" question. It's a "Why are people calling him names because he's letting a pre-existing contract continue" question. Or, maybe, a "How come so many people are ticked off at BDW for failing to do what he's told, but virtually nobody's mad at the FO for waiting till a week before camp to address a "problem" they've known about for years, and then making their first offer in the negotiating process a threat?" question.)

[Art]

I think the reasoning is simple Larry.

Teams don't ask highly productive players to give money back. That's the first thing. Teams ask guys who aren't performing well and generally fans relate with the team when they see a guy with a fat contract not playing up to it.

But, more importantly, the team is asking for the cut for the benefit of the team. This is not money the owner is saying he wants to put in his pocket. It's money he's saying he wants to help improve the team. Fans will get behind that.

When a player refuses such an overture, one that will help the team, he is immediately considered selfish because, well, he is. The team has 52 other guys under consideration. The player has himself. It's ok to be selfish and it's ok to recognize it as selfish and it's reasonable to realize that few of us, in the same position, would be LESS selfish.

Likewise when a player wants out of his contract for more money, he's going out for him, not the team, which is why those players are often turned on. It is that very selfishness that gives the team some leverage in negotiations with Wilkinson. Wilkinson is a selfish person. Most of us would be. He's got $3.5 million in a contract guaranteed to him. Or, he can make $1.5 million. Or, he can make half that. That is what gets guys at some point to agree on the cut.

I doubt Big Daddy will, but, if the team can persuade him it reasonably expects to release him if he doesn't help out, then he has to weigh two options which are -- make $1.5 million with incentives to make it possible to get that other $2 million back or make $750,000, maybe, with a veteran minimum contract and no hope of incentives.

The key is convincing him your threat is genuine. And I don't know that we can do that.

[Dexter's Better]

Originally posted by Larry

The (incredibly repetitive) threads about BDWs salary have led me to an question that perhaps belongs better in Tailgate, but is at least football related.

Why is it, when a team thinks a player's contract-determined salary is too high, that hundreds of fans will immediatly determine that the player in question is a selfish, greedy, anti-team bum, if the player fails to volunteer for a paycut?

But, if the player thinks he's worth more than the amount in the contract, then the attitude is "tough noogies, you signed the contract"?

I sort-of thought the idea was, a contract was binding on both parties. When did it become a case of the salary put on the paper is only a maximum salary?

(Note: This isn't a "do you think BDW's worth $3.5M" question. It's a "Why are people calling him names because he's letting a pre-existing contract continue" question. Or, maybe, a "How come so many people are ticked off at BDW for failing to do what he's told, but virtually nobody's mad at the FO for waiting till a week before camp to address a "problem" they've known about for years, and then making their first offer in the negotiating process a threat?" question.)

Because no matter how you slice it these players get paid more in 17 weeks than most of us do in a decade or a lifetime for that matter. Combine that with the fact that we, as fans, pay most of that salary through purchasing tickets, watching on TV, etc... We have a certain right to say that someone is not living up to their end of the deal, and if they are and playing very well -- they will get rewarded when their next contract comes up - not before.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I was first going to post and agree with Larry. My point was going to be that if my company came to me today and asked me to take a paycut, I wouldn't want to do it either.

Then something dawned on me that made me believe it's not a fair analogy. First of all, Dex is correct that these guys are making an insane amount of money for about 5 months (I will concede that you should count training camp and pre-season) worth of work. Secondly, football is a team sport and winning should be each players' highest goal. That being said, if reducing your salary and agreeing to incentives will help your team sign someone else and, ultimately improve your chances to succeed, it would be SELFISH not to go along with that.

[RabidFan]

Look how quick Lavar did a restructure this offseason...was only a matter of days.....and he is a beast and is worth his money mostly.... but also we all know BDW is in decline so maybe he thinks this is the last contract he'll ever have over league minimum and needs it for his family in retirement.....so who knows

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just to be fair, when Lavar restructured, he just deferred some guaranteed money to later years.

I believe we're asking Big Daddy to give up some guaranteed money and replace it with incentives....does anyone know for sure? If that is true, then it's two totally different things.

[Flowtrain]

Originally posted by Larry

I sort-of thought the idea was, a contract was binding on both parties. When did it become a case of the salary put on the paper is only a maximum salary?

The answer is that the contract is NOT entirely binding on both parties.

A team is free to cut a player and not pay his salary whenever they choose, replacing him with another player. However, a player is not free to quit and go play for another team.

The rights and duties are not reciprocal, they favor the teams. That's the whole idea of non-guaranteed contracts in the NFL - the team gets guaranteed service by the player, but the player doesn't get guaranteed payment. Fair or not, this is the standard set for NFL contracts and if you're playing in the league, you've agreed to the terms.

I'm not saying that fans go through this analysis before deciding to get more upset at the player than the team. But it's an important fact to consider. The Redskins are well within their legal right to ask for a paycut from BDW, though it's morally wrong to wait until this late stage in the offseason. But if BDW thought he was underpaid, he has no legal standing on which to holdout. I mean, there's no forced labor and he could always retire, but he sure as hell couldn't play for anyone else.

[jbooma]

Here is the difference. The contracts are not guaranteed in the NFL as they are in the NBA and MLB. Because of this the skins can just eat his contract and BDW gets nothing. Had we had another good DT on our team this wouldn't be an issue and BDW would have already agreed, but he does have leverage here. The thing that scares me is I hear the incentives the redskins are asking for are not to hard to achieve. If BDW is afraid he won't be able to make them, then we are in trouble

[Romberjo]

I pretty much agree with you, Larry. Flow and Art make some plausible arguments, but I don't buy them.

A team is free to cut a player and not pay his salary whenever they choose, replacing him with another player. However, a player is not free to quit and go play for another team. The rights and duties are not reciprocal, they favor the teams. That's the whole idea of non-guaranteed contracts in the NFL - the team gets guaranteed service by the player, but the player doesn't get guaranteed payment.

I'm not sure that it's quite so imbalanced -- the team doesn't really get guaranteed service b/c the player can always decide not to show up, so long as he foregoes his paycheck. Also, in order for the team to get out of its obligation to pay, it has to cut the player and allow him to play for any other team. And you'd think that an imbalance of power tilted toward the team would make fans more sympathetic to the player rather than less, but maybe I'm projecting.

the team is asking for the cut for the benefit of the team. This is not money the owner is saying he wants to put in his pocket. It's money he's saying he wants to help improve the team. Fans will get behind that. When a player refuses such an overture, one that will help the team, he is immediately considered selfish because, well, he is.

Sure, the player is being selfish -- but so is the owner. When the owner spends the same limited amount of cap-restricted money to field a better team, he's likely earning that money back through more $ from attendance, sales of merchandise, etc.; he's also selfishly benefitting himself by likely making the team more successful so that free agents (and coaching staff) will take lower salaries to go there in the future, etc.

[Larry]

I wasn't so much contrasting the different negotiating tactics the two sides use: Those are dictated by the way the contracts work.

And I understand that, when people sit down and negotiate how mush, say, Fred Smoot will be worth as a player 5 years from now, sometimes the projections will turn out to be wrong.

What I'm contrasting is: If the projection turns out to be low, and the player wants to change the contract but the owner doesn't, then he's a selfish bum. But, if the projection turns out high, and the owner wants to change the contract but the player doesn't, then the player's a bum.

(And, someday, I guess I'll understand this automatic, religous assumption that the owner's a better person, because he's trying to do what's best for the team, but the player's only out for himself. Gee, the title on somebody's door, in and of itself, can bestow a superiority of moral position? No wonder some folks become "conservatives".)