|
|
Post by aris on Jul 18, 2018 12:17:55 GMT -7
You have a responsibility to do what is right for the team both fiscally and competitively, that's it. Everything else is just window dressing and DJ has a very, very long way to go before you can start talking what is right and wrong about signing him on a moral level. Fitz is the example of when you can consider morals in regards to a business decision about contacts and DJ ain't no Fitz and even then it's a small part of the equation. Totally agree. You can look at this another way. If DJ was a crappy player the Cardinals would cut him and he wouldn't get paid. DJ is a really good player and if he holds out he won't get paid. If he doesn't want to play how is he violating the contract? Nothing moral on either side. The tag is the worst result for both parties. There is no pressure on the Cardinals to do anything other than what's in the Cardinals best interest. The same is true for DJ. There's no moral obligation by either party but in this case the Cardinals have a little more leverage should the team choose to renegotiate to avoid tagging him next year. I agree about Fitz. He has earned special treatment by giving special treatment to the team over years. DJ hasn't come close to doing that yet. Fitz is a one in a million athlete. But he never held out or threatened to hold out. The cards knew they had something really good in him and tied him up. DJ is a running back who's had one good year. Shelf life is very short and it is pointless to needlessly throw money at him. Working out a contract that benefits both sides is fine but the Cards hold all the cards here. |
|
|
|
Post by Zaz on Jul 18, 2018 12:29:29 GMT -7
I disagree. Its not good faith to actively leverage legality over someones head, when morally you know what the right thing to do is. Overly dramatic example would be: A kid is playing on your lawn and you kick them in the face. You can throw up your hands and say "Hey, I was within my legal right. That was a trespasser and I am allowed to defend my home". Legally, that person is correct. Same as the Cards. But morally, you know youre wrong. Yea you're being overly dramatic (Zazramic?). It's not even in the universe in terms of something that is comparable. DJ is being paid millions right now to perform. He's a millionare. He can feed his family very well. Of course it might be in the best interests of the Cards to rework his contract if they can gain a year or pay him less (but way more then he makes). Let them work it out. Going in circles again. I talked about this whole "he makes enough" argument earlier. Yes, he does make "enough" in terms of bills. But as far as NFL superstars who are the face of the franchise and are 40% of our total offense, hes a wee underpaid. His peers (superstar faces 40% etc) are making $10M+. He wants to be paid his value. Thats a simple ask. |
|
|
|
Post by aris on Jul 18, 2018 12:38:03 GMT -7
Yea you're being overly dramatic (Zazramic?). It's not even in the universe in terms of something that is comparable. DJ is being paid millions right now to perform. He's a millionare. He can feed his family very well. Of course it might be in the best interests of the Cards to rework his contract if they can gain a year or pay him less (but way more then he makes). Let them work it out. Going in circles again. I talked about this whole "he makes enough" argument earlier. Yes, he does make "enough" in terms of bills. But as far as NFL superstars who are the face of the franchise and are 40% of our total offense, hes a wee underpaid. His peers (superstar faces 40% etc) are making $10M+. He wants to be paid his value. Thats a simple ask. It is a simple ask. And the Cards already have his name on a contract so they have all the leverage. Lets see what happens. Maybe a deal can be worked out that benefits both parties. But if not let him play out his contract. He'll have 2.2 million dollars made. More then the ave. person. If that was too little for him he should have not signed the deal. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverhuntr on Jul 18, 2018 12:39:25 GMT -7
DJ should get paid sooner than later. He's just one of those freak athletes who has good character and morals. He's like one dude you dont have to worry about. He doesnt even curse lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by knobby on Jul 18, 2018 12:58:35 GMT -7
Read it again. It was a question of which is he. A Jekyll or Hyde question. I understand risk is involved and so does he. He signed the contract. Blame the CBA for his near poverty. (small joke) Hundreds of millions? No need to overstate to make a point.
I am understanding - and firm about contracts having meaning and irritated by holdouts.
Do you expect to have that kind of money ten years from now? Twenty? Thirty? I'm hinting that most of us would be happy enough getting the contract amount for two partial years work and one year nursing a wrist injury plus one more earning year to come. Do you think he might be able to invest some and have a continual but smaller income for life?
You know and all of us know that he will get more money, more than enough to salve any feeling of being held hostage with his "face on all billboards and commercials" - of which he is one, not the only example. We don't know if it will be the Cardinals who pay it, or some other team, or how soon. I'm guessing it will be the Cards because there will be an agreement.
OK, so he lives in a modest rented home. Very sensible, and a hopeful sign that it is the agent playing chicken, not so much DJ personally. But his agent is his employee . . . so he could presumably cause the negotiations to be equitable and with a faster agreement, and participate in practices in an effort to help the team while making his wishes known.
And the old pro veteran punter is not a lock to remain. Probable, but not certain. I get your point though. Again, blame the CBA and the players who negotiated it.
Maybe you should change careers and become a sports agent. I can almost picture it in my mind . . . . . 
PS - when I say partial years, I mean the approx. 6 months devoted exclusively to football per annum by players.
I think you are naive about how professional sports/football contracts work. So DJ doesn't take a bad deal, has a great year, and then the likelihood of him playing under the Franchise Tag has gone through the roof. At that moment he is being paid very well and the Cards are taking a huge cap hit. It is rare when a player plays out his entire contract or gives a deal like Brady (who is set because of his wife). Read it again. It was a question of which is he. A Jekyll or Hyde question. I understand risk is involved and so does he. He signed the contract. Blame the CBA for his near poverty. (small joke) Hundreds of millions? No need to overstate to make a point.
I am understanding - and firm about contracts having meaning and irritated by holdouts.
Do you expect to have that kind of money ten years from now? Twenty? Thirty? I'm hinting that most of us would be happy enough getting the contract amount for two partial years work and one year nursing a wrist injury plus one more earning year to come. Do you think he might be able to invest some and have a continual but smaller income for life?
You know and all of us know that he will get more money, more than enough to salve any feeling of being held hostage with his "face on all billboards and commercials" - of which he is one, not the only example. We don't know if it will be the Cardinals who pay it, or some other team, or how soon. I'm guessing it will be the Cards because there will be an agreement.
OK, so he lives in a modest rented home. Very sensible, and a hopeful sign that it is the agent playing chicken, not so much DJ personally. But his agent is his employee . . . so he could presumably cause the negotiations to be equitable and with a faster agreement, and participate in practices in an effort to help the team while making his wishes known. And the old pro veteran punter is not a lock to remain. Probable, but not certain. I get your point though. Again, blame the CBA and the players who negotiated it. Maybe you should change careers and become a sports agent. I can almost picture it in my mind . . . . . PS - when I say partial years, I mean the approx. 6 months devoted exclusively to football per annum by players.
I think you are naive about how professional sports/football contracts work. So DJ doesn't take a bad deal, has a great year, and then the likelihood of him playing under the Franchise Tag has gone through the roof. At that moment he is being paid very well and the Cards are taking a huge cap hit. It is rare when a player plays out his entire contract or gives a deal like Brady (who is set because of his wife). Not naive, Ike.
I just find it irritating that a sports "contract" is anything but a contract, and has been corrupted to become something else. To me, when two parties sign on the dotted line and commit to doing what has been agreed for some specific period, that is exactly what is to be done. No matter whether it later develops that one side or the other gains or loses more than the other, that contract rules. It is the responsibility of each party to educate themselves sufficiently to understand and weigh possible future developments before signing, or insist on changes before signing, or walk away. If the name of a sports hiring was something like "Temporary alterable agreement with fake terms" rather than "contract", it would make more sense. I'll leave it at that, even though there is more to be said.
I still enjoy football - the game on the field, that is. 
|
|
biggs
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,076
|
Post by biggs on Jul 18, 2018 12:59:30 GMT -7
Going in circles again. I talked about this whole "he makes enough" argument earlier. Yes, he does make "enough" in terms of bills. But as far as NFL superstars who are the face of the franchise and are 40% of our total offense, hes a wee underpaid. His peers (superstar faces 40% etc) are making $10M+. He wants to be paid his value. Thats a simple ask. It is a simple ask. And the Cards already have his name on a contract so they have all the leverage. Lets see what happens. Maybe a deal can be worked out that benefits both parties. But if not let him play out his contract. He'll have 2.2 million dollars made. More then the ave. person. If that was too little for him he should have not signed the deal. You lost me on that last line. DJ has every right to have signed the contract and not play this year. He isn't a slave if he doesn't want to play for what they are contracted for he doesn't have to play and he won't get paid. If the Cardinals believe he owes them the pro-rated bonus he got as part of the original deal they may have to prove it in court if they choose to go that route. You guys get into all these moral issues when the contracts aren't guaranteed and the team is under a cap and is negotiating deals with everyone that impacts every individual contract. The question I have for ZAZ is which players contract would you like to chuck in the garbage to pay DJ's more now instead of next year? That's not something DJ even thinks about when he's looking at his own self interest. |
|
|
|
Post by aris on Jul 18, 2018 13:02:26 GMT -7
It is a simple ask. And the Cards already have his name on a contract so they have all the leverage. Lets see what happens. Maybe a deal can be worked out that benefits both parties. But if not let him play out his contract. He'll have 2.2 million dollars made. More then the ave. person. If that was too little for him he should have not signed the deal. You lost me on that last line. DJ has every right to have signed the contract and not play this year. He isn't a slave if he doesn't want to play for what they are contracted for he doesn't have to play and he won't get paid. If the Cardinals believe he owes them the pro-rated bonus he got as part of the original deal they may have to prove it in court if they choose to go that route. You guys get into all these moral issues when the contracts aren't guaranteed and the team is under a cap and is negotiating deals with everyone that impacts every individual contract. The question I have for ZAZ is which players contract would you like to chuck in the garbage to pay DJ's more now instead of next year? That's not something DJ even thinks about when he's looking at his own self interest. Where did I say he doesn't have the right to not play this year? He can do what he wants and not get paid. The issue is still revolves around the fact the Cards have him signed to a contract and hold all the cards. There is very little to gain by DJ by holding out for the whole year and the cards know that. |
|
biggs
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,076
|
Post by biggs on Jul 18, 2018 13:10:20 GMT -7
You lost me on that last line. DJ has every right to have signed the contract and not play this year. He isn't a slave if he doesn't want to play for what they are contracted for he doesn't have to play and he won't get paid. If the Cardinals believe he owes them the pro-rated bonus he got as part of the original deal they may have to prove it in court if they choose to go that route. You guys get into all these moral issues when the contracts aren't guaranteed and the team is under a cap and is negotiating deals with everyone that impacts every individual contract. The question I have for ZAZ is which players contract would you like to chuck in the garbage to pay DJ's more now instead of next year? That's not something DJ even thinks about when he's looking at his own self interest. Where did I say he doesn't have the right to not play this year? He can do what he wants and not get paid. The issue is still revolves around the fact the Cards have him signed to a contract and hold all the cards. There is very little to gain by DJ by holding out for the whole year and the cards know that. You said "If that was too little for him he should have not signed the deal" What am I missing? Yes the Cardinals have the leverage and it's not because of the deal it's because they own his rights through the draft until they cut him. Guess what when his deal runs out he's not an UFA. The Cardinals leverage comes from the fact they own his football rights. |
|
|
|
Post by rooseveltcardsfan on Jul 18, 2018 13:26:13 GMT -7
The alternative to a draft is all college players have the right to sign with anyone they want. The alternative to a cap is all players can play for anyone they want for any dollar amount they want to play for. In my opinion that would be the end of parity. Small market teams would suffer. could there be a better/fairer system? I’m thinking there is, could there be a worse/less fair system? Yes.. it is definitely not perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by knobby on Jul 18, 2018 13:42:01 GMT -7
Going in circles again. I talked about this whole "he makes enough" argument earlier. Yes, he does make "enough" in terms of bills. But as far as NFL superstars who are the face of the franchise and are 40% of our total offense, hes a wee underpaid. His peers (superstar faces 40% etc) are making $10M+. He wants to be paid his value. Thats a simple ask. It is a simple ask. And the Cards already have his name on a contract so they have all the leverage. Lets see what happens. Maybe a deal can be worked out that benefits both parties. But if not let him play out his contract. He'll have 2.2 million dollars made. More then the ave. person. If that was too little for him he should have not signed the deal.
Per Rotoworld: 5/18/2015: Signed a four-year, $2.992 million contract. The deal included a $639,372 signing bonus. 2018: $1.88 million, 2019: Free Agent |
|
|
|
Post by rooseveltcardsfan on Jul 18, 2018 14:00:42 GMT -7
It’s always best to talk about the facts..there is a big difference between 2.2 mil and 3 mil. Roughly 30% I hope for all involved that a deal comes this summer. I know if some how I was offered a 400% raise and the same amount for next year. I would have several questions #1 is where do I sign? #2 I’d ask my wife where she wants to live. #3 how can I help the team be better in every aspect of the business. TIme to GET-R-DONE
|
|
|
|
Post by aris on Jul 18, 2018 16:28:24 GMT -7
Where did I say he doesn't have the right to not play this year? He can do what he wants and not get paid. The issue is still revolves around the fact the Cards have him signed to a contract and hold all the cards. There is very little to gain by DJ by holding out for the whole year and the cards know that. You said "If that was too little for him he should have not signed the deal" What am I missing? Yes the Cardinals have the leverage and it's not because of the deal it's because they own his rights through the draft until they cut him. Guess what when his deal runs out he's not an UFA. The Cardinals leverage comes from the fact they own his football rights. Great!! They own his rights. DJ doesnt play under any different set up circumstances. His fellow union members all voted and agreed to the conditions of employment. More then you can say about most Americans who have no representation. You do a lot of crying on here about the powerful owners. Welcome to corporate America. We seem to be doing pretty well. |
|
biggs
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,076
|
Post by biggs on Jul 18, 2018 19:43:38 GMT -7
You said "If that was too little for him he should have not signed the deal" What am I missing? Yes the Cardinals have the leverage and it's not because of the deal it's because they own his rights through the draft until they cut him. Guess what when his deal runs out he's not an UFA. The Cardinals leverage comes from the fact they own his football rights. Great!! They own his rights. DJ doesnt play under any different set up circumstances. His fellow union members all voted and agreed to the conditions of employment. More then you can say about most Americans who have no representation. You do a lot of crying on here about the powerful owners. Welcome to corporate America. We seem to be doing pretty well. I have no problem with any of it. I just recognize that it's not a guaranteed contract by either party. |
|
Boomer
Pro Bowler
Posts: 1,488
|
Post by Boomer on Jul 19, 2018 6:54:52 GMT -7
All this talk about renegotiating his contract is crap. Every player entering the league knows how rookie contracts work and if they don't like it, they can go find a job elsewhere. It's understood that you have to perform those 4 to 5 years to get paid and if you are a STUD for the first three years you might be able to extend but I am talking about Russell Wilson winning a Super Bowl on his rookie contract kind of stud. Not have one great year and then sit on the sidelines all year with a wrist injury kind of stud. The Badger's contract set a bad precedent for extending players on potential instead of consistent performance and the media isn't really helping either with their constant fawning over DJ's return.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 7:29:41 GMT -7
1 small correction Boomer, DJ did not have "1 great year". His rookie season was exceptional for the amount of time he got to play. His cleats and jersey are in the Hall of Fame from that Rookie season. 1st rookie to ever do what he did in the limited time he got to play.
He's had 2 great seasons and 1 injury season caused by a head hunter safety.
Just the facts.
|
|
