The Bobcat Nation

It's been entertaining watching the twists & turns of the offseason antics of Terrell Owens & Drew Rosenhaus.

The story took a DRAMATIC turn today with TO apparently having words with Eagles head coach Andy Reid and then clearing out his belongings at training camp and driving to his home in New Jersey.

I'm curious how sports fans on the Nation view this (and similar) pro athlete situations.

My take is this:

Drew Rosenhaus is exactly right in that a player should NEVER be bashful in asking his team's owner to agree to pay him more money. NFL owners, as a group, are making a ton of money these days and franchise values are generally rising at astronomical rates, so I have no problem with ANY player asking to be paid more.

Where TO & DR are DEAD WRONG, however, is that NO player should ever "walk out" or "hold out" when he is under a current, valid contract with his team. If you are not happy with your current deal, go ahead and ask the team to renegotiate; if the team agrees, then everyone's happy. If the team decides NOT to renegotiate, however, the player IMO STILL has the obligation to fulfill his end of the contract, whether he likes it or not. If the player & team don't end up coming to a mutual agreement during the existing contract, both parties would obviously assume that the player will look elsewhere when his current deal expires.

Drew LOVES to talk about how many "superstars" in the NFL are currently "underpaid". It amazes me that no sports reporter will ever ask Drew about what teams should do with the guys that are OVERPAID. Why is it that the TEAMS don't have the right to tell a guy "Look, when we made your last deal, we all thought you'd be a much better player than you are. That being said, we are not going to allow you to play for us nor will we pay you until you renegotiate a lower contract..."

Drew will tell you that most NFL deals allow the team to cut a player at any time, with little/no explanation and THAT is their equivalent to a player holding out (I just saw him make that argument on TV last night) but this is a TOTAL BS ARGUMENT (which again, the reporter allowed to go unquestioned). Can you imagine if the Eagles simply cut TO right now? All that would do is give him exactly what he wants; other teams would be lining up to beat the $7 million/year he AGREED to with the Eagles.

I'd love to see the owners force a clause into the next collective bargaining agreement that says if you hold out on a valid contract, you are banned from playing for any other team in the league for 3 years. I know it won't happen, but it would end holdouts which, IMO, are the equivalent of players giving their fans the finger.

It's simple, athletes: If you sign a deal, LIVE WITH IT until such time as it expires OR you successfully negotiate a new one WITHOUT holding out.

El_Gato wrote:Drew will tell you that most NFL deals allow the team to cut a player at any time, with little/no explanation and THAT is their equivalent to a player holding out (I just saw him make that argument on TV last night) but this is a TOTAL BS ARGUMENT (which again, the reporter allowed to go unquestioned). Can you imagine if the Eagles simply cut TO right now? All that would do is give him exactly what he wants; other teams would be lining up to beat the $7 million/year he AGREED to with the Eagles.

I'm not a TO fan by any stretch, so I personally hope that he just gets frozen out by the Eagles and any other teams that he think would trade for him and the he has to come crawling back to the Eagles and beg for his job back. It won't happen, but it's a nice thought.

I don't think his argument about the guaranteed contracts is total BS, though. Sure, in his immediate case, where he is a hot player, the team cutting him is certainly not something he would worry about and isn't a hammer of any kind for them. However, if he was coming off an awful season, and nobody else wanted him either, a team could certainly cut a guy and pay them nothing if their contract isn't guaranteed. Players arguing that they need to maximize their income while they can due to never knowing what moment the gravy train will end seems like a quite compelling argument to me. The agent doesn't appear to be making any kind of suggestion that the team could hurt him by cutting him right now, but rather at a later date if he was down on his luck.

That being said, in this case, I'm pulling for the Eagles to hold their ground.

El_Gato wrote: Drew LOVES to talk about how many "superstars" in the NFL are currently "underpaid". It amazes me that no sports reporter will ever ask Drew about what teams should do with the guys that are OVERPAID. Why is it that the TEAMS don't have the right to tell a guy "Look, when we made your last deal, we all thought you'd be a much better player than you are. That being said, we are not going to allow you to play for us nor will we pay you until you renegotiate a lower contract..."

Drew will tell you that most NFL deals allow the team to cut a player at any time, with little/no explanation and THAT is their equivalent to a player holding out (I just saw him make that argument on TV last night) but this is a TOTAL BS ARGUMENT (which again, the reporter allowed to go unquestioned). Can you imagine if the Eagles simply cut TO right now? All that would do is give him exactly what he wants; other teams would be lining up to beat the $7 million/year he AGREED to with the Eagles.

Your comparing apples and oranges here. The fact that no contract is gauranteed and the team can cut anybody at any time is EXACTLY the same as a players option to holdout. Of course the Eagles wouldn't cut TO right now. If they didn't want to pay his salary they would try to trade him so they would get a return from him. However if you want to talk about an OVERPAID player as you first insinuate, then cutting them is exactly like a holdout. Take Rod Gardner as the prime example. He was a first round pick several years ago and had a 1000 yard recieving season three years ago, but hasn't done squat since. He was going to be due over 2 million this year, yet probably would have been on the bench in Washington. Washington was lucky enough to get a draft pick from Carolina in a trade for Gardner, but had this not happened he would have been cut and would have gotten MUCH less on the free agent market(as it is he had to renogitiate with Carolina down to around 1 million. Washington had told him not to attend any spring camps or training sessions with the Redskins. Sounds EXACTLY like a team holdout on a overpaid player to me.

I personally don't like a player holding out very much, mainly for the same reason that they have signed a contract and they should honor it. But with the way teams can treat a player that doesn't perform in cutting them loose, the players have to have some leverage of their own when they are performing.

But if the player SIGNS THE DEAL KNOWING HE CAN BE CUT, where exactly is he being "held out on"? This is precisely why we started seeing signing bonuses a decade or so ago; this represents the "guaranteed" portion of a players compensation and is a form of "cut insurance". If a player can't get enough bonus, that's HIS problem; he's the one ASKING for a contract; if he can't get one to his liking, he's either talking to the wrong team or simply not good enough to be compensated to play at that level.

I'm sorry, but it's NOT apples & oranges and the ability of teams to cut players is simply another part of the contract. NO ONE has the guaranteed right to play a professional sport; if he's good enough, he'll get paid; maybe not what he thinks he's worth but again, he's ASKING for the deal. If he's REALLY good, the deals will come looking for him.

Bottom line, to me anyway: Once the contract's been signed, a player who holds out is simply dishonorable and I would dislike someone who did that in ANY walk of life. If you don't like the deal for WHATEVER reason, DON'T SIGN IT!!!!!

A player and a team agree to an unguaranteed contract on year one that lasts five years. After that, three things can happen:

1. The player performs as expected, both player and team are satisfied with the value each is receiving from the deal, and no contract issues come up for the length of the contract; or

2. The player performs even better than expected, and asserts that his value to the team is higher than that of the contract they agreed upon in year one. He holds out, and the free market system decides whether his argument is valid (if he is worth it, the team will agree to pay more; if he's not worth it, they will refuse); or

3. The player performs worse than expected, and the team cuts the player without further compensation.

So in year one, both sides are happy (usually) with the deal as signed, but as time goes on, each side has some leverage to make changes to the agreement based on the free market implications of the player's performance. The player can hold out for more money, and the team can cut him for no money.

If the contracts were guaranteed contracts, then the conversation changes entirely, and it would be much harder to justify a holdout.

Unless you're telling me that the player has the right to hold out expressly written into that year one contract, if he does walk, HE BECOMES THE PARTY VIOLATING THE CONTRACT. If said player signs that 5 year deal in year 1 and has even the SLIGHTEST notion that he'll become a great player and therefore worth more, wouldn't he either A) sign a shorter contract or B) NOT sign the deal at all?

My point, BAC is that when a guy signs a deal, he does so willing to live with the terms in it, whether he becomes a superstar or a turd. The instant he violates HIS WORD by holding out, he becomes a dishonorable person. I'm AMAZED that Rosenhaus and ALL the sports agents don't advise their clients that while it's OK to express your desire for more $$, a player is WAY ahead if he does the honorable thing and fulfills his end of the deal. Any guy that "keeps his mouth shut & does his job" is going to be amply rewarded when it comes time for a new contract, either by his existing team or in the free agent market. If these guys are so worried about becoming "underpaid", why do they ever sign long-term deals in the first place?

Try this on for size; let's say right now you're an NFL General Manager and you've got $8 million or so to spend on a free agent wide receiver. Who would you spend the money on, T.O. or Marvin Harrison?





When an NFL team cuts a player, they are exercising a CONTRACTUAL right that the player agreed to. When a player holds out, he is VIOLATING his contract and sending the message that his word is sh!t. I'm amazed you'd argue otherwise, BAC. (No, I take that back. You'd argue with me if I said you once lived in Montana. I was going to say you'd argue with me if I said the sky was blue but then I'm sure you'd say "no, it's actually a smoggy brown here today, or no, it's nighttime here so the sky is black, or no, it's orange & red because the sun is setting...blah blah blah)

This is why the NFL kicks the crap out of MLB and the NBA (the NHL just saw the light recently). MLB and NBA teams have to pay a player forever it seems like, even if they are crappy. In the NFL, if you're crappy after signing a contract, then you're gone. BUT, you got the signing bonus - like El G said - that's the guaranteed part.

TO is a crybaby, and so is Rosenhaus. TO thinks he's worth more than he is - heck, he can't even take credit for the Eagles' playoff run last year. Of course, if I were him (given his numbers and performance) I would want to be the top-paid WR, too. BUT, he should have negotiated that contract beforehand...bummer for him. I just can't feel any pain for him making $50MM even if a couple lesser WRs get more (I'm not even sure that's the case).

He thinks he's holding the aces because Pinkston is out for the season and the Eagles axed Freddy. The Eagles were just the wrong team to play this game with. The ownership and coaches just don't put any one player above the team. TO didn't want to participate in training camp anyway. There's no way Andy Reid will make the first call, that much is for sure.

I'm laughing my a$$ off because I don't have much respect for TO or his game, AND most importantly, I like the Vikings' chances now that the Eagles are in a freefall. [I can't possibly put enough laughing emoticons in this post - you can probably hear me in Kalispell!]

My sincerest apologies to Terrell Owens; I don't know why I would question his actions/motives/character.

Turns out that there WAS a "shouting match" between TO & Eagles head coach Andy Reid and that TO DID leave training camp.

The funny thing is, he left because the Eagles (Andy Reid) KICKED HIS ARSE OUT OF CAMP for a week.



Bravo, Andy Reid, bravo!

Well done...

El_Gato wrote:Unless you're telling me that the player has the right to hold out expressly written into that year one contract, if he does walk, HE BECOMES THE PARTY VIOLATING THE CONTRACT.

If this is stricly true in a legal sense, can the teams sue the player for breach of contract? If we are talking about the strict construction of a contract, why don't we see this legal approach taken by teams? Is there something special about these types of contracts that builds in for the contingency of a holdout, or are they silent as to holdouts and instead allow zero wiggle room for the player once they are signed?

I'm asking ... I don't know the answer.

I'm not a fan of holdouts, but I do see the agents point of view on a philosophical level. As I said, in the case of TO, I hope his whole act backfires on him in a big way and that this season goes south for him, even though I am an Eagles sympathizer.

Bay Area Cat wrote:

El_Gato wrote:Unless you're telling me that the player has the right to hold out expressly written into that year one contract, if he does walk, HE BECOMES THE PARTY VIOLATING THE CONTRACT.

If this is stricly true in a legal sense, can the teams sue the player for breach of contract? If we are talking about the strict construction of a contract, why don't we see this legal approach taken by teams? Is there something special about these types of contracts that builds in for the contingency of a holdout, or are they silent as to holdouts and instead allow zero wiggle room for the player once they are signed?

I'm asking ... I don't know the answer.

I'm not a fan of holdouts, but I do see the agents point of view on a philosophical level. As I said, in the case of TO, I hope his whole act backfires on him in a big way and that this season goes south for him, even though I am an Eagles sympathizer.

Gotta say I agree with everything you said here BAC. I never intended to sound as though I was specifically backing TO, as I too personally think he is a jerk and is making plenty of money...the fact that he got his butt kicked out camp for cussing out his coach only reinforces that. My particular gripe was with the assertion that no player has the right to hold out, which I still believe with the way the NFL contracts work they should have that right.

I posted a similar question a few weeks ago Gato and got the same type of response. In fact it was regarding Javon Walker's (with the same agent BTW) threatened holdout if the Packers didn't redo his deal a few years early. I couldn't agree more with you but it looks like we may be in the minority on this one. To me a contract is a contract and once signed the threat of a holdout or an actual holdout is crazy. I am glad to see at least a few others see it like I do - and it seems so clear to me.

You guys say that a contract is a contract and that once it is signed they should abide by it. My point is that the team signed the contract also so if you are going to take the stance that a contract should be binding, it should apply to the team as well shouldn't it? Why is it that they can have an out by cutting a player, or threatening to cut him unless he renegotiates, and the player should have no leverage in return if he feels he is being unfairly compensated by the contract.

But I recommend KMax drafts TO in the upcoming fantasy football draft...that is a no brainer!!

Lets focus on what is really important in the upcoming NFL season....fantasy footbal.!!

kmax wrote:...Why is it that they can have an out by cutting a player, or threatening to cut him unless he renegotiates...

kmax, the point I'm making is that cutting the player IS PART OF THE CONTRACT. Most NFL contracts (according to Rosenhaus) have as part of their language the clause(s) that allow the team to cut the player.

Please re-read my earlier posts. Cutting the player is covered by the contract; to the best of my knowledge, no NFL contract allows for the player to hold out. Why do you think the team fines players who DO hold out?

El_Gato wrote:Please re-read my earlier posts. Cutting the player is covered by the contract; to the best of my knowledge, no NFL contract allows for the player to hold out. Why do you think the team fines players who DO hold out?

So apparently fining the player for holding out is allowed by a clause in the contract (as it seems unlikely that a team would have the power to arbitrarily assess fines to players that were outside of the scope of their employment contract), so does that imply that holding out is allowed by the contract (with the specific penalty for holding out being a fine)? If so, then it appears that both cutting a player as well as holding out are just functions of the contract, so both sides are given somewhat equal bargaining power once the contract is in effect?

Again, if this wasn't the case, why wouldn't teams be suing players for breach of contract each time they held out?

This appears to be a legal discussion that is probably beyond the scope of any one of our own specific knowledge bases ... where's GL, and does his have any sports agent buddies?

Bay Area Cat wrote:

El_Gato wrote:Please re-read my earlier posts. Cutting the player is covered by the contract; to the best of my knowledge, no NFL contract allows for the player to hold out. Why do you think the team fines players who DO hold out?

So apparently fining the player for holding out is allowed by a clause in the contract (as it seems unlikely that a team would have the power to arbitrarily assess fines to players that were outside of the scope of their employment contract), so does that imply that holding out is allowed by the contract (with the specific penalty for holding out being a fine)? If so, then it appears that both cutting a player as well as holding out are just functions of the contract, so both sides are given somewhat equal bargaining power once the contract is in effect?

Again, if this wasn't the case, why wouldn't teams be suing players for breach of contract each time they held out?

This appears to be a legal discussion that is probably beyond the scope of any one of our own specific knowledge bases ... where's GL, and does his have any sports agent buddies?

Once again BAC has summed up my thoughts here. It's not like these guys are holding out and still getting paid off of their old contract here.

wow, remind me never to enter into contracts with kmax & bac.

I'M DONE.

El_Gato wrote:wow, remind me never to enter into contracts with kmax & bac.

I'M DONE.

Remind me to never get into a discussion with Gato again.

Seriously man, you're taking a small difference of opinion a bit too seriously here aren't you?

Personally i hope T.O. rots in hell

he did enter into the contract knowing full well that he might get cut, it is the risk you take in order to get the huge signing bonus he got.T.O. and R.W. make me sick.

if you want to change the fact that you can get cut with little penelty to the other teams salary cap, change it when the collective bargening agreement comes up next.

the eagles went to the NFC finals 3 times without him, i am sure D.M. can do it again without him

I'm watching TO & Drew at halftime and all I keep thinking as Drew continues to say "it's not fair; it's not fair":

For crying out loud, TO was a great player BEFORE he went to Philly, so it's not like he just BECAME a great receiver after just 1 season there. That being said, if the deal offered to him ONE YEAR AGO was so bad and so unfair, WHY DID HE SIGN THE FRICKIN' CONTRACT??????