Clinton Portis may hold out!

[ISiddiqui]

Normally, I think those that hold out are idiots and should get back there and play (ie, Corey Dillion), BUT in this case, I think Portis may have a valid argument:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1727794

DENVER -- Running back Clinton Portis said he might sit out training camp unless the Denver Broncos renegotiate his contract, which is scheduled to pay him a total of $835,000 over the next two years.

"I don't want it to come off as if it's 'I think I'm bigger than the team,' because I don't," Portis told The Denver Post for a story that appears in Thursday's editions.

"But at the same time, come on, man. There are players on special teams making more money than me. How long am I going to stay content with that?"

Broncos general manager Ted Sundquist declined comment.

Portis has two years left on a four-year contract that paid him a $1.29 million signing bonus. He is scheduled to get $380,000 next season and $455,000 the season after, well below what the league's top players make.

Portis did not say how much he wants. He said the Broncos rejected his proposal, and the team's counterproposals don't meet his demands.

Portis ran for a career-high 1,591 yards and an NFL best 5.5 yards per carry last season, despite missing three games with sternum, ankle and knee injuries.

He closed out the year with six consecutive 100-yard games.

"If I don't feel like going to camp, if I don't feel like the situation is right for me, I won't be there," Portis said in Honolulu, where he's preparing for his first Pro Bowl.

"If I do, then I will. If I decide that things aren't going right and I don't feel like the Broncos' organization is being true to me, then that's a hard decision I'll have to make," he said.

The Broncos are already almost $5 million over the salary cap for the coming season and still want to re-sign Pro Bowl middle linebacker Al Wilson, unrestricted free-agent linebacker Ian Gold, defensive end Bertrand Berry and fullback Reuben Droughns.

Wilson said Wednesday he will test the free-agent market when it begins March 3.

[JonInMiddleGA]

"There are players on special teams making more money than me."
Maybe he should have hired their agent instead of his?

[The_herd]

Portis is an asshole, always has been, always will be.

This won't be the last time he holds out.

[Kodos]

I love how players feel no obligation to play out the contract that they signed. When they perform well, they demand a raise. When they perform poorly, they don't want to take a paycut if they have a big contract.

Screw him. Let him sit out.

[ISiddiqui]

Dude, the guy rushed for 1500+ yards and is making less than a mil?!

I mean, it is a respect thing. I mean if Denver stonewalls, guess where he isn't going when free agency comes up?

[Huckleberry]

When they perform well, they demand a raise. When they perform poorly, they don't want to take a paycut if they have a big contract.

Exactly.

The only exception I can see is if a player is traded. He signed the contract with one team. Who's to say he would have agreed to play in a different city under the same contract?

[John Galt]

I love how players feel no obligation to play out the contract that they signed. When they perform well, they demand a raise. When they perform poorly, they don't want to take a paycut if they have a big contract.

Screw him. Let him sit out.

You notice football is the only sport with mass holdouts - could it be because they don't guarantee contracts? Whatever bad things you have to say about MLB and NBA contracts, at least they stop players from holding out. If the owners don't honor the contracts, I don't know why the player should either.

[Pyser]

id be careful if i were him. the broncos have often proved its system, not the back....in fact, the next 1200 yd rusher may already be his backup

that said, i could certainly see him getting a pay bump...

[The_herd]

that said, i could certainly see him getting a pay bump...

I disagree, the guy has yet to start a full season and hasn't shown he's somewhat injury prone.

[ISiddiqui]

You notice football is the only sport with mass holdouts - could it be because they don't guarantee contracts? Whatever bad things you have to say about MLB and NBA contracts, at least they stop players from holding out. If the owners don't honor the contracts, I don't know why the player should either.

THANKS, John. This was the point I was going to make. The owners don't guarantee contracts in the NFL, so they don't honor contracts either. If the owners don't, why should the players?

[Franklinnoble]

I love how players feel no obligation to play out the contract that they signed. When they perform well, they demand a raise. When they perform poorly, they don't want to take a paycut if they have a big contract.

Screw him. Let him sit out.

That's the bottom line. He signed the deal, he should make good on it.

With all respect to your argument, however, underperforming players with large salaries are typically cut, as NFL contracts (aside from the signing bonus) are not guaranteed.

I think the Broncos should have offered him a better deal in good faith. Now that he's started to whine, I think he should just play out his contract and leave for more money when his deal is up.

[yabanci]

Maybe he should have hired their agent instead of his?

He was a second round pick, so I don't think a different agent would have done him much good. He's in a much better bargaining position now.

[Buccaneer]

"How long am I going to stay content with that?"

Because that is the contract (re: legal obligation) that you signed, asshole.

[The Afoci]

Because that is the contract (re: legal obligation) that you signed, asshole.

So if he sucks next season and they cut him, are you going after the team for not honoring their portion of the contract?

This is simple, he has to make money in the NFL while he can. For most RB, it is a seven year window at most...

[JonInMiddleGA]

So if he sucks next season and they cut him, are you going after the team for not honoring their portion of the contract?

This is simple, he has to make money in the NFL while he can. For most RB, it is a seven year window at most...
And if the Broncos are worth a damn, his window for making money will be at least one year shorter.

If he didn't want to abide by it, he shouldn't have signed the contract.

Screw the bastard.

[John Galt]

An NFL player gets a salary that is slotted by his draft position. It almost entirely non-negotiable. If he turns out to be worse than his slot and not good enough to make the roster, he gets cut (or the team asks him to renegotiate down). If he turns out to be much better than his slot, why should he "honor his contract?" His contract wasn't a matter of choice initially (only a limited choice with very small opportunity to deviate from the slot) and his team would happily cut him if he sucked. If the NFL continues to make all players at-will employees, I don't know how you can't expect them to ask for a raise (just like every other employed America).

[The Afoci]

I heart John Galt.

Yep, I am man enough to say. Go John GO!!!

[Buccaneer]

So if he sucks next season and they cut him, are you going after the team for not honoring their portion of the contract?

I believe you are wrong. The contract, as part of the Collection Bargaining Agreement, has this (no obligated to pay after cut unless otherwise stipulated) in there. The alternatives would have been to have negotiated a clause avoiding this or get your brethrens to have changed the agreed upon CBA when it was negotiated or the next time around. Upshaw said that having this in the CBA was the price of nearly unrestricted FA.

[Danny]

John Galt has it right on this one

[Buccaneer]

An NFL player gets a salary that is slotted by his draft position. It almost entirely non-negotiable. If he turns out to be worse than his slot and not good enough to make the roster, he gets cut (or the team asks him to renegotiate down). If he turns out to be much better than his slot, why should he "honor his contract?" His contract wasn't a matter of choice initially (only a limited choice with very small opportunity to deviate from the slot) and his team would happily cut him if he sucked. If the NFL continues to make all players at-will employees, I don't know how you can't expect them to ask for a raise (just like every other employed America).

Simply because that is part of the contractually obligated CBA.

[The Afoci]

Simply because that is part of the contractually obligated CBA.

It is also pretty common for players to get new contracts while under contract. Obviously Denver must agree he is underpaid, or they would have never offered him a contract in the first place.

[Buccaneer]

Go to the NFLPA site (http://www.nflpa.org/agents/main.asp?subPage=Research+Documents)

Some interesting documents

A New Look At Guaranteed Contracts In The NFL

Conventional wisdom has always held that unlike their counterparts in baseball, basketball and hockey, very few--if any--NFL players are able to get guaranteed contracts. New research now shows under the current system that not only is half of all NFL player salary guaranteed, but also that many players actually have contract guarantees.


It Happens Every February: Media Misperceptions of the Current NFL System

Every February, before the new NFL league year--and free agency--begins, many members of the media who cover the NFL bemoan how badly clubs and certain veteran players are being hurt by the salary cap and the free agency system. A detailed analysis of what happened to the 112 veteran NFL players released in late February and early March of 2001 reveals how distorted that perception is, and how players now face a much better situation than ever before in the history of the league.

[Buccaneer]

It is also pretty common for players to get new contracts while under contract. Obviously Denver must agree he is underpaid, or they would have never offered him a contract in the first place.

That is their right as the employer and in accordance to NFL and NFLPA rules. But they are not obligated to do so and can enforce the contract already in place.

[John Galt]

That is their right as the employer and in accordance to NFL and NFLPA rules. But they are not obligated to do so and can enforce the contract already in place.

I think saying "enforce" confuses things. A team cannot "force" a player to play under a contract. They can say that after a player has refused to play, they can void his contract an collect a pro-rated share of his signing bonus. At that point, the player is a free agent and can sign with a new team.

All Portis is doing is asking the Broncos - am I worth more than the recollection of the share of a signing bonus + the cost of my current contract? If so, pay me for that difference. It is called bargaining and is how all business negotiation works in non-guaranteed settings.

[The Afoci]

That is their right as the employer and in accordance to NFL and NFLPA rules. But they are not obligated to do so and can enforce the contract already in place.

And he is within his rights to hold out for a better contract. It is overly obvious that he is underpaid for his performance currently. I doubt anyone here who was in his situation would 'honor' the contract they signed.

[Kodos]

I would, but then I have low self-esteem. ;)

[Honolulu Blue]

Mixed emotions here. I'm ordinarily sympathetic to the players in their struggles to get more money from The Man, but...

1) Portis got a significant bonus for signing his contract. He's not going to give that back, and the team is counting it as part of his cap value for the next two seasons.

2) The Broncos are over the cap and may not be able to do any renegotiations that increases his cap value.

3) I have a distaste for renegotiations done through the media.

The classy thing to do here would be to serve out the contract then get paid during free agency.

[Ksyrup]

You notice football is the only sport with mass holdouts - could it be because they don't guarantee contracts? Whatever bad things you have to say about MLB and NBA contracts, at least they stop players from holding out. If the owners don't honor the contracts, I don't know why the player should either.
I couldn't agree more. WIth guaranteed contracts, it's a level playing field - you can gamble and take a 1-year contract, with a chance of having a great season and cashing in, or you can take the financial security of a long-term deal, knowing you might be leaving money on the table. Basically, Juan Gonzalez 2004 vs. Omar Vizquel in the early 90's, when he signed that 7 year, $21M deal.

In football, contracts aren't guaranteed, and if the team can cut a guy because he isn't playing up to the value of the contract he signed, then a player should be able to hold out for more money if he's out-performing his contract.

As a Broncos fan, I'm not happy about this, but I fully understand and support his decision. I'd like to know how much he asked for and what the counter-offer was, though.

[Ksyrup]

The classy thing to do here would be to serve out the contract then get paid during free agency.
And if Portis had been nothing but a bum? The classy thing for the team to do would have been to let him play out his contract, then find someone else to replace him. But that's not how it works.

[kcchief19]

When the NFL talks about "guaranteed salary" they are only talking about salary bonus -- only a handful of superstar players have guaranteed salary beyond bonus money.

Based on anecdotal observations, I think most holdouts like Portis happen simply because teams don't take care of their employees. If a smart business hires an employee at a set salary and that employee's value and contribution exceed their salary, it's smart business to give them a raise. If you don't take care of your employees, they will quit. That's essentially what Portis is threatening -- treat me better or I won't play.

The contract door swings both ways. Sure, it's easy to say that the NFLPA is to blame for having a CBA that doesn't guarantee salaries, but then again the CBA that created the current contract structure and revenue sharing have made players richer. On the other side, the CBA lets owners keep young players at cheap salaries and gives them flexibility in cutting players and not paying them, but it also means that if they pinch the pennies too much, a player might sit out. There's more than one side to every story.

I've long been a proponent that you should honor the contract you sign, but that doesn't mean it's a smart business decision. If Portis gets hurt playing for a few hundred thousand, he could lose out on millions down the road. And if he does get hurt, you can bet the Broncos won't pay him a dime more than they have to.

I don't see a side to favor in this fight. Both sides are right, both sides are wrong. But if you're going to take a side, you have to be consistent. If you think the Broncos are right, then you need to sniping when they cut somebody and don't pay them their contract, which they will do many times this year. If you want Portis to honor his contract, then the Broncos should honor his and all other contracts.

[kcchief19]

And if Portis had been nothing but a bum? The classy thing for the team to do would have been to let him play out his contract, then find someone else to replace him. But that's not how it works.Bingo!

[NoMyths]

There's also a difference between a raise (which, for some of us, means a 5% bump...at most) and what Portis is asking for. :P

[JonInMiddleGA]

... then the Broncos should honor his and all other contracts.
But if the terms of the agreement allow for the termination of salary-for-services at the team's pleasure, then they are honoring the contract.

[ISiddiqui]

If the NFL continues to make all players at-will employees, I don't know how you can't expect them to ask for a raise (just like every other employed America).

Exactly. If the money ain't guarenteed, I can't fault Portis for asking for a raise considering how woefully underpaid he is. Usually I don't really sympathize with these players holding out, but a 1,500+ rusher making $800,000? I can back Portis in this case.

[Ragesmith]

You also have to consider who is agent is...one Mr. Drew Rosenhaus. If I am not mistaken this is the same guy who got Portis's ex-teamate (Miami) Willis McGhee drafted in the first round even though everyone new he wouldn't play for another year. If I were a betting man (and I am) I would say that Denver will find some money for Clinton, even though I agree with those who say "he signed the dotted line therefore the should fulfill the contract".

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I always try to put myself in the position of the player. I would do what he is doing for sure. You need to make as much as you can before you're done. The only problem I have is 1) going to the media at this stage, 2) making an outrageous demand (if he did) especially in light of salary cap issues.

[Peregrine]

As several others have said, I support him trying to get whatever he can, but I think going to the media is a mistake. I'm sure the Broncos want him on their team for years to come and would be willing to pony up some more cash, but it would have been a lot better for them to deal with this in-house.

[ISiddiqui]

As for Portis going to media, it may depend on what the Broncs did. Maybe they severly lowballed him with their offer?

[Alf]

It is good to see Buccaneer in great form ! :D

[3ric]

Agreed, Bucc is up and grumbling like his old self... :) ...he must be recovering!

And, um, yes, I agree with John Galt.

[Alf]

3ric, I also agree with John Galt.

[sabotai]

I'd like to know how much he asked for and what the counter-offer was, though.
Which is why I haven't made a decision on this. It could be Denver offered him pennies more than he's getting now, which would be meaningless. Or, they could have offered severl millions and Portis is holding out of several millions +1. So we'll wait and see.

Generally speaking though, it would be nice if all players were forced to take a course in the NFL Salary Cap...you know, basic skills math, that is. It seems like everytime a player is demanding a huge increase, he doesn't consider the salary cap. They even say the owners use the salary cap as an excuse not to pay them (when the majority of teams always operate very close to the cap limit).

[stevew]

I agree with Galt.
Portis shouldnt play another down at this low rate of Pay. IF Denver doesnt want to pay his demands, and thinks he's a "system back" they should try to trade him.

[sterlingice]

I gotta agree with the cantankerous one- for those who aren't sure, that's Bucc not John in this case ;)

Some of the arguments are just plain non sequitors: "It's like me getting a pay raise"- yeah, but do you have a union with the contract structure of the NFL. Or "gotta admire baseball for their contract structure"... and it does so well for them if you're not a Yankees or Red Sox fan. But, I think there are two pretty distinct points of view here:

Dude, the guy rushed for 1500+ yards and is making less than a mil?!

I mean, it is a respect thing. I mean if Denver stonewalls, guess where he isn't going when free agency comes up?
I love how players feel no obligation to play out the contract that they signed. When they perform well, they demand a raise. When they perform poorly, they don't want to take a paycut if they have a big contract.

Screw him. Let him sit out.
The first (and I'm not picking on ISiddiqui since about 10 people have chimed in with similar thoughts), I just have no sympathy for and it has nothing to do with his salary and has everything to do with his contract. His Players Association which signed the CBA said "we're going to allow rookies and young players to not make as much so that veterans can get more" which translates to "pay your dues and when it's your time, you get paid". It's no accident the NFL players who voted on this CBA designed it this way. He's young and he's done well, but he hasn't put in his time. If he continues to, he'll get his $50M contract but until then, he's gotta keep working under his current contract.

SI

[Samdari]

I think saying "enforce" confuses things. A team cannot "force" a player to play under a contract. They can say that after a player has refused to play, they can void his contract an collect a pro-rated share of his signing bonus. At that point, the player is a free agent and can sign with a new team.


Actually, John, if he refuses to report, they can suspend him for not showing up, still not pay him, and keep his rights for the duration of the contract. They can easily keep Portis from signing with another team for two years, even if he decides not to play for them for that contract. There is no way he ends up on another team in that time period.

After two seasons away, he would be lucky to sign a contract for what he's making now.

[Noble_Platypus]

I know it seems unfair because if he plays poor theteam can cut him, and if not he is expected to play out his contract. However, every player knows when they sign that only the bonus is sure money. Its not like the are under the assumption that they get it all no matter what. If thats not good enough for you as a player dont sign. I feel no sympathy for anyone who plays a game for a living that we play for fun and for free on weekends, and makes millions doing it. Poor Clinton Portis will make more on his original contract than most of us will in 10-15 years. I have no pity for him.

[rkmsuf]

I hope he holds out all year...weaken the rest of the AFC!!!

[QuikSand]

I have mixed feeling about this, also. But I think one of our HBs brought up a good point:

1) Portis got a significant bonus for signing his contract. He's not going to give that back, and the team is counting it as part of his cap value for the next two seasons.

Along with the wholesale misunderstanding of NFL contracts by the media who cover them is the report from above that Portis is "only making $380,000 next year." Saying so, while nominally true, sets aside the fact that he got a signing bonus of over a million dollars at the outset of this contract (before he played a single down of football, of course). Saying that next year all he's making is his base salary allows the all-too-common distortion of looking at a multi-year ocntract on a cash basis, rather than the much more sensible "cap basis." Yes, to his checkbook, he's not slated to make a buch of cash next year, but that's because he negotiated a front-loaded deal with most of the money up front. Ever bit of his argument, as it is being reported, would still be true even if he got a $12 million signing bonus two seasons ago, rather than a $1 million bonus -- he could still be crying poverty about his upcoming base salary.


On the surface, I agree that even with the prorated share of his signing bonus, Portis is underpaid for his level of production. And even while I have sympathies for the "then don't sign the contract" argument, I do recognize that renegotiations (and the threat of holdouts)are enough a part of this widely-accepted system that it's unrealistic to single out a particular player and hold him to a different standard than is prectically accepted for others in similar circumstances. I don't really subscribe to the "it's just like you and me" parallels, but rather something like "it's just like tons of NFL players before him, and therefore everyone knew what they were getting into."

[QuikSand]

Poor Clinton Portis will make more on his original contract than most of us will in 10-15 years.

Clinton Portis is going to generate more revenue for his employer under his original contract than most of us will in 10-15 years.

What do "most of us" have to do with an NFL contract?

[HornedFrog Purple]

Do your time then whine.

That special teams player has been in the league a lot longer than you.

[Buccaneer]

Actually, I do agree that Portis deserves to be paid more. BUT, it was his immature, crybaby statements that has incited my and other's negative reactions. Broncos has always taken care of their players (Terrell Davis was in a similar boat and did not threaten to hold out). In life, the only person you have to worry about is yourself - you cannot and should not say someone else shouldn't be making more than you when all that is required is that you do the best you can. Doing the reverse only causes resentment towards you and bad attitudes on your behalf. Remember after the 1999 season, MVP Warner was scheduled to make about $400k, I think. He did not go to the media complaining about his contract, did not threaten to hold out and was looking forward to the next season. The Rams did the right thing and gave him a $6.5 million bonus. If I hear sometime this year that Portis would be getting a good sized bonus, I would say good for him, he deserves it. But right now, going to the media and acting like a whining brat, he deserves any animosity coming his way.

[John Galt]

Actually, John, if he refuses to report, they can suspend him for not showing up, still not pay him, and keep his rights for the duration of the contract. They can easily keep Portis from signing with another team for two years, even if he decides not to play for them for that contract. There is no way he ends up on another team in that time period.

After two seasons away, he would be lucky to sign a contract for what he's making now.

That's all true and is a third possibility (where the team may not get any share of the signing bonus back since it maintains Portis's rights). Either way, I don't think it changes things significantly since a team still has to make a determination if Portis's value is worth the pay raise in the negotiations.

And to everyone else, Portis may be an ass and I don't defend the way he has gone about things, but the right to renegotiate is an absolute necessity (and authorized under the CBA) as long as draft slotted pay and non-guaranteed salary exist in the NFL.

[RendeR]

Ok, this is what I get for not reading the whole thread.....


**********************************************************

I'm thinking that Denver could truly screw him in the long run by simply not releasing him. His cap his is minimal for the next 2 seasons. they could easily let him sit out as long as he wants. What team is going to touch him 2 years down the line with no playing time?

Denver has a signed contract, They could (not likely with postis' potential) say "fine, hold out for the next 30 months and try getting what your asking for in 2006"

Portis and his agent both have to know thats a possibility how ever remote of one, and be ready to take a slightly smaller offer than they really want.

I would think anyway....realy...I WOULD...if i could just remember how.....

[Samdari]

I'm thinking that Denver could truly screw him in the long run by simply not releasing him. His cap his is minimal for the next 2 seasons. they could easily let him sit out as long as he wants. What team is going to touch him 2 years down the line with no playing time?

Denver has a signed contract, They could (not likely with postis' potential) say "fine, hold out for the next 30 months and try getting what your asking for in 2006"

Exactly. Portis has far more to lose than the Broncos from him holding out. They can go find another running back (in fact, Griffin looked good last year) but Portis cannot go find another place to play. Even the CFL will not touch him while he is under contract to an NFL team.

[John Galt]

Exactly. Portis has far more to lose than the Broncos from him holding out. They can go find another running back (in fact, Griffin looked good last year) but Portis cannot go find another place to play. Even the CFL will not touch him while he is under contract to an NFL team.

If that were truly the case, the holdout wouldn't work. However, I'm pretty sure most of them do. This isn't just about one negotiation for the Broncos. This a repeat game. If the Broncos screw Portis, they are going to have a lot of trouble giving low-bonus, high guaranteed money contracts to guys in the future. Their credibility is an issue here and this situation has a lot more to it than Portis. Agents don't forget.

[Samdari]

If that were truly the case, the holdout wouldn't work. However, I'm pretty sure most of them do. This isn't just about one negotiation for the Broncos. This a repeat game. If the Broncos screw Portis, they are going to have a lot of trouble giving low-bonus, high guaranteed money contracts to guys in the future. Their credibility is an issue here and this situation has a lot more to it than Portis. Agents don't forget.

Oh, many holdouts do work. But there are also numerous cases of teams playing hardball and winning. Duce Staley comes to mind.

The way this will play out is, if Portis is willing to accept a modest raise, the team will give it to him and everyone is happy. If he insists upon market value for a 1500 yard back, they simply cannot do it, and he will have to either play or sit out. The contract they gave him was not screwing him - it was slotted.

[John Galt]

Oh, many holdouts do work. But there are also numerous cases of teams playing hardball and winning. Duce Staley comes to mind.

The way this will play out is, if Portis is willing to accept a modest raise, the team will give it to him and everyone is happy. If he insists upon market value for a 1500 yard back, they simply cannot do it, and he will have to either play or sit out. The contract they gave him was not screwing him - it was slotted.

No doubt that some holdouts fail - and that is precisely because the player overestimates his value. Does anyone really believe Portis is overestimating his value? In any holdout situation you are unlikely to get the full amount requested (unless you get an extension too), but that's why you holdout and bargain.

[Samdari]

No doubt that some holdouts fail - and that is precisely because the player overestimates his value. Does anyone really believe Portis is overestimating his value? In any holdout situation you are unlikely to get the full amount requested (unless you get an extension too), but that's why you holdout and bargain.

I agree that this situation will play out like baseball arbitration. Either way, the player will get a raise, and it will be the amount that the agent believes is truly the maximum the Broncos will pay. If he were to insist on true market value, the Broncos are simply in no position to pay, and would let him sit.

Btw, Portis is now denying that he threatened to hold out, Kurt Warner is denying he claimed his faith affected his playing status, and Janet Jackson is denying she has breasts.

[VPI97]

Eh...I'm in the same situation as Portis (albeit on a smaller scale)

I'm a contract programmer and my current rate of pay is based off of what I negotiated 8 months ago when I started this assignment. Based on what has occurred on the job in the past 8 months, I feel that I am worth far more to my company than what my initial agreement states. Should I demand that they renegotiate right now, or should I wait 4 more months until the initial agreement is up for review?

If I'm Portis, I'm guessing I should threaten not to show up at the office and whine about my pay rate. No me, though...my plan is to honor the contract that I signed, show up to do the best job I can, and wait until the appropriate time to discuss the details of my contract with my employers.

I must be a dunce. :(

[The Afoci]

Eh...I'm in the same situation as Portis (albeit on a smaller scale)

I'm a contract programmer and my current rate of pay is based off of what I negotiated 8 months ago when I started this assignment. Based on what has occurred on the job in the past 8 months, I feel that I am worth far more to my company than what my initial agreement states. Should I demand that they renegotiate right now, or should I wait 4 more months until the initial agreement is up for review?

If I'm Portis, I'm guessing I should threaten not to show up at the office and whine about my pay rate. No me, though...my plan is to honor the contract that I signed, show up to do the best job I can, and wait until the appropriate time to discuss the details of my contract with my employers.

I must be a dunce. :(

Yeah, this is the exact same situation. How could we have been so stupid. I mean, it isn't like this is an accepted practice in the NFL or anything.

[Chubby]

Eh...I'm in the same situation as Portis (albeit on a smaller scale)

I'm a contract programmer and my current rate of pay is based off of what I negotiated 8 months ago when I started this assignment. Based on what has occurred on the job in the past 8 months, I feel that I am worth far more to my company than what my initial agreement states. Should I demand that they renegotiate right now, or should I wait 4 more months until the initial agreement is up for review?

If I'm Portis, I'm guessing I should threaten not to show up at the office and whine about my pay rate. No me, though...my plan is to honor the contract that I signed, show up to do the best job I can, and wait until the appropriate time to discuss the details of my contract with my employers.

I must be a dunce. :(


But you only have 4 months to go unlike Portis who has 2 years. Big difference. I'd prob do the same as you and wait the 4 months then ask for the raise.

[QuikSand]

If we insist on continuing the comparisons between professional athletes and the rest of us, as though there are no meaningful differences in these work environmenst...

Are the markets for contract programmers and top-flight professional running backs comparable? I confess I don't really know all that much about the programming field, but at leat around here you can't swing a dead cat withouy knocking over a few guys who claim to be in the IT field. Doesn't the notion of "easy replaceability" have something to do with how much negotiation power any employee has in a circumstance like this?

[VPI97]

Doesn't the notion of "easy replaceability" have something to do with how much negotiation power any employee has in a circumstance like this?Certainly it does, but "easy replaceability" isn't a matter of "Portis is a top-flight running back" vs. "you can't swing a dead cat withouy knocking over a few guys who claim to be in the IT field".

Just as the Broncos have shown with their running backs over the past few years, my company could bring in another person to do my job and eventually get the same results. But at the same time, there have been two situations in the past week where I've saved the company from 1) a six figure minimum lawsuit and 2) six figures in losses from service failures.
Could someone else do the same things that I did to correct those problems? Sure, but only after a lengthy period of getting acclimated to our systems and environments.
Could my company have found someone to correct those problems at the exact time they needed me to work on them and have received the same results in the same period of time? No. I have no doubts about that.

To tie that in with the premise of the thread, Portis feels the same way I do. He knows that if he doesn't show up to work, the Broncos are going to have to get someone in there that has less familiarity or experience with the system...and that will cost the organization in the short run, while having unknown results in the long term. He's got the same leverage that I do, but I choose to honor my contract until the appropriate time. That's all I'm saying.

[QuikSand]

Fair points.

[ISiddiqui]

And to everyone else, Portis may be an ass and I don't defend the way he has gone about things, but the right to renegotiate is an absolute necessity (and authorized under the CBA) as long as draft slotted pay and non-guaranteed salary exist in the NFL.

Exactly. I hear people saying he should accept his contract, but how many people would like it if they graduated with a degree and there was really only one viable buyer of labor on the market and they offered a take-it or leave-it offer? This is where the Clarett situation gets interesting. If the case holds up, someone like Portis can complain that the draft and slotting of contracts violates anti-trust laws.

[Crapshoot]

Exactly- To use one example, would you like if you graduated top of your class with a degree in Finance- and instead of Goldman Sachs or LEhman, you get assigned to POdunk National Bank, because its a draft ? People are exceedingly generous in bargaining away the rights of others because its "just a game" or so forth. If a player can be cut for underperforming his contract, he damn well has the right to ask for a raise when outperforming it.

[albionmoonlight]

But what about the CBA? The players' union agreed to things like draft slotting and "you have to play for the Cardinals for four years" as part of the overall package. In exchange, the players get certain rights (pensions, etc.).

Players brought into the NFL have less rights vis a vis their employment than most other people, but that is because they (through their union) bargained away those rights in exchange for other things. I have no sympathy for them on that level.

To get to the topic at hand, an NFL contract is different than a normal employment contract. A team is only obligated to pay a player the agreed upon salary if that player is on the team--something completely in the team's control. In other words, the team does not really obligate itself to pay the player. Because of that distinction, I believe that a player is sometimes justified in "holding out."

From the fan's perspective--a small price to pay for a league with few guaranteed contracts.

[ISiddiqui]

Apparently Portis claims he did NOT say those things:

DENVER -- An angry Clinton Portis denied Thursday that he is considering holding out during training camp.

The Denver Post reported Thursday that Portis may be unwilling to play for his current contract. "If I don't feel like going to camp, if I don't feel like the situation is right for me, I won't be there," Portis, who is in Honolulu for his first Pro Bowl, reportedly told the Denver Post.

Reached at practice on Thursday, Portis tried to clear the air.

"I never said that I wasn't coming to camp if my contract didn't get redone," Portis told the Rocky Mountain News. "I never said my contract was an issue."

Yes, Portis admitted he was not thrilled with the $300,000 salary he made in the second year of a four-year deal he signed in 2002. He did say Thursday, however, he was willing to live with the terms of the contract for now.

Portis told the News that he was "suckered" into comments that made him look at odds with the Broncos.

"The media's making a bigger deal of it than it is, and I don't like that," he told the News. "Don't use me as a scapegoat for a storyline, like you got the inside scoop on something when you really didn't because I never said that."

Portis became the third running back to gain at least 1,500 yards in the first two seasons of a career, but also was among Denver's lowest-paid players. Only six Broncos made less last season than Portis, and all were on injured reserve or signed after the season began.

Portis has two years left on a four-year contract that paid him a $1.29 million signing bonus. He is scheduled to get $380,000 next season and $455,000 the season after, well below what the league's top players make. Portis ran for a career-high 1,591 yards and an NFL best 5.5 yards per carry last season, despite missing three games with sternum, ankle and knee injuries. He closed out the year with six consecutive 100-yard games.

"I have a contract, what can I do?" Portis told the News. "I can't put no gun to nobody's head and make them let me out of it. I slapped my name on the dotted line. So I've got four years."

Portis told the newspaper that he wants to sit down at some point to try to clear the air without "blowing this situation out of proportion."

"I'm not happy. But I wasn't happy last year and what did I do? I went out and gained 1,600 yards," he told the News. "You never seen me pout. I gave you my all. When I get out on the field, I give you my all. So there will never be an issue where I'm proud to have been a distraction. I got on the field. I wasn't happy. It was known I wasn't happy. I'm in the Pro Bowl."

The Broncos are already almost $5 million over the salary cap for the coming season and still want to re-sign Pro Bowl middle linebacker Al Wilson, unrestricted free-agent linebacker Ian Gold, defensive end Bertrand Berry and fullback Reuben Droughns. The agent for Wilson told the News on Thursday that he and the Broncos have finished about "90 percent" of negotiations toward a new contract for his client.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1728718

What do you think? Was he 'suckered' by the media (definately possible) or is a sneaky way to get it out in the press to put some pressure on the Broncs, but say it wasn't what he intended?

[John Galt]

But what about the CBA? The players' union agreed to things like draft slotting and "you have to play for the Cardinals for four years" as part of the overall package. In exchange, the players get certain rights (pensions, etc.).

Players brought into the NFL have less rights vis a vis their employment than most other people, but that is because they (through their union) bargained away those rights in exchange for other things. I have no sympathy for them on that level.

To get to the topic at hand, an NFL contract is different than a normal employment contract. A team is only obligated to pay a player the agreed upon salary if that player is on the team--something completely in the team's control. In other words, the team does not really obligate itself to pay the player. Because of that distinction, I believe that a player is sometimes justified in "holding out."

From the fan's perspective--a small price to pay for a league with few guaranteed contracts.

As I said in the Clarett thread, I hate it when unions bargain away the rights of future members. The NBA did it most egregiously with the rookie salary cap, but essentially allowing slotting of picks for salary (a clear sign of collusion in any other industry) eliminates any real bargaining power for future members.

[The_herd]

As I said in the Clarett thread, I hate it when unions bargain away the rights of future members. The NBA did it most egregiously with the rookie salary cap, but essentially allowing slotting of picks for salary (a clear sign of collusion in any other industry) eliminates any real bargaining power for future members.

The NBA players union didn't have much of a choice at the time. The outcry for some sort of a rookie cap started after the Bucks drafted Glenn Robinson and signed him to a deal somewhere in the range of 10 years and $84 million. While it doesn't seem that outrageous now, it was a contract worth more than the team itself at the time. Rookies were coming into the league expecting considerably more money than the player drafted in the same position a year prior. Everyone knew something needed to be done, and they used the quikest, easiest means to fix the problem.

These rookie caps are in place to because rookies were coming into the league with too much power. They could basically sit and wait until the team caved into their demands, because fans want to see their teams draft picks on the field. Agents realize this and milked teams for every penny they could. So the players have mostly brought these caps on themselves, I do not feel one bit sorry for them. Coming out of College, could someone really sit and wait until a business caves in to the pays them whatever that persons feels he's "worth"?

[John Galt]

You notice, however, that the union didn't ask any of the recent rookies to sacrifice their bloated contracts (which they could have done). Instead, they sacrificed future union members. When your rights are determined by a union that you can't vote in and those same limitations don't apply to existing union members, you are getting screwed. Yes, the rookie contracts had gotten high, but self-correction was in order - teams started running up against the cap and couldn't afford the exorbitant rookie contracts of the past. Also, the NFL essentially has a cap, but it affords rookies much more money than the NBA does. For the most part it works out, but for players that get severely injured in their first couple years, the new system sucks.

I just have a major problem when a union decides to totally screw future members with no sacrifices by existing members and then have those future members be told that "they" bargained for it - because they didn't "bargain" for it - a bunch of self-interested veterans did.

Cost containment and caps are fine - unions that don't require sacrifices by existing members and push the burden entirely to prospective members aren't fine in my book.

[albionmoonlight]

Points well taken John G.

[oykib]

Certainly it does, but "easy replaceability" isn't a matter of "Portis is a top-flight running back" vs. "you can't swing a dead cat withouy knocking over a few guys who claim to be in the IT field".

Just as the Broncos have shown with their running backs over the past few years, my company could bring in another person to do my job and eventually get the same results. But at the same time, there have been two situations in the past week where I've saved the company from 1) a six figure minimum lawsuit and 2) six figures in losses from service failures.
Could someone else do the same things that I did to correct those problems? Sure, but only after a lengthy period of getting acclimated to our systems and environments.
Could my company have found someone to correct those problems at the exact time they needed me to work on them and have received the same results in the same period of time? No. I have no doubts about that.

To tie that in with the premise of the thread, Portis feels the same way I do. He knows that if he doesn't show up to work, the Broncos are going to have to get someone in there that has less familiarity or experience with the system...and that will cost the organization in the short run, while having unknown results in the long term. He's got the same leverage that I do, but I choose to honor my contract until the appropriate time. That's all I'm saying.

The difference is that you know that your ability to get the raise will not be impacted by waiting four months. You will almost certainly be in an even better position. Portis is fairly likely to suffer an injury that would hurt his earning potential.

Portis has made what most of us consider to be a lot of money. But he hasn't been paid anywhere near his value to the team. Also, he has'nt made 'dream' money. His family isn't set for life with the amount he's made so far. He has a small window to try to make hay financially. I don't begrudge him any of the common tactics used to get the money.