Another reason to like Favre........

[Havok]

Javon has 2 years left on his rookie contract and he's holding out.... what a dick.


GREEN BAY, Wis. (May 3, 2005) -- Brett Favre said he is disappointed with teammate Javon Walker's contract holdout, and suggested the Green Bay Packers could manage without the Pro Bowl wide receiver.

"If Javon wants to know what his quarterback thinks, and I would think he might, I'd tell him he's going about this the wrong way," Favre told the Green Bay Press-Gazette in a story posted on its web site.

"When his agent tells him not to worry about what his teammates think and all that stuff, I'd tell him I've been around a long time and that stuff will come back to haunt you."

Walker stayed away from a mandatory minicamp that ended May 1. The 35-year-old Favre had been excused from the minicamp by coach Mike Sherman.

Walker has two years left on the contract he signed as a first-round draft pick of the Packers in 2002.

He's coming off a breakout season last year when he caught 89 passes for 1,382 yards and 12 touchdowns. He played in his first Pro Bowl in February.

Walker's new agent, Drew Rosenhaus, also represents cornerback Mike McKenzie, who held out of all the Packers' preseason training sessions a year ago. McKenzie was traded to New Orleans a few weeks into the season.

Favre said Walker might be wise to go to general manager Ted Thompson directly and try to work out a new deal.

"Javon has tremendous potential," Favre said. "We got to see some of that last year. The sky's the limit for that guy, and I'd be the first to defend him, but he's going about it the wrong way."

If Walker's position doesn't change, Favre said, he would prefer the team to go without him. The situation reminded him of Sterling Sharpe's decision to hold out the night before the Packers played host to the Minnesota Vikings in the 1994 season opener.

"We've got guys who'll give great effort. Stars are made that way. Look what happened when Sterling left. Robert Brooks stepped up," Favre said. "We can win without him."

"Maybe I'm old-school, but I always thought you honor a contract," Favre said. "Sure, sometimes guys pass you up in salary, and maybe it's a lesser player, but it's all based on what a team has as far as value in that person."

Favre left no doubt how he thinks the team should handle the situation.

"I sure hope the Packers don't give in to him," he said.

[Crapshoot]

Bullshit. Favre's always had his contract issues taken care of - so he rips on someone else ?

[Coffee Warlord]

As much as I despise the Packers and Favre, I have to admit...well said. Very well said.

[stevew]

Is Rosenhaus attempting to be the Boras of Football?

[Cringer]

Bullshit. Favre's always had his contract issues taken care of - so he rips on someone else ?

Give me a break, he is not ripping him. He is being asked questions about Walker and giving answers on how he feels about it. :rolleyes:

[cody8200]

I've always like Favre...not because I like Green Bay, I hate them, but as a player and a person Favre seems like a good guy. Just a few years ago he took a pay cut so he could finish his career with Green Bay...I liked that alot.

[Cringer]

Is Rosenhaus attempting to be the Boras of Football?

Rosenhaus has just gotten all these guys as his clients. These clients happen to have multiple years left on their contracts. As I understand it, he does not get money as an agent, because he had nothing to do with those contracts being negotiated or signed. For him to get money out of these players then he has to get them some kind of new contract.

That is how I heard it works anyways, I could be way off.

[miked]

If all these players never want to honor any long term agreements, why do they sign them? If you think you are getting hosed, couldn't you just sign a 2 year deal or something when you are drafted? It just seems like every year we hear people complaining that they don't get paid enough (I guess a million in Walker's hands is the same as 35k in my hands).

[Arles]

Bullshit. Favre's always had his contract issues taken care of - so he rips on someone else ?
Actually, Favre has never even threatened to hold out (despite the fact that there were times when very marginal QBs were making more than him). Plus, most of the "contract issues" in the past 5-6 years have been the team asking him to redo his deal for cap reasons - something he has always done without question.

He's not only talked the talk, he's walked the walk on these contract issues.

[wade moore]

Actually, Favre has never even threatened to hold out (despite the fact that there were times when very marginal QBs were making more than him). Plus, most of the "contract issues" in the past 5-6 years have been the team asking him to redo his deal for cap reasons - something he has always done without question.

He's not only talked the talk, he's walked the walk on these contract issues.


I think he is stealing an argument made on PTI last night...

The fact that Favre's contract is just 'handled' because he is the 'golden boy'. He never HAS to hold out, because they just reneg his contract since he is the franchise QB.

Not supporting this argument, just explaining it as I understand it.

[Masked]

Rosenhaus has just gotten all these guys as his clients. These clients happen to have multiple years left on their contracts. As I understand it, he does not get money as an agent, because he had nothing to do with those contracts being negotiated or signed. For him to get money out of these players then he has to get them some kind of new contract.

That is how I heard it works anyways, I could be way off.
That is exactly how it works.

[Crapshoot]

I think he is stealing an argument made on PTI last night...

The fact that Favre's contract is just 'handled' because he is the 'golden boy'. He never HAS to hold out, because they just reneg his contract since he is the franchise QB.

Not supporting this argument, just explaining it as I understand it.

What Wade said. Farve also got away without any suspension despite a vicodin additiction he admitted to (clearly an NFL thing though - not the Packers). The media never played up that angle. I think Farve's a great QB, but I also think he has never had to worry about anything in GB.

[WSUCougar]

Isn't this the point in the thread where someone rides in all in a huff and blasts anyone who dares to criticize a player for holding out?

[Arles]

I think he is stealing an argument made on PTI last night...

The fact that Favre's contract is just 'handled' because he is the 'golden boy'. He never HAS to hold out, because they just reneg his contract since he is the franchise QB.
He was grossly underpaid going into the Super Bowl years after signing a 5-year $19 million deal before the 1994 season. He never even hinted at a hold out after winning the Super Bowl in Jan of 96 - while making much less than market. He was at all the minicamps and early to camp in the 96-97 season despite making less than many starting QBs. It was only after his second Super Bowl appearance in 1997 that he got extended. He also *only* signed for a $10 million bonus a few years back when he could have easily gotten double that on the open market.

[judicial clerk]

The problem is that Favre should be telling this stuff to Walker not to the media. Favre should just say no comment. You have got to keep this shit in house.

As far as the substance of the coments go, I am not sure I agree. The NFL is big business. it chews these guys up and spits them out after three and a half years on average. You never know when you are going to hit a curb at 35 MPH or otherwise suffer an injury that ends your career. You need to grab what you can and use whatever influence you have to get the compensation you are worth. That said, I don't think the team should cave in to the players demands, I just don't completely fault the player for doing it.

[Raven Hawk]

What Wade said. Farve also got away without any suspension despite a vicodin additiction he admitted to (clearly an NFL thing though - not the Packers). The media never played up that angle. I think Farve's a great QB, but I also think he has never had to worry about anything in GB.
As long as he doesn't change his name to Mark Chmura . . . ;)

[Arles]

The problem is that Favre should be telling this stuff to Walker not to the media. Favre should just say no comment. You have got to keep this shit in house.
Why? Walker's agent is going through the media. If Walker wanted to quietly work out a deal without holding out, then I would agree. But once he goes public, all bets are off. Plus, Favre's point is more about the precedent involving other good young players in GB (guys like Green, RBs, the OL and other WRs). You can't make that point just talking to Walker.


As far as the substance of the coments go, I am not sure I agree. The NFL is big business. it chews these guys up and spits them out after three and a half years on average. You never know when you are going to hit a curb at 35 MPH or otherwise suffer an injury that ends your career. You need to grab what you can and use whatever influence you have to get the compensation you are worth. That said, I don't think the team should cave in to the players demands, I just don't completely fault the player for doing it.
I think it's in Green Bay's and Walker's best interest to lock him up before camp. The best thing to do would be for Walker and his agent to talk with the team over the summer and try to work out a deal by camp. But, by holding out, Walker makes a deal much harder from GB's end. Now, even if they wanted to extend him, doing so would now look like they gave into his demands and set a bad precedent. Unfortunately, Walker's best chance for an extension is to return to the team ASAP and end the holdout.

[judicial clerk]

Why? Walker's agent is going through the media. If Walker wanted to quietly work out a deal without holding out, then I would agree. But once he goes public, all bets are off. Plus, Favre's point is more about the precedent involving other good young players in GB (guys like Green, RBs, the OL and other WRs). You can't make that point just talking to Walker.


I don't care what Walker and his agent do, I would keep my end in-house.

I think it's in Green Bay's and Walker's best interest to lock him up before camp. The best thing to do would be for Walker and his agent to talk with the team over the summer and try to work out a deal by camp. But, by holding out, Walker makes a deal much harder from GB's end. Now, even if they wanted to extend him, doing so would now look like they gave into his demands and set a bad precedent. Unfortunately, Walker's best chance for an extension is to return to the team ASAP and end the holdout.


I agree with this.

[Surtt]

Why? Walker's agent is going through the media. If Walker wanted to quietly work out a deal without holding out, then I would agree. But once he goes public, all bets are off. Plus, Favre's point is more about the precedent involving other good young players in GB (guys like Green, RBs, the OL and other WRs). You can't make that point just talking to Walker.



In the media or not, this is between the player and management.
It has nothing to do with Favre. I really don't think one player should comment on another players contract status.
All it does is cause bad blood in the locker room.

[yabanci]

"Maybe I'm old-school, but I always thought you honor a contract," Favre said.

Where was Farve a month ago when the Packers tried to force Darren Sharper to take a pay cut, then released him when he wouldn't? I don't recall him on a soapbox talking about how the team should "honor the contract."

[wade moore]

Where was Farve a month ago when the Packers tried to force Darren Sharper to take a pay cut, then released him when he wouldn't? I don't recall him on a soapbox talking about how the team should "honor the contract."

Common fallacy in these arguments in my book..

This is the reason that players get signing bonuses. The signing bonus cannot be taken away, unless the player breaks specific terms in the contract. The contracts are written such that the team can terminate at any time, but the signing bonus stays.

So. The team IS honoring the terms of the contract - one term is that they can terminate the contract, but not the other way around.

[Bee]

In the media or not, this is between the player and management.
It has nothing to do with Favre. I really don't think one player should comment on another players contract status.
All it does is cause bad blood in the locker room.

I think the holdout is causing bad blood in the locker room. Discussing it in public, only makes that bad blood ...err..public. :D

[yabanci]

Common fallacy in these arguments in my book..

This is the reason that players get signing bonuses. The signing bonus cannot be taken away, unless the player breaks specific terms in the contract. The contracts are written such that the team can terminate at any time, but the signing bonus stays.

So. The team IS honoring the terms of the contract - one term is that they can terminate the contract, but not the other way around.

Your book is wrong. NFL teams force players to take pay cuts all the time.

If the team thinks the contract price is too much, it won't pay and will either force the player to renegotiate a pay cut or terminate the contract. If the player thinks the contract price is not enough, he won't play and try to force the team to pay more. Usually they'll negotiate some kind of resolution, because in most cases it's in both parties' interests to play. That's reality.

Bret Farve is just talking out of both sides of his ass, sitting on tens of millions of dollars and about to retire. Javon Walker can tear his ACL and it will all be over tomorrow. If you were in Walker's position, you'd do the same thing. This is a multimillion dollar business, not a game.

[Cuckoo]

I'm not sure if you read what he wrote, yabanci. He's saying that players receive signing bonuses; that's their guaranteed money. The rest is not guaranteed, and they know that going in. Therefore, the team is honoring the contract by giving said player that money up front and not taking it back.

I understand the business side of matters and the worries that a player may get hurt and blow any legitimate chance he may have of cashing in on his talent. At the same time, I'm with Favre on this in many ways. Tough call, but I typically would side with the decision to honor one's contract.

[Cringer]

Why? Walker's agent is going through the media.

Walker himself has been too. He has been on NFL Radio a couple times the last 2 weeks. Hedoesn't come off as an ass though, so that is nice.


As far as Favre, I think he has a good point in saying Walker should wait. Mike McKenzie signed an extension earlier then he should have (or needed too), and two years later was pissed because guys were getting paid more then him.

[Arles]

Your book is wrong. NFL teams force players to take pay cuts all the time.

If the team thinks the contract price is too much, it won't pay and will either force the player to renegotiate a pay cut or terminate the contract. If the player thinks the contract price is not enough, he won't play and try to force the team to pay more. Usually they'll negotiate some kind of resolution, because in most cases it's in both parties' interests to play. That's reality.
Think of NFL contracts like a 1-year deal for the Signing bonus + first year salary with a team option for each of the future seasons. It will make a lot more sense in those terms (which is closer to the legal status than a normal guaranteed contract).

Bret Farve is just talking out of both sides of his ass, sitting on tens of millions of dollars and about to retire. Javon Walker can tear his ACL and it will all be over tomorrow. If you were in Walker's position, you'd do the same thing. This is a multimillion dollar business, not a game.
Favre could have torn his ACL the season after winning the Super Bowl, when he was making below average QB money. But he didn't hold out. The reality is that Walker would probably have gotten an extension before the first game. If you look at recent top players with a year or two left on their deals (Green, Flanagan, Tauscher, Harris,...), that's the pattern GB has taken. By holding out, he may have screwed any chance of getting that deal.

If he was really concerned about getting a new deal, he shouldn't have held out. The only person who successfully held out in GB now plays for New Orleans and still doesn't have a new deal (and is thinking of holding out again). The team's history has shown he would have been taken care of had he not held out. Just ask Ahman Green, Al Harris, Mark Tauscher, Robert Ferguson and Mike Flanagan.

[wade moore]

Others explained my points more clearly than me...

It is agreed that the only guranteed money is the signing bonus. They know that going in, that is the contract. Period.

[Surtt]

Favre could have torn his ACL the season after winning the Super Bowl, when he was making below average QB money. But he didn't hold out. The reality is that Walker would probably have gotten an extension before the first game. If you look at recent top players with a year or two left on their deals (Green, Flanagan, Tauscher, Harris,...), that's the pattern GB has taken. By holding out, he may have screwed any chance of getting that deal.



Perhaps Farve was foolish not to.
Simply because he didn't, does not give him some sort of morale high ground to tell his team mates to take the same risk.

[Ksyrup]

Others explained my points more clearly than me...

It is agreed that the only guranteed money is the signing bonus. They know that going in, that is the contract. Period.
Yep. The years are just a way to help the team spread the signing bonus. That, and help the player's agent look like he got his client a huge deal, when in reality the total package means very little.

[Blackadar]

Others explained my points more clearly than me...

It is agreed that the only guranteed money is the signing bonus. They know that going in, that is the contract. Period.

Agreed. Yabanci's off-base on this one. The signing bonus is the thing. The only other money that can even remotely be counted on is how big the cap hit is by letting go of the player. And that money isn't guaranteed, it's just common sense.

So a WR that signs a 5 year, $50 million contract with a $8m bonus could get something like this:

Bonus: $8m

Year 1: $2m
Year 2: $4m
Year 3: $8m
Year 4: $12m
Year 5: $16m

You will probably get the year 1 and 2 money. Once year 3 comes around, the team is going to ask you to take a pay cut or they'll cut your butt loose and eat the $4.8m cap hit.

[Arles]

Simply because he didn't, does not give him some sort of morale high ground to tell his team mates to take the same risk.
Sure it does. If a star is put in the position to where he can hold out and risk the team's season or play with the promise that he will get the deal done later - and that player chooses the former, he earns the right to criticize those who choose the latter.

Favre's essentially saying to Walker that many of his teammates (including Favre himself) were in the position of playing for a below market contract and they dealt with management on the issue without holding out. So, why can't Walker do the same thing? And, again, much like how the team recently handled Ahmad Green, Mark Tauscher and Al Harris, Walker would have gotten an extension prior to the first game had he not held out.

[Surtt]

Sure it does. If a star is put in the position to where he can hold out and risk the team's season or play with the promise that he will get the deal done later - and that player chooses the former, he earns the right to criticize those who choose the latter.

.

I disagree.
Just because I didn't ask for a raise a few years ago and ended up with one anyway,
doesn't mean I can run around complaining about a co-worker who asks for one this year.
It would be none of my business.

What if Walker gets hurt, or even has only an average year; he only had 1 good year out of 3, no new contract.

The only leverage he has is holding out now, while his value is high.
I don't like it when players hold out, but I understand why they do it.

[Arles]

I disagree.
Just because I didn't ask for a raise a few years ago and ended up with one anyway,
doesn't mean I can run around complaining about a co-worker who asks for one this year.
It would be none of my business.

What if Walker gets hurt, or even has only an average year; he only had 1 good year out of 3, no new contract.
Then he should have signed a 3 or 4 year deal out of college instead of a 5-year deal. Walker got a first round pick signing bonus on a 5-year deal. The team wasn't complaining when he stunk as a rookie and was way overpaid or was slow to get going his sophomore year. So, he has a breakout third year. Ask the team for an extension and there's a good chance he will get it. The team doesn't want him to be a UFA.

But holding out with 2 years left on your deal (before the team even has a chance to start talking about an extension with your new agent) is poor way to go about it.

The only leverage he has is holding out now, while his value is high.
I don't like it when players hold out, but I understand why they do it.
What about the team, who paid Walker a 1st round contract and signing bonus during the first two season while he sat the bench and dropped passes in his limited time on the field? What was their recourse?

Walker was seriously overpaid his rookie season, somewhat overpaid his sophomore season and underpaid his third season. If he came into camp with the intention to play in 05, chances are he would get an extension before the season began and get his money. The team did the same thing for other players that acted in that manner. GB doesn't want Walker to be a free agent and probably would have offered to extend him before game 1.

[yabanci]

Some of you are missing the point. Of course I understand that salary money is not guaranteed, but you are forgetting that it's not "guaranteed" that the player will play either. This isn't slavery or indentured servitude. The player can retire, quit and walk away, hold out, might even turn into a bust and not be capable of playing at his former level, etc., and the team knows this. That's why they take a risk with the signing bonus, just like the player takes a risk signing a contract that might not reflect his true value in future.

As time goes by, if the team doesn't want to pay a salary that it views as to high, they don't have to (and consequently they lose the player's services). If the player doesn't want to accept a salary that he views is two low, he doesn't have to play (and he loses his pay, fines, and the team even has remedies to get back the signing bonus ala Ricky Williams).

The same way the player knows it's not guaranteed that he'll get the salary, the team knows it's not guaranteed that he'll play out his contract no matter what the price. Fans might not like it, but NFL teams and agents know that this is a business and that's the way the business works.

It's why, even though there's a contract in place, both sides still have bargaining power to renegotiate the terms of that contract on more favorable terms. It's true that the player will almost never win because he almost always has less bargaining power and everything (CBA, current contract, public opinion) is stacked against him, but there are numerous examples where a player signs a rookie or even veteran contract, then becomes much more valuable, then forces the team to renegotiate the contract. It's capitalism at work.

This isn't about right or wrong or morality or doing what's best for the team. This is a multimillion dollar business and quality NFL players have something extremely valuable that they can sell for a very short period of time, and as good little capitalists they are going to do whatever they can to maximize that selling price.

It goes back to the example of any other business situation. If you sign a contract to sell a product to a distributor, even if you get a signing bonus and you know that the distributor can cancel the contract at any time without penalty, and then your product becomes much more valuable for some reason (say 5x more valuable), then you will very smartly breach the contract, pay your damages, and sell that product at the price which gives you the maximum profit.

Whether you people like it or not, this is why there are holdouts every year and always will be: because it is a capitalistic system where the sellers (the players) are trying to maximize their profit during the very short time their product has value and both the players teams understand the nature of their contractual relationship and the economic system in which they operate.

I'm not saying Javon Walker is making the right choice or whether it will work, because I could care less, but it's stupid for Bret Farve to say "I'm old school, dude, and he should honor his contract," and it's stupid for others to bow down to him for saying it. It's a ridiculous notion if you understand the nature of contractual relationships and the NFL's economic system.

[Cringer]

If he came into camp with the intention to play in 05, chances are he would get an extension before the season began and get his money. The team did the same thing for other players that acted in that manner. GB doesn't want Walker to be a free agent and probably would have offered to extend him before game 1.

Though I agree with most of what you are saying, this is one area where I can not completely agree with you. We do not know if the Pack would have even considered offering Walker a new deal this year. With a new GM, the Packers may not do things the same way any more. Although his background would suggest he may do things the same as Wolf and then Sherman did, but you never know.

[Arles]

Though I agree with most of what you are saying, this is one area where I can not completely agree with you. We do not know if the Pack would have even considered offering Walker a new deal this year. With a new GM, the Packers may not do things the same way any more. Although his background would suggest he may do things the same as Wolf and then Sherman did, but you never know.
Perhaps, but it's usually better form to atleast talk about an extension for a few months before immediately holding out. Then again, it appears that Rosenhaus (Walker, Boldin, TO) only has one play in his playbook.

[yabanci]

Another reason to like Darren Sharper.......

Vikings | Sharper Bites Back at Favre - from www.KFFL.com
Wed, 4 May 2005 20:47:16 -0700

Bob Wolfley, of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reports Minnesota Vikings S Darren Sharper strongly criticized Green Bay Packers QB Brett Favre for sticking his nose into WR Javon Walker's contract dispute. Sharper said Favre's words would carry "no weight" with another player on the Packers. Sharper said Walker is now a Pro Bowl player and will do what he wants. "What's going on with the minicamps and whether or not Javon's there - Brett wasn't at minicamp so it really doesn't make a difference who is there," said Sharper. "He wasn't there, so he shouldn't have anything to say about Javon not being there." Sharper made his comments during an interview on Sirius Satellite Radio on the "The Afternoon Blitz" show.

[Cringer]

Perhaps, but it's usually better form to atleast talk about an extension for a few months before immediately holding out. Then again, it appears that Rosenhaus (Walker, Boldin, TO) only has one play in his playbook.

Once again, no disagreement at all.


As far as the Sharper comments yabanci, who knows. Favre was told that he shouldn't attend by Sherman, to focus on his family. I think that is a totally different situation the Walker. And as an entrenched veteran QB, he wouldn't do much at a mini-camp anyways. Walker, despite being a pro-bowl player, could still use some work on things.

But I will not fault Sharper for making any comments. He was asked about it and gave his opinion just as Favre was and did.

[Arles]

Another reason to like Darren Sharper.......

Vikings | Sharper Bites Back at Favre - from www.KFFL.com
Wed, 4 May 2005 20:47:16 -0700

Bob Wolfley, of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reports Minnesota Vikings S Darren Sharper strongly criticized Green Bay Packers QB Brett Favre for sticking his nose into WR Javon Walker's contract dispute. Sharper said Favre's words would carry "no weight" with another player on the Packers. Sharper said Walker is now a Pro Bowl player and will do what he wants. "What's going on with the minicamps and whether or not Javon's there - Brett wasn't at minicamp so it really doesn't make a difference who is there," said Sharper. "He wasn't there, so he shouldn't have anything to say about Javon not being there." Sharper made his comments during an interview on Sirius Satellite Radio on the "The Afternoon Blitz" show.
I'll be enjoying watching him blow tackles against GB this season, instead of for the Pack. But, I admit, if there is a player that knows a lot about being overpaid, it's certainly Sharper.

[Surtt]

A little more from THe MN Star-Trib

Darren Sharper might be a former Packer but that doesn't mean he isn't willing to give his view on his former team. Sharper, who signed with the Vikings as a free agent in March after eight years in Green Bay, said holdout receiver Javon Walker shouldn't concern himself with recent critical remarks made by quarterback Brett Favre.

"[Favre's comments] don't carry any weight right now because Javon Walker is a Pro Bowl player and he's going to do what he wants to do," Sharper said on Sirius Satellite Radio. "[Favre's] not in Javon's shoes right now. Javon should not pay attention to his comments at all.

" ... I have the utmost respect for Brett and what he feels as far as guys on his team, but when it comes to contract situations, those are personal matters. Brett should not have anything to say about that. It has nothing to do with him."


I know this is from an ex-Packer so you have too take it with a grain of salt.

[wade moore]

Yabanci,

You are still the one missing the point. The contract expects the player to pay if healthy. Where in the contract does it say that the player has the right to demand renegotiation at any time? It doesn't. Where in thte contract does it say the player has the right to refuse to play? It doesn't - and that's why players are not paid during hold-outs.

However, the contract DOES say that the team ahs the right to terminate the contract, except due to injury (that is why we have injury settelements).

[Cuckoo]

Yabanci,

You are still the one missing the point. The contract expects the player to pay if healthy. Where in the contract does it say that the player has the right to demand renegotiation at any time? It doesn't. Where in thte contract does it say the player has the right to refuse to play? It doesn't - and that's why players are not paid during hold-outs.

However, the contract DOES say that the team ahs the right to terminate the contract, except due to injury (that is why we have injury settelements).


Yep, this is the way I see it as well. I think that if the players don't think this is fair, they need to be handling it with the player's union and try to change the system. But as long as it is the system, it is less than honorable, in my opinion, to hold-out. Now, I would agree with what other people say about Favre saying this to the media, though. I like his attitude about it, but I do think it's something that should be handled in-house.

Apparently, though, those like you and I (and several others in this thread) are stupid according to yabanci.

[Cringer]

" ... I have the utmost respect for Brett and what he feels as far as guys on his team, but when it comes to contract situations, those are personal matters. Brett should not have anything to say about that. It has nothing to do with him."


Nope, Walker being there or not has no effect on the Packers or the QB. :rolleyes:

[TazFTW]

Sort of related. From Rotoworld,

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%"><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD noWrap bgColor=#01686b>Randy McMichael (http://fantasyfootball.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.asp?sport=NFL&id=6000) - TE - Dolphins (http://fantasyfootball.rotoworld.com/content/clubhouse_news.asp?sport=NFL&majteam=MIA)</TD><TD width=40 background=/images/dia_wt_2_trans_tr.gif bgColor=#01686b><SPACER width="35" height="16" type="block">
</TD><TD noWrap> [/url]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR height=1 width="100%"><TD width="100%" bgColor=#01686b height=1><SPACER width="1" height="1" type="block">
</TD></TR><TR width="100%"><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Miami Dolphins TE Randy McMichael has said that he will not hold out if he doesn't get a new contract. ''Why would I want to hold out? What does that prove? What is that going to prove to anybody, by holding out? I love playing this game. I don't want to be away from it. That's not even in the back of my mind at all,'' McMichael was quoted as saying.
This is refreshing news. A football player who actually cares about playing football while fully knowing that a contract will end up being worked out. Javon Walker could learn a thing or two from the Dolphins TE. McMichael is a top TE for your fantasy team and a must start each week. May. 5 - 3:35 pm et
Source: [url=""]Miami Herald (http://fantasyfootball.rotoworld.com/lm/reports/teamhome.asp?leaguenum=&showtm=xxx)

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[Kodos]

Of course, McMichael beats his pregnant wife. So maybe he's not a great guy either.

Link. (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040629-043631-6427r)

Of course, he eventually ended up with no charges against him.

[st.cronin]

Holding out is a legitimate tactic for players. It is a risky one, though, so you better be sure of your bargaining power beforehand.

[yabanci]

Yabanci,

You are still the one missing the point. The contract expects the player to pay if healthy. Where in the contract does it say that the player has the right to demand renegotiation at any time? It doesn't. Where in thte contract does it say the player has the right to refuse to play? It doesn't - and that's why players are not paid during hold-outs.

However, the contract DOES say that the team ahs the right to terminate the contract, except due to injury (that is why we have injury settelements).

you seem to be spinning in circles, so let's start with square one. The contract doesn't say the player has the right to refuse to play because the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides for that. Indentured servitude is illegal.

That means the player (like everyone else) has the constitutional right to refuse to perform the work for which he is employed. Of course, like I explained before in more detail than was necessary (maybe you didn't bother to read), there are consequences if the player refuses to play. He won't get paid, fines, the team can even recoup its signing bonus ala Ricky Williams. But, in some cases the player may believe (correctly or incorrectly) that he is better off from an economic point of view to accept those consequences because in the end he'll be better off (new contract, or get traded to a team that will give him a new contract, etc.)

As for the team terminating a contract, of course it has the right to do so. But by doing so, the team loses the services of the player. By the same token, the player has the right (constitutionally) not to play. But by doing so, he loses salary, pays fines, loss of favorable public opinion, etc. Both will exercise these rights and suffer the corresponding consequences in the manner they perceive to be most economically efficient. It is just as silly to complain about teams "not honoring contracts" by cutting a player as it is to complain about players "not honoring contracts" by trying to use the limited bargaining power they have to force a renegotiation. This is economics and market theory, and you have to look at it from that perspective if you want to understand it correctly. Teams and players are not in this to be "honorable," they are in it to maximize profits. If you don't like that, blame capitalism.

[Arles]

It is just as silly to complain about teams "not honoring contracts" by cutting a player as it is to complain about players "not honoring contracts" by trying to use the limited bargaining power they have to force a renegotiation.
This is not true. Per the contract signed by both the player and the team, the team CAN cut the player at any time in the offseason (barring injury) and not owe one penny more than already has been paid. There is nothing in the contract that allows a player to stop playing and hold out. Now, a team cannot cut a player during the season and hope to recoup that season's salary. But, in the offseason, anything goes/

So, if a team cuts a player under contract in the above situation, they ARE honoring the contract. But if a player doesn't want to play for the contract he signed, he is in breach and is NOT honoring the contract.

That's the NFL system as it stands today.

[Cuckoo]

Edit:

Hmm... Nevermind. I'm stepping out of this one. Almost as frustrating as some of those political threads. Talking about "spinning in circles."

[yabanci]

This is not true. Per the contract signed by both the player and the team, the team CAN cut the player at any time in the offseason (barring injury) and not owe one penny more than already has been paid. There is nothing in the contract that allows a player to stop playing and hold out. Now, a team cannot cut a player during the season and hope to recoup that season's salary. But, in the offseason, anything goes/

So, if a team cuts a player under contract in the above situation, they ARE honoring the contract. But if a player doesn't want to play for the contract he signed, he is in breach and is NOT honoring the contract.

That's the NFL system as it stands today.

First, reread above post. There's nothing in the contract that allows the player to stop playing and hold out because it's an inherent constitutional right. Every employee in every industry has this right and in fact exercises it on a regular basis. You have employees of every kind going on strike, sick outs, etc., to improve the terms of their existing employment arrangements. I don't know, maybe you are a reactionary and want to go back to 18th century employment law. I guess that's what Farve means by being "old school."

Second, so what if he is in breach of the contract by holding out? A capitalist's goal is not to honor contracts; it's to maximize profits. If a contract is economically inefficient (or at least is perceived to be), it should be breached. The law encourages the breach. That's basic economic theory, day one. Maybe it's difficult for people to grasp. You couldn't keep track of the number of times Microsoft has breached a contract if you counted on the fingers of your hands and the hands of everybody you know.

If you contract with someone to distribute your software for $10 per unit, then find someone who can do it even better for $1 per unit, are you going to "honor" the contract and lose all those extra profits? Maybe you would.

[Arles]

I guess I see your point about just completely disregarding the contract. But, I was referring to your point here:

It is just as silly to complain about teams "not honoring contracts" by cutting a player as it is to complain about players "not honoring contracts" by trying to use the limited bargaining power they have to force a renegotiation.
While certainly anyone can "breach" a contract and face the reprocussions, my point was that holding out is indeed breaching the contract while cutting a player in the offseason is not.

But, if you want to go down the road of breaching a contract is all fine and dandy as long as you can get away with it, I think the usefullness of this discussion has ended.

[wade moore]

Edit:

Hmm... Nevermind. I'm stepping out of this one. Almost as frustrating as some of those political threads. Talking about "spinning in circles."

Ditto.

[yabanci]

So, Arles, you're not going to answer this hypothetical question??


If you contract with someone to distribute your software for $10 per unit, then find someone who can do it even better for $1 per unit, are you going to "honor" the contract and lose all those extra profits? Maybe you would.

[Arles]

So, Arles, you're not going to answer this hypothetical question??
If you contract with someone to distribute your software for $10 per unit, then find someone who can do it even better for $1 per unit, are you going to "honor" the contract and lose all those extra profits? Maybe you would.

If I sign a contract to buy X units from him, then I am stuck with that contract. But, if the contract has an out (or buyout), I may go that route. But, it would have to be a legal out. I am certainly not going to breach the contract mumbling something about indentured servitude ;)

[yabanci]

If I sign a contract to buy X units from him, then I am stuck with that contract. But, if the contract has an out (or buyout), I may go that route. But, it would have to be a legal out. I am certainly not going to breach the contract mumbling something about indentured servitude ;)

Wow, I thought you were a little sharper than this. First, the hypothetical had nothing to do with buying anything. Second, it has nothing to do with indentured servitude because we're not talking about employment. A very lazy answer to a question that goes to the heart of the issue, but I guess people like to avoid questions that they perceive might undermine their position.

Putting that aside, breaching the contract is the legal way out. Breaching a contract is not illegal or immoral, and contract law actually encourages the breaching of inefficient contracts. That's why you cannot recover punitive damages or, in most instances, specific performance. The appropriate thing to do is notify the distributor that you intend to breach to contract so that he can minimize his damages, then pay the damages caused by the breach and enjoy the increased profits under the new contract. This happens every day. For some reason I had the impression that you were more business savvy.

[Sharpieman]

Javon has 2 years left on his rookie contract and he's holding out.... what a dick.


GREEN BAY, Wis. (May 3, 2005) -- Brett Favre said he is disappointed with teammate Javon Walker's contract holdout, and suggested the Green Bay Packers could manage without the Pro Bowl wide receiver.

"If Javon wants to know what his quarterback thinks, and I would think he might, I'd tell him he's going about this the wrong way," Favre told the Green Bay Press-Gazette in a story posted on its web site.

"When his agent tells him not to worry about what his teammates think and all that stuff, I'd tell him I've been around a long time and that stuff will come back to haunt you."

Walker stayed away from a mandatory minicamp that ended May 1. The 35-year-old Favre had been excused from the minicamp by coach Mike Sherman.

Walker has two years left on the contract he signed as a first-round draft pick of the Packers in 2002.

He's coming off a breakout season last year when he caught 89 passes for 1,382 yards and 12 touchdowns. He played in his first Pro Bowl in February.

Walker's new agent, Drew Rosenhaus, also represents cornerback Mike McKenzie, who held out of all the Packers' preseason training sessions a year ago. McKenzie was traded to New Orleans a few weeks into the season.

Favre said Walker might be wise to go to general manager Ted Thompson directly and try to work out a new deal.

"Javon has tremendous potential," Favre said. "We got to see some of that last year. The sky's the limit for that guy, and I'd be the first to defend him, but he's going about it the wrong way."

If Walker's position doesn't change, Favre said, he would prefer the team to go without him. The situation reminded him of Sterling Sharpe's decision to hold out the night before the Packers played host to the Minnesota Vikings in the 1994 season opener.

"We've got guys who'll give great effort. Stars are made that way. Look what happened when Sterling left. Robert Brooks stepped up," Favre said. "We can win without him."

"Maybe I'm old-school, but I always thought you honor a contract," Favre said. "Sure, sometimes guys pass you up in salary, and maybe it's a lesser player, but it's all based on what a team has as far as value in that person."

Favre left no doubt how he thinks the team should handle the situation.

"I sure hope the Packers don't give in to him," he said.

Grrreaaat, more ESPN Farve dick-sucking material.

[Arles]

Wow, I thought you were a little sharper than this. First, the hypothetical had nothing to do with buying anything

If you contract with someone to distribute your software for $10 per unit, then find someone who can do it even better for $1 per unit, are you going to "honor" the contract and lose all those extra profits?
So, I guess this person was going to everything for free since I wasn't "buying anything" (like his services for distribution). Heck, if he's doing it for free there's no way I would breach the contract.

Second, it has nothing to do with indentured servitude because we're not talking about employment.
No, it would be a vendor relationship - which has a distinct parallel to a player contracting his services to a team in the NFL. NFL players are much more like a vendor or subcontractor than a fulltime employee given players are on fixed-length contracts and not paid year round.

Putting that aside, breaching the contract is the legal way out. Breaching a contract is not illegal or immoral, and contract law actually encourages the breaching of inefficient contracts. That's why you cannot recover punitive damages or, in most instances, specific performance. The appropriate thing to do is notify the distributor that you intend to breach to contract so that he can minimize his damages, then pay the damages caused by the breach and enjoy the increased profits under the new contract.
That's assuming there is a handy dandy inexpensive exit clause in the contract. And, as I stated earlier:
But, if the contract has an out (or buyout), I may go that route.
I was actually assuming the person that setup the vendor contract didn't give me an easy way out to leave him high and dry and skip out to use another vendor without paying a serious penalty.

This happens every day. For some reason I had the impression that you were more business savvy.
Breaching contracts in the real world carry serious penalties. Try to "breach" a car lease midway through without paying anything or try to "breach" your cell phone contract a couple months into a two year deal with paying any serious penalties.

I don't know which vendors you work with that allow you to breach large-scale manufacturing or distribution contracts with a small penalty, but I'm pretty sure they're out of business right now. I have spent significant time working with large-scale vendors in both manufacturing and distribution and can tell you we never breached a signed contract to save a few bucks. Not only would it have hurt our professional reputation, but the financial penalties for breaching would have been more than the money we could have saved by going elsewhere.

Breaching a contract is a last resort and something that is often extremely expensive and not worth the hassle. Heck, the NFL is a great example of that. If GB were to cut Walker tomorrow, they wouldn't owe him one penny more than they've paid him (ie, no breach). If Walker decides to hold out all season, he will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars and still be unable to work anywhere else in the NFL after the season. I would say that's a pretty steep cost for breaching a contract. The real world isn't all that different when you are dealing in a professional capacity on a large scale.

[yabanci]

Sorry, Arles, I thought you knew a little more about contract law and economic theory in this area, but I was assuming too much. There's no such thing as a "penalty" for breaching a contract. Penalty clauses are per se invalid, because contract law encourages the breach of inefficient contracts and penalty clauses interfere with that policy. The closest you can have to a penalty clause is a liquidated damages clause, which is almost similar but entirely different. The remedy for breach of contract is damages, sometimes injunctive relief.

But you're right to the extent your post makes any sense. If the damages for breaching a contract are greater than the economic benefits gained by the breach, then the contract is not an inefficient one and you would not breach it. There may be other non-economic considerations as well. That wasn't the hypothetical though.

Maybe this will help you understand the concept: http://www1.law.umkc.edu/Faculty/russell/Sales%2002/efficientbreach.htm

[Arles]

Sorry, Arles, I thought you knew a little more about contract law and economic theory in this area, but I was assuming too much. There's no such thing as a "penalty" for breaching a contract.
By penalty I meant lawsuit or collection to regain funds. Obviously, if you "breach" a contract you are no longer abiding by the contract so there is no clause for how the situation is dealt with. I didn't think this was a complicated concept, but I guess I was wrong.

But you're right to the extent your post makes any sense. If the damages for breaching a contract are greater than the economic benefits gained by the breach, then the contract is not an inefficient one and you would not breach it.
That pretty much was my entire point.

That wasn't the hypothetical though.
Your hypothetical involved a non-professional contract with no ability by the vendor to recoup damages? Certainly an interesting manner for a business to run. It certainly has no parallel with the situation with Walker and GB (which was the point of this entire discussion).

Maybe this will help you understand the concept: http://www1.law.umkc.edu/Faculty/russell/Sales%2002/efficientbreach.htm
It is explained in terms of the overarching concept of “Pareto Superiority.” A transaction is Pareto Superior if it results in the allocation of a resource that makes one party better off and makes no party worse off.
That's certainly a nice academic petry dish for contract law. IF there is a way to compensate the "injured" party for the breach and still come out financially ahead. IF there is a way to handle the settlement without incurring massive legal fees. IF there is a way to handle the breach without having one side resort to collection. IF there is a way to handle the breach without the offending side suffering damage to his professional reputation...

Then, it certainly seems a settlement would be possible. But often the above four moons are not in orbit for most professional relationships midway through a contract.

The Efficient Breach Theory (EBT) posits that a breach of contract may constitute socially valuable conduct. It does not present a defense to a claim of breach. In fact, an important part of the theory is that the party considering breaching will figure out how much it will take to compensate the injured party as part of his decision making.

Seems similar to what I was saying above.

If I contract someone to provide me 5000 widgets and at item number 2500, I realize I can get them cheaper from someone else. It is very doubtful that the combination of the legal cost of the breach, the injuring of my professional reputation to abandon a signed contract, the potential lawsuit result if I refuse to pay for the remaining items and the chance for a collection claim (which could injure my credit rating) wouldn't make the effort worthwhile to switch to a new company and save a few bucks per item.

A better condition for a breach would be something related to the quality of the product and/or service that did not specifically violate one of the clauses in the contract. Simply breaching a contract midway through because you think you can get a better deal elsewhere is a dangerous precident to set professionally. If you are concerned about the viability of the arrangement, it would be better to create a test run for a couple hundred units and see where the unit costs lie and if other companies can beat the quality/price provided. Yet another parallel to the NFL. If a player wants to be able to name his price after a few seasons, he should only sign a 3 or 4 year deal. Then (through either RFA or UFA) he can have a better chance to dictate the terms for future compensation. But if he signs a 5 or 6 year deal to get security (much like if I decide to contract a company for 5000 widgets to reduce unit costs by volume), he loses the freedom to get a new deal quicker.

[wade moore]

Arles is doing a FAR better job at explaining this than I am...

[Arles]

To explain further. If I was somehow in a situation where I was midway throught a 5000 unit contract and saw much better prices with other companies, the first thing I would try and do is renegociate with my current vendor to try and lower costs using future business as leverage. Again, paralleling the situation with Walker, his agent could have gone up to GB and said "Jevon is going to be a FA in a year or two. If we don't have an extension by date X, he is going to be much more eager to try free agency without signing with your team." That's the leverage he has just like me going up to vendor X and saying "Once these 2500 units are done, I will need more products. Renegociating the price right now would greatly improve your chances of earning future business."

These are legitimate negociating tactics that don't involve a breach of contract and often achieve similar results. Going to breach route is very messy in most cases and should only ever be used as a desperate latch ditch effort where the consequences of inaction are dire.

[Cuckoo]

Arles is doing a FAR better job at explaining this than I am...


I'm not sure if it even matters, though. Yabanci is going to just keep saying, "I thought you knew more than you do." It gets to be pretty funny stuff.

[judicial clerk]

You guy are not disagreeing. You are both saying that you should evaluate the contract and determine if the cost associated with breaching the contract is outweighed by the opportunity that can be taken advantage of by breaching the contract.

Javon Walker is weighing the cost of breaching the contract (the money lost for not showing up for mandatory practices and the like, the damage to his reputation with team execs, damage to his reputation with teammates damage to his reputation with fans) against the opportunity he can take advantage of by breaching the contract (millions of dollars).

I think Yabanci's point is that breaching a contract should not be looked at as evil, like breaking the law. Arles thinks it is morally wrong and thinks that Yabanci doesn't understand the reputation costs involved in breaching. Also, Arles probably feels that Javon Walker could take advantage of the opportunity (to get the millions of dollars) without breaching his contract, and I don't think that Yabanci would disagree.

Here, Javon Walker may be going after millions of dollars. If I had the opportunity for millions of dollars, I would breach my employment contract to take advantage of that opportunity.

[Arles]

Arles thinks it is morally wrong and thinks that Yabanci doesn't understand the reputation costs involved in breaching.
I don't know that morality enters that much here. It's more the practical consequences. Breaching a contract when you have other means at your disposal to reach the same end is not the preferred manner when you consider the potential legal, financial and professional (ie, reputation) impacts. This is less about morality and more about avoiding nasty lawsuits and/or impacts on your ability to do similar business in the future.

Also, Arles probably feels that Javon Walker could take advantage of the opportunity (to get the millions of dollars) without breaching his contract
That's exactly what I've been saying and Walker has yet to try his avenues on this end. I think if Walker went up to GB and said that if they didn't get an extension done by the start of the season he would not resign, GB would work pretty darn hard to get that done. Of course, by all accounts, this was not the road he chose to this point.

Here, Javon Walker may be going after millions of dollars. If I had the opportunity for millions of dollars, I would breach my employment contract to take advantage of that opportunity.
But would you breach when could reach the same end by trying another tactic allowed by the contract? Wouldn't you atleast try the other tactic before resorting to a breach (and potentially injuring your reputation within the professional community - not to mention losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties for breaching)?

[judicial clerk]

But would you breach when could reach the same end by trying another tactic allowed by the contract? Wouldn't you atleast try the other tactic before resorting to a breach (and potentially injuring your reputation within the professional community - not to mention losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties for breaching)?

I would not breach the agreement if I could obtain the same result another way. I would guess that Walker and his agent believe that this approach is the best way to get the most money. You and I just disagree with them.

[yabanci]

You guy are not disagreeing. You are both saying that you should evaluate the contract and determine if the cost associated with breaching the contract is outweighed by the opportunity that can be taken advantage of by breaching the contract.

Javon Walker is weighing the cost of breaching the contract (the money lost for not showing up for mandatory practices and the like, the damage to his reputation with team execs, damage to his reputation with teammates damage to his reputation with fans) against the opportunity he can take advantage of by breaching the contract (millions of dollars).

I think Yabanci's point is that breaching a contract should not be looked at as evil, like breaking the law. Arles thinks it is morally wrong and thinks that Yabanci doesn't understand the reputation costs involved in breaching. Also, Arles probably feels that Javon Walker could take advantage of the opportunity (to get the millions of dollars) without breaching his contract, and I don't think that Yabanci would disagree.

Here, Javon Walker may be going after millions of dollars. If I had the opportunity for millions of dollars, I would breach my employment contract to take advantage of that opportunity.

Exactly. It's not a difficult or even controversial concept. Some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

[st.cronin]

You guy are not disagreeing. You are both saying that you should evaluate the contract and determine if the cost associated with breaching the contract is outweighed by the opportunity that can be taken advantage of by breaching the contract.

Javon Walker is weighing the cost of breaching the contract (the money lost for not showing up for mandatory practices and the like, the damage to his reputation with team execs, damage to his reputation with teammates damage to his reputation with fans) against the opportunity he can take advantage of by breaching the contract (millions of dollars).

I think Yabanci's point is that breaching a contract should not be looked at as evil, like breaking the law. Arles thinks it is morally wrong and thinks that Yabanci doesn't understand the reputation costs involved in breaching. Also, Arles probably feels that Javon Walker could take advantage of the opportunity (to get the millions of dollars) without breaching his contract, and I don't think that Yabanci would disagree.

Here, Javon Walker may be going after millions of dollars. If I had the opportunity for millions of dollars, I would breach my employment contract to take advantage of that opportunity.

Bingo. Contracts get renegotiated all the time, in all industries.