Quotable NFL Player (in a good way)

[WSUCougar]

Sorry if this has already been posted elsewhere, but I was struck (nay, flabbergasted) when I read the following statement by Hugh Douglas regarding T.O. and his contract demands:

Eagles defensive end Hugh Douglas told ESPN Radio on Thursday night that he disagreed with Owens' desire to have his contact re-negotiated.

"I don't agree with [re-negotiating a contract] because I believe that when you sign a contract you're bound by that contract," Douglas said. "He's doing what he feels he needs to do, but I do believe that if you sign a contract you should honor that contract whatever circumstances you signed it under."

Dip me in shit and call me stinky, you GO HUGH! What a concept.

[Ksyrup]

I'd rather just call you dip shit.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Dip me in shit and call me stinky,

That's way more quotable.

[rkmsuf]

TO's comments aren't far from the truth granted this plays horribly in a team concept.

His point about being able to be cut for underperformance yet not rewarded for overperformacne are true. Yet saying this and making a stink is terrible for the Eagles team. Further, nobody said he had to sign in Philly. He wanted to and made it happen.

[WSUCougar]

Yes, but by that logic couldn't a team go to a player on their roster and say, "You know, we looked at your contract, and we've decided that we offered it to you under duress. The free agent class at your position was very limited, so your value was overblown. We demand to renegotiate."

Besides, my intention with this thread was more to recognize the shocking idea in this day and age that an NFL player grasps the meaning of a "contract."

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Yes, but by that logic couldn't a team go to a player on their roster and say, "You know, we looked at your contract, and we've decided that we offered it to you under duress. The free agent class at your position was very limited, so your value was overblown. We demand to renegotiate."

Besides, my intention with this thread was more to recognize the shocking idea in this day and age that an NFL player grasps the meaning of a "contract."

Didn't Hugh sign for some outrageous amount he was more than happy play for?

Anyway point taken, I agree you don't hear that much.

[gstelmack]

T.O. made $10 million last year under this contract. He took a nice big bonus, played a year, and now wants another nice big bonus. That's greedy.

[Subby]

TO is completely greedy, but I think that players should refrain from commenting on each other's contract situations. Makes for bad team morale.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

....Besides, my intention with this thread was more to recognize the shocking idea in this day and age that an NFL player grasps the meaning of a "contract."

ho hum, more of the old double standard attitude that contracts are made to be renegotiated/cancelled (via release) by teams but players have a "moral obligation" to play out the exact terms of the contact.

A contract is an economic arrangement and there is no morality involved. You're the one who doesn't understand the meaning of a "contract."

[Deattribution]

This coming from a guy who signed a huge overrated contract to jump to the Jags, and then got cut.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by yabanci

ho hum, more of the old double standard attitude that contracts are made to be renegotiated/cancelled (via release) by teams but players have a "moral obligation" to play out the exact terms of the contact.

A contract is an economic arrangement and there is no morality involved. You're the one who doesn't understand the meaning of a "contract."

Well, do you understand the meaning of "go suck a duck?"

Ho hum, more of the same ludicrous assumption that the two parties are equal. It's an employment contract. I'm no lawyer, and I'm sure there are legal nuances I don't grasp, but the player signs a contract to work for the team. The team can terminate it because they are the employer. But on the player's side, what's the point of having one if it means nothing? Explain to me why the NFL has contracts at all if there is no "moral obligation" (your term) to abide by them?

The dictionary definition of a contract is "An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law."

Enlighten me, genius.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Well, do you understand the meaning of "go suck a duck?"

nice.

[gstelmack]

Owens was given a $10 million dollar bonus to sign with Philly. That signing bonus is what puts me on the side of the team here. He has not suddenly managed to get better (he's not outplaying a contract), so why does he think he's suddenly worth more?

Sure, the team can cut him at any time, but that's why he gets a signing bonus, plus the team takes a cap hit so there are consequences. There are no real consequences for the player if he just decides not to play. That's why I'm in favor of a player playing out his contract UNLESS he has proven he's a much better player than anyone thought when he signed the original. And in most cases, fans will back the player when that happens. But all too often it's some player trying to stroke his own ego, especially when another player at his position all of a sudden gets a raise.

Owens was offered $49million over 7 years to play for the Eagles, and was given $10million up front to do this. It's the team he WANTED to play for. He's also forgetting that they won a pair of playoff games without him and LOST the one he was available in. Take the $7mil/year, shut up, and play football.

Heck, he probably WOULD be worth more if he'd just shut up and play. But all his mouthing off has limited his market mobility, which limits what he's worth. All this garbage spewing out of his mouth deducts from his football worth.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Well, do you understand the meaning of "go suck a duck?"

Who pissed in your Cheerios?

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by WSUCougar

Well, do you understand the meaning of "go suck a duck?"

Ho hum, more of the same ludicrous assumption that the two parties are equal. It's an employment contract. I'm no lawyer, and I'm sure there are legal nuances I don't grasp, but the player signs a contract to work for the team. The team can terminate it because they are the employer. But on the player's side, what's the point of having one if it means nothing? Explain to me why the NFL has contracts at all if there is no "moral obligation" (your term) to abide by them?

The dictionary definition of a contract is "An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law."

Enlighten me, genius.

Your question doesn't make any sense. First of all, there is no assumption that the parties are equal. In some cases the team will be in a stronger bargaining position, but in many others it will be the player. When the team is in the stronger bargaining position, it will use that power to further its own economic interests (release the player, force the player to renegotiate under threat of release, etc.) When the player is in the stronger position, he will use that power to force the team to renegotiate the contract or trade/release him so that he can make more money elsewhere. When the parties are relatively equal and it is in both of their interests to perform under the contract, they will do so.

A personal services contract is "enforceable by law," but that does not mean you can force the player to perform under the contract. Indentured servitude is illegal and you can never get specific performance of a personal services contract. You can only pursue whatever remedies are permitted under the law and/or CBA.

You say that "the team can terminate [the contract] because they are the employer." But why doesn't an employee have the same right to terminate the contract? If you hire me to work for $100,000 per year and somebody comes along and offers me $300,000 per year, then of course I'm going to breach the employment contract and take the $300,000 job. I'll pay you damages for the cost of finding a replacement, lost productivity, etc., but even after paying those damages I'm still making a hell of a lot more money. Only an utter fool who doesn't understand capitalism would keep on working for $100,000 because "you should honor a contract."

This is called the efficient breach of contract -- not only is such a breach acceptable, it is encouraged by contract law. That is why you cannot recover punitive damages or, in most cases, specific performance for breach of contract. Inefficient contracts should be breached under any rational economic theory.

The situation isn't exactly the same in the NFL context because a player doesn't have the right to breach the contract and go work for somebody else. But if a player is in a bargaining situation where he knows that his value is so great that the team will be willing pay him an additional sum of money to avoid his absence, then he would be a fool not to use that power to further his own economic interests. You might not like it, but the NFL is a business and the players are not there to do whatever they can to make the owners even richer. They need to maximize their income while they still have value as players, whether we as fans like it or not.

As for "go suck a duck," I'm not sure exactly what that means, but it sounds like something that a 7-year-old would say on the playground.

[WSUCougar]

In my opinion, deeming something like T.O.'s situation an "inefficient contract" is a dangerous row to hoe. Taking your logic to the extreme, every NFL player should take every opportunity to renegotiate their contracts, ad infinitum. That's chaotic. Where would it end?

As you noted, this isn't a totally free market (or whatever the econ term is) for the players, but neither is it for the owners. You have the salary cap, free agency, and other elements of the CBA to bear in mind. Yet you seem eager to grant players such as T.O. the ability to pull a cover girl routine and say, "Face it, I'm worth it."

Perhaps so in your vision of the way the NFL should operate. But no chance in the way the NFL does operate.

[Maple Leafs]

In general, I have no problem with NFL players demanding a new deal. TO is right -- they can be cut, so they should be able to rework a contract too if that's what their value dictates.

The only problem I have with Owens is that he signed his deal only one year ago, and only after a very public hissy fit after his agent's screw up. There needs to be a limit to how much public pouting a player can do before he loses any public support.

But in general, I think TO is far more within his rights than, say, an NHL player who sits out for a new deal. That's the reverse case -- a player wanting a new contract when his value rises, but the team having no recourse when his value drops.