Why trading for Antonio Brown makes sense for Packers

Half Empty

Member
Member
Messages
1,080
Unless your contract has performance clauses built in then you are correct but they dont. A contract should be a binding agreement, but the CBA allows ownership to break that contract without cause of player (cap space , age)
My understanding of the standard NFL contract, and it is no more than that, is that, from the team's standpoint, it says (paraphrased) that IF the team wants the player, it'll pay him what it says in the contract. IF the team wants to get rid on him for ANY reason, it can (and he's free to show how valuable he is by signing with any other team). Hence, there is nothing remotely resembling the act of 'breaking' a contract. Should that be incorrect, I'd appreciate an update, because most of my disdain for players in these situations is based upon this assumption.
 

Packinatl

Member
Member
Messages
2,093
My understanding of the standard NFL contract, and it is no more than that, is that, from the team's standpoint, it says (paraphrased) that IF the team wants the player, it'll pay him what it says in the contract. IF the team wants to get rid on him for ANY reason, it can (and he's free to show how valuable he is by signing with any other team). Hence, there is nothing remotely resembling the act of 'breaking' a contract. Should that be incorrect, I'd appreciate an update, because most of my disdain for players in these situations is based upon this assumption.
Its very vague and has a lot open to interpretation and "any reason" does not apply. Matt Bryant got released in ATL after making 20-21 with a long of 57. And there are multiple times players get cut for cash / cap reasons during a rebuild or retool or what ever you want to call it and their replacements are far from making the cubs ability fo compete better. Also some of the guys cut recently, did they sign anyone to replace them? no not yet but their magic 8 ball tells them there is some one out there better.

11. SKILL, PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT. Player understands that he is competing with other players for a position on Club’s roster within the applicable player limits. If at any time, in the sole judgement of Club, Player’s skill or performance has been unsatisfactory as compared with that of other players competing for positions on Club’s roster, or if Player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club, then Club may terminate this contract. In addition, during the period any salary cap is legally in effect, this contract may be terminated if, in Club’s opinion, Player is anticipated to make less of a contribution to Club’s ability to compete on the playing field than another player or players who Club intends to sign or attempts to sign, or another player or players who is or are already on Club’s roster, and for whom Club needs room.
 
Last edited:

Half Empty

Member
Member
Messages
1,080
Looks like an Agree to Disagree situation. What you quote and describe seems, to me, to be the very epitome of the legal verbiage that equates to "because I want to" on the part of the team. I don't know what the reason given for Bryant was, but he is 43 and was injured last year - more to the point, if his (or anyone else's) release didn't fall within the "team's choice" ball park of reasons, I kinda think there'd be somebody suing somebody. As an aside, your rating of the replacements is purely subjective, and not signing a specific replacement for a released player has many possible legitimate reasons.
 

Packinatl

Member
Member
Messages
2,093
Looks like an Agree to Disagree situation. What you quote and describe seems, to me, to be the very epitome of the legal verbiage that equates to "because I want to" on the part of the team. I don't know what the reason given for Bryant was, but he is 43 and was injured last year - more to the point, if his (or anyone else's) release didn't fall within the "team's choice" ball park of reasons, I kinda think there'd be somebody suing somebody. As an aside, your rating of the replacements is purely subjective, and not signing a specific replacement for a released player has many possible legitimate reasons.
Thats my entire point its subjective. Atlanta has Telvicho is on the roster who they had as inactive when Bryant came back so how is he an upgrade? It would be next to impossible to bring a lawsuit since the agreement is collectively bargained and player would get no legal backing from the union. Bottom line the majority of guys cut while contract is in place are for cap/cash reasons. So club says to player if you don't restructure your deal you get released. So at lower salary or cap charge you can make a contribution but not at what we originally signed you for




 

HowardK4

Member
Member
Messages
107
Its very vague and has a lot open to interpretation and "any reason" does not apply. Matt Bryant got released in ATL after making 20-21 with a long of 57. And there are multiple times players get cut for cash / cap reasons during a rebuild or retool or what ever you want to call it and their replacements are far from making the cubs ability fo compete better. Also some of the guys cut recently, did they sign anyone to replace them? no not yet but their magic 8 ball tells them there is some one out there better.

11. SKILL, PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT. Player understands that he is competing with other players for a position on Club’s roster within the applicable player limits. If at any time, in the sole judgement of Club, Player’s skill or performance has been unsatisfactory as compared with that of other players competing for positions on Club’s roster, or if Player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club, then Club may terminate this contract. In addition, during the period any salary cap is legally in effect, this contract may be terminated if, in Club’s opinion, Player is anticipated to make less of a contribution to Club’s ability to compete on the playing field than another player or players who Club intends to sign or attempts to sign, or another player or players who is or are already on Club’s roster, and for whom Club needs room.
Thats my entire point its subjective. Atlanta has Telvicho is on the roster who they had as inactive when Bryant came back so how is he an upgrade? It would be next to impossible to bring a lawsuit since the agreement is collectively bargained and player would get no legal backing from the union. Bottom line the majority of guys cut while contract is in place are for cap/cash reasons. So club says to player if you don't restructure your deal you get released. So at lower salary or cap charge you can make a contribution but not at what we originally signed you for
So, this language is very much in favor of the teams, I get it (but most employment contracts are weighted in favor of the employer who has the money - the new Golden rule). If the team doesn't feel they are getting the value expected from the player based on what he now is being paid, they can (and do) cut them for cash/cap reasons if the player will not renegotiate. Is there similar language in the contracts about the player's ability to hold out for more money? Probably not. Not saying it's right or wrong, but the teams have contractual language supporting them.
That being said, teams and players do renegotiate contracts, both down and UP based on their current contributions, and to a lesser extent some players will hold out until they get their contract negotiated upwards.
 

Packinatl

Member
Member
Messages
2,093
So, this language is very much in favor of the teams, I get it (but most employment contracts are weighted in favor of the employer who has the money - the new Golden rule). If the team doesn't feel they are getting the value expected from the player based on what he now is being paid, they can (and do) cut them for cash/cap reasons if the player will not renegotiate. Is there similar language in the contracts about the player's ability to hold out for more money? Probably not. Not saying it's right or wrong, but the teams have contractual language supporting them.
That being said, teams and players do renegotiate contracts, both down and UP based on their current contributions, and to a lesser extent some players will hold out until they get their contract negotiated upwards.
But value is not part of the equation. It’s about contribution on the field and others on roster competing for the same position. Kurt Coleman got released today but they are “keeping the door open” for him to come back. Translation, we have a spot for you at a reduced salary. Well if some other player you anticipte to sign will make more of a contribution why keep the door open?
 

Terranimal

Member
Member
Messages
994
I dealt with unions for over 20 years as member before getting out in.2000.

Basically in that situation an employer can get rid of any person by saying lay off due to lack of work even though they hire someone else the next day.

Or real world normal working...the employer wants two week notice before employee quits/leave.

However employer gi es no notice and lets employee go
 
Top