2012 NFL Season

[Maxx]

Plus the dude was the NFL's leading rusher last year and has been the face of the franchise for years now. This was his last shot to get big money, because he won't command it when his contract runs out.

[mystikz]

That's probably the first I've seen someone side with MJD.

The organization had already gave him a fair contract 3 years ago. At his age it would make no sense to give him a big new contract. Hold outs never end well. The player almost always has a worse performance when holding out. When Chris Johnson held out he was on a rookie deal, and wanted more after a great season. Still after the hold out his production went much lower. MJD was again on deal that at the time he got it was very fair. Holding out hurt himself as well as the team. It was pointless. It went nowhere for anybody. There really wasn't any reason for the Jags to give in, and when he saw himself missing game checks he gave in.

Edited September 3, 2012 by mystikz

[GhostMachine]

I don't think MJD was being selfish as much as he was pissed off at the amount he was getting paid for the workload he did on the team. But do I think he deserved a new contract? HELL NO!

[Plubby]

I'd fine the little shit every single last penny of that if I were the Jags. It annoys me when players are rewarded big contracts and then get greedy again down the line.

I'm really tired of seeing people say this. Players don't hold out because of greed, they hold out because it's the only recourse they have to counteract the fact that a team can cut them at almost any time they choose without having to suffer any real consequences. Not to mention the fact that they're trying to secure the well-being for not only themselves, but also their family. And when you consider the violent nature of the game and the various medical issues that come with it later on in life, I can't imagine why anybody would be on the owner's side of holdouts like MJD's.

The deal was front-loaded. He basically agreed to a deal, took most of the money, then tried to hold the owner for ransom over a new one. He should have pushed for 21 over 3 years if he had no intention to work for 4-5 mil per year at the end.

[TCO]

I'd fine the little shit every single last penny of that if I were the Jags. It annoys me when players are rewarded big contracts and then get greedy again down the line.

I'm really tired of seeing people say this. Players don't hold out because of greed, they hold out because it's the only recourse they have to counteract the fact that a team can cut them at almost any time they choose without having to suffer any real consequences. Not to mention the fact that they're trying to secure the well-being for not only themselves, but also their family. And when you consider the violent nature of the game and the various medical issues that come with it later on in life, I can't imagine why anybody would be on the owner's side of holdouts like MJD's.

I understand holdouts when a player is being underpaid but in this case it wasn't warranted. He willfully signed a contract that was more than fair for his ability 3 years ago. He agreed to it being front-loaded, he didn't have to sign it. You don't sign a 5 year deal get most of the contracts value for the first 3 years and then decide you don't think the remaining 2 years aren't fair.

I was on Chris Johnson and Matt Forte's side because they weren't being paid to their level. MJD got his contract 3 years ago, now play it out, it'd be the same case if Revis had held out again this year as he teased.

[gunnar hendershow]

NFL players are grossly underpaid compared to other sports, but MJD signed his deal when it was fair and now suddenly sees guys getting more money and himself putting up better numbers than them. It's tough luck, but that's the nature of contracts. Owners have all the power and it's not fair, it should change, and for that I side with the players. But the fact is MJD signed his deal and was fine with it when he did, if he was holding out for more money back then I would take his side a bit more than I do now.

[Cactus Drags]

I'm not really on a side here. I get wanting to be fairly compensated in comparison with other players in the league, but y'know, you agreed to the terms of the deal, you should play it out, especially when there's no real impetus for the team to re-do the deal. You just messing it up for yourself, fans are generally unsympathetic, and he'll probably have the same problem Chris Johnson did, being out of shape for the first few weeks of the season. But yeah, I'm not really posting for tat, it just something that really irks me:

I'd fine the little shit every single last penny of that if I were the Jags. It annoys me when players are rewarded big contracts and then get greedy again down the line.

I'm really tired of seeing people say this. Players don't hold out because of greed, they hold out because it's the only recourse they have to counteract the fact that a team can cut them at almost any time they choose without having to suffer any real consequences. Not to mention the fact that they're trying to secure the well-being for not only themselves, but also their family. And when you consider the violent nature of the game and the various medical issues that come with it later on in life, I can't imagine why anybody would be on the owner's side of holdouts like MJD's.

1. Fuck off. He made $20 million over 3 years, and will add another $20 million to that over the next 2, if his deal plays out. Family well looked after. If he spunks his money away, that's his look out, no one else's.

2. My dad never came close to being a millionaire, does that mean he's not looking out for me?

3. If his family is that important, why wasn't he thinking about it when he made the deal that apparently falls so short of what his family needs to be looked after.

[HailtotheYo]

The difference nobody apparently remembers about MJD and the contract.

*He singed it when it was fair, yes. His performance exceeded it. The team certainly didn't raise his pay or do anything to compensate the fact he played above his "fair" value. Had he not played up to the money in the contract though the team could have cut him on a whim, or not quite paid out what the "contract" was valued at.

THAT is how it works in the NFL. "Contract" is an empty term. It's the exact reason the signing bonuses got out of hand. That was the only way players were getting any "fair" value for themselves. The teams/owners have (for decades) grossly underpaid players and loosely honored "contracts" at best. Teams are cut throat when it comes to players when they don't "meet valuation" but are beyond stingy when it comes to players that "exceed valuation." Until that changes, I don't have any issue with any player holding out that is actually outplaying their contract.

[TCO]

But he agreed to the original contract terms. If he wanted security that if he out played it he'd be adequately rewarded, he should've negotiated escalators into the deal.

I do think the nature of the NFL and it's contracts are unfair on the players but you've got to walk a careful tightrope with it. If you try to change things too much you could see the other extreme in the post-Bosman rule association football where the contract means fuck all to clubs and the players have all the power.

[GhostMachine]

The thing is, the most overpaid people on the planet are pro athletes and politicians.

MJD's situation is his own fault for not negotiating performance bonuses into the contract. So he has no one else to blame but himself.

On the other hand, you also have to realize that teams are taking risks when they sign players to contracts. Especially when signing bonuses and guaranteed money is factored in.

It won't apply to MJD since he's a running back and they have shorter careers, but if someone is unhappy holding out isn't the way to handle things. It just makes you look selfish and greedy, and won't exactly endear you to your teammates. Just let them know you're dissatisfied and want a new contract or trade, and if they don't grant one you play the best you can, finish your contract, and then go elsewhere. But you *do* let them know that you'll sit if they franchise tag you. Because lets face it, franchising a player when a team knows they're unhappy and wants to go somewhere else is a totally dick move.

[NobBe Nobbs]

NFL players are grossly underpaid compared to other sports, but MJD signed his deal when it was fair and now suddenly sees guys getting more money and himself putting up better numbers than them. It's tough luck, but that's the nature of contracts. Owners have all the power and it's not fair, it should change, and for that I side with the players. But the fact is MJD signed his deal and was fine with it when he did, if he was holding out for more money back then I would take his side a bit more than I do now.

NFL players are UNDERpaid?

[HailtotheYo]

But he agreed to the original contract terms. If he wanted security that if he out played it he'd be adequately rewarded, he should've negotiated escalators into the deal.

Players don't really have that means in contract negotiations. Not really. It simply doesn't work in football, like it does in other sports.

The owners/teams agree to the original contract terms yet they hardly ever honor them if a player doesn't play to the contract. That's the whole point/issue.

[JStarr]

NFL players are grossly underpaid compared to other sports, but MJD signed his deal when it was fair and now suddenly sees guys getting more money and himself putting up better numbers than them. It's tough luck, but that's the nature of contracts. Owners have all the power and it's not fair, it should change, and for that I side with the players. But the fact is MJD signed his deal and was fine with it when he did, if he was holding out for more money back then I would take his side a bit more than I do now.

NFL players are UNDERpaid?

Compared to the longer careers, better post-career quality of life and much more exorbitant contracts in MLB and the NBA, yes.

[HailtotheYo]

NFL players are UNDERpaid?

Compared to the longer careers, better post-career quality of life and much more exorbitant contracts in MLB and the NBA, yes.

^ Bingo. Of course, everything is relative but they are absolutely underpaid.

[Pizza]

There are 53 spots on an NFL roster compared to 25 on a MLB and 12 on an NBA. More people to spread the money with means less money per player. Even if the NFL is twice as profitable as the NBA, the average NBA player would and should still make twice as much as the average NFL player.

[HailtotheYo]

There are 53 spots on an NFL roster compared to 25 on a MLB and 12 on an NBA. More people to spread the money with means less money per player. Even if the NFL is twice as profitable as the NBA, the average NBA player would and should still make twice as much as the average NFL player.

MLB teams pay the salaries for many of their minor league players. Also, the MLB roster is actually 40 (all players that are signed to MLB contracts). With the 40 man roster and the minor league players that a team is responsible for paying in any given year, the roster disparity with the NFL is a handful of players at best if not even bigger for the MLB team in question.

The NBA teams also pay for a few of their D-League players as well, although the roster disparity is still rather large in comparison to the NFL.

This is the first year of the 53 man roster for the NFL.

[Damian WayLNKe]

I took a class in Sport Economics and there was an article we read that said the top professional athletes are underpaid while the players pulling in the league minimum are overpaid. All of the star players are generating money for the teams while the people making the league minimum really aren't contributing towards more people buying tickets, watching games, etc.

[Lineker]

UK fans - Sky Sports have finally confirmed a new three-year contract to show the NFL.

[Cactus Drags]

Hurray! And the Bears are on TV for the first two weeks!

[Maxx]

I get to see the Cowboys every week

And equally as wonderful, I will now rarely have to suffer through Patriots games.