The Bennett Situation

[chf]

And it's his value right now, too.

Because the teams hold all the cards.

 

[blstoker]

Because the teams hold all the cards.

No one made him sign the contract. No one made the players sign the CBA. The power is only with the team because he gave it to the team.

 

[chf]

No one made him sign the contract. No one made the players sign the CBA. The power is only with the team because he gave it to the team.

And? What does that even mean? It's not a binary option. The players use whatever puny innefectual tools are at their disposal to try and maximize their value. The teams ruthlessly cut guys who've been good soldiers to maximize their value.

It's a business.

The value judgment rhetoric is just silly.

 

[blstoker]

And? What does that even mean? It's not a binary option. The players use whatever puny innefectual tools are at their disposal to try and maximize their value. The teams ruthlessly cut guys who've been good soldiers to maximize their value.

It's a business.

The value judgment rhetoric is just silly.

Huh? Again, no one made the players sign the CBA that allows teams to do this. The only power a team has over a player under contract is the power that the players themselves allow them to have. This is business, a business where the players were more concerned about the overall percentage of the pot they get to split than they were about anything else. If the contracts are in the teams' favor, then it isn't anyone's fault but the players.

According to reports at the time of the signing, Bennett likely turned down more money from Chicago and another team to sign here back in 2014. Not only that, but Bennett re-signed even before free agency started that year, opting not to test the open market (where speculation was that his contract would fetch higher than $10 million per year). So, it's still Bennett's fault that he's not happy with his contract, because everything he did to re-sign here points to him giving up his "puny, ineffectual tools" during the negotiation to stay in Seattle.

Whatever the reasons were, Bennett made the choice to sign a contract that just about everybody thought was under his "fair market value" to stay with a team that had a chance to go back to the Super Bowl. He was happy when the money he got was $10 million, but once it went to 6 (which he knew would happen at the time of signing) a year later, he's upset and feels underpaid.

 

[blstoker]

Again, all of this is moot until he actually misses something mandatory. Last year, he was at all mandatory events, so it wasn't an issue. Will he do it again this year? Who knows, but I suspect he's there when the mandatory stuff starts.

 

[chf]

Huh? Again, no one made the players sign the CBA that allows teams to do this. The only power a team has over a player under contract is the power that the players themselves allow them to have. This is business, a business where the players were more concerned about the overall percentage of the pot they get to split than they were about anything else. If the contracts are in the teams' favor, then it isn't anyone's fault but the players.

According to reports at the time of the signing, Bennett likely turned down more money from Chicago and another team to sign here back in 2014. Not only that, but Bennett re-signed even before free agency started that year, opting not to test the open market (where speculation was that his contract would fetch higher than $10 million per year). So, it's still Bennett's fault that he's not happy with his contract, because everything he did to re-sign here points to him giving up his "puny, ineffectual tools" during the negotiation to stay in Seattle.

Whatever the reasons were, Bennett made the choice to sign a contract that just about everybody thought was under his "fair market value" to stay with a team that had a chance to go back to the Super Bowl. He was happy when the money he got was $10 million, but once it went to 6 (which he knew would happen at the time of signing) a year later, he's upset and feels underpaid.

And again, my quibble is with all the value judgment stuff that fans lay on Benett or anyone else who tries to renegotiate.

My POINT is that stuff they pull is the only tool they have.

That they signed away that power means what exactly?

 

[blstoker]

And again, my quibble is with all the value judgment stuff that fans lay on Benett or anyone else who tries to renegotiate.

My POINT is that stuff they pull is the only tool they have.

That they signed away that power means what exactly?

I don't really care what his market value is (and didn't bring it up, just pointed out he signed the contract when he didn't have to), and again I don't care if he skips the voluntary workouts. He's not getting a new deal this year, just like Kam didn't get one last year. Actually, I don't even care if he holds out, cause Clark and Marsh could use the reps, which could be a net positive for the team in the long run.

Complaining that the system sucks and favors teams over players because the cut rules is ridiculous. It's how the system works, and it's been this way for a long time - and there isn't one player, agent, coach, executive or owner in the league or associated with it that doesn't understand that.

Nevertheless, as far as we know, this is just an excuse to get out of offseason workouts - and if by some miracle he does get some more money because of it, more's the better in his eyes.

 

[chf]

I don't really care what his market value is (and didn't bring it up, just pointed out he signed the contract when he didn't have to), and again I don't care if he skips the voluntary workouts. He's not getting a new deal this year, just like Kam didn't get one last year. Actually, I don't even care if he holds out, cause Clark and Marsh could use the reps, which could be a net positive for the team in the long run.

Complaining that the system sucks and favors teams over players because the cut rules is ridiculous. It's how the system works, and it's been this way for a long time - and there isn't one player, agent, coach, executive or owner in the league or associated with it that doesn't understand that.

Nevertheless, as far as we know, this is just an excuse to get out of offseason workouts - and if by some miracle he does get some more money because of it, more's the better in his eyes.

I'm not complaining. I'm also not assigning value judgments to the two sides. It's a business for both sides.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

Once MB starts missing camp and gets fined, his wife will kick him in the ass to get back to work.

 

[Screamin12th]

issue is "CONTRACT" end of story

you sign a contract then you are pretty much locked in. Now you can break that contract if you want.

If you signed a contract on a house and got it for $350,000 and then the seller says no the house is now worth $450,000 a year later do you think it would be fair to pay the people that you had a contract with $100,000 more? No.

So this is a stupid argument and no matter what the player thinks he SAW the FULL CONTRACT when signing and he agreed, if he is unhappy he has NO ONE TO BLAME but himself or his agent. Not smart for a team to say ok we will pay you more money because then every tom dick and harry will want more money. Play out your contract or go into the Free agent market and test the waters. No one pointed a gun at him to sign.

 

[SonnyCID]

When teams sign these contracts, it's in pencil. Anything they choose to do going forward is completely justified as long as it's "in the best interests of the team".

When players sign these contracts, it's in stone. They're treated like spoiled ingrates for recognizing that their contract should be altered.

Definition of HYPOCRISY

 

[chf]

When teams sign these contracts, it's in pencil.

<golf clap>

Like I keep repeating, it's a business. Which scenario do you suppose John Schneider wants?

A. Veteran player outplays his signed deal, grumbles about it, but remains a top-notch force at his position.
B. Veteran who underplays his signed deal, allowing you to cut him and start looking for a new replacement.

Now I can see a few scenarios based on age and dollar figures where maybe B might be beneficial, but most times as JS's head hits the pillow, he dreams about veterans being in the A category.

You live with the grumbling, because it means the guy is PRODUCING on the field. Producing means winning means butts in seats.

 

[blstoker]

When teams sign these contracts, it's in pencil. Anything they choose to do going forward is completely justified as long as it's "in the best interests of the team".

The teams have to follow the rules of the contract just like everyone else does. There is no "signing in pencil" because a team can only do with a player what the CBA says they can do with a player. The teams aren't allowed to make up the rules as they go.

When players sign these contracts, it's in stone. They're treated like spoiled ingrates for recognizing that their contract should be altered.

Again, teams don't alter the contract. No matter what happens, the team does not alter the contract without the express agreement of the player. It's not like the Redskins could go after Albert Haynesworth's $32 million after he under performed for 2 years with them, just because they didn't think he lived up to the contract.

Now, why does Michael Bennett need his contract altered?

Has his quality of play gone up since he signed the deal? I don't think so,

Is it because he was the #1 rated defensive free agent in 2014 and signed a contract that didn't match what he thought he was worth? Well, that was no one's fault but his own, as he decided to not test the open market and sign with Seattle - it's isn't like the team held a gun to his head and said "sign it!"

Did he sign it thinking he'd take the $10 million cash the first year, and then the team would renegotiate and pay him that again the next year? If so, he miscalculated, and it isn't the team's issue that they are honoring his contract.

 

[SonnyCID]

The teams have to follow the rules of the contract just like everyone else does. There is no "signing in pencil" because a team can only do with a player what the CBA says they can do with a player. The teams aren't allowed to make up the rules as they go.



Again, teams don't alter the contract. No matter what happens, the team does not alter the contract without the express agreement of the player. It's not like the Redskins could go after Albert Haynesworth's $32 million after he under performed for 2 years with them, just because they didn't think he lived up to the contract.

Now, why does Michael Bennett need his contract altered?

Has his quality of play gone up since he signed the deal? I don't think so,

Is it because he was the #1 rated defensive free agent in 2014 and signed a contract that didn't match what he thought he was worth? Well, that was no one's fault but his own, as he decided to not test the open market and sign with Seattle - it's isn't like the team held a gun to his head and said "sign it!"

Did he sign it thinking he'd take the $10 million cash the first year, and then the team would renegotiate and pay him that again the next year? If so, he miscalculated, and it isn't the team's issue that they are honoring his contract.

I disagree that he's been the same player through the years. I think he was one of the best players in football last year. But that's really besides the point. Even if he had declined significantly, it's his right to hold out and try to renegotiate if he wants to. If he faces fines and penalties for breach of contract, that's his decision to make. Just like its a teams decision to eat dead money if they decide to breach a contract. This "he should just shut up and accept everything as written" is a joke. It's not the way the world works, and it's not the way the NFL and their contracts work. If he feels he has more leverage than he had a couple years ago and wants to test that idea, more power to him.

 

[blstoker]

I disagree that he's been the same player through the years. I think he was one of the best players in football last year. But that's really besides the point. Even if he had declined significantly, it's his right to hold out and try to renegotiate if he wants to. If he faces fines and penalties for breach of contract, that's his decision to make. Just like its a teams decision to eat dead money if they decide to breach a contract. This "he should just shut up and accept everything as written" is a joke. It's not the way the world works, and it's not the way the NFL and their contracts work. If he feels he has more leverage than he had a couple years ago and wants to test that idea, more power to him.

That's really the point. A team cutting a player and eating the dead money isn't a breach of contract. It's completely within the guidelines of the contract for a team to be able to cut a player. Even this is provided for by contract with the CBA. So it's all by contract that this can happen.

On the other hand, a hold out (which hasn't happened yet) is a breach of contract, which is why teams are allowed to fine players who do not honor their contracts, and if the hold out last long enough - teams can retain the rights for the player another year as a consequence.

As for Bennett being "one of the best players in football", I very much disagree. He's good, but he's too selfish of a player (i.e. going outside the defense) to truly be great. When he re-signed, he stated that the coaching staff allowing him to do his own thing on defense was part of the reason he re-signed. But, that's just my opinion - and that matters as much as peanut butter to whether the Hawks feel he deserves a different contract.

I don't really care if Bennett holds out. The risk is all his, and potentially there is a lot of upside for the Seahawks. If he does ultimately take the Kam route, then I hope the Seahawks do the same with him as they did with Kam. I have nothing against Bennett, just as I have nothing against Kam.

 

[chf]

I have nothing against Bennett, just as I have nothing against Kam.

What's that line about de-nile?

 

[blstoker]

What's that line about de-nile?

What? I can't have the opinion that he's well compensated for his services unless I have something against him because he disagrees? He's a good player, even got to the Pro Bowl this year (good for him), and no matter how this situation plays out - he'll be our starting DE this year. He isn't my favorite player on the team (Bobby Wagner), but that doesn't mean I dislike him.

 

[chf]

What? I can't have the opinion that he's well compensated for his services unless I have something against him because he disagrees? He's a good player, even got to the Pro Bowl this year (good for him), and no matter how this situation plays out - he'll be our starting DE this year. He isn't my favorite player on the team (Bobby Wagner), but that doesn't mean I dislike him.

I guess I shoulda' put a smiley or something on my post. Wasn't tremendously serious. You seem to wax poetic about him and Kam.

 

[blstoker]

I guess I shoulda' put a smiley or something on my post. Wasn't tremendously serious. You seem to wax poetic about him and Kam.

Despite the contracts
Good players they both are
Problems have I none.


Poetic enough for you.

 

[chf]

Despite the contracts
Good players they both are
Problems have I none.


Poetic enough for you.

It's a little Yoda for me, but nice attempt.