The Khalil Mack thread -- now a Bear for $155million

[Dantés]

To build on my thoughts, can you imagine a team signing a elite QB for 5 years and an elite OLB and both have career ending injuries the first year? With guaranteed contracts, that team is screwed for the next few years. Competitiveness is what makes the NFL so popular. Popularity is what creates high revenues which is tied to high salaries.

Non-guaranteed contracts are a big boon for the league. I have no problem with them. But in a league without non-guaranteed contracts, I also have no problem with a player holding out for some longer term security entering a contract year. I don’t understand the criticism. What if Mack enters this last option year, destroys his knee, can never play again and thus loses maybe 80% of his career earning potential? Then he would be the one that’s screwed.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Our opinions apparently differ on the morality of what Mack is doing, but it’s a fact that he is within his rights to hold out for a contract. They can fine him for missing portions of their training camp program, but that doesn’t mean he’s not allowed to do this if his camp believes it’s in their best interest.

Well, actually Mack having to pay a fine for holding out makes it a fact that he's not allowed to do it.

 

[Dantés]

Well, actually Mack having to pay a fine for holding out makes it a fact that he's not allowed to do it.

He’s allowed to hold out. They’re allowed to fine him. They can’t compel his service. It’s voluntary.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Non-guaranteed contracts are a big boon for the league. I have no problem with them. But in a league without non-guaranteed contracts, I also have no problem with a player holding out for some longer term security entering a contract year. I don’t understand the criticism. What if Mack enters this last option year, destroys his knee, can never play again and thus loses maybe 80% of his career earning potential? Then he would be the one that’s screwed.

Mack could arrange an insurance paying him a ton of money if he suffers a career ending injury, just like Finley did while with the Packers. The team shouldn't be on the hooks for several more years if a players has to retire because of an injury.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What if Mack enters this last option year, destroys his knee, can never play again and thus loses maybe 80% of his career earning potential? Then he would be the one that’s screwed.

No different than me getting my arm caught in the Twinkie filling machine while I am working at Hostess. There are insurance and severance packages set up for my inability to no longer fill Twinkies. If Mack suffers a career ending injury, why should he paid money on "earning potential", when that potential is no longer there?

Personally, I don't buy into the notion that these guys should have $50M in their bank accounts "just in case". Many NFL players retire, get cut, quit, etc. and do just fine in the "real world". Their employer shouldn't have to make sure they still live like Kings, after their service is over. As I and several others keep pointing out, there is this great thing called insurance, the players have plenty of money to invest in it, the team shouldn't have to.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

He’s allowed to hold out. They’re allowed to fine him. They can’t compel his service. It’s voluntary.

League rules don't allow a player under contract to hold out, that's why the Raiders can fine him. While OTA practices are voluntary attending training camp is mandatory.

 

[Dantés]

League rules don't allow a player under contract to hold out, that's why the Raiders can fine him. While OTA practices are voluntary attending training camp is mandatory.

Of course they’re allowed. It happens all the time. The team is allowed to fine them for it. You’re allowed to no show to your job. Your boss is allowed to fire you.

 

[Dantés]

No different than me getting my arm caught in the Twinkie filling machine while I am working at Hostess. There are insurance and severance packages set up for my inability to no longer fill Twinkies. If Mack suffers a career ending injury, why should he paid money on "earning potential", when that potential is no longer there?

Personally, I don't buy into the notion that these guys should have $50M in their bank accounts "just in case". Many NFL players retire, get cut, quit, etc. and do just fine in the "real world". Their employer shouldn't have to make sure they still live like Kings, after their service is over.

So if your services were valuable enough that you could get some guarantees and security, you wouldn’t pursue it? If you were in an industry as dangerous as pro football? It’s ok for the organization to get all that money, but not the players?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Of course they’re allowed. It happens all the time. The team is allowed to fine them for it. You’re allowed to no show to your job. Your boss is allowed to fire you.

Geez, your reasoning is completely ridiculous.

You know just because something happens all the time doesn't mean it's allowed. Take DUI as an example. Using your way of argumentation it's allowed while the police is allowed to arrest and fine you for it. Ludicrous.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So if your services were valuable enough that you could get some guarantees and security, you wouldn’t pursue it? If you were in an industry as dangerous as pro football? It’s ok for the organization to get all that money, but not the players?

I would pursue that security through my contract or a separate contact (insurance policy). I would not agree to terms of a contract and then withhold my services when those terms all of a sudden had me on the short end of the stick.

How would you feel about AR announcing he won't take another snap until a new contract is done? Or Bahk, Lane, Clark, etc.? It's a slippery slope to start allowing players to dictate when a contract should all of a sudden be open to renegotiate or they just won't play.

 

[Dantés]

Geez, your reasoning is completely ridiculous.

You know just because something happens all the time doesn't mean it's allowed. Take DUI as an example. Using your way of argumentation it's allowed while the police is allowed to arrest and fine you for it. Ludicrous.

You’re comparing a player trying to negotiate a new contract to a felony. That kind of gets to my point.

 

[Dantés]

I would pursue that security through my contract or a separate contact (insurance policy). I would not agree to terms of a contract and then withhold my services when those terms all of a sudden had me on the short end of the stick.

How would you feel about AR announcing he won't take another snap until a new contract is done? Or Bahk, Lane, Clark, etc.? It's a slippery slope to start allowing players to dictate when a contract should all of a sudden be open to renegotiate or they just won't play.

I’d be fine with any player trying. It’s up to the team who they are going to renegotiate with. Frankly, the team has the greater leverage. But I’m not going to vilify a player for attempting to negotiate. And I’m not going to vilify a team for attempting to do the same.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I’d be fine with any player trying. It’s up to the team who they are going to renegotiate with. Frankly, the team has the greater leverage. But I’m not going to vilify a player for attempting to negotiate. And I’m not going to vilify a team for attempting to do the same.

So why even have a contract?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You’re comparing a player trying to negotiate a new contract to a felony. That kind of gets to my point.

Mack is in violation of league rules by holding out. Therefore he isn't allowed to do it. A basic principle you seem to have a hard time understanding.

I was just trying to give another example of someone not obeying by rules to get the point across to you.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But I’m not going to vilify a player for attempting to negotiate. And I’m not going to vilify a team for attempting to do the same.

There's nobody vilifying Mack for attempting to renegotiate his contract. That's not what is happening though as both parties haven't talked since February and he's holding out while having a valid deal.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Mack has a very "easy" solution to his "problem" and it is one faced by many players through time....... "Suck it up Buttercup!"

But in all seriousness. I do understand both sides, however, history has proven that the route Mack is taking is not a very popular one with teams and many fans. If I was in his position, I would be going out and getting that insurance, suiting up and enjoying my Buttercup until the team and I sit down and figure out the contract that will allow me to feed half of the Central African Republic - $652 per capita per year.

 

[Dantés]

There's nobody vilifying Mack for attempting to renegotiate his contract. That's not what is happening though as both parties haven't talked since February and he's holding out while having a valid deal.

Reading this thread, I would disagree.

And his hold out is an attempt at driving negotiation.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Reading this thread, I would disagree.

I should have been more precise in my previous response. Mack is vilified for holding out while being set to earn $13.8 million. I'm sorry that I have a hard time feeling any sympathy for him.

 

[Dantés]

Mack is in violation of league rules by holding out. Therefore he isn't allowed to do it. A basic principle you seem to have a hard time understanding.

I was just trying to give another example of someone not obeying by rules to get the point across to you.

There’s no need to be so condescending. Do you really think I can’t understand your view, or is that just your way of coming after me for not sharing it?

You think that teams’ right to fine players who don’t report to camp means that players are in the wrong for holding out. I think that players have a right to hold out and teams have a right to fine them as both parties seek to find a situation that is in their best interest.

 

[Dantés]

I should have been more precise in my previous response. Mack is vilified for holding out while being set to earn $13.8 million. I'm sorry that I have a hard time feeling any sympathy for him.

And the Raiders annually make around 325 million. So what.

This isn’t about sympathy. It’s business negotiations. I’m just pointing out that most fans see it that way from the team’s perspective, but have a totally different view when it comes to the players. They have a double standard.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There’s no need to be so condescending. Do you really think I can’t understand your view, or is that just your way of coming after me for not sharing it?

Well, there's only one way to view it though as the league allowing the Raiders to fine Mack for holding out means that he's violating rules, hence isn't allowed to do it.

And the Raiders annually make around 325 million. So what.

This isn’t about sympathy. It’s business negotiations. I’m just pointing out that most fans see it that way from the team’s perspective, but have a totally different view when it comes to the players. They have a double standard.

There aren't any negotiations going on though.

The difference being that teams which release players before the end of the contract don't violate any rules.

 

[Dantés]

Well, there's only one way to view it though as the league allowing the Raiders to fine Mack for holding out means that he's violating rules, hence isn't allowed to do it.

There aren't any negotiations going on though.

The difference being that teams which release players before the end of the contract don't violate any rules.

There’s only one way and it’s your way? Got it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There’s only one way and it’s your way? Got it.

In this case it should be pretty obvious to everyone.

 

[Jerellh528]

I hate when players hold out, like why sign a contract with years on it if you’re just going to try to get a new contract whenever you want.
If you want to go that route, just sign 1 or 2 year deals like Lebron James did to maximize his earnings but I guess players like having the security of a contract with years and guaranteed money without the obligations of having to honor the duration of it.

 

[AmishMafia]

He’s allowed to hold out. They’re allowed to fine him. They can’t compel his service. It’s voluntary.

No it is not. He is required by contract to supply his services. That is what a contract is.

. . . But in a league without non-guaranteed contracts, I also have no problem with a player holding out for some longer term security entering a contract year. I don’t understand the criticism. What if Mack enters this last option year, destroys his knee, can never play again and thus loses maybe 80% of his career earning potential? Then he would be the one that’s screwed.

Why do you think this a league without guaranteed contracts? That is a fallacy. He has every right to negotiate a 100% guaranteed contract. Why do very few players do that? Because it is a huge risk for the owners so the balance is a smaller dollar value. It's why most player go for only a partially guaranteed contract. It's the players choice, but given the option of $6M/yr with $2M guaranteed or $4M fully guaranteed, they take the former and not the latter.